355, Construction of a tennis court, Correspondenceig-
^~
'
^
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 in�
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's soccer 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 court design has
proven tocut 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 well 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 not heard any complaints. I am sorry to hear that Dr.
Krauthauer had a problem and had not informed us uc
1
W 407
5 h (m
OCT 171OAQ
CITY OF ROLLING HUS
letter he sent to the Commission. The proposed site has
minimum grading required. I am appalled 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 a drainage 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 professional engineers , not by lawyer's or doctor's
claims without any proof. For example, last week, the dourt
approved the proposed flight of the Space ShuttleAtlantis
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 will design our
court drainage system just like, or better than the courts build
recently at Mr. Delpit and Mr. La Caze's residences. I hate to
be intimidated and I hope the Commission can see through the
smoke and put reason into consideration. 4) I came to this
country because l admire the freedom and rights given to us as
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
share my dream and that Americans have fundamental rights to
live their own lifestyles within the law and not have it
dictated to them by their surrounding neighbors.
In summary, I am a law abiding citizen applying 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.
Thank you,
YZ
Yu-Pind "Liu
August 6,1988
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
We are writing this letter to.clarify our position on Dr.Yu-Ping
Liu's proposed tennii court.
When we were. approached by Dr, Liu; for a letter of support on the
.night before a recent city' council.meeting, we were in escrow on 41
Crest Road West. He stated that.the.tennis court would be about 70
feet from our guest bedroom and pool area.He also stated that he had
shown the 011a's, that. the noise from a sunken tennis court, could not
be heard at 20 feetaway, and was shocked to learn that they dissapproveci
in writing after giving their initial consent. Because of mutual friends,
Dr. Liu's sincerity, and trying.to accomodate new potential neighbors,
we gave. our conditional support, provided adequate noise abatement and
water drainage could be obtained.,
We have recently occupied our property and, rather then relying on
Dr. Liu's quick sketch of 'his proposed,court we were able .to visualize
by his stakes, exactly where the court would be in relation -to our
backyard. We feel that the proposed court is completely unacceptable
and would detract, from our enjoyment of our. backyard. -pool area'and,.houso:.
.0ne of our main reasons for moving to Rolling Hills and this.property'
in particular is for peace and quiet. Dr. Liu has stated to us that he.'
would have a 4 foot below ground sunken court:and provide landscaping
for noise abatement. We already have fully mature denseshrubs and trees
separat thg our properties and noise from Dr. Liu's pool.Area, which is
further away oan be heard in our backyard area. The extremely close
proximity of this tennis court to our backyard and house would constitute
anuisance. Apparently,. we are not alone in our belief, as complaints from
the previous owners (the 011as) and.other neighbors have also 'been
received by you.
Dr. Liu also stated that he would only be using his court a "few
hours a week". Most. likely, this would be on the weekends, which
coincides with the only time we have to relax in the serenity of our.
now private backyard area.It is our strong opinion that there is no
conceivable way that conditions can be changed to provide adequate
noise abatement, unless the court were enclosed in an underground
concrete bunker!
Inaddition, we have strong reservations about the adequacy of water
drainage from a - 10,000 sq. ft. court. Given the natural topography of
our adjacent properties, it is possible that a heavy rainfall could
overwhelm the drainage system, which could adversely affect our pool
structure and house, as our geologist has stated.
We hope that this letter may be of value to you in defending your
ruling against any potential litigation.
Sincerely yours,
§@uiva
0 81988
lty„Of Rol ng Hills
Richard C. Colyeer
35 Creot Road Wept
Rollirzg Hi11a , Celiforriie 90274
June 20, 1988
r
Mr. and Mrs. Yu -Ping Liu
39 Crest Road West
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Liu:
Although I am not familiar with the background of your
application for a permit to build a tennis court, I have
for many years been concerned with the apparent inability
of the City to both adopt clear standards for property
development and to consistently apply those standards.
Fortunately, the lapse of time seems to have produced a
clear set of standards to be met as to tennis courts.
To the extent that your application meets the same
standards that have caused others to receive a permit, I
support your request that the City review its denial to
you of this substantial property right.
Yours very truly,
PETITION
We, the undersigned, would like to support the application
of Mr. & Mrs. Yu -Ping Liu for a tenniscourt at #39 Crest
Road West. We understand that the tennis court satisfies
the city published regulations without variance.
Name
L W� NU
r
4,7 , ;i./
6cApa1-4 G i .. c.Si -
Address
o p crt A-3 L+ Pz c �� )1 cl
P W uk--3€ L1L 449
IeoL L/A ' I-lIcc
r _
.ct • v ADu1.(3,9 e le • R 1�
VsS /S, t_F,r_fta.6(64ti-e Ko(
�^i , C)0 �. 1 L_ le/
J
2� c v4 ir-
as C
cce. 0_ Lm •
a e aLusd kie4‹
Signature
la(Acz,
7A
•
PETITION
We, the undersigned, would like to support the application
of Mr. & Mrs. Yu -Ping Liu for a tennis court at #39 Crest
Road West. We understand that the tennis court satisfies
the city published regulations without variance.
<4 7 el
Name
Address
te'Pq
cl
Grbf /2 . s^1
/fir /
3 1� L4i-x L•J
f G\ \
111-4 1J.6\,,Q
c /3-u
c.
&-iff
;•-4 n j v ►�e-
eavb_ CAAIS
Aid--01
P
.15,tAyr? LA)
So f45:71- ; e (1 lam,L
7•\.,�,,,�j LAC/f , � ��
//:"F
U
P
• •
PETITION
We, the undersigned, would like to support the application
of Mr. & Mrs. Yu -Ping Liu for a tennis court at #39 Crest
Road West. We understand that the tennis court satisfies
the city published regulations without variance.
Name
r r-
f..
-
4-t u, c ot
(
�,l 4C iM
G
4- //C/.v c "17,4-n9�
OcorZ/L'%��
Address
p7U4.7vA
3i CI-1vc16.60.\ TZ 'J
(),7/
altaiv-va P
.._J er h _ M e
f'o/d C, P v M/Y(L
AA., 1 N ;_CE,g
tA.L
if
/v /1
3 kA/6731 a tvEsr
q w,,
99,6'
41
Signature
ScA-177'
PETITION
V�tTiit.a
We, the undersigned, would like to support the application
of Mr. & Mrs. Yu -Ping Liu for a tennis court at #39 Crest
Road West. We understand that the tennis court satisfies
the city published regulations without variance.
Name
i.ter71 /
P Ole- 7G. m ki-6., vc-0 !
11/6e40--
V"."
\\
S CIP ,Cq11/ 41Z-vi vv":\
�- aL
Zna l c/ S. a‘ ra k
;�5aAl
/0\ DrAriv15
LBO
TE1EXI
Address
0 PE2A)' '
d,ed
h Ct�i� nay
CA2-all A9 L=
7 ZED
36- 64/,,i_a_.
/7 f/ .e /d ride
0
a \-1- LitA/1 10-i P.A E4?
o L.1-7� eL fz,
Signature
i..
(I. pl.
aZ4,1,1)
1,1 6,7:6--
S
PETITIONO N
We, the undersigned, would like to support the application
of Mr. & Mrs. Yu -Ping Liu for a tennis court at #39 Crest
Road West. We understand that the tennis court satisfies
the city published regulations without variance.
Name
4LE) KA71
c)-414.0,.
LU
CuR f-
;7l
14 y r C 377 .
\\4-‘' ASS -S14-141K-1-1
1-ft+ CA
Address
307.
% 1'
( tam
. 8 69, )
Ate'
J-711/ 6Q0,47._.
7ra4///- /r(/
/S. c m,4
f4k P-1 u sou Z 1', \I�flK
(9K/ lHIVI �o/1!A'7fr" 26 c/,)c1!/liti4 R�
Ore)
6ki-)6/1 OA `d v411
I iTnciff
,)e,5A"
Signature
muc,
oi„
0 at.,
Q%7-( -L---
-..�� `,
•
PETITION
We, the undersigned, would like to support the application
of Mr. & Mrs. Yu -Ping Liu for a tennis court at #39 Crest
Road West. We understand that the tennis court satisfies
the city published regulations without variance.
Name
Address
Signature
Zi tae../ tee( C't
/1.
2-7 ktAk 0-ot cc Q
14 /
b546/()6 41° @:jj
410
PET I T I O N
We, the undersigned, would like to support the application
of Mr. & Mrs. Yu -Ping Liu for a.tennis court at #39 Crest
Road West. We understand that the tennis court satisfies
the city published regulations without variance.
Name Address
LA.> ES�r
cif and • /1/ e44 0.4, /2r��
c)cofvJurm
na Qxs-Le &46t,
to (.efrwv fel- -E.
\IV . 7-rgy
1Is
it ►��,et�lc { �11 R l
\AJ \ down 'vY1 N
J. -,r0 / A-
Es- e.tdr P r_
e-aS1-16s1
Signature
*erce)#-,,f‘.00
nca te,r)nrJg
9d4-
JAMES T. PERONA
t MAJOR A. LANGER
HENRY B. LA TORRACA
RONALD BECK
WAYNE M. ROBERTSHAW
RAYMOND H. GOETTSCH
CHARLES K. MITCHELL
JOHN C. THORNTON
HOWARD S. VALLENS
* JAY SONDHI
STEVEN M. BARNHILL
JAMES L. MILLER
LAWRENCE M. KAHN
JOHN M. RYGH
JOHN McBREARTY
MEREDITH L. CALIMAN
MARY ANN SEAMAN
** ELLEN R. SERBIN
EVERETT S. McADOO, JR.
RONALD M. TAKEHARA
MARIA C. BASSO
M. LAWRENCE LALLANDE
ELAINE V. NORTON
W. RICK BECK
BERNARD S. RUDMAN
t Also Member New York Bar
* Also Member Missouri Bar
** Also Member Arizona Bar
May 13, 1988
PERONA, LANGER, LATORRACA & BECK
LAWYERS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ADMINISTRATOR
300 SAN ANTONIO DRIVE NANCY SUR SMITH
POST OFFICE BOX 7948
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90807-0948 TELEPHONES:
(213) 426-6155
(714) 995-5283
Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Re: Zoning Case No. 355
Mr. and Mrs. Liu
Dear Mr. Belanger
Please be advised that this firm represents Mr. and Mrs. Yu
Ping Liu, the owners of 39 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills, California
with respect to zoning case No. 355.
Request is hereby made to the City of Rolling Hills to preserve
any original tape recording and/or transcription of any recording
of any Planning Commission hearing and/or City Council hearing
on zoning case No. 355. It is our understanding that Planning
Commission hearings occurred on January 19, 1988 and February 16,
1988. It is also my understanding that the matter was discussed
and/or a hearing was had at City Council meetings on March 14,
1988, March 28, 1988, April 11, 1988, April 25, 1988 and May 5,
1988. There may have been other meetings.
If a transcription has been made of the recording ofany of
said meetings and/or hearings please provide this office with
a copy immediately. If a transcription has not been made of
CI
May 13, 1988
Page Two
Re: Zoning Case No. 355
Mr. and Mrs. Liu
some or all of said meetings or hearings please either provide
us with a transcription of said meetings or hearings or provide
us with the tapes in order to make our own transcription.
truly yours
RONALD BECK
RB:jlpc
39 Crest Road West
Rolling Hills, CA
April 24, 1988
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California
Re: Request for Conditional Use
Permit for a tennis court on
Lot 240B-2-MS, Zoning Case
Dear Rolling Hills City Council members,
Thank you for taking the effort to make a field trip to
survey the proposed tennis court in my application. I really
admire your diligent effort in the chilly morning to understand
the situation before making a decision. '
Apparently, there are some concerns about the height of the
concrete walls at the north end even though it does satisfy the
2:1 slope requirement. I talked to Doug McHattie of Southbay
Engineering and the only reason the court is so designed is
because of the 750 yard dirt movement requirement. If the
council prefers the court to be lowered, we would comply to that
decision at greater expense. Thus, a more beautiful integrated
plan to link the barn, swimming pool, and the tennis court can
be implemented. I fully understand the sentiment about a tennis
court at this moment. That is the reason Mr. McHattie designed
the court exactly according to the City's regulation with no
variance.
In Summary -
The application of the tennis court satisfies the
requirement of all of the regulations without variance. the
proposed court is shielded by fully grown trees, and with extra
bushes planned, it will further reduce the noise level. A
favorable ruling is very much appreciated and anticipated.
Sincerely yours,
Yu -Pin. Liu
�
•
Alice and Joe 0lla
41 Crest Road West
Rolling Hills, CA. 90274
April 11, 1988
R.H. City Council
Public Hearing re. Lui Tennis. Court
at 39 Crest Road West
Dear City Council,
Regretfully we will be out of town Monday April 11,1988 so
we wish to express our objections to this proposed tennis
court in writing. Please read this at the public hearing.
Our strongest objection is the noise factor. The proposed
tennis court will reverberate all noises to our home and
backyard. It would only be 75 feet from the backbedroom. We
have experig.HEdthe noise first hand when the Zila's used
their ring and pool.
Rolling Hills built community tennis courts to provide for
the play of it's residents and still keep the city's rural
atmosphere. The fact is that this lot is a flag lot and barely
makes the required acreage as is, by adding a tennis court
it grossly infringes on the city's required green belt area
and controverts the city's founding concepts and ideals. We
urge you to deny this request.
However'if you do approve this request , we request that noise
mitigation through proper planting and other assurances offered
by the Lui's be made conditions of the Planning Commission's
and City Council's approval. Including deed restricting the
hours for use to be only from 8:00 a.m. to dusk, prohibit:.a
any lighting and requir Oa solid wall at our end (North end)
of the tennis court to block noise.
Thank you for your time and service.
Alice J. 0lla,
Joseph M. 011a
39 Crest Road West
Rolling Hills, CA
April 9, 1988
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portugese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California
Re: Request for Conditional Use
Permit for a tennis court on
not 240B-2-MS, Zoning Case
Dear City Counci1 members,
Enclosed please find a f the letter t t th
p �e n copy o e e er we wrote o e
planning commission before their having and subsequent passing
our application for a conditional use permit of a tennis court.
At the time, we tried to answer every objection my neighbors had.
During the hearing we went as far as willing to put in a clause
such that no one (mfamily and eventual owner if we happened to
sell the house) can play before 8:00 a.m. and after sundown just
to show our willingness to be a good and considerate neighbor.
The Planning Commission decided that it was notnecessary.
Since the City Council decided to have another public
hearing because my neighbors' appeal to the planning commission
decision, we invited both Mr. Hawkins and Mr. 011a to inspect our
engineer's drawin°s. To their surprise, it is a sunken court
with -minimum of ^~0PP feet retaining wall,,on all four sides. We
even made two separate efforts to have a real life demonstration
to both Mr. Hawkins and Mr. 011a. Southbay Engineering
demonstrated many times to the city council about the playing
noise. The noise wave can not be bent around the top of the
retaining wall, thus forcing the noise to travel upward to
minimize the noise level. Both of our neighbors consider us
peaceful neighbors, but they are concerned about the potential
inconsiderate buyer if we sell our house. We are not going to to
promise something we have no control over, even though we intend
to stay and keep our house until retirement. Your hard work to
protect Rolling Hills citizens' rights should include ours. Do
you suppose we have the right to object Mr. 011a's selling of
their house because the potential buyer may have noisy teen-agers
or noisy dogs?
In Summary -
The City Council published the stringent requirements
after nine months deliberation about conditional use of a tennis
court. We havemet every single of the requirements with no
variance. Furthermore, we are willin' to offer a clause
restricting play before 8:00 a.m. and after dusk. We will use
the latest technology in constructing the tennis court to
minimize the noise level. We will do our best to plant more
bushes to intensify the shielding effects around the tennis
court. These steps just show our willingness to be a considerate
neighbor. As we plan to have horses in the near future, connecting
the tennis court, swimming pool and barn should beautify the
neighborhood. Your prompt approval can give us the time to make
this plan become reality. Your kind approval is appreciated and
anticipated.
ddy
GORDANA SWANSON
Mayor
JODY MURDOCK
Mayor Pro Tem
THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER
Councilman
GINNY LEEUWENBURGH
Councilwoman
GODFREY PERNELL
Councilman
Mr. and Mrs. Yu -Ping Liu
39 Crest Road West
Rolling Hills, CA. 90274
410
0/ INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
RE: Zoning Case No. 355
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Liu:
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
March 30, 1988
This letter -is -to serve as -official notice that the Planning._
Commission's -=approval _ on _February- 16,_ 1988, of your request _for
a Conditional Use Permit for, a tennis court on Lot 240B-2-MS,_
located at 39 Crest Road West, was reported to the City Council
at their meeting on March 14, 1988, and at which meeting an appeal
was filed with the City Clerk, pursuant to Section 17.32.140 of
the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
Pursuant to the Municipal Code of Rolling Hills, Section
17.32.180, the City Council, at their meeting on March 28, 1988,
set a public hearing -to be held on April- 11, 1988, at 7-:30 p.m.
in the Council Chamber at City Hall/Administration Building, 2
Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, to consider the appeals which
were filed by Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins and Mr. and Mrs. 011a.
Please feel free to contact me at (213) 377-1521 if you
have any questions regarding this matter.
Ve]7y truly, ,,
Terrence L. Belanger
City Manager
TLB:bv
• •
March 14, 1988
Dear Members of the City Council,
We live at 37 Crest Road West next to Mr. and Mrs Yu Ping Liu.
We wrote to the planning commission on January 19, 1988 objecting
to the proposed tennis court planned by the Lius.
We wish to appeal the planning commission's report of approval
of Zoning Case #355 as per Section 17.32.140 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code.
Sinc
oger E. Hawk ns
Christa M. Hawkins
•
City ofieolling -fa
GORDANA SWANSON
Mayor
JODY MURDOCK
Mayor Pro Tem
THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER
Councilman
GINNY LEEUWENBURGH
Councilwoman
GODFREY PERNELL
Councilman
Mr. and Mrs. Yu Ping Liu,
39 Crest Road West
Rolling Hills, CA. 90274
RE: Zoning Case No. 355
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Liu:
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377.1521
March 7, 1988
This letter is to serve as official notice, pursuant to Section
17.32.090 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, that your request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court on Lot 240B-2-MS,
39 Crest Road West, was approved by the. Planning Commission at
their- meeting . on Tuesday, February 16,1988; .subject .to the
condition that it comply- with all the requirements set forth- in
Ordinance No. 215 and the policy memorandum dated March 1980.
A formal report of the Commission's action will be recorded
in the minutes of the proceedings before the' Planning Commission,
and will be made available to you after approval by the Commission.
The Planning Commission's decision will be reported to the
City Council, as required by the Municipal Code, Section 17.32.090,
at their next regular meeting on Monday, March 14, 1988, pursuant
to the requirements of the Municipal Code, Section 17.32.140.
Please feel free to call this office if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Terrence L. Bjlanger
City Manager
TLB:bv
cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie
South Bay Engineering
304 Tejon Place
Palos Verdes Estates, CA. 90274
`
39 Crest Road West
Rolling Hills, California 90274
February 11, 1988
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portugese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Rev Request for Conditional Use
Permit for a tennis court on
Lot 240B-2-MG, Zoning Case
No. 355
Dear Planning-Commision Members:
I would like to pay my highest respect to the commision
members. Your professional attitude, sacrificing your time and
braving the early morning cold on a weekend to take a field trip
to discuss the details ofprotecting the community's rural
atmosphere really impressed me. I salute your approach and
effort for our community.
My neighbors' major objection is the possible noise factor.
The Planning Commision published the tennis court regulations
specifying the setbacks which have already considered the noise
factor. I would like to make Koint using the following
example. Swimming pool activities and horse -back rides make noise
well shadowing the tennis playing. Do we deny the construction
of swimming pools and barns which satisfy all setback
requirements just because of the potential noise? My wife and I
both work full time, thus reducing the potential recreational
usage to weekends. A final point on the noise factor, as your
field trip shows, there are fully grown trees and bushes surrounding
the requested area. They will provide additional privacy and
shielding against any noise.
Some other concerns in the letters are answered as follows:
1. Mr. Hawkins and Mr. 011a both pointed out concerns
about the green belt area. I believe our
application clearly shows that we are within the
required ratio.
2. Mr. Hawkins has a concern about the height of the
chain link fence and windbreak canvas. I would like
to point out that the highest point of the fence is
less than three feet.above the current ground level.
This would be lower than the height of Mr. Hawkins'
fence. Again, the court is completely shielded from
his bedroom and patio by fully grown trees and
bushes.
3.' Mr. 011a's contention of using the community tennis
court has no bearing on our request of our own
tennis court. Do you suppose no private barns
1
should be allowed because there are public stables?
4. Mr. Hawkins concern about the long term use of the
property as a horse lot is purely conjecture. A
horse lot and tennis court can coexist and there are
many lots behind the gates which have the same
condition.
5. Mr. Hawkins made an assumption that the construction
of the tennis court will have an adverse affect in
the value of his property. As we all know, the
property prices depend on your neighbors' value too,
When Mr. Hawkins requested a variance of 15 feet
closer to my property, we agreed because we thought
that layout would greatly increase the value of his
house. Therefore it would increase the value of the
whole neighborhood. `
My wife and I have lived behind the gates for the past seven
years. We love our rural community setting so much that when we
decided to move to a bigger house last year, we chose behind the
gates again. Don't we all like to seeour property value
increase either by our own improvements or by our neighbors'
improvements?
!N SUMMARY:
The request for the tennis court on my lot satisfies
all the required conditions laid out by the Planning Commision.
�Mr. McHattie told me that this is the example of an almost
perfect fit to the regulations which the Planning Commision
published after a long deliberation. A favorable ruling is
appreciated and anticipated.
Alice & Joe 011a
41 Crest Road West
Rolling Hills, CA. 90274
February 8, 1988
Planning Commission of Rolling.Hills
re. Iii) Tennis Court at 39 Crest Rd. West
We wish to state our objections to the proposed tennis court
at 39 Crest Rd. West.
Our strangest objection is the noise - factor. The proposed
tennis court will reverberate all noises to our home and backyard.
We are sure, a -field trip- will bear -out -our objections. The tennis
court would also infringe -on our privacy as well as detract from -
the community.s rural atmospherre. Rc,ling-Hills built community
tennis courts to provide for the tennis play of it's residents
and still kee-p .the -city's rural _ atmosphere .- - The fact is that -this
lot is aflag lot.and' barely makes the required acreage, as is .
By adding a :tennis court it grossly -infringes on the. city's required
green belt area and controverts the c-ity's founding concepts and'
ideals.
-So we urge you to deny this request for a tennis court _.
Thank You,
e J. 011a
oseph M. 011a
• •
January 19, 1988
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Re: Request for Conditional Use
Permit for a tennis court on
-2-MS, Zoning Case
Dear Planning Commission:
As much as my wife and I would like to support
our next door neighbor's request for a conditional use
permit for a tennis court, we cannot for the following
reasons:
1. The proposed tennis court would be
located in close proximity to our
bedrooms. Allowing the construction
of a tennis court in that area would
interfere with the quiet enjoyment of
our property.. Even though I am confi-
dent our present neighbors would not
intentionally disturb our peace and
quiet, less considerate neighbors might
do so and, having been subjected to
those kind of disturbances in the past,
have no interest in having that un-
pleasant experience repeated.
2. The proposed location would be an
unsightly addition in that it would
be in clear view of our back yard
and patio area. The high chain link
fences and/or windbreak canvas would
detract from the enjoyment of our
property.
3. As avid horsepeople, development of what
we have been told is a sub -two acre
parcel would adversely affect the
• •
Planning Commission
January 19, 1988
Page 2
long term use of the property
as a horse lot.
4. We feel that allowing the con-
struction of a tennis court in
a location such as this will
necessarily have an adverse
affect on the value of our
property -- both in terms of
its dollar worth and in terms
of our ability to have the quiet
enjoyment of our property.
We regret having to write this letter, given our
extremely high regard for the wonderful people who have
requested the conditional use permit. However, there
are from a both personal and community standpoint issues
at stake that, we feel, contraindicate the granting of
the permit.
Very truly yours,
Roger and Christa Hawkins
37 Crest Road West
Rolling Hills, California 90274
(213) 377-4458