Loading...
323, Construct a tennis court, CorrespondenceCity o' iollin y Jh/h Mr. Doug McHattie South Bay Engineering 304 Tejon Place Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (213) 377.1521 August 11, 1988 Re: Submittal of Grading Plan for Paul Lupo, 4 Georgeff Road, Rolling Hills California Dear Mr. M Ha tie: This letter is in regards to the corral grading plans you recently submitted to the City of Rolling Hills for approval. The plans were submitted on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Paul Lupo, 4 Georgeff Road, Rolling Hills, California. You are advised that the City of Rolling Hills is not in a position to approve the corral grading plans that have been submitted. As a matter of fact, the City has filed a complaint with the District Attorney regarding violations related to unauthorized and unpermitted grading that has been performed at 4 Georgeff Road, Rolling Hills, California. A copy of the letter Mr. Everett L. Paine, Los Angeles County District Attorney, is enclosed for your information. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me. Sincerely, Terrence L. langer City Manager ku Encl. July 26,1988 Everette L. Paine Deputy District Attorney Contract Cities Unit 18000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA. 90012 RE; Violations of City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code -Prosecution of Paul Lupo, 4 Georgeff Road, Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Mr. Paine: This is a request for prosecution of violations of the City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code, by Paul Lupo, 4 Georgeff Road, Rolling Hills, CA. Approximately three weeks ago, Mr. Paul Lupo, 4 Georgeff Road, Rolling Hills, Ca. caused extensive grading to be performed on his property (same address as above) . Mr. Lupo had said grading done without City approved plans and specifications or County of Los Angeles (City's contract engineer) plan check. Further, Mr. Lupo failed to obtain a grading permit. These are violations of Rolling Hills Municipal Code Sections 15.04.010 and 15.04.100, which would specifically relate to Los Angeles Building Code Section(s) 7001 et seq. The kind of grading performed, by Mr. Lupo, requires a conditional use permit, pursuant to RHMC Section 17.16.012(H). The amending ordinance (No. 216) is enclosed herewith. It should be noted that Mr. Lupo applied for a conditional use permit for a tennis court approximately two years ago and was denied same by the Rolling Hills City Council. The grading performed, as mentioned above, is substantially the same as that proposed in the rejected conditional use permit. The excessive grading proposed was a primary reason for the Council's denial of Mr. Lupo's application. If you need any supporting information, please contact me. Sincerely, Terrence L. Belanger City Manager City opeollin9. Mr. Paul Lupo 4 Georgeff Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Re: Corral Grading Plan Dear Mr. Lupo: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (213) 377.1521 April 27, 1987 I have had an opportunity to review a preliminaray grading plan for a corral located on your property on 4 Georgeff Road. based on the extent of the grading proposed, it is determined that a variance would be required pursuant to Section 15.04.110 of the City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code. I have enclosed copies of the appropriate section for your information. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Terrence L. B City Manager TLB:ku Encl cc: D. McHattie (So. Bay Engineering) Rolling Hills Community Association Rolling Hills City Hall Rolling Hills Planning Commission M. Jenkins er C144 of eo f! 9 GODFREY PERNELL Mayor OORDANA SWANSON Mayor Pro Tom THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilman GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Councilwoman JODY MURDOCK Councilwoman Mr. Paul Lupo 4 Georgeff Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BIND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 August 13, 1986 Re: Zoning Case No. 323 Dear Mr. Lupo: This letter shall serve as official notice, pursuant to sections 17.36.100 and 17.36.110 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, that an application for a conditional use permit to construct a tennis court on your property (Lot 192 B 1 MS) located at 4 Georgeff Road was denied, by the City Council, at a regular meeting on Monday, August 11, 1986. Resolution No. 549, which sets for the findings and decisions regarding the denial, is attached for your information and reference. A copy of the minutes will be available to you, after approval, by the City Council. S'ncerely, errence L. Bel-er City Council Encl. RESOLUTION NO. 549 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN ZONING CASE NO. 323. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Paul Lupo with respect to real property located at No. 4 Georgeff Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 192B, Tract LACA 51) requesting a condi- tional use permit for a tennis court on said property. Section 2. The application was first considered by the Planning Commission on December 17, 1985 at which time the Commission, after receiving and considering evidence, denied the permit because of the proposed tennis court's location in a canyon in contravention of Municipal Code Section 17.16.012(F). Section 3. The applicant appealed the Commission's denial to the City Council pursuant to Section 17.32.140 of the Municipal Code. During the pendency of the appeal, the applicant modified his plans for the court and submitted the modified plan' to the Council at its hearing on the appeal on February 24, 1986. Upon opening the hearing, the Council determined that the applicant had modified the plans and that the Planning Commission had not been afforded the opportunity to review the modified plans. For that reason, the matter was referred back to the Commission for reconsideration of the plans, as modified. Section 4. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed, public hearing to consider the revised plan on May 20, 1986. After considering the evidence, both written and oral, the Commission approved the application. Section 5. At its meeting of June 9, 1986, the City Council, pursuant to Section 17.32.140(c) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code appealed and assumed jurisdiction of the application by a unanimous vote. Section 6. On July 14, 1986, the City Council opened a duly -noticed, de novo public hearing pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.32.190 to consider the application. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the City Council. The applicant appeared before the Council and was further represented by his engineer, Douglas McHattie. The hearing was adjourned to a field trip on July 16, 1986 to enable the Council and all interested persons the opportunity to view the site. Section 7. The City Council on July 16, 1986, conducted a field trip to the site which was open to all members of the public. The Council inspected the subject property and observed the following: A. The proposed tennis court location is situated on a slope of a well-defined canyon generally known as Geor- geff Canyon, and would require extensive grading, disturbing a minimum of sixty-five (65) feet of earth from top to bottom, and requiring at least ten feet of cut and fill. B. The proposed tennis court would require construction of a fill slope that would encroach upon and possibly alter natural drainage into a canyon of unknown geologic stability; and, C. The proposed tennis court is located in a presently pristine canyon environment at the convergence of two, existing equestrian trails and seven residential lots and is located two -hundred and thirty (230) feet from the nearest residences. Section 8. The Council resumed the continued public hearing on July 28, 1986, at which time additional evidence was presented to and considered by the Council. Section 9. Section 17.16.012(F) of the Municipal Code provides the discretion to grant a conditional use permit for tennis courts if appropriate under Section 17.32.060, subject to certain minimum conditions: "F. Tennis courts and paddle tennis courts and any other fenced, paved area used for recreational purposes (hereinafter 'courts'), providing the following conditions are complied with: 1. The lot or parcel on which the court is to be located shall contain an area of sufficient size to also provide an area for a stable and corral with vehicular access thereto, 2. The court shall not be located on steep slopes, sides or bottoms of canyons, 3. Courts shall not be located in the front yard, 4. Courts shall not be located within fifty feet of any road or street easement line, 5. Each court must have an area adequate in width on all sides for the maintenance and planting of landscaping, -2- 6. Neither the court nor the landscaping required by subdivision 5 of this subsection shall interfere with the view of the owners of property in close proxim- ity to the proposed court, 7. If grading is required for the construction of the court, cut and fill must be balanced, 8. An adequate drainage system must be incor- porated into the overall plan of the court, which drain- age system must be approved by the City Engineer, 9. A permit will not be granted for the construc- tion of a court which requires excessive grading, 10. The construction of the proposed court shall conform to the lot coverage limitations set forth in Section 17.16.040, 11. Retaining walls incorporated as a part of the overall plan of the court shall not be greater than four feet in height;" Section 10. The City Council finds that: A. The location of the proposed tennis court is on the side of and is near the bottom of a well-defined canyon, generally known as Georgeff Canyon. This canyon runs in a generally south/north direction (uphill to downhill) through the middle of the City. Although the steepness of the sides of the canyon vary at different locations, the sloping sides meet at a point at the bottom, which is a deep, elongated and well-defined natural drainage course, which serves to drain surface water from the immediate area to a destination outside the City. B. Construction of the tennis court would require extensive grading, in that sixty-five (65) vertical feet of sloped canyon wall would be disturbed, an amount of grading inappropriate for its location immediately above a natural drainage course; C. The location of the proposed tennis court is situ- ated in close proximity to seven neighboring residential properties and the court would be highly visible to and would impair the views of the natural, undisturbed canyon of the persons residing in those homes; D. The proposed tennis court would add approximately seventy-two hundred (7200) square feet of impermeable surface within a canyon, thereby reducing natural absorption of surface water, channeling and thereby increasing the velocity of run-off and otherwise altering natural drainage patterns in the area. Alteration of a natural drainage course is particularly problematic in an area of unknown geologic stability; -3- E. The proposed tennis court would be located in very close proximity to two existing, long-standing equestrian trails. This physical closeness would interfere with use. of the trails because the activity on and noise from the court would spook horses, creating a safety hazard. Accordingly, the court would be inconsistent and incompatible with an important, pre-existing recreational activity in that location in the City; F. The location of the court is such that it cannot be adequately shielded from view by any means, including landscaping, and accordingly, would constitute a visual blight in what is now a rural, natural and pristine canyon area; G. Noise from utilization of the tennis court would interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring homes, particularly because the canyon has an amphitheater effect and tends to carry noise upward and further and more loudly than it otherwise would; and, H. The proposed tennis court would disturb the natural habitat of a rural, pristine canyon. Section 11. Pursuant to Section 17.32.060 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, the City Council finds that: A. For the reasons set forth in paragraphs A, C, E, F and G of Section 10 above, the proposed tennis court would be incompatible with the surrounding area, homes and uses and would be inappropriate at that location. B. For all of the reasons set forth in Section 10 above, the proposed tennis court would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare and would be inconsistent with the purposes of proper land use planning set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. C. Grant of the conditional use permit would directly contravene the following provisions of Section 17.16.012(F), which mandates the denial of the permit; 1. Paragraph 2 - the proposed court would be located on the side of a canyon; 2. Paragraph 6 - the court would be highly visible to neighboring properties and would impair views of a presently pristine and undisturbed rural area; 3. Paragraph 9 - the proposed tennis court would require excessive grading; and, 4. Paragraph 11 - the plans show retaining walls in excess of four (4) feet in height - in fact one wall shown on the plans is proposed to be eight (8) feet in height. -4- D. The proposed tennis court will have significant environmental impacts in the areas of drainage and hydrology, impairment of existing community recreational facilities, noise, geology and disturbance of local habitat, none of which can be adequately mitigated. There is no public benefit from the proposed project that would outweigh these environmental impacts. Section 12. For and on the basis of the foregoing findings, the conditional use permit for Zoning Case No. 323 is hereby denied. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 11 day of August , 1986. ATTEST: LSAAL4t4)- t°-"I g)(441-44) City Clerk HOME ADDRESS 446 Georgeff Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Dr. Godfrey Perneil, Mayor Rolling Hills City Council No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mayor Perneil: Mrs. Fuld and I object to the proposed Conditional Use Permit for construction of the tennis court requested by Mr. and Mrs. Lupo, 4 Georgeff Road, and approved by the Planning Commission. Our primary objection relates to noise. Little effort has been made by the Lupos to eliminate the repetitive noise of tennis in a location which acts an an echo chamber as far as the surrounding homeowners are concerned. Merely planting shrubs will have minimal effect on noise reduction. At the very least, an environmental impact study should be made to show what means, if any, are available to eliminate noise impact. It seems to us that more than enough tennis courts are in place at the Main Gate. Sincerely yours, Fred and Glor-1-a Fuld, Jr. 6 Georgeff Road ff:sn July 23, 1986 City of Rolling Hills City Council 02 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Re: Zoning Case No. 323 - Mr. & Mrs. Paul Lupo C.U.P. Dear Council Members: In as much as I have had difficulty in coordinating an acoustical study of the noise generated during a tennis match, I request that the hearing be continued until the next regular council meeting. If you recall, at the last council meeting Mayor Pernell suggested "it is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate the amount of noise that could result and what measures will be taken to abate the noise." The additional time should allow me to secure the information. Thanking you in advance. 8 E Vv R 1 1:1 l5 JUL241986 City Of Rolling Hills Sincerely, • • City oi /?01X Z LLL6 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND, ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1321 GODFREY PERNELL Mayor GORDANA SWANSON Mayor Pro Tem THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilman GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Councilwoman JODY MURDOCK Councilwoman May 28, 1986 Mr. and Mrs. Paul Lupo 4 Georgeff Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Subject: Zoning Case No. 323 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lupo: This letter is to serve as official notice, pursuant to Section 17.32.090 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, that a Conditional Use Permit for construction of a tennis court on your property, Lot 192-B-1-MS, was approved by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission on May 20, 1986, subject to conditions discussed at the meeting. A copy of the standard Conditions of Approval for Tennis Courts and an excerpt from the Municipal Code relative to conditions for approval of a Conditional Use Permit are enclosed. As discussed with you at the meeting, we ask that you submit in writing your offer to grant a permanent trail easement across your property and extend the drainage pipe, together. with a map showing the precise areas which are being offered. This letter shall serve as a notice of the Planning Commission's decision in Zoning Case No. 323. A full report of the Commission's action, as required by the Municipal Code, will be contained in the minutes of the meeting. The Planning Commission's decision will be reported to the City Council by copy of this letter, pursuant to requirements of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, Section 17.32.090, and will be placed on the agenda of the Council's regular meeting on Monday, June 9, 1986, pursuant to Section 17.32.140 of the Municipal Code. Please call this office if you have any questions. Very truly Terrence L. Belanger City Manager TLB/jc • • 17.16.012 1The following uses are permitted provided a conditional use permit has been granted as provided in Chapter 17.32 and remains in full force and effect: A. Fire stations; B. Schools, through grade eight, which offer instruc- tion required to be taught in the public schools by the Education Code of the State, but excluding trade or commer- cial schools; C. Gate houses; D. Public utility uses including facilities for the storage and distribution of water or electrical energy; E. Noncommercial radio antennae in excess of eighteen feet in heig ro fi shed grade at total extension; F . d paddle tennis courts and any other fence, pave area used for recreational purposes (hereinafter "courts"), providing the following conditions are complied with:. • 1. The lot or parcel on which the court is to be located shall contain an area of sufficient size to also provide an area for a stable and corral with vehicular access thereto, 2. The court shall not be located on steep slopes, - sides or bottoms of canyons, 3. Courts shall not be located in the front yard, 4. Courts shall not be located within fifty feet of any road or street easement line, 5. Each court must have an area adequate in width on all sides for the maintenance and planting of landscaping, 6. Neither the court nor the landscaping required by subdivision 5 of this subsection shall interfere with the view of the owners of property in close proximity to the proposed court, 7. If grading is required for the construction of the court, cut and fill must be balanced, 8. An adequate drainage system must be incorporated into the overall plan of the court, which drainage system must be approved by the City Engineer, 9. A permit will not be granted for the construction of a court which requires excessive grading, 10. The construction of the proposed court shall conform to the lot coverage limitations set forth in Section 17.16.040, 11. Retaining walls incorporated as a part of the overall plan of the court shall not be greater than four feet in height; G. Guest and servants quarters, detached, appurtenant to a residence on the same lot or parcel of land provided no kitchen or other cooking facilities are provided; H. Cabanas and recreation rooms, detached, provided no kitchen or cooking facilities are provided; I. Horseback riding rings; J. Parks and playgrounds. (Ord. 204 S2, 1983; Ord. 188 (part) , 1981) . • CONDI'IONS OF APPROVAL - TENNISOURTS While a complete list of conditions cannot be recommended until a public hearing has been held and all testimony taken, the following list of conditions pertaining to tennis courts is provided: 1. This Conditional Use Permit shall not be effective for any purpose until the owner of the property involved, or his duly authorized representative, has filed with the City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills an affidavit stating that he is aware of and agrees to comply with all the conditions of the Permit. 2. It is declared to be the intent of the Planning Commission that if any provision of the Permit is held or declared to be invalid, the permit shall be void and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse. 3. It is declared and made a condition of the Permit that if any conditions thereof are violated, or if any law, statute or ordinance is violated, the Permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. 4. All requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with un- less otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. 5. The property shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit "A" except as otherwise provided herein. 6. Tennis court fences shall be a maximum of eight (8) feet in height above the surface level of the court. 7. All new slopes shall be landscaped with ground cover and trees to screen the court area. 8. A landscape plan and irrigation system shall be submittedto the Planning Commission for review and approval. 9. All proposed walls shall be a uniform earthen color. The color and material shall be approved by the Planning Commission. 10. A bond shall be deposited with the City, to be held until eighteen months after completion, to guarantee the satisfactory growth and maintenance of the required landscaping. 11. A11 landscaping shall be planted and the irrigation system shall be installed concurrent with completion of the tennis court. 12. Tennis court fence shall be black or dark green vinyl coated chain link. 13. Additional offstreet parking may be required. 14. Prior to issuance of building permits a grading plan satisfactory to the City Engineer shall be submitted. This Conditional Use Permit shall expire unless used within one year from the date of grant. 15. The Planning Commission may, at its discretion, attach such other conditions as it deems appropriate to the property. (Added May 27, 1980) March 18, 1980 • • C;iy 01 /'o/ftngit; _16 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 GODFREY PERNELL Mayor GORDANA SWANSON Mayor Pro Tem THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilman GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Councilwoman JODY MURDOCK Councilwoman May 26, 1986 Mr. and Mrs. Paul Lupo 4 Georgeff Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Subject: Zoning Case No. 323 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lupo: A letter was sent to you on May 28, 1986 advising you that at a regular meeting on May 20, 1986 the Rolling Hills Planning Commission approved a request for a Conditional Use Permit for construction of a tennis court on your property, Lot 192B-1-MS, as shown on a revised plan submitted to the City Council with an appeal filed by you following denial by the Planning Commission of a C.U.P. on February 24, 1986. The Planning Commission's action was reported to the City Council at a regular meeting on June 9, 1986, and the Council voted unanimously to take jurisdiction in the matter, pursuant to Section 17.32.140 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (enclosed). A copy of the minutes of the City Council meeting on June 9 meeting are enclosed for your information. A public hearing on your request for a Conditional Use Permit for construction of a tennis court as shown in revised plans will be held by the City Council at 7:30 p.m. Monday, June 14, 1986. Please call this office if you have any questions. Very truly, June Cunningham Deputy City Clerk Encl. (2) 17.32.140--17.32.160 17.32.140 Appeal --Persons authorized. The action by the Planning Commission in matters described in this chapter shall be by majority vote and shall be final, con- clusive and effective twenty calendar days after the filing of notice, as provided in Section 17.32.090, unless within said twenty -day period an appeal in writing is filed with the City Clerk by any of the following: A. The applicant; B. Any person who protested, either orally or in writing, as a matter of record, prior to the final vote of the Planning Commission on the matter and who, in addition, received or was entitled to receive the written notice specified in subdivision 2 of subsection A of Section 17.40.060; or C. The City Council, upon the affirmative vote of three members of the Council. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 155 §4, 1978: Ord. 33 S6.14, 1960). 17.32.150 Appeal--Contents--Fee. An appeal from any order, requirement, decision, or determination under the title must set forth specifically wherein it is claimed there was an error or abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission or wherein the decision of the Planning Commission is not supported by the evidence in the matter. In addition, any person appealing the decision of the Planning Commission must pay to the City Clerk, at the time of filing the written notice of appeal, the required fee specified by resolution as hereafter adopted and from time to time changed by the City Council. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 S6.15, 1960). 17.32.160 Appeal--Recordkeeping. Upon receipt of a written appeal and the payment of the fee required, the City Clerk shall advise the Secretary of the Planning Commission to transmit forthwith the complete record of the entire proceeding before the Planning Commission. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall be charged with the duty and responsibility of maintaining a complete file and record on each application processed pursuant to this chapter which shall contain the original application processed pursuant to this chapter, all correspondence and reports pertaining thereto, all affidavits of publication, posting and mailing, as required by law, minutes of all meetings of the Planning Commission pertaining to this matter, advisory reports of technical agents, the report, findings and decision of the Planning Commission, and an affidavit of the mailing and the giving of said notice, as required by this chapter. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 S6.16, 1960) . 215 (Rolling Hills 8/83) March 13, 1986 City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission #2 Portuguese -Bend Rd. Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Re: Case #232--Addition of .Tennis Court .Lot 192-1-MS, Paul and Kay Lupo To Planning Commission_ Members, Enclosed _please .find exerpts ofsomeof the appeal information presented -to :the City Council regarding the above. We feel the information may be helpful to the Planning Commission during their reevaluation of the proposed tennnis court. Paul and Kay Lupo Secondly, at no time during the open discussion portion of the meeting itself where the merits and drawbacks of the two proposed plans were discussed,did Commissioner Lay or any other member of the commission suggest they had a problem with the site in regards to it being in a canyon or on the side of a steep slope. This was only mentioned after closing the public -discussion. -.Because of_theway this was handled, - - - — — present - —- - neither myself norr -Mr.. Mc Haddie werree able to ree senntt - our case as to why we feel this is not a canyon- site or ,on a steeg - hillside.- We were also unable to cite the recent- approvalsofcourts built in areas very similar to ours.. *CANYON: Deep gorge created by the erosive action of a river. The best known examples in• North America are the Grand Canyon of the Colorado - River and the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone River. Funk & Wagnalls; New Encyclopedia, Vol. 5 p. 266. *CANYON: A norrow valley with high, steep sides, usually with a stream at the bottom. Thorndike Barnhart Company; Desk Dictionary, p. 140. *CANYON: A deep gorge or ravine, with steep sides. Funk & Wagnalls; Standard Desk Dictionary, Vol. 1 p. 91. **STEEP: Making a large angle with the plane of the horizon; precipitous. n. a precipitous place, as a cliff or hill. Funk & Wagnalls; Standard Desk Dictionary, Vol. 2 p. 659. **STEEP: Having --a sharp slope; almoststraight up and down. Syn. precipitous, abrupt. Thorndike Barnhart Company; Desk Dictionary, p. 756. 2 II. Background The initiation of the design and development of the tennis court was begun only after investigating the number of recent court approvals on sites very similar to ours. It was the open attitude and cooperation of the Planning Commission and City Council to work with its residents in what we both know is a rural area with very little level ground that led us to consider the tennis court at all. As you know the need of a conditional use permit to build tennis courts requires this kind of cooperation. -In any event, residents can only use past precedent when deciding to develop their home sites.for their enjoyment and recre- ation. The following list of tennis court approvals are theinfluencing factors on our decision to initiate the project. 1. Delpit #45 Saddleback Road - Zoning Case #282 2. Siegal #2 Quail Ridge Rd. North - Zoning Case #292 3. Bird #4 Storm Hill Lane - Zoning Case #309 4. Cappelino #11 Wide Loop - Zoning Case #307 Please note attached sheets detailing the above referenced. sites. I've also enclosed photographs of the proposed building site for comparison purposes. 3 III. Recent Developments The city of Rolling Hills is now unfortunately unable to secure liability .insurance _coverage. This has necessitated the closing of city trails and tennis courts until further notice. We feel the Planning Commission and City Council should carfully consider a request for rec- reational facilities (Tennis Courts, Paddle Tennis courts, Equestrian rings, etc.) in light of this new developmentandbe willing.accomodate homeownersasmuch as possible in building attractive -recreational facilities in order .to give them the -full use and enjoyment of -their land. We know the insurance problem may be only temporary, but who's to say the problem may not reoccur and possibly require the closing of these facilities for a very long time. IV. Conclusion • We are more than willing to work with the City Council in any way possible to develop a court consistent with the city's desire to allow courts if designed in such a way as to minimize the visual impact on the surrounding properties. We thank you in advance for your careful consideration of the above. Sincerely, Paul:J. Lupo & Kay-B. Lupo 4 • City of Rolling Hills City Council 2 Portuguese Blvd. Rd. Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • :( Qv,;14aWt. 1111 JAN31 1986 • C Y OFAOLLING HILLS RE: Appeal Zoning Case No. 323 - Addition of Tennis Court lot 192B - 1 - MB Paul & Kay Lupo. To Rolling Hills City Council Members, I. Planning Commission Action We feel the denial of the above by the Planning commission was not only in error but also handled quite poorly by the commission for a number of reasons. First, no mention was ever made by any planning commission member that theyfelt the proposed court was being built on a steep slope or on the side or bottom of a canyon (Sect. 17.16.012 F.2), until after the public hearing portion of the planning commission meeting. Both Commissioner Lay, the proposer of the motion for denial and Commissioner Hankins were present at the on -site inspection where the only comments were regarding the courts proximity to a wash on the easterly property line. Because of, this comment, Mr. Mc Haddie of South Bay Engineering prepared a revised plan moving the court approximately 20 feet away from the wash. This plan detailed the changes in wall heights, fencing, landscaping, etc. Secondly, at no time during the open discussion portion of the meeting itself where the merits and drawbacks of the two proposed plans were discussed,did Commissioner Lay or'any other member of the commission suggest they had a problem with the site in regards to it being in a canyon or on the side of a steep slope. This was only mentioned after closing the public discussion. Because of the way this was handled, neither myself nor Mr. Mc Haddie were able to present our case as to why we feel this is not a canyon* site or on a steep** hillside. We were also unable to cite the recent approvals of courts built in areas very similar to ours. Thirdly,_ we have spent a considerable amount of time and money revising plans for the Commission and Mr. Lay in particular after his on -site inspection comments. We feel he should have voiced his opinion at that time regarding the canyon site to allow us our rebuttal at the meeting. We are now forced to incur additional expense to initiate the appeal process to the City Council. *CANYON: Deep gorge created by the erosive action of a river. The best known examples in North America are the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River and the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone River. Funk & Wagnalls; New Encyclopedia, Vol. 5 p. 266. *CANYON.: A norrow valley with high, steep sides, usually with a stream at the bottom,. Thorndike Barnhart Company; Desk Dictionary, p. 140. *CANYON: A deep gorge or ravine, with steep sides. Funk & Wagnalls; Standard Desk Dictionary, Vol. 1 p. 91. *STEEP: Making a large angle with the plane of the horizon; precipitous. n. a precipitous place, as a cliff or.hill. Funk & Wagnalls; Standard Desk Dictionary, Vol. 2 p. 659. xXSTEEP: Having a sharp slope; almost straight up and down. Syn. precipitous, abrupt. Thornlike Barnhart Company;, Desk :Dictionary, p. 756. 2 TI. Background The initiation of the design and development of the tennis court was begun only after investigating the number of recent court approvals on sites very similar to ours. It. was the open attitude and cooperation of the Planning Commission and City Council to work with its residents in what we both know is a rural area with very little level ground that led us to consider the tennis court at all. As you know the need of a conditional use permit to build tennis courts requires this kind of cooperation. In any event, residents can only use past precedent when deciding to develop their home sites for their enjoyment and recre- ation. The following list of tennis court approvals are the influencing factors on our decision to initiate the project. 1. Delpit• #45 Saddleback Road - Zoning Case 4282 2. Siegal #2 Quail Ridge Rd. North - Zoning Case 3. Bird #4 Storm Hill Lane - Zoning Case #309 4. Cappelino #11 Wide Loop - Zoning Case #307 #'292 Please note attached sheets detailing the above referenced sites. I've also enclosed photographs of the proposed building site for comparison purposes. III. Recent Developments The city of Rolling Hills is now unfortunately unable to secure liability insurance coverage. This has necessitated the closing of city trails and tennis courts until further notice. We feel the Planning Commission and City Council should carfully consider a.request for rec- reational facilities (Tennis Courts, Paddle Tennis courts, Equestrian rings, etc.) in light of this new development and be willing accomodate homeowners as much as possible in building attractive recreational. facilities in order to give them the full use and enjoyment of their land. We know the insurance problem may be only temporary, but who's to say the problem may not reoccur and possibly require the closing of these facilities for a very long time. IV. Conclusion We are more than willing to work with the City Council in any way possible to develop a court consistent with the city's desire to allow courts if designed in such a way as to minimize the visual impact on the surrounding properties. We thank you in advance for your careful consideration of the above. Sincerely, / \ January 28, 1986 Rolling Hills City Council 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hillsv CA 90274 Dear Members of The Council: I would like to add my support for the approval of the tennis court on Paul Lupo's property. I have known the Lupos for several years and feel confident that their construction and use of the court will have no adverse effects on the neighborhood. Knowing the Lupo's sense of decorum and fair play, I believe they will strive to keep the court area in good repair and noise to a minimum. Sincere1y, Donald Robertson 3 Reata Lane • KARL F. TROVINGER • 2 EL CONCHO LANE ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90274 January 28, 1986 City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Rolling Hills, Calif. 90274 ATTENTION: City Council I am writing to express my approval to the construction of a Tennis Court located on the property of my neighbors. The Court mentioned is located at the property of Mr & Mrs Paul Lupo at 4 Georgeff road. I feel locating a Tennis Court in the area they have specified would cause no undue strain on the tranquility of the neighborhood. Many residents can afford and do own Tennis Courts for their own pleasure. My only concern would be to insure they have satisfied any geological requirements for the area regarding earth movement. Observing the site they have outlined appears to satisify any requirements. Karl and Anne C. Trovinger Rolling Hills Residents • city o/Aeting JUL THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Mayor GODFREY PERNELL Mayor pro tem GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Councilwoman JODY MURDOCK Councilwoman GORDANA SWANSON Councilwoman Mr, and Mrs. Paul Lupo 4 Georgeff Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. and. Mrs. Lupo : R INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 1213) 377.1521 January 16, 1986 Subject: Zoning Case No. 323 The Planning Commission's decision regarding your application for a Conditional'°Use Permit for construction of a tennis court on your property, Lot 192B-1-MS, was reported to the City Council at a regular meeting on January 13, 1986 pursuant to Section 17.32.140 of the Municipal Code. The City Council ratified the denial of the request by the Planning Commission, and approved your request for an extension of the time period in which an appeal of the decision may be filed. It is my understanding that information regarding filing an appeal and the fee schedule have been sent to you. Please advise this office of. your plans regarding filing an appeal, so the matter may be placed upon the City Council agenda. The next regular meeting of the City Council will be on Monday, January27', 1986 at 7:30 p.m. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me. Vertruly your yx,21.1: 4t/ i 4/0., Terrence L. Belanger City Manager iCity 0/ ledlinv. THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Mayor GODFREY PERNELL Mayor pro tom GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Councilwoman JODY MURDOCK Councilwoman GORDANA SWANSON Councilwoman Mr. and Mrs. Paul Lupo 4 Georgeff Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 January 7, 1986 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lupo: Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Commission on .December 17, 1985 are enclosed. These minutes have not been presented to the Planning Commission for approval, and are for your information only. The Planning Commission's action was not placed on the agenda of the adjourned meeting of the City Council on January 6, 1986. It will be an agenda item at thenext regular meeting on Monday, January 13, 1986, pursuant to Section 17.32.140 of the Municipal Code, to determine whether the decision of the Planning Commission should be appealed by the City Council. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, /une Cunningham City Clerk Encl. THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Mayor GODFREY PERNELL Mayor pro tem GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Councilwoman JODY MURDOCK Councilwoman GORDANA SWANSON Councilwoman City Rolling CERTIFIED MAIL P 494 145 578 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING NILLS. CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 December 18, 1985 Mr. and Mrs. Paul Lupo 4 Georgeff Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Subject: Zoning Case No. 323 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lupo: This letter is to serve as official notice, pursuant to Section 17.32.090 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, that a request for a Conditional Use Permit for construction of a tennis court on your property, Lot 192-B-MS, located at 4 Georgeff Road, was denied by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting on December 17, 1985, with findings that the proposed tennis court does not comply with Section 17.16.012, Conditional use permit uses, F.2. (copy attached). This notice shall serve as a copy of the decision of the Planning Commission. A formal report of the Commission's action as required by Section 17.32.086 of the Municipal Code is contained in the minutes of the proceedings before the Commission. The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by you pursuant to Section 17.32.140 of the Municipal Code. Excerpts from the Municipal Code pertaining to the appeal procedure and a copy of Resolution No. 494 establishing the fee for appeal are enclosed for your information. The City Council will be reviewing the action of the Planning Commission on. Monday, January 6, 1986 in the Council Chambers at 7:.30 p.m.., pursuant to Section 17.32.140 of the Municipal Code to determine whether the decision of the Planning Commission should be appealed by the City Council. Please call this office if you have any questions. Very truly, June Cunningha City Clerk Encl. (3) Copy: Mrs. E. Heinrich Mrs. J. Saffo I • • 17.16.012 17.16.012 Conditional use permit uses. The following uses are permitted provided a conditional use permit has been granted as provided in Chapter 17.32 and remains in full force and effect:. A. Fire stations; B. Schools, through grade eight, which offer instruc- tion required to be taught in the public schools by the - Education Code of the State, but excluding trade or commer- cial schools; C. Gate houses; • . D. Public utility uses including facilities for the storage and distribution of water or electrical energy; E. Noncommercial radio antennae in excess of eighteen feet in height from finished grade at total extension; F. Tennis. courts and paddle tennis courts and,any other fenced, paved area used for recreational purposes (hereinafter "courts"), providing the following conditions are complied with:. .• 1. The lot or parcel on which the court is to'be located shall contain an area of sufficient size to also provide an area for a stable and corral with vehicular access thereto, 2. The court shall not be located on steep slopes, sides or bottoms of canyons, 3. Courts shall not be located in the front yard, 4.. Courtsshall not be located within fifty feet. of any road or street' easement line, 5. Each court must have an area adequate in width on all sides for the maintenance and planting of landscaping, 202-1 . (Rolling Hills 11/83) • • 401 • • • 17.32.140 . Appeal --Persons authorized. The action by the Planning Commission in matters described in this chapter shall be by majority 'vote and shall be final, ' con- clusive and effective twenty calendar days after the filing of notice, as provided in Section 17.32.090, unless within said twenty -day period an appeal in writing is filed with the City Clerk by any of the following: A. The applicant; . 0 U. Any person who protested, either orally or in writing, as a matter of record, prior to the final vote of the Planning Commission on the matter and who, in addition, received or was entitled to receive the writteni"' notice specified in subdivision 2 of subsection A'of Section 17.40.060; or C. The City Council, upon the affirmative vote of three members of the Council. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord.. 155 §4, 1978: Ord. 33 §6.14, 1960). 17.32.150 Appeal--Contents---Pee. An appeal from any'. order, requirement, decision, or determination under the title must set forth specifically wherein it is claimed there was an error or abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission or wherein the decision of the Planning Commission is not supported by the evidence in the matter. In addition, any person appealing the decision of the Planning' Commission must pay to the City Clerk, at the time of filing the written notice of appeal, the required fee specified by resolutioh.as hereafter adopted and from time to time changed by the City Council. (Ord. 188(part), '198i: Ord. 33 §6.15, 1960) . 17.32.160 Appeal--Recordkeeping. Upon receipt.of a written appeal and the payment of the fee required, the. City Clerk shall advise the Secretary of the Planning Commission to transmit forthwith•the complete record of the entire proceeding before the Planning Commission. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall be charged with the duty and responsibility of maintaining a complete file and record on each application processed pursuant to this chapter which shall contain the original application processed pursuant to this chapter, all correspondence and reports pertaining thereto, all affidavits of publication, posting and mailing, as required by law, minutes of all' meetings of the Planning Commission pertaining to this matter, advisory reports of technical agents, the report, findings and decision of the Planning Commission, and an affidavit of the mailing and the giving of said notice, as required by this chapter. .(Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 §6.16, 1960). 0 215 (Rolling Hills 8/83) r 17.32.170--17.32.200 • 17.32.170 City Council to be Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeal. For the purpose of this chapter and in conformity with Article 2 of Chapter 4, Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of California, the City Council appoints. and creates each and every member of the City Council, sitting as a whole, as the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Zoning Appeal for the City. The City Council shall meet as a Board of Zoning Adjustment and Zoning Appeal in connection with other City business and, in so meeting, shall be governed by all the rules and regulations now adopted or hereafter adoptedgoverning the procedureof the City Council., (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 §6.17, 1960). 17.32.180 Appeal--Hearing--Notice--Basis for decision.. The City Clerk shall set a hearing before the City Council as the Board of 'Zoning Adjustment and Zoning Appeal not less' than twenty days after the receipt of said appeal or request for review. The hearing shall be on at least ten days prior written notice to the applicant, the appellant, and to any other persons who received or should have received, under Section 17.40.060, notice of the hearing before the Planning Commission. At such a hearing no new matter nor new evidence shall be received or considered by the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeal,.,and the Board shall make its determination on the basis of the record brought before it on appeal or review. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 S6.18,. 1960): 17.32.190 _Appeal —New hearing --Authorized when. Notwith- standing the provisions of Section 17.32.180, the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeal may, by majority action:at any time during the course of the review of a decision Of the Planning Commission under this chapter brought before it by appeal, determine that a new hearing shall be set by the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeal, at which time the public will be entitled to appear to present new or additional evidence for or against said application. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 §6.19, 1960). . . 17.32.200 Appeal --New hearing --Copy of records. The action of .the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeal shall be by majority vote and shall be final and conclusive. The decision of the Board under this chapter shall be set forth in full in the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeal. A certified copy of the excerpts of said minutes shall be delivered by the City Clerk to the City Council, the Secretary of the Planning. Commission and the Planning Commission for their use and records, as well as to the applicant or the appellant, if they are different parties. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 S6.20, 1960). 216 (Rolling Hills 8/83) xr 17.32.210--17.3b.uiu • 17.32.210 Appeal --Notice. Upon the filing of such an appeal, the City Clerk shall give notice of the filing of said notice to: A. Applicant; B. Appellant; and C. Any person who protested, either orally or in writing, as a matter of record, prior to the final.vote of the Planning Commission on the matter and who, in addition, received or was entitled to receive the written notice specified in subdivision 2 of subsection B of Section 7.40.060. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: 'Ord. 155 56, 1978: Ord. 33 56.21., .1960) . 17.32.220 Appeal--Hearing--Multiple appeals. In the event more than one appeal is filed purusant to Section 17.32.140 then all appeals shall be heard at the same time. (Ord. 188(part),.1981: Ord. 155 §6, 1978: Ord. 33 §6.22, 1960). Sections: 17.36.010 17.36.020 17.36.030 17.36.040 17.36.050 17.36.060 17.36.070 17.36.080 17.36.090 17.36.100 17.36.110 17.36.120 17.36.130 Chapter .17.36 AMENDMENTS* Amendment procedure - Initiation. Application --Hearing Planning Commission Planning Commission Planning Commission Planning Commission application without Planning Commission City Clerk. Planning Commission hearing. City Council report City Council report City Council hearing Planning Commission when. -Scope. findings --Report. findings--Noticet findings --Denial notice. findings --Notice of merit. findings --Report to findings --City Council of findings --Contents.'' of findings --Notice. adjournment. decision recommendation 17.36.010 Amendment procedure --Scope. Any provision of this title may be amended as provided by law for the initiation and adoption or amendment of other ordinances, * for statutory provisions on the adoption of zoning ordiances or amendments, see Gov: Code §65853 et seq. 217 (Rolling Hills 8/83) x? • • (TTatrn11ems lanab Rolling Bills, Tu. 911274 12-16-85 Rolling Hills Community Association No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: Permit to Contruct a Tennis Court at 4 Georgeff Road Dear Rolling Hills Community Association: It has been brought to our attention that permit to coil ruct a tennis court has been requested by Paul and Kay Lupo. We are familar with the subject property and other residences in the immediate area. From our observation of said properties we recommend that a tennis court be constructed. This new facility should enhance the surroundings and bring pleasure to tennis enthusiasts. Rod Rodriguez November 19, 1985 Re: Zoning Case #323 4 Georgeff Road Mrs. Heinrich, 12 Georgeff Road, called and asked that the Planning Commission be advised that she objects to the request for a tennis court because of the noise. She said the proposed court would be near her bedrooms and she and her family would be affected by use of the court. Mrs. Joan Saffo visited the Lupo property to look at the site for the proposed tennis court. She is concerned about the following items: Tennis court in canyon Grading Proximity to trails Is there sufficient room for a stable as required by the Code?