195, Construct a paddle/tennis cour, Correspondenceo�' :. �90 City o/ Bolding .tiff
DONALD W. CROCKER
Mayor
GODFREY PERNELL
Mayor Pro Tem
THOMAS P. HEINSHEIMER
Councilman
MASON H. ROSE V
Councilman
GORDANA SWANSON
Councilwoman
TEENA CLIFTON
City Manager
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
November 8, 1977
At a meeting of the Rolling Hills Planning Commission on
Tuesday, July 19, 1977 a paddle tennis court was approved
for Lot 16A-17 SF, Dr. and Mrs. S. E. Tucker, 3 West
Packsaddle Road, subject to the following conditions:
1. Wall not to exceed 8' in height
2. Landscape plan must be approved by Landscape Committee
and Planning Commission. The plan was approved by the
LandscapeCommittee on June 22, 1977, and by the Plan-
ning Commission on October 18, 1977. •
3. Deposit amounting to 75% of the estimate submitted by
a nursery or landscape architect, to remain with the
City of Rolling Hills for a minimum of two years.
An estimate of $4,901 was presented to the City of
Rolling Hills on November 8, 1977, and funds in the
amount of $3,675.75 were deposited with the City on
-)
that date. /LL
C, 6
June C. , Cunningharii
Deputy City Clerk
TO:
City Council, City Clerk
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese. Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
MATTER: ZONING CASE NO. .195
DR. S. EDWARD TUCKER - 3 PACKSADDLE ROAD WEST
WITHDRAWAL OF REQUEST FOR RECORD PURSUANT TO
SECTION 1094.6 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Request for Record Pursuant to
Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure heretofore served
upon you by the undersigned, a copy of which is attached hereto,
is hereby withdrawn.
DATED: October 7, 1977
S &
SBERT-
RONALD C. PASS
Attorneys for Dr. S. Edward Tucker
21515 Hawthorne Blvd., No. 840
Torrance, CA 90503
• •
City 0/ Roffi,v
August 8, 1977
Hon. Donald Crocker, Mayor
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Re: Interpretation of Ordinance No. 33,
Article VI, Section 6. 14
Dear Mr. Mayor:
WILLIAM KINLEY
CITY ATTORNEY
SUITE 901
555 EAST OCEAN BLVD.
LONG BEACH, CALIF. 90802
(213) 437-0973
You have asked me to provide you with an opinion interpreting the
provisions of the above referenced section, because of typographical
errors and because you believe the section is vague and indefinite.
The Planning Commission granted a Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of a paddle tennis court on the property owned by Dr.
and Mrs. Tucker on Packsaddle Road West, Zoning Case No. 195.
The decision was made on July 19, 1977. Two parties have now
filed appeals from that decision, Dr. Kelly, who resides at 2
Pinto Road, and Richard P. Nahrwold, an attorney at law, who
resides at 74 Portuguese Bend Road.
Both appellants reside within five hundred feet of the exterior
boundaries of the Tucker property. The records of the Planning
Commission establish that notice was given to both appellants as
required by Section 8.06, Paragraph A, subparagraph 2. The
records of the Planning Commission also indicate that a public
hearing was held in connection with this matter and that neither
of the appellants, orally or in writing, protested the granting of
the Conditional Use Permit prior to the Planning Commissions
making its decision on July 19.
At that hearing, Dr. Kelly was present but made no protest or argu-
ment, either orally or in writing, either for or against the granting
of the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Nahrwold was not present.
Hon. Donald Crocker, Mayor
August 8, 1977
Page Two
The two appeals are dated August 3, 1977, and I assume they were
received by the Secretary of the Planning Commission on that date.
Dr. Kelly's appeal, in effect, is based on the premise that pro-
testing persons referred to in Section 6. 14 can make a protest at
any time within the twenty calendar days after the filing of the notice
of decision by the Planning Commission. The appeal of Mr. Nahr-
wold does not specifically mention any grounds of appeal, but is
general in nature.
Section 6. 14 reads as follows:
"Section 6.14: Appeal from Decision of the Planning
Commission. The action by the Planning Commission
in matters described in this part shall be by majority
vote and shall be final, conclusive and effective twenty
(20) calendar days after the filing of notice, as provided
in Section 6. 07, unless within said twenty calendar -day
period an appeal in writing is filed with the City' Clerk
by the applicant or by any person who protested the
application a matter of record, and who in addition,
received or was entitled to receive the written notice
specified in Section 8.06 of this Ordinance. "
(emphasis added)
To determine the validity of the position of the appellants, it is
necessary to interpret not only Section 6. 14 but to analyze the
entire Zoning Ordinance, specifically Article VI in its entirety,
and Section 6. 14 cannot be interpreted alone,but it is necessary
to refer to the other sections mentioned therein: The pertinent
portions of Section 6. 14 are as ' follows i
1. The decision of the Commission must be by majority
vote and shall be final and conclusive twenty calendar days after the
filing of notice of decision unless within the twenty calendar day
period an appeal is filed;
2. The parties who are entitled to appeal are
(A) The applicant
(B) Any person who protested the application
a matter of record and who also received or was entitled
to receive the written notice specified in Section 8. 06.
Hon. Donald Crocker, Mayor
August 8, 1977
Page Three
The notices referred to in Section 8. 06 provide as follows:
"1. At least one publication in a newspaper of
general circulation in the City of Rolling Hills, or if there
are none, in a newspaper of general circulation in the
county nearest thereto, not less than ten calendar days
before the date of said public hearing;
112. And by mailing a written notice thereof
not less than five calendar days prior to the date of such
hearing, to the owners of the property concerned and to
the owners of property located within five hundred feet of
the exterior boundaries of the subject property "
At the outset, your attention is directed to the obvious clerical and
typographical errors which have been underlined. At my request,
June Cunningham has examined the original draft of this Ordinance
as prepared by the Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission, and
she has discovered that Section 6. 14 of the original draft was corrected
by one of the then -clerks of the City to show. that Section 6. 07 should be
Section 6. 09; however, the same clerk apparently missed the typographical
error which omitted the word "as" in front of "a matter of record. " An
examination of Sections 6. 07 and 6. 09 indicates that neither section has
any connection with the decision of the Planning Commission and that the
correct section number that should have been inserted in Section 6. 14 is
Section 6. 10. However I am of the opinion that these two errors do not
go to the substance of the section and that neither causes any vagueness
or indefiniteness in exactly what procedures an appellant should . follow to
perfect an appeal. This opinion is based on the fact that the customary
procedure followed in matters of this nature by the Planning Commis-
sion is that it announces its decision at a hearing when either the
applicant or his attorney is present, and secondly that within ten days
thereafter, the secretary of the Planning Commission gives notice of
the decision to the applicant and to all interested parties as required
by Section 6. 10. This procedure has been followed in each appeal,
and I have been assured by June Cunningham, the secretary of the
Planning Commission, that this procedure has been followed in all
matters heard by the Planning Commission. I am further advised that
each prospective appellant invariably requests information from the
Secretary of the Planning Commission as to the time in which to file an
appeal. Any confusion as to who is a person w•ho protested the applica-
tion "a matter of record", is •immediately resolved by reference to
Section 6. 10 which establishes the meaning of that phrase. Section
6. 10 provides as follows:
• •
Hon. Donald Crocker, Mayor
August 8, 1977
Page Four
"Section 6. 10: Notice of Decision of Planning Commission.
Not later than ten (1U) calendar clays following the rendering
of a decision ordering that a variance or conditional use per-
mit be granted or denied, a copy of the report shall be mailed
to the applicant at the address shown on the application filed
with the Planning Commission as well as to all persons who
appear of record, with names and addresses in opposition to
the application, as well as to the City Clerk, City Adminis-
trator, and each member of the City Council."
(emphasis added)
I am of the opinion that the above outlined language must by necessity
refer to those individuals who appeared either in person, giving his
name and address, and protested the application, . or filed with the
Secretary of the Planning Commission, during the hearings, a writing
opposing the application, and also stating his name and address.
The word "record" is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as:
"The record is the official and authentic history of the
cause, consisting in entries of each successive step in
the proceedings, chronicling the various acts of the
parties and of the Court, couched in the formal language
established by usage, terminating with the judgment
rendered in the cause.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines "record" as:.
"An official contemporaneous document recording the acts
of some public body or public officer. "
The quoted definitions from Black and Webster indicate quite clearly
that the record of the Planning Commission's hearings consists of
those items mentioned in Section 6. 16 of the Ordinance, and the record
terminates when the Planning Commission makes its decision. It is
true that this decision is not final unless within twenty calendar days
no appeal in writing is filed with the City Clerk by any of the persons
entitled to appeal. It is impossible, however, during that period to add
anything to the record as it has been completed and ended with the making
of the decision.
If, as contended by Dr. Kelly, he is a person w•ho may protest the appli-
cation of Dr. Tucker, after the Planning Commission has made its
decision but within the twenty -day period provided for in which to appeal,
Hon. Donald Crocker, Mayor
August 8, 1977
Page Five
then, in fairness to the applicant, it would be necessary for the
Planning Commission to reopen the hearing not only to hear Dr.
Kelly's opposition but also, just as importantly, to give the appli-
cant an opportunity to respond thereto. I do not believe such a
procedure was intended by the framers of •this Ordinance as the
language clearly indicates that .the Planning Commission's decision
is final and conclusive unless within a twenty -day period an appeal
is made by the parties mentioned in Section 6.14.
Accordingly, I believe that Section 6. 14 is not so vague as to make
it invalid and that the clerical and typographical errors do not destroy
the clear meaning and intent of the ordinance and to interpret the
ordinance otherwise would be to ignore the legislative intent and would
force an unnatural and unreasonable meaning to the clauses which are
inaccurate when read in context.
In Town of Atherton vs Templeton, 17 CR 680, a case involving the
interpretation of the word "structure" in a zoning ordinance (which,
incidentally, involved a tennis court), the District Court of Appeal
for the First District said:
"In any event, a legislative enactment clearly cannot
be interpreted in such a manner as to ignore the plain
meaning of its language, and that it should be inter-
preted in such a manner which will leave its provisions
constitutional and operative, as the courts clearly are
not entitled to ignore the express language of an enact-
ment. "
Also, in Warner vs Kenny, 27 C 2d 627, 629, 165 P 2d 889, 890, the
court held, in interpreting an ordinance, as follows:
"The interpretation adopted must be reasonable and
where the language is fairly susceptible of two con-
structions, one which, in application, will render it
reasonable, fair and harmonious with its manifest
purpose, and another which would be productive of
absurd consequences, the former construction will
be adopted."
It is possible that Section 6. 14 could be susceptible of two conclusions;
however, as stated in Warner vs Kenny above, the conclusion in the
application of the interpretation which renders a fair, reasonable and
Hon. Donald Crocker, Mayor
August 8, 1977
Page Six
harmonious manifestation of this section, is one which follows the
declaration that both appeals are invalid.
Respectfully submitted,
William Kinley
• •
GRACE A. NIXON - 58 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD - ROLLING HILLS. CALIFORNIA 90274
July 25, 1977
Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
Dear Sirs:
I would like to voice my objection to a paddle tennis
court with its accompanying chain link fence becoming
a perminant fixture in my view of Rolling Hills. Where
as this development may indeed prove to enhance the
appraised value of the applicants land, it could
detract from mine. Aside from appraised values,
this fence and court have no place on such a prominant
location and in view of so many, in my openion.
My being out of town has prevented my making my views
known earlier.
Thank you.
Since
Grace A. Nixon
July 25, 1977
City Council
City of Rolling Hills
Subject: Tucker; Paddle tennis court
I am writing to express my opposition to the above mentioned court, which
was approved by the Planning Commission.
Inasmuch as my property is more than 500 feet from the Tucker's pro-
perty, I had no way of knowing that the Planning Commision was hearing the
case until after the fact. (Although the proposed court is surely visible
from bqy property).
I feel, along with my neighbors, that this court, with a chain link
fence of whatever height, would havea visual impact detrimental to the area.
I have just personally had constructed a corral, with an approved three -
rail wooden fence, to the exact architectural code specifications. NO WAY
would a chain link fence of any height have been approved to contain my ani-
mals.
Why is there a dual standard? If tennis courts can have chain link fences,
why can't horse owners have the same? Obviously the answer is that the codes
and standards of Rolling Hills have required the white wood fences because they
enhance the rural atmosphere.
Kenneth Watts
# 1 Wrangler Rd., R.H.
July 25, 1977
Dear Mombors of tho Rolling Hills City Council:
I am writing this-lottor in the hope that somehow a grave error
can be proventod... approval of the Tucker paddle4onnis court
on Packsaddle Road.
I certainly cannot be accused of being anti -tennis since I havo
activoly boon involved in the tonnis movement and have even
boon outspoken when I felt tennis court approval was being
withhold when the proposed court would have little or noC'
visibility or impact on the environment. I waf) reticent about
the use of "Conditional Use Permits" for paddle-tonnis and
tennis courts in that this instrument might be applied not
just for very obtoctionable or questionably objectionable
instanc s, but as a uniform weapon against all tennis courts,
Now, to my amazement, as blatantly an objectionable sitc,,
as possible with the highest visibility has been approved .
by the PlanningCommission for a paddle-tonilis court.
This is 'the typo of caSe I presumed the “Coqional Use Pormit"
was conceived in order to protect the city' environment.
I do not wish to attack the Planning Commission since approval
may well have happoned through misunderstanding or lack of
apProciation how this court will'look from the lower FlYixig
Triangle.
If this error stands, I predict, tho court will rival the now
speculation-house'on tho woot side of Portuguese Bond Road
for comments as "How did it happen?" or "Who approved that?"
Though I do enjoy tennis, it is imperative that we bo dedicated
to preserve our natural onVironment and I fool that thie
Tucker court is in direct Conflict with this goal.
Please help avert a mistake which we do not want to bo
forcod to live with.
Rospectfull
Diok Hoffman
73 Portuguese Bend Road
22 July 1977
To the, City Council of Rolling Hills:
We wish to express our surprise and displeasure over the
decision made on July 19, 1977 by the Planning Commission
concerning the TUCKER paddle -tennis court on Packsaddle Road.
If this court is constructed, it will have more visibility
to a larger number of homes in our city than any other
tennis or paddle tennis court ever approved.
It's chain -link fence and concrete pad will stand out in
one of the most natural and unmarred views within the city.
We feel it will be looked upon for years as a sorry mistake
detracting from the beauty of the neighborhood.
With the safeguard of the "Conditional Use Permit" to prevent
this type of development, we are amazed that we now have to
register our protest at the Council level; However, before
it is too late, we trust you will take action to re-evaluate
,his decion.
c/L
73 Po,,fTd6uLT„
tu
6171P'4L
634.
62-6)
.4._ 4-
, �
- 4-s 11-ZZ�d.�. Q �.—
aAJF
r.727.
4W frat,.
e"?
�. 2,9 ,v 6 A-
zWRI?2*4/: 4 a a
�0 � ,2
* e� okt-0x,k3Z
cz_zi
Y/etAy_ r6,1,pto
6 �l aid RI
July 22,'1977
Dr. ,.and Mrs. S. Edward Tucker
3: Packsaddle Road West
Rolling Hills, California . 90274,
'.Dear_Dr. ' and.;Mrs. Tucker,
Enclosed isa copy of an appeal filed with the
City of ., Rolling Hills on Friday, July 22, 1977.
in connection with approval of your application
far:,a conditional use: permit by the Planning
Commission on July 19.
The: matter will be considered by the . City Council
at the regular meeting on Monday, July 25, 1977
at 7:30. P.M.
ti
Very truly yours,
June C. Cunningham
Deputy City Clerk
Dr.. and Mrs. S. Edward Tucker
3 Packsaddle Road West
Rolling Hills;,California 90274'
Dr and 'Mrs.:. Tucker,.;;
At its meeting, on July 19, 1977.the City of .Rolling
Hills Planning Commission reviewed Zoning Case No. 195,
request for conditional use permit for a paddle
tennis court on Lot 16A-17 SF at 3 Packsaddle Road
West: After discussion the Planning Commission voted
to approve the request, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the proposed fence .be a maximum ofeight 'feet
'
in height, of a uniform green or black plastic
coated chain link.
. ' That :::the proposed paddle .tennis court be developed
exactly as shown. on ,thesite plan dated May 13, 1977
submitted by the applicant.
▪ That the proposed., tennis' court fences, retaining walls
and, slopes be; landscaped with screen planting to the
satisfaction of the City Planning Commission; and the
Landscape Comrittee ; of ;the;; Rollin; Hills Community
Association., Seven copies ' of said landscape plan
shall be submitted to the. Planning Commission after
approval by the Landscape Committee.
Dr. and Mrs. Tucker
July 21, 1977 (Page 2)
4.That .a faithful performance -bond in the sum of 75%
ofthe bid by nursery or landscape architect shall
be depoHted with the City of. Rolling Hills for .a
period of not less than two years and made part of
this grant prior to anyconstruction on the project.
Said grant shall be effective twenty days from the
date,of receipt of this notice, during which time
appeals may be made to .the conditions or to the grant
itself.
Very: truly yours,
June C . Cunningham
,Deputy City Clerk
CRaINCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
February 8, 2016
Ms. Patricia Waldeck
Ms. Deborah Tull
5 Buckboard Trail
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
RE: Sport court landscape screening and lighting — 3 Packsaddle West
Dear Ms. Waldeck and Ms. Tull:
As you know the City has requested that you install vegetation screening of the sport court
on your Packsaddle Property to address a complaint, in compliance with a Conditional Use
Permit issued by the Rolling Hills Planning Commission in 1977 (per email 10/ 26 / 15)
In addition, as a result of another complaint, on December 5, 2015 the City sent you a letter
requesting that you check your outdoor lighting in the vicinity of the garage and if necessary,
adjust to comply with the City's Outdoor Lighting Ordinance.
As far as we know, both of these items remain unresolved at this time.
The City is aware that you have not yet moved to the property and you are also working to
make a number of significant unanticipated repairs since taking ownership last fall.
Based on my phone conversation recently with Ms. Waldeck, the following is my
understanding of your position on both of these complaint issues:
Sport court screening:
You wish to have visual access into the side of the court from your home above, through the
observation deck and are agreeable to finding a mutually acceptable solution, which will
solve the complaint. Repainting the observation area canopy and supports from white
(which stands out) to a color that might blend in with the surrounding area is a possible
solution, subject to your approval of the color (may also require RHCA approval). Another
possible solution is to plant additional vegetation up hill from the court that would be an
effective block of the sport court from across the canyon.
Please note also in checking the CUP documents, the only reference in the conditions of
approval to a paint color was the following: "All proposed walls shall be a uniform earthen
color. The color and material shall be approved by the Planning Commission" (taken from a
list of standard tennis court conditions applied to this site).
Garage lighting:
You believe motion triggered lights on (2) low profile pilasters at the edge of the driveway
may be causing the problem, or under-eave lights located at the garage roof may be what is
being seen by a neighbor. After visiting your property the City does not believe that the
pilaster lights could be visible to the complaining party and we think it is more possible that
the fixtures on the garage wall are the source. Please recheck the lights on the garage wall to
see if they are operational and to see if they could be a code violation.
We ask that you work with the City without delay on finding solutions to both complaints.
We understand that you have some very pressing repairs but we request that you bring the
garage lighting, as needed, into compliance with the lighting regulations no later than
February 15. We request that you identify a solution for the sport court screening no later
than March 1 and complete any necessary modification no later than Avril lst
Please feel free to contact me at 310-377-1521 if you have any questions or further comments.
Rosemary Lackow
Planning Assistant
c: Raymond Cruz, City Manager
-2-