171, Construct a tennis court, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsBEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS,
2 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, • STATE OF CALIFORNIA
3
4 In the Matter of 'the• Application of •)
)
5 NANCY and HOWARD SLUSHER, ) Zoning Case No. 171
)
6 . Lot 19F.To )
7
8
.9
FINDINGS AND REPORT
10 The application of Nancy and Howard Slusher, Lot 19 F. T. , for
11 a Conditional Use Permit under Article 3, Section 3.01, paragraph (D),
12 subparagraph 3(c), of Ordinance No. 33 as amended by Ordinance No. 112,
13 for construction of a•tennis court, came on for hearing on the 19th day of
a 14 October, 1976, in the Council Chambers of the.Administration Building of
15 ' the City of Rolling Hills, at No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills,
ta
< o n 16 California, and the applicants being present in person and having submitted
Rulw„
ax 17 evidence in support of their application, and the Planning Commission
N L ; 18 having determined that it was necessary to physically examine and view the
. 19 site.of the proposed tennis court, and the matter being continued to. November
20 13, 1976, at 9 a.m., for the purpose of examining and viewing the proposed
21 tennis court site at 61 Portuguese Bend Road, and the Planning Commission
22 having met on November 13, 1976, and having physically examined and
23 viewed the site of the proposed tennis court and the matter then being
24 continued to November 16, 1976, and the applicants having been present
25 and represented by their counsel, Frank deMarco, and evidence, oral and
26 documentary, having been presented by the applicant, and numerous com.
27 munications having been submitted in writing to the Commission, both in
28 favor of and against the granting of said Conditional Use Permit, and resi-
29 dents of the City of Rolling Hills having testified in person, both for and
30 against the granting of said Conditional Use Permit, and the Commission
31 having taken the matter under submission and the matter continued for
32 decision until December 7, 1976, at which time applicants and their attorney
•
•
•
1 were present, the Planning Commission, on its own. motion, reopened
2 the hearing on the applicants' application for said Conditional Use Permit,
3 for the purpose of taking additional evidence, and thereafter continued the
4 hearing until January 18, 1977, and applicants being present in person
5 and represented by their counsel, Frank deMarco, and evidence both
6 oral and documentary having been submitted by the staff of the City of
•
7 Rolling Hills to the Planning Commission and applicants having had an
8 opportunity to offer additional evidence and having declined to do so,
9 and applicants having argued the matter before the Commission, the
10 Planning Commission beingfully advised, now makes its .findings and
11 formal report as required by Ordinance No. 33, •as amended, of the City
12 of Rolling Hills, California:
13
14 I
¢ N
g 15
The Commission finds that the applicants, Nancy and Howard
• 4n
n . �-6 Slusher, -are the owners of a certain parcel of real property located in the
▪ ►5 6 x .17 City -of Rolling Hills, California, described as:
z m x °
a • w 18 Lot 19 in the City of Rolling Hills, County of
m
o19 Los Angeles, State of California, as shown
3• a 20
on Record of Survey Map filed in Book 57,
21 Pages 4 to 8 of Records of Surveys in the
22 Office of the County Recorder of said
23 County.
24 S aid parcel is also designated as Lot 19 F. T. (Flying Triangle), and is
25 known by street and number as 61 Portuguese Bend Road.
26 II
27 II
28 Notice of the public hearing in connection with the application of
29 Nancy and Howard Slusher for a Conditional Use Permit for the construc-
30 tion of a tennis court on the above described real property was given as
31 required by Sections 8.06 and 8.07 of Ordinance No. 33, as amended, of
32 the City of Rolling Hills, California.
-2-
a
< N
o
y.
W Do
03a�
Z 4 z
E
zm • °a
N aI
<
$cD
s-'
to
1 III
2 Applicants proposed to construct a tennis court in the rear yard
3 of the above described real 'property whichparcel of real property contains
4 approximately 2.3 acres and that in addition there is proposed to be con-
5 structed on said property a house and swimming pool and a stable containing
•
6 three stalls. That said tennis court is proposed to be constructed five feet
7 below theexisting grade surrounded by a retaining wall and that the area on
8 which the tennis court is to be constructed shows no evidence that the pro-
9 posed tennis court would undermine the stability of the adjacent property or
10 the tennis court pad itself.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 The proposed tennis court is to be located 100 feet from the site
22 of the proposed residence on the subject property and would be 118 feet from
23 the residential site of the property, adjoining applicants' property, occupied
24, by Mr.' and Mrs. Roy Melbye.
25
26 VI
27 - That all of the City _of Rolling Hillsis zoned for residential-
28 agriculture, except for a small area zoned "limited commercial" at the
291 northern boundary of the City. Applicants' property is located in a rest-
30 dential agriculture one -acre minimum zone designated as the "Flying
31 I Triangle" which consists of a shallow canyon running in a generally south-
32 westerly direction from, Crest Road in the City of Rolling Hills, toward the
IV
Applicants proposed to screen said tennis court by landscaping
and applicants would maintain the same as required. Exhibit G, in evi-
dence, showing the proposed landscaping of the tennis court, indicated that
the landscaping will be planted in the easement extending around the peri-
meter of said property, in violation of the uses for which the easement
was reserved.
-3-
1 ocean. The entire areais secluded from the rest of the City of Rolling
2 . Hills and is rural in nature, quiet,, and except for existing homes, remains
3
4
5
6
in its natural state; the view from the entire area is toward the ocean and
consists of Open vistas down through a canyon with a .steep wall on its
westerly side.
7 VII
8 That sound level measurements were taken of tennis court noise
9 of singles' and doubles' tennis matches, between hard-hitting and inter-
10. mediate caliber players, which measurements included the typical speech
11 levels during a doubles match. Measurements were also taken of the
12 ambient sound .levels at or near the location of applicants'. property on
13 December 13, 1976, at about 2:30 p.m.; the only distant noises heard
• 14 were caused by the passing of an occasional car and distant house con-
o < 15 struction; there was no wind noise, birds, or resident activity during the
.J maw
z <xo 16
ts,taking::of the measurements; the ambient measurement was in the range
Q • w�
<�X 17 of thirty to fifty d.B.A.
N ID5E 18
• 0,z 19 VIII
ro
20 The noise from applicants' tennis court will be detectable from.
21 adjoining properties. Depending on the ambient at the time, noise from
22 all sources will be detectable up to 250 feet away. Loud voices will be
23 -exceptionally noticeable but will be infrequent. Ball hitting the fence will
24 also be detectable and the ball hitting the racquet will be heard, depending
25 upon the background.
26 .
27 IX
28 The area in which the court is to be located has an unusually
29 quiet background. The degree of annoyance to adjoining property owners
30 will depend on their attitudes. With the background sound level of 35
31 d. B. A. , the noise caused by a ball hitting a racquet can be detected at
32 250 feet.. Noise from loud voices can be heard for 2, 500 feet. The noise
-4-
1 from .a ball hitting a fence can be heard from 150 feet.
2
3 X
4 Ingress and egress to the applicants' property is over private
5 roads which are winding, narrow, and with verylittle shoulder extending
6 from the paved surface of the road. Applicants' property is located at
7 the intersection of Portuguese Bend Road and Wrangler Road, and running
8 through applicants' property is a surface water stream which commences
'9 at the easterly boundary of the property and extends generally in a westerly
10 and southwesterly direction. The property slopes generally in a south-
westerly direction and is comparatively flat and the proposed location
12 for the tennis court is on a portion of the property which will require cut
13 and fill.
14
iN
15 XI
�4n
16 Construction of applicants' tennis court would not increase the
Qigwo $ a
a x 17 - . value :of adjoining property -and would -not decrease the value,. if it did not
zn.
a 4 .9 18 intrude upon theview of the adjoining landowner and were far enough away
Wg
r6 19 from the residential dwelling so as not to create annoying sounds, is not
'° .20 lighted during the nighttime hours, and does not detract from the rural
21 atmosphere of the area in which the adjoining properties are located.
22
23 XII•
24 That the following residents: Betsy Raine, Mary Lean, Norman
25 Lean, Carole Hoffman, Vickie Wallace, France 'Raine, Bruce Raine, Dick
26 Hoffman, Mr. and Mrs. Julien Tielens, and Major Langer, have filed their
27 written petition favoring the granting of said Conditional Use Permitto the
28 applicants. That the following residents: Dr. ArthurPedersen, _Karen
29 ! Andrews, August Rihaczek, Margaret Jo Mottola, Vyola Ortner, Kenneth
30 ' Watts, Ethelyn Wilihite, and Mr. and Mrs. Roy Melbye, and Mrs. Lucy
31 Agid and Aline Hosman, have filed their written communications objecting
32 to the granting of said Conditional, Use Permit to applicants. That all of
-5-
• p I V
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
aN
•�0 o 15
}•]
m
m <
.igg 16
z�='` 17
a 18
m
g
0)6
19
E
03 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29:
30
31'
32
1 said signatory to the written communications are residents of the City of
2 Rolling Hills and own and occupy residential property in close proximity to
3 the .applicants' property, excepting August Rihaczek and Margaret J. Mottola.
4
5 XIII
6 Mrs. Kathy Watts, Mr. Donald Crocker, Mr. Roy Melbye; Mrs.
7 May Peistor, Dr. Larry Kelly, Mr. HarryAndrews, and 'Mrs. Catherine
Partridge appeared and testified against the granting of the Conditional Use
Permit.
FORMAL REPORT
1. The granting of the Conditional Use Permit
to .applicantswbuld
either destroy or intrude upon the rural nature and quiet atmosphere of the
Flying Triangle area as it presently exists and would infringe upon the seclu-
sion and privacy of the owners of adjoining residential property.
2. From the foregoing, it is concluded that the Conditional Use
Permit should not be granted to the applicants, Nancy and Howard Slusher,
as the granting of such a Permit would be inconsistent with the purposes and
objectives of Ordinance No. 33 as amended, as said purposes are set forth
in Section 1.01 of said Ordinance and would be contrary and undesirable to
the convenience and general welfare of the public..
Dated: February 7, 1977.
'I
/f t ./.�
Chairman of the i_ 1a`ning Comssion
Secretary of thq'P1'anning Commission
-6-
VERIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
I, the undersigned, say (check applicable paragraph):
I am a party to this action. I have read the above document and know its contents. The matters stated in it are true of my
own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to
be true.
I am an officer a partner of •
a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this .. •
verification for that reason. I have read the above document and know its contents. I am informed and believe and on that
ground allege that the matters stated in it are true.
I am one of the attorneys for ' • •
a party to this action. Such party is absent from the county aforesaid where such attorneys have their office, and I make this
verification for and on behalf of that party for that reason. I have read the above document and know. its contents. I am in-
formed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in it are true. "
Executed on , 19—, at ('nlifornia.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct.
Subscribed and sworn to before me thiq
(Signature)
l' ay of
Notary Public in and for said County and State
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT
•
Received copy of the above document on
(Signature)
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
I am a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my
19_
19
business address is
or February 7, 19 77 , I served the above document on Howard "S S. SlnshPr anti Frank
DeMarce, this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United
States mail at Rolling Hills Estates
addressed as follows:
❑
Howard'S. Slusher
105 NietoAvenue
Long Beach, Ca. 90803
Frank DeMarco
Attorney at. Law '
700 South .Flower St., Suite 1515
Los Angeles.;. California '90017
Executed on February 7, • , 19 77at . Rolling Hills ' ' , California.
(check applicable paragraph below)
(State) I declare under penalty of perjury.that the above is true and correct.
(Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was
made.
�...� 1.
, (Signature)