0549p?
M
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
.11 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).
00Section 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
(U modified his plans for the court and submitted the modified plan'
W to the Council at its hearing on the appeal on February 24, 1986.
m Upon opening the hearing, the Council determined that the applicant
Q 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.
I,
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.
10
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, 11'
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
width on all sides for the
of landscaping,
-2-
have an area adequate in
maintenance and planting
6. Neither the court nor the landscaping required
by subdivision 5 of this subsection shall interfere .11
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;"
00 Section 10. The City Council finds that:
A. The location of the proposed tennis court is on
N the side of and is near the bottom of a well-defined canyon,
W generally known as Georgeff Canyon. This canyon runs in
a generally south/north direction (uphill to downhill) through
CO the middle of the City. Although the steepness of the sides
Q 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-
12
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.
I
13
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:
City
i UA
ly 4TClerk
certify that the orecResolution ing 14c.'
r o -L %,-0. 5c.
adoptee by the City Council of the City of Rolling !;-illls at
regular meeting thereof held on the Ilth day of August, IMG
by the --:::ollowing vote of the Councii--
'i, 1!
Counci li-:iembers -11'einsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Murdoc'-.
Swanson, Mayor Pernell
'U.-
I
o�-'�f-
O: None
Z� z S M
,
J i : 1,!one
City Cler'.