Item 6 - MCUP 95-03 Bruce & Carolyn CassellB E~FFY REXFORD, Councilmcm~r
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council/Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Poway will hold a Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers, 13325 Civic
Center Drive, Poway, California 92064 on Tuesday, Hay 9, 1995, at 7:00 p.m.~
or as soon as possible thereafter to consider the following item:
Minor Conditional Use Permit 95-03, Bruce and Carolyn Cassell
Applicants: A request to construct a lighted tennis court at 13712
Paseo Valle Alto, in Green Valley Estates in the RR-B zone.
The proposed project is Categorically Exempt (meaning the project is
determined not to have a significant effect on the environment in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act).
APN: 275-270-64
ANY INTERESTED PERSON may review the staff report and the plans for this
project at the City of Poway Planning Service~, 13325'Civic Center Drive,
Poway, California. Additional information is available from Marijo Van Dyke,
staff planner on this project, by telephone at (619) 679-4294.
If you wish to express concerns in favor or against the above, you may appear
in person at the above described meeting or submit your concerns in writing to
the City Clerk, City of Poway.
IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK at the meeting, please fill out one of the speaker's
slips which are located at the back of the Council Chambers, to the right of
the door as you enter. Use a green slip if you are in favor of staff's
recommendation or a red slip if you are opposed. The agenda, which gives the
order of the meeting, is also located there. You must give the speaker's slip
to the City Clerk prior to the meeting or prior to the subject item in order
to be called to the podium to speak.
If you challenge the matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or
prior to, the public hearing.
If you have special needs requiring assistance at the meeting, please call the
City Clerk at 679-4236 24 hours prior to the meeting so that accommodation can
be arranged.
Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive ~AY 1995 ITEM
Mailing Address' P.O. Box 789, Poway, California 92074-0789 · (619) 748-6600, 695-1400--~
/' CITY OF POWAY
DON HIOGINSON, Mayor
BOB EMERY, Depuly Mayor
B. TONY SNESKO, Coun¢ilmcmber
SUSAN CALLERY, Councilmember
MICKEY CAF^GNA, Councilmember
July 25, 1994
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Department of Planning Services of
the city of Poway will be considering the following project for
approval on August 4, 1994.
Minor Development Review, MDRA 94--33~ FF&E Trust
Applicant: A request to construct a 5,147 square foot,
single-story home with a ~ennis court,..pad on a 2.0 acre
lot located at 13712 Paseo Valle Alto~in the RR-C zone.
This project will include grading t_~ create a level
building pad at an elevation of approxi~tely 844.3 feet
and tennis court pad elevation of approximately 833 feet.
The plans for this project are available for review at the
Department of Planning Services, 13325 Civic Center Drive. If you
wish to express concerns in favor of or against the proposed
project you may appear in person, submit comments in writing, or
may contact Marijo Van Dyke at 679-4294 and 695-1400, extension
294.
Neither the notice of approval or disapproval nor any other notice
concerning this project will be sent to you unless you specifically
request it.
If the application is approved, you have the right to appeal the
approval to the City Council. The appeal must be filed in writing
within 15 calendar days of the approval and must be accompanied by
the $100 appeals fee. Please contact the City Clerk's office at
679-4238 or 695-1400 for further information.
City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Dri',I~AY 9 1995
ITEM
~"'"~Mailing Address: P.O. Box 789, Poway, California 92074-0789 · (619) 748-6600, 695-1400
Printed on Recycled Paper
k_.,ITY OF POWAY
N HIGGINSON, Mayor
BOB EMERY, Deputy Mayor
B. TONY SNESKO, Councilmember
SUSAN CALLER Y, Councilnaember
MICKEY CAFAGNA, Councilmember
November 2, 1993
PUBLIC NOTICE
Revised Project
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Department-of Planning Services of
the City of Poway will be considering the following project for
approval on November 12, 1993.
Minor Development Review, MDRA 93-51, Larry Smith
Applicant: A request to construct a 4668 square foot,
one-story, single-family home and a tennis court on the
property located at 13712 Paseo Val~e Alto\Ro~d within
- the RR-B zone. The project will includ~ grading to
create a level building pad' at 'an e~evation of
approximately 845 feet and a tennis courtlpad at 833
feet. Cut/fill contour slopes will have a maximum height
of approximately 12 feet.
APN: 275-270-64 ~16,~t..~ .
The plans for this project are available for review at the
Department of Planning Services, 13325 Civic Center Drive. If you
wish to express concerns in favor of or against the proposed
project you may ~ppear in person, submit comments in writing, or
may contact Carol M. Rosas at 679-4297 and 695-1400, extension 297.
Neither the notice of approval or disapproval nor any other notice
concerning this project will be sent to you unless you specifically
request it.
If the application is approved, you have the right to appeal the
approval to the City Council. The appeal must be filed in writing
within 15 calendar days of the approval and must be accompanied by
the $100 appeals fee. Please contact the City Clerk,s office at
679-4238 or 695-1400 for further information.
t IAY 9 1995 ITEM "
City Hall Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive
Mailing Address. P.O. Box 789, Poway, California 92074-0789 · (619) 748-6600, 695-1400j
~?'~PAULDING
CUTOFF
FEATURE
Recreational play-'
Fixture Catalog # ................. CET-IOOO-M
Color and Voltage to be determined
Fixture Type ...... ' ......1000 watt-Metal Halide
KW Load/Court ~ .~ ........... 6.SKW
Fixture Spacing ~ ~...; :i ......... 36'-
Fixture Mounting Height .............. :..(~.~'20' _,~..~..
Footcend,e ^ver.ge o. co.. ..............
~;A¥ 9 199,5 ITEM
TO: Honorable ~-~,or and Members of the City--Council May 9, 1995
FROM: Robert Cone ~, 13732 Paseo Valle Alto, ~way
SUBJECT: MCUP ~95-03 FOR TENNIS COURT LIGHTS
On May l, 1995 I delivered a letter to the Mayor outlining my serious
concerns regarding the proposed lights for the Cassell's tennis court.
To be neighborly, I proposed some requirements necessary to make the
lights compatible with the neighboring properties and the community.
Due to new information, my position has changed. I now OPPOSE the
lights. I have learned that the City refuses to require the use of
"low sodium" lights to reduce glare. In addition, the elevation of
the court now cannot be changed since the concrete slab has already
been poured. I have also learned that there has been no landscaping
plan submitted to show how the lights will be screened from view.
have aisc learned that the City does not enforce an effective landscape
plan even if it does exist. In addition, I have learned from the owners
of lots adjoining lighted courts in our community, that the detrimental
affects of lighted courts are severe. Consequently, I must now oppose
the installation of these lights for ail the above reasons, and those
stated below.
1. NOISE and GLARE OF LIGHTS:
The noise created by possibly four tennis players and the bails being
hit, and the glare of the lights coming into my family's backyard and
bedroom windows will disrupt our ability to enjoy our property and to
sleep. My elementary school age daughter's bedroom directly overlooks
the Cassell's court. My profession requires that I often must get up
very early to trade international markets, and therefore I must get to
bed early the evening before. My bedroom is adjacent to the Casseil's
property line and it also directly overlooks the Casseil's court (see
lot map - exhibit Wi). Sound carries too well and bounces off the
walls of the large homes and the mountains in our valley. My family
likes to use our jacuzzi in the evening, and the noise and the glare of
the lights will DESTROY our ability to enjoy the peace and quiet, and
the stars, which is one of the reasons we bought a lot in Green Valley
Estates, away from any road noise and city lights.
2. AESTHETIC DAMAGE TO THE COMMUNITY:
I decided not to install lights on my own tennis court because after
putting up wood poles to simulate the height of the light poles, it was
OBVIOUS that the view from the main street, and from my home, would be
SERIOUSLY DAMAGED by the unsightly steel poles and light fixture boxes.
The Cassell's court is DIRECTLY on our main street and the pad is
already elevated 12 feet above the corner of the El Camino Entrada and
Paseo Valle Alto where it is located. The addition of eight 22 foot
high light poles and fixtures will TOWER 12 + 22 = 84 feet above our
main street. This will create a terrible EYESORE as you drive down our
main street, and it will destroy the aesthetic beauty and property
values of our community. Unsightly light fixtures have no place on our
main street. They should only be allowed in locations where the court
is HIDDEN and not in PLAIN VIEW view of the entire community. The
Casseil's may not even realize that their own lights poles and fixtures
will come up to a height that is ABOVE the eaves of their roof, and they
will therefore see nothing but a FOREST OF STEEL poles and boxes when
they try to observe the view f~om ALL their main rooms, their pool, and
their backyard!
3. CC&R'S DO NOT ALLOW LIGHTS:
Page 24 of the Green Valley estates CC&R's (exhibit ~2) specifically
states that:
"Lights are NOT permitted upon tennis courts" ~
The CC&R's require special approval of the Architectural Control
Committee, and on p~ ~ 35 (exhibit ~3), the CC&r--~ stipulate that this
committee shall:
"insure that the proposed improvement will NOT DETRACT from the
APPEARANCE of the project, or otherwise create ANY CONDITION
unreasonably DISADVANTAGEOUS to OTHER OWNERS or DETRIMENTAL to
the PROJECT as a whole."
The aesthetic damage from the Casseli's eight light poles and fixtures
towering in plain view 34 feet above our main street, and my family's
loss of sleep, and enjoyment of our backyard, CLEARLY violates BOTH the
conditions the Committee is charged with protecting since these lights
ARE "unreasonably DISADVANTAGEOUS to OTHER OWNERS" and "DETRIMENTAL to
the PROJECT as a whole."
Amazingly, this Committee never bothered to ask EITHER of the two
DIRECTLY AFFECTED residents, myself and Dr. Maresh, if we had any
concerns about the Cassell's proposed lights, even though the committee
had knowledge of these planned lights back in March, when Larry Smith
signed the City's Notification Form (exhibit 94) giving the Committee's
approval by returning the form to the City without any comments or
concerns stated. The committee's failure to get input from us before
approving these lights clearly shows that its decision process is flawed
and incomplete, and therefore its approval INVALID. In fact, a conflict
of interest exists in that Larry Smith is the real estate salesperson
that sold the lot to the Cassell's, and also sells the remaining vacant
lots in the development. Strangely, Mr. Barker, our Association
President, has given Mr. Smith written permission to sign these City
Notification Forms on behalf of Board and the Committee (see letter to
the City - exhibit ~5), even though Mr. Smith neither lives in our
development, nor does he own any property here. This has resulted in
the failure of this Committee to protect the Association members.
Consequently, with no VALID investigation or approval from the
committee, the basic CC&R requirement that "Lights are NOT permitted
upon tennis courts" MUST be honored by the Cassell's and the City.
4. LIGHTS NOT NORMALLY INSTALLED:
In Green Valley Estates and the neighboring Summit, there are 13 tennis
courts and only 4 are lighted. NONE of the 3 courts completed in Phase
1 of Green Valley Estates have lights. Therefore it is NOT the norm for
lights to be installed. They are obviously NOT necessary for enjoyment
of a tennis court. Therefore they should NOT be allowed in any case
where they are "unreasonably DISADVANTAGEOUS to OTHER OWNERS or
DETRIMENTAL to the PROJECT as a whole". I have clearly shown above that
Cassell's lights wiii be. In fact, lights are a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT
as evidenced by the fact that the MDRA~94-33 approval (exhibit ~6) for
the tennis court grading specifically stated that:
"The tennis court shall NOT be lighted."
5. NO CONSIDERATION FOR NEIGHBORS CONCERNS:
The lot developer, the Cassell's, and the City, should have been
sensitive to the needs of the EXISTING homes and families in the
development, but no such consideration has ever ~een given. The MDRA
application for the grading permit on the Cassell's lot did NOT request
that lights be approved. Therefore the elevation of the pad was NOT
chosen or approved with lights in mind. Consequently it was elevated 12
feet above the street which was NOT appropriate for a lighted court in
this conspicuous a location. Had the MDRA stated that lights should be
taken into consideration, I for one would have requested that the pad be
much lower. In March, the Green Valley Estates Architectural Control
Committee failed to inform either Dr. Maresh or myself, that lights were
being planned, so we~'ad no opportunity then to ~k that the pad be
lowered. Dr. Maresh ~sked Mr. Casse~l to let h~ know if he wanted
lights so they could discuss it and Mr. Cassell failed to do so. Mr.
Cassell also never informed me of his intentions. In fact, we had no
notification at all until we received the MCUP Public Hearing notice
from the City LESS THAN TWO WEEKS ago that the lights were requested.
Dr. Maresh and I wrote to the City immediately expressing our concerns.
We then discovered that City Staff had proposed approving the lights to
the City Council, without even waiting to see if there was any response
from the notified neighbors, and without any landscaping plan having
been submitted as required. Concurrently, the Cassell's poured the
concrete slab for the court, even before the Public Hearing, and before
the City Council had approved the elevation as acceptable for lights, so
that no change in the pad elevation would be feasible. Ali these events
constitute an OUTRAGEOUS circumvention of the neighborly and required
discussion process that SHOULD have occurred BEFORE the slab was poured,
since the elevation would be an issue now that lights were being added
to a court where the MDRA approval specifically FORBID lights!
Consequently, the pad elevation is too high and now cannot be lowered to
accommodate the extra elevation caused by the addition of lights, so the
lights cannot be permitted, unless the slab is lowered..
6. NUMBER & HEIGHT OF LIGHTS EXCESSIVE:
The proposed City Council resolution stipulates that 8 lights at a
height of 22 feet will be allowed. This is excessive and unnecessary.
Of the 3 lighted tennis courts currently in Green Valley estates, only
1 has 8 lights, the others have only 6. In addition, they are ail 20
feet high not 22 feet. The two attached tennis court lighting
manufacturer specification sheets (exhibit ~7 & 8) show that for
"Home/Recreational" play, only 6 lights are recommended and their
recommended height is only 20 feet. Given the serious detrimental
affects these lights will have on this community, there was certainly
no reason to exceed the "normal" number and height of the lights already
on the courts already in the community, or to exceed the manufacturer's
specifications.
7. LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS NOT ENFORCED:
The City Managers "Agenda Report" (exhibit 9) REQUIRES that:
"The Applicants will be required to provide the appropriate
LANDSCAPING to accomplish SCREENING OF VIEWS from the roads
as well as ADJOINING PROPERTIES"
The proposed City Council Resolution (exhibit gl0 & 11) REQUIRES that:
"the LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION, lighting design, and court materials
will allow the court to be COMPATIBLE WITH and SCREENEDT~FROM
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES" and "Installation of ail LANDSCAPE
REQUIRED FOR SCREENING THE COURT AND LIGHTS shall occur PRIOR to
final inspection."
Unfortunately, the City has CONSISTENTLY FAILED TO ENFORCE THESE
LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS and has allowed the installation of court
lights WITHOUT any effective landscaping to screen the view of the
lights from the surrounding properties. The required landscaping is
missing from ali three lighted tennis courts in Green Valley Estates.
This has caused severe loss of enjoyment and property values for both
the Maresh family (beside the Zimmer court) and the Everett family
(behind the Haddad court). I do not want the same damage done to my
family and my property value.
For all the reasons stated above, I request that the City Council
NOT approve the permit for these lights.
Temporary Structures, Tennis Court~
(f) Unless approved in writing by the Architectural Control
committee, no structure of a temporary character, trailer, tent,
shack, garage, barn, or other cut-building shall be ~sed on any Lot
at any time as a residence, either temporarily or permanently.
In order to be considered for approval by the Architectural
control committee, any such out-building's plans must be
homogeneous with the principal residence on the particular Lot.
Tennis Courts must receive pr~i~r approval by the Architectural
_ c~ntrol Co~%mittee. Lights are ~no~ permitte~ upon Ten~ls Courts
without the prior approval of the~-~rchitectural Control Committee.
Pences, Walls, Concrete Work, Trash
(g) Any fences, walls, walkways, or other concrete work shall
require the prior approval of the Architectural Control Committee.
In order to be considered for approval, any such plans must be
homogeneous with the principal residence on.the particular lot.
Ail trash shall be kept in an enclosed fenced area which is not
visible from any of the streets.
Obstruction of the Common Area
(h) There shall be no obstruction of the Common Area.
Nothing shall be stored in the Common Area without prior consent of
the Board except as hereinafter expressly provided or in designated
areas. No vehicles shall be parked overnight on the private
streets within the Project.
Alterations and Improvements
(i) No improvements of any type (other than small plants and
flowers) or any structural alteration to any improvements, or any
exterior additions or modifications to any improvements (including,
but not limited to painting), shall be made, constructed or
maintained upon any Lot unless and until' (i) %he plans and
specifications therefor showing the appearance, height, materials
and color therefor, (ii) a plot plan showing the location ~hereof
and (iii) appropriate grading plans for the site upon which any
structure is to be or is located shall have been approved by the
Board or the Architectural Control Committee in the manner set
forth in Article V hereof.
24 0049154.~p
The Co~u~ittee, before giving its approval, may impose
ndltlons or requ!re changes to be made ~hich"in'its discretion
are required to insure that the proposed improvement will not
.... ~et~act f'rom the appearance of the pr6jec~'~ 6r 0~herwi~ c~.~e,~ny***
ondltlon unreasonably disadvantageous to other owners or
de~e~al'-~6"the Project as a whole. ' ............
(c) One of the two (2) sets of submissions to the Committee
shall be retained by it. In the event the Committee approves or is
deemed to approve the activity for which consent is required, the
Committee shall endorse its consent on both copies and one (1) set
shall be mailed by the Co~u~ittee, postage prepaid, to the address
specified by the submitting party unless such party shall elect to
accept delivery thereon in person or by agent so authorized in
writing.
(d) If the Committee fails to mail its certificate with
regard to any material or matter submitted to it hereunder, within
thirty (30) days after submission to its, it shall be conclusively
presumed that the Committee has approved the specific matters as to
which approval was sought in the submission. It shall thereupon be
the duty of the members of the Committee, forthwith upon the
request of the submitting party, to sign and acknowledge a
certificate evidencing such approval.
(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 6.4(d), until
the requisite sum shall have been paid to it as provided in the
Guidelines, any material delivered to the Committee shall not be
considered to have been submitted to it for the purposes of this
Decla~ation.
(f) All action of the Committee shall be noted in the minutes
of the Board of Directors.
(g) No certificate of the Committee shall be recorded by the
Committee or any number thereof, but the same may be recorded by
the party submitting the material concerning which the certificate
was made.
(h) All action by the Committee authorized in this
Declaration shall be within its sole discretion.
(i) The provisions of this Article and the Guidelines shall
not apply with respect to the initial construction or alterations
by Declarant of improvements within the Property.
Access to Project
Section 6.5 Each member of the Committee, or any other
agent or employee of the Board, shall at all reasonable hours have
the right of access to any part of the Property, and to any
structures being built thereon, for the purpose of inspection
relative to compliance with this Declaration.
3 5 oo~91 ~, .uP
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATI~/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW-COMMITTEE
NOTIFICATION FORM
DATE: ~ --~ -~ 5
H(~neowner' s Association/Architectural
Review C(mlnittee
Applicant(s)
SU53EL~: Develot~nant Proposal
~ -~ ~OC ~'~'~'¢ e ~'~A~'~3~ propose(s) ~ ~ns~ct/es~lish:
~li~t ( s )
~scription of Project: '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~'v~,
~tion/A~ress: I~ V/O ~o U~OQ c~
~r of ~its/
~ning: ~- s~ct~es: ~-~
~oss ~e ~
f~ge of project: ~ ~ Height: ~ .....
A~lic~nt sk~ll attach a set of the project plans.
FOLLOWING IS TO BE COMPLETED BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HOMEOWNER'S
ASSOCIATION:
The Homeowner's Association/Architectural Review Committee has received ~
cop~ of the plans and ~ener~l description of the projec~ listed above.
Print Name - Title ~h~,~ O~ ~ Phone Number
Signature ~/ p Date zR- ¢~ ~ -
NOTE TO HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATIONS: Please submit any comments or
suggestions your organization may have to the Cit~ of Powa~ Plannin~
Services Department, 13325 Civic Center Drive. Your comments should be
returned within 10 days of the date you receive this notification so that
your input can be included in the City of Poway's evaluation of the
For more information please call the Planning Services
nt at 679-4290 or 695-1400.
GREEN VALLEY ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
DOUG BARI(ER. PRESIDENT
13610 PASEO DE LA HUERTA
POWAY, CALIFORNIA 92064
PHONE 619-679-3000
JULY 28, 1994
MARl JO VAN DYKE, AICP
CITY OF POWAY
13325 CIVIC CENTER DR., BLDG A
POWAY, CALIFORNIA 92064-0120
RE; ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE FORM
DEAR MS. VAN DYKE,
I AM RETURNING THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMITTEE FORM TO YOUR OFFICE. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND THE
ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE HAVE AUTHORIZED LARRY G. SMITH TO SIGN
FOR THE BOARD AND THE ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE. HE IS A MEMBER
(~F'THE ASSOCIATION BOARD AND ACTS AS THE SECRETARY OF THE
ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE.
PLEASE CONTACT ME IN THE EVENT YOU HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS CONCERNING
THIS MATTER.
SINCERELY,
GREEN VALLEY ESTATES ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE
DB/nu
cc: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
GVE ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE
CITY OF POWAY
BOB EMERY, Deputy Mayor
B. TONY 8NESKO, Councilmember
SUSAN CALLERY, Councilmember
MICKEY CAFAGNA, Councilmember
August 15, 1994
Mt. Larry smith
FF & E Trust
13750 Paseo Valle Alto'
Poway, CA 92064
SUBJECT: MDRA 94-33
APN: 275-270-64
Dear Mr. Smith:
Pursuant to Section 17.52.040 of the Municipal Code and Ordinance
303 and 304, your request for the construction of a 5,147 square
foot, home located at 13712 Paseo Valle Alto, Lot 76 of Green
Valley Estates, has been approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. The appropriate Building Department approvals shall be
received prior to initiation of construction.
2. School_impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building.
permits.
3. No fence or freestanding wall shall exceed six feet in height.
4. All new utilities serving the subject home shall be installed
underground.
5. No freestanding fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height.
6. All created slopes of 5:1 or greater shall be landscaped and
a permanent irrigation system shall be installed prior to
Certification of Occupancy.
7. The tennis court shall n~be lighted..A~.y, future addition of
lighting will require a-~roval of a conditional use permit by
the City Council.
8. The area between the court and the property line shall be
landscaped prior to final certification.
9. The following improvements shall be constructed to the
satisfaction of the Director of Safety Services:
City Hail Located at 13325 Civic Center Drive 695 1400--/
~'--Mailing Address: P.O. Box 789, Poway, California 92074-0789 · (619) 748-6600, -
SPAULDING
CUTOFF
FEATURE
-~ Recreational p'lay ?'~':
Fixture Catalog//. :]~. ............ cET-1000-M
Color and Voltage to be determined
FixtureTyPe ::?.:~. ~f.'. .... 1000watt-Metal Halide
KW Load/Co,',rt... ~ ...... ...... ... 6.5KW
Fixture Sp~cing' ). ~.: ': ~ ......... 36'- 40' i
..x~-. Fixture Mounting Hei, ht ...............
--' Footcandle Average on Cou'rt .............. 40'
Bieber Ughting, the leader in tennis lighting, worldwide, for over 30 years, pre~ents the PARKETTE Net Set Ecology
light, for tennis court lighting. ,
The PARK. bi I b Net Set is specifically designed by illuminating engineers for tennis court lighting. Because of our
unique refleotor design, play is enhanced by even light dist~bution and Iow glare, while maintaining the highest
illumination level on the playing surface.
1000 watt metal halide and 1500 watt metal halide are the preferred wattages and lamp source to use. Metal halide
lamps emit a beautiful white light, so vision and detail are superior than other lamp sources.
Our f'~ure is designed for easy installation and maintenanoe. The mounting arm slips over the top of the pole, and is
secured by 2-1/2" set belts, A removable pole cap is provided, to "make up and connect" wires at the top. The
fixture has a "ta Ip'ece" that s ~ps over the mounting arm, and is secured by 2-1/2" hex set bolts.
TYPICAL COURT LAYOUTS
$1de-by-$1dl Tarloll Court Layoutj ~2~r /
~ 6 Fixture Hotel Paddle Cou~
Layout
Tournament
Play
Layout
(Standard Net Set or (Super Net Set Recommended, Super Net Set)
Super Net Set) May U~e Star*,da~ Net Set}
(C,M,~ nouo stool LiGHTiNG CORPORATION
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF POWAY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Manager
INITIATED BY: John
Reba ~ Fitch, Assistant City Manager
ight-Quastler, Director of Plan~ng~X Services~---~
Marijo Van Dyke, Associate Planner
DATE: May 9, 1995
MANDATORY
ACTION DATE: May 9, 1995
SUBJECT: Minor Conditional Use Permit 95-03, Bruce and Carolyn Cassell,
applicants: A request to construct a lighted tennis court at
13712 Paseo Valle Alto, in Green Valley Estates in the RR-B
zone.
APN: 275-270-64
BACKGROUND
On July 25, 1994, Minor Development Review 94-33 was approved for the
construction of a new single-family home and a tennis court pad. The property
has been purchased by Mr. and Mrs. Cassell who are requesting approval of a
· lighted tennis court. '
FINDINGS
The subject property is a two-acre lot located at the northeast corner of E1
Camino Entrada and Paseo Valle Alto, Lot 76 of Green Valley Estates. The tennis
court pad was approved for the rear yard area, at an elevation of 833 feet. It
is visible from both roadways.
The applicants will be required to provide the appropriate landscapinq to
accomplish screening of views from the roads~ as well as adjoining properties.
The neighboring properties to the west are all higher than the court pad,
therefore screening of the court will be difficult to achieve from that
direction. The distance to these lots includes the road width of E1 Camino
Entrada, plus the court setback and the depth of their front yards.
A_CTION:
2 of B
_ ~IA¥ 9 1995
RESOLUTION NO. P-
^ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-03
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 275-270-64
WHEREAS, Minor Conditional Use Permit 95-03, submitted by Bruce and Carolyn
Cassel, applicants, requests approval to permit the construction of a lighted
tennis court, for the property located at 13712 Paseo Valle Alto, Lot 76'of Green
Valley Estates, in the RR-B zone; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 1995, the City Council held a hearing on the above
referenced .item.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1: Environmental Findinqs:
The City Council finds that this project is categorically exempt (Class 3)
under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Section 2: Findinqs:
1. The approved project is consistent with the general plan in that a
lighted recreational court is an accessory use for a single-family
residence in a rural residential zone.
2. That the approved project will not have in adverse aesthetic~
health, safety of architecturally related ~mpact upon adjoining
.~properties, in that the landscape installation, lighting design and
court materials will allow the court to be compatible with and
screened from surrounding properties.
3. That the approved project is in compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance, in that it complies with the setbacks, fence height
limits, lighting standards and all other property development
standards of the RR-B zone.
4. That the approved project encourages the orderly and harmonious
appearance of structures and property within the City, in that the
subject property and all of the surrounding properties are zoned
rural residential and are to be developed as single-family
residences.
Section 3: City Council Decision:
The City Council hereby approves Minor Conditional Use Permit 95-03
subject to the following conditions:
Within 30 days of approval (1) the applicant shall submit in writing that
all conditions of approval have been read and understood; and (2) the
property owner shall execute a Covenant on Real Property.
MAY 9 1995 ITEM .6
COMPLXANCE #ZTH THE FOLLOWZN6 CONDZTZONS ZS REQUXRED. COMPLZANCE SHALL BE
APPROVED BY THE DEPARTPlENT OF PLANNZNG SERVZCES.
S~TE DEVELOPMENT
1. Site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site.plans on file
in the Planning Services Department and the conditions contained herein.
2. Approval of this request shall ~ot waive compliance with all sections of
the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at
the time of building permit issuance.
3. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code,
and all other applicable codes and ordinances in effect at the time of
building permit issuance. Wind screening may be a requirement of the
community CC&R's. The design for the court fencing therefore, shall meet
UBC standards which anticipate added wind load on the structure.
4. The appropriate Building Department approvals for the lights and footings
for the light standards shall be received prior to the initiation of
construction.
5. A maximum of eight lights shall, be permitted of a height not to exceed 22
feet. All lights and l~t fixtures shall be certified by a~
-1T~h-ting engineer to:
a. Be designed, constructed, mounted and maintained such that the light
source is cut off when viewed from any point above five feet
measured outside the lot at the lot line.
b. Be designed, constructed, mounted and maintained, such (hat the
maximum illumination intensity measured at the wall of any
residential building on abutting property shall not exceed one-half
foot candle above ambient levels.
c. Said certification shall be provided to the Planning Services
" Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
6. Hours of operation for court lights shall be restricted to the period
between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
7. A landscape and irrigation plan for the area between the tennis court
.fe6ce and propert~ lines shall be submitted to the Plan~in~ Services
Department for rewew and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
~ I~stallation of all landscaoing required for screenin? the court and
lights shall occur prior to final inspection.
8. The court surface must be designed, painted and/or textured to reduce the
reflection from lighting to the satisfaction of the Director of*Planning
Services. -~
s of 8 blAY 9 1995 ITEM 6
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
_ TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ~
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Manager
A
INITIATED BY: John O. Fitch, Assistant City Manager~[
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planing Service~
DATE: May g, 1995
SUBJECT: Minor Conditional Use Permit 95-03, Bruce and Carolyn Cassell, applicants
ABSTRACT
A request to construct a lighted tennis court at 13712 Paseo Valley Alto in Green Valley
Estates in the RR-B zone.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is considered exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act, Class 3.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Public notice was published in the Poway News Chieftain and mailed to 21 property owners
within 500 feet of the project boundaries.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve Minor Conditional Use Permit 95-03
subject to the conditions contained in the attached resolution of approval,
ACTION
~: \C [ TY \PLANN l NG\REPORT \MCUP9503. SUM
~A¥ 9 1995 ITEM 6
i o:6 8
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF POWAY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Manager
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager(~~(
Reba Wright-Quastler, Director of Planrlqng Services~
Marijo Wm Dyke, Associate Planner
DATE: May 9, 1!)95
MANDATORY
ACTION DATE: May 9, 1!)95
SUBJECT: Minor CoFditional Use Permit 95-03, Bruce and Carolyn Cassell,
applican':s: A request to construct a lighted tennis court at
13712 Paseo Valle Alto, in Green Valley Estates in the RR-B
zone.
APN: 275.-270-64
BACKGROUND
On July 25, 1994, Minor Development Review 94-33 was approved for the
construction of a new single-family home and a tennis court pad. The property
has been purchased by Mr. and Mrs. Cassell, who are requesting approval of a
lighted tennis court.
FINDINGS
The subject property is a two-acre lot located at the northeast corner of E1
Camino Entrada and Paseo Valle Alto, Lot 76 of Green Valley Estates. The tennis
court pad was approved for ';he rear yard area, at an elevation of 833 feet. It
is visible from both roadways.
The applicants will be r~quired to provide the appropriate landscaping to
accomplish screening of views from the roads, as well as adjoining properties.
The neighboring propertie; to the west are all higher than the court pad,
therefore screening of the court will be difficult to achieve from that
direction. The distance to these lots includes the road width of E1 Camino
Entrada, plus the court setback and the depth of their front yards.
ACTION:
2 of 8
MAY 9 1995
Agenda Report
- May 9, 1995
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is considered exempt under the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Class 3, as it is for the construction of an accessory
structure relating to a single-family home.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Public notice was published in the Poway News Chieftain and mailed to 2~1
property owners within 500 feet of the project boundaries.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve Minor Conditional Use Permit 95-
0--3 subject to the conditions contained in the attached resolution of approval.
- JLB:RWQ:MVD:kls
Attachments:
A. Proposed Resolution
B. Zoning and Location Map
C. Site Plan
~IAY 9 1995 I'i'£~1 6 .'
3 of 8
RESOLUTION NO. P-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA
APPROVING MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-03
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 275-270-64
WHEREAS, Minor Conditional Use Permit 95-03, submitted by Bruce and Carolyn
Cassel, applicants, requests approval to permit the construction of a lighted
tennis court, for the property located at 13712 Paseo Valle Alto, Lot 76 of Green
Valley Estates, in the RR-B zone; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 1995, the City Council held a hearing on the above
referenced item.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1: Environmental Findinqs:
The City Council finds that this project is categorically exempt (Class 3)
under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Section 2: Findinqs:
1. The approved project is consistent with the general plan in that a
lighted recreational court is an accessory use for a single-family
residence in a rural residential zone.
2. That the approved project will not have an adverse aesthetic,
health, safety of architecturally related impact upon adjoining
properties, in that the landscape installation, lighting design and
court materials will allow the court to be compatible with and
screened from surrounding properties.
3. That the approved project is in compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance, in that it complies with the setbacks, fence height
limits, lighting standards and all other property development
standards of the RR-B zone.
4. That the approved project encourages the orderly and harmonious
appearance of structures and property within the City, in that the
subject property and all of the surrounding properties are zoned
rural residential and are to be developed as single-family
residences.
Section 3: City Council Decision:
The City Council hereby approves Minor Conditional Use Permit 95-03
subject to the following conditions:
Within 30 days of approval (1) the applicant shall submit in writing that
all conditions of approval have been read and understood; and (2) the
property owner shall execute a Covenant on Real Property.
MAY 9 1995 il'E~ 6
4 of 8
COHPLIANCE NITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IS REQUIRED. CONPLIANCE SHALL BE
APPROVED BY THE DEPARTHENT OF PLANNING SERVICES.
SITE DEVELOPHENT
I. Site shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plans on file
in the Planning Services Department and the conditions contained herein.
2. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of
the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at
the time of building permit issuance.
3. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code,
and all other applicable codes and ordinances in effect at the time of
building permit issuance. Wind screening may be a requirement of the
community CC&R's. The design for the court fencing therefore, shall meet
UBC standards which anticipate added wind load on the structure.
4. The appropriate Building Department approvals for the lights and footings
for the light standards shall be received prior to the initiation of
construction.
5. A maximum of eight lights shall be permitted of a height not to exceed 22
feet. All lights and light fixtures shall be certified by a qualified
lighting engineer to:
a. Be designed, constructed, mounted and maintained such that the light
source is cut off when viewed from any point above five feet
measured outside the lot at the lot line.
b. Be designed, constructed, mounted and maintained, such that the
maximum illumination intensity measured at the wall of any
residential building on abutting property shall not exceed one-half
foot candle above ambient levels.
c. Said certification shall be provided to the Planning Services
Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
6. Hours of operation for court lights shall be restricted to the period
between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
7. A landscape and irrigation plan for the area between the tennis court
fence and property lines shall be submitted to the Planning Services
Department for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
Installation of all landscaping required for screening the court and
lights shall occur prior to final inspection.
8. The court surface must be designed, painted and/or textured to reduce the
reflection from lighting to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning
Services.
9. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not
issued for this project within two years from the date of project
approval.
10. If the use of the court negatively impacts surrounding properties, the
City Council may reconsider this minor conditional use permit and amend
the conditions as it sees fit or require removal of the lights.
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Poway, State of
California, this gth day of May, 1995.
Don Higginson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
I, Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk of the City of Poway, do hereby
certify, under the penalty of perjury, that the foregoing Resolution, No.
, was duly adopted by the City Council at a meeting of said City Council
E~T-o~-G~-~he day of , 1995, and that it was so adopted
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
City of Poway
MAY 9 1995 ITEM 6
6 of 8
CITY OF POWAY ITEM: ~ICU? 95-03
~ ~ TITLE : ZONING & LOCATION
SCALE : NONE ATTACHMENT : B
51AY 9 1995 ITEN] 6
7 of 8
12332 Avcnlda ~nscntido · Rancho Bernardo, (~lilbrnia 92128
MAY 9 1995 ITEM
13732 PASEO VALLE ALTO
POWAY~ CA 92064
Phone 486-1940
-- May 1, 1995
Mr. Don Higgtnson
Mayor of the City of Poway
1BB2S Civic Center Drive, P.O. Box 78g
Poway, CA 92074-0789
Dear Mr. Higginson,
RE: Minor Conditional Use Permit #95-03
I am writing regarding the request for approval of a lighted tennis
court on parcel 275-270-64, by Bruce and Carolyn Casselli I live on the
lot next door, just north of the Cassell'e, on parcel 275-270-63.
I could simply oppose the approval of the lights, since I am
strongly against their installation because the court is in full view
from my backyard, and the noise, glare of lights, and obstruction of the
view will seriously degrade my family's enjoyment of our backyard, our
ability to entertain, and our property value. However, in an attempt to
be "neighborly" I am proposing a few requirements for approval that are
absolutely necessary to be fair and reasonable to all concerned. When I
built my tennis court, the City imposed several requirements on me if I
wanted to install lights. They sere imposed to protect the property
values of my neighboring lot owners. Now, [ am sure the City will act
in a nondiscriminatory manner, and will ensure that MY property value is
protected, as they did for my neighboring lot owners. However, when l
built my court there were no neighboring homes built. Nos there ars
several, so additional steps need to be taken to protect the owners
already living in the surrounding homea, and many future homes that sill
be affected.
I have a tennis court, but I do not have lights. I did not install
lights because ! discovered that the light poles and fixtures would
stick up into the field of view from my backyard and ruin the view
the valley and mountains beyond with an unsightly forest of steel poles
and light fixture boxes. I also don't want the glare of lights at night
obscuring the view. in addition, I have an elementary school age
daughter whose bedroom faces the Cassell~s court and I have concerns
that the noise of four tennis players and the glare of lights at night
until lO pm will interfere with her ability to sleep, and adversely
affect her school work. Also, virtually every room of our house faces
the Cassell's court location and will be adversely affected. Because of
the above concerns, I am strongly against the installation of the
lights, unless all the conditions listed below are stipulated in writing
and enforced by the City as a condition of approval, and complied With
before a certificate of occupancy for the house is granted.
I. Unfortunately, the Cassell's court location is directly on the main
street through our community, in plain view, and the existing pad has
been raised up significantly from street level, so the addition of
lights will result in eight steel poles and eight fixtures towering
about 30 feet above the street. This will be a terrible eyesore as you
enter our community, and devalue the entire development unless special
requirements are imposed as suggested below to help alleviate this
problem. The main cause of this problem is that both of the MDRA
applications (attached) sent by the City tc the neighboring lot owners
failed to disclose that this tennis court would be lighted. Had this
been disclosed, I for one would never have agreed to a raised pad that
would obviously block my view once lights were installed, and also be an
eyesore ehen viseed from the street. Consequently, I request that the
pad be lowered by a~ 'east five feet to help re ~e the impact of this
serious problem.
2. The maximum allowed light fixture mounting height should be no
higher than 20 feet. The attached brochure from a tennis court lighting
system manufacturer states that 20 feet is the recommended mounting
height, so there is no need for the fixtures to be any higher. If they
are, they will seriously damage my view and my property value.
3. The type of light fixtures should be "low pressure sodium" to
reduce the glare reflected back from the court surface. These were the
type of fixtures I was required to use as a condition of approval when l
built my court to protect neighboring property values, if I wanted to
install lights. Consequently, I expect the City to protect my property
¥~ ~n ~b~ ~ m~nneP n~w. Any ~ther type o~ lights generate ~ar too
much glare and will seriously damage my property value if they are
installed.
4. When I built my court, another condition of approval imposed on me
for lights was an extensive landscaping plan with multiple rows of
trees/bushes to shield the lighted court from view from the neighboring
lots. I request thst this same requirement be made in this case to
protect my property value. To screen my view of the lights, there must
be a row of tall trees/bushes planted near the property line, and also
along the top of the slope, all the way from the Cassell~s family room
to the west edge of their court. These trees/bushes need to be tall
enough when initially planted to properly shield my view of the lights
from my backyard, ~amily room, living room, and master bedroom. These
trees need to be planted when the court is built, and be of the height
that provides an effective light barrier or my property value will be
immediately damaged. Also, in the future, these trees/bushes must be
kept at a maximum height no higher than that of the court lights so my
view will never be blocked.
5. The hours of use should reflect the need for sleep of my elsment~ry
school age daughter whose bedroom overlooks the Cassell's court
location, and the other small children in the neighborhood.
Consequently, 10 pm at night is too late to allow the light and noise of
four tennis players. The limit should be 9 pm.
6. The number of light poles and fixtures should be limited to six,
as shown in the attached lighting manufacturer brochure. This will help
reduce some of the view obstruction.
Many of the above requirements are the same ones enforced upon m~
by the City when I got approval for my court, and the others simply
reflect the lighting manufacturer's recommendations, the needs of the
existing children and homeowners in the community, and a grading
adjustment needed to correct a deficiency in the MDRA notices sent to
the neighboring lot owners. If the above conditions are not met, my
property value will be seriously, permanently, and unnecessarily damaged
by the City. I hope the City does not let that happen. Please let. me
know in writing before the May 9th City Council meeting if the above
conditions will be stipulated in the written requirements for approval
of these lights.
R6bert ~ondie
.cc Ms. Mari~o Van Dyke - Staf~ Planner ~¥ ~ 1BB5 i1~i~1 ~
.cc Marjorie K. Wahlsten - City Clerk