At the heart of the two-year controversy that has pitted neighbor against neighbor is whether the tennis court was built at lowest natural grade, as required by city building regulations, or whether it was built on fill. Also in the mix were several code enforcement cases at the site including fence height, lighting and accessibility to an access road.
During an extensive presentation, director of community development Robert Stanley said that property owner Steve Winnaman applied for and was issued a permit in April 2007 to build a sports court on the eastern half of the lot at 4914 Alta Canyada Road. An engineering surveyor report on the site property was not required before construction began.
Winnaman did hire an engineer to survey the site after the construction was completed, and using old maps and aerial satellite photographs he determined that the court was built in compliance with the city ordinance.
Neighbors, however, have disputed that claim since the beginning. In letters mailed to the city and in comments made during public hearings, they continue to argue that the Winnaman yard now sits approximately 3 to 5 feet higher than it once did.
Neighbor Marilyn Pepper said the height of the court makes it impossible for her and her family to enjoy their own property. Lights and noise pour into her backyard, she said, diminishing her privacy and leaving her feeling “vulnerable.”
“We believe the grade was significantly raised, retaining walls were built and fill use was greatly in excess of 50 cubic yards. These procedures violate the city of La Cañada’s sports [court] code. If there is retaining wall, there is no question that this tennis court was not built at grade.”
