HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.3TOWN OF LOS ALTOS ,HILLS
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
ITEM 3.3
June 5, 2014
SUBJECT: A REQUEST FOR A FENCE PERMIT AND EXCEPTION TO RETAIN A
PREVIOUSLY: APPROVED SIX (6) FOOT TALL SOLID WOOD FENCE
WITH A REDUCED SETBACK OF 30 FEET FROM THE. CENTERLINE OF
FREMONT ROAD. LANDS OF TOPRANI; 26630 ASCENSION DRIVE; FILE
#118-14-ZP.
FROM: Steve Padovan, Consultant Planner
APPROVED: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Community Development Director
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
Deny the request to install a six foot high solid wood fence per the findings in Attachment #1 and
require the applicant to install a fence compliant with the Fence Ordinance.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is a through lot with street frontages on Ascension Drive (front yard) and
Fremont Road (rear yard). Ascension. has a 50 -foot right-of-way and Fremont has a 60 -foot
right-of-way. Previous fencing on the property included six (6) foot high redwood fences on the
side property lines and a legal non -conforming five-foot high chain-link fence along the rear
(Fremont Road) property line. Fencing on adjacent properties along Fremont Road is as follows:
North of subject property- Five-foot high, solid wood horizontal siding type fence
South - No fencing, vacant lot
East (across Fremont) — Six-foot high solid redwood fence
On January 14, 2010, Site Development Permit #119-09-ZP-SD was approved for a new
residence with Condition of Approval #8 specifically stating that no new fences were approved
and that any new fencing would require review and approval by the Planning Department prior
to installation (Attachment #3).
Once framing commenced on the new house, the owner submitted a landscape screening and
fencing plan (Site.. Development Permit #19-13-ZP-SD) which included additional dense
landscape screening . along Fremont Road . to complement the existing trees and shrubs. The
proposed fencing included a four and one-half foot open metal fence along the front property line
(Ascension Drive), a solid redwood fence on the side property lines that stepped up from 3 feet'
to 6 feet based on the distance from the centerline of Ascension Drive and a note on the plans
stating that the existing chain-link fence on the rear property line would remain. In addition, the
side yard fencing was placed: outside of the existing five-foot public utility easements. The
landscapescreening and fencing plan was approved at the May 28, 2013 Site Development
hearing which included Condition #3 stating that fencing was approved as shown on the plans
(Attachment #4).
Planning Commission
Lands of Toprani
June 5, 2014
Page 2
However, on October 29, 2013, the owner submitted an application (Zoning Permit #341-13-ZP)
for new fences along the side and rear property lines. The fencing plan included the previously
approved front yard fencing but modified the side yard fencing to allow a six-foot solid redwood.
fence on the side property line in the public utility easements and a six-foot solid redwood fence
along the rear property line (Fremont Road). Also included in the application, was a letter from
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) dated September .3, 2013 which stated that PG&E had no.
objections to the placement of a fence in the five-foot side yard public utility easement.'
(Attachment #5). A 10 -day courtesy notice was mailed to surrounding property owners by the
Town on October 29, 2013 and having received no objections from surrounding property
owners, the fence was approved on November 14, 2013 (Attachment #6).
Upon construction of the fence, staff received an inquiry about .the solid six-foot high fence
along Fremont Road. Staff investigated and found that an administrative fence permit was
issued in error for the six-foot high solid fence on the rear property line and proceeded to take
corrective action.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
Section 10-1.507 of the Municipal Code regulates fence type, height, and location for all
properties in Town (Attachment #7). In summary, the Town's Fence Ordinance includes a
graduated height to setback ratio for solid fences along streets as follows:
• 3 foot tall at 30 feet from centerline of right of way
• 4 foot tall at 40 feet from centerline of right of way
• 5 foot tall at 5.0 feet from centerline of right of way
• 6 foot tall at 60 feet from centerline of right of way
Staff concluded that the approval of the six-foot solid fence along Fremont Road was done in
error and on March 28, 2014, a letter was. sent to the property owner indicating that the fence
needs to be brought into compliance (Attachment #8). As was noted in the letter, the approved
fence plan includes a stamp which states that, "Any permit, license, or certificate issued in
conflict with the provisions of the Los Altos Hills Zoning and Site Development Ordinance shall
be null and void (LAHMC Section 10-2.1310)." Therefore, based on the fact that the newly
constructed six-foot solid redwood fence is only 30 feet from the centerline of Fremont Drive,
the permit approval for the redwood fence directly conflicts with the Zoning Ordinance and is
therefore null and void. The owner was given the option of leaving the fence in the present
location and cutting it down to three -feet in height, moving the fence back to the appropriate
setback line, or seeking an exception to the fence regulations for the replacement of the non-
conforming fence. The owner chose to ask for an exception.
PROPOSAL
The proposed project is to legalize and retain a newly constructed six-foot high solid wood fence
on the rear property line along the Fremont Road and on the side property lines within the rear
yard setback by requesting an exception to replace the existing non -conforming five foot high
Planning Commission
Lands of Toprani
June 5, 2014
Page 3
chain link fence with a six foot high solid wood fence (see, site plan - Attachment #2). A
compliant fence in .the proposed location, would be either a thee foot tall solid fence or a four
foot, six inch tall open style fence along Fremont Road and then a solid or open fence that steps
up to six feet based on the setback to the centerline of the street.
DISCUSSION
Section 10-1.507 (h) of the Zoning Ordinance allows the Planning Commission the option to
grant an exception to fence heights for existing legal non -conforming fences if the . following
findings are made:
(1) The height and design of the proposed fence, wall, gate or column are compatible
with other fences in the neighborhood;
(2) The proposed removal of vegetation and trees: and disturbance to natural terrain have
been minimized; and
(3) The proposed structure is otherwise in compliance with all regulations and policies
setforth in the Municipal Code and the General Plan."
The owner submitted a letter dated May 6, 2014 along with photos of surrounding fences
outlining their reasoning for the requested exception along with responses to the three required
findings (Attachment #9). The justification for the fence height exception is based on the
presence of existing six-foot high solid wood fences .along the east side of Fremont Road, the
substantial existing vegetation along the rear property line, the minimal removal of trees for the
fence, and that the new fence is in compliance with all other code regulations and the General
Plan.
Neighborhood Fences
The first finding relates to fence design and compatibility with other fences in the neighborhood.
The subject property abuts Fremont Road in an area where there are numerous six-foot tall solid
wood fences along the east side of the road. Most of the properties are located in a 25 lot
subdivision known as Tract #6112 that was. approved by the City Council on September 21, 1977
(Attachment #10). Town records show that a six-foot tall wood fence was installed by the
developer as required by the Town for all lots in the subdivision with frontage on Fremont Road.
Therefore, the fences on those properties are legal non -conforming and those owners have the
ability to repair and replace portions of their fences without Town approval. The other properties
on the east' side of Fremont Road north of Tract #6112 also appear to have fences constructed
before the current regulations and would also be considered legal non -conforming.
On the west side of Fremont, where the subject property is located, there is a mixture of fence
types. The properties to the south of the subject site on down to Town Hall have split rail or
cyclone wire type fences that vary in height from three to six feet. To the north, the adjacent
property has an existing five foot solid wood fence followed by a six foot cyclone wire fence
around Pinewood School. Therefore, prior to the installation of the solid fence on the subject
Planning. Commission
Lands of Toprani
June 5, 2014
Page 4
property, only one fence on the west side of Fremont (26650 Ascension Drive) maintained a non-
conforming solid fence.
Minimized Removal of Vegetation and Trees
Based on street views of the property prior to the installation of the fence, there was a substantial
amount of vegetation along Fremont Road and the construction of the fence does not appear to
have resulted in the removal of any trees or large vegetation. Furthermore, the applicant's
landscape screening plan includes a dense hedge of California Holly Leaf Cherry along the fence
line within the subject property. These shrubs are native to the coastal mountains and can grow
to thirty feet in height.
General Plan
The Circulation and Scenic Roadways Element of the General Plan classifies Fremont Road
along with Arastradero Road, Page Mill Road, and Moody Road as collector streets. These.
streets connect neighborhoods to freeways and expressways and generally have fewer driveway
accesses.
There are two objectives in the Circulation and Scenic Roadways Element that would generally
apply to fences along roadways. These are as follows:
"Develop and maintain corridors for travel through Town in which the user can enjoy
and view the natural environment and open spaces that provide a buffer from adjacent
land uses. "
"Spacious rights of way wide enough so that trees and shrubs can provide a substantial
buffer between the roadway and paths and between the paths and adjacent properties.
The resulting corridor should be pleasing and safe for both vehicular and non -vehicular
travel. "
These objectives describe a "buffer" related to the placement of structures and development on
properties adjacent to right-of-ways (roads). The Fence Ordinance incorporates measurable
requirements to implement these buffers for fences where placed along public right-of-ways by
distinguishing between open and solid type fences and allowing for taller, open fences along the
right-of-way while restricting solid fences to three feet in height. Based on this analysis, a tall
solid fence at the edge of the right -of way would generally not be in conformance with the
General Plan objectives.
Previous Fence Exceptions/Variances
Staff reviewed the Planning files and found that over the past five years, only two fence
exception/variance applications had been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission.
The first application, at 12490 Corbetta Lane (File #138-11-ZP-VAR), was a request for a
variance to allow a six foot open fence and gate with columns along the front of the property,
less than 30 feet from the centerline of the road. That application was reviewed by the Planning
Commission at its September 1,, 2011 meeting and denied on a 5-0 vote.
Planning Commission
Lands of Toprani
June 5, 2014
Page 5
The second application, at 26200 Catherine Court (File #145-12-ZP), was for an exception to
replace an existing six foot tall solid wood'fence along. Fremont Road with a: new six-foot solid
fence in the same location. On July 19, 2012, the Planning Commission approved the exception
on a 5-0 vote with. the: requirement that the new six foot solid fence be placed 40 feet back from
the centerline of Fremont Road (10 feet in from where the previous fence was located). In
approving :the exception, the. Commission considered the fact that the fence was an existing
legally built structure and that it was required by the previous subdivision approval (Excerpt of
Minutes from PC Meeting — Attachment #11).
CONCLUSION
Regarding the necessary findings for an exception, staff believes that the project does. not meet
the qualifications for Findings #1 and #3: Although the properties along the east side of Fremont
Road all maintain six foot solid wood fences, that fence design for the vast majority of those
properties.was the result of one.. subdivision approved in 1977. However, only one property on
the west side of the street has a legal nonconforming five foot tall solid wood fence and all other
properties from Town Hall to Pinewood School maintain open fencing (of various heights). An
open fencing design with landscaping on the inside would also be more in conformance with the
objectives of the Circulation and Scenic Roadways Element. Furthermore, the owner is
requesting that the non -conforming five foot high open fence be replaced with a six foot high
solid fence, which would require a variance and the approval of appropriate findings. Therefore,
staff recommends denying the exception.
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CEOA)
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act by'Section 15303(e).
ATTACHMENTS -
1. Recommended Findings for Denial
2. Aerial View, Site/Fence Plan, Photographs of the Existing Fence
3. Site Development Permit #119-09-ZP-SD New Residence Cond. of Approval
4. Site Development Permit #19-13-ZP-SD Landscape Screening Cond. of Approval
5. PG&E Letter dated September 3, 2013
6. Fence Zoning Permit #341-13-ZP Approval Letter
7. Section 10-1.507 of the Municipal Code— Fences, Walls, Gates and Columns
8. Code Compliance Letter dated March 28, 2014
9. Owner's Supporting Correspondence dated May 6, 2014
10. Map of Tract #6112
11. Excerpt of Minutes from July 19, 2012 Planning. Commission meeting related to 26200
Catherine Court
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF A -FENCE EXCEPTION
LANDS OF TOPRANI — 26630 ASCENSION DRIVE
File #118-14-ZP
L. :The height and design of the proposed fence, wall, gate or column are compatible
with other fences in the neighborhood.
The six foot solid redwood fence is located on the west side of Fremont Drive where
:only one property has a legal nonconforming five foot tall solid wood fence and all
other properties from -Town Hall to Pinewood School maintain open fencing of
various -heights. The intent of the fence ordinance is to bring all fences into
compliance over time and the previously existing open chain link fencing on the rear
property line was more compatible with the types of fences on the west side of the.
road than the new six-foot tall solid fence.
2. The proposed removal of vegetation and trees and disturbance to natural terrain
have been minimized.
The subject fence required the pruning of existing. trees and shrubs and is highly
visible from the roadway and pathway.
3. The proposed structure is otherwise in compliance with all regulations and policies
set forth: in the Municipal Code- and the General Plan.
Although the fencing `does not encroach upon the existing pathway or roadway on
Fremont Road, an open fencing design with landscaping on the inside would be more
in conformance with the objectives of the Circulation and Scenic Roadways Element
which seek to maintain corridors for travel through Town in which the user can enjoy
and view the natural environment and open spaces that provide a buffer from adjacent
land uses.
` Y
i - r
\.47
y �Ascens ,n r, Los` -Altos -CA 9a02,-•JSA
37
:,��' - � ;;� to � = ,; �. •;
Z
_O
a
w
V
X
w
F-
2
(7
W
2
W
V
Z
W
LL
0
W
V)
O
0-
0 O
a
N
L.a . -Mml.
w
U
Z
w
LL
0
O
O
J
O
TZ
C7
O
O
LL
X_
0
Z
H
X
w
LL
O
Z
O
H
O
a
F-
V)
w
D
CY
w
w
Z
O
H
a.
w
U
X
w
m
w
F-
U
w
LL
LL
a
I
, � �+• ` .�� ter" • ►i lr _
:OW
'1,'�' I. st '�,•Ej,l x,11 ti t •rL4� n 1�i.n .jF
,� , . r I.1, ;...I • S - ,. +}y��+� Y . I Y '' F Y V'.. r .. r 1 ♦ ab
•�. y^�ys `_ i Y � ; µ ar� � 1. �r ,7 �t I , ; �i'� •f'. � ! �.� _'^`,,�
*p { :.� _�+�� f,.:.��� �}� J `°4 '�+� ••.r i :•,ix�, ._ A , � �^t � � xt � r,f"-Sl
••,�,.' F. )• e'{9 `� � `r 't
~ - ` •' � A� ,1y� rit' .fr �1 � tr �� y' .y i r`di' �~. ' '�•' � �,
Ir
• xt1 ,, y 1} 1 , e ky a' r j
.�t '.. r _ '"+,r• ` jam"" ,1 �`,. �•`�r�� .. 3s •;a�A� �+� �• 1,'�: r}..,�,+�'+. c.:!'
t� p'_ w � /i (r � �4 {4 1 r �� �j' y,e, •i t.' w}� •'— �Yy:v
• � �r•• �o •! � � ��. . ti X15..' �t � I. _� � -• -I F� ��t� .f t '{ �' �..
.fit', r 4� � •3�^,.;Si 4 f� 1
LOSALTOS HILLS
January 14,:2010
Subodh and Shraddha Toprani
41 Doud Drive
Los Altos, CA 94022
RE: File #119-09-ZP-SD
26630 Ascension Drive
New Residence
Dear Applicant,
ATTACHMENT 3
Your request for a Site Development Permit for the above referenced project was approved at the
Fast Track meeting of December 22, 2009. The City Council has upheld this approval. Please
note the following conditions which apply to this approval:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first
reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission,
depending on the -scope of the changes.
2. All existing Blue Gum (E. globulus), Pink Ironbark (E. sideroxylon rosea), River
Red Gum (E. _camaldulensis), Swamp Gum (E. rudis), Honey Gum (E.
melliodora), or Manna Gum (E. viminalis) eucalyptus 'trees on the property
located within 150' of any structures or roadways shall be removed prior to final
inspection of the new residence. Removal of eucalyptus trees shall take place
between the beginning of August and the end of January to: avoid disturbance of
nesting birds protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and
California Department of Fish. -and Game Code Section 3500 et seq unless .a nesting
bird survey is first conducted and there is a determination that there are no active
nests within the tree.
3. After completion of rough framing or at least six (6) months prior to scheduling a
final inspection, the applicant shall submit landscape screening and erosion
control plans for review by the Site Development Committee: The application for.
landscape screening and erosion control shall be accompanied by the applicable
379 Fremont Road fee. and deposit. The plans shall be reviewed at a noticed public hearing.
Los Altos Hills
California 94022
650/941-7222
Fax 650/941-3160
January 14, 2010
Lands of Toprani
Page 2 of 6
Attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view,
of the new residence from surrounding propertiesand streets. All landscaping
required for screening purposes and for erosion control (as determined by the City
Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection of the new residence
4. A landscape maintenance deposit in the amount of $5,000 shall be posted prior to
final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to' ensure adequate establishment
and maintenance shall be made two years after the installation. The deposit will
be released at that. time if the plantings remain viable.
5. Prior to beginning any grading operation, all significant trees, particularly the
heritage oak trees; are to be fenced at the drip line. The fencing shall be of a
material and structure (chain-link) to clearly delineate the drip line. Town staff
must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to commencement of
grading. The property owner shall call for said inspection at least three days in
advance of the inspection. The fencing must remain throughout the course of
construction. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within
the drip lines of these trees. Existing perimeter plantings shall be fenced and
retained throughout the entire construction period.
6. Prior to requesting the foundation inspection, a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the location of the
new residence and roof eaves are no less than 40' from the front property line
and 30' from the side and rear property lines." The elevation of the new
residence shall be similarly certified in writing to state that "the elevation of the
new residence matches the elevation and location shown on the Site Development
plan." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the
Planning Department prior to requesting a foundation inspection.
7. Prior to requesting the final framing inspection, a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the height of the new
residence complies with the 27'-0" maximum structure height, measured as the
vertical distance at any point from the bottom, of the crawl space or basement
ceiling if excavated below natural grade, to the highest part of the structure
directly above (including roof materials)." The overall structure height shall be
similarly certified in writing and state that "all points of the building (including
chimneys and appurtenances) lie within a thirty-five (35 ) foot horizontal band
based, measured from the lowest visible natural or finished grade topographical
elevation of the structure along the building line and the highest topographical
elevation of the roof of the structure." The applicant shall submit the stamped
and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a final
framing inspection.
8.. No new fences are approved. Any new fencing or gates shall require review and
approval by the Planning _D ep artment prior to installation.
January 14, 2010
Lands of Topram
Page 3 of 6
9. Outdoor lighting is approved.as shown'on the plans. There shall be one light per
door or two for double doors. Light fixtures shall have frosted glass or be down
lights. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except two. entry or driveway
lights. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be approved by the Planning
Department prior to installation.
10.: Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed : and constructed to reduce emitted light , .
(tinted or colored glass, or other material). No lighting may be placed within
skylight wells.
1.I.. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction.
12. At time of submittal of . plans for building plan check, the applicant shall
submit one of the following checklists to demonstrate compliance with the
Town's Green Building Ordinance:
a. A GreenPoint Rated checklist with the building permit application to
indicate that the project will achieve a minimum of fifty (50) points. The
checklist shall be completed by a qualified green building professional and
shall be attached to the front of the construction plans. The construction
plans shall include general notes or individual detail drawings, where
feasible, showing the green building measure to be used to attain the
required points.
b. A LEED for Homes checklist with the building permit application to
indicate that the project will achieve a minimum of forty-five (45) points
or LEED certification. The checklist shall be completed by a qualified.
green building professional and shall be attached to the front of the
construction plans. The construction plans shall include general notes or
individual detail drawings, where feasible, showing the green building
measure to be used to attain the required points.
13. Prior to final inspection and occupancy, a qualified green building professional
shall provide documentation verifying: that the building was constructed in
compliance with GreenPoint Rated or LEED® certification.
All properties shall pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District
or the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, prior to acceptance of
plans for building plan check. The applicant must take a copy of worksheet #2 to
school district offices (both. elementary and high school in the Los Altos School
District), pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of the
receipts.
January 14, 2010
Lands of Toprani
Page 4 of 6
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
15. Peak discharge at 26630 Ascension Drive, as a result of Site Development Permit
6th 119-09, shall not exceed the existing pre -development peak discharge value of the
property. Detention storage must be incorporated into the -project to reduce the -
predicted peak discharge to the pre -development value. Provide the data and peak
discharge hydrologic model(s) utilized, as well as, the calculations of -the peak
discharge value prior and post development. Determine the design peak runoff
rate for a 10 -year, return period storm and provide detention storage design plans
to reduce the predicted .peak discharge to the pre -development value. All
documentation, calculations, and detention storage design (2 plan copies) shall be
submitted for review and approval to the :satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to
acceptance of plans for building plan check. The final grading and drainage plans
shall include the sewer backflow prevention device and the overflow device just
inside the property line adjacent to Fremont Road. Prior to final inspection, a
letter shall be submitted from the project engineer stating that the detention
storage design improvements were installed as shown on the approved plans and
in accordance with their recommendations.
16. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be.
submitted as revisions from the project engineer and shall first be approved by the
Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during the grading
moratorium (October 15 to April 15) except with prior approval from the City
Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line except
to allow for the construction of the driveway access.
17. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. The
applicant should contact PG&E immediately after issuance of building permit to
start the application process for undergrounding utilities which can take up to 66=8
months.
J
18: Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review.
0 and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for
TG building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all
appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and
erosion/sediment control. The first 100 feet of the driveway shall be rocked
during construction and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion. All
areas on the site that have the native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion
1 o control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection.
tC, 19. Two copies of agrading and construction operation plan shall be submitted by the
le- property owner for review and approval by the City Engineer and .Planning
�cDirector prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The
�G�v$( l p grading/construction operation plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding
dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on Ascension Drive and
January '1.4, 2010
Lands of Toprani
Page 5 of 6
surrounding roadways, storage of construction materials; placement of sanitary,
facilities, parking for construction vehicles, clean-up area, and parking for
construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed. on site for
collection of construction debris. Arrangements must- be made with the
GreenWaste Recovery, Inc. for the debris box, since they have a franchise with
the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits.
20. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any
damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways;
and public and -private roadways, prior to final inspection and release of
occupancy permits and shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing
conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance of plans for
building plan check.
21. The -driveway shall be required to be fully constructed and to be roughened where
the pathway intersects, to the satisfaction of the ,City Engineer, prior to final
inspection.
22. The property owner shall be to connect to the public sanitary sewer prior
to final inspection. A sewer hook up permit shall be required by the Town's
179
��„�tir'c�i��•. ��Public Works Department prior to acceptance oflaps for building plan check.
Q 6A, An encroachment permit shall be required for all work proposed within the public
Ael-A__ right of way prior to start work.
23: The property owner shall restore the existing pathway along Fremont Road to a
type 2B pathway to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final
inspection. An encroachment permit shall be required by the Town's Public
Works Department for all work proposed within the public right of way prior to
start work.
FIRE DEPARTMENT:
24. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County
Fire, Department shall be included in all portions of the building. Three sets of plans
prepared by a sprinkler contractor shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire
Department (14700 Winchester Blvd:, Los Gatos, CA 95032) for review and
approval. The sprinklers shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Department,
prior to final inspection and occupancy of the new residence.
25, Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings
in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road
fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background.
January14, 2010
Lands of Toprani
Page 6 of 6
26. Potable. water supplies shall be projected from contamination cause by fire protection
water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and sub
contractors to contact the water purveyor: supplying the site of such project, and to
comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be
incorporated into the design. of any water based fire protection systems, and/or fire
suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically
connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the
potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under
consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the
requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as
having been met by the applicant.
CONDITION NUIVIBERSV,,A �,6 1 20, and 22 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED
OFF BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE
BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the
Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection approval.
NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until
December 22, 2010).
Sincerely,
Debbie Pedro, AICP
Planning Director
enc. Approved plans
cc: Roger Kohler, 721 Colorado Avenue #102, Palo Alto, CA 94303
ATTACHMENT 4
LOSALTOSHII,LS
CALIFORNIA
May 28, 2013
Toprani Family Trust
41 Doud Drive
Los Altos, CA 9.4022
RE: :Landscape Screening for a New Residence
26630 Ascension Drive
File #19-13-ZP-SD
Dear Applicant:
Thank you for submitting a landscape screening plan for a new residence at 26630 Ascension
Drive. Your request for a Site Development Permit for the above referenced project was
approved at a Site Development hearing on May 28, 2013. The approval is subject to the
following conditions:
PLANNING:
1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first.
reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending
on the scope of the changes.
2. Lighting is approved as shown on the plans: Any new lighting shall be approved by the
Planning Department, prior to installation. Uplights are not approved. Lighting shall be the
minimum needed for safety, shall be down shielded, low wattage, shall not encroach or
reflect on adjacent properties, and the source of the lighting shall not be visible from off the
site.
3. Fencing is approved. as shown on the plans. Any new fencing or gates shall require
review and approval. by the Planning Department prior to installation. The proposed 4'6
fence, driveway gate, ' and columns along the front property line shall be . located a
minimum of 30' from the centerline of the adjacent right of way.
4. A Certificate of Completion shall be prepared by the project Landscape Architect,
Irrigation Designer, or Landscape Contractor, provided to the Town, and include the
following statement: "The landscape and irrigation system has been installed as specified
in the landscape design plan and complies. with the criteria. of: the Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance and the permit." The Certificate of Completion shall be submitted
at completion of landscape installation (not required prior to final inspection).
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos -Hills
California 94022
650%941-7222
Fax 650/941-3160
i
Lands of Toprani
26630 Ascension Drive
May 28, 2013
Page 2 .of 3
5. A landscape maintenance and water use deposit of $5,000.00 shall be posted prior to
final inspection of the new residence. An inspection of the screening plantings to ensure.
adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after installation. Prior
to deposit release, the property owner shall also furnish to the Town the second year
(months 13-24 following receipt of the Certificate of Completion) of water use and
billing data from the subject property's water purveyor. If the site water usage exceeds
.the calculated PWB, the deposit will be held for an additional 12.months. At the end of
the additional 12 month period,. the property owner shall provide the Town with the
previous 12 months (months 25-36) of water use and billing data from the subject
property's water purveyor. If the water usage still exceeds the estimated PWB, the
deposit shall be forfeited to the Town, in full. All Town staff time and materials
expended to ensure compliance with this section will be .deducted from the deposit.
6. All landscaping required: for screening purposes or for erosion control, as determined by .
the City Engineer, must be installed prior to f nal inspection.
ENGINEERING:
7. Any revisions or additions to the previously approved grading and drainage plan shall be
submitted for review by the Engineering Department. The plan shall be reviewed by the
Engineering Department and approved prior to commencement of this project. The
approved plan shall be stamped and signed by the project engineer and shall supersede.
the previously approved drainage plan.
8. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (October 15 and April 15)
except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within
ten feet of any propertyline.
9. Any, and all, areas on the project. site that have the native material disturbed shall be
protected for erosion_ control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final
inspection.
10. All irrigation systems must be located at least five feet from the Town's pathways and
outside of the public. right of way and public utility easements. The -Town staff shall
inspect the site and any deficiencies shall be corrected to the satisfaction of the
Engineering. Department prior to f nal inspection.
Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 10 days of the date of this notice.
Upon completion of construction, a final inspection shall be set with the Planning Department
and Engineering Department at least two weeks prior to final building inspection approval.
NOTE: The Site Development -permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until May 28,
2014). All required building permits must be obtained. within. that year and work on items not
requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and completed within two years.
Lands of Toprani
26630 Ascension Drive
May 28, 2013
Page 3 of.3
Thank you for your attention and cooperation. Please call me at _(650) 941-7222, ext. 237, if you
have any questions regarding any of these conditions.
The applicant shall obtain all. required building permits prior to commencement of work.
Si re ,
� 1
icole H i
Assistant Planner
Enclosure: Approved plans
Cc: Bruce Macdonald
304 Merrilee Place
Danville, CA 94526
Pacific Gas and
Electric Company`
September 3, 2013
Subodh Toprani
41 Dowd Drive
Los Altos, CA 94022
ATTACHMENT 5
Land Surveying & Engineering Support
11 I Almaden Boulevard,. Room 814
San"!6ki"CA 95113
RE: Encroachment with proposed 6': wood fence within the. 5' wide Public Utility Easements (P.U.E.) as
dedicated within Lot 3 of Block A of Tract No. 1848 "Fremont Hills", filed for record January 16, 1957
in Book 76 of Maps at page 12, Santa Clara County Records.
Location: 26630 Ascension Drive, Los Altos Hills, California
PG&E File No.: Y13 -EN -18, APN: 175-33-011
Dear Mr. Toprani:
PG&E has completed its review and, has no objection to your encroachment within the aforementioned
P.U.E.'s with your perimeter fence. Said P.U.E.'s are contiguous to the northerly and southerly property
lines.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at the return mailing address, (408)
282-7347, or DAN9@pge.com.
Sincerely,
David Neal
Lead Land Technician
LOSALTOS HILLS
a
CALIFORNIA
November 14, 2013
Subodh Toprani -
26630 Ascension Drive
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
RE: Fence and Gate Permit
26630 Ascension Drive
File # 341-13-ZP
Dear Applicant:.
ATTACHMENT 6
Your request for a Fence and. Gate Permit at 26630 Ascension Drive was administratively
approved on November 14, 2013. The approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The location, height, and materials of the fences and gates shall be constructed
according to the location on the approved plans (enclosed) stamped "approved".
Any changes to the location, height, or construction shall first be. reviewed and
approved by the Site Development Authority.
2. The property owner is responsible for confirming all property line and easement
locations and verifying that new installations are located within the property
boundaries:
3. Property owner is advised to call 811/1-800-227-2600 for. an Underground
Service Alert to mark all utilities, at least two days prior to any digging.
4. Lighting is approved as shown on the approved plans.
5. Fence height is measured from the finished: grade to the top of the fence at any'
point.
Please call the Planning Department at (650) 947-2505 if you have any questions about
this approval.
Sincerely,
Brian Froelich, AICP .
Associate_ .Planner
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills
California 94022
650/941-7222.
Fax 650/941-3160
Fences and walls ATTACHMENT 7
Page 3
Los Altos Hills Municipal Code
Title 10 -Zoning
Section 104.507. Fences, Walls, Gates, and Columns. .
a. Purpose. The following regulations were created to preserve the beauty and open rural
quality of the Town while acknowledging that residents have the right to fence their
properties in order to protect their children, contain their animals, and maintain privacy.
b. Permits required. No fence, wall, -gate, or column structure shall be erected or replaced
without the prior issuance of a zoning or site development permit from the Town.
C. Definitions. The following definitions are established for the purpose of this Article and
the meaning and construction of words and phrases is as follows:
Legal Nonconforming Structure: Refer to Section 104.401(h) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Column: A round or square pillar, pole, or post flanking an entrance way constructed of such
materials as brick, stone, concrete, or other materials. Includes mailbox columns.
Wall: An upright structure of wood, stone, brick, or other substance. or combination of
substances serving to enclose, divide, or support and usually having greater mass than a fence.
Fence: A. structure serving as a barrier or screen -constructed of wood, metal, wire, masonry,
glass, plastic or any other material (not including graded berms or living hedges).
Gate: A movable frame or solid structure that swings, -slides, or rolls controlling ingress and
egress through an opening in a fence, wall, or vegetation.
Open Fence or Gate: A fence or gate constructed in such a way so that no more than fifty (50%)
percent of the surface area obstructs a ground level view through the fence or gate.
Solid Fence or Gate: A fence or gate constructed in such a way so that more than fifty (50%)
percent of the surface area obstructs a ground level view through the fence or gate.
d. -Prohibited fences, walls, gates, columns types. The following fences are prohibited:
1. Chain -'link or cyclone fences, including any fence with bare lengths of wire
stretched between metal poles, with the exception of dark green, black, or brown
vinyl -coated chain-link fences with matching vinyl -coated crossbars and caps.
2. Barbed or razor wire fences, including any fence with attached barbs, sharp points,
or razors.
Fences and Walls
Page 4
Electric fences, including any fence designed to produce an electric shock, except
where necessary for animal husbandry operations.
4. Any fence, wall, and/or gate that may cause harm to people, pets, and/or wildlife
due to points, spikes, or sharpened edges on the top or bottom part of the fence, wall
structure, and/or gates.
5. Any perimeter fence, wall, gate, or column where the color reflectivity value
exceeds 50%.
6. Any fence, wall, gate, or column located within a public or private road right-of-
way or pathway easement except for a mailbox column -with an approved permit.
e. Fences, Walls, Gates, and Columns Requiring Public Notice. Permit requests for the types
of fences, walls, gates and columns identified below. require notification of adjacent
neighbors and neighbors across the street:
(1) Fences, walls, gates and columns that require the removal of existing screening
vegetation (trees and shrubs).
(2) .Solid fences that impact neighbor views as defined by Section 5-9.02 of the View
Ordinance.
(3) Any other proposal deemed appropriate by the Planning Director for a noticed
hearing. Such proposals may include solid fences, as well as walls or vinyl -coated
chain-link fences along any road right-of-way, and fences or walls longer than 1,000
linear feet.
Open fences using natural materials and colors, including unpainted or stained white, brown or
gray wood; welded or woven wire and wood posts; and natural stone and/or brick construction
are preferred and generally are not subject to public notice.
Staff shall notice a permit hearing and conduct the permit review hearing pursuant to Section 10-
2.1305(b) except that only adjacent neighbors and neighbors across the street need to be notified.,
At or prior to the permit hearing, neighbors and the fence permit applicant shall be provided with
notice that the approval or denial of any permit maybe appealed pursuant to Section 10-1.1109.
f. Development Standards for Fences, Walls, Gates; and Columns.
1. Fences and walls located on property lines or in setback areas that are not adjacent to
a road right-of-way shall not exceed a maximum height of 6 feet.
2. Fences and walls located in setback areas that are adjacent to a road right-of-way
shall comply with the standards established in subsections (4) through (9). Height
may be proportionately increased 1 foot for every 10 -foot increase in setback, up to a
maximum of 6 feet in height.
Fences and Walls
Page 5
3. Fences, walls, gates, and columns located behind setback lines are not subject to these
development standards.
41& High
Centerline of Road
Right of Way
30'
(4) Open Fences
(5) Solid Fences, Gates, and Walls
(4) OPEN FENCES AND GATES
Minimum setback from centerline. of adjacent
30'
public or private road right=of--way.
Maximum height of open. fences and gates at the
4 %z'
minimum setback from the centerline of adjacent
public or private road right-of-way.
Minimum setback from :centerline of adjacent
public or private road right-of-way for 6' tall
solid fences, gates, and walls located between
adjacent public or private roadways and. ' the
structural setback line for the particular property:
60'
from,
Minimum setback from centerline of adjacent
45'
public or private road : for 6' tall
open fences. -and gates located between adjacent
public or private roadways and the structural
setback line for the particular property.
(5) SOLID FENCES, GATES, AND WALLS
Minimum setback from centerline. of adjacent
public or private road right-of-way.
30'
Maximum height of solid -fences, gates, and walls
at the minimum setback from the centerline of
adjacent public or private road right-of-way.
3'
Minimum setback from :centerline of adjacent
public or private road right-of-way for 6' tall
solid fences, gates, and walls located between
adjacent public or private roadways and. ' the
structural setback line for the particular property:
60'
7' Max Height
(6) Open Driveway Gates
for a fight fixture. The total ma)omum
height for the column & light is 7 feet.
(7) Columns
height
.age
(6) OPEN DRIVEWAY GATES
Minimum setback from centerline of
30'
adjacent public or private road right -.of -way.
way.
Maximum height of open driveway gates at
4%2'
the minimum setback from the centerline of
adjacent public or private road right -of --way.
..(average)
minimum setback from the centerline of
7' (w/lights)
Minimum setback from centerline of
adjacent public or private road right-of-way
45'
for open driveway gates -with a 6' average
height (7' maximum height). located
6'
between adjacent public or private roadways
7' (w/lights)
and the structural setback line for the
particular property.
(7) COLUMNS
Minimum setback from centerline of
30'_
adjacent public or private road right-of-
way.
Maximum height of columns at the
6'
minimum setback from the centerline of
7' (w/lights)
adjacent public or private road right-of-
way.
Maximum height of . columns located
6'
between adjacent public or private road
7' (w/lights)
right-of-way and the structural setback line
for, the particular property.
(8) OUTDOOR ATHLETIC COURT FENCING
Maximum height of outdoor athletic court fencing located beyond the
structural setback line for the particular property.
10'
(9) OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION EASEMENT PERIMETER FENCES
Maximum height of open space/conservation easement perimeter 6'
fences.
Minimum distance of lowest fence strand or rail from ground. 12" above grade
Open space/conservation easement perimeter fences
shall provide openings sufficient to accommodate the
free passage of wildlife through the easement. A split -
rail wood fence (see exhibit) or equivalent design
shall be required. Where a pathway is located within
an open space/conservation easement, the -perimeter
r�i• i., =� ,fir..' ,r••.
.f
'/,r.. ��.,..�...
WOOD
'��� { • wi �{err. ' �. •l•..
%
• � `�. X41 v `• r � ' 4,. n . 7r, , ��t ��; •�, *
(9,). Open space/conservation easement
perimeter fencing
Fences and Walls
'Page 7
fence shall: be required to have at least two openings at least as wide as the width of the pathway
easement.
10. Any fence crossing or intersecting an officially designated wildlife corridor shall conform to
the requirements specified above for an open space/conservation easement perimeter fence.
11. No fence, wall, gate, or column shall be located within a public or private road right-of-way
or pathway easement. A four -foot (4') tall mailbox post or column may be granted an
exception to be located within a road right-of-way. An encroachment permit from the.
Engineering Department is required to install a mailbox post or column within a road
right-of-way easement. Any existing fence, wall, gate, or:column located within any road
right-of-way may be required to be removed at the owner's expense.
12.
Solid walls, fences, or gates shall not exceed a maximum height of three (3') feet and all
shrubs and plants shall be pruned to a height not to exceed three (3') feet above the -road
level at its nearest point in. an area bounded by the center line
of intersecting roads. or easements for vehicular access, public
or private and a straight line joining points on such center lines
;�Feet
eighty(80') feet distant from their intersection (see exhibit).
All side limbs of trees in such area shall be pruned'to a height
of not less than six (6') feet above the road surface. The
Sopurpose of the provisions of this section is to provide an
unobstructed view of approaching traffic on the .intersecting
gh Max roads. The City Engineer may prescribe greater restrictions
than the height set forth in this paragraph where unusual
conditions make such additional restrictions desirable in the interests of the public_safety.
13. Any fence or wall may be required- to be landscaped. Screen plantings required as a
condition of approval for any fence or wall shall be maintained in good condition by the
property owner.
14. The vertical dimension of any fence; wall, gate, or column shall be measured from the
finished grade on both sides of any such fence, .wall, gate, or column to any point on top of
the fence, wall, gate, or column, including post/column caps and any ornamental features.
g. Requirements for Nonconforming Fences, Walls, Gates, and Columns.
:Replacement of existing legal nonconforming fences, walls, gates, and columns shall be subject
to the requirements in this ordinance. Exceptions may be granted pursuant to subsection 10-
1.507(h) of this ordinance, or where the strict application of these requirements will result in a
hardship for the property owner. Repair of short sections of legal nonconforming fences, walls;
gates, or columns (repair of less than 50 feet or repair of no greater than 25% of total fence or
wall length) will not require a permit if no. other work is done on the same structure over a 12 -
month period. The replacement of any nonconforming structure shall be :prohibited if the City
Engineer determines that a public safety hazard exists or that the structure encroaches in an
easement or public right-of-way. Any fence, wall, gate, or column constructed : without a
Fences and Walls
Page 8
lawfully issued permit is a violation of the Municipal Code and shall be subject to the provisions
of Title 1,.Chapter 2 of the Municipal Code.
h. Exceptions.
Exceptions may be granted subject to a noticed hearing and upon the Site Development
Authority making all of the following findings:
1. The height and design of the proposed fence, wall, gate or column are compatible
with other fences in the neighborhood;
2. The proposed removal of vegetation and trees and disturbance to. natural terrain have
been minimized; and.
3. The proposed structure is otherwise in compliance with all regulations and policies
set forth in the Municipal Code and the General Plan.
Any fence proposed to exceed a height of 6 feet in' a setback area or to be located closer to the
centerline of the road than required shall require a variance in. accordance with the provisions of
Article 11 of the Zoning Ordinance.
LOSALTOS HILLS
CALIFORNIA
March 28, 2014
Subodh Toprani
41 Doud Drive
Los Altos, CA 94022
ATTACHMENT 8
Re: 26630 Ascension Drive - New Redwood Fence along Fremont Road
File #341-13-ZP; APN 175-33-011
Dear Mr. Toprani:
On November. 14,2013; the Town of Los Altos Hills administratively approved a Fence
and Gate Permit at 26630 Ascension Dive (File #341-13-ZP). The approved -plans show
a six (6) foot maximum height redwood fence located on the property line adjacent to
Fremont Road. Unfortunately, this approval was done in error. The .Zoning Ordinance
does not permit a six-foot high solid fence at the property line along a road right-of-way.
Section 10-1.507(f) subsection (2) states the following:
"Fences and walls located in setback areas that are adjacent to a road right-of-
way shall comply with the standards established in subsections -(4) through: (9).
Height may be proportionately increased one foot for every ten (10) foot increase
in setback, up to a maximum of six (6) feet in height."
Furthermore, subsection (5) clarifies the requirements for solid fences which are as
follows:
"Solid Fences, Gates and Walls.
(i) Minimum setback from centerline of adjacent public or private road riglzt-
of--way: thirty (30) feet.
(ii) Maximum height of solid fences, gates, and walls at the minimum setback
from the: centerline of adjacent public or private road right-of-way: three (3)
feet.
(iii) Alinimum setback from centerline of adjacent public or private road right-
of-way for six (6) foot tall solid fences, gates, and walls located between
adjacent public or private roadways and the structural setback line for the
particular property: sixty (60) feet. "
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills
California 94022
650/9.41-7222
Fax 650/941-3160
26630 Ascension Drive —File #341-13-ZP
March 28, 2014
Page 2
Please be aware. that the approved plan includes a stamp which states that, "Any permit,
license, or certificate issued in conflict with the provisions of the Los Altos Hills
Zoning and Site Development Ordinance shall be null and void (LAHIPIC Section 10-
2.1310). " Therefore, based on the fact that the newly constructed six-foot solid redwood
fence is only 30 feet from the centerline of Fremont Drive, the permit approval for the
redwood fence directly conflicts with the Zoning Ordinance and is therefore null and
void..
Several weeks_ ago, I met with your contractor, Mike DeMello, at the property to discuss
the fencing requirements and the options available to bring the fence into compliance
with the code. Options include but are not limited to: 1) cutting the fence down to three
(3) feet in height and proportionately increasing the height. on the side yard fences from
three feet to six feet up to the 30 foot rear setback line; 2) replacing the fence with a four -
foot, six-inch high open fence at the property line and installing landscape screening
inside the fence line; 3) moving the six-foot solid fence 30 feet into your property. You
also have the option to request an exception from the fence requirements under Section
10-1.507(h) which states:
"Exceptions may be granted subject to a noticed hearing and upon the Site
Development Authority making all of the following findings:
(1) The height and design of the proposed fence, wall, gate or column are
compatible with other fences in the neighborhood;
(2) The proposed removal of vegetation and trees and disturbance to natural
terrain have beenminimized; and
(3) The proposed structure is otherwise in compliance with all regulations and
policies setforth in the Municipal Code and the General Plan."
Please contact me at your earliest convenience regarding your options: for bringing the
fence into compliance. Please be advised that the final .inspection and certificate of
occupancy for the new dwelling cannot be granted until the fence issue is resolved.
You can reach me by e-mail at spadovan(tr),losaltoshills.ca.gov or by phone at (650) 947-
2509 if you have any questions. Thank you for your prompt attention on this matter.
Sincerely,
Steve Padovan
Consultant Planner
Mike DeMello
May 6, 2014
The Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road .
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: 26630 Ascension Dr Fencing Permit
- File #341-13-ZP, APN 175-33-011
Attention: Steve Padovan
MAY 7 -- 2114
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
Per our previous phone conversations, my wife and I would like to formally request a -fence exception
from the Town of Los Altos Hills.
As you know. on June 21, 2013 we received a landscaping building permit. During that process we were
informed that we would need a separate fencing permit. This turned out to be no easy feat. Due to the
uniqueness of our lot,, with utility easements and the very confusing Town's fence ordinance, after months
of talking with planning staff and acquiring letters from PG&E we were finally issued a fencing permit on
October 29, 2013. We then proceeded to construct the fence per the approved set of. drawings.
Construction on the fencing began on November 18, 2013 and completed on December 9, 2013. Please
see attached picture of the fence.
Needless to say, after all this work we received a letter on March 28, 2014 stating the fence we were
permitted for and built was not acceptable. From our perspective, we have already spent a considerable
amount of time, resources and consultant fees acquiring the fence permit and construction of the fence per
the permit granted. We feel an exception granted by the city would be in everyone's best interest. The
height and design of thew fence is compatible with other fences in the neighborhood. The removal of trees
and vegetation has already been minimized (most, if not all -the trees are still there).
The exceptions are as followed:
1. The height and design of the proposed fence, wall, gate or column are compatible with
other fences in the neighborhood:
;We believe the following addresses along Fremont Blvd have the same fence configuration we were
permitted to build. 26260 Catharine Court, 26379 Fremont Road, 26301 Fremont Road, 26692
Snell Lane; 26551 Fremont Road; 26642 Fremont Road just to name a few. Attached are
pictures of the above referenced fences.
2. The proposed removal.of vegetation and trees and disturbance to natural terrain
have been minimized:
The removal of trees and vegetation has already been minimized (most, if not all the trees are still
there). Attached are pictures of the above referenced trees. We have taken care to build the
fence around the existing trees. There are 8 existing Oak Trees and 4 existing Monterey Pine
Trees.
3. The proposed structure is otherwise in compliance with all regulations and policies set
forth in the Municipal Code and the General Plan.
Other than the setback requirement from the centerline of the road, we believe the proposed
fence requirements are within all regulations and policies set forth in the municipal code and the
general plan.
Along with the financial impact of not approving this exception, my wife and I are extremely
concerned :about safety and privacy, along such a busy street as Fremont Road. We believe that
our neighbors have similar concerns as they -have constructed similar fences.
We look forward to working with you in resolving this issue as soon as possible. Thank you in
advance for your consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
/St`_14 I ;V_&_
Subodh Toprani
Homeowner,
.26630 Ascension Dr
Los Altos Hills, CA
- •.y P. 1 • 1. • `� 4 .
dk
j1i s. •,may,. �s� b�• \t�a� �!` • � '`� � w��y � � .. � • �x,i..
.... X' - `)► ••mow' -,. ."'�• +� • ,r��%, ?yr, 'l. �M.. a ,.
,. . +moi vf()1 .Nw. •� ,"moi. a•.
46
lot low
moi. s ,� �`
VCM � t _ � � •� • � � 't Y' !
712W -
i
'.II lot I ".—.' I'll.,...— b-
1 1/4 lrF'o W04 SSo.AaY)
T" +Vqvajt.- btP)r
f
w, -..
O
Sea
t,
Pei
I
y .y
• fi I
�' AS Y
ATTACHMENT 10
MAP OF TRACT #6112
ISM a '
21125■ 11•SD � ufw uw
1119011•
■ }7911 ,•, , ! P L/E■ !
+1 S
I's
I t' Ilann7w M130
; 291N 1i617 7 1•!50
r f' 11T1 1.100 1 {
• ; \ 7 WY 7S■ft •r
! m7N 75:T'� 2917! ZfAi ]!];,]
aru aro, ! 180+0 „!» HP90 ,.aa ] • la
_
....... ! . . ... ... 1 • W-21 talo '
• s •Y iS!!f � ZYJt• 129..i] lSOm + y 1 • 7!
29,15 art.29/1 7■tl0 ` : \ • m■'J ♦� • y■t.
:7 �• l.l7f • ��•••.
'>_•r0! 2!197 V A ' • •N ]]7TG ° t,l7! Z�x i
ail]294} }N:7 • •'1•
�.;. 110.5 • MSSS 1
29115 ]YL �'♦ ,�• , ■
JJJi Tl+cs IMF•. ,4•] 297x! • 14121
! tws !
'`, Zns ►s•
law
T•.11 Twx IVJ1 rnzs �� a• w7] a
117 ]55!0 !••
29
•+••• �... ...._ lEt2] , 19 2917 1Na■
1 ♦ 1NR W!1 ♦ ,4m �
N+-,4 1N,, • 5
len!YLjtO i1 7N■1 11!15 :5g.7 iS57! 29:w i • 1410 ■ . •� 1449f ,N.O 1411 ■
PinlEwaod�StMd
+ TSA IGb} •w7 INI, !
7mS7 ` v \ 29Y7r 16.60 t. • • cc ° ]
rsa] r_x] } !
]15••. ' : Wit 1427 1..,1 ■
PROJECT - 177 ■
� . rs.7 '•+' n•.o 1•'01 a
+! » / 29.29 rJilO ul■a JIB
L \ m y x i� r.31,
• �18 \ uY!
SITE ]�:! 7E1_t T1a_] � m,1t � t.11f ; 11]:.7 1,x9 .
I.n, 1 29E21 Y 157M1 ` 7lrE � .\ • • u /
_ i ]!!!: • to"" I MNI 291q 3il,S la1SC 7.,y
ml7• `+* i!1]o 0+ M •'•+f'y 470 150. Y,
• / ■ :!»!
�, • • / • .••1 • • +i 1\ m+� t42f 7!119 m2S Zy11 7107] ,yl:
mNS - i IC30 7fETJ • 1.T.] FUC 7rn1■ L. 7r'•� 1
• M. B m!E! T■!]o
t 2120
� 171t! • i 1 •.fa / • }6jp0 _ }f I.7 i]lr!
+' '�° ' I!f" „l _ TRACT #6112
1 1•.5PEiir0 ♦ � L
+ ISt7f • 7L•A\ i` •1
♦, 1s+� ! rw•S` Y"' 3.090 ...._• 7
1 if / 7Cf• t9 29171
5 ' 2lC0]
TOWN HALL4'
4:41
T°.. " 1
t • 7:]'00 /t i nzl
•' • f� / In ■ rx■
. • !Ps• '' T■_L j�. —X7fm5 i ZWSa +laA I•Iu 1
'zi?. • '. ] +''fir ''xlfc �— .lyi i. , :.•. 5 I m]:o 3lsrf uu7 °
\ TS3u }ESu :. f �• Y i•• ••. •�•..+.
! i•..•...•.. 0
t7•1 i •.
;•7�
1 29110 .%!•a 1 1292:! • 29ta as •P>�i• l 1e
! IL•.1' 1333Tu:f ar11 •,y•,!
In
.• l t1t■• 1•
mN • 3 •!•• ° 7l:r0 I •17'7 m777 ]0012: 7!0!} /2917
,]af ; 71.x • 2937] �r fit. 15101 1 ]5210 SII]
29307 :3 \x011
• 75115 '•� • « J 151:5 • / ,1•x7 1 ♦ tli•. = Ism,
,7.71 • + U731 i t75x
]aa
tra Inul 297_1 H7,I�w 1 Iva: � •� C� lull� 7• i 0
29]71 l 1294 0 lull
a44. +x7b : •TPA "mi
1 IQtl 75221 :71 1 ! wo / 7°391 mVt ; t]729 a 0
MIS • 177!7 1 '299 ! :xIN ! co ,1117
t
7 tvs! i ■ 1111:0 i 7'
—7' : ■ 17].0 � ft., 11!11 ■ +17]7 1115: 7/ N
U1n a i7S.1 + txl' 1—� 17r1f • a ••♦ 1 '33.0U5I'1 1S■! S�j lull I
�4 ■ .' y s. ,� -, • 171:7 127E •' tiIYJ ! '1r]3 tl7b 1790: • _ • g7
a • q
t7lft�
1217• 11111 _ ; .IIA f 17351 _ .. � 1 ISI1: / ,ICP. 115? 110.!! 1y17 11
�.': ,2979 y] '3f,° V77f : IIr7o � ., ` • � •xsr ,vs, g, - '.+-.
• •2976 ! '•w,••• tom, `! 29.:7 9:71 }k4}l0,t
.• •� t :mx f . r • •• 1291! 11'1+ !! mm .; •1 12771 13771
i ■
q ! ! +71R ; S\ '2910 •� !+ s a , . , • • • . LSCC!
•2973 '.29y \ !! •nV 1 •mn 72711 • 71711
4\!•] ' ♦+'• t• \ ,117; ! 2sap 1u'S 27m7 • ism 1.71
� 1 , ,� ,Te50 a lIw •!
uwa }511 !
� t29e0 ,mn �, • � � ,rlff 1299 `,• � 3 i 129u 1rr1 ,+ 3fCU awls a/.5 Z aa; TV3.
a.
%, ins 7 ven `x51 • , a m7u
lull
•, y•♦ 1 pars
Y •+ 17•,! 17rif f ! �• •` ZS.0 tYn 1 ; 25..! 117/0 2f■a I90/7 }1151 al30
Rmom Hills �• • ,1!20 •,i 1 ; .7%)2 .x■, 1
Cm.tr1 pb ,may , Ip77
,•+ - , :7171 ! t27A
z 293u 1•�'a f rale
•+1 :us �: +291 m+f 7f» r T:1
t 7puss\ �7m
� .7Sw. , ZfIs7 1
e •7sn 7x1 •711z / ' ` r 26710 ]tks0 `� 2•rc
.t
'7515 \ /, \ \ �: ! .�\...` i +- m7•� ,7S:1C 74111 i 7E::
ATTACHMENT 11
Approved August 22, 2012
Minutes of a Special Meeting
Town of Los Altos Hills
PLANNING COMMISSION
THURSDAY, July 19, 2012, 7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road
ADMINISTRATION OF THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE AND SEATING OF NEWLY
APPOINTED PLANNING COMMISSIONERS 10
City Clerk Deborah Padovan administered the oath of office to Jitz/Couperu nd Susan
Mandle.
The Planning Commission acknowledged former Commissioner Eric Clrk on the
Planning Commission and presented him with a gift of gratitude.
2. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to der at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers at Town Hall.
Present: Chairman Partridge and Commissioners: Abraham, Couperus, Harpootlian and
Mandle
Staff: Debbie Pedro, Planning Director; chard Chiu, City Engineer; Brian Froelich,
Associate Planner; and Sarah Co , Community Development Specialist
3. RE -ORGANIZATION OF THE P ING COMMISSION
MOTION MADE, SECONDED,/ANASSED BY VOICE VOTE: Motion by Commissioner
Harpootlian and seconded by Cor Abraham to appoint Richard Partridge as Planning
Commission Chairman for a one
MOTION MADE, SECON , AND PASSED BY VOICE VOTE: Motion by Commissioner
Abraham and seconded Commissioner Partridge to appoint John Harpootlian as Planning
Commission Vice -Chaff an for a one year term.
4.
5.
M THE FLOOR - none
Plannin ommission Ex Parte Contacts Policy Disclosure: Commissioner Harpootlian had met
the ap .cants for Items 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3; Commissioner Abraham had met the applicant for
Ite 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3; Commissioner Mandle had met with the applicants for Items 5.1 and 5.2,
a saw the property for Item 5.3; Commissioner Couperus had met with the applicant for Item
.2; and Chairman Partridge had met with applicants of Items 5.2 and 5.3..
Planning Commission Minutes
July 19, 2012
Page 9
Approved August 22, 2012
5.3 LANDS OF SITYU, 26200 Catharine Court; File #145-12-ZP; A request for a
fence permit and an exception to replace a six (6) foot tall solid wood fence, with
a reduced setback of 30 feet from the Fremont Road right-of-way centerline
where a 60 foot centerline setback is required. CEQA Review: Categorical
Exemption per Section 15303 (d) (staff -Brian Froelich).
Brian Froelich, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The request is to replace the rear
yard fence which fronts Fremont Road. That fence had deteriorated and was removed by the
owner. The proposed fence will be a new version of the previous fence. He pointed out that staff
researched the subdivision from the late 1970s and found records showing that the entire
Fremont frontage was fenced as a condition of approval of the subdivision. Staff could not find
information on why the fence was required but found a condition that precluded a concrete wall
from being constructed around the subdivision. A letter from a neighbor was included which
indicated that the developer was to construct a wooden fence for all properties facing Fremont
Road.
Debbie Pedro, Planning Director, pointed out that the property is constrained by the fact that it
has three sides that face roads. The applicant has developed the rear yard with a tennis court and
other hardscapes; if he were to replace a six foot solid fence to be compliant, the fence would
need to be set back an additional 30 feet inside the property, which would create issues with the
existing development in the rear yard. She added that there are other properties along Fremont
that might be affected by the project; thus guidance from the Planning Commission is requested.
Commissioner Harpootlian noted that the information from staff shows that planting is planned
outside the fences.
Planner Froelich reported coming across the planting plans and letters from neighbors that
indicated the area was not properly irrigated. The plantings had included Eucalyptus and
Oleander.
Director Pedro cautioned the requirement of landscaping next to the fence because the right-of-
way will be used for a Type 2-B path, a bike lane and possibility a shoulder.
Commissioner Mandle clarified that the options are to approve a noncompliance fence or to
approve a fence that meets the ordinance. She asked whether a different location or height could
be considered.
Director Pedro stated the Planning Commission can do something in between. A compliant
fence would be a three foot solid fence or a four and one half foot tall open fence at the property
line.
CHAIRMAN PARTRIDGE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING
The applicant stated that the ordinance favors an open fence with trees behind the fence. The
General Plan Circulation Element encourages preserving the natural environment and open
space. His preference is to have a fence behind the trees or hedges, to look more natural and yet
provide privacy for the residents.
Planning Commission -Minutes
July 19, 2012
Page 10
Approved August 22, 2012
.;;
Pat Ley objected to putting in a solid fence 3-0 feet back with bushes behind it.
CHAIRMAN PARTRIDGE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Couperus took issue with .the words "compatible" and "neighborhood in the
conditions. The staff report shows nine properties that currently maintain the original legal six-
foot tall fence. If the 42 in the development were taken into consideration, the nine properties are
about one fifth of the total "neighborhood." He stated he hiked the section of Fremont Road in
the "neighborhood" and found that only a few properties had original fences. The intent of the
fencing ordinance is to be consistent within the whole Town eventually. He supports approving a
fence that meets the ordinance.
Commissioner Mandle agreed that this is an opportunity to move in a direction to comply with
the ordinance. She stated that moving the fence 30 feet into the property is harsh. She would like
to see a compromise.
Commissioner Abraham did not supportmoving the fence in 30 feet; the applicant should be
allowed to rebuild his fence which was a requirement of the subdivision.
Commissioner Harpootlian acknowledges that this is an area that the Town would like to see in
conformance but added that the current fence was built as a requirement of the Town.
Chairman Partridge supports a fence that lines up with the existing fences- and suggested a six-
foot open fence such as a wire fence with plantings around it.
Commissioner Mandle suggested moving the fence back 10 feet, allowing a six foot solid fence
with space for planting in front of the fence.
Mr. Shyu stated his immediate concern is privacy, and he did not want an open fence. He.noted
that his neighborsreplaced their fences within the past five years, and it would look odd if he has
to change the location of his fence.
MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND FAILED BY ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion made by
Commissioner Abraham and seconded by Commissioner Mandle to approve the reconstruction
of the legal nonconforming fence.
AYES: Commissioners: Mandle, Abraham
NOES: Commissioners: Harpootlian, Couperus; and Chairman Partridge
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Abraham stated the ordinance creates a hardship for the property owner.
MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion made by
Commissioner Harpootlian and seconded by,Commissioner Abraham to approve a fence that is a
Planning Commission Minutes
July 19, 2012
Page 11
Approved August 22, 2012
six foot open fence at the property line, or a six foot solid fence ten feet in from the location of
the prior fence.
AYES: Commissioners: Mandle, Abraham, Harpootlian, Couperus; _arid Chairman Partridge
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairman Partridge advised the applicant that he has the right to appeal the decision to the City
Council.
6. OLD BUSINESS — none
7. NEW BUSINESS
Director Pedro advised that Fence Committee has a proposal to amend the Fence Ordinance and
wants to hold a Study Session with the Planning Commission to solicit feedback. She will check
with the City Clerk to book the Council Chambers for the week of August 20, preferably August
22. The regular August 2 meeting will be cancelled.
REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
8.1 Planning Commission Representative for June 21 — Commissioner Clow
8.2 Planning Commission Representative for July 31 — Commissioner Partridge
8.3 Planning Commission Representative for August 23 — Commissioner Abraham
8.4 Planning Commission Representative for September 20 — Chairman Harpootlian
9. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
7.1 Approval of June 7, 2012, minutes
MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY VOICE VOTE: Motion by Commissioner
Harpootlian and seconded by Commissioner Abraham to approve the June 7, 2012, minutes as
corrected.
AYES: Commissioners: Mandle, Abraham, Harpootlian, Couperus, and Chairman Partridge.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
10. REPORTS FROM FAST TRACK MEETINGS — JUNE 26, JULY 3, AND JULY 10
2012
10,.1 LANDS OF DOUGLAS HAHN & TRANG BUI LIVING TRUST; 24597
Voorhees Drive; File #50-12-ZP-SD; A request for a Site Development Permit for
a 5,644 square foot basement. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section
15303(a) (staff -Nicole Horvitz).