The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997-05-19 City Council (27)City of Palo Alto C ty Manager’s Repor TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 12 FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: May 19, 1997 CMR:255:97 SUBJECT:Appeal of Zoning Administrator’s Denial of Fence Variance at 1071 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto (File No. 96-V-26 ) REOUEST This report addresses an appeal of a Zoning Administrator decision, which denied a Variance for a six-foot-high fence located in the front setback, 11 feet from the front property line, where four feet is ordinarily the maximum fence height allowed within 16 feet of the front property line. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator denial, in accordance with the proposed Findings (see Attachment 1). POLICY IMPLICATIONS There are two Comprehensive Plan policies that relate to this application. Policy 1 in the Housing Element of the existing Comprehensive Plan states that the City should: "Maintain the general low-density character of existing single-family areas," and Policy 3 states that the City should: "Protect and enhance those qualities which make Palo Alto’s neighborhoods especially desirable." Both of these policies are further expressed in the Zoning Ordinance standards for the R-1 district and as a set of R-1 design guidelines for single-family houses. The subject fence does not comply with the recommendation in the Guidelines in that Guideline A5 (page 17) calls for avoiding fences in front yards except where consistent with existing neighborhood.patterns. AKhough there are several six-foot-high fences in the neighborhood, the predominate pattern is to have either a low fence or hedge in the front yard, no fence in the front yard or a six-foot-high fence behind the 16 foot setback line. The Guidelines further recommend that if fences are used in the front yard, they should contribute to a sense of entry to the house and should match the scale and size of the house. High CMR:255:97 Page 1 of 4 fences on a small lot can look unneighborly, like a fortress (page 18). The six-foot-high wall that has been constructed does not contribute to the entry of the house, it in fact hides the entry to the house. In addition, it appears out-of-scale with the lot and existing house in that it spans approximately three-quarters of the width of the lot and obscures the base and middle of the structure, leaving only the top of the front windows and roof visible. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The site is a flat, rectangularly shaped parcel.of6,160 square feet (56 feet wide by 110 feet deep). It is located in the middle of the north side of the block, is developed with one single- family house, and is surrounded by single-family houses on parcels of similar size and configuration. The Code Enforcement Section of the Building Division received a complaint in September 1996 that a six-foot-high cinder block wall had been constructed within 16 feet of the front property line at the subject address. A Code Enforcement Officer verified the complaint with a field investigation and documented that the six-foot-high wall was constructed 11 feet fi:om the front property line. The property owner was appraised of the remedies for the violation, which included: lowering the wall by two feet and leaving it in the same location; moving the wall five feet further away from the front property line and leaving it at the same height; applying for a variance to allow the wall to remain in the location and at the height constructed; or removing the wall entirely. The property owner decided to apply for a variance and made the application in November 1996. The Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on January 16, 1997 and received public testimony as summarized under the Public. Participation section of the attached Planning Commission staff report (see Attachment 2 and its attachments). The Zoning Administrator denied the variance application on January 30, 1997, because the three required variance findings could not be made. The Zoning Administrator found that Finding 1 could not be made because there is nothing exceptional or extraordinary about a flat, 6,160 square foot interior lot that would prevent the zoning requirements from being met. In addition, the site encounters the same high automobile and bus volumes as all other sites along Embarcadero Road. Finding 2 could not be made because the six-foot-high wall was not required to preserve a property right since an enclosed private yard could be located at the back of the house rather than the front. The applicant had raised concerns about securing his property and stated that a six-foot-high wall was the only practical way to achieve that security. The Zoning Administrator found that there are other.methods for providing a safe, secure house rather than building a six-foot-high wall in the front setback and noted that the Police Department is generally not in favor of tall fences and walls in front yards because they can provide a hidden environment for criminals that actually results.in a higher number of attempted burglaries. The Zoning Administrator found that the detrimental impact, addressed in Finding 3 would be that the wall would contribute to a "fortress-like" CMR.’255:97 Page2 of 4 appearance and would visually separate the house from the surrounding neighborhood (see Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Staff Report, dated April 30, 1997, for a complete discussion of the required Variance findings). The applicant appealed the Zoning Administrator’s decision in February 1997. The appellant states that there are unusual circumstances related to the property because it is located close to the intersection of California Avenue and Embarcadero Road, which is dangerous and heavily traveled. He further states that the stop sign and bus stop located in front of the house contribute to crime and encourage people to look into his windows. He states that moving the wall to a conforming location would require the removal of two large cedar trees. He further believes that there would be no detrimental impact to the neighborhood because 20 of his neighbors signed a petition in support of his application. Lastly, hestates that he is willing to plant fast growing trees and vines to sotten the appearance of the wall along the street frontage (see Attachment 2, Planning Commission Report and attachments, dated April 30, 1997, for a complete discussion of the appellant’s rationale). Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission considered the appeal at a public hearing on April 30, 1997. The Commission recommended denying the appeal and upholding the Zoning Administrator’s denial of the variance application (see Attachment 3 - Planning Commission minutes; dated April 30, 1997). The Planning Commission agreed that the three findings could not be made. Although they understood that the applicant had constructed the wall without knowing the regulations, they did not believe .that presented grounds for the variance. ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator denial of 96-V-26. Approve the appeal as requested by the appellant, which will allow the fence to remain as constructed. Approve the appeal, and modify the fence by imposing any conditions or restrictions deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. In order to approve alternative 2 or 3, the City Council will need to make supportive findings. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the City regarding any of the possible actions on the appeal. CMR:255:97 Page 3 of 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A fence is a Category 3(e) exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL The action of the City Council is final. ATTACHMENTS 2. 3. 4. .Proposed Findings for Denial of Variance Planning Commission staff report, dated April 30, 1997, with 10 attachments. Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes of April 30, 1997 Plans (Council Members only) CC: Wei Ming Ma andPei Li Jin, 1071 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Stephen Player, 2600 E1 Camino Real, Suite 410, Palo Alto, CA 94306 PREPARED BY: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment C~~ -FLEMING Manager CMR:255:97 Page 4 of 4 Draft Findings for Denial of Variance 96-V-26 ATTACHMENTI There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the parcel is a flat, 6,160 square foot, mid-block parcel surround by other fiat, midbloek ¯ parcels of similar size and shape. All parcels along Embarcadero Road are subject to the same heavy vehicular and pedestrian traffic to which this parcel is subject; The granting.of the application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that there is ample open space at the rear of the parcel for private yard arch and a six foot high fence could be located in front of the house at the allowed 16 foot setback, which would result in private yard area in the front as well. There are alternative methods for providing safety and security of single-family sites rather than building six foot high fences within front setbacks. Denial of the variance does not result in the loss.of a private, secure, safe dwelling unit. The granting of the application will be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in that it would create a "walled-off" visual impact on the site and would result in the visual separation of this site and house from surrounding houses and the neighborhood, which is contrary to Comprehensive Plan policies as expressed in the Rol Single-Family Design Guidelines. PLANNING Attachment 2 COMMISSION TO: STAFF REPORT ~iiiii!.._i ......... ¯ ................................................. PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator AGENDA DATE: April 30, 1997 DEPARTMENT:Planning SUBJECT:Appeal of Zoning Administrator denial of Variance 96-V-26 at 1071 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, California ~OMMENDATION Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator denial of a variance application for. the.location and construction of a six foot high wall, located .I 1 feet from the from property line, where four feet is normally the maximum height allowed within 16 feet of the front property line, in accordance with the proposed Findings(see Attachment 1). BACKGROUND/PROJECT INFORMATION The subject site is a flat, rectangularly shaped parcel of 6,160square feet (56 feet wide by 110 feet deep). It is developed with a single-family house with an attached garage. The site is located in the middle of the north side of the block and is mounded by single’family houses on parcels of similar size. There are no encumbrances or easements on the.site that reduce its usable s.quare footage. _Pzoje~,LDr~sr~’ption land History The Code Enforcement Section of the Building Division received a complaint on September 3, 1996 stating that a six-foot high cinder block wall had been comtructed within 16 feet of the front property line at 1071 Embarcadero Road. A Code Enforcement Officer investigated the complaint on September .4, 1996 and verified that a six-foot high wall had been constructed 11 feet from the front property line. The property owner was notified of the violation and appraised of the remedies, which included lowering.the wall by iwo feet and leaving it in thesame location, moving the wall five feet furthei away from the front property line and leaving it at the same height, applying for a variance, to S Aplan\pla.div~pcsr\ 107 lemb.sr 04-30-97 :P~ge I. allow the wall to remain in the. location and at the height consla’ucted, or removing the wall entirely. Afterconsidering the options, the property owner applied for a variance on November 20, 1996 to allow the fence to remain as constructed. The applicant’s primary reasons for believing that a Variance was warranted included: the increased privacy and safety the wall provided; other sites in the neighborhood have six foot high fences; and there would be no adverse impact on neighbors, which was documented by a petition signed by 20 neighbors stating that they did not object to the fence (see Attachment 2 - Application materials). ~stra~sion ~ The Zoning Administrator held a public hearing and received public testimony, as summarized in the "Public Participation" section of .this staff report, on January 16, 1997. The Zoning Administrator denied the variance based on the findings that there is nothing exceptional or extraordinary about a fiat, 6,160 square foot interior lot that would prevent the zoning requirements from being met; that granting the application was not necessary for the preservation of a property right since an enclosed private yard area could be located at the back of the house rather than the front and that a six-foot highfence would be allowed in the front yard, but five feet further back from the location of the subject fence; and that the detrimental impact on property ".m the area would be a house that is "walled- off" and visually separated from the siarrounding neighborhood (see Attachment 3, Zoning Administrator’s decision, dated January 30, 1997). The p.roperty owner appealed the Zoning Administrator;s denial on February I0, 1997. The appellant.states that there are unusual circumstances related to the property because it is located close to the intersection of California Avenue and Embarcadero Road, which is dangerous and heavily traveled. He further states that the stop sign and bus.stop located in front of the house encourages people to look into his windows. He references other six foot high fences in the immediate neighborhood and the need for additional safety and privacy from intruders and ears. He states that moving the wall to a conforming location at lease 16 feet from the front property line would require removing two large cedar trees. He further states that there is no detrimental impact because 20 of his neighbors.signed a petition in favor of the wall in the present location. Lastly, he states that the fence does not "wall-off" their front yard and that he is willin~.to plant fast growing trees and vines to soften the appearance of the wall along the street frontage (see Attachment 4, Letter of Appeal, dated February 10, 1997). ¯ S:~plan\pladiv\pesr\ 1071 ¢mb.sr Table 1 sttmmarizes the pertinent information regarding the site. Table 1 Applicant: Appellant.’.. Property Owners: Assessor’s Parcel Number: Wei Ming Ma and Pei Li Jin 1071 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Same as Above Same as Above 003-42-055 Comprehensive Plan Designation: ¯Zoning District: Existing Land Use: Surrounding Land Uses: Parcel Size: North: South: Bast: West: Single-Family Residential R-1 One Single-Family Residence Single-Family Residential Embarcadero Road and Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential 6,160 square feet (56 feet by 110 fee0 There are two Comprehensive Plan policies that relate to this application. Policy 1 in the Housing Element of the existing Comprehensive Plan states that the City should: "Maintain the general low-density character of existing single-family areas", and Policy 3-states that .the.’City should: "Protect and enhance those qualifies which make Palo Alto’s neighborhoods especially desirable". Both of these policies are further expressed in the S:\plan~pladiv~pcsr\1071 emb.sr.04-30-97 ¯ "Page 3 Zoning Ordinance standards for the R-1 district and as a set of R-1 design guidelines for single-family houses.~ The subject fence does not comply.with the recommendation in the Guidelines in that Guideline A5 (page 17) calls for avoiding fences in front yards except where consistent with existing neighborhood patterns. Although there are several six-foot high fences inthe neighborhood, the predominate pattern is to have either a low fence or hedge in the front yard, no fence in the front yard or.a six-foot high fence behind the 16 foot setback line..The Guidelines further recommend that if fences are used in the front yard, they should contribute to a sense of entry to the house and should match the scale and size of the house. High fences on a small lot can look unneighborly, like a fortress (page 18 of the Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines). The six-foot high wall that has been constructed does not contribute to the entry of the house, it in fact hides the entry to the house. In addition, it appears out-of-scale With the lot and existing house in that it spans approximately three-quarters of the width of the lot and obscures the base and middle of the structure leaving only the top of the front windows and roo~ visible. There are three findings that need to be made to approve a variance (Palo Alto Mtmieipal Code Section 18.90.050). The discussion below summarizes the rationale used to make each finding and the appellants reasofl for disagreeing with the Zoning Administrator’s determination. The first, finding states that there must be exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zoning district. The ZonlngAdministrator found that there is nothing exceptional or extraordinary about the site. It is a flat, rectangular, 6,160 square foot, mid-block parcel surrounded by other fiat, mid-block parcels of similar size and shape. Allof ~e sites along Embarcadero Road are subject to the same heavy vehicular and pedestrian traffic.. The appellant disagrees with this finding and states that.the extraordinary circumstances are the location of the site next to the intersection of North California Avenue and Embarcadero Road and the location of a .stop sign and bus stop at the intersection. He states that the proximity to the intersection is s~ to a comer lot condition and that the location of the bus stop encourages people to look into the front windows of his house. The exposure of the house to the road renders his house and family more susceptible to intruders and the possibility of ears loosing control and runtting off the road and onto his S:\plan~ladiv\pcsr\1071 emb.sr 04-30-97 Page 4 property. He also mentions two other sites in the immediate area that have six foot high fences in the front setback: 1050 North California Avenue; and 1055 Embarcadero Road. Staff does not agree that the subject site is similar to a comer lot condition. Although the site is located near the confluence of a "T" intersection, it is not bounded by two or more streets and is not exposed to the additional street frontage and traffic conditions that are present for comer lots. Comer lots may be granted variances for the height and location of fences in the streetside setback because, under standard fence regulations, a comer lot can not always enjoy the use of an enclosed, private backyard and they are often subject to greater traffic and noise impacts than interior lots. These conditions do not exist on the subject site. The Subject site has no additional exposure to traffic or noise than any other interior lot along the street. Similarly, the appellant’s house is not subject to greater risk of intrusion or criminal activitysince anyone standing at a bus stop, waiting at a stop sign or inclined to criminal behavior could just as easily look into windows or attempt breaking into any home in the immediate neighborhood. Police have consistently supported the position that walls cause security problems. Staff has researched the other two properties the applicant references as having six foot high fences in the front yard. There is no record of a variance being granted or a building permit being issued for the fence at 1050 North California Avenue. If a formal complaint is registered with the Code Enforcement .Section of the Building Division,. a .Code Enforcemdnt Officer will investigate the situation further. The fence at 1055 Embarcadero Road received approval of a "Fence Exception.Applicati6n" on December 29, 1986.The Fence Exception allowed a 5 foot l 1 inch high fence to be located 14 feet from the street side property line (see Attachment 5 - Fence Exception Application). A fence permit was issued for a 5 foot 10 inch on February 4, 1987 (see Attachment 6 - Fence Permit). It should be noted that the Fence Exception process and Fence Permits no longer exist. The Exception process has been replaced by the Variance process and the Fence Permit eliminated.. The Exception for the fence at 1055 Embarcadero Road was approved prior to the approval of the R-1 Single-Family Design Guidelines and was not subject to the same review eriteria as fences are today.. The three variance findings did not have to be made and an applicant simply had to present a convincing argtmaent to the Chief Building Official to obtain an exception. The second finding states that the variance is necessary to preserve and enjoy a substantial. S:\plan\pladiv\pesr\107 lemb.sr 04-30-97 ~Page 5 property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. The Zoning Administrator found that denying the variance would not result in the loss of a property fight. A fully enclosed portion of the front yard could be attained by" locating a six foot high fence at or behind the 16 foot from setback. Although the enclosed area would not be as large, as the applicant may desire, it would not be prevented. In addition, the loss of a fully enclosed private yard in front of the house is mitigated by the fully enclosed backyard. No loss of the enjoyment of a private, secure outdoor area would occur if the variance were denied. The appellant states that the existence of an enclosed rear yard is irrelevant to the second finding since he did not apply for a variance on the grounds of enjoyment of outdoor area, but rather to increase privacy and secure the safety of his family. He further states thatto move the wall back five feet; to a complying location, requires the removal of two mature cedar trees and. would reduce the natural light in the two bedrooms adjacent to the wall. Staff doesnot believe that a six-foothigh wall located 11 feet from the front property line provides greater privacy or protection from intruders or careening vehicles than does’a six- foot high wall located at the allowed 16 foot setback. In addition, there are methods of providing safety for property and family members other than building fences closer to the front property line than ordinarily allowed. Not approving such a variance does not reduce a property owners enjoyment of a safe and secure house. .’ Staff also does not,believe it is clear from the photographs and site visits that the trees would need to be removed to move the fence back five feet. Asstuning the trees would have to be removed, staff would recommend .redesign of the fence rather than removal of the trees. If the property owner wants to save mature trees, staff recommends that a four foot fence be located within the 20 foot front setback. The desire to save the treesis not grounds for approving a fence variance, but rather for redesigning .the fence to accommodate the trees. Underlying the applicant’s assertion that moving the fence back five feet results in the loss of mature trees is the assumption that the zoning regulati0m have produced competition between fences and landscaping. Staff disagrees with this assumption since there are other ways of designing and locating the fence that would not conflict with the trees. Similarly, there are ways to design and locate the fence that would not reduce light into the appellant’s residence. The" third finding states that the variance approval will not have a detrimental or injurious impact on property or improvements in the vicinity. The Zoning Administrator found that S:\plan\pladiv\pesr\1071 emb.sr ’ 04-3~97 ~Page 6 the application would have a detrimental impact because the fence would create a visual separation between the site and the surrounding area. This separation would create the "walled-off" or "fortress-like" impact discouraged by the Single-family Design Guidelines discussed in the "Policy Implications" section of this report. The appellant disagrees with this finding because 20 of his neighbors signed a petition saying they did not believe the fence created a "walled-off" impact. He states that he is willing to plant fast growing trees and vines in front of the wall to soften its visual impact. He also references other six foot high fences in the neighborhood. Staff acknowledges the neighborhood support of the variance application. Although these particular neighbors support the variance, staff is not in agreement-about its visual impacts for the reasons stated in the "Policy Implications" section of this report. The fence obscures the front entrance to the house, andthe bottom two thirds of the structure. The. other six foot high fences the applicant references are addressed in the discussion under Finding Number 1 in this staff report. The appellant and several other property, owners along Embarcadero Road have stated that six foot high fences in front setbacks are a positive contribution to their neighborhood. Staff does not recommend this approach, but the residents along Embarcadero may wish to consider applying for special fence requirements as did the neighborhood along University Avenue., Changing the regulations so that they address the situation that all property owners along this roadway encounter may be a more justifiable.and expedient approach to the situation than applying for individual variances for which findings cannot be made. In the long run, staff recommends that high fences along residential arterials are not a desirable response to the harsh environment created by fast moving automobiles. If the residents along Embarcadero "turn their backs" to the arterial, the message to motorists will be that it is acceptable to drive at even higher speeds. Instead, staff recommends that the policies in the draft Comprehensive Plan to landscape residential arterials for an even greater community residential presence are the preferred response. Fences will only exacerbate security problems and give further ground to the automobile orientation of Embarcadero Road On January 16, 1997, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing regarding the S:\plan\pladiv\pesr\1071 emb.sr 04-30-97 ."l~ 7 variance request (see Attachment 7, Excerpt from January 16, 1997. Zoning Administrator Hearing minutes). The applicant and the Zoning Administrator discussed possible solutions to the situation, including moving the fence, lowering it or planting trees and vines in front of it to screen it from public view. The Zoning Administrator stated after the close of the hearing that she thought it would be difficult to make the. variance findings and that she was not inclined to approve the project. Two residents spoke in favor of the variance citing safety and traffic problems as reasons for approving the application. The applicant submitted a petition signed by 20 of his neighbors supporting the variance application (see Attachment 8, Petition in favor of variance 96-V-26). One letter in opposition to the variance was submitted citing the precedent .that would be set if this variance application was approved (see Attachment 9, Letter in Opposition to variance 96-V-26). The Planning Commission can recommend Council: one of the following actions to the City 1.Deny. the appeal and.uphold the Zoning Administrator d~nial of 96-V-26. Approve the appeal as requested by the appellant, which will allow the fence to remain as eomtrueted. Approve. the appeal, and modify the fence by imposing any .conditions or. restrietiom deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. In order to recommend alternative 2 or 3, the Planning Commission will need to recommend supportive findings. There is no fiscal impact to the City regarding any of the aetiom on the appeal. A fence is a Category 3(e) exemPtiOn under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ,~LTEPzS3FOLLOWING APPROVAL Proceed to .the City Council on May 19, 1997 S:\plan\pladiv\pesr\ 1071 emb.sr 2. 4. 5~ 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Proposed Findings for Denial of 96-V-26 Application Materials Zoning Administrator decision dated January 30, 1997 Letter of appeal dated February 10, 1997 Fence Exception Application Fence Permit Zoning Administrator Hearing Minutes Petition in Support of variance Letter in Opposition to variance Plans [Commission members only] .Wei Ming Ma and Pei Li Jin, 1071 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Stephen Player, Prepared by:Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Project Planner:~Eisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Nancy Maddox Lyfle, Chief Planning Official S:Xpl~n~pladiv\pcsr\1071 emb.sr Draft Findings for Denial of Variance 96-V-26 There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the parcel is a fiat, 6,160 square foot, mid-block parcel surround by other fiat, midbloek ¯ parcels of similar size and shape. All parcels along Embarcadero Road are subject to the same heavy vehicular and pedestrian traffic to which this parcel is subject; The granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment era~ substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or uuneeessary hardship in that there is ample open space at the rear of the parcel for private yard arch and a six foot high fence could be located in front of the house at the allowed 16 foot setback, which would result in private yard area in the front as well. There are alternative methods for providing safety and security of single-family sites rather than building six foot high fences within front setbacks. Denial of the variance does not result in the loss.of a private, secure, safe dwelling unit. The granting of the application will be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vic’mity in that it would create a "walled-off" visual impact on the site and would result in the visual separation of this site and house from surrounding houses and the neighborhood, which is contrary to Comprehensive Plan pericles as expressed in the Rol Single-Family Design Guidelines. Application Ci~). of P~lo Aho 250 H~lto= A,,~. P,,lo Alto. CA 9-1501. T~l." (~1~) 329-2441 Architectural Review Board Design Enhancement Exception Environmental Impact Assessment Comprehensive Plan Amendment Historic Resources Board Home Improvement Exception Conditional Use Permit Vadance Site and Design Zone Change Subdivision Parcel Map O Proper~y Location i Address of Subject Property: ~)7! ~IN~ {)0~*~,~-~ ~t~, "f~i, tO A!&, Zone Distdct : ~sessor’s Parcel Number : " Historic Categoff(if appli~ble) : Description of requested action:’T0 t~ ~:The APPLICANT & PROPER~ OWNER must be placed onthe submi~ed mailing list in order to be notified of Meetings, Headngs 0r action ~ken. ~:The APPLICA~ & PROPERW OWNER must be placed on the submi~ed m~iling lis~in order to be notified of Meetings, Headngs or action taken. Phone: ~~ hereby ce~ify that I am the owner of re~rd of the pmpe~ described in Box #2 a~ve and that I approve of the requested action heroin.this ~ppti~tion(s) is subject to 100% re.vow of planniog ~sts,spent processing this appli~tion(=will be based on the Policyand Pr~edures document provided to me. I my initial deposit is an estimate of these chargesand not a fee, and I agree to abide by the billing policy stated. O Appliaanl; Name: ~1~.~ " Address:"’ ~ Prope~ Owner Name: ~," ~I~ .~. , Address: .... ,, Date: To the City of Palo Alto, Recently we have built a wall on our property (see picture #1), and on November 14th a letter was sent to us regarding our wall. This letter was written by the Code Enforcement Otficer, Mark Almer, stating that we’ve violated the Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.24.020(a) because our wall was build two feet over the maximum height of four feet. So we, therefore, would like ~0 apply for a variance. Here are some reasons why we believe it is necessary for us to build our wall over four feet. (1) A problem that the six foot wall addresses is the safety of our children. We have two young girls in our family, age 5 and 14. Unfortunately the existence of both a bus stop and a stop sign for cars at the intersection nfN. California and Embarcadero is directly across from our windows that face out onto the street (see picture #2). The reason we worry is that a lower fence allows people to see into the house while stopping at the stop sign or waiting on the bus. We are concerned that something might happen to our children when they stay home alter school ( an example would be the Polly Klass incident). Our neighbors have seen people trespassing on our land twice before the wall was built, even sleeping under a bush in our front yard at night. A four foot wall allows people to see into the house. However, they cannot see over the six foot wall. We feel that the six foot wall gives us more security. This is a special condition that applies to our property and generally not to others. As you can see we are extremely concerned for the welfare of our two girls and believe that the presence of the six foot wall will prevent unnecessary incidents from happening. (2) Unlike other properties in our district, our house is directly.located across fi’om the three-way intersection of North California Ave. and Embarcadero Road ( see picture.#3). This unique situation makes our house most at risk because many drivers make dangerous left turns onto Embarcadero from California. They have bumped into trees alongside Embarcadero several times within the last year. Several weeks ago, a car ran through the fence and into the front yard of the house across from ours ( see picture #4 for damage). We believe that the six foot wall will give better protection than a four foot wall for our house and prevent major accidents that have occurred to other houses from vehicular traffic. (3) Embamadero is one of the busiest streets in Palo Alto. Cars often speed by, especially when our~house is near the exit of Highway 101. We feel that the six foot wall has cut down the traffic noise more eff~tively than a four foot wall (see. picture #5). (4) We haw also seen many other houses in the same district that.have fences/walls over four feet on their properties. (please see the attachment of the list of houses that fall under this ’ cat~gory) (5) Our neighbors all signed a petition saying that they have no objection ~o our six foot wall and that is does not bother them. (All our neighbors have signed the petition except one house whom we could not find at home) Please consider our reasons and give us the right to build our brick wall. We hope that you see our property’s extraordinm’y conditious and that this variance is reasonable and prevents property loss or unnecessary hardships. We can assure you that wall does not interfere with our neighbors, and that they are comfortable with it. Thank you for your patience, time and understanding. We hope that you see the importanoe of this construction. Thank you! Residents and property’owners of Palo Alto Picture # 1: The brick wall is made of hollow tiles with a scuptured surface, and, stands out against the freshly planted lawn and flowers. Picture #2: There is a stop sign and a bus stop directly across from our house. makes our house be in a unique condition. This Picture #3: Our house is located directly across from the three way intersection of North California Ave and Embarcadero Rd. Picture #4: This damage was done by a car several weeks ago. across from our house. This house is directly Picture #5: There is a lot of traffic on Embarcadero Road. down the a great amount of traffic noise. The six foot wall helps cut This is a list of houses in our district that haw walls or f~nc~s over four foet facing th~ street: 965 Embarcadero Rd, 953 Embarcadero Rd, 907 Embarcadero Rd: ’ 897 Embarcadero Rd, 889 Embarcadero Rd. .873 Embarcadero Rd. 846 Embarcadero Rd, 1710 Newdl Rd, 10 Morton Ave,. 1050 N, California Ave, ¯Cityof PaloAlto ofl’a nin Community Environm~. t ATTACHMENT Application No. 96-V-26:1071 Embarcadero Road Variance 96-.V-26 is denied for the location and construction of a 6-foot high fence, located 11 f~t from the front property lin~, where 4 feet is normally the maximum height allowed within 16 feet of the front property, at 1071 Embarcadero Road, R-1 Zone District, Pale Alto, California. Project denial is based on the following findings. I.There are no exceptional or extraordinary ¢ircumst~ces~" or condifiom applicable to the property involved that do not appl~/~enerally to property in tbe same district in that the parcel is a fiat, ~ square foot, mid-block parcel surrounded by other fiat, mid-block parcels, of similar size and shape. All parcels along Embarcadero Road are subject to the same heavy ¯ vehicular and p~desrrian traffic to which this par~l is subject; 2.The granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that there is ample open space at the rear of the parcel for private yard area. The lack of a. fully enclosed private front .yard, of the dimensions desired by .the " applicant, is off-set by the enclosed private yard at the rear of the.site. In addition, a six-foot high wall .would be allowed in front of.the house if it is at least 16 f~t behind the front property line.. The location and height of walls and fences allowed in the Zoning Ordinance would not result in the prohibition of an enclosed private front yard, but would only result in one of dimensions smaller than those proposed by the applicant; and The granting of the application will be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in ~e vicinity in that it would cream a "walled-offf. visual impact on the site and would result in the visual separation of this site and house from surrounding houses and the neighborhood. 96-V-26.1g ,250HamiltonAvcntm P.O.Box10250 PaloAlto, CA94303 415.~.~240Fax January 30, 1997 Page.1 LISA GROTE Zoning Administrator January 30, 1997 This decision does not constitute final action on the variance for which application was made. This decision may be appealed by f’fling a written appeal with the Planning Department and City Clerk on or before February 10, 1997. If this decisionis appealed, it will be heardby the Planning Commission and City Council. If this decision.is not appealed byany person firm, or corporation affected by the decision on or by the above mentioned date, the applicant will receive a copyof the final decisi6n letter in the mail. Applicant:Wei Ming M~ and Pei Li 1071 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Property Owner: Same as Applicant : 96~V-26. lg January 30, !997" Page.2 ’ ICITY OF PALO ALTOOffice of the City Clerk ATTACH~NTAPPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF ZONING ADMINISTRATORCiTY OF PAL0 ALTO. CA To be filed in duplicate within ten days from date of decision of zonin~ToVm~~ OFFICE 9"/FEB 10 PB 2: 5-/Application No.~Receipt No.__" Name of Appellant ~ I’ r~ !~ Phone (~ Street City Zip LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Assessor’s Parcel No. ~ Street Address 1~ ’7 / ~=~.~hlt"O RO~ Po~(~ Name of Property Owner (if other than appellant) {,U,~ { ~ I~ Property Owner’s Address ~ t 0 7 I ~ ~~ l~(’’~ Street "- Zone District City Zip The decision of the Zoning Administrator dated whereby the application of LU~ ~’ (variance/use permit) reasons stated in the attached letter (in duplicate). Date ~ Signature of Appellant . PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO ;THE CITY COUNCIL: ~) I ~t for a (original applicant) was " i ~) *~..~.is hereby ,ppeal~ for the (approv~/deni~) Date .Approved ~ Denied Remarks and/or Conditions: ~31TY COONCIL DECISION: Date Remarks and/or Conditions: Approved Denied SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED: 1."Plans ’~ 2.Labels 3.Appeal Application Forms 4.:Letter 5.~,,Fee, By: By: By: ~ BY:--By: ~ITY OF pALO ALTO;CA CITY CLERk’S OFFICE 97 FEB I 0 Pll 2:57 Wei Ming Ma Variance app. 96-Vo26 1071 Embarcadero Rd. Palo Alto, Ca. 94303 February 10, 1997 City Clerk City of Palo Alto ’ 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, Ca 9430 To the City Clerk and the Hauning Commissioners, We received a statement from the zoning administrator and in this letter wish to appeal the denial of a zoning application. We now respond to the January 30, 1997 FINDINGS ofthe Planning Division. We respectfully disagree with these. 1. As to the first finding, that there are no exceptional conditions that warrant our 8-foot fence, we believe that there are. The house has a distinct location next to a dangerous and heavy intersectionwhere North California Avenue meets Embarcadero Road. There is a stop sign and a bus stop. If people are waiting for the bus or stopping at the stop sign, they can look direotly into our house through the front windows ofthe house. The pi~ure and diagrams we present show how exposed the front of our house is (see Exhibit 1). This exposed position is similar to that of a comer property that would be allowed the 6-foot variance. Because of this exposed position, thereis a greater possibility of untoward events happening to us than to our neighbors. We are deeply concerned about the safety of our children (age 5 and 14) staying home after school since potential inm~ders could look into the house ifthere is not an adequate wall. In addition, there have been at least two cases on which automobiles have in the past careened off the road and onto the front lawn. In addition, our wall is not unique. There are other houses near us that have 6-foot walls, such as 1050 North California Avenue (their wall is 6.feet high and 4 feet from the property line) and 1055 Embarcadero Road (their wall is 5 feet and 10 inches high and !4 feet and 2 inches from the property line). 1055 Embarcadero Road is the second house to our right on the same block, and they.received a permit. Thus our wall is not exceptional in the neighborhood. (See Exhibit 2a and 2b) 2. The second finding, that we already have a walled ba~k yard, is true but irrelevant to the case we made for the variance. We did not make our request for a variance on grounds of an enjoyment of a property right (to use that enclosed front space for reereati.’onal purposes). Instead, our purpose in seeking a 6-foot wall was ~o secure the safety of our children in the house and privacy and proteotion from intruders or careening ears. Moving the wall backward toward the house 16 feet from the property line would entail cutting down two large cedar trees in.the path ofthe rebuilt wall (see Exhibit 3). In addition the wall would then been only 8 feet from our home and would cut down most of the natural light in our two bedrooms. 3. The third finding is that granting the application would be detrimental or injurious to property in the vicinity. As we show above, there are already other houses near us, in less exposed conditions, that have 6-foot walls. Twenty of our neighbors have signed a petition supporting our wall and three testified in its defense at the public hearing. Our neighbors have the largest stake in the appearance of the community and they do not find the wall detrimental or injurious to local property. We and our neighbors do .not believe that the wall contributes to a "walled-off’ visual impact. However, we are eager to sot~n any visual impact that concerns the City of Palo Alto. We plan to spend approximately $1,000 in plants (fast-growing griselinia trees as well as vines). We are willing to make a written commitment to this planting were the Commission to grant a variance for the wall. Thank you for considering our needs.under these conditions. As you can see, our need for the wall to be six-foot tall is important and reasonable. My wife and I deeply hope that you will accept our application for a vtwitmce. It means a great deal to us. Sincerely yours, ¯OLOI I i I ! ! i ! I ,Oll ,Oli ,011 ,Oli Exlu’bit 2a: 1050 N. California Ave, surround~ by 1060 N. California Ave and 2201Santa Aria Aw. Exhibit 2b: 1055 Embar~dero Rd, surrounded by 1063 Embarcadero Rd. And 1047 Embar~dero Rd. Exhibit 3: Distance between house and wall is now #, feet. If moved baok, the distance will be~,feet. Th~ cedar W~s are _e~g’feet wide. FENCE EXCEPT)ON APPLICATION ~ess,,,’ I.,0%~ [__~_~. ~ ~Cn oe ~0 HiSCo Bill Receipt No. ¯ Address ~0~ ~: H~(~( ,J ~m) (: ~Zip Code Zone District ¯ ~[ ’ (If applAca~on is ~e, bM o~her ~h~ ~e o~er, written evidence tha~ ~e appli~ the pu~haser ~der c~tract o~ ~e pre~sss involved or has ~e ~e~ssAon .o~ the Date of Hearing Held by B~ilding O££icial Action of Building Of£iclalo This applicat’ion is~’dJ~TJ4 " ~emarks ~d/~ Coudi~i~s: application is a~ved ~d i~ no appeal ~ sh~s decision ~s ~led by any person, or o~ora~on.a~ected b~ the decisi~ on or b , "y. . y~ Wzll ~ecelvea copy of your pe~t ~n the ~1. I~ this a~1~cati~i~e~.decisiou appealed to the Pl~ing Co~ssion by (il~ng an appeal sppl~cat~on ~ith~Id~ug On or be(ore the a~ve ~entioned da~e, 1055 Embarcadero lid. Palo Alto, CA 94303 December 2, 1986 Chief Building Official City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave.Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Sirs, ’Sincerely.. Robert H. Millavec ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT ~ ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING January 16, 1997 Excerpt : This is an application for a variance to allow construction of a six-foot-high fence located 11 feet from the front property line where four feet is normally the maximum height allowed within 16 feet of the front property line. We will now have a brief presentation from the applicant. Please start with your name and address. : We bought a house in July, and there is a bus stop and a stop sign across from our house. Sometimes people are waiting there for the bus or they stop at the stop sign, and they can see our house. So for privacy reasons and for safety for our kids, we need a six-foot high wall. If it was four feet, people can see our house. So we would like to apply for the variance. ~: The wall is already in place? Yes. When you boughtthe house, was this wall already built? No, not yet. ~: So you eoustrueted it without khowing what the regulations were? I didn’t know there were-any.. ~: -There is an issue with the wall in that we discourage people from walling offtheir homes from the public right-of-way, from the sidewalk and the street. This kind of thing usually is not encouraged at all. The desire is to keep Palo Alto a friendly community and homes open to the street. This wall is contrary to that policy in our Comprehensive Plan. In some cases on corner lots, we do approve variances for six-foot-high walls so that people can have a usable side yard or back yard area. We do not usually do it for interior parcels that are not fronting on two streets. I can sympathize that Embarcadero is a busy road, but all of your neighbors face that ¯ same busy road and they have not opted to close themselves off. So it is going to be difficult to make the findings for approval of the variance. There’are basically two options ifflais variance is denied: one is for you to move the wall back the required five additional feet. At sixteen feet from the front property line, you:can go up six feet in height. The second would be to lower it to 4 feet and keep it in the same location as currently built. ~lZAMinsl 1071Emb.min Page 1 01-1697 h~.ia: If we move it back there will not be enough space to walk or use the area between the wall and the house. Also, there is a bus stop across from our house, and a stop sign. It is a busy intersection. ~: Where is the tree? I know you have a tree in front. Could you point it out on this site plan? That looks like it may be back farther than five feet from the edge of the fence. ~: Do you understand my point that this house next door to you faces that same situation with the bus stop and the stop sign. So it is not really a unique situation. There is not anything that would persuade me that you are the only one that faces this kind of a situation. h~L_~l: We have children, two young girls. ~: You also have a substantial back yard. that is enclosed. On corner lots, we can Often approve taller because people do not, in. essence, have a back yard that they can use. In your case, it is an interior lot and you do have a back yard that is enclosed. But people waiting at the bus stop can see our house. That is our concern. ~: I am not at this point inclined to approve this variance. IfI were, however, would you be open to a condition that would provide landscaping in front of the wall to soften it somewhat so that it is not such a harsh front to the street? You have a little planting area here. Would you be willing to extend that and plant shrubbery in front of it so that it softens that wall? That would take a long time. Also the wall would give us more security.. ~: You would not be removing the wall..You would be somewhat camouflaging it, giving a softer appearance to it. It would be an approval with conditions that you would plant: shrubbery in front of it. ]~.ill: Yes, we have already planted some plants there, but people still can see. It is not like a wall where people cannot see. ~: I don’t think you understand. It would be a condition that would allow you to leave this wall where it is, but you would have shrubbery in front of it, so that the wall itself would not be as visible. People would instead be looking at plant material. The wall would still be there, but would not be as visible. You would allow the wall to staythere and we should plant some shrubbery. ~: That is a possibility. ’ A:IZAMins11071Emb.min Page 2 01-16-97 ~: Is that something you would be amenable to? ]~LJ.Ja And we would not have to lower the wall? ~: No, you would not. You would leave it the way it is, and just plant shrubbery in front of it. I do not want to spend too much time on this since I am not inclined to approve this, but I am justasking you if it iS something you would agree to. Yes. ]~.~g.O~: You also park your car right h~re. Is there a reason why you do that? You have an extremely long driveway. You are well out of your front setback, and you have a covered parking space here in the garage. You could park your second car fight here rather than in front of the wall, Is there a reason why you do that? ]~,J.Ja: Because it is hard to back out onto Embarcadero. We have to turn around. ~: How about instead of parking your car here, that you use this as a turn-around and park it back here, and then come forward. ~: Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? ¯ : I live fight across the street. I would like o speak in support ofthe request. I think traffic is a serious problem and noise is a serious problem. The" bus stop is a concern to me also. I think the situation is very similar to what exists onUniversity Avenue where you can go much closer to the street than you can on Embarcadero. ¯ : We am next door neighbors to this location. We highly approve of the situation. We fed that it has improved our prol~rty, bcx~ause it helps to block off some of the noise, and it makes theparking situation easier, because we have adjoining driveways, and we have approved of this all along. We find it to be a delightful difference to the neighborhood. It does not bring it down. We feel it improves the neighborhood. It is a very busy street. We have had many accidents anywhere from Wildwood, St. Francis Drive, to C-reef. We are on the committee’where we have appealed to the police department to slow traffic there. We have been involved by witnessing so many accidents on the road in front of the 1000 block of Embarcadero Road, besides others farther up and down. We would like to see this remain the way it is. A: I ZAMins11071Emb.min Page 3 01-16-97 M~s_~ff_o~: Do you feel that the fence, as it exists, reduces accidents on Embarcadero? ]~]~p_3~: It improves the safety oft.he residential area there. When we first moved there, we had ears driving across my lawn. It was very, very sear3’. Now things are getting better. ~: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? : I am Alice’s husband, and we have resided at this address for 47 years. My wife spoke about the hazard of ears going into the tree. ¯ It saves going into the house. It would be a shame to have that wall taken down. It is protection for the little children. He has two. All the other kids are grown up in thatbloek. It is a beautiful wall, and provides safety for the children. The turnaround that is there in front of the wall is so that they can go.in, back around and go out forward instead of backing out onto Embaxeadero. We all learned in our time that we had to do that, because any time you back onto Embarcadero, you have no recourse. You are the one who is wrong. So it made it easy for Pei and his wife to have that parking area there. The shrubs that you have referred to I don’t think Pei will have any objection to. Would that keep the wall there by doing that? ~: It is a possibility. ]~~.~,h: Thank you very much for having me up here. ~: Is there anything else that you would like to say in sttmmary? ]~iil: I hope that th~ wall can stay there. We really need it for the safety and security of the family. ~: For the record, I have a letter received January 7th from a neighbor objecting to the. proposed request for a variance. They statethat if you allow this variance, you will have to let the rest of the homeowners in this area do the same thing, or change the code or ordinance. I will dose the public hearing and issue a written determination within ten working days. A: I ZAMins I 1071Emb.rnin :Page 4 %01-16-97 To:The City of Palo Alto ATTACHMENT 8 We request that you permit the two foot variance to the wall and gate to remain at the present location of 1071 Embarcadero Road. Thank you for your cooperation and time. NAME . ADDRESS SIGNATURE ~.. To:Th~ City of Palo Alto We request that you permit the two foot variance to the wall and gate to remain at the present location of 1071 Embarcadero Road. Thank you for your cooperation and time. ADDRESS SIGNATURE AT.TACHM~NT 9 1997,-,,..’, ~ ..",’, :: : :,~-..,January:To,.. ~e*. 96-V-26 ~-Vatian~e Application 1071 Embarcadero Road~ Palo a variance for a 6"fqot high fence located II feet fromo~he front property llne. -~ If you allow this var~ance~ you will have to let the rest of the home owners in ~hi~ area do%he sam@eand:~at the same time oha the code.or ordinance. RECEIVED JAN 0 9 1997 Depan~,,:,n~ ot rlannm9 anc Community Environment Neighbor D 0 0 DRAFT Excerpt Minutes of the Palo Alto Planning Commission April 30, 1997 ~ Attachment 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1071 EMBARCADERO ROAD: Appeal of the zoning administrator’s denial of a variance to allow construction of a six-foot-high fence located 11 feet from the front property line, where four feet is normally the maximum height allowed within 16 feet of the front property line. Environmental Assessment: Project categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zone district R- 1. Chairperson Cassel: Are there any staff comments on this item? Ms. Grote: Yes, Chair Cassel and commissioners. This is an appeal of a fence variance denial. I denied the variance for a six-foot-high fence within the 16-foot front setback. I denied that variance based on the inability to make the three findings that are required. I found that the site is a fiat, 6,160-square-foot interior lot and that there is nothing unusual about the site that would require the fence to be located within the front setback. The applicant is maintaining that the unusual circumstances are that it is close to a bus stop and the eonfiuence of a T-intersection, however, there are many other sites along Embarcadero Road that face that same situation with the same amount of traffic, so there is nothing unique about this particular site. In addition, the applicant does have the ability to have a private, enclosed rear yard so that they are not denied the enjoyment of private, outdoor space by not having this fence in their front yard. They are still able to have an outdoor back yard. Finally, this would have a detrimental impact on the surrounding neighborhood in that it creates a walled-off site, something that is separated from the rest of the neighborhood, which is contrary to our single-family design guidelines which suggest that houses and yards should be opened up to the public realm, not closed off from them. So for those reasons, I did deny the variance, and the applicant has now appealed that denial. That concludes the staff report~ Chairoerson Cassel: Thank you. Do we have questions for staff’?. Commissioner Schink: Have there been any variances for fences issued over the last several years? A: [ PCMins5 [,Min0430.reg Page 13 04-30-97 Ms. Grote: Yes, there have been several variances issued for fences on comer lots to allow the enclosure of a rear yard onthe street side facing frontage. Ms. Cauble: There was also a variance that was actually recommended for approval by the commission and approved by the City Council in the last year along the creek where there was a very unusual situation in that the city right-of-way went in a curvesince it was along the creek. The property owner wanted to put a fence which basically would encroach into the public right-of-way so that it would be even across it. The city did approve that variance. Ms. Grote: In most of those cases, there were unique comer situations where the lots either fronted on two or three streets. They were not interior lots. Chairperson Cassel: If there are no further questions for staff, I will open the public hearing. In this case, we.have an appellant. You have 15 minutes to speak and five minutes at the end to sum up. Wei Ming Ma. 1071 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Our application for the six-foot fence was denied. Our house is located directly across from the intersection where North California Avenue meets Embarcadero Road. There is a stop sign and a bus stop at that intersection, and the people who wait either at the stop sign or the bus stop can see directly into our house through our windows. We have two daughters, ages 5 and 14, who have heard about things such as the Polly Klass incident. We are afraid that it could happen to us. Also, our neighbors have seen strangers sleeping under a bush in front of our house. We are deeply concerned about the safety of our children. The purpose of our request for the wall is for the safety of our children, not for the enjoyment of our property. At the first hearing, Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote suggested that we could put plants in the front of the wall, and under that condition, the approval of the wall would be a possibility. To soften the appearance of the wall, we looked at many nurseries in search of fast growing plants. Finally we found plants that would grow up to eight feet in three years. We planted 25 of them at the end of February, so the wall would be covered by the plants very soon. Afterwards, to the planning department at the beginning of March. However, I did not find it included in the staff report for .my application. So would you please consider your decision under these conditions that we have already planted plants in the front of the wall. If you have further suggestions, we would be glad to do that. Thank you very much. John Chen, 3582 Middlefield Road, Palo Air0: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I have come here tonight in support of my friend, Mr. Ma, for his fence on Embarcadero Road. I walked down the street and found that Mr. Ma is not the only person who has a fence in front of his house. Many other houses have the similar height fence. So I would request favorable consideration from the commission to allow this fence to remain. I think Mr. and Mrs. Ma built this fence basically for the safety of their two young daughters. They are working. A: I PCMins51Min0430.reg Page 14 04-30-97 parents. They are away from morning until night; leaving their two daughters at home almost all day long, so that is the basic consideration for their building this fence. Also, the fact that it already exists, and it will cause them a financial burden and also emotional distress to remove this fence. I think Mr. and Mrs. Ma have complied with the suggestion of Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote, and they have already .planted a lot of trees along the fence which will be growing very fast. Hopefully, very soon these plants will cover the fence to reduce the visual impact. So as a resident in Palo Alto, I sincerely request your lenient consideration to allow them to keep this fence. Thank you very much. Joe Isonio, 1079 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto: I am the next door neighbor to the Mas, and I think it is a beautiful looking wall. I have been there almost 50 years, and that is the best looking wall I have seen in Palo Alto. They have had a lot of people looking at it who think it is a nice looking wall there. We have had incidents here many years ago when people used to sleep out there, and we had to call the police. We had incidents when my girls were little, and we had to call the police several times because people were sleeping out there. He has two young children. Those are my comments. Thank you. Elizabeth Hanson, 34 Pela Court. Palo Alto: (Photographs of the site are passed out) I want to speak briefly to three issues. They have already been touched on, but they seem to be important. One is the question of the uniqueness of the situation. We have been fi’iends of the Mas for over a decade. We have been to their home on a number of occasions, and it seems to me that their house sits directly opposite an intersection of California and Embarcadero, and they are right opposite the T. Therefore, it seems to me that their situation is different from their neighbors spreading along on either side. To consider granting them a variance does not, as the original complainants suggest, mean that anyone in the neighborhood will then be able to build a six-foot wall. I don’t think you are creating a precedent that will have to be honored in other eases, I wouldalso note that moving the wall back five feet and keeping it high enough to shelter so that folk earmot look in I think from what I have seen of the place has two problems. There are two cedar trees that are right in the way, and it would also make the interior of the house quite a bit darker. The wall would be very close to one side :of the building, making it a much less viable and attractive house to live in. Thirdly, I would like to reemphasize that following the suggestion of Ms. Grote, the Mas went out and spent a considerable amount of their own resources to plant bushes, camellias, the 20 trees they have already planted (and I think the pictures will give you some indication of that), and I know from conversations with them that they stand ready to ’ continue to cooperate with members of the planning staff in further foliage to soften the effect of the wa!l if the decision were to go in that direction. Thank you very much. David Tyack. 34 Peter Coutts Circle, Stanford: My wife, who just spoke, and I are both teachers at Stanford, and we have known the Mas for yea_rs; That is the reason we are here. Reasonable people can disagree about whether this or that condition for a variance is reached. But it does seem to me useful to try to step back and look at what we are talking about in a A: I PCMins51Min0430.reg Page 15 04-30-97 little broader sense. I think we are talking about a family, we are talking about a home, we are talking about a neighborhood. We knew the Mas when they first came. They could barely speak English. They have worked extremely hard to be able to move into Palo Alto where their children could go to school and have a home that they wanted. Their neighbors have welcomed them, and this is a great side of Palo Alto that there is a kind of solidarity in the neighborhood, and some of our neighbors are fight here to speak for the Mas. So we are talking about a family, a home that they have worked very hard for, and a neighborhood that has been very supportive. Twenty people signed the letter that said that they believe this wall should remain as it is or improved by the vegetation that Wei Ming and others have talked about~ So why is this wall so important? I think the simplest way to put this is that they feel that they need a sense of security. Elizabeth and others have talked about the bus stop and the stop sign and the accidents. When we visit the Mas, I have tried to get out from their house onto Embarcadero, and believe me, you take your life in your hands when you do it there. It is a very dangerous place with the three-way intersection. It is also a place where lots of people stop and can look in. The front two rooms of their house are very open to the public. With no wall, you could see what is going on in those front two rooms. Those are the rooms where the children are playing or doing their homework. The older child does her homework there. So the sense of security is the basic thing that the Mas wanted. They looked around the neighborhood when they moved in, and they saw that other people had .walls, and they said, yes, this is the way we are going to have a shield for those front rooms for our children. It wasn’t that they are trying to grab space. It was trying to realize that you have come a long way, and this is what gives you a sense that this is your home surrounded by neighbors who support you. It seems to me that if you step back and not worry so much about technical " details, although I think you can make a case on teclmieal details, but if you stand back and think about a family and a home in a neighborhood, the answer should be clear. Alice Mak_iavich. 1063 Embarcadero Road. Palo Alto: We have lived here for almost 50 years since the house was brand new. We feel, as our other neighbors do, that this is an improvement to the neighborhood. We do not feel blocked out. I don’t think anyone does who passes by, and the Planning Commission before mentioned that it is like turning your back on the traffic and giving them all sorts of reasons to go faster on Embarcadero Road. Well, Embarcadero Road is having a problem and also with the police department helping us to slow traffic. I don’t think this has a bearing on the case at all. I don’t feel that we have turned our backs. We like the wall. It has been improved with many shrubs that in six months will cover the wall and nobody will see it. It will be an aesthetic improvement to the neighborhood. If you go into the 900 block and farther down on Embarcadero, you will find that there are many shrubs that are fight up to the sidewalk that go over eight feet. To me, that is an eyesore, but something like this that is well constructed, maintained and really adds to the property value, I am pleased to see it happen: I hope that you will permit this to remain like that. Thank you. A:I PCMins51Min0430.reg Page 16 04-30-97 Chairperson Cassel: Mr. Ma, you have five minutes if you wish to make any further comments. Mr. Ma: It is something I cannot explain, but I hope you can understand. English is my second language, but I hope you can understand my family’s situation. Thank you. Chairperson Cassel: I will now close the public hearing and bring this back to the commission. Do we have any questions of staff. Commissioner Schink: I am assuming that the property line is one or two feet behind the sidewalk. Is that correct? Ms. Grote: I believe it is two feet behind the sidewalk, a standard condition. Commissioner Schink: The wayour setbacks are measured, there is no credit given for the fact that there is a planter strip between the sidewalk and the curb in this particular location? Ms. Grot~e: No, you measure your setback from the property line. Commissioner Schink: So if this was a neighborhood without a planter strip and the sidewalk was right up against the curb, you could have a situation like this where the fence would be essentially in the same location, as you perceive it from an automobile? Ms. Grot~e: That may be the case. You would still be measuring your setback from your property line, but if there were no planter strip, it might appear that it would be in the same location as this is situated. Commissi~oner Schink: Essentially what I am saying is that if the sidewalk were where the planter strip is, as in many neighborhoods, then this fence might be right where it is in relationship to the vehicles on the street. Vehicles, yes, pedestrians no. Commissioner Ojakian: I want first to comment that I did visit the site today, and actually did it twice and looked at it from some different angles. I wanted that to be on the record. The first question I have of staff is, for my recollection, is Embarcadero considered a scenic route? Ms. Grot~e: I did not cheek on that. Virginia will cheek that out and get back to you. Commissioner O~iakian: IfI remember correctly, I think it is considered a scenic route. Eor everybody’s benefit, could you explain what that means, Nancy? A:I PCMins51Min0430.reg Page 17 04-30-97 Ms. L..L.~tle: In our Comprehensive Plan, it contains a special designation. Scenic routes are given special status. They oftentimes have greater setbacks. They have some descriptive text in some instances that define the kind of character that we expect to see. The one that is the most talked about in our current Comprehensive Plan is University Avenue. They give quite an explicit description of the entryfrom Highway 101 as you approach downtown Palo Alto along University Avenue. Other city corridors have a more rural character, and that is also described in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Ojakian: Another question I have of staff is that there was a little comment in the staff report and we heard somebody mention tonight that there have been some "-incidents" on Embarcadero. Do we have any indication from the police department if we are having any number of problems on Embarcadero? Ms. Grote: No, there is no indication from the police department that there are an unusual number on Embarcadero of any kind of incidents: Also, the police department is generally not in favor offences of this type, beeause it does block the view of the entry and the windows in the front of the house. People can get behind that wall and actually have all the privacy they want to break into your house. So they usually do not support these kinds of walls and fences. Chaim_ erson Cassei: I have a question. We have a lot of bus stops in town. Are they considered dangerous? Ms..Grote: No, they have not been.. Chaim_ erson Cassel: This is not a new bus stop, is it? It was there a year ago? Ms. Grote: This has been a bus stop of long standing, and they are all over town. in residential neighborhoods. It is not a unique situation. Chairperson Cassel: If there are no further questions of staff, we will begin the discussion. Commissioner Schmidt: I want to comment that in the draft Comprehensive Plan, it is proposed as a scenic corridor. I do not know if it is in the current Comprehensive Plan. Yes, that is the question. We knew it was in the current Comprehensive Plan. Chairperson Cassel: And it is the current Comprehensive Plan that covers at this time. Ms. Lytle: Correct. Commissioner Schink: I think you know where I am coming from, because generally in the A: I PCMins51Min0430.reg Page 18 04-30-97 past, I have been somewhat more sympathetic than the rest of the commission on these variance applications. Generally, my opinion is that if it is acceptable to the neighbors, I think we should work very hard to try and make the fmdings. Sometimes, it is difficult, but we should work to make the findings. In this particular case, I am sympathetic to the appeal. We are in a fortunate circumstance in that fence is built and we know that we have a really high quality fence. One of the problems we often get into is that somebody proposes something, and we have to sit back and wonder if the proposed fence, when executed, is really going to be well done. In this case, it is a well constructed fence. It could use a little bit more landscaping, but it is a well constructed fence. At least, we know what we are dealing with, and I feel comfortable with it. The traffic on Embarcadero is difficult, and this is a reasonable approach for these people to deal with it. I think we can make the findings that it is unique. These people have said that-for them to substantially enjoy their property, they need this fence, so I think we can make these findings. So I would urge my fellow commissioners to make the findings and grant the appeal. Commissioner Byrd: I would urge us in the alternative and uphold the zoning administrator’s denial of the variance application. I think that in this case and under these circumstances, although the applicant’s intent is well meant, findings do count. I don’t fred myself able to make the necessary fmdings in this case. I would like to address a couple of specific issues that have been raised. One is the issue of public safety. Any parent understands that there is no greater concern than the safety of our children. In this case, the zoning administrator’s comment about the police department’s opinion on this subject is important. Generally, the police department fmds that high fences create less safety, not more. They isolate the home from the public realm, and in fact, you are safest when there are both eyes on the street and eyes on your home. While that may appear counter-intuitive to some, I look to the experts in the police department on this one. I have heard this expressed by them in the past. Secondly, in the statement Jon made about the fact that we are not dealing with a hypothetical here and can actually see what has been built, I feel that we are on a very slippery slope on that one. If a property owner goes ahead and builds without checking to see what the zoning regulations are, and then invests in a lot of landscaping to make it look a little better, that sets up an environment in town where there is a race to do your project before you can have a stop work order put on it. That is a difficult position for us to be in. While I am sympathetic to the money that has been spent by the appellant on this project, it should not in any way affect the decision that we make. So I find myself unable to make the findings, and would suggest that we uphold the zoning administrator’s decision. Commissioner Schmidt: Although I, too, sympathize with the owners, I would agree with the comments of Commissioner Byrd. I would find it difficult to make the findings to allow a variance for this property. I, too, visited the site today and noted that I did not see very A:[ PCMins51Min0430.reg Page 19 04-30-97 many fences or even large shrubs in the area. The fence, as it exists, and the fence with the shrubs that have been planted will look quite a bit different from the other properties there. I did not see that that particular property is Unique because of its location. There might be a few that are close to the bus stop, but as pointed out earlier, there are many, many homes in Palo Alto that are opposite bus stops or have them right in front of their door. I don’t think we have heard this as a reason before for requesting a variance for a fence. I, too, regret that money has been spent and that money would have to be spent to change the situation. Perhaps there is’a simple solution such as taking a couple of feet offthe top of the wall. It is, as Jon pointed out, a well built wall, much more so than some fences in Palo Alto, but it was not built according to what is allowed in Palo Alto, and I do not feel that we can make the appropriate findings to say that a variance should occur here. Commissioner Beecham: I am basically in support of what Owen and Kathy have just said. I want to add one or two more Comments. One is on the safety issue. It has been said that the police do not, in general, support the tall walls. I know that many people believe that a tall wall does make them safer, and I personally would probably feel safer behind a tall wall, so I know that even though the police say it is not safer, I can understand that there is a sense that a wall does keep people out. What it does, in particular, is that it keeps out casual intruders. Those are the kinds of examples you have mentioned so far -- people sleeping under the trees or perhaps wandering around. I do believe that a tall wall does keep them out. I believe the police have a key point, though, in that if there is some serious damage to be done, a serious risk to you or your family, a tall wall makes it impossible for anybody else to keep an eye on what goes on. One thing in Palo Alto that we are working on and trying to strengthen is an open neighborhood attitude where all of the r~eighbors are able to watch and see what is happening elsewhere, and keep aneye on everybody’s mutual safety. It is a key point for us in Palo Alto. Another point from David is to look at it in the overview and that grounds could be made for technical issues on this, but unfortunately, I think that neither do work. Technically, their house is not unique. The bus stops and stop signs are found throughout the city. Being near a bus stop or stop sign is not an unusual situation, and it is not recognized as a burden throughout the city. So I don’t think we can teehrtieally make any of the fmdings. On the overview, for myself, I really hope we can find ways of keeping these kinds of walls from going up throughout the city. I feel that they are truly detrimental to the city at large. We have recognized in certain eases that there are specific problems, and we have allowed walls to go in, but in general, walls are very undesirable for the city, and we should fred ways where they are not necessary. Commissioner Ojakian: I, too, am going to support the zoning administrator’s decision. I agree with comments already made, including the one that Bern just stated. I had difficulty making any of the three findings, It wasn’t that there were one or two so that I could say yes, A:I PCMins51MinO430.reg Page 20 04-30-97 those could be met but the third one could not. I just could not disagree with the zoning administrator’s decisions on any of the three findings. I would just comment back to the applicant on a personal level, since amongst my many children, I have a 14-year-old and a 7- year-old living in my house. We, in fact, confronted this same issue. Do we need to build a fence because some of our children sleep toward the front of the house? We concluded that that was not in our best interest nor was it in the best interest of the property. In fact, I feel the safety of our children is better met by a couple of things. One is that we did put shades on the windows, and we did plant higher plants near those bedrooms, but I think you probably have the real secret, and that is~ the safety for our children comes from the fact that we live in a good neighborhood, and the fact that we have several neighbors up and down several of the blocks that know us and know our children. Frankly, that gives me more of a sense of security than any physical barrier I could put up. It sounds like you are already in that position, or are on the way towards being in that position, and I think that fact alone does you better than the fact that you have put up a barrier which, as some people have already explained, can be a detriment to your safety. So I will support the zoning administrator’s decision. Chaim_ erson Cassel: It used to be that we required a building permit for fences. Very recently, we stopped doing that. The process would then be that if there was a violation of our fence regulations, someone would have to file an appeal and we would have to go through this process. If we do not support the zoning administrator on this decision, we are going to have a very hard time having rules and regulations about where fences go, with no building permit, and no way, then, to enforce them, and that.will happen all over town. So .this is not just one incident. This is a new process in place, and I feel that this is an unfortunate situation and was not an intentional happening on anyone’s part. No one was out there trying to get at the city, and no one in the city is out to get at the family. It is just an unfortunate situation that we are five feet off the normal lines. Many people do not realize that we even have rules for putting up fences. I suspect that was the situation here. The issue is not whether we have six-foot fences in town. The issue is, where do we have six-foot fences and are we going to allow them in those places and where do we have exceptions and why. Most of the comments I had were covered by others. Fortunately, this family can, indeed, cut the wall down to four feet and put bushes up that will then provide the visual privacy that he is hoping to make. However, it will defeat the intent of keeping the neighborhood open, and it will defeat the intent of having other eyes in the neighborhood able to watch what is going on. That does work in our neighborhood very effectively. We have a couple of people who open their garage doors and work in their garages. It does help. Embarcadero is a busier road than the one I live on, Obviously, but it does make the neighborhood much safer, and we are not snooping on each other. We just know who is home and who is on vacation. I think the issue of safety for the children is important. We have a lot of families in town A:I PCMins51Min0430.reg Page 21 04-30-97 with 4-year-ol-ds and 14-year-olds. We presume that 4-year-olds are not left at home alone, and we know this is a difficult problem, and that is why we work so hard to have good child care and day care programs in town. I certainly babysat 4-year-olds when I was 14 and yotmger for periods of time. Fourteen-year-olds are quite capable of making many decisions, including safety decisions, and that is often done. But it is true that for people all over town that this is not an exceptional circumstance. The one thing is about the lights directly across thestreet. Again, we have a lot of T- intersections in town. There are not as many as there are comers, but those do exist, and I do not find that to be an exceptional circumstance. Any further comments? Ms. Lytle: The answer to your question about the Embarcadero as a scenic route is yes, Program 26 in the Comprehensive Plan added Sand Hill Road, University Avenue and Embarcadero Road to our list of scenic routes in Palo Alto. The policy that governs scenic routes is Policy 8, "Provide safe, attractive scenic routes which will serve the motoring public, the bicyclist, the pedestrian and in some areas, the equestrian." There is a brief description on Embarcadero Road. "Embarcadero from the Harbor Road to E1 Camino Real is the main access to the Palo Alto Baylands. Embarcadero West of Bayshore Freeway is lined with trees and some houses of historic interest." Commissioner O_iakian: Thank you for that answer. It is probably self-understood why I asked the question, especially for the public. Commissioner Schink: Ms. Lytle: Yes, it is. Commissioner Sehink: foot-fences? Did you say that University Avenue is also a scenic route? On University Avenue, don’t we have a regulation that allows six- Ms. Lytle: That is true, and it led to an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan when that ordinance was adopted for that purpose, or a finding of consistency had to be made when that ordinance was adopted, in any case, because the houses were on higher pedestals. That was part of the rationale that as much of the home was exposed on University Avenue as would be exposed in other parts of the community, something along those lines. Commissioner O’~: Also what we had in that situation was a tremendous number of people who lived in that area petitioning to have something changed, as opposed to a single situation like we have here. Ms. L_.Z~: That is correct. A:[ PCMins5 [ Min0430.reg Page 22 04-30-97 MOTION: Commissioner Byrd: I move that we deny the appeal and uphold the zoning administrator’s denial of a fence variance at this location. SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt. Cha~: I think one of the other comments we should make is that we should recognize how busy this area is, how noisy it is, and that we are indeed working on how to slow do.wn the traffic, keeping it c .almer. We are doing that in a number of ways throughout town, as that is an issue. MOTION PASSES: Chairperson Cassel: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 6-1, with Commissioner Schink voting no. Thank you, everyone, for coming in. When is this scheduled for City Council? Ms. Cauble: This is tentatively scheduled to go to the City Council on May 19th. A: I PCMins51Min0430.reg Page 23 04-30-97