Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-04-10 Planning & transportation commission Agenda Packet_______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission Regular Meeting Agenda: April 10, 2019 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1.Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 2.Study Session: Parking Innovation; Discussion of Ideas and new Technologies to Allow Changes in Parking Usage, Allocation and Management (There is no report associated with this item) Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 3.PUBLIC HEARING. 1210 Newell Road [18PLN-00289]: Request for Hearing on the Director's Tentative Decision to Deny a Variance Request to Allow for an Exception From the Standard Corner Lot Fence Height Regulations for an Unpermitted Fence of Approximately: 7' 5" Front Yard (Where 6’ is Allowed), 8' Rear Yard (Where 7’ is Allowed), 7' 5” Interior Yard (Where 7’ is Allowed), and 7' 5" Street Yard with No Sight Triangle Reduction at The Newell Road/Community Lane Intersection (Where Approximately 4’ is Allowed and a Sight Triangle Limits Fences to 3’ Tall). Environmental Assessment: The Proposed Project is Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Zoning District: At-Place Memo _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. R-1 (Single-Family). For More Information, Contact Project Planner, Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 4.March 13, 2019 Draft PTC Meeting Minutes Committee Items Commissioner Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Agenda Items Adjournment March 13, 2013 Draft Minutes _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: Chair William Riggs Vice Chair Michael Alcheck Commissioner Ed Lauing Commissioner Giselle Roohparvar Commissioner Doria Summa Commissioner Carolyn Templeton Commissioner Asher Waldfogel Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 10221) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 4/10/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and comment as appropriate. Background This document includes the following items: • PTC Meeting Schedule • PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments) • Tentative Future Agenda Commissioners are encouraged to contact Yolanda Cervantes (Yolanda.Cervantes@CityofPaloAlto.org) of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure availability of a PTC quorum. PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for quasi- judicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council agendas (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council.asp) for the months of their respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff. Prior PTC meetings are available online at http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/boards- and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission. The Tentative Future Agenda provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. Attachments: • Attachment A: April 10, 2019 PTC Meeting Schedule and Assignments (DOCX) Draft Planning & Transportation Commission 2019 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2019 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/30/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2/13/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2/27/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 3/4/2019 11:00AM Community Meeting Room Special 3/13/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Roohparvar 3/27/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/10/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/24/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 5/08/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Riggs 5/29/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 6/12/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 6/26/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Alcheck 7/10/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 7/31/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 8/14/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 8/28/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/11/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/25/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/09/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/30/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 11/13/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 12/11/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2019 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Doria Summa Asher Waldfogel Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Ed Lauing Cari Templeton Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Ed Lauing Cari Templeton Giselle Roohparvar Doria Summa July August September October November December Giselle Roohparvar Doria Summa Asher Waldfogel Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Ed Lauing Asher Waldfogel Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Ed Lauing Cari Templeton Giselle Roohparvar Draft Planning & Transportation Commission 2019 Tentative Future Agenda April 2, 2019 Draft-All Dates and Topics Subject to Change The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics April 24, 2019 CANCELLED May 8, 2019 • Review of 2020-2024 CIP for Comprehensive Plan Consistency To Be Scheduled: Topics Co-Working Office Model SB 50 Data Briefing Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 10123) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/10/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 1210 Newell Road: Fence Variance Hearing Request Title: PUBLIC HEARING. 1210 Newell Road [18PLN-00289]: Request for Hearing on the Director's Tentative Decision to Deny a Variance Request to Allow for an Exception From the Standard Corner Lot Fence Height Regulations for an Unpermitted Fence of Approximately: 7' 5" Front Yard (Where 6’ is Allowed), 8' Rear Yard (Where 7’ is Allowed), 7' 5” Interior Yard (Where 7’ is Allowed), and 7' 5" Street Yard with No Sight Triangle Reduction at The Newell Road/Community Lane Intersection (Where Approximately 4’ is Allowed and a Sight Triangle Limits Fences to 3’ Tall). Environmental Assessment: The Proposed Project is Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Zoning District: R-1 (Single-Family). For More Information, Contact Project Planner, Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend Council deny the variance request based on the project’s inability to meet the required findings. Background Project Information Owner: Chu Ching-Yao and Zhang Xin Architect: Not Applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Representative: Not Applicable Legal Counsel: Derek R. Longstaff Property Information Address: 1210 Newell Road Neighborhood: Community Center Lot Dimensions & Area: 65’ by 147’ & 9,555 sf Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Street Tree on Newell Road Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s): 3,376 sf; 2 stories; 25’ 10” high; built 2017 Existing Land Use(s): SF – Single Family Residential Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: R-1 Single Family Homes West: R-1 Single Family Homes East: PF Public Facilities South: PF Public Facilities Special Setbacks: Not Applicable Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: R-1 Single-Family Residential District Comp. Plan Designation: SF Single Family Residential Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Project Description The proposal is to retain an existing fence built in violation of the City’s Fence Code. The applicant has requested a Variance to exceed the allowed fence height set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 16.24. The existing fence has approximate heights of 7' 5" in the front yard, 8' along the rear property line, 7' 5” along the interior side yard, and 7' 5" along the street side yard. The request also seeks to maintain the existing fence heights at the Newell Road/Community Lane Intersection, which currently does not comply with the Sight Triangle requirements of PAMC Chapter 16.24.040. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary application is being requested and subject to PTC purview: • Variance: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.76.030 and 18.77.050. The director shall prepare a proposed written decision. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing of the planning and transportation commission (PTC) on the proposed director’s decision by filing a written request. Within 45 days following the filing of a timely hearing request of a proposed director’s decision the PTC shall hold a hearing on the application. The recommendation of the PTC shall be placed on the consent calendar of the Council within 45 days. The decision of the Council is final. The purpose of a variance is to: (1) provide a way for a site with special physical constraints, resulting from natural or built features, to be used in ways similar to other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district; and (2) provide a way to grant relief when strict application of the zoning regulations would subject development of a site to substantial hardships, constraints, or practical difficulties that do not normally arise on other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district. Variances are applicable to the requirements of Chapter 16.24 (Fences) except for the fences identified in Section 16.24.090 (Variances). Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.030 (c) sets forth the findings to approve or deny a variance application. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project denial. Special circumstances that are expressly excluded from consideration are; the personal circumstances of the property owner, and any changes in the size or shape of the subject property made by the property owner or his predecessors in interest while the property was subject to the same zoning designation. The findings to deny the subject variance application are provided in Attachment D. Analysis1 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. Planning and Transportation Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommended action. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project is located on a standard corner lot within the R-1 Zone District in the Community Center neighborhood. The subject parcel is developed with a new two story home that recently replaced the previously existing single story home. The subject parcel has an access alley (Community Lane) at the rear which runs the length of the block and provides rear yard vehicle access for all properties on this block of Parkinson Avenue. There is a total of nineteen (19) properties with rear yard alley access to this portion of Community Lane. Six of these properties, as shown on the location map, have back yards directly across from the Community Center tennis court. Background The applicant submitted the fence variance application after a Code Enforcement investigation found the existing fence on the subject property to be in violation of the fence code standards found within PAMC Chapter 16.24. Code Enforcement staff investigated the site upon receiving a complaint. Photos from the initial code enforcement investigation can be viewed on Attachment F of this report. Code Enforcement notified the property owner that the fences would need to be brought into conformance with the City fence regulations. The owner chose to submit a variance application requesting to exceed the fence height limit to keep the existing fence(s). Zoning Compliance2 A detailed review of the proposed project’s inconsistency with applicable Municipal Code standards is shown in the Zoning Comparison Table (Attachment B). The Variance request seeks to diverge from all fence heights requirements as required for a standard residential corner lot. The existing fences on site not only exceed the code allowances in terms of height, but also violate the required sight triangle (aka vision triangle) at the intersection with Community Lane and Newell Rd. The vision triangle regulation, set forth in PAMC Section 16.24.040 (Fences at Intersections), is intended to help avoid collision hazards for vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists. The applicant’s request for a variance conflicts with this section. An approval for any fence variance involving a property with an intersection, must ensure the fence meets the required sight triangle for the corner of the subject property. The vision triangle described in PAMC 16.24.040 would necessitate a reduction in the fence height within that triangle to a maximum height of three feet. This code also requires pruning of vegetation that grows beyond a height of three feet above grade within the triangle. The submitted application does not account for this requirement. Furthermore, PAMC 16.24.090 “Variances” specifically states that no variance may be granted for vision triangles. 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 A violation of any provision of chapter 16.24.080 is an infraction. However, since the variance process was started, code enforcement actions have been placed on hold, pending the conclusion of the hearing process for the applicant’s hearing request. Consistency with Application Findings The requested variance does not meet the required approval findings set forth in PAMC Section 18.76.030 “Variance”, as further described in Attachment D. According to this section of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, neither the Director, nor the City Council on appeal, shall grant a variance, unless it is found that: (1) Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. Special circumstances that are expressly excluded from consideration are: (A) The personal circumstances of the property owner, and (B) Any changes in the size or shape of the subject property made by the property owner or his predecessors in interest while the property was subject to the same zoning designation. (2) The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property, and (3) The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning), and (4) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The applicant provided justifications (Attachment H) for the requested variance based on personal circumstances, including the property owners’ fear of crime and privacy based on the design of their newly constructed home. The applicant has requested a variance to allow for an increase in fence height for all existing fencing. Staff finds there are 88 properties with rear yard alley access similar to the subject site within 2,000 feet (less than a half mile) of the property for a total of 107 properties with similar rear access situations. Of those properties, 31 are corner lots and are subject to the same standard fence regulations for corner lots as the subject property. In other words, this property is not unique. The applicant’s request for increased fence heights also argues for the consideration of their property as a back–to back corner lot. However, the subject lot’s conditions are not unique to this property. The context represented by the tennis courts and Community Lane access presents a challenge for many parcels, not only the subject parcel, and the regulations for fence heights on a standard corner lot are applicable to all residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, the sight triangle required by PAMC 16.24.040 cannot be intruded upon using a variance City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 request. This triangle is required for line of sight for all modes of travel at an intersection that facilities vehicle traffic. Without, this sight triangle, the finding cannot be made in the affirmative that granting of the variance request will not be detrimental to public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. There is no evidence to support the findings that the subject property is hindered by the existing regulation in such a manner that the property does not enjoy the same rights and privileges of similar properties in the area. Furthermore, the findings cannot be made in the affirmative that Council approval of the variance would not grant special privileges to this property that are inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. Applicant Submittal After Hearing Request The applicant’s legal counsel has prepared a document response in support of the requested Variance application. This response was submitted to the Project Planner on March 27, 2019 and can be found at Attachment H. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The project was tentatively denied by the Director, and therefore no environmental review is required. However, if approved, a project of this nature would be exempted under a Class 3 exemption, 15303 Small Structures, since the property has an existing single-family residence and the fence is accessory to the residence. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on March 29, 2019, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on March 27, 2019, which is 15 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, public comments were received during the review and tentative denial of the variance application. The received comments can be found in Attachment I of this report. The majority of comments received are not supportive of the requested variance. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) may: 1. Recommend Council approval of the project with modified findings or conditions; City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Report Author & Contact Information PTC3 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2679 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • ATTACHMENT A: LOCATION MAP (PDF) • ATTACHMENT B: ZONING COMPARISON TABLE (DOCX) • ATTACHMENT C: TENTATIVE DENIAL LETTER (PDF) • ATTACHMENT D: DRAFT RECORD OF LAND USE ACTION Sam - see track changes (DOCX) • ATTACHMENT E: REQUEST FOR HEARING (PDF) • ATTACHMENT F: CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATION PHOTOS (PDF) • ATTACHMENT G: APPLICANT REQUEST TO WAIVE 45 DAY HEARING REQUIREMENT (PDF) • ATTACHMENT H: APPLICANT RESPONSE TO DECISION (PDF) • ATTACHMENT I: PUBLIC COMMENTS (PDF) • ATTACHMENT J: PROJECT PLANS (DOCX) • COI MAP 1210 Newell Road - NO CONFLICTS (PDF) 3 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org 1 2 2Christy Fong 1Rebecca Atkinson 00 3-46-0 06 00 3-45-0 74 00 3-45-0 84 00 3-45-0 83 00 3-45-0 50 00 3-45-0 40 00 3-45-0 29 00 3-47-0 20 Hopkins Electric_Substation Rinconada Library Art Center Rinconada Well 800 . 0 ' 211. 5 ' 34 . 1 ' 351.8' 20 9 . 9 ' 1494.6' 45 3 . 3 ' 544.2' 3 7 0 . 8 ' 560.5' 241. 2 ' 150.0' 47 . 0 ' 150.0' 47 . 0 ' 65.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 65.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 75.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 25.0' 47 . 0 ' 50.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 200.0' 19 0 . 0 ' 210.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 10.0' 90 . 0 ' 80.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 80.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 90.0' 90 . 0 ' 90.0' 90 . 0 ' 100.0' 40 . 0 ' 100.0' 40 . 0 ' 50.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 50.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 100.0' 40 . 0 ' 100.0' 40 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 60.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 60.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 60.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 60.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 60.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 60.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 60.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 60.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 55.0' 11 0 . 0 ' 70.0' 95 . 0 ' 23.6' 75.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 75.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 52.5' 14 7 . 0 ' 52.5' 14 7 . 0 ' 52.5' 14 7 . 0 ' 52.5' 14 7 . 0 ' 70.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 70.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 60.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 60.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 40.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 40.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 90.0' 81 . 5 ' 90.0' 81 . 5 ' 90.0'65.5' 90.0' 65.5'50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 52.4' 14 7 . 0 ' 52.4' 14 7 . 0 ' 47.6' 14 7 . 0 ' 47.6' 14 7 . 0 ' 80.0' 47 . 0 ' 80.0' 47 . 0 ' 80.0' 66 . 0 ' 80.0' 66 . 0 ' 80.0'81.0' 80.0' 81.0'80.0'10 0 . 0 ' 80.0' 100 . 0 '50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 50.0' 14 7 . 0 ' 102.2'60.0' 100.2' 60.0' 70.2' 22 . 3 ' 62 . 8 ' 23.6' 55.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 60.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 60.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 100.0'60.0' 100.0'60.0' 70.0' 10 0 . 0 ' 55.0' 23 . 6 ' 85 . 0 ' 105.1'60.4' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 107 . 8 ' 45.0' 23 . 6 ' 62 . 7 ' 22 . 3 ' 79 9 1210 1249 14 3 0 14 2 0 14 1 0 14 0 2 1259 14 0 5 1200 1258 1272 13 3 5 13 3 6 14 3 5 14 2 5 14 1 7 14 0 1 14 0 9 13 9 5 13 6 5 13 9 0 1120 1442 14 3 6 14 3 0 1424 14 0 8 14 1 413501330 13 3 0 A 15 0 9 15 1 1 1150 15 2 0 15 1 4 15 1 0 1185 1125 298 1213 1313 1280 77 7 13 4 0 1280 PI N E S T R E E T PARKINSON AVENUE WALNUT DRIVE HOPKINS AVENUE NE W E L L R O A D COMMUNITY LANE COMMUNITY LANE This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'86' 1210 Newell Road CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R AT E D C ALIFOR NI A P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1 894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto sgutier, 2019-02-20 16:10:22Parcel Report with zoningdistricts (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Su b j e c t S i t e PF R-1 ATTACHMENT B ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 1210 Newell Road, 18PLN-00289 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.12 (R-1 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Minimum Site Area, Width and Depth 6,000 sf area, 60 ft width, 100 ft depth 9,555 sf area, 65 ft width, 147 ft depth Front Setback 20 ft 20 ft Rear Setback 20 ft 20 ft Interior Side Setback 6 ft 6 ft Street Side Setback 16 ft 16 ft Table 2: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 16.24 FENCES Regulation Maximum Height Within Setbacks Existing Height Front Yard 4 ft *, 6 ft tall if at least 16 ft from the front property line ~7 ft 5 in Rear Yard 7 ft ~7 ft 6 in fence, 8 ft 3 in gate Interior Side Yard 7 ft ~7ft 5 in Street Side Yard (Standard Corner Lots) 4 ft with 5 ft tall posts 6 ft tall if at least 16 ft from the street side property line ~7 ft 5 in *16.24.020(a) Fences Between the Street Setback Line and the Lot Line. A fence, wall, or other structure in the nature of a fence located between the street setback line and the lot line, shall be permitted up to four ft in height, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. Support posts or columns, not exceeding five ft in height or eighteen inches in width, and pedestrian gates and trellises used as entryway features, not exceeding eight ft in height, three ft in depth or five ft in width shall be permitted. 16.24.040 Fences at intersections: A fence, wall or structure in the nature of a fence located at the intersection of any street improved for vehicular traffic, shall not exceed three ft in height above the adjacent curb grade, within a triangular area formed by the curblines, and their projection, and a line connecting them at points thirty-five ft from the intersection of the projected curblines. 16.24.060 Fences on corner lots. Where corner lots are adjacent to each other with rear yards joining, a six-ft fence is permitted on the street side yard lot line at a point beginning fifty ft from the radius point of the corner, except that where a driveway occurs in that area, no fence may be constructed for a clear distance of twelve ft from the point of intersection of driveway and property lines. This provision shall not apply to corner lots whose rear or side yard abuts an interior side yard of an adjacent property. Standard Fences – Corner Lots January 15, 2019 Xin Zhang 1210 Newell Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Email: xin_zhang@hotmail.com RE: 1210 Newell Road [18PLN-00289]; Variance Dear Xin Zhang: On January 15, 2019, the application referenced above was denied by the Director of Planning and Community Environment pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.77.060. This determination is based on the review of all information contained within the project file and the review of the proposal in comparison to applicable zoning and municipal code requirements. The findings for this denial are set forth in the attachment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Variance to Allow for an Exception from the regulated fence height per Palo Alto Municipal Code. The fence fronting Newell Road and Parkinson Ave has a proposed height of 6'10". The fence fronting the rear of the property has a proposed height of 7'4" and the interior side fence has a proposed height of 6'. Zone District: R-1 (Single-Family). DIRECTOR’S DECISION: Application Denied. This Director’s decision has been denied based on the findings provided on the next page. This decision shall become final fourteen (14) calendar days from the postmark date of this mailing (or on the next business day if it falls on a weekend or holiday) unless a request for a hearing is filed pursuant to PAMC Section 18.77.060. The request for a hearing shall be in writing and submitted to the Planning and Community Environment Department prior to the end of the business day of the fourteenth day. If you have any questions regarding this determination, please do not hesitate to contact me at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org or by calling (650) 329-2225. Sincerely, Samuel Gutierrez Project Planner 1210 Newell RD, 18PLN-00289 Page 2 of 4 VARIANCE FINDINGS Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.030 (c) sets for the findings to approve or deny a variance application. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project denial. This application has been denied based on the following findings: 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title does not substantially deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. The project is located on a standard corner lot within the R-1 Zone District. The parcel is 9,555 sf in lot area, and 65 feet by 147 feet, with standard corner lot setbacks. The subject parcel has an access alley (Community Lane) at the rear which runs the length of the block and provides rear yard vehicle access for all properties on this block of Parkinson Avenue. The applicant has requested a variance to allow for an increase in fence height which includes a 6 foot 2-inch fence along the street side yard and rear yard with 1 foot 2-inch lattice above the fence for total fence heights of 7 foot 4-inches. Additionally, the applicant has requested a street facing fence of 5 foot 9 inch with a 1 foot 1-inch lattice located within the street side setback facing Parkinson Avenue, for a total fence height of 6 foot 10-inches. The applicant has requested a variance for increased fence heights beyond what is allowed by the Municipal Code and for their property to be considered a back to back corner lot in consideration to how the subject lot is impacted by traffic, security, and privacy concerns. However, the subject lots conditions are not unique to this property. There is a total of nineteen (19) properties on the subject properties street block along Parkinson Avenue, located within the R-1 Zone District, with rear yard alley access (Community Lane). Additionally, there are eight eighty (88) properties with rear yard alley access similar to the subject site within 2,000 feet (less than a half mile) of the subject property for a total of one hundred and seven (107) properties with similar rear access situations. Of those properties, thirty-one are corner lots and are subject to the same standard fence regulations for corner lots as the subject property. Meaning the that the street side yard (along Newell Road) has a limitation of four (4) feet maximum height for fences facing the street unless said fences are located at least sixteen (16) feet away from a street facing property line. Furthermore, the request to be considered a back to back corner lot is not possible as PAMC 16.24.060 “Fences on corner lots” clearly states that corner lots that are adjacent to each other with rear yards joining, a six foot tall fence is permitted on the street side yard. This lot configuration is not present in on the subject lot. The standard corner lot allows for seven foot tall rear and interior yard fences at a minimum of sixteen feet from the street side and front lot lines, and four foot tall fences along the street side yard and front lot lines within sixteen feet of said property lines, with a six foot high street facing fence beyond sixteen feet at a minimum of sixteen feet from the street side and front lot lines. The applicant states concerns over privacy being one of the motivations for the request for taller fences, however, there is an 1210 Newell RD, 18PLN-00289 Page 3 of 4 option for the applicant to supplement a code compliant fence with hedges or other tall dense fast growing plants. The Palo Alto Municipal Code does not speak to regulations involving the height of vegetation outside of required vision sight triangles and maintaining clearances in the public right of ways. Thus, the privacy issues claimed by the applicant could be potentially addressed by planting dense hedges directly adjacent to a code compliant fence. Plants that are six to eight feet in height, fast growing, and low water usage are readily available and utilized in the development of single-family homes throughout the City in the R-1 district. Furthermore, the applicants statements regarding impacts to their privacy due to lower code compliant fence heights are no greater than other corner lots in the area. The applicant states that high traffic volumes from both automotive and pedestrian traffic, produce noise and pose a security concern and the request for a taller fence would address these issues. However, similar conditions are experienced by all properties in the area, and the applicant does have the option to supplement code compliant fencing with tall dense planting, presenting no hardship or constraints on the subject property. The requests from the applicant does not identify how they are precluded designing and developing the parcel in compliance with local regulations. As stated by the applicant the home on the subject property was recently built and designed to the applicant's specifications while developing the parcel in compliance with local regulations. The purpose of the granting of a variance, as outlined in PAMC Section 18.76.030(a) is to provide a way to grant relief when strict application of the zoning regulation would subject development of a site to substantial hardships, constraints, or practical difficulties that do not normally arise on other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district. As noted above, the subject property has similar constraints conditions to many other properties within the immediate vicinity and within the same zone district. Therefore, the fact that the lot is standard corner lot with rear alley access alone does not, in and of itself, constitute a hardship, constraint, or practical difficulty that does not normally arise on other properties within the immediate vicinity and within the same zone district and does not substantially deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties within the immediate vicinity and in the same zoning district. For the reasons outlined above, the request finding described in PAMC Section 18.76.030(c)(1) for approval of the variance cannot be made for the proposed project. 2. The granting of the application affects substantial compliance with the regulations or constitutes a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. As noted above, all other properties within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district that are corner lots are all similarly restricted by the regulations for fences in regards to maximum height, location, and sight triangle requirements. Therefore, the granting of a variance for the subject property would constitute a grant of special privileges that would be inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. Further, the applicant is requesting approval for taller fences required the inclusion of a vision sight triangle for the corner of the subject property at the intersection of Community 1210 Newell RD, 18PLN-00289 Page 4 of 4 Lane and Newell Road. The vision triangle described in PAMC 16.24.090 would reduce the fence height and prohibit any vegetation from growing beyond three (3) feet tall. The submitted application does not account for this requirement. Furthermore, PAMC 16.24.090 “Variances” specifically states that no variance may be granted to the requirements contained in sections 16.24.040 “Fences at intersections”. The extent of the requested variance affects substantial compliance with the regulations. For the reasons outlined above, the request finding described in PAMC Section 18.76.030(c)(2) for approval of the variance cannot be made for the proposed project. 3. The granting of the application will be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The requested variance as submitted for the increased fence heights at the rear and street side yard as discussed in the section above does not account for the required vision triangle where the rear property line meets the street side property line. The vision triangle is required to allow a clear line of sight for pedestrians, cyclists, and automobiles where Community Lane intersection with Newell Road. Without the vision triangle, the conditions would increase the protentional for a collision to occur when a vehicle is existing Community Lane at Newell Road. The submitted application does not account for this requirement, as such the requested variance for additional height would be detrimental or injurious to public safety. In accordance with the PAMC Section 16.24.040 “A fence, wall or structure in the nature of a fence located at the intersection of any street improved for vehicular traffic, shall not exceed three feet in height above the adjacent curb grade, within a triangular area formed by the curblines, and their projection, and a line connecting them at points thirty-five feet from the intersection of the projected curblines”, which requires the described vision triangle. Therefore, the requisite finding described in PAMC Section 18.76.030(c)(4) for approval of the variance cannot be made for the proposed project. APPROVAL NO. 2019-_____ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION DENIAL FOR 1210 NEWELL ROAD: VARIANCE [FILE NO. 18PLN-00289] On ______, 2019, the City Council upheld the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendation to deny the applicant’s request for approval of a Variance to allow for an existing fence located at the subject property located at 1210 Newell Road, to be granted increased fence heights and to be exempted from the sight triangle requirements for fences located at intersections, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. BACKGROUND. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On August 27, 2018, the property owner submitted a Variance application for an existing fence that after Code Enforcement actions were started at the subject property. B. The requested fence height Variance is for an existing unpermitted fence which does not adhere to the regulations within PAMC Section 16.24.020 “Height and Location Regulations”. The existing fence also does not adhere to the sight triangle height regulations within PAMC Section 16.24.040 “Fences at intersections”. C. Following staff review, the Director of Planning considered and proposed tentatively denedial of the Variance application on January 15, 2019. D. Following a timely request for hearing received on January 28, 2019, the applicant requested additional time to engage with legal counsel and prepare materials for the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) hearing and submitted a statement to waive the 45 day timeline for a request public for hearing pursuant to PAMC 18.77. On April 10, 2019 the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and recommended denial of the project to City Council. E. On_______, 2019, the City Council reviewed the request. After hearing public testimony, the Council voted to deny the fence project and the requested variance. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. In accordance with Guideline Section 15270 CEQA does not apply to projects for which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Because the request for a Variance was denied, CEQA did not apply. SECTION 3. VARIANCE FINDINGS. The request by the applicant for the existing fence does not comply with the required Findings for a VARIANCE as required in Chapter 18.76.030 of the PAMC. Finding #1: Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title does not substantially deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. The project site is located on a standard corner lot within the R-1 Zone District. The parcel is 9,555 sf in lot area, and 65 feet by 147 feet, with standard corner lot setbacks. The subject parcel has an access alley (Community Lane) at the rear which runs the length of the block and provides rear yard vehicle access for all properties on this block of Parkinson Avenue. The applicant has requested a variance to allow for an increase in fence height which includes a 6 foot 2-inch fence along the street side yard and rear yard with 1 foot 2-inch lattice above the fence for total fence heights of 7 foot 4-inches. Additionally, the applicant has requested a street facing fence of 5 foot 9 inch with a 1 foot 1-inch lattice located within the street side setback facing Parkinson Avenue, for a total fence height of 6 foot 10-inches. The applicant has requested a variance for increased fence heights beyond what is allowed by the Municipal Code and for their property to be considered a back to back corner lot in consideration to how the subject lot is impacted by traffic, security, and privacy concerns. However, the subject lots conditions are not unique to this property. There is are a total of nineteen (19) properties on the subject properties street block along Parkinson Avenue, located within the R-1 Zone District, with rear yard alley access onto (Community Lane). Additionally, there are eight eighty (88) properties with rear yard alley access similar to the subject site within 2,000 feet (less than a half mile) of the subject property for a total of one hundred and seven (107) properties with similar rear access situations. Of those properties, thirty-one are corner lots and are subject to the same standard fence regulations for corner lots as the subject property. Meaning the that the street side yard (along Newell Road) has a limitation of four (4) feet maximum height for fences facing the street unless said fences are located at least sixteen (16) feet away from a street facing property line. Furthermore, the request to be considered a back to back corner lot is not possible as PAMC 16.24.060 “Fences on corner lots” clearly states that corner lots that are adjacent properties to each other with joining rear yards joining, a six foot tall fence is permitted on the street side yard. This lot configuration is not present in on the subject lot. The standard corner lot allows for seven foot tall rear and interior yard fences, along with six foot tall fences at a minimum of sixteen feet from the street side and front lot lines, and four foot tall fences along the street side yard and front lot lines within sixteen feet of said property lines, with a six foot high street facing fence beyond sixteen feet at a minimum of sixteen feet from the street side and front lot lines. The applicant states concerns over privacy as being one of the motivations for the request for taller fences, however, there is an option for the applicant to supplement a code compliant fence with hedges or other tall dense fast growing plants. The Palo Alto Municipal Code does not speak to regulations involving the height of vegetation outside of required vision sight triangles and maintaining clearances in the public right of ways. Thus, the privacy issues claimed by the applicant could be potentially addressed by planting dense hedges directly adjacent to a code compliant fence. Plants that are six to eight feet in height, fast growing, and low water usage are readily available and utilized in the development of single-family homes throughout the City in the R-1 district. Furthermore, the applicants statements regarding impacts to their privacy due to lower code compliant fence heights are no greater than other corner lots in the area. The applicant states that high traffic volumes from both automotive and pedestrian traffic, produce noise and pose a security concern, and the request for a taller fence would address these issues. However, similar conditions are experienced by all properties in the area, and the applicant does have the option to supplement code compliant fencing with tall dense planting, presenting no hardship or constraints on the subject property. The requests from the applicant does not identify how they are precluded from designing and developing the parcel in compliance with local regulations. As stated by the applicant, the home on the subject property was recently built and designed to the applicant's specifications while developing the parcel in compliance with local regulations. The purpose of the granting of a variance, as outlined in PAMC Section 18.76.030(a) is to provide a way to grant relief when strict application of the zoning regulation would subject development of a site to substantial hardships, constraints, or practical difficulties that do not normally arise on other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district. As noted above, the subject property has similar constraints and conditions asto many other properties within the immediate vicinity and within the same zone district. Therefore, the fact that the lot is standard corner lot with rear alley access alone does not, in and of itself, constitute a hardship, constraint, or practical difficulty that does not normally arise on other properties within the immediate vicinity and within the same zone district and does not substantially deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties within the immediate vicinity and in the same zoning district. For the reasons outlined above, the request finding described in PAMC Section 18.76.030(c)(1) for approval of the variance cannot be made for the proposed project. Finding #2: The granting of the application affects substantial compliance with the regulations or constitutes a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. As noted above, all other properties within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district that are corner lots are all similarly restricted by the regulations for fences in regards to maximum height, location, and sight triangle requirements. Therefore, the granting of a variance for the subject property would constitute a grant of special privileges that would be inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. Further, the applicant is requesting approval for taller fences required the inclusion ofwithin a vision sight triangle for the corner of the subject property at the intersection of Community Lane (alley) and Newell Road. The vision triangle described in PAMC 16.24.090 would reduce the fence height and prohibit any vegetation from growing beyond three (3) feet tall. The submitted application does not account for this requirement. Furthermore, PAMC 16.24.090 “Variances” specifically states that no variance may be granted to the requirements contained in sections 16.24.040 “Fences at intersections”. The extent of the requested variance affects substantial compliance with the regulations. For the reasons outlined above, the request finding described in PAMC Section 18.76.030(c)(2) for approval of the variance cannot be made for the proposed project. Finding #3: The granting of the application will be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The requested variance as submitted for the increased fence heights at the rear and street side yard, as discussed in the section above, does not account for the required vision triangle where the rear property line meets the street side property line. The vision triangle is required to allow a clear line of sight for pedestrians, cyclists, and automobiles where Community Lane (alley) intersectsion with Newell Road. Without the vision triangle, the conditions would increase the protentional for a collision to occur when a vehicle is existing Community Lane at Newell Road. The submitted application does not account for this requirement, as such the requested variance for additional height would be detrimental or injurious to public safety. In accordance with the PAMC Section 16.24.040 “A fence, wall or structure in the nature of a fence located at the intersection of any street improved for vehicular traffic, shall not exceed three feet in height above the adjacent curb grade, within a triangular area formed by the curblines, and their projection, and a line connecting them at points thirty-five feet from the intersection of the projected curblines”, which requires the described vision triangle. Therefore, the requisite finding described in PAMC Section 18.76.030(c)(4) for approval of the variance cannot be made for the proposed project. SECTION 4. VOTETERM OF DENIALEFFECTIVE DATE. The requisite findings described in PAMC 18.76.030(c) for approval of a Variance cannot be made for the proposed project. Theis variance request if therefore denied and this decision is effective immediately upon adoption. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney From:Glaes, Judy To:Glaes, Judy Subject:1210 Newell Rd - 6/25/18 violation photos Date:Wednesday, July 11, 2018 12:50:59 PM 1 Gutierrez, Samuel From:Xin Zhang <xin_zhang@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 25, 2019 8:52 PM To:Gutierrez, Samuel; derek@guidanceapc.com Cc:George Chu QQ_Mail Subject:Re: 1210 Newell Road - City File No 18PLN-00289 Mr. Gutierrez, As you know, on January 30, 2019, we requested a hearing pursuant to PAMC Chapter 18.77. We understand the City is required to set this hearing within 45 days following the filing of our timely hearing request. However, we have engaged legal counsel to assist us with our efforts to seek a variance to protect our security and privacy. Our attorney is still gathering information and reviewing proposals to be presented at the hearing. We will need additional time for this work to be completed. Accordingly, this will confirm that we, as the applicants, waive the 45 day requirement set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.77.060 (e)(1). We request being rescheduled for a hearing date in April to allow for the completion of the work we and our counsel will need for a full and fair hearing. We appreciate the City Staff respecting and granting this request. Sincerely, Xin Zhang     From: Gutierrez, Samuel <Samuel.Gutierrez@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 2:27 PM  To: derek@guidanceapc.com  Cc: Xin Zhang  Subject: 1210 Newell Road ‐ City File No 18PLN‐00289      Hello Derek and Xin,     I am contacting you regarding the request for hearing that was submitted for the tentative directors decision of denial  for the fence variance request at 1210 Newell. We will be noticing the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)  hearing for 3/13/2019 tomorrow morning. If you would like to avoid going to hearing and wish to work with City Staff to  revise the application in a manner that would be more readily approved you must submit formal notification to me of  your withdrawal of Hearing Request today so I can remove this item from PTC agenda on 3/13/2019. If I do not receive  the said withdrawal request, then we will move forward with the Public Hearing and notice the hearing accordingly to  the public.     If we do move forward with the noticing the City will disclose the public comments and the nature/history of the fence  violation as it is apart of the project history. Though we could still work together to revise the plans and bring those to  hearing. We would have a deadline of 2/27 to submit updated plans so they can be addressed the staff report for the  3/13 PTC hearing. If no revised plans are received, then we will proceed accordingly with the tentatively denied plans  and associated documents. Please let me know if you have any questions.     Kind Regards,  2      Samuel J. Gutierrez | MUP | Associate Planner | P&CE Department  250 Hamilton Ave. 5th Floor, Palo Alto CA 94301  Phone: (650) 329 ‐ 2225  Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!  Online Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code  Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped  Permit Tracking – Public Access              ! March 27, 2019 Via Email Samuel Gutierrez PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Appeal of Tentative Decision by Ching-Yao Chu and Xin Zhang 1210 Newell RD, 18PLN-00289 Mr. Gutierrez, As you know, this office represents Ching-Yao Chu and Xin Zhang, owners and occupants of 1210 Newell Road (“Owners”). You will find attached slides from a PowerPoint presentation (slides) in support of the Owners’ request for variance. First, we ask you to kindly check with the City Attorney regarding your department’s interpretation of PAMC 16.24.040. Simply put, the Owners strongly disagree that 16.24.040 has any applicability in this matter and the alleged code violation based upon this section must be immediately withdrawn. The basis for this contention is set forth herein. Second, we are hopeful your department will seek legal guidance on the impact of the City’s sign off and approvals of the fencing in question. In 2015, the City approved the plans with substantially similar fencing identified on the Owners’ construction plans. The City also approved the fencing as part of its final inspection in June 2018, after the fencing was in place. An anonymous complaint from a single neighbor cannot undo what has been done and approved. Further to these points the Owners submit as follows: The City alleges a violation based upon its misinterpretation of PAMC 16.24.040. The City asserts there is an intersection at Newell Road and Community Lane. The City alleges Community Lane is an alley and, per your department’s reading of 16.24.040, an alley is a “street improved for vehicular traffic.” Yet, your department offers no credible authority for this reading of 16.24.040. Direct 650.720.3282 derek@guidanceapc.com 2225 E. Bayshore Rd., 200 Palo Alto CA 94303 877.350.2008 Mr. Gutierrez Page of 2 4 PAMC 16.24.040 does not apply to any “street”, the section only applies to any “street improved for vehicular traffic.” City relies on PAMC 1.04.050 (8) for its position. However, 1.04.050 (8) provides an exceptionally broad definition with no mention of the meaning of a “street improved for vehicular traffic.” PAMC 1.04.050 includes in its definition of street, “courts, places, squares, curbs, or other public ways in this city which have been or may hereafter be dedicated and open to public use, or such other public property so designated in any law of this state.” City’s use of 1.04.050 to interpret 16.24.040 would effectively make nearly every home on every street in Palo Alto subject to an interpretation of being “at intersections” with a street. Certainly, 1.04.050 was not intended to guide the application of 16.24.040. Likewise, City is overreaching when it relies on PAMC 8.04.010, a section governing trees and vegetation. The definition of street in 8.04.010 is useless in determining what is meant by “street improved for vehicular traffic.” Using 8.04.010 to interpret 16.24.040 would have the unintended consequence of over applying 16.24.040 to countless unsuspecting property owners because it defines a “street” as “all land lying between the boundaries of property abutting on all public streets, boulevards, alleys and walks.” Using Code Sections 1.04.050 and 8.04.010 to interpret 16.24.040 is untenable. PAMC does offer some insight on what is meant by a “street improved for vehicular traffic” in 21.04.30 which provide as follows:  (1)   "Alley" means a public or private vehicular way less than twelve and two- tenths meters (forty feet) in width affording a secondary means of vehicular access to abutting property. . . . .  (33)   "Street" means a public or private right-of-way designed primarily for vehicular traffic, whether designated as a street, highway, thoroughfare, parkway, road, avenue, lane, place or however otherwise designated; provided, however, "street" does not include "alley" or "driveway." Owners and City agree Community Lane is an alley or driveway. It is not a “street improved for vehicular traffic.” There has never been a “vision triangle” at this location and the attached slides show the Community Lane driveway has always been blocked by a six foot high fence and overgrown vegetation. The Owners had no “notice” of a need for a vision triangle. The opposite is true, the Owners had notice a vision triangle was not required since none was present at Community Lane near Newell Road at the time of their purchase of the subject property. As seen in the attached slides, the vision in this area is actually better now than when the Owners purchased the property. During the submittal and approval process for the construction of the Owners’ home, the City did not require this vision triangle because City no doubt understood Community Lane’s driveway did not and does not meet the definition of a “street improved for vehicular traffic.” The attached slides show there are similar properties without “vision triangles” along “driveways” or “alleys” because, no doubt, the City did not consider these driveways to be streets “improved for vehicular traffic.” Mr. Gutierrez Page of 3 4 The alleged violation based upon non-compliance with PAMC 16.24.040 must be withdrawn. This section is inapplicable to the subject property. The City already approved a six (6) foot high fence along Newell Road during the planning phase and then later approved the current fencing after it was constructed and fully in place for City inspection. Having already approved the building plans indicating the 6 foot fence along Newell Road, and signing off on a clear and present 7 foot high fence in place at the time of final inspection, the City has no “discretion” to deny a variance which has effectively already been granted. (Thompson v. City of Lake Elsinore 18 Cal. App. 4th 49, 57 (1993); see also, Blackwater Lodge v. Boughton, No. 08-CV-0926 H (WMC). (S.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2008). As is set forth in the attached slides, the City approved the fence on Newell Road on June 29, 2015. The fence was built on or before May 31, 2018. City’s final inspection and approval occurred on June 14, 2018. The City approved Owners’ planned fencing and did so years in advance of the construction of these fences. The City had all that time to seek a different plan from the Owners, and it waived any right to enforce its anachronistic fence codes once the City signed off on the final inspection last year. Likewise, the City approved the fences on Parkinson Avenue and the back fence and driveway gate facing Community Lane. In accordance with the holding in Thompson, the City had the opportunity to withhold its approval during its on site inspection on June 14, 2018. The City approved the home for occupancy and compliance with applicable codes. A variance is not likely required in this case given the City’s waiver of its discretion to disapprove of the fences constructed substantially in compliance with previously submitted and approved plans. Although a variance is likely not required for the fencing on Newell Road, Community Lane and Parkinson Avenue, the Owners have established a basis for such variance. The requirements of PAMC 18.77.060 have been met:  (1)   Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property.  As is set forth in the attached slides, there are numerous homes in the area with identical lot configurations with allegedly non-compliant fencing. Owners merely seek what others in the area already have, fencing at least six feet in height along the roadways and back alleys along their property lines. The slides further show there are nearly 1,000 criminal incidents annually within a radius of less than 3,000 feet from the subject property. The Owners’ security cannot be Mr. Gutierrez Page of 4 4 compromised. The City’s suggestion of growing shrubs and bushes does not solve these security concerns. Shrubbery is penetrable. Fencing is solid and provides the appropriate measure of protection. There are unique privacy issues at this property. The slides show all of the well attended public facilities in the area. These higher traffic locations dictate a need for the City to allow for additional privacy and security for homes in this area of Palo Alto. This is particularly true with this property which is located directly behind the tennis courts and just adjacent to the public pool and library.   (2)   The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property, and Again, the slides (and a walking tour) will show the fair number of comparable fencing for comparable homes in comparable locations. Withholding this variance request, particularly after the City was given several opportunities to previously address these fencing issues, would be inapposite of this criterion.       (3)   The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning), and The City’s Plan purports to improve the “safety” of its residents. This modest accommodation for this property, surrounded by public facilities and nearly 1,000 criminal incidents a year, would be appropriate in regard to the City’s Plan.       (4)   The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. To the contrary, planting water hungry, easily penetrable shrubbery would not be good for safety and general welfare. Summary The Owners are not required to comply with 16.24.040. The City approved the fencing at the planning and inspection stages. Given the nature of similar fencing at comparable properties in the area, withholding approval of the variance would be an abuse of the City’s discretion. Respectfully submitted, Attachments: 1 Gutierrez, Samuel From:Caitie Field <caitlinfield@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 11:48 AM To:ProjectPlans Subject:A note in favor of of fence 1210 Newell Road To whom it may concern, I am writing in support of the fence surrounding the new home construction at 1210 Newell Rd. I live across the street from the home and the fence causes no nuisance to me in the slightest. I often drive through the alley behind the home and the visibility is not an issue and provides much needed security and privacy for the occupants. There are often people passing through the alley as well as across the street at the Rinconada Library. The fence is not obtrusive or out of place visually. It fits in perfectly with the neighborhood and is of similar height to what was previously there. My other concern is the neighbor that complained about this fence has repeatedly made this project difficult for this family, threatening to call police for parking in front of their home (legally), cutting down their hedges without permission and blocking construction trucks by parking them in on both sides on purpose. All while remodeling their own home without city permits. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Caitlin Field 1435 Parkinson Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-740-7707 1 Gutierrez, Samuel From:Bret E. Field <field@bozpat.com> Sent:Monday, August 27, 2018 9:03 PM To:ProjectPlans Subject:1210 Newell, Palo Alto CA 94301 Dear Planning Department:    I am writing today to voice my strong support for our neighbor's fence at 1210 Newell Road.     I live at 1435 Parkinson directly across the street from 1210 Newell Road.     I find the fence to be nicely done and that it fits well with the overall look of the house. In no way do I find the fence to be a  nuisance, intrusive or visually out of place.     In addition, I think it is important for our neighbors to have the fence in its current form, as it serves an essential purpose as a  privacy barrier from the road/library across the street. Furthermore, the fence in its current form will also serve an important  security function for our neighbors.     In closing I’d like to emphasize that I strongly support our neighbor’s desire to maintain the fence in its current form.     Sincerely,     Bret Field  1435 Parkinson Avenue  Palo Alto CA 94301      Confidentiality Notice: This e‐mail transmission may contain confidential or legally privileged information that is intended only  for the individual(s) or entity(ies) named in the e‐mail address. If you are not the intended recipient, or if this e‐mail has been  mistakenly directed to you, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of  this e‐mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e‐mail transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender at  1‐650‐327‐3400, so that Bozicevic, Field and Francis LLP can arrange for proper delivery, and then please delete the message  from your system. Thank you.   1 Gutierrez, Samuel From:Caitie Field <caitlinfield@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 5, 2018 10:28 AM To:Gutierrez, Samuel Subject:1210 Newell Road  Dear Mr. Gutierrez, I am writing in favor of the variance to allow for an exception from the regulated fence height for 1210 Newell Road. The fence is esthetically pleasing, suits the neighborhood, is similar in height to most fences in and around the neighborhood and I feel the heigh is necessary for privacy and safety for the family. The family living at 1210 Newell Road as well as the family across the street have both had intruders in their back yard and well as entering their front door while the home was occupied. Newell is a busy street and the alley behind 1210 Newell is well travelled. I have spoken with other neighbors that agree the fence is fine as is and needed for safety and privacy. Best, Caitlin Field 1435 Parkinson Ave  From:John Cala To:Gutierrez, Samuel Subject:Objection to Proposed Development Project, File 18PLN-00289 Date:Friday, October 5, 2018 3:47:36 PM Samuel, I am writing to you again to stress my objection to the requested variance made by the current owner or the newly constructed fences. I can see from the city's website that the you have replied to the initial application with a request for more information. While I can appreciate that the process needs to proceed in its prescribed manner, I find it disappointing that these fences which were found to be in violation of the city's regulations several months ago remain intact. As a 20 year resident of this neighborhood, I cannot believe that there could possibly be a reasonable or objective consideration that would warrant an exception from regulations that have been followed by every other house in the immediate vicinity. It really feels that the variance request is being exploited to allow the owner to avoid taking action on something that should have been remedied long ago. As a separate note, the plants that obstruct the view of Newell for cars that exit from Community Lane have continued to grow unattended, further obstructing the views. It is an incredibly unsafe situation on a street with heavy bike traffic to Walter Hays and Greene schools. As we discussed, the property owner has never shown even the slightest inclination to maintain the shrubbery on the property unless specifically directed to do so by the city. I urge you to review the shrubs as well. Sincerely, John Cala ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: John Cala <johnjcala@yahoo.com> To: samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org <samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Susan Cala <calafampa@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2018, 1:42:40 PM PDT Subject: Objection to Proposed Development Project Samuel, As we discussed, this email is to document my objection to the application for a variance to allow for an exemption from the regulated fence heights that are being requested for 1210 Newell Road. The file number on this request is 18PLN-00289. The fences exceed, by a substantial margin, the allowable fence height limits under the existing regulations. Allowing higher fences would create a "fortress" that is completely inconsistent with the existing neighborhood. As far as I can tell, none of the other homes within a several block radius have fences that are closed to the heights being proposed. Perhaps if there was an aesthetic quality to the fences I might be less strenuous in my objection but the fences that have been constructed are standard redwood fencing that is not particularly attractive and oddly inconsistent with the style of the very nice, new home that has been built on the property. My objection also includes the massive iron gate that has been installed in front of the driveway which is, at its peak, several inches higher than the requested exemption and well above the allowable limits under the current regulations. The regulations on these fences are not new and were available to the owner and contractor prior to building the fences and installing the oversized iron gate. In my view there is no reasonable basis for approving this variance request and I urge you to reject it and direct the homeowner to take the necessary actions to bring the fence and gate into compliance with the prevailing regulations. John Cala 1420 Parkinson Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 (415) 602-2473 1 Gutierrez, Samuel From:Sidney Buttrill <bud.buttrill@mindspring.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 5, 2018 9:50 PM To:Gutierrez, Samuel Cc:bud.buttrill@mindspring.com Subject:18PLN-00289 1210 Newell Rd. Mr. Gutierrez,  I would like to oppose the construction of a 6’‐10” fence along Parkinson Ave. and Newell Road at the intersection of  these two busy streets.  The Palo Alto Fence Code limits the height of fences at the intersection of two streets to a  maximum height of 3’‐0”.  This is a matter of pedestrian and traffic safety.  It would be impossible to see vehicles,  bicyclists, or pedestrians  around a 6’‐10” fence without driving out into the intersection.  This would be especially  hazardous for school children on bicycles who use the Newell Road bicycle paths on their way to and from Walter Hayes  Elementary School and  Greene Middle School.  In addition to traffic safety concerns, an outsize fence would be unsightly and out of place in this residential  neighborhood.  I would not oppose the rear alley fence height of 7’‐4” provided it tapered down to the maximum 4’ height at the  setback line.  The interior side fence proposed to be 6’ in height should  also taper down to 4’ at the lot line to be  consistent with the other fences along Parkinson Avenue.  Respectfully,  Bud Buttrill 1417 Parkinson Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: (650)-321-8338 Cell: (650)380-5382 FAX: (650)327-8062   1 Gutierrez, Samuel From:Heidi's Gmail <heidisue.phillips@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, September 8, 2018 3:16 PM To:Gutierrez, Samuel Subject:1210 Newell Rd 18PLN-00289 Hi Samuel    My husband and I are owners of 1511 Walnut drive and have just received notice of the proposed project at 1210  Newell rd.  We would like to register our concern about the proposed height of the fencing bordering Newell Ave.  Its  our strong feeling that the fencing bordering Newell and Parkinson should be subject to guidelines that are consistent  with those of the neighborhood.  This section of Newell is used by many pedestrians accessing the library, the  community garden, and Rinconada park.    We frequently walk down Parkinson Ave  to access downtown and have always loved the character of this street.   Allowing a 6 foot tall fence along either Newell Rd or Parkinson  Ave would have a negative impact on the sense of  community in a spot that is at the heart of the community center neighborhood.     We urge you not to grant an exemption from the regulated fence height for the portions of the fencing bordering Newell  or Parkinson     Thank you for your consideration of our concern.    Sincerely,    Heidi and Joe Phillips    Sent from my iPhone  1 Gutierrez, Samuel From:Allen Podell <alpodell@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 18, 2019 4:57 PM To:Gutierrez, Samuel Subject:Fence variance on Newell Road We are strongly opposed to such a high fence because 1-It gives an unfriendly, closed in impression as one walks or drives down the street. 2-It reduces visibility around the corner I cannot imagine the impact on our city if a large number of people erect high fences. Please don't allow this. Sincerely, Allen Podell Janet Podell 1351 Harker Avenue 1 Gutierrez, Samuel From:anne dazey <annekdazey@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 29, 2019 4:41 PM To:Gutierrez, Samuel Subject:18pln-00289 Thank you for the postcard indicating that the decision on the fence at 1210 Newell Road has a possibility of being  denied.  Aside from the fact that there is a city ordinance on the height of fences, it doesn't bode well for the city to start  exceptions, as they tend to snowball.  I personally feel that the fence as it is now is the only unattractive mark on a street that has such a welcoming feel to  it.  There are other ways to block passerbys from looking into your home, and there are examples all over Palo Alto.  Of course I also object to all the 8 ‐ 12' high shrubs that people grow to circumvent the restriction on fence heights, but  that is something for the city to decide what to do about.  Thank you again for the tentative denial.  As a neighbor that doesn't live that far away, I look forward to a more  'neighbor friendly' look to the property. (am also wondering about the bricked area next to Newell on the property that  looks to be a second driveway....)  anne  ATTACHMENT J Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll to find “1210 Newell Road” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the Project Plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4552&TargetID=319