COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Inter-Departmental Correspondence | ||||||||
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY | ||||||||
DATE: |
October 18, 2005 | |||||||
BOARD MEETING DATE: |
November 8, 2005 | |||||||
SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING: |
10 days, within 300 feet | |||||||
VOTE REQUIRED: |
Majority | |||||||
TO: |
Honorable Board of Supervisors | |||||||
FROM: |
Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services | |||||||
SUBJECT: |
Consideration of a Fence Height Exception, pursuant to Section 6412.2 of the County Zoning Regulations, to legalize a 7-foot high fence on the right side and rear yards, and a 6-foot high fence along the front and left side yards where 6 feet on the right and rear yards and 4 feet on the right and rear yards are allowed on the property located at 65 Inyo Place, in the unincorporated Sequoia Tract area of San Mateo County. (Appeal of Planning Commission's decision for denial.) | |||||||
File Number: |
PLN 2004-00395 (Davis) | |||||||
RECOMMENDATION | ||||||||
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the fence height exception. | ||||||||
VISION ALIGNMENT | ||||||||
Commitment No. 3: “Ensuring basic health and safety for all.” The Planning Commission in making its decision found that the approval of the fence height exception was in conflict with this commitment. | ||||||||
Goal No. 7: Maintain and enhance the public safety of all residents and visitors. The Planning Commission’s denial of the over-height fence, if upheld, would result in the fence being lowered as not to jeopardize public safety. | ||||||||
BACKGROUND | ||||||||
In July 2004, the owner of 65 Inyo Place, a corner lot, was cited with a violation for an over-height fence. In response, the owner applied for a retroactive fence height exception to which several objections from neighbors were received. On December 14, 2004, the Planning Director denied the application for a fence height exception to legalize the subject over-height fence because Section 6412.2(3) of the Zoning Regulations requires the Planning Director to deny such an exception if any member of the public, an organization or association has submitted to the Planning Director written objection to the exception request. The applicant appealed that decision on December 29, 2004. | ||||||||
Planning Commission Action: On May 11, 2005, the Planning Commission on a 3-2 vote denied the appeal, citing difficulty in making the finding that public safety would not be jeopardized due to perceived safety issues at the intersection of the two streets. | ||||||||
Report Prepared By: Tiare Peña, Project Planner, 650/363-1850 | ||||||||
Appellant: Wanda Davis | ||||||||
Applicant/Owner: Wanda Davis | ||||||||
Location: 65 Inyo Place, Redwood City | ||||||||
APN: 069-301-280 | ||||||||
Parcel Size: 6,800 sq. ft. | ||||||||
Existing Zoning: R-1/S-74 (Single-Family Residential/5,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) | ||||||||
General Plan Designation: Medium-Low Density Residential (6.1 – 8.7 dwelling units/acre) | ||||||||
Sphere-of-Influence: City of Redwood City | ||||||||
Existing Land Use: Single-Family Dwelling | ||||||||
Water Supply: Redwood City Municipal Water District | ||||||||
Sewage Disposal: City of Redwood City | ||||||||
Flood Zone: Zone “C” (Area of Minimal Flooding); Community Panel No. 060311 0280B; Effective date July 5, 1984. | ||||||||
Environmental Evaluation: Exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061.B/3 (General Rule). The General Rule states that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA review. | ||||||||
Setting: The existing property is improved with a 1-story single-family dwelling located at the corner of Inyo Place and Cerrito Avenue. The residence is on a flat parcel, surrounded by other single-family residences. | ||||||||
Chronology: | ||||||||
Date |
Action | |||||||
July, 2004 |
- |
The owner receives a violation notice (County File No. VIO 2004-00097) for the over-height fence. | ||||||
August 3, 2004 |
- |
In response, owner submits fence height exception permit application to legalize over-height fence. | ||||||
September 29, 2005 |
- |
The Notice of Fence Height Exception is mailed to property owners within 300 feet of property. | ||||||
October 13, 2005 |
- |
E-mail is received from neighbor regarding the safety of children, compromised visibility and lack of natural light due to the overheight fence is received. | ||||||
December 14, 2004 |
- |
The Planning Director denies the approval for the fence height exception. | ||||||
December 29, 2004 |
- |
Owner/applicant files appeal. | ||||||
April 22, 2005 |
- |
Department of Public Works completes a site visit to identify any line-of-sight issues due to the fence. No issues are identified. | ||||||
May 11, 2005 |
- |
Planning Commission public hearing. Planning Commission on a 3-2 vote denies the appeal. | ||||||
May 31, 2005 |
- |
Appeal filed by Wanda Davis. | ||||||
November 8, 2005 |
- |
Board of Supervisors public hearing. | ||||||
DISCUSSION | ||||||||
A. |
PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION | |||||||
The Planning Commission in reaching its decision considered the staff report prepared by Planning Division staff and heard testimony from the property owner and the neighbors. Based on information and evidence presented at the hearing, the Planning Commission denied the appeal and made the findings for denial as follows: | ||||||||
The fence does not promote or enhance good design, site relationships and other aesthetic considerations in accordance with San Mateo County General Plan Policy 4.14. | ||||||||
On May 31, 2005, the property owner filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision and the item was referred to the Board for final decision. | ||||||||
B. |
KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL | |||||||
1. |
Basis for Appeal | |||||||
The appellant’s basis for appeal of the Planning Director’s decision is described below followed by staff’s response. A copy of the appellant’s appeal is included as Attachment G of this report. | ||||||||
a. |
The subject fence has been in place for approximately twenty years. | |||||||
Staff’s Response: Staff reviewed the parcel history and was unable to determine the length of time the fence has been in place. However, the current fence regulations have been in effect for almost 50 years, since the late 1950s. | ||||||||
b. |
The subject fence has been meticulously cared for over the years. | |||||||
Staff’s Response: Staff inspected the property on April 25, 2005, and agrees with this assessment. | ||||||||
c. |
There is no basis that a vehicular threat is posed due to the placement of the fence. | |||||||
Staff’s Response: Staff contacted the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and learned that in 1994, CHP began implementing a Statewide Integrated Traffic Reporting System, which records motor vehicle accidents throughout California. Staff requested a copy of the report showing any accidents within 100 feet of the cul-de-sac where Cerrito Avenue and Inyo Place intersect from 1994-2004. The report reflects that in 2001 an accident occurred in which the minor operator of a motor vehicle was under the influence of alcohol. A copy of the report is included as Attachment F. | ||||||||
The Department of Public Works also conducted a site visit to review the hazardous issue and confirmed that line-of-sight for vehicular traffic was not compromised due to the placement or height of the fence. | ||||||||
Considerable public testimony was given at the Planning Commission hearing, however, stating that many potential accidents had been averted. The neighbors testified that the fence contributes to potentially dangerous situations regardless of CHP and Department of Public Works findings that technical hazards do not exist. | ||||||||
2. |
Required Findings to Approve the Exception | |||||||
Zoning Regulations Section 6412.2 of the fence height exception regulations stipulates that upon appeal, the Board of Supervisors, at a public hearing, shall review the Planning Commission's decision, and may approve an exception, providing all the following findings can be made: | ||||||||
a. |
Approving the exception will not jeopardize public safety. | |||||||
Planning Commission Decision: The Planning Commission was unable to make the finding by majority vote that the fence in its current state will not jeopardize public safety due to perceived safety issues. | ||||||||
b. |
Approving the exception will be compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the parcel where the fence would be placed and will not be detrimental to the public welfare. | |||||||
Planning Commission Decision: The Planning Commission was unable to make the finding by majority vote that the fence in its current state is compatible with the neighborhood and was not detrimental to the public welfare due to perceived safety issues. | ||||||||
c. |
The proposed fence promotes or enhances good design, site relationships and other aesthetic considerations in accordance with San Mateo County General Plan Policy 4.14. | |||||||
Planning Commission Decision: The Planning Commission was unable to make the finding by majority vote that the fence in its current state promotes or enhances good design, site relationships and other aesthetic considerations. | ||||||||
Alternatively, the Board can make findings approving the Fence Height Exception if it determines that no factual evidence exists verifying the fence’s detrimental impact. Draft findings have been attached for the Board’s reference (Attachment B). | ||||||||
C. |
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW | |||||||
Exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061.B/3 (General Rule). The General Rule states that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA review. | ||||||||
D. |
REVIEWING AGENCIES | |||||||
Planning and Building Division | ||||||||
Department of Public Works | ||||||||
FISCAL IMPACT | ||||||||
No fiscal impact. | ||||||||
ATTACHMENTS | ||||||||
A. |
Recommended Findings of Denial | |||||||
B. |
Alternate Findings of Approval | |||||||
C. |
Letter of Decision Dated May 12, 2005 | |||||||
D. |
Appeal Form Dated May 31, 2005 | |||||||
E. |
Correspondence to Planning Commission | |||||||
F. |
CHP Statewide Integrated Traffic Report |
MR:TP:fc/kcd – TGPP1151_WFU.DOC
Attachment A | |||
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO | |||
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY | |||
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL | |||
Permit File Number: PLN 2004-00395 |
Board Meeting Date: November 8, 2005 | ||
Prepared By: Tiare Peña |
For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors | ||
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL | |||
1. |
Approving the fence height exception jeopardizes public safety due to perceived compromised visibility at the intersection of the two streets. | ||
2. |
Approving the fence height exception will not be compatible with the neighborhood surrounding the parcel where the fence is placed and will be detrimental to the public welfare. The subject property is situated at the corner of Inyo Place and Cerrito Avenue. There is a perception that the overheight fence compromises visibility for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. | ||
MR:TP:fc/kcd – TGPP1151_WFU.DOC