Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1170 Vancouver Ave - Staff Report�� CITY p 4 � � � BURLJNC3AME ' � , STAFF REPORT °�•- TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: JANUARY 26, 1998 AGENDA ITEM # MTG. DATE 02.02.98 SUBIv�ITTED BY (II/ � Ul v�� z� r � APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER gy SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMIVIISSION DENIAL OF A FENCE EXCEPTION AT 1170 VANCOUVER AVENLIE, ZONED R-1. RECOMMENDATION: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Affirmative action should include findings for a fence exception. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. (Action alternatives and the requirements for findings for a fence exception are attached at the end of the staff report.) CONDITIONS CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: In their deliberations the Planning Commission considered the conditions: 1. that the project shall be maintained as shown on the plans submitted the Planning Department date stamped October 27, 1997; and 2. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. PLAN1vING COMMISSION ACTION: At their meeting on January 12, 1998, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the fence exception request and voted 6-0-1 (C. Wellford absent) to deny the request. Some guidelines for Commission were noted by the City Attorney,specifically that the issue here is the fence and that any exception granted goes with the property permanently. In their comments the commissioners noted that the issue is whether there are exceptional circumstances and hardships having to do with the property to justify an exception to the fence regulations, this is a normal lot for the area, it is bigger than many in the city and has an easement at the rear, no hardship was presented by the applicant; noted both houses have second stories and have views into the others' yards, but 8 inches on the fence will not offer a lot of privacy in this circumstance; general rule in California is that you can trim property line vegetation but you can't damage it. 02.02.98 Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a fence exception at 1170 Vancouver Avenue, Zoned R-1. BACKGROLIND: Ben and Ceny Poblete, the applicants and property owner, are requesting two fence exceptions one to allow a 7'-8" tall lattice fence along the right side property line (7'-0" allowed) and one for a T-1" tall fence along the rear property line (7'-0" allowed). The fences came to the city attention through code enforcement and both are presently in place. The 7'-8" side yard fence extends 24 feet along the right side property line. The entire fence is an open wooden lattice, suitable for covering by vegetation. The rear property line fence is a 5'-4" solid board fence with a 1'-9" lattice on the top; for a total height of 7'-1" as measured from closest adjacent grade. Presently on the site there is also an existing 7'-0" tall, 8'-0" wide free standing trellis in the side yard between the 7'-8" lattice fence and the house. The trellis is 2'-4" from the side property line and is not considered to be a fence. A minor modification for a 10 % increase in fence height was requested for the fences (side and rear) by a neighbor. The item was called up for a hearing before the Planning Commission. ATTACHMENTS: Action Alternatives and Fence Exception Findings January 21, 1998, M. Monroe letter to Pobletes setting Council hearing, February 2, 1998 Ben and Ceny Poblete letter to Planning Commission, January 20, 1998, requesting appeal. Planning Commission Minutes, January 12, 1998 Ben and Ceny Poblete letter to Planning Commission, January 5,1998 Photo of Lattice added to existing side property line fence, later removed, evidence submitted to Planning Commission at public hearing. Planning Commission Staff Report, January 12, 1998, with attachments. Public Notice Resolution -2- � L� ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. City Council may vote in favor of an applicant's request. If the action is a variance, use permit, hillside area construction permit, fence exception or sign exception, the Council must make the findings as required by the code. Findings must be particular to the given property and request. Actions on use permits should be by resolution. A majority of the council members seated during the public hearing must agree in order to pass an affirmative motion. 2. City Council may deny an applicant's request. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the record. 3. City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application made to the City council is not the same as that heard by the Planning Commission; when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like additional information or additional design work before acting on a project. Direction about additional information required to be given to staff, applicant and Planning Commission should be made very clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be before the Council or the Planning Commission. � • � , � � In order to grant a fence exception, the applicant must show and the Council must find the following exist (CS 25.78.050): 1. that there are exceptional circumstances; 2. that there is no public hazard; 3. that neighboring properties will not be materially damaged; and 4. that the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner. Pla�uting Deputment CITY OF BURLINGAME January 21, 1998 Benjamin L. & Inocencia C. Poblete 1170 Vancouver Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Poblete, �� CIT1I p A BURLJNGAME ����. .� Ciry Hall - 501 Prinvose Road Budingame, Califonua 94010.3997 Tel. (650) 696-7200 At the City Council meeting of January 20, 1998, the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on your project at 1170 Vancouver, zoned R-1. A public hearing will be held on February 2, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. We look forward to seeing you there to present your project. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, ������ Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s 1170VANC.acc c: City Clerk J NIY GF� " 7C 11 • 4t]MI'I SENT VIA TELECOPIEP. January 20, 1998 Planning Commission City of Burlinyame Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject: Fence Exception - 1170 Vancouver Ave. Gentlemen: P. 1 RE�F�D JA� � � �Q98 c��F���f � �AAr_ We appeal your decision regarding our request for 4!'-B" above the approved limit 7' fence. Thank you. /�'@ z�, �t l. � �, �/-�,�t,,�e, BEN & CENY POBLETF: 1170 vancouver Ave. Bus•lingame, CA 94010 Honorable Mayor & Council: A hearing should be set for the next meeting, FEBRUARY 2, 1998. City Clerk 9 � A�. 'L,d � � � � R� JAN 2 0 1998 CITY QF t3�RLi�VuAME PLANiV�NG DEPT. CC e� c� G 1� City ojBur/ingnme Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1998 potentially significant traffic impact caused by the project, then in another location states that there will not be, clarify; should the new tree evaluation be referenced in the environmental report; provide information on the amount of storage in each unit; do the CC and R's reserve the guest parking for guests only; how will the use of the church parking be controlled; provide a more complete analysis of the adequacy of a single exit onto El Camino Real; what color will the building be, how will its facade blend into the architectural style of the nearby and visible Baptist church; will residents of the condominium use the Baptist church parking for over flow, how is this being dealt with; how is the height of the building being measured; what are the sight lines like at the exit on to EI Camino; the side walk is elevated above the curb at this location how does that affect sight lines. The item was set for public hearing on January 26, 1998, providing the commissioners questions could be answered in time. APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 9-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 808-812-820 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 (ALEX MORTAZAVI, HABITAT ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ALEX & NATASHA NOVOSYOLOV AND MICHAEL AYLWARD & DEBRA MCCULLOUGH PROPERTY OWNERS . Requests: There were no requests and the application was set for public hearing on January 26, 1998. APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL PERMIT TO SELL BEER FOR OFF- SITE CONSUMPTION, ALLOW TAKE-0UT FOOD SERVICES AND REVISE THE HOURS OF OPERATION AT 333 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED G1, SUBAREA B, (GOLDEN STATE BREWING CO., DBA STEELHEAD BREWING CO., APPLICANT AND DONALD SABATINI, PROPERTY OWNER). Staff reviewed the project and the commissioners asked for the following additional information: how many of the bars and restaurants with bars in Subareas A and B are open until 2 a.m. now; what has the actual use and timing of that use of the loading dock on California been since the business opened; are there any bulk sales of beer to off-site locations from this business; will the required trash cans be those selected for the streetscape improvements; will the conditions reflect the traffic engineers recommendation on customer pick up. The item was set for public hearing on January 26, 1998 ACTION ITEMS APPLICATION FOR A FENCE EXCEPTION AT 1170 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1, �BENJAMIN & INOCENCIA POBLETE APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 01.12.98, with attachments. CP Monroe and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were recommended for consideration. CA Anderson suggested some guidelines for the public hearing noting that the item before the commission is the 8 inch variance for fence height, the commission's decision must be based on the reasons given in the code; if an exception is granted it would run with the land no matter who owns the property. There were no further questions from the Commissioner's. -2- City af Bur(ingnme P(nnning Commrssion Minu7es Janunry 12, 1998 Chair Key opened the public hearing. Ceny Poblete, property owner ar 1170 Vancouver, spoke in favor noting that her husband was on a trip; she reviewed her letter stating the need for an additional 4 inches on the trellis was to provide privacy for both parties; from their deck you can see into their neighbor's garage. Commissioner noted that they needed to find exceptional circumstances on the properties to justify granting a higher fence, how is your lot different; primarily the height of the existing deck which allows people and dogs to see each other; not want trellis, but visibility has become a big problem, even added tarp to shield until vines grow; visibility is main problem, the property does slope some; tried a temporary 2 foot addition to fence,neighbor did not like and we removed it. Andrea Poblete Alvarez, applicants daughter, also spoke in favor noting that the reason for the fence was the problems with the neighbors and invasion of their privacy, this is documented and an unusual circumstance as well as a hardship. Elisa Johnson, 1228 Cortez, added in favor, that she had had a problem with a neighbor and if 4 inches on a fence would help them in their life, it is a hardship which should be granted. Speaking in opposition was Kathleen Petto, 1160 Vancouver, she noted that they had moved into the house in 1985, in early 1990's their garage had burned and they spent $60,000 rebuilding it; the Poblete's moved in and added to the Petto's property line fence without permission and added a rear fence without a permit; the City Attorney assisted in getting them to remove the illegal addition to their fence; sought mediation but neighbors refused and legal action ensued; the fence has remained, she noted some inaccuracies in the plans noting that this is not a proposed lattice or 1 inch addition on the rear fence, they exist; she had a problem with the high trellis because the fast growing roses and honey suckle over hang her driveway and create a nuisance; the neighbors become upset when she or her gardener trim the vegetation back; if the trellis were lower then it would be easier to maintain the vegetation on her side; the high structure creates a sense of her yard and property being walled in and reduces the use of her yard, it sets a precedent for the neighborhood and increases the isolation of neighbors, there is no evidence of hardship or exceptional circumstances; none of the previous occupants of the property next door needed a higher fence; her property is devalued by tarps, fencing, know city's powers are limited but would like the lower fence to be maintained so that the vegetation could be controlled and her property would be less walled in; if the city's allows the rear fence, its location should be surveyed; don't mind neighbors seeing me, their house already looms over the backyard about 10 feet off property line, to add 4 to 10 inches to the fence compounds this looming feeling of the two story structure. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan noted that the issue here is, are there exceptional circumstances and hardship justifying an exception to the fence regulations, this is a normal lot for the area in fact the lots are bigger than many in the city and there is an easement at the rear, have reviewed the material and listened to the evidence presented and can find no hardship, therefore move for denial of the fence exception request. The motion was seconded by C. Coffey. Discussion on the motion: talk to a lot of people who complain about two story houses and views into property, 8 inches on the fence will not offer a lot of privacy in this circumstance; one issue is who can cut the vegetation, CA noted that the general rule is California is that you can trim vegetation but you can't damage it. -3- m Ciry of Burlingnme P/anning Commission Minutes Jnnuary 12, 1998 Chair Key called for the vote. The motion to deny the fence exception request was approved 6-0-1 (C. Wellford absent) on a roll call vote. Appeal procedures to Tuesday, January 20, 1998, were advised. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AND STORAGE AREA AT 1236 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (EUGENE A. & GLORIA BORDEGARAY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER). Reference staff report, 01.12.98, with attachments. CP Monroe and Commission discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Four conditions were recommended for consideration. Commissioner asked CA and CP on what authority could commission require applicant to provide two covered parking spaces, CP noted that question seemed to be directed at future need for parking if the house were expanded. The applicant addressed how this structure could be adjusted, staff would not it would probably need to be removed to meet a two covered parking space requirement; CA noted that this structure is almost the same size as a two car garage but provides only one legal covered parking space, the applicant must justify the reasons for his request; there is no requirement at this time for two covered parking spaces; can the roof ridge be 15 feet in height, yes that is the maximum allowed with this roof design. There were no further questions. Chair Key opened the public hearing. Gene Bordegaray, property owner at 1235 Cabrillo, spoke: the proposed garage is designed to meet his personal needs; tried to keep same foot print as the existing, dilapidated garage, to preserve the most useable yard area for his family and to protect the existing trees, two of which are of protected size, he is allowed 600 SF he has a footprint of 497 SF the additional area is 238 SF on the second floor; he has an older home which lacks storage area inside; he is 5'-10" tall and needs to be able to stand up inside the second floor storage area, with a 15'-4" height he can stand in 63 % of the second floor to get things in and out easily; the lot slopes to the rear about 2 feet so the structure will look lower from the street; there are garages nearby about the same height as he is proposing, so it will not dwarf existing structures; want the windows at 11'-10" so that he can get natural light into the storage area and improve the appearance of the structure; the windows look into his property and 20' to 25' tall trees on the opposite side of his lot block views from the second floor garage windows into neighbor's yards; he is requesting storage area 11.2 % of the size of the house, not much over the 10% allowed, given the minimum storage area inside the house; intends to use the garage for a work bench to do home repair work,hobbies and his wife gardens; realize that this might be considered a significant number of exceptions but they will not have a significant impact on the neighbors; have lived in Burlingame for 26 years, had kids so will not need any more bedrooms while he owns the house. Commissioner asked if applicant could explain more clearly the exceptional circumstances with the property; applicant noted the lack of storage space in the house which is one of the older houses in the neighborhood and if he rebuilt the garage without the second story and expanded the footprint he would have to remove two heritage trees and some fruit trees. Commissioner noted he asked about two car covered parking possibilities because the maximum FAR on this lot is 3420 SF and the present house and proposed garage are 3300 SF that would leave very little room in the future for anyone to expand, and not enough square footage to provide another covered parking space should one be needed; in the past 600 SF has been considered for a two car garage plus a little, not a one car garage; if add a parking space to it, this structure would be 1000 SF, � � January 5; 1997 `�, �... _ �"� Planning Commission "` �`���,�'�, City of Burlingame � �: i = • ' �� ,;;i� 0 Primrose Avenue `� ��`�98 Burlingame, CA 94010 _ � R�,� �, �� -; .. Re: Planning Commission Minutes - December 8, 1997 �`_�' aM� 1170 Vancouver Ave - Fence Exception Gentlemen: We respectfully request approval of the 7'4"-7'8"H x 24'W sloping trellis erected adjacent to the neighbor's fence. The height of the trellis as shown in the attached drawing is in a sloping grade from the house to the rear of the yard to help in the drainage to a pond built as part of the landscaping. Variation in the trellis height is due to the slope of the ground whereas the top of the trellis does not slope. It is even; i.e., it does not follow the slope of the ground. Additionally, the 4" above the highest point of the trellis is so minimal considering the privacy the occupants of 1160 Vancouver have acquired. When we, the occupants of 1170 Vancouver and our two dogs, are on the first floor deck, our presence is so visible from the neighbor's garage, driveway and their side window facing our house. Because of our much lower elevation compared to the 1160 property, our presence is also visible when we are in our own backyard with our guests and dogs and the 1160 occupants claim they can hear us talking either among ourselves and to our dogs. To gain additional privacy from each other, we have temporarily erected two plastic tarps to cover the deck and our backyard. Cutting the trellis back four inches would cut down the much needed privacy we are both seeking from each other. Additionally, this trellis is an entirely open lattice design where air passage is not being hindered at a11. The one(1) inch over the approved 7'0 rear fence is not throughout the whole width of the fence. The majority of the fence height is even below the 7'0 limit. Thank you. � N and CENY POBLETE 1170 Vancouver Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 � 2�-' yV I�r2ouNc�/ s/op�. 7' y� �� µ �����'��.� SI�E vlEw/ TR���I� OCT 27 1997 CITY OF BUF,L.iNGFtME PLANIVif`G DEPT. '�._.> �'; �r _ : .'_e �'�� �C:: �.�.... !::�= ~5' ) i T;.�� �'�`. , . _.. i ` 'vv�.7t'� ` _., ,_k','�s °; -; C. r __ " r=a , � �. �...� '�`L;: C',-- � ~r��!.i W''F,S�-:�r _ i-- 3,`a<' �, � C.: �-: :�� s,._� "t"jw 1 tt.�� i';:� },�� F'3a`J�;-�v'J �L„_... ...�!_. L"'J��_.�i—jTi....i i.•"i?� ?�.._,� �� Li � 'YC:.S.�� 1 � z, ' � L`G�.. = :� : i_l i i"?'i :.e li?t i`1 L._ �. . �...� 1:�,�.. � __ �`Y'-. _ ` City of Burlingame ITEM # 5 Fence Exception Address: 1170 Vancouver Avenue Meeting Date: U12/98 Request: Fence Exception for a 7'-8" high (ma�cimum) fence along the side property line and a 7'-1" high fence along the rear property line where 7'-0" is the maJcimum fence height allowed at 1170 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1 (CS 25.78.020). Applicants & Property Owners: Ben & Ceny Poblete APN: 026-183-270 Lot Area: 6000 SF General Plan: Low density residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single family residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - construction and location of new, small facilities or structures -(e) accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences. Summary: The applicants and property owners, Ben and Ceny Poblete, are requesting a fence exception to allow a 7'-8" high lattice fence along the right side property line. The fence is existing, and came to our attention through a code enforcement action. A minor modification application was submitted to allow a 10% increase in fence height limit requirements (7'-8" proposed where 7'-0" is allowed). The project was called up for review after neighbors within 100' of the property were noticed. The fence extends for 24' along the right side property line. It is a wood fence which is entirely an open lattice design. On a subsequent site visit, it was noted that the rear property line fence is 7'-1" high as measured from the highest adjacent grade (5'-4" solid fence with 1'-9" of lattice on top) where 7'-0" is the ma�cimum fence height allowed. Because of the existing 7'-1" height of the rear fence, it is also included in this fence exception request. There is currently a trellis structure in front of the right side lattice fence which is 7'-0" high and 8'-0" wide. This trellis is located 2'-4" from the right side property line, and meets all zoning code requirements. No other changes are proposed to the property. PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D FENCE HEIGHT *7'-8" 7'-8" 7'-0" *Fence Exception required for side property line fence 7'-8" high (maximum) where 7'-0" is the maximum height allowed, and for rear property line fence 7'-1" high where 7'-0" is the ma�cimum height allowed. This project meets all other zoning code requirements. . Fence Exceprion 1170 Vancouver Avenue Staff Comments: The Fire Marshall, City Engineer and the Chief Building Official had no comments on the project. Planning staff would note that a fence exception goes with the property indefinitely, regardless of who lives in the houses. Study Meeting: At their meeting on December 8, 1997, the Planning Commission requested that the applicant state any reason he might have for the variance for the height of the fence. The applicant has responded in the attached letter dated January 5, 1998. The applicant states that due to the slope of the lot, the additional fence height is neecled to provide adequate privacy. The Commission also asked why is it necessary for the lattice to go above the framework of the fence. The applicant states that the lattice provides privacy, and is of an open design which does not hinder air passage. Required Findings for a Fence Exception: In order to grant a fence exception, the applicant must show and the Planning Commission must find the following exist (CS 25.78.050): 1, that there are exceptional circumstances; 2. that there is no public hazard; 3. that neighboring properties will not be materially damaged; and 4. that the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be made by resolution and should include findings made for the requested fence exception. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: L that the project shall be maintained as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 27, 1997; 2. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Maureen Brooks Planner c: Ben & Ceny Poblete 2 MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION December 8, 1997 `� 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called o order by Chairman �ey on December 8, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Coffey, Deal, Galligan, Luzuriaga and Key Absent: Commissioners Mink and Wellford Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Seniar Civil Engineer, Donald Chang; Fire Maxshall, Keith Marshall Tha.minutes of the November 24, 1997 Planning Commission were approved as mai�ed. The order �f the agenda was approved. There were no �omments from the floor. �� . APPLICATION FOR A FENCE EXCEPTION AT 1170 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1, �(BENJAMIN & INOCENCIA POBLETE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) Requests: Planning Commissioners reviewed the item and requested the applicant to state any reason he might have for the variance for the height of the fence; why is it necessary for the lattice to go above the framework of the fence; it should be noted that this is a fence exception, there is some material included in the packet which is not relevant to that issue. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on January 12, 1998. APPLICATION FOR�VARIANCE AND SPECIA`� PERMITS FOR A NEW ARAGE AND STORAGE AREA AT 36 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (EUGENE & GLORIA BORDEGARAY APPLIC T AND PROPERTY OW R. R uests: Planning Commission s reviewed the item and req sted the applicant address th number of e eptions to the code he is r uesting and what the ben it of the structure will be o the neighb hood and city; why can the ork and recreation areas no�,be added to the main hous • in general parking standard for a single�amily house in the city is tv�Q covered parking spaces, haw � MINUTES - , �� ' � CITY OF BURLINGAME . Blinunc)nMG � ��6 � APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMIVIISSION Type of Application:_Special Permit_Variance_Other �%/�� ��z ti1 �� /�� ��i %/��Y Project Address: // � 4 I�A� �Ou t/C�Z, ��N ,f34i2l�hqqME �� g��/� ��� Assessor's Pazcel Number(s): APPLICANT � Name: � E/�l � �E/✓ l/ �O,G �C ��, Address: // �� 1��4<vC�0uVE2 �!/�- City/State/Zip:_ �ur // �riq 4 N�° � �/� Phone (w):���0) 35l'y-/�//D (��;: C�.so) <3 y3 - 8a2 a fax: <� 50) �3 �l 8-�5 a i 8 ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: S C � f Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): (h): fa�c: PROPERTY OWNER Name: � S �ME " Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): �� SA�!_�_" _ . \r,. fax: JC I 2 7 1G9; Please indicate witfi� ari asterisk * the contact person for this application. {��nl � � Ei✓.,lR` �O � /C�C PROJECT DESCRIPTION: /�'�9uesf �v�'�vo� .yod��i"ca�i��� D�' gCisfi�/q l2Q��hi oF 7 Sl�:.. 7 8 J� S�o�in�� 7rel/i"s fiza�v �l���o%ef % hi'qG� 7`re.1/is t� p�o��"o% p�i'v9��c sh�'e%C ourse/vQs �eo�v hQrG5Sih9 �Q/�h6or �,,�io h4s vi�nia�� ��j�e /�eC+A2dec� J hoS �e,af"dq�'/c� �ou2Ha��,�lrr�es oL � l odw) AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and conect to the best of my knowledge and belief. �Q x. ���- {��l� Li �a � 7/Q 7 , Applicant's Signa ure Date I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. �en, � �eu� {��-G,Ce,te, �a/�7�9 � Property Owner's Signature Date ----------------------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ----------------- Date Filed: Fee: Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: �` rou2 �G4tir�Gy ���i�v�'ii�e s,CQr Ghe. pas7` y�l�ee (3 ) yQa�s ps evi�eh�E�,/ t� her �'_i,veG, he9h .s�4ek o,� �/ourha/ �n�ry �%a x �r �� �o,vd �a�E2 , � c��se�/e Z�e s � o��.�i) v�`de a ra�e, . � � %h �`.�k �m � . 12/02/97 11i26 P. 002 ' � � CITY OF BURI,INGAME "�'+"'�`•`�'"` SUPPLEMENTAL TO APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMIiISSION FOR �----�' ` FENCE ERCEPTION In order to approve an applicatio� for a fence exception, the Planning Commission is required to make findings (Code Section 25.78.050). Please answer the following questions as they apply tv your property and application request to show how the findinqs can be made. A letter may also be submitted if you need additional space or if you wish to provide additional infozmation for the Planning Commission to consider in their review of your application. Please write neatly in ink or type. 1. Describe the exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in the area. Due to the higher elev�tion of the neighbor's driveqay located on the southside of our property, a higher fence or trellis is necessary to insure our privacy in our backyard. 2. Explain why the application request will not create a • public hazard and will not be detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare. The proposed trellis is an open design of crisscross slots where ventillation is not affected. In fact the growing vines on the trellis is contributing to the ecology of the earth. 3. Explain why the grantinq of the application will not materially damaqe neighboring properties. • The trellis are located adjacent•to the neighbor's driveway ` right next to their fence which creates a substantial separation between their house and the trellis. �FCEIV�L� DEC - 2 1997 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 4. Discuss why the regulations cause unnecessary hardship for the property owner. s The approved 7' trellis is not sufficient to shield us from the adjacent neighbor's intrusion into our private lives. The_neighbor's hiring of a private investigator caught by the family on Nov. 18, 1997 at 7:00 a.m. in the morning attest to the vicious harassment we have been subjected to since we moved into bur home 3 years ago. December 2, 1-97 Ms. Maureen Brooks Planner City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject: Fence Exception Dear Ms. Brooks: Attached is the Supplemental to Application to the Planning Commission for Fence Exception for our property located at 1170 Vancouver Ave, Burlingame. Per our telephone conversation on 12/1/97, the following measurements are also provided: l. The distance of the trellis and the neighbor's fence inside the interior gate towards the front of the house is 2'4". The trellis measures 8'W x 7'H and was set temporarily on top the ground held by two 2x4's on each side. This was erected temporarily to shield us again from the neighbor who have been provoking the dogs when they are on our deck. She had in fact documented her actions in her daily journal which she keeps of the family daily activity submitted by her at a deposition. 2. The backfence height is 85" necessary because one of our dogs can easily jump anything lower than 7'. Sincerely, _ � � �)�t� ��� a-(�,(-i�l'l CENY C. POBLETE �FCEiv�� DEC - 2 1997 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. i.� _ D � D � � � � � � T,1 � � T .��- �^-� r ` .� �i- � �� r� � _ I�ous� GATE ---'I'OP__ �V1 � -- _GAT�. vATE. . � -� � a� rn r- k r LA �► -! � � � � v z w � �� . C � o L� _ �V � 2 �� �� n� t=TJ Q t� U Z e �������� OCT 2 7 1997 ��ITY OF BURLINGAME ` PLANNING DEPT. - 7'8� �+ 2�' w 7' y� �� }{ ���������� SI��E �/(�w/ TRE��I� OCT 27 1997 CITY OF E3URLiNGAME PLANIVING DEPT. jr'2au�vcl s/o,�� • _ •J�N aS '98 17�12 �u�ry 5, 1997 P.1 �lanz�ng Comrnissian Ciiy frf �urlingame Prim�ose Avenue � B�rli�game, CA 94010 � R�: $lanning Commission Minu�es - December 8, 1947 '; Q 170 Vancouver Ave - Ferjce Exception � � G�nt�emen: � 1�Vie r�spectfully rec}uest apgrov�l of the 7'4"-T8"H x 24'W sloping txellis erected adjaeent to!tta� neighbor's fence. The height ofthe trellis as shown in the attached drawing is in a s�4p�g 8'�de from the house to xhe rear of the yard to help in the dr�inage to a pond built �s pa�t of the ]andscaping. 'Variation in the trellis height is due w the; slope of the ground whereas the top Qf the trellis do�s not slope. Yt is even; i.e., it does npt follow the �Ioge of th� gMpund. � ` i , A.ddit�onally, the 4" ahove the hi�hest point of the trellis is so minimall eonsidering fhe priva�y the occupams of 1160 Vancouver have acquired. When we, the occupants-of 1 Y70';Vancouver and our two dags, are on the first floor deck, our p�esenee is so visible fram tha neighbor's garage, driveway and their side window facing o�r house. BeGause of ouz �uch lower elevation comp�ed to the 1160 property, our pres ce is also visible �c�vhen we aze in our own backyard with our guests and dogs and the�] 60 oecupants claim they oan hear us talking either arnong ourselves and to our dogs. , �'oi g�.n additiona] privacy from each other, we have temporarily erec;ed two plastic tarps to ca�per the deck and our backyard. Cutting the trellis back four incl�es would cut down tbe m�ch neaded privacy we are both seeking from each other_ Addijionally, this trellis is a,ta en�rely open lattice design where air passage is not being hinderec# at all. ; , Thie o�e(1) inch over the approved 7'0 rear fence is not throughout t�ne whole width of t�e feqce., The majority of the fence height is even below the 7'0 limit. � �'hani� you. � �rid NY POBLETE ' 1.i701Vancouver �lve. Birrlir�game, CA 94010 � � �-� ��`� �� ,� ; J AN - 6 1998 '� C�TPLANN NG DEPTM� i 4:. .. .�� ,, � r ,• f, ; i:; 4. C ;;. 4' y ' � : i i . . , -, ,,,. • ', ti D z , _ ; . _ _ m _ _2�� . � _ _ _ r.n W " . _ _._.___. , __ .--. _ . _._._..._._. _�.._ _.� _._-.,__._._:_-.__ .. _......___ ,.f__,.__._,._._..�.__....._._. :: ___�__ . _. _,_m . � ; � � � 7 �e� � � . � %S��LlNG� 5�0�� I_ � �������� � S I D"E V I�W/ TR � L L i�; ocr � 7 tss7 '� r: OITY OF BUR�INGAMi£ , ... . . ... .. _ _ ... . _ . _ . :. .. . � _, .PLANNiNG D�PT._ _ _. ; , _ ! �-.._ ..:, .. -._ , .., .:, .. .. __. ._ . _. . . . .,. -..._ .._ _. ., , ... _,.. , ... . . _ _ _ . _,_ _ - . - --_ - - . , . . .. .., ... . .. _ . � _ ...T ..,. . _. ,.r.. . . . ..._ . _ . _. . T _ ,. ,,.... �.. _ _ . . . _ . .. , �' � �� � i V � �..,.•` N0�11 41997 1150 VancouverAvenue Burlingame, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Avenue Burlingame, CA Attention: Margaret Monroe, City Planner Dear Ms. Monroe: November 13, 1997 I do not want high fences in the neighborhood. All the houses have been built above grade since the 1920's. I have lived here since the 60's and no one has ever needed high fences before and there is no need now. When i visit the Pettos, I notice that this high fence makes their property feel smaller and closed in. The vines on the fence are a mess. Maybe the Pobletes want to hide something, like the renovated garage that looks like a place to live. Thank you, Austin Welt �. �" 2�:� � � �� , I:ITY Gt= B(JR! Ii�utiiV�E PLahNING DEPT. THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER AT 1160 VANCOUVER AVENUE 1. Cover Letter 2. Letter requesting review of fence exception 3. Letter of explanation for objections 4. Photographs 5. Plans with notations 6. Court order documents 7. Correspondence from City of Millbrae and County of San Mateo //-/�-9'7 //�0 7/��-u.���--�� � - � � , C� y yn,� � �� J����.�_ � � -� ���-�-� `��� `����-�; G�f 4Y�o� ,�����. ��-� < - /'�'R--a--,�� � -�-�i �c�G—�—�-tEi, — j'� � - tL� �iW�-� G �'rU' ���L� ✓'z_a��/—t�.�y. ✓ � � � // ��� 7i����� � G� � , , �' C`�.�-�-�.�-���> -����i s�,�� �-r'-A--�-- � . . , � V ���-- �/ `�-�-`��,�, �'� ��-�� . -- - �' C�--�-����.J - � �� �`�`a�`/ �'`� `/ %'v`-��' � i � /���{�J `� _ 37 s � �i� - - -������§�� NOV 1 4 1997 CITY OF B�R�I�:��r',i`,ic. - -- - - RLANr'Ji!l+� DEP�. �� � y- �7 �-�ati�.✓, 1���-�- , `/"'��,� �-f��--ac.�-d�-c.J ��,� 6--�-./LJ C.cJ'u -�ic�.� ,�CA.��-� � G� Ji�—v�-u'� � �-�� v� � //7G vae-�--c��'�iJ �.�-�J ^_���-u� U / .`^, i � , `�.�' - -- _ _ �?�����,��� NOV141997 cilYi�I' ��.�R:'_il��'r�,n�.C___ - — Ptars�v�n,�� �rF�r. ;' S � � � e � r�' '�,, �.c � a '�,� � � �t - — - - �� ` ��--��� , �--�- ��-°� � �-�-- -�-� s�-�-� ���-�- a—� ��0ti' 1 4 ?997 C%1i'Y Ur� BURLiF�,�,;;iG;E PLANNING DEPT. ����� � � �y�� /i �� ��-���-�� �-��. � %`-� �t.-�c-f�� /�`—�-�f� a—�e� �� _��� � , �� � . �t ����� �� ���� � �� �-�- .�--�-ei. % '...�-e_ c���-�n--� � ..�--e� , �}�-�-_-�— /�-e- Z� � a.�G-�e-C�.� , r ��`_`� �'_`,�� s�--�_� � .�.��— � ����� � / �-�4-�-i /—t`/ ik-,9`�0.�1^ (/ ��.-2�--.2.EG�� �/ � �`'� `y'.���.� ' .�.� �-��� �"� � r�, �--�-�' �u� �� �� � u�-r� � G--v-�.e� ,���/ � � � �- �Ke ��'��- �i--�-P�.c� r �� �.��.�. - � � � - � ����J �'��-� � ���--� � � �e- ���-,--t-� � s�-� `��-�-� % �.-�-�,Y.�.��� � �'�-� r� �t�4./ � �...�,'-t/t�-9 � �-C'.� JL�r.c,-�L�"-�-.t�L ls �-�,/ �"L" t (%/ ` e G � '� "'L�� � '(�t�c�-��,-r ..J��-x =-�a ) CX�tr-� C.� � ��� � � `� ' - ' ' ,-t- ��-��. -' ���.,�' �°--L-�� � _ n `i' �.�', / �_ `�-�.�..��' � �-� ��' �� �. �� ��,� �..�.� �� �-��-�-�.� � �.�„ � .��-� � � �-�� �� ��z� . � - a� "as'�� �a M.R��a NO'�' 1 4 1991 /C.�-�- � �-s-���-�-�� i�.J- '�d�i-' - ° . F ��riP!!`�il`�;; ?��"r_�'l ��,�^-�"�,%�.�zv� �'� �-�--' � �e-� �-�/ � �t`'��� e���'� �2._ c:-c��- '� %',�C-�� . ✓� � . �'��-C-Ke� (�-o Gf--C�-�'�-a� O"�t% C'_Ct�/ �-O� 4�-£� .�-�-�a' �.�'�-�' l`'`�-� %.0 . �/l/ �k-- C�-t�� O`�LiL/ � � � � i2--�-Q�-¢� �� /—"`-'�- �� f�i'�- L�--s�J _ , , 7 Le / Gc�J '-� ��� _,� .��— �� X-�-.�� �--� ,� �,��� � a� , c.��-e, c�e� �� `-�� �- � /i � 0 7/ � �- i�-�� �-e-- ��� `-'%�-"�-�-E-� «� `��-e� 2,�.�f'_, . � ���/ �-�-�.� ��-�� ��C. � �� . �c� e� � � ,:,L� ;��� � ��' Q�'✓ /r�� "`-%�� � � L��, d ~-'�r' �—s-z� ,�C� cu2'�� �� `7�-�-t-�- � - � -,�.�'--�e� �� �`'-z-��� �.�.��-C�/. � /�_.K Q_ ,��� ti-�.2� c��c..kJ � � t�-� / 1 � O � _-� ��v �-�J .�,z,' ,�� �- , ,� .� ��� . � �� �,�� ✓ � , �.�-� -��- S�-� ���-� , ��,� � � �. ��� _ . � .� � ��� - � < � :�.�� -�- �"�`.�- �� �� �.� �- U �- L `y G�'� Li�-�G� //�� � � � �l f ��� �� '3 �� �. � t=,�� _ r �,¢ _ __ � � �� til 1 4 1997 - ��:'� � r.�,= �?U�� �;.,^,�v�c � C'� �� � �.�.��-������-��:� ��-c � �-�- �� Q���- ..�-� �.e�.�--�-e---� � � � , ,� �--Cw� � ,. ✓� �� ��� ��� �� �.- � �, ��� ' � , c�-,��� `7���-�- �- �.�'� ��—�..� �-�� �-�.�.�- -�-z-4�� � � , S�-��:.� �-e-e� �-� � � h�-�-��-�..-�� ��-�� , �----� G�'— � �� ��-�-� G''�C-c, �.. � f�;2 C'.��� ��--�� �--��:� r�,�� -���' �''�. ��--� � � S�-� ���-' . � �.�-- x.��- �-�—� ��-w� ; ; �-�-- ��� ° -�� . �l %��- �-����Q/ � ,� �i 7 G' �Y.�-- �..�.-- ` % °� ����?'��--�--� �� �,-��--� _ r %� � �-��� ��lC�/e� /`-?�L�C./ � � � l`-'y���L./ ��--�� �-' K��c.� �-�C�, �°--� -�-,-� �--�-� ��� c�-t� � �-c� �---� 7��.e, c'�x-���� _�'�:�-�% � � ,0��� �c�-��� ��-�_� � �; ) � � �_�n, �.�� �' D��--�--��� �� � ..���-�.�..��-� e-��� �-.�: � S� �-�-��� � �/� �'���' , i ^.—�� — _ � . , �.� n s��..� �� �- �-� �..� �;�c�,.y.� .� ��u G�—� �._.� ��� `� 5�-�-�.� ��,�.�� �-�- ��, �� " /�.�-e" � �,,� --�J � G� , �"'� ,� � n < ; �..� - �iOV 1 4 199� � �� Y-� �i��%�-' Y� �-��:�.�'�',� �.�, c�.'t-Q � cr—/'Z�^-2' ,c_.,.�.-�--��� // 7G� (/�u*--c�{�.� � �J G�/� � � � I�-a— `?''�-� .,e��.� /e—�� � �„ti�..�=��� d-��' �-'� � - �J/.ti�, �-�.7��.�,��� �� �� /''�-�. �.�c.G�i� �-t'�'""`,�GR2'-C��--��' �� c� . //7c� �Z-�''�-a''u-tti.�-c. �!-�.� 7����! ��.� J`—�.e-�jL�.n---�C�� c:t'`� � � Cr-u-`�-J ���-�'_. ;.�-.r.`% � 9��.5 � `�-�---�C �-�--�,../ �.Q. e�� _����•-�i �=-c��� . � k-�- G�,:. c-�-, �c-�v�� ��� �- G�� �-�-�.�.i u�zt-� � ?��/�--��� ��v � -� ��--�,a � �4 �.,.� , ,��-,`�r k ��, y��� S�-�� �� � � , �� � 7'-,f� ����-�-�.,� � ci ���u<-��-�' - ���. O.S�-,C.e �i-��-��.' L�� G�-�--�,_F��.-z�-�-c-�' � � � G �-e'z�2.y?�-c��-¢..r'1. �i��vv�.z/ � ��`' , , �� � , �� _� .���-� �-�- ���.�..�-t-�� .��i�, J �.�-�- - �`�� / �� r'/ �J y�) �-e--C. , �„`�`��.�: i �-e�' �-e - c,c�-�� � � -'�� %.-� V ���-� � ! . , '.��/ �-�--`��� �. � �� ' ,� ����-' �-� � � ���.�,; s�—Q-�- �—�—�--� �;- .�� �-- � � - , ��� �-�—� ,e.r���G;�---e_ �-�- ,��� � �--��-�-�--�. ��� �� � �� '�� �-������ ���-�;2 C' `��� '��� ' ��'�'� i�� `-,-}-�-� �'�/ -�-�� —�--.�-����-,-� a-,� ,ar��� �.� �� � � � , � '� '��� � '� -� � ?�� �'���, `����, -� � '� � �.2� ���� �n.� ! y - " � �'°�a���-� � /� 'Ls� ��-,' � � -�~� �°� �� ��`� �"'�'% " - . . �..� � �� � � � -a-----n/ -��-� `�-�'—�" a��yi -.�-7`/ �-�, �.-� -.,��r,�, t�,•�'N,�-�/'�: �'`r�-.a '� ' ���'-�"�_ "2z--G� rL ,^i'`Za'� - / �" /w�- �j�-jS -� `�-'^'f �� i ' � �`T� '-.��" ��- -�''� ��"`z-�, =� �-'��.°'�-J �7''�7—fC -�' ���it's-.,'��� � �rr� �'��-'�'—a"�- �-''b /�-,-ar�� ��-�-•-� 7�`�Z�G - �''�� i'/�, ' �'`-- ca-�..,/L � �� A /.'-'�,'?f . , �°� �-�' � �,- v�� . ���`"'—'"r`7'� ;'-'`�''^`�y�� � , � �� ��`���� �//� �n ���� "/��� �j '� '� �° � S `� � � � =� � �""'' "� . �' fi��'���'"� � � .�-��i--�-��- � �, � - ���--� � �`fi�'� �ze��' � _ � ` ��a , � �. �`�� �� �� �°�% �`�, _ _ _ _.. _ _.... _ _. _ _ . ._ _. _...__ _ ._. _ _ . ....... . __ _ _ __.. _.._ _ _. _ __ _. __..._ _ _ _. _.__ . _ ... ....._ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ _. _ _.. . �� , � <' � ' " '� 3 � � Sr sa� s �' .;�zt,� ; . fr �:: g . �� i ..._ .._. .. .. .__. _.. , : : � �� � ' t ....._. ^d3�ii� � ," �. � � ..� �3�. k 9,: s �� �� ' ..... ..... �� � , , , � � � "� � � y s„�,,,�,, :u � � �b ; ; ,�, _.. _.. ' � r __. _ .._... �� � . � � �� � ,' � �' �� �� � y ' ............ .... �� �i � � a ; �� _ : , a �. x ��>` ,^.: ��y.�,�\ ; _ _ _ . ... - ,,.: �r -. � � . ................ . ._.... .... ._._. � ' . ._._._.. � :� ��a' - - � � _ _ � � � . .,.,.�w � ' ,�� :. ' '- . . � � � . : . . ..._._..__ ... ...........__.. ...__. .. .. .....__. ._..._. _.__ _. .__ .... .._.. .._ ....... ........._ . .. .._........ ___... . . .. __.. ........._ .__...... __..._ ...._. .. .. ........_... ._ ........... .._..____. _......_ ... . . _ _ ___...... ._....._ ___...._._..... . ..__.... ....._.._....... ..._.__._.._ ._.... _ .. . ._......... ..:....... ............ .__..._..._. __._..— �1 1 p ��"l_'�'a'h"e'�...G.-�2�-':""` ..�-'�!'�%°�,... �i�.�..:`�1�-::x,�.� ._.�t.��/�° �£:�`Z'"'"�.'y°��-e.F...:/"�-^�...,>' ._ .. . ._.__...__...._. .. � `� . . . . ._..._......_.. ._...... � p /t �-y� � �x^t"c" ;✓-�-�:'-r.�"YP'�•`.. .`�`<""".pf''?e5�^..,.%... I j.d:'...�"! ._...4"v2.-�'_"...�.,,,�✓"Ya....�""l�y,.�..�� ... . _ _ . .. ._..._....__. _.,.:. ..,...__ ................. ..._' .,...,._..,, ..,....._. _ .... ._. . _.. .Yj... .... ._..__.. . .._.._.._ . _._._. .. . . . . . ._ .._ .. ............__. ___._._ .__......_..... .... ._._.. . ...,..._. . _. ......... ....__......__ .... . .._. ........_ ,_.._. ...._. ._........ .._....._ ........... .......__.............._......... _._____.. __.. ....,.........._........ .,........._ _............. ....._..._._.. ..... __. ..........__.... .__._._. .___..._ .. ... .._.___ ......_._.__......_.___._. _ ................ .. .. ._._ :'........ . .._....... .. ....__._._ ........ .............. ... ............_. .._....__..._ .._,,,.....__. ............ _............ ...._.........._ . ..._._. ......._.........._ ._....._.... ._......_ � � � � 1,1 � � T G AT' E � � ; : 1 i n � � n T � �.r� � �-� �— , i �� � �� \ .�r � J _ l�ous� _____�T�P__ V1 EV� -- � � ? ` � � -� a �' rn ��x r • _ +,' : � � a � �� � _ �• � � . -GAT�. 6/a7E -�-r v '�L � �l.! � v � � �s � _ -a- ��� � . _ i� �� n� �Q �� Z �C I U z w � n �u� . C' � O `' _ �V W 2 ` a � 1 � ��� ������� OCT 2 7 1997 :;�fi' OF BURLINGF.f�IE ` PLANNING DEPT. - • ��/ON � 24-' w .� � ` �:'1�+'�' g� }��� �� ' � � �� r—e�,�e � r�w� : � � u �� �ea�' �, L � cvev- � ' � 1 I c� w� � i�e � ��__ ����g `�� � SID�E v(�w/TR���I�� OCT 2 7 1997 CITY OF F3URL.fNGF�ME PLANNItiG DEPT. � fr'2auNol s/o,o� __ _.. : _... . ...__ _ _ _ _ . _ ___. _ _ _....... ... .._. _ _ _... __ _ .. _ .. .._ _ _ ,_ _. __ . ._ . _ _ ___ _ ...___ _ _... _..... __ _..... __ .. _ .._ _ ..__ . _ _ _.__.. _ . . _....... __ __ _. _ .._. _...... _._ ._ _ __ __ _ . .. __..._.. _ _ . __ _ _._... _ . _ _ _. __ ___.__ . _ _ _ _......_ __....... _........ � $ �:��� � � � � . . 4 .., p . t � ' .....__..__._ .__ ��� "3�'.: 3 .�` � �����f r �' � o.'� �.�As'�C� kA�xa'k�� � '3 � ......_ .. ....__..._ . ....._.. � �� d �� � .'�i���.,:. ,� _, . ^ .s$� �� . e�q ,. F . � .� .a° � .f*�'3E ' � . . z' . ... ....... ..........�.._. . �' S " � �` �'���q �y � ^�k� .. . ...._ S 's ? �z.,< � � e'. � � , " ��5� � . y.E � �;. �'� L"�� �� t-'� ,k �'1^' _ u .... ....... ....,.... . . , .�� . .. . . . .. . .. . .... � � �R ��q "'¢•� � � �L^8 � �'3Yb.s, s�� � L ��9- � Y i�c. N . v.; � 5 .. . � . , g 't . �' �M.. .. 1 i._ � � ( '-., --. . ]' . ?�E '� ' • ., p K � � ' . .. ..... . ............ . . . �.v . �S � : �y " �. �`.' j� ;� �f y6, ... . . .. .... _. ....... _... . . � ir �,. �Ii,i �s � "�" � �� , �'i� i3� a�. "�` �" . �.. � . �p�,i �t w .,`-� ,'�� �� „�- #t� ,. ...., _._...._. ._,__.,...... � ,_ . }� ` � .. .. ._._... ..__........ . � - `� z '�� � � . y ., a .� � . „ Q � � � �, � � �, �. .�-- - ,. � ,.. ._...._. � < - gar.. '� �, + �'�a� �.,�:x s .' � _ ......_. . _ . . . __._. .�. x ��. . � .. ... .._... ... �� � . F � Y� � �. � �„ � `},: Et� ���.��� � �Ya 3 �.. � ....... .... ... . .........._ ii a�. '` .,.> ,Rs, � :� � � R� �� �bs e"T" . ........._....._... .........._ � �� 3 ., ,, u 3 xE _.... _ `. I ,�•w.., �d �' .� " : � � . . `��? � ���,��: _ _........ 4 s ... .......... . ... . . . .. . _. ... . . ... ....... ' � � � g�" �' � $ � � � � , � ,. ..... ..... .. ... .'. '. :: _.. ..... ._ _._ ..... �� � s E : y . . , ,. ._ ..� _ � - � .. f . - - - � - ��. .. . ........ ___....._.___... . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . ._._ . ............. ._.._...... .._...:....:. ,__. .._.. .........._......._.__ .. ..__.... ....._... ..__.... ._._. . . ._.__.. .._... __._.. . . . .._.,_._ . . ................. ..........._... ............._ ..._.._.._.......... .... _. r.'"--� . ,,{ = f ...-�� / � ,..... .. . . _ _ .. . . -ir.".L G2,..�...."`✓' L.•....._ ��'.L..�.- .. :�� l.I....l� 'L.�.___....�'.. t�`-^?.`-^C'.a!-}t..t,-a✓":r";,m.✓_„ 7?-.�Y-J•..... .._....._ . ... ,.._....-- . . ._ �,_,��__ .. -y ._.. / _. �� ` f , - � _._ �"'.�g-e2"'.� =`` ..� . � f ' � ��a.-�....�s�-T,=.-x-"� �,...a/m ............. .. ......__ , _ _ .. . ...._ . . 6 .�'..� ._. - . . . . ... . ..... .. ......,,_.. ...._.._. . .� _... .. _..._.... .... . ... . . _. . ....... . � . _.. . . .. _ _ 1 2 � 4 � 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1� 14 1� I 16 17 18 19 7Q � 21 �2 ?3 24 25 26 27 ?g DAVID M. McKIM, ESQ. (Ca. State Bar No. 077396) Law Offices of David M. McKim 1777 Borel Place, Suite 301 San Mateo, Califcrnia 9a402 Telephone: (a15) 3a9-0900 Facsimile: (a15) 349-0510 P_ttorneys �or Cross-Complainants ?ZATHLEEN P�'I'TO and STEVEN PETTO _ _, . _--;,,.,. ,:i� _ _ ,_ _ � . .. ,.� ., =:.t� ;. ... . _V 'T'HE SuPER � OR COUP.T OF Ti:E STr_TE Or CAT,IFORNIA � N AND FOR THE COUNTV OF SAIV M�T�O BEN L. PO���^� and =NOC�NCIA C �OBLETE, Nc. 39�898 Fi�_:�tir�s, vs. ' STEV�,N P""_'T0, KAT�:�EEN FETTO, and DOES _ to 1C, Defendants. ORDER GRANTING �2ELIM1Nr'��� INJUivCTION K�'THLEEN _�TTO a�d STEVEN pETTO, Cross-Complainants, vs. JIMMY C. LAGPACAN; LOURDE C. uAGPACAN; SEN L. POBLETE; INOCENCIA C. POBLETE; and DOES 1 through 10, Cross-Defendants The motion of Cross-Defendants BEN L. POBLETE INOCENCIA C. POBLETE and Cross-Complainants Kathleen Petto and Steven Petto for a preliminary injunction came on regularly ior hearing on August 14, 1997, before the undersigned Judge of the Sar_ Mateo County Superior -_ 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1� 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 �3 24 25 26 27 �g '� and Municipal Courts. Moving parties appeared by their attorney of record, David M. McKim; no other appearance was made. Good cause appearing in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, per_�d�_nc the comp�etion oi `rial in this actior_, Cross-Defendants BEN L. POBL�TE and INOC�NCIA C. POBLETE, and each o` them, shall be, and hereby are, restrained and enjcined from: �,,<�� �� 'n �'j� :' �u�u;t /.�r'u`��� �i�h�c� �" u�cw�.r� 1. s,o.e���--�c--�� �hAr nf ��e r---Es, or speak�g loudly e*:cugh ��j,,.�, wa�h.� to permit hearina by e� *hPr n�__the_Pe�--cs; cther tr.ar in the cGse o� a bona fide emeraency presenting a pr�ser� dGrger oi injury to person �or property; 2. er.�.ering any port_on of the �e�tos property at 1160 Vancouve� Avenue, Bu_lingame, California, other tnan i� the case of a bona iide emergency presenting a present danger of i�jury to person or property; 3. al�cwing ei�her c� tiZeir aocs to be outside at any time, except for puYposes of and cr_ly for sc long as necessary to reli�ve themselves, durir_g w'�ic?-: t=me a:!y doa pe=mitt�G to be ou�s�de shali be kept on a leash controlled by an adult; 4. gesturing toward or threatenin� (either vocally or with any object) either of the Pettos; and 5. cutting or otherwise disturbing any plant on the Pettos property at 1160 Vancouver Avenue, Burlingame, California. This relief is granted by stipulation of the parties. It sha11 not be used as evidence of the merits of the Pettos' motion for a preliminary injunction or as a means to shift the burden of proof on that motion. / / / / / / 2 :..�� , 1 2 3 4 J 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1� 16 17 18 19 20 21 ?2 ?; 24 25 26 27 28 � U ��d ���� �, oo �� � � ����`' � �� � � �� Z�0 s e y the Pettos within - o s-. � DATED: Aug. �7 , 1997 �lp � � � L�t��.G�lr� n%'C� /��7 �1 Zi/.l �../i.-�G i/c vC�-G'7't � �,� \ � �Y � � / /' / i ' '' �,,!I�J` �LLL�(CC `�i1���%Vi �,��!��' l�' � HON. PAULA W. SCHLICHTER JUDGE OF THE SU�ERIOR COURT -, � � '. ,- :. V "v �'�--B2-�C�/ �-N- ��G-i-�� �z�a-�'� �'-�c�.-�--� ,�-�� �-`.� ��� � t , �� � ���� �� � .�-e-�.��� �-�' ,.�� �1/3 0 /� 7 �.� �7�.�� �^�� , /� �„{-� � LA� �FFICES OF DANIEL H. EI�AN �;iK.��tiA1�ri.��� •��rv�1�i�:i�.iA441U1•(41513i.Z-73u�•Fr=:(�I5�34'I'-]lYl,S '—_-- August I2, 1997 1)avid M. McKim AttcTmty at t.au 1777 Horct Placr, tiuicc 301 San Mateo, CA 94at�Z ltc� Nabicttc ��s Nrllu Ihar f?�a��id. I rad originail�� vvnttcn this bt:futr w� slxik� on tht tclepftolt� Thcrcfurt, ! am stndin6 th�s �� res�onsc to >�our cnrrisFx>ndc�nct of Au�ust 6, I�', in ordzr to durify thc rccord. You arr con��;i thac ihe �brerment wc rcachcd on May 29th wa5 SubjO:t tp each of us rc�cciving Aj�Prnva! frvm uur r�sfxctivc cli�nls 1�ow�vcr, a.� y�u x}�uuld rec;all, .+-e discussed �chc;duling thc mcdisNe+•+ j�n�i► lo rny dept�rturc siocC f wax not lenving until cikhc`r ]u3y bih nr i ith. Wc f�rthc� d�.c:ud�c:d lhat �.� �.uu}d rr-��hedu�e 1hc art�itration uatil nflcr my �ctum, which would alln�. u� to meAiuu aCtcr ] rc�umrd in �lte evertt that we cauld rtot do sew besfur� ! It�1 Thus, in ansvf�r 10 your qucsttvn. :i.� �uu w�l! know, my trip to Euro�x: i� no way woulci ha�c aQcctcd thr mcd�ation prc�ecss. Addit�on�lly, biv�n that ( wae dtd nut lcave unlil six weei:. uflrr our meetinb, y<�u cuutd ha�c Cal{cd �nc priur to tny dopanure u> teil me that yuur eLcnts refusec{ to med�atc, unlcv ���u �iid r►oL lcartt of thcu refusil to mCdiet� until aflrr 1 lrA. ticcondly, with re�ard io my not ohjcs:cinb to thc schcdsrl�ng Ufa mutio�, it was my undc�standin� �hnt based upon our agrecment to mediate, provided that our ci�cnts autho���rd such, therr wciuld bc no need fo� you tc� hring your motion. 1 did noi feel a need to Cxpre55�} ��:stc that in thr �vrnt that yous CiiCnll �Cfu�ed to mediatc, I�XpCCICd y0U iA tCftCdul� yOUr hoaring prio� to c,r afler my �ac�tion. At the tir»� wc sJx�kc, my drpnrture was morc than ��x �vecls xwsy Assum�ng you spolr to your Clieni in An expetliti�iu, minner (ollowing our m��:t�ng, you knr�+ �ti11 m advancr of my departure t}sat ,you wovld he bri«gin� yuur moiinn ! f your cticnrs ..-�re s�� a�xeous cn have the mution heard, you had ampie time to sehcdulc thr hcarir►g tkfare 1 let3 I reaJ�n lhat if you did nvl lexrn u( You� CltCnt'S dCY�sinrt to rc(us� mcdiatiort until at1r� mv depariure, ch�:n ypu eles►cly c't�uld n�i hevc spoktn lo ine atxiut th�� hearing. I!�H•e� er, tf such is Ihe c�c�, lhcn your cl�ents ceanut pussibly ha�•C been in .euch a hur� to ha�e lh� mpli�n hcard tf thcy wCrr, whv dtd rou d�iay serving the rnc�tic�n foC e period �+I� eibht wccks after otir mtetin�7 '1'hirdly, f d�d �n fact �pca�, tn Mr. Chu�ch prior �p my detmrture as agrxd, and c:triained h�c aaproval tc� coa�ti��eu� the arhi�rat;��n to some time in Oetnfxr }ie ►vas to have checkrd hi. U..:1 M. M� ►:;�•� � _ Pap. ? A�yp.r� 1�. 1�N� calendur and b•et buk tu mc rcgacding ths bat t�mss. 1 dsc� w�s ex�ecl��►g to Ifear from 7ou rcgnrdinb the d�ta tor the mediai�on, since that COuld have effected the datr for the atbitntion As wc .�rcul. al�hou�h t belicvc thu l can obtnin a cvntinurncc on an ex.�arte buis, my ct�cn« havc sg� ord co �tipulam �o a TKC). My dient's wiit agrec not to Iet ihe doYs outsrde unlcs� they �re t�cing wciked vn leash for �d purpose, �nci wiil futthor e$rre thst the7 ""'1� °°t sp�alc tu or geccurc at. your chenGti, come vn the:ir propCrty ar cut ttfeit p4anu, ar*d your c+icr�t� will agccx tv thc samc As we d►xussud. yOu will intludc lsn�uagt sllowmg the fateyoing in thc event nf an rmc*gercy u!'somt ty(+c. tastly, wt agreed tha� lhc sUD�►��m can^ot be used ags�nst my clicros ar �hc nmc of the hearin� Fo� exampic an �rgu►nent will be made that thc rcquesux! rdic' �� not burdcnw�nc smc.�: mv clirnu volu�rtarily supulated to a 1'RU, �nd have bccn "li�ing w��r �+ pending thc hwring- t scivally hop� tha�- n� wc disctisx�. we may kx abie to resch i sectlemtnt in thre mattcr without ihe aeeei loi a hcarin� After you hs�c fi�rwnrcied the stipulatian lo my o�ce, I wif{ a¢prvre tt as to fonn and conir��i uac4 +�avc rny ciients execute the same. 1 sppn::iate yout cooperac��n and coeuiesy Sinccrcty. �� -� � Daniel F{. Fi�an �HrJli cc: Mr dt Mrs Poblrtc MS Julianne t'�nttr . DAVID M. McKIM, ESQ. (Ca. State Bar No. 077396) Law Offices of David M. McKim 1777 Borel Place, Suite 301 San Mateo, California 94402 Telephone: (415) 349-0900 Facsimile: (415) 349-0510 Attorneys tor Cross-Complainants KATHLEEN P�TTO and STEVEN PETTO IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TEE S�ATE OF CAL��Ot-LTQIA IN AnTJ FOR THE COUN"_'Y CF SAN N.r,TF'0 BEN L. PO�L�':'� and INOCENCIA C POBLETE, Piain�iffs, vs. STEVEN PETTO, KATHLEEN FETTO, I alld DOES 1 to 10 � Defendants. KATHLEEN P�TTO and STEVEN PETTO, Cross-Complainar_ts, vs. JIMMY C. LAGPACAN; LOURDE C. LAGPACAN; BEN L. POBLETE; INOCENCIA C. POBLETE; and DOES 1 through 10, Cross-Defendants No. 39a898 STIPULATION FOR INTERIM �N�iTNCTIVE RELIEF; AND ORDER THEREON Cross-Defendants BEN L. POBLETE INOCENCIA C. POBLETE and Cross- Complainants KATHLEEN PETTO and STEVEN PETTO hereby stipulate that the court may enter the following order. 1 � � 4 � 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1� I 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 �� 28 1 2 3 4 SI 6�1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1� 16 17 18 19 �, �OI 21 �I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 26 27 �g DATED: Aug , 1997 BEN L. POBLETE IDATED: Aug , 1997 �NOC�NCIA C. POBLETE � DATED : P_ug , _°97 ::AvID M. MckIM, Esq. P_ttorney for Cross-complainants KATHLEEN F�TTO and+STEVEN PETTO APPROVED AS TO FOt2M: DATED: Aug. , 1997 DANIEL H. EISAN, Esq. a�torney for Cross-defendants BEN L. POBLETE and INOCENCIA C. POBLETE ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY IDIJL7NCTTVE RELIEF Upon the stipulation of the parties, and with good cause appearing in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pending t.�e completion of the hearing on the motion of Cross-Complainants Kathleen Petto and Steven Petto for a preliminary injunction, Cross-Defendants BEN L. POBLETE and INOCENCIA C. POBLETE, and each of them, shall be, and hereby are, 2 i � 3 � 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1� , 13 �I 14 1� 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 �� 24 25 26 27 28 restrained and enjoined from: 1. speaking to either of the Pettos, or speaking loudly enough to permit hearing by either of the Pe�tos, other than in the case of a bor.a -ide emergency presenting a pr�sen� danger oi injury to person or property; 2. entering any portion of the Pettos property at 1160 Vancouver P_venue, Burlincame, Cal_=oY•nia, othe: than in the case of a bona fide emergency presenting a present danger cr ;�nju�-y te person or prope�ty; 3. allowing eit�er of thei� cccs �o ne outside at Gny time, except �cr purposes ot and only for sc _cng as necessary to re=-ev� themselves, duri^g whic^ time any dca p�rmitted to be outside sh�ll be kept on a leash controlled by an adult; 4. gesturing toward or threater_ing (either vocally or with any object) either of the Pettos; and 5. cutting or otherwise disturb�rg any plant on the Pettos property at 1160 Vancouve� Avenue, Burl=ngame, California. Th=s relieF is grant�d by stipulatior_ of the par�ies. It shall not be used as evidence of the merits oT the Fettos' motion for a preliminary injunction or as a means to s�nirt the burden o� proof on that motion. No bond shall be required of the Pettos in connection with the relief granted herein. DATED: Aug. , 1997 HON . MAFLK FORCTJM JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 13 13� 14i 15 Ib 17 18 19 24 21 �2 23 24 25 26 27 28� DATED: Aug, L_, 199? ' DATED� Aug. � `•' , 7.997 DA'�'ED � a::a . �y97 AFPRO�L� AS TC FQRM: DA�ED ��:a. , 1y97 i BE. . DOBi� E v.- I� ) � n.r�� � �, ft � � � �' r .r'., I SNOC321CIA C. P03:.ETE i ✓AV:.`�i M- MCX�i�i� L9G;� __ .. � Attorney for , Czoso-compla�nan�H i�:'::; L• F.; , PE:"TO and 3TEV3N 1?ETT.^, i i i DANT_EL H. EI6AN, c:e�3. — � At �cm.ey for Cresa de f rn:�:in �= j BEN L. POHLETE anci � IDIOCENCIA C. POB:.i::Tc i •:� -a. � :+a,••: . � - I �.:rcn tY:e etipulation of che partiea, ar.d with <�cc�i �,<.; I appearlr.y in t?-.e pramiaes, �: IS iia'"'REBY ORL�EREA that, pend�g the co�letion of. * he '.ie,: r.., : on che mctior. oi Croea-Coesryiainante tcathleen PetLo and steve�: r- :-.:. fcr a pr�liminary injunetion, Croas-Defer.dants BEN L. FJB�FTF �;:.- ' I INOC�:��:'.A C. FOHLETE:, And nach of them, ahall be, ar.d r�r�t�y ,,. , � � • G� l� C�l���%l�`i�i� . � _ December 20, i982 Mr. Ben Poblete 742 Crestview Drive Millbrae, CA. 94030 RE: 2-Story Addition at 742 Crestview Drive, Millbrae, CA. Dear Mr. Poblete: Your building permit was issued to you on October 20, 1982. Since that time you have never requested the required inspections. On December 6, 1982, I issued the Second Stop Work Notice to you. Since that time, you have not only failed to make the required corrections but have continued to cover up work without apnroval. You leave me no alternative but to suspend your permit and refer this matter to the City Attorney for legal abatement proceedings. Any further construction without a valid building permit would constitute an additional violation. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFZED that you are in violation of the following sections of the Millbrae Code: ' 1979 Uniform Building Code - Sections 305 (a)(b)(c)(d)(e) Failing to request the required inspections. cts�ering up work without inspection or approval. . Failure to cease violations when issued a Stop Work Notice. You are further notified that Section 9-I.35 of the Millbrae Municipal Code provides as follows: "Section 9-1.35. PENALTY PROVISIONS. Any person, firm or corporation violating any provision of the building code shall be deemed guilty oi a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed five-hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed six months, or both fine and imprisonment. Each separate day or any portion thereof during which any violation of the building code occurs or continues or is permitted, may by council approval,be deemed to constitute a separate offense, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable as provided in this chapter." 621 Maqnolia Avenue, MilIbrae, California 94030 (42S) 692-3500 �_. _ . Mr. Ben Poblete Page two If you have any questions with regard to said violations, or the manner in which it may be corrected, please contact the office of the City Building Znspector, City Hall, 621 Magnolia Avenue, Milibrae, California, (telephone 692-0124, 8:30 A.M. ti11 Noon). Very truly yours, C -� %��- , Chuck Gillingham, Building Inspector,. City of Millbrae CG:mz CC: Frank Gillio, City Attorney Jim Erickson, City Administrator Lyle Johnson, City Engineer � u ' MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJ ECT: Reference: ���y o� �i��i��ae JIM ERICKSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR C. H. GILLINGHAM, BUILDING OFFICIAL 742 CRESTVIEW — CODE VIOLATIONS DATE December 20, 1982 Mr. and Mrs. Ben Poblete of 742 Crestviea have been given several notices regarding violations of the building code and refuse to comply. Since I am unable to obtain their cooperation, I am requesting this matter be referred �o the City Attorney for legal proceedings. The following is a brief summary of the past events: 10-15-82 10-20-82 12-6-82 12-20-82 Stop Notice issued - Building a 2-story addition - no permit - no foundation. Permit obtained by owner. Stop Notice issued - building being ' completed without inspections or approval- no foundations. Permit suspended. Work continuing without inspections. Notification sent to owner. I recommend action be taken as soon as possible because work is being covered up continually. CG:mz CC: Frank Gillio Lyle Johnson ' � . • � 742 Crestvie�r��t, Millbrae, CA 94030� �i� ��� ' December 22, I982 MessrS. Frank Gillio, City Attorney James Erickson, City Administrator • ,�Lyle Johnson, City Engineer RE: Porch Enclosure at 742 Crestview Drive, Millbrae, CA; Mr. Gillingham's letter dated December 20, 1982. Gentlemen: This is in response to Building Inspector's letter us that we are in violation Mr. Gillingham, City of Millbrae of December 20, 1982, advising of the 1979 Uniform Building Code. Please be advised that we have requested Mr. Gillingham to inspect the columns which he demanded to be uncovered, the foundation, the studdings, and the roof on October 20, the day he issued the building permit. No work has been done since.then until December 4th. Please note that the building structure in.question is not a 2-story addition but a roofing and siding of an existing porch. Due to the heavy rainstDxm the first week of December, I was forced to cover the roof and the siding with plywood on December 4 and 5(Saturday & Sunday) with a help of a friend to protect my family and my personal property; e.g., bed, furniture, carpeting and clothing which were damaged by the rain. Mr. Gillingham issued the work stoppage order the following day, December 6th. The next day, December 7, my wife requested Mr. GilZingham to inspect the roofing, the sidings, and the foundation. The foundation, uncovered columns, tre ceiling and the interior , walls were all left undone for his inspection. He refused to '- ' do the inspection and demanded that the roof and the sidings be totally demolished. My wife pleaded with him that he could do the inspection from the inside of the room and has offered that we take a portion off the roof so he could perform the inspection from outside. He adamantly refused. After she pleaded with him again and tried to explain the reason why the roof had to be covered due to the house being so cold and the children being sick plus the damage caused by the rain to our house, he quote "That's not my problem", unquote. i ' . She told him that we have not been able to work on the house except Saturday and Sunday (December 4 and 5) just to at least cover the roof and the sidings with plywood to protect us from the storm. He replied, "Get a contractor to do the work," My wife then told him that we cannot afford to hire a contractor and that is the reason we have been just doing - the work on Saturdays and Sundays. He again replied that, "If you can do an extension to your house, you can afford a contractor." He refused to discuss the matter with me when my wife told him that I will be calling him on the phone. He just ordered that the work be stopped and that the building structure be taken down. Gentlemen, we are confident that we have abided fully with the requirements of the Code. However, due to the repeated reiusal to inspect and abusive attitude of Mr. Gillingham, it left me with no alternative but to protect my family and my home. I do not believe it was the intent of the Code to place Mr. Gillingham in the position as public servant to harrass and ir�timidate the Community of Millbrae. I do believe it is the intent of the Code to place him in that position to assist homeowners in insuring the safety and health of the occupants of the building which I have compliec3 with fully. Mr. Gillingham has barricaded himself with the power vested in him. With due consideration, I request that a hearing on this case be held at your earliest convenience. V ry tr yours, 1�.� B L. POBLETE cc: Mr. Gillingham, Building Inspector - 2 - Is� - , .j' � .• 1�� � • i December 23. 1982 TOs JIM ERICKSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FRQMs CHUCIC CILLIN�HAM, BUII.DTNC OFFTCIJIL Re: 7�2 �restview Drive, Nillbzae, G1. Mr. Ben Poblete Zn reply to his 2etter o! Deceml�er 20. 198=. I subeait the tollowinqs Jlnsvering Paragraph trros when the per�ait was lsaned on October 20, 1982, the second stary had not been constructed, only the tirst story. Tha owaer ex- plaiaed that he criqiaally was only qoing to construcL a covered porch with a aecoad story deck above, but since he had to take out a permit aayxay, ne was qoing to extead his second story bedrooa� over the covered porch. That aas co�strsicted betxeen october 20th and December 6, 198Z. The approved plans ahow the second atozy proposed structure. TAe rork on the bottom structure was iaepected vhea the Stap Notice va� issued t10-15-82). There was ao fourdatioa. Piers only had beea poured alzeady, s�uddiaq had tieen covered with aheetinq aad eho secaad tloor root had not beea conatructed. There was nothinq tor ms to iaspect oa Oetober Z0, 1982 that T had aot see� on October 1S. 1'S3 azd certainly nothinq I could approve. Answerinq Paragrph three: -.,. !►s atated above, the second floor aad roof Yas coAstructed betweea Oetobes 20tb and D�cembts �tb, 1982. I vas availaDle for irlspectioa every veek day - no requests vazs iaade. Ansveriaq Paragzaph fourt The day after my Stop liork �totics, Mrs. Pobl�te ea2led and said I could come out and look at their roo! but they were aot qoiag to uncover it so T could aes it. She requested t approve vithout seeia�e it. Tho foundation vas aot ready� t had just seea it th� day betose v�en I issued the Stop 1Pork potiee. The eolumsis vere covered vi�h ahseting, �nable to be sesn and tne ceiling and intsrior walls 621 Maqrsolia Avanue, Millbraa California 94030 (41� �i�X b 9 2- 2 S 12 � . � Page tti►o could not be ready for inspectioa because there was no electricai permit to instal2 the plugs and lights zequired. Fra�inq is not approved uatil it is ready for cover up (inciudinq electrical). Sasul2ation covered everything that already had been inata2led. 1 reminded hez I have been available for inspection evezy week day. She explained that the reason it was covered on the aeek-end was because the workmen were only available on week-ends. 2 explained wark is normally done by contractors durinq the week and at any rate iaspection can be requested durinq Lhe wcek before coverinq up on tl�e week-ead. She said I would hav@ to discuss the matter with her husbaad, but he never called. Z did not ozdes the str�cture b@ taken down but uncovezed for 3nspection. Answering Paragraptstive and six: I would no� know Mr. � Mrs. Poblete i! they ralked iato the office today. 2 did moet them brioily Vt�en they obtained the permit. 2 Aave never seen them on the job. The only time they have requested inspection was whe� I have ha8 personal knoaledqe that the work vas incompiete oz alrendy covered without inspection. S explained this to them but they requested approval ot the vork anyway. Answering Paragraph seveas 1 aqree. Mr. Poblete should be given a heazinq as soon as possible to justify his actioa�. His letter tends to blams the inspector for all his problems, fnstead of exp2aininq vhy the problems are thers,in Lha first place. �� //�� � - • /��r'l� C , � .,�.. �r�\VVI� V��i���y��Y���� Sui2ding Offici�l CC: Lyla �otussoa, City Eaqineer Frank Gi�lio, City Attorney N�NCflES OF �,'I'ING DATID JAN[JARY 13, 1983 RE: 742 Crestview Drive A meeting was held at City Hall on January 13, 1983, in an effort to work aut problems relating to the recent addition to 742 Crestview Drive. Those in attendence were Mr. and P9rs. Poblete (owners), Ly1e Johnscn, City Enqineer, and C. H. Gillingham, Building Official. Mr. and Mrs. Poblete acJmcwledged that the interior walls had naw �een covered, thus co�leting t'�e 2 story addi- tion. All work has been done without inspection or approval. Electrical work has been installed without t�ermit or inspecticn and the building has no continuous fatimdation as require�l by Secticn 9-1.23 of the Mimicipal Code. The follawing is a list of events: Cc+-._ober, 1982 10/15/82 10/20/82 November, 1982 12/6/82 DecembPx, 1982 12/20/82 First story addition under construction. STOP WORK NCyI'ICE issued: Building without permit. Covering work without approval. Permit obtained by c�mer. Second story addition under construction, still no foundation, and no insFection requested. STOP WORK I�ICE issued: Roof sheeting and naili.ng covered without u�spection or approval. Insulation installed without f�m�-ng approval. Still no folmdation. Electrical installed without permit. Exterior sheeting and framing cavered without inspection or approval . PERMIT SUSPIISDED for covering work without approval. Notification sent to owner. Information turned over to City with recor[anendation of legal action by City Attorney. I�c�nber, 1982 Interior sheetrock installed by owner covering ut� all r��ning construction and electrical. Still no foundation. 1/13/83 Hearing conducted by Ly1e ,7ohnson. NIr. and Mrs. Poblete offered the following information: A. All work cc�leted except foundation. B. Conde�ed inspector for not approving work that couldn't be C. D. E. seen. Said weather forced him to cover work without inspection. Said wor]�n�-�n were only available on weekends and the lnSpector wasn't available then. Said he couldn't afford to uncover work for inspection. - nn�Mo �ity �f �illbrae TO: Lyle Johnson, City E�gineer DATE Jan�� 1� � 1983 FROM: C. H. Gillingham, Building Official sue�ecr: 742 Crestview Reference: This problem was referred to the City Administrator on 12/20/82. After the hearing of 1/13/83, the owner has acknowledqed completion of the project even though his permit was suspended and a Stop Work Notice issued. He has refused to uncover the work for a complete inspection. When someone inadvertently or unknowingly covers up work for inspection, a compromising inspector may ask for only a small portion of the work to be removed and, if that meets code, passes ali of the wor:c. In this case the owner was given a building card with the inspection requirement printed on it five times and, further, brought to his attention by yellow marker pen. He was given two Stop Work Notices with the code section printed on it and sent one letter. Work was covered up after that time. In view of the facts, I see no reason to accept less than required of any other contractor or homeowner. ALL WORK must be inspected before approval of that work will be given. Since the owner has refused, I have reached the limit of my powers. The matter should be referred back to the City Administrator. CHG:ln / , � �� /� � . . . May 25, 1983 Mr. and Mrs. 742 Crestview Millbrae, CA. Poblete, Dr. 94030 RE: Building Code Violation, 742 Crestview Drive Dear Mr. and Mrs. Poblete: Please excuse our delay in taking action on our notice to you of building code violation. Since our hearing on January 13, 1983, we have fully evaluated the situation surrounding your building construction activity. After weighing the facts, we have concluded that the provisions of our building code must be met. Therefor, you will be required to perform the following: I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Foundation: Request inspection when foundation forms are ready. Columns: The columns shauld be uncovered to allow insr pection of main members. Exterior Siding: Siding around windows must be re- moved to allow inspection of flashing. Roofing: At least 25$ of the roof area must be removed to allow inspection of sheeting and nails. Interior - Ceiling and Walls: Remove all sheetrock and insulation to allow inspection of framing and electrical. The owner must submit plans and obtain an electrical permit prior to requestion inspection. Floor: Floor joist must be open for inspection. All of these measures are required in order to insure compliance with building code regulations. Failure on your part to comply (4I5) C92-2512 _�,_. r ; ^ ,�Y� 621 Magnolia Avenue, Millbrae, California 94030 ( � � Mr. Poblete Page two may �esult in legal action. Two weeks time will be allowed for you to prepare for inspection of the building. If no request for inspection or required plans are received prior to June 10, 1983, the matter will be turned over to our City Attorney for legal action. Your cooperation is requested. Very t uly ou , � ' �� -�i�-�- L E D. J HNSON, D'recto of Public Works/City Engineer LDJ:mz . �rrr� � � � / / ' � � / i , i i October 28, 1983 Mr. and Mrs. Poblete 742 Crestview Drive Millbrae, CA 94030 RE: Building Permit Dear Mr. and Mrs. Poblete: Your Building Permit No. 15827 which you obtained on 10/20/82 has expired. Work has been covered without the requested inspections or required approvals. All attempts to get you to com�ly with the law have failed as of this date. A new building permit would be required before doing any more work on the building. Section 9-1.05 of Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Millbrae Municipal Code: Every permit issued by the Building Official under the provisions of the Code shall expire by limitations and become null and void one (1) year after issuance. Section 301.(a) UBC Permits Required. It sha11 be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish any building or structure regulated by this code, or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a separate permit for each building or structure from the building official. A copy of your entire building file is being submitted to the City Attorney with a recommendation that the City take legal action to obtain compliance with the code. Sincerely, � ���� C. H. Gillingham Building Official �-' CHG:ln CC: City Attorney Frank Gillio, City Administrator, Jim Erickson, City Engineer, Lyle Johnson &21 Magnolia Avenue, Millbrae, California 94030 (415) 6 9 2- 012 4 C `' � - - _ . � , ^-; � - - . -._� � . • �^.:-_-�.�_\.`—'` /-.�/L � i' la� _ _ ._ �"� i`, ' �,/.,:';i ��- ;�'�' , �1.�, l,it�„ � DEC 2 8 i983 �,-� , � � � � �� ; j! � �:;!� � �� �- ���,�!���`���i C� 't/���G` c'G �� OrFIC[ OF / G(TY ATTORNEY 150 lt'est Io�tia �venue, Suite 20� � Sunnyvale, California SYOS6 Telephone: (408) 7Z0-S690 i)ecember 27, 193� D1r. Greg .�ntcne �icCracken, �ntone �, Ca�aeriengo .4ttorneys at La�.� 2755 Campus Drive Suite #1�0 San riateo, California 94403 RE: POBLLTE, Building Code Violation Dear h1r. Antone : Since our earlier telepl�one conversation, I have delayed taking any iurther formal action in rejard to the reported viola- tion. After speaking with Millbrae's administrative staff they are willing to neet �aith you and your client of the subject pro- perty in hopes of finding a solution to the inspection problem, pursuant to your rec�uest. I wish to make it clear that the City's Building Official may find that a random spot uncovering is not sufficient to assure compliance and that extensive dismantling of the structure may be required. I sii��est iae meet at the site January 16, 17, 18 or 19, 1984. Please let me know if any of these days are a problem for you or yotir client and v:e will then set a specific date and time. I also i-ec�uested during our telephone conversation that you send me a copy of your earlier letter to the City. As yet I have not received the letter and would like to have it for my file. Yours very truly, .%,� ,��/. - � �/ ' - ' / �= `- . , `�:._. � � :,-, ., � -/r 14ILLIAi�1 H. HUGHES' ASSISTAVT CITY ATTORNE�' C:C: City :ldministrator ;•;i?H/c�.i 21'facnoiia ��:en��e,'_�iil.Ibrae, Caiifc,rnia 94030 (415) 692-3500 ' _ i � r / / / � f � / / � � i / / May 18, 1984 Concord Construction Co. P.O. Box 4262 Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Sir: RE: 742 Crestview, P4illbrae The plans you have submitted do not indicate the extent of work done. The building has been altered to provide for this bathroom because the new plans for bathroom renovation you have just submitted do not con- form to size or shape of any of the existing rooms as shown on the plans submitted in 1982. Walls have been relocated altering the ceiling joist spans. These plans do not reflect any of this, nor do they resemble the walls and openings I observed there on January 17, 1984. The plumbing plan does not list the type of piping material used. The bathroom is not vented and in violation of Section 501 of the Plumbing Code. The size of pipe is not shown for the tub. An electrical permit is also requi.red. Plans must be submitted for approval Please submit a full floor plan and show walls that have been altered, size of all openings, framing members and spans. In order to insure that responsible plans will be prepared, please have them designed and signed by a licensed architect as per Section 302b of the Uniform Building Code. Sincerely, � • /� C. H. Gillingham Building Official CHG:dd cc: City Attorney — May 23, 1984 621 Magnolia Avenue Millbrae, California 94030 � - ' � � _- � a , .�._-::4 ,:_:� �' i � .� �' . . .,, . . . � . , . , _",_ _• / �/�- /_� � ' �epa�t�ent of Environmental Management �uilding Inspection �� V �� 1 ��." IJi317 ����V BOARD OF SUPEAVISORS EDWARD J. BACCIOCCO, JR. ARLEN GREGORIO WILLIAM J. SCHUMACHER K. JACQUELINE SPEIER JOHN M. WARD DAVID C. HALE PLANNING DIRECTOR COUNTYGOVERNMENTCENTER • REDWOODCITY • CALIFORNIA94063 (415)363-4601 September 25, 1984 Lyle Johnson, City Engineer Public Works Department City of Millbrae 621 Magnolia Avenue Millbrae, CA 94030 Dear Mr. Johnson: � � b Subject: Special Inspection Requested by City of Millbrae � � Reference: 742 Crestview Drive, Millbrae, CA 0 A.P. No. 021-454-010 � On September 20, 1984, a special inspection was conducted by Inspector Bi1�Cameron at the Poblete residence, per the rernaest of Lyle Johnson, Millbrae City Engineer. The purpose of this inspection was to determine if an addition and remodel, done without permits or inspections, had been constructed to the minimum code require- ments. The code references used for this inspection were: Uniform Building Code - 1979 Edition Uniform Plumbing Code - 1979 Edition Uniform Mechanical Code - 1976 Edition National Electrical Code - 1978 Edition Millbrae City Ords. 435 and 467 Since this project was nearly completed, removal of wall covering, roofing materials, and excavation around the foundation was required. This was confined, however, only to the areas which would provide visual inspection of the plumbing, electrical, mechanical and partial structural. The following is a list of items noted which will require correction or completion: STRUCTURAL: UBC 503(d)(4) - Repair the firewall over the subpanel in the garage area. UBC 1707(a)(c) - Enclose the floor area below the addition and provide a continuous vent. � I�y�e Johnson -2- September 25, 1984 UBC 2517(f) - Seal the openings around the plumbing penetrations under the vanity. UBC 2518(c) - The double 2x10 rim joist does not bear on a nroper sup- port. UBC 3401 - The skylight must be provided with a minimum 4-inch curb. UBC 1707(b)/3208 - The skylight lacks proper flasning. UBC 1210(a) - Provide a smoke detector. Millbrae City Ord. �467 - The present foundation is inadequate. This must.be entirely removed and replaced with a new foundation equivalent to the specifications pro- vided by the City of Millbrae for a two-story foundation. California Energy Code - Title 24 - Provide a minimum of R-11 insulation to the floor area of the addition, and replace the insulation removed or dis- placed in the existing attic area. ELECTRICAL: NEC 430H - Provide a disconnect for the Jaccuzzi motor. NEC 430-14(a) - Provide a permanent access to the Jacuzzi equipment to allow maintenance or repair. iVEC 110-12 - Replace the damaged flexible conduit at the Jacuzzi motor. NEC 370-15 - Provide a cover for the open J-Box in the garage area. Pro- vide a cover or fixture for the open electrical box over the bathtub. NEC 110-13(a)/300-11 - Strap the flexible conduit in the garage near the water heater. Millbrae Citv Ord. �435 - The three J-Boxes found in the attic area must be provided with access from the living area. PLUMBING: UPC 1008(a) - Secure the hot and cold water piping where it penetrates the wallboard. UPC 315(a) - Protect the water and waste piping where they are within 1'js" of the stud or plate edge. MEC'rIANICAL : UBC 1211/UMC Chapter 10 - Extend the existing heat duct found abandoned to provide heat to the bathroom. Lyle Johnson -3- Septe*nber 25, 1984 In addition to the proceeding corrections, it will be required that the exterior siding be removed on the southeast side of the addition to a point just above the bottom of the window (approximately 9 to 10 boards) so that proper window flashing, weather protection and framing can be varified. F4hen the �oundation has been rer.toved, refor.ned and all reinforcement is in place, an inspection must be performed before the concrete is poured to varify the work was done to the r.tinimum requirements. All other corrections required must also be verified before being concealed. A final inspection will then be made when all work has been completed. This office did not send a copy of this letter to the owner or owner's agent. Very tr�xours, - � C ` ,�-- �� �- / Paul S. Schmidt ✓ Chief Building Official WJC : i1r �� C,-�y �Sr��r/' u� �'LIrll�rci� ac��� o � t � J�/� � �n s� ?T1t C'�� �tit�ir.�, �R,t.ia � � �'e�kti✓ 7 � G �..Orr��-',*'�o�s G�l�•�nar•��,d' ctbavd , / / ,� s� �, l,�' � �' 1"�'L-rjv2S�`2� !, � / [ �C �C G / � "��'. � � , � ._%Cll D � 1/Yl� -� %� i� : �����fo-���z�f� ... , � � __.�, .,� OF�iCE OF t CITY ATTORNEY \ � ��, � �' ` � � � l ` �� July 2, 1985 Ms. Linda Gemello 700 El Camino Real r4illbrae, California 94030 Re: Millbrae versus Poblete ��/� C°�G�./�� C� Dear Ms. Gemello: In response to your June 5, 1985 letter, City Staff has informed me tnat all inspections have been completed, however, the fees have not yet been by the Poblete's. As soon as all reauired fees have been re- ceived by the City, I will be able to execute the dismissal provided. Yours very truly, William H. Hughes Attorney-At-Law WHH/lh cc: City Administrator � � CITY OF BURLINGAME 9URLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT �501 PRIMROSE ROAD � BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL (415) 696-7250 1170 VANGOWER AVENUE APN:026-183-270 Applicatian f�r a Fence Exception for a 7'-8" high foncc along thc sidc prvpcTty linc and a 7'-1" high feace along the rear properiy line at 1170 Vauoouver Avenue, zo�ed R-1. The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the f�llowing public heaiing an I�.� 12.1998 at 7:40 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers locsted at 501 Piimrose Roaa, aurliaga�o, cal;f�;a. �a r�y z i�s (Please refer to otlie�- side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF B URLINGAME A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in,written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for,informing their tenants about this norice. For additional information, piease call (415) 696-7250. T'hank you. Margaret Monroe City Planner PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) � • ,' '' � • + j _� ! � • ;� . � �: �, �� BER�..1%�t L 1201 p53 114�j I145 tic�3 � � � Q .. . 3 o .. d 0 o� t� z�is ; _ • 117� I��o ii5o V A ►�► c.o�vE ►� usl �Id�l : AJEAIUE p�J�►.1vG i �3I U Roo5EJ6LT SG�iopL — --- — — -- — — — — � � l LLS RoRoVCs►!� ` � , � 7 w � 0 � . . � '' RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND FENCE EXCEPTION RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a Fence Excention for for a 7'-8" high (maximum) fence along the side prop�y line and a 7'-1" high fence along the rear �o�erty line where 7'-0" is the maximum fence height allowed at 1170 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, Benjamin L. & Inocencia C. Poblete, 1170 Vancouver Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010�ro�y owners, APN: 026-183-270; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on January 12� 1998 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a signiticant effect on the environment, and Categorical Exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Categorically Exempt per Section 15303, construction and location of new, small facilities or structures -(e) accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences is hereby approved. 2. Said Fence Exception is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Fence Exception are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, Jerry L. Deal , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of n r, 199g , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY , �� , . . r EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval Categorical Exemption and Fence Exception 1170 Vancouver Avenue effective JANiTARY 20, 1998 1. that the project shall be maintained as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 27, 1997; 2. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. � • CITY OF BURLINGAME r(i�lil� pLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD l ; BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �� TEL: (415) 696-7250 117p VANCOWER AVEMJE APN:026-183-270 Appeal on an applicatian far a Fence Exception far a 7'-8" high fence along the side prap�ty line and a 7'-1" high fence along the rear property line at 1170 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1. The City of Burlingame City Council announces thc fnllowing public hearing on Monday. February 2. 199g at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrosa Raad, Burl;agamu, C`,n1: ,om•�. Mailod 7anmry 23, 1998 (Plense refer to otlrer side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF B URLINGAME A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in eourt, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional informadon, please call (415) 696-7250. Thank you. Margaret Monroe ' �'� �'�� City Planner PUBLIC HEARIiVG NOTICE (Please refer to other side) u RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND FENCE EXCEPTION RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a Fence Exception for _a 7'-8" hi�h (maximum) fence alone the side proQerty line and a T 1" hi h fence alone the rear propertv lme where 7'-0" is the maximum fence height allowed at 1170 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, Beniamin L. & Inocencia C Poblete 1170 Vancouver Avenue Burlingame CA 94010, property owners APN• 026-183-270; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on _ Januar ��12, 1998 , at which time said application was denied; WHEREAS, this matter was appealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on February 2, 1998 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and an Exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Categorically Exempt per Section 15303, construction and location of new, small facilities or structures -(e) accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences is hereby approved. 2. Said Fence Exception is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Fence Exception are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeCing. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. MAYOR I, JUDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of February , 1998 , and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK r � .� EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval Categorical Exemption and Fence Exception 1170 Vancouver Avenue effective FEBRUARY 2, 1998 1. that the project shall be maintained as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 27, 1997; 2. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. 1 � City of Burlingame Fence Exception Address: 1170 Vancouver Avenue ITEM # 1 Meeting Date: 12/8/97 Request: Fence Exception for a 7'-8" high (ma�cimum) fence along the side property line and a 7'-1" high fence along the rear property line where 7'-0" is the ma�cimum fence height allowed at 1170 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1 (CS 25.78.020). Applicants & Property Owners: Ben & Ceny Poblete APN: 026-183-270 Lot Area: 6000 SF General Plan: Low density residential Zoning: R-1 Adjacent Development: Single family residential CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - construction and location of new, small facilities or structures -(e) accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences. Summary: The applicants and property owners, Ben and Ceny Poblete, are requesting a fence exception to allow a 7'-8" high lattice fence along the right side property line. The fence is existing, and came to our attention through a code enforcement action. A minor modification application was submitted to allow a 10% increase in fence height limit requirements (7'-8" proposed where 7'-0" is allowed). The project was called up for review after neighbors within 100' of the property were noticed. The fence extends for 24' along the right side property line. It is a wood fence which is entirely an open lattice design. On a subsequent site visit, it was noted that the rear property line fence is 7'-1" high as measured from the highest adjacent grade (5'-4" solid fence with 1'-9" of lattice on top) where 7'-0" is the ma�imum fence height allowed. Because of the existing 7'-1" height of the rear fence, it is also included in this fence exception request. There is currently a trellis structure in front of the right side lattice fence which is 7'-0" high and 8'-0" wide. This trellis is located 2'-4" from the right side property line, and meets all zoning code requirements. No other changes are proposed to the property. FENCE HEIGHT PROPOSED EXISTING *�,_g,� f�'� ALLOWED/REQ'D �IQIYI *Fence Exception required for side property line fence 7'-8" high (maximum) where 7'-0" is the maximum height allowed, and for rear property line fence 7'-1" high where 7'-0" is the maximum height allowed. This project meets all other zoning code requirements. Fence Excepdon 1170 Vancouver Avenue Staff Comments: The Fire Marshall, City Engineer and the Chief Building Official had no comments on the project. Maureen Brooks Planner c: Ben & Ceny Poblete 2