Staff Report with Exhibits and Desk Item. 224 Old Adobe Road
PREPARED BY: Savannah Van Akin
Assistant Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 12/13/2023
ITEM NO: 5
DATE: December 8, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a
Fence Height Exception Request for a Constructed Eight-Foot Fence Located
in the Rear Yard on Property Zoned R-1:10. Located at 224 Old Adobe Road.
APN 407-09-029. The Project is Categorically Exempt Pursuant to the
Adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures and Section 15301: Existing Facilities. PROPERTY
OWNER/APPLICANT: Vinodha Bala. PROJECT PLANNER: Savannah Van Akin.
RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director decision to deny a fence
height exception request for a constructed eight-foot fence located in the rear yard on property
zoned R-1:10, located at 224 Old Adobe Road.
PROJECT DATA:
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
Zoning Designation: R-1:10 – Single-Family Residential
Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan, Residential Design Guidelines
Parcel Size: 15,362 square feet
Surrounding Area:
Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning
North Residential Low Density Residential R-1:10
South Residential Low Density Residential R-1:10
East Residential Low Density Residential R-1:10
West Residential Low Density Residential R-1:10
PAGE 2 OF 7
SUBJECT: 224 Old Adobe Road/FHE-22-006
DATE: December 8, 2023
CEQA:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures and Section 15301: Existing Facilities.
FINDINGS:
▪ The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures and Section 15301: Existing Facilities; and
▪ As required by Section 29.40.320 of the Town Code for granting a Fence Height Exception.
ACTION:
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located on the east side of Olde Adobe Road, across from Plaza La
Posada (Exhibit 1). The property backs up to a channelized concrete creek, labeled Mistletoe
Creek in Town Records. The immediate neighborhood consists of single-family residential
properties.
On November 13, 2022, the Town received an application for a fence height exception
requesting approval for a constructed eight-foot fence located along the rear property line of
224 Old Adobe Road. The Letter of Justification (Exhibit 4), site plan (Exhibit 5), and a photo of
the built fence (Exhibit 6) were all submitted as a part of the application.
The Letter of Justification (Exhibit 4) stated that the new eight-foot fence, was built to replace
an existing 10- to 11-foot tall fence. Staff asked the applicant/appellant to provide additional
information, such as a photo and written description of the old fence that was replaced. The
Town’s Code Enforcement Officer received a complaint about the height of the rear fence in
August 2023. Staff coordinated with the applicant further to obtain the additional information
previously requested, and over the following two months the applicant provided a written
description of the fence (Exhibit 7) and a photo of the old fence (Exhibit 8).
On October 9, 2023, the exception request was denied by the Community Development
Director as none of the required findings per Town Code Section 29.40.0320 or 29.40.0325
could be made to support the request (Exhibit 9).
On October 19, 2023, the applicant/owner appealed this decision to the Planning Commission
(Exhibit 10).
PAGE 3 OF 7
SUBJECT: 224 Old Adobe Road/FHE-22-006
DATE: December 8, 2023
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood
The subject property is located on the east side of Olde Adobe Road, across from Plaza La
Posada (Exhibit 1). The property backs up to a channelized concrete creek, labeled
Mistletoe Creek in Town Records. The immediate neighborhood consists of single-family
residential properties.
B. Project Summary and Zoning Compliance
The property owner is appealing the Community Development Director decision to deny a
fence height exception for a constructed eight-foot fence located along the rear property
line.
DISCUSSION:
A. Fence Height Exception
The property owner has requested a fence height exception for approval of a constructed
eight-foot fence located along the rear property line.
Per Town Code Section 29.40.0315 fences, walls, gates, or hedges may not exceed six feet in
height, with one foot of lattice on top for seven feet in total.
Town Code Section 29.40.0320, provided below, allows an exception to any of the fence
regulations if a property owner can demonstrate that one of the following conditions exist.
Sec. 29.40.0320. - Exceptions.
An exception to any of these fence regulations may be granted by the Community
Development Director. A fence exception application and fee shall be filed with the
Community Development Department and shall provide written justification that
demonstrates one (1) of the following conditions exist:
(a) Adjacent to commercial property, perimeter fences or walls may be eight (8) feet if
requested or agreed upon by a majority of the adjacent residential property owners.
(b) On interior lots, side yard and rear yard fences, walls, gates, gateways, entry arbors,
or hedges, behind the front yard setback, may be a maximum of eight (8) feet high
provided the property owner can provide written justification that either:
(1) A special privacy concern exists that cannot be practically addressed by
additional landscaping or tree screening; or
(2) A special wildlife/animal problem affects the property that cannot be practically
addressed through alternatives. Documented instances of wildlife grazing on
gardens or ornamental landscaping may be an example of such a problem.
PAGE 4 OF 7
SUBJECT: 224 Old Adobe Road/FHE-22-006
DATE: December 8, 2023
DISCUSSION (continued):
(c) At public utility facilities, critical infrastructure, and emergency access locations,
exceptions may be granted where strict enforcement of these regulations will result
in a security or safety concern.
(d) A special security concern exists that cannot be practically addressed through
alternatives.
(e) A special circumstance exists, including lot size or configuration, where strict
enforcement of these regulations would result in undue hardship.
Town Code Section 29.40.0325, provided below, allows an exception for any existing
nonconforming fence to be maintained or replaced in kind.
Sec. 29.40.0325. – Exemptions.
All fences, hedges, gates, and walls existing on the effective date of this ordinance [from
which this section derives] that do not meet the regulations contained herein are
nonconforming and are exempt from these regulations. Existing nonconforming fences
may be maintained and/or replaced in kind, including historic stone or river rock walls.
The Letter of Justification (Exhibit 4) cited condition (b)(1) related to a special privacy
concern, (b)(2) related to a special wildlife problem, (d) related to security, and (e) related
to a special circumstance associated with the property configuration for justification of the
exception request. The Letter of Justification (Exhibit 4) also outlined that the original
eleven-foot tall rear yard fence (Exhibit 8) was replaced by this new eight-foot tall fence
(Exhibit 6).
For condition (b)(1) staff could not support the exception. A special privacy concern could
not be identified that could not be practically addressed by additional landscaping. The
applicant/appellant stated that a line of screening hedges has been maintained on the
property along the fence line, but was not sufficient for their privacy needs. The photo of
the fence (Exhibit 6) shows landscaping that may be affected by seasonal loss of greenery,
impacting the ability to help with privacy, as discussed in the Letter of Justification.
For condition (b)(2) staff could not support the exception. The applicant/appellant’s Letter
of Justification (Exhibit 4) states that the water that collects at the back of the property
attracts wildlife such as coyotes, opossum, and bobcats. Staff could not support the
exception based on condition (b)(2) without justification of the additional protection the
extra one-foot in height would provide.
For condition (d) staff could not support the exception. The applicant/appellant’s Letter of
Justification (Exhibit 4) lists instances with neighbor conflict, hoarding, and horticultural
practices as justification for a special security concern that cannot be practically addressed
through other alternatives. Even with consideration of the concerns stated by the
PAGE 5 OF 7
SUBJECT: 224 Old Adobe Road/FHE-22-006
DATE: December 8, 2023
DISCUSSION (continued):
applicant/appellant, staff was unable to make the findings required to grant the exception
based on security.
For condition (e) staff could not support the exception. The applicant/appellant’s Letter of
Justification (Exhibit 4) lists yard topography as justification for a special circumstance. The
applicant/appellant states that there is a rise in slope as you move from the fence line to
the house. The Site Plan (Exhibit 5) shows this elevation change. Staff could not support
the exception request under condition (e). The items described in Exhibit 4 and shown in
Exhibit 5 are not significant enough for staff to grant the exception.
Town Code Section 29.40.0325 allows an exception for any existing nonconforming fence to
be maintained or replaced in kind. The applicant/appellant provided the following
information in their Letter of Justification (Exhibit 4): “The original fence along this property
line that was in place when we purchased the house had a combined height of fence and
privacy screen of 10-11 feet; we replaced this old existing fence with a shorter one.” Staff
requested additional information from the applicant/appellant to determine if the
replacement was made in kind. On August 22, 2023, the applicant provided a written
description of the fence (Exhibit 7). On October 5, 2023, the applicant was able to provide a
photo of the old fence (Exhibit 8).
Per Town Code Section 29.40.0325 – Exemptions, staff could not make the findings
necessary to support the exemption. The photo of the previous fence (Exhibit 8) shows a
different material than the fence it was replaced with (Exhibit 6). The previous lattice
material was not replaced in kind, as the current fence was built with a solid material. The
photo (Exhibit 8) and written description (Exhibit 7) did not provide enough information for
staff to be able to determine that the existing nonconforming fence was maintained and/or
replaced in kind.
The Community Development Department denied the fence height exception on October 9,
2023 (Exhibit 9) for the reasons outlined above.
B. Appeal Analysis
The Decision of the Community Development Director to deny the fence height exception
was appealed on October 19, 2023 (Exhibit 10). The appeal form included a written letter
providing additional reasoning for the request.
Exhibit 10 provided written justification on the topics discussed above, specifically
referencing Town Code Section 29.40.0325 allowing an exemption for any existing
nonconforming fence to be maintained or replaced in kind, and Section 29.40.0320 (b)(1)
PAGE 6 OF 7
SUBJECT: 224 Old Adobe Road/FHE-22-006
DATE: December 8, 2023
DISCUSSION (continued):
for special privacy concerns that cannot be practically addressed by additional landscaping
or tree screening.
The Planning Commission should review the exception justification points listed above to
determine if the exception request can be approved.
C. Environmental Review
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures and Section 15301: Existing Facilities.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Written notice was sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject
property. At the time of preparation of this report, no public comment has been received.
CONCLUSION:
A. Summary
The property owner is requesting that the Planning Commission reconsider the Community
Development Director’s decision to deny the fence height exception to allow the
constructed eight-foot fence located in the rear yard.
B. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the
Community Development Director decision to deny the fence height exception application
based on the reasoning provided in this report.
C. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Commission can:
1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction;
2. Grant the appeal and approve the fence height exception with the findings in Exhibit 2
and the draft conditions provided in Exhibit 3; or
3. Grant the appeal with additional and/or modified conditions.
PAGE 7 OF 7
SUBJECT: 224 Old Adobe Road/FHE-22-006
DATE: December 8, 2023
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Required Findings
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval if Appeal is Granted
4. Letter of Justification, Received November 13, 2022
5. Site Plan, Received November 13, 2022
6. Photo of New Constructed Fence, Received November 13, 2022
7. Description of Old Fence, Received August 22, 2023
8. Photo of Old Fence, Received October 5, 2023
9. Fence Height Exception Denial Letter, Dated October 9, 2023
10. Appeal of the Community Development Director Decision, Received October 19, 2023
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
MO
N
T
C
L
A
I
R
R
D
OLD ADOBE RDVIA LA POSADAVIA DE TESOROS VINEYARD CTMONTCLAIR CT224 Old Adobe Road
0 0.250.125 Miles
°
Update Notes:- Updated 12/20/17 to link to tlg-sql12 server data (sm)- Updated 11/22/19 adding centerpoint guides, Buildings layer, and Project Site leader with label- Updated 10/8/20 to add street centerlines which can be useful in the hillside area- Updated 02-19-21 to link to TLG-SQL17 database (sm)- Updated 08-23-23 to link to "Town Assessor Data" (sm)
EXHIBIT 1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
\\tlg-file\data\SHARE\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2023\12-13-2023\Item 5 - 224 Old Adobe\Exhibit 2 - Required Finding.docx
PLANNING COMMISSION – December 13, 2023
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR:
224 Old Adobe Road
Fence Height Exception Application FHE-22-006
Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a Fence
Height Exception Request for a Constructed Eight-Foot Fence Located in the Rear
Yard on Property Zoned R-1:10. APN 407-09-029. The Project is Categorically
Exempt Pursuant to the Adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures and Section 15301: Existing Facilities. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT:
Vinodha Bala. PROJECT PLANNER: Savannah Van Akin.
Required finding for CEQA:
■ The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures and Section 15301: Existing Facilities.
Required findings for granting a Fence Height Exception:
Per Town Code Section 29.40.0320, the applicant has provided written justification that
demonstrates one of the following conditions exist:
■ A special privacy concern exists that cannot be practically addressed by additional
landscaping or tree screening.
■ A special wildlife/animal problem affects the property that cannot be practically
addressed through alternatives. Documented instances of wildlife grazing on gardens or
ornamental landscaping may be an example of such a problem.
■ A special security concern exists that cannot be practically addressed through alternatives.
■ A special circumstance exists, including lot size or configuration, where strict enforcement
of these regulations would result in undue hardship.
EXHIBIT 2
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
\\tlg-file\data\SHARE\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2023\12-13-2023\Item 5 - 224 Old Adobe\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of
Approval if Appeal is Granted.docx
PLANNING COMMISSION – December 13, 2023
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
224 Old Adobe Road
Fence Height Exception Application FHE-22-006
Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a Fence
Height Exception Request for a Constructed Eight-Foot Fence Located in the Rear
Yard on Property Zoned R-1:10. APN 407-09-029. The Project is Categorically
Exempt Pursuant to the Adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures and Section 15301: Existing Facilities. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT:
Vinodha Bala. PROJECT PLANNER: Savannah Van Akin.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of
approval and in substantial compliance with the approved plans. Any intensification
beyond this authorized use requires a Conditional Use Permit amendment.
2. EXPIRATION: The approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to
Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the approval has been vested per Section
29.20.335 of the Town Code. Reasonable extensions of time not exceeding one year may
be granted upon application, and can be granted if approved by the deciding body prior to
the expiration date. Therefore, it is recommended that applications for a time extension
be filed with the Community Development Department at least 60 days prior to the
expiration date of the approval.
3. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that
any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement (“the Project”) from the Town shall
defend (with counsel approved by Town), indemnify, and hold harmless the Town, its
agents, officers, and employees from and against any claim, action, or proceeding
(including without limitation any appeal or petition for review thereof) against the Town
or its agents, officers, or employees related to an approval of the Project, including
without limitation any related application, permit, certification, condition, environmental
determination, other approval, compliance or failure to comply with applicable laws and
regulations, and/or processing methods (“Challenge”). Town may (but is not obligated to)
defend such Challenge as Town, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at
applicant’s sole cost and expense.
Applicant shall bear any and all losses, damages, injuries, liabilities, costs, and expenses
(including, without limitation, staff time and in-house attorney’s fees on a fully-loaded
basis, attorney’s fees for outside legal counsel, expert witness fees, court costs, and other
litigation expenses) arising out of or related to any Challenge (“Costs”), whether incurred
by Applicant, Town, or awarded to any third party, and shall pay to the Town upon
EXHIBIT 3
\\tlg-file\data\SHARE\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2023\12-13-2023\Item 5 - 224 Old Adobe\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of
Approval if Appeal is Granted.docx
demand any Costs incurred by the Town. No modification of the Project, any application,
permit certification, condition, environmental determination, other approval, change in
applicable laws and regulations, or change in such Challenge as Town, in its sole
discretion, determines appropriate, all at the applicant’s sole cost and expense. No
modification of the Project, any application, permit certification, condition, environmental
determination, other approval, change in applicable laws and regulations, or change in
processing methods shall alter the applicant’s indemnity obligation.
Bala Fence Height Exemption Application
To Whom it May Concern,
We are submitting a request for an exemption to Ordinance 2286 on a fence that was recently
constructed just within the rear property line of our backyard. Our property is located at 224 Old Adobe
Road, Los Gatos.
First, we would like to apologize for erecting a fence that is in violation of code. The original fence along
this property line that was in place when we purchased the house had a combined height of fence and
privacy screen of 10-11 feet; we replaced this old existing fence with a shorter one. At the time that we
were planning to replace the fence, our back property line neighbor, Ms Eva Mendoza, expressed
agreement that the new fence should be high enough to provide adequate privacy.
Following are the reasons why we would like to be granted a 8’ fence height exception:
1.Privacy: We have several privacy issues which resulted in the building of this fence:
a.Height differential: There is a significant downward slope between our property and
our backyard neighbor’s. Within 3 feet of the fence, the land already rises 12” in our
yard. The rise in slope continues as you move away from the fence and towards our
house. Our ground floor backyard deck, which spans the entire back of the house facing
the back fence), as well as our entire first floor (which has windows along every back
wall facing the backyard), are elevated 4’8”- 6’ above grade at the fence line due to the
natural slope of the land. Due to this significant change in elevation between our
properties, a shorter fence would provide minimal privacy as we could easily see over
the top of the fence into our neighbor’s yard, and she into ours. An 8’ fence would
improve this issue.
b.Conflict with neighbor: Unfortunately our backyard neighbor has objected repeatedly to
the town-permitted construction project that is underway on our property, even though
all work has been performed in accordance with town construction ordinances. She has
verbally abused our contractors and their employees, our family, and members of the
Town Offices repeatedly, despite our firm communication that this behavior is
inappropriate. In response to this continued verbal abuse, we decided to rebuild the
back fence as a way to address Ms. Mendoza’s complaints of privacy, noise, and dust.
We did so completely at our cost, as Ms. Mendoza would not contribute to the cost of
the good neighbor fence, despite our understanding that there is town code stating that
this cost should be shared. Given the persistent erratic and volatile behavior that our
neighbor has demonstrated, we would prefer to maintain the higher fence height in
hopes that it will help to limit these types of unpleasant and inappropriate interactions.
c.State of Neighbors Property: In addition to the privacy issues, the back neighbor’s
property is unsightly due to unchecked hoarding behavior. Additionally, our neighbor
has particular horticultural practices that we believe are in violation of county code. Her
plants are within clear view from our first floor living space and yard, and we while we
EXHIBIT 4
respect her right to grow these plants, we would also argue that we and our children
should not have to witness this process. The 8’ fence would keep this part of her
property out of sight from our side.
d. Lack of Other Options: In an effort to ameliorate the privacy issues, we have maintained
a line of screening hedges on our property along the fence line. However, they do not
provide full privacy, especially with seasonal loss of greenery, and Ms. Mendoza has
insisted that we keep the branches trimmed back, which limits their function as a
privacy screen.
2. Wildlife: Part of our back property line is adjacent to an alleyway with a storm drain. Water
collects here, and attracts wildlife. In addition to coyotes and opossum, this past year there
were two bobcats in our backyard at midday, shortly after our young children came in from play.
We are hopeful that a taller fence along that back alleyway will make it less likely that wildlife
will be able to access our yard, particularly because our two small children and dog are
frequently unaccompanied in the yard.
Please see the attachments:
1. Yard Survey and Topography. While there are changes that have been made to this plan since
installation of the pool, the elevations at the back fence line, ground floor backyard deck, and
first floor of the house remain the same. Here you can see an elevation change of 355’ at the
back fence rising to 361’ and 360’ at the back part of our house, an elevation gain of 5’-6’.
2. Site map showing the location of the back fence
3. Photo showing our attempts at using greenery to provide privacy – please note that these
hedges are at full foliage, but do thin through the season. While the newly erected fence seen in
the photo is in excess of 6’, it functionally serves as a shorter fence due to the significant change
in grade from the first floor of the house/backyard deck to the rear property line, and line of
sight privacy issues from these areas.
Again, we are sorry for having a fence that is in violation of code. We built the fence in an attempt to
appease our back neighbor, who had been aggressively engaging us about the need for privacy. We
hope that you will grant an exception in this case and allow us to keep the fence as built. If we must cut
it down to 6 feet and compromise our privacy, we ask that you at least support our attempt to have our
neighbor pay her share for the cost of the construction and reconstruction of the fence. If you have
and questions or are need of any further information, please feel free to contact us at 518.424.4316 or
vinodha2@gmail.com. We appreciate your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Vinodha & Rajeev Bala
Is is
I 1
3 §s i'i,
II f
ill
1 I I I I 8 I I I I I I I
TOPOGRAPHIC SITE PLAN
224 OLD ADOBE ROAD, LOS GATOS
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APN: 407.009-029
CUR1STENSEN&-PLOLTF
Q) \G
EXHIBIT 5
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
EXHIBIT 6
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Vinodha Bala
224 Old Adobe Road
Los Gatos CA 95032
Addendum to FHE-22-006
Description of Previous Fence:
Materials: The previous fence was at varied height of a minimum of 10’ just within our side of the back
property line. It was constructed with 6x6 pressure treated posts, and lattice panels (a combination of 2
–4’x8’ panels stacked on top of each other, and in places an additional 2’x8’ lattice panel).
The condition of the fence at the time of replacement, and in the 6-8 months preceding, was very poor.
The posts were loose, rotten, and leaning, and easily pushed from one side to the other. The lattice
panels had become brittle and broken, and several had fallen down or were hanging precariously,
having been reattached multiple times. There were exposed, rusted nails and broken fence pieces
throughout. The lattice design of the fence also contributed to the disrepair because the spaces
between the wood allowed vines and branches to push through. Branches and ivy had grown through
the lattice panels in several areas, putting further weight on the panels. In the two months prior to
replacing the fence, and without discussion with us, our backyard neighbor (complainant) attached old
cardboard, blue tarp, and mats using bungee cords to the fence in an attempt to provide more privacy.
This put further stress on the already precarious posts and panels – and created a huge eyesore. When
replacing the fence, we chose to replace the lattice panels with more study redwood fence boards in a
standard, good neighbor board-on-board design to address the privacy and structural integrity issues of
the old fence, and avoid these multiple issues from arising again. This was discussed with our back
neighbor (complainant) and she was in agreement. The new fence was constructed in the exact location
and length of the previous fence, with new 6x6 posts placed along the previous fence line.
EXHIBIT 7
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
EXHIBIT 8
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
N:\DEV\PLANNING PROJECT FILES\Old Adobe Road\224\FHE-22-006\Closing Documents\Action Letter - DENIED- 224 Old Adobe
Road.docx
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
(408) 354-6872 Fax (408) 354-7593
October 9, 2023
Vinodha & Rajeev Bala
224 Old Adobe Road
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Via email
RE: 224 Old Adobe Road
Fence Height Exception (FHE-22-006)
Requesting Approval for an Exception to a Constructed Eight (8) Foot Fence Located in
the Rear Yard on Property Zoned R-1:10. APN 407 09 029.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Vinodha & Rajeev Bala
The Los Gatos Community Development Department has reviewed the referenced application
for a fence height exception pursuant to Section 29.40.0320. On October 9, 2023 the Los Gatos
Community Development Department denied the request as the required findings could not be
made.
PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to Section 29.20.255 of the Town Code, this decision may be appealed
to the Planning Commission within 10 days of the denial date. Any interested person may
appeal this decision to the Planning Commission. Appeals, with the completed Appeal Form
and appeal fee payment, must be submitted within 10 days from the date of denial, or by 4:00
p.m., October 19, 2023
If you have any questions concerning this decision, please contact Project Planner, Savannah
Van Akin at svakin@losgatosca.gov.
Sincerely,
Savannah Van Akin
Assistant Planner
CIVIC CENTER
110 E. MAIN STREET
LOS GATOS, CA 95030
EXHIBIT 9
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
EXHIBIT 10
PREPARED BY: SAVANNAH VAN AKIN
Assistant Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 406-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 12/13/2023
ITEM NO: 5
DESK ITEM
DATE: December 13, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a
Fence Height Exception Request for a Constructed Eight-Foot Fence Located
in the Rear Yard on Property Zoned R-1:10. Located at 224 Old Adobe Road.
APN 407-09-029. The Project is Categorically Exempt Pursuant to the
Adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures and Section 15301: Existing Facilities. PROPERTY
OWNER/APPLICANT: Vinodha Bala. PROJECT PLANNER: Savannah Van Akin.
REMARKS:
Exhibit 11 includes photos of the new constructed eight-foot fence in the rear yard, received
from the applicant/appellant on December 13, 2023.
EXHIBITS:
Previously received with the November 8, 2023, Staff Report:
1. Location Map
2. Required Findings
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval if Appeal is Granted
4. Letter of Justification, Received November 13, 2022
5. Site Plan, Received November 13, 2022
6. Photo of New Constructed Fence, Received November 13, 2022
7. Description of Old Fence, Received August 22, 2023
8. Photo of Old Fence, Received October 5, 2023
9. Fence Height Exception Denial Letter, Dated October 9, 2023
10. Appeal of the Community Development Director Decision, Received October 19, 2023
Received with this Desk Item Report:
11. Photos of New Constructed Fence, Received December 13, 2023.pdf
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
From Vinodha Bala, Applicant/Appellant, on 12/13/2023 providing more photos of the constructed
eight-foot fence in the rear yard.
Figure 1: This photo shows the immediate loss of 1-1.25 feet of fence height within 2’ of the rear fence as the remainder of the
yard is raised at this point and then continues to slope up towards the house.
EXHIBIT 11
Figure 2: This photo is taken from our rear deck facing the rear fence. The primary level of the house is another foot above this
elevation.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank