HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Res 2025-14RESOLUTION NO. 2025-14
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CAMPBELL DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF A FENCE EXCEPTION PERMIT (PLN-2025-14) TO
ALLOW FOR AN EIGHT-FOOT-TALL WOOD FENCE, WHERE A SIX-
FOOT-TALL FENCE WOULD OTHERWISE BE ALLOWED ALONG
AN APPROXIMATELY 52-FOOT PORTION OF A REAR PROPERTY
LINE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 370 N. CENTRAL AVENUE.
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the
Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission finds as follows
with respect to the subject application(s):
1. The Project Site is located within a small-lot single family planned development on the
east side of North Central Avenue between East Hamilton Avenue and Tubby Street.
2. The Project Site is located within the Planned Development (P-D) Zoning District, as
shown on the City of Campbell Zoning Map.
3. The Project Site is designated Planned Development, as shown on the City of
Campbell General Plan Land Use diagram.
4. The Project Site is currently developed with a detached single-family dwelling.
5. On October 31, 2024, the City received a complaint regarding a fence exceeding the 6-
foot height limit. A code enforcement case (CE-2024-364) was opened, and on
November 21, 2024, the City notified the property owner of the violation and advised
corrective action, either by reducing the fence height or obtaining a fence exception
permit.
6. Staff directed the property owner to rectify this violation either by seeking legalization or
removing the fence. The applicant subsequently submitted for a Fence Exception Permit
to legalize the unpermitted fence on January 31, 2025, which was conditionally approved
by the Community Development Director on March 11, 2025 with the condition that the
overall fence height should be lowered from the existing 9-feet, 10-inches to 8 feet.
7. To address the violation, staff directed the property owner to either remove the
noncompliant fence or seek legalization. The applicant submitted a Fence Exception
Permit application on January 31, 2025, which the Community Development Director
conditionally approved on March 11, 2025, requiring the fence height be reduced from 9
feet 10 inches to 8 feet.
8. In compliance with CMC Section 21.71.020.B, a Notice of Application was mailed,
establishing a ten-day comment period from February 25 to March 5, 2025. Four
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-14 Page 2 of 5
370 N Central Ave ~ Appeal of Fence Exception Permit (PLN-2025-39)
comments were received from nearby residents, primarily expressing concerns about
legalizing the fence, including its height, structural integrity, and lack of building permits
or review by the Building Inspection Division.
9. Following the approval of the Fence Exception Permit, the property owner filed an appeal
challenging the Community Development Director’s condition to lower the fence height
to 8 feet, asserting the restriction is unjustified and that the appeal is warranted due to
unique site circumstances and personal hardship.
10. While not visible from the street, the fence’s nearly 10-foot height impacts the visual and
spatial experience of adjacent properties. Consistent with General Plan Policies LU-1.9
and LU-3.1, the City’s findings promote neighborhood compatibility, recognizing that
excessive fence height can block light and views and disrupt the open character of low-
density areas. Community design principles apply to both public and private spaces,
making visual order within rear yards essential to preserving neighborhood character.
Policy LU-1.9 Maintain safe, attractive, pedestrian-friendly residential neighborhoods and
districts with identifiable centers, consistent development patterns, and a
range of public and private services.
Policy LU-3.1 Recognize that Campbell is comprised of unique neighborhoods, each with
its own individual character; and allow change consistent with reinforcing
positive neighborhood values, while protecting the integrity of the city’s
neighborhoods.
11. The fence was constructed without permits, raising concerns about structural integrity.
Under California Building Code (CBC) Section 105, fences over seven feet require a
building permit to ensure compliance with safety standards, including wind load and
stability. Without a permit or inspection, the structural soundness of the fence is
unverified. As such, a condition of approval requires the applicant to obtain a building
permit and pass a building inspection to confirm compliance.
12. Recent changes in State housing law—such as SB 9, SB 450, and ADU legislation—
have reduced required setbacks, altering the character of single-family neighborhoods.
For example, SB 450 allows structures up to 35 feet tall to be built as close as 4 feet
from rear property lines in the R-1-6 zone. At 370 N. Central Avenue, the primary
residence is set back 5 feet 6 inches from the rear property line, while the adjacent ADU
at 373 Harrison Avenue is set back 2 feet, resulting in a total separation of 7 feet 6
inches—consistent with current State law allowances.
13. While the City is sympathetic to the appellant’s personal challenges, land use decisions
must be based on objective zoning standards and long-term planning goals. Personal
hardship, including stress or anxiety, is not a basis for overriding development
regulations and is not among the findings required for a Fence Exception under CMC
Section 21.18.060(E). The City acknowledges the desire for privacy but must also
consider the broader visual and spatial impacts on the neighborhood.
14. There is a reasonable relationship and a rough proportionality between the Conditions
of Approval and the impacts of the project.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-14 Page 3 of 5
370 N Central Ave ~ Appeal of Fence Exception Permit (PLN-2025-39)
15. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the project, as currently
presented and subject to the required conditions of approval, will have a significant
adverse impact on the environment.
16. There is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fees imposed upon the project
and the type of development project.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, and the analysis provided herein, the Community
Development Director further finds and concludes that the following findings for the fence
exception have been met:
Fence Exception Findings (CMC Sec. 21.18.060.E.):
1. The change would not impair pedestrian or vehicular safety;
Yes, as conditioned. The fence is situated entirely behind the existing single-family
dwelling, along the rear property line, and is not visible to the public, pedestrians, or
vehicles. It also does not impede any public pathways or crucial sightlines required for
safety. Furthermore, the proposed location and design of the fence meet the visibility
requirements stipulated in CMC Section 21.18.060 (Fences, walls, lattice, and screens),
ensuring that there is no reduction in visibility or accessibility on the surrounding roads,
driveways, and walkways.
2. The change would result in a more desirable site layout;
Yes, as conditioned. While the appellant argues for increased height to address privacy
concerns, the City finds that an 8-foot-tall fence already achieves an appropriate level of
screening while maintaining compatibility with site layout goals and spatial design.
Further, the conditionally approved design avoids the "fortress-like" appearance
associated with an excessive fence height and upholds the neighborhood’s open rear
yard character, consistent with the City design standards. Site layout encompasses
aspects such as site access, efficient space utilization, aesthetics, and functionality. The
proposed fence, positioned along the rear property line, does not hinder access or use
of space; it maintains clear pathways and does not encroach on the property’s functional
area. Visually, an 8-foot-tall fence would allow for additional privacy between the subject
property and the adjacent rear neighbor’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), which is built
to a lesser rear setback of 2 feet where a 4-foot setback would otherwise be required.
Functionally, the fence contributes to a more practical and private use of the rear yard,
aligning with the overall site layout objectives. Increasing the fence height from 8 feet to
nearly 10 feet provides diminishing returns in terms of added privacy. The incremental
privacy gained does not proportionately offset the potential drawbacks. An 8-foot fence
generally suffices for privacy needs in residential settings, making the additional height
unnecessary.
Moreover, the increased height is proposed only along a single rear property line
segment, rather than uniformly applied across the yard. This piecemeal approach
undermines visual consistency and signals an intent to block out a specific property
rather than address a broader privacy concern. A desirable site layout promotes
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-14 Page 4 of 5
370 N Central Ave ~ Appeal of Fence Exception Permit (PLN-2025-39)
continuity, balance, and contextual design—not selective screening that draws attention
to perceived conflicts with individual neighbors.
3. The change would not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or
general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the change; and
Yes, as conditioned. The ADU on the rear adjacent property is constructed with
reduced 2-foot setback compared to the typically permitted 4-foot setback. To address
potential privacy concerns, the City, an exception allowing an 8-foot-high fence would
adequately screen windows and doors that might otherwise impact the subject property's
privacy, in furtherance of General Plan Actions LUT-2.a and LUT-2.c, below:.
Action LU-2.a Through the development review and permit process, screen
development proposals for land use compatibility, including
conformance with existing development or neighborhoods.
Action LU-2.c Through the development review and permit process, require
adequate buffers and/or architectural consideration to protect
residential areas, developed or undeveloped, from intrusion of
private nonresidential development activities that may degrade
the quality of life in such residential areas.
In comparison, a nearly 10-foot fence would not be consistent with these General Plan
actions. Such a height could significantly reduce natural light and airflow to neighboring
properties, particularly if installed close to property lines or adjacent structures
negatively impacting the comfort and enjoyment of residents in the area. Conversely, an
8-foot fence, is sufficient to provide adequate privacy and security for the ADU without
being excessive in height. A 10-foot fence exceeds is necessary to address these needs
and therefore would be disproportionate to the actual privacy and security concerns of
the ADU.
The City acknowledges the emotional hardship cited by the appellant; however, zoning
regulations must be grounded in predictable and verifiable standards. Allowing
exceptions based on subjective psychological conditions creates enforcement
challenges and undermines the City’s ability to apply zoning uniformly. Landscaping or
privacy screens, which preserve openness while addressing visual concerns, are less
intrusive alternatives that could address comfort without exceeding code allowances.
4. The change would not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the
neighborhood or to the general welfare of the city.
Yes, as conditioned. As noted above, the fence is located at the rear of the property
and is not visible to the public, pedestrians, or vehicles. Consequently, allowing a
height of 8 feet would not adversely impact the aesthetic or functional aspects of
neighboring properties. In contrast, a proposed 9-foot, 10-inch fence could potentially
be detrimental. A fence that is significantly taller than typical within the neighborhood
would look out of place, disrupting the visual harmony and architectural continuity of
the area. Further, it would obstruct views, reduce sunlight, and negatively affect the
enjoyment of nearby properties. An 8-foot fence complies with the city's community
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-14 Page 5 of 5
370 N Central Ave ~ Appeal of Fence Exception Permit (PLN-2025-39)
character and design standards. These standards aim to protect natural resources
without the obstruction caused by excessively tall fences furthering the following
General Plan policy:
Policy LU-2.1 Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development, public spaces, and natural resources.
The applicant's specific circumstances, including the fire and ADU construction next
door, are atypical but not sufficient to justify a deviation of nearly two feet above the
allowed maximum. The City must also consider the cumulative impact of setting such a
precedent, which could lead to a proliferation of similar requests and the gradual erosion
of spatial consistency in residential neighborhoods.
Environmental Findings (CMC Sec. 21.38.050):
5. The project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15301 (Class 1) of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pertaining to existing facilities and Class 1 consisting
of changes to accessory structures including fences.
6. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the project, as currently
presented and subject to the required conditions of approval, will have a significant
adverse impact on the environment.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission denies an appeal and
upholds the Community Development director’s conditional approval of a Fence Exception
Permit (PLN-2025-14) to allow for an eight-foot-tall wood fence, where a six-foot-tall fence
would otherwise be allowed along an approximately 52-foot portion of a rear property line
on property located at 370 N. Central Avenue
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of July, 2025, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Fields, Krey, Majewski, Zisser, Buchbinder
NOES: Commissioners: Kamkar
ABSENT: Commissioners: Ostrowski
ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
APPROVED:
Matt Kamkar, Chair
ATTEST:
Rob Eastwood, Secretary
Matt Kamkar (Jul 31, 2025 13:05:57 PDT)
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FENCE EXCEPTION PERMIT
PLN-2025-39
Where approval by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Public
Works Director, City Attorney or Fire Department is required, that review shall be for
compliance with all applicable conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines,
ordinances, laws and regulations and accepted engineering practices for the item
under review. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to
comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State
of California that pertain to this development and are not herein specified.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
1. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Fence Exception Permit (PLN-2025-
14) to allow an eight-foot-tall fence along a 51-foot portion of a rear property line
on property located 370 N. Central Avenue, as depicted on the Approved Project
Plans, included as Exhibit B, except as may be modified by the Conditions of
Approval herein.
2. Permit Expiration: The Fence Exception Permit (PLN-2025-14) shall be valid for
ninety days from the effective date of approval. Within this 90-day period, the
required Conditions of Approval must be satisfied. Failure to meet this deadline will
result in this approval being rendered void and commencement of enforcement
activity by the City, which shall result in the removal of the fencing subject to this
Fence Exception Permit application.
3. Permit Required: Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this approval, a
Building Permit application shall be submitted for the proposed project. The
Building Permit shall include Electrical/Plumbing/Mechanical fees when such work
is part of the permit.
4. Required Revisions: Within thirty (30) days of Building Permit issuance, the
applicant shall physically modify the existing fence by reducing the overall height
of the fence as measured from the tallest adjacent grade to an overall height of
eight-feet, inclusive of any posts, lattice, or any other components of the fence.
Within this same timeline, the Building Permit must pass Building Inspection.
5. Location Verification: The Building Permit Application must confirm that the
proposed fence is located entirely within the boundaries of the subject property. If
the fence extends onto adjacent properties, the application must include a signed
statement from each property owner where the fence is located.
6. New Fences/Walls: Any newly proposed fencing and/or walls shall comply with
CMC Section 21.18.060.
Reso No - 370 N Central Ave
Final Audit Report 2025-07-31
Created:2025-07-29
By:Ken Ramirez (kenr@campbellca.gov)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAZv1U6irwkWKN6gKQaX8Tz6hxVsmNERHG
"Reso No - 370 N Central Ave" History
Document created by Ken Ramirez (kenr@campbellca.gov)
2025-07-29 - 5:41:55 PM GMT
Document emailed to Matt Kamkar (mkamkar7@gmail.com) for signature
2025-07-29 - 5:41:59 PM GMT
Document emailed to Rob Eastwood (robe@campbellca.gov) for signature
2025-07-29 - 5:41:59 PM GMT
Email viewed by Rob Eastwood (robe@campbellca.gov)
2025-07-29 - 6:07:59 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Rob Eastwood (robe@campbellca.gov)
Signature Date: 2025-07-29 - 6:08:17 PM GMT - Time Source: server
Email viewed by Matt Kamkar (mkamkar7@gmail.com)
2025-07-31 - 8:04:50 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Matt Kamkar (mkamkar7@gmail.com)
Signature Date: 2025-07-31 - 8:05:57 PM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2025-07-31 - 8:05:57 PM GMT