DRC Summary 06-02-2016 ��FICE Q�COM�lfllf�ll�DE�ELm�iVtENl'
,;,; .
CITY NALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE�CUPERTINO,CA 95014-3255
������;� � {408)777-3308�FAX(408)777-3333�planninq(a�cupertino.orq
�'�: 1Vlayor and City Council Members
`Planning Commissioners
]Er�m: Benjamin Fu, Assistant Director of Community Development
��tee June 6, 2016
����e REPORT OF DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE FINAL DECISIONS MADE
June 2, 2016
�ha�te��9.�L2.�.IO �¢$�1� C�.1�➢��'tlfl�� I�1Ll�.�YC1�➢11 C�a��3r�V1��S ¢��
�p�ea�. �� decisg�ns ��de by �he �esggn][Zevie�nr ��mmgttee
7Le 1�pp�nc�t���
EXG2016-02, Ruiz residence, 10240 Stern Ave
�esc�gp�i�n
Fence Exception to allow the construction of a 6 foot fence in the required front setback
area
Actg�n
The Design Review Committee approved the application on a 2-0-0 vote. This is effective
June 2, 2016. The fourteen-calendar day appeal will expire on June 16, 2016.
Enclosures:
Design Review Committee Report of June 2, 2016
Resolution No(s). 328
Plan set
COlVi11�[J1VI'I'�C I��iT��,OPlY1�1V'I'DEPAIZ'I'MElV'I'
I'I.ANIVIlVG DIVISIOIV
,
;,
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE � CUPERTINO,CA 95014-3255
���� �'� � (408)777-3308 �FAX(408)777-3333
�E��Gl� REVIEW �O1VI1���I'TEE �T'AFF 13EPOR'�'
Agenda gtern l�To. Agencla�ate:T�e 2, 2016
S�JI��]E��':
� Fence Exception to allow a six-foot high fence in the front setback area where a three-foot high
fence is permitted. Application No(s): EXC-2016-02 Applicant(s): Sabrina and Gino Ruiz;
Location: 10240 Stern Avenue APN: 375-12-042
][�IE��NN�li��l��A'�'��10T:
Staff recommends fhat the Design Review Cornmittee approve application EXC-2016-02 per the
draft resolution(Attachment 1)
]['][Z��IE�'�'�A'�'A:
�eneral l�lan fl�esi.gnation. Residential: Low Density(1-5 units)
Specific�lan/Special A�ea: n/a
Z0111rig�eS1g111t]Ori: R1-5 Sin le Famil Residential
Y�ot size: 6,240 s .ft.
Existing resiclence,gross area: 2,065 s . ft. (33.1%FAR)
�'roposed residence,gross area: 2,662 sq.ft. (42.7%FAR) w/reserve garage �
area
flZequi�ed property line setbacks: 20' front;5' interior setback, 12' street side
setback;20' rear
�roposed property line setbacks: 20' front;5' ulterior setback, l2' street side
setback; l0'-10" rear setback(existing non-
conformin )
l��oj ect�onsistency�vith:
General Plan: Yes
Zoning: No, exception requested for a six-foot fence
hei ht in the front setback area
Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt, CEQA Section 15303,
Class 3 (New consiruction or conversion of
small structures)
EXC-2016-02 10240 Stern Avenue June 2,2016
Page 2
BACKGROUND:
The City issued a building permit for a single-family addition on April 8�, 2015. In order for the
Planning Division to approve the building permit, the Applicant was required to provide a
conforming fence consistent with the City's requirements. In this ulstance, the Applicant
intended to provide a three-foot high fence along the property line; consistent with Cupertino
Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 19.48 Fences.
_,�__ �_ ,��.�-- --�.�-;�- �--�,��---
- �� ` ' ,�� �� :�.
j ��� .��°� �t� '�,€���j
i 7�5;�` 4 r;
� �� ;.z„ ���
y. ` }. ��
� Y `r� � � v.�',,
� i� �� �
���� } x �� ^�¢I
� �D �Y
��� �
ti j, �r 'k�+� ���� e�, >.
... .. . `�'�'�� '' �.�-*� �'� u`� "'"
"1 . ` u �"'�+.- ,��"' �
3 J 1�rY'"� F
� .. i��i� :& �. ;i G :�' 3� j�...
tG,a Y i ' �".� � d 3� 4 F .
. ���a ��� � � �� ��� a . �y
� ��'�`u¢� +��' ��,s r��r��"' t�t-,� 5 . '� ;,��r
� � � x ��� u" ' "�
i�. :�� �"' a,�'..,%r h �� : i k
��
t
' , �
vk. � 3 �F �
� �::Yr� "':S"¢ t �
� � ��
I. ��. , ��� � . ��
p f � � i
"' . �Pb'�y,;. �.. � . �� .�
w
>
; � r��.� °� �y .. ..... � .. �
Upon turther consideration, the Applicant determined that a six-foot high fence was best suited
for the fence area surrounding Arata Way and Loree Avenue. The Iocation of a six-foot fence in
the front yard area requires a Fence Exception.
DISCUSSION:
The orientation of the home places the functional rear yard of the home in what the City
determines to be the front yard area. The City allows a three-foot high fence in this area, but a
six-foot fence high fence is requested to provide better privacy.
In order to provide adequate privacy, the fence will be set back five feet from the property line,
and ineasure six feet in height. Because the property is functionally a key lot, there is a setback
requirement from�the street side property line of ten feet, and a twelve-foot side setback from
the interior property line. The key lot is defined when a rear property line adjoins a side
property line; however, in this instance, the key lot is used with the front property to ensure
adequate views for the adjacent property owner driveway.
Public Works staff reviewed the proposal, and do not have any issues with the location of the
fence within the vision triangle. Public Works based this on the location of the limit line of the
Arata Avenue stop sign which provides adequate view angles at the intersection.
EXG2016-02 10240 Stern Avenue June 2,2016
Page 3
Staff has made the following findings in support of the exception:
1. The liteYal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in restriction inconsistent with
the spirit and intent of this chapter. ;
The proposed fence location has been designed to meet the intent of the chapter by
providing a fence height that is allowed (six feet), and the location is least intrusive to
the adjacent property owners.
2. The granting of the exception will not result in a condition which is materially detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare.
The fence location will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare because fhe
fence location is generally consistent with the City's fence ordinance, and the fence will
provide privacy for property owners.
3. The exception to be granted is one that will require the least rnodification of the prescribed
regulation and the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose.
The fence height and material is consistent with the ordinance. Placement of the fence
� location is consistent with that of a key Iot, and the placement of the fence would be
consistent with the requirements of street side fence location.
�
4. The proposed exception will not result in a hazardous condition for pedestrian and vehicular
traffic.
The proposed fence is five (5) feet from the property line which provides adequate
pedestrian accessibility. Additionally, Public Works has reviewed the site plan, and has
determined that the proposed fence location will not be detrimental to vehicular traffic.
5. The proposed develop�nent is otheru�ise consistent with the City's General Plan and with the
purpose of this chapter as described in Section 19.48.010
�
The proposed fence is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan since fences are
permitted throughout the single-family home area.
6. The proposed development meets the requirements of the Santa Clara Fire Department and
Sheriff's Departfnent, and if security gates are proposed, that attempts are anade to standardize
access.
There are no issues with the fence. Sanfa Clara Fire Department and the Sheriff's
Department are normally concerned when security gates are proposed. The projects
proposes no security gates.
EXG2016-02 10240 Stern Avenue June 2,2016
Page 4
7. The fence height foY the proposed residential fence is needed to ensure adequate screening and/or
privacy.
The six-foot fence height is consistent with the allowable fence height which is to aid in
providing privacy.
These findings are incorporated into the draft resolution in Attachment 1.
�'�'�][IE�Z➢��]�Al[Z'�'l�]ElV'�'/AG]El�IC�'�T��TIIE�NN
The City's Public Works Department reviewed the project. No additional conditions of
approval have been imposed,
��7�']l�IE�C�][/1�T��'���l�t�
The following table is a brief sutnmary of the noficing conducted for this project:
.,.,. �..�a . ....�r. .. �,.. s:.� ¢.. ...ar�z e�.^i....� ,•tr ....; x�$.a ; ��..v°� , =,n�., i� itn.-.T t 'k`�,».i° �,r +. a�.�..-l���..;i
-�-+ ,.r+s.n,�..�s.,.ad.�tP.F m���.�.AS,x... ..tunaa.,«,.. M.. .. .....�fi�,'4 � K.,��., k ! !n a..f t�.7ar.... "2r.a"„1.,,g st„:w.,,,,.3 e;"P.., a �l r . . ,.s..:,W
s:,"�"-�.�.�^tt4^w .i s•n , ,�...rxir.r[;w r<t.ar.�,.�af .8. ,s 5.. .,vt 1 ,r , ..::.s.., a.P.'k ..,r ✓��T:.e_ ..°�h�� , a .`�i.. h�,...�l,.�.. ..,r�k'�" ra .n... .�1 .3�`+;.x.....:.k' .,b.. 3 as..,#z�7�,:,.,-,...�
..,.... d ...Z.,,irtr4. �a�. . 1 .�.Pr.�. r..x.t5r a°, � n£;.,.. .+.,�_.k� �sf ..,:.,$2. +l , ,.....:.�.isrrkt., � �" :� ��a.,f. .,4 ed3�`- n�. � .,da...�.<$'` f.�ifrs�'�a x..
;..,,.�.���r�.,.d(yl'� .�4 a° ..:<. >.0 �t; ....a,'J..�„�'t t�t,�.,..�.,u,Ed..�„� ,-'� E w.,. � �,,_f, f�.�. s..r;i , , o l,.,rr:1;: a w i{.:.-. R ,7�'�k ��...< 3'�,ia�:.,.. ,"� ,i..�S,;.�"�i 2 d t� .:.1 5�', a e:;�=�:
�:"t;� ? ,r. t, .�., m.�'�. ,��. � �, ,.,c rr 6, ,�„�i� � '",r,..J+ I i t �"�,�zz`„3'�,.��",.,.,: ;u. :^a`� �N?;.,t">>
}tt:� �. rx �au3,..3 � .4ss; a�a a.��x �,. �ri' .�-� �a d4=.,�Q'.'i'.d}, r �%;s.;�^.. „' ..r,;.P,.ht .�.., rr .t,1Gs�i.s..< �e1.?u4.np+'t� r Fl..,.?a f ..i,� c,:,p�
.�; a , �. � ,I�a�c,.]Egearin�• :l�T.o�fices� &��Sgte �A e�.d.a , ��:�� � _� �,i� � � u� � � :: �, ,,>��..
:�l�To�ace;=��o.f ��b � � . ,.� n . -� o. . <,,..Fx � r. ..s �N . :. .. ,3 �� � �:, , F�t�' ,,..
.a" . .� ..,. i�.E r .�.:,, .. ... �"�,......Z7r..m., �ra, �� �...�.s, A¢,p..a .e, a+. . .C}a� 'Ca°��:aH1.�'�.a ,d�7.�... .�... �..v.,.zr;
�6��s-�:.. ..»,...t.. . ,..r��.��...... .� .,. .. ..... ��:r. ,. t. ..t:.r,.0 a:r. .it.,+„n,.�;,....Fc .'�...rx.t,.w.�r< .,f� �'l' �. ....�. .z��.�"'.';'.Y .atr..1ra�.,.n r,..,..>. .,,, . ,..v.,.a�9i4. .z
.....,.v� :rr,. Am. i.x4�.,.,.a;l. ' 4. .�..:rt,...i �.:....... � *3�r!Eai 4'?..i..�l , a�., a.� . ,� .,�� rJ ,.�... A .....�'��,, ..l .. � ..rb.. d ..x... .CG" ��a 4:�1,..e.�.,.�
,�cr � r a�, t,, t � .�7 t r ,,:_ I � � siY:-<,. ,f�, f r . u� ,n th a , ,w9M,�.« . � i ,�.� � . nti.,,$s-.
,u,.� ....r. .l.,s ..7�",..,s.ai 1a ..,u�..v`�-€ v�:s.,.. �. S. .1. a+..... .�. �r m+....3.�.,: a.._.,ld�.... .,...?. ..,�.�..� a c ....,.; �;.i. a. ,... �.� ,�` a�;. ... ?'. P.
l�".a .x,.. .L...,. 1 .�.r..'�,�.. ,.�... S, rt. .r.�.:. � s. ......,."".� ,f:,�,.,,.Ji.��.r5 ..�..�. . .a�,:k Et ...r�,u :.. ,a�. R9 5',:i.��.��. 1, .+�c . t � "i�:�.�'+ ....d�r..P 4. .,w.,.51�:�.,.
.�.,r.ws.v,1...�:r,: �j. ..,r�.,..,,.. ..r s..�":� ...,....�' ,+ !..,...... :�, ..,. ...ar...�... �€ -�...... .Tkti ..,r <. .i.. 'v`*4 ...�:.r,� „r�tk, �.,.�r !�� �.rc .+.... .:�� �." .i.�Y'�
.r �� �a3 ..1, . �t {ra.,..,_.a"t .�:.F.a.s�.�k . ,�s .f .....rs,. a ...t .. 1. .S . . �.d�. -�al f�.,.F..+.;�. .a..r:..r ..,. tr..P. ,v .�.. ..tS -...>u ..I.e...,.»�.�fX
. , � .,.. . ��.,_ c ,..¢ �tt:�1�, ?{ s�. a a � , e,� , , �.�+r `I, Hr, £,� ,<�«n , P., � u+i` . ,, �: r� .`� �m �.l.x��;�:
�.. ..�.s -��`,�,�r..,� r.�t..,�.. >s P ..... r i...s . t ...,:.� 3, . r.� t�+��.�.t.S , ? .}�i.I.� .., $3sM ..f,. ,P . ,T . ...�w.,.,, s .�i....�, "�, .�.'r'ut:4ze,{:rn..d k .,�:,., r...L...�,.«!,
. �,.... ti, `� . , sn§t.: . .h..��.b'#��€.4�.a:.... a� .. .Y` a.��.._.�rc� .�a. ,... r .i.."�;..,.:,z:&',, r...,r �.x� P�.tc .„daf.,� �..s ^� ..f� b ,�.s . .!; ..,.,.. i,,.0 &'.,�.C ..'��...s<.:,-..
d.#. .<.. �n 9.s....... p.. ?r,v r �.E .�.�.f,,.� d�'.. #r..s d ..�. .�k,.. ..,�.....� P�;u.0.ra �.h.:,,. t5 .:.».,. a S�r�...,.�. ,�. en. r ..�C`,r r.��.i �..���,T G. ...c
�,:..�., �:� t._..�: .`b�:. Er.�.�".�+�.� ��'�.: dg , ..I'r r u:.. .mt7t t,,... :s�, t3� .x � z. a i ,,.„:
.S d c a,� ,C. �7�;a ,.�.,, r. �h d .Ea.. e; ,.;;?��xi 2...t.�'+:. +ri°r. E ;:�r�k�x..@-r.9q ""d "ari:'a�. ) 7.. tpk,E; �6.: :.,�N 3 c4p � �.i.. �uti chf.f,^�.r�4�F�z#r
f,3..tt.���,�1C.e�u�"�{«.,«t?�:,��n.+�ni�,.�'+�ati.�l.,u.�'ai`�$+r`.Iv`�is���.Y�§a., .ue.t."'�JY:.�r��d..,�,�,�.:n,h�7a�.a✓c,�.�?�tr,.a.-t�e9e�;d�"..�,a�.v,19r:��s;.�w...,`il u..,s...,,,a.»...ss�.,l..�v�.'w.e+,,.,4w.:.al,:,,...a..���.�i�p°.+.�s....,.�.a.�"�<uusau.3.r�,Y.�Ya<.,5w,tt� .�
� Site Signage (10 days prior to the hearing) � Posted on the City's official notice bulletin
• Notices mailed to property owners board (one weelc prior to the hearing)
adjacent to the project site (10 days prior � Posted on the City of Cupertino's Web site
' to the hearing) (one weelc prior to the hearing)
No comments were received from, any member of the public at the time of staff report
production.
�']E�.Zll�[�'�' S'�'�Z�All�]L�ll�gll�G A�'�'
This project is subject to the Permit Streainlinuzg Act(Government Code Section 65920-65964).
The City has complied with the deadlines found in the Permit Streamlining Act. �
I'roject IZeceived:April 12, 2016
' I?roject L)eeyned Incomplete:May 2, 2016
I'roject IZesubmitted:May 4, 2026
l�eesned Complete:May 5, 2016 '
flpplicant IZevised Submittal:Ma�17, 2016
� I�evised Subinittal Deemed Co�nplete:May 18, 2016
The City has 60 days until August 1, 2016 to make a decision on tlle project since this project is
Categorically Exempt from CEQA. The Design Review Committee's decision on this project is
final unless appealed to the City Council within 14 calendar days of the decision.
,
EXC-2016-02 10240 Stern Avenue June 2,2016
Page 5
��l�t�g,�JS��1V
Staff recommends approval of the project since the conditions of approval address all concerns
related to the proposed project and all of the findings for approval of the proposed project are
consistent with Chapter 19.48:Fences of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
Prepared by: Erick Serrano,Associate Planner
Approved by: Benjamul Fu, Assistant Director of Community Development
l�ffachgnents
1. Draft Resolution
2. Plan Set
l
EXG2016-02
CITY OF CUPERTIlVO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTIOlV 1V0. 328
OF TI�E DESIGIV RE�IIEW COlVIMITTEE OF THE CITY OF CUI'ERT�1V0
APPIZO�TIlVG A FElVCE EXCEI'TIOlV TO ALLOW THE COIVSTIZUCTION OF A
FElVCE IlV THE FROIVT SETBACIC A1ZEA OF A SIlVGLE-FAlVIILY IZESIIJEIVCE
SECTIOlV I: PROTECT L�ESCRIPTIOlV
Application 1Vo.: EXG2016-02
Applicant: Sabrina and Gino Ruiz
Location: 10240 Stern Avenue, AP1V: 375-12-042
SECTION IL• FIl�TDIlVGS
WHEREAS, the Design Ileview Committee of the City of Cupertino received an
application for an Exception from the Residential Single Family Zoning regulations as
described in Section I. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 (1Vew construction or
conversion of sma11 structures); and
VVHEREAS, the necessary notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Qrdinance of the City of Cupertino, and the I�esign 1Zeview Committee has held at least
one Public Meeting on this matter; and
WI�EREAS, the applicant has met the burderi of proof required to support said
application; and
W�IEREAS, the Design Review Committee finds the following with regard to the
exception for this application:
1. The literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in restriction
inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter.
�
Resolution No.328 EXC-2016-02 June 2,2016
Page-2-
The proposed fence location has been designed to meet the intent of the chapter
by providing a fence height that is allowed (six feet), and the location is least
intrusive to the adjacent property owners.
2. The granting of the exception will not result in a condition which is materially
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
The fence location will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare
because the fence location is generally consistent with the City's fence ordinance,
and the fence will provide privacy for property owners.
3. The exception to be granted is one that will require the least modification of the prescribed
regulation and the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose.
The fence height and material is consistent with the ordinance. Placement of the
fence location is consistent with that of a key lot, and the placement of the fence
would be consistent with the requirements�of street side fence location.
4. The proposed exception will not Yesult in a hazardous condition for pedestr�ian and
vehicular traffic.
The proposed fence is five (5) feet from the properiy line which provides
adequate pedestrian accessibility. Additionally, Public Works has reviewed the
site plan, and has determined that the proposed fence location will not be
detrimental to vehicular traffic.
5. The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan and with
the purpose of this chapter as described in Section 19.48.010
The proposed fence is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan since
fences are permitted throughout the single-family home area.
�
6. The proposed development meets the requirements of the Santa Clara Fire Department
and Sheriff's Department, and if security gates are proposed, that attempts are made to
standardize access.
There are no issues with the fence. Santa Clara Fire Department and the Sheriff's
Department are normally concerned when security gates are proposed. The
projects proposes no security gates.
Resolution No.328 EXG2016-02 June 2,2016
Page-3-
7. The fence height for the proposed residential fence is needed to ensure adequate screening
and/or privacy.
The six-foot fence height is consistent with the allowable fence height which is to
aid in providing privacy.
1VOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of the maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other eviclence
submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this
Resolution beginning on PAGE 3 thereof:
1. The application for an Exception to the Residential Single Family zoning regulations, '
Application no. EXG2016-02 is hereby APPIZOVED, and
That the sub-conclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
�Zesolution are based and contained in the 1'ublic 1Vleeting record concerning
Application no.(s) EXG2016-02 as set forth in the lUlinutes of Design Review Committee
1Vleeting of June 2, 2016 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth
herein.
SECTIOIV IIL• COIVDITIOIVS AI�MIlVISTERED �Y THE COlV[1VIUIVITY
I�EVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVEI� EXHIBITS
The approval is based on the plan set titled "Proposed 1Veighboring Fence
Adjustment" consisting of one sheet received by the City on May 17, 2016, except as
may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution.
2. NOTICE OF FEES DEDICATIONS RESERVATIOIVS OIZ OT�IER EXACTiOl�TS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
�'' dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. 1'ursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of
a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day
approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you
fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements
of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
Resolution No.328 EXC-2016-02 June 2,2016
Page-4-
3. Il�TDEMNIFICATIOlV
Except as otherwise prohibited by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold
harmless the City, its City Council, and its officers, employees and agents
(collectively, the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or
proceeding broixght by a third party against one or more of the indemnified
parties or one or more of the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set
aside, or void this Resolution or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the
project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys' fees
and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The applicant,_,shall pay such
attorneys' fees and costs within 30 days following receipt of invoices from City.
Such attorneys' fees and costs shall include amounts paid to counsel not otherwise
employed as City staff and shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and
other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation
reasonably incurred by City. �, __
I'ASSEI� AlVD AI�OI'TEI� this 2nd day of June 2016, at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Committee of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES: MEMBERS: Chair Gong, Paulsen
NOES: 1VIEIVIBERS: none
A�STAIlV:: MElVIBERS: none
ABSENT: 1VIElV1BEI�S: none
ATTEST: APPROVED: ,
/s/Erick Serrano /s/Nlargaret Gon�
Erick Serrano 1Vlargaret Gong, Chair
Associate Planner I�esign I�eview Committee
;
�������� ���'�� � ��� �� �� � ���� � �
1t�����`f��2��,�E. _
�����T��f�,�������
;
aa SET EACK FROM
�A� TOP OF ROPERTI'"LME
� $,_0�� 1�'-0".
� !__________.�____�_____ �_________ �.��.
3s,_s„ �2,_0»
I
r � �
I s��
____�-
I
GARAGE f �
E y�-�»
� 34'-�"
J '
(N)6'HIGH FENtE
� � WOQD'IYPE:REDWOOD
� Hous� � �
f
� I � �
! �
f �
I �
�RlVEWAY .�.._..._.._.._............d.� (
� �
� !
� '
I ( �
� ( �
� � � � t 5'-0"
��� � �_ ._______-----.----_...e____ _._______
(E�12`�:CE�AR �
7REE TO REMAIN �
18'-0"
�
dOlS
� ��
� �
� 5�-� �
22.45' (E}2�t"�CEDAR
TREE TO REMAIN
, (N)6 HIGH FENCE l�9
WRAPS AROUiVD TO SIOE OF NOUSE
WOOD TYPE:REDWOOD
. � �-�l����
�a���;��L ��,;� � �-
�� ������_.��� ������ a p
��o��e�����E��i e`'3�15�E.���
��-t�;a� �`— —/�
��r a�:,,..rt .,..�:�-�..•...�_..��:�., �.��m��. .—.�...������.�
a�M�t�a�:3
�" °
"�'i`z -i(1�is� .
� 4 3. K u l:,,u a��.la a e9 �,:,.���-',�ra'�sa . . � .
_.�' nu�ue�.,c.r.-,,....�an=a::;�:.cc.�- .._ .�.r .
� z t a
��'���a�.n �°z„�.�a�.���'
SG4iE=8/16"='1'-0"