8.24.2026 ASCC Public Comments

1 From: Drew Mabardy Date: Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 10:56 AM Subject: 10 Tagus Court – Comments Regarding My Parents’ Fence Application To: Dear Mr. Rivera, Please provide the following comments to the ASCC for consideration regarding my parents’ fence application. Dear Members of the Architectural and Site Control Commission: I am writing in support of my parents’ proposed fence permit. I live in Menlo Park but spend a great deal of time at their home and am very familiar with the property and the area where the fence would be located. I am familiar with the physical relationship between the home, the property line, the neighboring properties, and the proposed fence location. In my view, placing the fence five feet inside the property line is a very reasonable setback and leaves meaningful separation between the fence and neighbor’s property. I also know firsthand how important privacy and security at the property are to my parents. The proposed fence would provide a normal residential boundary while still being located well within their own property. I have watched my parents work through this process for several years. I have seen the changes they have made to the proposal and their continuing efforts to address concerns and find a reasonable solution. Moving the fence five feet inside their property represents a significant compromise. I would respectfully note that the Town has never stated what distance it considers necessary. My parents have revised their plans to address the concerns raised, but without a defined standard, they have been asked to meet a requirement that was never articulated. The five-foot setback was arrived at in good faith as a substantial and practical compromise. Based on the time I spend at the property and my familiarity with the proposed fence area, I believe the proposed five-foot setback is a reasonable and practical location for the fence. After the amount of time and effort that has gone into reaching this proposal, I respectfully ask the Commission to approve the permit and allow the project to move forward. A decision at this point would bring closure for everyone involved and allow all parties, including my parents, the secure use and enjoyment of their property. Sincerely, Andrew Mabardy Jr -- {Redacted Address} The Law Offices of Mark Ruiz 260 Main Street Suite 207 Redwood City, CA 94063 650-771-0376 August 21, 2026 SUBJECT: Public Comment: Opposition to Renewed Fence Application (10 Tagus Court) Dear Members of the Architectural and Site Control Commission: I represent Herbert Schilling, a homeowner at 18 Tagus Court. We respectfully submit this letter in advance of the August 24, 2026 hearing regarding the renewed application for a six-foot wood post and wire fence at 10 Tagus Court. The August 24 staff report recommends approval and describes the current proposal as a six-foot fence set back approximately five feet from the shared property line. Although the increased setback represents movement from the applicant’s earlier proposal, it does not resolve the site-specific concerns that have been before the Commission since 2023. I. The Fundamental Concerns Identified in Prior Proceedings Remain Unresolved This matter has been before the ASCC since 2023. During the 2023 proceedings, Commissioners questioned whether the proposed fence was consistent with the Town’s principles concerning open space and shared scenic resources, expressed concern regarding wildlife movement, and objected to locating a six-foot fence immediately adjacent to the outdoor living areas at 18 Tagus Court. The present proposal moves the fence somewhat, but it does not eliminate those fundamental impacts. The proposed location remains in close proximity to the homeowners’ decks and primary outdoor living and entertaining areas. Replacing the existing open and landscaped condition with a six-foot wood post and wire fence would materially alter the character, views, and enjoyment of this portion of their property. The fact that the fence may technically be placed several feet from the property line does not resolve the site-specific impact created by its height, material, and location. II. The Homeowners Have Negotiated in Good Faith and Offered a Less Intrusive Alternative Following the Commission’s direction that the neighbors attempt to reach an agreement, the homeowners at 18 Tagus Court participated in several rounds of negotiations in an effort to reach a mutually acceptable resolution. Those discussions resulted in material movement from the parties’ original positions. Importantly, the homeowners ultimately proposed a four-foot decorative, three-rail fence without woven wire, located no closer than five feet from the shared property line. Thus, the homeowners did agree to consider fencing at the same five-foot setback now proposed by the applicant. The remaining material disagreement concerned the height, design, and resulting impact of a six-foot wood-post and wire fence. Although counsel’s involvement in the negotiations concluded at that stage, the homeowners did not terminate further discussions and remained willing to receive further written communications through a designated point of contact. Ultimately, the parties were unable to reach agreement regarding the proposed fence. The parties’ written negotiation correspondence is available for the Commission’s review upon request. III. Technical Compliance Does Not Resolve the Required Fence Principles Portola Valley Municipal Code Section 18.43.010 requires the Commission to consider the Town’s open-space tradition, preservation of shared scenic resources, wildlife movement and views, and the natural and rural character of the Town. The staff report addresses these principles, but its own analysis identifies concerns that warrant closer scrutiny before approval. Most notably, the staff report acknowledges that the proposed fence will limit wildlife access to the rear yard from Tagus Court, but concludes that wildlife may continue to access the property from the north. Respectfully, the existence of a potential alternative route does not fully address the Town’s stated principle concerning wildlife movement. The existing open area between 10 and 18 Tagus Court presently provides a relatively unobstructed passage between the properties. A six-foot wood-post and wire fence would materially alter that existing condition and further constrain movement through this portion of the site. This concern is particularly relevant because a substantially less intrusive alternative is available. The homeowners proposed a four-foot, visually open three-rail fence without woven wire at the same five-foot setback, which would allow the applicant to define the property boundary while substantially reducing the barrier to wildlife movement. The same concern applies to the principle that fencing should be used sparingly. The staff report characterizes the proposal as a minor expansion of an enclosure while also recognizing existing fencing around the residence. Adding another six-foot wood-post and wire segment along this presently open boundary would materially increase the sense of enclosure between the properties. Existing vegetation already provides substantial screening, while a lower, visually open fence would define the boundary with substantially less impact on the open character of the area. IV. The Commission Should Give Meaningful Weight to the Less Intrusive Alternative The issue before the Commission is not whether the applicant may define the southern boundary of 10 Tagus Court. The homeowners at 18 Tagus Court have proposed alternatives that would accomplish that objective with a lower and more visually open design. The question is whether a six-foot wood-post and wire fence at approximately five feet from the property line is necessary and consistent with the Town’s fence principles when a materially less intrusive means of defining the boundary is available. The history of this matter also warrants finality. The Commission has already devoted substantial time to the dispute and specifically directed the parties to negotiate. They did so, including through counsel. The homeowners at 18 Tagus Court made meaningful concessions. The applicant has now returned to the Commission seeking approval of substantially the same six- foot fence with revised alignment and setback. Modest revisions should not substitute for resolving the underlying concerns that have persisted throughout the Commission’s consideration of this matter. V. Request for Relief For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Commission deny the proposed six-foot wood- post and wire fence in the disputed southern-boundary area. In the alternative, if the Commission is inclined to permit additional fencing, we respectfully request that it impose conditions requiring a lower, visually open design and an alignment that better preserves the existing open corridor, wildlife movement, and separation from the outdoor living areas at 18 Tagus Court. After three years of proceedings and substantial efforts at compromise, the homeowners at 18 Tagus Court respectfully ask the Commission to bring this matter to a final resolution consistent with the principles of Section 18.43.010. Respectfully submitted, Mark A. Ruiz, Attorney for Herbert Schilling August 24, 2026 Via email: rrivera@goodcityco.com Architectural and Site Control Commission Town of Portola Valley 765 Portola Road Portola Valley, California 94028 RE: 10 Tagus Court Fence Permit; File No. PLN_FNCE0002-2023: Response to August 21, 2026 Public Comment from Residents of 18 Tagus Court Dear Chair Breen and Members of the Commission: On behalf of Andy and Melody Mabardy, the owners of 10 Tagus Court and the Applicant for this fence permit, we submit this response to the August 21, 2026 letter from Mark Ruiz, counsel for the owner of 18 Tagus Court (Comment Letter). The Applicant respectfully requests that the Commission approve the pending fence permit in accordance with the staff recommendation. The current proposal is the product of substantial revisions and more than three years of efforts to address the concerns raised by 18 Tagus Court as well as the direction received by ASCC. It places the fence five feet inside the Applicant’s property, removes the previously proposed segment that would have been visible from Tagus Court, follows the property-line alignment, and uses visually permeable wood-post-and-wire construction. Town staff has concluded that the proposal complies with the applicable fence requirements and is consistent with each of the principles in Portola Valley Municipal Code (PVMC) Section 18.43.010. The Comment Letter does not identify any applicable requirement that the proposal fails to satisfy. Indeed the Comment Letter indicates that the neighbors at 18 Tagus agree to the five-foot setback. It instead argues that 18 Tagus prefers a different fence—one that is only four feet high and consists of three rails without woven wire. The design proposed now by 18 Tagus is materially different from Applicant’s proposal and would not provide a comparable enclosure or serve the same functional purposes. In addition, the design proposed by 18 Tagus does not meet several of the principles outline in PVMC Section 18.43.010 as it is not the least visually obtrusive design. This is the same design that 18 Tagus had also previously argued was too visible when proposed for the portion of the fence that faces Tagus Court. 10 Tagus Court Fence Permit PLN_FNCE0002-2023 August 24, 2026 Page 2 of 6 1. The Commission Has Not Previously Found the Proposed Fence Inconsistent with the Town’s Fence Principles The Comment Letter states that the “fundamental concerns identified in prior proceedings remain unresolved.” That characterization