Attachment 5 - September 13, 2017 Desk Item and Exhibit 13TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 09/13/2017
ITEM NO: 2
DESK ITEM
DATE: SEPTEMBER 13, 2017
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: TOWN CODE AMENDMENT APPLICATION A-17-002. PROJECT LOCATION:
TOWN WIDE. APPLICANT: TOWN OF LOS GATOS.
CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 29 (ZONING REGULATIONS) OF
THE TOWN CODE REGARDING FENCES, HEDGES, AND WALLS.
REMARKS:
The attached public comments (Exhibit 13) were received after distribution of the staff report
and addendum for this meeting.
EXHIBITS:
Previously received with July 26, 2017 Staff Report:
1. Findings
2. Ordinance Priorities Memorandum dated February 12, 2017, from Robert Shultz, Town
Attorney
3. Draft Amendments to Chapter 29 of Town Code
4. General Plan Policies and Actions pertaining to Fences, wildlife habitats, and migration
corridors
5. Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines pertaining to fences
6. Public Comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, July 21, 2017
Previously received with July 26, 2017 Desk Item:
7. Public Comment received between 11:01, Friday, July 21, 2017, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday,
July 26, 2017
PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 • 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov
ATTACHMENT 5
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS THE TOWN CODE REGARDING FENCES, HEDGES,
AND WALLS. TOWN CODE AMENDMENT/A-17-002
SEPTEMBER 13, 2017
Previously received with September 13, 2017 Staff Report:
8. Revised Draft Amendments to Chapter 29 of the Town Code
9. Neighboring Jurisdictions Fencing Regulations
10. Public Comments received between 11:01, Wednesday, July 26, 2017 and 11:00 a.m.,
Friday, September 8, 2017
Previously received with September 13, 2017 Addendum:
11. July 26, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (38 pages)
12. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m. Friday, September 8, 2017 and 11:00 a.m.
Tuesday, September 12, 2017
Received with this Desk Item:
13. Public Comment received between 11:01, Tuesday, September 12, 2017, and 11:00 a.m.,
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Fences Amendments 09-13-17 DESK.docx 9/13/2017 11:45 AM
From: kdeloumi [mailto:kdeloumi@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 8:58 PM
To: Council
Subject: Proposed fence ordinance input
Please consider modifying or adding to whatever ordnance or existing ordinance is to be altered
the following:
Restrict building of fencing across watersheds and creeks. whether dry or wet during dry season.
My reason-
- These are natural highways, food supplies and habitat for our deer etc... I have seen over the
years people building fences across these watersheds and waterways, blocking off natural habitat
little by little, over and over.
- I have also seen people building these fences and not maintaining growth over time they
backing up the flow of water causing issues for those upstream and alter of the water flow and
actual waterway layout /infrastructure.
I find it sad as natural pathways are slowly cut off one house at a time. However a standard 30ft
ordinance does not seem fitting as each property is unique and should be addressed against
guidelines that take into consideration the lay of the land and other factors. It's a nice idea but it
needs great revamping. 30ft seems unreasonable.
I find the fencing off of waterway and watershed sad and unnecessary as fencing can easily be
built along the waterway or dry watershed allowing the homeowner to close off their yard but
still leaving access for wildlife. I was dumbfounded when I had an issue of my own and found
that there is not anything in the town code that staff can use to remove fencing across these
various waterways. All they can do he is talk to those who put up fences and put them on notice
if they do not maintain the growth. Unfortunately not old neighbors are so neighborly when these
issues come up. It becomes the neighbor upstream being affected by the neighbor downstreams
maintenance abilities . The neighbor Upstream has no legal authority to touch the fence or easy
access to deal with in an emergency. There should be some town code that makes the situation
easier to remedy. It took working with the town who would that time was hiring contractors in
this area and then a few more changes of staff before my situation got some what resolved. I had
to beg for an email to be sent to me noting that if there was a problem the town has the authority
to cut open the fence. If I didn't push for that I would have gotten nothing. It took over 2 years to
remedy as many of the neighbors involved chose to ignore request when the town tried to do it
by talking to individuals. Those with the fences were far from the creek. My house is built very
close to the creek so I was getting the Major Impact in those with the control of the fencing had
no impact at all in perspective.
Thank you for listening. I prefer those on the Planning Commission not read my letter out loud
but take into consideration the frustrations and anguish I went through dealing with my specific
issue. I felt this was the appropriate time to give feedback as it is clearly related. I am in town
limits and not sure if this ordinance applies to my property or not as I did not receive this notice
but saw talked about on Nextdoor.
EXHIBIT 13
Level of frustration and anguish was quite high and was completely unnecessary. If an ordinance
that existed it could have been cleared up quite quickly. A little bit more definition on fencing -
across- watersheds whether wet or dry during the summer would be greatly appreciated.
Karen
Sent via mobile device.
David R. Fox & Company
Landscape A r c h i t e c t u r e
50 university avenue. #b142 • los gatos, californio 95030
office: 408.354.4577 • email: david@foxla.net
Comments re: Proposed fencing restrictions
Commissioners,
My name is David Fox and I am a practicing landscape architect with my office in town. The majority of
my practice revolves around the design and construction of landscapes for hillside homes in Los Gatos,
Monte Sereno, and Saratoga.
In regards to fencing I find that my client have their greatest concerns in three areas:
Security: From both two legged and four legged predators. Protecting their family and property.
Containment: Most of clients have children, many of them young children. There is a strong desire to
provide a safe area for their children to play in outside the home that will allow for general play and
sports activities. Just keeping a ball from rolling all the way down the hill becomes important in day to
day life.
Safety: Keeping the dog in the lot. Keeping the kids from rolling all the way down the hill. Keeping the
children and pets away from the street and on the property. And separating those that use the yard
from animals that can be aggressive and destructive.
There are four exhibits.
Exhibit A shows that even a modest outdoor design proposal that takes up a very small percentage of
the yard could not be fenced under the current proposed standard.
Exhibit B shows the current scenic easement overlay on the example lot which is part of the Highlands
of Los Gatos subdivision. This approach could be done on any future subdivision proposed in the town
and would provide linked space throughout the development. At the Highlands the scenic easements
were roughly based on the LRDA of the lot.
Exhibit C shows what designated setbacks for fences would look like and this could be applied to any
hillside lot in town. For lots with existing fences the standard could be written such that any proposed
development that requires planning approval would require that the existing fences be brought to the
designated setbacks.
Exhibit D illustrates setting the fences back a designated distance from the approved landscape
development on the property. This would create a yard and still leave the vast majority of the lot open.
The designated setback could be anywhere from 30' to 50' (40' is shown in the exhibit) and still keep
large open areas on most hillside lots. On lots where this would interfere with established easements or
other considerations, the staff could work with the applicant on the final fence line.
I believe that any of these proposals achieve the aim of keeping the hillside properties with open space
and wildlife corridors and still provide the owners of these properties areas that are contained and can
provide security and safety for their families and pets.
/
/
I
•
•.
�•
•
•
ti
\/Property line
\
•
••
This area is 1.9% of the total lot area
and even this modest proposal could
not be fenced under the proposed rule.
etaining walls allowed under grading policy
/
/
/
/
/
/
30' offset from house
•
•
etaining walls allowed under grading policy •
roperty line
Scenic Easement vs. 30' Offset from house - Exhibit A
Scale 1 "=40'
• i.
•
•
•:1
•
Notes:
This is an actual lot in the Highlands of Los Gatos
subdivision.
This exhibit shows a modest proposal for a rear yard
development. In this design the retaining walls conform
to the grading policy and provide space for a covered
are that includes an outdoor kitchen, a dining space and
a seating area. The other design element shown is a
small area with a fire pit and seating.
As noted this area represents less that 2% of the total
yard area and yet could not be fenced in under the
current proposed rule. The design is certainly not
overpowering for the available lot space, has been kept
close to the house and conforms with the existing rules
of the Hillside standards. For a proposed area as small
as this it does not seem reasonable that it could not be
fenced.
I would also point out that, depending on the shape of
the house, the fence areas that are created can cut off
areas that would normally be allowed for use under the
current standards.
••
•
•'
•
r..g
0 L l
Property line
Scenic Easement vs. 30' Offset from house - Exhibit B
Property line
i•
i/Existing Scenic Easement line
•
Scale 1"=40'
•
Notes:
The existing scenic easement on this lot leaves the
majority of the lot open and would still provide the
owner with an area of the property that could be used
for play, pet exercise, and a greater measure of security
and containment. The open areas are wide and outside
of the easement the CC&R's of the PD do not allow any
kind of structure or development including fences.
Basing the fence setbacks on the property line rather
than the house seems like a reasonable approach to
ensure that there is open space that still leaves a
useable portion of the lot for the owner.
The area wihtin the easement represents 45% of the total lot area
leaving 55% of the lot open and not fenced. There is plenty of room
on all sides of the property for any wildlife movement and the fences
are well setback from any of the property lines
Property line
-40' offset from
approved development
•
roperty line
Designated Offset from Approved Development - Exhibit D
•�
•. 1
Scale 1"=40'
Notes:
An alternative to measuring from the property line could
be to measure from the outside of any approved
development on the lot.
This would provide additional space for the owner
outside the areas used for outdoor living and provide a
yard area for pets and children that would provide
security and containment.
The vast majority of the lot is open and unrestricted.
.•
\
/
/ .•
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
•
•
•
•
1
•
•
\ /Property line
N.
..
.t
30' offset from
approved development
/
/
/
/
/
30' Offset from Approved Development - Exhibit D
/
/
/
Property line
•
•.
•
Scale 1 "=40'
•
2•
Notes:
An alternative to measuring from the property line could
be to measure from the outside of any approved
development on the lot.
This would provide additional space for the owner
outside the areas used for outdoor living and provide a
yard area for pets and children that would provide
security and containment.
The vast majority of the lot is open and unrestricted.
This P lige
Mten tiondly
Leal 1L/ank