Attachment 7PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Community Development Director, Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
POLICY COMMITTEE REPORT
MEETING DATE: 11/15/2018
ITEM NO: 4
DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2018
TO: POLICY COMMITTEE
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER 6 (BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS) AND CHAPTER 29
(ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE TOWN CODE REGARDING FENCES,
HEDGES, AND WALLS.
RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss proposed amendments to Chapters 6 and 29 of the Town Code regarding fe nces,
hedges, and walls and provide direction to staff for next steps.
BACKGROUND:
On January 31, 2017, the Town Council held a Study Session to identify strategic priorities for
fiscal years 2017-2019. David Weissman requested that an Ordinance amendment regarding
fences in the Hillside Areas of the Town be set as a strategic priority. At the Study Session, four
Councilmembers identified hillside fences as a strategic priority.
The goals identified for amendments to the Town Code regarding hillside fences were:
•Make certain that fences do not interfere with wildlife corridors;
•Ensure fences do not impede movement of wildlife;
•Define an “open fence” as one that permits all animals, depending on their size, to
either climb under, pass through, or jump over, regardless of the fence’s location
relative to the side, front, or rear yards;
•Specify that the installation of chicken wire, wire mesh, chain link, etc., over open slat
fences, is not considered animal-movement friendly; and
ATTACHMENT 7
PAGE 2 OF 6
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN CODE REGARDING FENCES, HEDGES,
AND WALLS/A-17-002
DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2018
N:\MGR\AdminWorkFiles\Council Committee - POLICY\2018\11.15.18\Item 4 - Fences Hedges Walls - Staff Report.docx
BACKGROUND (continued):
• Clarify that the requirements for fences apply to all hillside fences, not just to fences
associated with Architecture and Site applications.
In March 2017, David Weissman and Lee Quintana sent staff a draft Ordinance. Staff met with
Dr. Weissman and Ms. Quintana in May and June of 2017 to discuss the proposed amendments.
The Planning Commission reviewed a draft Ordinance on July 26 , 2017, and September 13,
2017, ultimately approving a motion to forward the draft Ordinance to the Town Council for
consideration without an up or down vote with consideration of comments from
Commissioners and the public.
On December 5, 2017, the Town Council considered a draft Ordinance and during public
testimony, Dr. Weissman suggested alternative Ordinance language addressing concerns heard
from the Council and the public. The Council discussed the draft Ordinance and the alternative
language. Following the discussion, the Council continued the matter to a date uncertain
pending the outcome of the Strategic Priorities session, including the prioritization of this
Ordinance and consideration of a Wildlife Corridor Study; and to evaluate input from Council
and the public to determine if a compromise is possible.
On February 20, 2018, the Town Council adopted Strategic Priorities for 2018 – 2020, which
included continuing work on Strategic Priorities that were already in progress, including fences
in the hillside area. A Wildlife Corridor Study was not included as a Strategic Priority.
Following the Town Council meetings of December 5, 2017, and February 20, 2018, staff
worked in an iterative process with two members of the public. On December 31, 2017, Dr.
Weissman submitted revised Ordinance language to staff in response to the feedback received
from the Council. In January and May of 2018, staff met with Dr. Weissman and Peter
Donnelly, a community member who had expressed concern with the draft Ordinance
presented to the Council on December 5, 2017. Additionally, staff reviewed and provided
feedback on four drafts of revised Ordinance language proposed by community members
through July 2018. The resulting draft Ordinance was considered by the Town Council at the
October 16, 2018 meeting, at which time a motion was approved to continue the matter to
December 4, 2018, and forward the draft hillside fence amendments to the Town Council Policy
Committee for consideration of the following:
• Appropriate property size;
• Breakdown by zone versus property size;
• Appropriate materials;
• Number of properties the Ordinance would affect;
• Noticing requirements;
PAGE 3 OF 6
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN CODE REGARDING FENCES, HEDGES,
AND WALLS/A-17-002
DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2018
N:\MGR\AdminWorkFiles\Council Committee - POLICY\2018\11.15.18\Item 4 - Fences Hedges Walls - Staff Report.docx
BACKGROUND (continued):
• Additional input from other groups; and
• Review of Ordinances in similar jurisdictions.
Additionally, during public testimony, Lee Quintana expressed concerns with the Town Code
allowance of six-foot tall fencing and gates in the front yards of properties and requested that
the Town Council Policy Committee consider whether this allowance is appropriate.
DISCUSSION:
The issues identified by the Council and Ms. Quintana are discussed below. Staff has prepared
several exhibits to assist in the Committee consideration of these matters (Attachments 2
through 13). Staff looks forward to the discussion and direction of the Committee.
Appropriate Property Size
The draft Ordinance (Attachment 1) separates hillside properties into two areas based on
property size: the unregulated fence area and the regulated fence area. For properties in
the hillside area that are less than or equal to one (1) acre, the unregulated fence area
extends to the property line. For properties greater than one (1) acre, the regulated fence
area is between the property line and the unregulated fence area (Attachment 2). The
width of this area is equivalent to the minimum required front, back, and side yards for the
property’s zone. Staff recognizes the difficulty in determining an appropriate property size
to begin including regulated fence area. Attachments 2 through 5 provide data to aid in the
discussion of appropriate property size.
Regulating by Zone versus Property Size
An early draft of the Ordinance utilized zoning designation as a basis for whether a hillside
property included regulated fence area. Staff identified an equity issue where properties of
similar size with different zoning would be regulated differently. The draft Ordinance wa s
revised to utilize property size instead of zoning as the basis for whether a hillside property
included regulated fence area to ensure equal application of zoning rules regarding fences.
Appropriate Materials
The draft Ordinance includes prohibited materials for the non-hillside properties as well as
the unregulated and regulated areas of hillside properties. Additionally, in response to
concerns expressed by the Committee for Green Foothills during the October 16, 2018
Town Council meeting, the Council directed staff to prohibit transparent fences such as
PAGE 4 OF 6
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN CODE REGARDING FENCES, HEDGES,
AND WALLS/A-17-002
DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2018
N:\MGR\AdminWorkFiles\Council Committee - POLICY\2018\11.15.18\Item 4 - Fences Hedges Walls - Staff Report.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
barriers of glass and clear plastic in the regulated area of hillside properties. The current
draft Ordinance reflects this direction.
Number of Properties the Ordinance Would affect
Under the draft Ordinance, properties greater than one (1) acre would include regulated
fence area (discussed above). As shown in the table below, the hillside area includes 1,429
properties that would be subject to the hillside fence regulations. Of these 1,429
properties, 726 (50.8 percent) are greater than one (1) acre and would be subject to the
rules of the regulated and unregulated area; 703 properties (49.2 percent) are one (1) acre
or less and would only be subject to the rules of the unregulated area under the draft
Ordinance (Attachment 3). Attachment 4 includes examples of the percent of a property
that would be regulated.
Hillside Area Lots
Zone Lots
HR 939
HR-Prezone 201
R-1 289
TOTAL 1,429
Noticing requirements
The draft Ordinance separates hillside properties into two areas: the unregulated fence area
and the regulated fence area. Under the draft Ordinance, all fencing in the regulated fence
area would require a Planning permit. The primary objectives for requiring a Planning
permit in the regulated fence area are to ensure that fencing adheres to the draft
Ordinance and to allow for neighbor notification. Neighbor noticing requirements would be
consistent with those for Minor Residential Development permits, which requires that
notice be sent to immediately adjacent neighbors (Attachment 6). Given the noticing
requirements of the draft Ordinance, permits could not be processed over-the-counter.
Additional input from other groups
Staff contacted the following organizations and requested input on the current draft
Ordinance:
• Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIASCV);
• Santa Clara County Association of Realtors (SCCAR);
PAGE 5 OF 6
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN CODE REGARDING FENCES, HEDGES,
AND WALLS/A-17-002
DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2018
N:\MGR\AdminWorkFiles\Council Committee - POLICY\2018\11.15.18\Item 4 - Fences Hedges Walls - Staff Report.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
• Silicon Valley Association of Realtors (SILVAR);
• The Committee for Green Foothills;
• Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society;
• Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter; and
• Architects and other professionals that regularly work in the Town.
In addition to reaching out to professional organizations, staff requested public input
through the following media and social media resources:
• A poster posted at the Planning counter at Town Hall and the Library;
• On the Town’s website home page and the “What’s New” Friday email blast;
• On the Town’s Facebook page;
• On the Town’s Twitter account;
• On the Town’s Instagram account; and
• On the Town’s NextDoor page.
All feedback received by 11:00 a.m. on November 9, 2018 is included in Attachment 13.
Review of Ordinances in similar jurisdictions
Attachment 7 includes fence regulations for the following hillside communities to aid in the
discussion of the Committee:
• Saratoga
• Los Altos Hills
• Portola Valley
• Woodside
Front yard fence heights
In addition to hillside fence regulations, the topic of fence and gate heights along the front
property line of non-hillside properties was discussed at the Town Council meeting on
October 16, 2018. Recently, several residents have contacted staff to inquire about these
regulations, expressing safety concerns with tall fencing along the front property line
related to sight lines. The current and draft Ordinance allows six-foot tall fencing along all
property lines of non-hillside properties but does limit the height of fencing on corner
properties and properties within a defined distance of an intersection (Attachment 8). The
intent of these limitations is to provide sight lines for vehicles approaching a corner or
intersection. The current and draft Ordinance does not address the impacts to sight lines
PAGE 6 OF 6
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN CODE REGARDING FENCES, HEDGES,
AND WALLS/A-17-002
DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2018
N:\MGR\AdminWorkFiles\Council Committee - POLICY\2018\11.15.18\Item 4 - Fences Hedges Walls - Staff Report.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
on vehicles exiting a driveway outside of these restricted areas. A six-foot tall fence at the
front property line can significantly reduce sight distance from a driveway as a vehicle
crosses a sidewalk and/or enters a street. Additionally, a tall fence along a front property
line can impact the character of a neighborhood. Attachment 9 includes a summary of the
regulations for fence heights in front yards for the following jurisdictions.
• Atherton
• Campbell
• Cupertino
• Los Altos
• Los Altos Hills
• Milpitas
• Monte Sereno
• Mountain View
• Palo Alto
• Portola Valley
• San Jose
• Santa Clara
• Santa Clara County
• Saratoga
• Sunnyvale
• Woodside
CONCLUSION:
Staff looks forward to the discussion and direction of the Committee for next steps.
COORDINATION:
The preparation of this report was coordinated with the Town Manager’s Office.
Attachments received with this Staff Report:
1. Draft Ordinance Amending Town Code Chapter 6 and Chapter 29
2. Regulated Fence Area Exhibit
3. Maps Showing Distribution of Properties in the Hillside Area by Size
4. Impact of Proposed Ordinance Versus Lot Size Calculations
5. Scatter Plot of Property Sizes by Zone in Hillside Area
6. Noticing Requirements for Minor Residential Development Applications
7. Fence Regulations from Nearby Hillside Communities
8. Sight Triangle and Traffic View Area
9. Summary of Front Yard Fence Height Regulations of Area Jurisdictions
10. Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Pertaining to Fences
11. General Plan Policies and Actions Pertaining to Fences, Wildlife Habitats, and Migration
Corridors
12. Wildlife-Friendly Fence Exhibit
13. Comprehensive Public Comments, from July 26, 2017 through 11:00 a.m. o n November 9,
2018
Draft Amendments to Chapters 6 and 29 of Town Code – Hillside Fences
Page 1 of 6 Draft 11/05/18
Sec. 6.150.050. - Work exempt from permit.
CRC Section R105.2 Work exempt from permit.
Building: Item 2. is amended to read:
2. Fences not over 7 feet high.
(Ord. No. 2257 , § I, 11-15-16)
Sec. 29.40.030. Fences, walls, gates, gateways, entry arbors, and hedges.
Sec. 29.40.031. Purpose and intent.
The purpose of this Ordinance is to codify regulations for fences in all residential zones. This Ordinance
is divided into two parts: non-hillside and hillside areas. The use of fences, walls, gates, gateways, entry
arbors, and hedges in the hillside areas shall be minimized and located so that natural landforms appear
to flow together and are not disconnected. The primary emphasis shall be on maintaining open views;
protecting wildlife corridors and habitat connectivity; and maintaining the rural, open, and natural
character of the hillsides. Additional details are available in the Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines.
Sec. 29.40.032. Definitions.
The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the meanings ascribed to
them in this section.
Fence means a man-made structure serving as a barrier or screen.
Fence height shall be measured from finished grade and shall be measured from either side of the
property line which affords affected property owners the most buffering from noise, light, glare, or
privacy impacts.
Hedge means a boundary formed by closely growing bushes or shrubs.
Hillside lot means a parcel of land subject to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines as
shown on the Hillside Area Map in the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines regardless of
zoning district.
Movement corridor means a movement pathway that is typically independent of season and used by
animals on a near daily basis for the acquisition of food, shelter, water, or mates.
Open-view design means a fence or other structure that permits views through it.
Planting Zone 1 means that area within a 30-foot radius of the primary dwelling unit on a hillside lot.
Regulated fence area (which only applies to parcels greater than one (1) acre) means that area between
the property line and the unregulated fence area. The width of this area is equivalent to the minimum
required yards for the HR zones listed in Sec. 29.40.270.
Retaining wall means a man-made structure designed to retain soil.
Riparian corridor means an area comprised of habitat strongly influenced and delineated by the
presence of perennial or intermittent streams.
ATTACHMENT 1
Draft Amendments to Chapters 6 and 29 of Town Code – Hillside Fences
Page 2 of 6 Draft 11/05/18
Stream means a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel
having banks. The body of water may include watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that
supports or has supported riparian vegetation, fish, or aquatic life.
Top of bank means a stream boundary where a majority of normal discharges and channel forming
activities take place. The top of bank will contain the active channel, active floodplain, and their
associated banks. Where there are no distinguishable features to locate the top of bank, the local
permitting agency will make a determination and document as appropriate. In the absence of this
determination, the 100-year water surface will be used.
Traffic view area means that area, on corner lots, which is within fifteen (15) feet of a public street and
within two hundred (200) feet of the right-of-way line of an intersection, or a distance of thirty (30) feet
measured horizontally in any direction from the point of intersection of the property lines at street
corners.
Unregulated fence area is that area of a parcel between the primary residence and the regulated fence
area. The unregulated fence area plus the regulated fence area constitutes the entire parcel. For lots in
the hillside area that are less than or equal to one (1) acre, the unregulated fence area extends to the
property line.
Wall means a man-made structure that defines an area, carries a load, or provides shelter or security.
Wildlife-friendly fence means a fence or other structure that permits any animal, regardless of size, to
easily climb under, pass through, or jump over. A wildlife-friendly fence shall not exceed forty-two (42)
inches in height above natural grade. A split-rail fence shall be constructed of wood and be at least fifty
(50) percent open in design. The minimum height above grade for the bottom rail shall be sixteen (16)
inches and shall have spacing between rails of at least twelve (12) inches wherever feasible.
Sec. 29.40.033. Non-hillside residential lots: Fences, walls, gates, gateways, entry arbors, and hedges.
(a)Height. In residential zones outside of the hillside area, a permit is not required for the repair,
replacement, or construction of gateways, entry arbors, or hedges that are no more than six (6)
feet high; or fences, walls, or gates that are no more than six (6) feet high, with one (1) foot of
lattice on top (seven (7) feet high in total), and within all property lines.
(b)Exceptions to height. The following height exceptions shall apply:
(1)Corner lot. In a traffic view area, no corner lot or premises in the Town shall have any
fence, wall, gate, gateway, entry arbor, or hedge higher than three (3) feet above the curb
unless permission is secured from the Town Engineer.
(2)Properties not on a street corner. At the discretion of the Director of Community
Development, 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 to the Planning Department that
demonstrates either of the following conditions exist:
a.A special privacy concern exists that cannot be practically addressed by additional
landscaping or tree screening.
b.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.
Draft Amendments to Chapters 6 and 29 of Town Code – Hillside Fences
Page 3 of 6 Draft 11/05/18
(3) Historic Districts and/or Landmark and Historic Preservation Overlay. The maximum height
of fences in the front yard shall be three (3) feet and shall be of open-view design except as
provided in subsection 29.40.033(b)(4).
(4) Gateways or entryway arbors. May be up to eight (8) feet high, including within Historic
Districts or for properties with a Landmark and Historic Preservation Overlay, and shall be
of open-view design. A gateway or entryway arbor shall have a maximum width of six (6)
feet and a maximum depth of four (4) feet. No more than one (1) gateway or entryway
arbor per street frontage is allowed.
(5) Adjacent to commercial property. Boundary line fences or walls adjacent to commercial
property may be eight (8) feet high if requested or agreed upon by a majority of the
adjacent residential property owners.
(c) Materials. The type of fencing materials within the non-hillside zone are generally unrestricted,
and fences can be a combination of materials, with the following exceptions:
(1) Plastic fencing is discouraged everywhere and is prohibited in Historic Districts.
(2) Barbed wire or razor ribbon wire is prohibited in all zones.
(d) Vehicular gates. Vehicular gates shall be setback a minimum of eighteen (18) feet as measured
along the driveway’s path of travel from the edge of the adjacent roadway to the gate(s) in the
open position.
Sec. 29.40.034. Hillside residential lots: Fences, walls, gates, gateways, entry arbors, and hedges.
This section applies to any new fence, wall, gate, gateway, entry arbor, or hedge, and the replacement,
modification, or repair of any existing fence, wall, gate, gateway, entry arbor, or hedge, whether the
primary dwelling unit is new or existing. Guiding principles come from the Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines, which state that the primary emphasis for hillside fences shall be on
maintaining open views; protecting wildlife corridors while allowing wildlife to pass through; and
maintaining the rural, open, and natural character of the hillsides. Deer fencing shall be limited to areas
around ornamental landscaping with larger areas not to be enclosed. For the purposes of this section,
hillside lots are divided into two areas – the unregulated fence area, in which minimal fence restrictions
are enforced; and the regulated fence area, which is regulated to be more wildlife-friendly.
(a) Unregulated Fence Area. Fences, or changes to existing fences within the unregulated fence
area of hillside lots, do not require a permit and are subject to Section 29.40.033, non-hillside
residential lots above, and the following standards:
(1) Height. Fence height is limited to six (6) feet high in total.
(2) Exceptions to height. The following height exceptions shall apply:
a. At the discretion of the Director of Community Development, deer fencing may be a
maximum of eight (8) feet high provided the property owner can provide written
justification to the Planning Department that demonstrates that the following
conditions exist:
i. The fencing would be limited to areas around ornamental landscaping; and
ii. A special wildlife/animal problem affects the property that cannot be
practically addressed through alternatives. Documented instances of wildlife
Draft Amendments to Chapters 6 and 29 of Town Code – Hillside Fences
Page 4 of 6 Draft 11/05/18
grazing on gardens or ornamental landscaping may be an example of such a
problem.
(3) Materials. Barbed wire or razor ribbon wire is prohibited in all zones.
(4) Siting. No fence, hedge, wall, or gate shall be constructed within a riparian corridor or
within thirty (30) feet of its top of bank.
(5) Hedges. All new hedges within the unregulated fence area and greater than thirty (30) feet
from the primary residence, are outside planting zone 1 and shall consist of only plant
species listed in Appendix A of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines.
(b) Regulated Fence Area. New or replacement fences within the regulated fence area on hillside
lots require a permit, which shall be posted on site during construction. Fences in the regulated
fence area are subject to the following standards:
(1) Height. Fences shall be wildlife friendly and shall not exceed forty-two (42) inches in height
above natural grade. A split-rail fence shall be constructed of wood and be at least 50
percent open in design. The minimum height above grade for the bottom rail shall be
sixteen (16) inches and shall have spacing between rails of at least twelve (12) inches
wherever feasible.
(2) Materials.
a. The following fence types and materials are not of wildlife-friendly design and are
therefore prohibited for new or replacement fences in the regulated fence area:
i. Chain-link, chicken wire, welded wire, wire mesh, cyclone, or similar fence
material.
ii. Buck and rail fences.
iii. Any fence with bare lengths of wire stretched between posts.
iv. Electric fences, including any fence designed to produce an electric shock.
v. Barbed or razor wire fences, including any fence with attached barbs, sharp
points, razors.
vi. Double fences.
vii. All hedges.
viii. Transparent fences such as barriers of glass or clear plastic.
(3) Siting.
a. Fences shall be located to follow natural contours, whenever possible.
b. Fences and walls shall be located to avoid impacts to trees.
c. No fence, hedge, wall, or gate shall be constructed within a riparian corridor or
within thirty (30) feet of its top of bank.
d. No fence, hedge, wall, or gate shall be constructed in the public or private right-of-
way or within any trail easement or other easement precluding their construction
unless allowed, in writing, by the Town Engineer.
e. Fencing located within twenty (20) feet of a property line adjacent to a street shall
be open-view design fencing.
(4) Walls.
Draft Amendments to Chapters 6 and 29 of Town Code – Hillside Fences
Page 5 of 6 Draft 11/05/18
a. Walls are prohibited unless needed for privacy as determined by the Director of
Community Development.
b. Town approved retaining walls are permitted.
(5) Gateways or entryway arbors. May be up to eight (8) feet high and shall be of open-view
design. A gateway or entryway arbor shall have a maximum width of six (6) feet and a
maximum depth of four (4) feet. No more than one gateway or entry arbor per street
frontage is allowed.
(6) Exemptions. All fences, hedges, gates, and walls existing when this Ordinance became
effective, are exempt from these conditions, except as described in (7) and (8) below.
(7) Repair. Repair of existing fences, walls, hedges or gates in the regulated fence area:
a. Does not require a permit.
b. Shall not convert a wildlife-friendly fence into a non-wildlife-friendly fence.
(8) Modifications. Modification of existing fences in the regulated fence area:
a. Requires a permit which shall be posted on site during construction.
b. Are encouraged if such changes improve wildlife movement or animal corridors.
c. Shall not impede animal movements and shall not convert a wildlife-friendly fence
into a non-wildlife-friendly fence; for example, wire mesh shall not be added to an
existing, animal-friendly, split-rail fence.
d. Replacement, repair, or modification of any fence, wall, hedge or gate shall be
prohibited if the Town Engineer determines that a public safety hazard exists.
(9) Exceptions.
a. A temporary (one to three years), animal excluding, protective circular enclosing
fence may be erected in regulated fence areas to protect a newly planted tree or
shrub, until established, when that plant species is listed in Appendix A of the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines
b. Security fencing required to protect a public utility installation.
c. Written exceptions may be granted when the Director of Community Development
finds that the strict application of these requirements will result in a significant
hardship for the property owner.
(10) Cost. The cost of the application review will be borne by the applicant through a deposit
pursuant to the adopted fee schedule.
(11) Notices. Noticing shall comply with the public noticing procedures of Section 29.20.480 of
the Town Code.
(12) Penalties. A property owner who has unlawfully constructed, replaced, or modified any
fence, wall, gate, gateway, entry arbor, or hedge without required approval, shall:
a. File the required Planning and Building Department applications and pay the
required fees as established by resolution for new applications and for work
unlawfully completed.
b. Be subject to a fine equal to double the cost of the permit, as determined by the
Director of Community Development.
c. Remove any prohibited fence, wall, gate, gateway, entry arbor, or hedge.
Draft Amendments to Chapters 6 and 29 of Town Code – Hillside Fences
Page 6 of 6 Draft 11/05/18
(c) Vehicular gates. Vehicular gates shall be setback a minimum of eighteen (18) feet as measured
along the driveway’s path of travel from the edge of the adjacent roadway to the gate(s) in the
open position.
(Ord. No.1316, § 4.10.020, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1493, 3-17-81; Ord. No. 1873, § I, 10-7-91; Ord. No. 2049, §
I, 10-5-98; Ord. No. 2062, § I, 6-21-99; Ord. No. XXXX, § )
Side Rear
30 ft
25 ft
20 ft 20 ft
Regulated Fence Area
Unregulated Fence
Unregulated and Regulated Fence Areas
Unregulated fence area is that area of a parcel between the primary residence and the regulated fence area.
The unregulated fence area plus the regulated fence area constitutes the entire parcel. For lots in the hillside
area that are less than or equal to one (1) acre, the unregulated fence area extends to the property line.
Regulated fence area (which only applies to parcels greater than one (1) acre) means that area between the
property line and the unregulated fence area. The width of this area is equivalent to the minimum required
yards for the HR zones listed in Sec. 29.40.270.
Lot size: up to 1 acre Property line Lot size: more than 1 acre
Front Side Property line ATTACHMENT 2
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Legend
Hillside Area
Lot Size
Residential Hillside Properties
< 1 acre
1 to 5 acres
5 to 10 acres
10 to 20 acres
20 to 60 acres
Hillside Area Lots by Size
ATTACHMENT 3
Legend
Hillside Area
Regulated vs. Unregulated Properties
Residential Hillside Properties
< 1 acre - Unregulated
> 1 acre - Regulated
Regulated vs. Unregulated Properties
Impact of Proposed Fence, Wall Hedge Ordinance
VS Lot Size
Lot Area Lot Area Property Regulated Regulated Unregulated Unregulated Unregulated
(Acres)(Sq Feet)Line Length*Area Area Area Area Area
(Feet)(Sq Feet)%(%)(Sq Feet)(Acres)
1 43,560 209 17,627 40%60%25,933 0.60
2 87,120 295 25,840 30%70%61,280 1.41
3 130,680 361 32,142 25%75%98,538 2.26
4 174,240 417 37,455 21%79%136,785 3.14
* Assumes square-shaped lot
ATTACHMENT 4
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Property Sizes by Zone in Hillside Area
** Parcels greater than 10 acres removed
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Lot Size -Acres1-Acre Break R-1 HR-1 HR-2.5 HR-5 HR-20
ATTACHMENT 5
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Sec. 29.20.480. - Administrative procedure for minor residential projects.
(1)This procedure is established for review of minor residential projects to provide for neighborhood
review in a timely and streamlined process. This process shall be used by the Planning Director for
projects listed in section 29.20.480(2) and by the Development Review Committee for reviewing
projects identified in subsections 29.20.745(12) and (15).
(a)An application and fee is submitted. In addition to the standar d application materials
(application and plans), the applicant will be required to submit one set of stamped, addressed
envelopes to neighboring residents and property owners. The Planning Department will assist
the applicant in determining the properties to be notified (all properties abutting the applicant's
parcel, properties directly across the street and the two parcels on each side of it).
(b)The deciding body reviews the application using the Town's Development Standards, as well
as the Town Code requirements.
(c)If the Planning Director intends to approve the application, a "Notice of Pending Approval" will
be mailed to neighboring residents and property owners including any applicable conditions,
exactions or dedications as required. The notic e will advise the residents and property owners
of the applicant's plans, and that the application will be approved unless there is an objection.
The residents and property owners have ten days from the date of the "Notice of Pending
Approval" in which to review the application and to notify the Planning Director in writing of any
concerns or problems.
(d)If a written objection to the project is not filed within the ten -day period, the application may be
approved. If a written objection is filed but the differences in opinion can be worked out to the
satisfaction of all objectors, then the application may also be approved. Once the zoning
approval is granted, a building permit may be applied for and issued, subject to the conditions of
the zoning approval.
(e)If an objection to the project is filed in a timely manner and the differences cannot be resolved
at the staff level, the application is scheduled before the Planning Commission on the next
available agenda for consideration at the applicant's cost. All property owners and residents
notified originally shall be notified of the Planning Commission meeting.
(f)If the Planning Director determines that the application cannot be approved because it does not
comply with the Town's Development Standards and the applicant is unwilling to revise the
plans, then the applicant will be required to file an Architecture and Site Application (including
the required fee) and the application shall be considered by the Planning Commission.
(2)In addition to the projects identified in subsections 29.20.745(12) and (15), the following projects will
be considered under this administrative procedure.
(a)New second-story additions to single and two-family dwellings.
(b)Additions to an existing second story where the additional area will exceed one hundred (100)
square feet.
(c)Reconstruction to a portion of a single or two-family dwelling or an accessory structure with a
nonconforming setback.
(d)Accessory structures exceeding a combined square footage of f our hundred fifty (450) square
feet.
(e)Additions to accessory structures resulting in the structures containing a combined square
footage more than four hundred fifty (450) square feet.
(f)Request to reduce side and rear yard setback requirements for accessor y structures.
(g)Sport court lighting and/or fencing over six (6) feet high enclosing court game areas.
(Ord. No. 1963, § IV, 11-15-93; Ord. No. 2100, § II, 7-1-02; Ord. No. 2149, § I, 5-1-06)
ATTACHMENT 6
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
CITY OFSARATOGA
FENCES
The maximum height of afence is three feet in the front setback.area and/or the exteriorside setback area of·a reversed corner lot.
Outside ofthe·front and.exteriorside setback areas,themax.imum heightofa solid.fence is six feet.An additional twofeet.·oflatnce(orsimilar
material) that is at least 25% open may be added to the top of a solid fence; outside of the front setbackarea. Likewise,. an open fence (e.g.; wrought
iron, split rail) rnay be l.lp to eight feet in height. outside of the front setback area. No slats: are allowed in the opening. With the exception of chain
link open fencing shall have an open diameter of at least four inches. For chain link fencing, the opening shall be two inches at minimum.
PILASTERS AND ATTACHED.ARBORS
Notwithstanding the rtdes tor driveway and street intersections, the maximum height of a pilaster is five feet in the front setback area and/orthe
exterior.side setback area ofareversed comer·Jot.
Notwithstanding the ntle$ for driveway and street intersections, you: may attach a,.trellis or arbor to your fe11ce, u.p to eight feet in height,· fiveJeet
wide,·and five feet deep.
VEHICLE ACCESS GATES
Wrought iron vehicle·access gates may be up·.to.five feet in height and must be located a. minimum of20 fe,et from the edge of street·pavement.
STREET AND.DRIVEWAY INTERSECTIONS
The maximum height ofa fence,·hedge, retaining·wall, entryway element,pilaster,,gate, or.other similar element is three feet within fifty feet froma
street intersection and/or Within twelve feet from a driveway intexsection. See diagrams on reverse
RETAINING·WALLS
The maximum height of a retaining wall in a front or exterior side setback area is three feet.
The maximum height of a retall'ling wall outside of a. front or exterior side setback area is five feet.
OTHER
Please review the·Fence Ordinancefor more information; including swimming Pool fences, fences on. heritage. lanes., fences in hillside districts,
fences along major. streets, and fence exceptions.
** Setbacks are deternlined by the zonin g district in which the property is located**
A building permit is required for any solid fence more than six feet in height
ATTACHMENT 7
Fences and Walls
Page.2
4. 10 Day Courte$y Notices: Courtesy Notices will be· sent by the Town to adjoining
prQperty owners when new and replacement fenc~s, gates, ot w~Us .~ propo~ed. 'Withm
10 feetof a shared .property boundary. Fence Permits that are compliant with Section 10~
1.507 will be ~pproved after IO calendar days.
5. Plans indicating landscaping or other measures proposed to screen the wall, fence, or
colw.nrts~
6. Feeof$440 (check or ca.shohly).
The Town has permit history · f.or many fots · :in the Town. If ~ou have . no: information . on ,Y'Our
property, -please comein and -see what is availabl~. YQu may review '.plan$ and Qtber infonnation
withQU1 an appoititment .. S11b.clivision fil~~' when available, will show _most easeme11t~<l other
legal aspects · of your property. Attached to this packet, please find the Zomng Ordinance Section
regardb1_g fentes·.and $etbraQks.
Fences and Walls
Page3
Los Altos Hills Municipal Code
Title 10-Zoning
Section 10-1.507; Fences, Walls, Gates, and Columns.
a. Pmpose. The following regulations were created to preserve the beauty and. open rural
quality of the Town while acknowlt!dging that residents have the right to fen9e their
properties in order to protect their children, contain their animals, and maintain privacy.
b. Pennits required. No fencet wal~, gate, or column structures.hall be erected or replaced
without the priodssuance of a zoning or site development permit from the Town.
c. Definitions. The following definitions are established for the purpose of this Article and
the tlleaning and cons®ction of words and phrases is as follows:
Legal Nonconfonning Structure: Refer to Section 10 .. 1.40 l(h) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Column: A round or square pillar, pole; or post. flanking. an entrance way· constructed of such
materials as brick, stone, concrete, or other materials. Includes mailbox columns.
Wall: An upright structure of wood, stone, brick, or other substance or combination of
substances serving to enclose, divide, or support and usually having greater mass than a fence.
Fence; A structure serving as a barrier or screen constructed .of wood, metal., wire, masonry,
glass, plastic or any other material (not including graded benns or living hedges).
Gate: A movable frame or solid structure that swings, slides, or rolls controlling ingress and
egress through an opening in a fence, wall, or vegetation.
Open Fence or Gate: A fence ot gate constructed in such a way so that no more than fifty (50%)
percent of the surface area obstructs a ground level view through the fence or gate. ·
Solid Fence or Gate: A fence or gate constructed in such a way so that more than fifty (50%)
percent ofthe surface area obstructs a .ground level view through the fence or gate.
d. Prohibited fences, walls; gates, columns types. The fo11owing fences are prohibited:
1. Chain-link or cyclone fenc.es, including any fence with bare lengths of wire
stretched between metal poles, with the exception of dark green, black, or brown
vinyl-coated chain-link fences with matching vinyl-coated cross bars and caps.
2. Barbed or razor wire fences, including any fence with attached barbs, sharp points,
or razors.
Fences and Walls
Page4
3. Electric fences, including any fence designed to produce an electric shock, except
where necess1P17 for animal husbandry operations.
4. Any fence, wall, and/or gate that may ca.use hann to people, petS 1 and/or wildlife
due to points, spikes, or sharpened edges on the top or bottom part of the fe11ce, wall
structure, and/or gates.
5. Any perimeter fence, wall, gate, or column where : ·the color reflectivity ·value
exceeds 50%.
6. Any fence,. wall, gate, or column located within a public or private road right .. of-
way or pathway easement except for a m~ilbox colu.mn with an approved penrut.
e. Fences, Walls, Oates, and Columns Requiring Public Notice. Pennit requests for the types
of fences, walls, gates and col~ id~ntified below require notification of adjacent
neighbors. and neighbors across the street:
(1) 'Fences, walls, gates and coluinns that require the removal of existing screening
vegetation (trees and shrubs).
(2) Solid fe:nces that impact neighbor views as defined by Section 5-9.02 of :the View
Ordinance.
(3) Any other proposal deern(Xi appropriate by the Planning Director for a noticed
heari11g. Such prpposals may include solid fences~ as well as walls or vinyl.;.coated
chain-]ink fences along any road right-of.;.way, and fences or walls longer than 1,000
line cir feet.
Open f~nces using natural materials and colors, including unpaint~ or stained white, brown or
gray wood;. welded or ·woven wire and wood posts; and natural stone and/or brick construction
are preferred and.generally are not subject to public notice.
Staff shall notice a· permit hearing and conduct the permit review bearing pursuant to Section I 0-
2.130S(b) ~xcept that only adjacent neighbors and neighbors across the street n~ to be notified.
At or prior to the pennit hearing, neighbors and the fence perrrrit applicant sha11 be provided . with
notice that the approval or denial of ariy pennit may be appealed pursuant to Section l 0-1.11 09.
f. Development Standards for Fences, Walls, Gates, and Columns.
1. Fences and walls located on property lines or in setback areas that are not adjacent to
a mad right-of-way shall not exceed a maximum height of 6 feet
2. Fences and walls located in setback areas that are adjacent to a road right-of .. way
shall comply with the standards established in subsection$ (4) through (9). Height
may be proportionately increa$ed 1 foot for every 10-foot increase in setback, up to a
maximum of 6 feet in height
Fences and Walls
Page7
fence shall be required to have at least two openings at 1<,astas wide as the width of the pathway
easement.
IO. Any fence crossing or intersecting an officialJy designated wildlife corridor shall confonn to
the requirements specified above for an open space/conservation easement perimeter fence.
11. No fence, wan, gate, or column shall be located within a public or private road right.of-way
or pathway ¢asement. A four-foot (4') taU mailbox post or column may be granted an
exception to be ·1ocated within a road right .. of ... way. An encroachtnent pennit from the
Engineering Department is required to install a mailbox post or column within a road
right-of-way easement. Any existing fence~ wall, gate,-_or colunul focat~ within any road
right-of-way may be required to be removed at the owner's expense.
12. Solid walls, fences, or gates shall not exceed a maximum height of three <31 feet and all
sruubs and plants shall be pruned to a height not to exceed three (3 t) feet above the road
level at its nearest point in an area bounded by the center line
of intersecting roads or easements for vehicµlar accesst public
or private and a straight line joining points on such center lines
eighty (801
) feet distant from their iµtersection (see exhibit).
All side limbs of trees in such area shall be pruned to a height
of not less than six (6t) feet above the road surface. The
purpose of the provisions of this section is to provide an
unobstructed view of approaching· traffic on the intersecting
3 Feet High Max toads~ The City Engineer may prescribe greater restrictions
than the height set forth in this paragraph where unusual
conditions make such additional restrictions desirable in the interests of the public safety.
13. Any fence o:r wall may be required to be landscaped. . Screen plantings required as a
condition of approval for any fence or wall shall be maintained in good condition by the
property owner.
14. The vertical. dimension of any fence, wall, gate, or column shall be measured from the
finished grade on both sides of any such fence, wall, gate, or column to any point on top of
the fence, wall, gate, or column, including post/column caps and any ornamental features.
g. Requirements for Nonconforming Fences, Walls, Gates, and Columns.
Replacement of existing legal nonconfonning fences, walls, gates, and columns shall be subject
to the requirements irt this ordinance. Exceptions may be granted pursuant to subsection 10-
l.507(h) of this ordinance, or where the strict application of these requirements will result in a
hardship for the property owner. Repair of short sections of legal nonconfonning fences, walls,
gates, or colqmns (repair of less than 50 fe~t or repair. of no greater than 25% of total fence or
wall length) will not·require a pennit if no other work is done on the same structure over a 12-
rnonth period. The replacement of.any. nonconfonning structure shall be prohibited if the City
Engineer detennines that a public safety hazard exists or that the structure encroach~s in an
easement or public right.;of-way. Any fence, wall. gate, or column constructed without a
Fences and Wall$
Page8
lawfully issued pennit is a violation of the Municipal Code and shall be subject to the provisions
of Title 1, Chapter 2 of the Municipal Code.
h. Exceptions.
Exceptions may be. granted subject to a noticed hearing and upon the Site Development
Authority making all ofthe following findings:
1. The height and design of the proposed fence, wall, g~te or colµmn are compatible
with other fences in the neighborhood;
2. The ,proposed removal of vegetation and trees an,d disturbance to natural terrain have
beenminimized; and
3. The proposed structure is otherwise in compliance with all regulations and policies
set forth in the Munici_pal Code and the General Plan.
Any fence proposed to e;ceed a height of 6 feet in a setb11ck at¢a ot to be Ioc:11ted closer to the
centerline ofthe road than required shall require a variance in accordance with the provisions of
Article 11 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Town of Portola Valley Fence Regulations, Pc1ge 2
Opacity, continued:
• Fence members not to exceed a 6" width when vie.wed perpendicular to the plane of
the fence for fences subject to an opacity limit.
• Retainin Q waHs are exem pt from opaci ty limits.
Color Reflectivity:
.• Fence colors not to exceed 40% reflectMty, except for naturally weathered wood.
Horse Fence Standards:
• ·No morethan three horizontal wood memb.ers, each not to exceed 6i' in.width or no . . -. . .
more than four horizontal wood or wire members, each wood member not to exceed
4.5" in Width.
• The cross sections of posts must not exceed 6"x 6"; such posts not·to exceed 4' in
height and generally spaced no doser than 5' apart.
• {W x 611 wire· mesh may be attached to a horse fence but shalt not exceed the height
of the horse fence.
• Opacity not to exceed 50%.
• Height not to exceed 41
•
• Gates. attached to horse fenc~s a:nust conform to the height and opacity standards
.for horse fences and be ofa similar design.
Entryway Features: Entryway features, including gates, must be setback one-half of
the required front yard in districts requiring a minimum. parcel area of 1 acre or more.
Permits and ASCC Review: Permits will be required for most fences. Permits wiU not
be required .when a fence is no rnore tha_n 2 feet ln height and 20 feet in total length.
Staff to review and act on most applications. ASCC to review applications and existing
fences when:
( 1) Ref~rred from town planning staff;
(2) A property undergoes ASCC review and there is a substantial modificatipn-to an
existing residence or site improvements of the property;
(3) The proposed fence cannot conform to the regulations given the conditions on the
parcel; or,
( 4) The fence will be located in the M-R or 0-A districts. Specific requirernents for these
districts will be determined on a case-.by-case basiswith inputfrom the Conservation
Committee.
Repaits or Replacement to an Existing Fence: When a portion of a fence
exceeding twenty five percent of the total length of feneing. within required yards .is
damaged or voluntarily removed, any replacement fehcing of that portion shall conform
to the fence regulations pursuant to a fence permit.
ORDINANCE NO. ~ 360
ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE·TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
AMENDING TITLE 18 [ZONING] OF THE PORTOLA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE
BY AMENDING CHAPTERS 18.04 [DEFINITIONS] ANO SJECTION 18.42.040
[EXCEPTIONS TO REQUIREMENTS ... FENCES ANO WALLS]OF CHAPTER 18.42
[ACCESSORY STRUCTURES], ADDING CHAPTER 18.43 (FENCES] AND
REPEALING SECTION 18.54.020.C. [IVIEASURENIENT OF HEIGHl]
WHEREAS, the Town Council ofthe Town of Portola Valley wishes to revise its
Zoning Ordinance to include new provision~ for fences.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Town CounoU of the Town of Portola Valley ("Town~')
does ORDAIN as follows:
1. Arnendrnentof Code. Chapter 18.04 (Definitions] of Title 18 [Zoning) of
the Town's Municipal Code is hereby amended to add the following Sections:
18.04.076 Building envelope. "Building envelope" is the three .. dimensional
space on a parcel within which buildings and most other structures are required to be
confined and which is defined by zoning ordinance regulations governing building
setbacks and building heights.
18.04.129 Domestic fence. "Domestic fence" is a fence that is not a horse
fence as defined in Section 18.04.215.
18.04.155 Fence. "Fence" is a structure made of wire, wood, metal, masonry
or other man-mc:1de material, or combination thereof, inch.Jding gates and posts, typically
used as a screen, enclosure, retaining wall, or entryway feature, for a parcel of land or
portion thereof.
18.04.156 Fence opacity. "Fence. opacity'' is the surface area of a fence that
is impenetrable to light when viewed perpendicularly to the plane of the fence.
18.04.215 Horse fence~ "Horse fence'1 is a fence that complies with the horse
fence standards set forth in Section 18.43.060.
'.18.04.555 Yard, required. '<Required yard,, meaosan open space required by
Subsections 18.52.010 A •• B. or C. located b~tween a parcel line and a building
,envelope.
1 N:\Oata\Clients\P\Pv\Ord\FenceOrd.doc
2. Amendment of Code. Section 18.42.040 [Exception$ to Requirements -
Fences and wans.] of Chapter 18A2 [Accessory Structures] of Title 18 [Zoning] of the
Town of Portola Valley Munieipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.42.040 Exception.s to Re.quirements -Fences. Fences may be located
within required yard areas subjecfto the provisions set forth in Chapter 18.43.
3; . Addition to Code. Chapter 18.43 [Fence~] is hereby added to Title 18
[Zoning] of the Town of Portola Valley Municipal Code to.read as follows;
Sectlo.ns:
18.43.010
18 .. 43.020
18.43.030
18.43.040
18.43.050
18.43.060
18.43.070
18.43.080
CHAPTER 18.43
Purpose.
Location.
Height.
Fence opacity.
FENCE$
Color reflectMty and size.
Horse fences.
Entryway features.
Fence permits and. administration.
18.43.01 o Purpose. The purpose of the fence regulations is to ensure that
fences in required yards in re&identiaf zoning districts conform to the following
pr,nciples:
• Fences should be designed With oonsider~Uon for the open space tradition
of Portola Valley.
• Fences should· be used sparingly in order to preserve a sense• of the
shared scenic resources of the tommunity.
• Fences should be designed with respect for the movement of wildlife and
the protection of views.
• Fence designs and materic1ls should blend with the natural environment
and maintain the natural and rural ambiance of the Town.
The above principles shall be followed by residents 1 Town PJanning. staff and the
ASCC when designing or developing fences or considering fence permit applications.
18.43.020 Location.
A. In residential zoning districts fences may be erected in the following
locations:
1. In districts requiring a minimum parce.l area of less than one acre,
domestic fences or fences consistent with the standards of a horse fence are allowed in
required yards, including along property lines.
2 N:\Data\Cllents\P\Pv\Ord\FenceOrd.doc
2; In districts requiring a minimum parcel area of one acre,. domestic fences
or horse fences ar, anow~ iffrequired yards} including a tong property Jjnes, 'ex~pt tha.t
a domestic fence in a front yard must be set back at least twenty five feet from the frQht.
property line;
3. In districts requiring a minimurn parcel ar.ea of two acres or more1 only
horse fences are allowed in required yards, including along property lines.
4. .In addition to the above limitations, in districts requirihgJr rninimun, p.arce.1
area of one .acre or more;,domestic fences and horse fences in required yards shall be
i:tUowed only cm ,1ppes of twenty percent Qr less. -
5. Along rlparian corricJors, fences shall be setback a minimum of twenty feet
fro":1 the fop of~ cree.kbank . The top of:the,· creek bank shall be d,termined on a case-
by-case basis by Town P:dnning ,staff or-the ASCC based on physic-al inspection of site
conditions. ·
6. Double fencing (where two or more fence$ are pl~Qed p~railel to pne
another often for the purpose of deterring deer or other animals) must be located within
the. building envelope of a parcel.
18.43 .. 030 Height. ----·------
A The height of a fence is the vertical distance measured frqm the surf~ce Qf
the actuat adjoining ground to the, top . of the fence. For the purpose of applying hejght
regulations, the average height of the ·fence ~long any unbrok~n run may . be used,
provided the height at any point is not more than ten percent greater than that normally
permitted.
a.
llrnits:
Fences. in residential zoning districts are subject .to the following height
1. Fence heights shall not exceed four feet in front yargs, six feet in side and
rear yards, and four feet in side yards along road rights-of-way.
2. Hc,rse fences shall ·not exceed four ·feet in height.
3·. Fences adjacent to public trails and paths in ·distrjcts requiring a minimum
parcel area of one acre .or more $hall nolexceed four feet in height:
.C. . A fence of normally pern1itted height under .this section shall not b.e placed
on top of .fill designed so ·~s tb effectively incre~.s~. the elevation of the top of the fence .•
0; The height of a retaining wall, or a retaining wall with a fence erected on
top of it, is mea$t,Jrecffrom the exposed bottom of the waU to the JQp otthe waU/fence.
3 N:\Data\Clients\P\Pv\Oro\FenceOrd :doc
E. The height ofa fence placed on top of a fill supported by a retaining wall is
measured from the top of the natural grade directly below the wall to the top of the
fence.
18.43.040 Opacity.
A. Fences are subject to the following fence opacity limits:
1. In distri~ts requiring a minimum parcel area of less. than one. acre, fences
in front yards shall not exceed fifty perceht opacity.
2. In .districts reqllidng a minimµm parcel area of one acre, domestic fences
in front yards shall not exceed fifty percent opacity.
3. Fenet,s ·in side yards adjacent to road rights-of-way shall not exceed fifty
percent opacity.
4. Horse fences shall not exceed fifty percent opacity.
5. Fences adjacent to public trails and paths in districts requiring a minimum
p.arcel area of one acre or more shall not exceed fifty percent opacity.
6. Fence members shall not exceed a six inch width when viewed
perpendicularly to the plane of the fence for fences subject to an opacity limit
7. Retaining walls are exempt from opacity limits.
18 .. 43 .. 050 Color reflectivity.
A. The reflectivity value for. colors used on fences shall not exceed forty
percent, except that naturally weathered wood may exceed such limit.
18.43.060 Horse fences.
A. Horse fences shi:lll conform to the following standards:
1. There shall be no more than three horizontal wood members, each not to
t=txceed six inches in width or no more than four horizontal wood or wire members, each
wood member not to exceed four and a half inches in width.
2. The cross secticms of posts rnust not exceed six. inches by six inches;
such· posts shall no.t exceed four feet in height and · shall be spi:lced no closer than five
feet apart.
4 N:\Data\Clients\P\Pv\Ord\FenceOrd.doc
3. Six inch by six inch wir~ me$h may be attached to a horse f~noe but shall
not exceed the height ot· the horse fence. Nothing else· shaH be attached to a horse
fence thahvould violate the standards set forth in Section 18.43.060A and/or alter the
visual characteristics of the horse fence.
4. Horse fence opacity shall not exceed fifty percent See Section
18.43. 040A4.
s~ Horse fences shall not exceeg fqur feet in height. See Section
18.43.03082;
B ... · .Gate$ attached to horse fences are exempted from Section 18A3.060.A1 ...
~, but shall conform to height and opacity $tanqflr<fs for horse fences and be ofa simnar
design as a horse fence.
c. H9rse fences that are. also used ?IS corral . and pasture fences, must in
addition, comply With speciai requirements as set forth in the Town stable· ordinance
(Ord. 1988·242Section 2 (Ex. A)(part), 1988; Ord~ 1967~ao Section 1 (8207.4), 1967;
Ord. 2001~338 Sectlon.3 (part), 2001).
18.43.070 Entryv,ay :features. Entryway featuresJ including gates, must
adhere to the setback requirements set.forth in Section 18.42.016.
18.43.080 Fence permits .and ·administration.
A Fence permits are required for construction of an fences built Within
required yards, except as otherwise specified in this section. Fence permit applications
shaU be made on a. form provided by the Town Planning staff and shall be accompanied
by plan$ dempn$trating the design. E1nd mate.rials of the proposed. fence, the location of
the .Proposed. fence ·and any &s$o.ciated landscaping. A ·fee :shall be paid to· covet the
cost· of review t:,y Town Planning staff, or on referral,. by the Town Planner. Prior to
approyin.g a fence permit, Town Planning $taff $hflll give written nQtice to owners of
adjoining properties of the permit application. Prior to acting on a perrniti Town Planning
staff shall review the proposed design and location in the field, review the . plans for
conformance with the zoning ordinance and Design Guideline$, and eon$ider comments
from owner(s) of adjoining properties. Town Planning staff may take action on a permit
or refer it to the ASCC. Written notification shall be given to owner(sJ of adjoining
propertit9s at least si~ days prior to actton by Town Planning staff or the ASCC. Any
TovvnPlanninQ. staff decision may be appealed by an applicant or an owner Of adjacent
prop.erty to. the ASCC. Any ASCC decisi.on may be appealed by t.h~ applicant or an
owne,r pf adjacent property to the Board of Adjustment
.B. Fences within reqµired yards that are no more than two feet in height; and
no more than twenty feet in total length shall be exempt from this section but shall meet
an other· provisions of this chapter except Section 18A3.040 regarding Opacity~
5 N:\Oata\Clients\P\Pv\Ord\FenceOrd.doc
C. The ASCC shatl have the authority to review existing fences and fence
permit applications under the following conditions:
1. Upon referral fromTown PJanning staff, pursuantto Section 18.43.080.A
2. When ·acting on architectural review ~nd site development permits, the
ASCC shall consider and ·may require. modifications to existing. fencing on a property if
the ASCC determines that there iS, a substant1~r modification to an existing residence· or
the site improvements of the property. If, in these situations, the ASCCdetermine& that
the existing fencing is not In conformity with current fencing standards, the ASCC may
require conformity with. the fen~ng regulations. In requiring conformity, the ASCC shall
make the finding that .the modified or replacement fencing will not result in an adverse
effect on neighboring properties and reasonably adheres to the purposes of this
,chapter.
3. When a fence permit application demonstrates that the proposed fence
cannot conform to the regulations given the conditions on the parcel, the ASCC may
grant relief from the fence regulations. In making ·such determinat,ion, the ASCC shaU as
much as reasonably possible ensure the proposed fence achieves the purpose and
principles of this chapter set forth in Section 18.43.010.
4. When a fence permit application is submitted for a proposed fence in the
Mountainous .. Residentiat ·(M-R) or Open-Area (Q.;.A) zoning districts, the ASCC shall I
with input from the Conservation Committee, make a determination of compliance
based on the purposes of this chapter·and the Fence Design Guidelines adopted by the
Town Council.
D. Whf!n a portion of a fence exceeding twenty five percent ofthe total length
of fencing within required yards oh a property is damaged or voluntarily removed, any
replacement fencing of that portion shall conform to the fence regulations pursuant to a
fence permit.
4. Amendment of Code. Subsection C. of Section 18.54.020 [Measurement
of height] of Chapter 18.54 [Building Bulk] of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Town of Portola
Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
C. Fence height measurement is.subject to the provisions set forth in Section
18.43.030.A /
5. Repeal of Code. Subsections A and B !)f'Section 18.42.040 [Exceptions
to Requirements -Fences and walls] of Chapter ).9:42. [Accessory Structures] of Title
18 [Zoning]ofthe Portola Valley Municipal Code)s hereby repealed.
/ /
6. . Repeal of Code. . Subsect~r(C of Section 18.54.020 [Measurement of
height]. of Chapte.· r .... 18.54.· · [B.uildi.ng ~utk] of T.itlt .l.·8 [Zoning] of the Portola Valley
Municipal Code is hereby repealed.,./ .. ·x_n,Y,
/ 6t&;~V';i,~
N:\Data\Cfients\P\Pv\Ord\FenoeOrd.doc
Woodside, CA Code of Ordinances
§ 1S3.0Sl FENCES, WALLS, GATES, PYLONS, AND BERMS.
(A) Permits reqti ii·ed.
(1) No fence or wall shall be erected without the prior issuance ofa pennit from the Town. ('75 Code,§ 9-2.207)
(2) A building permit and/pr a fence permit shall be required for aQ fenc~s, walls~ gates, pylons, and benns. All vehicular gates
and entry features require review by the Architectural and Site Review Administrator.
(B) Residentlal zoning districts. The following regulations and design guidelines were created to preserve the beauty and rural
quality oft~ Town and ensure the safety of allreside~. Open fencing and gates are strongly encouraged to maintain the rural
atmosphere of the Town. In all residential and open space zones the following regulations and design standards shall apply to all
fences, walls, gates, pylons, and berms.
(I) Open fences, Which meet all of the provisions ofdiyisions (4) through (13) below, may be approved by the Planning Director,
without review by ~e Architectural and Site Review Adrpinistrator. ,
(2) Fences and walls located greater than SO.feet (30 feet in the R-1 zone) from the right~of-way ofadjac~nt roadways and
which meet all of the provisions ofdivisiQns (4) throqgh (13} below~ may be approved by the Planning:Oirector unless an adjacent
property owner requests review by the Architectural and Site Review Administrator. At least ten days prior to the decision, notice of
the pendu1gdecision shaU be provicted to. any owner of pro~rty adjacent to the proposed fence, including .Jots located across an
abutting pub1ic or private roadway.
(3) All othe.r fences. walls, gates; and ·benns. which mee1 the provisions of divisions ( 4) thro~gh ( 13) below may be approved by
the Architectural and Site Revrew Administrator. Exceptions to the standards set·forth in this section may be granted by the
Architectural and Site Review Administrator upon .a f"mding that such fence, wa\ gate, pylon, or benn woµld be consistent with the
rural character of Woodside and with the existing fencing of the subject lot and neighboring properties* No exception may be granted,
however) which allows a fence, wa~ or berm to exceed six feet in height.
(4) The design of all fences, wans, gates, pylons, and berms shall be rural in character and shall emphasiz.e the use ofnatural
materials and colors. Open fencing is highly prefetred. Open gates are required. Unpainted or stained white, brown or gray wood;
welded or woven wire and wood posts.; natural stone and/or brick construction are preferred. Chain link fencing, except for athletic
sport fencing, is not permitted within 50 feet of the right-of-way of an adjacent r-0adway, unJess specifically approved by the
Architectural and ·Site Review Administrator.
(5) (a) AD fences, wans, gates, and pylons shall meet the standards in the following chart. The maximum overall height limit for
fencing and gates is six feet, except athletic court fencing,which may be 12 feet in height Fences, walls, gates, and pylons may not
be located in the public or priv~te right-of•way or within any trail easement or other easement precluding their construction. ·
Minimum setback from Minimum setbackfrom
Fencing Style edge of adjacent driving edge of adjacent driving
surf ace (public) surf ace (private)
Open fences, lessthan4 10 feet 5 feet feet tall _.
Open fences~ between 4 20 feet 10 feet feet and 6 feet tall
Solid fences and walls, 10 feet 5 feet less than4 feettaU
Solid fences and walls, 50 feet (30 feet in·R-1 50 feet (30 feet in R-1 between 4 feet and 6 feet
tall zoning) zoning)
Vehicular gates 25 feet, with gates in the 25 feet, with gates in the
open position open position
Athletic court fencing, 50 feet 50 feet where allowed
(b) BERMS. Benns shall vary in height and·width to create a·natural appearance, consistent with surrounding natural
contours, and fllUSt be planted with native drought tolerant plants. The top of the berm shall slope gradually to approximate natural
slopes and to accommodate planting of vegetation. The slope ofthe benn must not exceed two feet horiz.ontal to one foot vertical and
fills in excess of three feet require certification of design by· a civil engineer.
(6) Notwithstanding the standard set forth above, all fences, walls, gates, pylons or berms shall be located to accom111odate
existing equestrian trail usage such that a minimum of 15 feet of usable trail width remains, unless the Trails CotnJ11ittee concurs that a
lesser width is adequate for safe equestrian movement.
(7) The vertical dimension of any fence or wall shall be measured from the average elevation of the (mmhed lot grade on both
sides ofany such fence or wall. The maximum height at any point on -a stepped fence shall not exceed the Jhnitations contained inthis
section.
(8) Screen plantings required as a condition of approval for any fe11ce or wall shalJ be m~intajned by the property owner in good
condition.
(9) Corral and pasture fences shall ·not be less. than four feet in height. unless other requirements are prescribed by Chapter 115
of this Code, relating to stables, or any other Town Jaw applicable to the keeping oflivestock. in which case such other height
requir~ments shall prevail
( 10) No fence, waU, gate, pylon or berm shall be pennitted where, in the opinion of the Town Engineer, the additional height
would obstruct the sight distance or create.a poten~lpublic safety hazard. Additionally, the Town Engineer may require that fences,
walls, gates, pylons, or benns erected or planted prior to the effective date of this chapter be reduced in height or removed where the
Town Engineer determines that a pubJic safety hazard exists.
(11) No fence, w~l~gate, pylon, or bem1shall be constructed within a stream corridor, as defmed in§ 153.206, unless the Town
Engineer finds that such fencing will not impede drainage flow and the Planning Director finds that adequate provision is made for the
passage of wildlife. ·
(12) (a) Fences~ gates, pylonst and berms shallnot be constructed within any ,pub1ic right·of-way. Retaining walls may be
constructed in a. public right-of-way only if each of the following three conditions are met:
1. The wall~ necessary for the construction and maintenance of the road, trails, paths, drainage, or public utilities, or the
entire wall will be located below the driving surface of the adjacent roadway, or the wall is necessary for slope stability or to access a
property; and
2. The Town Engineer find~ that the wall willnot negatively impact the safety and functionality ofthe right•of.•way,
recognizing that the purpose of the public right;..of-way is for both travel and fot utilities; and
3. Prior to issuance of a. perm.it fot the requested improvement, an .encroachment. agreement shall be recorded. The
agreement spall. contain 1a:nguag~ requiring the property owner benefiting from the improvement to itldemnify and. defend the Town
from any claim that may arise in connection with the encroachment. The agreement shall also include language that authorizes the
Town to require removalofthe improvement at the benefiting property owner's sole cost and expense.
(b) Fences,. walls and benns shaU not. be constructed within any private road right ... of .. way. Gates, pylons, and appurtenances,
that run from such gates and pylons to the edge ofpriv~te right-of-way, nu~y be constructed in a private right".'.of-way provided a use
permit is granted by the Planning Commission according to§§ 153.245 through 153.255, and provided the following'fmdings are made
(in additiOn to tbe·fmdings required by§ 153.251):
1. The private road rlght ... of-way is not a through road;
2. The private road right-of-way does not serve more than ten residential lots;
3. An adequate turnaround will be provided;
4. The gate and/or gate appurtenances will not constitute a tratlk safety hazard;
5. The private road right .. of-way is privately owned by property owners adjacent to it,
6. AD property owners who have the right to use the private road right~of-way have given their written consent to the use
permit application;
7. Access will be provided for emergency vehicles;
8. The proposed g~te and its appurtenances confonn to applicable Town codes;
9. Maintenance of the gate and its appurtenances is provided for in a road maintenance agreement executed and recorded by
all property ownf!rs who havejoined in the use permit application; and
10. The gate apparatus wilJ be operable from vehicles by handicapped persons .
.(13) NotwithS.tanding other provisions of this chapter, replacement ofexisting fences or walls shall pe ~rmitted iftl:ie
replacement is of a like materiaL no greater in height1 and no closer to adjacent property lines than the existing fence orwall,or if
replaced by an ''operl' fence meeting an of the provisions of this section, except that replacemeot with cham link fencing is subject to
aU provisions of this section. Repair of short sections (less than 100 feet~ not to exceed 50% of that segment offencing over a 12-
tnonth period) ofexisting fences and walls does not require a permit. Replacement of existing gates, pylons, and berms ~hall require a
fence and/or building penuit and are subject to all review provisions of this · section, as are fences and walls which are replaced other
than as specified above. Replacement of any of the above, how~ver, shall be prolubited }f tile Town Engineer determines that a pubJic
safety hazard exists.
('75 Code, § 9-2.208)
(C) Comm1mit)1 Commercial District. ln the CC District fences and walls exceeding six feet in height shall be regarded as
Structures and sha.11 not be erected without first obtaining the approval of the PJanning Pirector and the issuance of a building pern:rit
from the Town.
('75 Code, § 9-2.2<>9)
(Ord. 1980-291, effective 9-11--80; Am. Ord. 198~334, effective 5-8-86; Am. Ord. 1989-391. effective 9-14-89; Am. Ord. 1992-454,
e.ffective 3-13-92; Am. Ord. 1999-494, effective 3-25-99; Am. Ord. 2006-530, effective 6-8-06; Atn. Ord. 2012.;554• effective 8-23·
12; Am. Ord. 2015-569, effective 1-746)
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
""-:..,,• ~ ....... ~A
l ', --·>:·· ... \.\t.:~-·· .. -~ ( _, ~. ,+a •.... --~~ ..
t . .,.
TOWN OF WOODSIDE
FENCES & ENTRY FEATURES
Adopted, February 9, 2016
~
-,•:_
"'--... . -;;.-. !.£1.
n ' I O d 'I C I ll r
INTRODUCTION
Fences& Entry Features .is an excerpt of the Town ofWoodside's Residential Design Guidelihesfadopted July 10, 2cn2.
The goals of this document is to .advise · homeowners and designers about ways to locate and tjesign fences and ·entry features that· maintain the character of the
community and the natural setting.
Woodside Munidpal Code Section 153.051, Fences, Walls; Gates, Pylons, and Berms, describes the .quantitative development standards and permitting processes for
fences and entry features; while this publication guides the qualitative aspects; siting, intensity, design, scale, and protection ofw'ildlife corridors;
This publication provides design guidelines and visual examples. The spetiflcdevelopmeptstandards for fences and entry features are contained in Woodside Municipal
Code Section 153.05 l.
The Woodside community seeks to balance the quantitative and qualitative aspects of development in a w~y which. acknowledges that protection of the natural
environment is paramount.
As with Town architectural style, the design offences and entry features should .strive for simplicity, restrain the use of excessive . detail, and be compatible with the
Town's ruralvernatular.
r I' 'I r • ~ 1
FENCES
Fencing shall be open in design and compatible with the rural character of Woodside (rel WMC 1S3.0S1};
Woodside's ruraltharacter includes views of oak woodlands, mixed evergreen forests, meadows, the Wester'} .-..ms, and the .valley floor. The location and design of
fencing is criticaf in rnaintalnin,gthese views. Fences al.so impacfproperties as seen from public roadways. Low., open design fences contribute to the rural experience
of Woodside.
2 r
• / ~:j 2 ,;, ,'.r: t:
,;. i:, •. f.l·~~_;ifr;.\ ., •
. ;.t••~ ~ \, .. :ID• :P.!f?'!;;;;
.;t~ •. •. ~,+ •.. :·. , ( ..... ... Ii;~,:··. .. .. : ., t;.
• ,('% ,:i~,:-t' ,• .,..,: •· ~~·'!~-~ IJ,, ·'1., • -1. •• ~ ... :;~ ..... ,.. ~)! • J-r. .if \,Ji .. I A.e . ~:., _.,_~~{,'l';.!t;h,~,•.,1 , >;~·~~ ."E'.,,/t,.~ .... •• t •', !~
•1~ ·--~~•11 ,,. v• hi:,;.r.;~l ,,. ,. ;t• • j , ~ 'i' Ci r • I' fi"li.ot _ 1/J• 1' .. · J# .,._.. • ~ "' ' • , ., !t~' ~~i· ; ,,'·t::' • It • ~ " :~·.. '!4~· .;:· ... ' . .-.~ .,
a. Minimize fencing
Minimize fencing to the greatest extent possible.
~."4.•
S'.. i,···· ·_ .._.. . . . .• --~t ... -~-. -. .. {,·f/~;,/'~~1' . ._,_.::;:• ' .. , r . ~%~~~ ~~~-;.:...·~··._._ ...... ,. '
.......... -',_ ..... ., llf ··1/n::~
. .I!.. . '. : \ ·1:----~ ~ ,. <, C •• _ • •• :~\',t '{.f;p: •,. .. . ... . 4,;·l-:S~i-·
,._j ·~ • .•.. ~ k. ~ ,,, I 1)-111f !;j•,,_ .:.:.,... , •• ,,. ~~7. ..... ~ ......... --~l -.,~-~ .... -~ ••• ·~·.r: .... ~·.: .. tl?'l;;J~W'
! J • 1 ~u • ~ •" ., r~·, "1; . •'"tit',;:---· ... ,_., ,,., !;-'~~ ·--:i-··. £:c:I\~ • ..J/·.-i-~.,-,.~r,. ·~· ~~~ : .. ~V' ••• •k''-:'-..:,<1-..
+ "·11' • ''-•"' ' ·•/J .:Ji,. fl. I ' '!i//•'' I~ . ~ • ~ .. .• .,-:·"'·· J!P" •• 1 iity,;.,·· ~--. _,...,., J'''. i ·P'"'•:··:,';,r, ttf··-~;:*'·-J..... . ,·
.I' . 1•' ' ~.. •• • ,q . . :;,_,,<,7-.~:j;· ,:. ···:. •;!,)
. ... I.J~
'i
Wood post and grid
8 r r. , ( f ,
~
e. Perimeter fencing
Limit the use of perimeter fencing (fencing along
property lines}. Perimeter fencing, Jf used, should be
low in height and wildlife friendly; such .as open rail
(rel GP0512).
·--;,,.,.
Vertical grape stake
·-·, ... ;; ... ··:. "'i.
... .,.,,i, .
•,, . '·!f
"l.'sl <:,'•: • i',. f
·1, ....
1,,cif A......_,
•" .
rr~<t\ 1
f,l:'ftll I
.,,,
Wood post-and wire mesh
':> ,·. ,'\
.. )
.~ .. -...
l-lfl t, ll
L
... f_,..
,_ ::---
:.,......
·. t\l ._ ... ,,.
lO ~ u
g. Deer fencing
The use of endosure fencing, visually open but
not wildlife friendly; may . be considered for plant
culfivati6n. This type of fencing should be · limited
to the area within the · building setback envelope+
Deer fencing around vineyards/ orchards, and other
agr-ic.ultura1 uses may be appropriate outside of the
building setback area (re£WMC1S3.051).
1' l '\
. .,
...
.... .
. ....,.., .,...,, ") ;. .tJ/'~ .. .,._..;.· \,,,.·
\I)
\~\ ....
I \
.. ,-.;,.
~ )'i) I
;.;:,_,~,S;tj· •
, •• I : C "'.,f
.-(,
... _ ~,-;,,
-~,..
,~: ~-
i.
r r ,. , \ 9
f. Enclosure fencing
Locate security and garden enclosure : fencing
away from the property lines and minimize its
visibility.
ii. Screen sport courts from publk view using
landscape screening and/or-fencing that blends
with the naturaf color palette~ sport . courts
should be e11dosed with wood and wire fencing,
not chain. link Sport courts may be screened
from public view with landscaping.
.... ,.J
12 "I ' • 3 i r e i
ENTRY FEATURES
1. ,,;
'. . . . J
The design of entry features shaftbe sirrrple, modest, and
understated.
a .. Siting
Locate entry features away from the road, and
integrate them into the existing Jand~cape. Locate
gates and other entry ·features farther away from the
road to reduce visibility {ref. WMC 153.05.1).
,~ {•{ r, , ' ,.,
~~.:.::::~,......~'." ... ,,.-, ' .
, ~. .,
---:::._'"_ ....... ::: .... -~
,r
.;-
n , ~ ~ 11
h. Livestockfencing
Livestbck related facilities, within a portion of a
property, lend tht?mselves to th~ use of fencing that
,s simple~ under~~ated, and . constructed of natural
materials (rel WMCJ53.0S1).
~ '-.,_,
rl
.. ;1 ~.' -I' I
.• _,,,. ;:?l. . . .
f
•• • -'. '
-• ... ._, I r \ ... , <:.
14 I f' n (
c. Landscape screening
(•
.,.'\
Yt •
-'~-~.;it,
·'/
1, . ,,.. 1,,
-t-_.J
natural groupings of native plantings. Screening
is particularly important for up~ sloping driv~ways
where . the view from the road ha.s greater visual
prominence (ref. WM(153.0~1 &WMC ,756.050.B.3).
.... ,.~ ,
,-.
-~
·1o
,,
\ ·'r
{,_
t
"\JI
ll ' ' l3
-;.-
-"
. ' ~ .17
-,. . r •• .,..'(;;(' ••
b:Design
Design gates, pyroos, c1nd attached fe.ncing .as follows: (rel WMC 153.051)
,.,
·\,
/ r -,
i. Gates and wing walls should be open in appearance.
ii. Rural style.sf those which emphasize the use of natural materials such as
wood, wood posts and welded wire, natutat stone or brick, and utilize natural
c.olors are strongly encouraged. Stucco and solid walls are discouraged.
iii. Rural design sl:mutd take precedence over elaborate entry features of a
particul~r architectural style.
iv. Pylons andwingwaHs should provide an unobtrusive transition between the
adjace.nt fencing and the gate.
v. Locate gate operating mechanisms to the inside of gates, whenever feasible.
'" .
., ,1'"'
(; ~-t '!
!. .... : •. _ .. 5·;·: ..• ,..J.~ ;:-"if~~,·· ~"~o:~·.'.'".;_,,~ "'l:·.~ >-:,,, ~ ...... ~41~·.~;~~ .. "· ..,,. -.11{ ..... {t( ~ ,--,; • • ' ~t. ,-/.,. ~ ,d. ;y_., l':-,v~· ··~·-,_;·i~,~ ... 4·,i. I' . .t ••• ,.~,..._·;,'_kl .... ~, r,,.-t)-r,., ,:,
... /!If ... ...t~ ... , "' ... ~, . ·"I} . ... ... ,;~ . .. ~-·-., ... "'""' . ' . ' ~. . , •. . •. . .
r -.., ¢ ~~, •-, ... ~' r.,, ,._ ,,; .,,,., .,· 1' ,4 •.. , ·, ;,, .. , ,. "'' .. '·l""' '*I: ...... '.,. . . ·'-· -.J.' . : . • .... t. ), -... . , .. ~ . . -.. . .. .
t,_, I '~-"·'-.,-.,,.~U ,; ~ -~ •, '. . ... ~-~,.-··-· ,..~.. --........ , ... . ,.., ..... '"'ff •-"-',_ 0
" ' " •' '•' K ... ..,._ ·-~ . . _.,._ ,.,,.·~:.· .... -..:,i-.. ,.._,, ... ··-·-~ : • .__, ••s~;,.,. :.")'", ; "••·:,; • , .: .. , . , . ' . . ' ,.,... .
16 f~o·r.t1'r
I 'l ~ .I ~ , 15
i .WILDLIFE t:RIENDLY FENCING DESIGNS:
Numerous cltings in the. Woodside · General Plan and Munieipal Code
encourage wJldfife friendly fencing. Some ways to accomplish this include:
a. Limiting fence height to 4fe.et {which is low enough for
deer & fawhs te>jump);
b.-Creating· breaks In fencing; and,
c. Creating periodic openings at the bottom of wood mesh fences,or
iostalUn .g ·subterraneah, small di.a meter culverts (i.e., 6" minimum)
· which allow small Wildlife to pass.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 8
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Los Altos Hills
Milpitas
Monte Sereno
Mountain View
Palo Alto
Portola Valley
San Jose
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
County
Section 10-1.507
Maximum height within front setback*:
Open fence: 4.5 feet
Solid Fence: 3.0 feet
*Requires min 30' setback from
centerline of adjacent right-of-way
Section Xl-10-54.10
Maximum height in front setback: 3.5 feet
Section 10.06.130
Maximum height in front setback: 3 feet
Minimum setback for 6-foot fence:
Open fence: 45 feet
Solid fence: 60 feet
Maximum height in front 20 feet of property: 3 feet
Section 16.24.020
Maximum height in front and street-side setbacks: 4 feet
Section 18.43
Maximum height along front and street-side property line: 4 feet, with
requirement to be at least 50% opacity
Front setback requirements based on minimum lot size requirement of zoning
district:
< 1 acre = 0 feet, domestic or horse fence
1 acre = 25 feet, domestic or horse fence
2 acres = 0 feet, only horse fences allowed in setbacks
Section 105.2
Maximum Height in front setback: 3 feet
Maximum Height within 15 feet of back of sidewalk: 3 feet
4.20.050
Maximum Height within 20 feet of front property line based on zoning district.
Urban Residential Districts: 3 feet
Rural Districts: 6 feet, 3 feet within corner sight distance triangle at driveway
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Olapter
6A
6.11
6.C
I I
Se<IIOn lltle
sm, Elements Fences and Walls
Site Elements Driv,,wav Entries
Slte'Elements Retaining Walls
Hlllslde OevelopmentStanciards and GuldellnesPertatnlng Jo Fences, Wildlife Habitats, and Ml&ratlon Corridors
Oescrlnti<>n
• The objective of the following standards and guldellnes ts to �mtt slll-foothlllh fences and walb and deer fen,:tngto tl,ose areas )llhere � 1111 absolutely necessary. It ts ret<:JCftited .that fenctnc around ffmlted londsuped areas ls
sumetimes-smyfot secuntv am! to provide yard artas fot ahd to proifet chRd�n -and pets. However, the cumulative Impact of sfx-foot high chain link fences and.solid fences and walls surrounding hlllslde properties has a sliJ,lflcant
lmpact on the movement pattern.of wildlife and on the open rural characterofttw hlllSldes.
Pk:. Rural chffllcteralfows wlldllfeto pass th'l'O\lih.
standards: 1·, The use of fences and walls shall be 111lnlml1ed and located solhat tu1tural !andfortns 1ppeir to flow t011ether·and are not dticonnected. The ptlmarye111phasis shall be on maintaining op,en,vie.ws, protecting wHdllfe-corridcits, and
m11nta1n1ns the rural, open, and natural character of the hillside,. , 2. Fent�• and walls shall .not exceed,a·height of six feet measured frOm the highest side of.the fence or wall and should be·hmited.to those areas where fenm and walls of thishelithtate·neceuarvior protection of orn•mental landscaplng,
security, or play 1re1S. 3. solid fenctna mate.ttals shall not be used unless needed for privacy.
4 .. Deer fencing up·tcf • maximum height of elghtfeet·shal· be·llmlted to areas around omarnental landsCJiplng. l.irger areas shall not be enclosed uni es, SP<!Clflc reasons for keeplna: deer out have been llemonstrated to the satlsfactlon of
the deelslon.maklnc body.
S. Fences shall Mt be all�d lnareasthatwould Impede the movement'otwlldllfe u determined by the decision maklngbody.
6. Tempor:iry construction fehcing shail be limited to the bulld.lni en�lope or shall be elevated to allow for movement of smatlonlm,ls.
Guidelines:
1. Wood nit-type fences.ind catesate preferred.
2 Chain llnk·fe11ees are nronglydlsc:our11ed.
i. Chain !In� fendng.should be coated with green, brown,or black vfnv! or finish all<lshan be supported by a wood frame. Daile, paln�d i)iegl poles may he t?qii!red If doemed appropriate by the·decr.1ornna1t1ne body.
4. Only open feridnc should be located within 20feet of• property Hne adJa<,ent to ntteet.
s. Fences should.follow the toooeraphy.
Standards: .1. Entryways sl)all be designed to blend with the natunol eriYlronrnentand to maintain the rural character of the hillsides.
2. Ently ptes shaft be set bad lrom·the edge of tne,adJacent street a minimum of25 feet. A amter,etback may be required when.a·gated entrance serves'"""' than °"�'house.
3. Liahting·flxtures at em,yways shan direct light downwards and. shall be deslp,ed sothlt no part of the llaht sou.rce 1s·vfslble frOm the ·st1eet.
4. The prcperty address shall be dnr!y displ� so that It 15 lilslble from the street at nch driveway. s. Ent,y gates equipped with locking devices orelectmnlc control switches shan be approv,e<i by.the. santa Clara county Fire Department.
Gulclelfnes:
1. Entryway ptes.and fencing 'shoUld be of an··open deilgn.
2. Entrv.·Rates that a·�·monumentat are strongly dlscouraaed.
standards:
l. l!etalnlng walls shall not be used to create large, flat'fanbreas,The llmlted use of reglnlhg walls may be allowed when it can be demonstrated thit.thelrusewill subs.tar\tialfv·redute tile amount of 1rad1n1.
2 .. Retalnlng wallnhat·are vtslb!t from a public street shall ha\/0 a v,,neer of natural stone, stafned concrete, or textUred·.surface to help blend the wall.with the naturalhillside er1y1ronment and to promote• rural chantcter;
Guldeffnes: 1. Ret,,lnlng walls should ,not be higher.than five feet. Where an addlilonat retalned portion ,s necessary due to unusual or extreme condltlons (e.g .. 1oe:-corifl&uratlon; steep slope, or road design), the use of multtp�terraced, lower
retalnln1 structures Is preferred. 2 Terroced retalnlng,wa11s should be separated by at ii;asl ihtte feet and lhdude apprcpr!ate landscaping,
3. Retalnlni and planter walls should be ptovlded with a landscaped se.tblck or buff or of lit least five feet adjacont to the rtreet.
4. Retilnlns waHs.,hould blend with the nalural topoaraphy; follow exlstfril contours, and be curvilinear to the sreatest �xtent possible. Retllnlnrwalls shotJld not run 1n.a-smflht continuous direction for more than.so feet without a
break. offset,·or plantln& padtetto break up the long flat horliontal surfoce. s. u,ndscaplng should be provided adJtcenl to retalnlnc waits and should Include I comblnetioll of nati.e trees and shrubs to screen the wan.
6. R!lainlng: walls should be mnstrutted of permanent mateii•Js (stone, �m�._ motonry blotk/brlclt}rath<!rt)>an wood.
ATTACHMENT 10
• ,.
'
TOWN OF Los GATOS
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
4. Deer fencing up to a maximum height . of eight feet shall be limited to areas around
ornamental landscaping. · Larger areas shall not be endosed unless specific reasons for
keeping deer out have been demon.strated to the sati~action ._of the decision making
body.
5. Fences shall not be allowed in areas that would impede the movement of wildlife as
determined l>y the decision making body.
6. Temporary construction fencing · ~hall be limited to the building envelope or shall be
elev~ted to allow for movement of small animals.
Guidelines:
1. Wood ran~type fences and gates are preferred.
2. Chain link fences are strongly discouraged.
3. Chain link fencing should be coated with green, brown, or black vinyl or finish and shall
be supported by a · woad frame. Dark, painted metal poles may be required if deemed
appropriate by the decision making body.
4. Only open fencing should be located within 20 feet of a property line adjacent to a
street
5. fence$ should follow thE! topography.
B~ Driv~wJy entries.
Standards:
1. Entryways shall t,e · designed to blend with the natural environment and to maintain the
rural character of the hillsides.
2. Entry gates shall be set back from the edge of the adjacent street a minimum of 25 feet.
A greater $etback may be req1.1ired when a g~ted entrance serves more than one house.
3. Lighting fixtures at e,ntryways shall direct light downwards and shall be desigfled so that
no part of the light · source is visible from the street.
Page 43
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Eleme1lt !Pa ge
Land Use LU,21
Land Use 1,u-1•
Community Design 1cn-s
Community C>esign JC0·23
Commun i!Y Oes!ln lco.23
Community Oesign lctH3 .
COmmunlty Design IC0-28
Community Design 1~
Community Design lco-s
Community Design lco.11
Community DesTgn lco.22
Comml4nltv0esign lco-u
Communitv Design CD-22
Opens Space, Parle, and
Recre111tlon OSP-11
General Plan Polldes and Actrons Pertalnlng to Fences, Wlldllfe Htbltats~ and Migration COtridors
ll'lleme lunder Goal
1:cy LU·U WIidiife Habitats
conservation of
1-· Etwltonment
I
lflillside Spedfk
Plan·
GoaftD-3: To tequlrti utilities, landscaptna
and.sti'eetscapes to contrlbutetotos Gatos's
IFendn1 I high-quantv dl•r:atter. l Polfcv tD-3:a.
~f ~-15 Toprehrve tM natut'31
topogtaphv and ecosystems within the hlll$1de
·area by regulatlna eradthg, fandscaplng, .~nd
lfi!ncing llightlilg. IP'oiicy C0·1S.t;
Goal C0-15 To preservathe natural
t<:ipography ·and ecosystems within ttie hlllslde
area : by regulating grading; landsc:1J>1nc, and
lw.ldllfe 1:tabitats lllghtlng. I Policy C0-1S.4
Goal CO-lSTo preserve the natural .
topography and ~ystems within the hlHslde
area bV regulating .iradlng, landscaping, and
IWildlif~ Habitats lnthting. lPoltcyci>-15.S
Goal C0·17 To conduet careful relllew of new
project$ and provide deardlrectlon to
propei'fy owners, neighbors, and pctentlal I Wildlife Habitats I developers. IActiol'I co~11.~
GoalCD-4 Toprosel'Veeicisting trees, Mtul'al
vegetation, n1tul'lll topc,graphy, riparian
CCITldors and wildllfe habitats, and promote
high quality, well dtmgMd, envlrcnmenulfv
sensltlve, and diverse landscaping In ~w and
I Wildlife Habitats jeJtiJtlng develo!:!ments. I PolicyCD··U
Goal Cl);.6To promote and protect.the
ptwslcal and other distinctive qualities of
!Wildlife Habitats I residential neighborhoods. I PollcyCD-6.4
Goal ci>-14 To !)reserve the natural beauty
•nd ecolollc•f lnteplty ohtie santa CNi
Mountains and sum,undtnt hllltldu by I Wildlife Habitats lre1ulatf111 new homes. JPO!icy,C0-14.1
GoatC0-14 To preserve the natural beautY
an:d ecolasii:al lnteiiitv of tt)e Santi Cruz
Mountains and 1urroundtng l'llllsldes bV
lwndlife Habitats I regulatlnl new homes. 1Policycp.1•.s
Goel C0-14Te>pre«irvethe natural beauty
and ecoloebllntegrltyof the Santa CNl
Mountains and surrounding hltlsldes by
!Wltdllfe Habltats l~latlr,g n.ew homes. IPOilcy C0-14.6
Goal.CO•lS To preserve the natural
topography and ec:6$ystems within the .hlUslde
I area by l'!gUlatlng gi'adJng,JandSUp)ng, end
Wlldllfe Habitats. J11ghting,
WildlifeJtabltats/
flAigratlon I Goel0~-2 To preseTVr open ·spar:e In hills Ide
corridors arells as natural open space. 1Polk:yl:>SP•2.1
Text
To pre~~ e11lsting trees, natural vege~1tlon, natural topography, rtparlan .cotrldors and wlldllfe habltats~ and promote high .quallty, well-deslgned, envlrcnmentallv
sensitive, and diverse landscaplng ln new and exlstJ~evelcpments.
HlllsldeSpedflc Plan The Hills!~ Specific Plan establishes fand use policy for the Hillslde Study Area, an area of mountalnous-terrilln In the.southeastern portion of
the Town designated for Hillside itesklentlal development; Adopted by Town Cawcit In '1978, the Spedflc Pl•n establlshes a series. of' policies and standaids re1ated
to land use, facllltles, seN!ces, c:irtulatlon, fl~ lffl)'tettiorr, safety, and cpen space. These policies end standards ere lntendecl to prevent deficiencies in .accen to
water and sewer services, ensure .eonsemtlon .of .. the .sensltive naturt1 envlronment, and addN!is differenm in ToWn end .County land Use regulations.
Sortd fencint over! feet high shall bedesl(!led such that lt~oes not IScilate~stjuctureS from the str'eel', or shall be set back and landscaped.
fel'lces shall bt ·elf open design unfe,ss requtrtdfot p~. A mll'lli'l'illamc,uni of land shill be en~!Qsed by ~~s over fi'le f~high.
HIHsi~e landscaptn1 sll811 be designed wlththe following goals 1.n n,lndt
a. Minimizing form1I la!'liscaplng .ind hardscape;
b. Sitii,gformal landscaping 11nd hardscape erase .to the house.
~: Followinc the naMat topography.
d. Pn!servlnc "!~tiff$, native plant ,11\_d wfldllfe habitats, and "".tration corridors.
Review all developmentpj'i:)l)Osals toen!ure,ipproprlate gfadlnc and lindscaphig and minima! dls~ption of~)(l,stJng native pfants and wlldHfe habitat.
Adopt guidelines for development review that prcitect:
,.·Rare plants tndwlldlJ/e and their habltllU.
b. lliatur'lll watersheds.
c. Historic sites.
d. Aesth~ieally s11nlflcant Site~.
Preserve the Town's distinctive and uni<iue environment by pmel'YiliC and maintalnlntthe naturaltopcer.iphy, wildllfe, and native vecetatlon, and by mitigating
and reverslna:tM harmful eff.ecttoftrafflc con1estl6n, poll~, •ft!! ~_!llt'Ol'll'l'll!ntald~radatlo~ on the Town's urban llindscape,
Ne w homes shall.be iited to maximize privacy, flWblDty, protection of natul'iil.~laf'lt aN:I Wildllfe habitats arid. migration corrlclors, and adequate sol.ar ac~s and
.w;nd .conditions. Siting: should take advil'!taae of .sceriic~iews but sho\lfd'.not create ,11n1ftcant ecologic:al or.vtsual Impacts affectJrir open spaces, public ·places, or:
other 'prop_ertles.
Minimize development and pmerve anti enhanc:etlle fural atmo,phere and natural plant and wildlife habitats In the hillsides.
Staff shall requl!I!! adeq!,Jate environmental analysis for projects In the hlhslde area to ensuru1pproprlate cons1d,ratlon of. potential environmental .Impacts
as~ociitted ~!~l)r<)jects,
PreseNund p~the natural state of the sanraer.uz Moul'ltalns and sumiundlng hillsides by dlscou,...11111na~nate develop!'llent on and nearthe hlllsides
that sl&nlflcantly Impacts vlewsheds.
Presenioe the natural operupace CMl'lcterof hlllslde lands; indudlnJ natural. topogflJ)hV, natural Wiptation, Yi!ldHfe habltatUnd mirtatlcn comdors, and
viewshedJ.
Page:tof2 ATTACHMENT 11
General Plan Potrdes and Actions PertaJnfng to Fences, WHdli~ HabJtats,·and Migration-Corridors
Opens Space, P.ark, and Goal OSP"l to presem open sp.ace In hillside
Recreation I OSP 011
WIidiife.Habitats/
Mlgratlort
Corridors areas ~s natural orien s~a_ce. lfiollcy QSP~2.4 ~d!acent parcels ln the hillside's shall provide.an unlnterrui)tielt band ofuseable segme nts for wltdllfe:coriidors~and recre_1~lot1al use, If appllcable,
Wildlife Habitats/ IGoat ·OSP--6 To consider the provision oroiien
Opet\S Space, Parle, and I 1:M1gration ,pace ln~lidevelopmentdecisions within the
Recreation OSP-16 Corridors Town; 1Poll9"_0SP'.,&,3 Consfder effects on watei'Shed areas, plant and w!ldflfe habitats~andmigratlon corrldors·befol'e;allOWi!'J development ohny open space.
Environment and
Sustliltlabllity_
Environment and
SUJtllnablllt'[
Environment and
susttil'labl!ity_
Environment and
sustainability
Environment and
sustainilbllity
aiv~u _ lWifdfffe l'lab!ta_ts IGoail £NV-41'o .conserve wlld!lfepopulatlons. -~ ENV-4:1. PuMJc and ~te pr~shall not slltilfkantly deplete; damage~ ~ter ex1st1ntwildltfe habitat or populations.
Wlfdli~ Habitats/
Migration
ENV•13 I CotrfdOi'S !Goal. ENV-4 To conserve Wildlife populilt19N .,_JPol lcy ENV-4.3 Maintain o pen sp~eand native· plant commur:ilties'tfiat.~hli~and mlgl'ltlol'Y corridors for nat~Vlllclllfe species.
WIidiife Habitats/
Migration
ENV-13 !Corridors
ENV•14
Wildlife Habitats/
Milf'ation
Cortldot's .
Wildfifi! Habitats/
Migration
ENV-14 lcori'idOr$
Goal ENV·4 To eonservewildnte populations. !f'olley ENV-4.4
Identify 1nd protect are•s with significant habitat dlvet1lty orlmportam:e for wildlife, such astlpatian corridors; wildlife movement corridors and large tracts of
undevelop ed land.
Towrutafhhall ntvtew ilte planstoensu,e, that eidstlnc si,nlfantwifdlife habitats and ml1r.rtion corridors itre not adversely affi!ded by either l!ldlvklual or
GoaleNv-4 "to conserve Witdlifi! pop_lJ!atlc;M, jPollcy ENV-4.tl , lcumulldve devetopmentlme_acts;
Goal ENY-4 To conserve: wildlife populations. IActkm ENV••U I Develop a Ml1ratlon .Corridor Piaf! fCJ( lilllslde •~•s In .t.os Gatps.
~2of2
Natural Grade
Maximum Height = 42 inches
Wood posts and rails
Wildlife-friendly fence means a fence or other structure that permits any animal, regardless of size, to easily climb under, pass
through, or jump over. A wildlife-friendly fence shall not exceed 42 inches in height above natural grade. A split-rail fence
shall be constructed of wood and be at least 50% open in design. The minimum height above grade shall be 16 inches and
shall have 12-inch spacing between rails wherever feasible.
Minimum gap between
rails = 12 inches
Minimum height above
grade = 16 inches
Wildlife-friendly split-rail fence
ATTACHMENT 12
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 13
PLANNING COMMISSION
Received with July 26, 2017, Staff Report and Desk Item
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Rag:
Flag Status:
City of Los Gatos,
David Klinger <dave .klinger@sbcglobal.net>
Friday, July 07, 2017 10:44 AM
Sean Mullin
Fence Heights
Follow up
Flagged
I am in the process of obtaining a fence height waiver from the Director of Community Development to replace an existing
worn fence, sections of which are at six feet high, others at seven feet including a 1 foot lattice on top. I have obtained the
approval of all adjacent neighbors and paid the $233 waiver fee. I purchased the house two years ago, and was not
advised at that time that the fence was non-compliant with city regulations.
I notice many of my neighbors in surrounding blocks have similar seven foot high fences. These seven foot fences are
apparently very common. None of the neighbors I spoke with appear to have obtained a waiver or have a permit and
would be required to pay the $233 waiver application ·fee in order to become compliant with city regulations. I believe.
without any proof, most of these neighbors would simply replace their seven foot fences without obtaining a permit when
their old fence degrades . It would appear, again without proof, that it's wink, wink, nod, nod on code enforcement, or that
the policy of the city is to enforce only when there is a complaint. City residents who wish to be compliant pay the fee,
those who don't know the regulations or don't wish to pay the fee remain non-compliant. This doesn't seem fair.
Los Gatos should amend the fence ordinance to allow, without permit or waiver, replacement or new construction of
privacy fences that allow six foot plus one foot of lattice fence heights, if all of their adjacent neighbors agree. If
disagreements arose, the burden of proof would be on the owner to show that they have the approval of their immediate
neighbors. ·
David Klinger
141 Potomac Dr
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Sean Mullin
From:
$ent
To:
Subject:
Hj Sean,
Pam Bond <pamabond@gmail.com>
Monday, July 10, 2017 3:32 PM
Sean Mullin
Re: THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS JS SEEKING PUBLIC INPUT ON PROPOSED TOWN CODE
AMENDMENTS REGARDING FENCES, HEDGES. AND WALLS.
I read the proposed code amendments. Our property is in the hillside zoning and so we did see some of the
requirements when we were building our house. So I am somewhat familiar with the wording, etc.
My concerns with these proposed changed to hillside residences are that a 42" fence height is not great for
people with kids. I know that the goal is to let wildlife pass through but this could be pretty scary for kids to
encounter a coyote or basicaJly any wildlife that can jump a 42" fence. We are aJways out with our kids and can
generally see them but I would be nervous to have a shorter fence and feel comfortable letting the kids run
around. The hedging option only partially solves this since there would still be periodic gaps.
Also, anyone with dogs will need to figure out what to do about their dogs if they want them to run around. I
don1t think 42" will keep larger dogs inside their property. I guess they'd need a dog run and I'm not sure how
people will feei. We don't have a dog but I have been thankful on walks when we walk past a property with a
dog and find a much higher fence (I'd clSsume maybe 51 for safety?). ·
I would imagine people would have concerns for security and safety with a 42" fence limit too. Much easier to
just hope over and rob a place, I'd imagine.
We still get bobcats and foxes and smaller animals with our metaJ 61 fence. They can slip under or if they
manage to dig a little, can get in as well. We had a coyote problem where the neighbor's chickens were being
poached by a coyote lµ)d brought to our yard to eat them. We can keep the coyotes out when we plug holes
und~r fences, and I'd prefer to .keep it that way for our kids' safety. ·
Jf we let the deer in, there would be more limitations to what we could grow with our grey water irrigation
system. We have mostly natives but even the natives are not deer proof. 1 would imagine people will have
issues with more limited landscaping plants due to deer. I think we could adapt if our fence ever falls
down. But 1 am not sure others would.
My main concerns are safety with the fencing height limit. Safety as relates to kids (keeping them in and
keeping them safe), aggressive dogs (keeping them from jumping fences), and property safety (keeping
criminals out). 1 do care about wildlife corridors and Jam concerned that residential ·encroacrunent wiJl hann
wildlife movement and health. I think there may be another solution. Wildlife conidors are great. Fencing
setbacks on property are great.
Thanks,
Pamela Bond
17140 MilJ Rise Way
Los Gatos, CA 95030
650-793-3844 ceJl
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 11 :24 ~' Pam Bond <pamabond@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
It would be helpful to be able to see·what the amendment actually is -what changes have been proposed . 1 can't
tell from the document what is new or changed. It is a lot of text for peopie to read without knowing what has
changed. I would be interested to be involved in submitting my input for such things.
Thanks
Papi Bond
650-793-3844 eel]
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
HeJlo Sean,
Christopher Kankel · <ckankel@kkdesigngroup.com>
Tuesday, July 18, 2017 2:59 PM
Sean Mullin
Re: Town of Los Gatos seeking public input -Hillside Fence Ordinance
LG fence ordinance revision.pages.pdf
Thank you for reaching out to residents and professionaJs and for the opportunity to provide feedback. I've
attached a Jetter below with some comments and suggestions. Fee] free to ~11 me with any questions.
Thank you,
Chris
Christopher Kankel
Kikuchi + Ka_nkel Design Group
Lan4s~pe Aichitecture
Site Planning
~virqnmental Design.
www.kkdesi gngroup .com
( 408) 356-5980
July 18, 2017
Sean Mullin
Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, U. 95030
RE: Proposed changes to Los Gatos fencing ordinance
Dear Sean,
Kikuchi + Konkel
Design Group
landscape Archirecrure
EnvironrnE'<ltol De5ign
Sire Planning
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback regarding the proposed changes to the Town of Los Gatos fencing ordinance. I have reviewed
the pr~ ordinance from the perspective of both a resident and a landscape architect and have several thoughts to share. While I appreciate
the need to accommodate the wildlife whose territory we infringe upon, I also respect the need and right lo privacy and security of my clients and
fellow residents. Developing a fencing ordinance that accommodates both the wildife and residents is a delicate balancing act. My comments
listed below pertain solely to the proposed language regarding Hillside Fencing:
1. The proposed language effectively prevents corrals or any other type of fencing to contain or protect domestic animals when located more
than 30' from the main residence.
2. The proposed language effectively prevents vegetable gardens more than 30' from the main residence.
3. The proposed language effectively prevents a secure automobile gate near the road.
4. The proposed language greatly inhibits flexibility in the installation of security fencing. Per the code, a security fence of sorts may be
atlowed within 30 feet of the house, but it will effectively create an arbitrary island ol development within a larger property.
~ a designer, I would suggest consider an ordinance that allows for a given percentage of a site area to be contained by six foot high secure
fencing (for instance, one·lhird of the gross property size or a minimum of x square feet). This would aUow residents and designers flexibility in
choosing what portions and extents of their property are secure while insuring a greater portion of their property remains accessible to wildlife. It
also allows residents and designers to ability to optimize the more usable portions of their properties. Each hillside property is vastly different in
character and limiting the' six foot high fencing to 30 feet proximate to the main residence is arbitran1y limiting usable space in many cases.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to offer my opinion on the matter.
Regards,
I
·/ 'li::"(
Christopher Kankel
Kikuchi + Kankel Design Group
61 ! NO!r, SllieEl, ~vllE <
[r,i G'JIO: CA C/~038
tliOt ;,~,t.>5·?&1
'.,rf?\cn l K1l~11Ctu. ~l A. Fru ,~1pol
(t . ..-.~rc,pr .,E-r ·r:.r1f\(c l J....I.LJ.. r-nr :iool
Woner• (J::rr,e! A<s<x,,,,,
11,c.-rns C<.n•c, /16~:x,;;H'
,~:.cxn J Die12. f>.SLA l:A A51,:'·~•0!f
RECEIVED
JUL 18 2017
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
K•(i /A1115nH·I Hu!f /Jlo:,r. [I'))' t. ,\
-:---Original Message-····
From: Donnelly, Peter (mailto:Peter.Donnelly@ dell.com]
Sent: Tuesday, Julv 18, 2017 9:59 AM
To: Joel Paulson
Cc: Donnelly, Peter
Subject: Proposed changes to hillside fencing standards & guidelines
Joel,
I hope all is well. I heard about the proposed changes to the hillside fencing standards & guidelines. I am unfortunatety
going to be out of town next week and will not be able to attend the public hearing. That said I did want to share a few
comments for consideration as you work through the final language. While I am in general agreement with what is
being proposed (we love to see the wildlife wandering across our property everyday) I do think there are a few practical
considerations that need to be considered in the language as currently drafted.
-I l)elieve 30' as a hard and fast rule is too restrictive. I think the Town should consider a longer distance of say SO' or
preferably have a two part definition that takes into consideration the remaining space on an individual property i.e
restricted to 30' from primary dwelling unless it can' be demonstrated that a minimum X' (say SO' min) wildlife corridor
can be established within the boundaries of the property to allow free passage of wildlife across the property.
• In situations where accessory structures sµch as pools, patios, BBQ areas are Incorporated into a home design the 30'
(or what ever is finalized) should be measur~d from. those items and not simply the primary d,welling unit. In certain
cases these structures may already be > 30' from the primary dwellin~ and therefore a fence around them would not be
allowed
• For large properties a provision should be provided to allow for an entry gate to private driveways (to restrict vehicular
access/ improve security, etc. As I read the.draft this would not be accommodated
Happy to discuss if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Peter
July 19, 2017
Town of Los Gatos
11 O E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Attn: Planning Commission
Re: Fence Policy
Dear Commissioners:
Anthony J. Badame, MD
73 Mariposa Court
Los Gatos, CA 95030
The proposed fence policy is a worthwhile endeavor in an effort to preserve the beauty and habitat of
the hillside. I agree with nearly all the language short of two concerns which are as follows:
1. It appears that vegetable gardens greater than 30 feet from the primary dwelling cannot be
enclosed. On the hillside, vegetable gardens are commonly greater than 30 feet from the
primary dwelling. Without an enclosure, wildlife wi11 certainly destroy every vegetable garden
attempted. An additional exception under Sec. 2940.030xx E. to include vegetable gardens
would be beneficial. The following is suggested language:
Fences needed for edible food gardens do not have to be of wildlife-friendly
design even if farther than 30 feet from the primary dwelling unit.
2. The fence ~epair statements in (D) and (G} combine to generate an element of confusion:
(D) Repair. A permit is not required for repair to sections of existing fences, walls, or hedges
less than 50 feet in length and/or no greater than 25% of total fence, wall, or hedge length,
provided no other repair work is done on the same structure over a 12~month period.
(G) Enforcement. Any fence, wall, gate, gateway, entry arbor, or hedge constructed, replaced,
modified, or repaired without required approval, is a violation of this Code.
If no permit is required for repair as described in (D), then what approval is required in (G)?
Clarification would be helpful.
Sincerely,
//ldJu"?-9ad4hu1 /lfZ:)
Anthony Badame, MD
RECEIVED
JUL 2 0 2017
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
From: Tanya Kurland [mailto:ts@vkgmail.crocodile.org] On Behalf Of Tanya Kurland?
Sent: Thursday, July 20, iOl 7 5:55 PM
To: Donnelly, Peter <p eter.donnell y@ emc.com>
Cc: Vadim Kurland <vadim @vk.crocodile.org>
Subject: Town's proposal wrt fence height
Hi Peter,
I have noticed that town has changed a few things in their proposaJ since yesterday, but there still
are some things that 1 beJieve should be added. I would like to nm this by you before I submit
this to the town. Could you please talce a look? l \VOnder if it would be better if you sent the
comments to the town instead of me since they know you so we1I?
1. I think it is import.ant to list more specific examples of "similar structures" in
Exceptions section.s, E (1 ). The Jist clearly states pools and sport courts, but it is unclear what
else might fall under "similar structures'>. The BBQ, picnic areas and playgrounds should be
added. Deer passing through such areas present danger to the people because they
carry teaks. Stanford research has determined widespread presence of Lyme disease
carrying teaks in Santa Clara county in 2014
http://www.mercuryn ews.com/2014/02/19/stanford-stud y-finds-l ym e-disease-wides pread-in-
ba y-area-o pen-s paces/
Chronic Lyme disease can drastically shorten the life span
htt p://www .sheamedical.com/the-over1ooked%E2%80%93and-
deadl y%,E2%80%93com p1ications-of-1 ym e-disease-and-its-coinfections
2. l think that the height of the hedges should not be restricted to 5' if they are needed as privacy
screen between neighbors. Such hedges should be made an exception.
3. We should probably think about the gate we have down at the beginning of Suview dr. On the
one hand, this gate is on easement and is maintained by who)e community. On the other,
technically it is located on our property and is farther away than 30' from the house. So it may be
considered to faJl under the proposed restrictions height-wise. It is probably ok right now since it
has been built before restrictions come into effect, but the proposal says any future replacements
and repairs must comply with new rules so we may have problems if we ever need to rebui1d or
replace it.
Thank you,
Tanya
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Mr. Mullin,
Tanya Kurland <ts@vkgmail.crocodile.org> on behalf of Tanya Kurland•
<ts@vk.crocodile.org >
Friday, July 21, 2017 10:36 AM
Sean Mullin
town proposal and danger to public health
I would like to bring your attention to the facts relating to free wildlife access to hil1side properties (as it
intended in a proposal to amend Town Code Section 29.40.030 (Fences, hedges, and walls)) and serious danger
it presents for public health.
Stanford researchers say they have found ticks infected with the newer strain, called Borrelia miyamotoi, in
open spaces in Santa Mateo and Santa Clara counties. The study, which was conducted by dragging white
flannel blankets through 12 Bay Area recreational areas, found ticks with the new pathogen, but also ticks
carrying Borrelia burgdorferi, the entity known for {,lecades to cause Lyme disease.
htt p://www.s fg ate.com/health/article/Lyme-disease-more-comrnon-in-Ba y-Area-than·5267529.ph p
Borre/ia miyamotoi is a species of spiral-shaped bacteria that is closely related to the bacteria that cause tick·
borne rela psin g fever (TBRF). It is more distantly related to the bacteria that cause Lyme disease. The case
series report was prepared by a research team led by Philip J. Molloy, MO about Borrelia
miyamotoi, where authors wrote: "Patients presented with acute headache, fever, and chilJs ... Patients were
commonly described as appearing 'toxic'; more than 50% were suspected of having sepsis, and 24% required
hospitalization. The headaches were most commonly described as severe, resulting in head computed
tomography scans and spinal taps in 5 patients."
htt p://www.medsca pe.com/viewarticle/846337
A lot of people, even some doctors mistakenly think that there is no Lyme disease in California and it goes
undiagnosed and not properly treated. Chronic Lyme disease could severely shorten the life spam.
htt p ://www .shearnedical.com/the-overlooked%E2%80%93and-deadl y%E2%80%93com plications-of-l yrn e-
disease-and-its-coinfections
Both diseases are spread by teaks that shed by deer. The only way to protect people from this terrible diseases
is to limit deer access to hillside properties. I think that proposal should not limit the hight of fences and
hedges, but require residents to provide conidors for wildlife to pass through on their properties instead.
I shall attend a hearing to bring awareness of the diseases related to deer.
Thank you,
Tanya Kurland
C. We reply to some public comments, since there is inadequate time to discuss during 3
minutes and there are some good suggestions in the 6 submitted letters.
1. David Klinger is concerned about his 6' high fence with a 1 foot lattice on top. Since
he lives in a non-hillside area, the code doesn't change for him. Plus, he can get a
waiver for the construction of a privacy fence.
2. Pamela Bond is concerned that a 42" tall fence is too short to keep in a dog and
prQtect her kids from coyotes. We agree, as the code is mostly aimed at perimeter
side and back yard fences. We propose to add playground areas to the (El (1)
Exceptions section. We don't support fencing in a large part of the back yard since
such might increase coyote interactions with her children as the animals will have
fewer ways to avoid people.
3. Christopher Kankel says that corral and domestic animal fencing will be prohibited
>30' from the primary structure. This is wrong -see (E) (3). Mr. Kankel also worries
about a secure automobile gate, which is already covered by HDS&G on pages 43
and 44. Mr. Kankel also asks for greater flexibility in placing a security fence. Again,
the aim of this ordinance is to Increase the amount of wildlife friendly habitat but he
can always ask for an Exception under section (E) (4).
4. Peter DonneUy thinks that 30' is too hard a rule. He can always apply for a hardship
exception (E) (4). He also wants· 30' measured from accessory structure and not just
from primary residence., If the owner can demonstrate a need for a fence around a
patio, then he can apply for an Exception. The code already provides, and in fact,
requires a fence around a pool. Lastly, entry gates are already permitted by the
HDS&G.
5. Anthony Badame makes 2 suggestions and we agree with both.
6. Tanya Kurland is worried about deer and deer ticks and Lyme Disease. In fact, in
California, the main hosts for deer ticks are western gray squirrels and wood rats, not
deer. Plus, wooden fences are good habitats for western fence lizards, whose blood
kills the Lyme Disease bacteria when the juvenile ticks feed on lizard blood. She
would like to expand possible fenced areas to include certain activity sites like picnic
and playground areas, probably because of her concern about ticks. Fence heights, if
needed for privacy, can exceed 42 inches under non-hillsides (8) (2)(a) and can be
added to the hillside Exceptions (E) section. There are no restrictions on her fixing
her community gate if it needs repair.
PLANNING COMMISSION
Received with September 13, 2017, Staff Report, Addendum,
and Desk Item
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
(
Nancy Reyering <nanzo@me.com>
Wednesday, July 26, 2017 12:0S PM
Joel Paulson
Sean Mullin; David Weissman
(
Subject: Public comment to PC meeting 7/25: Code Amendment A-17-002
Dear Los Gatos Planning Commission:
I am writing to voice my strong support for code amendments that will preserve wildlife habitats,
protect migration corridors, support the General Plan policies, and generally limit the impact of
fences, walls, and gates.
Residents and wildlife will benefit by the direction given in clearly worded code amendments that limit
the location and types of fencing to allow greater freedom of movement for wildlife. Our local fauna
need to traverse both open space and private properties to find safety, forage, and mates with
sufficient DNA variation to ensure survival of species.
The work of both staff and residents is to be applauded, as existing town codes do not sufficiently
regulate fencing and other impediments to wildlife.
Thank you for your careful consideration of this very important issue.
Best regards,
Nancy Reyering
Board Member, Committee for Green Foothills
1
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
David Weissman <9ryllus@gmail.com>
Thursday, July 27, 2017 11:37 AM
Joel Paulson; Sean Mullin; Lee Quintana
Lyme Disease
Follow up
·Flagged
Almost on command, KQED has this article on today's website. Please pass this along to the Planning
Commission.
https://ww2.kged.org/science/2017/07/27/l ym e-disease-in-califomia-sorting-fact-from-m yth/
Dave Weissman
15431 Francis Oaks Way
Los Gatos, CA 95032
H: (408) 358-3556
gryllus@gmail.com
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
David Klinger <dave.klinger@sbcglobal.net>
Wednesday, August 30, 2017 6:07 PM
Council; manager@losgatossca.gov
Sean Mullin
Proposal for flatland fence height code changes
I am a resident Los Gatos. The Planning Commission is currently considering changes to the Los Gatos fence code for
hillside properties to protect wildlife. I request the Council direct the Commission to expand the scope of these changes to
include reconsideration of the flatland residential fence height restrictions.
I recently received approval by the Community Development Director to construct a replacement 7 foot high fence that
includes a 1 ft lattice on top. I paid Los Gatos $233 to process the exemption required by city code, att,r gaining approval
of all my adjacent neighbors. A building permit was not required since the fence was not over 7 feet high.
I discovered by walking our dogs around extensively and talking with my fence contractor that 7 foot fence replacements
are quite common. I met with Sean Mullin, of the Los Gatos planning staff to seek Information about how many residents
seek the formal exemption and pay the fee. I was advised by another planning staff member at that meeting that the
number is "minimal", and that the city was unable to provide me the exact exemption application count since there is no
tracking system in place. One can only conclude that many residents simply ignore the code and replace fences without
seeking a formal exemption for those fences higher than 6 feet. Further. I talked with LG Code Compliance and was told
that fence height compliance is not an issue, perhaps one or two calls per year, due to neighbors working it out
themselves. Compliance actions do not take place unless there is a complaint.. ·
San Jose, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and Los Altos allow 7 foot fences with 1 foot lattice without
exemptions or permits, some of these cities requiring adjoining neighbor approval.
Neigh~.r approval and "Special privacy concerns". without specific criteria, is the current Los Gatos basis for allowing
fences over 6 feet high. Privacy is a subjective matter best left to the neighbors directly affected. Determination of whether
or not a special privacy concern exists is at the discretion of the Community Development Director per current code.
Proposal: The flatland ordinance should be modified to allow 7 foot heights with 1 foot lattice without an exemption fee if
all affected neighbors approve. The code should continue the 6 foot no-approval baseline. If a neighbor disapproves a
fence higher than 6 feet, the resident desiring the increase could appeal, starting with the Community Development
Director. FencEls higher than 7 feet should continue to require a permit due to ensure safety. Front yard and corner lot
low fence limitations should remain in force. again for safety and vislbility reasons.
I believe this change would reconcile the fence height ordinance to the apparent current LG community consensus that 7
foot fences are often desired and are acceptable. Making this change would promote better respect for and compliance
With Los Gatos codes, and immediately reprieve many residents who are not currently code-compliant. However, this
issue is not likely to result in demonstrations and demand for changes at fi.Jture Council meetings. Rather, this issue falls
more properly into the category of good city governance and respect for the ability of residents to work it out
themselves.
In summary,
1) The fence height code is being ignored widely,
2) Many fences are higher than six feet, but are acceptable to the neighbors,
3) The current height exemption criteria of "special privacy concerns" is subjective and difficult to properly evaluate,
4) When neighbors already agree on a 7 foot high fence, gaining city approval and paying associated fees unnecessarily
burdens the residents.
Respectfully,
David L. Klinger
141 Potomac Dr
Sec. 29.40.030. Fences, Hedges & Walls
A. In residential zones, fences, hedges, and walls not over 6 feet high are allowed on or within all property
lines, except that no owner or occupant of any corner lot or premises in the Town shall erect or maintain
upon such lot or premises any fence, hedge or wall higher than 3 feet above the curb in a traffic view area
unless a permit is secured from the Town Engineer. A traffic view area is the area which is within 15 feet
of a public street and within 200 feet of the right-of-way line of an intersection. Barbed wire or razor ribbon
wire is prohibited in all zones.
B. The following exceptions shall apply:
1. Properties within historic districts or have a Landmark and Historic Preservation Overlay shall not have
fences, hedges, and walls higher than 3 feet in a front yard except as provided in subsection
29.40.030(b)(2}. Any fence, hedge or wall erected in a front yard shall be of open design.
2. Gateways or entryway arbors may be higher than 6 feet in any zone including historic districts and shall
be of open design but in no case shall a gateway or entryway arbor be higher than 8 feet, have a width
greater than 6 feet, or have a depth greater than 4 feet. All gateways and entryway arbors shall be
constructed of open design. No more than 1 gateway or entry arbor per street frontage is allowed.
3. Boundary line fences or walls adjacent to commercial property may be 8 feet high if requested or agreed
upon by a majority of the residential property owners.
4. Properties not on a street corner, may have side yard and rear yard fences, hedges, or walls behind the
front yard setback that are 8 feet high if the property owner can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director that the following conditions exists:
a. A special privacy concern exists that merits the need for the eight-foot height and that these concerns
cannot be praclicaily addressed by additional landscaping or tree screening. Written justification shall be
provide to the Planning Department which documents the special privacy concern, and the higher fence
height may only be approved at the discretion of the Planning Director.
b. A special wildlife/animal problem affects the property and merits the need for the higher eight-foot height
because no practical alternatives exist to address the problem. Documented instances of wildlife grazing
on gardens or domestic landscaping may be an example of such a problem. Fencing proposed for rural or
hillside areas shall be of an open design that does not detract from the scenic nature or character of the
surrounding area.
c A special safety/security concern with Home Owner Association Private Swim Pool Clubs exists that
merits the need for the eight-foot height and that these concerns cannot be practically addressed by
additional landscaping or tree screening.
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Joel Paulson
Monday. September 11, 2017 9:16 PM
Sean Mullin
Subject: Fwd: Proposed fence ordinance
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Marico Sayoc <MSayoc@losgatosca.gov>
Date: September 11, 2017 at 9:11:31 PM PDT
To: Bonnie Payne <bonnieapayne@comcast.net>
Cc: Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti @losgatosca.gov>, Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Re: Proposed fence ordinance
Oear Mr. and Mrs. Payne -
Thank you for sharing your objections to the proposed fence ordinance. I am copying our town staff so
that your email can be shared with the Planning Commissioners who will be reviewing this proposal
during their Commission hearing this Wednesday.
Marico
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Marico Sayoc
Mayor, Town of Los Gatos
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
On Sep 11, 2017, at 6:08 PM, Bonnie Payne <bonniea payne @comcast.net> wrote:
September 11, 2017
Dear Mayor Sayoc,
I wish to go on record as objecting to the new fence ordinance proposal. It is hard to
believe that the fence that surrounds our property could not be repaired or replaced in
its current location, which includes the orchard we have been nurturing for 20 years and
further from our house than 30 feet. Does that mean that our orchard needs to be
abandoned if our. fence ever needs to be repaired?
Please reject this proposal I
Sincerely,
Bonnie and Richard Payne
16216 Kennedy Road, Los Gatos 95032
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent
To:
Joel Paulson
Monday, September 11, 2017 9:58 PM
Sean Mullin
Subject: Fwd: objection to Town Code Amendment A-17-002
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Marico Sayoc <MSa yoc @losgatosca.gov>
Date: September 11, 2017 at 9:25:30 PM PDT
To: Richard Payne <rkpaynel@mac.com>
Cc: Laurel Prevett! <LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov>, Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Re: objection to Town Code Amendment A-17-002
Hello Mr. Payne -
I am sharing your email (and your wife's email) to our town staff so that they may share your concerns
with the Planning Commission. They will review this proposed change on Wednesday and your emails
will be included In public comments for their consideration.
Marico
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Marko Sayoc
Mayor, Town of Los Gatos
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
On Sep 11, 2017, at 8:01 PM, Richard Payne <rkpayne1@mac.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Sayoc,
The proposed ordinance amendment would very negatively effect our quality of life. We
have invested a great deal in developing an orchard on land that was orchard when the
house was built in 1949. And in which we have lived for over 25 years, developing an
orchard on our property. The only way that we can protect our investment from being
destroyed by deer is to have it fenced. While I understand that the goal is to allow
animals opportunities to move through the town, a goal of which I approve, there is a
difference between mandating something like openings that enable coyotes, raccoons,
foxes and so on freedom of movement, and not being able to protect from deer.
As described I strongly object to the amendment,
yours,
Richard Payne
16216 Kennedy Road
Los Gatos, CA 95032
408.358.3332
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Sean and Joel,
David Weissman <gryllus@gmail.com>
Tuesday, September 12, 2017 9:07 AM
Sean Mullin; Joel Paulson
Fence Ordinance revision
Fence. 9-13-2017.To.docx
Follow up
Flagged
Please send the attached document to the PC members for the PC meeting on Wednesday, Sept 13th.
Thank you.
Dave
Dave Weissman
15431 Francis Oaks Way
Los Gatos, CA 95032
H: (408) 358-3556
gryllus@gmail.com
To: Planning Commission, meeting of 9/13/2017
Re: Fence Ordinance
From: Dave Weissman, 9/12/2017
At the prior meeting of 7/26/2017, Commissioner Hanssen asked why there is a need for this
ordinance revision? The Town needs this new language because the 2020 General Plan Policy,
LU-1.3, says that a Town policy and goal is to "Preserve ... wildlife habitats In new and existing
developments" and the HDS&G require that hillside open views be maintained and that wildlife
corridors be protected. The current fence ordinance does neither. Additionally, at the fast
meeting, the PC heard from 3 local experts, from the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club,
Santa Clara County Audubon Society, and Committee for Green Foothills, as to why animal-
friendly movement hillsides are important to the integrity of our urban forests. We need to
protect the animals within our hillsides as much as we protect our trees.
With these considerations in mind, I propose the following 5 changes/additions to staff's draft,
shown below in bold, Italics, and underlined.
I urge that you approve Staff's draft, with my proposed changes (of course), and send this
document onto the TC with the recommendation for adoption.
Sec. 29.40.030. Fences, walls, gates, gateways, entry arbors, and hedges.
Sec. 29.40.030xx. -Purpose and intent. The Fence Ordinance is divided into two parts: non-
hillside and hi1lside areas. The use of fences, walls, gates. gateways, entry arbors, and hedges in
the hillside areas shall be minimized and located so that natural landfonns appear to flow
. together and are not disconnected. The primary emphasis sha11 be on maintaining open views.
protecting wildlife corridors, and maintaining the rural, open, and natural character of the
hillsides. Additional details are available in the Town's Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines, including the statement on page 43: ''Fences shall not be allowed in areas that
would im pede the movement of wildlife ... "Additionallv fr om photo ca ption on page 42 .
"Rural character allows wildli fe to pass through."
Sec. 29.40.030xx. -Definitions. The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this
division. shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section. Fence means a man-made
structure serving as a barrier or screen constructed of wood, metal, wire, masonry, glass, plastic,
stone or any material. Fence height means measured from finished grade and shalJ be measured
from either side of the property line which affords affected property owners the most buffering
from noise, light, glare, or privacy impacts. Hedge means a boundary formed by closely growing
deciduous or evergreen bushes or shrubs. Hillside lot means a parcel ofland that is shown on the
HiJJside Area Map in the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines regardless of zoning
district. Movement corridor means a movement pathway that is typically independent of season
and used by animals on a near daily basis for the acquisition of food, shelter, water, and mates.
Open-view design means a fence or other structure that permits views through it. Planting Zone 1
means that area within a 30-foot radius of the primary dwelling unit on a hillside lot. Retaining
wall means a man-made structure designed to retain soiJ. Riparian conidor means an area
comprised of habitat strongly influenced and delineated by the presence of perennial or
intermittent streams. Page 2 of 6 Draft 9/8/17 Draft Amendments to Chapter 29 of Town Code -
HiUside Fences Stream means a body of water that flows at le.ast periodically or intermittently
through a bed or channel having banks. The body of water may include watercourses having a
surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation, fish, or aquatic life.
Top of bank means a stream boundary where a majority of nonnal discharges and channel
fonning activities take place. The top of bank wilJ contain the active channel. active floodplain,
and their associated banks. Where there are no distinguishable features to locate the top of bank,
the local permitting agency will make a determination and document as appropriate. In the
absence of this detennination, the 100-year water surface will be used. Traffic view area means
that area, on comer lots, which is within fifteen (15) feet of a public street and within two
hundred (200) feet of the right-of-way line of an intersection, or a distance of thirty (30) feet
measured horizontally in any direction from the point of intersection of the property lines at
street comers. Wall means a man-made structure that defines an area, carries a J_oad, or provides
shelter or security. Wildlife-fiiendly design means a fence, wall, hedge, or other structure that
permits any animal, regardless of size, to easily climb under, pass through, or jump over.
S~. 29.40.030xx. -Non-hillside lots: Proposed new fences, walls, gates, gateways, entry aroors,
and hedges.
(A) In residential zones, no pennits are required for the repair, replacement, or construction of
fences, walls, gates, gateways, entry arbors, or hedges that are less than six (6) feet high on, or
within all property lines.
(B) The following height exceptions shall apply: (1) Comer lot: In a traffic view area, no comer
lot or premises in the Town shall have any fence, wan, gate, gateway, entry arbor, or hedge
higher than three (3) feet above the curb unless permission is secured from the Town Engineer.
(2) Properties not on a street comer: At the discretion of the Director of Community
Development, side yard and rear yard fences, walls, gate; gateways, entry arbors~ or hedges,
behind the front yard setback, may be a maximum of eight (8) feet higll provided the property
owner can provide written justification to the Planning Department that demonstrates either of
the folJowing conditions exjsts: a. A special privacy concern exists that cannot be practically
addressed by additional landscaping or tree screening. b. 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. (3) Historic Districts and/or Landmark and Historic Preservation Overlay: The
maximum height of fences in the front yard shaJJ be three (3) feet and shaJJ be of open-view
design. (4) Gateways or entryway arbors: May be up to eight (8) feet high, including within
Historic Districts or for properties with a Landmark and Historic Preservation Overlay, and shaJl
be of open-view design. A gateway or entryway arbor sha11 have a maximum width of six (6)
feet and a maximum depth of four ( 4) feet. No more than one (1) gateway or entryway arbor per
street frontage is allowed. Page 3 of 6 Draft 9/8/17 Draft Amendments to Chapter 29 of Town
Code-Hillside Fences (5) Adjacent to commercial property: Boundary line fences or walls
adjacent to commercial property may be eight (8) feet high if requested or agreed upon by a
majority of the adjacent residential property owners.
(C) MateriaJs. The type of fencing materials within the non-hillside zone are generally
unrestricted, and fences can be a combination of materials, with the following exceptions: (1)
Plastic fencing is discouraged everywhere and is prohibited in Historic Districts. (2) Barbed wire
or razor ribbon wire is prohibited in all zones.
Sec. 29.40.030xx. -Hillside Jots: Proposed new fences, waJJs, gates, gateways, entry arbors, and
hedges. This division section covers any new fence. wall, gate, gateway, entry arbor, or hedge,
and the replacement, modification, and/or repair of any existing fence. waJl, gate, gateway, entry
arbor, or hedge whether the primary dwelling unit is new or existing. In the absence of a primary
dwelling unit, an entire hillside lot, including any accessory structures such as a barn. storage
shed, stable, or similar structure, shall be covered by the conditions of this Section.
(A) Within 30 feet of primary dwelling unit (Planting Zone 1 }: (I) Approvals: Minor Residential
Development approval is required pursuant to Section 29.20.480(2)(h). The pennit shaJI be
posted on site during construction. (2) Are subject to the provisions of Sec. 29.40.030, Non-
hillside residential lots above. (3) Riparian corridor. No fence, wall, gate or hedge shall be
constructeci within a riparian corridor or within 30 feet of its top of bank. (4) Prohibited
materials. Barbed or razor wire fences, including any fence with attached barbs, sharp points, or
razors, are prohibited.
(B) Greater than 30 feet from primary dwelling unit (outside Planting Zone 1): (I) Approvals:
Minor Residential Development approval is required pursuant to Section 29.20.480(2)(h}. The
pennit shall be posted on site during construction. (2) Accessory structures. Fences associated
with accessory structures, if located farther than 30 feet from the primary dwelling unit, shal1 be
governed by this section. (3) Wildlife friendly. All fences, wa11s, gates, and hedges shall be of
wildlife-friendly design. If a new hi11side fence is, in part, closer than 30 feet to the primary
dwelling unit and, elsewhere, farther than 30 feet from the primary dwelling unit, the portion that
is farther than 30 feet shall be of wildlife-friendly design. (4) Maximum height: a. New fences.
The maximum height of new fences shall be 42 inches. b. Hedges. Hedges shall be maintained at
a maximum height of 60 inches (5 feet}. c. Hedges shall have two-to four-foot-wide gaps at least
every 25 feet. (5) Minimum height above grade: a. New Fences. The minimum height above
grade of new fences shall be 16 inches. (6) The following fence types are not of wildlife-friendly
design and are therefore prohibited: a. Chain-link, chicken wire, welded wire, wire mesh,
cyclone or similar fence material Page 4 of 6 Draft 9/8/17 Draft Amendments to Chapter 29 of
Town Code -Hillside Fences b. Buck and rail fences. c. Any fence with bare lengths of wire
stretched between posts. d. Electric fences, including any fence designed to produce an electric
shock, except where necessary for animal husbandry operations. e. Barned or razor wire fences,
including any fence with attached barbs, sharp points, or razors. (7) Fence design. a. Fences shall
be of an open-view design that does not detract from the scenic nature or character of the
surrounding area. b. Traditional split-rail fences are encouraged. Rural styles sha]] emphasize
natural colors such as brown, grey or green. c. Fences shall have a top level of wood (or similar
material) rail rather than wire. d. Split rail fences shalJ include a minimum 12-inch spacing
between rails wherever feasible. e. Hedge plant species shaJl consist of those listed in Appendix
A of the Hillside Development Standards and Guide1ines. f. The spacing of vertical fence posts
shall be at least j8 feet apart, unless physically impossible due to terrain or other conditions.!
(from HDS&G, pag e 43) g. "Onlv o pen fencing shall be located within 20 feet o f a prop e rty
line adiacent to a street "(8) Fence, waJJ, gate. and hedge siting: a~ Fences and hedges shall be
located to follow natural contours, whenever possible. b. Fences and hedges shall be located to
avoid impacts to trees, animal movement corridors, and other natural features. (from HDS&G,
page 43) "Fences shall not be allowed in areas that woul.d imp ede the movement of
wUdli(e ... '~ No fence. wall, gate or hedge shall be constructed within a riparian corridor, stream,
or within 30 feet of its top of bank. d. No fence, wall, gate, or hedge shall be constructed in the
public or private right-of-way or within any trail easement or other easement precluding their
construction unless allowed, in writing, by the Town Engineer. (9) Walls: a. Walls are prohibited
unless needed for privacy as determined by the Director of Community Development. b. Town
approved retaining walls are permitted.
(C) Replacement or modification of existing fences, walls, hedges or gates: (1) Shall be subject
to the requirements in this Ordinance. The permit will be posted on site during construction. (2)
Are encouraged if such changes improve wildlife movement or animal corridors. (3)
Replacement or modification of any fence, wall, hedge or gate shaJ) be prohibited if the Town
Engineer determines that a public safety hazard exists.
(D) Repair. A pennit is not required for repair of short sections of existing fences, walls, or
hedges no greater than 50 percent of fence, wall, or hedge provided no other repair work is done
on the same structure over a 12-month period.
(E) Exceptions: (1) Fences around swimming pools, outdoor sports courts, and similar structures
are not required to be of wildlife-friendly design, even if farther than 30 feet from the primary
dwelling unit (see Sec. 29.10.09020 for other swimming pool requirements). Sport court fencing
may be 12 feet in height. (2) A temporary (1 to 3 year), animal excluding, circular enclosing
fence may be erected to protect a newly planted tree or shrub. (3) Enclosure fencing around
vineyards, orchards, and vegetable gardens shall be limited to those areas requiring enclosure
and does not have to he wildlife fiiendly even if farther than 30 feet from the primary dweJling
unit. (from HDS&G, pa ge 43) "Deer fencing shall be limited to areas around ornamental
landscaping. Larger areas shall not be enclosed ... " (The HDS&G already limits ornamental
landsca ping to plantin g zone 1, within 30' of the primary dwellin g). (4) Fences needed for
livestock control do not have to be ofwildlife-fiiendly design even if farther than 30 feet from -
the primary dwelling unit. (5) Security fencing required to protect a public utility installation
does not have to be wild1ife friendly. (6) Written exceptions may be granted when the Director of
Community Development finds that the strict application of these requirements will result in !!!
extreme hardship for the property owner.
(F) Fees. The fee, as adopted by Town Resolution for Minor Residential development, prescribed
therefore in the municipal fee schedule, shall accompany any application for a fence in the
HiJJside area submitted to the Town for review and evaluation pursuant to this division.
(G) Enforcement. Any fence, wall, gate, gateway, entry arbor, or hedge constructed, replaced,
modified, or repaired without required approval, is a violation of this Code.
(H) Where a conflict exists between the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) of a
hiJJside Planned Development (PD) and this document, the requirements of this document sha11
prevail.
(I) Notices. Noticing shall comply with the public noticing procedures of section 29.20.480 of
the Town Code. (Ord. No.1316, § 4.10.020, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1493, 3-17-81; Ord. No. 1873, §I,
10-7-91; Ord. No. 2049, § I, 10-5-98; Ord. No. 2062, §1, 6-21-99; Ord. No. XXXX, §)
Sean Mullin
From:
S~nt:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
cc: Town Council
Town Manager
CDD Director J. Paulson
Associate Planner S. Mullin
Good morning,
Janette Judd
Tuesday, September 12, 2017 10:34 AM
adonkathy@aol.com
Sean Mullin; Joel Paulson
FW: Fence Ordinance
Thank you for your e-mail, received by the Town Council and Town Manager. This matter is currently
scheduled for discussion at the September 13 Planning Commission meeting. Your conununication was
received after the Planning Commission agenda was finalized and after initial public submittal
deadlines. However, your comments will be inc1uded (along with all Public Comment) in supplemental
materials distributed for tomorrow's meeting, as well as any subsequent Town Council meeting discussion.
By copy of this message your conunents are referred to Associate Planner Sean Mullin, staff liaison for
matter. Should you have additional questions or comments, Sean can be reached at ( 408) 354-6823 or by email,
SMullin @LosGatosCA.gov.
Thank you once again for contacting the Town of Los Gatos and voicing your comments.
Best regards,
•
Janette Judd • Executive Assistant
Town Council and Town Manager • 110 E. Main St., Los Gatos CA 95030
Ph: 408.354.6832 • JJudd @LosGatosCA.gov
www.LosGatosCA.gov • https:ljwww.facebook.com /los gatosca
-----Original Message-----
From: Don & Kathy [mailto:adonkathy@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 6:30 PM
To: Council
Subject: Fence Ordinance
I was shocked to read the facts concerning the new fence· ordinance. At first I thought it was "fake news".
I cannot understand the reasoning behind such an ordinance.
I ask the Town Council to use good judgment and vote against such an abusive home owner's ordinance.
I would also wonder what the thinking was that went into even coming up with such regulations.
I think more time should be spent on trying to solve the horrific traffic problems.
Kathy Anderson
Foster Rd.
95030
Sent from my iPad
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
cc: Town Council
Town Manager
CDD DiJ:ector J. Paulson
Associate Planner S. Mullin
Good morning,
Janette Judd
Tuesday, September 12, 201710:36 AM
drjkim@verizon.net
Joel Paulson; Sean Mullin
FW: comments regarding fence ordinance
FenceOrdinance_DrKim.pdf
Thank you for your e-mail and attached letter, received by the Town Council and Town Manager. This matter
is currently scheduled for discussion at the September 13 Planning Commission meeting. Your communication
was received after the Planning Commission agenda was finalized and after initial pub1ic submittal
deadlines. However, your comments will be included (along with all Public Comment) in supplemental
materials distributed for tomorrow's meeting, as well as any subsequent Town CounciJ meeting discussion.
By copy of this message your comments are referred to Associate Planner Sean Mullin, staff liaison for
matter. Should you have additional questions or comments; Sean can be reached at (408) 354-6823 or by email,
SMullin @LosGatosCA.gov.
Thank you once again for contacting the Town of Los Gatos and voicing your comments.
Best regards,
•
Janette Judd • Executive Assistant
Ill.
Town Council and Town Manager • 110 E. Main St., Los Gatos CA 95030
· Ph: 408.354.6832 • JJudd @LosGatosCA.gov
www.LosGatosCA.gov • https://www.facebook.com /los gatosca
From: Julie Kurkchubasche (mailto:dr_jkim@verlzon.net]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 9:09 PM
To: Council; Town Mi;mager
Subject: comments regarding fence ordinance
Dear Council Members,
'
Please see my letter addressing the upcoming fencing ordinance in the attachment.
Thank You,
Julie Kim, MD
dr jkim @verizon.net
--Original Message-
To: Julie Kim <dr jklm @verizon.net>
Sent: Mon, Sep 11, 2017 9:04 pm
From: kdelouml [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 fmd 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.
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 m.ore definition on fencing -
across-watersheds whether wet or dry during the summer would be greatly appreciated.
Karen
Sent via mobile device.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
TOWN COUNCIL
Receiveo with December 5, 2017, Staff Report
Sean Mullin
From: Erin M. Walters
Sent:
To:
Thursday, September 14, 2017 9:01 AM
Jeffrey Casale
Cc:
Subject:
Good Morning Jeffery,
Thank you for your email.
Sean Mullin
RE: Amendment A-17-002
I will forward your comment to Sean Mullin, the project planner for hillside fences. You comment will be included in the
next report to Town Council.
Last night the Planning Commission forwarded the proposed amendments to the Town Council with Planning
Commissioner comments and no recommendation.
Please keep in contact with Sean regarding the upcoming Town Council meeting on this matte,r.
Best,
Erin Walters • Associate Planner
Community Development Department • 110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos CA 95030
Ph: 408.354.6867 • 408-354-6872
www.losgatosca.gov • ewalters@losgatosca.gov
Erin's Office Hours: 9:00 AM -1:00 PM, Monday-Friday
Community Development Counter Hours: 8:00 AM -.1:00 PM, Monday-Friday
Please note the upcoming Town closure: November 23 & 24 -Thanksgiving Holiday
CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLAIMER
This e-mail is intended only for the use of the lndlvidual(s) named in this e-mail. If you receive this e-mail and are not a
named recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of the e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this communication in error, please immediately notify us at the above e-mail address.
111 Think Green, please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
-----Original Message----
From: casale, Jeffrey [mailto:Jeffrey.Casale@dell.com)
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 6:45 PM
To: Plannlng
Subject: Amendment A-17-002
I am a resident in the hillsides. 17400 Phillips Ave. I am against the proposed amendment.
All fences deteriorate and this will require costly changes to existing fences while exposing my children to an increase in
ticks and Lyme disease.
Jeff Casale.
1
Dear Los Gatos Planning Commission,
In reading through the proposed new regulations for hi1lside area fencing it is clear that
much thought and care gone into balancing the needs of the residents with the needs of
the wildlife and the open space feel of the hi11side areas. The exceptions put in the
proposal for orchards, vineyards, gardens, and the protection of livestock go a long way
in ensuring that the residents' usage of the land is not unduly limited by the new proposed
fencing regulations. That being said, there is one aspect of the new regulation that could
pose a major impediment to raising livestock responsibly in this area of Los Gatos.
Rotational grazing is considered best practice for raising livestock in order to limit
the environmental impact of the animals on the landscape. That means that animals
graze in a limited area for pasture for a short period of time. They are then rotated
onto another part of the pasture. The animals are usually rotated through four or
more sections of pasture, being moved as often as weekly depending on the size of
the pasture and the number of animals. This is most often done usirig moveable
fencing that is moved to endose the area containing the animals. This method of
rotational grazing allows the grasses to regrow between grazing periods, reducing
erosion and increasing the fertility of the soil rather than depleting it This also
helps increase the soil's Water storage capacity, which makes the area more drought
resistant.
The proposed permitting fee of more than $2000 in new fencing proposal would
make rotational grazing cost prohibitive. It would be impossible for people to apply
for weekly, or even monthly, permits to move fences. As a result it could encourage
people to use less sustainable agriculture practices, thereby increasing erosion.
Alternatively, it might encourage people to permanently enclose the entire pasture
area with a fence and add fences within the area to subdivide it into multiple
pastures. This would result in a larger permanently fenced area than might be
necessary, just to avoid the fees associated with permits to move the fem:es. This is
opposite desired effect of the propose~ fencing ordinance, which is designed to
reduce the fencing that limits wildlife throughways and access. I urge the Planning
Commission to consider adding an exception to the required permitting fee for
temporary moveable fences used for livestock pasturing. That would help ensure
that there is not undue burden on the residents while at the same time maximizing
the environmental benefits of reducing erosion and leaving unobstructed passage
for wildlife. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Rabbi Shoshana Ohrienr
14320 Arnerich Rd
Los Gatos, CA 95070 RECEEVED
SEP 13 2017
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Because our parce] is Jarge, al] of the fencing is further than 30' from the residence. Jn fact we have a brick wal]
at the entry to our property that is over 30' away. Under the proposed ordinance if more than 50' or 25% of any
fence or wan needs repair it would have to meet the new ordinance. In our case, should a truck or earthquake
damage our front wall (which is approximately two 20' walls with a driveway gate) we would have to put a 42"
high split rai1 fence to replace. Ridiculous
Should a large portion of our yard fencing be damaged, we would have to comply with the new ordinance,
which means we would have to put a safety fence (to protect our pets and young children) within 30' of our
home, and a separate compliant fence outside that one. Again, ridiculous
J could go on. and on, but J think you see some of the problems with this proposed ordinance. Jf for some reason
the Planning commission allows it to move forward, I would hope you would see fit to deny.
Thank you,
Todd & Gwen Gummow
408-529-9632
17144 Mill Rise Way
Los Gatos, CA 95030
hedges, and w~lls; and includes new regulations and requirements for fences, hedges, and walls in
the Hillside Area. ·
As a long time resident of Los Gatos, my family and I love observing and being close to our local
wildlife. It is one of the reasons we bought our property and is a great souce of enjoyment. Having
said that, the proposed amendment to current fencing regulations for hillside properties is an
extremely flawed and misguided for the following reasons:
1. The proposed ordinace is burdensome and impractical. During the 16 years that I have lived at the
above address, I have at times grown grapes, blueberries, blackberries, figs, lemons, nectarines,
pomegranates, all sorts of vegetables, flowers and ornamental plants. None of these would have
been possible without a deer fence in distinct violation of the proposed ordinance.
Note that I do not have "an orchard" but rather have established trees, beny bushes and raised
veggie beds in various small spots around my property where there is sufficient sun exposure in
between the many large native oak trees. To comply with the proposed ordinance I would have to
construct at least 8 or 1 O seperate fenced enclosures on my 1 .1 acre lot. This would create an
extraordinary eyesore and be far more expensive than the normal common sense solution of a
perimeter fence around my back yard. Hillside properties often have very limited planting
zones. S_lopes, trees, sun exposure and irregular lot shapes limit where various items can be
planted. The proposed ordinance completely ignores this practical reality of hillside properties.
During the Sept 13, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, one of the two proponents of the
Amendment suggested it was simply "codifying what was already in the Hillside Guidelines• however
several Commissioners pointed out problems with this blanket justification since the Amendment
goes far beyond what is specified or even contemplated in the Hillside Guidelines.
2. The deer population is thriving despite the explosion in development including many noncompliant
fences over the past few decades. At the Sept 13 Planning Commission meeting on this topic,
multiple long-time residents provided testimony supporting this. Our local black tail deer populations
adapt quite readily to human development and the notion that our fences have hurt the deer is simply
naive and not supported by facts. I would challenge the proponents of the proposed amendment to
provide any empirical evidence that the local deer popolation is in decline or otherwise suffering. On
the contrary, fences are normally used to restrict the deer from feeding on various irrigated and non-
native plants (fruits, veg~tables, berries, flowers, etc) that would never be part of the deer's natural
and healthy ecosystem.
3. Fleas and ticks are a serious problem. Many people have commented on ticks and the diseases
they vector but fleas are also a concern. One summer several years ago when my children were
smaller, they were unable to use their trampoline and swing set due to a flea infestation. Our local
herd pf deer liked to lie down in the play yard during the afternoon which was very cute but resulted in
the area being overrun with fleas. We were all covered with flea bites that summer and I had to hire a
professional exterminator to deal with the problem.
4. Fences have a finite life and need to be replaced from time to time. In 16 years on my property I
am now on my third fence. When it ages out and needs to be replaced again, I will be unable to
replace it with a fence that will protect my pets, fruit trees, berry bushes, vegetable gardens,
etc. Similarly, any future owner of my home will effectively be prohibited from enjoying the property
as I have.
5. The Town has neither the capability nor the intention of enforcing the proposed regulations which
means this entire effort is a colossal waste of time and taxpayers' money. During the Sept 13, 2017
Planning Commission meeting, testimony was provided that many fences both in the downtown area
and in the hillsdies do not comply with the CURRENT fence regulations. This was readily
a·cknowledged by the Commissioners, some of whom admitted to having such noncompliant fences
themselves and Town Staff agreed that the current fence regulations are NOT ENFORCED and there
are countless examples of illegal fences that can be readily observed throughout our town. Town
Staff also indicated very few people ~ver apply for a fence permit as required by our current
regulations. Several builders have indicated there is never a need to get a pennit for a
(noncompliant) fence since the Town of Los Gatos does not police or enforce fence
regulations. Since the proposed amendment raises the fence pennit fee to an exorbitant $2200 (five
times as much as Los Altos Hills) we can expect that virtually no one will apply for such a permit or
otherwise comply with the increasingly onerous regulations.
A sound and effective government does not pass laws that is has neither the capacity nor the
intention of enforcing. Why are we wasting our time with this ridiculous proposal?
Our town faces numerous challenges with traffic, parking, school crowding, decreasing school quality,
a $50M unfunded pension liability, etc. In light of these very real and evident problems, WHY IS OUR
TOWN GOVERNMENT CHOOSING TO PICK THIS FIGHT? WHAT EXACTLY IS THE PROBLEM
THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT SOLVES? Please reject this naive and misguided proposal
and get back to addressing the real challenges that our town faces.
Thank you,
Rick Tinsley
RE: Proposed Hillside Fence Ordinance, Town Code Amendment A-17-002
Dear Los Gatos Town Council,
RECEIVED
OCT 06 2017
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
The September 13, 2017 meeting of the Planning Commission of the Town of Los Gatos addressed
Proposed Amendment(s) to the Hillside Fence Ordinance. The stated objective of the amendment is to
insure free movement ofwiJdlife in the area. Apparently, there is a perception that improved properties in
the hillsides are somehow restricting dtis movement, and forcing wildlife out of their natural habitat.
Many, if not most, of the public attendees were only made aware of this meeting and its agenda by way of
an alert the day before from a concerned hillside resident. On that short notice, approximately 30 to 40 Los
Gatos residents attended. Oftbe 24 attendees who offered public comment, 22 spoke in opposition to the
proposed ordinan~, recognizing it as an overreach. while only 2 speakers, 1 of which was involved in
authoring the amendment, spoke in support. .
During the meeting, over 90% of those speaking indicated that the proposed amendment was a "solution in
search a problem." All of the commissioners voiced serious concerns with the amendment as it is written,
more than haif openly stating that they would not support it. It is clear to those who live in the hillsides and
stand witness to it on a daily basis, that. wildlife travels with relative freedom, as evidenced by their
increased presence in and around hillside properties. In fact, this has placed an increased burden upon the
residents to protect tbemse]ves ·from property damage, as well as health and safety hazards posed by the
increase in wildlife. Limiting multi-acre parcels to a 30 ft perimeter around the primary dwe1ling, together
with permitting restrictions and expense, places an undue burden upon these owners in their efforts to
simply protect.themselves, let alone to ~lize full use a:od enjoyment of their property.
Hillside residents choose to live there because the rural, less congested .environment allows for larger
parcels, which provide greater privacy and increased enjoyment for their families. The proposed
amendment would represent a material intrusion upon their property rights, affecting residents' security,
safety, health, property value, privacy and quiet, economic enjoyment of their property. As such it may
constitute a compensable regulatory ''taking" of these properties, and could even create a future liability for
the town, were an incident to occur that could have been avoided, but for the restriction on the property
owner's ability to protect themselves, as a result of such an amendment.
The comments heard at the September 13th meeting represented an impassioned plea for the Town Council
to reject the proposed amendment, thereby placing no further restrictions upon the property rights of
hillside residents. It also served as an example of why the Town Council must make a more concerted
effort to solicit input from those that would be most directly, and significantly, affected by such changes.
Rather than the .. one-size-fits-all," overly restrictive, approach of the proposed ordinance, several
reasonable alternatives were offered by hillside residents to address any case wherein an actual problem
might exist. These should be considered as a necessary element of informed decision-making.
Fjnally, one can only surmise how many residents might have attended and offered comment, had the
meeting and its subject matter been better communicated. The town frequently mails notices to residents in
proximity to proposed developments, soliciting input. At the very least, the Town Council should make the
same effo~, ensuring that those living in the hillsides are fully alerted to proposed changes such as these,
and afford them the opportunity to comment, before making unilateral decisions with such broad affect.
The hillside residents are tax paying citizens, equal in every way to in-town residents. They deserve to be
afforded all the same considerations, and the Town Council should act accordingly to protect their rights.
Michael Michaelis
From: Pam Bond [mailto:oamabond @g mail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2017 9:22 PM
To: Council
Subject: Proposed Code Amendments regarding hillside property fences
Dear Councilmembers,
I read the proposed code amendments. Our property is in the hillside zoning and so we
did see some of the requirements when we were building our house 5 years ago. So I
am somewhat familiar with the wording, etc.
My concerns with these proposed changed to hillside residences are that a 42" fence
height is not great for people with kids. I know that the goal is to let wildlife pass
through but this could be pretty scary for kids to encounter a coyote or basically any
wildlife that can jump a 42" fence. We are always out with our kids and can generally
see them but I would be nervous to have a shorter fence and feel comfortable letting the
kids run around. The hedging option only partially solves this since there would still be
periodic gaps.
Also, anyone with dogs will need to figure out what to do about their dogs if they want
them to run around. I don't think 42" will keep larger dogs inside their property. I guess
they'd need a dog run and I'm not sure how people will feel. We don't have a dog but I
have been thankful on walks when we walk past a property with a dog and find a much
higher fence (I'd assume maybe 5' for safety?).
I would imagine people would have concerns for security and safety with a 42" fence
limit too.
We still get bobcats and foxes and smaller animals with our metal 6' fence. Bobcats
hop our fence easily. Foxes can slip under and coyotes, if they manage to dig a little,
can get in as well. We had a coyote problem where the neighbor's chickens were being
poached by a coyote and brought to our yard to eat them. We can keep the coyotes out
when we plug holes under fences, and I'd prefer to keep it that way for our kids' safety.
If we let the deer in, there would be more limitations to what we could grow with our
grey water irrigation system. We have mostly natives but even the natives are not deer
proof. I would imagine people will have issues with more limited landscaping plants due
to deer. I think we could adapt if our fence ever falls down. But I am not sure others
would.
My main concerns are safety with the fencing height limit. Safety as relates to kids
(keeping them in and keeping them safe), aggressive dogs (keeping them from jumping
fences), and property safety (keeping criminals out). I do care about wildlife corridors
and I am concerned that residential encroachment will harm wildlife movement and
health. I think there may be another solution.
Wildlife corridors are great. Fencing setbacks on property are great. This proposal is
seriously flawed and I think it would benefit from more research. Talking to other towns
with similar hillside property and wildlife who have had success in creating wildlife
corridors would be helpful. I didn't read anywhere with this proposal what they based
their solution on.
I'd like to know how wildlife is truly impacted and whether creating property set backs
so that there are effective corridors either between properties or along roads would be
helpful. We have deer that have a regular route where they walk along our fence on a
small hill. There are regular tracks there. I am fairty certain that, at least in my
neighborhood, the deer are the only somewhat restricted animals. All others have ways
to get around any possible fence barriers. Even at that, if a deer really wants to, it can
jump a 6' fence. They just don't seem to need to.
Thanks,
Pamela Bond
17140 Mill Rise Way
Los Gatos, CA 95030
My name is Peter Donnelly and I live in a new residence at 15305 Suview Drive in Los
Gatos. My wife and I worked hand in hand with the Planning Department to design and
build a home that met the wide ranging conditions outlined in the Hillside Standards and
Guidelines. While this was a lengthy and at times painful process I think our home and
the neighborhood are better for the diligence and effort that went in to making it work for
our 4.3 acre hillside property.
I made comments on this topic at the last Planning Commission meeting which I
assume are part .of the record and are included in the materials you have reviewed in
preparation for this meeting so I am not going to repeat those. Instead I wanted to raise
three specific comments for your consideration
• We have lots of rules in place today to govern development activity in the Hillside
area. The Los Gatos Hillside Standards and Guidelines is a lengthy and wide
ranging document that covers many topics including fencing (specifically chapter
six: Site Elements). In fact there are six standards and a further five guidelines
on fencing alone. I'm not going to document each of these to you as no doubt
you are familiar with them. Needless to say they are comprehensive and
designed to balance the needs of the property owners as well as ensure the free
flow of wildlife in the hillsides. In Chapter 1 Standards are defined as "mandatory
nondiscretionary regulations that must be followed". It seems pretty clear to me
that we don't need any more rules
• At the previous Planning Meeting where this topic was discussed the sponsor of
the document stated that the proposed ordinance simply codified what already
exists in the Hillside Standards and Guidelines. This is simply not true. For
example nowhere in the Hillside Standards and Guidelines does it call for taller
fencing to be limited to within 30' of a primary residence (which by the way is not
even defined in the document itself ... does it only include the house; what about
an attached garage; or a detached garage; what about an in-laws
quarters). There is language referring to ornamental landscaping to be restricted
to within 30' of a primary residence (Chapter 7, Landscape Design) but that is not
the only reason one might want to have taller fencing. What about a playground,
an outdoor entertaining space, a guest cottage, detached garages, a fruit
orchard, a utility area, an area for wild stock like goats or for domestic
animals. All legitimate uses for the land and in most cases these development
are governed by rules in the Hillside Standards and Guidelines. If you can build
these elements per existing development rules then you ought to have the right
to use and protect them. While the author of the document has subsequently
tried to include exceptions for items such as a pool, sports court, livestock areas
and orchards that are outside the 30' area this is very much a band-aid
approach. If the document had been written properly there would not be a need
for a long list of exceptions. Also if these exceptions are deemed acceptable by
the author even though they could very well impact wildlife migration pathways
why just these exceptions. Why not others? Surely if securing wildlife corridors
RECEIVED
NOV 2 B 2017
TO'NN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
is a primary objective then that Is what ought to be focused on as the outcome ...
see next bullet point below
• The language for the proposed ordinance makes the assumption that a problem
exists everywhere as opposed to trying to address those situations wher:e a
problem may be created by introducing taller fencing. Rather than severely
restrict a property owners use of their property to within 30' of a p_rimary
residence why not take an approach that requires minimum wildlife corridors. If it
cah be demonstrated that sufficient wildlife corridors exist then there isn't a
problem and if there isn't a problem then we don't need any new rules.
I personally don't think we need a new ordinance. If the Town Council concludes that
we need to have something in place over and above what exists today in the Hillside
Standards and Guidelines then it ought to be designed to solve the problem or achieve
the desired outcome (the free flow of wildlife within the Hillsides) as opposed to
penalizing everyone even though a problem doesn't exist across the majority of
parcels. You can do bett~r than what has been presented and I urge you to listen to the
concerns raised by many residents around this topic and ensure whatever is
implemented doesn't create unnecessary bureaucracy and further limit the rights of the
property owners who pay dearly to live in this wonderful part of the Bay Area.
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello Sean,
Cassandra Joseph <cjsmail2me@gmait.com>
Tuesday, November 28, 2017 6:56 PM
Sean Mullin
Proposed town code amendment for fence heights
I would like you to ~now that I fully support the proposed town code
amendment for fence heights, and to increase it to 7 feet. The 6 foot
fence with 1 foot of lattice is what seems to be standard, as far as what
I see pretty much all through Los Gatos. I think it would make sense
to heighten the limit. People want and need privacy and escape from
possibly noisy neighbors. I am in full support of this
proposition. Thank you for your time in researching and making
these proposed amendments. I think they would be beneficial to all.
Sincerely,
Cassandra Joseph
1
From: Maud Gleason [mailto:maud qleason @q mall.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 8:31 AM
To: Planning
Subject: Hillside Fence Ordinance
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Here is my husband's perspective on the proposed ordinance.I have signed the petition against it.
Sincerely,
Maud Gleason
15298 Kennedy Road
Los Gatos, 95032
15298 Kennedy Road
Los Gatos, CA 95032
The proposed new fence ordinance, although well meaning, betrays a lack of understanding of
the predator -prey behavior in our wonderful northern California ecosystem.
We have lived on our property in Los Gatos, at the top of Kennedy Rd and adjacent to 20,000
acres of Mid Pen Open Space, for nearly 30 years, and have observed all of the species native to
this area. ·
We know by personal experience that a 6 foot fence does little to deter smaller predators, such as
raccoons, coyotes, and bobcats, at least when there is a chicken dinner on the other side of the
fence. However, a 6 foot fence does deter deer.
Deer are the principal food of the apex predator in our hi11s. Each adult mountain lion kills one
every 3 or 4 days, approximately 100 per year. This town wasn't named for house cats! The
only times that mountain lions have been sighted on our property is when they have been hunting
-in one case stalking a dog, in another, killing our goats.
By reducing fence heights and making it easier for wildlife to travel, we wiU be inviting deer into
our yards. And their predator will follow. Inevitably, mountain lions will have interactions with
people and pets. The ones thllt persist in these behaviors will need to be seriously relocated or
euthanized. This will be the unintended consequence of a "wildlife friendly" fence policy, which
is therefore a bad idea!
We have a local resource, ifwe need further information on mountain lion behavior. The UC
Santa Cruz Purt1.a Project has studied our local cats, and tracked them with radio co11ars. They
would certainly be able to provide expert advice.
Sincerely Yours,
Frederick Holley MD
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
David Weissman <gryllus@gmail.com>
Thursday, November 30, 2017 8:04 AM
Sean Mullin; Joel Paulson
For TC 12/5 fence ordinance meeting
PV. FenceSketch (l).pdf; 11-28-2017. DBW draft. Fences.docx
Please distribute the attached draft, and figure, to the TC members, and place them in the staff report and online. My
changes from the staff draft presented to the PC on 9/17/2017, are shown in red type.
Also, please distribute these articles to the TC members and place online:
1. http:ljwww.mcclatch ydc.com /news /nation-world/nationa l/article24727537.html
2. https://ww2. kged .org/scie nce /2017 /07 /27 /lyme-disease-in-california-sortin g-fact-from-myth/
Thank you.
Dave
Dave Weissman
15431 Francis Oaks Way
Los Gatos, CA 95032
H: {408 1358-3556
gryllus@gmail.com
1 My changes to staff draft presented at PC meetins of 9/l 7 /2011, are shown In red type
2
3 Sec:. 29.40.030xx.-Purpose and Intent.
4 The Fence Ordinance rs · divided into two parts: non-hillside and hillside areas. The use of fences, walls,
s gates, gateways, entry arbors. and hedges fn the bllfilde areas shall be minimized and located so that
6 natural landfQans appear to flow together and are not.d[sconpected. Ibe primary emphasis shall be on
7 maintaining open views, prott!cting wildlife corridors and habitat connectivity. and malntalnlns the rural.
8 open. and natural character of the hillsides. Additional details are available In the HDS&G.
9 sec. 29.40.Q30xx.-: Definitions,
10 Ibe following words, terms, and phrases, when used Jo this division. shall have the meanings ascribed to
11 them in this section.
12 Bulldino envelope is the three-dimensional space on a parcel, excludlns the required yard areas. The
13 bulldlng envelope area plus the required yard area constitutes the entire parcel.
14 Domestic fence is any fence that does not confonn to the conditions of a horse fence.
15 Feng: means a man-made structure serving as a barrier or screen &BA5*N&1:ed ef l"J88d. Metal. WiFe.
1& ma•aae., 11w, ala&JI&, Hane ir am• Material.
17 Fence height means measured from finished grade and shall be measured from either side of the
18 progerty liQI! which affords affected property owners the most buffering from noJse, light. glare, or
19 privacy Impacts.
20 Hedae means a boundarv formed by closely growing deciduous or evemreeo bushes or shrubs.
21 Hillside lot means a parcel pf land that Is shown on the HiHslde Area Map In the HHlslde Development
22 Standards and Guldellnes regardless of zonln1 dlstrtg.
23 Horse fence means a fence not exceedins 48 inches in height above natural grade. It shall be of split rail
24 design1 constructed of wood, and be at least 509' open In design. The minimum height above grade shall
25 be 16 inches and shall have 12-inch spacing between rails wherever feasible.
26 Movement corridor means a movement pathway that Js typ1cauv independent pf season and used by
27 animals on a near dally basis fpr the pcqulsitlon of food, shelter, water. and mates.
28 Open-view design means a fence or other structure that permits views through It.
29 Planting Zone 1 means that area wlthfn a 30-foot radius of the primary dwelling unit on a hillslde ·lot.
30 Required yard means that area of open space between the parcel line and the bulldlna envelope. The
31 minimum width of this yard Is equivalent to the setbacks listed In Sec. 29.40.270, except for rear
32 setbacks on parcels located In HR·20 (see below).
33 Retaining wall means a man-made structure designed to retain soil.
34 Riparian corridor means an area comprised of habitat strongly influenced and delineated by the
35 presence of perennial or Intermittent streams.
36 Stream means a body of water that flows at least perlodlcally or lntannlttentlv throusb a bed or channel
37 having banks. The body of water may Include waten:ourses having a surface or subsurface flow that
38 supports or has supported riparian vegetation, fish, or aquatic life. RECEIVED
NOV, 3 0 2017
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DMSION
39 Top of bank means a stream boundary where a majority of normal discharges and channel forming
40 activities tak e place·. The top of ban k will contain t he active channe l, act ive fl ood plain. an d their
41 a ssociat ed banks. Where th ere are no distin gui shable features to lo ca te the top of bank, the local
42 permitting agency wjU make a determination and document as appropriate. In the absence of this
43 determination. the 100-year water surface wtn be used.
44 Tra/fk view area means that area, on comer lots, which Is within fifteen (15) feet of a pubtlc street and
45 within two hundred (200) feet of the right-of-way One of an intersection, or a distance of thlny (30) feet
46 measured horizontally In any direction from the point of lntersection of the property Jines at street
47 comers.
48 Wall means a ma n:made structure that define s an area . ca rries a load , o r prov id es she lte r or secu rtty.
49 Wildlife -friendly desian me ans a fen ce, wall . hed ge, or other structure that pe rmits an y anima l.
SO rega rd less of size , to easily climb under. pa ss thro ug h. or jump over.
51 Sec. Z9AQ ,030xx, -NaQ:hlllside lots; Propom [ie:w fences , wa lls, sates, pteways. entry arbors. and
52 hedges.
53 (A) In residential zones, no permits are required for the repair, replacement, or construction of
54 f~Ht&H, v,alls, gatel, gateways, entry arbors~ or hedges that are ~than six (6) feet
55 high; or fences, walls. or mes that are no more than six (6) feet high. wJth one (1} foot of lattice
56 on top Cseyen (7) feet high in total) on, or within all property lines.
57 {B) The following height exceptlons shall apply:
58 (1) Comer lot: In a traffk; view area, no comer lot or premises In the Town shall have any fence.
59 wall, gate, gateway, entry arbor,· or hedge higher than three (3) feet above the curb unless
60 permission Is sea.1red from the Town Engineer.
61 (2) Properties not on a street comer: At the discretion of the Director of Community
62 Development, side yard and rear yard fences, walls, gates, gateways, entry arbors, or
63 hedges, behind the front yard setback, may be a maximum of elght (8) feet high provided
64 the property owner can provide written justification to the Planning Department that
65 demonstrates either of the following conditions exists:
66 a. A special privacy concern exists that cannot be practically addressed by additional
67 landscaping or tree screening.
68 b. A special wUdlife/anlmal problem affects the property that cannot be practically
69 addressed through alternatives. Documented Instances of wildlife grazing on
70 gardens or ornamental landscaping may be an example of such a problem.
71 (3) Historic-Districts and/or Landmark and Historic Preservation Overlay: The maximum height
72 of fences in the front yard shall be three (3) feet and shall be of open-view design.
73 (4) Gateways or entryway arbors: May be up to elsht (8) feet high, ln«:'uding within Histork
74 Districts or for properties with a Landmark and Historic Preservation Overlay, and shall be of
75 open-view design. A gateway or entryway arbor shall have a maximum width of six (6) feet
76 and a maxlmum depth of four (4) feet. No more than one (1) gateway or entryway arbor
77 per street frontage is allowed.
78 (5) Adjacent to commercial property: Boundary line fences or walls adjacent to commercial
79 property may be eight (8) feet high If requested or agreed upon by a majority of the
80 adjacent residential property owners.
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
tc) Any fence with bare lengths of wire stretched between posts.
(d ) Electric fences, In cl uding anv fen ce desig ned to produce an electric shock.
(e) Barbed or razor wire fences, including any fence wjth attached barbs. sharp points, or razors.
(f) Double fences.
(g) All hedges
131 All new hlllslde fences, hedges, and walls are subject to the following restrictions:
132 (1) Open-view design fences, that do not detract from the scenic nature or character of the
133 surrounding area, are encouraged everywhere within the hiHsldes. Only open fencing should
134 be located within 20 feet of the property llne adjacent to a street.
135 (2) Traditional split-rail fences are encouraged. Rural styles shall emphasize natural colors such
136 as brown, grey or green.
137 (3) E,nces and hesfm tt@II be located to follow natural contours, wl)en!!'l@r possjble.
138 (4) Fences and hedges shall be located to avoid Impacts to trees, animal movement corridors ,
139 and other natural features.
140 (S) Rj parjan corrid or. No domestic or ho rse fence , wa ll, gate o r hed ge shall be constr ucted
141 within a riparian corridor or within 30 feet of Its top of bank.
142 {6) Prohibited materials. Barbed or razor wire fences, Including any fence with attached barbs,
143 sharp poln,S, or razors, are prohjbited.
144 (7) No fence. wau, gate, or hedge shall be constructed in the public or private right-of-way or
145 within any trail easement or other easement precluding their coostructlon unless allowed, in
146 writing, by the Town Engineer.
147 (8) All domestic yard hedges, greater than 30 feet from the primary residence, and outside
148 planting zone 1, shall consist of only plant species listed in Appendix A of the HDS&G.
149 (9) Walls
150 (A) Walls are prohibited unless needed for privacy as determined by the Director of
151 Community Development.
152 (B) Town approved retaining walls are permitted.
153 {!Q) Fences existing when this ordinance takes effect, are exempt from these conditions, except
154 as described below under repair, replacement or modification.
155 (F} Repair. replacement or modification of existing fences. walls. hedges or gates;
156 ill When a portion of a fence exceeding twent}!-five percent of the total length (a straight
157 run} of fencing within required yards on a property is damaged or voluntarily removed,
158 any replacement fencing of that portion shall confonn to the fence regulations pursuant
159 to a fence permit. The permit shall be posted on site during construction. ·
160 W Are encouraged If such changes Improve wildlife movement or animal corridors.
161 ID Replacement or modification of any fence. walL hedge or gate shall be prohibited if the
162 Town En aineer determines that a pub lic safe ty haza rd exists .
163 (G) Exceptions:
164 (1) A tempora,v (1 to 3 year), animal excluding, protective circular enclosing fence may be erm@d
165 In required yards to prpt;ect. until establlsh@d, a newly planted tree or shrub. when that Qfant
166 species Is lfsted In Appendix A of the ljDS&G.
167 (2) Enclosure fencing around vineyards, orchards. and vegetable gardens SQ!II be limited to those
168 areas requiring enclosure and does not have to be wildlife friendly. Such fencing is prohibited in
169 required yards except for HR-1 zoning.
110 (3) Security fencing required to protect a publlc uttlitv inst,aHation.
111 f41 Written exceottons may be granttd when tbe Director of Community PmloPf.Deot finds that
172 the strict appllcatlon of these requirements wJII result In a significant hardsbiP for the property
173 m!'!!!![,
174 H Fees. The fee a a rescribed
175 therefore in the municipal fee schedule. shaH accompany any application for a fence In the
176 Hillside area submitted to the Town for review and evaluation puQuant to tbls dMsJon. (NOTE:
177· Portola Valley charges $110 for a horse fence permits and $225 for all other fence permits).
178 (I) Enforcement. Any fence, wall, gate, gatewaY, entry arbor, or hedge constructed, replaced,
179 modified. or repaired without required approval, is a yfolation of this Code.
180 U) Where a conflict exists between the Covenants. Conditions. and Restrictions (CC&Rs) of a hillside
181 . Planned Development (PD) and this document, the requirements of this dgcument shaH prevail,
182 (K) Notk;es, Notlcins shall comply with the public noticing procedures of Section 29.20.480 of the
183 Town Code. .
184 (Ord. No.1316, § 4.10.020, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1493, 3-17-81; Ord. No. 1873, § I, 10-7-91; Ord. No.
185 2049, § I, 10-5·98; Ord. No. 2062, § I, 6-21-99; Ord. No. X>CXX, § )
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
NAJIOIW.
As habitat disappears, so does California's deer J: ,opulation
APIIL 09,JOIJ06:41AM
IIPlllTfD APlll 09. ZOU 116:U AM
An estimated 445,000 deer live in California, or about equal to the city of Sacramento's human population. \\hich sounds like a lot, until vou realize
the deer are spread over the entire state: 99 million acres.
If there were only 445,000 people in California, how long would it take you to find somebody you really wanted to hang out with?
Such is the plight of the state's deer population, our most iconic emblem of the forest. Without much notice, the species has declined slowly but
relentlessly in virtually every comer of the state.
The decline has been almost too small to see on an annual basis. But since 1990, California has lost nearly half its deer population, according to the
state Department of Fish and Game.
"Our dee1 are sUTviving, they're not thriving," said Craig Stowers, deer program manager at Fish and Game. "Qµite frankly, Wltil people start taking
this seriously, we're going to continue to experience these types of declines,"
Thi, forest icon is on the wane mainly for one simple reason: habitat loss.
Between 1990 and 2000, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 75,000 acres per year were converted to low-density housing
across California. A recent Bee analysis of housing data showed a similar trend over the past decade, at least until the recession began. The rate wu
even greater before 1990.
This land conversion eliminated food and migratory corridors vita] to deer.
ffYou can't have a good migratory deer population wht:n their wintering ground is covered in residential development for hwnans, • Stowers said.
"They're competing for the same resources we need, and they're losing."
The .-pecies in question are mule deer and blacktail deer. Both species are lumped together in Fish and Game's 2011 population estimate of about
445,000 deer statewide, a drop from 850,000 in 1990.
The state manages its deer herds according to zones defined by habitat and deer behavior. Of the 4-5 zones, only about sbi have deer populations that
held 1tcady or increued d.ightll• since 1990. These are generally found in some of the least-populated areas of the state.
All the other zones declined significantly.
Rural residents might tell a different story. They see deer frequently around their yards, in their gardens, and as roadkill. Indeed, deer in these areas
are often considered a pest.
Deer require a particular type of forest habitat called "early seral." This means they prefer to eat the tender, nutritious, young vegetation that surges
for several years after a forest fire or other land disturbance.
The problem for rura_l residents, these days, is that deer primarily find this kind of food in the vigorous growth of gardens and landscaping that tend to
go with rural housing development.
The natural sources of this deer food have been largely eliminated by a century of fire suppression in forests -the same problem that has caused
forests to become overstocked with small, young trees that now pose an enormous fire risk.
Land management agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service now understand this error of excessive fire suppression. The problem is that allowing more
fire is difficult because the overly dense forests pose a massive wildfire risk, and because so many people and homes have cropped up in md near
forests.
It's a "double whammy" for deer, Stowers said. Much of their habitat has been eliminated by rural development. And the habitat that remains is poor
quality.
RECEIVED
NOV 3 0 2017
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
"If deer numbers are poor, they are a real canary in the coal mine, so to speak," said Randy Morrison, Califor.1ia regional director at the Mule Deer
Foundation, a conservation and hunting organization. "They are a real bellwether species for a given habitat. , .nd our habitat is not healthy, no
question about it.•
Complicating the problem is that, when a wildland fire does occur, there is often a rush to remove the burned trees and replant with seedlings. Often
this comes with herbicide spraying to prevent other plants from competing with the seedlings. This impulse eliminates the natural forest regeneration
that would support deer populations.
And it's not just deer. A stud}• last year by PRBO Conseivation Science, which examined conditions after fires ,n the Plumas and Lassen national
forests, fowtd that dozens of songbird species benefit from the same kind of post-fire habitat that emerges when a burned area is left alone.
"It's II hard sell," said Craig Thomas, executive director of the environmental group ·Sierra Forest Legacy. "People look at burned trees and they s~y,
'Oh God, Jet's get the green ones back.' The early serai habitat could be really diverse and beautiful if we thought about it as a valuable thing. Deer
suffer when we don't think that way."
Deer are also an iconic species for hunters, and the population decline has not gone unnoticed in their circles. Mule and blacktail deer are California's
primary big-game hunting species. Yet it has become increasingly difficult lo harvest one.
The statewide hunter success ratio for deer hunters in 2010 was 15 percent, according to Fish and Game data. That means about four out of five
hunters who purchased a license and deer tag from the state and attempted to harvest venison for their family failed to bring any home.
In Colorado, by comparison, the hunter success rate for deer in 2011 was 43 percent, according to that state's Department of Wildlife.
"Oln deer numbers are down to a point where succeH is definitely limited, which has been very di$COuraging to many hunters,'' Morrison said.
Because deer are a popular hunting species, they are intensively managed by Fish and Game and vast quantities of data are gathered when a hunter
reports a kill. As a result, Fish and Game knows there are problems with the demographics of the remaining deer population.
The leading concern is that the species is now dominated by old~r females, Stowers sai~, which do not have the same breeding success as yowiger
fema]es. This makes it more difficult to rebuild the population.
Going back to the habitat problem, many of the fawns that do get born don't make it to adulthood -apparently because there just im't enough to eat.
Fish ~d Ga~e grades deer on a health scale from zero to 100, and most get a rating of 50 or below.
"We have yet to find a doe in this state that we would rate above a medium to poor condition," Stowers said.
In contrast, bucks are generally healthy. Being larger, they are able to outcompete other deer for whatever food there is.
C.omplicating matters is the fact d\at hunting regulations -and many hunters -are focused on harvesting bucks. Only male deer have the showy
antlers that make a good take-home ttophy.
In 2010, the most recent data available, California hunters harvested 25,956 bucks and just 469 does.
This means the older does, instead of getting culled from the population, are just growing older.
Stowers said regulations need to be adjusted to encourage a larger doe harvest.
Morrison agreed. He said it would be appropriate in some areas -and hunters would support it -if the doe haivest was carefully monitored to avoid
harming breeding success.
Many hunters blame the deer decline on mountain lions, which primarily feed on deer. The claim is that a state Jaw that banned mountain lion
huniing, passed by voters in· 1990, allowed the deer-hungry mowitain lion population to grow unchecked.
There has not been a thorough study of the state's mountain lion population in many years, and there are no formal monitoring programs in place.
Fish and Game estimates the population at between 4,000 and 6,000 lions, but even this estimate is dated.
There are hints, however, that even mountain )ions are running out of deer to eat and turning to other food instead.
Recent evidence of a decline in porcupines across the state could be attributed to mountain lions, one of the few predators known to eat the prickly
rodent. There also have been reports of mountain lions eating feral pigs in the state's coastal regions.
Morrison, however, doesn't buy the mountain lion argument.
"I believe it's habitat, h:abit.at, habitat," he said. "So far, J don't believe we're turning the tide at all. I'm concer 1cd. Very concerned."
To read more, visil www.sacbee.com.
From: Tanya Kurland (mailto:ts@vkgmail.crocodile.org] On Behalf Of Tanya Kurland ?
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 9:34 AM
To: Council
Cc: Town Manager
subject: regarding Town Code Amendment A-17-002
Hello,
My name is Tanya Kurland and I live at 15275 Suview Dr., Los Gatos. I am writing to you to express my
disitgreement with the proposed Town Code Amendment A-17-002 "Draft Amendments to Chapter 29 of
Town Code -Hillside Fences."
My feedback focuses on one of the aspects related to the proposed restrictions on fence height in the
hillside areas of the town. Restricting the height of the fences to 42" and bringing them as close as 30'.
from homes allows deer and other wild animals to come close to, and possibly in contact with, people.
This brings potentially lethal Lyme disease closer to the townspeople and unnecessarily elevates the risk
of the infection.
The chronic forins of tick-borne infections have left many patients mentally and physically
debilitated~ New reports suggest Lyme disease and its co-infections may be life-threatening. Many
patients go undiagnosed for years. Most never ~l being bitten, less than half ever show the telltale
"bullseye rash,;, and as many as 20% continue to experience symptoms even after treatment. Current
diagnostics miss up to 60% of cases of early-stage Lyme disease, as it can take weeks for the body to
develop measurable antibodies against the infection.
http://www.sheamedical.com/the-overlooked%E2%80%93and-deadly%E2%80%93com plications-of-
l ym e-disease-and-its-coinf ections
The author of the proposed Amendment, Dr. David Weissman, wrote to me in an email that "keeping
habitats open that support good numbers of western fence lizards, is the best way to combat Lyme
Disease since the young ticks that feed on lizards, are cleansed of the bacteria." While some other studies
do show that ticks feeding on western lizards stop carrying Lyme disease bacteria, a prominent UC
Berkley study published in 2011 found evidence to contradict that conclusion. The study showed that
areas where lizards had been removed actually saw a subsequent drop in the population of the ticks that
transmit Lyme disease. Ticks could not find substitute hosts and died.
http ://news.berkeley.edu/20 l l /02/15/ticks-lizard-1 yme-disease/
In addition, it would be false to assume that the presence of western lizards in our area means that we
don't have Lyme disease carrying ticks. In fact, Stanford research detennined widespread presence of
Lyme disease carrying ticks in Santa Clara county in 2014. According to Dan Salkeld, a disease ecologist
at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, the study also found a second tick-related bacteria,
previously undetected in the region, that can bring on flu-like symptoms such as relapsing fever and
severe aches and pains in infected humans.
htt p://www.mercu rv news.com/2014/02/1 9 /stanford-stud y-finds-1 yme-diseasc-wides pread-in-ba y-area-
open-spaces/
Deer and other wild animals carry the ticks that spread Lyme disease. Tick larvae and nymphs feed on
small animals, like squirrels and lizards, but adult ticks feed on big mammals such as deer and
coyotes. These wild mammals carry the infected ticks and, without fences to restrict them, bring ticks
closer to people. The Bay Area Lyme Foundation, in a website page titled, "Manage your property''
advises that individuals should "build fences to keep out deer" to prevent Lyme disease.
http://www.bayarealyme.org/Jyme-clisease-prevention/manage-property/
· The Bay Area Lyme Foundation has a very impressive Scientific advisory board with such names on it
as John N. Aucot t, MD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Charles Chiu. MD .
PhD, University of California, San Francisco, Monica Embers , PhD, Tulane University Health
Sciences, Christine Green . MD, Board Member, LymeDisease.org & ll.,ADS, Robert S. Lane .
PhD, University ofCalifomia, Berkeley, William Robinson, MD , PhD, Stanford University School of
Medicine, Neil Spe ctor, MD, Duke University School of Medicine, Irvin g Weissman , MD, Stanford
Uniyersity School of Medicine.
I think that we should listen to the expert advice and not lower our fences.
I would like to bring your attention to Chapter 30 -NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION of Town
Code, sec 30.10.010-Purpose, it says: ''This chapter is adopted to promote the health, safety, and welfare
of the residents of the Town of Los Gatos". I believe that passing of the proposed Amendment would
increase the odds of people getting sick and therefore its passing would contrac:iict the very core of Town
Code.
Thank you,
Tanya Kurland
Fmm: Handel Jones [mailto;gatDscath@gmajl.rom]
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 12:25 PM
To: Joel Paulson
Cc: Manco Sayoc
Subject: Proposed Resttld:lve Fence Amendment-Town Code Amendment A-17-002
Dear Joel:
T~e proposed amendment should be rejected for the following reasons:
1. Safety and security of residents. In the past there have been a number of
incidents where people have approached houses (specifically off Shannon Rd) claiming
that they were lost1 but in reality, to check if residents were home. The real reason was
to see if the house could be robbed. A number of residents put up gates to protect
themselves and the number of Incidents has declined.
If your new regulation passes, the potential for home Invasion will Increase.
Do you want to take this responsibility?
It Is a personal decision that you have to make. The safety of people versus the ability of
wild animals to have more roaming places. The reality is that deer are the most common
wild animals that are impacted by fences, and there are already many open spaces
where they can roam.
2. While the intention of allowing animals to roam Is c:onsidered
environmentally good by some, the reality Is that this is the first step of allowing
pe,;,ple to roam because low fences wlll not deter trespa5$ers.
There is a potential violation of people's rights, and as mentioned, safety.
Tl)e buying of property and being allowed to use this property for reasonable use is a
part of the constitution. You ilre clearly trying to take away people's rights.
3. Deer damage fruit trees and other vegetation. Not only do they eat the leaves,
they also chew on the bark killing the trees.
This has happened to me and it has caused me thousands of dollars of losses. If you
remove the fences, Los Gatos will be liable for these losses.
There is also a new disease among deer that is emerging which is similar to mad cow
disease (called Chronic Wasting Disease)1 which can affect humans. This disease is not _in
California at the present time, but is likely to come to California in ,he future.
4. There is a large amount of open space around Los Gatos., and I have
contributed to make this happen. There is plenty of space for animals to roam. More
animals in residential areas means more road kill of animals, which is very bad for
animals but also dangerous for people.
Why this amendment is being considered does not indicate consideration of the safety
of people and the well-being of animals. We should try to make our community more
safe, and the reality is that fences and gates provide more security.
Why more regulatlons and costs to the· community? More people will need to be hired by the
Town of Los Gatos to enforce the regulations which will increase costs.
We should be giving the money to the local police, firefighters, and educators, not to people
that will reduce the ability of people to have better safety.
Please vote against this amendment because it wlll reduce the safety of the people In the rural
areas.
You are making this ·personal decision to limit the rights of people that have bought property
and pay taxes and where they will live with higher risk of burglary and potentially bodily harm
In the future.
You are also Increasing the costs of Jiving In Los Gcrtvs which is already a hlr,h-cost town. For
what? So animals can roam more freely?
It does not meet the common sense metric.
Sincerely I
Dr. H. H. Jones
632 Industrial Way
From: Alice Kaufman [maHto;aHc:e@greenfoothllls.org)
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 4:39 PM
To: Ro~ Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Maria> Sayoc; BSpec:tDr, Couna1
Cc: shanl klelnhaus; Mike Ferreira; Mackenzie Mossing; Kit Gordon; Town Manager; David Weissman
Subject: A9enda Item #14, December 5 Town Councll meeting (HIiiside Fence Ordinance)
Dear Mayor Rennie and Town Councilmembers,
Please find attached the comments of Committee fur Green Foothills, Santa Clara Valley
Audubon Society, and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter on the above-refcrcnood agenda item.
Please contact me with any questions on this matter. Thank you for your consideration of these
comments .
.Afice 'l(pufinan
Lesislatlve Advocacy Director, Committee for Green Foothllls
&sc,..gss-1243 x. a13
3921 East Bayst,ore Road
Palo Alto, r.A 94303
www.greenfoothills.org
Join Committee for Gteen Foothills as a member and hel p suw ort our world
--Original Message--
From: Eric Hansen (mailto:erichansen11@comcast.net1
Sent: M~nday, December 04, 2017 8:03 AM
To: Council ·
Subject: Fence
Dear Members of the Los Gatos Town Council:
We strongly oppose the new fence plan as ineffective and unnecessary.
Deer jump over 6 ft. fences; wild turkeys fly over them; mountain lions climb trees and go over ;
coyotes, bobcats; skunks; opossums; rabbits, mi~e. rats, gophers, snakes, etc. slither thru or
under them.
We have seen all this
d~rfng our 40 years on Foster Road.
Our 6 ft. fence only keeps our 3 dogs from being a neighborhood nuisance.
We respect all wildlife supporters, but fences don't work.
Example: a mountain lion jumped over fence into corral and scared our horse Into our
neighbors swimming pool.
We respectfully ask the Council not pass this new ordinance.
Thanking you, we are,
Eric A Hansen
Af ice H Hansen
17611 Foster Road
Los Gatos, CA
95030
408-354-1831
Sent from my iPhone
From: Nancy Reyering <nanz o@ me.com>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 20171:36 PM
Ta: Rob Rennie
Subject: Misconceptions about Ticks, Wildlife, and Lyme Disease
Dear Mayor Rennie,
There is a proliferation of misinformation out there about tlcks and Lyme Disease. The following Information
comes from The Lyme Foundation In Ponola Valley•, from physicians at the cutting edge Lyme treatment dinic
Pacific Frontier Medical In Redwood City, and from local expert biologist Philippe Cohen, former Executive Director
of the Jasper Ridge Blologtcal Preserve.
1. licks are on all animals, not Just mammals. Keeping deer out of your garden will not have any effect on the
presence of ticks. Ticks arrive through the passage of raccoons, rodents, our own pets, lizards, and even birds.
There Is no animal out there that doesn't have ticks.
The concern about deer bringing ticks to our yards is exactly backwards: deer get the ticks from the same
vegetation we do. When ticks find their way to people, It Is from vegetation. 11cks hang out on sticks, leaves, grass,
and branches. When deer travel through the brush, the ticks come off the vegetation and ding to them, actually
reducing the number of ticks on foliage that may be avallable to ding onto us. In other words, as long as a tick Is on
a deer, It Is no threat to us.
So, keeping deer out wlll not reduce exposure to ticks. They wlll be every bit as much there as if there were no
deer.
2. Encouraging Western Fence Uzards will help reduce the presence of Lyme on ticks.
Lyme disease is mu~ less frequent in the West than on the East coast, because of the Western Fence Uzard, the
most common lizard in our area. Western Fence Uzards have a protein In their blood that, when the tick bites
them, neutralizes the Lyme. When the tick falls off, the tick remains neutralized.
•From the Bay Area Lyme site: It's definitely the rodents, not the deer that are the proliferators of Lyme.
What About the Deer?
The role played by deer In spreading Lyme disease is overestimated or misconstrued. Deers do infect a tick with
the Bb bacteria but they do so far less "effldently9 than say the grey squirrel (out West) or the white-footed mouse
(on the East coast)
For example, deer have been shown to only Infect about 1% of the larval ticks that feed on them (Telford et al,
1988) whereas the more efficient white-footed mice were shown to Infect 75-95% of the larval ticks (Ostfeld, Lyme
Dlsease,The Ecology of a Complex System, page 43-44) and the Western grey squirrel 86% (Salkeld et al, 2008).
Interestingly the same artide, "Lyme Disease, the Ecology of a Complex System• which is one of the definitive
works on the subject, draws the seemingly counterintuitive condusion that the years after the deer population of
an area ls reduced either by hunting or by excluding through fencing 'finds an Increase in the number of immature
ticks that are Infected with Lyme Disease spirochetes" (p32). It goes on to speculate that as deer are not available
the ticks now must feed on smaller mammals "Because deer are highly unlikely to transmit a spirochete infection
to feeding ticks, but many small animals are quite likely to transmit infectlon •••. the result is an Increase In tick
infection rates. Taking away deer, at least initially, removes the protective role they play in redudng tick infection."
Sincerely,
Nancy Reyerlng
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Sean:
Lee Quintana <leeandpaul@earthlink.net>
Monday, December 04, 2017 1:48 PM
Sean Mullin; Joel Paulson
Quintana Lee
Comments on Fence Ordinance
Fence comments.pdf
Attached are my comments on the fence ordinance to replace the ones for the accessory dwelling ordinance that I
attached earlier this morning in error •.
In addition 1. am adding some brief comments on to support keeping th~ 30' from dwelling for fences in the hillsides.
I support of keeping the 30' from dwelling standard as the best current .alternative.
Other alternatives:
1. Use the 30%average slope/LRDA llne (Identified bulldlng site consistent with the HDS&G) or a setback from the LRDA,
however either could " potentially more restrictive than the 30' from residence.
2. Use of the parcel setback line or Increase the required parcel setbacks. This could potentially reduce the area
available as movement corridors and potentially limit foraging area.
3. Establishing some other line to dellne.ate wildlife friendly from non wildllfe friendly such as a setback from the 'LRDA,
Increasing the further from the proposed bulldtng, or a 15 or 20% slope line. This might require topographic surveys
which would increase costs and the time needed to. process a fence permit i the hillsides.
Any of the other altematlves would result In a major change to the existing HDSG and should be undertfken only Within
the context of a review of the entire HDSG including fences, maximum allowable floor area, animal corridors, grading
quantltles malntalnlng the ru~I open quality of the .hlllsldes etc ..
Lee
December 4, 2017
To Mayor Rennie and Town CouncU,
Re: Proposed Fence Ordinanace.
From: Lee Quintana
Below are my comments and suggested modifications to the proposed Fence
Ordinance (Exhibit A ) for your consideration. Suggested changes are in red and notes
are in purple.
Thank you for your consideration.
Lee Quintana
DRAFT
ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
AMENDING CHAPTER 29 (ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE TOWN CODE
REGARDING FENCES, HEDGES, AND WALLS
PROPOSED SECTIONS;
Sec. 29.40.030. Fences, walls, gates, gateways, entcy arbors, and hedges.
Sec, 29.40,031. -Purpose and intent.
The Fence Ordinance is divided into two parts· non-hillside and hillside areas.
The use of fences, wans. gates. gateways, entry a_rbors, and hedges In the
hillside areas shall be minimized and located so that .natural landforms appear
to flow together and are not disconnected. The primary emphasis shall be on
maintaining open views, protecting wildlife corridors, and maintaining the rural,
open, and natural character of the hillsides. Additional details are available in
the Town's Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines,
Sec, 29,40,032, -Definitions,
The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this division, shaH have
the meanings ascribed to them in this section.
Fence means a man-made structure serving as a barrier or screen,
Fence.height means measured from finished grade and shall be measured from
either side of the property l!ne which affords affected property owners the most
buffering from noise, light, glare, or privacy impacts,
Hedge means a boundary formed by closely growing deciduous or evergreen
bushes or shrubs,
Hillside lot means a parcel of land that is shown on the Hillside Acea Map io the
Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines regardless of zoning district,
Movement corridor means a movement pathway that Is typically independent of
season and used by animals on a near daily basis for the acguisitlon of food,
sheltet water, and mates,
Open-view design means a fence or other structure that permits views through
It, Note: What is the difference between an open-view fence and a wildlife
friendly fen ce?
Planting Zone 1 means that area within a 30-foot radius of the primary dwelling
unit on a b!Hside lot,
Retaining wall means a man-made structure designed to retain soil.
Riparian corridor means an area comprised of habitat strongly Influenced and
delineated by the presence of perennial or intermittent streams.
Stream means a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently
through a bed or channel having banks, The body of water may include
watercourses haying a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has
supported riparian vegetation. fish. or aquatic life.
Top of bank means a stream boundary where a mcuocitv of normal discharges
and channel forming actiyltles take place. Ibe top of bank will contain the
active channel, active floodplain. and their associated banks, Where there are
no distinguishable features to locate the top of bank, the local permitting
agency will make a determination and document as appropriate, In the absence
of this determination, the 100-year water surface will be used,
Traffic view area means that area. on corner lots, which is within fifteen (15)
feet of a public street and within two hundred (20.0) feet of the right-of-way
line of an intersection, or a distance of thirty (30) feet measured horizontally In
any direction from the point of intersection of the property lines at street
corners.
Wall means a man-made structure that defines an area. carries a load. or
provides shelter or security,
Wildlife-friendly design means a fence. wall, hedge, or other structure that
permits any animal, regardless of size, to easily climb under, pass through, or
jump over,
Note : See Open View Fence
Sec. 29,40,033. -Non-hillside lots: Proposed nefilences, walls, gates,
gateways, entry arbors, and hedges,
(A) In residential zones, no permits are required for the repair, replacement,
or construction of gateways, entry arbors, or hedges that are no more
than six (6) feet high; or fences. walls. or gates that are no more than six
{6l feet high, with.on e (1) foot of latti ce on top <seven CZ> feet hig h in
total} on, or within all property lines.
(B) The following height exceptions shall apply:
(1) Corner lot: In a traffic view area, no corner lot or premises in the Town
shall have any fence, wall, gate, gateway, entry arbor, or hedge higher
than three (3) feet above the curb unless permission Is secured from
the Town Engineer.
(2) Properties not on a street corner: At the discretion of the Director of
Community Development, side yard and rear yard fences, walls, gate,
gateways, entry arbors, or hedges, behind the front yard setback, may
be a maximum of eight (8) feet hi~h provided the property owner can
provide written justification to the Planning Department that
demonstrates either of the followlng conditions exists:
a. A .special privacy concern exists that cannot be practically
addressed by additional landscaping or tree screening.
b. 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.
(3) Historic Districts and/or Landmark and Historic Preservation Overlay:
The maximum height of fences in the front yard shall be three (3) feet and
shall be of open-view design. '
(4) Gateways or entryway arbors~ be up to eight (8) feet high, including
within Historic Districts or for properties with a Landmark. and Historic
Preservation Overlay, and shall be of open-view design. A gateway or
entryway arbor shall have a maximum width of six (6) feet and a
maximum depth of four (4) feet. No more than one (l) gateway or
entryway arbor per street frontage is allowed.
(5) Adjacent to commercial property: Boundary line fences or walls
adjacent to commercial property may be eight (8) high tall If requested
or agreed upon by a majority of the adjacent residential property
owners.
CC) Materials. The type of fencing materials within the non-hillside zone are
geAerallv unrestricted, and fences can be a combjnatlon of materfals, with
the following exceptions-:
(6) Plastic fencing is discouraged everywhere and is prohibited in Historic
Districts.
en Barbed wire or razor ribbon wire Is prohibited In all zones.
Sec, 29,40.034, -Hillside lots; Proposed new fences, walls, gates, gateways.
entry arbors, and hedges,
This section covers any new fence, wan •. gate. gateway. entry arbor, or hedge,
and the replacement, modification, and/or repair of any existing fence, wall,
gate, gateway, entry arbor. or hedge whether the primary dwelling unit is new
or existing, In the absence of a primary dwelling unit, an entice bUlslde IQt.
iocludlng any accessory structures such as a barn. storage shed, stable, or
similar structure. shall be covered by the conditions of this Section.
CD) Within 30 feet of primary dwelling unit:
Note: Support using 30'
(8) Approvals; Minor Res;dential Development approval is required
pursuant to Section 29.20,480{2)lh). The permit shall be posted on
sjte dyring constructjgna
Note: Support staff recommendation that TC to consider a new Hillside
Fencing permit rather than requiring a Minor Residential Development
approval .
(9) Are subject to the provisions of Sec, 29,40,030. Non-hillside
residential lots above; however, fencing is limited to six ffil feet high
in total, or unless otherwise noted io this section {Sec, 29.40.034),
(lO)Riparian corridor. No fence, wall, gate or hedge shall he constructed
within a riparian corridor or within 30 feet of its top of h•nk,&
whichever is greater.
Note: Shouldn't this be a requirement in non-hillside residential zones as
well?
(1 l)Prohibited materials, Barbed or razor wire fences. including any
fence with attached barbs, sharp points. or razors, are prohibited.
(D)Greater than 30 feet from primary dwelling unit loutside Planting zone U:
(12)Approva!s· Minor Residential Development approval is required
pursuant to Section 29.20.480{21Cb). The permit shall be posted on
site during construction.
Note : See (8) above.
(13)Accessory structures. Fences associated with accessory structures. if
located farther than 30 feet from the primary dwelling unit, shall be
goyerned by this section.
(14)Wildllfe friendly, All fences, wans, gates, and hedges shall be of
wlldllfe-friendly design. If a new hillside fence is, in pan, closer than
30 feet to the primary dwelling unit and, elsewhere. farther than 30
feet from the primary dwelling unit, the portion that is farther than 30
feet shall be of wildlife-friendly design.
(lS)Maxlmum height:
c. New fences. The maximum he ight of new fences shall be 42
inches.
Note: Four feet ("48 ") would be ok, but 42• preferred .
d. Hedges . Hedges shall be maintained at a maxi mum height of 60
inches (5 feetl,
e. Hedges sh all ha ve two-to four-foot-W,de gaps at least every 2 s
e.eL
(16)Minimum height ahave grade:
f. New Fences, The minimum height above grade of the first raU -m
new fences shall be 16 inches,
(17)Th e following fence types are not of wildlife-friend ly design and are
therefore prohibited: ·
g. Chain-link, c;bJcken wire, welded wire, wire mesh, cyclone or
similar fence material.
h. Buck and call fences,
i. Any fence with bare lengths of wire stretched between posts,
J. Electric fences, including any fence desi gned to produce an
electric shock, except where necessary for animal husbandry
· operations,
k. Barbed or razor wire fences. including any fence with attached
barbs, sharp points, or razors,
(18)Fence design.
I. Fences shall be of an open-view design that does not detract
from the scenic nature or character of the surrounding area.
m. Traditional split-rail fences are encouraged. Rural styles shall
emphasize natural colors such as brown, grey,-or green.
n. Fences shall have a top level of wood (or similar material> ran
rather than wire,
o. Split rajl fences shall include a minimum 12-lnch spacing
between raus wherever feasible,
p. Hedge plant species shall consist of those listed in Appendix A of
the Hillside Development Standards and Gyldellnes,
q. Ihe spacing of vertical fence posts shall be at least B feet apart,
unless physically Impossible due to terrain or other conditions,
(19)Fence, wa,1, gate, and hedge siting:
r. Fences and hedges shall he located to follow natural contours,
whenever possible,
s. fences·and hedges shall be located to avoid Impacts to trees,
animal moyement corridors, and other natural features.
t. No fence, wall, gate or bedge shall be constructed within a
riparian corridor, stream, or within 3Q feet of its top of bank ,
whichever distance is greawt..
u •. No fence, wall, gate, or hedge shall be constructed In the publi,
or private cight,-of-way or within any tran easement or other
easement precluding their construction unless allowed, io
writing. by the Town Engineer,
(20)Walls;
v. wans are prohibited unless needed for privacy as determined by
the Director of Community Development,
w. Town approved retaining walls are permitted,
(E) Replacement or modification of existing fences, walls, hedges or gates:
(2l)Sball be subject to the reguirements io this Ordinance. The permit
will be posted on site dyrlng construction.
(22)Replacement or modification of existing fences. wans. hedges or
gates Mee encouraged if such changes improve wildlife movement or
animal corridors,
(23)Replacement or modifitatioo of any fence, wall, hedge or gate shall
be prohibited If the Town Engineer determines that a public safety
hazard exjsts,
CF) Repair, A permit is not required for repair te of short sections of existing
fences, walls, or hedges no greater than so percent of each fence, wall,
or hedge section. proyided no other repair wo[k is done on the same
structure over a 12-month period,
(G) .c.&1,;;~i12WL.lll.~wm..t.::1.&~~Jlll.l.:Wle..1S2ll..:,
(24)Fences around swimming pools. outc;tgpr sports courts, play areas
and similar structures are not required to be of wildlife-friendly
design, even if farther than 30 feet from the primary . .dwelling unit Csee
Sec. 29. 10,09020 for other swlmmfng pool requirements}. Sport court
fencJng may be 12 feet In height,
Note: Are any of the fences under (24), (25), or (26) required to be open
design? or encouraged to be open design even if they are not wildlife
friendly?
(25)A temporary Cl to 3 year), animal excluding, circular encloslog fence
may be erected to protect a newly planted tree or shrub.
(26)Enclosure fencing around vineyards, orchards, and vegetable gardens
shall be limited to those. areas requiring enclosure and shall be of
open desJgn but does not have to be wildlife friendly even if farther
than 30 feet from the primary dwelling unit.
(27)Fences needed for Uvestock control do not have to be of wildljfe-
frleodly deslgn even If farther than 30 teet from the primary dwelling
.unJL For movable fences used for rotation grazing only an initial permit shall
t>£ reguired.
(28)Secucitv fencing required to protect a public utlllty installation does
not have to be wildlife friendly.
(29)Temporary construction fencing up to 6-feet tall may be Installed
when assgciate with an approved building or ge1dlng permit.
Temporary construction fencing shall be elevated a minimum of 16
Inches above grade to allow for pass.age of small animals. Temporary
construction fencing shall be cemoyed prior to final inspection,
(30)Wrltten exceptions may be granted when the Director of Community
Development finds that the strict application of these requirements wm result In a hardship for the property owner.
CH) Fees. The fee, as adopted by Town Resolution for Minor Residential
development, prescribed therefore In the municipal fee schedule, shall
accompany any appUcation for a fence In the HiHslde Area submitted to
the Town for review and evaluation pursuant to this division,
(I) Enforcement. Any fence, wan, gate, gateway, entry arbor; or hedge
constructed, replaced, modified, or repaired without regulred approval, Is
a violation of this Code,
O) Notices. Noticing shall comply with the public noticing procedures of
section 29.20.480 of the Town Code.
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent
To:
Subject:
David Klinger <dave.ldinger@sbcglobal.net>
Monday, December 04, 2017 11:31 PM
Sean Mullin
Proposal for non-hillside fence height code changes Update for Dec 5, 2017 Council
Meeting
Los Gatos Town Council Members,
I wish to commend the Planning Comrnission and Planning staff for addr~ing and responding to the conoems I raised In
a letter to the Town Council on August 30, 2()17 and also during Verbal Communications on Sep 5, 2017. The proposal
included In that letter recommended allowing, without city approval If affected neighbors agreed, a six foot fence with one
foot lattice for a total of seven feet for side and back yards. The Planning Commission discussed the proposal and
recommended proceeding to Council io allow six foot plus one foot lattice fences.
Based on the discussion at the PlaMing Commission meeting on 9/13/2017, Planning staff developed a proposed
amendment to the oon-hfflslde fence ordinance. The proposed change In ordinance 29.40.033 being considered would
allow six foot fences with one foot lattice on top, but without requiring.formal neighbor approval. I believe the pn;>posed
amand~nt, if approved, edequatttly addresses the concerns of coda non-compliance end unnecessary fee burden on
compliant residents. I hope ihat neighbors wiff be ~ble to work together courteously and respectfully In buBding, repairing
and upgrading their fences to the new standard.
While writing this letter, I thought I'd go back and see what insight I could gain from Robt,rt Frost In his poem "Mending
Wall":
"Something there is that doesn't lo~ a wall"
and
"Before I built a M:111 I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out.
And to whom I was like lo give offanltl."
But the neighbor, who each spring works across the wan from the narrator as they replace the boulders that have fallen,
asserts:
"Good fences make good neighbor&"
As for me, I'm not sure good fences make good neighbors,
but I am confident that bad fences do not make good neighbors.
In the Interest of promoting good fences, good neighbors and a harmonious community, please approve the proposed
ordinance amendment.
RespectfuUy,
David L. Klinger
141 Potomac Dr
Los Gatos, CA 95032
On Monday, December 4, 2017 4:36 PM, David Klinger <dave.kllnger@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Sent from my IPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: David Klinger <dave.kllnger@sbcglobal.net>
Date: August 30, 2017 at 6:07:07 PM PDT
To: •councll@losgatosca.gov"
<councll@losgatosca.gov>, "manager@losgatossca.gov"
<manager@losgatossca.gov>
Cc: Mullin Sean <SMullin@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Proposal for flatland fence height code changes
Reply-To: David Klinger <dave.klinger@sbcglobal.net>
I am a resident Los Gatos. The Planning Comm1S8lon Is currently considering changes to the Los Gatos
fence code for hillside properties to protect wildlife. I request the Council direct the Commission to
expand the scope of these changes to include reconslderallon of the flatland residential fence height
restrictions. ·
I recently received approval by the Community Development Director lo construct a replacement 7 foot
high fence that includes a 1 ft lattice on top. I paid Los Gatos $233 to process the exemption required by
city code, after gaining approval of all my adjacent neighbors. A bulldlng permit was not required since
the fence was not over 7 feet high. ·
I discovered by walking our dogs around extensively and talking with my fence contractor that 7 foot
fence replacements are quite common. I met with Sean Mullin, of the Loe Galos planning staff to seek
information about how many residents seek the formal e~emption and pay the fee. I was advised by
another planning staff member at that meeting that the number is •minimar, and that the city was unable
to provide me the exact exemption application count since there is no tracking system in plac;:e. One can
only conclude that many residents simply ignore the code and replace fences without seeking a formal
exemption for those fences higher than 6 feet. Further, I talked with LG Code Compliance and was told
that fence height compllance is not an Issue, perhaps one or two calls per year, due to neighbors working
it out themselves. Compliance actions do not take place unless there is a complaint..
San Jose, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and Los Altos allow 7 foot fences with 1 foot lattice
without exemptions or permits, some of these cities requiring adjoining neighbor approval.
Neighbor approval and •Special privacy concerns•, without specific criteria, is the current Los Gatos basis
for allowing fences over 6 feet high. Privacy Is a subjective matter best left to the neighbors directly
affected. Determination of whether or not a special privacy concern exists Is at the discretion of the
Community Development Director per current code.
Proposal: The flatland ordinance should be modified to allow 7 foot heights with 1 foot lattice without an
exemption fee If all affected neighbors approve. The code should continue the 6 foot no-approval
baseline. If a neighbor disapproves a fence higher than 6 feet. the resident desiring the increase could
appeal, starting with the Community Development Director. Fences higher than 7 feet should continue to
require a permit due to ensure safety. Front yard and comer lot low fence limitations should remain in
force, again for safety and visibility reasons.
I believe this change would reco11C11e the fence height ordinance to the appa.rent a.11rent LG community
consensus that 7 foot fences are often desired and are acceptable. Making this change would promote
better respect for and compliance with Los Gatos oodes, and Immediately reprieve many residents who
are not currently code-compliant. However, this issue Is not likely to result In demonstrations and
demand fc:,r changes. at future Council meetings. Rather, thjs issue falls more properly Into the category
of good city governance and respect for the ability of residents to work it out themselves.
In summary,
1) The fence height c:ode is being Ignored widely,
2) Many fences are higher than six feet. but are acceptable to the neighbors,
3) The current height exemption criteria of "special privacy concerns" is subjective and difficult to
properly evaluate,
4) When neighbors already agree on a 7 foot high fence, gaining city approval and paying associated
fees unnecessarlty burdens the residents.
Respectfully,
David L. Klinger
141 ·Potomac Dr
Los Gatos, CA 95032
STOP new RESTRICTIVE fence ordinance from
IMPACTING ALL Los Gatos H illside properties
Town Code Amendment A-17-002 -considers amendment to Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulations) of the
Town Code regarding fences, hedges, and walls; and includes new regulations and requirements for
fences, hedges, and walls in the Hillside area.
The proposed rule change calls for a 30' max. distance from a primary residence for any new (or
replacement) fence greater than 42" high.
The primary driver for this proposed change is to minimize the impact on wildlife corridors and to
maintain the rural character of the hillside area. Whether you agree or disagree with the intent of the
proposal it is clear the approach used in the proposal is both arbitrary and very punitive. Rather than
focus on situations where a problem actually exists and wildlife are actually restricted from passage
the author took the approach of assuming a problem exists on every parcel of property in the hillside
area. In doing so every property owner in the hillside area will be impacted regardless of parcel size
and regardless of whether a problem exists or not.
Examples of potential impact include:
-Restricting a home owner's right to fully use the land that is within 30' of their home regardless of
the size of their lot will have a negative impact on property values
-Health concerns (such as Lyme disease) due to wildlife in close proximity of personal property and
family members
-Damage to expensive landscaping due to wildlife
-Costly modifications/ removal of existing fencing that does not meet the new ordinance at the time
any repairs are needed.
Having the new ordinance implemented as written today will have a negative impact in how we live
and how we get to use the land that we own and pay taxes on. As a result of significant negative
feedback in prior public forums the author of the proposal has made accommodations for certain
unique situations such as securing livestock and the protection of vineyards, orchards or vegetable
gardens that are outside of the 30' perimeter from a primary dwelling. These changes, however, are
merely a band-aid trying to fix a fundamentally flawed document. A re-write focusing on situations
where a real problem exists is the only logical way forward.
The proposed ordinance can be found at: http://www.losqatosca.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/19736
This petition will be delivered to:
Los Gatos Town Council
Signatures:
See following five pages ...
# Name Date S!g~~~. # Name Date Signed
1 Peter '?~nnelly 11/20/2017 26 Gina Lewis 11/23/2017 ,,_____ . ·--
2 Julia Donnelly 11/20/2017 27 John De Santis .!1/23/2017 ·-··-·· .... , ---
3 ;Vadim Kurland 11/20/2017 28 · Maureen Griffin 11/23/2017
4 1S R 11/23/2017 29 · Zoila Rollins 11/23/20~7 ·-.. . -------···---..
5 '. Katherine Raft 11/23/2017 30 GwenGummow 11/23/2017 .. . . -.....
6 Sean Raft 11/23/2017 31 Max Quilici 11/23/2017 ..
7 Brian Raft 11/23/2017 32 Troy Boser 11/23/2017
8 1 Pen~~~p~ qNeill 11/23/2017 -----.. ·-· ------. . 33 Jen Cantrell 11/23/2017
9 ·rhor:nas Steipp 11/23/2017 34 Robert Perez 11/23/2017 .............. ,_ .... ..... . ·-10 JM Leon 11/23/2017 35 Fevzi Kara~elio,glu 11/23/2017
11 , Harris Lisa 11/23/2017 36 Audrey McGra~~-11/23/2017
12 · Gary Ashford 11/~~/2Q17 37 Rick Tinsley 11/24/2017
13 :Todd Martin 11/23/2017 38 Linda C,a plin.g~_r: __ .. __ 11/24/2017
14 rvl~y ~~ft 11/23/2017 39 ~-~~~--~als~_ .. _ 11/24/2017 . . . ··-··· -· . -·· ... ' ·-· .. , 15 Pamela Bond 11/23/2017 40 erica lamont 11/24/2017 ----·· -----·--16 Ka_t _h.Y Truog 11/23/2017 . 41 .Jack Pacheco 11/24/2017
17 Tim Harris 11/23/2017 42 Keith Wooten 11/24/2017
18 ·Glen Raft 11/23/2017 43 Helene Dahl ll/.~-4/2017 . . -.... -·
19 : Diane Michaelis 11/23/2017 44 Yvonne Quilici 11/24/2017 • ... • M d O, , -----·
20 ; Laura Douglas 11/23/2017 45 Cynt._hi~ (~indy@D_e Santis 11/24/2017
21 Holly Vergara 11/.?3(2017 46 Jed Keller 11/24/2017
22 Kayla _ Undsey 11/23/2017 47 Paul Kelley __ ____ _ ... _ 11/24/2017 .. . ·--. ___ ,, __ 23 Cheryl Jensen _ .1.~l~~/?017 48 Antonio Acevedo _11/24/2017
24 Lin~~~_Sheehy 11/23(2()17 49 Louella Zavalla 11/24/2017
25 Defina Pulliam 11/23/2017 so Pamela LaPine 11/24/2017
# Name Date Signed # Name Date Signed
51 Brian Doetger 11/25/2017· 76 Nicole ~.ae.~~!-11/27/2017 -... . ·----·-····· -·
52 Michael Michaelis 11/25/2017· 77 Ashleen Quirke 11/27/2017 ... -·-· ..... •· . ... . , .......... -.. . .. . .. -·--····--·····---....... --. . .......... ·---····-. ·--------·
53 Channa Delaney 11/25/2017: 78 Isabelle Athearn 11/27/2017
54 Rebecca Mih 11/25/2017 . 79 Vladimir Starov 11/27/2017 -----· -
55 Diane C. Ryan 11/25/2017' 80 Gerald Luiz 11/27/2017
56 Christilla Leon 11/25/2017 81 Justin Benning 11/27/2017
57 Tim Kinslow 11/26/2017 82 Janie McNay 11/28/2017
58 JoAnna Cavallaro 11/26/2017 83 Lily Starov 11/28/2017
59 Julianne Albert 11/?.~/.?91-? 84 John Salcido 11/28/2017
60 Louis Poulos 11/26/2017 85 Ryan Do _nn _elly 11/28/2017 ·-··-. . ------
61 Mar!~_ E~a!'lgel~o-Poulos 11/26/2017 1 -~6___ _ ~hley_ H~n_d_~)-~ ·--·· 11/28/2017 ---· --· -. -~-. ~------· -~---
62 Rachel Donnelly 11/26/2017 87 Grant Messinger 11/28/2017
63 Willa Gorman 11/26/2017 88 Landon Gottlieb 11/28/2017
64 Paige Harrison 11/26/2017 89 John Malish 11/28/2017
65 Zane Marte 11/26/2017 90 NickGummow 11/28/2017 --.. ---·
66 Virginia Tapia 11/27/2017 91 Shari Boxer Baker 11/28/2017 ···-··· .... ·---· --..
67 Nazzi Shishido 11/27/2017 92 Lauren Battisti 11/28/2017
68 Sammy stephens 11/27/2017. 93 McKenna Everett 11/28/2017
69 Vernon Plaskett 11/27/2017 94 Dani Platt 11/28/2017
70 Hershel Abelman 11/27/2017 95 Joey Brajk9'!_i~h 11/28/2017 . . --.. --·
71 Stephanie Robinson 11/27/2017 96 Lindsay B_~!..~et~ 11/28/2017
72 Karyn Gramling 11/27/2017 97 Richard Daniel 11/28/2017
73 Cathy Olson 11/27/2017 98 Ann Rice 11/28/2017
74 Rosemarie Campos 11/27/2017 99 K~_~tlyn Boyle 11/28/2017
75 Morgan Bennett 11/27/2017 100 Ross Foti 11/28/2017
#
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
Name
Paul Prouty
Victoria Cop~land
Greg Martin
Jack Cuthbert
Kenneth Ogle
Bob Bower
Ajit Manocha
Monica Manocha
Serg maslovski
Ann Manocha
Maud Gleason
Chris Fink
Todd Gummow
Julie Kim
U~d~_~yTr«:>_lan
DONALD HEALY
Jennifer Bower
· Stephen Davis
:Allyson Synstad
. Evan Synstad
Steven Tan
Albert Kurkchubasche
Mark Russell
William Rex
. Richard Gullen
Da!_e_~i~n~~-
11/29/2017
·-.... ·-··--·-...
. . .. -~~/~~/~Q.!_7
11/29/2017
~1/~9/~_017
11/29/2017
11/29/2017
11/29/2017 -~ .. ... . .. --··· ··-. . .
11/29/2017
11/29/2017 . -. -. ·---. .
11/29/2017
11/29/2017 ... .. ·-· -
11/29/2017
11/29/2017 . . . .. . '" .. ·~·
11/29/2017
11/29/2017
-·-- ---· ---··--··-· -
11/30/2017 . -..... .
11/30/2017
11/30/2017 ······-----.. --.. ··-·--···--... ·-
11/30/2017 --·-. -·· ·-······
11/30/2017 .... -
11/30/2017 . ' ..
11/30/2017 .. ·---··········· ··-·
11/30/~917
1 ~/~0/20.~?
11/30/2017
#
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
Name
l Huntley Huntley t .. . ... "
!Steven Gordon
1 Rick Ardizzone
Easen Ho
I Gene Lennon
!Sara Tavakoli
!Kasey Harnish
.. L. .. . . .... ·-· ·---. -·
:Joshua LoBue
i Gilbert _Meyer
iThomas Beck
_,_,;_ -·-r • •m "' """'·•'
!~an (?~~g~~~-
! Chris Davis
Uolanta Marcorelle
Ivie L;s~·e···.
. ····--
!"f~~-~-~--~-ay~~-.
:Ali Szady
'Wendy Yost
.1 ......... ----···· .. .
Jana Barsten
!Ki_ra Dales
!Hilary Orr
1~~~-~a~ ly_ar
: Nikhita lyar
Handel Jones ....... -"··· .. -· -···.
Tim McNeil McNeil ··-----···----~· -
Marta Dulaney
Date Signed
11/30/2017
11/30/2017'
. -' .
11/30/2017'
11/30/2017
11/30/2017
11/30/2017"
11/30/2017
11/30/2017
11/30/2017
11/30/2017
--·-·· "'" .
11/30/2017·
11/30/2017
12/1/2017'
. ··-·-··------
12/1/2017
12/1/2017 ...... ..... .... . ..
12/1/2017
12/1/2017
12/1/2017
'" ....... .
12/1/2017
12/1/2017
12/1/2017 -·-· ..
12/1/2017"
12/1/2017
...... -··-----. ....... ., .. .
12/1/2017 ··-···-,., ___ ,.... ..
12/1/2017
# Name Date Signed # Name Date Signed
·-. -· ·-··------
151 Terri G 12/1/2017 176 Darlene Galbreath 12/2/2017
152 ·Leena lyar 12/1/2017 .. ------177 Sue Nystr~m Walsh 12/2/2017
153 Song Ding 12/1/2017 178 Veronica Talantova 12/2/2017
154 Phil Chandler 12/1/2017 179 Eric Bahr 12/2/2017
155 Jeff Barnett 12/1/2017 180 John Katsoudas 12/2/2017 .. --· ----· ······ ---------·· ,_.. .. --· .. -. ----
156 Karen Trolan 12/1/2017 181 Steve H~telling 12/2/2017
157 Benjamin Guilardi 12/1/2017 182 Connie Hamrah 12/3/2017 -. --··
158 matthew Swenson 12/1/2017 183 Bruce Entin 12/3/2017
159 Wendy Marioni 12/1/2017 184 Judith Levin 12/3/2017
160 Cindy Cockcroft 12/1/2017 185 jennifer snyder 12/3/2017 . . -. --· .. ···------.
161 Ian Felix 12/2/2017 186 Clifford Witt 12/3/2017
162 Keith Goodwin 12/2/2017 187 Tiffany Le 12/3/2017
163 Caitlin Cintas 12(~/291~_ 188 ' • ~--R ----~~h,in Sn_y~~~ 12/3/2017
164 Sam Schaevitz 12/2/2017 189 Richard Reed 12/3/2017
165 Laura Schaevitz 12/2/2017 190 Channing Flynn 12/3/2017
166 Patrice ca.rper 12/2/2017 191 Beth Rasmussen 12/3/2017 . . ----·
167 ·Susanne Hotelling 12/2/2017 192 Chris Scholl 12/3/2017
168 Ed Dee 12/2/2017 193 Cameron Dales 12/3/2017
169 john catalana 12/2/2017 194 Kira Dales 12/3/2017
170 Jill Elmore 12/2/2017 195 Brendon Zeidler 12/4/2017 ·-·· ·--' ' ..
171 Mark Timm 12/2/2017 196 StE?~hanie Raney 12/4/2017
172 Geoffrey Elmore 12/2/2017 197 Susan Lam 12/4/2017
173 Andrew Perrucci 12/2/2017 198 Don & Cheryl Wimberly 12/4/2017
174 Rick Ardizzone 12/2/2017 199 Ma~y ~ ~r~~-Lucia 12/4/2017
175 John Galbreath 12/2/2017 200 Jill Martin 12/4/2017
# Name Date Si _gned # · Name Date Signed
-. _ ....... ·--· ·-·---
201 lee lee 12/4/2017
~ ... -··-·· ..
202 David Bruni 12/4/2017
203 Rupar lyar 12/4/2017
204 'Jeffrey Prince 12/4/2017
205 Ha,_i_l~y Larison 12/4/2017 .•... ·-· ... ··------"·
206 MARITA Quint 12/4/2017
207 Heidi Herz 12/4/2017 --···· ··---~-·-· ---·--·------
208 Tanya Kurland 12/4/2017
Comments:
Name
Penelope ONeill
Harris Lisa
Gary Ashford
Todd Martin
Holly Vergara
GwenGummow
GwenGummow
Linda Caplinger
Paul Kelley
Brian Doerger
Michael Michaelis
JoAnna Cavallaro
JoAnna Cavallaro
JoAnna Cavallaro
Comment
This proposed ordinance effectively limits your enjoyment of the property you own and pay
taxes on!! Sounds like it may not be a violation of my rights as a property owner. Back to the
drawing board/ vote no on this!
Hillside properties are unique and a one size fits all approach is a grossly misinformed way to
maintain the rural character. Just like the homeowners that live in the valley, foothill owners
have the right to use their property to it's fullest potential.
About the only type of wildlife which can't deal with the current fencing is coyotes and we don't
need them prancing through our backyard. This is a gross violation of private property rights.
The proposed hillside fence ordinance is arbitrary, punitive, and irrational. It is unclear as to the
impetus and expected outcome of this initiative. Given the restrictive specifics of the ordinance,
it needs to be trashed and reconsidered with more involvement of the hillside residents. The
grandfather clause tied to the durability of your existing fence ls an example of the some hasty
authoring. Residents who follow guidelines and ordinances deserve a far more considerate and
mindful approach.
I am a hillside homeowner and live up Shannon road. If this fence ordinance passes, it will
prevent my children from playing in their playground within a safe distance from our home. In
addition their playground and our property will not be protected by the wildlife. This is a safety
issue as there are many coyotes, wild boar and other animals that walk around here. We
continue to have animals eat our plants, gardens and make a mess on our property. We realize
we live in the hills, however, we have paid a premium to protect what we own. Thank you!
l do not agree with the proposed fencing ordinance because it unfairly imposes restrictions on
all properties and the properties are all different. The fencing ordinance needs to be rewritten
to make sense for many varieties of properties in the hillside designated area. The reasons for
fencing are to protect property, pets and children. This is a safety element that has been
completely disregarded.
The fencing proposal does not provide for safety of property, pets and children.It needs to be
rewritten or completely eliminated.
Completely disagree with this blanket policy. We are newer to our property but plan on
.replacing existing fences. A max of 30' from our structure means that a large portion of our 1/2
acre will be open/insecure. How about our chickens (more than 30' from our house) and dogs
that we would like to be able to access our property securely? How about being able to keep
out deer that carry Lyme's bearing ticks? This is a one size fits all proposal and imposing hefty a
fee on folks to build fences amounts to nothing more than a tax.
Bad ordinance and I vote NO on it in any form!
This ordinance puts children's lives in danger in favor of ... what, ancient wild animal
This proposal represents a complete over-reach and a misdirected priority for the town council.
As expressed by many hlllside residents, the wildlife around Los Gatos already move freely. As
such, this proposal represents a "solution in search of a problem." It should be
tossed or at the very least rewritten from a reasonable and logical perspective, that protects
the property rights of hillside residents. The town council has a responsibility to act in an
equitable manner on their behalf.
The Los Gatos Town Council is arbitarily taking away our property rights. They are not a part of
a democracy, they are a Facist Regime
Except. we don't get to vote on it; only the Facist Los Gatos Town Council
The town council forgets that we are living inhillside RESIDENTIAL, as in for humans, not hillside
wild animal park!-!!
JoAnn·a Cavallaro
JoAnna Cavallaro
JoAnna Cavallaro
Holly Vergara
Sammy Stephens
McKenna Everett
DONALD HEALY
Steven Tan
Albert Kurkctiubasche
William Rex
Dan Douglas
Chris Davis
Tessa Hayes
Jana Barsten
Hilary Orr
terri g
Michael Michaelis
Andrew Perrucci
There does not need to be any fencing ordinance!Those jerks in LG Town Council have way too
much free time and power. Maybe we don't need them at all.
Do you think they really care?
One arrogant idiot on the Town Council already answered someone's concern re Lyme disease.
He said Lyme disease was not a concern in in California. He was lying, of course, as the Los
Gatos Weekley reported on a LG family contracting Lyme Disease a few years ago; and the
teenagers that were suffering from the disease were denied medical treatment, because the
doctor also said Lyme disease was not a problem in Ca.
That's the purpose of this initiative.
Sam Stephens
Justtd can't see the logic
I maintain and pay taxes on my hillside property and have the right to protect and use our
property in a reasonable manner. The wild boar, coyotes, mountain lions and bobcats present
a real threat to my grandchildren. Our fence provides some level of protection.
My security camera captured 2 coyotes lying right below my front door all night long just a
week ago. My wife is expecting and she got a fright when she opened the door in the morning .
We are not against wildlife. We have a mother deer and her baby hanging out below our deck
most afternoons. However, this is after all our residence, not a wildlife reserve. So protection
for my family comes first, and we do intend to fence up in the coming year for the safety of my
family and especially my highly vulnerable babies.
We all love the wild life in the hills. At the last town council meeting many neighbors argued
against and presented better solutions, such as providing corridors rather than limiting us 30
feet rnax from main structure. The current regulation will have a worse visual impact, since you
can have many fenced areas (i.e. 30' adjacent to house, tennis court, swimming pool, vegetable
yards and orchards, etc.). The rules are arbitrary, they lower our property values and take away
our property rights. We have plenty deer and wildlife that co-exist on our property. I dq not see
a need to amend the fence rules.P.S. Besides listing all the fences that are not allowed, could
the town Just list the type of fence which they allow (which seem to be split rail fence).
What is reasonable for open wildlife pathways? We have coyotes, mountain lions, and rutting
deer Johnson Ave at Cypress Ave. ( less than a mile from Town Hall) We have a neighbor on
Johnson Ave who has had some twenty of their hens killed by suspected wildlife.Let's get
reasonable with changes -make them to support property fights and protection of our families
and neighbors!!!!
Don't turn our yards into "open space preserves"! I don't get a special tax rate for the portion
of my property more than 30 ft from my house, so don't change how I can use it.
The proposed ordinance is ridiculous.
This is a ridiculous ordinance and waste of taxpayer money. Worry more about the homeless
situation, the fact that Lexington Reservoir hasn't had a seismic upgrade, worry about things
that matter -not fence heights. If fences are what our politicians are most worried a bout than
maybe it's time to get new people to .run our town!
Health safety
I live in the Los Gatos Hills and this is a ridiculous idea. It would make my garden unusable I
this is unconstitutional, therefore null, void and without effect.
Everyone that feels passionately about the inappropriateness of this proposed ordinance
should plan to attend the 7:00pm Los Gatos Town Council meeting on December 5th. Make
sure that the council members hear your voice on this matter and are guided towards an
Informed decision!
I would like to see the scientific data that the authors used in drafting the proposed ordinance
that says there is a problem with wildlife mobility within the Town hillside areas. I seriously
doubt that there is a widespread problem.
Connie Hamrah
Richard Reed
Stephanie Raney
Don & Cheryl
Wimberly
Lee Lee
We don't need this ordinance, it's too restrictive.
The proposed ordinance is a hazard to safety. Where animal habitat is cut off by freeways a
corridor requirement is a good idea. Private property back yards do not significantly cut off
corridors. This is just a bad idea and must be stopped. Our government representatives must
represent the will ofthe people they represent not a chosen vocal few.
I have a number of issues with this proposed ordinance. 1. Nowhere in the proposal does it
provide research/data on the supposed impact on wildlife. As I walk through my neighborhood
I regularly see deer and coyotes who are roaming through existing natural corridors. Without
data, we cannot make informed decisions about if this proposal is actually justified. 2. Other
cities in California have much more resident-friendly guidelines to achieve the goal of
maintaining wildlife corridors. See the guidelines of Woodside for an example that maintains
natural corridors while respecting property owners rights. 3. This proposal will have an
immediate negative impact on my home. I have done extensive landscaping over much of my
property. Were this proposal to go into effect, I would not be able to maintain my current
fence (which keeps out the deer} and would then lose most of these plants. Prior to putting up
my current fence l tried to use deer-resistant plants in my landscaping. Didn't work--the deer a
Only wildlife that would gain access to our property would be dog walkers relieving their pets
and local vandals.Stick to the basics TLG.
This is too restrictive and take away property rights without compensation. As it is wild animal
is coming near the house. A few year ago a fox almost attack me, in panic I throw some rocks at
him with a bit of luck he ran off. Otherwise it would have been a sad story.
TOWN COUNCIL
Received with October 16, 2018, Staff Report and Addendum
From: Wallis and Wallis Insurance Brokers <dwallisjr@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 11:44 AM
To: Jocelyn Shoopman <jshoop man @losgatosca .gov>
Subject: I need help
Hi Jocelyn,
I want to send you a email in support of the proposed approval of the 7 foot high fences, should I referred
to a specific vote???
Thanks!!
Marcia
Partner & Broker
Wallis and Wallis Insurance Brokers
STRENGTH IN PERFORMANCE
Agency of the Year, Northern California
1249 Park Ave
San Jose, California 95126
408-293-3336
408-293-6054 Fax
www.wawib.com
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
10/7/2018
David Klinger <dave.klinger@sbcglobal.net>
Sunday, October 07, 2018 9:59 PM
Sean Mullin
Support for Non-Hillside Fence Ordinance 29.40.033
Los Gatos Town Council Members,
The Town Council will be considering on October 16, 2018 changes to the Ordinance governing both Non-hillside
residential lots and Hillside residential lots fences. This letter urges your support of the non-hillside fence height change
29.40.033, even if the Council decides not to change the Hill-side fence ordinance 29.40.034
On Sep 13, 2017, I presented to the Planning Commission the case for allowing seven foot high fences (six feet solid with
one foot lattice on top) for non-hillside residential lots. Following an in-depth discussion, the minutes show that the
Planning Commission supported the change to seven foot height including one foot lattice within property lines. with lower
heights for comer lots and front yards.
I presented the same case for change to the Town Council on Dec 5, 2017. However the public testimony was almost
entirely on the hillside fencing and occurred late in the evening after the Veterans Memorial was discussed and
approved. Although I provided both written and verbal testimony on the non-hillside changes, the council did not discuss
the non-hillside fence height proposed changes and deferred both hillside and non-hillside fence consideration to a later
date, now October 16, 2018.
I urge you to approve the Ordinance Sec. 29.40.033. Non-hillside residential lots: Fences, walls, gates, gateways, entry
arbors, and hedges.
1.
(a) Height. In residential zones outside of the hillside area, a permit is not required for the repair, replacement, or
construction of gateways, entry arbors, or hedges that are no more than six (6) feet high; or fences, walls, or gates that
are no more than six (6) feet high, with one (1) foot of lattice on top (seven (7) feet high in total}, and within all property
lines.
(b) Exceptions to height
(c) Materials
(d) Vehicular gates
My original letter to the Town Council, presenting the case that was included in the formal package for the Council meeting on
Dec 5, 2017, is included below for your reference. To summarize, the primary reasons for change are the following:
1) The existing six foot height limit is widely ignored
2) Allowing residents to build seven foot fences with one foot lattice, (the de facto city standard), will eliminate widespread
non-compliance to the code.
3) Many fences are higher than six feet, but are acceptable to the neighbors, based on nearly zero complaints to Code
Compliance
4) No effective enforcement of the exiting six foot limit is taking place.
5) Los Gatos does not track applications for height waiver, but the number of applications is "minimal" according to a planning
staff member.
5) Charging a $233 fee for a waiver is not uniformly applied, is burdensome, and is unfair to those who wish to be compliant,
since very few residents apply for a waiver
6) The existing height exemption criteria of "special privacy concerns" is subjective and difficult to properly evaluate.
7) San Jose, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and Los Altos allow such seven foot fences without exemptions or
permits.
Again, I urge you to consider non-hillside lots and hillside lot ordinance changes separately, and to accept the seven foot
height with lattice for non-hillside residential lots.
Res_pectfully,
David L. Klinger
141 Potomac Dr
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Reference: 8/30/2017 lnitial letter to Los Gatos Town Council
I am a resident Los Gatos. The Planning Commission is currently considering changes to the Los Gatos fence
code for hillside properties to protect wildlife. I request the Council direct the Commission to expand the scope
of these changes to include reconsideration of the flatland residential fence height restrictions.
I recently received approval by the Community Development Director to construct a replacement 7 foot high
fence that includes a 1 ft lattice on top. I paid Los Gatos $233 to process the exemption required by city code,
after gaining approval of all my adjacent neighbors. A building permit was not required since the fence was not
over 7 feet high.
I discovered by walking our dogs around extensively and talking with my fence contractor that 7 foot fence
replacements are quite common. I met with Sean Mullin, of the Los Gatos planning staff to seek information
about how many residents seek the formal exemption and pay the fee. I was advised by another planning staff
member at that meeting that the number is "minimal", and that the city was unable to provide me the exact
exemption application count since there is no tracking system in place. One can only conclude that many
residents simply ignore the code and replace fences without seeking a form~I exemption for those fences higher
than 6 feet. Further, I talked with LG Code Compliance and was told that fence height compliance is not an
issue, perhaps one or two calls per year, due to neighbors working it out themselves. Compliance actions do
not take place unless there is a complaint..
San Jose, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and Los Altos allow 7 foot fences with 1 foot lattice
without exemptions or permits, some of these cities requiring adjoining neighbor approval.
Neighbor approval and "Special privacy concerns", without specific criteria, is the current Los Gatos basis for
allowing fences over 6 feet high. Privacy is a subjective matter best left to the neighbors directly affected.
Determination of whether or not a special privacy concern exists is at the discretion of the Community
Developr:nent Director per current code.
Proposal: The flatland ordinance should be modified to allow 7 foot heights with 1 foot lattice without an
exemption fee if all affected neighbors approve. The code should continue the 6 foot no-approval baseline. If a
neighbor disapproves a fence higher than 6 feet, the resident desiring the increase could appeal, starting with
the Community Development Director. Fences higher than 7 feet should continue to require a permit due to
ensure safety. Front yard and corner lot low fence limitations should remain in force, again for safety and
visibility reasons.
I believe this change would reconcile the fence height ordinance to the apparent current LG community
consensus that 7 foot fences are often desired and are acceptable. Making this change would promote better
respect for and compliance with Los Gatos codes, and immediately reprieve many residents who are not
currently cod~mpliant. However, this issue is not likely to result in demonstrations and demand for changes
at future Council meetings. Rather, this issue falls more property into the category of good city governance and
respect for the ability of residents to work it out themselves.
In summary,
1) The fence height code is being ignored widely,
2) Many fences are higher than six feet, but are acceptable to the neighbors,
3) The current height exemption criteria of "special privacy concerns" is subjective and difficult to properly
evaluate,
4) When neighbors already agree on a 7 foot high fence, gaining city approval and paying associated fees
unnecessarily burdens the residents.
Respectfully,
David L. Klinger
141 Potomac Dr
Los Gatos, CA 95032
RECFIVED -:i ·-
To: Town Council
Re: Revised Fence Ordinance, meeting of TC October 16, 2018
From Peter Donnelly, Dave Weissman, October 9, 2018
OCT O 9 2018
TO W N OF LOS GA I OS
PLAN NI NG D IVISION
After a considerable amount of time working with staff and the various interests within the
Town, we now support the draft before you as a compromise that achieves the main interests
and goals of the HDS&G.
There is one short sentence that we recommend you add to this draft to make the code clearer
and as unambiguous as possible: Where a conflict exists between the CC&Rs of a hillside PD
and this document, the requirements of this document shall prevail.
Our concern is not about some unrealistic, hypothetical situation because such a potential
conflict may be illustrated by the following example. The Town approved CC&Rs of the
Highlands PD say, in Section 6.11.2, that "Generally, fences should be constructed in such a
fashion to be open that will allow the migration of native animals through the project." Those
CC&Rs continue that "Open fencing as suggested by the Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines and as appended herein as Exhibit D is encouraged." Yet in Exhibit D-2 of that very
same Highlands document, a "permitted" fence (see attached) shows a fence that is clearly not
wildlife-friendly because of the obvious wire mesh.
Additionally, the Highlands CC&R "Fence and Wall" section anticipates that Town codes can
subsequently change and says that homeowners are " .•. subject to applicable governmental
regulations and requirements of governmental agencies, and ... as may be amended from time
to time ... " (our emphasis).
Incorporating the above proposed sentence into the Town's fence ordinance insures that
Homeowner's Associations will continue to advise their members and update their internal
CC&Rs since, at least in the case of the Highlands, any proposed fence or wall construction must
be approved by the Highlands' internal governing board. We also believe the addition of the
above highlighted wording would remove any ambiguity and prevent any unintended loopholes
that result in fencing that does not comply with the intended outcome of the HDS&G.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
October 13, 2018
Dear Mayor and Town Council
As residents of the HR Zone, we ask you please not adopt the proposed fence and wall ordinance.
Following are reasons why we believe you should not adopt it:
1. The proposed ordinance's requirements infringe on rights of private property owners, turning
control of private property over to Town Officials and the Community Development Director.
2. The scope of the ordinance is not health and safety, but if adopted, would be an imposition of
the personal preferences of Town Officials, staff and ordinances proponents. The Town should
concentrate its resources and energies on issues of the health and safety of its citizens, public
service to its residents and visitors, and on providing quality public infrastructure, not
harassment of residents and property owners. Council should avoid adopting regulations that
force citizens into unnecessary disputes with Town staff and Officials over the rightful use of
private property.
3. The proposed Ordinance ignores the fact that landscaping, pets, personal property and family
members need protection from wildlife and unauthorized intruders that should be designed by
the property owner, not Town officials. Coyotes, raccoons, deer, skunks, to name a few can be
a threat. An absence of such protections as provided by walls and fences can prevent property
owner from using their own property as they choose.
4. Wildlife is very capable of creating their own corridors, nesting and resting areas, and fmding
their own food sources, particularly in the Hillside Zone. It does not hesitate to use roads and
other public spaces.
5. The location of fences and walls is a lot design decision rightfully made by individual property
owners. The shape, features, topography and natural vegetation of each lot differ, and are not
reasonably controlled by government and/or ordinance formulas.
6. Ordinance proponents should feel free to donate their time, resources and opinions regarding
wildlife management to the region's open space district where conservation and wildlife take a
rightful priority. They should limit their efforts to make fencing and wan decisions for their
own property.
7. Finally, this ordinance could be interpreted as a "wildlife easement", representing a taking and,
if adopted, should be litigated.
Don & Cheryl Wimberly
PO Box 800
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RECEIVED
OCT 15 2018
10\!Vt,J f)F l OS GA l OS
Pl ANNING DIVISION
To
From
Re
Date
Mayor Renni and Town Council
Lee Quintana
Draft Fence Ordinance
October 15, 2018
FCEIVED
oc r 15 20 18
I 0 1/V '('i f, LO G A T O S
P L .I\N I NG D !V fC'IO
I ask that the Council refer the amendments to the Town's Fence Ordinance to the Town
Council Policy Committee to discuss the following:
• Balance between wildlife and residents
• Best and/or common practices -flexibility vs one size fits all
• Organization and clarity
• Consistency with General Plan, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
(HDS&G)
Attachments:
I. Comment Letter from Christopher Kankel, dated July 18, 2017.
II. Saratoga Zoning Code: Sec15-29.020 -Fencing within hillside districts.
Ill. Monte Sereno Fence Regulations .
IV.Monte Sereno Zoning Code: Zoning Code designations and Zoning district standards
(setbacks and minimum lot size).
Balance
Christopher Kankel, in his letter dated July 18, 2017, he recognizes the need to balance
the needs of wildlife and hillside residents and the challenge creating that presents
when drafting regulations for hillside fencing (See Attachment I.). Mr. Kankel states:
"While I appreciate the need to accommodate the wildlife whose territory we infringe
upon, I also respect the need and right to privacy and security of my clients and
fellow residents. Developing a fencing ordinance that accommodates both the
wildlife and residents Is a delicate balancing act." ....
Mr. Kankel further suggests a balance .that would allow residents and designers
flexibility in choosing what portion of their property to secure while insuring a greater
portion of their property remains accessible to wildlife.
However, neither the first draft nor the currently proposed draft would provide balance or
flexibility as he suggests.
The first fence ordinance draft:
• Areas: Divides the town into two areas, non-hillside areas and hillside areas.
Treats each area as "one size fits all.
• Balance: Regulations are balanced to favor the protecting wildlife habitat, wildlife
movement corridors preserving continuous open space and the rural open ·
character of the town's hillside areas.
• Flexibility: While the first draft, allowed exceptions for privacy where required,
protection for pets, gardens and play areas, as well as for security around pools
Town Council Hearing October 16, 2018 Draft Fence Ordinance 2of4
areas and sports courts, the 30' requirement did not allow much flexibility to locate
these activities within one continuous security fencing.
Current fence ordinance draft:
• Ar.ea; The current draft divides the town into two areas based on size without
regard to zone. The town is divided into lot which are less than one acre and lots
one acre or more However, in effect, regulations for animal-friendly fences are only
required yard setback of their zone. Any area located outside the required yard
setbacks is subject to the regulations for lots that are less than one acre.
• HR zones and RC zones: Yard setback requirements: Front-30', Sides-20' and
Rear-25'. Size or specific zone is not taken into account.
• Balance: Moves the balance in the opposite direction by reducing the number of
lots that are required to meet minimum front yard setbacks and are allowed to have
fences along their property lines and increasing areas not required to have animal-
friendly fences. The current draft may create movement corridors in some areas,
but it also has the potentia1 to allow enclosing large area, to recreate discontinuous
movement corridors, reduce wildlife habitat and to reduce the open rural feeling of
the hillsides .
•
Best and or common practices 1
General:
• Most provide tables and/or figures to illustrate setbacks and heights.
• Most regulations are base on zoning districts, some are based on minimum size of
zoning districts. (example Portola Valley)
• Most require permits
• Most limit the height of fences in front yard setback to 3 or 3 1 /2 feet.
• All require restriction of height of fence in a traffic view area at street intersections
• Some restriction height of fences on side yards adjacent to streets or require
increased side setbacks on side yards adjacent to streets.
• Most also require fence height restrictions triangles at driveway intersections with
streets.
• Most have regulations regarding driveway/vehicular gates setbacks (most in open
position) and height and/or design of driveway gates
• Most have provisions for exceptions to height greater than 6' (either 7' with 6' soJid
fence+ 1' lattice or open fencing or 8' maximum with 2 feet lattice) and exceptions
for to 8 feet for privacy and wildlife protection of landscaping and vegetables.
• To varying degrees reference regulations pertaining to fences found in other
sections of the zoning code, municipal code or building code (examples: traffic
visibility areas, building permit regulations for fences around pools, regulations for
sport court fencing, or for horse fencing
• Setbacks from streams and riparian habitat to all areas not just hillside locations.
Saratoga:
1 Based on review of fence regulations from Los Altos Hills, Campbell, Cupertino, Monte Sereno, Portola
Valley, Saratoga and Woodside.
Town Council Hearing October 16, 2018 Draft Fence Ordinance 3of 4
• Saratoga has a zoning code section specific to hillside districts (Sec. 15.29.020 .
Fencing within hillside districts).2 These regulations are in addition to the general
regulations in Sec. 15.29.10.
• The hillside regulations provides for an "area of enclosure". Either 6000 sf
maximum area of enclosure or 15 percent of gross site area, which ever is greater.
(some exceptions). This provides some flexibility as to placement of the enclosed
area within the lot but leaves areas of continuous open space
• Not based on size, however provides some flexibility in choice of enclosed fence
locations. This is similar to the suggestion · in Attachment I. which states:
" ..... consider an ordinance that allows for a given percentage of a site area to be
contained by a six foot high secure fence ...... or a minimum of x square feet).
This would allow residents and designers flexibility in choosing what portion and
extent of their property to secure while assuring a greater amount of their
property remains accessible to wildlife"
Monte Sereno:
• City of Monte Sereno Fence Regulations, (See Attachment Ill that was included in
a previous staff report) in part states:
"Height of Fences: No portion of any fence shall exceed a height of three (3) feet
in any part of any front yard unless a site development permit has been
approved .... , or a height of six (6) feet in any side or rear yard. In no event shall
any fence height exceed six (6) feet in any point of the lot."
• To fully understand the above regulation it is also necessary to also look at
Chapter 10.05 -Zoning District Regulations, Sec. 10.05.01 o -Zoning district
designations. and Sections c. Development Standards for 1. Minimum lot area,
2 .Front Yard, 3. Side Yard, 4. Rear Yard and 4.1 Increases in .setbacks each
Zoning districts R-1-44, R-1-20, R-1-8. (See Attachment IV).
• In Monte Sereno fence setbacks and fence height maximums are determined by a
combination of the zoning of a lot, the minimum lot size adjusted for slope density,
and the area that each lot exceeds the minimum square footage. While this may
not provide as much flexibility as the Saratoga example this is not a "one size fits
all" approach.
Organization, Intent and clarity
• The first draft fence regulations divided by into two sections: Non-hillside areas and
Hillside areas.
• The current draft is also divided the into two sections, however the sections are based
on lot size regardless of zone, rather than Non-hillside and Hillside location.
2 Saratoga Sec . 15-29-020. Fencing witthin hillside districts. See Attactvnent II · not previously included
in staff report.
Town Council Hearing October 16, 2018 Draft Fence Ordinance 4of4
• This change, however, is not reflected in the organization of the ordinance. It may also
affect some definitions.
• Re-organizing the chapter to reflect the new divisions based on size could simplify the
organization provide, increase clarity and reduce the opportunity for subjective
interpretations.
• Suggest reorganizing the ordinance to be consistent with the proposed changes. One
possibility: ·
• Purpose and Intent: Purpose to codify. General overall intent with more specific
intent for HDSG.
• General regulations that apply to all lots (example, view triangles, entry arbors,
driveway gate setbacks, with references to swimming pool fences, sports court
enclosures, stables and horse fences and any other pertinent fence requirements
• Regulations that apply, io addition to general fence regulations. to lots less than
oneaae
• Regulations that apply. io addition to general fence regulations. tor lots one acre or
.mm:e
• Other necessary Sections.
Consistency wHh General Plan, HDS&G, and Zoning Code
I have run out of time to address consistency in detail. Just a partial list of
inconsistencies with General Plan listed in Exhibit 4.
• Policy CO 15.6: In hillsides fencing shall be open design unless needed for privacy. A
minimal amount of land shall be enclosed by fencing over 5 feet high. Revised draft
provides minimal regulation other than for yard setbacks for lots one acre or more.
• Policy CD 3.8: Solid fencing over three feet shall be designed such that it does not
isolate structures from the street, or shall be set back and landscaped. The revised
draft allows solid fencing within front yard setbacks for lots that are less than an acre .
• There are numerous goals and policies in the General Plan that address preserving
wildlife habitat, continuous open space and preserving the open rural character of the
4hillsides. Limiting animal friendly fencing to required yard setbacks only for lots that
are one acre or more is not consistent with this goal.
I will not be able to attend the October 16th Town Council Meeting. If you have
questions or would like clarifications please call me at (408) 354-7808.
Thank you for your consideration.
Lee Quintana
A-t\ : tt-JJ--
,ww~;-29.020 • Fencing W;~:~~:11:::;;:,7~:r&ra~Z"~"f frif I
In addition to the regulations set forth in 5ectjon 15-29.01 o of this Article, fences located
within an HR or R-OS district shall comply with the following regulations:
A~ (a) Area of enclosure. Except for fencing which constitutes part of a corral. no
fencing on a single site shall encompass or enclose an area in excess of six
thousand square feet or 15 percent of the gross site area, whichever is
greater, unless approved by the Planning Commission. The fencing shall meet
the requirements stipulated in [Section] 15-29,010 of this Article. "Encompass
and enclose," as used in this section, shall mean to surround an area with a
continuous fence or a fence.
(b) Fencing outside area of enclosure. Except for fencing which constitutes part
of a corral or fencing required by the Building Code for swimming pools,
fencing outside the area of enclosure shall not exceed three feet in height,
' and shall be split rail fencing, stone wall, or stucco.
(c) Parallel retaining walls. Parallel retaining walls shall be separated by a
horizontal distance of not less than five feet. Where two or more retaining
walls are approximately parallel to each other and separated by a horizontal
distance of thirty feet or less, the combined height of such walls shall not
exceed ten feet.
(d) Wildlife trails. No fence shall unreasonably impede the movement of wildlife
animals utilizing an established trail or migratory route which crosses the site.
(e) Swimming pool fences within hillside districts. When a fence already
encompasses or encloses six thousand square feet or more on a single site,
and a swimming pool fence is required for a swimming pool that is not
located within the area of enclosure as described in Article [Sectionll.S:.
29.020(a), an additional area around the swimming pool may be enclosed
with a fence, provided the swimming pool fence follows the contour of the
pool with no more than ten feet of distance located between the fence and
edge of water.
(f) [Exemptions.] The provisions of this Section shall not apply to any property
located within and constituting a part of Tract 7763, as shown on the
subdivision map thereof recorded in the office of the County Recorder.
(g) [Stipulations.] Any property located within and constituting a part of Tracts
~ r'O m J...ee,. O«-i n-\516~'1,6528 (Parker Ranch Subdlvision~showrz:~,0f v~t?'.16/ f
bttns:tnibrarv.municode.oom'ca/saraloea/oodes/code of ordirumces?nodcld=CH1Sl0RE AKfJ5-29FE IOYJ / j ~ 13/20
)(){J4/20l8 Chapter JO.OS-ZONING DISTRICT RF.GULATIONS I Code ofOrdioallCeS I Monte Sereno, CA I Muoicode Libruy
7.
One (1) private stable for not more than the permitted number of domestic animals, provided
that the stable is .not used for rental or other commercial purposes.
·s. Two (2) medium size animals consisting of sheep or goats (but excluding
swine or adult unneutered male goats) for each twenty thousand
(20,o"OO) square feet of land, and one (1) more medium size animal for
' each additional ten thousand (10,000) square feet of land. Provided,
"-..
however, the tota~~umber of medium size animals on any parcel of land
shall not exceed fmJr{4), and they shall be penned or kept in a corral on
the rear one-half of th~oR!!rty. One (1) litter produced by the medium
' size animals during each calen~ar may be kept on the property for
which the use permit was issued for n more than a total of four (4)
months, provided they are not kept for sale r resale nor for commercial
br~eding, boarding, nor veterinary care. At the e iration of four (4)
months, the animals in the litter shall be considered to adult animals
1
/ and subject to the limitation as to the number of animals which may be
kept on the property set forth herein.
C. Development standards. The following development standards shall apply in
R-144 Districts.
1. Minimum lot area -The minimum lot area shall be forty-three
thousand five hundred sixty (43,560) square feet or the minimum as
required by the slope density formula as set forth in the Subdivision
Title of this Code.
2. Frontyard -The minimum front yard shall be as follows:
a. Single-story building -thirty (30) feet.
b. Second-story portion of building-forty-five (45) feet.
c. Detached accessory buildings are not allowed in the front yard.
3. Side yard -The minimum side yard shall be as follows:
a. Single-story building -twenty (20) feet.
b. Second-story portion of building -forty (40) feet.
c. Accessory building -six (6) feet, but must be located only upon
the rear one-half of the lot.
4. Rear yard -The minimum rear yard shall be as follows:
a. Single-story building -thirty (30) feet.
'1111
HYJ412018 Chapter J0.05-ZONJNG DISTRICT REGULATIONS I Code of Ordinances I Monte Sereno, CA I Municodc libnuy
b. Second-story portion of building -forty (40) feet.
c. Accessory building -ten (10) feet.
4.1. Each of the minimum front, side, and rear yards shall be increased by
five (5) feet for each twenty-one thousand seven hundred eighty (21,780)
square feet by which the area of a parcel of property or lot exceeds the
minimum lot area required in this residential zoning district, but does
not exceed maximum area of two (2) acres.
4.2. The waterline of a spa, tub, and/or swimming pool, or any structure
related thereto, located in the ground, or any portion of which is in the
ground shall be located not less than twelve (12) feet from any property
line and not less than eight (8) feet from any structure. Any spa, tub, or
swimming pool which is located entirely above ground shall be located
not less than twelve (12) feet from any property line.
5. Maximum building height.
a. The maximum building height shall be as follows:
(1) Single-story building -fourteen (14) feet.
(2) Second-story portion of building -twenty-one (21) feet.
(3) Accessory building -twelve (12) feet.
6. The maximum height of a building may be increased by an additional
one (1) foot for each two (2) feet that portion of the structure is further
distanced from the minimum applicable setback; provided, however, at
no time shall the maximum height exceed the following:
a. Twenty-one (21) feet for any single-story structure, or single-story
portion of a two (2) story building or any detached accessory
building.
b. Thirty (30) feet for any two (2) story structure.
c. The height of any building shall not exceed two (2) stories.
Detached structures shall not exceed one (1) story.
d. The overall plate height shall not exceed twenty (20) feet for any
structure.
7. Maximum building size -The maximum size of a main building
including required covered parking shall be as follows:
a. Single-story building -six thousand six hundred (6,600) square
feet.
7111
10/1412018 Chapcer 10.05-ZONINO DISTRICT REGULATIONS I Code of Ordinances I Moote Sereno, CA I Municode Urry . +
C J2tv7,~.j (J~"'l)'J.ei.1-t St 0<.VJ c} a.~d, s ~-1-;zo DJSTYI C,
1, Minimum lot area -The minimum lot area shall be twenty-one thousand seven hundred eighty
(21,780) square feet or the minimum as required by the slope density formula as set forth in the
Subdivision Title of this Code.
2. Front yard -The minimum front yard shall be as follows:
a. Single-story building -Thirty (30) feet.
b. Second-story portion of building -Forty (40) feet.
c. Accessory buildings are not allowed in the front yard.
3. Side yard -The minimum side yard shall be as follows:
a. Single-story building -Fifteen (15) feet.
b. Second-story portion of building -Twenty (20) feet.
c. Accessory building -Six (6) feet, but must be located only upon
the rear half of the lot.
4. Rear yard -The minimum rear yard shall be as follows:
a. Single-story building -Thirty (30) feet.
b. Second-story portion of building -Forty (40) feet.
c. Accessory building -Six (6) feet.
4.1. Each of the minimum front, side and rear yards shall be increased by
five (5) feet for each ten thousand (10,000) square feet by which the area
of a parcel of property or lot exceeds the minimum lot area required in
this residential zoning district.
4.2. The waterline of a spa, tub, and/or swimming pool, or any structure
related thereto, located in the ground, or any portion of which is in the
ground shall be located not less than twelve (12) feet from any property
line and not less than eight (8) feet from any structure. Any spa, tub, or
swimming pool which is located entirely aboveground shall be located
not less than twelve (12) feet from any property line;
5. Maximum building height:
a. The maximum building height at the setback line shall be as
follows:
(1) Single-story building -Fourteen (14) feet.
(2) Two-story building-Twenty-one (21) feet.
(3) Accessory building -Twelve (12) feet.
111.'11
J0/14/2018 Cbaplcr to.OS-ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS I Code ofOnlioaaces I Monte Serc:no, CA I Municode l..ibrary
how~r, the total number of medium size animals, on any parcel of land
shall not'e~ceed four (4), and they shall be g ed or kept in a corral on
the rear on~~ of the property. On litter produced by the medium
size animals durin~ch calen year may be kept on the property for
months, provided sale or resale, nor for
commercial eding, boarding, nor veterin care. At the expiration of
fo;zr (4 onths, the animals in the litter shall be psidered to be adult ....
a · als and subject to the limitations as to the number of animals
which may be kept on the property set forth herein.
C. Development standards. The following development standards shall apply in
R-1-8 Districts.
1. Minimum lot area -The minimum lot area shall be eight thousand
{8,000) square feet or the minimum as required by the slope density
formula as set forth in the Subdivision Title of this Code.
2. Front yard -The minimum front yard shall be as follows:
a. Single-story building -Twenty-five (25) feet.
b. Second-story portion of building -Thirty (30) feet.
c. Accessory buildings are not allowed in the front yard.
d. Side yard -The minimum side yard shall be as follows:
a. Single-story building -Six (6) feet.
b. Second-story portion of building-Ten (10) feet.
c. Accessory building -Six (6) feet, but must be located only
upon the rear one-half of the lot.
4. Rear yard -The minimum rear yard shall be as follows:
a. Single-story building -Thirty (30) feet.
b. Second-story portion of building -Thirty (30) feet.
c. Accessory building -Six (6) feet
4.1. Each of the minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks shall be
increased by two and one-half (2~) feet for single story portion and by
five (5) feet for second story portion for each six thousand (6,000)
square feet that the lot exceeds the minimum lot size. In the case of a
lot line adjustment. when a lot with an existing conforming structure
10'1412018 Chapler JO.OS-ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS I Code of Ordinances I Motile Sereno, CA I Ml!Dicode Libm,y
increases in size, no increases in setbacks are required for the existing
structure. However, if the floor area of the structure is increased at any
time after the lot line adjustment, the increased setbacks shall apply.
4.2. The waterline of a spa, tub, and/or swimming pool, or any structure
related thereto, located in the ground, or any portion of which is in the
ground shall be located not less than ten (10) feet from any property
line and not less than six (6) feet from any structure. Any spa, tub, or
swimming pool which is located entirely aboveground shall be located
not less than ten (10) feet from any property line.
'\
5. M{!ximum building height.
a':\ The maximum building height at the setback line shall be as
b.
llows:
(1) Single-story building -Fourteen (14) feet.
(2) T -story building -Twenty-one (21) feet.
(3) Acces ry building -Twelv ' (12) feet.
ight of a buil ng may be increased by an
additional one (1) &ot for e h foot that portion of the structure is
further distanced trd' th minimum applicable setback; provided,
however, at no time sh the maximum height exceed the
following:
(1) y single·story structure or single-
of a two-story uilding.
(2) Thzea . um height of any d ched accessory building
shall n t exceed twelve (12} feet.
(3) Thi (30) feet for any two-story stru
c. The heiht of any building shall not exceed t o (2) stories.
Detaf ed structures shall not exceed one (1) ~~-
6. Maximu9'1 building size -The maximum size of a bui~~g including
requir~d covered parking and excluding detached accessh(y buildings, is
I ' as follows:
;
a . .: Single-story building -Three thousand three hundred (3,300}
1 square feet.
!
b. Two-story building -Three thousand (3,000) square feet.
c. Accessory building -Six hundred (600) square feet.
TOWN COUNCIL POLICY COMMITTEE
Received with November 15, 2018, Staff Report
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
William Hirschman <whirschman@lexorbuilders.com>
Tuesday, October 30, 2018 3:31 PM
Sean Mullin
William LeClerc; Liz Dodson; Ali Dodson LeClerc; Donald C Wimberly
RE: fence ordinance
Follow up
Completed
Thanks for your response I'm curious as to what the response was from the three organizations you contacted.
Were there any responses?
As to the noticing, I will ask Don Wimberly to forward to you the information he had on the prior meeting
where some 250 plus individuals signed a petition objecting to the proposed ordinance. Were any of these
people contacted for this current proposal? I just don't know a lot of people that make it a regular practice to
follow the Town's lnstagram, Facebook, and Twitter accounts and I would suggest that no one goes to the
planning counter unless they have some business with the Town. I believe there needs to be a real effort to
notify hillside impacted property owners. I can use the requirement for the orange netting as an example.
Rarely do you see any neighbor response on a project until the netting goes up. Why is that? Because they
know nothing about it until they can see it. Same thing applies with this ordinance. Everyone including me
believed this had be defeated the last time it was presented.
Please let us know if any additional information becomes available prior to the Nov 15th meeting
Bill
From: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov >
Sent: Monday, October 29, 201811:00 AM
To: William Hirschman <whirschman@lexorbuilders.com >
Cc: William LeClerc <wleclerc@lexorbuilders.com >; Liz Dodson <ldodson@lexorbuilders.com >; Ali Dodson Leclerc
<aliadodson@gmail.com >; Donald C Wimberly <dwimberly@aimscorp.com >
Subject: RE: fence ordinance
Bill,
Due to the costs involved, the Town does not send notices in mass for Ordinance revisions. We contact applicable
professional organizations that may have interest in the proposed revision and utilize traditional and social media for
outreach to residents. Our outreach efforts have included the following and we will continue to utilize these channels
for future meetings:
Staff reached out to the following organizations and requested input on the current draft Ordinance:
Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIASCV)
Santa Clara County Association of Realtors (SCCAR)
Silicon Valley Association of Realtors (SILVAR)
In addition to reaching out to professional organizations, staff requested public input through the following
media and social media resources:
Sean Mullin
From: Don Wimberly <dwimberly@aimscorp.com>
Wednesday, October 31, 2018 10:01 AM
Sean Mullin
Sent:
To:
Cc: 'William Leclerc'; 'Liz Dodson'; 'Ali Dodson Leclerc'; 'William Hirschman';
sahadi@sahadi.net; Laurel Prevetti; Clerk; robrennie3@aol.com; rastump@verizon.net;
Jim Mongiello; Arvin Khosravi; Brad Krouskup; Brad Snyder
Subject: RE: proposed fence ordinance
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Sean
12_7 _17 Fence Petition update.doc; 12_5_2017 Change.com Petition to STOP new
RESTRICTIVE fence ordinance.doc; 10_30_18 Email re TLG noticing.pdf
Follow up
Completed
As suggested by Bill Hirschman, I am forwarding information to you regarding the petition circulated
in November 2017 expressing opposition to the proposed fence, wall and hedge ordinance.
• As of the 12/5/17 Town Council Meeting, at the hearing, the petition initiator indicated there
were over 260 signatories to the petition. A copy of the original petition is attached. We were
signatories to that petition.
• At the 12/5/17 meeting, the petition initiator had a hard copy and asked to how he could submit
the petition. He was told to give it to the Town Clerk. (Observable on the meeting video)
• The minutes of the 12/5/17 Council meeting contain no mention of the petition.
• At the 12/5/17 hearing, the meeting minutes indicate there were 24 speakers to matter. 15
were opposed, 5 supported and were 4 outside group representatives who spoke in support.
• The 12/7/17 petition update showed 314 signers of the petition opposing the proposed
ordinance. Copy of the petition update is attached.
• The Council packet prepared for the 10/16/18 Council ~earing on the revised ordinance
contained no mention of the petition even though you and all Council members were aware
of the petition from 2017 because you were there.
I have serious concerns about how the Town is handling communications from its citizens, and would
ask that the Town Clerk and Town Manager comment on the Town policy for documenting petitions
submitted to the Town.
I have additional concerns about how the Planning Department has handled this matter since the
12/5/17 meeting:
• During the 10+ months following the 12/5/17 meeting, a small group of mostly ordinance
supporters and Town staff evidently spent significant time evaluating how to modify the
ordinance. No notice of that process was given to most if not all of those who testified in
opposition to the ordinance at the 12/5/17 meeting, nor any that signed the petition.
• At the 10/16/18 meeting, in response to Ms. Spector's question, you stated only one person
opposing the petition participated in the rewrite in spite of the above expressions of opposition.
• Further, Ms. Spector asked why only one person in opposition and you responded that only
one such person asked to participate. I suspect that had the 300+ who opposed the petition
been informed or invited, there would have been more than one opposing participant in the
working group.
To compound the above problems with process, it is important to note:
• The Town's practice regarding noticing as you state to ML Hirschman in your 10/30/18 email
(attached) is unacceptable given that, as a practical matter, very few citizens regularly check
those sources.
• The use of the "Weekly" for noticing is increasingly of limited or no value as that paper
increases its coverage of San Jose, Cupertino and Campbell, and almost no "news" of Los
Gatos issues. It is essentially a real estate advertisement journal. The last two editions
showed no sign of a Los Gatos reporter with any interest in affairs of the Town.
• The problem with reliance on the Weekly is even more problematic for an issue that has
significant effect on the HR zone .properties. The Weekly is not delivered to most HR
properties. On our street, only the two of seven properties occasionally get the Weekly, the
ones at the bottom of the hill.
• For the Town's noticing policy to be constrained by the cost no matter the history or impact of
the issue gives question to the Town's priorities and the intent of policy makers. I respectfully
suggest the Council re-examine its policies and practices for impactful issues.
Given the potential significant impacts of the proposed ordinance on hillside properties, we suggest
and request:
• That Council and staff table the process for amending the proposed ordinance until owners of
HR parcels are properly informed and noticed of the Council's intent to prepare such an
ordinance and given opportunity to participate.
• That fencing regulations for non-HR zones be considered separately from any proposal for
such regulations in the HR zone given disparate impacts of the most recent ordinance
proposal between those two areas.
• That, at such time as an ordinance regarding fencing, walls or hedges in the HR zones is to be
considered, that a mailed notice of that hearing be sent to all HR properties. I believe there
are fewer than 1000 HR parcels, so this would be consistent with Town Code Section
29.20.565 for notices to less than 1,000 properties, not to mention good faith with its citizens.
Thank you
Don & Cheryl Wimberly
From: William Hirschman [mailto:whirschman@lexorbuilders.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 3:31 PM
To: Sean Mullin
Petition update
Town C ouncil Meeting Update
Los Gatos Hillside Property Owners
United States
Dec 7, 2017-0n Tuesday December 5th the Town Council of Los Gatos discussed the
proposed Fence Ordinance and· heard comments from the public ... the majority of which were
against the proposal. The status of this petition (with now close to 300 supporters) was also
shared After further deliberation the Town Council agreed to place the proposal on hold to
consider a) where it fits within the Town Council's priorities for next year; and b) engaging with
an independent consultant to study the matter further. No new dates have been communicated as
of yet. I will continue to work with the Director of the Town's Planning Department and will
provide further updates as and when they are made available. I'd like to thank each and every
one of you for your support. We will keep pushing to ensure an amicable outcome.
General Plan update, learn more at www.losgatos2040.com
This e-mail is intended only far the use of the ind(vidual{s) named in this e-mail. If you receive this e-mail and are not a named recipient, any use, dissemination,
distribution or copying of the e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us at the above e-mail address.
~ Think Green, please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
From: Donald C Wimberly <dwimberly@aimscorp.com>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 7:41 PM
To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Number.of Parcels in HR Zone
Can you provide me with the number of parcels within the Town HR zoning district?
Don Wimberly
P.O. Box 800
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Cell phone: 408-930-4066
Brad Snyder <brad@thesnyders.net>
Subject: RE: proposed fence ordinance
Sean
As suggested by Bill Hirschman, I am forwarding information to you regarding the petition circulated
in November 2017 expressing opposition to the proposed fence, wall and hedge ordinance.
• As of the 12/5/17 Town Council Meeting, at the he~ring, the petition initiator indicated there
were over 260 signatories to the petition. A copy of the original petition is attached. We were
signatories to that petition.
• At the 12/5/17 meeting, the petition initiator had a hard copy and asked to how he could submit
the petition. He was told to give it to the Town Clerk. (Observable on the meeting video)
• The minutes of the 12/5/17 Council meeting contain no mention of the petition.
• At the 12/5/17 hearing, the meeting minutes indicate there were 24 speakers to matter. 15
were opposed, 5 supported and were 4 outside group representatives who spoke in support.
• The 12/7/17 petition update showed 314 signers of the petition opposing the proposed
ordinance. Copy of the petition update is attached.
• The Council packet prepared for the 10/16/18 Council hearing on the revised ordinance
contained no mention of the petition even though you and all Council members were aware
of the petition from 2017 because you were there.
I have serious concerns about how the Town is handling communications from its citizens, and would
ask that the Town Clerk and Town Manager comment on the Town policy for documenting petitions
submitted to the Town.
I have additional concerns about how the Planning Department has handled this matter since the
12/5/17 meeting:
• During the 1 O+ months following the 12/5/17 meeting, a small group of mostly ordinance
supporters and Town staff evidently spent significant time evaluating how to modify the
ordinance. No notice of that process was given to most if not all of those who testified in
opposition to the ordinance at the 12/5/17 meeting, nor any that signed the petition.
• At the 10/16/18 meeting, in response to Ms. Spector's question, you stated only one person
opposing the petition participated in the rewrite in spite of the above expressions of opposition.
• Further, Ms. Spector asked why only one person in opposition and you responded that only
one such person asked to participate. I suspect that had the 300+ who opposed the petition
been informed or invited, there would have been more than one opposing participant in the
working group.
To compound the above problems with process, it is important to note:
• The Town's practice regarding noticing as you state to Mr. Hirschman in your 10/30/18 email
(attached) is unacceptable given that, as a practical matter, very few citizens regularly check
those sources.
• The use of the "Weekly" for noticing is increasingly of limited or no value as that paper
increases its coverage of San Jose, Cupertino and Campbell, and almost no "news" of Los
Gatos issues. It is essentially a real estate advertisement journal. The last two editions
showed no sign of a Los Gatos reporter with any interest in affairs of the Town.
• The problem with reliance on the Weekly is even more problematic for an issue that has
significant effect on the HR zone properties. The Weekly is not delivered to most HR
properties. On our street, only the two of seven properties occasionally get the Weekly, the
ones at the bottom of the hill.
• For the Town's noticing policy to be constrained by the cost no matter the history or impact of
the issue gives question to the Town's priorities and the intent of policy makers. I respectfully
suggest the Council re-examine its policies and practices for impactful issues.
Given the potential significant impacts of the proposed ordinance on hillside properties, we suggest
and request:
• That Council and staff table the process for amending the proposed ordinance until owners of
HR parcels are properly informed and noticed of the Council's intent to prepare such an
ordinance and given opportunity to participate.
• That fencing regulations for non-HR zones be considered separately from any proposal for
such regulations in the HR zone given disparate impacts of the most recent ordinance
proposal between those two areas.
• That, at such time as an ordinance regarding fencing, walls or hedges in the HR zones is to be
considered, that a mailed notice of that hearing be sent to all HR properties. I believe there
are fewer than 1000 HR parcels, so this would be consistent with Town Code Section
29.20.565 for notices to less than 1,000 properties, not to mention good faith with its citizens.
Thank you
Don & Cheryl Wimberly
From: William Hirschman [mailto:whirschman@lexorbuilders.com ]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 3:31 PM
To: Sean Mullin
Cc: William Leclerc; Liz Dodson; Ali Dodson Leclerc; Donald C Wimberly
Subject: RE: fence ordinance
Thanks for your response I'm curious as to what the response was from the three organizations you contacted.
Were there any responses?
As to the noticing, I will ask Don Wimberly to forward to you the information he had on the prior meeting
where some 250 plus individuals signed a petition objecting to the proposed ordinance. Were any of these
people contacted for this current proposal? I just don't know a lot of people that make it a regular practice to
follow the Town's lnstagram, Facebook, and Twitter accounts and I would suggest that no one goes to the
planning counter unless they have some business with the Town. I believe there needs to be a real effort to
notify hillside impacted property owners. I can use the requirement for the orange netting as an example.
Rarely do you see any neighbor response on a project until the netting goes up. Why is that? Because they
know nothing about it until they can see it. Same thing applies with this ordinance. Everyone including me
believed this had be defeated the last time it was presented.
Please let us know if any additional information becomes available prior to the Nov 15th meeting
Bill
~ Think Green, please consider the environment before printing this e-mail:
From: William Hirschman <whirschman@lexorbuilders.com >
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 3:45 PM
To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: William LeClerc <wleclerc@lexorbuilders.com >; Liz Dodson <ldodson@lexorbuilders.com>; Ali Dodson Leclerc
<aliadodson@gmail.com>; Donald C Wimberly <dwimberly@aimscorp.com >
Subject: fence ordinance
Good afternoon Sean. I am Bill Hirschman and I spoke at the last council meeting regarding the proposed
fence ordinance. I was clear from the meeting that there had been many discussions regarding the ordinance
with little input from people in the Hillside join with the exception it appeared of one couple. I am writing you
to make sure that we are notified and we will be happy to attend the future discussion. Can you please make
sure that I and the people that I have copied are included if there are to be future discussions. If the plan is to
not have additional formal meetings to discuss possible changes, then I would ask for a time that we can
schedule so that the hillside people I have contacted to date can express their concerns.
Thanks for your anticipated cooperation.
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
vnunes@talentquo.com
Friday, November 02, 2018 3:32 PM
Sean Mullin
RE: [FWD: Hillside Fencing]
Follow up
Completed
Thank you. I'm sorry, but, I don't see the link to report a violation to the Code Compliance Officer.
--------Origin~I Message --------
Subject: RE: [FWD: Hillside Fencing]
From: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov >
Date: Fri, November 02, 2018 2:21 pm
To: "vnunes@talentguo.com " <vnunes@talentguo.com >
Vicky,
Your property is well outside of the Hillside Area.
Regarding the fencing your neighbor erected, under current code (pasted below)
fence heights are limit to a maximum of 6 feet, unless an exception is granted by
the Director of Community Development. A permit is not required for fences less
than 6 feet tall. Additionally, the Town Code prohibits barbed wire and razor
ribbon. You can report a potential Town Code Violation to the Code Compliance
Officer via the following link. The Officer will visit the location and follow up with
the property owner on any cod violations.
Sec. 29.40.030. -Fences, hedges and walls.
(a) In residential zones, fences, hedges, and walls not over six (6) feet high are allowed on or
within all property lines, except that no owner or occupant of any corner lot or premises in the
Town shall erect or maintain upon such lot or premises any fence, hedge or wall higher than three
(3) feet above the curb in a traffic view area unless a permit is secured from the Town Engineer.
A traffic view area is the area which is within fifteen (15) feet of a public street and within two
hundred (200) feet of the right-of-way line of an intersection. Barbed wire or razor ribbon
wire Is p rohibited in all zones.
(b) The following exceptions shall apply:
(1) Properties within historic districts or have a Landmark and Historic Preservation Overlay
shall not have fences, hedges, and walls higher than three (3) feet in a front yard except as
provided in subsection 29.40.030(b)(2). Any fence, hedge or wall erected in a front yard shall be
of open design.
(2) Gateways or entryway arbors may be higher than six (6) feet in any zone including historic
districts and shall be of open design but in no case shall a gateway or entryway arbor be higher
than eight (8) feet, have a width greater than six (6) feet, or have a depth greater than four (4)
feet. All gateways and entryway arbors shall be constructed of open design. No more than one (1)
gateway or entry arbor per street frontage is allowed.
(3) Boundary line fences or walls adjacent to commercial property may be eight (8) feet high if
requested or agreed upon by a majority of the residential property owners.
~ Think Green, please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
From: vnunes@talentquo.com <vnunes@talentquo.com >
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 12:52 PM
To: Sean Mullin <5Mullin@losgatosca.gov >
Subject: [FWD: Hillside Fencing]
Hi Sean,
I'm trying to understand whether the open space between my property and the neighbors
property is consider hillside or nonhillside. The definition in the document refers to
another document that I don't have. Could you please point me in the right direction to
understand whether the fence in question is in a hillside or nonhillside area?
Vicky
--------Original Message --------
Subject: Hillside Fencing
From: "Nextdoor Arroyo Rinconada" <reply@rs.email.nextdoor.com >
Date: Fri, November 02, 2018 12:01 pm
To: vnunes@talentguo.com
• The Town Policy Committee will meet to discuss amendments to the Town Code
regarding fences, hedges, and walls. The meeting will ...
D View on Nextdoor
D Management Anal yst Holl y Za pp ala , Town of Los Gatos AGEN CY
The Town Policy Committee will meet to discuss
amendments to the Town Code re garding fences ,
hed g es, and walls. The meetin g will occur on
November 15, 2018 at 1:30 p .m. in the Town Council
Chambers at 110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos. At the
October 16, 2018 Town Council meetin g, Council
directed staff to refer potential amendments to the
Town Code re gardin g fences , hed ges and walls to
the November 15th Policy Committee meetin g for
further discussion. The item was also continued to
the December 4th Town Council meeting . The
pro posed amendments would revise ... See m o re
111 •
General · Nov 2 to subscribers of Town of Los Gatos
D Jhank D Private messa ge
v· R I N ~
This message is intended for vnunes@talentquo.com . Unsubscribe here. Nextdoor. 875
Stevenson Street, Suite 700, San Francisco, CA 94103
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Donald C Wimberly <dwimberly@aimscorp.com>
Saturday, November 03, 2018 10:56 AM
Laurel Prevetti
'William Hirschman'; 'FRED SAHADI'; robrennie3@aol.com; Rob Rennie; Sean Mullin; Joel
Paulson
RE: proposed fence ordinance
Thank you for your prompt response.
Unfortunately I have an unchangeable, out of town commitment on Thursday so will be
unable to attend.
From: Laurel Prevetti [mailto:LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 4:47 PM
To: Don Wimberly
Cc: 'William Hirschman'; 'FRED SAHADI'; robrennie3@aol.com; Rob Rennie; Sean Mullin; Joel Paulson
Subject: RE: proposed fence ordinance ·
Good afternoon,
Thank you for sharing your views regarding the Los Gatos Weekly. I share your frustration with the loss of local
reporting for our community.
While the Council was open to the idea of separating out the non-hillside portion of the ordinance, it was not contained
in the motion. Staff will bring the entire proposed ordinance to the Policy Committee for its direction. At that time, we
expect to get confirmation to create a separate ordinance to address fences in the non-hillside areas for Council
consideration on Dec. 4. For this reason, the Town currently views the proposed fence ordinance as a Town-wide issue,
exceeding 1,000 properties. As a continued hearing to a date certain of Dec. 4, the published notice meets local and
state law requirements.
I appreciate your request for a mailed notice to the hillside property owners. Even if there becomes a separate hillside
fence ordinance, based on the Town's calculations, we would need to notice the entire area subject to the Town's
Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines which includes properties zoned HR as well as other zoning designations
(over 1,400 parcels) plus all parcels within 300 feet of the immediately affected area. Together, the number well
exceeds 1,000 feet. For this reason, the Town will not be noticing to individual property owners.
We look forward to seeing you at the Policy Committee meeting.
Thank you,
laurel
From: Don Wimberly [mailto:dwimberly@aimscorp.com]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 12:29 PM
To: Laurel Prevetti
Cc: 'William Hirschman'; 'FRED SAHADI'; robrennie3@aol.com ; Rob Rennie; Sean Mullin
Subject: RE: proposed fence ordinance
Ms. Prevetti
Thank you for your prompt response to my email.
I am glad to hear about "What's New" and will sign up shortly. Town residents need some objective
media for keeping up on what is going on in and with the Town. No offense, but preferably this would
be a non-Town media, since it is clear from my 42 years of residency that a check & balance on what
is going on in the Town is needed on at least some issues -an ombudsman if you will.
In the olden days, the Weekly actually accomplished that, with local reporters (unbiased for the most
part), local news stories, and an active letters-to the-editor section.
No more. I just looked through this week's Weekly Times, and, as you are likely aware, the
owners/publisher have adopted a new approach to content. I'm sure their intent is to minimize costs
and maximize revenue. Real Estate ads are clearly the primary function and revenue generator, with
general advertising and classified's adding to the coffers.
To minimize costs, the "news" in the paper now comes from sources apparently accessible from their
San Jose office chairs. In this week's paper:
• There is NO news of Los Gatos-Monte Sereno -only Saratoga (2), San Jose (5), Campbell
(1 ). Same pattern exists in past papers.
• There are NO letters to the editor; either because they stopped publishing this section or no
one puts any value on sending letters to the editor of an out-of-town paper.
As I previously mentioned, for purposes of informing hillside residents of the fence ordinance, the
Weekly is a poor choice. It is not delivered to 90% of the hillside areas; and read by only real-estate
shoppers.
For that reason, I repeat my request that a mailed notice of any hearing on HR zone issues be sent to
the owners of the 939 parcels in the HR zone. This is the morally right thing to do, and perhaps a
legal requirement per Town Code section 29.20.565. And such sites as the Town Bulletin Board just
don't get to residents living their normal busy lives.
To conclude, I was very pleased to hear from Sean Mullin that a decision was made to separate
consideration of changes to the fencing ordinance affecting non-HR zones from those affecting the
HR zone. However, the draft minutes of the 10/16/18 Town Council meeting do not contain such
direction. Can you please clarify how the issues will handled.
Thank you.
Don Wimberly
From: Laurel Prevetti [mailto:LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 11:11 AM
To: Donald C Wimberly
Cc: 'William Hirschman'; FRED SAHADI; robrennie3@aol.com ; Rob Rennie; Sean Mullin
Subject: RE: proposed fence ordinance -
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sean
Don Wimberly <dwimberly@aimscorp.com>
Monday, November 05, 2018 2:42 PM
Sean Mullin
Laurel Prevetti; Rob Rennie; Attorney; sahadi@sahadi.net; Bill Hirschman; Clerk
RE: Town Council Policy Committee, Nov. 15, 2018 -Proposed amendments to the Los
Gatos Town Code regarding fences, hedges, and walls
Neither this notice nor the Town's "What's New" emailer appear to have a link to the revised and
currently proposed ordinance. I believe it is important to at least make it easy for property owners to
access the ordinance without having to go through the Council meeting agenda which can be
confusing.
As you know, I believe the right thing to do is for the Council to decide to send a mailed notice to all
939 HR properties informing them of what is proposed. I understand the Town Manager's statement
that she does not believe such a notice is required. That does not stop the Town Council for sending
such a notice before again considering the ordinance.
Can you please provide me with a link to the currently proposed ordinance.
Thanks
Don Wimberly
From: Sean Mullin [mailto:SMullin@losgatosca.gov]
Sent: Monday, November OS, 2018 10:35 AM
Subject: Town Council Policy Committee, Nov. 15, 2018 -Proposed amendments to the Los Gatos Town Code regarding
fences, hedges, and walls
Town Council Polic y Committee Meeting
Subject:
Date:
Time:
Proposal to amend the Town Code regarding hillside fencing
November 15, 2018
1:30 P.M.
Location: Town Council Chambers
110 E. Main Street
THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS SEEKS PUBLIC INPUT ON PROPOSED TOWN CODE
AMENDMENTS REGARDING
FENCES, HEDGES, AND WALLS.
Sean
At the 10/16/18 meeting, Ms. Spector asked you how many people who opposed the petition were on
the "working group" that worked on the new ordinance. Please provide/confirm for me the names of
those who worked on the revision of the ordinance between December, 2017 & October 2018; in
particular, the one person you said was originally an opponent of the ordinance.
The position and viewpoint of that "oppose" is important to understanding what the working group did
or did not do.
Thank you
Don Wimberly
From: Sean Mullin [mailto:SMullin@losqatosca.gov)
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2018 10:35 AM
Subject: Town Council Policy Committee, Nov. 15, 2018 -Proposed amendments to the Los Gatos Town Code regarding
fences, hedges, and walls
Town Council Policy Committee Meeting
Subject:
Date:
Time:
Proposal to amend the To_wn Code regarding hillside fencing
November 15, 2018
1:30 P.M.
Location: Town Council Chambers
110 E. Main Street
THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS SEEKS PUBLIC INPUT ON PROPOSED TOWN CODE
AMENDMENTS REGARDING
FENCES, HEDGES, AND WALLS.
On Thursday, November 15, 2018, the Town Council Policy Committee will meet to discuss
proposed amendments to Chapter 6 (Buildings and Building Regulations) and Chapter 29
(Zoning Regulations) of the Town Code regarding fences, hedges, and walls. The proposal
includes new regulations and requirements for fencing, hedges, and walls in the Hillside area.
The Town seeks public input on the proposed amendments. The Town encourages written
comments to be provided before the staff report comment deadline, Friday, November 9,
2018 at 11:00 A.M. The public is also encouraged to attend the November 15, 2018, Town
Council Policy Committee meeting to provide comments.
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Sean,
Lee Quintana <leeandpaul@earthlink.net>
Wednesday, November 07, 2018 3:35 PM
Sean Mullin
Fences/mountion lions
Follow up
Flagged
I have been looking at the SCVWD's Land Use Development Near Streams, and the Town's resolution which adopted it
and am not sure how or if it affects the proposed fence draft.
FYI
The following links are from the California Department of Fish and Game, an article in the Mercury News regarding
. verified attacks and fatalities and a posting by Patch regarding a siting along LG Creek Trail
There has been verified case in California since, of which were fatalities. Of these one non-fatal attack occurred in
Santa Clara Co, on a hiking trail, near Cupertino in 2014.
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation /Mammals/Mountain-Lion/Attacks (1986-2014)
http s://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation /Mammals/Mountain-Lion/FA Q#359951252-are-mountain-lion-attacks-on-
Among the questions asked are the following:
Where are mountain lions found in California? (anywhere there are deer)
How many mountain lions are found in California? (4000-6000 estimated)
This is a list of commonly asked questions regarding mountain lions. The last to questions are
If I live in mountain lion habitat how concerned should I be for my safety? {1000 more times likely to be struck by
lightening than attacked by a mountain lion.)
Are mountain lion attacks on humans common? (16 verified attacks between 1890 and 2014, six of which were fatal)
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentlD=83544&inline {A Gardeners Guide to Preventing Deer
Damage. Page 5-9 contains a list of Deer-resistant plants
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation /Mammals /Mountain-Lion /Trends
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Kee p-Me-Wild /Lion
https://patch.com /california /losgatos/los-gatos-mountain-lion-si ghting-residents-should-avoid-area-police-warn
Siting Aug. 2017 in culvert along LG Creek Trail between Charter Oaks and Knowles.
_JI
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This booklet was prepared by the California Department of Fish and Game's
Wildlife Programs Branch, with assistance from the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, Farmland Wildlife Resource Unit.
Principal Authors: Bob Coey and Kenneth Mayer
Layout and Graphic Design: Lorna Bernard
Plant Illustrations: Bob Hare
Deer Illustrations: Paul B. Johnson
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor
RESOURCES AGENCY
Mike Chrisman, Secretary for Resources
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
L. Ryan Broddrick, Director
FRONT COVER:
Mule deer buck, Auburn, California.
Photo by Peggy Mattison.
A Gardener's Guide to Preventing Deer Damage
IL
1
_JI IL
2 A Gardener's Guide to Preventing Deer Damage
_JI IL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 4
"DEER-RESISTANT" PLANTS .............................................. 5
AQUATIC PLANT ................................................................. 5
CROP/ORCHARD PLANTS ............................................... 5
GRASSES/FORBS ................................................................. 6
SHRUBS ................................................................................. 9
TREES .................................................................................. 12
DEERREPELLENTS ............................................................ 15
FENCING APPLICATIONS ................................................ 16
HIGH-TENSILE WIRE FENCE ..... _ .................................... 16
ELECTRIFIED HIGH-TENSILE WIRE FENCE ............... 16
MODIFIED ELECTRIC HIGH-TENSILE
WIRE FENCE ................................................................. 17
SQUARE-MESH WOVEN-WIRE GAME FENCE ........... 17
V-MESH FENCE .................................................................. 17
CONSTRUCTION ............................................................. 18
REFERENCES ...................................................................... 19
FENCE CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAMS ........................... 20
A Gardener's Guide to Preventing Deer Damage 3
11
_JI
INTRODUCTION
Part of the appeal ofliving in rural or semi-rural California is the ability to watch
wildlife in your own back yard. Deer are especially fascinating to observe, but many
homeowners are dismayed to discover that deer can be very destructive to gardens.
In some areas the damage can be seasonal, peaking in the winterwh.en food sources
for deer are at their lowest. Other areas, where deer habitat is heavily affected by
residential development, may experience problems year-round. Drought, wildfires,
livestock grazing and other habitat-altering events also play a role because they affect
food sources for deer.
Rural dwellers frequently ask the California Department offish and Game how to
minimize landscape damage caused by hungry deer. l11is booklet details three
methods:
-the use oflandscape plants that deer don't seem to like;
-application of commercial deer repellents;
-construction of deer-proof fencing.
All of tl1e techniques are considered harmless to deer and otl1erwild and domestic
animals.
4 A Gardener's Guide to Preventing Deer Damage
IL
_JI
"DEER-RESISTANT" PLANTS
Deer are amacted to many popular
garden and landscape plants but avoid
others. The following list of deer-
resistant plants should be considered a
guide rather than the final word.
Certain plants may not suffer deer
damage in some gardens and landscapes,
yet might be completely destroyed in
others. This is due in part to the
availability of natural food sources and
the taste preferences of individual deer.
If there is a severe shortage of natural
deer browse, deer-resistant landscape
plants may suffer damage.
Some of the plants listed are, in addition
to being deer-resistant, considered
noxious weeds. For example, bamboo is
a pervasive grower and can become a
significant problem because of its
tendency to escape. Alternatively, native
plants are better-adapted to the local
climate than their exotic counterparts,
and should be considered first in
landscape planning.
Both native and introduced plants are
listed in this booklet. The designation
"some native" means some subspecies of
the plant are native to California.
Always consult a local nursery to select
species which best fit your needs and
your local climate. The Department of
Fish and Game encourages use of native
plantspecieswherefeasible. For
example, most native perennial bunch-
grasses would be suitable candidates for
deer-resistant landscaping as well as being
drought-resistant.
AQUATIC PLANT
Bamboo (noxious)
Bamboo
Asparagus falcatus
Sickle-thorn asparagus
Clivia miniata
Kaffir lily
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
Ficus sp.
Fig
Gymnocladus dioica
Kentucky coffee tree
CROP/ORCHARD PLANTS
Helianthus spp. (some native)
Sunflower
Leptospermum sp.
Tea tree
Olea europaea
Olive
Punicagranatum 'Nana'
Pomegranate
Rhubarbsp.
(poisonous to livestock and humans)
Rhubarb
A Gardener's Guide to Preventing Deer Damage 5
IL
_JI
GRASSES/FORBS
Acanthus mo!lis
Bear's breech
Achi!!ea sp. (some native)
Yarrow
Aconitumsp. (native)
Monkshood
Agapanthus sp.
Lily-of-the-Nile
Ageratum houstonianum
Floss flower
Ajugasp.
Bugle weed, Carpet bugle
Amaryllis belladonna
Belladonna lily, Naked lady
Aquilegia (some native)
0.)lumhine
Arabissp.
Rockcress
Arctosis sp.
African daisy
Arumsp.
Arum
Asarum caudatum (some native)
Wild-ginger
Aster a!pinus
Aster
Begonia tuberhybrida
Tuberous begonia
Calendu!a officina!is
Pot marigold
Campanu!a medium
Belltlower
Catharanthus roseus (Vinca rosea)
Madagascar periwinkle
Cerastium tomentosum
Snow-in-summer
Chives sp.
01ives
Chrysanthemum frutescens
Marguerite, Paris Daisy
Chrysanthemum maximum
Shasta daisy
Clarkia
Godetia, Mountain garland,
Farewell tospring
Coreopsis grandifl.ora
Coreopsis
Coronilla varia
Crown vetch
Crinumsp.
Crinum
Crocosmia sp.
Crocosmia
Cyclamen
Cyclamen
Cymbalaria muralis
Kenilworth ivy
Cyperus
Cyperus
C Ct,1.,{,for l'llv""
po-ppy
Delphinium spp. (some native)
Larkspur
Dendromecon
Bush poppy
Dicentra (native)
Bleeding heart
6 A Gardener's Guide to Preventing Deer Damage
IL
_JI
GRASSES/FORBS CONTINUED
M:,osotis spp .
Forget-me-not
Narcissus spp .
Narcissus , Daffodil,Jonquil
Nepeta
Camip
Ophiopogon japonicus
Lily turf
Paeoniasu!fruticosa
Tree peony
Papaver rhoeas
Handers field poppy, Shirley poppy
Papaver orientale
Oriental poppy
Papaver nudicaule
Iceland poppy
Penstemon spp. (some native)
Penstemon, Beard tongue
Phormiam tenax
New Zealand flax
Romneya coulteri (native and rare)
Matilija poppy
Rudbeckia hirta
Gloriosa daisy, Black-eyed Susan
Scabiosa spp .
Pincushion flower
Scilla penwiana
Peruvian scilla
Silene acaulis
Cushion pink, Moss campion
Sis'lrinchium (native)
Bl~e-eyed grass
Soleirolia soleirolli
Baby's tears, Angel's tears
Sparaxis tricolor
Harlequin flower
Stachys byzantina
Lamb's ears
Strelitzia reginae
Bird of paradise
Teucrium fruticans
Bush gennander
Tolmiea menziesii (native)
Piggy-back plant
Tradescantia spp.
Spiderwort, Wandering Jew
Trilliumspp. (some native)
Trillium, Wake-robin
Tulipaspp.
Tulip
Valeriana officinalis
Valerian, Garden heliotrope
Vallota speciosa
Scarborough lily
Verbena ( native)
Verbena
Vinca spp. (some native)
Periwinkle
Zantedeschia spp.
Calla lily
Zinnia
Zinnia
Abutilon (native)
Aoweringmaple, 01inese lantern
8 A Gardener's Guide to Preventing Deer Damage
IL
_JI
SHRUBS
Acer circinatum (native)
Vine maple
Agave spp . (some native)
Century plant
Alcea rosea
Hollyhock
Aloe
Aloe
Aralia spinosa
Devil's walking stick, Hercules' club,
Angelica tree
Arctostaphylos uva-ursi, and other species
(some native)
Bearberry, Kinnikinnick
Baccharis pilularis (native, also noxious)
Coyote brush, Dwarf chaparral broom
Berberis (some native)
Barberry
Bragmansia (Datura)
Angel's trumpet
Brodiaea (native)
Brodiaea
Buddleia davidii
Butterfly bush, Summer lilac
Buxus spp.
Boxwood
Cactaceae (some native)
Cactus, many species and varieties
CaUiandra tweedii
Trinidad female bush,
Brazilian flame bush
Callistemon
Bottlebrush
Calycanthus occidentalis (native)
Spicebush
Caragana arborescem
Siberian peashrub
Carpenteriacalifomica (native)
Bush anemone
Cassia (some native)
Senna
Ceanothus gloriosus (native)
Wild lilac
Choisya temate
Mexican orange
Cissus rhombifolia
Grape ivy
Cistus
Rockrose
Clematis (some native)
Clematis
A Gardener's Guide to Preventing Deer Damage
IL
9
_JI
Clianthus puniceaus
Parrot-beak
Coleonema pulchrum
Pink breath of heaven
Coprosma repens
Mirror plant
Corokia cotoneaster
Corokia cotoneaster
Correa spp .
Austtalian fuchsia
Cotoneaster buxifolius
Cotoneaster
Cycas revoluta
Sago palm
Daphne spp.
Daphne
Datura
JimsonWeed
Diosma
Coleonema
Dodonaea viscosa
Hop bush, Hopseed bush
Echium fastuosum
Pride of Madeira
Elae~gnus pungens
Silverberry
Erica
Heath
Eriogonum (some native)
Wild buckwheat
Escallonia spp.
Escallonia
SHRUBS CONTINUED
Euonymus japonica
Evergreen euonymus
Euphorbia
Spurge
Euryops pectinatus
Euryops
Fatshedera lizei
Fatchedera
Fern, except Pellaea (some native)
Fern
Forsythia
Forsythia
Gaultheria shallon (native)
Salal, Lemon leaf
Gelsemium sempervirens
Carolina jessamine
Genista monosperma
Bridal veil broom
Gret1illea
Grevillea
Griselinia lucida
Griselinia
Gunnera
Gunnera
Halimium (native)
Halimium
Hedera helix (noxious)
English ivy
Heteromeles arbutifolia (native)
Toyon, Christmas berry,
California holly
Hibbertia scandens
Guinea gold vine
10 A Gardener's Guide to Preventing Deer Damage
IL
_JI
11
Impatiens wallerana
Busy Lizzie
Iochroma cyaneum
Iochroma
Kerria japonica
Japanese rose
Lantana montwidensis
Trailing lantana
Lai,andula
Lavender
Leonotis leonums
Lion's tail
Loropetalum chinense
Loropetalum
Lupinus (some native)
Lupine
Mahoniaspp. (some native)
Mahonia, Oregon grape
Melianthus major
Honey bush
Mimulus
Monkey flower
Muehlenbeckia complexa
Mattress vine, Wirevine
Myoporum laetum
Myoporum
Myrtus calif omica
Waxmyrtle
Nandina domestica
Heavenly bamboo
Nerium oleander
Oleander
SHRUBS CONTINUED
Nolina parryi (native)
Nolina
Osteospermum fruticosum
Trailing african daisy, Freeway daisy
Oxalis oregana
Oregon Oxalis, Redwood sorrel
Pandorea pandorana
Wonga-wonga vine
Phaedranthus buccinatorius
Blood red trumpetvine
Phlomis fruticosa
Jerusalem sage
Plumbago auriculata
Cape plumbago
Potentilla fruticosa (native)
Shrubby cinquefoil
Raoulia australis
Raoulia
Rhododendron-except azaleas (native)
R. macrophyllum, R. occidentalis
Rhus ovata (native)
Sugar bush
Ribes (native)
Currant, Gooseberry
Rosmarinus officinalis
Rosemary
Ruscus aculeatus
Butcher's broom
Sambucus (native)
Elderberry
Santolina
Santolina
A Gardener's Guide to Preventing Deer Damage
IL
11
_JI
SHRUBS CONTINUED
Senecio cineraria
Dusty miller
Symphoricarpos albus (native)
Common snowberry
Syringa vulgaris
Common lilac
Syzygium paniculatum
Bush cherry, Australian brush cherry
Tecomaria capensis
Cape honeysuckle
Trachelospermum jasminoides
Star jasmine
Yuccaspp. (some native)
Yucca, Spanish bayonet
Abies (some native)
Fir
Acer macrophyllum (native)
Bigleaf maple
Acer palmatum
Japanese maple
Acernegundo (native)
Box elder
Agonis flexuosa
Peppennint tree
Albizia
Silk tree, Plume acacia
Angophora costata (A. lanceolata)
Gum myrtle
Zau.schneriaspp. (some native)
California fuchsia,
Hummingbird flower
TREES
Araucaria spp.
Araucaria
Arbutus unedo
Strawberry tree
Arbutus menziesii (native)
Madrone, Madrono
Beaucamea recurvata
Ponytail, Bottle palm
Brachychiton populneus
Bottle tree
Calocedrus decurrens (native)
Incense cedar
Casuarina stricta
Mountain or Drooping she-oak,
Coast beefwood
12 A Gardener's Guide to Preventing Deer Damage
IL
_JI
TREES CONTINUED
Catalpa bignonioides
Common catalpa, Indian bean
Cedrus
Cedar
Celtis australi5
European hackberry
Ceratonia siliqua
Carob, St. John's bread
Cerci5 occidentali5 (native)
Western redbud
Chamaecyparu sp. (native)
False cypress
Chamaerops humilu
Mediterranean fan palm
Cordyline australis
Dracaena palm
Cornus capitata
Evergreen or Himalayan dogwood
Corylus comuta califomica (native)
Western hazelnut
Cotinus coggygria
Smoke tree
Crataegus spp. (some native)
Hawthorn
Cupressus spp . (some native)
Cypress
Erythea eduli5
Guadalupe palm
Erythea armata
Mexican blue palm
Eucalyptus spp.
Eucalyptus, Gum
Frcvcinus \lelutina (native)
Arizona ash
Gagetes spp.
Marigold
Ginko biloba
Maidenhair tree
Hakea suaveolens
Sweethakea
Ilex (except thorn less)
Holly
]ubaea chilensis (]. spectabili5)
Chilean wine palm
]uniperus (some native)
Juniper
Larilc decidua
European larch
Liquidambar styraciflua
American sweet gum
Lithocarpus densiflorus (native)
Tanbark oak
Lyonothamnus floribundus (native)
Catalina ironwood
Madura pomifera
Osage orange
Magnolia spp.
Magnolia
Ma;1tenus boaria
Maytentree
Melaleuca leucadendra
Cajeputtree
Melia azedarach
China-berry
A Gardener's Guide to Preventing Deer Damage
IL
13
_JI
DEER REPELLENTS
Various types of devices and chemicals
have been used to repel deer including
scare devices, over-the-counter repellent
sprays and powder, and home remedies.
Scare devices such as exploders, radios,
lights, and even a dog on a leash have
short-term limited effectiveness at best.
Home remedies such as hanging bags of
hair, soap, rotten eggs or animal urine
are not trustworthy, long-term
repellents. Over-the-counterrepellents
have been the most successful deterrent
for non-commercial users experiencing
REPEL ANIMAL REPELLENT
Farnam Co. Inc.
301 W. Osborn Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85013
(800) 825-2555
HOT SAUCE ANIMAL
REPELLENT
Miller Chemical & Fertilizer Corp.
P.O. Box333
Hanover, PA 17331
HINDER
Crompton Chemical
UAP Great Lakes
La Crescent, MN
(507) 895-2103
lighttomoderatedamage. However,
repellents must be applied frequently
and vigilantly prior to and during the
period of anticipated damage in order
to be effective. For example, repellents
should be applied to plants prior to
planting and reapplied during tl1e
growing season.* 'Hinder,' which is a
mixture of ammonium soaps, and 'Deer
Away,' made from putrescent whole egg
solids have been the most widely used
and effective repellent sprays. Other
repellents available are:
**DEER AWAY
Intagra, Inc.
8500 Pillsbury Ave. S0utl1
Minneapolis, MN 55420
(612) 881-5535
NATIONAL DEERREPELLANT
National Scent
P.O. Box667
San Jacinto, CA 92581
(909) 654-2442
* Consult individual manufacturers for
proper spray concentration and
application.
** Deer Awa:Y is not approved for
application on edible crops.
A Gardener's Guide to Preventing Deer Damage 15
IL
11
_JI
FENCING APPLICATIONS
For nurseries, orchards, pastures, and
large gardens, fencing is often the only
way to prevent damage from animals.
Many of the fencing options discussed
on the following pages also work well for
small gardens because they are easy to
build and very cost-effective. The
following fencing designs are the primary
methods being used by professional
game managers and many state and
federal agencies to control damage from
both livestock and wild animals.
HIGH-TENSILE WIRE FENCE
By far, the most effective and most
maintainable new fencing used are the
New Zealand-designed high-tensile wire
fences (See FIGURE A, page 19).
Although the initial cost is high, this type
of fence requires the least maintenance,
and thus the cost per ft/yr is the lowest
of all discussed. TI1e fence uses smooth
wire instead of barbed wire which is
tensioned using a 'strainer' device. TI1e
strength of this type offencing is in the
tension applied. Animals cannot
"squeeze" through the fence.
Although construction is somewhat
technical, the fence acnially takes less
labor to install because line posts are
only needed every 25-50 ft. Proper
construction of the "H-brace" corners is
critical since the twelve wires used exert
tremendous pressure on the corners (See
FIGURE B, page 20). TI1e horizontal
wires can be spaced varying distances
apart (usually from 4-6 inches) and
separated by fiberglass or wooden
'droppers' (similar to stays) every five
feet. TI1e bottom wire is placed 6 in. off
the ground.Tension is applied using a
rachet tool and must be periodically
adjusted for the fence to function
effectively. Because construction is highly
specialized, the manufacturer should
supply instmctions when purchasing
materials.
ELECTRIFIED HIGH-TENSILE WIRE FENCE
In areas experiencing persistent and alternating negative and positively
severe deer damage, the same fence charged ( with a positive wire on the
discussed above can be electrified using bottom and top). TI1is is important in
AC current (See Fl GURE C, page 21). that the animal will always be in contact
DC battery or solar/battery chargers are with the ground-wire even when standing
used where electricity is unavailable. TI1e in deep snow or in a 1nid-air jump. TI1e
modern-type fence chargers currently fence functions as more ofa psychologi-
available have a strong shocking power cal barrier than a physical one after
(up to 8000 volts) but low impedance. animals have experienced the shock, tlms
Tims, they are extremely effective but even a low fence ( + or -24") can be
safer than older-type chargers because effective in keeping the majorify of
tl1ey don't cause a burning effect. animals out. TI1e fence can be baited by
Construction is similar although tying aluminum foil flags covered with
insulators are used in lieu of staples, peanut butter on to the charged wire to
fewer wires are needed, and wires are aid in training animals to the fence.
16 A Gardener's Guide to Preventing Deer Damage
IL
11
_JI
MODIFIED ELECTRIC
HIGH-TENSILE WIRE FENCE
A nice feature of the above design is that
it can be used with an existing fence in a
variety of applications, and can be
utilized even on a small scale for the
average garden grower.1he electric high-
tensile fence discussed above can actually
be constructed on top of an existing
fence (such as a square orv-mesh wire or
wood fence) using extensions, such as
stand-off insulators for a single wire, or a
2" x 4" board attached to the existing
post with lag screws for multiple wires.
High-tensile fencing manufacturers do
not recommend combining electric
fencing with barbed wire however as
severe injury and fatalities to animals
have resulted. With the multiple wire
design, positive wires should be alter-
nated with grounded wires.
An advantage to this type of fencing over
the completely electrified high-tensile
fence is that this one will not often
ground out due to vegetation growth
and tlms will require less maintenance.
Much of this equipment can also easily
be erected on a temporary basis during
the height of the growing season if the
problem is only a seasonal one. A
disadvantage is that it will probably not
be 100%effectiveinkeepingoutall
animals. 'Polywire,' which is basically an
electrified plastic tape can also be used
for higher visibility (a bright orange
color) and doesn' trequire tensioning.
SQUARE-MESH WOVEN-WIRE GAME FENCE
Square-mesh fence has been used
primarily to control damage to orchards
and nurseries (See FIGURED, page
22). The fence is constructed similar to
tl1e high-tensile design, is considerably
lighter than the V-mesh wire fence and is
easier to construct. TI1e fence is con-
structed using 10 ft. posts set 4 ft. in the
ground and spaced 20 ft. apart. Wire
fencing is available in 6-ft. and 8-ft.
heights. This fence design has been
proven to repel deer and elk. The fence is
also effective against coyotes, pigs and
rabbits when the wire is buried one foot
in the ground.
V-MESH
TI1e V-mesh wire fences have been used
primarily to control damage to hay-
stacks. TI1e V-mesh wire fence is con-
strncted using 10 ft. wood posts set 4 ft.
in the ground at 12 ft intervals. TI1e V-
mesh wire comes in heights of 42 in. to
96 in. with the 72 in. being the most
commonly used to control deer. This
fence is difficult to build because of ilie
heavywire.
A Gardener's Guide to Preventing Deer Damage 17
IL
_JI
CONSTRUCTION
All fence designs utilize double braced
corner posts set in concrete or 'tamped'
in gravel, with line-posts in between
comers and fence-stays in between line-
posts to maintain wire position. A
construction manual or the fence
manufacturer should be consulted on
how to build particular fence types.
Several are listed on page 25. Cost per
foot and fence lengths may vary
depending on themanufacturer(See
"PLANNING," page 23). Manufactur-
ers and other pertinent regulatory
agencies should be contacted when using
any treated wood products, particulary
around groundwater. Exceptwhere
noted, longer posts and taller wire can
be used with each design with minor
modifications to control elk effectively as
well.
18 A Gardener's Guide to Preventing Deer Damage
IL
_JI
REFERENCES
FENCE CONSTRUCTION:
Fences For Controlling Deer Damage. California Agricultural Experiment Station
Extension Service Circular 514.
How to Design and Build Gates and Fences. Ortho Books.
How to Build Fences and Gates. Sunset Books.
How to Build Fences With High-Tensile Fence Wire. U.S. Steel Cat. T-111575. U.S.
Steel, Pittsburgh, Pa. 75pp.
Control Big Game Damage in Northwest Colorado. E.A. Byrne, Biologist, Colorado
Div. of Wildlife, 1989. A paper presented at the Ninth Great Plains Wildlife
Damage Control Work Shop, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Wildlife Pest Control Around Gardens and Homes. Salmon, T.P. and R.E. Lickliter,
1984. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California,
Cooperative Extension, Publication #21385.
Fence diagrams provided by Minnesota Department ofNatural Resources.
PLANTS:
The Standard Encyclopedia of Horticulture. Bailey, L. H. 1949. TI1e MacMillan
Company, New York, 3 vols., II, pg. 1786.
A New List of Deer Resistant Plants for the Garden. Pacific Horticulture, November
1990.
Deer-Resistant Plants for Ornamental Use. University of California Cooperative
Extension. 1980. Leaflet 2167.
Sunset Western Garden Book. Fifth Edition. Lane Publishing Company, California.
A Gardener's Guide to Preventing Deer Damage 19
IL
The Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department said Tuesday afternoon that the
sighting was along the west side of Los Gatos Creek, north of Charter Oaks Circle.
A citizen reported the sighting to police, who responded to the area and observed a non-
distressed mountain lion seated inside a large water drain culvert, positioned along the
east embankment of the Los Gatos Creek, police said in a statement. After monitoring
the area for an hour, the mountain lion was last seen running east inside the culvert pipe
which has numerous outlets at various drainage points in the county, police said.
The general area is in close proximity to a known mountain lion habitat, police said, and
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife has been notified of the sighting.
As police and state wildlife personnel work to ensure the safety of the area, the
community is asked to stay away from the vicinity. Police noted that the trail was
already closed to public access between Charter Oaks Circle and Knowles Drive because
of previous damage.
"Businesses and residences in the immediate area have been advised by police of the
sighting," police said. "Please stay out of the immediate area, do not access the closed .
sections of the Los Gatos Creek Trail (north of Charter Oaks Circle), and call 911 if there
is an emergency or immediate threat."
PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Community
Development Department Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
POLICY COMMITTEE REPORT
MEETING DATE: 11/15/2018
ITEM NO: 4
ADDENDUM
DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2018
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER 6 (BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS) AND CHAPTER 29
(ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE TOWN CODE REGARDING FENCES,
HEDGES, AND WALLS.
REMARKS:
Attachment 14 contains additional public comment received after distribution of the report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachments previously received with the November 7, 2018 Staff Report:
1. Draft Ordinance Amending Town Code Chapter 6 and Chapter 29
2. Regulated Fence Area Exhibit
3. Maps Showing Distribution of Properties in the Hillside Area by Size
4. Impact of Proposed Ordinance Versus Lot Size Calculations
5. Scatter Plot of Property Sizes by Zone in Hillside Area
6. Noticing Requirements for Minor Residential Development Applications
7. Fence Regulations from Nearby Hillside Communities
8. Sight Triangle and Traffic View Area
9. Summary of Front Yard Fence Height Regulations of Area Jurisdictions
10. Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Pertaining to Fences
11. General Plan Policies and Actions Pertaining to Fences, Wildlife Habitats, and Migration
Corridors
12. Wildlife-Friendly Fence Exhibit
13. Comprehensive Public Comments, from July 26, 2017 through 11:00 a.m. on November 9,
2018
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN CODE REGARDING FENCES, HEDGES,
AND WALLS/A-17-002
NOVEMBER 14, 2018
N:\MGR\AdminWorkFiles\Council Committee - POLICY\2018\11.15.18\Item 4 - Addendum.docx 11/14/2018 12:33 PM
Attachments received with this Addendum:
14. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, November 9, 2018 and 11:00 a.m.,
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
ATTACHMENT 14
Los Gatos Town Council Policy Committee
C / 0 Sean Mullin, Associate Planner
RECEIVED
NOV O 9 2018
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
-..
November 91 2018
Comments concemlng Proposed Fence, Wall and Hedge Ordinance for 11/15/18
As you know, we have concerns about the <..'<mlent of the proposed ordinance and the
process of its re-writing and consideration by the Council since 12/5/ 17 .
We strongly urge Town Council to take the following actions:
1. Terminate further co.asideration of a new fence, wall and hedge ordinance for
the hillside zones. Leave existing regulations as they are.
2. Use existing Town hWside regulations and processes to pursue goals
regarding wildlife when reviewing property that has applied for subdivision or
development. Restrictions imposed wW therefore be based on physical facts
of the speci&c property being considered for development, and not be an
exercise in general theories and the imposition of personal philosophy.
3. Approve the changes to the fencing ordinance as proposed for the non ...
hillside areas for the entire Town; i.e., allow the lattice extension.
4. Recoaslder the practice for meeting minutes to note when petitions are
submitted and to mail notices of impactful issues to affected properties.
Reasons we believe the Council should take the above action are as follows:
• The goals of the new fence, wall a.nd hedge ordinance are vague, poorly defined,
a.nd ignore the physical reality of hillside properties, hillside roads, and the vety
nature of wildlife and its behavior. No real cyidence of significant impacts of
fencing on existing properties has been established; just feelings and opinions of
proponents. Property owners are free to adapt the fences, walls and hedges on
their own property to adapt to their family and wildlife as it is on their property.
• The method the ordinance uses to achieve its utopian goals is flawed in severa)
regards as follows:
o As Sean Mullin has stated to the Council, the variations in sizeJ shape, and
topography of hillside properties are infinite. The one-solution-fits-al)
method oflhe proposed ordinance unnecessarily impacts property owners~
rights to use their property, and achieves essentially nothing for wildlife.
o The impact of existing fences, walls and hedges on wildlife as related to
each develuped property is unquantified. Anecdotally, J suggest the impact
is minimal. The Council would be taking away property owner rights by
universally applying a. blunt instrument with little benefit for wildlife.
11 /9/ 18 Comments lo Council Policy Committee re Proposed Fence, Wall and Hedge
Ordinance
o The new permitting process alone has a significant impact on property
owners. Confusion, delay, cost, and added neighborhood feuds are created,
for almost no gain for wildlife. The Town's strategic goal to streamline and
simplify regulatory impacts argues against adoption of the new ordinance.
a By applying these proposed rules to already-developed property, Council
will create a hidden snare for property owners improving and maintaining
their property with no knowledge of the proposed rules. An intrusive
neighbor's call to the Town will spring months of hassle, cost and delay on
an unsuspecting property owner.
o Transparent. barbed wire, razor-wire fences wire do not seem a real issue.
o The vague, unspecified and unquantified goal of ··protecting" wildlife from
vehicles is specious. The setting, terrain, dimensions, traffic volumes and
speeds ofroads in the hillsides vary significantly. Blossom Hill Road,
Shannon Road and Kennedy Road create potentiai hazard to wildlife
because of traffic volume, speeds and sight distance issues. Most other
roads in the hillside do not. On those roads, traffic vo1umes are low. speeds
low, and the threat to wilc:Jlife is nil.
o Wildlife makes its own decision when to occupy and/or cross roads, no
matter the Town's rules. It finds its own paths on private property and on,
across, and along roads. We have several wildlife trails across our property
and see them used daily by the full spectrum of IC>ca1 wildlife. Wildlife uses
our narrow quiet. low volume road re~ularly. No change to our existing
fencing will change that. In the 42-years we have lived in the hillsides, there
has not. been one wildlife injury or fatality on our road other than one
snake, many years ago. That snake was not affected by fences, walls or
hedges of any kind in any place. ·If a car meets a critter on our road, and
t.he many other hillside roads like it, the critters tend to scurry out. of the
way and the cars always slow or stop -mutual respect! H works just fine.
The Council and ordinance advocates cannot control wildlife and its
choice when to use roads. The Town should not regulate private
property in a vain attempt to protect wildlife.
• The proposed ordinance is equivalent to using a shotgun to kill a fly in your home.
It may not even kill the fly, but its use will certainly have significantly side-effects.
The proposed ordinance would significantly impact many hillside properties
without making any real difference to 99% of wildlife -precisely the kind of low-
benefit, high-cost regulation to avoid.
Process. We are deeply concerned about the process that was used to develop and bring
forward this proposed ordinance to Council. Relevant history is as follows:
• At the Council's 12 / 5 / l 7 meeting. the first incar11ation of the fence ordinance was
presented. 24 people spoke at the meeting. Four were non-residents,
representing special interest groups: five speakers supported the new restrictions~
fifteen speakers opposed the ordinance.
Page 2 of 3
11 /9 / 18 Comments to Council Policy Committee re Proposed Fence, Wall and Hedge
Ordinance
• At the 12/5/ 17 meeting, a petition signed by over 260 people was submitted to the
Council via the Town CJerk. We were signers of that petition but did not attend.
• The Minutes of the 12/5/17 Town Council meeting contained no mention of the
above petition -see the attached copy of those minutes. We consulted with City
CJerks of two larger Santa Clara County cities and they l~oth stated their practice
would be to include mention of the presentation of all such petitions.
• Following the 12 / 5 / 17 meeting, we understand that two citizens began a process
of working extensively with Town staff for almost a year. There was no public
notice of this process. From watching the tape of the 12/5/ 17 meeting, it appears
ONE activist citizen was awarded the privilege of preparing and arguing for HIS
solution to a problem as HE decided existed; a solution that impacts 939 HR
properties. 300 other citizens on record as opposing such regulations were left out
of the process; afforded no notice of an opportunity to participate. The discussion
between staff and Council of this issue IO/ 16 / 18 is revealing, omitting the fact no
other persons opposed knew about the process.
• None of the 260+ petition signers (the petition grew to 314 signers within a week)
or speakers at the 12/5/ 17 meeting were notified or invited t.o participate in the
ordinance revision working group.
• None of the materials made available to the public in advance of the 10 / 16 / 18
Town Council meeting, including the staff report, made mention of the petition.
• Public noticing of Council business for the 10/ 16/ 18 hearing was ineffective,
unless the goal was to avoid controversy and public involvement.
o Other than Town Council electronic media sites, the only notice of the
10 / 16 / J 8 meeting was in the Los Gatos Weekly Times. This paper has a
low readership, particularly since it no longer contains Town news~ no
longer has a locaJ reporter, and now primarily publishes news of San Jose,
Cupertino, and Campbell; infrequently, news of Los Gatos.
o The Weekly Times is generally not delivered in the hillside areas.
o In spite of the significant impact of the ordinance on private property and
lifestyle of its owners. the Town maintains a position of not sending mailed
notices of this impending and impactful ordinance. The 939 hillside parcels
within the Town received no notice of the proposed ordinance. One would
think the story poles history would make clear the need for better noticing.
o If WVSD wants to raise its rates, it sends a mailed notice to all affected
properties. Given the financial and other impacts of this ordinance, one
would think the Town would do the same.
• In spite of the above reality, two Council members wanted to adopt the new
ordinance on 10/16/ 19. One Council member stated "the first interest are the
animals in the hillsides". Many property owners, voters and tax payers might be
surprised at their ranking.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Town staff has been very
responsive to our requests for information since the 10/ 16/ 18 meeting.
Don & Cheryl Wimberly
Page 3 of 3
Pctilitm updatt>
own Co nci Meeti g U
Los Gatos Hillside Property Owners
United States
ate
Dec 7. 2017 --· On Tuesduy lkct!mbl.!r 5th the Town < ·ounci I of Lo~ ( httos di.,cus~"~d I lw
proposed Fence Or<linancc and heard comments from thl· puhlic ... th~ majorily ol whk:h \\"·r1.·
against the proposal. The status of this pctiljon (wilh lltt\\ dose to JOO :mppl,rl(kr~) wHs ab<'
shared After furthl~r ddihenttion the Town C'oundl agrci:d hl place th,! proposal on hold hl
consider a) where it fits within the Town ('ouncirs prhlriti~s for nt·xt year: awl hJ cng,1gini \, irL
an independent consultant lo study the matter l\n1hcr. N<1 new dates haw hcr11 ~ommut1ki1h:J a~
of yet. I will continue to work with the Dircttnr nf tht· Tm, n · s Pla11ning I kpartm~nl ath.l ,,w
provide further updates as and when ·they or<: made avaih1hk. I \I lik~ to thunk \!Heh :md "·v..:n·
one of you for your sur,port. We will keep pushing tu cnsun.· an amknhlc ouh.'(l111C.
PAGE 6 OF 11
SUBJECT: MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 5, 2017
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2017
Public Hearing Item #13 -continued
MOTION:
VOTE:
Motion by Council Member Barbara Spector to return the draft
ordinance to staff to consider the language as proposed with the
following potential modifications: 1) none of the buildings need to be
owner occupied; 2) allow ADU's in the RD zone; 3) provide some
information regarding an increase to FAR and lot coverage; 4) provide
word1ng to include the two stories when there is already a building with
two stories; and 5) provide information on items such as
setbacks. AMENDMENT: provide report on lot coverage when there is an
ADU as opposed to FAR. AMENDMENT: to continue the item to January
16, 2018. Seconded by Council Member Marcia Jensen.
Motion passed unanimously.
Recess at 9:14 p.m.
Reconvene at 9:24 p.m.
14. 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 Waifs (continued from October 17, 2017).
Sean Mullin, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
David Weissman
Provided clarification on his proposed amendments.
Alice Kaufman, Legisiative Advocate for the Committee for Green Foothills
Commented in support of the proposed ordinance.
Kamilah Najieb-Wachob, Intern for the Committee for Green Foothills
Commented in support of the proposed ordinance.
Jim Vergara
Commented in opposition of the propose.d ordinance.
Sam Schaevitz
Commented in opposrt1on of the proposed ordinance.
PAGE 7 OF 1 t
SUBJECT: MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 5, 2017
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2017
Public Hearing Item ##14 -continued
Richard Reed
Commented in opposition of the proposed ordinance.
Joanne Chayut
Commented in ppo it mn of the proposed ordinance.
Lisa doughty
Commented in op siU n of the proposed ordinance.
Ty Doughty
Commented in o p si i of the proposed ordinance.
Alan Young
Commented in opp ,t,un of the proposed ordinance.
Austin Donnelly
Commented in oppo~1t1on of the proposed ordinance.
Kasey Harnish
Commented in o ppo i t ion of the proposed ordinance.
Kit Gordon, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Commented in support of the proposed ordinance.
Mackenzie Mossing, Santa Clara County Audubon Society
Commented in support of the ordinance.
Anik Manocha
Commented in o po s1t1on of the proposed ordinance.
John Bourgeois
Commented in support of the proposed ordinance.
David Klinger
Commented in support of a seven foot height including lattice in the non·hillside area.
Bill Kraus
Commented in oppo!>ilio n of the proposed ordinance.
PAGE 8 OF 11
SUBJECT: MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 5, 2017
DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2017
Public Hearing Item #14 -continued
Bruce Mccombs
Commented in support of the proposed ordinance.
Deborah Acosta
Commented in 0µ1,0~1tion of the proposed ordinance .
Rupor lyar . ~
Commented in support of the proposed ordinance.
Pauf lacey
Commented in opµo~itaon of the proposed ordinance.
Linda Caplinger
Commented in ormo-;it,on of the proposed ordinance.
Steve Doughty
Commented in oppu\ition ·of the proposed ordinance.
Closed Public Comment.
Council discussed the matter.
MOTION:
VOTE:
Motion by Council Member Marcia Jensen to continue the item to a date
uncertain pending the outcome of the strategic priorities session,
including the prioritization o.f this ordinance and consideration of a
Wildlife Corridor Study; and evaluate input from Council and the public to
determine if a compromise is possible. Seconded by Council Member
Marico Sayoc.
Motion passed unanimously.
15. Veteran's Memorial -Architecture and Site Application S-17-033. Project Location: 110 E.
Main Street. Applicant: Patrick Flanders. Property Owner: Town of Los Gatos.
Consider a request for approval to construct a new Veterans Memorial on property zoned
C-1:PD. APN 529-34-108. RESOLUTION 2017-064
Sean Mullin, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
From: Tiffany Douglass <tiffan y.douglass @g mail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 8:42 AM
To:Council
Subject: Please support the currently proposed Wildlife Friendly Fencing Ordinance.
Dear Los Gatos Town Council -
Please support the currently proposed Wildlife Friendly Fencing Ordinance. I stand with
Sierra Club's Loma Prieta Chapter Wildlife Committee for this ordinance.
I am a resident of Los Gatos who loves running and spending time with my family along Los
Gatos Creek. I also work in Los Gatos for a renewable energy company. The wildlife &
environmental wellbeing of this community is very important to me.
Last month, an effort that the Loma Prieta Wildlife Committee has been involved in for over a
year suffered an unexpected setback as the Los Gatos Town Council again refused (3:2) to
move forward a vetted, collaborative and important Wildlife Friendly Fencing ordinance. This is
the second time Council considered this issue. The ordinance was delayed/returned for "more
information" in December 2017. At the time, many residents expressed concerns. This time, the
same residents came up in support of the new draft, which provided a compromise that works
for both wildlife and property owners. I support for the currently proposed Wildlife Friendly
Fencing ordinance.
Sincerely,
Tiffany Douglass
(508) 498-8597
From: Jane Doe <letyourvoicebhd @g mail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 9:27 AM
To: Council
Subject: Wildlife Fencing ordinance
I am in support of this ordinance, and would like to understand the reluctance to move forward?
Is it property owner driven?
Pam
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Dear Officials,
Ruth Van Seiver <ruthvansciver@gmail.com>
Monday, November 12, 2018 2:00 PM
Sean Mullin
supporting wildlife friendly fencing
Follow up
Flagged
I'm writing today in support of the proposed ordinance which sets standards for wildlife friendly fencing. I
believe that this ordinance provides needed protection for wildlife in Los Gatos, which will have a positive
ripple effect in neighboring ecosystems. I urge you to consider creative solutions to allowing homeowners to
make their fences wildlife friendly. I also urge the city to address the many cyclone fences that are city and
government established.
Animals should be free to move along wildlife corridors without hazards such as razor wire or chain link fencing
impeding them. Riparian corridors especially are in need of protection because of their importance to
migratory bird populations (which are in decline). Transparent barriers such as see-through plastic and glass
are also hazardous to birds, and I support the inclusion of a transparent materials ban in the
ordinance. Although I think frosted and other means of blocking the transparency should be an exception.
This ordinance is short, straightforward, and beneficial. I believe it should be passed,
Regards,
Ruth Van Seiver
PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Community
Development Department Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
POLICY COMMITTEE REPORT
MEETING DATE: 11/15/2018
ITEM NO: 4
DESK ITEM
DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 2018
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER 6 (BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS) AND CHAPTER 29
(ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE TOWN CODE REGARDING FENCES,
HEDGES, AND WALLS.
REMARKS:
Attachment 15 contains a table showing lot sizes by zone within the Hillside Area to
complement the scatterplot included with Attachment 5. Attachment 16 includes additional
public comment received after distribution of the Addendum.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachments previously received with the November 7, 2018 Staff Report:
1. Draft Ordinance Amending Town Code Chapter 6 and Chapter 29
2. Regulated Fence Area Exhibit
3. Maps Showing Distribution of Properties in the Hillside Area by Size
4. Impact of Proposed Ordinance Versus Lot Size Calculations
5. Scatter Plot of Property Sizes by Zone in Hillside Area
6. Noticing Requirements for Minor Residential Development Applications
7. Fence Regulations from Nearby Hillside Communities
8. Sight Triangle and Traffic View Area
9. Summary of Front Yard Fence Height Regulations of Area Jurisdictions
10. Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Pertaining to Fences
11. General Plan Policies and Actions Pertaining to Fences, Wildlife Habitats, and Migration
Corridors
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN CODE REGARDING FENCES, HEDGES,
AND WALLS/A-17-002
NOVEMBER 15, 2018
N:\MGR\AdminWorkFiles\Council Committee - POLICY\2018\11.15.18\Item 4 - Desk Item.docx
12. Wildlife-Friendly Fence Exhibit
13. Comprehensive Public Comments, from July 26, 2017 through 11:00 a.m. on November 9,
2018
Attachments previously received with the November 14, 2018 Addendum:
14. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, November 9, 2018 and 11:00 a.m.,
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
Attachments received with this Desk Item:
15. Table of Property Sizes by Zone in Hillside Area
16. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, November 14, 2018 and 11:00
a.m., Thursday, November 15, 2018
Property Sizes within the Hillside Area
Zone
Acres R-1 HR-1 HR-2.5 HR-5 HR-20 TOTAL
0 - 1 275 275 107 33 8 698
1 - 2 13 209 161 30 7 420
2 - 3 0 22 80 30 7 139
3 - 4 1 5 31 12 5 54
4 - 5 0 6 11 14 4 35
5+ 0 10 42 21 10 83
TOTAL 289 527 432 140 41 1429
ATTACHMENT 15
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 16
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank