Attachment 12 - Public Comment received between 1101 November 30, 2017 to 1100 December 5, 2017From: Handel Jones [mailto:gatoscath@qmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 12:25 PM
To: Joel Paulson
Cc: Marico Sayoc
Subject: Proposed Restrictive Fence Amendment-Town Code Amendment A-17-002
Dear Joel:
The 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 lost, 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 considered
environmentally good by some, the reality is that this is the first step of allowing
people to roam because low fences will not deter trespassers.
There is a potential violation of people's rights, and as mentioned, safety.
The buying of property and being allowed to use this property for reasonable use is a
part of the constitution. You are 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), which can affect humans. This disease Is not in
California at the present time, but is likely to come to California in the 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
. ATTACHMENT 1 2
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 regulations 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 will 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 living In Los Gatos which is already a high-cost town. For
what? So animals can roam more freely?
It does not meet the common sense metric.
Sincerely,
Dr. H. H. Jones
632 Industrial Way
From: Alice Kaufman [mailto:alice@greenfoothills .org]
5ent: Friday, December 01, 2017 4:39 PM
To: Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Marico Sayoc; BSpector; Council
Cc: shani kleinhaus; Mike Ferreira; Mackenzie Mossing; Kit Gordon; Town Manager; David Weissman
Subject: Agenda Item #14, December 5 Town Council meeting (Hillside Fence Ordinance)
Dear Mayor Rennie and Town Councilmembers,
Please find attached the comments of Committee for Green Foothills, Santa Clara Valley
Audubon Society, and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter on the above-referenced agenda item.
Please contact me with any questions on this matter. Thank you for your consideration of these
comments.
)f.Cice 1(aujman
Legislative Advocacy Director, Committee for Green Foothills
650-968-7243 x. 313
3921 East Bayshore Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
www .greenfoothills.org
Join Committee for Green Foothills as a member and help support our work!
CO .. HITTU FOii
GR EE N FOOTIULLS
December 1, 2017
Los Gatos Town Council
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
• SlERRA
CLUB
~·
Santa Clara Valley
Audubon Socle1Y
Re: Agenda item #14: Amendments to Town Code regarding fences , hedges and walls
(Hillside Fencing Ordinance)
Dear Mayor Rennie and Town Councilmembers,
Committee for Green Foothills, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, and Sierra Club Loma Prieta
Chapter urge the Town Council to adopt the amendments to the Town Code as recommended by staff.
Alternatively, the Town Council can consider adopting the compromise draft submitted by Dr. David Weissman
(included in Attachment 11 to the staff report, pages 15-21).
This or9inance is critically needed for both wildlife protection and public safety. As other hillside cities
such as Woodside and Portola Valley that have enacted fencing guidelines and ordinances have discovered, when
homeowners put up perimeter fences that force animals into roads and highways, that causes a hazard for
motorists. Vehicle collisions with large animals such as deer can result in fatalities, especially on narrow, winding
hillside roads. Allowing animals a little more room to travel avoids this unnecessary consequence.
The expansion of our area's population has resulted in residential areas pushing out into what was
formerly undisturbed wildlife habitat, blocking established wildlife movement corridors. Animals must migrate to
find food, water and mates. Fences will not turn them back; they merely force them into roadways.
Many homeowners choose to live in the hillside areas precisely because they value being close to nature
and seeing the wildlife around them. If we allow those animals room to roam, we are preserving the wild
landscape and the beauty that makes our area famous, as well as reducing the risk of human/animal conflicts.
We urge the Town Council to adopt the amendments proposed by staff. Thank you for your consideration
of these comments.
Sincerely,
Alice Kaufman, Legislative Advocacy Director
Committee for Green Foothills
Michael Ferreira, Conservation Committee Chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
I • I ('." t . //,'.Z;J-•. ..fb..t! 'j!..-P---~./
Shani Kleinhaus, Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
-----Original Message ----
From : Eric Hansen [mailto:erichansenll@comcast.net]
Sent : Monday, 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, mice, rats, gophers, snakes, etc. slither thru or
under them.
We have seen all this
during 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
Alice H Hansen
17611 Foster Road
Los Gatos, CA
95030
408-354-1831
Sent from my iPhone
From: Nancy Reyering <nanzo@me.com>
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2017 1:36 PM
To: Rob Rennie
Subject: Misconceptions about Ticks, Wildlife, and Lyme Disease
Dear Mayor Rennie,
There is a proliferation of misinformation out there about ticks and Lyme Disease. The following information
comes from The Lyme Foundation in Portola Valley*, from physicians at the cutting edge Lyme treatment clinic
Pacific Frontier Medical in Redwood City, and from local expert biologist Philippe Cohen, former Executive Director
of the Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve.
1. Ticks 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 tlcks from the same
vegetation we do. When ticks find their way to people, it Is from vegetation. Ticks hang out on sticks, leaves, grass,
and branches . When deer travel through the brush, the ticks come off the vegetation and cling to them, actually
reducing the number of ticks on foliage that may be available to cling onto us. In other words, as long as a tick is on
a deer, it is no threat to us.
So, keeping deer out will not reduce exposure to ticks. They will be every bit as much there as ifthere were no
deer.
2. Encouraging Western Fence Lizards will help reduce the presence of Lyme on ticks.
Lyme disease is much less frequent in the West than on the East coast, because of the Western Fence Lizard, the
most common lizard in our area. Western Fence Lizards 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 Sb bacteria but they do so far less "efficiently" 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
Disease, The Ecology of a Complex System, page 43-44) and the Western grey squirrel 86% (Salkeld et al , 2008).
Interestingly the same article, "Lyme Disease, the Ecology of a Complex System" which is one of the definitive
works on the subject, draws the seemingly counterintuitive conclusion that the years after the deer population of
an area is 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 infection .... the result is an increase in tick
infection rates. Taking away deer, at least initially, removes the protective role they play in reducing tick infection."
Sincerely,
Nancy Reyering
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 I am adding some brief comments on to support keeping the 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 line (identified building site consistent with the HDs&G) or a setback from the LRDA,
however either could be 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 delineate wildlife friendly from non wildlife friendly such as a setback from the LRDA,
increasing the further from the proposed building, 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 alternatives would result in a major change to the existing HDSG and should be undertaken only within
the context of a review of the entire HDSG including fences, maximum allowable floor area, animal corridors, grading
quantities maintaining the rural open quality of the hillsides etc ..
Le e
1
December 4, 2017
To Mayor Rennie and Town Council,
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 CATOS
AMENDING CHAPTER 29 (ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE TOWN CODE
REGARDING FENCES, HEDGES, AND WALLS
PROPOSED SECTIONS:
Sec. 29.40.030. Fences, walls, gates, gateways, entry arbors, and hedges.
Sec. 29.40.031. -Purpose and intent.
The Fence Ordinance is divided into two parts: non-hillside and hillside areas.
The yse 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 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. shall 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 mea~ured from
either s!de of the property !!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 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 acguisition of food,
shelter, 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 fence?
Planting Zone 1 means that area within a 30-foot radjus of the primary dwelling
unit on a hillside 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 having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has
supported riparian vegetation. fish, or aguatic 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.
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_new fences, 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
(6) feet high, with .one (1) foot of lattice on top (seven (7) feet high 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 high provided the property owner can
provide written justification to the Planning Department that
demonstrates either of the following 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 arbors7-Mi¥ 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) high tall 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
geRerally unrestricted. and fences can be a combination of materials, with
the following exceptions:
(6) Plas tic fencing Is discouraged everywhe r e and is prohibited in Historic
Districts.
(7) Barbed wire or razor r ibbon wire is prohibited in all zones.
Sec. 29.40.034. -Hillside lots: Proposed new fences, walls, gates, gateways,
entry arbors, and hedges.
Ibis section covers any new fence, wall, 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 js 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.
(D) Within 30 feet of primary dwelling unit:
Note: Support using 30'
(8) Approvals: Minor Residential Development approval is required
pursuant to Section 29.20.480C2lCbl. The permit shall be posted on
site during construction.
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 (6) feet high
in total, or unless otherwise noted jn this section <Sec. 29.40.034).
(lO)Riparian corridor. No fence, wall. gate or hedge shall be constructed
within a riparian corridor or within 30 feet of its top of bank-;-~
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 (outside Planting Zone l);
(12)Approvals: Minor Residential Development approval is required
pursuant to Section 29.20.480C2lChl. The permit shall be posted on
site during construction.
Note: See (8) above.
(13)Accessory structures. Fences associated with accessory stru.ctures, if
located farther than 30 feet from the primary dwelling unit, shall be
governed by this section,
(14)Wildlife friendly. All fences, walls, gates, and hedges shall be of
wildlife-friendly design. If a new hillside 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.
(lS)Maximum height:
c. New fences. The maximum height 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 maximum height of 60
inches CS feet).
e. Hedges shall have two-to four-foot-wide gaps at least every 2 5
reet...
(16)Minimum height above grade:
f. New Fences. The minimum height above grade of the first rail-.Qf
new fences shall be 16 inches.
(l 7)The following fence types are not of wildlife-friendly design and are
therefore prohibited:
g. Chain-link, chicken wire, welded wire. wire mesh, cyclone or
similar fence material.
h. Buck and rail fences.
i. Any fence with bare lengths of wire stretched between posts.
J. Electric fences, including any fence designed 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) rail
rather than wjre.
o. Split rail fences shall include a minimum 12-lnch spacing
between rails wherever feasible.
p. Hedge plant species shall consist of those listed in Appendix A of
the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines.
q. The spacing of vertical fence posts shall be at least 8 feet apart.
unless physically impossible due to terrain or other conditions.
(19)Eence. wall, gate, and hedg e siting:
r. Fences and hedges shall be located to follow natural contours,
whenever possible.
s. Fences·and hedges shall be located to avoid impacts to trees,
animal movement corridors, and other natural features.
t. No fence, wall, gate or hedge shall be constructed within a
riparian corridor. stream, or within 30 feet of its top of bank
whichever distance is greatest ...
u .. 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.
(20)Walls:
v. Walls 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)Shall be subject to the reguirements in this Ordinance. The permit
will be posted on site during construction.
(22)Replacement or modification of existing fences. walls, hedges or
gates aA.re encouraged if such changes improve wlidlife movement or
animal corridors,
(23)Replacement or modification of any fence, wall. hedge or gate shall
be prohibited If the Town Engineer determines that a public safety
hazard exists.
(F) Repair. A permit is not required for repair te of short sections of existing
fences, walls, or hedges no greater than 50 percent of each fence, wall,
or hedge section, provided no other repair work is done on the same
structure over a 12-month period.
(G) Exceptions to Section 29.40.034 Hillside lots..,;,
(24)Fences around swimming pools, outdoor sports courts, play areas
and similar structures are not regujred to be of wildlife-friendly
design, even if farther than 30 feet from the prjmary __ dwelling unit (see
Sec. 29.10.09020 for other swimming pool requirements). Sport coUit
fencing 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), anjmal excluding. circular enclosing 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 design but does not have to be wildlife friendly even if farther
than 30 feet from the primary dwelling unit.
(27)Fences needed for llyestock control do not have to be of wildlife-
friendly desjgn even if farther than 30 feet from the primary dwelling
unit. For movable fences used for rotation grazing only an initial permit shall
be required.
(28)Security fencing reQuired to protect a public utility installation does
not have to be wildlife friendly.
(29)Temporary construction fencing up to 6-feet tall may be installed
when associate with an approved building or grading permit.
Temporary construction fencing shall be elevated a minimum of 16
inches above grade to allow for passage of small animals. Temporary
construction fencing shall be removed prior to final inspection.
(30)Written exceptions may be granted when the Director of Community
Development finds that the strict application of these requirements
will result in a hardship for the property owner.
(H) Fees. The fee, as adopted by Town Resolution for Minor Residenti.al
development, prescribed therefore in the municipal fee schedule, shall
accompany any application for a fence in the Hillside Area submitted to
the Town for review and evaluation pursuant to this division.
(I) Enforcement. Any fence, wall, gate. gateway, entry arbor; or hedge
constructed, replaced. modified, or repaired without required approval. is
a violation of this Code.
(J) Notices, Noticing shall comply with the public noticing procedures of
section 29.20.480 of the Town Code.
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
David Klinger <dave.klinger@sbcglobal.net>
Monday, December 04, 2017 11:31 PM
To: Sean Mullin
Subject: 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 Commission and Plann ing staff for addressing and responding to the concerns I raised in
a letter to the Town Council on August 30, 2017 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 to allow six foot plus one foot lattice fences.
Based on the discussion at the Planning Commission meet ing on 9/13/2017, Plann ing staff developed a proposed
amendment to the non-hillside 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 proposed
amendment, if approved, adequately addresses the concerns of code non-compliance and unnecessary fee burden on
compliant residents. I hope that neighbors will be able to work together courteously and respectfully in building, 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 Robert Frost In his poem "Mending
Wall":
"Something there is that doesn't love a wall"
and
"Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense ."
But the neighbor, who each spring works across the wall from the narrator as they replace the boulders t hat have fallen,
asserts:
"Good fences make good neighbors"
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.
Respectfully,
David L. Klinger
141 Potomac Dr
Los Gatos, CA 95032
1
On Monday, December 4 , 2017 4:36 PM, David Klinger <dave.klinger@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: David Klinger <dave.klinger@sbcglobal.net>
Date: August 30, 2017 at 6:07:07 PM PDT
To: "council@losgatosca.gov"
<council@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 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. J was advised by
another plann:ng 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 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 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 d iscretion 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 desir ing the increase could
appeal, starting with the Community Development Director. Fences higher than 7 feet should continue to
2
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 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 future 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 d ifficult to
properly evaluate,
4) When neighbors already agree on a 7 foot h igh fence, gaining city approval and paying associated
fees unnecessarily burdens the residents.
Respectfully,
David L. Klinger
141 Potomac Dr
Los Gatos, CA 95032
3
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank