Hillside Fences, Hedges, and Walls - Staff Report and Exhibits 1-6
PREPARED BY: Sean Mullin, AICP
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 07/26/2017 ITEM NO: 5
DATE: JULY 21, 2017 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: TOWN CODE AMENDMENT APPLICATION A-17-002. PROJECT LOCATION:
TOWN WIDE. APPLICANT: TOWN OF LOS GATOS. CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 29 (ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE TOWN CODE REGARDING FENCES, HEDGES, AND WALLS.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider amendments to Chapter 29 (zoning
regulations) of the Town code regarding fences, hedges, and walls.
CEQA:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15061(b)(3), in that it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendments to the Town Code will have
a significant effect on the environment.
FINDINGS:
As required, pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act, this project is Exempt, Section 15061(b)(3); and
That the Town Code amendments are consistent with the General Plan.
PAGE 2 OF 5 SUBJECT: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS THE TOWN CODE REGARDING FENCES, HEDGES, AND WALLS. TOWN CODE AMENDMENT/A-17-002 JULY 21, 2017
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Fences Amendments 07-26-17.docx 7/21/2017 1:06 PM
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
• Clarify that the requirements for fences apply to all hillside fences, not just to fences
associated with Architecture and Site applications.
In late March, David Weissman and Lee Quintana sent staff a draft Ordinance. Staff met with
David Weissman and Lee Quintana in May and June to discuss the proposed amendments. A
working draft Ordinance is included as Exhibit 3. Recognizing the differences in landscapes and
wildlife concerns, the draft Ordinance divides regulations for fences into two categories: non-
hillside properties; and hillside properties. The majority of the proposed regulations included in
the non-hillside properties section of the draft Ordinance reflect existing Ordinance language;
while the proposed regulations included in the hillside properties section of the draft Ordinance
reflect new Ordinance language.
ANALYSIS:
A. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the working draft Ordinance.
Staff has concerns with some of the proposed amendments, but looks forward to the
Planning Commission’s discussion on the Ordinance amendments in general, and in
particular requests that the Planning Commission discuss the following topics:
• The appropriateness of the proposed “Vision Statement” language included under
Purpose and Intent (Exhibit 3, page 1: Purpose and Intent);
• Hillside fences would require Minor Residential Development approval at a current cost
of $2,223.00 [Exhibit 3, page 3: (A and B)(1)];
• The siting, design, and materials of hillside fences would be strictly regulated (Exhibit 3,
pages 3 and 4);
PAGE 3 OF 5 SUBJECT: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS THE TOWN CODE REGARDING FENCES, HEDGES, AND WALLS. TOWN CODE AMENDMENT/A-17-002 JULY 21, 2017
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Fences Amendments 07-26-17.docx 7/21/2017 1:06 PM
• The design and height of hillside fencing would be dictated by its proximity to the
primary dwelling unit [Exhibit 3, page 3: (B)(4, 5, and 7)]. Fences over 42-inches tall
would be limited to an area within 30 feet of the residence [Exhibit 3, page 3: (B)]; and
• Replacement and modification of hillside fencing would be required to meet the new
regulations for hillside fences [Exhibit 3, page 4: (4)].
B. General Plan Policies and Actions
A number of General Plan Policies and Actions address fencing, preservation of wildlife
habitats, and protection of migration corridors. The relevant General Plan Policies and
Actions are included as Exhibit 4. The proposed Town Code amendments support the
referenced General Plan Policies and Actions by seeking to limit the impacts of fences
(fences, walls, gates, gateways, entry arbors, and hedges) in the Hillside Areas.
C. Existing Town Code
The current Town Code includes regulations for fences throughout the Town in Section
29.40.030. The current Town Code:
• Includes limited regulation of design and materials;
• Does not require permits for fences six-feet or less in height; and
• Does not differentiate between regulations for fences on hillside and non-hillside
properties.
D. Hillside Design Standards & Guidelines
The Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G) provide guidance for development
in the Town’s Hillside Areas. The HDS&G include standards and guidelines for
incorporating fences in the Hillside Areas. The relevant standards and guidelines and an
excerpt from the HDS&G are included as Exhibit 5.
E. Effects on Properties
Q. Would fence regulations for non-hillside properties change?
A. Fence regulations for non-hillside properties would remain consistent with existing
regulations with only minor clarifications regarding appropriate materials for fences
[(Exhibit 3, page 2: (C)]. Permits would not be required for fences less than six-feet in
height on non-hillside properties [(Exhibit 3, page 2: (A)].
Q. Would I need a permit to construct a new fence on my hillside property?
A. Yes, the proposed Ordinance would require that a hillside property owner receive
approval of a Minor Residential Development application to construct any fence. The
PAGE 4 OF 5 SUBJECT: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS THE TOWN CODE REGARDING FENCES, HEDGES, AND WALLS. TOWN CODE AMENDMENT/A-17-002 JULY 21, 2017
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Fences Amendments 07-26-17.docx 7/21/2017 1:06 PM
fee for a Minor Residential Development for minor projects is currently $2,223.00. A
building Permit would not be required for fences that do not exceed six-feet in height.
Q. Are there particular materials or designs for hillside fences that are not allowed under
the proposed Ordinance?
A. Yes, the proposed Ordinance prohibits specific materials and designs [Exhibit 3, pages
3 and 4, (6) and (7)]. It also requires that fences located greater than 30 feet from the
primary dwelling unit be of open-view design.
Q. Is the type of fencing allowed on a hillside property dependent on its location on the
property?
A. Yes, within the Hillside Areas of the Town, the proposed Ordinance breaks properties
into two zones: areas within 30 feet of the primary dwelling unit and areas greater
than 30 feet of the primary dwelling unit. This distinction aligns with the planting
zones described on page 26 of the HDS&G. Fences within Planting Zone 1 would be
regulated in the same manner as fences on non-hillside properties. Fences outside
this zone would be limited by specific regulations related to wildlife friendliness,
height (both maximum and minimum above grade), design, and siting. Walls, other
than retaining walls approved by the Town, would be prohibited unless needed to
address a specific privacy concern.
Q. My hillside property includes existing fencing that does not meet the standards
included in the proposed Ordinance. If I would like to replace or modify the existing
fencing, would it have to meet the proposed regulations?
A. Yes, replacement or modification of existing fencing that does not meet the proposed
requirements would have to meet the proposed Ordinance. Repair to sections of
existing fencing would be allowed and would not be required to meet the proposed
Ordinance; however, repair would be limited to short sections of fences within a 12-
month period.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Written comments have been received regarding the proposed amendments (Exhibit 6).
CONCLUSION:
A. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposed draft Ordinance
concerning fences and discuss the topics of concern raised by staff. Following the
PAGE 5 OF 5 SUBJECT: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS THE TOWN CODE REGARDING FENCES, HEDGES, AND WALLS. TOWN CODE AMENDMENT/A-17-002 JULY 21, 2017
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Fences Amendments 07-26-17.docx 7/21/2017 1:06 PM
Planning Commission’s discussion, staff recommends that the item be continued to a
date certain.
EXHIBITS:
1. Findings
2. Ordinance Priorities Memorandum dated February 12, 2017, from Robert Shultz, Town
Attorney
3. Draft Amendments to Chapter 29 of Town Code
4. General Plan Policies and Actions pertaining to Fences, wildlife habitats, and migration
corridors
5. Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines pertaining to fences
6. Public Comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, July 21, 2017
PLANNING COMM ISS ION -July 26, 2017
REQUIRED FINDINGS:
TOWN CODE AMENDMENT APPLICATION A-17-002
Consider amendments to Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulation s) of the Town Code regarding fences,
hedges, and wall s.
FINDINGS
Required Fi ndi ngs for CEQA:
• It has been determined that there is no po ssibility that thi s project will have a significant
impact on the environment; therefore, the project is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act, Section 15061 (b)(3): Review for exemption.
Required Findings for General Plan:
• The Town Code amendments are con sistent with the General Plan.
N :\OEV\F I NOi NGS\2017\Fen ces_ Am en d.docx
~EXHllUI l I
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
To:
From:
Date :
Subject:
TOWN OF Los GATOS
OFFICE OF T HE TOWN ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM
Mayor & Council
Robert Schultz, Town Attorney
February 12 , 2017
Ordinance Priorities as directed from the
January 31 , 2017 Priority Setting Study Session
Based upon the input received at the Town Council Priority Setting Study Session on January
31, 2017 , the Town Attorney's Office has reprioritized the ordinances that it will be working on
during the upcoming year as follows :
1. T obacco Retail Ordinance
One of the 2015-2016 Strategic Goals and Priorities of the Town Council was to update the
Town 's Smoking Regulations, last revised some 25 years ago . In that regard, on May 17, 2016
the Town Council adopted amendments to the Town's Smoking Regulations. The amendments
include provisions for prohibiting smoking in public places, commercial areas , and multi-unit
residences. During the discussion regarding the Town 's Smoking Regulations, the T own Council
directed staff to also develop an ordinance to address regulating the sales of tobacco by
businesses in Los Gatos . In response , the Town Attorney along with the Town 's Community
Outreach Coordinator obtained a grant for $20,000 from the County to implement our Town 's
Smoking Regulations and is in the process of drafting amendments to the Tobacco Retail Sales
Ordinance.
The draft Tobacco Sales Ordinance will be presented to the Youth Commission in March for
a recommendation to Council in April and would establish a local licensing system for tobacco
retailers to ensure that retailers comply with tobacco control laws and business standards in order
to protect the health, safety, and welfare of our residents and to discourage violations of tobacco-
related laws, especially those that prohibit the sale or distribution of tobacco products to minors.
2. Secondary Unit Ordinance
The California Legislature passed three bills in 2016 that have substantive effects on the
existing regulatory framework for secondary (accessory) dwelling units and upon junior
accessory dwelling units . Towns/Cities and Counties throughout the state are now amending
their zoning ordinances in response to the new laws. State law requires ministerial or non-
discretionary review and approval of secondary dwelling unit s, subject to locally-adopted
standards that retained a very limited level of local discretion as to their content. In addition ,
under the new state laws , secondary dwelling units are now required to be called "accessory
dwelling units" (ADU). These bill s are intended to remove regulatory barriers that hav e so far
EXHl.Bli 2
discouraged homeowners from constructing new second units and the Town's Municipal Code
needs to be updated to bring it in compliance with State regulations.
3. Density Bonus Ordinance
The California State Legislature passed a number of bills (AB 2501, AB 2442, AB 2556,
and AB 1934) in 2016 that substantially amended the residential housing density bonus statutes
promulgated under CGC Section 65915. Under the new State law, local jurisdictions are required
to amend their own affordable housing regulations (their zoning ordinances) to align with the
amended statutes. Although the basic premise of the density bonus remains the same, the newly
enacted legislation has thoroughly modified CGC 65915, with revised density bonus eligibility
parameters, expanded and more stringent zoning concession mandates, and broadened
applicability of the entire density bonus program (to now senior housing projects, mixed use
projects, and redevelopment projects, as well as more typical new residential housing projects).
Consequently, the Towns Density Bonus Ordinance must be rewritten.
4. Wireless Facilities Ordinance
The wireless telecommunications industry is expanding as citizens' demand more bandwidth
for the data they consume. The Federal and State governments are passing laws to help facilitate
expansion of wireless infrastructure. Companies such as Mobilite, Crown Castle and Zayo are
wirel~ss infrastructure providers, which build large and small cell facilities to provide wireless
connectivity to carriers such as Verizon, Sprint, etc. These infrastructure companies are
approaching the Town of Los Gatos, as well as all other municipalities in the area, to expand
their infrastructure for the purpose of providing cellular connectivity currently as well as to begin
to contemplate the advent of 5G coverage, which requires different equipment than 4G.
The Town 's current Wireless Facilities Ordinance was adopted in 2003 to conform to the
1996 Telecommunications Act and i s now outdated based on the ongoing changes to State and
Federal legislation and leaves the Town unprepared for the scale of expansion that is on the
hori zon. Our current Ordinance only deals with the collocation of wireless facilities on existing
utility poles . The above referenced wireless facility companies are now proposing installations in
the public right of way. Such installations could be on existing Town-owned structures, such as
street light poles, or could involve the companies putting in their own new poles . The Town
needs to update its wireless telecommunications ordinance to address the current status of
Federal and State law as well as to reflect best practices in siting and design standards to
preserve the aesthetics of the Town but to also facilitate providing competitive, varied and high
quality wireless communications service infrastructure.
5. Medical Marijuana Ordinance
In 2011, the Town adopted an ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries,
cultivation, and d elivery services. In November 2016, the voters passed Proposition 64, the
Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act ("A UMA"). The A UMA immediately
legalized the possession, transport , purchase, use, and transfer of recreational marijuana for
individuals 21 years of age or older. Other provisions , including State issued licen se s for large
Page 2of6
scale cultivation, manufacturing, delivery and retail business, will be issued beginning January of
2018. Proposition 64 allows local governments to ban all marijuana-related businesses outright,
including marijuana dispensaries, delivery services, and any recreational marijuana retail
services and outdoor cultivation of marijuana, unless the California Attorney General determines
marijuana is no longer illegal under Federal law (if marijuana is federaJly legalized, outdoor
cultivation could be regulated, but not prohibited) and to reasonably regulate indoor cultivation
in private residences, but not ban it outright.
It is recommended that the Town Council needs to consider an Ordinance that amends the
Town 's Municipal Code to recognize the new State pre-emption allowing individuals to have six
living marijuana plants and any marijuana produced by those plants in their homes. The
Ordinance also must modify language in the Town Code to update the ban to non-medical
cultivation, delivery, distribution and retail, and other provisions of AUMA.
6. Update of the General Plan Safety Element
In order to address fire protection and prevention, Senate Bill 1241 (SB 1241) mandates that
the Town's Safety Element be reviewed and updated as necessary to address the risk of fire for
State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) and very high fire hazard severity zones including review of
fire hazard severity zone maps. In general, SB 1241 requires that the Town's Safety Element
minimize fire risks and provide guidance on local decision-making to achieve this goal.
7. Hillside Fence Ordinance
Amend the requirements for fences in the hillside areas to make certain that fences do not
interfere with wildlife corridors and those fences do not impede the movement of wildlife. The
amendment would define an "open fence" as one that permits all animals, depending on their
size, to either climb under, pass through, or jump over any fence on the property, including side
and back yards , and not just a front yard fence and specify that chicken wire, wire mesh, chain
links, etc., over an open slat fence, is not considered animal-movement friendly. Clarify that the
fence requirements applies to all hillside fences , not just to a fence associated with an A&S
application.
7. Animal Ordinance
The Town 's Animal Control Ordinance was adopted in 1971 and is very limited compared to
other municipalities. As a result, the Town's ordinance provides very little assistance in
enforcing animal issues. For example, the definitions of a dangerous or potentially dangerous
dog do not align with the definitions under State law and there is only an administrative
procedure related to a post-seizure hearing. Therefore, in order to declare a dog potentially
dangerous or dangerous in the absence of it being impounded , the Town's only recourse is to file
a court action. The Town's Animal Control Ordinance also does not address barking dogs.
Although our Noise Ordinance addresses barking dogs , the Animal Control Ordinance should be
amended to reflect and address this issue . Furthermore, the Town 's Animal Co ntrol Ordinance
also does not address the feeding of feral or wild animals on private property. This can be a
health and safety issue as it draws nuisance animals to the property and impact s nei ghbors. The
Page 3of6
Animal Control Ordinance should be amended to reflect and address this issue. The Town's
Animal Control Ordinance also needs to be updated regarding bee keeping and livestock
keeping, to reflect current issues that have been brought to the Town 's attention by affected
residents.
8. Appeal Process Ordinance
Based upon the number of recent appeals, the Planning Commission and Town Council
should review and analyze and potentially amend the appeals process. The Code changes could
implement administrative processes and procedures that clarify who may file, the issues to be
determined by Council on appeal, and the issues to be determined by Planning Commission if
remanded back to the Planning Commission.
9. Short Term Rental Ordinance
The Town currently does not have any regulations for short term vacation rental properties.
Since the Town does not have any regulations , it has prohibited the rental of property for less
than 30 days. The Town needs to study and analyze the impacts of short term vacation rentals on
residential neighborhoods, the overall cost and availability of housing in the Town, and the
revenue that could generated by short term vacation rentals. After studying the issue and
receiving input from the public, the Council would determine whether to allow or prohibit short
term vacation rentals . If allowed, staff would draft regulations that define Vacation Rentals as
distinct from other rental types , make clear where Vacation Rentals may be allowed, limit the
number of Vacation Rentals in neighborhoods where they may be allowed , establish
application/licensing requirements and operating standards for Vacation Rentals, and define and
establish operating standards for Home Stays in all residential districts. If they are to be
prohibited, then language should be adopted into the Town Code specifically prohibiting short
term vacation rentals. This was one of the revenue generating ideas that received at least three
votes of the Town Council in 2015.
10. Public Nuisance Ordinance/Administrative Abatement Hearing
The Town does not have a comprehensive Public Nuisance Ordinance related to the
identification, definition, and enforcement of nuisances. Such an Ordinance would make
identification of violations easier for residents and businesses to understand and thereby comply
with, as well as to assist the Town in enforcing the Code and providing due process . The
Nuisance Ordinance would provide a just, equitable, and practicable method for preventing,
discouraging, and/or abating certain conditions which endanger the life, limb, health, property,
safety, or welfare of the general public. Currently, the Administrative Abatement of Violations
of our Town Code is antiquated and needs to be updated to allow for the enforcement of Code
violations through administrative hearings effectively applied and administered in a fair,
expedient, and cost-efficient manner.
Page 4of6
11. Claims/Settlement Authority Ordinance
The Town 's current claims ordinance has not been updated since 2003. With the passage of
time, certain provisions have become outdated and other provisions have not historically been
followed. This proposed update would conform the Ordinance to current practice, and update
current settlement limits to allow for more expeditious settlement of claims and disposition of
workers compensation claims.
12. Weed Abatement Ordinance
The Town's Weed Abatement Ordinance was adopted in 1968 and establishes a program and
procedure to maintain weeds in an effort to eliminate hazardous conditions. The Town should
update the Ordinance to expand the definition of weeds to include other dead vegetation, fallen
limbs , and combustible trash on this parcel and add additional language to clarify and strengthen
the Town 's weed abatement program. Additionally, ordinance amendments would assist property
owners to understand their responsibilities in property maintenance.
13. Special Event Permits Ordinance
The Town's Special Event Permits Ordinance was adopted in 1992 and needs to be revised to
streamline the process and provide the authority to approve such events within the Town
Managers discretion as opposed to the Police Chief.
14. Drone Ordinance
The Town does not have a Drone Ordinance. The issue of drones and Radio Controlled (RC)
aircraft, otherwise referred to as unma1U1ed aerial systems {UAS) i s a growing concern for towns
and cities with multiple incidents of interference with firefighting, other aircraft , and accidents.
Towns/cities are attempting to address the dramatic increase in recreational UAS with various
types of regulations and are beginning to enact regulations that supplement and/or codify federal
law. The major challenge in drafting these ordinances is the federal pre-emption of this issue but
a drone ordinance could regulate the following issues for the Town: 1) Protection of persons and
property in the jurisdiction; 2) Aviation safety, including a specific prohibition against careless
and reckless operations that endanger life or property; 3) Designated take-off and landing zones
for UAS within the Town limits; 4) Identification of critical infrastructure within the Town
limits, or immediately adjacent to its boundaries, with appropriate rules for operation of UAS in
proximity to that infrastructure; and 5) Permissible hours of operation.
15. Noise Ordinance
The Town 's Noise Ordinance was adopted in 1991. With the changes to the Town 's
Entertainment Policy, the Town needs to analyze and determine whether the noise levels set
forth in the Noise Ordinance adequately protect the residents of Los Gato s from u1U1eces sary,
excessive, and disturbing noise and vibration.
Page 5of6
16 . Motor Vehicle and Traffic Ordinance
In the course of defending a traffic ticket appeal, it was revealed that there are some necessary
changes to Motor Vehicles and Traffic section of the Code, Chapter 15. Specifically, Chapter 15
was adopted in 1968 and requires the Chief of Police to approve any street sign before obedience
to same can be required . This section controverts the common sense requirement that street sign
approval is the province of the Town Engineer; however it gives credence to challenges by
litigious individuals. The rest of this Code section would also be reviewed for other needed
changes.
9l.WS
Page 6of6
Draft Amendments to Chapter 29 of Town Code -Hillside Fences
**Note: Underlined text is new language.
Sec. 29.40.030. Fences, walls, gates, gateways, entry arbors, and hedges.
Sec. 29.40.030xx. -Purpose and intent.
VISION STATEMENT : The overriding goal of this ordinance is that fences farther than 30 feet from
hillside primary dwelling units. shall be animal friendly by not interfering with an imal movement. The
proper use of fences in hillside areas can help us live in harmony with native wildlife . On the other
hand. fencing in hillside areas ofTown is very different, in both intent and environmental
considerations, then fencing in the Town 's other residential areas . For this reason, the Fence Ordinance
is divided into 2 parts: non-hillsides and hillside areas . Fencing in the hillsides can help keep wildlife
away from building envelopes and off the roads . Proper fencing can provide safe and efficient crossing
to wilderness areas that serve as more appropriate food and water sources. For the Los Gatos hillsides,
providing connectivity helps create sustainable habitat for wildlife .
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 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 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 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 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 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.
Page 1of5
EXHIBIT 3
Draft Amendments to Chapter 29 of Town Code -Hills ide Fences
Traffic view area means that area, on corner lots, wh ich 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-friendlv 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.
Sec . 29.40.030xx. -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
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) 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. Documen t ed instances of wildlife grazing on
gardens or ornamental land scaping 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: May be up to eight (8) feet high, including within Historic
Districts or for properties with a Landmark and Historic Preservat ion 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 upo n 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 w ire or razor ribbon wire is prohibited in all zones .
Page 2 of 5
Draft Amendments to Chapter 29 ofTown Code -Hillside Fences
Sec. 29 .40.030xx. -Hillside lots: Proposed new fences, walls, 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, 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 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):
(1) Approvals: Minor Residential Development approval is required pursuant to Section
29 .20.480(2)(h). The permit shall 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 constructed 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):
(1) Approvals: Minor Residential Development approval is required pursuant to Section
29.20.480(2)(h). The permit 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, shall be governed by this section.
(3) 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.
(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 inche s.
(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
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. Barbed or razor wire fences, including any fence with attached barbs, sharp points,
or razors .
(7) Fen ce design .
a. Fences shall be of an open-view design that does not detract from the scenic nature
or character of the surrounding area.
Page 3 of 5
Draft Amendments to Chapter 29 of Town Code -Hillside Fences
b. Traditional split-rail fences are encouraged. Rural styles shall 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 shall include a minimum 12-inch spacing between rails wherever
feasible.
e. Hedge plant species shall consist of those listed in Appendix A of the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines.
f . The spacing of vertical fence posts shall be at least 10 feet apart, unless physically
impossible due to terrain or other conditions.
(8) Fence, wall, 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.
c. 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 shall be prohibited if the
Town Engineer determines that a public safety hazard exists .
(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 percent of total fence, wall, or hedge length,
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) Fences needed for livestock control do not have to be of wildlife-friendly design even if
farther than 30 feet from the primary dwelling unit.
Page 4 of 5
Draft Amendments to Chapter 29 of Town Code -Hillside Fence s
(4) 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.
{F) Fees . The fee, as adopted by Town Resolution for Minor Residential development, prescrib ed
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.
(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 Covenant s, Conditions. and Re strictions {CC&Rs) of a
hillside Planned Development (PD) and this document, the requirements of this document shall
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, §I, 6-21 -99 ; Ord . No. XXXX, §)
Page 5 of 5
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
.;
"'. :r:
:i::l -o-i
~
Elem e nt
Land Use
Land Use
Community Design
community Design
Community Design
Community Design
community Design
Community Design
Community Design
Community Design
Community Design
Community Design
Community Design
Opens Space, Park, and
Recreation
Page Th em e
LU-21 Wildlife Habitats
Conservation of
Natural
LU-19 Environment
CD·S Fencing
CD-23 fencing
CD-23 W ildlife Habitats
CD-23 Wildlife Habitats
CD-28 Wildlife Habitats
CD-6 Wildlife Habitats
CD -8 Wildlife Habitats
CD-21 W ildlife Habitats
CD-22 Wildlife Habitats
CD-22 Wildlife Habitats
CD-22 Wildlife Habitats
W ildlife Habitats/
Migratk>n
OSP·ll Corridors
General Plan Po licies and Actions Pertaining to Fences, W ildlife Habitats, and Migration Corridors
Under Goal Title Text
To preserve existing t rees, natural vegetation, natural topography, riparian corridors and w ildlife habitats, and promote high quality, well-designed , environmentally
Policy LU·l.3 sensitive, and divers e landscaping In new and existing developments.
Hillside Specific Plan The Hillside Specific Plan establishes land use policy for the Hillside Study A re a, an area of mountainous terrain in the southeastern portion o f
the Town designated for Hillside Residential development. Adopted by Town Council in 1978, the Specific Plan establishes a series of policies and standards related
Hillside Specific to la nd use, facili ties, services, circulatk>n, fire protection, safety, and open space. These! policits and standards are Intended to prevent deficienci es in access to
Plan water and sewer services, ensurl! conservation of the sensitive natural environmeont, and addrtss differences In Town and county land use regulations.
Goal CD-3: To require utilities, landscaping
and streetscapes to contribute to Los Gatos's
high-quality character. Policy CD-3.8 Solid fenci ng over 3 feet high sha ll be designed such that it does not isolate the structures from the street, or shall be set back and landscaped.
Goal CD-lS To preserve the natural
topography and ecosystems within the hillside
area by regulating grad ing, landscapi ng, and
lighting. Policy CD·lS.6 Fences sha ll be of open design unless r equired for privacy. A minimal amount of land shall be enclosed by fences over five feet high.
Hillside landscaping shall be designed w ith the following goals In mind:
Goal CD-lS To preserve the natural a. Minimizing formal landscaping and h ardscape.
topography and ecosystems within the hillside b. Siting formal landscaping and hardscape close to the house .
area by regulating grading, landscaping, and c. Following the natural topography .
lighting. Policy CD·lS.4 d . Preserving native trees, native plant and w ildlife habitats. and migration corridors.
Goal CD-lS To preserve the natural
topography and ecosystems w ithin the hillside
area by regulating grading, landscaping, and
lighting. Policy CD-lS.S Review all development propos als to ensure appropriate grading and landscaping and m i nimal disru ption of existing native p lants and wildlife habitat.
Adopt guidelines for development review that protect:
Goal C0-17 To conduct careful review of new a. Rare plants and w ildlif e and their habitat s.
projects and provide clear directk>n to b . Natural watersheds.
property owners, neighbors, and potential c. Historic sites.
developers. Action CD-17.6 d . Aesthetica lly significant sites.
Goal CD-4 To preserve existing trees, natural
vegetation, natural topography, riparian
corridors and wlldllfe habitats, and promote
high quality, well designed, environmentally
sensitive, and d iverse landscaping in new and Preserve the Town's distinctive and unique e nvi ronment by preservi ng and maintaining the natural topography, w ildlife, and native veget at ion, and by m it igating
existing developments. Policy CD-4.1 and reversing t he harmful effects of traffic congestion, pollution, and e nvironmental dl!gradation on t he Town's urban landscape.
Goal CD-6 To promote and protect the New homes shall b e sited to maxi mize privacy, livability, p rotection of natural plant and wildlife habitats and m ig ration corridors. a nd adequate solar access and
physical and othl!r distinctive qualities of wind cond itions. Siting should take advantage of scenic v iews but should not create significant ecological or vis ual Impacts affecting open spaces, public places, or
residential neighborhoods. Policy CD-6.4 other properties.
Goal CD-14 To preserve the natural beauty
and ecologkal integrity of the Santa Cruz
Mountains and surrounding hillsides by
regulating new homes. Policy CD-14 .1 Minimize development and preserve and e nhance the rural atmosphere and natural plant and w ildlife habitats in the h illsides.
Goal CD-14 To preserve the natural beauty
and ecological integrity of the 5anta Cruz
Mountains and surrounding hillsides by Staff shall requ ire adequate environmental ana lysis for proj ects In the h illside area to e nsure app rop riate conslderatlon of potential e nvironmental impacts
regulating new homes. Policy CD-14.5 associated with projects.
Goal CD-14 To preserve the natural beauty
and ecological Integrity of the 5anta Cruz
Mountains and surrounding hillsides by Preserve and pro tect the natural state of the Santa Cruz M ountains and surrounding hillsides by discouraging ina ppropriate development on and nea r the hillstdes
regulating new homes. Policy CD-14 .6 that significantly impacts viewsheds.
Goal CD-15 To preserve the n atural
topography and ecosys tems within the hillside
area by regulati ng grading, landscaping, and
lighting.
Goal OSP-2 To preserve open space in hillside Preserve the natural open space character of hillside lands, i ncl uding natura l topography, natural vegetation, w ildlife habitats and m igration corridors, and
areas as natural open space. Polley OSP-2.1 vicwsheds.
Page 1of2 EXH1B1r 4
General Plan Policies and Actions Pertaining to Fences, Wildlife Habitats, and Migration Corridors
Wildlife Habitats/
Opens Space, Park, and Migration Goal OSP·2 To preserve open space in hillside
Recreation OSP-11 Corridors an!as as natural open space. Policy OSP-2.4 Adjacent parcels In the hillsides shall provid e an uninterrupted band of useable segments for wildlife corridors and recreational use, If applicable.
Wildlife Habitats/ Goal OSP~6 To consider the provision of open
Opens Space, Park, and Migration space In all development decisions w ithin the
Recreation OSP·16 Corridors Town. Policy OSP-6.3 Consider effects on watershed areas, plant and wildlife habitats, and migration corridors before allowing development of any open space.
Environment and
Sustainability ENV·13 Wildlife Habitats Goal ENV-4 To conserve wildlife populations. Policy ENV-4.1 Public and private projects shall not significantly deplete, damage or alter existing wildlife habitat or populations.
Wildlife Habitats/
Environment and Migration
Su staina bility ENV·13 corridors Goal ENV-4 To conserve wildlife populations. Policy ENV-4.3 Maintain open space and native plant communities that provide habitat and migration corridors for n ative w ildlife species.
Wildlife Habitats/
Environment and Migration Ide ntify and protect areas with significant habitat diversity or importance for wildlife, such as ripari an corridors, wildlife movement corridors and large tracts of
Susta ina bility ENV-13 Corridors Goal ENV-4 To conserve wildlife populations. Policy ENV-4.4 undeveloped land.
Wildlife Habitats/
Environment and M igration Town staff shall review site plans to ensure that exist ing significa nt w ildlife habitats and m igration corridors are not adversely affected by either indivtdual or
susta inability EN V-14 Corridors Goal ENV-4 To conserve wild life populat ion s. Policy EN V-4.11 • cu mulative develo pment impacts.
W ildlife Habitats/
Environment and Migrat ion
Sustainability ENV-14 Corridors Goal ENV.-4 To conserve wildlife populations. Act ion ENV-4.1 Develop a Migration Corridor Plan for hillside areas in Los Gatos.
Page 2 of 2
Hillside Development Standards and Gui delines Pertai ning to Fences, Wildlife Habi tats, and M igration Corri dors
Chapter Section . ' Title Desalption
•The objective of the following stand ards and guidelines is to limit six·foot high fences and walls and deer fencing to those areas w here they are absolutely necessary. It is recognized that fencing around limited landscaped ar,as is
sometimes necessary for security and to provide yard areas for and to protect children and pets. However, the cumulative impact of six·foot high chain link fences and solid fences and walls surrounding hillside propert ies has a significant
Impact on the movement pattern of w ildlife and on the open rural character of the hillsides.
Pie: Rural character allows wildlife to pass through.
Stan dards:
1. The use of fences and walls shall be minimized and located so that natural landforms appear to flow together and are not disconnected. The primary emph asis shall be on maintaining open views, protecting wlld life.corridors , and
maintaining the rura l, open, and natural character of the hillsides .
2. Fences and walls shall not exceed a height of six feet measured from the highest side of the fence or wa ll a nd should be limited to those areas where fences and wa lls of this height are necessary for protection of ornamental land scap ing,
security, or play areas .
3. Solid fencing materials shall not be used unless needed for privacy .
4. Deer fencing up to a maximum height of eight feet shall be limited to areas around ornamental landscaping. l arger areas shall not be enclosed unless specific reasons for keeping deer out have been demonst rated to the satisfaction of
the decision making body.
S. Fences shall not be allowed in areas that would Impede the movement of wildlife as determined by the decision making body.
6. Temporary construction fencing shall be limited to the building envelope or shall be elevated to a llow for movement of small anima ls.
Guldeflnes:
1. Wood "9il·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 wood frame. Dark, pa inted 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.
6 .A Site Elements Fences and Walls S. Fences should follow the topography.
Standards:
1. Entryways shall be designed to blend w ith the natural environment and to maintain the rural character of the hillsides .
2. Entry gates shall be set back from t he edge of the adjacent street a minimum of 25 feet. A greater setback may be req uired whe n a gated entrance seNes more than one house.
3. lighting fixtures at entryways shall d irect light downwards and shall be designed so that no part of the light source is visible from t he street.
4. The property address shall be clearly displayed so that it Is visible from the street at each driveway.
5. Entry gates equipped with locking devices or electronk control switches shall be approved by th e Santa Clara County Fire Department.
Gulde fines:
1 . Entryway gates and fencing should be of an open design.
6 .B Site Elements Driveway Entries 2. Entry gates that are monumental are strongly d iscouraged.
Standards:
1. Retaining wall s sha ll not be used to create large, flat yard areas. The limited use of retaining walls may be allowed wtien It ca n be demonstrated that their use will substantially redu ce the am ount of grading.
2. Retaining walls that are visi ble from a public street shall have a veneer of natural stone, stained conc rete, or textured surface to help blend the wall with the natural hills ide environment and to p ro mo te a rural character.
Guidelines:
1. Retain ing walls should not be higher than five feet. Where an additional retained portio n is necessary due to unusual or extreme conditions (e.g., lot configuration, steep slope. or road design), the use of multiple-terraced, lower
reta ining structures Is preferred.
2. Terra ced retaining walls should be separated by at least three feet and include appropriate landscaping.
3. Retaining and planter walls should be provided wit h a landscaped setback or buffer of at least five feet adjace nt to the street.
4. Retaining walls should blend with the na t ural topography. foUow ex isting contours, and be curvilinear to the greatest extent possible. Retain ing wa lls should not run In a straight continuous directton for more t hin SO feet without a
bre•k, offset, or plant ing pocket to break up the long flat horizontal surface.
S. l andscaping should be provided adjacent to retaining wa lls and should include a combination of native trees and shrubs to screen t he wa ll.
6.C Site Elements Retain ing Walls 6. Reta ining walls shou ld be con structed of permanent materials {stone, concre te, masonry block/brick) ra the r t ha n wood.
i
C1l
fDRra.rr 5
Page 1of 1
TOWN OF Los GATOS
H ILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELI NES
VI. SITE ELEMENTS
A. Fences and walls.
The objective of the following standards and guidelines is to limit six-foot high fences and
walls and deer fencing to those areas where they are absolutely necessary. It is recognized
that fencing around limited landscaped areas is sometimes necessary for security and to
provide yard areas for and to protect children and pets. However, the cumulative impact of
si x-foot high chain link fences and solid fences and walls surrounding hillside properties has
a significant impact on the movement pattern of wildlife and on the open rural character of
the hillsides.
Rural character allows wildlife to pass through.
Do this
Standards:
Urban character
Don't do this
1. The use of fences and walls 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 hill si des.
2. Fences and walls shall not exceed a height of si x feet measured from the highest side of
the fence or wall and should be limited to those areas where fences and walls of this
height are nece ssa ry for protection of ornamental landscaping, security, or play areas .
3. Solid fencing mate rials shall not be used unless needed for privacy.
Page 42
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 enclosed unless specific reasons for
keeping deer out have been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the decision making
body.
5. Fences shall not be allowed in areas that would impede the movement of wildlife as
determined by the decision making body.
6. Temporary construction fencing shall be limited to the building envelope or shall be
elevated to allow for movement of small animals.
Guidelines:
1. Wood rail-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 wood 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. Fences should follow the topography.
B. Driveway entries.
Standards:
1. Entryways shall be 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 setback may be required when a gated entrance serves more than one house.
3. Lighting fixtures at entryways shall direct light downwards and shall be designed so that
no part of the light source is visible from the street.
Page 43
TOWN OF Los GATOS
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
Wood fences and gates are encouraged
Do this
Monumental entry gates are strongly discouraged
Don't do this
4. The property address shall be clearly displayed so that it is visible from the street at
each driveway.
5. Entry gates equipped with locking devices or electronic control switches shall be
approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department.
Guidelines:
1. Entryway gates and fencing should be of an open design.
2. Entry gates that are monumental are strongly discouraged .
Page 44
TOWN OF Los GATOS
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND G UID EL INES
C. Retaining walls.
Standards:
1. Retaining walls shall not be used to create large, flat yard areas . The limited use of
retaining walls may be allowed when it can be demonstrated that their use will
substantially reduce the amount of grading .
2. Retaining walls that are visible from a public street shall have a veneer of natural stone,
stained concrete, or textured surface to help blend the wall with the natur9I hillside
environment and to promote a rural character.
Retaining walls blend with the natural topography
Guidelines:
1. Retaining walls should not be higher than five feet. Where an additional retained
portion is necessary due to unusual or extreme conditions (e.g ., lot configuration, steep
slope, or road design), the use of multiple-terraced, lower retaining structures is
preferred .
2. Terraced retaining walls should be separated by at least three feet and include
appropriate landscaping .
3. Retaining and planter walls should be provided with a landscaped setback or buffer of at
least five feet adjacent to the street.
Page 45
TOWN OF Los GATOS
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
Driveway
Don't do this
-... ....
Driveway
Do this
4. Retaining walls should blend with the natural topography, follow existing contours, and
be curvilinear to the greatest extent possible. Retaining walls should not run in a
straight continuous direction for more than 50 feet without a break, offset, or planting
pocket to break up the long flat horizontal surface.
5. Landscaping should be provided adjacent to retaining walls and should include a
combination of native trees and shrubs to screen the wall.
Landscaping used to screen and soften tall retaining wall
Page 46
TOWN OF Los GATOS
HIL LSIDE DEVELOPMENT ST AN DAROS AND GUI DELJNES
4. Retaining walls should be constructed of permanent materials (stone, concrete, masonry
block/brick) rather than wood .
Retaining walls maintain rural character Retaining walls maintain rural character
D . Outdoor lighting.
Standards:
1. Outdoor lighting shall comply with the Town of Los Gatos Zoning
Ordinance.
2. Lighting shall be the minimum needed for pedestrian safety, and shall be
Refer to the
Town 's
Zoning
Ordinance
low level, directed downward, and shielded so that no bulb is visible and no light or
glare encroaches onto neighboring properties.
4. Unshaded or nonrecessed spotlights are prohibited.
5. Lighting for purely decorative purposes is
prohibited. Up-lighting of trees, lighting of
facades and architectural features is prohibited.
6. Lighting for night use of outdoor game courts
(e .g., tennis, paddle tennis, basketball, etc.) is
prohibited.
Inappropriate
lighting fixture
Page 47
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
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
1
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Sean,
Pam Bond <pamabond@gmail.com>
Monday, July 10, 2017 3:32 PM
Sean Mullin
Re: THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS IS 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 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 11 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 . Much easier to
just hope over and rob a place, I'd imagine.
We still get bobcats and foxes and smaller animals with our metal 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 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.
Thanks,
Pamela Bond
17140 Mill Rise Way
Los Gatos, CA 95030
650-793-3844 cell
1
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 11 :24 AM, 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. I can't
tel1 from the document what is new or changed. It is a lot of text for people to read without knowing what has
changed. 1 would be interested to be involved in submitting my input for such things.
Thanks
Pa1n Bond
650-793-3844 cell
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hello 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 professionals and for the opportunity to provide feedback. l've
attached a letter below with some comments and suggestions. Feel free to call me with any questions.
Thank you,
Chris
Christophe r Kankel
Kikuchi + Kankel Design Group
Landscape Architecture
Site Planning
Environmental Design
www.kkdesigngroup.com
( 408) 356-5980
July 18, 2017
Sean Mullin
Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
RE: Proposed changes to Los Gatos fencing ordinance
Dear Sean,
Kil~uchi + Konl~el
Design Group
Landscape Archi recrure
Env1ronmenrol Design
Sue Pl anning
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback regarding the proposed changes to the Town of Lo s Gatos fencing ordinance . I have reviewed
the proposed or dinance from the perspective of both a resident and a landscape architect and have seve ral t hought s to share . 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 cl ients and
fellow residents. Developing a fencing ordinance that accommodates both the wildlife and residents is a delicate balancing act. My comments
listed below perta in solely to the proposed language regarding Hillside Fen cing:
1. The proposed language effectively prevents corrals or any other type of fe ncing to contain or protect domestic animals when located mo re
than 30' from the main residence .
2. Th e proposed language effectively prevents vegetable gardens more than 30' from the main residence .
3. The proposed language effectively prevent s a secure automobile gate near the road .
4. The proposed language greatly inhibits flexib ili ty in the installation of security fencing . Per the code, a security fence of sorts may be
allowed within 30 feet of the house, but it will effectively create an arbitrary island of development within a larger property.
As a designer, I would suggest consider an ordinance that allows for a given pe rcentage of a site area to be contained by six foot high secu re
fen cing (for instance, one-third of the gross property size or a minimum of x square feet). Thi s would allow 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 prope rty is vastly diffe rent in
character and limiting the' six fo ot high fencing to 30 fe et proximate to the main res idence is arbitrarily limiting usable space in many cases .
Again , thank you fo r the opportunity to offer my opinion on the matter.
Regards,
Christopher Kankel
Kikuchi + Ka nkel Design Gro up
61 E Mo1n S1ree 1, Su11e C
Los. Go1os. CA 95000
(4081 0565980
Sreven T Kil~uch1 , ASLA, Pnnopol
Chr1s1opher t<.onl~el . ASLA, Pri nc ipal
Warren Oornes, Assoc1ore
Thomas Conroy, Assooore
flot:lEn J D1e12 , ASLA, ISA, Assoc101e
RECEIVED
JUL 18 Z017
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PL.ANNING DIVISION
700 Mill S1ree1 . Half Moon [)oy CA
(650) 726·7100
www l~l~des1gngroup com
-----Original Message-----
From : Donnelly, Peter [mailto:Peter.Donnelly@dell.com]
Sent : Tuesday, July 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 unfortunately
going to be out of town next week and will not be able to attend the public hearing. That said I d id want to share a few
comments for consideration as you work through the final language . Wh i le I am in general agreement with what i s
being proposed (we love to see the wildlife wandering across our property everyday) I do think there are a fe w practical
considerations that need to be considered in the language as currently drafted.
-I believe 30' as a hard and fast rule is too restrictive. I think the Town should consider a longer distance of say 50' 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 ca rr be demonstrated that a minimum X' (say 50' 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 such as pools, patios, BBQ areas are incorporated into a home design the 30 '
(or what ever is finalized) should be measured from those items and not simply the primary dwelling unit. In certain
cases these structures may already be > 30' from the primary dwelling 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
110 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 will 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 repair 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
l ess 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, i s a violation of this Code .
If no permit is required for repair as described in (D), then what approval is re quired in (G)?
C la rification would be helpful.
Sincerely,
~H:t7&7 8~, 7?1D
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, 2017 5:55 PM
To: Donnelly, Peter <peter.donnelly@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 proposal since yesterday, but there still
are some things that I believe should be added. I would like to run this by you before I submit
this to the town. Could you please take a look? I '(Vonder if it would be better if you sent the
comments to the town instead of me since they know you so well?
1. I think it is important to list more specific examples of "similar structures" in
Exceptions sections, E (1 ). The list clearly states pools and sport courts, but it is unclear what
else might fall under "similar structures". The BBQ , picnic areas and play grounds 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 .mercurynews .com/2014/02/19/stanford-study-find s-lym e-d isease-w id es pread-in-
bay-area-open-spaces/
Chronic Lyme disease can drastically shorten the life span
http://www .s heamedical.co m/th e-o verl ooked%E2 %8 0 %93and-
deadly%E2 %80%93complications-of-lyme-disease-and-i ts -coinfections
2. I think that the height of the hedges should not be restricted to 5' if the y 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 , thi s gate is on easement and is maintained by whole 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 fall under the proposed restrictions height-wise. It is probabl y ok right now since it
ha s 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 rebuild or
replace it.
Thank you,
Tanya
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Mr. Mullin,
Tanya Kurland <t s@vk gmail.croco dile.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 hillside properties (as it
intended in a proposa l 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, ca ll ed Borrelia miyamotoi , in
open spaces in Santa Mateo and Santa C lara counties. The study, which was conducted by dragging white
flannel blankets through 12 Bay Area recreationa l areas , found ticks with the new pathogen, but a lso ticks
carrying Borrelia burgdorferi , the entity known for decades to cau s e Lyme disease.
http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Lyrne-disease-more-common-in-Bay-Area-than-5267 529 . php
Borrelia miyamotoi is a species of spiral-shaped bacteria that is closely related to the bacteria that cause tick-
bome relapsing 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, MD about Borrelia
miyamotoi , where authors wrote: "Patients presented with acute headache, fever, and chills ... Patients were
commonly described as appearing 'toxic'; more than 50% were suspected of having sepsis, and 24% required
ho spitali zation. The headaches were most commonly described as severe, resulting in head computed
tomography scan s and spinal taps in 5 patients."
http ://www.medscape.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.
http://www.sheamed ical .com/the-overlooked%E2%80%93and-deadly%E2%80%93complications-of-lyme-
d isease-and -i ts-co infections
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 corridors 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
1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank