Loading...
Item 4 - Exhibit 12 - Public Comments received by 11 am, March 8, 2019EXHIBIT 12 statement on page 6 that the HDS&G apply to ANY development in the hillside area. This fence revision is, thus, simply an effort to codify the Vision Statement by letting the Town Council, and not staff, decide what the fence ordinance should address. Staff has decided that under current Town policy, new hillside fences on properties that already have a house, or an approved A&S, can be 6 feet tall, can be built on the property line, can cross animal movement corridors, can be made of almost any material, and do not have to be animal friendly. So why would any A&S application include plans for a fence when the property owner only has to wait for A&S approval and then they can build any type of fence anywhere that they want? Fence ordinance revision efforts over the last 2 years have been all over the place. The current draft is a poor excuse compared to earlier drafts and the Visions expressed in the HDS&G. This latest draft also doesn’t accurately reflect the decisions made at the December 20, 2018, Policy Committee meeting, and I ask that you revise this draft along the following lines: 1.Restore the emphasis that wildlife needs in the hillsides are very different from those in the flatlands. I think the ordinance should be split into 3 sections: Section 1 contains those provisions that pertain to both zones; Section 2 contains provisions that pertain to only the flatlands; and Section 3 contains those provisions that pertain to only the hillsides. As now presented, the reader has to search through the entire ordinance to see which lines apply to where they live. 2.While many passages and requirements in the draft, relating to fences and walls, were lifted directly from the HDS&G, the most important over-arching ‘Standards’ from the HDS&G (pages 42 and 43) were omitted, and should be added back into the Ordinance. Specifically, the 3 important stated Standards of (1) “The use of fences and walls shall be minimized…to those areas where they are absolutely necessary”; (2) “The primary emphasis shall be on maintaining open views, protecting wildlife corridors, and maintaining the rural, open, and natural character of the hillsides”; and (3) “Fences shall not be allowed in areas that would impede the movement of wildlife…” are not mentioned at all. 3. The Ordinance needs a Definitions Section for words or phrases used in the draft. For example, nowhere in the draft are “hillsides” defined. Similarly, what is an “open fence.” Also, the use of the term “animal friendly fence”, and its definition, was omitted from this draft despite the Policy Committee voting to include it (see Minutes from meeting of 12/20/2018). In fact, there in not one positive mention of “animal” or “animals” in this entire draft despite the major purpose of this revision being the needs and concerns for wildlife health. “Animal” and “wildlife” are mentioned only once, in the Exceptions Section, for problems. 4. Previous drafts limited perimeter, hillside fence heights to 42 inches and required such fences to be animal friendly. Fence heights of 6 feet were limited to those areas where extra protection from animals could be documented, or extra security for children and pets were needed. This dichotomy in fence heights is consistent with the HDS&G, which states that “…the cumulative impact of six-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.” I also don’t recall any Town body making a motion to change this number. Yet this draft now permits 6-foot-tall, non-animal friendly fences anywhere on a property despite the HDS&G clearly stating that “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.” 5. There is no reference, anywhere in this draft, to the most important areas for wildlife fences and walls – those areas along the rear (and sometimes side) property line. Under this draft, fencing in these areas can be at the property line, can be 6 feet tall, and does not have to be animal friendly because chain link fencing is still permitted. This is no different from the current Town policy. Plus, the HDS&G say that “wood rail-type fences and gates are preferred” but this language appears nowhere in the current draft despite the lack of previous objections during any hearing. 6.This latest draft prohibits new fences “below the top of bank of any stream.” “Stream” can have many definitions, which is why the more accurate term “riparian corridor” is defined, and used, in the HDS&G. But allowing the placement of fences at the edge of the top of bank could prevent animals from reaching the important water, and shade, contained in the bottom of such riparian corridors. Especially when there is no definition or requirement for animal friendly fences in such areas. Fences around riparian corridors should be animal friendly and set back 10-30 feet from the top of bank to allow animals good access to this necessary resource. Plus, riparian corridors are frequent movement corridors. Government biologists believe that riparian communities in the Western states, such as California, provide habitat for up to 80 percent of western wildlife species (reference here, on page 5: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/publications_forms/documents/bufferrepor t1204.pdf 7.Under this draft, hillsides fences using chicken wire, welded wire, wire mesh and similar fence materials are prohibited, which is appropriate. Chain link fencing is permitted, even though the HDS&G currently says that “chain link fences are strongly discouraged.” But Wikipedia says that a chain link fence can also be referred to as a wire mesh fence. In any case, all of these fence materials are not animal friendly and all should be equally prohibited. I suggest you do as the Town Attorney suggested at the 12/20/18 Policy Committee Meeting – prohibit all materials listed in the draft under (b) (1) and (b) (2), including chain link fencing, and then give exceptions and describe the appeal process. This sensible language should have been included in this latest draft. Otherwise, why do we even have our Town Attorney attending the Policy Committee meetings? There has been much discussion about how earlier drafts of this ordinance were too long and too detailed. I totally disagree. I think clarity in the law sometimes requires extra language to make intent clear and to address many possible situations. I am all for streamlining, but simple solutions are not always the best solutions. The number of complexities on every property are almost infinite. One could easily argue that all fences impede animal movement to some degree. Our efforts have been to provide a good balance between the animals and homeowner’s property rights. The alternative is the need for a confused public to continually approach the Community Development counter asking for interpretations and clarifications. If we want to make people’s lives easier, then placing specifics in this ordinance is easier than having them come to the Community Development counter for an explanation. Or, the alternative is just to ignore the whole Vision Statement for our hillsides. In which case, we should stop pretending that we care about the hillside wildlife and revise the HDS&G appropriately.