HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1ITEM 3.1
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS August 22, 2012
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL
CODE TITLE 10, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE 5, FENCES, WALLS, GATES
AND COLUMNS (FENCE ORDINANCE); FILE #94-11 -MISC
FROM: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner —LW7
APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director -,,R
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
Review the staff report and proposed Fence Ordinance amendments, take public
testimony, make recommendations and provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND
The City Council established an Ad hoc Fence Committee at their regular meeting on
April 21, 2011. The Committee was tasked to make recommendations on the Fence
Ordinance and to address problems with "walling off' and "griidding" of the Town,
property line disputes, and wildlife movement.
The six (6) member Ad hoc Committee consists of -
Council Member Gary Waldeck, Council Member John Radford, Nancy Couperus, Roger
Spreen, Denise Williams, and Eric Clow
The Ad hoc Committee held a kickoff meeting on May 13, 2011 and met regularly for the
past year sixteen months. As part of the review process, the Ad hoc Committee
considered:
The "Green Sheets" document that discusses the Town's founding principles
The existing LAH Fence Ordinance
Previous LAH Fence Ordinances
Fence Ordinances of nearby Cities
DISCUSSION
In November 2011, the Fence Committee used the LAH Online Survey Program to gauge
community interest and goals. The survey contained seven (7) questions and was taken
by 582 of 955 residents that have signed up for the LAH Survey Program. Complete
survey questions and results are in Attachment #2.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Fence Ordinance
August 22, 2012
Page 2 of 3
Based on the survey and discussion, the Committee has recommended the following key
changes to Fence Ordinance 10-1.507 that would apply to new and replacement fences:
Require 10' fence setbacks along interior property lines on lots 2 to 2.99 acres in
size.
4' Rail F— Ordy
6' re.w
W r-
10, 'Yr 12 (a 2.994c� 3or Ity
Require 20' fence setbacks along interior property lines on lots 3 acres and larger
in size.
,r F.0 F"m 00i
& f-- -U51=f-T-- I I I Ji Gf f�
-d la,gff I
NY 1 3W M
Allow 4' tall open rail fences on the interior property line or anywhere in the
fence setback area.
e No change to the current fence requirements for lots less than 2 acres in size.
The Committee believes that a fence setback of 20 feet best addresses the issues of
gridding and wildlife movement and has recommended a 20 foot setback for three (3)
acre and larger properties. A lesser setback of 10 feet is not deemed as effective for
wildlife movement but was a compromise to address the proportionality of smaller (two
(2) acre to less than three (3) acre) properties.
In addition to the setback standard amendments and minor text amendments to clarify the
Fence Ordinance, the following procedural changes have already been implemented:
Courtesy Notice to adjoining property owners when a fence is proposed within 10
feet of a property boundary — The Planning Department has been mailing
Courtesy Notices for several months. The feedback has been positive and
residents have noted their appreciation for the notification. Town staff has been
able to address questions and resolve issues prior to beginning of any work.
Notification to the Open Space Committee of all fence applications — This
provides an opportunity for the Open Space Committee to communicate with
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Fence Ordinance
August 22, 2012
Page 3 of 3
property owners about wildlife movement and fencing near Open Space
Easements, Conservation Easements, and creeks.
The complete draft Fence Ordinance with all proposed amendments is included in
Attachment 91.
Public Outreach
A Town wide postcard notice was sent via First Class mail to all property owners in
Town on August 10, 2012. An additional letter mailing was also sent via First Class mail
to all owners of properties two acres and larger on the same date.
Public Comment
Town staff has received inquiries and comments on the proposed Fence Ordinance
amendments. Please see Attachment #3 for all written comments received as of the
writing of this staff report.
Next Steps
The proposed Fence Ordinance will be scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning
Commission at a future date. The Planning Commission is advisory and will provide a
recommendation to the City Council. To adopt Ordinance amendments, the City Council
is required to hold a public hearing to introduce the item and a second public hearing to
adopt the item. Ordinance amendments become effective 30 days after adoption.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Amended Fence Ordinance (changes in strikes and red text)
2. Survey and Results
3. Public Comments (chronological order received)
Aftachment 1
Los Altos Hills Municipal Code
Title 10 -Zoning
Section 10- 1.507. Fences, Walls, Gates, and Columns.
a. Purpose. The following regulations were created to preserve the beauty and open rural
quality of the Town while acknowledging that residents have the right to fence their
properties in order to protect their children, contain their animals, and maintain privacy.
b. Permits required. No fence, wall, gate, or column structure shall be erected or replaced
without the prior issuance of a zoning or site development permit from the Town.
C. Definitions. The following definitions are established for the purpose of this Article and
the meaning and construction of words and phrases is as follows:
Legal Nonconforming Structure: Refer to Section 10-1.401(h) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Column: A round or square pillar, pole, or post flanking an entrance way constructed of such
materials as brick, stone, concrete, or other materials. Includes mailbox columns.
Centerline of Road Right-of-Wav: Center of road easement on parcel maps, not the center of the
physical (paved) roadway. Note that fence setback rules do not apply to shared driveways that do
not have road right-of-way easements
Wall: An upright structure of wood, stone, brick, or other substance or combination of
substances serving to enclose, divide, or support and usually having greater mass than a fence.
Fence: A structure serving as a barrier or screen constructed of wood, metal, wire, masonry,
glass, plastic or any other material (not including graded berms or living hedges).
Gate: . A movable frame or solid structure that swings, slides, or rolls controlling ingress and
egress through an opening in a fence, wall, or vegetation.
Qpen Fence or Gate: A fence or gate constructed in suc; ' h a way so that no more than fifty (50%)
percent of the surface area obstructs a ground level view through the fence or gate.
Solid Fence or Gate: A fence or gate constructed in such a way so that more than fifty (50%)
percent of the surface area obstructs a ground level view through the fence or gate.
Rail Fence or Gate- A fence or gate with no more than three horizontal wood members, each not
to exceed 6" in width or no more than four horizontal members, -each not to exceed 4.5" in width.
Posts shall not exceed 6"x 6" and shall be located no closer than five feet apart. Height shall not
exceed four (4) feet. The lowest horizontal member shall be a minimum of 12" above adjoining
grade.
Fences and Walls
Page 2
d. Prohibited fences, walls, gates, columns types. The following fences are prohibited:
1. Chain-link or cyclone fences, including any fence with bare lengths of wire
stretched between metal poles, with the exception of dark green, black, or brown
vinyl -coated chain-link fences with matching vinyl -coated cross bars and caps.
2. Barbed or razor wire fences, including any fence with attached barbs, sharp points,
or razors.
3. Electric fences, including any fence designed to produce an electric shock, except
where necessary for animal husbandry operations.
4. Any fence, wall, and/or gate that may cause harm to people, pets, and/or wildlife
due to points, spikes, or sharpened edges on the top or bottom part of the fence, wall
structure, and/or gates.
5. Any perimeter fence, wall, gate, or column where the color reflectivity value
exceeds 50%.
6. Any fence, wall, gate, or column located within a public or private road right-of-
way or pathway easement except for a mailbox column with an approved permit.
e. Fences, Walls, Gates, and Columns Requiring Public Notice. Permit requests for the types
of fences, walls, gates and columns identified below require notification of adjacent
neighbors and neighbors across the street:
(1) Fences, walls, gates and columns that require the removal of existing screening
vegetation (trees and shrubs).
(2) Solid fences that impact neighbor views as defined by Section 5-9.02 of the View
Ordinance.
(3) Any other proposal deemed appropriate by the Planning Director for a noticed
hearing. Such proposals may include solid fences, as well as walls or vinyl -coated
chain-link fences along any road right-of-way, and fences or walls longer than 1,000
linear feet.
Open fences using natural materials and colors, including unpainted or stained white, brown or
gray wood; welded or woven wire and wood posts; and natural stone and/or brick construction
are preferred and generally are not subject to public notice.
Staff shall notice a permit hearing and conduct the permit review hearing pursuant to Section 10-
2.1305(b) except that only adjacent neighbors and neighbors across the street need to be notified.
At or prior to the permit hearing, neighbors and the fence permit applicant shall be provided with
notice that the approval or denial of any permit may be appealed pursuant to Section 10- 1. 1109.
f, Development Standards for Fences, Walls, Gates, and Columns:
Fences and Walls
Page 3
2-. 1. Fences and walls located in setback areas that are adjacent to a road right-of-way
shall comply with the standards established in subsections (4) (3) through (9) (6).
Height may be proportionately increased I foot for every I 0 -foot increase in
setback, up to a maximum of 6 feet in height.
-3-. 2. Fences, walls, gates, and columns located behind setback lines are not subject to
these development standards.
I rZ Koh
Centedine of Road
Right of Way
39 1.
(4) (3) Open Fences
THigh
Centedine of Road
Right of Way
34Y
(5) (4) Solid Fences, Gates, and
Walls
(4) (3) OPEN FENCES AND GATES ALONG LOT
FRONTAGES
Minimum setback from centerline of adjacent
30'
public or private road right-of-way.
Maximum height of open fences and gates at the
4V2'
minimum setback from the centerline of adjacent
3
public or private road right-of-way.
Maximum height of open fences and gates at the
41/2'
minimum setback from the centerline of adjacent
public or private road right-of-way.
60'
public or private road right-of-way for'6' tall
Minimum setback from centerline of adjacent
45'
public or private road right-of-way for 6' tall
open fences and gates located between adjacent
public or private roadways and the structural
setback line for the particular property.
(5) (4) SOLID FENCES, GATES, AND WALLS
ALONG LOT FRONTAGES
Minimum setback from centerline of adjacent
30'
public or private road right-of-way.
Maximum height of solid fences, gates, and walls
3
at the minimum setback from the centerline of
adjacent public or private road right-of-way.
Minimum setback from centerline of adjacent
60'
public or private road right-of-way for'6' tall
solid fences, gates, and walls located between
adjacent public or private roadways and the
structural setback line for the particular property.
Fences and Walls
Page 4
7' Max Height
(6) (5) Open Driveway Gates
An additional 12 inches are allowed
fbr a right ff)dure. The total ma)dmum
height for the column & fight is! feet.
(-7) (6) Columns
ix height
7ag(
T tr.),
7 (5) OPEN DRIVEWAY GATES
Minimum setback from centerline of
30'
adjacent public or private road right-of-way.
way.
Maximum height of open driveway gates at
41/2'
the minimum setback from the centerline of
(average)
adjacent public or private road right-of-way.
7' (w/lights)
adjacent public or private road right-of-
Minimum setback from centerline of
adjacent public or private road right-of-way
45'
for open driveway gates with a 6' average
6'
height (7' maximum height) located
7' (w/lights)
between adjacent public or private roadways
and the structural setback line for the
particular property.
(7) (6) COLUMNS
Minimum setback from centerline of
30'
adjacent public or private road right-of-
way.
Maximum height of columns at the
6'
minimum setback from the centerline of
7' (w/lights)
adjacent public or private road right-of-
way.
Maximum height of columns located
6'
between adjacent public or private road
7' (w/lights)
right-of-way and the structural setback fine
for the particular property.
(7) Interior property boundary fence standards for lots 2.0 — less than 3.0 acres in size:
a. Fences, gates, and walls are not permitted within ten (10) feet of property lines
except for Rail Fences not exceeding four (4) feet in height. -
b. Fences, gates, and walls located a minimum of ten (10) feet from property lines that
are not adjacent to a road right-of-way, shall not exceed a maximum height of six
(6) feet in height. See diagram below:
f %3 Fenm Only.
6 koce
� a 0 , I
1(r W
61 ferm
Fences and Walls
Page 5
(8) Interiof property boundary fence standards for lots 3 acres and larger in size:
a Fences and walls are not permitted within twenty (20) feet of property lines except
for Rail Fences not exceeding four (4) feet in height.
b. Fences.and walls located a minimum of twenty (20) feet from property lines that are
not adjacent to a road right-of-way shall'not exceed a maximum height of six (6)
feet in height. See diagram below:
(-8) (9) OUTDOOR ATHLETIC COURT FENCING
Maximum height of outdoor athletic court fencing located beyond the
structural setback line for the particular property.
10,
I
(9) (10) OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION EASEMENT PERIMETER FENCES
Maximum height of open space/conservation easement perimeter
fences.
61
Minimum distance of lowest fence strand or rail from ground.
12" above grade
Open space/conservation easement perimeter fences
shall provide openings sufficient to accommodate the
free passage of wildlife through the easement. A split -
rail wood fence (see exhibit) or equivalent design
shall be required. Where a pathway is located within
an open space/conse * rvation easement, the perimeter
fence shall be required to have at least two opemings
at least as wide as the width of the pathway easement.
fz'
W 0
(10) OP
easement pefimeter fencing
(I-G)ll. Any fence crossing or intersecting an officially designated wildlife corridor shall
conform to the requirements specified above for an open space/conservation easement
perimeter fence.
12. No fence, wall, gate, or column shall be located within a public or private road
right-of-way or pathway easement. A four -foot (4) tall mailbox post or column may be
granted an exception to be located within a road right-of-way. An encroachment permit
Fences and Walls
Page 6
from the Engineering Department is required to install a mailbox post or column within a
road right-of-way. Any existing fence, wall, gate, or column located within any road right-
of-way may be required to be removed at the owner's expense.
I � .
J Solid walls, fences, or gates shall not exceed a maximum height of three (T) feet
and all shrubs and plants shall be pruned to a height not to exceed three (3') feet above the
road level at its nearest point in an area bounded by the center
line of intersecting roads or easements for vehicular access,
0 public or private and a straight line joining points on such
center lines eighty (80') feet distant from their intersection (see
exhibit). All side limbs of trees in such area shall be pruned to
a height of not less than six (6) feet above the road surface.
The purpose of the provisions of this section is to provide an
I I -w' unobstructed view of approaching traffic on the intersecting
�3.Ret High Max roads. The City Engineer may prescribe greater restrictions
than the height set forth in this paragraph where unusual
conditions make such additional restrictions desirable in the interests of the public safety.
14. Any fence or wall may be required to be landscaped. Screen plantings required as
a condition of approval for any fence or wall shall be maintained in good condition by the
property owner.
15. The vertical dimension of any fence, wall, gate, or column shall be measured from
the finished grade on both sides of any such fence'. wall, gate, or column to any point on top
of the fence, wall, gate, or column, including post/column caps and any ornamental features.
g. Requirements for Nonconforming Fences, Walls, Gates, and Columns.
Replacement of existing legal nonconforming fences, walls, gates, and columns shall be subject
to the requirements in this ordinance. Exceptions may be granted pursuant to subsection 10-
1.507(h) of this ordinance, or where the strict application of these requirements will result in a
hardship for the property owner. Repair of short sections of legal nonconforming fences, walls,
gates,'or colurrms (repair of less than 50 feet or repair of no greater than 25% of total fence or
wall length) will not require a permit if no other work is done on the same structure over a 12 -
month period. The replacement of any nonconforming structure shall be prohibited if the City
Engineer determines that a public safety hazard exists or that the structure encroaches in an
easement or public right-of-way. Any fence, wall, gate, or column constructed without a
lawfully issued permit is a violation of the Municipal Code and shall be subject to the provisions
of Title 1, Chapter 2 of the Municipal Code.
h. Exceptions.
Exceptions may be granted subject to a noticed
Authority making all of the following findings:
1. The height and design of the proposed
with other fences in the neighborhood;
hearing and upon the Site Development
fence, wall, gate or column are compatible
Fences and Walls
Page 7
2. The proposed removal of vegetation and trees and disturbance to natural terrain have
been minimized;
3. The proposed structure is otherwise in compliance with all regulations and policies
set forth in the Municipal Code and the General Plan.
Any fence proposed to exceed a height of 6 feet in a setback area or to be, located closer to the
centerlin e of the road than required, or closer to the property line than required by Sections 10-
1.507(� (7) or (8) shall require a variance in accordance with the provisions of Article 11 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Please note: all diagrams are not to scale
LAH Online Survey: 2011, Fence Survey
REq
Attachment 2
^ SurveyMonkey
92.6% 526
7.4% 42
I of 3
CIO z
276
3 of 3
Affachment 3
Brian Froelich
From: Mike Tsai [mtsai@salutron:com]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 12:52 PM
To: Brian Froelich
Subject: RE: Fence Ordinance
Brian,
I receive the fence ordinance notice.
I have two questions:
1. Our lot has big area as natural reserve and we cannot use it. Does the lot size
defined as total size minus the reservation area?
Is existing fence exempt from this new rule? Our fence may be in line with the new rules. However, I do want to
spend time to do all the measurement if the existing fence does not need to follow the new rules.
Please advise.
Thanks.
Mike
Brian Froelich
From: Helen Cunningham [helenfromsun@gmaii.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 9:17 AM
To: Brian Froelich; Helen Cunningham; Harry Bahlman
Subject: Fence Ordinance proposed change - Questions & Comment
Hi Brian,
We own a property at 27980 Central Drive. It is exactly 2 acres, and accordingly we have received a notice
about a revision to fencing requirements.
Based on the description on the notice, it appears that the proposal is equivalent to adding a 10'- 40' dead zone
between adjoining properties. That is, if properties A and B are both 2-2.99 acres, each will observe a fence
setback of 10' for a total of 20' with no fence on the actual property boundary line. And so on, from 10' for
two properties (2-2.99 and <2 respectively) up to 40' (for two properties each > 2.99 acres).
It is a little difficult to believe that this is actually the proposal, because it creates such a preposterous result.
But since this is what the notice appears to say, we are writing to ask if that really is the intention. If so, then a
couple of follow up questions would be in order:
* How would adjoining properties mark their actual property boundary in this case? With a third fence running
down the middle? Or would fences in the middle be prohibited?
* What would happen at comers?
* How would this affect MDAs and MFAs?
* Who exactly is ON this "Ad Hoc Fence Committee"? We would like to express our views to them directly.
Best regards,
Harry Bahlman
Helen Cunningham
27980 Central Drive
Los Altos Hills CA 94022
Brian Froelich
From: Lucille Glassman [lucille.glassman@gmaii.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 5:58 PM
To: Brian Froelich
Subject: fences
Hi Brian,
I'm writing in response to the letter I just received from LAH with notice of the study session on fencing. As
you may remember, I own an 11 -acre property with a conservation easement; you just helped me get the
driveway permit last year. I have no plans whatsoever to do anything about fencing, but my property doesn't
really seem to fit into the regulations you describe in the letter. Since the letter encouraged questions and
comments, I have a couple of questions or comments:
1) Will there be any changes to the conservation easement section of the fencing requirements?
2) What happens if there is direct conflict between LAH regulations and those of neighboring property? LAH
wants "free passage of wildlife," but I of course have 3/4 mile o ' f fence that separates me from Stanford and
they keep cows and horses on the other side of that fence. If Stanford wants to replace its fence, can it do so on
its side of the property line without input from LAH?
3) What are the rules for flag lots? Again, I have a half mile driveway along the flag lot where there is no
possible way to get more than a few feet of setback between my land and Stanford's. The fence has to go pretty
much on the property fine, where it has been since, oh, 1 950 or so.
As I said, I don't have any plans to address my fencing. But my property doesn!t seem to fit into the regulations
very well, since it is a flag lot and abuts Stanford on all but a small portion of the perimeter.
Is there an explicit exception for flag lots that I missed? Surely when the "flagpole" is only 12 feet wide, -there
isn't much call for a 20' setback.
Thanks,
-- Lucille Glassman
Brian Froelich
From:
Charlie Perrell [charlie@perrell.com]
Sent:
Sunday, August 12, 2012 6:12 PM
To:
Brian Froelich
Cc:
Beth Guillaumin; Mark Pearson; Wim Roelandts; maria constantino; Sullivan Dennis
(Dennis. Sullivan@dlapiper.com); Margie Sullivan; Bob Howells (bobhowells@comcast. net);
Brian Hollins; Steve Finn; Nancy Laube (nancy@nancylaube.com); Sheldon Laube
(silaube@sjlaube.com); 'Nancy Horton ananhorton@gmaii.com)'; Toni Casey
(toni—casey@comcast. net); 'Gary Kalbach'; 'kaylloyd@earthlink. net; Helga Usher; 'Bob
Lessing'; 'Bob Lloyd (thelloyd@earthlink. net)'; 'Doug Usher'; 'bwayman33@aol.com';
rthompson@wellontheroad.com; Mike Nevens; bshukov@pacbell.net;
csimpsonster@gmaii.com; howardr@pacbell.net; jo323@aol.com; brahmievin@gmail.com;
deborahlevin@hotmaii.com; jkrackeler@gmail.com; renehollins@comcast.net; David Hiebert
(dhiebert@ctbt.com); Angel Hiebert; cole309O@yahoo.com; Ned Barnholt; Ken Alvares; Linda
Alvares (lalvares@ix.netcom.com); Shari Emling (swelahc@comcastt.net)
Subject:
Proposed LAH fence ordinance amendment
Attachments:
2012811 Fence Proposal.pdf
TO: Mr. Brian Froelich
LAH Project Planner
Dear Brian,
The following views are my own. So far, I have only discussed this with my wife Beth. I have copied here some LAH
friends, but I do not speak for them.
I just received an undated notice of the Planning Commission Study Session on a proposed,fence ordinance amendment
(attached is my dated scan). First of all, while this notice acknowledged only providing a 'summary' report, it would be
much more clear if this mailing showed existing versus proposed setbacks andfence heights for all three proposed
categories (3 and up acres; 2 to 2.99 acres; less than 2 acres).
Is the City Council aware of this proposed amendment? Was it reviewed by the Town's attorney?
Did the Town only send this to residents with a property equal or larger than two (2) acres? If so, the Town should
immediately bring all Town residents into the discussion. Please confirm that all Town residents have been noticed.
Who is on theAd Hoc Fence Committee'? I would like the names, addresses and lot sizes of each Committee member,
please. The residents are due full transparency. Knowing lot sizes of Committee members and any other Town official
involved is relevant.
Absent any reasonable rationale, I find this proposal a disturbing attempt to virtually seize property (partial taking), by
inhibiting property owners from safely using significant areas of their property'for gardening, child play, pet play,
vegetable farming, grape growing and other owner use.
This proposal is anti -environment (discourages farming, gardening, landscaping). It is unconstitutional (partial eminent
domain). It undermines the residential -agricultural profile of the Town (penalizing large lots, driving towards a small lot
urban -suburban profile). It contrasts with the Town's founding motivation which centered on relief from County micro-
management of private property. it reduces the value of many properties. It could be very costly to the Town and to
many residents (litigation, property value, tax revenue).
And why is the Town pitting segments of residents based on the size of their land against each other? I noticed on the
Fence Survey 2011 (www.losaltoshills.ca.gov) the responses were not separated into lot size, which would be essential
to isolate conflict of interest.
And the Survey questions are strongly 'leading the witness' to oppose fencing with wording such as 'adversely affect ...
by walling in ... reducing the open ambience ... blocking natural wildlife corridors that keep wildlife away from yards (Since
when did rural folks such as farmers and ranchers want deer, bobcats and mountain lions freely roaming their
propeirty?) ... and cause property line disputes'. Clarification of property lines is insinuated as a bad thing! Really?
If 'blocking wildlife corridors' is truly a concern, why wouldn't this proposed ordinance amendment require lots under 2
acres to provide corridors in the similar way as the two larger sized lot categories? I am not suggesting to do so as I
disagree with the entire fence proposed amendment, but rather I question the overt lot size discrimination built into the
proposed amendment.
You indicate the referenced 'staff report providing further information' and 'a full copy of the proposed Ordinance' will
be on the LAH website after August 17, 2012. And the public hearing is set for August 22, 2012? No way. This proposal
if pursued would be a major legal, social, political and cultural issue involving many millions of dollars in property rights,
property valuation, tax revenues, legal costs to the Town and to residents.
This needs at least two years of full disclosure, resident education, study, honest debate, impact analysis and legal
vetting.
I do not find the ad hoc 'Fence Committee'on the website. Is it on there somewhere?
Please send me and post on the Town website the requested information on Fence Committee members. I will look for
the staff report and the full proposed Ordinance asap after August 17, 2012.
Setting a Planning Commission hearing for August 22, 2012 is preposterous. Please rethink and reschedule. I repeat,
this needs at least two years of full disclosure, resident education, study, honest debate, impact analysis and legal
vetting; all the above to involve the full Town population, not just staff. To have an uninformed 'Study Session' at this
time, that might be used as a stamp of approval, would be inappropriate.
I anxiously await your response.
Sincerely,
Charlie Perrell
PS: please note that / have two properties in Los Altos Hills and would appreciate the Town notices sent accordingly and
separately.
Charles Perrell and Elizabeth Guillaumin
26300 Silent Hills Lane
Charles Perrell
26411 Eshner Court
t10 26300 Silent Hills Lane
Brian Froelich
From: Betty Kayton [betty@kayton.net]
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 7:46 PM
To: Brian Froelich
Subject: proposed fence ordinance
i received a notice of public hearing (since i own a parcel which is over 3 acres).
is there a proposal to allow an exception to the 4' height for entry gates and/or where required by the terrain?
betty kerns
11888 francernont drive
los altos hills, ca
Brian Froelich
From:
Steve Finn [sflnn@trustamerica.com]
Sent:
Sunday, August 12, 2012 10:36 PM
To:
Charlie Perrell
Cc:
Brian Froelich; Beth Guillaurnin; Mark Pearson; Wim Roelanclts; maria constantino;
Dennis. Suilivan@dlapiper.com; Margie Sullivan; bobhowells@comcast. net; Brian Hollins;
nancy@nancylaube.com; sjlaube@sjlaube.com; Nancy Horton ananhorton@gmaii.com);
ton! casey@comcast.net; Gary Kalbach; kaylloyd@earthlink.net; Helga Usher; Bob Lessing;
theil—oyd@earthlink.net; Doug Usher; bwayman33@aol.com; rthompson@wellontheroad.com;
Mike Nevens; bshukov@pacbell.net; csimpsonster@gmail.com; howardr@pacbell.net; jo323
@aol.com; brahmievin@gmail.com; deborahlevin@hotmail.com; jkrackeler@gmaii.com;
renehollins@comcast.net; dhiebert@ctbt.com; Angel Hiebert; cole309O@yahoo.com; Ned
Barnholt; Ken Alvares; laivares@ix.netcom.com; swelahc@comcasft.net
Subject:
Re: Proposed LAH fence ordinance amendment
Ladies and Gentlemen, This amendment is being proposed without proper hearings and communications to all
residents. The agenda of a few seems to be overriding the wishes of the majority in our town. It seems all of the
fortunate large parcel owners are being taken advantage of once again. Large lots should be encouraged not penalized.
Large parcels demand less per acre of services. What is the motivation in bringing this ordnance amendment forward?
Stephen A. Finn. City Council Member 2008 to 2002
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 12, 2012, at 6:12 PM, "Charlie Perrell" <charlie@perrell.com> wrote:
TO: Mr. Brian Froelich
LAH Project Planner
Dear Brian,
The following views are my own. So far, I have only discussed this with my wife Beth. I have copied
here some LAH friends, but I do not speak for them.
I just received an undated notice of the Planning Commission Study Session on a proposed fence
ordinance amendment (attached is my dated scan). First of all, while this notice acknowledged only
providing a 'summary' report, it would be much more clear if this mailing showed existing versus
proposed setbacks andfence heights for all three proposed categories (3 and up acres; 2 to 2.99 acres;
less than 2 acres).
Is the City Council aware of this proposed amendment? Was it reviewed by the Town's attorney?
Did the Town only send this to residents with a property equal or larger than two (2) acres? If so, the
Town should immediately bring all Town residents into the discussion. Please confirm that all Town
residents have been noticed.
Who is on the 'Ad Hoc Fence Committee'? I would like the names, addresses and lot sizes of each
Committee member, please. The residents are due full transparency. Knowing lot sizes of Committee
members and any other Town official involved is relevant.
Absent any reasonable rationale, I find this proposal a disturbing attempt to virtually seize property
(partial taking), by inhibiting property owners from safely using significant areas of their property for
gardening, child play, pet play, vegetable farming, grape growing and other owner use.
This proposal is anti -environment (discourages farming, gardening, landscaping). It is unconstitutional
(partial eminent domain). It undermines the residentia kagricultural profile of the Town (penalizing
large lots, driving towards a small lot urban -suburban profile). it contrasts with the Town's founding
motivation which centered on relief from County micro -management of private property. It reduces the
value of many properties. It could be very costly to the Town and to many residents (litigation, property
value, tax revenue).
And why is the Town pitting segments of residents based on the size of their land against each other? I
noticed on the Fence Survey 2011 (www.losaltoshills.ca.gov) the responses were not separated into lot
size, which would be essential to isolate conflict of interest.
And the Survey questions are strongly 'leading the witness' to oppose fencing with wording such as
'adversely affect ... by walling in ... reducing the open ambience... blocking natural wildlife corridors that
keep wildlife away from yards (Since when did rural folks such as farmers and ranchers want deer,
bobcats and mountain lions freely roaming their property?) ... and cause property line disputes'.
Clarification of property lines is insinuated as a bad thing! Really?
If 'blocking wildlife corridors' is truly a concern, why wouldn't this proposed ordinance amendment
require lots under 2 acres to provide corridors in the similar way as the two larger sized lot categories? I
am not suggesting to do so as I disagree with the entire fence proposed amendment, but rather I
question the overt lot size discrimination built into the proposed amendment.
You indicate the referenced 'staff report providing further information' and 'a full copy of the proposed
Ordinance' will be on the LAH website after August 17, 2012. And the public hearing is set for August
22, 2012? No way. This proposal if pursued would be a major legal, social, political and cultural issue
involving many millions of dollars in property rights, property valuation, tax revenues, legal costs to the
Town and to residents.
This needs at least two years of full disclosure, resident education, study, honest debate, impact analysis
and legal vetting.
I do not find the ad hoc 'Fence Committee' on the website. Is it on there somewhere?
Please send me and post on the Town website the requested information on Fence Committee
members. I will look for the staff report and the full proposed Ordinance asap after August 17, 2012.
Setting a Planning Commission hearing for August 22, 2012 is preposterous. Please rethink and
reschedule. I repeat, this needs at least two years of full disclosure, resident education, study, honest
debate, impact analysis and legal vetting; all the above to involve the full Town population, not just
staff. To have an uninformed 'Study Session' at this time, that might be used as a stamp of approval,
would be inappropriate.
I anxiously await your response.
Sincerely,
Charlie Perrell
PS: please note that I have two properties in Los Altos Hills and would appreciate the Town notices sent
accordingly and separately:
Charles Perrell and Elizabeth Guillaumin
26300 Silent Hills Lane
Charles Perrell
26411 Eshner Court
clo 26300 Silent Hills Lane
<2012811 Fence Proposal.pdf>
Brian Froelich
From:
Robert Lloyd [thelloyd@earthlink.net]
Sent:
Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:53 PIVI
To:
Brian Froelich
Subject:
Proposed LAH fence ordinance amendment
TO: Mr. Brian Froelich
LAH Project Planner
I am attaching both Charlie Perrell and Steve Finn's emails to you re: the proposed fencing regulation. I agree completely
with the gentlemen's perspective and the multiple points they made regarding this matter.
Although my message is more brief, I vehemently oppose the entire concept behind the fencing proposal.
Robert Lloyd
From: Steve Finn [mailto:sfinn@trustamerica.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 10:36 PIVI
Subject: Re: Proposed LAH fence ordinance amendment
Ladies and Gentlemen, This amendment is being proposed without proper hearings and communications to all
residents. The agenda of a few seems to be overriding the wishes of the majority in our town. It seems all of the
fortunate large parcel owners are be ing taken advantage of once again. Large lots should be encouraged not penalized.
Large parcels demand less per acre of services. What is the motivation in bringing this ordnance amendment forward?
Stephen A. Finn. City Council Member 2008 to 2002
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 12,2012, at 6:12 PM, "Charlie Perrell" <charlie@perrell.com> wrote:
TO: Mr. Brian Froelich
LAH Project Planner
Dear Brian,
The following views are my own. So far, I have only discussed this with my wife Beth. I have copied
here some LAH friends, but I do not speak for them.
I just received an undated notice of the Planning Commission Study Session on a proposed fence
ordinance amendment (attached is my dated scan). First of all, while this notice acknowledged only
providing a 'summary' report, it would be much more clear if this mailing showed existing versus
proposed setbacks andJence heights for all three proposed categories (3 and up acres; 2 to 2.99 acres;
less than 2 acres).
Is the City Council aware of this proposed amendment? Was it reviewed by the Town's attorney?
Did the Town only send this to residents with a'property equal or larger than two (2) acres? If so, the
Town should immediately bring all Town residents into the discussion. Please confirm that all Town
residents have been noticed.
Who is on the 'Ad Hoc Fence Committee'? I would like the names, addresses and lot sizes of each
Committee member, please. The residents are due full transparency. Knowing lot sizes of Committee
members and any other Town official involved is relevant.
Absent any reasonable rationale, I find this proposal a disturbing attempt to virtually seize property
(partial taking), by inhibiting property owners from safely using significant areas of their property for
gardening, child play, pet play, vegetable farming, grape growing and other owner use.
This proposal is anti -environment (discourages farming, gardening, landscaping). It is unconstitutional
(partial eminent domain). It undermines the residential -agricultural profile of the Town (penalizing
large lots, driving towards a small lot urban -suburban profile). It contrasts with the Town's founding
motivation which centered on relief from County micro -management of private property. it reduces the
value of many properties. It could be very costly to the Town and to many residents (litigation, property
value, tax revenue).
And why is the Town pitting segments of residents based on the size of their land against each other? I
noticed on the Fence Survey 2011 (www.losaltoshills.ca.gov) the responses were not separated into lot
size, which would be essential to isolate conflict of interest.
And the Survey questions are strongly 'leading the witness' to oppose fencing with wording such as
'adversely affect ... by walling in ... reducing the open ambience ... blocking natural wildlife corridors that
keep wildlife away from yards (Since when did rural folks such as farmers and ranchers want deer,
bobcats and mountain lions freely roaming their property?) ... and cause property line disputes'.
Clarification of property lines is insinuated as a bad thing! Really?
If 'blocking wildlife corridors' is truly a concern, why wouldn't this proposed ordinance amendment
require lots under 2 acres to provide corridors in the similar way as the two larger sized lot categories? I
am not suggesting to do so as I disagree with the entire fence proposed amendment, but rather I
question the overt lot size discrimination built into the proposed amendment.
You indicate the referenced 'staff report providing further information' and 'a full copy of the proposed
Ordinance' will be on the LAH website after August 17, 2012. And the public hearing is set for August
22, 2012? No way. This proposal if pursued would be a major legal, social, political and cultural issue
involving many millions of dollars in property rights, property valuation, tax revenues, legal costs to the
Town and to residents.
This needs at least two years of full disclosure, resident education, study, honest debate, impact analysis
and legal vetting.
I do not find the ad hoc 'Fence Committee' on the website. Is iton there somewhere?
Please send me and post on the Town website the requested information on Fence Committee
members. I will look for the staff report and the full proposed Ordinance asap after August 17, 2012.
Setting a Planning Commission hearing for August 22, 2012 is preposterous. Please rethink and
reschedule. I repeat, this needs at least two years of full disclosure, resident education, study, honest
debate, impact analysis and legal vetting; all the above to involve the full Town population, not just
staff. To have an uninformed 'Study Session' at this time, that might be used as a stamp of approval,
would be inappropriate.
I anxiously await your response.
Sincerely,
Charlie Perrell
PS: please note that I have two properties in Los Altos Hills and would appreciate the Town notices sent
accordingly and separately:
Charles Perrell and Elizabeth Guillaumin
26300 Silent Hills Lane
Charles Perrell
26411 Eshner Court
clo 26300 Silent Hills Lane
Brian Froelich
From:
Dave Mans [dpmans@gmail.com] on behalf of Dave Mans [dave@mans-spector.com]
Sent:
Wednesday, August 15, 2012 11:47 AM
To:
Brian Froelich
Cc:
Patricia Spector
Subject:
Amendments to the Los Alto Hills Fence Ordinance
Dear Planning Commission members,
My wife and I live at 27271 Ursula Lane on a lot slightly over 2 acres that would be affected
by the proposed changes to the fence ordinance. In the interest of efficiency, we are
sending these comments in advance of the upcoming Study Session that is scheduled for August
22, 2012.
We have 6 foot wire fencing that surrounds roughly the upper acre of our property. It
follows our lot line on three sides. This fencing is relatively thin wire that, except for
the posts, is nearly invisible. It's main purpose is to keep deer from the flower garden,
vegetable garden, vineyard, and orchard that, along with the house, fully fill this portion
of our lot. The lower half of our property is very steep, covered in poison oak, and runs
down to Matadero Creek and is unfenced. In is unusable and, in fact, we have never fully
explored it in the 15 years we have lived on this property.
Although we have not seen a detailed draft, we see the following problems with the general
outline of what you propose:
1) A four foot fence will not keep deer out. I have seen our local deer go over our 6 foot
fence given they have a running start and are on the uphill side. It was not graceful but
they were frightened and we could not drive them toward our gate. Given that the population
of deer in the Matadero Creek "canyon" is very large, it is our expectation that they would
decimate plantings in the 10 or 20 foot setback area. This would take away a large piece of
our already reduced usable lot area.
2) The proposed amendment does not distinguish between open wire fencing that doesn't have
stringers or slats and other types of fencing that are much more of a visual barrier.
Perhaps allowing certain types of 6 foot fences and not others would allow effective deer
exclusion and still achieve the openness you seem to desire.
3) Other existing Town ordinances limit the usability of the steep portion of our lot. In
fact, I think the allowable house size on our lot is limited by a discount factor applied to
the portion over 35% in slope (I forget the details). Maybe something similar could be done
if this amendment goes forward and that would get us under the 2 acre test.
4) Perhaps the 2 acre test should only apply to the portion that is fenced. This would give
us credit for leaving the remainder of our property for the wild life and 'openness that your
proposed ordinance appears to be intended to encourage.
5) We are aware that our existing fence would be grandfathered in.* However, replacement of
the existing fence is not. It seems to us that repair and replacement are hard to
distinguish between and that worries us.
In summery, our present situation is not a problem as we understand your goal. our fencing
retains the open esthetics we are told is behind your proposing of this amendment. To us
this proposal seems very capable of producing unwanted side effects, at least in our specific
situation.
1
Regards, David Mans and Patricia Spector
27271 Ursula Lane