Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 SupplementalSUPPLEMENT AGENDA ITEQM 9 -5, Distributed: U 2 2. i Brian Froelich - From: Lisa Warren [la-warren@attnet] Sent:: Wednesday, August 22, 201210:22 AM To: jitze@couperus.org; jsmandle@hotmail.com; Richard Partridge; Jim Abraham; John Harpootlian; Brian Froelich; Debbie Pedro Subject: Addition to Fence Ordinance Study Session Input Attachments: Planning - Fence ordinance.docx Good morning All. After re -reading the attached letter, I realized that I had forgotten another important piece. I would like to add that I would recommend implementing a more strict limitation on the use of chain link fences of any color or construction. In my eyes, chain link should be allowed only where there is little to no visual impact to residents, or passers by. For example, on sloped properties on perimeters that are not easily seen due to topography and/or vegetation. Ideally, it would be, best to eliminated chain link all together, but realize that there may be very few situations that it is the most practical option. If I am not mistaken, --there-are-other-jurisdictions-that-simply-don't-allow- chain-link-and-it-seems-.thatitworks-just-fine.—Ta -- - -- me, the lack of chain link is a step to be .taken in order to foster encouragement for the preservation of our much loved rural environment. Thank you again. Lisa Warren ( 408-472-9879 ---- Forwarded Message --- From: Lisa Warren <[a-warren@att.net> To: jitze couperus.org; jsmandle(&hotmail.com; Richard Partridge<richard.partridae(a@comcast.net>; Jim Abraham <iima.pc0gmail.com>; John Harpootlian <john.harpootllanCagmail.com>; Brian Froelich <BfroelichNosaltoshills.ca.gov>; Debbie Pedro <dpedro@losaitoshills.ca.gov> Sent: Wed, August 22, 20121:06:33 AM Subject: Fence Ordinance Study Session Input Planning Commissioners - LAH, Please see attached input related to town's fence ordinances. I would like to be at the meeting tomorrow night, but have a significant conflict. I would welcome questions/comments on the attached letter if you would like to reply to this email. Thank you. Lisa Warren August 22, 2012 Planning Commission and Planning Staff, My family has owned, and resided on a one -acre parcel in Los Altos Hills for over 47 years. For many of those years, even with development, the property and surrounding area remained very rural, as intended by the town's founding documents, as well as my parents who chose this very special place to raise their family. It breaks my heart to see such enormous changes to the area where I grew up. We have all witnessed, first hand, the decline of the rural environment that appealed to my parents so long ago. One of the 'environment changing culprits' is fencing. "Back in the day", fences were rare and installed for practical/useful purposes; and stylized in a way that would blend in with the rural atmosphere. It is my opinion that LAH is currently 'over -fenced' and that trend seems to be continuing. Our property is now completely 'caged' except for the shortest property line — the one that borders the street and is the driveway entry. My family has installed none of these 5-6 ft. impermeable barriers - we were 'fenced in without consent. It appears to be too late for us, and there is currently nothing in place to stop this from happening to other residents. As currently written, the fence ordinance affords complete protection for property owners who want to be fenced in, but no protection for those who prefer truly open space. Without setback requirements, there is nothing to soften the obtrusiveness created by an unwanted structure. Add that to the fact that people often have no input as to the type of fence being erected, and it does not feel very neighborly. I believe that the proposed ordinance should include a small set -back for anything other than a four foot open rail fence to be installed on parcels that are under 2 acres in size. My hope is that you, and the members of this community, will not only see the value in trying to hold on to the rural environment for the two legged residents, but also for the wildlife that is such a critical piece of the surroundings we should all be trying to preserve. Protections should be seriously considered in areas where wildlife corridors exist. The deer that safely used our property as a way to travel can no longer do so. They now have multiple 'road blocks' that are, in my opinion, completely unnecessary. I am grateful for the time and thought that the Ad hoc Fence Committee members have put into the proposed amendments. I was present as some of their meetings. I listened to the thought processes of the members and can assure you that many angles and options were considered, including gaining insight from the examples of nearby cities. Respectfully, Lisa Warren Altamont Road Brian Froelich From: Bill Balson [wbalson@pacbeil.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 201210:58 AM To: 'Gary Waldeck' Cc: 'Ginger Summit'; 'Jean Mordo'; 'Rich Larsen'; Brian Froelich Subject: RE: follow-up on survey regarding the fence ordinance Dear Gary, I appreciate that you think you mean well, but simply taking action to seek legal opinions or surveys would not meet the Council's duty to protect its citizens in my view. The Council has apparently adopted the wrongheaded policy that attracting wildlife, including dangerous animals, to roam through the middle of town is appropriate policy. They have come to this policy without any apparent assessment of the very real risk to humans, particularly young children, from Mountain Lion attacks. According to Fish & Game, from 1910 to 1985 there were no verified Mountain Lion attacks in all of California. Since then there have been about a dozen attacks including three fatalities. This is a growing threat. Just recently, a Mountain Lion was reported smack in the middle of Los Altos Hills in a neighbor's yard (see link below). This is a clear and present danger to human safety. While it's appropriate to have reserves for these animals it's unwise to deliberately attract such animals into the middle of human residences. The proposed fence ordinance needs to be put on_permanent_holdwhile-the Town--develops-mitigation.alternatives-to-cure the- unsafe.. conditions -created -by the- - . - Council's past actions. I recommend the Council consider at a minimum the following actions: a) place warning signs at all major intersections in Town similar to those found nearby at Stanford, b) place automated cameras at key entry point locations to detect the presence in Town of Mountain Lions (similar to the Open Space District), c) develop an effective warning system to alert residents to the presence of Mountain Lions, and d) develop a public safety program to teach residents how to protect themselves. These could all be developed in a few months with an appropriate Council commitment. On a longer term basis, the Council should create an ad hoc committee to consider alternatives to conform the General Plan and all Town ordinances to basic principles of human safety, particularly in regards to wild and dangerous animals roaming unchecked in the middle of Town. As I mentioned on the phone to you, under the current policy, it is only a matter of time before you wake up one morning to the headline "Child mauled by mountain lion in Los Altos Hills". Bill http://www.losaltosonfine.com/index.iohp?option=com content&task=view&id=42365&Itemid=46 From: Gary Waldeck [mailto:gcwaideck@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 7:41 PM To: Bill Balson Subject: Re: follow-up on survey regarding the fence ordinance Bill, as usual, you make a set of well considered points ... Ones that I will take action on, as promised, before this is ever shown to the council for consideration. Thank you Gary Gary Waldeck Vice Mayor, Los Altos Hills GCWaldeck@email.com (650) 739-8823 Brevity, Typos and Incorrect Words courtesy of this iPad2 On Aug 21, 2012, at 6:21 PM, "Bill Balson" <wbalson@pacbell.net> wrote: Thanks Gary for the detailed backup. Your summary of the survey methodology is particularly helpful, since it's not summarized on the Town webs site apparently. Let me respond to a few points you've raised: 1. Surveys like the Survey Monkey survey used by the Town have a place and purpose. For example, in my view they can be helpful in testing ideas and giving design guidance. However using the word statistics in the same sentence with the phrase Survey Monkey reveals just how seriously misled the Fence Committee has been. There is no basis at all for concluding that the survey is representative of the opinion of anyone but the people that took the survey. You yourself explained that the extrapolation to the entire Town was nothing more than an unfounded assumption. Even then, the pertinent question #4 was evenly distributed between support and opposition. The survey provides no basis on which the Council could rely. 2. 1 doubt that staff has any material knowledge on the takings issue. A starting point is the State's CECW reference page at http://ceres.ca.gov/cepa/reg tak/regulatory takings.html . As I said in our call, the Town can apparently do what it will and the only recourse a property owner has is to seek compensation. My concern for the Town is the potential this issue has to escalate into a full blown legal battle. I have no doubt that Town Council will erect a dutifully forceful advocacy position in the Town's defense. However, one of the core attributes of private property is the right to exclude. The proposed fence ordinance has the express purpose of preventing property owners from excluding wildlife — even dangerous wildlife. That purpose is the relevant starting -point for the -analysis, --not whether its implemented as -a setback; otherwise you -could -put -the setback at 100 feet. None of the cases referenced by the State website appear to be on point. That leads me to the conclusion that the issue may get a test in the courts, but perhaps I'm wrong. If it did and the Town was at the epicenter, then the only outcomes are bad and worse — bad if we only expend a few million on a defense and worse if we lose an adverse judgment for $30m. That happened in Half Moon Bay recently, and they will be paying that off for decades. HMB had a compliant staff also that guided their Council. At an absolute minimum, the Council should require a written legal analysis from a competent Constitutional scholar of the financial risk to the Town in the event a Takings lawsuit was initiated. In the final analysis, the issue would be one of fairness: Can 85% of the Town's residents impose the cost of their wildlife management objectives on 15% of the residents? This question almost answers itself. 1. In my opinion, the Town Council has a firm obligation to identify and measure the various risk factors in order to weigh and balance the benefits against the risks. Moreover, the Town Council has a firm obligation to identify other alternatives that can achieve its objectives with less cost and less risk and to identify mitigating alternatives that might ameliorate the adverse consequences. I've seen no pertinent analysis of these matters in the Planning Commission agenda. Indeed, there are no measurable criteria regarding wildlife management at all — no baseline — no measurement specification — no threshold of significance — no objective outcome sought. 4. All the risks that I've outlined have to be weighed by the Town. Council against the incremental benefit of the new fence ordinance over the current open space and conservation easements. The incremental benefit seems to me quite negligible compared to a substantial risk to both human health and the Town's finances. Best regards, Bill From: Gary Waldeck fmailtomcwaldeck(ftmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 3:53 PM To: 'Bill Balson' Subject: RE: follow-up on survey regarding the fence ordinance ME Thanks for the note ... I agree with you as to the type of survey and the questions. Unfortunately, that is what happens when a l committee designs the questions. It was admittedly not scientific or even designed well. But it did measure those who responded. Indeed, we saw many question #7 write-in responses about the survey design too. People recognized that it was far from well designed, but they did -read, think and render their opinions on each topic. While I don't fully agree -about your comments on the survey accuracy responses, I do like your qualification data ideas. In other surveys that have been conducted, none of that information was collected either. Los Altos Hills has roughly 9000 citizens. Of those, about 4900 are voters and there are about -2500 residences. Not all citizens, voters or residences participate in the surveys, although 894 citizens had signed up at the time the survey was conducted and 582 responded (but some respondees didn't answer every question)I (You can too, just go the Town's website and sign up) To be statistically relevant, the assumption is made is that the cross section of residents who choose to participate in our surveys will have a basic belief system that is approximately consistent with the cross section view of the total Townspeople. Surveys like this depend on that belief. No one knows for sure but it seems to be a reasonable assumption. After all, no one knew which survey was coming; they couldn't sign up for just this survey alone; it therefore seems very reasonable assumption that the group does, in fact, approximate our Townspeople's widely disparate views well. Of the 894 signed up, we got a 65% participation rate and is considered a statistically very accurate survey (versus a 2-7% or less response rate from most surveys). You are correct, in terms of total Townspeople, the total response is closer to 7%. But it is the best we have, seems to be representative and is a lot better than nothing. The committee, (originally composed of a current and ex- planning commissioner, a conservationist, a Pathway Cmte person, an Open Space Cmte member, two councilmen — and all with widely differing opinions on the topic) wanted to find out just how much our open spaces mean to people and so, tried to ask questions like: Are we deviating from the Town's roots in the way the Town is developing? If so, do we like it? Are people concerned about the 'gridding'that is evident in some areas of the Town and the like. The committee also considered the Planning Rules that require that we be aware of and attempt conform to similar nearby environments. So, we also looked at the regulations adopted by similar, nearby towns and how they manage their fence regulations. They also considered the Federal and State's laws and how we are conforming to them (in some cases, not so well — much too laxl), the Town's General Plan (ditto), our current regulations and related Town Documents in arriving at a methodology to address the issue. In other words, it's been an interesting trip, not easy, but always seeking to do best for the Town. The result is the proposal that will be discussed tomorrow evening. By the way, thank you for the 'taking' comment. I've followed up with staff on that question ... the response is that the imposition of a setback requirement does not meet the definition; there is no legally defined 'taking'. The property is still owned by the owner... and can be used in the any way that s/he may choose. They just can't put a 6' fence closer to the property line than the setback allows (but a 4' permeable fence is allowed on the property line or within the setback area). And, to be doubly sure, I've insisted that our attorney weigh in with an opinion regarding the issue as well, hopefully, by tomorrow evening before the study session. Thanks for your concern, feedback and ideas. I do appreciate them ... and you. Best regards, Gary t Gary Waldeck Vice -Mayor, -Los Altos -Hills - - - - - - - --__ _ . ___------._-.... -.- - - - GCWaldeck@Gmail.com (650) 739-8823 (Office/Cell) From: Bill Balson fmaiito:wbalson@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 20121:15 PM To: 'Gary Waldeck' Cc: 'Ginger Summit; 'Jean Mordo;'Rich Larsen'; jrdford20ll@yyahoo.com; bfroelich@losaltoshills.ca.gov Subject: followup on survey regarding the fence ordinance Dear Gary, Thanks for filling me in on the background of the fence proposal. I know a lot of people have been working on this for a long time. As you suggested I did go look at the survey results as presented in the agenda for the planning commission. This survey is inconsistent with good survey practices and is unlikely to represent the opinions of the Town as a whole. Only 568 out of the Town's 8,000+ residents bothered to fill out the survey. That's a response rate of 7%. On the key question #4, the respondents were evenly divided. So, 284 people out of around 5,000 registered voters agree with the proposal. That is not a result you should trumpet as the will of the voters. Survey Monkey is highly susceptible to self- selection bias and no questions in the survey asked for demographic information. Thus, the respondents could easily include minors and nonresidents. So, no correction to the biases is statistically possible. Self-selection bias is common in surveys that fail to randomize the population selected for responses or that poorly communicate to the entire population. It's pretty clearly non -representative from the tone and content of the comments already received by the planning commission. To be useful, the survey will require a complete redesign. In the new survey, in addition to curing self-selection bias and demographics, you will want to solicit pertinent information about the risks as well as the benefits to the Town residents. Best regards, i Bill Balson 650-823-2510 This email contains confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Los Altos Town Crier - Dog chases mountain lion up tree Page 1 of 2 Dog chases mountain lion up tree 0 Dogs never seem to shed their instinctual pursuit of cats. Even if that feline is actually a 120 -pound mountain lion. A Los Altos Hills resident's approximately 80 -pound German Shepherd chased the cat up a tree on his property Feb. 21, according to the town's public safety, officer. While officials from the state's Department of Fish and Game and Santa Clara County Sheriffs deputies responded, the cat posed no danger and eventually fled. The incident occurred near the corner of Elena and La Barranca roads. No one — human, canine or feline — was injured. "The Department of Fish and Game looked at the animal, said it looks healthy, didn't look peculiar, nothing out of the ordinary," said Lt. Don Morrissey of the county sheriffs office. According to early .reports from NBC, the homeowner captured the whole incident on film. Janet Shannon, Los Altos Hills Public Safety Officer, said recent sightings and incidents, including an early February incident in which a suspected mountain lion killed two pet goats on a private residence near Hidden Villa, have made people "a bit nervous" and have led to an uptick in reported sightings. "People get worked up," she said. "I don't think there are necessarily more (mountain lions) around.... The bad thing is if people get worked up about it, somebody will take action. "Mountain lions are doing exactly what they do — they're not aggressive, they're not coming after anybody," she said. That's not to say that the cats are never hostile. If a deputy or fish and game official determines that the animal poses a threat to public safety, he or she could kill it. "Obviously we want to take every precaution and do what's right but it's just kind of hard with those big cats," Morrissey said. hUp://www.losaltosonline.com/index2.php?option=com content&task--view&id=42365&... 8/22/2012 Brian Froelich From: Margi Gould [margimg@pacbeil.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 201211:31 AM To: Brian Froelich Subject: Fw: Summary of Fence Ordinance Brian - I am not sure if I directed this email to the right people. I've finally been able to download the report to read, but it is extensive and I'm now into the other emails received. Margi -- Forwarded Message ---- From: Marg! Gould <margimg&acbell.net> To: Jean Mordo <jeanmordo@omail.com>; Richard Larsen <flndrichlarsenc&gmall.com>; Ginger Summit <gsummit@earthlink.net>; Gary Waldeck <bkowaldeckCalgmail.com>; John Radford <jradford(&radford.com> Sent: Wed, August 22, 2012 9:58:01 AM Subject: Summary of Fence Ordinance I understand the need for wildlife openings and "the walling off' effect. However, I have also noticed where there are fences built for privacy to properties leaving a 20' or so corridor on side fences and front/back that these -are often not maintained. I do know from experience that makes it harder to maintain as unless there are gates also, its harder to remember and access this space. I was delighted to move my adjoining fencelines to be included in my yard and use it in the landscaping. Many years ago I had these openings and they were a pain. I think much of this should be discussed on an individual basis between property owners, not regulated. The access between my property and the neighbors used to be a non -official pathway for kids to get to and from school. Horses too used it and intruded on the privacy. There are also concerns on the official pathways that they encourage crime. Please consider this in your discussion. Margi Gould Brian Froelich From: William Helvey [mdxwmh@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 201212:46 PM To: Brian Froelich Subject: Proposed change in fence ordinance Greetings, I have briefly reviewed the proposed change in the fencing ordinance in our community (Los Altos Hills) for lots that are 2 or 3 acres in size. As owner of a lot of just over two acres, I have considered what the effect would be for.the owner of our property. While we have lived here for 47 years and plan no additional fences - there is always the possibility that damage, repair or other unforeseen events might occur whereby we would need to build a fence or wall. Consequently, we are quite concerned with the notion that we could not build or rebuild at our property line, if we wished. Most of our property (except house, small yard and swimming pool area) is unfenced and we expect to keep it that way. What is the need for such an ordinance (it escapes me entirely - but there must be one?)? or, if not a need, what is the purpose? 2. How many members of the committee (or what percent) are home owners living on plots of 2 or 3 acres? 3. Even if such an ordinance were approved, it would be very impractical for many (most?) two acres plots. Take our lot (10515 Berkshire Drive), for example. It is a flag lot with a 20 foot wide strip to accommodate our 12 foot wide driveway (running about 200 feet), Our single story ranch house (less than 5000 square feet) sits at the very top of a long wooded slope. Despite the two acre size, the house is very tight quarters relative to property lines (our front door is about 30 feet to the property line of our southerly neighbor and about 20 feet on both sides (to our easterly and westerly neighbor). There is NO realistic room for fences set back 10 feet from the property line. I was unable to successfully pull up the full recommended change in ordinance - but did see the diagram. It strikes me this is an unnecessary intrusion of government into person and private property rights- unless there is a compelling need for community safety or aesthetic standards. I plan to attend the meeting tonight (8/22/12). Cordially, Bill and Grace Helvey 10515 Berkshire Drive Los Altos Hills Telephone 9489483 or 9488447 Brian Froelich From: Anshel Schiff [schiff@stanford.edu] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 20121:51 PM To: jima.pc@gmail.com; jitze@couperus.org; john.harpootlian@gmail.com; jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.parbidge@comcast.net; Brian Froelich; Debbie Pedro Subject: Comments on new fence regulations Planning Commission: We cannot come to the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday so we are writing to express our opinion on the proposed change to the Los Altos Hills fence ordinance described in the letter we received a few weeks ago. Our family owns a 2.8 -acre lot where we have lived for 20 years. We strongly support setbacks for tall (6 -ft) fences on the interior property lines of large lots like ours. Fence setbacks are already required in the front. Setbacks on the sides and back of lots (often all lots) are common in most towns in our area and help keep neighborhoods looking more open. More importantly, we feel that access of wildlife through the area is more important. We moved to Los Altos Hills because we value the, natural, open look and rural character. We have seen many new fences go up around town and this is changing the aesthetic quality of the neighborhoods. Fence setbacks along all property lines will help keep the Town from looking like the "suburban fortress" some areas are turning'into. I Also, we live close to open space and enjoy watching deer pass through our property every day. Requiring side and back setbacks may help keep fences from blocking off the usual travel routes these animals need to get to the creek and other areas. We have a small fenced corral that was on the property when we acquired it and part of the property is a conservation area. We do not plan to fence more of the property at this time. If and when we do, we are sure we can easily put up a fence that meets these new regulations. We appreciate the work the committee has done to improve the fence regulations and believe they will be a benefit to the Town. Thank you for your consideration, Schiff Family Edgerton Road Brian Froelich From: Bill Balson [wbalson@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:27 PM To: Brian Froelich Subject: FW: follow-up on survey regarding the fence ordinance Brian, When I send Gary an email and copy you, is that sufficient for it to appear in the record as a formal comment on the proposal. Or do I need to send you an additional separate copy? Thanks. Bill From: Bill Balson [mailto:wbalson@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:23 PM To: 'Gary Waldeck' Cc: 'Ginger Summit; 'Jean Mordo'; 'Rich Larsen'; 'bfroelich@losaltoshills.ca.gov' Subject: RE: follow-up on survey regarding the fence ordinance Dear Gary, I've been doing some research on the General Plan and its supposed support forthe.proposed fence ordinance. I've also reviewed the past year's worth of Planning Commission agendas. I can find no reference to fence policy in the General Plan Policies or Programs. There is, of course, mention of the Open Space and Conservation Easements. Are there working documents of the Fence Committee that explain the specific Policies in the Plan that the Fence Committee believes support the proposed fence ordinance? Overarching all of the General Plan is the following Community Goal: "Los Altos Hills should be a community dedicated to maintaining a semirural atmosphere, where people can live in the midst of open space, exposed to minimum noise, congestion, and confusion, and with sufficient space on each lot to allow activities such as gardening, cultivating vineyards and orchards, keeping horses, and enjoying outdoor recreation." I originally had in mind proposing that the sentence be modified to read "... where people can safely live ..". On reflection, I've concluded that would be redundant, and therefore not needed. Do you agree? Best regards, Bill Balson From: Bill Balson [mailto:wbalson@pacbell.netl Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 201210:58 AM To: 'Gary Waldeck' Cc: 'Ginger Summit; 'Jean Mordo'; 'Rich Larsen'; 'bfroelich@losaltoshills.ca.gov' Subject: RE: follow-up on survey regarding the fence ordinance Dear Gary, I appreciate that you think you mean well, but simply taking action to seek legal opinions or surveys would not meet the Council's duty to protect its citizens in my view. The Council has apparently adopted the wrongheaded policy that attracting wildlife, including dangerous animals, to roam through the middle of town is appropriate policy. They have come to this policy without any apparent assessment of the very real risk to humans, particularly young children, from Mountain Lion attacks. According to Fish & Game, from 1910 to 1985 there were no versified Mountain Lion attacks in all of California. Since then there have been about a dozen attacks including three fatalities. This is a growing threat. Just recently, a Mountain Lion was reported smack in the middle of Los Altos Hills in a neighbor's yard (see link below). This is a clear and present danger to human safety. While it's appropriate to have reserves for these animals it's unwise to deliberately attract such animals into the middle of human residences. The proposed fence ordinance needs to be put on permanent hold while the Town develops mitigation alternatives to cure the unsafe conditions created by the Council's past actions. I recommend the Council consider at a minimum the following actions: a) place warning signs at all major intersections in Town similar to those found nearby at Stanford, b) place automated cameras at key entry point locations to detect the presence in Town of Mountain Lions (similar to the Open Space District), c) develop an effective warning system to alert residents to the presence of Mountain Lions, and d) develop a public safety program to teach residents how to protect themselves. These could all be developed in a few months with an appropriate Council commitment. On a longer term basis, the Council should create an ad hoc committee to consider alternatives to conform the General Plan and all Town ordinances to basic -principles of human safety, particularly in regards to wild and dangerous animals roaming unchecked in the middle of Town. As I mentioned on the phone to you, under the current policy, it is only a matter of time before you wake up one morning to the headline "Child mauled by mountain lion in Los Altos Hills". Bill http://www.losaltosonline.com/index.php?option=com content&task=view&id=42365&ltemid=46 From: Gary Waldeck fmailto:ocwaldeck@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 7:41 PM To: Bill Batson Subject: Re: follow-up on survey regarding the fence ordinance Bill, as usual, you make a set of well considered points ... Ones that I will take action on, as promised, before this is ever shown to the council for consideration. Thank you Gary Gary Waldeck Vice Mayor, Los Altos Hills GCWaideck@small.com (650)739-8823 Brevity, Typos and Incorrect Words courtesy of this lPad2 On Aug 21, 2012, at 6:21 PM, "Bill Balson" <wbalson @ pacbell. net> wrote: Thanks Gary for the detailed backup. Your summary of the survey methodology is particularly helpful, since it's not summarized on the Town webs site apparently. Let me respond to a few points you've raised: 1. Surveys like the Survey Monkey survey used by the Town have a place and purpose. For example, in my view they can be helpful in testing ideas and giving design guidance. However using the word statistics in the same sentence with the phrase Survey Monkey reveals just how seriously misled the Fence Committee has been. There is no basis at all for concluding that the survey is representative of the opinion of anyone but the people that took the survey. You yourself explained that the extrapolation to the entire Town was nothing more than an unfounded assumption. Even then, the pertinent question #4 was evenly distributed between support and opposition. The survey provides no basis on which the Council could rely. 2. 1 doubt that staff has any material knowledge on the takings issue. A starting point is the State's CEQA reference page at http://ceres.ca.goy/cega/res talc/regulatory takines.html . As I said in our call, the Town can apparently do what it will and the only recourse a property owner has is to seek compensation. My concern for the Town is the potential this issue has to escalate into a full blown legal battle. I have no doubt that Town Council will erect a dutifully forceful advocacy position in the Town's defense. However, one of the core attributes of private property is the right to exclude. The proposed fence ordinance has the express purpose of preventing property owners from excluding wildlife —even dangerous wildlife. That purpose is the relevant starting point for the analysis, not whether its implemented as a setback, otherwise you could put the setback at 100 feet. None of the cases referenced by the State website appear to be on point. That leads me to the conclusion that the issue may get a test in the courts, but perhaps I'm wrong. If it did and the Town was at the epicenter, then the only outcomes are bad and worse — bad if we only expend a few million on a defense and worse if we lose an adverse judgment for $30m. That happened in Half Moon Bay recently, and they will be paying that off for decades. HMB had a compliant staff also that guided their Council. At an absolute minimum, the Council should require a written legal analysis from a competent Constitutional scholar of the financial risk to the Town in the event a Takings lawsuit was initiated. In the final analysis, the issue would be one of fairness: Can 85% of the Town's residents impose the cost of their wildlife management objectives on 15% of the residents? This question almost answers itself. 3. In my opinion, the Town Council has a firm obligation to identify and measure the various risk factors in order to weigh and balance .the benefits against the risks. Moreover, the Town Council has a firm obligation to identify other alternatives that can achieve its objectives with less cost and less risk and to identify mitigating alternatives that might ameliorate the adverse consequences. I've seen no pertinent analysis of these matters in the Planning Commission agenda. Indeed, there are no measurable criteria regarding wildlife management at all — no baseline — no measurement specification — no threshold of significance — no objective outcome sought. 4. All the risks that I've outlined have to be weighed by the Town Council against the incremental benefit of the new fence ordinance over the current open space and conservation easements. The incremental benefit seems to me quite negligible compared to a substantial risk to both human health and the Town's finances. Best regards, Bill From: Gary Waldeck II rlto_Qcwaldeck@gmail.coml Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 3:53 PM To: 'Bill Balson' Subject: RE: follow-up on survey regarding the fence ordinance i Bill — Thanks for the note ... I agree with you as to the type of survey and the questions. Unfortunately, that is what happens when a committee designs the questions. It was admittedly not scientific or even designed well. But it did measure those who responded. Indeed, we saw many question #7 write-in responses about the survey design too. People recognized that it was far from well designed, but they did read, think and render their opinions on each topic. While I don't fully agree about your comments on the survey accuracy responses, I do like your qualification data ideas. In other surveys that have been conducted, none of that information was collected either. Los Altos Hills has roughly 9000 citizens. Of those, about 4900 are voters and there are about —2500 residences. Not all citizens, voters or residences participate in the surveys, although 894 citizens had signed up at the time the survey was conducted and 582 responded (but some respondees didn't answer every question)! (You can too, just go the Town's website and sign up) To be statistically relevant, the assumption is made is that the cross section of residents who choose to participate in our surveys will have a basic belief system that is approximately consistent with the cross section view of the total Townspeople. Surveys like this depend on that belief. No one knows for sure but it seems to be a reasonable assumption. After all, no one knew which survey was coming; they couldn't sign up for just this survey alone; it therefore seems very reasonable assumption that the group does, in fact, approximate our Townspeople's widely disparate views well. Of the 894 signed up, we got a 65% participation rate and is considered a statistically very accurate survey (versus a 2-7% or less response rate from most surveys). You are correct, in terms of total Townspeople, the total response is closer to 7%. But it is the best we have, seems to be representative and is a lot better than nothing. The committee, (originally composed of a current and ex- planning commissioner, a conservationist, a Pathway Cmte person, an Open Space Cmte member, two councilmen — and all with widely differing opinions on the topic) wanted to find out just how much our open spaces mean to people and so, tried to ask questions like: Are we deviating from the Town's roots in the way the Town is developing? If so, do we like it? Are people concerned about the 'gridding' that is evident in some areas of the Town and the like. The committee also considered the Planning Rules that require that we be aware of and attempt conform to similar nearby environments. So, we also looked at the regulations adopted by similar, nearby towns and how they manage their fence regulations. They also considered the Federal and State's laws and how we are conforming to them (in some cases, not so well — much too lax!), the Town's General Plan (ditto), our current regulations and related Town Documents in arriving at a methodology to address the issue. In other words, !t's been an interesting trip, not easy, but always seeking to do best for the Town. The result is the proposal that will -be discussed tomorrow evening. By the way, thank you for the 'taking' comment. I've followed up with staff on that question ... the response is that the imposition of a setback requirement does not meet the definition; there is no legally defined 'taking'. The property is still owned by the owner... and can be used in the any way that s/he may choose. They just can't put a 6' fence closer to the property line than the setback allows (but a 4' permeable fence is allowed on the property line or within the setback area). And, to be doubly sure, I've insisted that our attorney weigh in with an opinion regarding the issue as well, hopefully, by tomorrow evening before the study session. I Thanks for your concern, feedback and ideas. I do appreciate them ... and you. Best regards, Gary Gary Waldeck Vice Mayor, Los Altos Hills GCWaldeck@Gmail.com (650) 739-8823 (Office/Cell) From:. Bill Balson [mailto:wbalson@pacbell.netl Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:15 PM To: 'Gary Waldeck' Cc: 'Ginger Summit; 'Jean Mordo'; 'Rich Larsen'; jrdford2011@yahoo.com; bfroelichOlosaltoshills.cagov Subject: followup on survey regarding the fence ordinance Dear Gary, Thanks for filling me in on the background of the fence proposal. I know a lot of people have been working on this for a long time. As you suggested I did go look at -the surrey results as presented in the agenda for the planning commission. This survey is inconsistent with good survey practices and is unlikely to represent the opinions of the Town as a whole. Only 568 out of the Town's 8,000+ residents bothered to fill out the survey. That's a response rate of 7%. On the key question #4, the respondents were evenly divided. So, 284 people out of around 5,000 registered voters agree with the proposal. That is not a result you should trumpet as the will of the voters. Survey Monkey is highly susceptible to self- selection bias and no questions in the survey asked for demographic information. Thus, the respondents could easily include minors and nonresidents. So, no correction to the biases is statistically possible. Self-selection bias is common in surveys that fail to randomize the population selected for responses or that poorly communicate to the entire population. It's pretty clearly non -representative from the tone and content of the comments already received by the planning commission. To be useful, the survey will require a complete redesign. In the new survey, in addition to curing self-selection bias and demographics, you will want to solicit pertinent information about the risks as well as the benefits to the Town residents. Best regards, Bill Balson 650-823-2510 This email contains confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Brian Froelich From: Tim Chown [6mchown@gmall.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:53 PM To: Brian Froelich Subject: Amendments to Fence Ordinance Brian, Thanks for taking a few minutes to speak with me this morning about the proposed amendments to the LAH fence ordinance. Though I understand issues of appearance and wildlife movement with 6' solid fences, I think the requirement for open rail fences on the property lines of larger lots is too limited. Wire fencing is much cheaper to build and maintain. I also believe that the 10' or 20' setback requirements (if homeowners still want a 6' solid fence) could result in more confusion and an even less attractive result. Tim and Valerie Chown 13822 Page Mill Rd. (Moon Lane) (650) 941-0187 home (650) 823-3267 cell