Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 Supplemental (2)SUPPLEMENT AGENDA ITEM Distributed: IE3/ Brian Froelich From: Avigale Mcloughlin [avigale@me.com] Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 6:55 AM To: Brian Froelich Cc: Ty and Adana Owen; Craig and Becky Bishop Subject: Comments regarding proposed fence ordinance Dear Mr. Froelich, We have received notice of a new proposed Fence Ordinance and should have someone in attendance representing our family, the Stirling Family, at the meeting dated August 22nd. I have been unable to find the agenda packet on the town website as of yet, so please forgive any answers that may be in the packet for which I am currently unaware. Although someone should be present at the meeting as mentioned, I would like to submit my personal comments/ questions for review by you: 1/What is the purpose of the proposed fence ordinance which proposes setbacks of 10-20 feet depending on acreage? Is it for wildlife passage? If so, shouldn't all neighbors share in this responsibility, not just larger landowners? 2/Considering that the majority of Los Altos Hills has been subdivided substantially into acreages of less than 2 acres, this proposed ordinance targets only large landowners. This is not the first time that we have personally felt targeted by the Pathway Committee simply because we have large acreage. In the instance of large landowners who use land for the purpose of fanning or keeping horses, it is necessary to fence in acreage to keep animals in or out depending on the need. Fencing also protects large landowners from trespassers, whereby the landowners are held personally responsible for damage coming to trespassers, regardless of the offense or failure to abide by safety precautions by the trespassers. This was certainly the case for our personal property. Therefore it is necessary and right for large landowners to fence in their personal property. Large landowners should receive the same treatment assinall landowners regarding their personal property. A setback of 10-20 feet around a large area substantially reduces the useable area for a large landowner. Again, the responsibility for wildlife protection (or whatever the reason for this proposal) should be shared by ALL landowners, not only those who have larger acreage. 3/In the notice that we received, it states that "Fence Ordinance amendments would apply to replacement and new fences." Does this include repair of existing fences? As discussed, we have areas in need of repair in our current deer fence, which we believe to be directly caused by the action of our neighbor who was feeding wildlife. It does not escape our attention that this neighbor serves on the Pathway Committee, which may be linked to the Fence Committee mentioned in this notice. Please clarify if this is indeed the case. As you may realize, a substantial amount of time, money and consideration for our neighbor, as well as wildlife went into our current deer fence. In the event of repair of an entire section of fence, it would be considerably upsetting to us if we were forced to move the fence in 20 feet, in light of this new proposal. Thank you for your time and consideration. Aloha, Avigale McLoughlin, Stirling Family 1 Brian Froelich From: Helen Cunningham [helenfromsun@gmail.coml Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 4:42 PM To: Brian Froelich; Helen Cunningham Subject: Planning Commission Meeting Wednesday August 22, 2012 Hi Brian, I have downloaded and read the materials for Wednesday's study meeting regarding the proposed fence ordinance amendment. I now have two comments and one question: Comment 1- I note that one respondent (in an email attached to the agenda) requests that you postpone the meeting because the community has been given far too little notice to understand this issue and prepare responses. I agree and support that person's request that the meeting be rescheduled for a later time. Comment 2 - I note that Wednesday's agenda has a number of items on it. Is the "study" session scheduled for before or after these items? If after, then that would create an even greater obstacle to the participation of the community because it's difficult to stay late enough to speak on a work/school evening. Question - What is the allotted time for each speaker? Thanks, Helen Cunningham 27980 Central Drive Los Altos Hills CA Brian Froelich From: Bill Balson [wbalson@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 9:00 AM To: Brian Froelich Cc: 'Gary Waldeck'; 'Jean Mordo' Subject: Balson comments for the planning commission regarding the proposed fence ordinance Attachments: Statement of Bill Balson regarding the proposed new fence ordinance.pdf Brian, I reside at 26209 Dori Lane. Please accept the attached statement regarding this ill considered proposal. I would like my statement entered into the record for the meeting and I plan to attend the meeting tonight. Regards, Bill Balson 650-823-2510 Statement of Bill Balson regarding the proposed new fence ordinance August 22, 2012 I am here today to express my opposition to the new fence ordinance as written. As an owner of a one -acre lot in Los Altos Hills, I'm only indirectly affected. Yet, this ordinance creates substantial risks to the Town without measurable benefits. The ordinance is designed to permit wildlife to migrate freely into Los Altos Hills. This would include deer, which bring with them tics and predators. Deer borne tics bring with them Lyme disease. The University of California has a program that addresses the Lyme disease threat. "Lyme disease .... may result in arthritic, neurologic, or further skin manifestations." Deer also bring with them predators. Muir Beach, which has encouraged abundant deer and mountain lions, offers the following safety advice to visitors: "Do not leave pets or pet food outside ... Avoid walking alone. Watch children closely and never let them run ahead ... If attacked, fight back[" These are the foreseeable outcome of encouraging large numbers of deer and mountain lions to roam the Town. The Town at a minimum should investigate these risks so the Council can be properly informed when making a decision and develop potential mitigating alternatives. The proposed ordinance would also substantially alter the allocation of responsibility for fence repairs. Fences on a property line are the joint responsibility of both property owners. Underthis ordinance a lot with 2 or more acres would not have the legal right to replace a fence on a common boundary with a one acre lot. So, the full financial obligation would fall to the owner of the one -acre lot. Aesthetically, this ordinance seems likely to create visual abominations on irregular lots, hilly lots, and corner lots. Essentially, every large lot would escalate for special consideration creating an administrative burden on the Town. Finally, the expansion of Town fence policy affecting approximately 10-13% of the total area of large lots amounts to converting private land into a public park purpose and would likely invite trespass. This proposed ordinance is not suitable for adoption and should be rejected. Brian Froelich From: Waidy Lee [waidy@waidy.com] Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 9:31 AM To: Brian Froelich Cc: Gary Waldeck; John Redford; Eric Clow; Richard Partridge; James Abraham; Jitze Couperus; John Harpootlian; Susan Mandle; Deborah Padovan Subject: Fence Ordinance Amendment Dear Brian, thanks for the pointer to the agenda. I have reviewed it and following is my "voice". Please read the following email loud and clear at the Aug 22, 2012 meeting. Many thanks. Best Regards, Waidy Lee Dear Planning Commissioners of the Town of Los Altos Hills and Ad Hoc Fence Committee members: I am concern on the proposed amendments to the Los Altos Hills Fence Ordinance Sec. 10-1-507. The amendment posts a safety thread to me, my family, and to the residents of Los Altos Hills. While I support open space and free movement for wildlife, setback between adjacent properties would create corridors for thefts, allowing ease of access (invitations) for them to enter. In reviewing the online survey, safety issues were not addressed. I therefore, strongly object the proposed amendment. Best, Waidy Lee 27961 Central Drive Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 (650) 949-3339 Brian Froelich From: Jay Shideler gashideler@yahoo.coml Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 10:22 AM To: Brian Froelich Cc: Rich Larsen; Ginger Summit; Jean Mordo;.Gary Waldeck; Walt Wilson; William Balson; jrdford20lI@yahoo.com Subject: Los Altos Hills Fence Proposal Attachments: Fence Proposal 8-20-2012.docx Hi Brian, Per your request pertaining to our phone conversation the other day, I am sending my statement of my objection of the proposal fence ordinance. I plan to be at the review meeting on Wednesday night to formally state my opposition to this proposal. Regards, Jay A. Shideler Hi Brian, I am in receipt of the notice of the proposed Fence Ordinance Amendment Study Session. I understand the desire for creating conservation easements for the passage of wild animals. But, I have a lot of concern of this "cookie cutter, one -shoe -fits -all" approach. This places an unfair burden on selected homeowners and doesn't account for circumstances that are specific to these homeowner. There are better ways to accomplish this. As an example of the flaws of this plan and how it defeats the purpose by creating other undesirable situations, I would like to use my lot plan as an example: 1. Our lot has a conservation easement already established which extends along Page Mill Rd to the boundary of the neighboring property. There is currently no fence on this section of 159 feet. This is plenty of unfenced boundary for game to pass along. It is pointless to insist on additional common 4 foot high fence restriction. 2. Our lot is a highly slopped lot with a L.U.F. of 1.34 restricting our home to a maximum of 6,418 square feet. If it is the intention of going after large homes on big lots, this is not one of those large home lots. This ordinance does not account for highly slopped lots. Why are these highly slopped lots being penalized? 3. Our lot has about 120 oak trees, the vast majority with girth greater than 12 inches. The only area of the property that is clear of oak trees is at the far southern portion of it. In order to save as many of the trees as possible, the house was positioned exactly 30 feet from the southern property line, the minimum setback. If the house were move 10 feet farther away from the property line, the house would wipe out about 15 more trees since many trees are concentrated in the southern -central portion of the lot. I think it is a very poor trade-off to wipe out these many trees to create a conservation easement when such as easement already exist. 4. Good fences create good neighbor relationships. This may be a simple adage but it is holds a lot of truth. A 4 foot fence is not a good fence and doesn't serve to create good neighborly relationships. 5. Other than existing easements, deer and other animals have plenty of ways to pass from one property to another. Most properties have at least a common boundary along a road which allows deer to walk along the road shoulders. Moreover, there are too many deer in this region to sustain them during the fall when vegetation is limited. They are starving during this period of the year. Since they have no natural predators, they will simply multiply until they reach the weeding out process by starvation in the Fall. So, as you can see, my lot has satisfied all of the desirable wildlife conservation easements without sacrificing trees. Moreover, many homes do not have 6 foot fencing totally encompassing the property such as my neighbor directly to the south of our house. Deer freely roam around her property so creating a conservation corridor on her property seems pointless to me. I would strongly recommend that this proposed ordinance be dropped and instead, a voluntary guideline be recommended. This Town has become very peaceful, the past acrimony essentially gone. Forcing this ordinance will only recreate a lot of ill feeling, similar to what existed in the past. We all want to compromise and have a balance between homeowner rights and community rights. However, this ordinance eschews this balance. Brian Froelich From: Elaine Nelson [etn21@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 2:31 PM To: Brian Froelich Cc: jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; jima.pc@gmail.com; jitze@couperus.org; john.harpootlian@gmail.com Subject: Proposed fence ordinance to promote "wildlife movement" Hello all, Lionel and I live at 27261 Black Mountain Road, LAH, on a lot a little over 2 acres in size. Although we are "grandfathered", the proposed ordinance may affect us in the future if we wish to replace current fencing. I would like to address 3 issues concerning the "wildlife movement" of deer in our neighborhood: Offsets for unfenced areas Like others in our immediate area, a large portion of the rear of our property is steep. It adjoins Matadero "canyon" and is unfenced. This a traditional habitat for many deer. Since we are already giving a large setback at the rear of our lot, I think we should have proportional relief from the proposed setback requirements for a similar square footage. Odd -shaped lots Our lot is flag shaped. Putting into effect the proposed setbacks would either leave us without a driveway, or a completely unfenced driveway along the entrance and one side of the property. Deer Health and Human Health i.Promoting accessibility for the deer is not necessarily a kindness to them if it results in a larger population that cannot sustain itself. I Regardless of fence heights or lack of fences, the deer are going to wander where they want, which is often onto the roads, causing danger to themselves, drivers, and pedestrians. iii. Our county already has deer -borne Lyme ticks; bringing the deer closer to our property is a potential health hazard. Best, Elaine Nelson Submission to the Los Altos Hills Public Hearing Aug 22, 2012 Re: Fence Ordinance Amendment Study Session "The town of Los Altos Hills fencing 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. " Unfortunately, the town now also feels it has the right to deprive residents of substantial use of their property in order to preserve this "beauty and rural quality". LAH is overstepping their control over our property rights in proposing this additional restriction to the use of our private property, which is taxed on its total size. What is the real issue behind this proposal to prohibit adequate, protective, interior, property line fencing on 2 acres or larger? If it is an issue of establishing "wild life corridors" between properties, this is an issue which should be based on specific properties where this may be needed It should not be applied as a blanket ruling for every property above 2 acres. Objections to this proposed ordinance amendment: 1) Arbitrarily removing three 10' or 20' strips along the internal boundaries of a 2+ or 3+ acre property DEPRIVES THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF SUBSTANTIAL USE OF THEIR LAND. Many owners fence the property line on internal boundaries at 5' to 6' heights to get maximum use of their properties for orchards, gardens, play areas, pets, paddocks, safety, protection and the like. This land will be taken from them with no recompense. 2) IT IS AN OPEN INVITATION TO PUBLIC USE OF PRIVATE LAND WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE LANDOWNER. Creating 20' to 40' corridors between larger properties invites the use of these "highways" by the general public and easy escape routes for any persons intent on home invasion. 3) Do I hear LAWSUIT IF SOMEONE IS INJURED in a corridor, which was demanded by LAH over the objections of the property owner? 4) If a setback is necessary for one property but no fence at all is constructed next door, what keeps that neighbor from ILLEGAL USE OF THE CORRIDOR, i.e, your land? 5) In essence, these corridors will establish a "no mans' land", especially in steep areas, which will be DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN FOR FIRE PROTECTION. 6) It will be IMPOSSIBLE TO CONTROL PUBLIC ACCESS TO THESE CORRIDORS. Half the walkers in the hills do not come from the Hills. 6) LAH IS STEALING PRIVATE LAND FOR NO TRULY CONCRETE PURPOSE. The establishment of these corridors is a class lawsuit waiting to happen. 7) LAR ALREADY HAS FAR TOO MANY RESTRICTIONS on its inhabitants to restrict the use of their property. Leave this alone and spend the town money on more worthwhile projects. Times change. LAH is not the sleepy, rural little town in the hills it was when it was incorporated in 1956. It is a wealthy town, ripe for the unsavory opportunists. Most properties are not flat and the slope alone restricts them. Protecting our properties while getting full, currently allowable use of them should be our legal right, not submitting to a flawed proposal, which smacks of EMINENT DOMAIN WITHOUT COMPENSATION. Eleanor Caughlan 10836 West Loyola Dr. Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 I am a second -generation Los Altos resident, living in the same home my parents bought in 1944. (The property was in the county until recently annexed by LAH.) I am also the Developer of Record of Cinnabar Hills Subdivision in 1974, an 8 -parcel subdivision lauded by Santa Clara County as a sensitive reversion to 1+ acre zoning from 22 small Country Club Property lots. Brian Froelich From: E Williston [cronele@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 2:52 PM To: Brian Froelich Subject: Public Hearing on fence ordinance amendment Attachments: Submission to LAH Public Hearing.pdf Dear Brian, I am attaching my comments on the proposed amendment to the current LAH fence ordinance for the Public Hearing to be held Wednesday, August 22. I would appreciate it if you would place copies in the folders of all those on the panel. I would also like the time to present my objections at the hearing. Will you have a chalk board available? I am strongly opposed to this proposal for the reasons I have stated in my attachment. If you have any questions, I may be reached at 650-948-2342 or at this email address. Thank you and Regards, Eleanor Veegie' Caughlan 650-948-2342 cronele@gmail.com Brian Froelich From: mccauleydon@comcastnet Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 5:43 PM To: Debbie Pedro; Brian Froelich Subject: Proposed Fence Ordinance Sirs: Your Ad Hoc Fence Committee has constructed a proposed ordinance which denies property owners their right and privilege of doing what they wish with a significant portion of their own property, mandates that upon particular improvements to their existing property additional expenses must be incurred to change existing fencing, presumes to enhance wild animal access through private properties, and proposes to prohibit "gridding" of the Town. Although my property is not affected by this ordinance as written, I object to it because: 1. l am convinced it is absolutely unnecessary, 2. It is an illegal "taking of property", 3. It will not enhance wild animal access, 4. It is unfair to those property owners that are affected and that in the future it will be imposed on my property in some similar form. On the matter of necessity for this ordinance, your survey reveals that Town residents predominantly appreciate the rural character of the Town and appreciate the access of wild animals, and will therefore preserve this character by themselves without any ordinance. Thus, your committee has created a proposed ordinance for which there is no need. On the several proposed changes related to minor features of fencing, the involved property owners are quite capable of resolving these amicably among themselves, and the Town if necessary. On the matter of illegal taking of property, the Town has no right to dictate to property owners what they may do with their property, denying their rights of ownership, other than what already exists in Town ordinances. For wild animal access, it is widely known that these animals regularly best our greatest attempts to deny them access, such as vegetable gardens, flower beds, lawns, etc., even with 6 foot fencing. This fact reveals that fences up to 6 feet present only inconvenience at worst to these animals. So imposing this proposed ordinance, with 10 and 20 foot setback and height restrictions will do little other than remove a minor inconvenience to wildlife. Since your Ad Hoc Fence Committee has failed to justify irs claim that "gridding" is a present threat in the Town, this cannot be utilized as a need to be fulfilled. Although this proposed ordinance does not dictate that -property owners immediately change their existing fencing to comply, at the first modification of his property the owner can be notified of the existence of "non -conforming" fencing, and be required to replace all existing fencing at his expense. Since my property is only slightly larger than 1 acre, this ordinance does not affect it at the present, but I have no confidence that in the foreseeable future, some other Imagined ill or travesty will entice the Town to impose something similar on my single acre. Therefore, I consider this proposed ordinance to be unwarranted, unnecessary, and improper. As such, I implore the Town to cancel it in entirety. Donald D. McCauley Shirley S. McCauley 23548 Ravensbury Ave. Los Altos Hills, Calif. 94024 650-948-9471 Brian Froelich From: Mike Myers [mkm24600@comcastnet] Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 8:48 PM To: Brian Froelich Subject: Fence Ordinance Comment Attachments: LAH fence letter.doc Brian, Attached is a letter in response to your notices of the public hearing Wednesday. Mike Myers Myron K. Myers 24600 Olive Tree Lane Los Altos Hills; Ca 94023 Brian Froelich, Ad hoc Fence Committee Aug. 20, 2012 Dear Mr. Froelich and Committee Members, Thank you for your two notices informing us of your proposal for changes in the town's fence ordinance. The proposed regulation appears to be extreme in its quest for conformity and lacking concern for the property owner's desire and ability to choose his own style and placement of visual and safety barriers. Is someone really proposing a planned community where everyone has the same "rail" fence four feet high? And do these rails need to be horizontal, or may they also be vertical? Are posts required, or may this fence use a postless zig-zag design? Why can't someone use grape stakes, variations of redwood, wrought iron or chain link? In most cases trees and shrubbery hide the fence anyway. The proposal uses the term "interior property lines," which implies the existence also of "exterior property lines," but neither of these terms has any basis in law or common discourse. Let me use my property as an example of the challenge you face in trying to create an all- encompassing fence ordinance. Our land is bounded by three roads, one public and two private. I have six neighboring parcels, but five of them meet our property in the middle of the private roads. Only one neighbor and we share an undeveloped property line. My access is from the public street, but it is only as wide as required for my gate and driveway. Is this my "exterior property line?" If the land along the private streets constitutes the "interior" lines you wish to control, then you are significantly adding to the land we already have lost to easements that benefit other people. The sixth neighbor and we share a four -foot, chain-link fence along the property line. If our properties fell under your proposals, this fence would not be legal. Furthermore, my neighbor has built a six-foot, wire -mesh fence at an angle from the common four -foot fence. This fence too would be illegal. My neighbor asked neither for my opinion nor my permission before building, and I don't care. I hope -you don't either. Myron K. Myers Brian Froelich From: Bill Balson [wbalson@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 20121:15 PM To: 'Gary Waldeck' Cc: 'Ginger Summit; 'Jean Mordo'; 'Rich Larsen'; 1rdford2011 @yahoo.com; Brian Froelich 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, Bill Balson 650-823-2510 This email contains confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Brian Froelich From: Bill Riffle [bill@riffru.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 2:50 PM To: Brian Froelich Cc: Ruann Ernst Subject: Ad hoc Fence committee Brian, thanks for the discussion last week. Unfortunately, I don' think I'll be able to make the hearing tomorrow night because of a previously scheduled medical procedure. Since I don't understand the "problem" thatthe committee is trying to solve, I don't have an opinion on the "solution" proposed. Would existing fences be grandfathered? I hope the planning commission and the committee recognize that this will create unique and potentially conflicting situations with likely unintended consequences. I don't like to take a selfish point of view, but would suggest that if they would like to see an example of a potential problem, come see my lot at 28525 Matadero Creek Lane. Under the proposed plan, I don't -think we could put a fence around our property. Is that the intention of the proposed change? My bet is there are other such cases. I hope they think this through and recognize the need for flexible implementation if they proceed. Let me know how I can help. Cheers, Bill Riffle 948-2179 Brian Froelich From: Marj Green [marjgreen@mindspring.comj Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 4:24 PM To: Brian Froelich Subject: Proposed fence ordinance Dear Brian and Planning Committee members, I am opposed to the 2+acre fence ordinance. Even though my property is only 1 acre, the ordinance would apply to my next -door -neighbor's property. I believe this ordinance would result in the taking of useable property without recompense or overwhelming need. Even though their are many fences in our neighborhood, they do not restrict wildlife. There is no overwhelming need to set aside 'wildlife' corridors. Let alone how would you educate the wildlife to stop using anywhere they choose and teach them to go to these spaces. No longer could neighbors share the expense of a common fence. While many in Los Altos Hills may be able to afford it, there are lots of us for whom this would be a financial burden. Marj Green 10666 W Loyola Dr Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 1 U ju ""i2olY- Denial of Use Property Law - Pending Proposal RECEIVED Fences and Appurtenant structures. AUG 2 2 2012 Bill Riffle passed along the Notice of Planning Commission StJgW%,%,QUOS HILLS re: above. I have not received one of these from the town though I should as I have a lot of 3.5+ acres with a house, built in a circle drawn by the town as part of their own development efforts. Action: Please check the recordsr on ownership and mailings and the GIS that identifies lots over 1 acre. Note this lot has encumbrances (restrictions) for open space, conservation easements, and pathways. That leaves about an area to build and play within. We do have a fence, built with permits. It was places subject to front setback, which includes a slope/height limitation and is thus 45 feet set back. This is a cul-de-sac location. Without the present fence which we lacked from 1985 to 2010 we were unable to maintain any decorative vegetation as we are in a corridor served by a deer species well in excess of 1,000,000 now on the peninsula. The coyotes cannot maintain control over this many deer. Benner's Deer Proof invisible fence is no deterrent as the gigantic rabbits (hares) eat through that plastic fence and the deer flop -slide through those openings. (You should see this team action.) Los Altos Hills is a virtual salad bar for deer. The present fence was installed on the west side by the Walsh's when they purchased Connie and Bob Lefkowitz home, built by Jim Viso. It is located along the property line and I supported it. They have plants gi' g on this for decoration. It provided the impetus for us to seek the idQ11- tical fence on the front and the side toward Riffle's. Much of the other side fence 1 have located 25 feet from the Riffle/ Ellinger Property line bul near the cul-de- sac, the lot pinches together so that portion is within. a few feet from the side line. We are very pleased with this fence - decorative - and definitely NOT s split rail fence. The proposed ordin$hce.mould make improvements and repair of these fences impossiilo: Even "what is a'fence" is in jeopardy as a side fence vs. a front or back fence isn't mentioned in the document. A fence either has two ends or no ends (circumscribed) fence, could have an opening, etc. Regardless of lot size, this administrative challenge to the proposed change of the fence ordinance makes interpretation legally vague. Is "replacement' distinguishable from "repair" such as replacing fence parts/ fabric? Is an interior fence something like a tomato -cage in a garden? Is it a fence if build on a lot with no part of it within a set -back area? For the side setbacks (30') forcing a fence setback of 10' for a useful fence (one that provides property enjoyment to the owner, free of marauding pests) amounts to a virtual taking and denial of use of 30% of the property area on sides and back. Further, the notion of 'interior' property lines is mysterious and undefined. Is Front referring to the street address and interior any other direction of the lot, sides, back, etc? Who would decide? For the few dozen lots in the town with more than 2 acres, why not face those issues directly and remedy whatever situation the town wants with a negotiation with the owner? Why a blanket law that would ambush property owners who have fences that might require maintenance or repair or are contemplating a fence? We waited 25 years to get our fence! [I will admit to being more patient than most and I used to like deer. I'd prefer some of them become dinner.] I'd welcome a deer management program on the peninsula via culling by sponsored hunters or the vector control people. I've grown weary, too, of their ticks. If you want a garden and decorative plants, lacking predator management by any entity leaves a fence as the only practical alternative. There is a 'taste police' aspect of this, requiring open rail fences. In the town we lived with this imposition of design for years which led to some rancorous debates at a council that pulled building application after application from the Planning Commission to have their decisions overturned. The meetings became so heated at council that they had to meet at Temple Beth Am with two sheriff deputies. I've seen how controversial this can become. More than 1/3 of the current town population is now Asian. An open rail, [Western US style] fence is unknown to most of this segment of the town who feel that tall masonry structures or stone walls on the 'property border' are better for their privacy and security. My own home is an English tudor style, at the suggestion of the town council AND the Planning Commission in 1985. A split rail fence would be anathema to this design. If you review the homes built in the last 10 years you will see highly sculpted masonry and stone structures, not any of the low ranch style homes where an open rail fence might be compatible. The notion of a 4' tall open rail fence leaves open the currently available plastic white fences with plastic rails widely available from home improvement stores. Is this what the ordinance would encourage in this area? I hope not. if you want something, define it more precisely or just see the home -owner. On the road to LAH town hall from Los Altos you will pass a large recently built home done is a modified Indian Palace style with palm trees and a large masonry wall. Clearly it was approved. It is an interesting home though little of it is visible from the street and the fence is so high it obscures the view of the house. What is special about the transition from 2 acres to 3 acres? Shouldn't you be talking of encumbered acres? In my own case, thought the town has always encouraged guest houses to comply with the state mandate of providing affordable housing, the town also included building circles which significantly restricted the location of this home and it's height effectively precluding construction of a guest house. During the Toni Casey years, the town vacated the notion of building circles but by then the design 'damage' was done and the home is where it is, not to ever move. Building a guest house would create even more demand for a fence along an interior property line for privacy and protection. The notion of making such a new ordinance be effectively retroactive, affecting any fence that would be replaced is clearly not good or practical law or design. I could conceivably understand a new restriction if the lot were 'scraped' of all construction above grade when it would be possible to consider a new fence AND structures at that time, together. The present ordinance provides for appurtenant structures. To date these have included satellite dishes and other antennas, fireplaces, barbecues, patios, gathering spaces and more outdoor items. Each lot differs and most have hills, yet this ordinance says nothing about these items or practical location on the lot. In some areas the back sides of lots are so steep as to preclude use of the back except for a terrace; a property owner sees usage only on the sides (see Briones area). It might not be a totally fair example as these are under 2 acres, but the properties around Roos Ridge certainly would be a consideration. So would the lots along Page Mill Road across from the Foothills Park - those are and were fences of vertical wood slats along the side of the pavement! There is a house along Page Mill Road built on an old quant' that does have open rail fences all along Page Mills Road, frequently broached by cars. Is this to be considered an interior fence once more than some distance from the home? Even the offered diagram show a flat -lander house design on a fiat lot. Consider the topography in this design change. A property owner could build a retaining wall against a hillside, and might need to do this to provide access to the side and garage. Such driveway and retaining wall construction is common within the 10', not just 30'side set -backs. A fence surely would be useful along the top of such a wall as we have seen in the area overlooking the Neary Quarry area. Such fences were required for safety. Safety: The current reports are that day -time home invasion robberies are up 63% on the peninsula along the HWY 280 Corridor. It is severe enough in Los Altos Hills as to require a town hall meeting with the sheriff. The usual 'lock your doors and windows' advice is given, an onerous way to live in what otherwise appears to be upscale developed rural -scene Los Altos Hills. Providing this 10' rule would do safety an evil blow as a line between two properties would now have TWO fences instead of ONE and it would leave the corridor between as a thieves 'run with the loot' route. There are enough complaints in this town over the 50 miles of pathways [which l like and support] without adding such free passage. Some may argue that this is a corridor for the deer and wildlife. Nonsense - the deer can vault even the present 7 foot fences. Observe the deer sitting serenely within the Packard estate's major wire and post fence, watch the hikers and cars outside of the fence. This fence 'protects' the apricot orchard within - sorta. It does reduce the deer traffic considerably. Now imagine 'repair' or replacement of that fence along the side toward San Francisco, adjoining neighboring property, thus requiring movement of it by 10'. It creates a corridor, a security threat, and a huge cost where a simple fence fabric replacement or wire replacement would be all that was required. The foot traffic from animals and potentially people would also create an erosion challenge by concentration of all this in.such a 20' corridor. It also creates an ideal dumping place for refuse, from mattresses to TV's to stolen property. Such a thoroughfare in a neighborhood, along property lines would be silly. Rather, the sort of personal passage gate we enjoy between our place and the Walsh's is something I think is grand for neighborly relationship's. If we didn't like the neighbor, we'd close the gate. Further, how would anyone practically landscape and maintain the 20' no -man's land this ordinance would create? One solution would be to skip the notion of 'fence' and plant a hedge. It would begine innocently enough with a row of Oleander, Boxwood, eucalyptus, or bamboo but could quickly grow to an impenetrable thicket. Indeed, the English tudor home here would be traditionally served by a boxwood hedge. A decorative fence would be less invasive. What about lots over 2.99 acres? Why are these excluded if you write an ordinance for 2.0 to 2.99 acres? Can these lots put up perimeter walls of fencing at a presently permitted height? In short, the written note provides no recitation of what the intended result is. What is this change trying to accomplish? Who are the owners and. which properties are affected? Where is the map and analysis to show why this is important or why it should be opposed? As I see it, you should vacate this work and leave the old fence rules alone. Here is the note I sent Bill Riffle when he asked me about this. There were many fences I looked at around our end of town, including several right along the roadside of Page Mill Road, in LAH.These wouldn't be permitted. Likewise, the fence around Temple Beth Am where the city held controversial council meetings would not be possible. Neither my fence nor yours would be possible as they would bifurcate driveways. The driveways have to be in the side setback of both of our homes as this is where the city mandated the location of these homes when built, via the building circle notion. Many of the alleys these fences create would be across topo lines, NOT the way the deer want to roam.They like to roam along contour lines - see the very visible trains through Burne Preserve. If trapped inside a 20ft deer right-of-way and someone came out, they would likely panic and flail against the fence. I've seen them do this behavior when trapped inside a fence, too close to get a running leap to jump. Worse, if this fence thing goes, banning fences effectively when someone decided to repair a fence, then a repair anywhere triggers this ordinance such that the compliance becomes either "repair and don't tell" or "ignore fence and don't maintain:' We have plenty of deteriorated fences - there are examples of these in the area close to Foothill College on some of the narrow lots that are deep, near Moody,Altamont and Elena. There are more in the area I hike up The Stevens Creek Open Space, Los Trancos Open Space and Russian Ridge. The deer go where there is food (Los Altos Hills) and relative safety from predation.About every other night the coyotes take down a deer with audible results along the Page Mill Road corridor. Fences I found on Central Avenue would be impossible. I also asked at town about what problem they are trying to solve and heard something about creating deer corridors. I believe this is a little late to consider that in LAH. In the Stanford dish area with lands on BOTH sides of 280, there is a corridor under 280 used for grazing animals and they are trained to it. However, for deer mitigation, 280 is fenced, creating a significant barrier for deer, for safety between 1.2 million deer on the peninsula and the flatlanders on the other side of 280. Of course, this fence still permitted a deer to bound onto 280 when Ruann collided with it.The behavior I was told needs about 3 to 4 generations of deer before they abandon old roaming, including crossing 280. These accidents are much less common on 280 today. And, since there is no Problem or situation addressed by this planned action, it might not be about deer! Palo Alto shoots mountain lions that wander into their residential areas. I've asked they simply bring them here, to my property if they like, to turn them loose.They will have a field day up here. If we cannot take the logical steps to mitigate the deer naturally, letting them roam in the 100 square miles W of town, how should the residents manage them? I help pay for the Peninsula Open Space District - I go there and enjoy deer and lots of other wildlife. I don't need them under the window at night with the sounds of coyotes. 1 prefer the mountain lions which are quieter..... What is the fence ordinance for? Rick -1 ��2 s kolc�.r Brian Froelich From: Bill Balson [wbalson@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 6:21 PM To: 'Gary Waldeck' Cc: 'Ginger Summit; 'Jean Mordo'; 'Rich Larsen'; jrdford2011 @yahoo.com; Brian Froelich Subject: RE: follow-up on survey regarding the fence ordinance 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.gov/cega/reg talc/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. 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 [mailto:gcwaldeck@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 3:53 PM To: 'Bill Balson' Subject: RE: follow-up on survey regarding the fence ordinance 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, 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 Gary Waldeck Vice Mayor, Los Altos Hills GCWaideck@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'; jrdford20ll@yahoo.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, Bill Balson 650-823-2510 This email contains confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it. Brian Froelich From: Rick Ellinger [rke3@mac.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 6:43 PM To: Bill Riffle Cc: Brian Froelich; Ruann Ernst Subject: Re: Ad hoc Fence committee I took time to write up some thoughts on this Bill. If I get them to you, maybe that will be useful. There were many fences I looked at around our end of town, including several right along the roadside of Page Mill Road, in LAH. These wouldn't be permitted. Likewise, the fence around Temple Beth Am where the city held controversial council meetings would not be possible. Neither my fence nor yours would be possible as they would bifurcate driveways. The driveways have to be in the side setback of both of our homes as this is where the city mandated the location of these homes when built, via the building circle notion. Many of the alleys these fences create would be across topo lines, NOT the way the deer want to roam. They like to roam along count our lines - see the very visible trains through Burne Preserve. If trapped inside a 20ft deer right-of-way and someone came out, they would likely panic and flail against the fence. Pve seen them do this behavior when trapped inside a fence, too close to get a running to to jump. Worse, if this fence thing goes, banning fences effectively when someone decided to repair a fence, then a repair anywhere triggers this with the compliance being either repair and don't tell or ignore fence and don't maintain. We have plenty of deteriorated fences - there are examples of these in the area close to Foothill College on some of the narrow lots that are deep, near Moody, Altamont and Elena. Fences I found on Central Avenue would be impossible. I also asked about what problem they are trying to solve and heard something about creating deer corridors. I believe this is a little late to consider that in LAH. In the Stanford dish area with lands on BOTH sides of 280, there is a corridor under 280 used for grazing animals and they are trained to it. However, for deer mitigation, 280 is fenced, creating a significant barrier for deer, for safety between 1.2million deer on the peninsula and the flatlanders on the other side of 280. Of course, this fence still permitted a deer to bound onto 280 when Ruann collided with it. The behavior I was told needs about 3 to 4 generations of deer before they abandon old roaming, including crossing 280. These accidents are much less common on 280 today. And, since there is no Problem or situation addressed by this planned action, it might not be about deer! Rick On Aug 21, 2012, at 2:49 PM, Bill Riffle wrote: Brian, thanks for the discussion last week. Unfortunately, I don' think I'll be able to make the hearing tomorrow night because of a previously scheduled medical procedure. Since I don't understand the "problem" that the committee is trying to solve, I don't have an opinion on the "solution" proposed. Would existing fences be grandfathered? I hope the planning commission and the committee recognize that this will create unique and potentially conflicting situations with likely unintended consequences. I don't like to take a selfish point of view, but would suggest that if they would like to see an example of a potential problem, come see my lot at 28525 Matadero Creek Lane. Under the proposed plan, I don't think we could put a .fence around our property. Is that the intention of the proposed change? My bet is there are other such cases. I hope they think this through and recognize the need for flexible implementation if they proceed. Let me know how I can help. Cheers, Bill Riffle 948-2179 Brian Froelich From: George Clifford [george@clifford.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 9:22 PM To: Brian Froelich Subject: Proposed Fencing Ordinance Brian, I'd like to comment on the proposed fencing ordinance being considered by the Planning Commission. The Ad Hoc committee on fencing has put together a thoughtful proposal after reviewing the recent online Town survey. This survey reveals that the respondents clearly value preserving a rural environment, protecting wildlife, and incorporating fencing setbacks. I strongly support the fencing recommendations of the committee. It is consistent with other nearby communities like Portola Valley that are trying to protect their rural environment. When people fence in their property, it restricts the movement of wildlife, looks unsightly, and destroys the rural feel. As a resident with a lot size of over four acres, I also feel that larger setbacks are not burdensome and should be included in the proposed ordinance. George Clifford 26789 Tanglewood Lane Brian Froelich From: Lisa Warren [[a-warren@att.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 1:07 AM To: jitze@couperus.org; jsmandle@hotmaii.com; Richard Partridge; Jim Abraham; John Harpootlian; Brian Froelich; Debbie Pedro Subject: Fence Ordinance Study Session Input Attachments: Planning - Fence ordinance.docx 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 Tenced 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: Marj Green [marjgreen@mindspring.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 6:18 AM To: Brian Froelich Cc: rich larsen; Gary Waldeck; jeanmordo@gmail.com; John Radford; Ginger Summit Subject: Re: Proposed fence ordinance Dear Brian and Planning Committee members, In my initial email, I forgot to mention the question of the question of the survey. I found out about the survey purely by chance. There was no systematic notification to Los Altos Hills residents that a survey was being taken and that they needed to 'sign up' to be. able to receive it. When I contacted the people handling the survey I was initially told that I was too late to participate and that I could only sign up for future surveys. When -I pointed out that I had only found out about it and that the deadline was still a more than a week in the future, they reluctantly agreed to allow me to vote. When I said that I would like to notify the 100+ neighbors in my Neighborhood Watch group about the survey and allow them to participate before the deadline, too, I was told that they had to sign up by 6pm the following day, even though the survey was not due for an additional 8 days. I do not feel that the survey was a fair representation of the Town's residents. Marj Green 10666 W Loyola Dr Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 On Aug 21, 2012, at 4:24 PM, Marj Green wrote: > Dear Brian and Planning Committee members, > I am opposed to the 2+acre fence ordinance. Even though my property is only 1 acre, the ordinance would apply to my next -door -neighbor's property. > I believe this ordinance would result iri the taking of useable property without recompense or overwhelming need. Even though their are many fences in our neighborhood, they do not restrict wildlife. There is no overwhelming need to set aside 'wildlife' corridors. Let alone how would you educate the wildlife to stop using anywhere they choose and teach them to go to these spaces. > No longer could neighbors share the expense of a common fence. While many in Los Altos Hills may be able to afford it, there are lots of us for whom this would be a financial burden. > Marj Green > 10666 W Loyola Dr > Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 1 Brian Froelich From: Dave Cole [DCole@cxrlarus.comj Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 7:21 AM To: Brian Froelich Cc: Dave Cole Subject: Fencing Proposal B Froelich, Sorry, but I do not know your first name. My name is Dave Cole. I cannot make the meeting tonight related to the new fencing proposal (Terman Back -To -School -Night). Both my mother and I have lived in Los Altos Hills for over 50 years. I am highly opposed to this proposal. It does not affect me as I just have one acre, however, my mother has .7 acres. Under this proposal, if she had to replace her fence along Ravensbury, it would land squarely in her lawn and about 10' off her front door. That does not work well. Older houses (and newer for that matter) were not necessarily placed in the center of their lots as the depicted below. Please register my negative opinion to this proposal as written. Thanks. Dave Cole Brian Froelich From: Alice [alices@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 8:36 AM To: Brian Froelich Cc: richard.partridge@comcast.net; john.harpootllan@gmail.com; jima.pc@gmail.com; Jitze Couperus; Susan Mandle Subject: Fence Ordinance Proposal Comments Dear Brian, In addition to the current proposal, as a one -acre owner who has been completely surrounded by other neighbors' property line, 6 -foot -high, impermeable fence, including the side that originally had a spectacular view, I think the proposed ordinance should include a small set -back for new one acre properties, grandfathering in the existing properties, before the town becomes completely gridded off. There is a precedent for this within the town which is the neighborhood on La Cresta that requires 5 foot fencing setbacks. Ours is now a cage -like experience and currently there is nothing to prevent this from happening to others. The existing fence ordinance offers complete protection for those who want to fence up against their neighbors and no protection for those who do not want to be -fenced -in. With no setback requirement, a new adjacent property line fence becomes virtually your fence whether you want it or not. There is no doubt in my mind that setbacks would improve neighbor relations and help save the town from becoming barricaded. What sets this town apart, something that so few towns can offer, is its astonishingly beautiful surroundings and in my opinion we are quickly heading towards the ruination of what was a most beautiful place to live. I feel we are throwing the Town's most valuable assets away. One can argue it still looks beautiful and that we have nothing to worry about. While Oak Knoll Circle off of Stonebrook Drive may seem beautiful to some it is not the kind of neighborhood I want to live in and as it stands, there is nothing in the existing ordinance that will prevent that from happening. I am in favor of boundary demarcation fence but height is not necessary to accomplish that. I hope the Planning Commission approves the current proposal submitted by the Ad Hoc Fence Committee. Sincerely, Alice Sakamoto