Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-23-2008 Planning Commission Packetj April 23, 2008 pAfomis and procedures speaker slips CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME i1 CSC f ,o ol. t Al ADDRESS SUBJECT 0/70-�,A J 4/— 1.06? ,� love.- AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE (TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: pAfomis and procedures speaker slips TELEPHONE NO. 410) " 7.2" / 3 a46 (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. p:\fomis and procedures speaker slips CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION h _ N ADDRESS 1447 f1r, P f SUBJECT 0 Cd i A* K tk CA A VI f,4 % AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE #63109 6 TELEPHONE NO. �6 % TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: TOO (Please read instructions on reverse side) p:\fomis and procedures\speaker slips ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving. recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 — Approximately 3:30 p.m. — 5:00 p.m. PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Site Visit Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. APPLICATION #ZOA07 -0001 a) 14478 Oak Place b) 20375 Sara -Los Gatos. Road c) 20740 Trinity Avenue d) .13436 Pierce Road e) 12329 Vista Arroyo Court • CITY WIDE Davies Driveway Visibility Breck Driveway Visibility Mattson Chain Link Fencing La Fontain Chain Link Fleecing Perkins Hedge Heights The Site Visit Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties that are new items on the Planning Commission Agenda. The site visits are held on the Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing, between 3:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. It is encouraged that the applicant and/or owner to be present to answer any questions that may arise. Site visits are generally short (10 to 20.minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the Public Hearing. During the Site Visit, the Planning Commission may only discuss items related to the project. The agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on the proposed project or other matters. The Site Visit is a fact - finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item and ask questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the Visit. No comments made during the Site Visit by the Planning Commission are binding or required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on the proposed project: PAPC SITE VISITS \Site Visits\2008\SVA 042208.doc • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Manny Cappello, Rishi Kumar, Robert Kundtz, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Yan Zhao and Chair Joyce Hlava PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ELECTION OF NEW CHAIR: MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 9, 2008 ORAL COMMUNICATION: Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items.' However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff' ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF: REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 17, 2008 REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS: If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15- 90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants /Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant /Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. APPLICATION SUB07 -0001 (386 -47 -035) Parker; 19161 Cox Avenue: - Continued to the May 14, 2008 meeting. The applicant requests Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a parcel of land totaling 45,460 square feet located at 19161 Cox Avenue into two single- family residential lots. Parcel 1 would be 17,305 net square feet and Parcel 2 would be 23,024 net square feet allowing homes sizes of approximately 4,284 square feet and 4,752 square feet respectively. Parcel 1 contains an existing residence currently listed on the City's Historic Resources Inventory, known as the Cox Residence; and Parcel 2 is vacant. The existing residence is proposed to remain on Parcel 1. The property is surrounded by; City property to the north (Brookside Park), and residential uses to the south, east and west. The access road to the Brookside Club abuts the property to the east. The property is located in an R -1- 12,500 zoning district. P: \PC Agendas`,2008 \042308.doc 2. APPLICATION ZOA07 -0001 (City - Wide): - The Planning Commission will consider a draft ordinance that will update existing regulations'regarding fences, walls, and hedges. The draft ordinance proposes to: (1) establish an exception process that would allow property owners to exceed the maximum permitted fence height; (2) add fence height limitations around driveway aprons; and (3) clarify ambiguous language and areas of the code that are currently difficult to enforce. Other related topics, such as regulations regarding chain link fencing, an initial study, and negative declaration for the project will also be reviewed and discussed. DIRECTORSITEM: None COMMISSION ITEMS: None COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers /Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868 - 1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102- 35.104 ADA Title II). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Abby Ayende, Office Specialist for the City ,of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga Was posted on April 17, 2008 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planninp,(Iilsaj toq.caus NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us • PAPC Agendas\2008 \042308.doc • DATE: PLACE: TYPE: DRAFT MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, April 9, 2008 Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Regular Meeting Chair Hlava called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz, Nagpal and Zhao Absent: Commissioners Kumar and Rodgers Staff: Senior Planner Chris Riordan and Assistant City Attorney Bill Parkin PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE S ELECTION OF NEW CHAIR Commissioner Nagpal asked City Attorney Bill Parkin if the election of chair could be deferred to the next meeting when the entire Commission is expected to be in attendance. City Attorney Bill Parkin replied yes. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission continued the election of a new chair to the next regular Planning Commission meeting of April 23, 2008. (5 -0 -2; Commissioners Kumar and Rodgers were absent) APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of March 26, 2008. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of March 26, 2008, were adopted as submitted. (5 -0 -2; Commissioners Kumar and Rodgers were absent) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. 1. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2008 Page 2 REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Senior Planner Chris Riordan announced -that, pursuant to Government .Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was. properly posted on. April 3, 2008. CONSENT CALENDAR There were. no Consent Calendar items. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #SUB07 -0002 (386 -17 -051) Saich, 12651 Saratoga Avenue:- The applicant requests Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide an approximately. .63-acre- (27,280 square foot) parcel located at 12651.Saratoga Avenue into two lots. The existing single - family residence will be removed. Parcel A would have. street frontage on both Saratoga Avenue and Sun Valley Court.. Lot B would have frontage on Saratoga Avenue. The proposed parcel size. for Lot A would be" approximately .23 acres (10,007 square feet) and Lot B would be approximately .36 acres (15,629 square feet). The property is currently zoned R -1- 10,000: (Single Family Residential). (Christopher Riordan) Mr. Chris Riordan, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Reported that the applicant is seeking approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide an approximate -.63- acre,parcel into two lots. (Lot A and Lot B). • Advised that the existing single -story single- family residence on this property, would be demolished.: • Explained that Lot A would front onto both Saratoga Avenue and Sun Valley Court. Lot B would.front- onto Saratoga Avenue. Lot A would be .26 -acres and Lot B 36- acres. Stated that the zoning is R -1- 10,000 and the property is located in the Saratoga-Woods Single =Story Overlay District, which limits.homes to a single -story. • Said that all required agencies and . departments have reviewed this proposal and no negative comments were raised. • Said that of the" Ordinance sized trees, none are native or heritage. Additionally, no tree removals are proposed at this time: Stated that two neighbors provided comments that were included in the - report. • Said that. language is proposed for Condition 7 to read, "... for examination and approval." • 'Recommended approval of this Tentative Parcel Map. Commissioner Nagpal asked Planner Chris Riordan if there is a time limit to finalize the Tentative Parcel Map. City Attorney. Bill Parkins said that State law governs it and he believes the timing is two years. • Commissioner Nagpal asked if that time limit should be incorporated into the resolution. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2008 Page 3 City Attorney Bill Parkin replied no, it was not necessary. Commissioner Nagpal asked for verification that if the tentative map were not finalized within two years, this approval becomes void. City Attorney Bill Parkin replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the rather large Magnolia tree on the property and questioned Planner Chris Riordan's comment that there are no Ordinance or heritage trees. Planner Chris Riordan clarified that there are no Oak or Redwood trees, no heritage trees. The Magnolia is not a protected species but is an Ordinance -sized tree. Tree removal would be subject to submittal for review. Commissioner Zhao asked about the lot sizes. Planner Chris Riordan said that Lot A includes 10,007 square feet and Lot B includes 15,629 square feet. Commissioner Zhao asked about the surrounding lots. Planner Chris Riordan said that he does not have their specific sizes but they are approximately the same size as other lots in the general vicinity. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that per one neighbor's comments, the imnl9diate five lots average 20,000 square feet. Planner Chris Riordan said that this is probably true on Sun Valley Court and immediately to the right. Chair Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Steve Greggs, Representative for Applicant and Property Owner, John Saich: • Thanked Planner Chris Riordan for an excellent job and the Planning Commission for coming to the site. • Reported that this is the first time he has seen a Commission conduct a site visit prior to a public hearing and he commended this Commission for doing so. • Stated that Planner Chris Riordan's report was comprehensive. • Said that the site access will remain the same. • Added that there would be Design Review consideration in the future for the specific houses to be constructed and reminded that they must abide by the single -story restriction of this Overlay District. • Said that there are no trees to be removed with this lot subdivision. • Assured that the building envelopes are of sufficient size to accommodate nice homes on each one. Parking and setbacks would be addressed at Design Review. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2008 Page 4 • Said that there are no plans to remove the Magnolia and chances are there won't be in the future. • Stated that he would appreciate Planning Commission support this evening. Commissioner Nagpal asked where in the resolution the issue of repaving the road is handled. Mr. Steve Greggs pointed to Public Works Condition 12 that requires a bond for the full cost of resurfacing the street. Commissioner Nagpa,l mentioned the neighbor concern over the existing home and a setback issue. Mr. Steve Greggs said that the side yard setback requirement is 10 feet as measured from the end of the right of way rather than the pavement, which results in an actual 16 -foot total setback- commission er Nagpal asked if there is enough room adjacent to the garage to park a. car. Will there be more space than now. Mr. Steve Greggs said that there would be a 20 400t parking apron. These requirements will be met at Design Review. Mr. Andrew Morish, Resident on Sun Valley Court: • Reported that he had submitted written comments. • Stated that neighbors are concerned by this proposal. • Said.that this parcel will be located on a corner lot of two roads. • Added that there is no reason this property should be treated differently than any other corner property and should include a 25 -foot setback on Sun Valley Court. • Said that he does not understand the reasoning to allow just a 10 -foot set back as the'new house would face Sun Valley Court. • Stated that this is just playing with a legalistic definition of a side yard • Requested that a 25-f6ot setback be required due- to a safety and parking perspective and to.keep the character of the.street. Chair Hlava asked staff to explain how setbacks are determined. Planner Chris Riordan said that the first issue is the way the Code defines a street. A corner lot has to have frontage on two public streets. Sun Valley Court is a private street serving. four or fewer parcels and is actually not considered a street but rather a driveway. Therefore the standard .10 -foot interior lot side yard setback requirement is imposed on this property. Commissioner Nagpal asked whether the owner could face the new house toward Sun Valley Court at Design Review stage. Planner Chris Riordan said that technically they could. The smaller dimension of the lot is the • one that equals the front. The house could face either direction. It is a personal choice. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2008 Page 5 Commissioner Kundtz asked if the house would have a Sun Valley Court or Saratoga Avenue address. Planner Chris Riordan said that Lot A currently has a Sun Valley Court address and Lot B probably would have a Saratoga Avenue address. Mrs. Morish, Resident on Sun Valley Court: • Stated that this neighborhood is a nice little community. • Reported that until just last week, she was unaware that they lived on a private drive rather than a public street. • Said their neighborhood would be drastically different with this change. • Added that it is hard to carve this big property up. • Stated that the City needs to apply the same building rules to this corner lot including a 25 foot front setback facing Sun Valley Court. • Added that even with that setback the owner can still put a big building there. • Pointed out that this is a narrow road with no sidewalks. • Asked that the Commission make sure that safety is of the utmost consideration. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mrs. Morish what is her lot size. Mrs. Morish said that it is a 20,000 square foot lot with a 4,000 square foot home on it. Mr. Steve Greggs: • Stated that they understand the neighbor concerns. • Reminded that they will be subject to Design Review standards and that there is some .flexibility on how the home could be designed for this parcel. Asked the City to stick with the Ordinance requirements as they stand. • Assured that when the houses come forward for review, they will be as sensitive as possible with placing the homes on each lot to be compatible with the neighborhood. . Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Steve Greggs if the house would front on Sun Valley Court. Mr. Steve Greggs replied that he did not know, as the homes have not yet been designed. They are not required to design the homes prior to land subdivision. Chair Hlava closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that this property is within an R -1- 10,000 zoning district although it might be. difficult for neighbors to understand that it meets zoning requirements for subdivision. • Stated that there is no dramatic intensity change here. • Added that with a Single -Story Overlay the Planning Commission would not see Design Review of these homes. Rather it would be handled at staff level. Neighbors would -be • notified and can appeal an Administrative Decision if they object and it would be brought forward to the Planning Commission on that appeal. • Advised that she can make the required findings of the Subdivision Map Act. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2008 Page 6 • Stated her hope that the applicant will consider neighbor concerns with their home design. Chair Hlava asked staff if neighbors are notified when processing an Administrative Design. Review. Planner Chris Riordan replied yes. Chair Hlava advised the neighbors in the audience that they could look at submitted plans and provide comments. She assured that staff, pays attention to feedback received. Planner Chris Riordan reminded that the applicant also submits signed neighbor notification forms prior to submittal. ' Commissioner Nagpal explained that the applicant would be knocking on their neighbors' doors with an opportunity to review plans and a request to sign off on the notification forms. Commissioner Cappello. • Echoed the comments of Commissioner Nagpal. - • Said that the issues raised by the neighbors are Design Review issues relative to the future homes for these.two parcels. That will be taken up at another time. • Stated that the findings to approve the Tentative Parcel Map can be made. The subdivision is consistent with the General Plan, creates lots suitable for single.- family homes and matches the density for the area. • Added that there is nothing to deny on this application based on findings. • Assured that, the other issues would be raised when actual house plans come in, Commissioner Zhao: • Said that she understands the neighbors' concerns but pointed out that Sun Valley Court will still only serve four homes. • Advised that she could make the necessary findings to approve this request. • Asked for clarification as to whether the Design Review for these homes would come to the Commission or not. Chair Hlava said that they could. Commissioner Nagpal clarified only if appealed. She added that,, staff uses stringent criteria to make sure design is sound. Commissioner Kundtz encouraged the neighbors to get involved in the process early on. He cautioned that the Ordinance terminology between a "driveway" versus a "road" is not a subjective criteria. Mrs. Morish: • . Recounted that the house 'on this property was built a long time ago. • Added that the garage originally was on Saratoga Avenue. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2008 Page 7 • Concluded that they are actually going from three to four houses on this Court, which represents a 25 percent increase. Chair Hlava disagreed, saying that the garage is currently on Sun Valley Court. While she can understand the concerns, to the Commission this is not intensifying the situation: Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission granted Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a .63 -acre parcel into two lots (Lot A with 10,007 square feet and Lot B with 15,629 square feet) on property located at 12651 Saratoga Avenue, with the change to Condition 7, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz, Nagpal and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: Kumar and Rodgers ABSTAIN: None DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS There were no Commission Items. Y 4 COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Zhao, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Hlava adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:38 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk 0 Item 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Heather BradleyAe) Contract Planner MEETING DATE: April 23, 2008 SUBJECT: Continued Item Application No. SUB 07 -001; Subdivision approval for a lot split at 19161 Cox Road, Saratoga, California Project Description: The applicant requests Tentative Parcel Map approval to subdivide a parcel of land totaling 45,460 square feet located at 19161 Cox Avenue into two single- family residential lots. Parcel 1 would be 17,305 net square feet and Parcel 2 would be 23,024 net square feet allowing homes sizes of approximately 4,284 square feet and 4,752 square feet respectively. Parcel 1 contains an existing residence currently listed on the City's Historic Resources Inventory, known as the Cox Residence, and Parcel 2 is vacant. The existing residence is proposed to remain on Parcel 1. The parcel is surrounded by; City property to the north (Brookside Park), and residential uses to the south, east and west. The access road to the Brookside Club abuts the property to the east. The property is located in an R- 1- 12,500 zoning district. Action: Staff was unable to get the public notices mailed out to the neighbors within 500 feet of the property within the required 10 -day noticing period, although the notice was published in the Saratoga News. Therefore, Staff recommends that the item be continued to the meeting of May 14, 2008 for proper notice. The notice will be republished in the Saratoga News and mailed to every property within 500 feet of the site. Item 2 .w . REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: ZOA07 -0001; Zoning Ordinance Amendment & Negative Declaration Subject:, Regulations Related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges & Negative Declaration Location: Citywide Applicant: City of Saratoga Staff Planner: Shweta Bhatt, Associate Planner Meeting Date: April 23, 2008 Department Head: John F. Livingstone, AICP, Community Development Director RECOMMENDED ACTION:,_ The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Negative Declaration and proposed amendments to Chapter 15 Zoning Regulations. REPORT SUMMARY: The Planning Commission has conducted two study sessions and two subsequent public hearings on the fence ordinance (August 7, 2007, September 25, 2007, January 23, 2008, and March 12, 2008). The following are topics are being addressed with the update to the current regulations related to fences, walls, and hedges: * Definitions * Fence Height * Height Measurement * Exceptions * Chain Link Fencing * Driveway Intersections /Triangle of Visibility * Entry Elements * Existing Non - Conforming Fences * Materials Within Hillside Districts * Green Fences * Swimming Pool Fences * Enclosure Maximum Within Hillside Districts * Flag Lots * Solid 8 -Foot Fence * Parallel Fences and Walls * Parker Ranch At the conclusion of the March 12, 2008 hearing, the Commission decided there were two topics that needed further research and consideration: chain link fencing and triangle of visibility. These topics are discussed in this staff report. The remaining topics are summarized in a table that is Attachment 4 y ;ii • ENVIRONl\1ETAL REVIEW: Environmental review was completed in the form of an Initial Study. A notice regarding the opportunity to review the document and a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration was published in the Saratoga News November 28, 2007 and the comment period took place between December 3, 2007 and January 3, 2008. Staff has not received any comments directly relating to the environmental review. PUBLIC CONIN ENT: Several letters have been submitted in response to the proposed update, mostly for previous hearings. These letters have been attached to this staff report. Also, public testimony was provided at the public hearing on March 12, 2008. CHAIN LINK FENCING: At the March 12, 2008 Planning Commission hearing, the Commission discussed the option of allowing chain link fencing in the Hillside Residential (HR) district and directed staff to complete research on Measure A regarding the feasibility of allowing chain link fencing in the'HR district. The following is the result of the research: Measure A —1980 ' This ballot, otherwise known as the Hillside Initiative, was a measure passed by Saratoga voters in 1980 to: prevent high density housing in the hillside areas of the City, preserve the rural'character of the area, and stage growth. The measure resulted in the preparation of the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan. Language contained in the Measure does not relate directly to chain link fencing. Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan Measure A required the preparation of a specific plan to cover the development issues within the area known as the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan area. Spgcially, the plan was to: • limit and control allowable dwelling density. depending on slope; • establish standards for use of cluster zoning; • control grading and construction on fault lines; • discourage development on steep slopes and known unstable soils; • establish a low density buffer zone adjacent to hillside areas; • establish standards and criteria for implementation of General Plan standards and criteria in specific plans and in zoning and subdivision ordinances. The specific plan was adopted by City Council on June 2, 1981 and does not include language that relates directly to chain link fencing. Hillside Specific Plan The Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan was reviewed and updated by Planning Commission and City Council in 1994 and is now known as the Hillside Specific Plan. This specific plan does not April 23. 2008 Planning Commission Me.eiing 2 •v> r„ include language related to chain link fencing. General Plan There are several places in the City's General Plan that reference fencing: Circulation- and Scenic Highway Element A section of this element describes local measures to maintain scenic roadways. Landscaping requirements between fences and major roadways is mentioned as one of these measures. Noise Element The regulations relating to the fences, walls, and hedges have been recognized as a mechanism to. control noise from vehicular traffic, particularly that from arterial streets. Open Space / Consenation Element One of the policies of the Open Space Element encourages "[minimizing] development that would. encroach into important wildlife habitats, limit or restrict normal range areas, or restrict access to water food or shelter. This includes limitations on the installation of barrier fencing in hillside , areas." Conclusion To maintain consistency with the General Plan policy in the Open Space /Conservation Element, the Commissionmay consider a limit on the length of chain link fencing similar to that which exists for solid fences -in the HR district: The proposed code language in the current version reflects this. DRIVEWAY INTERSECTIONS/TRIANGLE OF VISIBILITY: ' The below language is currently proposed with the update. As a result of the discussion on March 12.2008, language has been added to exempt existing ordinance size trees from this requirement. (e) Driveway - Intersections. For projects that require design review approval pursuant to ' Articles 15 -45 and- 15 -46, no fence. hedge. retaining wall, entryway element, or other similar element located within a triangle-having sides twelve. feet in length from either side of a . driveway where it intersects with edge of pavement shall exceed three feet in height above the established grade of the adjoining street. Pilasters, gates, or any other sirnilar element shall be located outside this triangle. Ordinance size trees are not subject to this requirement. Several members -of the public provided testimony during the March 12. 2008 hearing- comments along the following lines -were made: ■ The- triangles of visibility would be too onerous for small properties. • The requirement would significantly reduce front yard privacy. ■ Installing minors may better than cutting down existing hedges. Given the technical nature of the topic, the services of the City's .Traffic Engineer have been sight .requested. The Traffic Engineer has prepared a rep ort. which concludes that the proposed g . April 23, 2008 Planning Commission Wei ing 3 <„ triangles are generally considered a reasonable area to improve visibility, particularly given that most streets within the City do not have a sidewalk, However, the sight triangles should be noted as a minimum since visibility is contingent on width of street, whether or not a sidewalk exists, and the speed limit. An option to improve visibility would be to regulation the height of fences and other obstructions within the City right -of way. Compliance with this is currently imposed when owners request approval of an encroachment permit through the Public Works Department. Conclusion While compliance would be required on a complaint basis, conformance to code requirements may be costly for home owners. Thus, the language in the code has been written to include the requirement to be fulfilled with projects that require design review approval. For existing obstructions that may require attention, an owner may request the Traffic Safety Commission review the situation. However, upon removal of a fence or other obstruction within the sight triangle, any .new fencing or other element must meet the requirements of the code. EXCEPTION & FINDINGS: , The proposed ordinance would establish an exception process subject to four, findings. (1) The subject fence will be compatible with other similar, structures in the ,neighborhood; This finding would recognize that although the proposed fence may deviate from. code requirements in that it is taller or constructed of more solid material than permitted by right, it will still blend with the surroundings and be compatible with the neighborhood. (2) The entirety of the subject fence will be constructed of materials thatare of high quality, exhibit superior craftsmanship, and that are durable; This finding ensures fences that require an exception exhibit a high quality , and crafismanship. At the September 25, 2007 study session, the Planning Commission discussed how all components of a fence requiring an exception should be constructed at. ' the same time so that continuity and same level of quality between the lower portion and . upper portion is maintained. (3) The modification will not impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood in ,%vbich the fence is located; This finding encourages the modification to be an improvement to the neighborhood and be a benefit to the property owner and. neighbors within the vicinity. (4) The granting of such modification will not be detrimental or injurious to the property, adjacent neighbors, or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located; Thisfin.ding requires that in addition to considering impact to imanediate neighbors, the fence may not be detrimental to the property or general vicinity. April 23 2008 Planning Commission Meeting 4 FENCE APPROVAL PROCESS: The process for different types of fences is outlined in the code and is summarized below. The Plartning Commission may want to consider ways to streamline or simplify the various options. Reasc>!tn, f ©r Request Process; APPr ©v�ng Body To construct a fence equal to or None None, however the fence still less than 6 -feet in height. must meet code requirements. To construct a fence 6 -feet with 2- Building Permit Building Official feet lattice. To request a modification to the Fence Exception Process, Possibly Planning Commission and regulations regarding fences, Building Permit Building Official walls, and hedges. To construct a fence adjacent to Planning Review, Possibly Building Community Development commercial districts, up to a. Permit Director and Building Official maximum of 8 -feet in height. To enclose an area more than', Requirements for area of enclosure for Planning Commission, Building 4,000 square feet in the hillside hillside districts, Possibly Building Permit Official district. To construct a fence adjacent to Requirements for fencing adjacent to Community Development an arterial street as defined`in City certain arterial .streets and fencing Director and Building Official Code Section, 15729.030. adjacent to commercial districts, Possibly To construct a fence adjacent to a Building. Permit commercial district. To construct a fence adjacent to Requirements for fencing adjacent to Community Development State designated scenic highway s. scenic. highways, Possibly Building Director and Building Official Permit . To construct a fence adjacent to or Requirements for fencing adjacent to Heritage Preservation within 50 -feet from the right -of- heritage lanes. Possibly Building Permit Commission and Community way of designated heritage lane. Development Director and Building Official FISCAL IMPACTS: The ordinance may lead to a decrease'in complaints to the City's Code Enforcement staff, reducing staff time spent on enforcement and reducing City Attorney costs. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): Continue this item to another Planning Commission meeting to allow staff to incorporate comments from this meeting and return with a final draft. April 23, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting 5 F • • • • FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): As directed. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice of this meeting was properly posted and published in the Saratoga News on April 9, 2008, Additionally, The Mercury News has published a story regarding chain link fencing on Monday, March 31, 2008. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance Language 2. Excerpts from Saratoga General Plan 3. Report from City Traffic Engineer 4. Summary Table-, 5. Minutes from January 23, 2008 and March 12, 2008 Hearings 6. Written Comments from Members of the Public 7. Negative Declaration and Initial Study 8. Resolution recommending the City Council approve the Negative Declaration and proposed amendments to Chapter 15 Zoning Regulations r. April 23. 2008 Planning Commission Meenng 6 • t � z Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined font (e.g., bold double- underlined) and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., s#+kRejA). Text in standard font remains unchanged. . Article 15 -06 DEFINITIONS 15- 06.261 Fence. "Fence" means any structural device, other- ,t- :wall of a b ildin , forming a physical barrier by means of glass, wood, masonry, metal, chain, brick, stake, plastic, concrete block. �� rought iron, Nvire, or other similar materials. A Nvall other than a , %yall of a building or a retaining ,,all is considered a fence. 15- 06.341 Height of fences; walls and hedges. "Height of fences, walls and hedges" means a vertical line from the highest point of the fence (including lattice or similar materiall. -=all or hedge to a point directly below at either the natural grade or the finished grade, • is .. --• 'r herein. Where there are differences in grade between. adjacent properties the fence height is measured from the proper] with the higher grade. Pro 15 -06 xxx Hedge. A hedge means a series of trees or other natural landscaping planted in a linear and L uninterrupted pattern such that a boundary is created The natural lanascap m u g must e able to stand on its o,%,k,n and shall not require supports upon maturity. 15 06 aaa Retaining Wall A retaining wall means a structural device constructed and erected to resist lateral pressure from earth or to retain soil. Article 15 -29 FENCES, WALL AN HEDGES `x'"— 15- 29.010 Height restrictions. (a) General regulations. feflee ef Wall Shall eNeeQd S"' feel in . A building permit shall be required for any fence more than six feet in height height maximums and permitted materials for fences and hedges shall be as follolvs: CURRENT (APRIL 23, 2008 HEARING) . F Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined font '(e.g., bold double - underlined) and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., strikeeut). Text in standard font remains unchanged. (1) Solid fences or fences composed of material other than wrought iron, wire material, or' chain link: Except as otherwise specified in this Article no solid fence shall r__. __ L..__ta 'FT_­_.,__ l., t„ cimil.�r ►not air; all tnai is at least tweliu -11ye Uel Cellt Vuell W ­1 IJ a"aloc V1 llrlll "Ji" a,■ ilia♦ -1 ---- to the top of a solid fence. A solid fence taller than six feet shall not be permitted unless approved by the Planning Commission through the exception process detailed in 15- 29.080 or approved by the Community Development Director pursuant to sections 15- 29.030, 15- 29.040. or 15- 29.050 of this Chapter. (2) Wrought iron or wire material fences: Except as otherwise specified in this article . no fence composed of wrought iron material or wire material shall exceed eight feet unobstructed passage of a sphere baying a diameter of four inches, Wrought iron or wire fencing that does not have the aforementioned four -inch opening is not perms (3) Chain link fences• Chain link fencing in districts other than the hillside residential + district shall be permitted only in interior side setback areas rear setback areas and for recreational courts as regulated.in Section 15- 80.030(c) of this Chapter. The fencing shall be black or-otberwise colored to blend with the terrain. No barbed wire galvanized wire or electrified fencing shall be allowed except as permitted by Section 15- 29.060 of this Article. (4) Hedges: Except as otberwise specified the height requirements prescribed in this Article shall not applv.to hedges. W Front setback area. and exterior side setback area of reversed corner lots. No fence 1 located; within.any required front 'setback area shall exceed three feet in height. No fence erwal located within any required exterior side setback area of a reversed corner lot shall exceed three, feet in height. Exceptions to these height limitations are as follows: ' ( , destfuelierr- er- Y-emeval -ref han ene half. ef the length e sue h fleneenfe . �jjjg fence or-wall, any r-eplaeemen! fenee of wall s all net exeeed thfee feet . (2) (D Wrought iron entrance gates,, designed with openings to pen-nit visibility through the same, may - extend 'to a height not exceeding five feet and shall be located a minimum of . twenty feet from the edge of street pavement: Safety railings that are required by the Ti California Building Code shall be excluded from the height requirements of this Section. (3) Pedestrian entry, %vav elements such as arbors and trellises when attached to a fence w,itbin a front setback area or within an exterior side setback area, may be permitted to a maximum height of eight feet a maximum width of five feet, and a maximum depth of five feet. (c Street intersections. INTO fence; wall hedge, retaining ��all, entr���av element or other similar element located within a triangle having sides fifty feet in length from 2 CURRENT (APRIL 23, 2008 HEARING) c. • • Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined font (e.g., bold double - underlined) and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., strikeout). Text in standard font remains unchanged. a street intersection, as measured from intersecting curblines or intersecting edges of the street pavement where no curb exists, shall exceed three feet in height above the established grade of the adjoining street. Pilasters gates or any other similar element shall be located outside this triangle. (d) Flag lots and other lots where the front lot line is not adjacent to the street and abuts side or rear setback areas of adjacent lots. Any lot wbere the front setback area. or a portion thereof, of the subject property: (1) does not bave street frontage as defined by Article 15-06.290: and (2) the front lot line or a portion thereof, of the subject property abuts the side or rear setback area of an adjacent property, the maximum permitted fence height for side or rear setback area sball be permitted within the front setback area of the subject property 'where it abuts the side or rear setback area of an adjacent_ property. (e) Drivev av Intersections For projects that require design review approval pursuant to Articles l5 45 and 15-46, no fence hedge retaining wall, entrvway element or other similar element located within a triangle having sides twelve feet in length from either side of a driveway where it intersects with edge of pavement sball exceed tbree feet in heiab above the established grade of the adjoining street Pilasters, gates or any other similar element shall be located outside this triangle Ordinance size trees are not subject to this requirement. ,f 12' Property Line Edge of pavement (f) Vehicular Obstructions No fence hedge, retaining wall entryway element or any other similar element sball constitute an obstruction as provided for in City Code Section 10- 05.030. Provided for reference only, emphasis added: 10- 05.030 Types of obstructions. The following is a nonexclusive list of obstructions which, under this Article, are deemed to obstruct the view from vehicles traveling on public streets and the passage of pedestrians on the sideivalks, and the same are declared to constitute a public nuisance: 3 CURRENT (APRIL 23, 2008 HEARING) Text to be added is indicated in bold double- underlined font (e.g., bold doubl -underlined) and text to be '_ deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., strikeau Text in standard font remains unchanged. tree hedge, shrub or structure overhanging a public street or sidewalk, the lowest part (a) Any Of which is less than ten feet above such street or sidewalk. (b) A 77 tree located within a triangle having sides fifty feet in length fi -om a street intersection, as measured fi -om. intersecting curb lines or intersecting edges of the street pavement where no curb exists, the limbs of which are less than ten feet above the ground surface. (c) Any-hedge, shrub, sign or other structure located within a triangle having sides fifty feet in. length from a street intersection, as measured from intersecting curb lines or intersecting edges of the street pavement where no curb exists, the overall height of which is more than three feet above the established grade of the adjoining street. (d) Any vegetation, structure or object which is so situated as to in any manner interfere with the unobstructed view. by motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians of approaching or intersecting traffic or the view of traffic Control devices or directional signs placed upon any street or right -of- -way' for the safety of the public. Recreational courts. Fencing around recreational courts shall comply with the regulations contained in Section 15- 80.030(c).of this Chapter. W ( Pilasters. Pilasters constituting a part ,of a fence, in reasonable numbers and scale in relationship to the nature and style of the fence, may extend to a height.of not more than two feet above the height limit applicable to the fence containing such pilasters, but in no case shall the height of Ajlasters exceed eight feet If pilasters within the front setback area are attached to a �� might iron entrance gate the pilasters are permitted to a max„iuin heigbi of seven feet. (4) Light fixtures. The height of a fence shall not. include light fixtures mounted theregn at the. 01 entrance- of driveways. and sidewalks leading into a site. Not more than two such light fixtures shall be installed, at each driveway and sidewalk entrance. (l Swimming Pool Fences Fences required for svdmming pools are governed by City Code Section 16-75-010 and 15- 29.020(gl. kJ ( Retaining walls. No retaining wall shall. exceed five feet in height. Notwithstanding the foregoing,. no'retairiing wall located in a front or exterior side setback area shall exceed three feet in height: thipaets-of !he but. net limited to., he -filed with the Cemmuffi4 ' _ .. . 4 CURRENT (APRIL 23, 2008 HEARING) i Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined font (e.g., bold double - underlined) and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., 6trikeey ). Text in standard font, remains unchanged. 15- 29.020 Fencing within hillside districts. In addition to the regulations set forth in Section 15- 29.010 of this Article, fences and Walls located within'an HR or R -OS district shall comply with the following regulations: (a) Length r solid f neon and walls.-Solid fences nd, v �, having no openings to permit visibility through the same, shall not have a length exceeding sixty feet, as viewed from any street or adjacent propert y and an opening of thirty linear feet or more is reauired if another section of solid fencing is proposed. This restriction shall not apply to retaining walls. (b) Wrought iron or wire material fences: A wrought iron or wire material fence does not have a limitation on length but it shall be black or otherwise colored to blend with the terrain. required if anotber section of chain link fencing is proposed. Recreational courts may bg enclosed with chain link fencing as regulated in Section 15- 80.030(c) _ of this Cnapter ana shall be black or otherwise colored to blend with the terrain No barbed wire, ga vanized wire or electrified fencing shall be allowed except as permitted by Section 15- 29.060 of this rtic e ' ) (b)- Parallel retaining fences-and walls. Parallel retaining walls shall be separated by a horizontal distance of not less than five feet. Where two or more yes a retaining walls are approximately parallel to each other and separated by a horizontal distance of thirty feet or less, the combined height of such fenees er -walls shall not exceed ten feet. Oe (,e) Area of enclosure. Except for fencing around recreational courts and fencing which constitutes part of a corral, no fencing on a single site shall encompass or enclose an area in excess of four thousand square feet unless approved by the Planning Commission. "Encompass and enclose" as used in this subsection, shall mean to surround an area with a continuous fence or a fence that has a gap or opening of thirty fee or less at any point. , whie apprevel Approval from the Planning Commission to encompass and enclose more than four thousand sau'are feet may be granted in any of the following cases: (1) Where the Planning Commission finds and determines that the visibility of the fence from public streets and adjacent properties will substantially be reduced by the topography, landscaping or other features of the site. (2) Where the Planning Commission finds and determines that the fence is required for safety reasons. (3) Where an exemption from the restriction against fencing enclosure has been granted by the Planning Commission for a "designated neighborhood area," as hereinafter defined, in response to a petition for such exemption signed by the owners of lots comprising not less than sixty percent of the designated area. Before granting such exemption, the Planning Commission shall. conduct a public hearing on the petition, with notice thereof sent by mail at least ten days prior to the date of the hearing to all persons owning property located within the designated neighborhood area and within five hundred feet from the boundaries of such area. As a condition 5 CURRENT (APRIL. 23, 2008 HEARING) Text to be added is indicated in bold.double- underlined font (e.g., bold double- underlined) and text to be 1 a. deleted. is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., strikeout). Text in standard font remains unchanged. n an exemption, the Planning Commission may establish alternative rules concerning for granting p � g the enclosure of sites in the designated neighborhood area, including, but not limited to, rules pertaining-to the amount of enclosure, the design and type of fencing, and mitigation of visual impacts; provided, however, in no event shall such rules permit enclosure of more than sixty percent of the gross site area, or the installation of any solid fences er-ls, or use of any fencing material having exposed sharp points, or, the installation of any fencing within an area dedicated as open space. The term "designated neighborhood area," as used in subsection (c)(3) of this Section; means a geographic portion of a hillside zoning. district, as:designated by the Planning Commission, consisting of not less than ten lots which are contiguous to each other. Lots which are separated only by a street shall be considered contiguous. If a petition for exemption is presented by owners of any lots shown on a recorded subdivision or tract map, the Planning Commission may, in its discretion, require that all of the lots shown on such map be' '. included within the designated neighborhood area. Additional contiguous lots may be annexed to, an existing designated neighborhood area upon application by the property owner and approval by the' Planning Director; based upon his determination that the additional lot has similar topography, visibility, or other features shared by the lots within the designated neighborhood area. f (d) Wildlife trails. No fence shall unreasonably impede the movement of wildlife animals utilizing an established trail or migratory route which crosses the site. ' the teFfain, G ain lipAE feneing _ by geetion 15 29. 001 f 1 Swimming Pool Fences within billside _.districts.. When a fence already encompasses or encloses more tban four thousand square feet on a single site, and a swimming pool fence is required for a swimminQ pool that is'not located within the enclosure, an additional area around the s11,imming nool may" be enclosed with a fence provided the sv� ir;mft9 pool fence follows the contour of the pool with no more tban ten feet of distance located betwee +Ho fonep and Pdoe of water. `S��imming Wool fences in the hillside d�str�ct that do not meet 29.080. The .provisions of this Section shall not apply to any property located within and constituting a part of Tract 7763, as shown on the subdivision map thereof recorded in the office of the County Recorder. (Amended by. Ord. 71.89 § 1, 1991; Ord. 71.98 4, 1991; Ord. 71.113 § . 3, 1992.) (i) Any property located witbin and constituting a Hart of Tracts 6526 and 6528 (Parker Ranch Subdivision) as shown on the subdivision map thereof recorded m the office of the County Recorder shall meet the regulations stipulated in Resolution NE- yU -UU1. • 6 CURRENT (APRIL 23, 2008 HEARING) • V Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined font (e.g., bold double - ender) n d) and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., 44keeot). Text in standard font remains unchanged. 15-29.030 Fencing adjacent to commercial districts. The Community Development Director may issue a special permit to allow'a solid fence or otber tune of fence permitted by this Article, up to a maximum of eight feet in height where such fence is installed along a rear setback area or interior side setback area of a residential site. which abuts a commercial district. The Community Development Director may impose such conditions deemed appropriate to mitigate any visual or other adverse impacts, of the fence, including, but not limited to, requirements with respect to the design and materials of the fence and landscape screening. Applications for a special permit under this subsection shall be filed with the Community Development Director on such form as he shall prescribe, and shall be accompanied by a processing fee in such amount as established from time to time by the City Council. (Amended by Ord. 71.86 § 1, 1991; Ord. 71 -106 § 6, 1992; Ord. 245 § 2 (Att. A) (part), 2006) 15 29.03 15- 29.040 Fencing to mitigate noise from certain arterial streets. (a) For the purpose of noise mitigation; a solid fence or other tvpe of fence permitted by this Article, exceeding the height otherwise prescribed in this Article as the limit for such fence may be located within any required setback area abutting Prospect Road, Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road, Quito Road, the portion of Saratoga Avenue between Fruitvale Avenue and Lawrence Expressway or the portion of. Cox Avenue between Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road and Saratoga Avenue, upon the issuance by the Community Development Director of a fence permit and subject to the following provisions: (1) Where the fence is located within an exterior side setback area or rear setback area abutting one of the arterial streets specified herein, the fence shall not exceed eight feet in height at the property line, plus one additional foot in height for each additional five feet of setback from the property line, up to a maximum height of ten feet if the fence is still located within a required setback area. (2) Where the fence is located within a front setback area abutting one of the arterial streets specified herein, the fence may be located no closer than ten feet from the front property line and shall not exceed eight feet in height, plus one additional foot in height for each additional five feet of setback from the front property line in excess of ten feet, up to a maximum height of ten feet if the fence is still located within the required front setback area. (3) Where a street line is located within a site, the location and setback of the fence as specified in subsections (a)(]) and (2) of this Section shall be determined by the street line rather than the property line. (4) The applicant shall landscape and permanently maintain an area parallel to and along the entire exterior side of the fence facing the street, in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Community Development Director. All or any portion of such area may be located within . the public right -of -way, subject to approval by the Community Development Director. The landscaped area required herein shall be not less than five feet in.width, except that where the available space between the fence and the interior edge of the sidewalk, or the edge of the street . pavement where no sidewalk exists, is less than five feet, the Community Development Director may approve a landscape area of not less than two feet. Prior to issuance of the fence permit, a landscape maintenance agreement shall be executed by the applicant and recorded in the office of the County Recorder; which agreement shall constitute a covenant running with the land. (5) The design of the fence shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Director, based upon a finding that the fence is compatible with existing or proposed structures on the site and upon neighboring properties. 7 CURRENT (APRIL 23, 2008 HEARING) Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined font (e.g., bold double - underlined) and text to be , deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., strikeout). Text in standard font remains unchanged. T shall be issued if the Community Development Director finds that the fence will (6) No permit Y constitute a hazard for vehicular or pedestrian traffic or will otherwise be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. ,(b) Applications for a fence permit under this Section shall be filed with the Community Development, Director- on such form as' he shall prescribe, and shall be accompanied by a processing fee in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City. Council. (Amended by Ord. 7.1.110 § 2, 1992; Ord. 245 § 2 (Att. A) (part), 2006) .4449--040 5 -2 .050 fencing adjacent to scenic highways.. In addition to the regulations set forth 'in Section 15- 29.010 of this Article, fences adjacent to State designated scenic highways shall comply with the following requirements: (a) Fence permit. No person shall construct any fence null which faces and is located'within one hundred feet from the right -of -way of a State designated scenic highway without first obtaining .a fence permit from the Planning Director. Application for such. permit shall be submitted to the Planning. Director on such form as he shall prescribe, and shall be accompanied by a processing fee in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City. Council. (b) Setback. No fence or- wall. shall be constructed within fifteen feet from the property line abutting the right -of- -way of f-a scenic highway. The Planning Director may require this minimum setback to be increased,to a maximum of. one hundred feet if he determines that such increased setback -is. necessary to preserve the scenic qualities of the highway. (c) Color, material and design. Fences er- wall adjacent to scenic highways may be constructed . of wood; stone, stucco, masonry, wrought iron .or similar material, but no chain link, plastic. or wire fencing shall be permitted. The design, color and materials. of the fence or All shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director, based upon a finding that the fence or wall will not adversely affect the scenic qualities of the highway and will be compatible with the natural. terrain.. (d) Landscape screening: The applicant shall landscape and permanently maintain an area. parallel to and along the entire.length of the exterior side of the fence er, :,Aiall facing the scenic highway,, in,.. accordance with a landscape- plan approved by the Planning Director. Such landscape plan shall provide for'the planting of trees and vegetation that are native to the area, fast-growing,' and require little or no maintenance.. The Planning Director shall not approve the landscape.plah unless he finds that the proposed landscaping will effectively screen the fence from public view and enhance the visual appearance of the scenic highway. Prior to issuance of the fence permit, a-.landscape maintenance agreement shall be executed by the applicant and recorded in the office of the County Recorder, which agreement shall constitute a covenant running with the land. (e) Height. The. height of any fence erwall adjacent to a scenic highway shall comply with the regulations. set -forth in- Section 15- 29.010 of this Article; provided, however, where the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that his property is subjected to greater noise impacts from the scenic highway as. compared generally with ofher properties located 8 CURRENT (APRIL 23, 2008 HEARING) • • • Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined font (e.g., bold double - underlined) and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., strikeout). Text in standard font remains unchanged. adjacent to such highway, the Planning Director may approve a fence or wall not exceeding eight feet in height. As a condition of such approval, the Planning. Director may require increased setbacks and landscaping to mitigate the visual impact of the higher fence or wall. 15 29.05 v 15- 29.060 Barbed wire and electrified wire probibited. No fence er -wall constructed or installed within the City shall contain barbed or electrified wire unless approved by the Planning Commission, based upon a finding that the barbed or electrified wire is necessary for security purposes and that measures will be taken, when appropriate, to mitigate any adverse impacts of such wire. 1T,-29.060 5 -2 .0 0 Fences adjacent to heritage lanes. In addition to the regulations set forth in Section 15- 29.010 of this Article, fences adjacent to a designated heritage lane shall comply with the following requirements: (a) Fence permit. No person shall construct any fence or-wall which faces and is located within fifty feet from the right -of -way of a designated heritage lane, and which exceeds three feet in height, without first obtaining a fence .permit from the Community Development Director. Application for such permit shall be submitted and processed in the manner provided in Article 13 -20 of the City Code. If the Heritage Commission recommends issuance, the Community Development Director shall issue the permit in accordance with those recommendations and any condition related but not limited to the design standards set forth in subsections (c), (d), (e) and (f) of this Section and pursuant to the process prescribed in Article 13 -20. (b) Supporting data. The level of detail of the supporting data required by Section 13- 20.030 shall be determined by the Community Development Director to allow adequate review of the proposed fence er-4v-al-l. (c) Setback. No fence or- wall which exceeds three feet in height shall be constructed within the required setback area fronting a heritage lane. This minimum setback may be required to be increased to a maximum of fifty feet upon the finding that such increased setback is necessary to preserve the historic qualities of the heritage lane. (d) Color, material and design. Fences er- m=alls adjacent to a t4e heritage lane may be constructed of wood, stone, masonry, wrought iron or similar material. The design, color and materials of the fence or- wall shall be approved based upon a finding that the fence OF Wall will not adversely affect the historic qualities of the lane and will be compatible with the design and materials of existing buildings on the site and structures on adjacent properties. (e) Height. The height of any fence or- all adjacent to the n heritage lane shall comply with the regulations set forth in Section 15- 29.010 of the City Code. 9 CURRENT (APRIL 23, 2008 HEARING) dees'net ce 15 29.05 v 15- 29.060 Barbed wire and electrified wire probibited. No fence er -wall constructed or installed within the City shall contain barbed or electrified wire unless approved by the Planning Commission, based upon a finding that the barbed or electrified wire is necessary for security purposes and that measures will be taken, when appropriate, to mitigate any adverse impacts of such wire. 1T,-29.060 5 -2 .0 0 Fences adjacent to heritage lanes. In addition to the regulations set forth in Section 15- 29.010 of this Article, fences adjacent to a designated heritage lane shall comply with the following requirements: (a) Fence permit. No person shall construct any fence or-wall which faces and is located within fifty feet from the right -of -way of a designated heritage lane, and which exceeds three feet in height, without first obtaining a fence .permit from the Community Development Director. Application for such permit shall be submitted and processed in the manner provided in Article 13 -20 of the City Code. If the Heritage Commission recommends issuance, the Community Development Director shall issue the permit in accordance with those recommendations and any condition related but not limited to the design standards set forth in subsections (c), (d), (e) and (f) of this Section and pursuant to the process prescribed in Article 13 -20. (b) Supporting data. The level of detail of the supporting data required by Section 13- 20.030 shall be determined by the Community Development Director to allow adequate review of the proposed fence er-4v-al-l. (c) Setback. No fence or- wall which exceeds three feet in height shall be constructed within the required setback area fronting a heritage lane. This minimum setback may be required to be increased to a maximum of fifty feet upon the finding that such increased setback is necessary to preserve the historic qualities of the heritage lane. (d) Color, material and design. Fences er- m=alls adjacent to a t4e heritage lane may be constructed of wood, stone, masonry, wrought iron or similar material. The design, color and materials of the fence or- wall shall be approved based upon a finding that the fence OF Wall will not adversely affect the historic qualities of the lane and will be compatible with the design and materials of existing buildings on the site and structures on adjacent properties. (e) Height. The height of any fence or- all adjacent to the n heritage lane shall comply with the regulations set forth in Section 15- 29.010 of the City Code. 9 CURRENT (APRIL 23, 2008 HEARING) Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined font (e.g., bold double - underlined) and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., s#ikeewt). Text in standard font remains unchanged. (f) Landscaping. The applicant shall landscape and maintain an area within the right -of -way, parallel to and along the entire length of the exterior side of a fence er -wall in excess of three feet in height and facing the heritage lane, in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Community Development Director. Such landscape plan shall provide for the planting of trees and vegetation that are native to the area and require little or no maintenance. The landscape plan may. be approved by the Community Development Director upon the finding that the proposed landscaping will effectively blend the fence with its environment and enhance the visual appearance of the lane. i 6, � 992, if sueh fenee does net er-eale a safky hazard for- vehieulaf, pede4fian er- bieyele tr- a upon . the destpaetj E)n or- . emoval of more than one half ef t e length ef nen—eefnfefffling , , 15-29.080 Fence Exceptions. (a) The owner(s) of f-a fence including any gates or pilasters attached thereto, may request that the Planning Commission grant an exception to the regulations regarding fences. The Planning Commission may grant this exception if the following iinm ce dgs are ma: (1)'The subject fence will be compatible with otber similar structures in the neighborhood: (2) The entirety of the subject fence will be constructed of materials that are of hj� ' quality exhibit superior craftsmanship, and that are durable: , (3) The modification will not impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood -in wbicb °the fence is located: (4) The granting of such modification will not be detrimental or _injurious to the property,,' adjacent neigbbors or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the propertv_is located: r__ nvno.,4inn onnrnvn1 „nrler this Article shall be .u"ii i. _i. " nnr iucc rnnn ien nav% nui inure uiau thirty days prior to the date of the bearing by mailing, postage prepaid to the appncant and to all persons whose names appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County as o'%vning property i -Otbin five hundred feet of the boundaries of the site %vbRcb ,s she subject of the application Notice of the public bearing shall also be published once In newspapers baying general circulation in the City not later than ten days priar Io the —date o the bearing. (c) A decjsjon or determination made by the Planning Commission under this Article may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with the procedure set forth in Article 15 -90 of this Chapter. 15-29 090 -- Existing Legal Non - Conforming Fences Hedges, Pilasters Entry, %vav Trellises. 10 CURRENT (APRIL 23, 2008 HEARING) • • CJ Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined font (e.g., bold double- underlined) and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., s#fikee t). Text in standard font remains unchanged. more than one -half len th o the lea non- conformin Upon destruction or removal •f portion of fences gates bedges pilasters entrvwav trelhses the element shall be constructed to meet beight requirements as prescribed in this cbapter or be approved by an exception process described in section 15- 29.080 of this chapter. 11 CURRENT (APRIL 23, 2008 HEARING) Attachment Z r_j City of Saratoga Circulation and Scenic Highway Element Background Report /Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures Road between Pierce Road and Stevens • Landscaping requirements between Canyon Road (only a one -mile segment fences /walls and major roadways, west of Pierce Road is in the City). The and on dead -end streets City should support designation of such • Design review of most residential facilities to increase the aesthetics of the and commercial developments by surrounding area. the Planning Commission • Permit requirements for tree Local Measures to Maintain Scenic `v 7F removal Roadways Building structure height restrictions Arterial roadways and collector and local . Requirements for underground streets are not eligible for the existing utilities/wining scenic highway protection programs. . Special ordinances for hillside However, efforts to beautify these subdivisions to provide erosion facilities contribute to the overall aesthetic control ' appeal of the City. Several locations Establishment of scenic easements . within the City have been identified as in hillside subdivisions having poor visual quality areas because . Aesthetic /scenic policies in the of extensive commercial development Hillside Specific Plan and/or limited landscaping. Key corridors that could be improved include portions of Saratoga Avenue, Quito Road, and Prospect Road. The gateway from Cupertino into Saratoga at the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road/Prospect Road intersection is often cited by residents as an example of where landscaping and beautification is needed. The City of Saratoga has numerous ordinances and procedures to require new development projects, redevelopment projects, and property/building modifications to contnbute to the establishment and maintenance of scenic corridors. These measures include: • Parcel re- zoning V Z Z • Minimum site frontage - - w LU U requirements N W • Subdivision requirements for j development projects to maintain 0 topography 3 Q= J 0 U 2 Fehr& Peers Associates, Inc. Page 37 U F City of Saratoga Noise Element Background Report /Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures . . additional noise related controls is 3. Construction activities permitted recommended as a 'part of the policies only between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and and implementation measures of this 6:00 p.m. (7- 30.060) Element. a. No individual piece of Fences. Walls, and Hedges Ordinance equipment shall :produce a noise level exceeding .83 dBA at . a This ordinance recognizes the need distance of twenty -five feet from for noise protection along major streets. the source thereof. Fencing to mitigate noise from certain arterial streets (Prospect Road, b. The noise level at .any point. Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road, Quito Road, outside of the'property plane of Saratoga Avenue, Cox Avenue) can the project shall not exceed.-8 6 reach. the .maximum height of ten feet 0 dBA. subject to the fence permit and meeting specified I provision (15- 29.030). 4. Amplified sound is subject to Fencing adjacent to scenic highways is permit issued by Pl. annmg subject to controls of visual appearance Director. including landscaping but with provisions .for compensating for noise _ 5. Excessive noise is unlawful when impacts (1.5- 29.040). it disturbs the .peace or quiet .of any neighborhood or, which. Noise Control Ordinance (Article 7 -30) causes discomfort or annoyance to . any reasonable person, -of Specific provision of the current normal sensitivities residing in ordinance are: the area. ; 1. Noise levels = for residential The Saratoga Noise Control zoning districts cannot exceed 6 dBA Ordinance, adopted iri 1972, is based on. above the local ambient noise level. (7- a model ordinance recommended by the , 30.030) State for municipalities and is similar to ordinances of other communities in 2. Noise levels for commercial and respect to standards and regulations. A industrial zoning districts cannot exceed recommendation. of this. Element is to . 8 dBA above the local ambient noise - consider amending the existing noise level .'(7- 30.040) Exemptions to the ordinance with revised standards and. above are that any noise source which regulations that address the specific does not produce a noise level exceeding noise problems of the City of Saratoga. 70 dBA at a distance of twenty -five feet F' under its most noisy condition of use Truck Route Ordinance (Article 9 — 40). W shall be exempt from the provision of L Sections 7- 30.030. an-d.7-30.040 between The Truck Route Ordinance w the hours -of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. contributes to both the safety and the w quiet environment of the community by y Community Planning Consultants Page18 Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. City of Saratoga Open Space /Conservation Element Background Report/Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures Related Policies: OSC 10.1 Responsible Agency: Community Devel- opment Department/Planning Commission Biological Resources Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Goal OSC 11: Protect and enhance sensitive Related Policies: OSC 11 .1, 11.2, 11.5 vegetative and wildlife habitat in the Saratoga OSC.1l.b. The City shall continue to require Planning area. that all projects conform to the City's Tree Policy OSC 11.1: Minimize development Ordinance. that would encroach into important wildlife Responsible Agency: Community Devel- habitats, limit or restrict normal range areas, opment Department/Planning Commission or restrict access to water food or shelter. Funding Source: Development Fees This includes limitations on the installation Time Frame: Ongoing of barrier fencing in hillside areas. Related Policies: OSC 11.3, 11.4, 11.5 Policy OSC 11.2: Through the development Arbor Resources and CEQA process, preserve, protect, and maintain riparian habitats and creek corn- Goal OSC 12: Support appropriate management ' dors. This includes requiring biological sur- for sustaining the health and increasing the. veys of parcels of land that could contain extent of arbor resources in the City. The sensitive species or their habitats prior to specific vision is to increase. overall tree cover, allowing development on these parcels. tree health and consequent tree 'benefits in an equitable, cost beneficial and sustainable Policy OSC 11.3: The design of parking lots manner. shall be evaluated for opportunities to re- Policy OSC 12.1: Development projects duce large continuous expanses, of asphalt should include the preservation of protected and to promote the establishment of visually trees and other significant trees. Any ad- interesting and aesthetically pleasing park- verse affect on the health and longevity of mg lots. native oak trees, protected or other signifi -, Policy OSC 11.4: The City should provide cant trees should be avoided through appro- information and assistance to the public in priate design measures and construction the preservation and care of native trees practices. When tree preservation is not fea- whose existence can be threatened by envi- Bible, individual development projects shall ronmental stress and development. include appropriate tree replacement. as ap- Policy OSC 11.5: Mature vegetation shall proved by the City. be preserved wherever possible. Policy OSC 12.2: Trees used for new or replacement plantings should be selected Implementation: primarily for low water use characteristics. OSC.11.a. The City shall continue to utilize the Policy OSC 12.3: To further protect and enhance the City's arbor resources built on LU W design review and environmental review process the City's Tree Regulations, the City should U Q E for all development applications to ensure that continue its support of tree protection pro- d W projects are designed in a manner that minimizes J disruption to important wildlife, riparian and grams. Z W plant habitats. Policy OSC 12.4: It is the City's policy that forested lands in the City's Sphere of Influ- a p ence shall be managed to maximize envi- LINGO- MCCORMICK CONSULTING Page 27 uJ Jerry Haag, Urban Planner Z Z O U 1 ENIZ & RA N5 FO RTA.i C!N CON SU LTA NTS MEMORANDUM To: Shweta Bhatt, Associate Planner City of Saratoga From: Sohrab Rashid, P.E. Date: April 23, 2008 Subject: Driveways — Triangles of Visibility 1025 -446 -1 yI• We have reviewed your April 2008 memorandum regarding driveways within the City of Saratoga , and proposed modifications to the municipal code to specify development restrictions to provide improved visibility. In that document, you presented the proposed code language and requested that we answer several questions regarding the code: Our preliminary comments on this matter and responses to questions in your memorandum are presented below. Proposed Code Update The City is proposing the following language to address the issues of sight distance at driveways: (e) Driveway Intersections. No fence, hedge, retaining wall, entryway element, or other similar element located within a triangle having sides twelve feet in length from either side of'6 dnVeway where it intersects with edge of pavement shall exceed three feet in height above the established grade of the adjoining street. Pilasters, gates, or any other similar element that may obstruct the visibility shall be located outside this triangle. Ordinance size trees are not subject to this requirement. We understand that the purpose of this code is to maintain a minimum level of visibility for drivers as they exit a driveway to see pedestrians on the sidewalk or in. the street (if no sidewalk exists), as well as bicyclists and vehicles traveling in the street. Discussion of. Code We recommend that the code modification refer to any object with the exception of ordinance size trees, because any object can impede sight distance (e.g., mailboxes). Many jurisdictions do not. have to worry about driveway sight triangles because the public right -of -way behind the. curb typically includes at least a 5 -toot sidewalk and may include another 5 -foot landscaping strip, which effectively prevent the installation of any fence or substantive entry feature. For Saratoga, sight distance triangles are important given the number of locations without sidewalks or paths, and the numerous. locations where residents have either built in or landscaped the public right of way. While this contributes to aesthetic beauty of the community, it has caused conditions where sight distance is severely limited. 160 West Santa Clara Street; Suite 675; San Jose CA 95113 (408) 278 -1700 Fax (408) 278 -1717 www1ehrancipeers.com Ms. Shweta Bhatt April 23, 2008 Page 2 The size of the proposed sight triangle with 12 -foot sides from the edge of pavement or back of curb is a generally considered reasonable area to maintain free of visual impediments. It should be noted that this distance may not necessarily provide adequate sight distance of vehicles approaching on the street, especially for streets without sidewalks behind the curb. Streets without sidewalks are common in Saratoga. For a typical 40 -foot wide residential street and a driver in a vehicle in a. driveway set 8 -feet back from _the, curb or edge. of pavement, the 12 -foot triangle would only guarantee approximately 100 feet of sight distance assuming no sidewalk or path area exists. The Minimum sight distance for a vehicle traveling on the street at 25 miles per hour (mph) is 1.50 feet. If a 5 -foot sidewalk is provided, then approximately 150 feet of sight distance would be available. assuming no large vehicles are parked on the street. To guarantee the 150 fbet of sight distance on a street without a sidewalk/path„ the triangle would have to include a 35 -foot length, parallel to the street, and even -then, a parked car could block visibility. The 12 -foot triangle would still provide adequate visibility of the sidewalk and area of the street near the curb if a bicyclist -were riding with no cars parked on the street. Because some streets are narrower than 40 feet and `many do not include a sidewalk or .path, vehicles in driveways, may have, to move - forward and partially enter the roadway to increase the available sight distance. While this is not ideal, "creeping forward" is a typical condition -in developed areas provided a driver uses. caution - and the vehicle does not protrude into the travel lane. We recommend that the figure included in your memorandum clearly identify the curb or edge of pave me nt/trave led way from which the 12 feet parallel to the driveway is measured. The property line . shouldalso -be_ labeled. Also; the driveway restrictions should apply to all driveways regardless. of street classification and should be indicated as a minimum. For streets with speed limits greater than 25 mph,-additional clear area may be required. The only alternative to the driveway sight. triangle is to enforce the .height restriction of objects within the public right of way behind the curb or edge of pavement or traveled way. As noted above, for streets with a 5 -foot sidewalk, adequate sight distance is typically provided assuming no large vehicle is parked on the street. The presence of parked vehicles is, a typical urban condition and, requires that drivers_ move out further from, the driveway to improve the visibility of oncoming traffic, and bicyclists /pedestrians. Based on our observations over the last eight years in the City, attempting to apply the new code to . existing obstructions would result in a substantial number of locations that are in violation. Staff has indicated that. the code would be applied on a complaint basis, which would be a reasonable approach given the.poiential number of violations. Even so, removal of some entry features, fences, etc. could be very costly for homeowners. Conclusion The 12 -foot sight triangle is a. reasonable requirement to increase the visibility of pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles in the vicinity of. driveways. While the triangles will not necessarily guarantee . minimimum stopping sight distance.of.vehicles traveling on most residential streets, the triangle is an appropriate method to protect sight distance and is consistent with other jurisdictions. Our responses to the commissions questions are summarized below: Length of triangle 12 feet is appropriate Need for triangles Restrictions are needed to maintain a minimum sight distance • • Ms. Shweta Bhatt April 23, 2008 Page 3 Applicability — All driveways and should be listed as a minimum , Alternatives — None that achieve the desired result Application to existing obstructions — Could be controversial and a cost issue for existing lots — complaint -based system is recommended if the code is modified. This code will not affect on- street parking. Minimum stopping sight distance requirements — At least 150 feet is needed for vehicles traveling 25 mph and 200 feet for vehicles traveling 30 mph. Parked vehicles will often block visibility of driveways, so increasing the sight distance triangle is not considered practical. _ April 23, 2008 Heat* Topic Current Approach and Planning Commission Proposed Changes Ordinance Problem Discussion Page Number Definitions The code does not currently The Commission discussed The definition of fence will 1 define hedges and does not making green fences analogous include walls (other than walls distinguish walls from retaining with hedges at the January 23, of a building and retaining walls. The regulations use the 2008 hearing. walls). A definition for hedges terms interchangeably and retaining walls has been throughout the subsection, added. requiring assumptions and interpretations. Fence Height The code currently permits At the September 25, 2007 The proposed changes would 1, 2, 3, 5 fences to a maximum of 6 -feet Study Session, the Commission allow -a 6 -foot tall solid fence in height. However, it is decided that the code should with an additional 2 -feet of common practice to, have a 6- permit 6 -foot solid fences with lattice for a maximum of 8- foot tall fence with 2 -feet of 2 -foot lattice. feet. lattice. These fences are not A section describing permitted allowed by code, thus creating heights for . wrought enforcement issues throughout iron /wire /chain link fences has the community. also been added. Height Currently, fences are measured The Planning Commission The proposed language will 1 Measurement from the lower elevation points decided that the measurement measure height from the higher and include the height of any between two properties with of two properties. Sonic retaining walls. different ground levels. will language has been removed so take place from the property the section is consistent. with the higher elevation point. Public .comment has been submitted with respect to this - issue, suggesting that height be ' measured from the property 1 _ _ April 23, 2008 Hearing Topic Current Approach and Planning Commission Proposed-Changel Ordinance Problem ' Discussion Page Number with the. lower elevation point. Fence Currently, any variation •to code At the . January 23, 2008 The proposed update to' the 10 Exception regulations requires a variance. hearing, the Commission fence ordinance would Variances are . typically removed :finding 95 (adjacent ' establish a fence exception reserved for situations where a neighbor support) from the process that would -allow hardship exists.. proposed language. There was property. owners to request the also discussion about formal Planning Commission approve noticing and the appeal a modification to regulations . process. fora particular situation where - a hardship may not exist, but where deviation from the code is allowed. Language regarding noticing and - the appeal process has been added. Green The node currently does not The Planning Commission has A definition of hedges has been 1, 2 . Fences regulate the height of trees or commented that it does not added to the code in lieu of the other natural landscaping, even want green fences to be subject term "green fences," which is when they. are planted in a to the same height limitations not used in the proposed linear pattern and . create a as fences made of other language. boundary similar. to that of a materials, and that green. fences The proposed - language will fence.' and hedges are analogous exempt hedges from height terms. restrictions, except for. street Public comment has been and driveway intersections. submitted With respect to this issue, suggesting that heights of hedges be regulated. April 23, 2008 Hea* Topic Current Approach and Planning Commission Proposed Changes Ordinance Problem Discussion Page Number Driveway The code currently does not The triangle around driveway The proposed update will add a 3 Intersections limit the height of fences near aprons should have legs 12 -feet height requirement of 3 -feet for driveway intersections. in length. There was fences located within a 12 -foot discussion at the January 23; by 12 -foot triangle near 2008 hearing to prohibit gates, driveway intersections for pilasters, and similar items in projects that trigger design this triangle. review. Language has been added prohibiting gates, pilasters, and similar items in this triangle. Entry Currently the code does not The Planning Commission Clarification regarding 2,3 Elements regulate the number or the size directed staff to add language pedestrian entry elements has parameters of entry elements clarifying that the ' entry been added. The proposed (i.e. fountains, birdbaths, elements were pedestrian language suggests a height arbors, trellises, or- other elements, and to add a maximum-of 8 -feet, and a 5- similar garden elements). maximum width of 5 -feet. foot maximum for both width and depth. There are no limits on the number of entry elements. Existing Currently fences legally The term "legal" should be Specific dates have been Deletion on Non- established prior to a particular added to this section. eliminated and the teen "legal" various pages, Conforming date are exempt from some has been added to ensure that proposed Fences limitations within the code. the section applies only to language on Given that many fences do not - legally established fences. pages 10 and require building permits, it is Removal of more than half of a 11 difficult to determine when a legal fence or element will fence was legally established. require the replacement 3 - April 23, 2008 Hearing- Topic Current Approach and Planning Commission. Proposed Changes Ordinance Problem Discussion Page Number structure .to comply with node requirements. Materials Currently, wire fencing (other Tile Planning Commission Wrought iron nmaterial has been 5 Within than chain link, barbed wire or directed staff to add language added as an acceptable material Hillside galvanized wire) with 4 -inch in the update regarding as long as it also has the Districts openings to allow. for the appropriate fencing material in minimum 4 -inch openings passage of wildlife is the hillside district at the required for wire fences. Chain permitted. The code specifies August 7, 2007 study session.. link fencing has been added as that the wire must be black or Additionally, the Commission an acceptable material, but the otherwise colored to blend with directed staff to research length has been limited to 60 the terrain. Chain link fencing Measure A as it applies to linear feet. in the. hillside district is chain link fencing. currently prohibited except for recreational courts. Chain Link Chain link fencing is The Planning Commission The ordinance has been revised 2,5 Fencing commonly used in many areas discussed this issue at the to, allow chain link fencing in Material of the City, but is only March 12, 2008 hearing and the hillside districts. However, prohibited in the hillside directed staff to complete in keeping with a policy in the district. research with respect to General Plan, the language Measure A and chain link limits fencing -to 60 -feet. in fencing in the hillside district. length. Language has been It was. also mentioned that. added to permit chain link chain link fencing in other fences in other districts only in districfd should be permitted in the interior side and rear rear setback areas or areas net setback _ areas and for visible from the street. recreational courts. Public comment has been • • April 23, 2008 Hea* Topic Current Approach and Planning Commission Proposed Changes Ordinance Problem Discussion Page Number submitted with respect to this issue, suggesting that chain link fencing be considered for hillside properties. Swimming Chapter 16 (Building The Commission encouraged This update will reference that 4 Pool Fences Regulations) of the City code this language. section of the City code. (Building regulates fences required Regualtions) around pools. Swimming The code currently limits the The Commission requested the The proposed language will. 6 Pool Fences square footage of enclosure proposed language be clarified require fencing for pools in (Hillside within the hillside district to so that only properties with a hillside districts to follow the District 4,000 square feet, but exempts 4,000- square foot enclosure contour of the pool with no Enclosures) the area needed to fence a pool and a pool fence are required to more than 10 -feet of distance from the square _footage have no more than 10 -feet of between the water line of the maximum. Therefore, since distance between the pool and pool and fence. The language the building code requires fence. has been modified so that only properties with a pool to be properties that already have a enclosed, a fence may surround 4,000- square foot enclosure for the property and inadvertently another purpose are subject to enclose more than 4,000 square this requirement. feet. -. Enclosure The code requires that an area The Commission encouraged This update would add that a 6 Maximum of enclosure greater than 4,000 this language. = minimum linear distance of 30- with Hillside square feet is not permitted feet . must exist between any Districts within the hillside district. two points of discontinuation. Currently there is no 5 - _ April 23, 2008 Hearing . Topic Current Approach and Planning Commission Proposed Changes Ordinance Problem Discussion _ page Number requirement for a minimum distance in-between two fences.. to be considered" not enclosed. Front Yard / The . "City has numerous lots The Coimnission directed that The proposed language adds a 3 Side Yard (i.e. flag lots) that do not have the tern "flag lot" be added to provision that allows the Fencing frontage on a street, but are still the beginning of this section. maximum fence height. for a required to adhere to a Moot side yard or a rear "yard be maximum height for fences in allowed. within the front the front setback area. This is setback area of the lot that particularly applicable when would otherwise be limited to the front lot line of a lot is the 3 -feet in height. The term "flag same as a side lot line of an lot" has been added. adjacent lot. Where the adjacent lot maybe permitted a fence that is 6 -foot solid with 2 -foot lattice,. the subject property may be limited to a 3- foot fence along the same property line. Solid 8 -foot An 8 -f6ot fence or wall is The language should state that The language has been 7 Fence currently permitted for certain a solid fence or any other type modified to reflect. the arterial. streets and for. fencing of fence is permitted for discussion. adjacent to commercial properties adjacent to arterial properties. streets -- and adjacent. to commercial properties. Parallel Public testimony was received The'Commission. directed staff The term "fences" has been 5 April 23, 2008 He u r Topic Current Approach and Problem Planning Commission Discussion Proposed Changes Ordinance Page Number Fences and with respect to this issue at the to omit the term fences from removed from this section and Walls January 23, 2008 hearing. this section. The discussion the term "retaining walls" has concluded that the intent for been added. this section was for retaining walls. Parker Ranch The Parker Ranch subdivision The Planning Commission did The regulations describing 6 has specific fencing not oppose referencing this Parker Ranch fencing requirements; however the section of the code. requirements will be referenced code does not reference these in the proposed language. regulations. _ A ttachment 5 • 1 • rr MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 PLACE: Council'Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Hlava called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: None Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate . Planner Shweta Bhatt and Assistant City Attorney Bill Parkin 0 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of February 27, 2008. . Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of February 27, 2008, were adopted with edits to pages 3 and 9. (6- 0 -0.1; Commissioner Nagpal abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 6, 2008. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. LLA Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION ZOA07 -0001 (City- Wide): The: Planning Commission will consider a draft ordinance that will update existing regulations regarding fences, walls and hedges. The draft ordinance proposes to 1) establish an exception process that would allow property owners to exceed the maximum permitted, fence height; 2) add fence height limitations around driveway aprons; and 3) clarify ambiguous language and areas of the code that are currently difficult to enforce. Other related topics, such as regulations regarding chain link fencing, an initial study and negative declaration for the project will also be reviewed and discussed. Ms. Shweta Bhatt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: Reported that the Commission is being asked to review proposed changes to .s draft ordinance. that pertains to fences, walls and hedges. Stated that topics of interest include chain link fences, which are currently prohibited in the Hillside 'District but not elsewhere in the City. Proposed changes would make the Code consistent by prohibiting chain link fences throughout the City. - • Added that a letter in op_ position of this recommendation was received and included in the packet. • Said that. the-Planning Commission discussed eliminating height restrictions for hedges and directed staff -to include language.in the Code to this effect. Stated that letters from the public were received that suggested that hedges have a height limitation. The -most recent was emailed to the Planning Commission and distributed this l evening. Said that language is proposed that fences be measured from the higher property where two properties differ in elevation. • Said that staff received feedback from the public regarding this topic suggest►hp .that it be measured from the lower property to avoid exceptionally tall fences and walls on the lower side: • Added that feedback was also -received this afternoon regarding a concern about the , proposed_ language about triangles of visibility particularly how they impact.smaller lots. • , Advised that an exception process has been added to the proposed language and four findings are proposed to'help evaluate exceptions. • Informed. that members-of the public are present this evening to speak on-the issues and provide comments: Commissioner Nagpal asked if chain link fencing- would be prohibited all over Saratoga. Chain link fencing is- allowed in rear yards right now. Would chain link fencing continue to be allowed in backyards? Planner Shweta- Bhatt said that throughout the City, chain link fencing would not be allowed under the proposed amended ordinance. Right .now, chain link fencing is only .allowed for sports courts. Commissioner_ "Cappello asked" if chain link fencing would be prohibited for sports courts with the ordinance amendment: s Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page .3 in would still be allowed for sports courts. Planner Shweta Bhatt replied that chain link fencing p Commissioner'Zhao asked how 'legal non - conforming fences would be dealt with. How are they determined as legal? What about pre- existing fencing? Director John Livingstone said that pre- existing fencing would be subject to Community Development Director review. In the past, old photographs were used to substantiate the age of fencing. There are different ways to. prove when a fence was installed. He added that fences don't typically require a building permit. It might take some work to determine legal non- conforming fencing. Chair Hlava pointed at that when non - conforming houses burn down, they cannot be rebuilt to the non - conforming standard but would rather have to conform to current code requirements. She pointed out that while a non - conforming wood fence would eventually rot and have to be rebuilt to code standards, fences in materials such as wrought iron could last forever. The result is that they seem to be treated differently. Director John Livingstone agreed that wood fences last less time than do other' types of fences. Commissioner Rodgers reminded that Hillside zoning is limited to a 4,000, square foot enclosed area. Swimming pools must be enclosed and are permitted a 10 -foot area to be enclosed around the swimming pool. Planner Shweta Bhatt said that the 10 -foot enclosure area around a pool applies whQn there is already an enclosed fence area of 4,000 square feet on a Hillside zoned property. If a 'r separate fence is required to enclose a pool elsewhere on a Hillside zoned prooertyothat is outside of the 4,000 square foot fenced in area, that pool fence must follow the contours of the pool by a maximum of 10 -feet. Director John Livingstone reiterated that per code, pools must be enclosed. There must be a fence around a pool. In the Hillside district, if that property already has the maximum allowed 4,000 square foot fence - enclosed area, pool fencing is limited to a 10 -foot distance around the pool. contours. On other residential zoning district properties, pools are generally located within an enclosed backyard on a typical smaller lot. Commissioner Rodgers asked why a fence exemption for pools is required. Director John Livingstone gave the example of a 10 -acre lot with a 4,000 square foot enclosed fence area on one side of a property. A pool is located on the other side of the property. If there are large trees on each side of a pool, the fencing might not best be limited to the 10- foot contour so the exception is available for consideration to retain said trees and allow them to be located within the enclosure if necessary to retain them. Commissioner Rodgers said that this exception is not intended to allow expansion above the allowed 4,000 square foot fence enclosure area. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 4 Director John Livingstone replied no and said that the exception would be a .difficult process. Commissioner Zhao asked about when the amount of allowable enclosure area above 4,000 square .feet might be permitted in the Hillside district. Director John Livingstone said that more fencing could be installed on a Hillside zoned property if there are periodic 30 -foot wide gaps in sections of the fence to allow natural access for wildlife to pass through. Chair Hlava said . that one issue up for discussion on chain link fencing is whether black or some other color should be required to best blend into the landscape. Commissioner Nagpal said that there had been some discussion of allowing chain link'fencing. on certain sized residential lots with some mention of color to obscure visibility. Chair Hlava agreed that it must be something other than silver. Commissioner Rodgers said that chain link fencing in districts other than Hillside should only be allowed for recreational courts. Commissioner Na al again said that she had thought there was discussion to allow chain link fencing for larger lots. Director_ John Livingstone said that there was no direct instruction to that effect so staff started with no chain link fences anywhere in the community except for sports courts to start the discussion. Chair Hlava opened -the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Bruce La- Fountain, Resident on Pierce Road: • Said that he wrote a letter regarding use of chain link fencing. • Added that he is available for questions regarding his comments and pictures. Chair Hlava asked Mr. Bruce La Fountain if he is in favor of chain link fencing on Hillside district properties. Mr. Brucela Fountain: • Explained that he owns five adjacent properties, three of which . are large.. On all of his properties there.is chain link fencing, none of which is visible from the road. Added .that he took great pains ,to create a trail through all of his properties that. allows wildlife to pass through. • Reported 'that he toured the whole community and found lots of chain link fencing out there. It is a prevalent material. • Advised that he was surprised when Code Enforcement contacted him about his fencing. Expressed concern about the uniformity of enforcement. Reiterated- that -there is chain link fencing everywhere in every kind of application. Pointed out that in alarge open area,-one really cannot see it and it looks acceptable. • +► Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 5 • Added that it is a high quality product and is the product of choice for the Forest Service. Commissioner'Rodgers asked what color is his chain link fencing. Mr. Bruce La Fountain said that he bought sections in brown, green and black and chose black as the most invisible. Chair Hlava reported her understanding that the Hillside Initiative of 1980 created a prohibition of chain link fencing on the hillside. This restriction may not be able to be changed. Mr. Bruce La Fountain asked the reason for the size of spacing for the wire to be four inches., Is it because of birds? Chair Hlava said that it is for birds, rabbits and field mice to clear. She added that it is not to keep deer from eating people's gardens. Mr. Bruce La Fountain said he was less concern about deer than he was about coyotes eating , cats. Commissioner Rodgers said that cats should be kept indoors any way. Chair Hlava said that some properties have barn cats to.provide rodent control. Mr. Bill Breck, Resident on Saratoga -Los Gatos Road: • Said that he is concerned about the change in hedge heights. • Thanked staff, particularly Shweta Bhatt and John Livingstone, as well as the Planning Commission for their efforts. • Said that this amendment is creating way too many changes at once and it would be better to take smaller bites. Reported that he has an historic house and has for about 10 years. • Stressed that he is against the proposed three -foot hedge height limitation at the front of his property, as it would result in a loss of privacy on his property. • Stated that there are three driveways onto his property, two his and another belongs to his neighbor. • Asked for some data that proves this requirement increases public safety. • Said that this is a very big change and that 70 to 80 percent of properties have hedges to get front yard privacy. • Opined that this is starting to feel like a gated community. • Pointed out that codes are only enforced if a neighbor complains and the community cannot have that as a policy. It is not good for neighbor relationships. • Cautioned that next, there will be dictating on acceptable car colors. • Reiterated his request for data on safety. Have there been lots of accidents documented? • Said he would like to see more justification. • Suggested that smaller lots have different standards, as the hedge is the only tool these owners have. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Chair Hlava asked Mr. Bill Breck if he owns the Young's house. Mr. Bill Breck replied yes'. Commissioner Nagpal - suggested that there are alternative ways of viewing traffic such as ' mirrors. Mr. Bill Breck: • Agreed and said he has no problem with something like that as an alternative. That is very reasonable. • Questioned whether there was going to be any grandfathering of pre; existing conditions. • - Cautioned that -this requirement could change the character.of many neighborhoods. • Added that. lots of changes would have to be undergone to comply with this provision. Mr. Drew Perkins, Resident on Vista Arroyo Court: . • _Said that. he has lived in the Parker Ranch neighborhood of Saratoga'since about 2000. . • Said that these hilltop properties overlook the valley and hills. Expressed concern if hedges are not restricted in height in some way. • Added -that he is not concerned with cutting them back to three -foot heights as much as.he is 'concerned with them growing to 75, feet or more. A 75 -foot high hedge will obscure views of mountains and scenery. • Suggested that-hedges be regulated like walls are regulated. •. Questioned why hedges should not be regulated. Commissioner Nagpal said that she believes in use of green. fences. She asked, if some. language °is added that deals with impacts to views would that help alleviate Mr. Breck's concerns. Mr. Drew Perkins questioned what that might actually mean. Commissioner Nagpal said that_ it takes years for hedges to grow. They can be restricted to an upper height.limit, perhaps to no more. than 75 feet. Mr. Drew Perkins said that it depends upon context and application. In his case, 75 feet is better than-100. He added that 25 is even better than 75. Ms. Holly Davies, Resident on Oak Place: • Expressed her happiness with the concept of legalizing the use of lattice on six -foot tall fences to help increase privacy.. • Suggested that there be no height limitation on hedges. • Advised that in" her neighborhood, these hedges are needed. She said that she needs her high hedge to shield her property, as they must deal with high visitor traffic on smaller lots. Federated Church was a medium -sized church when she first moved into her. home 32 years ago.. Now if is a mega - church. There is also the Foothill Club. Celebrate Saratoga leaves her neighborhood full of happy drunks. While the event is a part of .the culture of 3 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 7. this town, it is intense and she needs the hedge as a shield from all this activity in the street. • Added that she objects to the proposal to limit the number of garden elements in the front yard. She needs them, including trellises, to create interest in her garden. • Informed that she is a rosarian. She has a collection of roses, some of which are rare, and she needs trellises for climbing roses. • Said that this proposed limitation is an intrusion into the life of citizens. • Suggested that it be left to each family to decide their landscaping. • Expressed her opposition to the vision triangle. Added that not uniformly enforcing except through complaint creates conflicts between neighbors. • Said that adding the triangle to the code could result in a rise in insurance rates as liability might increase. • Asked if the vision triangle is needed for every driveway in the city. • Said that vision triangles are okay for those properties on busy public streets and /or on corner lots. Chair Hlava thanked all speakers and closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Hlava: • Suggested discussing the issues raised by the public including the use of chain link fencing on Hillside zoned properties. • Reiterated her belief that this issue was included on the Hillside Initiative. Commissioner Nagpal reminded that issues previously discussed included the impacts of not allowing chain link fencing on hillside properties as well as consideration of allowing use of chain link fencing on lots larger than 40,000 square feet. Commissioner Rodgers added . that properties in the flatlands were also raised including smaller lots. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that one question to consider is just how prevalent are chain link fences. • Said that use of colors other than silver could help enhance the invisibility of chain link fencing. • Stressed the need to minimize the impact from the public street and to keep chain link fencing at the back with something grown on it to hide it. • Questioned whether chain link fencing should be allowed throughout Saratoga. • Recounted that in her neighborhood there is a lot of existing chain link fencing. Commissioner Cappello questioned the use of chain link fencing around the perimeter of a hillside property. Commissioner Nagpal reminded of the restrictions within the Hillside zoning that allows only 4,000 square feet of enclosed fencing. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 8 Commissioner Cappello asked how some of the existing chain link fencing is 'being used in the hillside in violation of the 4,000 square foot limitation. Chair Hlava: . • Reminded that if there are periodic openings (30 foot gaps) left to allow wildlife passage through, there is no limitation. • Suggested that the-Commission focus on flatland now rather than Hillside zoning. • She said that one sees chain link fencing.more on large lots while small lots tend to use wood fences to create privacy. Director John Livingstone:. • Suggested that the Commission take a straw vote, limiting it to the' "consideration of the Hillside zoning district first. If the Commission is in favor of allowing chain link fencing in the Hillside zoning district, staff can do the necessary research. If the Commission were not interested, staff would not have to do the research. Added that following the straw vote as it ,pertains to Hillside residential, the Commission would work its way down to the flatlands. Commissioner Nagpal asked Commissioners Kundtz and Rodgers what they thought about this issue of chain Fink on the hillside. Commissioner Rodgers said that on lower properties and in farm country, she has no problem with the use of chain link fencing. -In a residential area and visible from the public street, she does not find chain link fencing to be attractive or appropriate. They are fine in an enclosed. garden. If allowed on a hillside property, green is pretty visible and black would be 1h. e best, as she has, seen. ' Commissioner Kundtz: • Agreed, saying they should require a permit. and to be black chain. link fencing. • Added that he finds black chain link fencing to be totally invisible. • Stated that for 40,000 square foot 'lots and in the, lower flatlands, this issue is more . sensitive. • Said that wrought iron fencing is more attractive than chain link fencing. Commissioner Nagpal said it appears that chain link fencing could be supported. on Hillside zoned properties with color that blends into its environment (i.e. black). Commissioner Rodgers stressed that chain link fencing should not be visible from the public street. Commissioner Nagpal asked which area should allow chain link fencing, hillside versus lower flatland areas. Chair Hlava suggested that all zoning districts should be called out where such fencing would be permitted. She asked if the intent is to allow unlimited use. • • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 9. i 4 000 square. feet in fencing area should remain the Commissioner Nagpal said within , q g standard in the Hillside district. Commissioner Kundtz reminded that'there is the provision to have more use of chain link on the hillside if the chain link fence is broken up by 30 -foot wide openings. Chair Hlava asked what about 40,000 square foot lots and those properties in the flatland areas of Saratoga. Should such fencing be allowed in the back yards? Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that chain link fencing is nicer than a wood fence for back yard properties that back onto a creek. Chair Hlava expressed. support for allowing chain link fencing in back yards as long as not visible from the street. Director John Livingstone said it appears that three of four of the Commissioners support allowing chain link fences on the Hillside zoning district if they are black clad.. As one moves down the hill it appears that chain link fencing is okay. He asked if it can be said that chain link fencing is acceptable citywide? Commissioner Nagpal said she could support it on 40,000 square foot lots. Chair Hlava agreed not citywide but okay on 40,000 square foot lots. Commissioner Kundtz asked how curb appeal can be addressed going uphill. He pointed out that there are two or three houses with wrought iron fences. Up further, in a mode rural area, the fencing changes to chain link. ' Commissioner Nagpal agreed that this is the hard part. If chain link is found to be acceptable it must be a color that minimizes the impact on the public as seen from the right -of -way. Chair Hlava pointed out that chain link fencing within a back yard on a flatland property is not visible to the public. However, on a hillside property, everyone can see it. That issue is worth some research. Commissioner Nagpal said that this is a good starting point and will likely have to come back to this Commission. She asked about how to deal with existing non- conforming situations. Director John Livingstone said that right now chain link fencing is not allowed. Chair Hlava said that this issue would need to be looked into. Commissioner Nagpal said that she must say that there are lots of chain link fences on the hillside. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 10 Director John Livingstone said that this issue might end up as an election level item and go onto a ballot. Right now, in general terms, chain link fencing could be allowed on the top of the hillside and. go from there. Commissioner Nagpal said she supports looking into it but where to start. Commissioner Rodgers replied with the Hillside Residential zoning district. .Chair Hlava agreed. Commissioner Cappello said he could support this with caveats including use of color.and the restriction of not 'being visible from the street. In rural areas there should be an exception provision. Commissioner Kumar, said he supports the concept of staff researching these issues further. Chair'Hlava asked if chain link is currently not allowed in the Hillside district. Director John Livingstone replied that under current Code it is allowed. Chair Hlava said she personally could only support use of chain link fencing in properties that are a minimum of 40,000 square feet. However, it may end up being best to leave it as it is. Commissioner Nagpal said that the issue of color that enhances the invisibility from the public street must be considered. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that some people install wood slats into.a chain.link fence.' Commissioner Cappello asked if vines cover a chain link fence, does it become a green fence. Commissioner Nagpal said that is a good question. She added that it used to be sd considered. Director`John Livingstone advised that the description of a hedge is one that can stand up on its own. Commissioner- Cappello said he still has more of a problem with fences on the flatlands than he does on the hillsides. Commissioner Nagpal. asked Commissioner Cappello if he thinks chain link fencing should not: be allowed. commission er Cappello pointed out that one does not hear of issues, complaints or problems that result from the use of chain link fencing. Chair Hlava said that she does. not feel this prohibition is enforceable, especially as fence installations do not require a-building permit. • • • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 11 Commissioner Nagpal said that allowing a three -foot high chain link fencing in a front yard could be allowed under current code. She added that she would be concerned if that was installed. Chair Hlava said why mess with this if it hasn't been an issue. Commissioner Rodgers asked the City Attorney whether discussion by this Planning Commission of the concept about banning a type of fencing but does not result in being prohibited, does it allow people to ask for such fencing in the future. City Attorney Bill Parkin said that any provisions ultimately adopted in the ordinance would mandate what will be allowed or not. Commissioner Rodgers said that if there is no specific prohibition of chain link fencing that is visible from the street, it would be allowed. Commissioner Zhao said that she would' Pike to. keep the regulations as they are currently for , the flatland areas. This is for smaller lots up to 40,000 square foot lots. If not, she said she believes it results in discrimination against smaller lots. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff asked if there have been a lot of complaints, about chain link fencing. Director John Livingstone replied no, especially. since no permit is required for installation. Commissioner Nagpal said she might be okay with leaving it as it is. Chair Hlava said that is her thought too. 1, Commissioner Cappello: • Stated that if his neighbor would install chain link fencing in his front yard, he would have an issue with that. • Advised that he simply does not like chain link fencing. • Added that if it is invisible from view, it becomes a moot point although he would like to see chain link fencing prohibited. Commissioner Kumar said that there are not a lot of chain link fences in the neighborhood he. lives in that is not in the hills. He said he too personally does not like them. He added that he is leaning toward changing the ordinance and creating enforcement on chain link fencing. Director John Livingstone restated his understanding of the Commission's feelings to this point. They support chain link fencing in the Hillside district but want to leave the requirements for the flatland area as it is. Chain link fencing would be allowed throughout the community with specific requirements including being invisible from the street. 0 Chair Hlava suggested not allowing chain link fencing in front yards. N Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 12 id that the right use of color would help this fencing blend into the Commissioner Nagpal said g p 9 environment so as to be invisible. Chair. Hlava again said she does not think.this is enforceable. Commissioner Nagpal said .that there would have to be some mechanism in the ordinance to enforce it. Commissioner Zhao said that the idea of such a fence once covered in vines must be taken into consideration. City Attorney Bill Parkin said that visibility is a subjective issue and.would require an exception process. He said that specific standards,. such as not be allowed in the front yard and /or use,, of specific colors, are more easily enforced. Chair Hlava restated the Commissioner's recommendations for use of black chain link fencing and prohibiting its use in front yards. City Attorney Bill Parkin said corner lots oftentimes front a street. He reiterated that the more subjective the regulation the more design review is necessary. Chair Hlava: Agreed that.objective standards are necessary. • Suggested moving on to other issues including hedge heights and green fences, view triangles for private driveways; and use of garden elements. City Attorney Bill Parkin explained that the proposed restrictions are for side and rear setback areas. Outside of that, higher hedges are not regulated by this ordinance. -He Said the Commission might want to consider if it wants hedge height restrictions only at lot Ifhes,'within interior areas and /or within. 15-feet of a lot line Commissioner Nagpal said that hedges are not fences in the ordinance right now and that use of a row of Italian Cypress is not regulated today. City Attorney Bill Parkin replied correct. Commissioner Nagpal said that she would hate to see all the existing Italian Cypress chopped down. She said she is open to discussion, including possibly a discussion of view impact. Chair Hlava said that under the amended ordinance, fences anywhere on a lot could only be 6 feet tall. Right now, only the side yard and back fence heights are limited. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the provisions for accessory structures would come into play. Director John Livingstone said that there is-no definition of when a fence becomes an accessory. structure. It is easier for staff to enforce to keep the ordinance as it is and refer. applicability to the entire lot. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 13 Chair.Hlava said she often sees tall hedges,in the middle point of some backyards. Commissioner Nagpal said it could take 25 years for trees to get to that point. She suggested. looking at this from a view impacts perspective. She said she wants to see an allowance for a green hedge and not get around to treating them like a fence. Commissioner Cappello agreed that hedges offer some privacy. He suggested a view shed type of standard. City Attorney Bill Parkin: • Suggested that the Commission stay away from views as it dreates an issue for. enforcement. Reminded that the City has its Tree Ordinance and the Commission does not want to conflict with that. • Cautioned that view sheds would be a nightmare for staff to deal with, as views are a very subjective issue. • Stated that restrictions on hedges need to be well thought out. ' Commissioner Cappello reminded that the Design Review process considers interference with views. Director John Livingstone said that there is a difference as Design Review deals with a permanent structure. Here you would be trying to regulate growth. The City does not regulate the planting of trees so this would be hard to enforce. Commissioner Rodgers agreed that it would be difficult to restrict what people ,plant. She added that most trees could not be topped to reduce their height. Director John Livingstone agreed that many species of trees should not be topped. Chair Hlava said that the ordinance as currently written sets no limit on hedge heights either in front or rear yards. Now the definition of a hedge is a green fence. Commissioner Nagpal said that these hedges offer a buffer and can be found all over. She said that she could not imagine asking people to cut down their hedges because they don't match the new ordinance. Director John Livingstone clarify that the only change that pertains to hedges are those that might be located where a triangle view area might be required. Chair Hlava said that she does not see the requirement to cut down existing hedges. She suggested moving to the subject of garden elements. As proposed, only three garden elements would be permitted within a front yard setback. That includes arbors and trellises. Commissioner Nagpal said that she appreciates gardeners so much as she did not inherit a green thumb. She said that the ordinance should not be restrictive. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 14 Chair Hlava -said that this limit does not include gar d en gnomes and wrought iron benches, etc. Planner Shweta Bhatt clarified that the current version does not limit the number but rather just the height limit and depth. Chair Hlava said that since there is no limit in number, just size, the Commission could turn to 'the subject of.triangle of visibility. Director John Livingstone said that there is sometimes a problem with visibility for reverse lots and /or flag lots. He added that he is not sure if there have been accidents or injuries but the visibility issue has come up, If .there is a six -foot fence at the edge of a driveway, a driver cannot see clearly to exit. Commissioner Rodgers asked if there have been accidents with injuries. She stated that there are alternative ways of dealing with visibility, including use of mirrors. She added that it might be helpful to post signs reading "Blind Driveway." She stated that she is not a fan of cutting down hedges to a three -foot height. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this provision is only at public intersections or is it intended for every person's driveway? -She.asked how other cities regulate this. irk L' 'n stone Director o n ivi g • Explained that it is not uncommon to have regulations to leave a view triangle. • Said that one city had a 10 -foot standard. An t oe Study Session a 15 -foot standard vvas discussed. Right now the proposal is down to 12-feet. • Said that with the solution for flag lot fencing, said fencing can create visibility problems. Commissioner Kundtz asked how to pick between no less than 10 and/dr.no more than 15 feet? - Commissioner Rodgers said it should-be the traffic speed of the road on which the property is located. Commissioner Kundtz said that this represents many variables. Commissioner Nagpal if there is still a. traffic safety committee. .Director John Livingstone replied yes, and said that the Public Works Department staffs it. He pointed out. that 80 percent of the City is single - family residential. The majority of property' owners who pull out onto a major arterial road (such as Saratoga -Los Gatos Road) typically control that view triangle for their own safety. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is sufficient time to forward this issue to the Public Safety Commission: Director John Livingstone replied yes. • • A s Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 15 Chair Hlava said she was concerned with-the concept of having big established hedges. that are more than 20 years old cut down. She said she would support other visibility assistance. Commissioner Nagpal agreed that mirrors or some other electronic gadgetry might give people some options. She said they should not require permits but rather owners should just be allowed to install them. Commissioner Kumar said that requiring a view triangle for every single driveway in Saratoga is excessive. Chair Hlava agreed and said it makes more sense for arterial streets. Commissioner Kumar agreed and added perhaps for curvy streets. Director John Livingstone cautioned that mirrors help drivers but not pedestrians. He added that a mirror does not help a child on a bike while a view triangle benefits both pedestrian and driver. Commissioner Kumar said that drivers tend to back out carefully. Director John Livingstone said that staff is taking the direction from the Commission that requiring a view triangle should be an exception on busy roads but not be required citywide. Chair Hlava said that new construction should be required to, have a triangle of visibility. Commissioner Rodgers said she would defer to the Traffic Safety Commission. Chair Hlava asked if that still existed.. City Attorney Bill Parkin said yes. Chair Hlava asked how it is referred to them. Director John Livingstone said this issue would be taken to their meeting. They meet twice a month. Chair Hlava said that staff would be asked to refer this matter to the Safety Commission to discuss applicability and or necessity to impose a triangle of visibility for driveways citywide versus only for those located on arterial streets._ Commissioner Cappello added that providing alternatives that would suffice would also be helpful.. Chair Hlava asked if this item would come back to this Commission for additional public hearing. Commissioner Nagpal suggested that anyone listening should comment as they wish on these. proposals. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 16 Chair Hlava asked if the continuance should be to a date uncertain. Director John . Livingstone said a date certain with a buffer of time to get the Traffic Safety Commission review- would be fine. ' Chair Hlava suggested April 23`d meeting since two Commissioners will be absent from the first meeting in April. Motion: _ Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission continued consideration of proposed amendments to the Fencing, Walls and Hedges Ordinance to its meeting of April 23, 2008. (7 -0) DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There. were no Director's. Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Rodgers listed upcoming meeting dates, including a Green Building Workshop on March 1 -7'h. Chair Hlava mentioned the joint session with Council set for March 19`h. She also mentioned her attendance at a workshop sponsored by City of San Jose and San Jose State University' _ on updating: Housing .Elements. It was a very interesting session and Saratoga is ahead of other cities in its process. ' Commissioner Nagpal- announced that she, Commissioner Rodgers and Chair Hlava helped, select the consultant, RBF Consulting, for Saratoga's Housing Element Update. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, Chair Hlava adjourned the meeting at approximately 9 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk I- n MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Hlava called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao ' Absent: None Staff: Director John Livingstone, Contract Planner.Heather Bradley, Planner Shweta Bhatt and Assistant City Attorney Bill Parkin PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ' APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of January 9, 2008. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of January 9, 2008, were adopted with corrections to pages 11, 13, 19, 26 and 28. (.7 -0) ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. Gene Zambetti, Big Basin Way: .0 • Said he was here to provide a progress report on the relocation of tenants at Brookside Apartments. • Reported that it has been a long and difficult endeavor. • Reminded that he had promised to try hard to find comparable units for his tenants • Advised that they had meetings with 15 tenants. Some were relocated and others. have left. Mr. Colin Gray, Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road: • Explained that they have reached agreement with. all tenants. All of them are on board with concessions we've made. Added that a lot of effort went into this task and that 60 apartments were available nearby. • Said that they are addressing issues as promised and that the tenants will be out by the end of February. Commissioner Cappello advised that one of the tenants attended the last Planning Commission meeting complaining that little was being done to assist these tenants. a • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 12, Commissioner Zhao: • Said that she wished that a perspective rendering had been available as she has problems with the perception of bulk due to such a long 26 -foot high ridgeline. • Stated that she is not against a two -story house. • Advised that she cannot make the bulk findings and seeks some creative way of doing the roofline. • Informed that she cannot support at this time. Commissioner Kundtz: • Stated that the privacy issue has been dealt with. • Said that redesign might compromise necessary living space needed by this family,. • Said that with the use of opaque glass on the bath window he can make the Design Review findings. ' Chair Hlava: • Said that she has given a lot of thought to this and was. concerned about bulk. • Advised that this lot is down the hill. • Said that there are other two -story homes in the area. • Stated that she can make the bulk and height compatibility findings. • Said that obscuring the bath window in some way is an acceptable solution to the privacy Mconcern. Stated that she can make the findings for approval. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission granted Design Review approval (Application #07 -029) to allow the demolition of an existing home and shed and construction of a new two -story residence on property located at. 13921 River Ranch Circle, with the condition for opaque glass on the second -story bath window on the left elevation being made permanent, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz and Rodgers NOES: Kumar, Nagpal and Zhao ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Hlava advised that there are 15 days for appeal. PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION ZOA07 -0001 (City- Wide): The Planning Commission will consider a draft ordinance that will update existing regulations regarding fences, walls and hedges. The draft ordinance proposes to 1) establish an exception process that would allow property owners to exceed the maximum permitted fence height; 2) add fence height limitations around driveway Y Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of Januay 23, 2008 Page 113 aprons; and 3) clarify ambiguous language and areas of the Code that are currently difficult to enforce. (Shweta Bhatt) Ms. Shweta Bhatt, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Explained that the proposed amendment is to regulations for fences, walls and hedges. • Reminded that the Commission has held two Study Sessions on this Ordinance: ' • Reported that the environmental review has been completed and no comments. have been received directly related to the environmental document • Stated that some input has been received from community members in response to the ordinance update that has been included in the packets. . • Stated that one goal of this update was to establish an exception process that allows property' owners to request modifications to the ordinance standards. That provision has been added. • Distributed a sheet outlining the City Attorney's recommended changes to the text. Chair Hlava suggested that each Commissioner advise of any proposed changes to this Ordinance. Commissioner Cappello said flag lots are one area of concern. Planner Shweta- Bhatt said that Page 2, Subsection E regulates front property lines that abut. side property lines: Chair Hlava suggested flag lots be treated as a separate fencing entity and allow up to six -foot fence heights all around a flag lot. This seems clearer. City Attorney Bill Parkin said that a flag lot would have to .be defined: :Chair Hlava- -said that it would take a lot of staff time to figure out flag lot fence height allowances under this Ordinance as it is. Commissioner Cappello said this could be addressed by titling Subsection .E with Flag Lot and. the rest of the text already there. Chair Hlava asked if this is,okay with the City Attorney. Mr.. Bill. Parkin replied absolutely. It provides some clarity. He said his written comments are just clarifying_ suggestions. commissioner. Nagpal .said. she takes issue with green fences and asked if they, can be .exempted. Planner Shweta Bhatt said that the term "hedges" is.not defined in the code. She added that there is an exemption for green fences. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is a definition of green fences. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 14 0 Commissioner Cappello said there was one but it has been deleted. Commissioner Nagpal pointed to page 3. Commissioner Cappello said that it is deleted in the Attorney's recommendations. City Attorney Bill Parkin said that he suggests the use of the term "hedge" versus "green fence." Chair Hlava said that. hedges should not be in the view triangle of driveways obstructing visibility. Commissioner Nagpal agreed that they are not exempt from visibility issues. Chair Hlava said that she has a problem with pool fence regulations in. hillside districts. With the limit to 10 foot wide decking around the pool, she is not sure how to apply that standard.. i Commissioner Rodgers said that 10 feet is fine or 4,000 square feet total enclosed'area. ' Commissioner Nagpal said that the 10 -foot standard is proposed while the 4,000 square foot standard is current: Chair Hlava suggested eliminating the Fence Exception Finding #5 that requires neighbor sign off. Commissioner Cappello asked if an owner goes to his neighbors and one obje�ts.to a fence. proposal, can they still come to the Planning Commission or does he have no option to go forward. Planner Shweta Bhatt said that the owner could request Planning Commission review. The Commission could approval with the required findings. She said that she did not believe one neighbor refusing to sign off precludes a fence exception hearing. Commissioner Rodgers said that the Commission could consider with written agreement. Commissioner Nagpal said that Finding #5 could better read, "Considers the view of other adjacent property owners." Commissioner Kundtz suggested that the neighbor simply acknowledge receipt of the notice like is done with other applications. Chair Hlava said that while the Commission always considers what neighbors have to say, it is not a finding requirement. Commissioner Rodgers said that an immediate neighbor has a closer relationship to a shared fence but she did not think that written consent is feasible. Saratoga Planning Commission. Minutes of January 23, 2008 M Page 15 Commissioner Cappello said the process as outlined in the draft is good but an uncooperative neighbor seems to result in no appeal process being available. He suggested that an appeal process be added to the language when there is not neighbor agreement. Commissioner Nagpal said that the Planning Commission makes exception findings. Commissioner. Cappello said that as the Ordinance is written currently the Commission could make no decision if that finding is not met. Chair Hlava said that this is.why she wants Finding #5 removed. Commissioner Nagpal asked if all findings must be made or just some of them. Chair Hlava said she reads it to mean all findings must be met. Commissioner Rodgers said she has some language issues relating to pool fencing. Commissioner Kundtz said he wants to consider Authorities /Approving Bodies. Chair Hlava opened the 'Public Hearing for Agenda Item No: 3. Ms. Mahnaz Khazen, Resident on Victor Place: • Said that this is a most interesting subject to her as she has a flag lot. • _ Stated her agreement with the idea of allowing six -foot tall fencing all around a flag lot. • Said that she absolutely agrees with the proposal to remove Finding #5 requiring neighbor approval. The governmental body needs the right to review notices, hear comments and make a decision based on fact.. • Questioned the differences between the gate pilaster height differences allowed between wrought iron versus wood gates. Iron gates have a 7 -foot maximum and wood gates an 8- foot maximum. • Stated that she likes the fact that.light fixtures are not included and thanked staff for that. • Inquired about regulations for fencing adjacent to scenic highways. Explained that she has a property on Quito Road that is both scenic and noisy. How would that be addressed? Chair Hlava said that scenic_highway refers to Saratoga -Los Gatos Road.. i Commissioner Nag pal. agreed that Quito Road is not a designated scenic highway. Commissioner Rodgers said that it might go up the hill on Highway 9. Ms. Linda Parsley, Resident on Via Regina:' • Said that she has -a flag lot. • Said she would like, to see these changes as she currently has 10 different kinds of fencing surrounding her flag lot. There is a 60 -foot long solid wood fence, hedges, corral fencing, wire fencing and a fence with lattice. Nothing matches. • • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 15 • Added that the saddest part. is that wildlife has no access to her property or very limited access. Deer no longer have access. • Reminded that she has an ongoing complaint about one neighbor's new fence. • Stated that staff has said that since all the fencing in this area is illegal, they would not enforce just that one property but rather it should be treated as a civil matter relative to the access to the easement. • Reported that she had to have a survey done when a neighbor placed a fence three -feet into her property. That fence had to be relocated to the property line. • Asked for clarification on parallel fences and walls. Commissioner Nagpal said that there is horizontal distance required between a retaining wall and fence. Commissioner Kundtz said that this relates to retaining walls coming down a hill. Director John Livingstone said that no changes are proposed to #C. It is applied when retaining walls are too close together. Ms. Linda Parsley said she would like to see the fence removed off the retaining wall. Director John Livingstone said that height is currently measured from the lowest side. Ms. Linda Parsley said she would like to see fencing limited to 4,000 square feet as fencing prohibits wildlife trails. She said it would be nice if wording were added that encourages neighbors to work with neighbors on what kind of fencing would be put in. ' Chair Hlava said that this Commission has no desire to get between two neighbors on the issue of what types of fencing they want. Ms. Priscilla Ho, Resident on Woodmont Drive: • Said that when deer are on the property whatever you plant one day is gone the next. It is hard to plant when deer traipse across the property. • Mentioned the potential for eight -foot high deer fencing. • Stated that she would love to have a gorgeous yard and may need that size fence to keep the deer out of it. • Recounted that contacting neighbors is not always easy. For one request, she called one neighbor a number of times to no success. • Said that it looks nicer if the center of a wrought iron gate is higher than the pilasters by one to two feet rather than lower at the center of the gate. Commissioner Rodgers asked if this could interfere with visibility Ms. Priscilla Ho said that her gate. is set back 30 feet. *Chair Hlava closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Chair Hlava asked the City Attorney to go over his comments. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January'23, 2008 Page. 1-7 City Attorney Bill Parkin: • Said that there is some inconsistency between taking measurements from the bottom of a retaining wall versus the highest point. • Added that the text should be stricken on how to include retaining walls. Chair Hlava said that there is a big difference between fencing on a hillside.versus,residential areas: Commissioner Cappello said that with every case where there are different grades there is .a retaining wall.. It could be just 2 x 12 wood board at the base of a fence to retain soil. Commissioner Nagpal said the use of higher versus lowest point for measurement, needs to be considered. Right now the practice is to use the higher point, with the lower point for retaining walls. Commissioner Cappello said consistency is needed. Commissioner Nagpal suggested the higher point. Director John Livingstone said that there are pros and cons. It could appear that. a three -foot high fence looks six -feet tall if measured from the higher point. Chair Hlava said she agrees with the measurement from the higher elevation. City Attorney Bill Parkin: Suggested defining hedge and pulling green fences out. Height, limitations should not apply to hedges. • Agreed that Finding #5 of the.exception findings could be eliminated. • Said that trellis should be renamed entryway trellis. • Said that a width limit should be assigned to entryway trellis. Commissioner Cappello suggested the term pedestrian entrance. Comm issioner.Rodgers said that the width of the opening would define it. Commissioner Nagpal suggested a five -foot width for entryway trellis openings. City Attorney Bill Parkin: • Said that the term "yard" should be eliminated and "setback areas" used. • Advised that his changes on Page 3 represents simplified language on the issue of pilasters. Commissioner Nagpal asked why 'the one -foot maximum difference between . wrought iron versus wood fence pilaster heights. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 1$ City Attorney Bill Parkin explained that pilasters are allowed to exceed the fence height by two feet, which equals an eight -foot maximum height. The wrought iron gate in a front yard is limited to five -feet in height to a maximum height of seven feet for the pilasters. Commissioner Nagpal said it might be appropriate to have a gate taller than five feet in height on a larger property. The issue is the size of the property. Commissioner Cappello said that this might be an exception issue that can be brought to the Planning Commission. He added that materials in addition to wrought iron should be considered as long as it is another see - through. material. Chair Hlava reminded that wood gates are not allow right now. Planner Shweta Bhatt said that current Code limits wrought iron front gate heights to five feet. Staff is not proposing a change. Director John Livingstone said that the Commission could amend to allow other metal produces as long as they are in an open format. Commissioner Cappello said that there are new materials all the time and should be considered if they are see - through. Chair Hlava said if the material is not wrought iron she wants it to go through a review /exception process to ensure it is a good quality and attractive material. City Attorney Bill Parkin: 0 Said that he has made a minor language change to page 4 for clarity. . • Said that a very minor language suggested change on page 5.adds, "on a single site." Said that on page 6 the staff insertions of. "solid" have been deleted for fences on arterial streets. • Suggested that the term "Existing Non - Conforming Fencing be amended to read "Existing Legal Non - Conforming Fencing." • Cautioned that amnesty is not granted with this ordinance amendment for existing fences. Commissioner Nagpal asked if dog fencing is considered electrical. Commissioner Rodgers said she is more concerned with fences that would hurt a child. Chair Hlava asked why the wire fence prohibition is being removed City Attorney Bill Parkin said that chain link fencing is limited to athletic courts. Non - hillside properties can use chain link while hillside properties cannot. Director John Livingstone said that chain link fencing is allowed in areas other than hillside. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 2008 Page 10 Chair Hlava said that not all properties on hills are in a hillside district. She suggested that the questions and comments raised be given to staff and brought back as a clean draft ordinance. There are still too many issues: Commissioner Nagpal agreed. Commissioner Rodgers questioned. whether all decisions have been made yet. Commissioner Zhao asked where the hillside districts are located. Chair. Hlava said that they are within another part of the ordinances. Commissioner Nagpal reviewed proposed edits: • Page 1 - consistent with higher point, the hedge issue is fine. • Page 2 — consensus to removing Finding #5 and instead refer to noticing. Commissioner Kundtz suggested the text to Condition #4 be added to read, "adjacent property owners noticed and no negative comments received." Chair Hlava suggested, "Impact on immediate adjacent . neighbors is considered." Commissioner Zhao reminded that noticing is automatic. "adjacent Chair Hlava reiterated her suggestion to strike Finding #5 and add her text, property owners noticed and no negative comments received." Commissioner Nagpal. • Entryway trellis width is identified as five feet. • Said that language should be added to Finding #4 that states that no adverse impact to adjacent neighbor(s) or general vicinity.. • Section E should read "Flag lots and front lot line not adjacent to, the street." Commissioner Rodgers said that there is the issue of flag lots with different types of fences all around.: Suggested the need for an exception if a flag Jot becomes fenced in at more than 4,000 square feet via fences on surrounding properties. Commissioner Kundt2 said that compatibility is questioned each and every time. Commissioner Rodgers said that a flag lot has the potential of feeling like "Folsom" prison if it has six foot fencing all around. Chair Hlava said that since hillside lots are a minimum of two- acres, they would not feel :Like Folsom prison. City Attorney Bill Parkin said that this would have to be thought out carefully. Commissioner Cappello asked about the enclosed flag lot and when it becomes an issue. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 20 City Y Attorne Bill Parkin said the last person coming along is not the best way to deal with it. Director John Lip ingstone: • Said that there are two questions here. • Stated that one question is how to address compatibility on a flag lot. However, unless there is an exception required, they just put their fence in. • Said that the next question is what to do if a flag lot in a hillside district that is surrounded by other properties' fences results in an enclosed fence area in excess of the allowed 4,000 square feet. • Added that this is a rare exception. Commissioner Rodgers suggested that perhaps anyone putting in a fence that is adjacent to an interior flag lot would require some sort of review. Director John Livingstone said that this would be an administrative decision that,could, be appealed to the Planning Commission. , Chair Hlava added that someone who buys a flag lot knows what he or she is getting. Commissioner Nagpal reminded that use of the term "yard" is replaced by "setback area." Director John Livingstone suggested adding, "edge of pavement." He added that gates couldn't go that close as they need a queuing area at least one, car distance back from the street. Chair Hlava suggested text, "Pilasters for wrought iron gates need to be located behind the triangle." Commissioner Cappello suggested adding Fence, Wall, Pilaster, or Compact Hedge. Chair Hlava reiterated that they must be outside the triangle. Commissioner Nagpal said there were no changes to page 3. Page 4 should add "parallel walls" and delete reference to fences. Chair Hlava said that there are so many possibilities for pool fencing outside of enclosing 4,000 square foot of area with fencing. It does not seem clear. Director John Livingstone said that a pool has to be fenced around. If the entire lot is fenced in (non - hillside), they don't need to have pool specific fencing. However, some still fence in their pools for child safety. In hillside districts there is a limit to 4,000 square feet enclosing fencing. A lot of people want more. When an owner has a very large pool and patio area, ,they may not want to fence in just 4,000 square feet. While the fence around a pool is exempt, the ordinance would allow 10 -foot area surrounding the pool to be enclosed in fencing to create usable areas around these pools. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 21, Chair Hlava said that if.this is appealed to the Planning Commission she might be willing to support that provision. Commissioner Nagpal said that it allows for an exception. Commissioner Rodgers said that something like this comes to the Commission for judgment. She said she has no problem with a pool enclosure and 10 feet deck area around a pool. Chair Hlava said the owner could always appeal. Commissioner Rodgers suggested adding swimming pool fence. City- Attorney Bill Parkin- said that if the enclosed 4,000 square foot area is enough to fit the pool, the use of the 10 -foot area around the pool might only be permitted if an exception is sought. Commissioner. Rodgers said that the word "solid" should be added to page 6. City Attorney Bill Parkin suggested "solid or any other type of fence." Commissioner`Nagpal asked if existing legal non- conforming situations could be appealed. City Attorney Bill Parkin said any Planning Commission decision could be appealed. 'Chair Hlava said that enough changes have been made. Should the amended draft come back to the next. meeting or to a Study Session. Commissioner. Rodgers said that the issues of chain link outside of hillside . districts; flag lots closed in on hillside districts and notice issues need further clarification. Chair Hlava asked if the continuance should be to a date certain or uncertain. Director John Livingstone suggested 'a date certain as long as Shweta Bhatt and. Bill Parkin have time to go over the changes. He reminded that additional noticing is -not required for items continued to a specific date.. Commissioner Nagpal asked Director Livingstone if he has a suggested date. Commissioner Rodgers said -.that while she does not expect an additional mailing, she would like to see something reported in the newspaper to advise the community on the status of this update: Chair Hlava'suggested either February,27th or March 12. th Director John .Liv.ingstone said that March 12th would be fine. He clarified that appeals may be final at Planning Commission_level Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 22 Commissioner Nagpal agreed that administrative decisions are appealed to the Commission. If the Commission makes the original decision, those decisions are appealed to Council. Planner Shweta Bhatt said that this is included in the Ordinance. Chair Hlava said that the whole issue of chain link fences was deleted.. Director John Livingstone said that it was added back in another spot. They are allowed in non.-hillside zoning but not allowed in hillside zoning. Commissioner Cappello suggested forbidding them all around. Commissioner Nagpal said that with shrubbery growing on it they are invisible. Commissioner Hlava said that it is hard to do without chain link fencing with agricultural uses. Commissioner Rodgers said that those are existing fences. , Commissioner Cappello -added that they could be grandfathered. Director John Livingstone said that wood fences don't last. When they fall,. replacements would meet ordinance standards. However, chain link fences are around for a long time although new ones can be prohibited.. Commissioner Nagpal reiterated that they are not visible if landscaping is growing on,them. of Commissioner Cappello asked if they should be allowed with screening shrubbery'. Commissioner Rodgers said that no one would see them to complain about them. Commissioner Kundtz said that they are allowed around pools. Commissioner Rodgers said also around athletic courts.. Director John Livingstone said that chain link fencing painted black requires less maintenance and plants can grow on them. Commissioner Zhao asked why chain link fencing should not be allowed on hillside properties. Commissioner Cappello said because of wild life. Commissioner Zhao said that one couldn't see these chain link fences when they are located far back in their backyard. Commissioner Rodgers said that animals couldn't pass through them. Commissioner Zhao said they could not pass through a wood fence either. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 23 said that chain link fencing Chair Hlava s g would still be in the ordinance. Director . John Livingstone said that this issue (chain link) can. be brought back as is and changes.could be made at the next meeting. He said that a whole updated package would be , brought to the next hearing on this ordinance. Commissioner Nagpal said that she wants this ordinance to be .reflective of what's actually happening. Commissioner Rodgers' suggested that staff come back with some "either /or" language. Commissioner Cappello said it could be exception versus stay as it is. Ms. Priscilla Ho pointed out that chain link fencing disappears on a larger property. It is better. looking than a solid fence would be. - Chair Hlava suggested chain link be allowed on properties over one acre. in size. Commissioner Nagpal- suggested zoning R -1- 40,000. Chair Hlava suggested,lot -size versus zoning. Commissioner Rodgers said right now chain link is prohibited on hillside properties. Commissioner. Nagpal suggested that it be handled separately on hillside versus residential zoning. - Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission CONTINUED CONSIDERATION TO ITS , MEETING OF MARCH 12, 2008, consideration of a draft ordinance to update existing regulations regarding fences, walls and hedges, by the - following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: -None ABSTAIN: None DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There'were no Director's Items. COMMISSION- ITEMS Commissioner Rodgers advised that she would be absent from the April 9, 2008, meeting. 0 p ATTACHMEN Robin B. Kennedy m an att -, Manatt, Phelps. & Phillips, LLP ', „ Direct Dial: (650) 812 -1360 manatt Phelps Phillips Direct Facsimile: (650) 213 -0280 E -mail: RKennedy @manatt.com March 7, 2008 Client- Matter:.. 40430 -030 Members.of the Planning Commission City of Saratoga , 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Res Proposed Changes to City of Saratoga's Ordinances Regarding Heights of Fences, Walls and Hedges Dear Members of the Planning Commission: On behalf of our clients, Ellen Sanders - Perkins and Drew Perkins, residents .of the City of Saratoga ( "City ") for whom we serve as land use counsel, we are writing to follow up on our letter to Associate City Planner Shwetta Bhatt dated January 3, 2008 in which we provided our comments and concerns regarding the City's proposed. changes to regulations related to fences, walls, and hedges (contained in Article 15 -06 and Article 15 -29 of the'.. , Saratoga Zoning Ordinance). Our primary objections. to the proposed amendments concern (1) the exemption of "green fences" and/or hedges from the current height restrictions'.,andr (2) the lack of any height restriction on fences, walls and hedges located outside setback To our dismay, despite letters from both our firm and our client individually, none of areas. client's concerns were addressed at the January 23, 2008 Planning Commission meeting our (although our client attended the January 23rd meeting, he unfortunately had to leave to catch a plane before-the item . came up on the agenda). ' We understand that the public hearing was continued to next Tuesday, March 12th and that you directed Ms. Bhatt to incorporate your comments•into.a revised ordinance for your., consideration. We urge you to consider our comments and incorporate our suggestions below into this revised ordinance. 1. Height Limitation Should A 1 , to Green Fences and/or Hedges After reviewing the nearly two hour web cast discussion of the agenda item, we were very disappointed to learn that while there was much discussion on chain link fences and the applicability of the ordinance to flag lots. there was no discussion on the lack of any height 1001 Page Mill Road, Building 2, Palo Alto, California 94304 -1006 Telephone: 650.812.1300 Fax: 650.213.0260 Albany I Los Angeles I New York I Orange County I Palo Alto I Sacramento I San Francisco Washington. D.C. 2019i915.? C7 m anatt • • inanatt I phelps I phillips Members of the Planning Commission City of Saratoga March 7, 2008 Page 2 restrictions on green fences and/or hedges raised in our letter. While the City Attorney explained that "green fence" indeed meant "hedge" (and explained how this would be clarified in the revision), there was no discussion on our objection to the proposed exemption of green fences (and/or hedges) from the height limitation for fences contained in proposed Section 15:29- 010(a) of the Zoning Ordinance. As explained in our first letter, the proposed provision concerning "Green Fences'; contained at the end of subsection (c) of Section 15.29 -010 frustrates the purpose of Section 15- 29.010, which is clearly to impose a maximum boundary fence height of six feet "plus up to two feet of lattice or other. material ...that-is typically at least fifty percent open to the passage of light and air with the upper two feet being solid only pursuant to certain stringent criteria." A green fence, as currently defined, could effectively block all light and air from the yard and/or improvements of a neighboring property just as solid man -made fence could. To prevent this result, we urge you to: (1) delete the "green fence" provision contained at the end of subsection. (c) of Section 15- 29.010; (2) define "hedge" (where appropri ate) as "a series of trees or other natural landscaping planted in a linear and uninterrupted pattern suc,b,lhat a boundary is created "; and (3) replace the phrase "fence or wall" in the first sentence of Section 15- 29.010(a) with "fence, wall or hedge ". 2. Beight Limitation Should Apply Regardless of Location on Propert Also,.as pointed out in our earlier letter, the current language of the proposed amendments is restricted to fences within setback areas, thereby allowing property owners, without prior approval of the City or prior consent of neighbors, to construct or plant fences of. any height in any location on their properties outside the setback areas. This loophole could potentially block the views that are such a stunning feature of Saratoga's hillside homes. To prevent this result, we urge you to delete the phrase "within a side or rear setback area, except as stipulated in subsection b of this code" from subsection (a) of Section 15- 29.010(a). 20197915.2 February 14, 2oo8 *,Of Saratoga Staff Attention: Shweta Bhatt; Planning Cc: Jana Rinaldi; Code enforcement. Dear Ms Bhatt C;JE I would like to submit to following perspective as resident input, regarding the pending changes to the Saratoga city ordinance Section 15 -29, regarding fencing in hillside districts. Having purchased a residence situated on 3.4 acres of land adjoining and facing Pierce road. at address 13436 in July of 2007; my wife and I have been very busy grooming and beautifying our parcel ever since our move in date. While ours is a quite stunning and beautiful tract, the over 150 trees and hundreds of shrubs along with other plant life had been seriously neglected for many years prior to the time of. our purchase. Much of the underbrush consisted of extremely large poison oak plants and completely dried up shrubs along with hundreds of dead tree limbs. rimary clean up was undertaken to reduce the high fire danger and reveal the true of the parcel. We also undertook the project of installing additional fencing to enhance our personal security and to help control the flow of various types' rodents and small animals that have a range of natural predators which also flow with them creating some significant threat to humans and domestic animals. In keeping with achieving our objectives we thoroughly researched the existing surrounding neighboring parcels and what types of materials were already in use by many of our neighbors in our attempt to achieve our objectives with the least obtrusive method that would enhance the beauty and blend in with the terrain as it existed. After completing our investigation and to our understanding being in compliance with the existing ordinances; we decided to proceed with a partial perimeter fence of high quality black vinyl chain link materials. Modern chain link materials are completely Anyl coated ensuring long life and durable beauty. The variety of new colors also enhances its invisibility particularly in areas of dense vegetation such as ours where no chain link materials are visible from any road adjacent to our parcel. Chain link fencing by its design is of course already 8o to 85 Percent invisible against any background and is the premier fencing material of choice used by our National Forest service and the California Department of Forestry when ever they need a secure, consistently durable and high visibility, good appearing result. Chain link Nvas already in use by more than. 50 % of the parcels of our adjoining neighbors; g been installed by them long before our arrival and With portions of.it already on our perty by encroachment; as well as encompassing vast areas of their own parcels. We deemed black vinyl chain link to be an acceptable and also aesthetically pleasing material and then proceeded with our project. 1 , s In addition to feeling that we were proceeding in keeping with the existing standards and ordinances we undertook additional efforts to closely follow the existing rules by constructing the fencing in such as manner as to also include a Aride viable wildlife nature trail that is completely unobstructed and runs directly through the entire property permitting the complete and natural flow of any and all wildlife; in a fully unobstructed manner. Additionally we took consideration of our adjoining neighbor at the highest point on our , property and set back a section along our mutual boundary that lowers all of our fencing below the natural vista as a courtesy. Also the unenclosed portions or our land still permit wildlife direct entry should they choose to enter our property as they regularly do as of this morning when I had breakfast with several deer on my rear porch. I believe we have made every effort to comply with the letter and spirit of the city'drdinance and the existing surrounding neighborhood with a good and reasonable interpretation of what should be acceptable to the city and to all parties concerned. We do hope that the designers, planners and rule makers will give every consideration isting visually pleasing chain link fencing we have installed since it is what possible to the ex has clearly been is acceptable standard throughout the entire city in the long term past as , well as being what now'exists in a large percentage of the hillside neighborhoods and districts where we live. ' We will be pleased to comply in any case with what ever the city should decide as long as any such ordinances are applied and enforced fairly among all compatible and comparable existing applications in our district. I have attached nine various photographs of our application so they may be evaluated and considered in your decision making process. Thank you all for you kind consideration. , Sincerely, Bruce La Fountain 13436 Pierce Road_ Saratoga, Ca.95070 . 9 Photos attached: • 01-� �Rl'�.'Z&-,kj,�� � \�� \ �; I L, � �z.� � ,, � t ' S ?� d Jt,y�C 't 'Y•' * -. S" 4k-' � t 1 V . €:! -4<. 2 • • • Photo I: Extended view of our wildlife access nature trail as it exists. r Robin S. Kennedy ^ � �� - Manatt, Phelps &.Phillips, LLR a Direct Dial: (650) 812 -1360 manatt I phelps phillips Direct Facsimile: (650) 213 -0280 E -mail: RKennedy ®manatt.com . C , IT �aa�O O January 3, 2008 p` l� u �1 IIJ Ms. ShwetaBhatt CITY OF SAM i VW1 Associate Planner COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California- 95070 Re: Proposed Changes.to City of Saratoga's Ordinances Regarding Heights of Fences, Walls and Hedges Dear Ms. Bhatt: . - We write on behalf "of our clients, Ellen 'Sanders- Perkins and Drew Perkins, residents of the City of Saratoga- for whom we serve as land use counsel. The purpose of this letter into. provide this firm's comments and concerns regarding the proposed changes to Article 15-06 an -Article 15 -29 of the Saratoga- Zoning Ordinance. - The Project Description for the proposed update to the Municipal Code provides tNqt one of the goals as. it relates to - fences, walls and hedges is "to clarify ambiguous language pnd leas of the code that are currently difficult to enforce: With all due respect, we believe that ,irhe' r proposed language misses meeting this goal by a wide margin. Our reasons are 1 "Hedges" per se should not be lumped in with fences and walls.. The latter, once constructed, are fixed in height, whereas hedges are alive and constantly growing: It would seem more appropriate to put hedges.in the same category as trees, which also might include shrubs, - another woody plant: We' are confused by the phrase " * ** OR * ** in the.proposed revision to - subsection; (a) of Section 15.29 -010. Is.the language above that phrase meant to be an altemative to the language below that phrase. Or is the language below that phrase meant as a proviso or exception to the portion above that phrase. If the latter; we would recommend the following construction'. (a) General regulation. Except as otherwise specified in this Article, no fence or wall within a side or setback.area, except as stipulated in subsection (b) of this code: shall exceed six feet in height; provided, however, that (i) without the . approval of the City, such fence or wall may be up to eight feet in eight so long as the top two feet comprise lattice or other material other than lattice that is at least. 1001 Page Mill.Road, Building 2, Palo Alto, California 94304 -1006 Telephone: 650.512.1300 Fax: 650.213.0260 Albany Los Angeles I New York. Orange County I Palo Alto I Sacramento I San Francisco I Washington, D.C. • • manatt manatt I phelps I phillips Ms. Shweta Bhatt City of Saratoga, January 3, 2008 Page 2 fifty percent open to the passage of light and air (where the word "open" means that portion of the pattern uncovered, unenclosed, and/or unobstructed by materials composing the structure) and (ii)with the approval of the Planning Commission (or Community Development Director), such fence or wall may be ssion (Community solid up to eight feet in height. The Planning fom n owner a ° d grant a building Development Director) may approve a request permit for same if all of the following findings are made: (A) The subject fence or wall will be aesthetically compatible with other similar structures in the neighborhood. (B) The entirety of the subject fence will be completely constructed of materials that are of high quality, exhibit superior craftsmanship, and that are durable. (C) The modification comprising up to an additional two feet of solid fence or wall will not impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood in which the fence or wall is located. (D) The granting of such modification will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the general vicinity and di!' fict'in which the property is located. (E) All adjacent property owners) with shared or intersecting property lines shall support the additional fence height, as evidenced by a writing addressed to the Planning Commission. (Community Development Director). The decision of the Planning Commission (Community Development Director) may be appealed to the City Council (Planning Commission) in accordance with City Code Section 15-90-020.. (b) Front setback area and exterior side setback area of reversed corner lots. No fence or wall located within any required front setback area shall exceed three feet in height. No fence or wall located within any required exterior side setback area of a reversed corner lot shall exceed three feet in height. Exceptions to these height limitations are as follows: (1) Wrought iron entrance gates, designed with openings to permit. visibility through the same. may extend to a height not exceeding five feet. manatt a manatt i phelps I phillips Ms. Shweta Bhatt City of Saratoga January 3, 2008 Page 3 (2) Safety railings that are required by the Uniform Building Code shall be excluded from the height requirements of this Section. (c) Street intersections. No fence or wall hedge located within a triangle having sides fifty feet in length from a street intersection, as measured from intersecting curblines or intersecting edges of the street pavement where no curb exists, shall exceed three feet in height above the established grade of the adjoining street: (d) Driveway Intersections. No fence or wall located within a triangle having sides fifteen feet in length from either side of a driveway where it intersects with a street or.property line. (e) Vehicular Obstructions. No fence or wall shall constitute an obstruction as discussed in City Code Section 10- 05.030. Green Fences. A "green fence" shall be defined as a series of trees or other natural landscaping, including but not limited to hedges and shrubs, planted in a linear and uninterrupted pattern such that (a) a boundary is created and (b) it stands on its own and does not require - supports of any kind. Green fences are exempt from, the height requirements prescri bed in 15 -. . 29.010(a); provided, however, that a green fence that, according to the nature of the particulpr species of vegetation, is likely to grow to a height greater than six feet shall require the approval of the Planning Commission (Community Development Director), which (who) shall not grant such approval unless such Planning Commission (Community Development Director) receives the signed, written support and approval of all adjacent property owner(s) with shared or intersecting property lines with that of the subject property. 3. The reason for the recommended changes in the "Green Fences " 'provision above is that, as presently written, the provision obviates the purpose of Section 15- 29.010, which is clearly to impose a maximum fence height of eight feet under any circumstances, with the upper two feet being solid only pursuant to certain stringent criteria. A green fence, as currently defined, could effectively block all light and air from the yard and/or improvements of a neighboring,property. Furthermore, the current language is not restricted to fences within setback areas, thereby allowing all property owners, without prior approval of the City or prior consent of neighbors, to plant green fences in any location on their properties, potentially blocking the views that are such a stunning feature of Saratoga's hillside homes. 4. In Section 10- 05.030, we would recommend that the words "hedge," "shrub," "veeetation" and "other structure be defined. 20194548.2 [7 is • nm a n att manatt I phelps phillips Ms. Sbweta Bhatt City of Saratoga January 3, 2008' ' Page 4 5. Clearly, these proposed changes may well prompt other changes in the municipal code, including in sections such as setbacks, and the comments in this letter are not intended to preclude any other changes required to be reconciled with these. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments, which we hope you will find constructive. Sincerely, Robin B. Kennedy " RBK:ehs cc: Client ,Richard S. Taylor, Esq. (City Attorney) " 2019454E.2 , Drew and Ellen Perkins 12329 Vista Arroyo Court - Saratoga, CA 95070 January 2, 2008 Shweta Bhatt D �, Associate Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue to CA 95070 Gl�'! D' pv Saratoga, �PpM�N1� Dear Shweta: We have been residents of Saratoga for approximately% 10 years. We would like to express our concerns - regarding the current and proposed updates to the city code pertaining to fences, walls and hedges. As we discussed on the telephone, the current code regarding hedges in particular is highly ambiguous, and the proposed updates not only fail to eliminate these ambiguities but in fact make the code even more - ambiguous. The current Article 15 -06 DEFINITIONS, 15-06.341 Height of fences, walls and hedges, and Article 15 -29 FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES, 15- 29.010 Height restrictions, have the term "hedges" in their name, but mostly only talk about fences and walls to the exclusion of hedges.: The word.' hedges" is . never defined. What is a hedge and how does it differ from a fence or wall? The proposed updates to this text worsens.the problem further by using the additional terms "compact . hedge ". and "Green Fence ". Is a compact hedge different from a hedge? How is it different? How does a rX-11 Fence differ from a hedge? It seems that it is left as an exercise for a court to distinguish between Gr, these terms! Also, the proposed Green Fence update makes the problem even worse by suggesting that "the property owner shall consider neighboring properties' impact to views when such a fence is proposed and/or "consider" something like this? A law that says that "one should planned". What does it mean to consider whether .or not to do something before doing it sounds like bad law to us. Are these really the updates that the city wants to make? Although we understand that there have been a lot of issues recently enforcing the current ordinances and they need to be fixed, we believe it makes sense to take the time to do them - correctly so that they are. defendable in court. As _this issue is very important to us as well, I have asked my attorney, Robin Kennedy with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, to review the ordinance and the proposed changes to it. She will be sending you a letter dire ct lywith her comments. Hopefully these will be helpful to you and the city. Thank you. We are looking forward to your response. Sincerely; Drew and Ellen Perkins . • • U-� Attachment �11 1 1 1 ' s 1 1 ' Attachment �11 1 1 • • 0 arive Declaration Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 A'egDecember 2007 The undersigned, Director of Community Development and Environmental Control of the CITY OF' SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation, has determined and does hereby determine pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental , Quality Act, and the City's independent judgment, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the .terms and meaning of said Act. Project Title Update to code regulations pertaining to fences, walls, and hedges. Application ZOA07 -0001 Project Location Citywide Property owner(s) Various Lead Agency and Address City of Saratoga Community Development 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Applicant/ Project Sponsor City of Saratoga Community Development '13777 Fruitvale.Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Contact Person and Phone Number Shweta Bhatt Associate Planner (408) 868 - 1266 Project Description The City of Saratoga is looking to provide updates to the code as it relates to fences, walls, and hedges with the following goals in mind: (1) to establish an exception process that, if approved, would allow property owners to exceed the maximum permitted fence height; (2) to add fence height limitations around driveway aprons; and (3) to clarify ambiguous language and areas of the code that are currently difficult to enforce. Reason for Negative Declaration The proposed update to the code, as it relates to fences, walls, and hedges, is not anticipated to cause any substantial adverse impacts on the environment. Regulations related to Fences. Walls, and Hedges Page 2 Regulations related to Fences, NA'alls, and Hedges Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental Cbecklist / Initial Study C 10 ,u. ;r CITY OF SARATOGA )INIAT N!TI' DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT December 2007 Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental Checklist /Initial Study Zoning Ordinance December 2007 7, Project Title Update to code regulations pertaining to fences, walls, and hedges. Appli cat] on. ZOA07 -0001 2. Lead Agency and Address City of Saratoga Community Development 13777 Fruitvale Avenue ' Saratoga, California 95070 3. Contact Person and Phone Number Shweta Bhatt #, Associate Planner , (408) 8687 1266 4. Project Location Citywide 5, Project Sponsor's Name and Address City of Saratoga . Community Development 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 6. General Plan Designation to all within the City limits of the City, of ' Various — the code update will pertain properties Saratoga. 7. Zoning Various — the code update will pertain to all properties within the City limits of the City of Saratoga. Description.of Project (Describe the whole action involved, including but not tfor g, later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or necessary its. implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary). updates to the code as it relates to fences, The City of Saratoga is looking to provide hedges with the following goals in mind: (1) to establish an. exception process A, and Page t - 14"011s, Hedges Regulations related to Fences, and • • Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 0001 December 2007 that, if approved, would allow property owners to exceed the maximum permitted fence height; (2) to add fence height limitations around driveway aprons; and (3) to clarify ambiguous language and areas of the code that are currently difficult to enforce. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting. Briefly describe the project's surroundings. The fence code applies to all properties within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Saratoga. The City is primarily comprised of custom, single family homes on individual lots. Several commercial centers exist along major arterials in addition to the City's downtown, known as The Village. The proposed updates to fencing requirements would primarily affect the residentially zoned properties in the City. ►hose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or 10. Other public agencies participation agreement). None. Regulations related to Fences', balls, and Hedges Page 3 Environmental Checklist /Initial Srudy Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 December 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be.potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Agricultural Resources Air Quality Aesthetics _ , . Biological Geology/Soils Resources Cultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous Hydrology/Water uali Land Use/Plannin Material s Q Po ulation/Housin ' g. Mineral Resources Noise Trans ortation/Traffic. Public: Services Recreation Utilities /Service . Mandatory Findings of S stems Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation`. XI find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared: `I find- that although the proposed project could have a significant effecC`,on rthe environment; there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. . I fin proposed °project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially sinfcani unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect I) has been' adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier anal 'as described on attached sheets. An a ENVIROI�'MENTAL IMPACT REPORT ysis required; but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. . I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant .effects (a) have been analyzed Page 4 fences, )d%alls, and Hedges .. Regumnons related to Environmental Checklist /Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Update Z0.9 07 -0001 December 2007 r NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable adequately in an earlier EIR o standards, and .(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 112717 Shweta Bhatt, Project Planner Date 1' Date , Job vingstone, Comm ity Development Director , 1, 1 - Regulations related to Fences, 14 "(111s, and Hedges Page 5 Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental Checklist /Initial Study "Coning Ordinance p December 2007 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with, . Impact Mitigation Incorporation I. AESTHETICS - would the project: a) Have a substantial. adverse effect on a scenic.vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic ' resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic X highway ?. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the- site X and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which -would adversely ' affect day or nighttime views in the X area? Discussion{ ordinance would have a less than significant impact on a scenic vista. If a property The proposed a fence exception for additional height, the Planning Commission will review the owner requests One of several findings required for approval require adjacent neighbor .consent. This project.- .requirement would address any concerns for views or a scenic vista from neighbors. If fencing is adjacent to trees, the City's tree ordinance requires the arborist review for any potential Proposed impact. Rey iew by the Heritage Preservation Commission is required for fencing adjacent to designated heritage lanes. Also, the code cun•ently.has setback, design, landscaping, and specific height requirements for fences adjacent to. scenic highways to encourage appealing aesthetics. This section of the code is proposed to remain. Page 6 Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges eg �.. Discussion The ordinance will not have an impact to agricultural resources, as it does not propose the conversion of farmland to non - agricultural use, and does not conflict with existing zoning or existing Williamson Act contract. Reeularions related to Fences, Wnlls, and Kedges Page 7 En ronmental Checklist /Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 December 1007 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with. Impact Mitigation Incorporation II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural lead may refer to the California resources are significant environmental effects, agencies Model (1997) prepared by the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment in asses sing impacts on agriculture and Dept., of Conservation as an optional model to use farmland. Would the project: . a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources X Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for ' agricultural use, or a Williamson Act X contract? c) involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their ' location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - X agricultural use? Discussion The ordinance will not have an impact to agricultural resources, as it does not propose the conversion of farmland to non - agricultural use, and does not conflict with existing zoning or existing Williamson Act contract. Reeularions related to Fences, Wnlls, and Kedges Page 7 Environmental Checklist /Initial Study Update ZOA 07 -0001 Zoning Ordinance December 2007 Potentialill Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation incorporation III.. AIR QUALITY —Where available, the - significance criteria- established by the district maybe relied upon to make applicable air quality management or air pollution control : the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X ,. quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially' to an existing X or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of -an y criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainmentr under an applicable federal or'staie ambient air -le , quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative X thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create. objectionable odors affecting. X a substantial number of people? ---- -- Discussion < , ordinance ordinance will not have an impact on air quality. The the proposed quality standards. Changing Saratoga's ability to comply with air quality plans, or violate air q y increase of a criteria maximum allowable height for fences will not result in a considerable to substantial pollutant concentrations. The additional fencing pollutant or expose receptors will create objectionable odors to a substantial number of people. height not Page 8 Fences, 141al /s, and Hedges Regulations related to • Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental Checklist /Initial Study Zo g December 2007 Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? x c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? x d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or x migratory wildlife corridors, or impede Page 9 Regulations related to Fences, Falls, and Hedges �., Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? x b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations .; or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? x c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? x d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or x migratory wildlife corridors, or impede Page 9 Regulations related to Fences, Falls, and Hedges �., Environmental Checklist /Initial Study r 0% -0001 Zoning Ordinance Lpdote ZOA December 2007 Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation. Incorporation the.use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with. any local policies or ordinances protecting biological , resources, such as a tree preservation X policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an ' adopted Habitat. Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional; X or state habitat conservation plan? • Discussion . The ordinance .will _ not adversely impact species, as no modifications to habitat are proposed. riparian habitat or federally protected The ordinance will not have a substantial adverse effect on n in the code currently requires fencing - within the hillside districts to avoid wetlands. provision unreasonably impeding wildlife's ability to migrate through wildlife trails. No changes are olve estabJishi do inv>iig proposed to this section, with this update and the proposed changes not The ordinance fencing. such that is interferes wi th migratory routes. as City Arborist review is still required for . onstruct on of structures City's tree ordinance, within five feet of the canopy of an ordinance -size tree. . .. Page 10 Fences, 1,Valls, and Hedges Regulations related to Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Emvirownental Checklist/ Initial S14, December 2007 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project: ' a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical X resource as defined in '15064.5? ,rr b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? X. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X d) Disturb. any human remains, including those interred outside of fonnal cemeteries? X Discussion The proposed changes to the ordinance will not have an impact on cultural resources. Fencing adjacent to designated heritage lanes require review by the Heritage Preservation Commission. The ordinance will not result in a change to an archaeological resource or result in the disturbance of human remains. The proposed changes will-not destroy a site or a unique geologic feature. 0 Regulations related to Fences, Walls. and.Hedges Pape I I Zoning rdinance. Update ZOA 07 -0001 8 Enio-onmental Checklist /Initial Studv December 2007 Potentially Less Than Less Than . No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation Vh. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: , a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including The risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a, known earthquake fault, , as delineated on the. most recent Alquist- Priolo - Earthquake- Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known - fault? Refer to Division of Mines and X Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong.seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic- related ground failure; X including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? . , X b) Result in substantial; soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be'located on a geologic unit or, soil that is unstable, or that * ould become unstable as a- result of the project, and result-Art on- or off -site potentially .landslide, lateral spreading; _ X S ubsidence, liquefaction or collapse? - d)° Be -located on expansive soil, as' X Regulations related to Fences,,- Walls, and Hedges Page ] 2 s Environmental Checklist /Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 December 2007 Potentially' Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation defined in Table' 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or I lternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not.available for the disposal of waste water? X Discussion ult in exposure of known earthquake faults, The proposed changes to the ordinance will not res landslides, or liquefaction zones., The primary two goals of the ordinance are to: (1) allow a taller maximum fence height than is currently permitted; and (2) to establish a fence exception process.for owners to request additional height. At the time of request for a particular project, a soils report may be required to ascertain the stability and appropriateness of the .project in . relation to the geology and soils of the site. Regulations relnted to Fences, Walls, and Hedges Page 13 /Initial Study Zonii7g Ordviance UpdareZOA 07 -0001 En ronmental Checklist December 2.007 Potentially Less Than. Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation Vll. HAZARDS :AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport; use, or disposal of X hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably 'foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the X environment? • C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous _ or acutely. hazardous . materials, substances, or waste within . t one- quarter mile of. an_ existing or 4ex proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on - a list of hazardous .materials sites " compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public " X or the em'ironmenIT e) For a project located within an airport land use .plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project_ result in a safety hazard :for people residing or working. in X . the project area? . i Walls, Hedges. Page 14 . Regulations related to Fences, and . J • Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental Checklist /Initial Study December 2007 I Mitigation Incorporation f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or x working in the project area? g) impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency '' evacuation plan? X h) . Expose people or, structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with X wildlands? Discussion The proposed changes to regulations related to fences, walls, and hedges will not have an impact to hazards and hazardous materials. The taller fences that may result from the ordinance will not involve the transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials or interfere with an airport land use plan. Implementation of the ordinance will not interfere with an adopted emergency response and emergency evacuation plan. 0 Regulations related to Fences, JI Wls, and Hedges Page 15 1 Checklist IInitial Study t ZOA 07 -0001 Zoning Ordinance Upda a Environmental December 2007 Potentially Less Than Less Than No: Significant Significant Significant Impact - Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation 17111. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project: 1 - a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X b) Substantially deplete, groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with , groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or.. a. of the -local ,lowering groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses. or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? X., _. c) Substantially -. alter the existing � o " drainage pattern of the site. or area, including -through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result i ' substantial X erosion or siltation on- or off. site? . d) Substantially alter the: existing -drainage pattern of the site or urea, including- :through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially- . increase the rate -. or ' amount of surface runoff, in a manner which would result in :flooding on- or X off-site?, Regulations related to Fences, Walls; and hedges Page l6 �. Page 17 Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges Checklist /Initial Study Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental Zoning Ordinance Up December 1007 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact YOM Impact Mitigation Incorporation e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of , existing or planned stonnwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X f) Otherwise substantially degrade X ,.,4 water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other X flood hazard delineation map? - h) Place within a ] 00 y ear flood hazard area structures which would impede or X redirect flood flows ?_ i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding , as a result of the failure of a levee or X dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or X mudflow? Discussion The proposed changes to the ordinance will not have an impact to hydrology and water quality. The potential increase in fence height will not deplete groundwater supplies or substantially alter the drainage pattern. Page 17 Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges r Checklist /Initial Stud}, Zoning Ordinance Z) date ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental a p December 2007 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact, With.. Impact Mitigation Incorporation IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X . b) Conflict with any applicable land " use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency- with jurisdiction over the , project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or 'zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental- effect? X . c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X community conservation plan? Discussiolt The proposed changes to: the ordinance will not physically divide Saratoga or established. neighborhoods within. Saratoga. Fences are commonly installed near property lines to provide and establish boundaries of properties'. While the proposed changes would allow fences privacy to be.taller than curr ently pennitted by the code and require a reduced height at driveway aprons, is that a greater number of fences will be installed after. adoption of the it not anticipated ordinance. Regulations relayed to Fences, Walls, and Hedges Page ] 8 Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental Checklist /Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Up December 2007 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific. plan or other land use plan? X Discussion The project will not result in a loss of mineral resources. Sandstone and shale are known to be mineral resources in Saratoga and the proposed changes to the ordinance will not result in a loss of availability in these resources. 0 Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges' Page 19 r Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Upd ate ZDA 07 -0001 December 2007 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact mitigation Incorporation XI. NOISE— Would the project result in: ,.. . a) Exposure of persons, to or generation ' of noise levels in . excess of standards established . in the local general plan Or noise ordinance, or applicable standards X of other agencies? -- ---- -- b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive gioundborne vibration or X groundborne noise levels? -�-- -- C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise - levels in the project above levels existing without the X vicinity project? d) A substantial temporary or , periodic 'o 'r increase in ambient noise levels in the, project vicinity above levels. existing X without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, Where such a plan has not been "adopted; within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or. .working -in the project , area to X excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, �a'ould the project expose people residing or working in-the project X area to excessive noise levels? Fences, walls, and Hedges Page 20 Regulations related to • Zonin g Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmenial Checklist /initial StudY December 2007 Discussion The proposed changes to the ordinance will not result in exposure of persons to noise in excess of the standards permitted in the City's noise ordinance. Any noise that occurs during the construction of the fence will be required to follow code requirements for construction hours. The changes to the ordinance will not result in fencing that permanently increases ambient noise levels in Saratoga. Allowing an exception for taller fences may act to reduce the exposure of persons to noise levels. Regulations related io Fences, Walls, and Hedges Page 21 Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Ennironnnental Checklist /Initial Study December 1007 Potentially Less Than Less Than r. Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact p Ennironnnental Checklist /Initial Study December 1007 Potentially Less Than Less Than h No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation XIL POPULATION AND HOUSING— Would the project: a) Induce, substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other x infrastructure)?, ' b) Displace substantial numbers- of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X c) Displace. substantial numbers of people,. necessitating the construction � X. of replcement housing elsewhere ?' Discussion The proposed changes to regulations related to fencing will not directly result in an increased in the City or the region. The proposal does not involve the consrcuction. of new population homes and will not result in the displacement of people. The ordinance will not have an impact for this category: Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges Page 22 • Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental Checklist /Initial Study December 2007 Discussion The project will not have an impact on governmental facilities, nor result in the need for additional governmental facilities. Fencing is commonly used to distinguish property boundaries and the proposed changes to the regulations related to fencing will not directly result in a greater population with the City. Therefore, there will not be a need for additional governmental facilities as detailed below. Fire Protection — Any fencing requiring a building permit -,a,ill also be required to meet code requirements related to fire protection. Regulations related to Fences, lColls, and h'ed�ees Page 23 Potentialiv Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental, facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any.of the public services: Fire protection? X Police protection? X Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities? X Discussion The project will not have an impact on governmental facilities, nor result in the need for additional governmental facilities. Fencing is commonly used to distinguish property boundaries and the proposed changes to the regulations related to fencing will not directly result in a greater population with the City. Therefore, there will not be a need for additional governmental facilities as detailed below. Fire Protection — Any fencing requiring a building permit -,a,ill also be required to meet code requirements related to fire protection. Regulations related to Fences, lColls, and h'ed�ees Page 23 R_ Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental Cliechlist /Initial Study December 2007 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation XIV. RECREATION — a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical X effect on the environment. Discussion The updates will allow a taller fence height than is currently permitted. There will be no impact to recreational facilities including parks with the adoption of the ordinance. 0 Regulations related to Fences, 14 "U S, and Hedges Page 25 Y� ' A Checklist /Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Update Z0,9 0 7 -0001 Environmental December 2007 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation XV. TRA-N'SPORTATION /TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ' substantial. in relation to the existing traffic load and, capacity of the street. system (i.e., result in a substantial , increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on X , roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads X or highways? c) Result, in a- change in air" traffic patterns, including either an increase in �', traffic levels or a change in location that X . results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves of dangerous intersections) or incompatible X uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) .Result in inadequate emergency X access? ---- -- f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g) Conflict with adopted policies; plans, or programs supporting . alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle X racks)? Fences, Walls, and Hedges' Page 26 Regulations related to . Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental Checklist /Initial Study December 1007 Discussion The proposed updates to regulations for fencing will not result in an increase in traffic or cause congestion. One of the proposed changes includes restricting maximum height requirements for fencing near driveway intersections. This provision should decrease hazards. Fencing that requires a building permit will be evaluated to ensure that emergency access is not compromised. The proposed ordinance will not result in inadequate parking capacity or conflict with adopted policies that support alternative transportation. B Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges Page 27 Checklist /Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Up date ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental December 1007 " Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact, with Impact Mitigation Incorporation XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: r a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the " applicable Regional Water Quality Control X Board? b) Require or result in the construction , of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which " could cause significant environmental X .;. effects? c) Require orresult in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities . or expansion:of existing `facilities,'tbe Y ' construction of " which . could cause X significant environmental effects? d) Have . sufficient- water supplies ". available to serve:. the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded. entitlements. X needed? e) Result in a-. determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the - project that it has adequate capacity -to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider'- s existing X commitments? Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges Page 28 • Environmental Checklist /Initial Study toning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 December 2007 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation B served by 'a landfill with � e sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste . disposal needs? X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid X waste? Discussion The ordinance will not affect utilities and service systems. and will not directly result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or require the expansion of existing facilities. No additional water will be needed to serve Saratoga as a result of the proposed modifications to the ordinance. Regulations related to Fences, N'alls, and Hedges Page 29 /initial Study _ zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 OOOI Environmental Checklist December 2.007. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant .Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporation ; XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE — Does the project have the potential ' a) to degrade the quality of the environment,. subsumti ally, reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below . self- sustaining levels, threaten to .eliminate a plant or animal community, :reduce the number or restrict .,the range of a rare or endangered plant or, animal or eliminate important examples of the -major periods of California history or prehistory? X' b) Doe_ s the project. have impacts that f. %e . are 'individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means , that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when, viewed in connection with the effects of past _ projects, the .effects- of other current projects, and the effects of probable X future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will . cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either X directly or indirectly? Hedges Page 30 Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and I • • Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental Checklist /Initial Study December 2007 Discussion a. The project will not have an impact on the quality of the environment, will not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, will not cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, and will not threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. The range of a rare or endangered animal will not be compromised as a direct result of the changes proposed to the ordinance. A provision in the ordinance will require fencing around pools in the hillside districts tQ be closer around the perimeter of the pool, such that the area of enclosure is minimized and thus increasing area for w ildlife to pass through freely. The fencing exception process will allow owners to request that the Planning Commission review a proposed height for a fence, wall, or hedge greater than what is permitted by right in the code. These applications will be reviewed on a case -by -case basis where areas of enclosure, the proposed height, and impact to views and wildlife will be evaluated. b. The project as proposed consists of allowing a taller fence than currently permitted, up to a maximum height of eight feet (up to six feet solid and up to two feet of lattice): A fence exception process is proposed for those projects that require additional ,height or alternative composition of solid and non -solid fencing material. The additional two -foot height limitation that the ordinance would allow will not have a significant cumulative impact to the environment because the additional height for the lattice will be attached to an existing fence and is capped at a maximum of two additional feet. Also, kpce exception applications will be reviewed by the Planning Commission for compatibility with the neighborhood, quality of materials proposed, and consent from neighb&iewithin the vicinity of the subject property. The project will not have significant cumulative impacts, as it has very minimal impacts to air quality, water quality, noise, public services, utilities, traffic, and transportation. c. The proposed ordinance is intended to provide. more flexibility for regulations related to. fencing by creating an exception process. The ordinance will not have environmental effects that will cause adverse effects on human beings directly or indirectly. 0 Regulations related to Fences, N olls, and Hedges Page 31 r. Update ZOA 07 -0001 Enti�irotnnettal Checklist /Initial Study Zoning Ordinance Up December 2007 SOURCE REFERENCES: 1. Project planner's knowledge of Saratoga and current regulations 2. .Current draft of update to regulations related to fences, walls, and hedges 3. Knowledge of discussion of Planning Commission at Study Sessions on August 07, 2007 and September 25, 2007. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft of update to regulations related to fences, walls, and hedges discussed at Planning Commission Study Session September 25, 2007 Regulations related to Fences; Wnlls, and Hedges Page 32 Text to be added is indicated in bold double- underlined font (e.g., bold double- underlined) and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., ;triiceP, - ). Text in standard font remains unchanged. Article 15 -06 DEFINITIONS 15- 06.341 Height of fences, Nvalls and bedges. "Height of fences, walls and hedges" means a vertical line from the highest point of the fence, wall or hedge to a point directly below at chef ' g* a the finished grade; Where a fence is constructed upon,. or approximately parallel to and within two feet of the top of a retaining wall, the height of the fence shall be the vertical distance measured from the top of the fence to the bottom of the retaining wall in the manner prescribed herein. Where there are differences in ground level between adjacent properties. the fence height is measured from the property witb a higher elevation -d t. Diagram Article 15 -80 MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS 15- 80.030 Special rules for accessory uses and structures in residential districts. Entry elements A maximum of tbree entry elements shall be permitted within a required front setback area Entry elements include fountains birdbatills, arbors trellises, or other similar garden elements that allow substantial passage of ti ry ght and air. Ent elements shall not exceed eight feet jn height five feet in �,idth. and five feet in aepin. A1ajlbox One mailbox structure not exceeding five feet in height shall be permitted jn the front setback area Mailboxes proposed within CibLri bt- of -"Iav shall be subject to an encroachment permit from the Public'Works Department, Article 15 -29 FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES 15- 29.010 Height restrictions. (a) General regulation. Except as otherwise specified in this Article, no fence or wall ff—ithinA side or rear setback area except as stipulated in subsection b of this cow shall exceed six feet in height, plus nn to two feet of lattice or other material other than lattice that is typicalb, at least fifty percent open to the passage of light and air. Open, as used in this } Qubsection shall be defined as the portion of the pattern uncovered, unenclosed, and /or unobstructed by materials composing the structure A solid fence taller than six feet snail N not be permitted. A building permit shall be required for any fence or wall more than six J feet in height. Q H i* OR x* Z PC Study Session 092507 ],r.1F�Y r-wail shall (2) Wrought iron entrance gates, designed- with openings to permit visibility through the same, may extend to a height not exceeding five feet. (3) Safety railings that are required by the Uniform Building Code shall be excluded from the height requirements.of this Section: (c) Street intersections. No fence, wall or compact hedge located within a triangle having sides Hy feet in, length from a street intersection, as measured from intersecting curblines or intersecting edges of the street pavement where no curb exists, shall exceed three feet in height ahnve the established grade of the adjoining street. pC Study Sess 2 , D I-- In J Q i•- Z n Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined font (e.g., bold double - underlined) and.text to be ' deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., strikeout). Text in standard font remains unchanged. Fence Height E xceptions. The owner' of a fenceo wall or hedge mav- request that the Planning Commission (or Community Development Director) errant a modification to the height limit of side and rear fences j�ial)s and'hedQes provided the liei�ht modifcabon does not exjena more ihan iwV ... 121 feet nliove thle height limit established in subsection j� -Z2 uLvrai vi ema �CLUVII J tic;' planning Commission (Communrtv Development Director): mav grant this modification if .the folloy►inQ fin�nQS aremade: (1) the subject fence wall or hedge will be cornaati6)e with other similar structures ei , in`the nghborhood: (2) a subject fence will be complete constructed of materials that that are of - hiph Quality exhibit superior craftsmanship, and that are durable , (3) The modification vtill not impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood'_ I" M. the fence; wall, or he is located. ;- (4) -The YrantijiQ of such modification will not be dearimental M iniurious to the ;. r e' "' o` `imarovements in the general vicinity and. district in :which the °' property' is )ocatedi (5) All arliacent properfv o)N-ner(sl with shared `or intersecting nrbperty lines sha provide`yy'ritten agreement supnor ing e a di io 1 f h�tit the decision of the Planning Commission (Community "Development Directorl mav fie appealed to'the City Council (Plannings'ommissionl maccordance with City (bde Section exterior side setback area of reversed corner lots. No fence or wall (b) Front setback area and front setback area shall exceed three feet .in height: No fence or;wAll, located within any required 1. side setback area of a reversed corner lot. shailexceed_#hree located within any required exterior in height. Exceptions to these height limitations areas follows: feet Het (1) 20,A987, i ],r.1F�Y r-wail shall (2) Wrought iron entrance gates, designed- with openings to permit visibility through the same, may extend to a height not exceeding five feet. (3) Safety railings that are required by the Uniform Building Code shall be excluded from the height requirements.of this Section: (c) Street intersections. No fence, wall or compact hedge located within a triangle having sides Hy feet in, length from a street intersection, as measured from intersecting curblines or intersecting edges of the street pavement where no curb exists, shall exceed three feet in height ahnve the established grade of the adjoining street. pC Study Sess 2 , D I-- In J Q i•- Z Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined font (e.g., bold double - underlined) and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., stfikeeu ). Text in standard font remains unchanged. Driveway intersections No fence ' %vall or compact bedoge located within a triangle having sides fifteen feet in length from either side of a drivem,av where it intersects with a street or property A ne. Vehicular Obstructions No fence wall or hedge shall constitute an obstruction as discussed in City Code Section 10- 05.030. Provided for reference only, emphasis added: 10- 03.030 Types of obstructions. , The following is a nonexclusive list of obstructions which, under this Article, are deemed to obstruct the view from vehicles traveling on public streets and the passage of pedestrians on the sidewalks, and the same are declared to constitute a public nuisance: (a) Any tree, hedge, shrub or structure overhanging a public street or sidewalk, the lowest part of which is less than ten feet above such street or sidewalk: (b) Any tree located within a triangle having sides fifty feet in length from a street intersection, as measured from intersecting curb lines or intersecting edges of the street pavement where no curb exists, the limbs of which are less than ten feet above the ground surface. (c) Any hedge, shrub, sign or other structure located within a triangle having sides fifty feet in length from a street intersection, as measured from intersecting curb lines or intersecting edges. of the street pavement where no curb exists, the overall height of which is more than' 'three feet above the established grade of the adjoining street. (d) Any vegetation, structure or object which is so situated as to in any manner interfere with the unobstructed view by motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians of approaching or intersecting traffic or the view of traffic control devices or directional signs placed upon any street or right -of- -way for the safety of the public. 'r , Green Fences A green fence shall be defined as a series of trees or other natural landscaping planted in a linear and uninterrupted pattern such that a boundary is created. The natural Ian. scaping must be able to stand on its own and shall not require supports of any kind Height requirements prescribed in 15- 29.010(a) shall not apply to green fences. Notwithstanding, the properly oivner shall consider neighboring properties' imnaet to viem,s when such a fence is proposed and /or planted. I I . (d) Recreational courts. Fencing around recreational courts shall comply with the regulations contained in. Section 15- 80.030(c) of this Chapter. (e) Pilasters. Pilasters constituting a part of a fence, in reasonable numbers and scale in relationship to the nature and style of the fence, may extend to a height of not more than two feet above the height limit applicable to the fence containing such pilasters. (f) Light fixtures. The height of a fence shall not include light fixtures mounted thereon at the entrance of driveways and sidewalks leading into a site. Not more than two such light fixtures shall be installed at each driveway and sidewalk entrance. PC Study Session 092507 3 D t- in J Q H Z Text to be added -is indicated in bold double - underlined font le.g., bold double - underlined) and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., strikeout). Text in standard font remains unchanged. SIkimming Pool Fences Fences required for swimming pools are governed by City Code Section 16-75.010. SN�Vimmin'o pool fences are not subject to Planning Department approval if the fence follows the contour of the pool with no more than five feet of deck located between the fence and the water. (g) Retaining walls. No retaining wall shall exceed five feet in height. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no retaining wall located in a front or exterior side setback area shall exceed three feet in height. (h) Fencing adjacent to commercial districts. The Community Development Director may issue a special permit to allow a go id fence up to eight feet in height where such ferice is installed along a rear setback area or interior side setback area of a residential site which abuts a commercial district. The Community Development Director may impose such conditions as he deems appropriate to mitigate any visual or other adverse impacts of the fence, including, but not limited to, requirements with .respect to the design and materials of the fence and landscape. screening. Applications for a special permit under this subsection shall be filed with the Community Development Director on such form as he shall prescribe, and shall be accompanied by a processing fee in such amount as established from time to time by the City Council: ' (Amended'by Ord. 71.86,§ 1, 1991; Ord. 71 -106 § 6,1992; Ord. 245 § 2 (Att. A) (part), 2006) Existing Non - Conforming Fencinj?. Upon destruction or removal of more than one -half length of all non - conforming fences. I'Valls or hedges the fence ,%vall or hedge shall be constructed to meet height requirements as prescribed in this chapter or be approved by an exception process described jn section xxx of this chapter- 15- 29.020 Fencing'Within hillside districts. in addition to the regulations set forth in Section 15- 29.010 of this Article, fences and walls located within an HR or R -OS district shall .comply with the following regulations: (a) Length of solid fences and walls. Solid fences and walls, having -no openings to permit visibility through -the -same, shall not have a length exceeding sixty feet, as viewed from any. street or adjacent property:.This restriction shall not apply to retaining walls, )\7aterials and Color. Any fence in the hillside districts shall be black or otherwise colored i a l.• „ o.,rl �wra rvnrino that complies witb 15- 29.020(el. (b) Parallel fences and walls. Parallel fences and walls shall be separated by a horizontal distance Q of not less than five feet. Where Moor more fences or walls are approximately parallel to each other and separated by a horizontal distance of thirty feet or less, the combined height of such I fences or walls shall not exceed ten feet. J Q (c) Area of- enclosure. Except for fencing around recreational courts and fencing which Z constitutes part of a corral, no fencing on a single site shall encompass or enclose an area in _ ID excess of four thousand square feet (excluding the area of any pool) unless approved by the PC Study Session 092507 4 Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined font (e.g., bold double - underlined) and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., strikeout). Text in standard font remains unchanged. Planning Commission. Encompass and enclose as used in this subsecti on. shall mean to surround such that a boundan, is established %vhere the linear distance between any rwo points of di� scontinuation is fifteen feet or less. , apprevel Approval from the Planning Commis n maybe granted in any of the following cases: Pl Pl Where the Planning Commission finds and determines that the visibility of the .fence from public streets and adjacent properties will substantially be reduced by the topography, landscaping or other features of the site. (2) Where the.Planning Commission finds and determines that the fence is required for safety reasons. (3) Where an exemption from the restriction against fencing enclosure has been granted by the Planning Commission for a "designated neighborhood area," as hereinafter defined, in response to a petition for such exemption signed by the owners of lots comprising not less than psi -tty percent of the designated area. Before granting such exemption, the Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the petition, with notice thereof sent by mail at least ten days prior to the date of. the hearing to all persons owning property located within the designated neighborhood area and within five hundred feet from the boundaries of such area. As a condition for granting an exemption, the Planning Commission may establish alternative rules concerning the enclosure of sites in the designated neighborhood area, including, but not limited to, rules pertaining to the amount of enclosure, the design and type of fencing, and mitigation of visual impacts; provided, however, in no event shall such rules permit enclosure of more than sixty percent of the gross site area, or the installation of any solid fences or walls, or use. of any fencing material having exposed sharp points, or the installation of any fencing within an area dedicated as open space. The term "designated neighborhood area," as used in subsection c )( 3 ) of this Section, means a geographic portion of a hillside zoning district, as designated by the Planning Commission, consisting of not less than ten lots which are. contiguous to each other. Lots which are separated only .by a street shall be considered contiguous. If a petition for exemption is presented by owners of any lots shown on a recorded subdivision or tract map, the Planning Commission may, in its _discretion, require that all of the lots shown on such map be included within the designated neighborhood area. Additional contiguous lots may be annexed to an existing designated neighborhood area upon application by the property owner and approval by the Planning Director, based upon his determination that the additional lot has similar topography, visibility, or other features shared by the lots within the designated neighborhood area. (d) Wildlife trails. No fence shall unreasonably impede the movement of wildlife animals utilizing an established trail or migratory route which crosses the site. (e) Wire fences. Wire fencing, other than chain link, barbed wire or galvanized wire, shall be permitted only if the space between the wire is sufficient to allow the unobstructed passage of a sphere having a diameter of four inches and the wire is black or otherwise colored to blend with the terrain. Chain link fencing shall be permitted only for recreational courts and shall similarly be colored to blend with the terrain. No barbed wire or electrified fencing shall be allowed except as permitted by Section 15-29.050 of this Article. (i) The provisions of this Section shall not apply to any property located within and constituting a part of Tract 7763; as shown on the subdivision map thereof recorded in the office of the PC Study Session 092507 H Cn J Q F- Z a Text to be added is indicated in bold double- underlined font (e.g., bold double - underlined) and text to be .deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., s#tkesut). Text in standard font remains unchanged. 0 County Recorder. . (Amended by.Ord. 71.89' § 1, 1991; Ord. 71.98 § 4, 1991; Ord. 71.113 § 3, 1992) 15- 29.030 Fencing to mitigate noise from. certain arterial streets. (a) For the purpose of noise mitigation, a 591W fence exceeding the height otherwise prescribed in this Article as. the limit for such fence may be located within any required setback area abutting Prospect Road, Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road, Quito Road, the portion of Saratoga Avenue between Fruitvale Avenue and Lawrence Expressway or the portion of Cox Avenue between Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road and Saratoga Avenue, upon the issuance by the Community Development Director of a fence permit and subject to the following provisions: (1) Where the s= fence is located within an exterior side setback area or rear setback area abutting one of the arterial streets specified herein, the fence shall not exceed eight feet in height at the property line, plus one additional foot in height for each additional five feet of setback fr om the property line, up to a maximum height of ten feet if the fence is still located within a required setback area.. (2) Where the solid fence is located within a front setback area abutting one of the arterial _streets ,. specified herein, the fence -may be located no closer than ten feet from the front property line and ' shall not exceed eight feet in height, plus one additional foot in height for each additional five ' feet -of setback from the ,front property line in. excess of ten feet, up to a maximum height of ten feet if the fence is still located within the required front setback area. (3) Where a street line is located within a site, the location and setback of the fence as specified _ in subsections (a)(1) and (2) of this Section shall be determined by the street line rather than the property line. (4) The applicant shall landscape and permanently maintain an area parallel to and along the entire side of the 59J fence facing the street, in accordance with a landscape. plan .exterior YP approved by the Community Development Director. All or an onion of such area, .may be located" within, the public right -of -way, subject to approval by the Community Development Director.. The landscaped area required herein-shall be not less than five feet in width, except that . where the available space between the fence and the interior edge of the sidewalk, or the edge of the street pavement where no sidewalk exists, is less than five feet, the Community Development Director may approve a landscape area of not less than two feet. Prior to issuance. of the fence permit, a landscape maintenan ce agreement shall be executed by the applicant and .recorded in the office of the County Recorder, which agreement shall constitute a covenant running with the land. (5) The design. of the LOW fence shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Director, based upon a finding that the fence is compatible with existing or proposed structures on the site and upon neighboring properties. (6) No permit shall be issued if -the Community Development Director finds that the-5-go fence will constitute a hazard for vehicular or pedestrian traffc or will otherwise be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. � (b) Applications for a fence permit under this Section shall be filed with the Community H J Development Director on such form as he .shall prescribe, and shall be accompanied by a from time to time by resolution of the City Council. Q Z processing fee in such amount as established (Amended by Ord. 71.110 § 2, 1992; Ord. 245.§ 2 (Att. A) (part), 2006) —o 6 PC Study Session o92507 Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined font (e.g., bold double- underlined) and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., strikeou t). Text in standard font remains unchanged. 15- 29.040 Fencing adjacent to scenic highways. In addition to the regulations set forth in Section 15- 29.010 of this Article, fences adjacent to State designated scenic highways shall comply with the following requirements: (a) Fence permit. No person shall construct any fence or wall which faces and is located within one hundred feet from the right -of -way of a State designated scenic highway without first obtaining a fence permit from the Planning Director. Application for such permit shall be submitted to the Planning Director on such form as he shall prescribe, and shall be accompanied by a processing fee in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council. (b) Setback. No fence or wall shall be constructed within fifteen feet from the propert y line abutting the right -of -way of a scenic highway. The Planning Director may require this minimum setback to be increased to a maximum of one hundred feet if he determines that such increased setback is necessary to preserve the scenic qualities of the highway. (c) Color, material and design. Fences or walls adjacent to scenic highways may be constructed of wood, stone, stucco, masonry, wrought iron or similar material, but no chain link, plastic or ' wire fencing shall be permitted. The design, color and materials of the fence or wall shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director, based upon a finding that the fence or wall will not adversely affect the scenic qualities of the highway and will be compatible with the natural terrain. d Landscape screening. The applicant shall landscape and permanently maintain an area parallel to and along the entire length of the exterior side of the fence or wall facing the scenic highway, in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Planning Director. Such landscape plan shall . provide for the planting of trees and vegetation that are native to the.rea, fast growing, and require little or no maintenance. The Planning Director shall not approve the landscape plan unless he finds that the proposed landscaping will effectively screen the fence from public view and enhance the visual appearance of the scenic highway. Prior to issuance of the fence permit, a landscape maintenance agreement shall be executed by the applicant and recorded in the office of the County Recorder, which agreement shall constitute a covenant running with the land. (e) Height. The height of any fence or wall adjacent to a scenic highway shall comply with the regulations set forth in Section 15-29.010 of this Article; provided, however, where the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that his property is subjected to greater noise impacts from the scenic highway as compared generally with other properties located adjacent to such highway, the Planning Director may approve a fence or wall not exceeding eight feet in height. As a condition of such approval, the Planning Director may require increased setbacks and landscaping to mitigate the visual impact of the higher fence or wall. H (f) Exemption. This Section shall not apply to a fence lawfully constructed prior to March 20, to 1987, if such fence does not create a safety hazard for vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic and Q does not obstruct the safe access to or from adjacent properties; and provided further, that upon the destruction or removal of more than one -half of the length of such nonconforming fence, any Z PC Study Session 092507 7 n Text to be added is indicated in bold double- underlined font (e.g., bold double - underlined), and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., ;14keel -1). Text in standard font remains unchanged. replacement fence shall comply with the permit requirement and restrictions specified in this Section. 15- 29.050 Barbed -wire and electrified -,vire probibited. No fence or -wall constructed or installed within the -City shall contain barbed or electrified wire unless approved by the Planning Commission, ' based upon a finding that the barbed f electrified wire is necessary for security purposes and that measures will be taken, when appropriate, to mitigate any adverse impacts of such wire. 15- 29;060 Fences adjacent to beritage lanes. In addition to the regulations set forth in Section 15- 29.010 of this Article, fences adjacent to a, designated heritage lane shall -comply with the following requirements:. (a) . Fence .permit: No person shall construct any fence or wall which faces and is located w.itNin fifty feet from the right -of- -way of a designated. heritage lane, and which exceeds three feet in fr th Communit Development Director. height, without first obtaining a fence permit om e y Application for such permit shall be submitted and processed in the manner provided in Article 13 -20 of the City Code. If the Heritage Commission recommends issuance, the. Community Development Director.shall issue the permit in accordance with those recommendations and any' condition related but not limited to the design standards set forth in subsections .(c), (d), (e) and 'b d in Article 13 -20 (f) of this Section and. pursuant to the process In rescn e (b) Support ing data. The level of detail of the supporting data required by Section 13- 20.030 shall be determined by the Community Development Director. to allow adequate review of the proposed fence or wall. (e) Setback: No fence or wall which exceeds three feet in height shall be constructed ..within the . required. setback area fronting a heritage lane. This minimum setback may be requii6 td lie increased . to. a maximum of fifty feet upon the finding that such increased setback is necessary to .preserve the. historic qualities of the heritage lane. . (d) Color, material and design. Fences or walls adjacent to the heritage lane may be constructed of wood, stone, masonry, wrought iron or similar material. The design, color and materials of the fence or wall shall be approved based. upon a finding that. the fence or wall will not adversely affect the historic qualities of the lane and will be compatible with the design and materials of existing- buildings on the site and structures on adjacent properties. . (e) Height. The height of any fence or wall adjacent to.ihe heritage lane shall comply with the regulations set forth in Section 15- 29.010 of the City. Code. (� Landscaping. The applicant shall landscape and in an area within the right -of -way, parallel to and along the entire length of the exterior side of a fence or wall in excess of three feet in height and facing the heritage lane, in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Community Development Director. Such landscape plan shall provide for the planting of trees and vegetation that are native to the area and require little or no maintenance. The landscape plan may be approved by the Community Development Director upon the finding that the proposed PC Study Session 092507 8 H Cn J Z • • h Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined font (e.g., bold double- underlined) and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeout font {e.g., strikeout). Text in standard font remains unchanged, landscaping will effectively blend the fence with its environment and enhance the visual appearance of the lane. (g) Exemption. This Section shall not apply to a fence lawfully constructed prior to September 16, 1992, if such fence does not create a safety hazard for vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic and does not obstruct the safe access to or from adjacent properties; and provided fiu-ther, that upon the destruction or removal of more than one -half of the length of such nonconforming fence, any replacement fence shall comply with the permit requirement and restrictions specified in this Section. (Ord. 71.110 § 1, 1992; Ord. 245. § 2 (Att. A) (part), 2006) PC Study Session 092507 9 H N J a z v . RESOLUTION No. Application No. ZOA 07 -0001 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received a request to consider amendments of certain sections of the Zoning Code relating to fences, walls, and hedges; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; WHEREAS, the staff presented sufficient information required to evaluate the proposed amendments; WHEREAS, an Initial Study and a Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration were available for public review from December 3, 2007 through January 3, 2008 and no comments were received; WHEREAS, all Interested Parties desiring to comment on the Negative Declaration were given the opportunity to submit oral and written comments on the adequacy of the Negative Declaration prior to this recommendation by the Planning Commission; WHEREAS, the Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with the intent and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and, the CEQA Guidelines, and the Negative Declaration represents the City's independent judgment. WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and CEQA Guideline Section 15025, subd. (c), the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Initial Study and Negative Declaration and has determined that the Project could not have a significant effect on the environment. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of all of the testimony and related information the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Saratoga approve the Negative Declaration and the proposed amendments to the Chapter 15 Zoning Regulations of the City Code as stated below. Deleted language is shown in strikeout. text and new language is shown in bold text with double underline. Text in standard font remains unchanged. Article 15 -06 DEFINITIONS 15- 06.261 Fence. "Fence" means any structural device, "' ier- i an a wall of a building, forming a physical barrier by means of glass, wood, masonry, metal, chain, brick, stake, plastic, concrete block, '%vrought L u iron, wire, or other similar materials. A wall other than a wall of a building or a retaining wall, is considered -a fence. .15- 06.341 Height of fences, walls -and hedges. "Height of fences, walls and hedges" means a vertical line from the highest point of the fence (including lattice or similar material). -w-afl or hedge to a point directly below at either the natural grade or the finished grade, . 3A%ef:° " fence is nstfueied u e feiaii4ing Wall in ­­ibed . Where there are differences in grade betvveen adjacent properties" the fence height is measured from the property Nvith_ the higher grade. 2 ' lattice 6 'fence Property B. Property A 15 -06 xxx Hedge. A hedge means 8_5 erjes of trees or other natural landscaping, planted in a linear aO uninterrupted- pattern such that a boundary is created. The natural landscaping must be able to stand on its own and shall not require supports upon maturity. 35 06 xxx Retaining NA7911 A retaining wall means a structural device constructed and erected to resist lateral pressure from earth or to retain'soil. Article 15 -29 FENCES; WALLS AND HEDGES 15- 29.010 Height restrictions. (a) General regulatjons " , ne fenee 6r- » shall exeeed six f�e* ;,, '�pi ^''t A building permit shall be required for any -- fence more tban six feet in height Hei�bt maximums and permitted materials for fences and hedges shall be as follows: (1) Solid fences or fences composed of material other than wrought iron wire material; or chain link:' Except as otherwise specified in this Article. no solid fence shall exceed six feet in height However plus up to two feet of lattice for similar material) ' that is at )east twenty-five may be added • percent open to the passage of light and air • to the top of a solid fence A solid fence taller than six feet shall not be ermitted unless approved by the Planning Commission through the exception process detailed in 15-29.080, or approved by the Community Development Director pursuant to sections 15-29.030. 15-29.040, or 15-29-050 of this Chapter. (2) NVrouobt iron or wire material fences: Except as otherwise specified in this article, no fence composed of wrought iron material or wire material shall exceea e�gnt feet in height provided the space between openings is sufficient to allow the unobstructed passage of a sphere baving a diameter of four inches. Wrought iron or wire fencing that does not have the aforementioned four -inch opening is not Permitted. (3) Chain link fences: Chain link fencing in districts other than the hillside residential' district shall be permitted only in interior side setback areas, rear setback area and for recreational courts as regulated in Section 15- 80.030(c) of this Chanter. The fencing shall be black or otberwise colored toL blend with the terrain No barbed wire galvanized wire or electrified fencing shall be allowed except as permittea av Section 15- 29.060 of this Article, (4) Hedges: Except as otherwise specified the height requirements prescribed in this Article shall not apply to hedges. Ub Front setback area and exterior side setback area of reversed corner lots. No fence er —wall located within any required front setback area shall exceed three feet in height. No fence ell located within any required exterior side setback area of a reversed corner lot shall exceed three feet in height. Exceptions to these height limitations are as follows:, exeeeding six feet, if sueh fenee or- wall does ne! er-eate a safety -hazard fer- vehieular-, pedestr-ian , , Q2scHzt}8i3-- 6f - -P2ni9vca —vi—mv length nef3eenfian:fling fenee er-wall, any feplaeement f�nee er- wall shall -net exeeed t feet ifl height-. (�) 01 Wrought iron entrance gates, designed with openings to permit visibility. through the same, may extend to a height not exceeding five feet,. and shall be located a minimum of hventy feet from the edge of street pavement. (-3-) 2 Safety railings that are required by the Uniknn California Building Code shall be excluded from the height requirements of this Section. (3) Pedestrian entryway elements such as arbors and trellises, when attached to a fence within a front setback area or witbin an exterior side setback area, may be permitted to a _maximum heiobt of eight feet a maximum width of five feet, and a maximum death of five feet. Lcj Street intersections. No fence, wall r eentpae+, hedge, retaining �� all, entryway element or other similar element located within a triangle having sides fifty feet in length from a street intersection, as measured from intersecting curblines or intersecting edges of the street pavement where no curb exists, .shall exceed three feet in height above the established grade of the adjoining street. Pilasters gates or any other similar element shall be located outside this triangle. (d) Flag lots and other lots where the front lot line is not adjacent to the street and abuts h f t b k ' side or rear setback areas of adtacent lots Any lot where t e on set ac area, or a portion thereof, of the subject property: (1) does not bave street frontage as defined by Article 15-06.290; and (2) the front lot line, or a portion thereof, of the subject property abuts the side or rear setback area of an adjacent property, the maximum permitted fence hejaht for side or rear setback area shall be permitted within the front setback area of the subject property , %vbere it abuts the side or rear setback area of an adjacent property, (e) Drjveway intersections. For projects that require design review approval pursuant to Articles 15 -45 and 15 =46, no fence, hedge, retaining wall, entryway element, or other similar element located within_ a triangle having sides t-welve feet in length from either side of a driveway NOcre it intersects with edge of pavement shall exceed tbree feet in height above the established grade of the adjoining street. Pilasters, gates, or any other similar element shall be located outside this triangle. Ordinance size trees are not subject to this requirement Line pavement 4 (f) Vehicular Obstructions No fence, hedge, retaining wall, entryway element, or any other similar element shall constitute an obstruction as provided for in City Code Section 10- 05.030. Provided for reference only, emphasis added: 107-05.030 Types of obstructions. 'The following is. a nonexclusive :list of obstructions which, under this Article, are deemed to obstruct the view fronn vehicles traveling on public streets and the passage of pedestrians on the Sidewalks, and the same are declared to constitute a public nuisance: (a) Any tree, hedge, shrub or structure overhanging a public street or sidewalk, the lowest part of which is less than ten feet above such street or sidewalk. (b) Any tree located within a triangle having sides fifty feet in length fi -om a street intersection, as measured fi -om intersecting curb limes or intersecting edges of the street pavement where no • q� curb exists, the limbs of which are less than ten feet above the. ground surface. (c) Any hedge, shrub, sign or other structure located within a triangle having sides fifty feet in length from a street intersection, as measured f-om intersecting curb lines or intersecting edges of the street pavement where no curb exists, the overall height of which is more than three feet above the established grade of the adjoining street. (d) Any vegetation, structure or object which is so situated as to in any manner interfere with the unobstructed view by motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians of approaching or intersecting traffic or the view of traffic control devices or directional signs placed upon any street or right -of -way for the safety of the public. (d Recreational courts. Fencing around recreational courts shall comply with the regulations contained in Section 15- 80.030(c) of this Chapter. ' hW (e) Pilasters. Pilasters constituting a part of a fence, in reasonable numbers and scale in relationship to the nature and style of the fence, may extend to a height of not more than two feet above the height limit applicable to the fence containing such pilasters, but in no case shall the hei ,ght of pilasters exceed eight feet If pilasters within the front setback area are attached to a Nvrougbt iron entrance gate the pilasters are permitted to a maximum neigbt of seven ' feet. (#) Light fixtures. The height of a fence shall not include light fixtures mounted thereon at the entrance of driveways and sidewalks leading into a site. Not more than two such'light fixtures shall be installed at each driveway and sidewalk entrance: ail SIA,imming Pool Fences Fences required for swimming pools are governed by City Code Section 16-75-010 and 15- 29.020(gl. Uk (0 Retaining walls. No retaining wall shall exceed five feet in height. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no retaining wall located in a front or exterior side setback area shall exceed three feet in height. r-eaf setb . aek, ar-ei ef: m! Y-ier- side setbaek area ef a r-esidential site whieh abuts M;:AP':rr-iAl , NppIieatiens fer- a speeial peFfflit under- this subseeiien shall be filed with the Ceffiffluflit 15- 29.020 Fencing within hillside districts. In addition to the regulations set forth in Section 15- 29.010 of this Article, fences located within an HR or R -OS district shall comply with the following regulations: 1 .7. (a) Length 4 semid and walls.—Solid fences ,va4s �, having no openings to permit visibility through the same, shall not have a length exceeding sixty feet, as viewed from any street or adjacent property and an opening' of tbiM, linear feet or more is required if another section of solid fencing is proposed. This restriction shall not apply to retaining walls. (b) Wrought iron or wire material fences: A ivrougbt iron or wire material fence does not have a limitation on length but it sball be black or otberwise colored to blend with the terrain. (c) Chain link material fences: Black chain link fencing in the hillside district shall be permitted for a maximum length of sixty feet. An opening of thirty linear feet or more is ' required if anotber section of chain link fencing is proposed. Recreational courts may be enclosed witch chain link fencing as regulated in Section I l of this Chapter and shall be black or otherivise colored to blend with the terrain No barbed wire. galvanized wire or electrified fencing shall be allmyed except as permitted by Section 15- 29.060 of this rticl r and r a {�}- Parallel retaining �� walls. Parallel retaining �-� -walls shall be separated by a horizontal distance of not less than five feet. Where two or more fenr retaining walls are approximately parallel to each other- and separated by a horizontal distance of thirty feet or less,'the combined height of such fenees of walls shall not exceed ten feet. (.e) Area of enclosure.- Except for fencing around recreational courts and fencing which constitutes part of a corral, no fencing on a single site shall encompass or enclose an area in excess of four thousand square . feet unless approved by the Planning Corrmmission. "Encompass and enclose" as used in this subsection: shall mean to or less at any point. whie appreval, pprovM from the Planning Commission to encompass and enclose more than four thousand square feet may be granted in any of the following cases: (1) Where the Planning Commission finds and determines that the visibility of the fence from.. public streets and. adjacent properties will substantially be reduced by the topography, landscaping or other features of the site. (2) Where the Planning Commission finds and detennines that the fence is required for safety reasons. (3) Where an exemption from the restriction against fencing enclosure has been granted by the Planning Commission for a "designated neighborhood area," as hereinafter defined, in response to a petition for such-exemption signed by the .-owners of lots comprising not. less than sixty percent of the designated area. Before granting such exemption, the Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the petition, with notice thereof sent by mail at least ten days prior to the date of the hearing to all persons owning property, located within the designated neighborhood area and within five hundred feet from the boundari es of such area. As. a condition for granting an exemption, the Planning Commission may establish alternative rules concerning the enclosure of sites in the designated neighborhood area, including, but not limited to, rules pertaining to the amount of enclosure, the design and type of fencing, and mitigation of visual impacts; provided, however, in no event shall such rules pen-nit enclosure of more than sixty s percent of the gross site area, or the installation of any solid fences er- I.ualls, or use of any fencing material having exposed sharp points, or the installation of any fencing within an area dedicated as open space. The term "designated neighborhood area," as used in subsection (c)(3) of this Section, means a geographic portion of a hillside zoning district, as designated by the Planning Commission, consisting of not less than ten lots which are contiguous to each other. Lots which are separated only by a street shall be considered contiguous. If a petition for exemption is presented by owners of any lots shown on a recorded subdivision or tract map, the Planning Commission may, in its discretion, require that all of the lots shown on such map be included within the designated neighborhood area. Additional contiguous lots may be annexed to an existing designated neighborhood area upon application by the property owner and approval .by the Planning Director, based upon his determination that the additional lot has similar topography, visibility, or other features shared by the lots within the designated neighborhood area. (4) Wildlife trails. No fence shall unreasonably impede the movement of wildlife animals utilizing an established trail or migratory route which crosses the site. b> > barbed wir-e eF galvanized wir-e, shall be the teffain. Chain jinAE feneing shall be pefmived on!), fer-.Y-eer-eatienal eeuAs and shall similaf! hp, r-f;ler-ed in blend with the ieffain. Ne bar-bed wir-e b (mil Swimming Pool Fences within hillside districts. �'�'hen a fence already encompasses o� around the swimming pool may be enclosed with a fence provided the swimming Wool fence follows the contour of the pool with no more than ten feet of distance located between the fence and edge of water Swimming pool fences in the hillside district that do not meek this requirement shall be subject to a fence exception as described in code section L5- �.OgO. (h (#) The provisions of this Section shall not apply �to any property located within. and constituting a part of Tract 7763, as shown on the subdivision map thereof recorded in the office of the County Recorder. (Amended by Ord. 71.89 § 1, 1991; Ord. 71.98 § 4, 1991; Ord. 71.113 § 3, 1992) (i) Any property located within and constituting a part of Tracts 6526 and 6528 (Parker Ranch Subdivision), as shown on the subdivision map thereof recorded in the office of the County Recorder shall meet the regulations stipulated in Resolution FE -90 -001. 5 -2 .030 Fencing adjacent to commercial districts. The Community Development Director may issue a special permit to allow a solid fence or other type of fence permitted by this Article, €ene up to a maximum of eight feet in height where such fence is installed along a rear setback area or interior side setback area of a residential site which abuts a commercial 1 district. The Community Development Director may impose such conditions deemed appropriate to mitigate any visual or other adverse impacts of the fence, including, but not limited to, requirements with respect to the design and materials of the fence and landscape screening. Applications. for a special permit under this subsection shall be filed with the Community Development Director on such form as he shall prescribe, and shall be . accompanied by a processing fee. in such amount as established from time to time by the City Council. (Amended by Ord. 71.86 § 1, 1991; Ord. 71 -106 § 6, 1992; Ord. 245 § 2 (Att. A) (part), 2006) 1 {� 9-030 15-29.040 Fencing to mitigate noise from certain arterial streets. (a) For the purpose of noise mitigation, a solid fence, or other type of fence permitted by this Article exceeding the height otherwise prescribed in this Article as the limit.for such fence may be located within any.required setback area abutting Prospect Road, Saratoga/Sunnyvale. Road, Quito Road, the portion of Saratoga Avenue between Fruitvale Avenue and Lawrence, Expressway or the portion of Cox Avenue between Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road and Saratoga Avenue, upon the issuance by the Community Development Director of a fence permit and subject to the following provisions: (1) Where the fence .is located within an exterior side setback area or rear setback area abutting one of the arterial streets specified herein,.the fence shall not exceed eight feet in height at the property line; .plus one additional foot in height for each additional five feet of setback ,from the property line, up to a'maximum height of ten feet if the fence is still located within a required setback area. , (2) Where the fence is located within a front setback area abutting one of the. , arterial streets specified herein, the fence may be located no closer than ten feet from the front property line and shall not exceed eight feet in height, plus one additional foot in height for each additional five feet of setback from the front property line in excess of ten feet, up to a maximum height of ten feet if the fence is still located within the required front setback area. (3) Where a street line is located within a site, the location and setback of the fence as specified in subsections (a)(1) and (2) of this Section shall be determined by the street line rathtrr than the property line. (4)- The applicant shall landscape and permanently maintain an area parallel to and along the entire exterior• side of the fence facing the street, in accordance with a landscape. plan approved by the Community Development Director. All or any portion of such area may be located within the public right -of -way, subject to approval by the Community Development Director. The landscaped area required herein . shall be not. less than five feet in width, except-that where the available space between the fence. and the interior edge of the sidewalk, or the edge of the street pavement where no sidewalk exists,'is less than five feet, the Community Development Director may approve a- landscape area of not less than two feet. Prior to issuance of the fence permit, a landscape maintenance agreement shall be executed by the applicant and recorded in the office of the County Recorder, which agreement shall constitute a covenant running with the land. (5) The design of the fence shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Director, based upon a finding that the fence is compatible with existing or proposed structures on the site and upon neighboring properties. ,(6) No permit shall be issued if the Community Development Director finds that the fence will constitute a hazard for vehicular or pedestrian traffic or will otherwise be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. rt (b) Applications for a fence permit under this Section shall be filed with the Community Development Director on such form as he shall prescribe, and shall be accompanied by a processing fee in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council. (Amended by Ord. 71.110 § 2, 1992; Ord. 245.§ 2 (Att. A) (part), 2006) 15 29.04 !a-29.Q50 Fencing adjacent to scenic highways. In addition to the regulations set forth in Section 15- 29.010 of this Article, fences adjacent to State designated scenic highways shall comply with the following requirements: (a) Fence permit. No person shall construct any fence er-wall which faces and is located within one hundred feet from the right -of -way of a State designated scenic highway without first obtaining a fence permit from the Planning Director. Application for such permit shall be submitted to the Planning Director on such form as he shall prescribe, and shall be accompanied. by a processing fee in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council. (b) Setback. No fence or- wall shall be constructed within fifteen feet from the property line abutting the right -of -way of a scenic highway. The Planning Director may require this minimum setback to be increased to a maximum of one hundred feet. if he determines that such increased setback is necessary to preserve the scenic qualities of the highway. (c) Color, material and design. Fences er -walls adjacent to scenic highways may be constructed of wood, stone, stucco, masonry, wrought iron or similar material, but no chain link, plastic or wire fencing shall be permitted. The design, color and materials of the fence or wall shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director, based upon a finding that the fence or wall will not adversely affect the scenic qualities of the highway and will be compatible with the natural terrain. (d) Landscape screening. The applicant shall landscape and permanently maintain an area parallel to and along the entire length of the exterior side of the fence er- wall facing the scenic highway, in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Planning Director. Such landscape plan shall provide for the planting of trees and vegetation that are native to the area, fast growing, and require little or no maintenance. The Planning Director shall not approve the landscape plan unless he finds that the proposed landscaping will effectively screen the fence from public view and enhance the visual appearance of the scenic highway. Prior to issuance of the fence permit, a landscape maintenance agreement shall be executed by the applicant and recorded in the office of the County Recorder, which agreement shall constitute a covenant running with the land. (e) Height. The height of any fence er—all adjacent to a scenic highway shall comply with the regulations set forth in Section 15- 29.010 of this Article; provided, however, where the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that his property is subjected to greater noise impacts from the scenic highway as compared generally with other properties located adjacent to such highway, the Planning Director may approve a fence or wall not exceeding eight feet in height. As a condition of such approval, the Planning Director may require increased setbacks and landscaping to mitigate the visual impact of the higher fence or wall. s _ - .15* -29.050 15- 29.060 Barbed wire and electrified wire prohibited: No fence er- w11 constructed or installed within the City shall contain barbed or electrified wire unless approved by the Planning Commission, based upon a finding that the barbed or electrified wire is necessary for security purposes and that measures will be taken, when appropriate, to mitigate.any adverse impacts of such wire: , 44-22-9�. 15- 29.070 Fences adjacent to heritage lanes. In addition to the regulations set forth in Section 15- 29.010 of this.Article, fences adjacent to a designated heritage lane shall comply with the following requirements: .(a) Fence permit. No person shall construct any fence er-w; l which faces and is located within fifty feet from the right -of -way of a designated heritage lane, and which exceeds three feet in height, without first_. obtaining a fence permit from the Community Development' Director. Application for such permit shall be submitted and processed in the manner provided in Article 13 -20 of the City Code: If the Heritage Commission recommends issuance, the Community. Development Director shall issue the permit in accordance with those recommendations and any, condition related but not limited to the design standards set forth in subsections (c)',- (d); (e) and (f) of this Section and pursuant to the process prescribed in Article 13 -20. (b) Supporting data. The level of detail of the supporting data required by Section 13- 20.030 shall be determined by the Community Development Director to allow adequate rgview of the proposed fence ef wlall: (c) Setback. No fence er-�ll which exceeds three feet in height shall be constructed within the required setback area fronting a heritage lane. This minimum setback may be required to be increased to a maximum of fifty feet upon the finding that such increased setback is necessary to P reserve the historic qualities of the heritage lane. (d) Color, material and design. Fences or- :wall s adjacent to a the heritage lane may be constructed- of wood, stone, masonry, wrought iron or similar material. The design, color and materials of the fence of -wall shall be approved based upon a finding that the fence er Wall will not adversely affect the historic qualities of the lane and will be compatible with the design and materials of existing buildings on the site and structures on adjacent properties. (e) Height. The height of any fence er—A,all adjacent to th-e a heritage lane shall comply with the regulations set forth in Section 15= 29.010 of the City Code. (f) Landscaping. The" applicant shall landscape and maintain an area within the right -of -way, parallel to and along the entire length of the exterior side of a fence e}- -wall in excess of three feet in height and facing the; heritage lane, in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the r. a Community Development Director. Such landscape plan shall provide for the planting of trees and vegetation that are native to the area and require little or no maintenance. The landscape plan may be approved by the Community Development Director upon the finding that the proposed landscaping will effectively blend the fence. with its environment and enhance the visual appearance of the lane. (g) E*empt ion-. This Seefien shall iiet apply to a fenee lawfully eefistraeted prior- te ; and pr-evidd upon the destraetien 0 more than ene half ef the le—k15-1- ef sueh IIene&RfOM+iflg. . ,� 15-29.080 Fence Exceptions. (a) The owner(s) of a fence including any gates or pilasters attacbed tberetomay—regujul that the Planning Commission grant an exception to the regulations regarding fences. The Planning Commission may grant ibis exception if the following findings are made: (1) The subject fence will be compatible %N,ith other similar structures in the neighborhood: (2) The entirety of the subject fence will be constructed of materials that are of high qual y exhibit superior craftsmanship, and that are durable: . (3) The modification will not impair the integrity and cbaracter of the neighborhood in whjch the fence is located: (4) The granting of such modification %011 not be detrimental or injurious to the property, adjacent neigbbors or improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located: (b) A public hearing on the application for exception approval under tbjs Article shall be required Notice of the public bearing sball be given not less than ten days nor more than thirty days prior to the date of the hearing by mailing, postage prepaid to the appiicani and to all persons whose names appear on the latest available assessment roll of the Cou & as oMMM-9 property within five hundred feet of the boundaries of the site whicb is the subject of the application Notice of the public hearing shall also be published once in a n newspaper baying general circulation in the 013, not later than ten days prior to the date of the bearing. (c) A decision or determination made by the Planning Commission under this Article may be appealed to the City Council in accordance Nyith the procedure set forth in Article 15 -90 of this Chapter. 15-29.090 Existing Legal Non - Conforming Fences Hedges. Pilasters, Entry' %vay Trellises. Upon destruction or removal of more than one -half length of the legal non- contormjn portion of fences gates hedges pilasters, entrv-,vav trellises the element snail be constructed to meet height requirements as prescribed in this chapter or be approved by an. 0..exception process described in section 15- 29.080 of this chapter.