HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-12-2008 Planning Commission PacketMarch 12, 2008
CITY OF SARATOGA
REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION
NAMEvt' -�
ADDRESS I3�3� �► t ���
SUBJECT
i C�ss'� •�
AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE 3-12-61 TELEPHONE NO. z 9 — ,97� /3e4t1;'
TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT:
(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.
pAfomis and procedures speaker slips
CITY OF SARATOGA
REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION
NAME Adl�l
ADDRESS 14470 A p � .
SUBJECT_ Aardw r r,Ec 0V iG 4a� 01
AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE TELEPHONE NO.
TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: T D G
(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.
pAfomts and procedures\speaker slips
CITY OF SARATOGA
REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT�1/V 6Rn , r44,4&
AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE 3 ( TELEPHONE NO. _
TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT: ` "o IM
(Please read instructions on reverse side)
ANY PERSON DESUZING 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
ADDRESS
CITY OF SARATOGA
REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION
r�2�n S
I a,3 ',� q vl, -+q A rte % co U
SUBJECT 2 moles
AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE J a /o TELEPHONE NO. 7 C2 yG 0 �°
TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT:
(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.
I l lava L ` Robin B. Kennedy
Manatt, Phelps &Phillips, LLP
manatt I phelps I phillips Direct Dial: (650) 812 -1360
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 Gp,�0�`v
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Re: 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' and '
(2) the lack of any height restriction on fences, walls and hedges located outside setback
areas. To our dismay, despite letters from both our firm and our client individually, none of
our client's concerns were addressed at the January 23, 2008 Planning Commission meeting
(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.
Height Limitation Should Apply 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 I Washington, D.C.
20197915.2
manaff
manatt 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 appropriate) as "a series of trees or other natural
landscaping planted in a linear and uninterrupted pattern such that 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. Height Limitation Should Apply Regardless of Location on Property
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
manatt
manatt I phelps I phillips
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
March 7, 2008
Page 3
We appreciate your consideration of the above comments. If incorporated, the minor
suggestions we have offered will go a long way to protect the valued views — and quality of
life — of many Saratoga residents.
Respectfully submitted,
Robin B. Kennedy
RBK:ehs
cc: Client
Richard S. Taylor, Esq. (City Attorney)
Shwetta Bhatt (Associate Planner)
20197915.2
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
• STUDY SESSION AGENDA
DATE: Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 5:30 pm
PLACE: Administrative Conference Room located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE:. Adjourned Regular Meeting
ROLL CALL
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Pursuant to Government Code. 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March
6, 2008
Prepare for the March 19, 2008 joint meeting with the City Council.
The Study Session 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 meeting. During the
Study Session, 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.
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
proj ect.
Adjournment To Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Wednesday, March 12, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers /Civic Theater
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
•
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
9 AGENDA
DATE: Wednesday, March 12, 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:
MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 27, 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 March 6, 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 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.
P: \PC Agendas\2008 \031208.doc
DIRECTORS ITEM:
None
COMMISSION ITEMS:.
None
COMMUNICATIONS
None
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Wednesday, March 26, 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 March 6, 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.sarato aQ ca.us
If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to plan ning(i6aratogaxa.us
NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at
www.saratoga.ca.us
PAPC Agendas\2008 \031208.doc
MINUTES DRAFT,
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, February 27, 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, Rodgers and Zhao
Absent: Commissioner Nagpal
Staff: Director John Livingstone, City Arborist Kate Bear and Assistant City Attorney
Bill Parkin
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of February 13, 2008.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner
Zhao, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of
February 13, 2008, were adopted with edits to pages 3, 7 and 9. (5- 0 -1 -1;
Commissioners Nagpal was absent and Commissioner Cappello
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 February 21, 2008.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Chair Hlava announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by
filing 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
There were no Consent Calendar items.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2008 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
APPLICATION #APTR080001 (397 -08 -027) Kriens, 18940 Monte Vista Drive: The
applicant is appealing the denial of a tree removal permit application to remove six Blue Gum
Eucalyptus trees and requests a modification of conditions of approval plans for their project
to construct a new single - family residence and compound, allowing the replacement of the six
eucalyptus trees with new Oak, Redwood and Camphor trees equal to the appraised value of
the Eucalyptus trees.
Ms. Kate Bear, City Arborist, presented the staff report as follows:
• Reported that the applicant is appealing the denial of a Tree Removal Permit.
• Advised that the applicant has requested the removal of these trees because one of their
neighbors is afraid they will fall on their house as well as because they are messy. There
is also the concern that these trees may cause damage to a proposed new house on the
subject property.
Said that the value of these trees was originally over appraised and the correct appraised
value for these six Eucalyptus trees is $7,810.
• Informed that in the fall of 2007, several pines on the property died and were approved for
removal and replacement. At the same time, the applicant requested removal of these
Eucalyptus trees but was denied because the request did not meet the City's criteria. .
. Said that staff is recommending denial of this appeal for the following reasons:
o Consistent with the General Plan, the Design Review and Tree Removal processes are
used to. determine whether trees should be removed and emphasizes the retention of
healthy mature trees._ This is also consistent with. City Code 15- 50.080.
o Added that the trees are not in eminent danger of falling. They are not in the path of
utilities. They are in good health. They are not causing damage to structures on the
property. They appear to be structurally sound. The trees do not threaten damage to
the proposed new house.
o Said that the lot is flat so erosion is not a concern.
o Advised that there would be a significant impact on privacy if these trees were removed
and would leave a hole in the landscape.
o Assured that the landscape can accommodate Eucalyptus tress if they are maintained.
• Recommended that the Planning Commission approve a resolution denying removal of
these six Eucalyptus trees.
Commissioner Kundtz asked Arborist Kate Bear why the neighbor thinks they are in a
compromising position of having these Eucalyptus trees fall over.
Arborist Kate Bear replied that often people fear tall trees simply because they are tall.
Commissioner Rodgers asked Arborist.Kate Bear if the removal of the branch hanging over
the neighbor's driveway would threaten the health of that tree.
Arborist Kate Bear replied that removal of one branch should not threaten the health .of the
tree.
•
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2008 Page 3
Commissioner Rodgers advised for the record that she spoke with the site foreman. He said
that the tree is located just 10 feet away from the house.
Arborist Kate Bear said that 10 feet is close.
Chair Hlava said that she thought it was even closer than 10 feet per the stake on the site.
She added that she too spoke with the foreman on site and looked at the full sized plans.
Commissioner Zhao asked what was the original appraised value given.
Arborist Kate Bear replied that it was close to $80,000. She said that she inadvertently used
an incorrect value in calculating the appraised value and upon review she revised that figure.
Commissioner Kumar said that Tree #23 seems very close to the home. He asked about the
invasive nature of the roots.
Arborist Kate Bear advised that the roots could be moderately invasive.
Commissioner Kumar asked Arborist Kate Bear if the other trees are less of a concern.
Arborist Kate Bear explained that they are not close to the house but they are close to the
driveway. However, there is no damage evident on the driveway now although the trees have
been in place for a number of years.
Commissioner Zhao asked if the trees could still grow bigger and taller.
Arborist Kate Bear replied yes. They can get more than 65 feet in height and they are not that
tall yet.
Commissioner Zhao asked if the roots expand out as well.
Arborist Kate Bear agreed that they could grow to be very large. These trees are fast growing
with as much as three feet in growth each year.
Commissioner Rodgers said that for the record she also wanted to report that she spoke with
the gardener on site too. In his opinion, Eucalyptus trees are hard to maintain and are messy.
Arborist Kate Bear agreed that they are messy and shed a lot. However, she said that she
does not get to approve the removal of trees simply because they are messy. There are lots
of specific criteria to meet.
Commissioner Zhao asked if falling branches could be detrimental to the structure.
Arborist Kate Bear said it was possible.
Chair Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2008 Page 4
Mr. Scott Kriens, Applicant/Appellant:
Said that he and his wife, Joanne, are the owners of this property.
Distributed a packet that included pictures.
• Said. that he previously applied for a permit to remove and transplant a Live Oak tree on
their property, which has already occurred.
• Added that Arborist Kate Bear has been very helpful.
Explained that he would like to take.a 12 -inch Live Oak that has already been approved for
removal and instead bring in a crane to relocate and save that tree by placing it in place of
these Eucalyptus trees.
• Added that he would also plant a grove of Redwood and Camphor trees.
Assured that Redwoods are reasonably fast growing.
• Agreed that technically these Eucalyptus trees are not unhealthy but he outlined several
examples where people were killed by falling Eucalyptus trees, including a bicyclist in Los
Altos and another person in _San Diego.
Said that there are plenty of examples where they can and do fall. Additionally, they are
flammable and were a problem with the Oakland Hills fire.
ip Stated that Redwoods and Oaks were more appropriate and native trees than are the non-
native Eucalyptus tree.
• Said that it is appropriate to protect native trees.
• Asked.the Commission to consider his request.
• Read from a neighbor's letter, Les Pelio, who lives two doors down. Mr. Pelio strongly
supports the removal of these six Eucalyptus trees and he feels that Eucalyptus trees
should not be protected in Saratoga. He states that the Kriens have offered a viable
solution to. protect native trees.
Commissioner Rodgers said that she thinks that the recent relocation of the large Oak tree
results in an even better chance of survival than planting a new one. She disagreed with the
idea that Eucalyptus trees should not be protected, as there are lots of them so they seem to
be somewhat indigenous at this point.
Mr. Scott, Kriens said that the Eucalyptus is a'fine tree if you don't have to clean up after it. He
said he prefers other trees.
Commissioner Rodgers said that one hears the same complaints about Redwood trees.
Mr. Scott Kriens said he already has lots of Redwood trees on his current property and thinks
they are nice. There is no problem and no mess. They enjoy them.
Commissioner Rodgers asked the distance of Tree #23 from the proposed new house.
Mr. Scott Kriens said that the stake is at a 10 -foot distance from the. proposed building corner
so that tree is probably approximately 10 -feet away from the new house.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if the pad of the new house would be in the same location as
the former tennis court.
•
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2008 Page 5
Mr. Scott Kriens said probably.
Commissioner Kumar asked if Trees 32, 33 and 34 are the main issue? Are they close to the
neighbor's property?
Mr. Scott Kriens said that they are more concerned about Trees 22, 23 and 24 and their
immediate proximity to their home.
Commissioner Zhao said that Trees 26 and 27 appear to be pretty far from the structure. She
asked if they had considered retaining those two.
Mr. Scott Kriens said that the side setback is 30 feet. The other trees are between 20 and 30
feet away and 50 -feet tall.
Commissioner Zhao said that 30 feet is a pretty good distance.
Mr. Scott Kriens said he agreed that they are further. than Tree 23.
Mr. Rick Beam, Resident on Monte Vista Drive:
• Said that he is a neighbor.
• Explained that these trees were planted 40 years ago to screen the tennis courts from the
wind.
• Added that in his estimation they are closer, to 50 to 60 feet in height.
• Said that from his house he can only see trunk. The branches are 20 to 40 feet over the
property line.
• Said that it is not possible to plant under these trees. They are messy and drop Stuff on
the landscaping.
• Assured that he is not afraid of large trees and has 11 in his own front yard including
Redwoods and Cedars.
• Opined that a Eucalyptus is just a pile of trash.
• Explained that he worked at Stanford for 25 years as a contractor. They constantly have
Eucalyptus trees and /or branches falling over.
• Said that he worries about kids.
• Assured that in 40 years people will thank this Commission for this removal as these trees
are not native.
• Added that he would like to see them go.
• Recounted that the two previous owners also wanted to take them out but they moved
instead.
Mr. Pat O'Heran, Resident on Monte Vista Drive:
• Said that he is an across - the - street neighbor.
• Advised that he is here to ask the Planning Commission to support the Kriens' request to
remove these six Eucalyptus trees.
• Reported that he experienced a neighborhood fire and saw how these trees go up like
torches. He believes that they were a major contributor of the spread of that fire.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2008 Page 6
• Said that someone who wanted to harvest lumber brought Eucalyptus trees to California in
the 1800's from Australia. Lots of these trees were planted but they did not work out as a
source of lumber because they grew too crooked in the acidic soil to be cut as lumber.
• Said that these trees get bigger than 65 feet. They get huge.
• Added that to handle maintenance on such tall trees a crane must be brought in. This
represents a big burden.
• Said that he saw the plans for what the Kriens want to do. It is a better plan and will
improve the neighborhood.
• Thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak.
Mr. Scott Kriens advised that the neighbors directly across the street from him had to remove
a Eucalyptus tree that fell down.
Chair Hlava closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Commissioner Rodgers asked Arborist Kate Bear how issues such as wind, danger of
.crushing and fire danger fit into the Ordinance criteria.
Arborist Kate Bear said that Eucalyptus trees are known to pose a fire danger and that tall
trees do move a lot in the wind.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if that is a danger in itself.
Arborist. Kate Bear said that trees are intended to bend in the wind.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if that is part of the crushing danger.
Arborist.Kate Bear said there is a chance of branches breaking and falling in the wind but that
is not unique to Eucalyptus trees, although they are considered to have moderately weak
wood.
Commissioner Zhao asked Arborist Kate Bear if she has considered the relocation of Tree 1
as a viable alternative.
Arborist Kate Bear said that she is not generally a fan' of moving. trees but finds that these.
owners are very conscientious as demonstrated with the care they took when they moved
their larger Oak tree. _ She said that as a result she is confident that they can successfully
relocate this second smaller Oak tree too. She stated that she expects the tree to survive
where normally they will not due to their care..
Commissioner Rodgers asked if there is a trade off in value through this relocation of an Oak.
Arborist Kate Bear said yes.
Chair Hlava asked City Attorney Bill Parkin if the Commission has to treat this application on
an "all or nothing" basis.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2008 Page 7
Bill Parkin said no but that the Commission would have to provide some criteria
City Attorney p
for why some are allowed to be removed while others are not. .
Chair Hlava said that it is easy to say that Tree 23 meets the criteria for removal. as it is very
close to the house. She added that Trees 5 and 9. could also meet the criteria.
Commissioner Zhao apologized for not making the site visit. She said that Trees 32, 33 and
34 are at least 50 feet from any structure.
Chair Hlava:
• Agreed that while they are far from the new structure they are close to Mr. Beam's
property.
• Said that she can understand the reason for protecting Oaks and other indigenous trees
but less so for protecting Eucalyptus trees.
• Pointed out that all trees are not created equal in her mind at least.
• Stated that she has a hard time with Eucalyptus trees because they are so messy and
easy to drop branches or fall over.
• Said that it is easier to make the criteria for the removal of Eucalyptus trees because of
their proximity to the Beam's house. Therefore, she can make the findings .for the back
trees and Tree 23. It is harder to make them for Trees 26 and 27.
Commissioner Kumar said that Trees 26 and 27 are close to the new house.
Chair Hlava said not as close as Tree 23.
Commissioner Kumar said that if there are heavy winds there is the chance for falling
branches.
Commissioner Rodgers said that all criteria are supposed to be looked at together. She said
she would rather stick closely to the Ordinance and its criteria. She mentioned Criteria 8 that
states impacts to health, safety and welfare.
Chair Hlava:
• Said that Criteria 1 mentions proximity to existing or proposed structures.
• Pointed out that in this situation there is a whole landscape plan and a proposal to move a
more valuable tree.
• Reminded that staff agrees that the criteria for removal can be met for Trees 5 and 9.
• Added that it appears that findings can be made for four of the trees.
Commissioner Cappello asked which four.
Chair Hlava said Tree 23 and those at the back that are closer to the Beam property but it is
harder to apply the criteria to the other two.
Chair Rodgers:
• Reiterated that the arborist says that Tree 23 is close to the proposed structure.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2008
Page 8
• Added that by keeping Trees 26 and 27, it will avoid the creation of a hole in the
landscaping.
• Said that per the arborist they are not in danger of falling and the limbs hanging over the
Beam property could be trimmed off without damaging the tree.
• Stated that Trees 32, 33 and 34 pose no threat and have been there for more than 40
years.
• Advised that she hates to go against the Ordinance.
Pointed out that there is a street named after the Gum tree in the immediate area.
Chair Hlava asked Arborist Kate Bear if the other two trees are left in place at the back is
there room to transplant the Oak there.
Mr. Scott Kriens said that one couldn't plant an Oak under Eucalyptus trees. It won't do well
and it would not be worth the $10,000 cost to move it there.
Commissioner Rodgers said that she hadn't understood that the Oak was going. to be
relocated in the place of these three Eucalyptus trees.
Mr. Scott Kriens .said that this was the plan.
Commissioner Rodgers:
Said.that she is changing her mind with this information as she can live with the alternative
of retaining a protected Oak tree.
• Added that this does not mean that she is willing to say that Eucalyptus trees threaten the
health, safety and public welfare in this area.
• . Stated that because of exceptional circumstances she is willing-to go , along 'with the
removal of Trees 23, 26 and 27 with the transplantation of Tree 1 (Oak)•;but not the
removal of the other three Eucalyptus trees.
Commissioner Zhao said that she is fine with the removal of Trees 23, 26 and 27 and the
relocation of the Oak tree but is on the fence on the issue of Trees 32, 33 and 34.
Commissioner Cappello:
• Said he is in favor of removing Trees 23, 26 and 27 but does not agree that the other three
trees endangers the driveway.
• Pointed out that they have been there quite some .time and he cannot agree `to their
removal unless there are signs of damage in the future.
Commissioner Kumar:
• Said that Criteria 1 and 8 can be made in regards to posing a safety hazard.
• Added that Criteria 4 can be made with the replacement with Oak, Redwood and Camphor
trees.
• Said that Trees 23, 26 and 27 can be replaced.
• Stated that Trees 32, 33 and .34 are fairly close to the neighbor's property so he is all for
the removal of those trees also.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2008 Page 9
Pointed out that this applicant has been discrete in designing around the existing
pp 9 9
landscaping and has shown restraint. They looked at all alternatives before coming with
this request.
• Stated he would support upholding this appeal.
Commissioner Kundtz;
• Said that the Planning Commission is the voice of the community.
• Stated that he is against leveling all trees on a property and starting over but this is a
heavily landscaped lot already.
• Suggested that there is a consideration of eminent versus potential danger. The difference
between threatened damage versus no documented current damage, can be evaluated.
Stated his support of this appeal.
Commissioner Zhao asked Arborist Kate Bear what would replace Trees 32, 33 and 34.
Arborist Kate Bear said the applicant proposes five Redwood trees.
Chair Hlava pointed out that Redwoods are fast growing.
Commissioner Zhao asked Arborist Kate Bear if the replacement of three Eucalyptus trees
with five Redwood trees has merit.
Arborist Kate Bear:
• Said that she can argue both sides of that question so this is a tough question.
• Reiterated that these Eucalyptus trees have created no damage while Redwood trees can
cause damage within 15 years.
• Stated that Redwood trees are more attractive than Eucalyptus trees.
• Said that Redwoods are native while Eucalyptus trees are not.
• Added that Eucalyptus trees are drought tolerant while Redwoods are not.
• Said that she prefers Redwoods to Eucalyptus but in this case she prefers the Eucalyptus
trees that are already there.
Mr. Scott Kriens said that the existing Eucalyptus trees are on the property line. The five
replacement Redwoods would be located about 20 to 30 feet further from the driveway.
Chair Hlava asked staff how to incorporate the new landscape proposal into the resolution,
Director John Livingstone said that it could be incorporated as a condition of project approval.
He added that staff can prepare the resolution and wouldn't have to bring it back to the
Commission.
Chair Hlava asked if the motion should be for removal of all six or just three trees.
Commissioner Cappello said that as there is a majority of Commissioners supporting removal
of all six that should be the motion.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2008 Page 10
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Zhao, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz,
the ,Planning Commission upheld an appeal and overturned the denial of a
Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal of six Eucalyptus trees with the
provision of incorporating the applicant's proposed landscape plan into
the resolution to include the relocation of a 21 -inch Oak tree (Tree 1) to the
area where Trees 23, 26 and 27 will be removed and the replacement of
Trees 32, 33 and 34 with five Redwood trees, on property located at 18940
Monte Vista Drive, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz and Zhao
NOES: Cappello and Rodgers
ABSENT: Nagpal
ABSTAIN: None
DIRECTOR'S ITEMS
Director John Livingstone:.
• Advised that the River Ranch project has been appealed to Council for consideration on
March 25, 2008.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Chair Hlava advised that a General Plan /Housing Element workshop /luncheon is being held at
San Jose State University on March 5th. It is sponsored by San Jose Councilmembers. She
asked staff where the RFP process for the Housing Element was.
Director John Livingstone replied that the interview would be held on March 4th at 4:30 p.m.
Chair Hlava asked when the joint session with Council was set.
Director John Livingstone said March 19th
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no Communications Items.
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Upon motion of Commissioner , Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, Chair Hlava
adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:25 p.m.
MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:
Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk
•
•
•
Item 1
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No.: ZOA07 -0001; Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Subject: Regulations Related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Location: Citywide
Applicant: City of Saratoga
Staff Planner: Shweta Bhatt, Associate Planner
Meeting Date: March 12, 2008
Department Head: John F. Livingstone, AICP, Community Development Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Recommend the Planning Commission approve the Negative Declaration and recommend the fence
ordinance to the City Council.
REPORT SUMMARY:
On August 7, 2007 a study session was held to allow both the Planning Commission and general
public the opportunity to provide some initial input on the proposed ordinance. The Study Session
was published in the Saratoga News and the newspaper also ran a story about the proposed ordinance
and the study session. The Planning Commission discussed the updates and directed staff to prepare
a draft version of the ordinance with suggested amendments.
A follow -up study session was held on September 25, 2007, where the Planning Commission
provided additional comments. Subsequent to those comments staff prepared an Initial Study to
review the potential environmental impacts of the proposed changes. The comment period for the
environmental document took place between December 3, 2007 and January 3, 2008. 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. No comments have been
submitted that directly address the initial study and negative declaration, but staff received comments
directly related to the proposed updates.
The Planning Commission reviewed the updated version of the draft ordinance at a public hearing on
January 23, 2008 and provided direction to staff. Several items, such as chain link fencing and
fencing around flag lots were discussed, but a follow -up discussion to take place at this hearing.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Comments were submitted in preparation for the January 23, 2008 hearing. An additional letter has
been submitted regarding chain link fencing. Both correspondences have been attached to this report.
DISCUSSION:
Listed below are topics or issues that have been discussed during Planning Commission study sessions or have been brought up by members
of the public. Also listed is how the current draft addresses these issues.
Topic
Current Approach and
Planning Commission .
Prroposed "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. Some
retaining walls.
different ground levels will
language has been removed so
take place from the property
the section is consistent.
Page 2
Topic.
Current Approach and
Planning Commission
Proposed Changes
Ordinance
Problem
Discussion ;
Page Number
with the higher elevation point.
Public comment has been
submitted with respect to this
issue, suggesting that height be
measured from the property
with the lower elevation point.
Fence
Currently, any variation to code
At the January 23, 2008
The proposed update to the
10,11
Exception
regulations requires a variance.
hearing, the Commission
fence ordinance would
Variances are typically
removed finding #5 (adjacent
establish a fence exception
reserved for situations where a
neighbor support) from the
process that would allow
hardship exists.
proposed language and instead
property owners to request the
incorporated adjacent neighbor
Planning Commission approve
review to finding #4. There
a modification to regulations
was also discussion about
for a particular situation where
formal noticing and the appeal
a hardship may not exist, but
process.
where deviation from the code
is necessary. Language
regarding noticing and the
appeal process has been added.
Green Fences
The code currently does not
The Planning Commission has
A definition of hedges has been
1, 2
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
March 12, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting Page 3
J
:Top e.
Carrerit Approach and
Planning Commission a
ProposedCh ges
Ordin,anee
Problem .
Discussion .
Page Number:
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..
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.
pilasters, and similar items in
Language has been added
this triangle.
prohibiting gates, pilasters, and
similar items in this triangle.
Entry
Currently the code does not
The Planning Commission
Clarification regarding
2
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.
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 term "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.
page 11
require building permits, it is
March 12, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting Page 4
•
Topic
Current Approach- and
Planring' Commission
Proposed Changes
Ordinance
Problem
Discussion
Page:lNumber
difficult to determine when a
fence was legally established.
Materials
Currently, wire fencing (other
The Planning Commission
Language has been added to
5
Within
than chain link, barbed wire or
directed staff to add language
require any fence within the
Hillside
galvanized wire) with 4 -inch
in the update regarding
hillside district to be black or.
Districts
openings to allow for the
appropriate fencing material in
otherwise colored to blend with
passage of wildlife is
the hillside district at the
the surrounding terrain.
permitted. The code specifies
August 7, 2007 study session.
Wrought iron material has been
that the wire must be black or
added as an acceptable material
otherwise colored to blend with
as long as it also has the
the terrain. Chain link fencing
minimum 4 -inch openings
in the hillside district is
required for wire fences. The
currently permitted only for
regulation prohibiting chain
recreational courts.
link fencing in hillside districts
has not been removed.
Chain Link
Chain link fencing is
The Planning Commission
The regulation prohibiting
2,5
Fencing
commonly used in many areas
discussed this issue at the
chain link fencing hillside
Material
of the City, but is only
January 23, 2008 hearing and
districts has not been removed.
prohibited in the hillside
noted that chain link fencing is
Language has been added to
district.
not permitted in the hillside
prohibit chain link fences in
district due to wildlife. Since
other areas. Only chain link
there are areas of the City
fencing around recreational
where there may be hillside lots
courts is permitted.
not in the hillside district, chain
link fencing should be
permitted on lots that are larger
than 40,000 square feet.
March 12, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting
Page 5
Topic
:Current Approach and
Planning Commission
Proposed, Changes
Ordinance ' .
:Problem : ' '
Discussion
Page Number'
Public comment has been
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 deck
from the square footage
have no more than 10 -feet of
between the water line of the
maximum. Therefore, since
deck 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
5
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.
March 12, .2008 Planning Commission Meeting Page 6
Topic
Current Approach:and
Plannmg.:Commisslon ,,
Proposed Changes
Ordinance
Problem:"
Discussion " :.
Page "Number
Currently there is no
requirement for a minimum
distance in- between two fences
to be considered not enclosed.
Front Yard /
The City has numerous lots
The Commission directed that
The proposed language adds a
2,3
Side Yard
(i.e. flag lots) that do not have
the term "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 3 -foot
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 and a
adjacent lot. Where the
diagram to illustrate this
adjacent lot may be permitted a
section has been added.
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 -foot 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.
March 12, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting Page 7
Topic
::,....
Current Approach' and
:pro blem
iof
Planning Commission
:Discussion '
Proposed; .Changes ` '
Ordinance
Page'Numher
Parallel,
Public testimonywas received
The. Commission directed staff
The term "fences" has been
5
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 far retaining
walls.
Parker Ranch
The Parker Ranch subdivision
The Planning Commission did
The regulations describing
7
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.
March 12, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting Page 8
•
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 that 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 that are of high quality,
exhibit superior craftsmanship, and that are durable;
This finding ensures fences that require an exception to exhibit a high quality and
craftsmanship. 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 which
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;
This finding requires that in addition to considering impact to immediate neighbors, the
fence may not be detrimental to the property or general vicinity.
FENCE APPROVAL PROCESS:
The process for different types of fences is outlined in the code and is summarized below. The
Planning Commission may want to consider ways to streamline or simplify the various options.
Page 9
Reason for Request
Process
Approving Body
To construct a fence equal to or
None
None, however the fence still must
less than 6 -feet in height.
meet code requirements.
To construct a fence 6 -feet with
Building Permit
Staff (Building Official
2 -feet lattice.
To request a modification to the
Fence Exception Process, Possibly
Planning Commission and
regulations regarding fences,
Building.Permit
Staff (Building Official)
walls, and hedges.
To construct a fence adjacent to
Planning Review, Possibly Building
Staff (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, Staff
4,000 square -feet in the hillside
hillside districts, Possibly Building
(Building Official)
.district.
Permit
To construct a fence adjacent to
Requirements for fencing adjacent to
Staff (Community Development
an arterial street as defined in
certain arterial streets and fencing
Director and Building Official)
City Code Section 15- 29.030.
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
Staff (Community Development
State designated scenic highways.
scenic highways, Possibly Building
Director and Building Official)
Permit
To construct a fence adjacent to
Requirements for fencing adjacent to
Heritage Preservation Commission
or within 50 -feet from the right -
heritage lanes, Possibly Building Permit
and Staff (Community
of-way of a designated heritage
Development Director and
lane.
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 and diagrams.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
As directed.
March 12, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting Page 10
17�
1 •
. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Notice of this meeting was properly posted and published in the Saratoga News on February 27,
2008.
•
•
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance Language
2. Written Comments from Members of the Public
3. Negative Declaration and Initial Study
4. Resolution
March 12, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting Page 11
Attachment 1
•
'.7
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#rikeou ). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
Article 15 -06 DEFINITIONS
15- 06.261 Fence.
"Fence" means any structural device, other- than a wall of a building, forming a physical barrier
by means of glass, wood, masonry, metal, chain, brick, stake, plastic, concrete block, wrought
iron, wire. or other similar materials. A wall, other than a wall of a building and other than a
retaining wall, is considered a fence.
15- 06.341 Height of fences,, walls hedges.
"Height of fences, alls and hedges" means a vertical line from the highest point of the fence
(including lattice or similar material) wall or hedge to a point directly below at either the
natural grade or the finished grade, whichever such grade is lower. When -° ^ fence is eeast "
TaP °iii °�"YPiv.�i.i........) t... .. ... ... ...... ............... �.,.,. .,� ...., ..,t, ..,. » ..,. »...- -a ..... - .-- ----a---
retaining �� it the ,r r ° °^ *bed herein Where there are differences in grade between
rccccmrir�wscrrzarcrr ......,....: t.....,.....,
adjacent properties, the fence height is measured from the property 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
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.
15-06.xxx Retaining Wall. retaining wall means a structural device constructed and
erected to resist lateral pressure from earth or to retain soil.
Article 15 -29 FENCES AND HEDGES
15- 29.010 . General regulations for fences and hedges.
(a) Height restrictions in side and rear setback areas.
spee-ified -in this AAiele, no -ienee or- wall shall exe°cea -six feet in height-. A building 11grmiit
shall be required for any fence more than six feet in height. Height maximums and
permitted materials for fences and hedges shall be as follows:
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.; strikeeu t). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
(1) Solid fences or fences composed of material other than wrought iron, wire material .
nr chain link- Fxrent ac ntherwise cnecif -d in this Article_ nn fence within n cidt- nr
rear setback area shall exceed six feet in height, plus up to two feet of lattice (or
similar material) that is at least twenty -five percent open to the passage of light and
air. A solid fence taller than six feet shall not be permitted unless approved by the
Tanning Commission through the exception process detailed in 15- 29.080, or
approved by the Community Development Director pursuant to sections 15- 29.030
or 15- 29.040 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 (if the space between
openings is sufficient to allow the unobstructed passage a sphere having a
diameter of four inches) witbin a side or rear setback area shall exceed eight feet i
height• .
(3) Chain link fences: Chain link fencing in districts other than the hillside residential
district shall be permitted only for recreational courts as regulated in Section 15-
80.030(c) of this Chapter and shall be colored to blend with the terrain. No barbed
wire, galvanized wire. or electrified fencing shall be allowed except as permitted by
Section 15 -2%050 of this Article.
(4). Hedges: Except as otherwise specified in this article, the height requirements
prescribed in this subsection shall not apply to hedges.
(M Front setback area and exterior side setback area of reversed corner lots. No .fence 'or- ll
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) A fenee er- wall lav�ffilly.eensti:ueted piier- to Mar-eh 20, 1987, Fflay extend te a height not.
e 1;,, . feet, if �,, 1, Vie„ X11 1 °� net ° �° t., >, ,,.a , .,, pedestrian
° b .,
er- bieyele tr-affie and. dees, net ebstfuet the- safe aeeess te er- from adjaeent > >
however-, that the destfueti6iei —r-em a of mere ±a�xur�r-�one lime -e�i length of s e upen Aeneenfefffling fenee er- wall, any r-eplaeement fenee or- wall shall not exeeed dwee feet
in hei,-".-A.
(2) W Wrought iron entrance gates, designed with openings to permit visibility through the
same, may extend to a height not exceeding five feet.
4-3) Q Safety railings that are required by the Unifignn California Building Code shall be
excluded from-the height requirements of this Section.
(3) Pedestrian entryway elements, such as arbors and trellises, when attacbed to a fence
within the front setback area, may be permitted to a maximum height of eight feet. a
(4) Le Street intersections. No fence, wall -6 eempaet, hedge, retaining wa ntrvwav
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 that may obstruct the
visibility shall be located be outside this triangle.
(d) Flag lots and other lots where the front lot line is not adjacent to street and abutting
side or rear setback areas. Any lot where the front setback area, or a portion thereof. of
E
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.
the subject property: (D does not have street frontage as defined by City Code Section 15-
0 290• 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
and rear setback area shall 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
' l Rear setback area of
adjacent property
Portion of front
setback area of
subject property that I j
abuts rear setback 1
area of adjacent
property
(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 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 similar
element that may obstruct the visibility shall be located outside this triangle.
12'
3
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.
(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 ection 0-
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
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.
(d4 Recreational courts. Fencing around recreational courts shall comply with the regulations
� pY �
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, but in no case shall the
height of pilasters exceed eight feet. If a pilaster within the front setback area is attached
to a wrought iron entrance gate, the pilasters are permitted to a maximum height of seven
feet.
i (4) 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.
(i) Swimming -Pool Fences. Fences required' for swimming pools are governed by City
Code Section 16- 75.010 and 15- 29.020(h).
(k Retaining walls. No retaining wall shall exceed five feet in height. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, no retaining wail located in a front or exterior side setback area shall exceed three feet
in height.
M. . W—Un
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.
_ . - - -
MMON4160, W1111
15- 29.020 Fencing within the hillside districts.
In addition to the regulations set forth in Section 15- 29.010 of this Article, fences and A'a!!S
located within an HR or R -OS district shall comply with the following regulations:
(a) Solid fences or fences composed of material other than wrought iron, wire, or chain
link.
-Length of selid f pees and Solid fences and 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.
(b) Wrought iron or wire material fences: Except as otherwise specified in this article, no
fence composed of wrought iron material or wire material (if the space between openings is
sufficient to allow the unobstructed passage of a sphere having a diameter of four inched
within a side or rear setback area shall exceed eight feet in height and does not have a
limitation on length. The fence shall be black or otherwise colored to blend with the
terrain.
(c) Chain link material fences: Chain link fencing in the hillside district shall.be permitted
only for recreational courts as regulated in Section 15- 80.030(c) of this Chapter and shall
be colored to blend with the terrain. No barbed wire, galvanized wire, or electrified
r
fencing shall be allowed except as permitted by Section 15- 29.050 of this Article.
(d) Hedges: Except as otherwise specified in this article, the height requirements
prescribed in this subsection shall not apply to hedges
Oe (b)-Parallel retaining d walls. Parallel retaining walls shall be separated
by a horizontal distance of not less than five feet. Where two or more fenees e walls
are approximately parallel to each other and separated by a horizontal distance of thirty feet or
less, the combined height of such fenee&-erwalls shall not exceed ten feet.
(f (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 (excluding the area of any pool) 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 feet
or less at any point. , w-hieh appreval Approval from the Planning Commission to
encompass and enclose more than four thousand square feet may be granted in any of the
following cases:
5
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.
(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
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 a 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 a_ re 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,
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) -Wir-e fenees. Wire fieneng= other - than ehain - lirAE, bar-bed wir-e or- galvanized wk°, s
sphere hav�ng a diameter- of four- inehes and the ke is blaek or- ether-wise eelered to blend with.
be eeler-ed te blend with the teffain. Ne bar-bed wir-e feneing shall be allowed eme
(h) Swimming Pool Fences within hillside districts. When a fence already encompasses or
encloses more than four thousand square feet on a single site, and a swimming pool fence is
required for a swimming pool that is not located within the enclosure, an additional area
around the swim_ ming pool may be enclosed with a fence provided the swimming Pool
fence follows the contour of the pool with no more than ten feet of deck located between the
Cd
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#ikeeut). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
fence and edge of water Swimming pool fences in the hillside district that do not meet this
requirement shall be subject to a fence exception as described in code section 15- 29.080.
Q
i. (4) 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.
(fit) 15- 29.030 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, fenee 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)
1�- 2015- 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 ferice 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 rather than the
property line.
7
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., see, - t). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
(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.
(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 ''- X4015- 29.050 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 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 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 erw-alls 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 erwall facing the scenic
8
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., strikeew ). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
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 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.
V WO
WA M
F-1
L_A
1015- 29.060 Barbed wire and electrified wire prohibited.
No fence or- xA,all 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 Qr
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 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 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 or-A,a11.
9
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., strikeew t). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
(c) Setback. No fence er —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 eFwalls 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 ell 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 the 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 or- all 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.
(g) Ey'emptien:n. Tlhk �Pefien shall not apply te a fenee lawfully eenstraeted prior- to Septemb
16, 1992, if sueh fenee'does net er-eate a safety hazard for- vehieular, pedestfian or- bieyele tFaffie
i44his Seefie
that the Planning Commission grant an exception to the regulations regarding fences. The
Planning Commission may grant this exception if the following findings are made:
(1).The subject fence will be compatible with other similar structures in the
neighborhood•
(2) The entirety of the subject fence will be constructed of materials that are of high
quality, exhibit superior craftsmanship and that are durable•
(3) The modification will not impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood
in which the fence is located:
.(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:
(b) A public hearing on the application for exception approval under this Article shall be
required Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten days nor more than
10
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., stf+keE)u ). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
ithirty days prior to the date of the hearing by mailing, postage prepaid, ..a notice of the time
and place of the hearing to the applicant and to all persons whose names appear on the
latest available assessment roll of the County as owning property within five hundred feet
of the boundaries of the site which is the subject of the application. Notice of the public
hearing shall also be published once in a newspaper having general circulation in the Citv
not later than ten days prior to the date of the hearing.
•
(c) A decision 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. Entryway Trellises.
Upon destruction or removal of more than one -half length of the legal non- conforming
portion of fences, gates, hedges, pilasters, entryway trellises, the fence shall be constructed
to meet height requirements as prescribed in this chapter or be approved by an exception
process described in section 15- 29.010(b) of this chapter.
11
Attachment 2
•
Drew and Ellen Perkins
* 12329 Vista Arroyo Court
Saratoga, CA 95070
January 2, 2008
Shweta Bhatt
Associate Planner
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Shweta:
IPA
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
ever 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
Green Fence differ from a hedge? It seems that it is left as an exercise for a court to distinguish between
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
planned ". What does it mean to "consider" something like this? A law that says that "one should
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 directly with 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
Robin B. Kennedy
m1 1 1 a 1 1 a ft Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
manatt I phelps ) phillips Direct Dial: (650) 812 -1360 '
Direct Facsimile: (650) 213 -0280 �.
E- mail: RKennedy @manatt.com
January 3, 2008 0 a
q � `�� 640
l III
AN04LUb
Ms. Shweta Bhatt CITY OF SAnh VIL2N
Associate Planner COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Califomia 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 is to
provide this firm's comments and concerns regarding the proposed changes to Article 15 -06 and
Article 15 -29 of the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance.
The Project Description for the proposed update to the Municipal Code provides that one
of the goals as it relates to fences, walls and hedges is "to clarify ambiguous language, and areas
of the code that are currently difficult to enforce.." With all due respect, we believe that the
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.
.2.. 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 alternative
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: 650.812.1300 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.
20194548.2
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
solid up to eight feet in height. The Planning Commission (Community
Development Director) may approve a request from an owner and grant a building
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 district in
which the property is located.
(E) All adjacent property owner(s) 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.
20194548.2
man af
manatt,) 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
I upports of any kind. Green fences are exempt from the height requirements prescribed in 15 -..
29.010(x); provided, however, that a green -fence that, according to the nature of the particular
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- 29.0.10, which is
clearly to impose -a maximum boundary 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,"
"vegetation" and "other structure -be defined.
20194548.2
•
•
manatt
manatt I phelps I phillips
Ms. Shweta 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.
RBK:ehs
cc: Client
Richard S. Taylor, Esq. (City Attorney)
2019448.2
Sincerely,
Robin B. Kennedy
February. 14, 2oo8
City of Saratoga Staff
Attention: Shweta Bhatt; Planning
Cc: Jana Rinaldi; Code enforcement
Dear Ms Bhatt
v
nr � o�Lh
C<_F�G' `V
GoM�
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.
The primary clean up was undertaken to reduce the high fire danger and reveal the true
beauty 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 vinyl 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 was already in use by more than 50 % of the parcels of our adjoining neighbors;
having been installed by-them long before our arrival and with portions of it already on our
property 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.
In addition to feeling that we were proceeding in keeping with the existing standards and
Ifinances we undertook additional efforts to closely follow the existing rules by
istructing the fencing in such as manner as to also include a wide 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'ordinance
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
possible to the existing visually pleasing chain link fencing we have installed since it is what
has clearly been an 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.
*ve attached nine various photographs of our application so they may be evaluated and
sidered 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:
•
ve
. . . . . . . . . .
zt-Jllir
fr
r ry r t _ w '*i 1 C t✓ �
xJ. %l�rjiftJi� u z 1 f NIV
x L
a
PAPUA;
x.
4-1
SZ.j
T. t ;�I
7
•
•
Attachment 3
E
Regulations related to Fences,. Walls, and Hedges
Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001
Negative Declaration
CITY OF SARA
TOGA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMtNT DEPARTMENT
De.'cem: er 2007
•
•
Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Negative Declaration
December 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 pP J 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
Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Negative Declaration
December 2007
Review Period
All,comments regarding the correctness, completeness, or adequacy of this Initial Study
must be received by the Saratoga Planning Department, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, .
Saratoga, no later than 5:00 PM on January 03, 2008.
Executed at Saratoga, California this 3rd day of December, 2007.
Jo Livingstone, A
Co unity Development Director
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Page 3
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001
Environmental Checklist / Initial Study
[OR
Zoning Ordinance Update ZDA 07 -0001 Environmental Checklist /Initial Study
December 2007
1. Project Title
Update to code regulations pertaining to fences, walls, and hedges.
Application 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) 868 -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
Various - the code update will pertain to all properties within the City limits of the City of
Saratoga.
7. Zoning .
Various - the code update will pertain to all properties within the City limits of the City of
Saratoga. -
8. Description of Project- (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features, necessary for
its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary).
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
Page 2
Regulations related to Fences,_ Walls, and Hedges.
•
Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental Checklist /initial Study
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.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement).
None.
•
0 Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges Page 3
Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental Checklist /Initial Study
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.
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X I 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 effect on the .
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 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required..
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) 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
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is 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
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges
•
Aesthetics
Agricultural
Resources
Air.Qualit
Biological
Resources
Cultural Resources
Geolo /Soils
Hazards &
Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology /Water
Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Noise
Recreation
Po ulation/Housin
Trans ortation/Traffic
Utilities /Service
Mandatory Findings of
Systems
Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X I 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 effect on the .
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 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required..
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) 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
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is 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
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges
•
•
Update ZOA 07 -0001 Ordinance U
Zoning p
Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study
December 2007
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
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.
Shweta Bhatt, Project
J
m ity Development Director
12-71017
Date
It �277 /n-7
Date
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges Page 5
Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental Checklist /Initial Study
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
highway? X
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings? X
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views. in the X
area?
Discussion
The proposed ordinance would have a less than significant impact on a scenic vista. If a property
owner requests a fence exception for additional height, the Planning Commission will review the
project. One of several findings. required for approval require adjacent neighbor consent. This
requirement would address any concerns for views or a scenic vista from neighbors. If fencing is
proposed adjacent to trees, the City's tree ordinance requires the arborist review for any potential
impact. Review by the Heritage Preservation Commission is requited for fencing adjacent to
designated heritage lanes. Also, the code currently 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.
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Page 6
•
0
Zoning rdinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental Checklist /Initial Study
g December 2007
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with. Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
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
Agency, to non- agricultural use? X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? X
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use? X
Discussion:
The ordinance will not have an impact to agricultural resources, as it does not propose the
conversion of farmland to non - agri cultural use, and does not conflict with existing zoning or
existing Williamson Act contract.
Regulations related to Fences, [galls, and Hedges Page 7
Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001
Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study
: December 2007
Potentially 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
applicable air quality management or air pollution control district maybe relied upon to make
the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with. or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? X
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation? X
c) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project
region is - non- attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing r
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)? X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations? X
e).Create objectionable odors affecting
a substantial number of people? X
Discussion
The proposed ordinance will not have an impact on air quality. The ordinance will not affect
Saratoga's ability to comply with air quality plans, or violate air quality standards. Changing the
maximum allowable height for fences will not result in a considerable increase of a criteria
pollutant or expose receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The additional fencing
height will not create. objectionable odors to a substantial number of people.
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Page 8
•
•
Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001
Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study
December 2007
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 ?.
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?
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?
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges
M
X
X
Page 9
Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0007 Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study
Zo g December 2007
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant 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.
The ordinance will not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or federally protected
wetlands. A provision in the code currently requires fencing within the hillside districts to avoid
unreasonably impeding wildlife's ability to migrate through wildlife trails. No changes are
proposed to this section with this update and the proposed changes do not involve establishing
fencing such that is interferes with migratory routes. The ordinance will not conflict with the
City's tree ordinance, as City Arborist review is still required for construction of structures
within five feet of the canopy of an ordinance -size tree.
Page 10
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges
0 Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001
Environmental Checklist /Initial Study
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
resource as defined in '15064.5? X
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
formal 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 Page 11
Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental Checklist /Initial Study
December 2007
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
with
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
VI. 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
Geology Special Publication 42.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
iii) Seismic- related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
X
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 would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off -site
landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive . soil, as
X
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges Page 12
•
is
0 Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001
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
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available
for, the disposal of waste water?
Environmental Checklist /initial Study
December 2007
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
Discussion
The proposed changes to the ordinance will not result in exposure of known earthquake faults,
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.
9
0
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges Page 13
Zoning rdinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study
S December 2007 .10
. Potentially
Less Than Less Than No
Significant.
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
with
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
V11. 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
one- quarter mile of an existing or
X
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 environment?
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?
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Page 14
0 Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere - with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
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
wildlands?
Environmental Checklist /Initial Study
December 2007
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than. No
Significant Impact
Impact
X
X
X
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.
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges Page 15
Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental Checklist /Initial Study
December 1007
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges. Page 16
•
6
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project:
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 lowering of the local
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
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 . in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
X
d) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern' of the site or area,
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
off -site?
X
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges. Page 16
•
6
•
•
Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001
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?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade
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
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard
area structures which would impede or
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
dam?
D Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study
December 2007
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
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.
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges Page 17
Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001
Environmental Checklist IInitial Study
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
community conservation plan? X
Discussioi:
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
privacy and establish boundaries of properties. While the proposed changes would allow fences
to be taller than currently permitted by the code-and require a reduced height at driveway aprons,
it is not anticipated that a greater number of fences will be installed after adoption of the
ordinance.
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges Page 18
•
•
0 Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001
Potentially
Significant
Impact
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?
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?
Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study
December 2007
Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
with Impact .
Mitigation
Incorporation
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.
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges Page 19
Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental Checklist IInitial Study
December 2007
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
of other agencies?
b) Exposure of. persons to or generation
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels ?.
c)_ A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels. in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
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
excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
v
Page 20 0
. Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA. 07 -0001 Environmental Checklist 11nitial 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.
•
0 Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges Page 21
Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental Checklist /Initial Study
December 2007
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges Page 22
•
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
with
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
XII. 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
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
Discussion
The proposed changes to regulations related to fencing will not directly result in
an increased
population in the City or the region. The proposal does not involve the construction
of new
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
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?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
X
X
X
X
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 will also be required. to meet code
requirements related to fire protection.
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges Page 23
Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental Checklist /Initial Study
December 2007
Police Protection — The increased fence height that may result from the proposed ordinance will
not result in an increased need for police protection.
Schools — The ordinance as proposed will not directly result in additional development or an
increase in population. There will therefore be no impact in school enrollment.
Parks and Other Public Facilities - The changes to the current code requirements will not affect
regulations related to fencing at parks. There will be no change to park use or development as a
.direct result of this ordinance.
Regulations related to Fences,
Page 24
Walls, and Hedges
0 Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001
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?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Environmental Checklist /Initial Study
December 2007
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
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.
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges Page 25
Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental Checklist /Initial Study
December 2007
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Page 26
•
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
with
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
XV. TRANSPORTATION /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 or
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)? .
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Page 26
•
Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental Checklist /Initial Study
December 2007
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.
Regulations related to Fences, malls, and Hedges Page 27
Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental Checklist /Initial Study
December 2007
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporation
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater. treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
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
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction
of new storm. water drainage facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
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
commitments?
X
X
X
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges Page 28
•
Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001
f) Be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to.solid
waste?
Environmental Checklist /Initial Study
December 2007
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
.Mitigation
Incorporation
X.
X
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, Walls, and Hedges Page 29
Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001
Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study
December 2007
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
"
Incorporation
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE —
a) Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment; substantially 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) Does the project have impacts that
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
future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental .
effects which, will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
X
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges
Page 30
• 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 to be closer around
the perimeter of the pool, such that the area of enclosure is minimized and thus increasing
area for wildlife 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, fence
exception applications will be reviewed by the Planning Commission for compatibility
with the neighborhood, quality of materials proposed, and consent from neighbors within
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.
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges Page 31
Zoning Ordinance Update ZOA 07 -0001 Environmental Checklist /Initial Study •.
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
Page 32
Regulations related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges
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.
Article 15 -06 DEFINITIONS
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,
t the ,ufal �de the finished grade;
wall or hedge to a point directly below at ten. �� �-
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 with a higher elevation point.
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 three entry elements shall be permitted within a required
front setback area.. Entry elements include fountains birdbaths arbors, trellises, orother
similar garden elements that allow substantial passage of light and air. Entry elements
shall not exceed eight feet in height, five feet in width, and five feet in depth.
Mailbox.- One mailbox structure not exceeding five feet in height shall be permitted in the
front setback area Mailboxes proposed within City right -of -way 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 within a
side or rear setback area except as stipulated in subsection b of this code, shall exceed six
feet in height, plus up to two feet of lattice or other material other than lattice that is
subsection 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 shall
not be permitted A building permit shall be required for any fence or wall more than six
feet in height.
* ** OR
PC Study Session 092507
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 xceptions.
he owner of a fence wall or hedge may request that the Planning Commission (or
.Community Development Director) grant a modification to the height limit of side and rear
fences walls and hedges provided the height modification does not extend more ihan bwu
(2) feet above the height limit established in subsection 15-29,010(a) of this sectn ��.e
io
Planning Commission (Community Development Director) may grant this modification if
the following findings are made:
(1) The subject fence, wall, or hedge will be compatible with other similar structures
in the neighborhood;
(2) The subject fence will be completely constructed of materials that that are of
high quality, exhibit superior craftsmanship and that are durable;
(3) The modification will not impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood
-in which the fence wall or hedge is located.
(4) The granting of such modification will not be detrimental or injurious to the
property, or improvements in the general vicinity and district Ln which the
property is located;
(5) adjacent property owner(s) with shared or intersecting property lines shat
provide written agreement supporting the additional fence height.
The decision of the Planning Commission (Community Development n cto may be
appealed to the City Council (Planning Commission) in accordance with City Code Section
15-90,0 .
(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:
A-4flee �er- wall lawfully eens*ffueted prier te Mar-eh 20, 1987, ffia extend,te a4i_eighI-*e4
(1)
;
is b
flaijeelifefming fenee of wall, any replaeement-� er-wall shall not exeeed "ee feet in height.
(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
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
shove the established grade of the adjoining street.
PC Study
2
•
•
•
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.
priveway intersections No fence wall or compact bedge 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
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- 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
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.
Green Fences A green fence shall be defined as a series of trees or other natural
. 1_andscaning planted in a linear and uninterrupted pattern such that a boundary is created. '
The natural landscaping 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 property owner shall consider neighboring properties' impact to
views when such a fence is proposed and /or planted.
(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
Text to be added is indicated in bold double - underlined font (e.g., bold double- underli
deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., stfikeeu ). Text in standard font remains uncl
Swimming Pool Fences. Fences reaujred for swimming pools are gove
Section 16- 75.010._ Swimming pool fences are not subject to Planning De
if the fence follows the contour of the pool with no more than five fi
between the fence and the w. ter.
fled) and text to be
fanged.
Code
rn ed by City C e
partment approva
yet of deck located
(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 saW fence up to 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 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)
xisting Non- onforming Fencing.
Upon destruction or removal of more than one -half length_ of all non- conformingfences•
walls or hedges the fence wall or hedge shall be constructed to meet height reauirements
__ _ . • . . 1 1 L__ ___ ___... L -..� - .........nn ate[. i. N. ifAf� l� CAl.YIAn
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.
Materials and Color Any fence in the hillside districts shall be black or otherwise colored
to blend with the terrain Appropriate materials include wrought iron and wire fencing
that complies with 15- 29.020(el.
(b) Parallel fences and walls. Parallel fences and walls shall be separated by a horizontal distance
of not less than five feet. Where two. or 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
fences or.walls shall not exceed ten feet.
(c) 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 (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 subsection, shall mean to
surround such that a boundary is established where the linear distance between any two
points of discontinuation is fifteen feet or less. , whieh approval Approval from the
Planning Commission 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
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.
(f) 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
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.
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 s li 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 solid 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 art erial streets
li
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 fen_ ce 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 exterior side of the so fence facing the street, in accordance with a landscape plan
lid
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 solid 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-wW fence
will 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. 71.110 § 2, 1992; Ord. 245 § 2 (Att. A) (part), 2006)
PC Study Session 092507 6
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., strikeeu ). 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 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 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 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 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.
(f) Exemption. This Section shall not apply to a fence lawfully constructed prior to March 20,
1987, 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 further, that upon
the destruction or removal of more than one -half of the length of such nonconforming fence, any
PC Study Session 092507 7
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., strikeau ). 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 wire prohibited.
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 or
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 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 or wall.
(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 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 the heritage lane shall comply with the
regulations set forth.in Section 15- 29.010 of the City Code.
(fJ 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 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
IE
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., strikee,- ). 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 further, 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)
0..
�J
PC Study Session 092507
9
Attachment 4
'r
•
ILA
•
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, , forming a physical barrier
by means of glass, wood, masonry, metal, chain, brick, stake, plastic, concrete block. wrought
'row or other similar materials. A wall, other than a wall of a building and other than a •
retaining wall, is considered a fence.
15- 06.341 Height of fences hedges.
"Height of fences; walls and hedges" means a vertical line from the highest point of the fence
(including lattice or similar material), —ll or hedge to a point directly below at either the
natural grade or the finished grade, whichever such grade is lower. Where ^ f nee is eenstr,
upon, ef: ap r-eximately parallel to and within twe feet of the top of a r-etaining wall, the height ef
the fenee shall be the vei4ieal distanee fneasufed ffem the top of the fenee to the bettefa of the
r-etaming wall in the manner- pr-eser-ibed herein. Where there are differences in grade between
adjacent properties, the fence height is measured from the property with the higher grade.
1 2 ' lattice
6'fence
Property A
Property B
15- 06.xxx Hedge.
A hedge means a series of trees or other natural landscaping planted in a linear and
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.
15 06 xxx 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 FENCESES AND HEDGES
15- 29.010 . General regulations for fences and hedges.
(a) Height restrictions in side and rear setback areas. Genera r° ulatie . Exeept as et-he
r�
speeified in this Aftiele moo-= » shall exeeed qsizx °* ;,, ,, °j t_ A building mrmit
shall be required for any fence more than six feet in height. Height 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 materiah
or chain link: Except as otherwise specified in this Article, no fence within a side or
rear setback area shall exceed six feet in height, plus up to two feet of lattice (or
similar materiah that is at least twenty -five percent open to the passage of light and
air. 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
or 15- 29.040 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 (if the space between
openings is sufficient to allow the unobstructed passage of a sphere having —a
diameter of four inches) within a side or rear setback area shall exceed eight feet in
hei ht.
(3) Chain link fences: Chain link fencing in districts other than the hillside residential
district sball be permitted only for recreational courts as regulated in Section 15-
80 030(c) of this Chapter and shall be colored to blend with the terrain No barbed
wire, galvanized wire, or electrified fencing shall be allowed except as permitted by
Section 15- 29.050 of this Article.
(4) Hedges: Except as otherwise specified in this article, the height requirements
prescribed in this subsection shall not apply to hedges.
bM 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 er- 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:
(0 , may extend to a height net
feet, exeeeding six if sueh fenee of wall does not or-eate a safety hazard feF ' pedest
however-, that upon the destmetion or- removal of mer-e than e of the length of stleh
neneenfefming fi�nee or- wall, an), r-eplaeemen4 fenee or- wall shall not exeeed thfee feet in height-.
(2-) 1D Wrought iron entrance gates, designed with openings to permit visibility through the
same, may extend to a height not exceeding five feet.
(3) Q Safety railings that are required by the Unifefm 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 the front 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,
(d) (c Street intersections. No fence, wall ar eempaet, hedge, retaining wall, 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 that may obstruct tht .
visibility shall be located be outside this triangle.
(d) Flag lots and other lots where the front lot line is not adjacent to street and abutting
side or rear setback areas. Any lot where the front setback area, or a portion thereof, of
the subject property: (1) does not have street frontage as defined by City Code Section 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
0 and rear setback area shall be permitted within the front setback area of the subject
property where it abuts the side or rear setback area of an adjacent proper_
Rear setback area of
adjacent property
Portion of front
setback area of ._
subject property that
abuts rear setback
area of adjacent, I
property
(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 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 similar
element that may obstruct the vjsibility shall be located outside this triangle.
12'
(f) Vehicular Obstructions No fence hedge retaining wall, entryway element, or any other
similar element shall constitute an obstruct* on as provided for in City Code Section 10-
05.0 0.
•
C
•
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
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.
(4) Recreational courts. Fencing around recreational courts shall comply with the regulations
contained in Section 15- 80.030(c) of this Chapter.
h (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
height of pilasters exceed eight feet If a pilaster within the front setback area is attached
to a wrought iron entrance gate, the pilasters are permitted to a maximum height of seven
fee
(i (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.
(i) Swimming Pool Fences. Fences required for swimming pools are governed by City
Code Section 16- 75.010 and 15- 29.020(h).
Uk {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.
WROWN ~1111
15- 29.020 Fencing within the hillside districts.
In addition to the regulations. set forth in Section 15- 29.010 of this Article, fences a-ad walls
located within an HR or R -OS district shall comply with the following regulations:
(a) Solid fences or fences composed of material other than wrought iron, wire, or chain
link. =Leng4h.ef selid fenees and walk. 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.
(b) Wrought
iron or wire material fences:
Except as otherwise specified
in this article, no
fence composed
of wrought iron material or
wire material (if the space
between openings is
sufficient
to allow the unobstructed passage
of a sphere having a
diameter of four inches)
rrain.
(c) Chain link material fences: Chain link fencing in the hillside district shall be permitted
only for recreational courts as regulated in Section 15- 80.030(c) of this Chapter and shall
be colored to blend with the terrain No barbed wire galvanized wire or electrified
fencing shall be allowed except as permitted by Section 15- 29.050 of this Article.
(d) Hedges: Except as otherwise specified in this article, the height requirements
prescribed in' this subsection shall not apply to hedges.
Le O+Parallel retaining fiaiiees an walls. Parallel retaining s-a -walls shall be separated
by a horizontal distance of not less than five feet. Where two or more fenees eF retaining walls
are. approximately parallel to each other and separated by a horizontal distance of thirty feet or
less, the combined height of such feffees-fwalls 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 (excluding the area of any pool) unless approved by the
Planning Commission. "Encompass and enclose ", as used in this subsectio n. shall mean to
surround an area with a continuous fence or a fence that has a gap or opening of thirty feet
or less at any point. , whie appreval Approval 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 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
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 er-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.
(4) Wildlife trails. No fence shall unreasonably impede the movement of wildlife animals
utilizing an established trail or migratory route which crosses the site.
_
eers!t��nse�s�la.
_
ORION-WIN 1 11111 11111
h) Swimming Pool Fences within hillside districts. When a fence already encompasses o
encloses more than four thousand square feet on a single site, and a swjmmjng pool fence is
required for a swimming pool that is not located within the enclosure, an additional area
around the swimming pool may be enclosed with a fence, provided the swimming pool
fence follows the contour of the pool with no more than ten feet of deck located between the
fence and edge of water. Swimming pool fences in the hillside district that do not meet this
requirement shall be subject to a fence exception as described in code section 15- 29.080.
fl (4) 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) 0
(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.
(-h) 15- 29.030 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. €ewe 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)
*�_294-0 13-22.04Q 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
Arti le 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 rather than the
property line.
(4) The applicant shall landscae 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 o, f 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.
(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 29.040 15- 29.050 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 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 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 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 Of 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 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.
15 29A50 15- 29.060 Barbed wire and electrified wire prohibited.
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 or
electrified wire is necessary for security purposes and that measures will be taken, when.
appropriate, to mitigate any adverse impacts of such wire.
12°015- 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-wall which faces and is located within
f fty 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 or- wall.
(c) Setback. No fence er -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 or- walls adjacent to the heritage lane may be constructed
C
WIT
15 29A50 15- 29.060 Barbed wire and electrified wire prohibited.
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 or
electrified wire is necessary for security purposes and that measures will be taken, when.
appropriate, to mitigate any adverse impacts of such wire.
12°015- 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-wall which faces and is located within
f fty 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 or- wall.
(c) Setback. No fence er -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 or- walls adjacent to the heritage lane may be constructed
C
of wood, stone, masonry, wrought iron or similar material. The design, color and materials of the
fence ell 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 er- wall adjacent to the 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 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
landscaping will effectively blend the fence with its environment and enhance the visual
appearance of the lane.
(g) Exemption. This Seetien shall not apply to a fenee lawfufly eenstfueted prior- te September-
16, 1992, if stieh. fenee does not or-eate a safety hazard for- vehieular-, pedestrian or- bieyele tfaffie.
length g
in this aeetiA . (Or-d. 7 1.1 IQ § 1 1992; Or-d. 245 § 2 (n tt _ n) 2006)
15- 29.080 Fence Exceptions.
(a) The owner(s) of a fence, including any gates-or-pilasters attached thereto, may'reguest
that the Planning Commission grant an exception to the regulations regarding fences. The
Planning Commission may grant this exception if the following findings are made:
(1) The subject fence will be compatible with other similar structures in the
neighborhood•
(2) The entirety of the subject fence will be constructed of materials that are of high
quality, exhibit superior craftsmanship, and that are durable:
(3) The modification will not impair the integrity and character of the neighborhood
in which the fence is located:
(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:
(b) A public hearing on the application for exception approval under this Article shall be
required Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten days nor more than
thirty days prior to the date of the hearing by mailing, postage preuaid, a notice of the time
and place of the hearing to the applicant and to all persons whose names appear on the
latest available assessment roll of the County as owning property within five hundred feet
of the boundaries of the site which is the subiect of the application. Notice of the public
hearing shall also be published once in a newspaper having general circulation in the City
not later than ten days prior to the date of the hearing.
(c) A decision or determination made by the Planning Commission under this Article may
be annealed 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, Entryway Trellises.
Upon destruction or removal of more than one -half length of the legal non - conforming
portion of fences gates hedges pilasters entryway trellises the fence shall be constructed
to meet height requirements as prescribed in this chapter or be approved by an exception
process described in section 15- 29.010(b) of this chapter.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, March
12, 2008 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Joyce Hlava
Chair, Planning Commission
John F. Livingstone
Secretary to the Planning Commission
•