Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-07-2008 Fence Ordinance Joint Study SessionCALL MEETING TO ORDER 5:30P.M. COMMUNICATIONS FROM PUBLIC ADJOURNMENT AGENDA CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL JOINT STUDY SESSION CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 2008 SPECIAL MEETING 5:30P.M. SENIOR CENTER SAUNDERS ROOM 19655 ALLENDALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070 REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA (Pursuant to Gov't. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 29, 2008. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON AGENDIZED ITEMS Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three(3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff. Oral Communications Council Direction to Staff Instructions to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. 1. Fence Ordinance Study Session to Discuss Updates to Existing Regulations Regarding Fences, Walls, and Hedges. Recommended Action: Accept report regarding the Fence Ordinance and provide direction to staff. In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the City Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the office of the City Clerk at the time they are distributed to the City Council. 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). 1 Certificate of Posing of Agenda: 1, Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga was posted on September 29, 2008, at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at w ww.saratoga.ca.us Signed this 29` day of September 2008 at Saratoga, California. Ann Sullivan, CMC, Acting City Clerk DISCUSSION TOPICS: CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM TO: City Council and Planning Commission FROM: Shweta Bhatt, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: October 7, 2008 SUBJECT: Fence Ordinance Update Application ZOA 07 -0001 STUDY SESSION REQUIREMENTS: The Study Session is a fact finding meeting where the Council and 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 City Council and 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 Study Session by the City Council or Planning Commission are binding or required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on the proposed project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council review the current fence ordinance and provide input to Planning Commission and staff regarding updates. Overall Goals The overall goals for the update to regulations for fences, walls, and hedges include: to establish an exception process that would allow property owners to apply to exceed the maximum permitted fence height; and to clarify ambiguous language and areas of the code that are currently difficult to enforce. The Planning Commission has held several study sessions and public hearings regarding the implementation of these goals. Language to establish an exception process has been added and several ambiguities in current language have been clarified. A table itemizing the proposed changes has been attached to this staff report. Goals for Fencing with the Hillside District Fencing within hillside districts remains a topic of discussion. The language for the August 13, 2008 hearing was prepared as a result of the discussion regarding goals for fencing in the hillside district during study sessions on May 27, 2008 and July 8, 2008. The following goals were identified during these study sessions: Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session Memorandum 2 Zoning Ordinance Amendment 07 -0001 Fencing in the Hillside Residential (HR) District should: (1) Allow for wildlife movement by allowing: a. Split rail b. Three -foot high fencing c. Stone walls d. Openings in fencing Be aesthetically pleasing Provide security Identify property line Be cleared stipulated in the City's ordinance language (2) (3) (4) (5) Proposed language for the fence code thus increases the maximum permitted area of enclosure from 4,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet. Fencing outside this enclosure (i.e. to delineate property lines), would be permitted to a maximum height of 3 -feet and shall be split rail fencing, stone wall, or stucco. Discussion during August 13, 2008 hearing and for Study Session The Planning Commission discussed permitted areas of enclosure and types of uses to exclude from areas of enclosure during the August 13, 2008 public hearing. People who provided public input suggested that many hillside properties have vineyards, orchards, and other agricultural uses and that these items should not be included in the 6,000 square foot enclosure. Some commissioners added that recreational courts should not be included in the square footage total either since there are other limiting factors (such as topography and impervious coverage maximum). In summary, the discussion at the last hearing concluded with the following topics of discussion for this Study Session: Non compliance. Many properties within the hillside district do not comply with the current code regarding fencing. Proposed changes to the code may exacerbate non compliance. Area of Enclosure. Fencing surrounding vineyards, orchards, corrals, and other agricultural uses within the hillside district should not be counted towards the 6,000 square foot enclosure maximum. Some commissioners are of the opinion that recreational courts should not be included in the enclosure maximum either, however not all are in agreement with this idea. Rural Character of Hillside Residential areas. The fence code should protect the overall rural character of the hillside district. The hillside, trees, and other irreplaceable resources are reasons people move to the City. Slats in Chain Link Fencing. Slats should not be permitted in chain link fencing. Noise Mitigation. Noise mitigation for residential properties adjacent to or in the vicinity of commercial properties should be considered in the code. Properties Outside Hillside Residential Zones. Many properties in the City are not zoned HR, but have similar characteristics to hillside zoned properties in terms of topography, wildlife, and lot size. These properties do not have the same limitations for fencing as properties zoned HR. Front Yard Fencing. Many properties abutting streets such as Chester, Sobey Road, Peach Hill, and Montalvo Road have fencing within the front yard that are lo/n.i City Council and Plan COMMiSSion Eft Se ionn. lcmorandun: 3 Zoning Oijinance 4 11e]'dn r 07-0001 taller than 3 feet. Perhaps 3 feet is not tall enough for many of the fences in some of these neighborhoods. Consideration may need to be given for taller fences within the front of some properties. The Planning Commission and staff are requesting the City Council provide input and guidance regarding the update to the fence code, particularly as it relates to hillside properties. NOTICING AND PUBLIC OUTREACH: A number of noticing methods were used for this meeting and the code update: Newspaper A notice for this study session was published in the September 24, 2008 edition of the Saratoga News. Over the last year, the Saratoga News and the Mercury News have published several front -page stories regarding the code update. Press Release A press release was prepared for this study session. Signs in the Community Signs announcing this study session have also been installed on Prospect Road, Mt. Eden Road, and two locations on Pierce Road. Homeowner Associations A notice has been e- mailed to homeowner association representatives regarding this study session. City's Website The City's website has a page regarding the proposed update: http: /www. saratoga. ca.us /comdev /fencecode.html ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft update to regulations related to fences, walls, and hedges 2. Table suinmarizing proposed changes 3. Minutes from Planning Commission hearings (August 13, 2008, April 23, 2008, March 12, 2008, and January 23, 2008) 4. Public comment 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- 06.261 Fence. "Fence" means any structural device, forming a physical barrier by means of glass, wood, masonry, metal, chain, brick, stake, plastic, concrete block, wrought iron, wire, or other similar materials. A wall, other than a wall of a building or a retaining wall, is considered a fence. Property A 1- 1 15- 06.341 Height of fence s, walls anc hedges. "Height of fences, walls and hedges" means a vertical line from the highest point of the fence (including lattice or similar material), wall e e to a point directly below at either the natural grade or the finished grade, at the applicant's choice. whichever grade is lower. Where a fence is constructed upon, or approximately parallel to and within two feet of the top of a fence to the bottom of the retaining wall in the manner prescribed herein. Where there are differences in rade between ad_'acent s ro erties the fence hei ht is measured from the ro ert with the hi her rade exce t for street and drivewa intersections which shall comply with subsections 15- 29.010(e), (g), and (h). 2' lattice 6 fence Property B 15- 06.xxx Hedge. A lied. a means a series of trees or other natural Iandsca. in slanted in a linear and uninterruated eattern such that a boundar is created. The natural Iandsca.in' must be able to stand on its own and shall not require supports upon maturity. A hedge is not a fence. Except for requirements related to street and driveway intersections as noted in subsections 15- 29.010 e and h there are no limitations on the hei ht of hed es. 15- 06.xxx Height of retaining wall. "Hei ht of retainin wall" means a vertical line from the hi hest s oint of the retainin wall to a oint directly below at subsections 15- 29.010(e), (g), and (h). the lowest natural rade and which shall com 1 CURRENT (October 7, 2008 Study Session) lv with 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. 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 FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES 15- 29.010 Height restrictions. (a) General regulations.General regulation. Except as otherwise specified in this Article, no A building permit shall be required for any fence more than six feet in height. Height maximums and permitted materials for fences shall be as follows: (1) Solid fences. Except as otherwise specified in this Article, no solid fence shall exceed six feet in height. However, up to two feet of lattice (or similar material) that is at least twenty -five percent open to the passage of Light and air may be added to the top of a solid fence. A solid fence taller than six feet shall not be permitted unless approved by the Planning Commission through the exception process detailed in 15- 29.080, or approved by the Community Development Director pursuant to sections 15- 29.030, 15- 29.040, or 15- 29.050 of this Chapter. (2) Open fences. Except as otherwise specified in this Article, open fencing, such as wrought iron, wire material, split rail, chain Link, or other similar fencing shall not exceed eight feet in height. With the exception of chain link fencing, open fencing shall have openings sufficient to allow the unobstructed passage of a sphere having a diameter of four inches. (b) Front setback area. No fence located within any required front setback area shall exceed three feet in height. (c) and eExterior side setback area of reversed corner lots. No fence or wall located within any required exterior side setback area of a reversed corner lot shall exceed three feet in height. (d) Above height limitations do not apply to the following circumstances: Exceptions to these height limitations arc as follows: (1) A fence or wall lawfully constructed prior to March 20, 1987, may extend to a height not however, that upon the destruction or removal of more tha nonconforming fence or wall, any replacement fence or wall shall not exceed three feet in height. (2) (1) Wrought iron entrance gates within the front setback area, designed with openings to permit visibility through the same, may extend to a height not exceeding five feet, and shall be located a minimum of twenty feet from the edge of street pavement. (3) (2) Safety railings that are required by the Uniform California Building Code shall be excluded from the height requirements of this Section. (3) Pedestrian entryway elements, such as arbors and trellises, when attached to a fence within a front setback area or within an exterior side setback area, may be permitted to a maximum height of eight feet, a maximum width of five feet, and a maximum depth of five feet. (d) (e) Street intersections. No fence, wall or compact, hedge, retaining wall, entryway element, pilaster, gate, or other similar element located within a triangle having sides fifty 2 CURRENT (October 7, 2008 Study Session) 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. 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. Fla. lots and other lots where the front lot line is not adjacent to the street and abuts side or rear setback areas of adjacent lots. Any lot where the front setback area, or a portion thereof of the sub•ect .ro,ert :1 does not have street frontage as defined b Article 15 -06.29 abuts the side or rear setback area of an adjacent property, the maximum permitted fence height for side or rear setback area shall be permitted within the front setback area of the subject s ro s ert where it abuts the side or rear setback area of an adjacent s ro. erty Drivewa T Intersections. For sro'ects that re.uire desi'n review as sroyal eursuant to Articles 15 -45 and 15 -46 no fence hed e retainin or other similar element located within a trian le havin sides twelve feet in len th from either side of a driveway where it intersects with edge of pavement shall exceed three feet in hei ht above the established rade of the adoinin street. Ordinance size trees are not subject to this requirement. h Vehicular Obstructions j No fence hed e retainin wall entr wa element Property Line Edge of pavement ilaster ate wall entr wa 7 element or an 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. other similar element shall constitute an obstruction as provided for in City Code Section 10- 05.030. 3 CURRENT (October 7, 2008 Study Session) 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. .(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 sua face. (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 overcall 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. (j) 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 pilasters within the front setback area are attached to a wrought iron entrance gate, the pilasters are permitted to a maximum height of seven feet. (k) (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. 1 Swimmin Pool Fences. Fences re. uired for swimmin I ools are overned b City Code Section 16- 75.010 and 15- 29.020(e). (0) Retaining walls. No retaining wall shall exceed five feet in height. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no retaining wall located in a front or exterior side setback area shall exceed three feet in height. (h) Fencing adjacent to commercial districts. The Community Development Director may issue a special permit to allow a fence up to eight feet in height where such 15- 29.020 Fencing within hillside districts. to mitigate any visual or other adverse impacts of the fence, including, but not limited to, requirements with respect to the design and mate 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 accompaniedby a preecssing fee in such amount as established from time to time by the City Council. (Amended 4 CURRENT (October 7, 2008 Study Session) 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. In addition to the regulations set forth in Section 15- 29.010 of this Article, fences and wall, located within an HR or R -OS district shall comply with the following regulations: (e Area of Enclosure. Except for fencing which constitutes part of a corral, no fencing on a sin le site shall encom s ass or enclose an area in excess of six thousand s uare feet unless approved by the Plannin Commission. The fencin shall meet the re I uirements stipulated in 15- 29.010 of this Chapter. "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. b Fencin Outside Area of Enclosure. Exce t for fencin which constitutes s art of a corral or fencing required by the California Building Code for swimming pools, fencing outside the area of enclosure shall not exceed three feet in height, and shall be split rail fencing, stone wall, or stucco. visibility through the same, shall not have a length exceeding sixty feet, as viewed from any b 5 (h) Parallel retaining fences and walls. Parallel retaining walls shall be separated by a horizontal distance of not less than five feet. Where two or more fences or retaining walls are approximately parallel to each other and separated by a horizontal distance of thirty feet or less, the combined height of such rwalls shall not exceed ten feet. (d) Wildlife trails. No fence shall unreasonably impede the movement of wildlife animals utilizing an established trail or migratory route which crosses the site. (c) Ar 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 arca-in percent of thc designated ar Before granting such exemption, the Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on thc petition, with notice thereof sent by mail at 1 st ten days prior to the date of the hearing to all persons owning property located within the designated neighborhood arca and within five hundred feet from the boundaries of such arca. As a condition for granting an exemption, the Planning Commission may establish alternative rules concerning the enclosure of sites in the designate pertaining to the amount of enclosure, the design and type of fencing, and mitigation of visual 5 CURRENT (October 7, 2008 Study Session) 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. impacts; provided, however, in no event shall such rules pennit enclosure of more than sixty percent of the gross site arca, or the installation of any solid fences or walls, or use of any G VG dedicated as open space. The tern "designated neighborhood area," as used in subsection (c)(3) Planning Commission may, in its discretion, require that all of the lo lay—the Planning Director, based upon his detcm ination that the ad topography, visibility, or other features shared by the lots within t (e) —Wife fences. Wire fencing, other than chain link, barbed wire or galvanized wire, shall be by Section 15 29.050 of this Article. (e) Swimming Pool Fences within hillside districts. When a fence already encompasses or encloses more than six thousand square feet on a single site, and a swimming pool fence is required for a swimming pool that is not located within the area of enclosure as described in Article 15- 29.020 a an additional area around the swimmin' •ool may be enclosed with a fence, provided the swimming pool fence follows the contour of the pool with no more than ten feet of distance located between the fence and edge of water. (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 County Recorder. (Amended by Ord. 71.89 1, 1991; Ord. 71.98 4, 1991; Ord. 71.113 3, 1992) (g) Any property located within and constitutin a art 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 or successor amendments. (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. fence 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 6 CURRENT (October 7, 2008 Study Session) 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. district. The Community Development Director may impose such conditions deemed appropriate to mitigate any visual or other adverse impacts of the fence, including, but not limited to, requirements with respect to the design and materials of the fence and landscape screening. Applications for a special permit under this subsection shall be filed with the Community Development Director on such form as he shall prescribe, and shall be accompanied by a processing fee in such amount as established from time to time by the City Council. (Amended by Ord. 71.86 1, 1991; Ord. 71 -106 6, 1992; Ord. 245 2 (Att. A) (part), 2006) 15 29.030 15- 29.040 Fencing to mitigate noise from certain arterial streets. (a) For the purpose of noise mitigation, a solid fence, or other type of fence permitted by this Article, exceeding the height otherwise prescribed in this Article as the limit for such fence may be located within any required setback area abutting Prospect Road, Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road, Quito Road, the portion of Saratoga Avenue between Fruitvale Avenue and Lawrence Expressway or the portion of Cox Avenue between Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road and Saratoga Avenue, upon the issuance by the Community Development Director of a fence permit and subject to the following provisions: (1) Where the fence is located within an exterior side setback area or rear setback area abutting one of the arterial streets specified herein, the fence shall not exceed eight feet in height at the property line, plus one additional foot in height for each additional five feet of setback from the property line, up to a maximum height of ten feet if the fence is still located within a required setback area. (2) Where the fence is located within a front setback area abutting one of the arterial streets specified herein, the fence may be located no closer than ten feet from the front property line and shall not exceed eight feet in height, plus one additional foot in height for each additional five feet of setback from the front property line in excess of ten feet, up to a maximum height of ten feet if the fence is still located within the required front setback area. (3) Where a street line is located within a site, the location and setback of the fence as specified in subsections (a)(1) and (2) of this Section shall be determined by the street line rather than the property line. (4) The applicant shall landscape and permanently maintain an area parallel to and along the entire exterior side of the fence facing the street, in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Community Development Director. All or any portion of such area may be located within the public right -of -way, subject to approval by the Community Development Director. The landscaped area required herein shall be not less than five feet in width, except that where the available space between the fence and the interior edge of the sidewalk, or the edge of the street pavement where no sidewalk exists, is less than five feet, the Community Development Director may approve a landscape area of not less than two feet. Prior to issuance of the fence permit, a• landscape maintenance agreement shall be executed by the applicant and recorded in the office of the County Recorder, which agreement shall constitute a covenant running with the land. (5) The design of the fence shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Director, based upon a finding that the fence is compatible with existing or proposed structures on the site and upon neighboring properties. (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. 7 CURRENT (October 7, 2008 Study Session) 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., str -i,keo t). Text in standard font remains unchanged. (b) Applications for a fence peiniit 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 29.01015-29.050 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 er 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. 8 CURRENT (October 7, 2008 Study Session) 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. (f) Exemption. This Section shall not apply to a fenc 1987, if such fence does not cr to a safety hazard for vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic and does not obstruct the safe access to or from adjacent propertie-; the destruction or removal of more than one half of the length of such nonconforming fence, any •ennit requirement and restrictions specified in this Section. 15 29.050 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. 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 deternined 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 a 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 a heritage lane shall comply with the regulations set forth in Section 15- 29.010 of the City Code. (f) Landscaping. The applicant shall landscape and maintain an area within the right -of -way, parallel to and along the entire length of the exterior side of a fence or wall in excess of three feet in height and facing the heritage lane, in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the 9 CURRENT (October 7, 2008 Study Session) 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. 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. 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 15- 29.080 Fence Exceptions. (a) The owner(s) of a fence, including any gates or pilasters attached thereto, may request that the Planning Commission grant an exception to the regulations regarding fences. The Planning Commission may grant this exception if all of 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 the exception 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; and, (5) The granting of the exception will not create a safety hazard for vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic and does not obstruct the safe access to and from adjacent properties. (b)For exceptions proposed in the HR or R -OS districts, the Planning Commission may grant the exception if, in addition to the findings made in subsection (a), it also makes all of the following findings: (1) 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; and, (2) The fence does not unreasonably impede the movement of wildlife animals utilizing an established trail or migratory route which crosses the site; and, (3) In the event the exception is to increase the area of enclosure pursuant to Section 15- 29.020(d), the fence is required for safety reasons. (c) 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 prepaid, to the applicant and to all persons whose names appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County 10 CURRENT (October 7, 2008 Study Session) 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. as owning property within five hundred feet of the boundaries of the site which is the sub•ect of the a s lication. Notice of the s ublic hearin shall also be s ublished once in a s i rior to the date of news a a e er havin eneral circulation in the Cit not later than ten da the hearing. (d) A decision or determination made by the Planning Commission under this Article may be a s I ealed to the Cit Council in accordance with the s rocedure set forth in Article 15 -90 of this Chapter. 15 -2 .090 Existin Le al Non Conformin Fences Hed es Pilasters Entr iwa Trellises. Upon destruction or removal of more than one -half length of a legal non conforming portion of a fence, gate, pilaster, or entryway trellis, the element shall be constructed to meet hei ht re uirements as rescribed in this cha ter or be a s roved by an exce s tion rocess described in section 15- 29.080 of this cha s ter. 15- 80.030 Special rules for accessory uses and structures in residential districts. (c) Recreational courts. Subject to approval by the Community Development Director, recreational courts may be allowed, provided that such recreational courts shall comply with all of the following restrictions, standards and requirements: (1) The recreational court shall not exceed seven thousand two hundred square feet in area. (2) The recreational court shall not be illuminated by exterior lighting. (3) No direct opaque screening shall be utilized around any portion of the recreational court. (4) No fencing for a recreational court shall exceed ten feet in height. (5) No recreational court shall be located in a required front or side setback area. Such courts may be located within a required rear setback area, but no closer than fifteen feet from any property line. (6) The natural grade of the area to be covered by the recreational court shall not exceed an average slope of ten percent, unless a variance is granted pursuant to Article 15 -70 of this Chapter. (7) The recreational court shall be landscaped, in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Community Development Director, so as to create a complete landscaping buffer from adjoining properties within two years from installation. In addition, a bond, letter of credit or other security, in such amount as determined by the Community Development Director, shall be furnished to the City to guaranty the installation of the landscaping improvements in accordance with the approved landscaping plan. (8) The recreational court shall be designed and located to minimize adverse impacts upon trees, natural vegetation and topographical features and to avoid damage as a result of drainage, erosion or earth movement. (9) The recreational court shall be designed to preserve the open space qualities of hillsides, creeks, public paths, trails and rights -of -way on or in the vicinity of the site. 11 CURRENT (October 7, 2008 Study Session) Topic Current Approach and Problem Proposed Changes Definitions The code does not currently define hedges and does not distinguish walls from retaining walls. The regulations use the teens interchangeably throughout the subsection, requiring assumptions and interpretations. The definition of fence will include walls (other than walls of a building and retaining walls). Definitions for hedge and retaining wall have been added. Height Measurement Currently, fences are measured from the lower elevation points and include the height of any retaining walls. A property owner with the higher grade on one side of a property line is thus allowed a shorter fence than a property owner on the opposite side. Where, for example, a 4 -foot grade differential exists between two properties, a property owner with the higher elevation point is allowed only 2 -foot high fence if the maximum fence height is 6 -feet. The proposed language will measure fence height from the higher of two properties. Some language has been removed so the section is consistent. Retaining walls will be measured from the lower elevation of two properties and the 5 -foot maximum height for retaining walls has not been changed. Fence Height The code currently permits fences to a maximum of 6 -feet in height. However, it is common practice to have a 6 -foot tall fence with 2 -feet of lattice. These fences are not allowed by code, thus creating enforcement issues throughout the community. The proposed changes would allow a 6 -foot tall solid fence with an additional 2 -feet of lattice for a maximum of 8 -feet. The proposed changes would also allow fencing composed of wrought iron or wire to a maximum height of 8 -feet. Fence Exception Currently, any variation to code regulations requires a variance. Variances are reserved for situations where a hardship exists. The proposed update to the fence ordinance would establish a fence exception process that would allow property owners to request that the Planning Commission approve a modification to regulations for a particular situation where a hardship may not exist, but where deviation from the code is allowed. Green Fences The code currently does not regulate the height of trees or other natural landscaping, even when they are planted in a linear pattern and create a boundary similar to that of a fence. A definition of hedges has been added to the code in lieu of the terns "green fences," which is not used in the proposed language. The proposed language will exempt ,i%i t: ,'i� Council and Plannin 2 Corm S 7.0 n Study S(s wn Alclnmi"[,nth1111 ZC11in'% 02"u1ilClnCe ,4111enthn ul (j00 Page 1 Topic Current Approach and Problem Proposed Changes hedges from height restrictions, except for street and driveway intersections. Driveway Intersections The code currently does not limit the height of fences near driveway intersections. The proposed update will add a height requirement of 3 -feet for fences and other elements located within a 12- foot by 12 -foot triangle near driveway intersections for projects that trigger design review. Entry Elements Currently the code does not regulate the number or the size parameters of entry elements. The proposed language suggests a height maximum of 8 -feet, and a S- foot maximum for both width and depth. There are no limits on the number of entry elements. Existing Non- Conforming Fences Currently fences legally established prior to a particular date are exempt from some limitations within the code. Given that many fences do not require building permits, it is difficult to determine when a fence was legally established. Specific dates have been eliminated and the tern "legal" has been added to ensure that the section applies only to legally established fences. Removal of more than half of a legal fence or element will require the replacement structure to comply with code requirements or require review via a fence exception. Height and Materials Within Hillside Districts Currently, wire fencing (other than chain link, barbed wire or galvanized wire) with 4 -inch openings to allow for the passage of wildlife is permitted. The code specifies that the wire must be black or otherwise colored to blend with the terrain. Chain link fencing in the hillside district is currently prohibited except for recreational courts. The code has been modified to permit fencing that delineates the area of enclosure in hillside properties to be composed of the same materials and heights that are permitted elsewhere, including chain link. The height and materials for fencing outside the area of enclosure have also been specified. Area of Enclosure for Hillside Properties Currently, hillside properties are permitted a maximum of 4,000 square feet of enclosure. Common practice is to enclose an area that is larger, but a goal is to allow for the passage of wildlife. The code exempts recreational courts from the enclosure The code will be modified to permit a 6,000 square foot enclosure that may be fenced with the same material and maximum heights as stipulated elsewhere in the City. However, outside the area of enclosure, fencing must be no taller than 3 -feet and ✓(1111 City Council and Planning Commission SP1 {[f):Session Me /floranCfU1)7 Zoning (.)iYiinance, Amendment 07 .01)01 Page 2 Topic Current Approach and Problem Proposed Changes requirement, even though recreational courts are permitted to be as large as 7,200 square feet. consist only of split rail, stone, or stucco. Additionally, recreational courts are no longer exempt from the enclosure requirement. Chain Link Fencing Material Chain link fencing is commonly used in many areas of the City, but is only prohibited in the hillside district. The ordinance has been revised to allow chain link fencing in the hillside districts within the 6,000 square foot enclosure. Swimming Pool Fences (Building Regualtions) Chapter 16 (Building Regulations) of the City code regulates fences required around pools. This update will reference that section of the City code. Swimming Pool Fences (Hillside District Enclosures) The code currently limits the square footage of enclosure within the hillside district to 4,000 square feet, but exempts the area needed to fence a pool from the square footage maximum. Therefore, since the building code requires properties with a pool to be enclosed, a fence may surround the property and inadvertently enclose more than 4,000 square feet. The proposed language will require fencing for pools in hillside districts to follow the contour of the pool with no more than 10 -feet of distance between the water line of the pool and fence. Only properties that already have a 6,000- square foot enclosure for another purpose are subject to this requirement. Enclosure Maximum with Hillside Districts Currently there is no requirement for a minimum distance in- between two fences to be considered not enclosed. This update would add that a minimum linear distance of 30 -feet must exist between any two points of discontinuation. Front Yard Side Yard Fencing The City has numerous lots (i.e. flag lots) that do not have frontage on a street, but are still required to adhere to a 3 -foot maximum height for fences in the front setback area. This is particularly applicable when the front lot line of a lot abuts a side lot line of an adjacent lot. Where the adjacent lot may be permitted a fence that is 6 -foot solid with 2 -foot lattice, the subject property may be limited to a 3 -foot fence along the same property line. The proposed language adds a provision that allows the maximum fence height for a side yard or a rear yard be allowed within the front setback area of the lot that would otherwise be limited to 3 -feet in height. .)o,n t.iii C iicz ti 1 Mal.i ;in I C 01717nis 7 Me/170i s o :Slut/ SesStol" cillditin Zoning Ordinance :=?p;g1yi_?11P;:' %07- 0001 Page 3 Topic Current Approach and Problem Proposed Changes Solid 8 -foot Fence An 8 -foot fence or wall is currently permitted for certain arterial streets and for fencing adjacent to commercial properties. Since the proposed language would pennit 6 foot solid fence with 2 -foot lattice on other properties, language regarding the permitted 8 -foot solid fence needs to be clarified. The phrase "solid or other type of fence permitted by this Article" has been added to existing language for clarification. Parallel Fences and Walls Public testimony was received with respect to this issue at the January 23, 2008 hearing. The term "fences" has been removed from this section and the term "retaining walls" has been added. Parker Ranch The Parker Ranch subdivision has specific fencing requirements; however the code does not reference these regulations. The regulations describing Parker Ranch fencing requirements will be referenced in the proposed language. 71 .JO ?t1 T' City �..f >ilFlt'i/ <`117i1 Planning Commission Study Memorandum Zoning Ordinance ace ,1 ini ndme,u 0 0001 Page 4 MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Cappello called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: None Staff: Director John Livingstone, Contract Planner Heather Bradley, Associate Planner Shweta Bhatt and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of July 23, 2008. Motion: Upon motion and second, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of July 23, 2008, were adopted. (6- 0 -0 -1; Commissioner Rodgers 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 August 7, 2008. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Cappello 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). Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #ZOA07 -0001, Regulations Related to Fences, Walls and Hedges Negative Declaration: 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) change permitted fencing height and enclosure limitations in the hillside district; and 3) clarify ambiguous language and areas of the code that are currently difficult to enforce. Other related topics, including but not limited to, regulations regarding chain link fencing. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project will also be reviewed and discussed. (Shweta Bhatt) Ms. Shweta Bhatt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: Advised that the draft ordinance amends the regulations for fences, walls and hedges. Reminded that at the last study session, the Planning Commission recommended increasing the maximum allowed fenced enclosure area in Hillside Residential zoning from 4,000 to 6,000 square feet. Said that materials and heights are the same as non Hillside Residential zoning proposed including chain link fencing. Outside of the allowed 6,000 square foot fenced enclosure, only three -foot tall split rail fences or walls composed of stone or stucco would be permitted on Hillside zoned properties. Listed other changes proposed as including permitting a six -foot solid fence to have an additional two -feet of lattice; permitting open fences, such as wrought iron, chain link or wire material, to a maximum height of eight feet; adding height requirements to driveway sections; adding requirements for swimming pool fencing; and changing fencing requirements for flag lots. Informed that the proposed changes are summarized in the staff report and the proposed text of the ordinance can be found as Attachment 1. Added that input from community members are included as Attachment 3 and an email received late this afternoon was provided in hard copy tonight. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that one point raised in the email received late this afternoon was a suggestion to prohibit slats in chain link fences. She reminded that this had been addressed at one time and asked if it is dealt with in the draft ordinance. Planner Shweta Bhatt said that it is not explicitly included but could be added. As it reads now, open fencing has to have four -inch openings with the exception of chain link fencing. The Commission could add language to explicitly prohibit the use of slats. Commissioner Rodgers said that for now this email can simply be taken as public comment and go from there. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: Reported that there are a few minor revisions to the draft ordinance as follows: o Page 1, Section 15- 06.341 at the end of the provision, "except for street and driveway intersections as discu -ccd in which shall comply with subsections 15- 29,010 e, q h Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 7 o Page 2, top of page, same change in text as above. o Page 1, Section 15- 06.xxx recommend that it read as follows, "Height of retaining wall means a vertical line from the highest point of the retaining wall to a point directly below at the lowest natural grade." Everything else gets deleted until the last phrase that reads, "except for street and driveway intersections, which shall comply with Subsection 15- 29.010 e, g h." o Page 2, Item D "The above height limitations do not apply." Commissioner Hlava: Raised the issue of Section 15- 29.030 Fencing adjacent to commercial districts. Read the existing text, "The Community Development Director may impose restrictions deemed necessary to mitigate any visual or other..." Suggested that it be amended to read, "The Community Development Director may impose restrictions deemed necessary to mitigate any visual, noise, or other..." Pointed out that noise concerns are the reason why walls are necessary between commercial and residential uses and said that noise mitigation goals should be included somewhere. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the noticing done for this item particularly for residents in the Hillside zoning. She asked if the notice in the Saratoga News is the primary form of noticing. Director John Livingstone said that it is typically the Saratoga News that is used for noticing citywide impact items. He said that whenever possible, they also do a news release. He pointed out that in this particular case, there have been several articles in the Saratoga News. It is also included on the city's web page. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is a list of HOA's (homeowner associations) that include Hillside districts. Were any HOA's specifically noticed. Director John Livingstone replied no. Commissioner Kundtz said he wanted to compliment Planner Shweta Bhatt on her efforts, which he called tantamount to "herding cats" in order to get all the information together from numerous sessions. He thanked her for her work. Chair Cappello agreed. Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Bruce LaFountain, Resident on Pierce Road: Asked for verification that the ordinance, as written, limits height and materials of perimeter fencing in Hillside districts to a maximum of three feet except for split rail and stucco fence with openings. Stated that, with due respect to the work of the Commission, this is a flawed process to arrive to these proposed amendments. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 8 Said that, as proposed, this is a patchwork quilt of totally unfounded, inequitably ridiculous rule making that merely exacerbates beyond all reason a complex and complicated issue that has plagued the city for more than a decade. Continued that there have been on -going issues of fencing inequities that do not in any manner serve this community since 1998. Advised that his personal journey with this begin almost one year ago. In that time period, this Commission has vacillated between one extreme to another on this issue with no cohesive format or objective in mind other than to possibly get this off of your collective plates. Listed issues this Commission has alternately considered including height, materials, locations, colors, areas of enclosure, triangles of visibility, setbacks, perimeter placements, the rights of passage for wild animals, locations of swimming pools, tennis courts and almost anything one might consider appropriated for a major study on the issue except for one thing, the rights, needs and considerations of your affected fellow citizens who have forked over big bucks to pay for their private property. They continue to pay thousands of dollars annually in tax base to sustain this city. Asked if these taxpaying property owners have any rights. Is anyone on this Commission listening to anything aside from their own subjective opinions about how this grand waste of time impacts the peaceable and lawful rights of our citizenry? Declared that he cannot imagine how the Commission got this bogged down in their own rhetorical considerations. Stated that another bureaucratically created solution has been generated and named an exception process. Questioned why a citizen should have to come to explain themselves to the Commission or to the rest of the city. Opined that Saratoga is not a self- appointed park. Rather, it is a city, which includes private property and the rights and needs of the property owner taxpayers. Challenged that a large majority of citizens do not agree with these proposed actions. Chair Cappello advised Mr. Bruce LaFountain that his time has expired and he should wrap up his commentary. Mr. Bruce LaFountain said that given the small audience present he should be able to conclude his last page of comments. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Bruce LaFountain if he could be more specific as to what he is objecting to. Is it the limitation of allowable enclosed fenced area in Hillside zoning? Mr. Bruce LaFoutain said no, it is the issue of perimeter fencing and the restrictions imposed on Hillside zones. He said that these restrictions do not serve the interest of people who need a fence. Commissioner Nagpal asked Planner Shweta Bhatt to reiterate the proposed perimeter fencing requirements for Hillside zoning. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 9 Planner Shweta Bhatt said that currently gaps are required in solid fencing material. What is proposed is to take that requirement for gaps out and. in its place impose a three -foot height restriction. Commissioner Nagpal sought clarification that nothing greater than three feet is allowed. Planner Shweta Bhatt replied not outside of the area of enclosure. Commissioner Nagpal clarified that there is no gap restriction any longer. Planner Shweta Bhatt replied correct. Commissioner Nagpal asked about materials allowed. Planner Shweta Bhatt said that it is limited to split rail fencing, stone or stucco. Commissioner Kumar asked if all existing fencing is grandfathered. If so, when would an exception be necessary? Chair Cappello suggested holding off on this issue until the public comment period has concluded. Commissioner Rodgers thanked Mr. Bruce LaFountain for his participation in numerous meetings. She asked him if he would rather the ordinance be left as it is. Mr. Bruce LaFountain said he wants a fair assessment. Commissioner Hlava: Pointed out that the current regulations for Hillside fencing are not being followed. Stated that there are lots of properties with enclosures more than 4,000 square feet in size. o Added that the existing ordinance did not accomplish the original goal. Questioned whether more laws should be passed that no one follows. Mr. Bruce LaFountain said he wanted to prevent other owners in Saratoga from being surprised some day if someone were to complain about their existing fencing. Commissioner Hlava asked Mr. Bruce LaFountain what he thinks is the best thing to do about this issue. Mr. Bruce LaFountain said to create a guideline that is adhered to and followed. If not, leave it alone. Commissioner Hlava agreed that no one follows it anyway. Mr. Bruce LaFountain reminded that the city employs selective enforcement based upon complaint. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 10 Mr. Balu Balakrishnan, Resident on Villa Oaks: O Said that he was unaware of previous meetings on this issue. He is only here because he had an exception request earlier on this evening's agenda. O Stated that 6,000 square feet of enclosure area in the Hillside zoning is not enough. O Added that an exception process should be required for only a few, such as 10 percent, and not for 90 percent of all property owners. Asked that specific consideration of the needs for enclosing vineyards be incorporated into the ordinance. O Pointed out that a three -foot maximum height is not sufficient to protect vineyards from wild life. They will get over it. Suggested a specific arrangement based on lot area or agricultural situations. Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Kumar suggested a change to the section on noise mitigation, "...fencing to mitigate noise from arterial streets and /or commercial districts." Commissioner Rodgers asked the City Attorney for a suggestion on where to place this in the language. Commissioner Hlava agreed with Commissioner Kumar's recommendation, saying that where she had suggested placing this didn't make as much sense as this does. Commissioner Rodgers said that they might want to add Commercial District to the title of this section. Commissioner Hlava said that the intent is to mitigate noise so cement block is better than a wood fence to achieve that goal. Commissioner Rodgers reminded that one church recently requested fencing for noise mitigation. Commissioner Nagpal: O Said it may be necessary to allow noise mitigation fencing in Public Facilities zoning. O Said that she wished that they didn't have to deal with Hillside fencing. Added that she struggles with the 6,000 square foot enclosure since much of the existing fencing currently does not meet that standard. Said that this ordinance may go from bad to worse. Chair Cappello: Reminded that there are objectives for Hillside Residential zoning. Added that there is the desire for safety around the home itself, including a confined area for children to play as well as to keep wildlife out of certain areas. O Agreed that the current 4,000 square foot enclosure allowance is too small. Commissioner Nagpal: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 11 Said that if they were designing a community with nothing there yet, the ordinance would be easier to enact and enforce. Said that at the present time the city uses selective enforcement. If a neighbor calls a complaint in against you, the city enforces. Stated that the ordinance needs to be applicable to the Hillside zoning as it stands today. However, if 90 percent of the existing conditions do not comply, that is difficult. Expressed concern that so few Hillside zoned properties are represented in this process. Added that it is currently a no -win situation. Added that since there is non compliance with current regulations, would it not be the same with these revised regulations? Chair Cappello stressed that a key objective is the ability for wildlife to roam throughout the hillsides. The three -foot fence height limitation for perimeter fencing allows wildlife passage. Commissioner Nagpal said that perhaps instead of limiting the type and amount of fencing, an objective could be developed such as letting wildlife to pass unimpeded. Chair Cappello stated that no ordinance that reflects current situations could be written today, as conditions are currently a hodgepodge. He stressed the need to get where we want to be not where we are at now. Commissioner Nagpal reiterated that the area is already developed. Chair Cappello pointed out that as wood fencing deteriorates and needs to be replaced the current standards could be imposed. He agreed that it was a good point to have exceptions for situations such as vineyards. Commissioner Rodgers said that exceptions could also be considered for agricultural uses. She said that she had no problem with fencing around a vineyard. Commissioner Kumar said that standard allowances for vineyards, orchards and agricultural uses, including keeping horses, could be added to the ordinance. Commissioner Hlava said she agreed. She said that those three uses should not require an exception process but rather be called out in the ordinance itself. Commissioner Nagpal agreed. Commissioner Hlava: Said that she had always thought that the 4,000 square foot enclosure was too small and supported raising it to 6,000 square feet. Reminded that some had wanted to extend it to 8,000 square feet. Added that recreation courts are no longer exempt under the modified ordinance but she feels that they should remain exempt from enclosure restrictions. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the definition of Hillside zoning might not need to be changed. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 12 Commissioner Nagpal said that Hillside zoned properties are not always sloped. She said she is in favor of allowing sport courts to be fenced. Commissioner Zhao stated that the three -foot height limitation for perimeter fencing in the Hillside zoning district is too specific. Chair Cappello said that guidelines are not specific enough to be enforceable. Commissioner Zhao asked what if complaints are brought to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Nagpal suggested Design Review type of guidelines for fences. Commissioner Zhao said yes. They could be used to achieve objectives versus an ordinance. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this would be difficult to enforce. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that use of guidelines over regulations is more difficult to enforce. They are generally too broad. When they are less specific, it is more difficult to enforce. Commissioner Zhao asked about Design Review style guidelines. Commissioner Nagpal cautioned that the Commission does not want to have to consider every fence request. Commissioner Kundtz agreed that the agenda would be filled with these types of applications. Commissioner Zhao said she does not mean for a normal fence request. Commissioner Nagpal said some sort of enforcement mechanism is needed and not the Planning Commission. This occurs upon complaint. Commissioner Zhao supported more freedom for property owners. She said that the requirements are too specific, particularly the three -foot maximum height on perimeter fencing in the Hillside districts. Commissioner Nagpal: Reminded that the current ordinance did not effectively control fencing in the Hillside district. Added that the question is, how to make this ordinance reflect the values of the city including having a wildlife corridor; safety; protect vineyards; and still be a credible ordinance. Commissioner Zhao asked how many complaints are there. If there are not too many, why worry now? Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 13 Commissioner Kundtz: Said that he lives in the Hillside district. Advised that the eclectic mix of fencing now is unattractive. Said that even with just complaint- driven enforcement, the Code Enforcement staff is kept very busy. Also questioned, why have an ordinance if it is not going to be fully enforced? Chair Cappello: Said that he supports the rights of property owners but the rights of adjacent property owners must also be taken into consideration as well as the good of the community. Agreed that some fencing conditions can be considered an eyesore. Pointed out that the hillside is the gem of the city. Commissioner Rodgers: Said that the Hillside Specific Plan calls for the conservation of the rural character and its scenic resources. Added that the green hillsides are a community view. Stated that she does not want to see a community that is all walled in. Said that it appears that there are no complaints about existing hillside fencing conditions, Questioned why take the time to fix something if it is not broken? Director John Livingstone clarified that the city does receive fencing complaints both on Hillside and non Hillside zoned properties. Some get to the City Attorney level of enforcement. Commissioner Nagpal asked what kinds of enforcement issues are raised. Chair Cappello: Recounted that he had someone contact him who was furious with their neighbor's fence that blocked their view. Added that in that particular situation, Code Enforcement could not do anything about it. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the issues raised are height issues or the limitation to 4,000 square foot enclosures. Director John Livingstone replied that the complaints received are quite the "potpourri." They include enclosure issues; chain link fencing; heights; lattice in excess of maximum height, etc. He said that there have been a fair number of fence complaints. Chair Cappello said that a lot of time has been spent refining this ordinance update. He pointed out that often lattice is used on fences but that the current Code does not currently allow use of lattice. Commissioner Rodgers said that there is not much objection to lattice. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 14 Chair Cappello said that use of guidelines is subjective while code enforcement must be very black and white using specific code. Commissioner Zhao suggested using very generic and not so specific standards. Commissioner Kumar said that this draft is a good starting point. He agreed that a lot of time has been spent on it and there have been many iterations of it. It would prevent the occurrence where many different types of fencing meet up in one yard that creates an eyesore. Commissioner Nagpal said it appears the discussion is down to Hillside fencing issues. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the request via email that slats not be allowed in chain link fencing. Commissioner Nagpal said she agreed with that limitation. Chair Cappello suggested a straw poll on the outstanding issues to see where there is consensus. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the area of enclosure in Hillside zoning. She suggested that vineyards and agricultural uses be exempt from enclosure limitations. She asked if the majority also agrees about not counting sport courts. Chair Cappello asked for the straw vote on this issue. Commissioner Kundtz said he supports three of four, but not sports courts. Commissioner Hlava disagreed, saying that she does think sports courts should be enclosed without limitation. Director John Livingstone pointed out that site coverage limits in Hillside zoning is 15,000 square feet in coverage total. A typical tennis court requires approximately 7,200 square feet. On a Hillside zoned lot with a home, driveway and patio, in most cases a sport court could not also be accommodated in the lot coverage. Chair Cappello said that it appears that there is support for allowing additional fencing area for vineyards, orchards and other agricultural uses, including keeping horses. Director John Livingstone said that one must consider "what is a vineyard He suggested that data must be generated on what agricultural uses there currently are in the Hillside zoned areas. This will serve as a basis of where this provision is going. Chair Cappello asked how many vineyards are out there. He suggested that if it is just a few, those could be satisfied through the exception process. Commissioner Nagpal suggested having vineyard approvals done over the counter. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 15 Commissioner Hlava pointed out that the Hillside zoned areas used to be all agricultural uses. Chair Cappello agreed. He added that if it were a true vineyard, orchard or corral, this would not be a problem to approve. Commissioner Hlava said she wants to see these allowed without need for an exception. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that the current ordinance for Agricultural district zoning requires compliance with the City's Fence Ordinance. Commissioner Nagpal asked how many such zoned properties the City has. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said he was not sure but believes that there is not that many. Chair Cappello said that this appears to be unanimous but that further information is necessary. Commissioner Nagpal asked for feedback on enclosed area allowances in Hillside zones. Is there support for 4,000 square feet, 6,000 square feet or more? Commissioner Hlava said the minimum lot size in the Hillside zoning is two acres. Allowing just 6,000 square feet in enclosed fence area represents just 1113 of the parcel. She said she would rather support at least 8,000 square feet. She added that 10 percent of the specific lot size would not be excessive. Commissioner Nagpal supported establishing a percentage of lot standard taking topography into consideration. Commissioner Rodgers suggested considering only buildable area. Commissioner Kundtz said he is stuck on zero fenced areas on Hillside zoned properties. Commissioner Hlava supported a percentage of the total lot size. Commissioner Nagpal reminded that there are lots of estate homes on the Hillsides. Commissioner Kumar asked Commissioner Kundtz why he is so against any fencing on a Hillside zoned property. He said the perspective of a Hillside resident has value. Commissioner Kundtz replied that he finds it inconsistent to have fenced in yards with the notion of open space and rural nature and character. This is inconsistent with the Hillside zoning. Commissioner Hlava said that in Commissioner Kundtz' neighborhood there are no fences. However, if she lived on a busy road such as Pierce Road, she said she would want fencing like Mr. LaFountain does. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 16 Commissioner Rodgers said that the reasons people move to Saratoga are for the beautiful hillsides and wonderful trees. There is a need to preserve these natural resources. Commissioner Kundtz said that he does not understand someone who would move onto a Hillside property and be surprised that there is wildlife there. He reiterated that he struggles with allowing any fencing there. Commissioner Kumar said that new owners pay $3 to 4 million for a lot in the Hillside. Additionally, the demographics are changing in Saratoga. He pointed out that he would want a fenced backyard for his kids. Commissioner Rodgers cautioned that fenced in areas intended to protect pets at night does not guarantee their safety. Chair Cappello said that she makes a good point. He said that despite so many previous sessions, there is still no consensus on this one. Commissioner Hlava asked what is the process from here? Is there to be another study session? If so, she reiterated her suggestion for a 10 percent allowance over a set enclosure size. Commissioner Nagpal suggested that if there is to be another study session some additional and different noticing should be incorporated since not all residents get the Saratoga News. Chair Cappello asked for some suggestions. Commissioner Nagpal suggested notifying homeowner associations, particularly those serving Hillside zoned neighborhoods. She also suggested posting notices in the Hillside district. Commissioner Hlava suggested installing three signs, one at each side of Pierce Road and another on Mt. Eden Road. Commissioner Kundtz reminded how Public Works posted signs for one project. He said that this is not a bad idea. Commissioner Rodgers reminded of the noise mitigation issue raised by Commissioner Hlava. Chair Cappello said that per the straw poll there doesn't seem to be any objection to this suggestion. Commissioner Hlava said that the Fence Ordinance works fine in the flatlands. The concerns are more for Hillside zoning. Chair Cappello said that it looks like there are taller fences on larger lots. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 17 Commissioner Hlava said that those rules are not being changed here. She added that she thinks some of them look nice although not compliant, specifically along Sobey Road. Commissioner Nagpal said that Sobey Road, like Pierce Road, needs privacy from heavier traffic. Commissioner Hlava said that still there are existing fencing rules not being complied with. Chair Cappello said that that the consensus appears to be that the three -foot maximum height for front yards many not be appropriate for some areas. He suggested bringing that specific issue to the study session. Commissioner Nagpal agreed that this issue should be explored further. Commissioner Rodgers said that she does not know where to draw the line. Commissioner Nagpal said that if 90 percent of parcels don't meet the requirements imposed, the exception process would not deal with it. Commissioner Hlava suggested that each Commissioner drive around the community to see what is out there as far as existing fencing stock. Commissioner Rodgers said, "the only reason we got a man on the moon is because we froze the technology at some point." Commissioner Zhao said that although Commissioner Kundtz prefers to allow zero enclosed fencing in the Hillside zoning, she agrees with Commissioner Kumar's point that the demographics of the area are changing. Chair Cappello said that a study session is appropriate to allow further input. He suggested that a specific date be determined this evening. Commissioner Nagpal suggested it be pushed into Fall as some have complained that these hearings are happening during the summer when so many residents are traveling. Director John Livingstone suggested either September or October. Commissioner Kundtz suggested October 7 He reiterated his compliment to Planner Shweta Bhatt for her work on this ordinance, saying that she did a great job! Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission continued consideration of a zoning code amendment for regulations regarding fences walls and hedges to a study session to be held on October 7, 2008, at 5:30 p.m. at a location to be determined. (7 -0) Commissioner Nagpal asked what about some of the extra noticing suggestions. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of August 13, 2008 Page 18 Director John Livingstone said that they could work on the signs and notifying homeowner's associations. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Hlava advised that she is serving on a committee with Kathleen King in looking at the CH -2 Zoning District (in the Village). A meeting will take place on Monday, September 8, 2008, at a location to be determined. Commissioner Nagpal announced that one Village Economic Development Committee meeting has been held and a second one is pending (date to be determined). COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, Chair Cappello adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:51 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE DATE: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Hlava called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL ELECTION OF NEW CHAIR MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: None Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Shweta Bhatt and Assistant City Attorney Bill Parkin Commissioner Nagpal extended thanks to Chair Hlava for leading the Commission with humor and decorum and extending courtesy to the Commissioners and all who participated in the meetings. Commissioner Cappello pointed out that many difficult projects were considered and Chair Hlava's leadership helped in a tremendous way. Chair Hlava thanked the Commission. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission elected Commissioner Cappello to serve as Planning Commission Chair for the next year. (7 -0) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission elected Commissioner Zhao to serve as Planning Commission Vice Chair for the next year. (7 -0) Outgoing Chair Hlava turned the gavel over to Incoming Chair Cappello. Chair Cappello thanked the Commission for their vote of confidence and invited his family sitting in the audience to join him on the dais for a commemorative photograph. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 2008 Page 3 Director John Livingstone advised that due to an error in the notice for this item, it must be continued to the May 14, 2008, meeting. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission CONTINUED TO ITS MEETING OF MAY 14. 2008, consideration of a Tentative Parcel Map (Application SUB07- 0001) to subdivide a property at 19161 Cox Avenue into two residential Tots. (7 -0) PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION ZOA07 -0001 (City Wide): The Planning Commission will consider a draft ordinance that will update existing regulations regarding fences, walls and hedges. The draft ordinance proposes to: 1) establish an exception process that would allow property owners to exceed the maximum permitted fence height; 2) add fence height limitations around driveway aprons; and 3: clarify ambiguous language and areas of the code that are currently difficult to enforce. Other related topics, such as regulations regarding chain link fencing, an Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project will also be reviewed and discussed. Ms. Shweta Bhatt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: Reported that the changes to the ordinance that pertains to fences, walls and hedges has been considered at two study sessions and two previous public hearings. Added that an environmental review was prepared and no comments received. The community input received has been included in the packets. Reminded that at the last meeting two issues were determined to require further study. One was chain link fencing and the other issue was sight triangles around driveways. Clarified that the Hillside Specific Plan does not have mention of chain link fencing. Stated that the City's Traffic Engineer provided feedback on the issue of sight triangles for driveways and found that they represent an acceptable way to improve visibility. Said that as currently proposed, sight triangles would be required for new projects under Design Review applications. Gave a few corrections as follows: o Attachment 1, page 2, Subsection 3: Strike Hillside Residential and replace it with HR or R -OS. o Subsection C: Add "signs" after retaining wall. o Page 3, Subsection E: add, "or a sign permit per Section 15 -30." Commissioner Have: Pointed out a typo on Subsection 1 that requires the removal of the word "plus" as it was there twice over. Said that this Ordinance has undergone such a long process. Stated that this evening's staff report is so good. It is complicated but clear. Extended compliments to Planner Shweta Bhatt on her work. She did an excellent job. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 2008 Page 4 Commissioner Nagpal thanked Planner Shweta Bhatt for her research on Measure A. She asked if there is now a mechanism to apply for alternatives to a visibility triangle for driveways. Planner Shweta Bhatt said that the process is there now to go to the Traffic Safety Commission. Alternately, there is an exception process. Commissioner Rodgers also thanked Planner Shweta Bhatt for all of her research. She asked if the consideration of a visibility triangle for driveways would also apply to Administrative Design Review or just the Design Review that comes before this Commission. Planner Shweta Bhatt said that it would be for both Administrative and Public Hearing Design Reviews. Commissioner Rodgers pointed to the section on non conforming fences that states that if a non conforming fence must be half replaced, it must be brought into full compliance. She questioned whether this provision also covers illegal fences that might require repairs. Commissioner Zhao had questions about the 60 feet solid fence, 30 -foot break provision. Planner Shweta Bhatt said that solid fences have a limit of 60 feet in length before an opening of 30 feet in width is required after which another up to 60 foot length of solid fencing is allowed. Commissioner Zhao asked if this is only within the Hillside zoning district. Planner Shweta Bhatt replied correct. Commissioner Zhao said that she didn't realize that this provision applied to wood fencing. Commissioner Hlava said that it appears to repeat. Planner Shweta Bhatt replied correct. Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Bruce La Fountain, Resident on Pierce Road: Extended thanks to all of the members of the Commission for their hard work. This ordinance update has been going on for a long time. Stated that he appreciates the thoroughness and approach the Commission has taken and commends the Commission on how it conducts its politics. Added a commendation to Planner Shweta Bhatt. Thanked the Commission for visiting his site. Advised that he still has a problem with respect to the 30 -foot openings required between 60 -foot lengths of solid fencing. Said that this is a complex problem. Stated that he was careful to leave a wildlife trail with his fencing. Asked if this item would next go to Council. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 2008 Page 5 Chair Cappello said that the Commission would forward an approved ordinance for Council to consider. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that there would be another opportunity for public comment at that Council meeting. Mr. Bruce La Fountain said he appreciates the efforts. Commissioner Nagpal said the 60/30 standard didn't mean anything to her until she visited Mr. La Fountain's property. She asked Mr. Bruce La Fountain if he has any recommendation. Mr. Bruce La Fountain: Said that the enclosure area is set up so it is the least intrusive while offering security and enhancement of a property. Stated that a 4,000 square foot maximum enclosure is not very big. It is a rather small area and would look odd being just a square particularly on a larger parcel. Said that people go to great lengths to obscure their fencing. Commissioner Zhao asked Mr. Bruce La Fountain what he feels is more appropriate for the Hillside. Mr. Bruce La Fountain said that as long as it accommodates wildlife flow and continuity of the surrounding area and neighbors. It should be nothing obtrusive. Commissioner Kumar asked what is the primary reason to enclose an entire property. Mr. Bruce La Fountain said security and wildlife flow. Commissioner Kumar said that if everyone in the Hillside district encloses his or her property, how would it impact wildlife. Mr. Bruce La Fountain: Said that it is no problem. Wildlife adapts. Added that wildlife usually live and migrate in the upper hills. Added that most people in the Hillside go to great lengths to not restrict wildlife flow. Congratulated the newly appointed officers of this Commission. Ms. Holly Davies, Resident on Oak Place: Thanked the Commission for their site visit at her home yesterday and for considering the impact the proposed changes might have had on her area. Said that she supports allowing hedges to be kept higher. Added that she also supports the inclusion of a two -foot high lattice on fences. Commissioner Hlava asked about the limitation on entryway elements. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 2008 Page 6 Planner Shweta Bhatt said the bottom of page 2 but added that the limit on number of elements has been removed. Commissioner Nagpal clarified that hedges are not considered fences. Planner Shweta Bhatt replied correct, hedges are not regulated under the current draft. Director John Livingstone said that there might be an issue regarding arbors /trellis that are attached to a fence versus freestanding. Commissioner Nagpal suggested removing the text, "when attached to a fence." Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Hlava: Stated that the use of chain link fencing within the Hillside zoning district raises the question as to the purpose of language to not allow huge long walls. Added that wrought iron would be allowed all around. Said that black clad chain link is more like wrought iron than a solid fence. Commissioner Rodgers said that with the four -inch spacing on a wrought iron fence, more wildlife movement is possible than would be with the smaller spaced chain link fencing opening. Commissioner Hlava: Stated that there are huge homes on huge lots on the Hillside. Added that she can understand why they would want to have their property enclosed for security. Pointed out that Mr. La Fountain has left a trail for wildlife. Commissioner Nagpal: Suggested that the first discussion should be if it is still reasonable for the Hillside. Said that the second question is what are appropriate types of fencing. Added that the third consideration is the exception process. Pointed out that regulations are written for what most can live with. Commissioner Hlava said that it is also important to look at what is already there. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is the impression that the 4,000 square foot enclosure standard is not being complied with. Commissioner Rodgers asked why it is important for the Commission's consideration that some people have not complied with the existing requirements. Chair Cappello said that the 4,000 square foot standard may be too limited and perhaps an adjustment is warranted. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 2008 Page 7 Commissioner Nagpal said it appears that the Hillside is not about enclosed areas but rather appears to remain open. Commissioner Hlava said that as these lots are so big, one does not see the fencing in place. Commissioner Nagpal said she is fine with fencing as long as the required openings are in place. Chair Cappello pointed out that a split rail type of fence would be possible that could easily allow wildlife passage through. Commissioner Zhao sought clarification that fencing of 60 feet in length with a gap of less than 30 feet is currently considered an enclosure. Director John Livingstone said that it is staff's interpretation that the same fencing product used continuously is an enclosure. Chair Cappello stated that his assumption is that fence that does not prevent wildlife from passing through could be continuous. Commissioner Nagpal said that the enclosure would still require gaps. Director John Livingstone: Said that an area of enclosure would offer complete and full security with no gaps at all. Added that enclosures are allowed and generally desired by property owners to secure children, pets or a pool. It represents a solid fenced enclosure that is continuous with no breaks. Advised that in the past a six -inch gap meant that it was not enclosed. What the ordinance is trying to clarify is the need for a gap of at least 30 -feet in width. Commissioner Kumar asked for a historic perspective of the standard for 4,000 square feet of fenced enclosure. Director John Livingstone: Directed the Commission's attention to the diagram prepared by Planner Shweta Bhatt. Explained that the Building Code requires a five-foot high fence around a pool and /or pond with water of a certain depth. Added that under the Fence Ordinance, one can have a pool enclosure in one area of the yard and a separate fenced enclosure elsewhere on the property. Said that the pool fencing is exempt up to 10 feet around a pool and doesn't count against the 4,000 square foot limitation. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the Commission might want to look at that 4,000 square foot standard. Commissioner Zhao asked for more information on how that 4,000 square foot standard was determined. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 2008 Page 8 Commissioner Hlava said that it originated with the Hillside Specific Plan. It was thought at the time that people didn't want the Hillside to be so enclosed. That was 20 years ago when homes might be 2,500 square foot. Today the homes are larger. Commissioner Nagpal stressed the need to maintain an open and natural environment in the Hillside district. She pointed out that the City has not had people from the Hillside asking for a change from the 4,000 square foot standard. Commissioner Hlava: Said that owners just do what they want including constructing fences with boards and chicken wire. Stated that no one is paying attention and we don't enforce. If not, what's the point. Pointed out that these are big elaborate houses with valuable stuff in them. She can see why people want security. Added that the reason why it appears so open is that these lots are so big. Cautioned that if the ordinance is suddenly enforced, the City will be inundated with lots of fence exception requests. That is not good government to adopt Codes that are not enforced. Commissioner Nagpal asked Commissioner Hlava if she has any suggestions. Commissioner Hlava said she did not know but thought that some higher number or other way to handle it. Reminded that Ms. Davies has chain link in her front yard but it is not visible as it is completely screened by landscaping. Chair Cappello suggested addressing the 4,000 square foot enclosure requirement first. Is it appropriate or not? Does it require adjustment? He said that the intent of the enclosed area is to give an area of security inside a confined area. Commissioner Hlava said that Hillside homes are built into the contours of the hillside and are often barely visible. Commissioner Rodgers: Stated that fences define a community. Added that the Hillside district is a different community from the rest of Saratoga. Said that what they have to recognize is the green nature of the hillside. Suggested that the purpose of a fence and aesthetics of a fence are two different things completely. One is for keeping things in (including kids or pets) or out (wild life and /or humans). Stressed the need to look for free movement of wildlife and not just a trail. Added that there are lots of opportunities for providing security on a property. Said that way of life must be protected. The aesthetics require that the location of the 4,000 square foot enclosure be invisible from the street. Cautioned that a fence painted green is not a green fence. Added that if a black chain link fence is permitted, it would be without the slats installed. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 2008 Page 9 Agreed that deer would jump a chain link fence and raccoons and skunks can get through pretty small places. Reiterated that the purpose of this ordinance is the aesthetics and sense of the community. Commissioner Nagpal asked Commissioner Rodgers her thoughts on the current 4,000 square foot maximum enclosed fenced area. Commissioner Rodgers: Said that she might support raising that limit to 5,000 square feet to match the larger homes of today. Added that the fact that people ignore rules is irrelevant. Stressed that the Commission needs to make its Ordinance decisions based on what we want for Saratoga. Reminded that enforcement is complaint based. Commissioner Zhao: Agreed that some Hillside residents value open spaces but cautioned that others want enclosures for security purposes. Suggested that owners should be given options /rights to do so. Said that to her the 4,000 square standard is very limiting. Stated that it should be rethought altogether and /or increased. Questioned what the goal is. Is it wildlife free access? Asked whether more enclosed area would be allowed if there were some sort of openings in the fencing. Chair Cappello asked Commissioner Zhao if she is proposing a requirement for gaps within the 4,000 square foot fenced enclosure. Commissioner Zhao said that the gap issue is separate. What she is supporting is increasing the maximum 4,000 square foot standard for enclosed area. Commissioner Kundtz: Said that if there is to be a limitation, 4,000 square feet is as good as any. Reminded that owners can be accommodated through the exception basis if more enclosed area is needed. Supported having a fixed number and if there are unique requirements that leads to an exception. Commissioner Kumar: Said that 4,000 square feet seems dated to him. Pointed out that he has 8,000 square feet in enclosed backyard although he is on the flatland. Stated that the Hillside properties should be allowed more. They should be given the option to enclose completely or leave open. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 2008 Page 10 Commissioner Hlava: Agreed that the enclosed area should be bigger than 4,000 square feet. Added that if the fencing is tightly enclosed, there needs to be some established limit. Agreed that properties in the flatland can have 8,000 or even more square feet of enclosed fenced area. Questioned why someone with a four -acre parcel cannot. It doesn't seem right. Suggested that perhaps they be allowed to enclosure greater areas with wildlife breaks. Perhaps it could be either /or. Reiterated that she feels strongly that people ignore the 4,000 square foot limitation. Commissioner Nagpal: Said that she appreciates the comments and points made by Commissioners Kundtz and Rodgers who live on Hillside properties. Stated that fencing needs to be aesthetically pleasing as well as pleasing to the environment. Said that she is open to allowing a large standard of enclosed fencing area but has no basis for a recommendation at this point. Supported a set standard with an exception process. Expressed concern about changing the Hillside environment and said that she does not want to be a part of condoning that. Commissioner Hlava said that she supports setting a maximum number and having the exception process available. Commissioner Nagpal said she might support allowing people to go with larger fences with openings. Commissioner Hlava said that the 60/30 standard does not make sense. It would be more rational to require a 10 -foot opening for every 60 feet of fencing. Chair Cappello said that the issue of gaps is in a different area of the Code. City Attorney Bill Parkin: Said that if the gaps in the fenced area are greater than 30 feet, the fencing can encompass the entire lot. The Ordinance already provides for that. Brought the Commissioner's attention to Subsection A that reads, "as viewed from any street or property." Suggested that the same language be applied to the chain link fencing material section, "as viewed from any street or property." Pointed out that this provision in the Ordinance is itself an exception. Chair Cappello: Asked the Commission to focus its attention to the 4,000 square foot standard without gaps. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 2008 Page 11 Said it appears that most Commissioners are agreeable /open to allowing a larger dimension although Commissioner Kundtz would like to keep the standard at 4,000 square feet. Stated that he feels it is too restrictive at 4,000 square feet and that a larger standard is more appropriate at this time. Suggested that 6,000 square feet makes sense. Commissioner Hlava said that she could agree to 6,000 square feet as she agrees 4,000 is not enough. This solves a lot of problems in her mind. She cautioned that it makes enforcement harder if the standard is "who can see it." Chair Cappello asked the rest of the Commission if they can agree on this figure. Commissioner Rodgers suggested leaving it at 4,000 square feet for existing homes and allowing an increase to 6,000 for any new homes. The existing homeowners can use the exception process if they want to pursue enlarging their existing fenced area. Chair Cappello: Said that it is a pain to process exceptions. Exceptions delay projects and add cost. Said that he would like to come up with a number that doesn't require every other project to have to come before this Commission. Commissioner Nagpal said that new projects would while existing could stay the same. Chair Cappello said that if the Ordinance is changed, owners could extend to 6,000 square feet by right. They would not be grandfathered in at a smaller size. Commissioner Nagpal suggested allowing an increase from 4,000 to 6,000 square feet with an over the counter or Administrative review that would allow for public notice. Chair Cappello pointed out that over the counter permits are not noticed. Commissioner Nagpal said that another option is to leave it at 4,000 square feet. Commissioner Rodgers said that 4,000 square feet is fine. Commissioner Nagpal asked Director John Livingstone if he is okay with her suggestion and if not does he have any recommendations. Director John Livingstone said no, he did not like the idea of an Administrative process to increase from 4,000 to 6,000 square feet. He added that he does not know the history of where the 4,000 square foot standard came from. It may have simply been subjective. Commissioner Nagpal asked Director John Livingstone if people struggle with the current 4,000 square foot standard. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 2008 Page 12 Chair Cappello said that extending the allowable size to 6,000 would mean fewer would struggle with the standard. Director John Livingstone said that people go with the maximum setback and height allowances. He added that the area of enclosure standard already has its own exception process. The new process could replace the existing. Chair Cappello said he favors the new exception process. Commissioner Hlava agreed saying it is easier and clearer. Chair Cappello asked if all Commissioners agree to eliminate the language in Subsection Paragraph E regarding exception for enclosed area. Commissioner Hlava said that the language about accommodating wildlife doesn't appear to be there specifically. City Attorney Bill Parkin said that by dropping the Hillside exception the Commission would likely want to add findings that apply specifically to Hillside areas to the standard Ordinance exception process. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the standard, as visible from the public street," should be applied throughout Saratoga. City Attorney Bill Parkin said that staff should craft proposed language and bring it back. Director John Livingstone said perhaps an attempt can be made later in this meeting. Right now the concentration is on enclosed fencing areas on the Hillside. It appears some are against allowing enclosures. Others are okay with the existing 4,000 square foot size and others support a larger size. It appears the majority view is staying with the current 4,000 square foot. Commissioner Hlava said that it actually appears that three want to stay the same but four support enlarging the size to 6,000 square feet. Commissioner Nagpal said that she is okay with 6,000 square feet with some basis. Right now, it seems fairly arbitrary. Chair Cappello said that his basis is that it would be a little easier for homeowners to deal with the 6,000 square foot standard and will not need an exception as often. Commissioner Rodgers asked if there has been any demand to increase from the 4,000 square foot standard. Director John Livingstone said it does not happen often. He added that staff discourages exceptions and /or variances. There have only been two to three to the Planning Commission in his recollection. This is not a regular issue. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 2008 Page 13 Commissioner Hlava said that she remembers one case when she was first on the Planning Commission and what they approved was ugly because of the existing limitations. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the process was accomplished via an exception or a variance. Director John Livingstone replied variance. Commissioner Hlava said it could have been prettier. She said to go with the 6,000 square foot standard. Commissioner Kundtz voted to keep the 4,000 square foot standard. Commissioner Kumar supported 6,000 square feet. Commissioner Zhao supported 6,000 or even 8,000 square feet. She reported that she has a friend who recently moved onto a Hillside property with two young daughters who needs a safe play area for her children. Chair Cappello asked if anyone else could support 8,000 square feet. Kumar said yes. Hlava said she was not sure Rodgers stayed with 4,000 square feet. Nagpal said while she could increase to 6,000 she was not ready for 8,000 square feet. Chair Cappello agreed and said that there is a majority that supports an increase to 6,000 square feet and the removal of the exception process for this portion of the Code. He suggested addressing the other provision for fencing in Hillside districts and that is fencing with gaps. The current standard is 60 feet of solid fencing must be broken with 30 feet of open gap. Commissioner Hlava pointed out that as the Code reads, if a black clad chain link fence is located where no one can see it from the street, they could exceed the 60 -foot distance. She asked where the requirement for a 30 -foot opening comes in. City Attorney Bill Parkin said that a fence with a gap is not enclosed. The length deals with linear feet as visible from the street or neighbor. Commissioner Hlava said that the 60/30 standard doesn't make sense at all. Director John Livingstone said that the question may be what is the point is having the gaps in the fence. If it is to allow wildlife passage the next question is the size of the gap. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 2008 Page 14 Commissioner Nagpal agreed that the reason for the gap could either be aesthetic or to allow a wildlife trail. Director John Livingstone said perhaps both. Chair Cappello said that gaps might not be required if the proposed fencing style can meet both the aesthetics and allow for wildlife flow. City Attorney Bill Parkin said that the gaps are still required so that the fencing would not be considered enclosed. He explained again that there are two concepts here. One is the allowable linear length of fencing and the other is the issue of enclosed area. Chair Cappello said that gaps would have to be provided for wildlife. However, if the fence design allows for wildlife to easily pass through, the need for additional gaps makes no sense. Commissioner Hlava said that she prefers the establishment of some sort of ratio such as six to one (6:1). For example, for every 60 feet of solid fencing, a ten -foot gap would be required. A 120 -foot long fence would need a 20 -foot gap. Commissioner Rodgers said that she is uncomfortable considering type of fence. There is way too much detail that makes it difficult. Chair Cappello said that the options include a 30 -foot opening or another dimension more appropriate. Commissioner Rodgers said she is not sure there are enough facts before this Commission to evaluate and wildlife experts might need to be consulted on what sort of space is necessary for safe passage by wildlife. She said she is willing to leave the standard at 30 feet. Commissioner Kundtz asked where the 60 foot length standard came from. Chair Cappello said it could be for getting farm equipment through or fire trucks. The 30 -foot wide gap is more than wildlife being considered here. Director John Livingstone: Said it was from the original conversation way back. Stated that if the gap were to be only five to 10 feet wide, a gate could easily be put in later. The 30 -foot gap prevents that after the fact alteration. Added that if the gap is too small there is the possibility that it would create a choke point that would make wildlife basically sitting ducks. The 30 -foot distance gives wildlife room for more maneuvering. Commissioner Rodgers recounted a story where a deer got trapped within an area and was killed by a predator. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 2008 Page 15 Commissioner Zhao said that establishing some ratio as suggested by Commissioner Hlava makes sense. The 60/30 standard is kind of strange. She added that she does not have a strong opinion as to what would be better as she really doesn't know. Director John Livingstone said that the definition of enclosure is in several sections. Commissioner Hlava said that it is not clear in this language. A solid fence is one that is made of stone or wood and cannot be seen through. The length of a solid fence or wall cannot exceed 60 feet "unless not visible from the public street or neighbors." She asked if gaps would still be required if the fencing is not visible. If not visible, it is likely the fence could be lots longer than 60 feet. Director John Livingstone said another question is, if visible when does a length of solid fence end. Commissioner Rodgers questioned the need /purpose of an exterior fence completely enclosing the lot outside of 4,000 square foot enclosed area. Commissioner Hlava said that it seems like it should say, "Solid fences may be unlimited if no more than 60 feet is visible from public view." City Attorney Bill Parkin said that the standard is shall not exceed 60 feet. Commissioner Nagpal said that even if the fence is not visible from the public street it should not be unbroken. City Attorney Bill Parkin said that a lot of what is here is from the original ordinance. The lengths of fence versus enclosure are two different concepts here. The length is aesthetics and the enclosure is regarding wildlife access /passage. Commissioner Rodgers suggested that staff separate both concepts out in the next draft. City Attorney Bill Parkin suggested that one subsection be on fence section length and another subsection be on area of enclosure. Chair Cappello asked what is the purpose of this. From his standpoint the issue is some sense of security for the property owner. Commissioner Kumar pointed out that the required 30 -foot wide gaps eliminate the security function. Chair Cappello agreed and said that they are working with opposing objectives, security versus wildlife access versus defining a property line. Commissioner Kumar said that the security aspect is not addressed when there are openings in the fence. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 2008 Page 16 Chair Cappello: Agreed with Commissioner Kumar Stated that he is simply trying to clarify the objectives in order to approach them differently: privacy, wildlife access and aesthetics. Said that it is easier to deal with specifics such as materials, type of fence and size of openings. Added that even with openings there is still some level of security. Commissioner Kumar said he questions why have a fence at all if it has openings: Chair Cappello said that it provides some privacy and might discourage neighbors and passers by from entering onto private property. Additionally, it would delineate a property line so the neighbor does not plant a tree on your property or place a play structure. If one wants absolute security, this fencing won't provide that. Commissioner Nagpal said that she mostly looks at aesthetics. There are two big factors, aesthetics and wildlife. She stated that the last thing we want is a hillside that is impacted by fences. Commissioner Hlava said that she gets the impression that the Commission will not be passing this ordinance this evening. She pointed to Section B that reads "wrought iron and wire material." Added that she does not know what is meant by wire material and whether there is no limitation of fence length if made of those materials. Commissioner Nagpal said that it is aesthetics versus solid fencing. Commissioner Hlava said that the way the ordinance was originally written is screwed up. There is need to rewrite the whole thing. The first decision is the amount of enclosed area on the Hillside district. Next comes the types of fencing and last comes the lengths of fencing allowed. Commissioner Rodgers said that this has been debated for two hours tonight. Commissioner Hlava said that it is too hard to understand. Chair Cappello asked for recommendations for openings in solid fences and what about wrought iron fences, do they require additional openings? Commissioner Hlava said that they couldn't. Chair Cappello asked if wrought iron would be limited to the same length limitation as a solid fence and with the requirements for gaps. How about chain link? Commissioner Hlava said that there is already a 4 -inch gap in wrought iron fencing that lets more wildlife get through. Commissioner Nagpal said that there is no limitation on wrought iron. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 2008 Page 17 Director John Livingstone said that there appears to be a general consensus that the Commission wants to regulate the length of a fence. A long solid fence that a neighbor could see is not aesthetically pleasing. The Commission appears to want to regulate the length of fences or maybe that's not an issue at all. Chair Cappello said that the limitation would be on a solid fence one cannot see through. Commissioner Zhao added if viewed from any street. Commissioner Nagpal clarified street or adjacent property. Director John Livingstone said that he has never enforced a standard that states "as viewed from" anything. That would be very difficult to enforce. He asked if a solid wood fence beyond 60 feet in length is found to be distasteful. Commissioner Rodgers asked if he means on the Hillside versus citywide. Director John Livingstone said Hillside. Commissioner Hlava said that having only a 60 -foot long fence on an 80 -foot frontage is what would look funny. Chair Cappello said that a solid fence along the entire length of a front yard would look strange beyond 60 feet. However, wrought iron would be okay there. Commissioner Nagpal suggested a study session where the Commission can brainstorm a list of options /alternatives on a board. Commissioner Kumar said that the regulations must be based on wildlife or aesthetics, on whether to ban or enforce. Chair Cappello asked what if the gaps are reduced to five feet in width. Commissioner Kumar said that it doesn't serve any purpose. Commissioner Hlava said that this ordinance should go back to another study session in order to re- organize language to reflect area of enclosure. It is too confusing for the Commission let alone the applicants. Chair Cappello suggested providing guidance on what the Commission does agree on. How about the stretch of solid fence length? Commissioner Nagpal said that visibility is a factor. She reminded that no one from the Hillside has said that they don't like the ordinance. She said that she finds their lack of input disturbing considering the number of people these regulations will impact. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 2008 Page 18 Chair Cappello said that the study session would offer Hillside residents another opportunity. He stated that the requirement for a 30 -foot gap is too large. Commissioner Rodgers said that 30 foot is a minimum. She said she is not sure it serves any purpose to have that as it may negatively impact neighbors. Commissioner Hlava said that the regulations have holes in them. There is language that needs to be rewritten to have a clear system. What's visible is subjective. Commissioner Nagpal said that what is visible is from the public right -of -way. Commissioner Hlava said that it isn't yet a coherent system and something clearer is necessary. Director John Livingstone said that this could go back to a study session to consider the basics and then slowly expand to the next point. He reminded that the Hillside is the more troublesome area. Commissioner Rodgers suggested continuing on with the discussion on non Hillside issues tonight. Commissioner Hlava said that the Hillside regulations are the only problem. The rest is fine to her. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the continuance would be to a date certain. Director John Livingstone said yes. Chair Cappello suggested a discussion on the visibility triangle requirement. Commissioner Rodgers suggested discussing regulations as they apply to legal, illegal and non- conforming fencing. She also mentioned the possibility of establishing a temporary fence exception. City Attorney Bill Parkin said that they could but would need to discuss just what temporary means. Director John Livingstone said that there is already an exception process in the updated ordinance. Prior to that, a variance was possible albeit hard to approve. Commissioner Nagpal agreed that exceptions are easier to issue than variances. She questioned whether the Traffic Safety Commission might not be the appropriate body to decide visibility issues for driveways on new Design Review projects. She added that she would like to see an ability to come up with alternatives to the view angle. Chair Cappello asked if alternatives would have to be approved by the Traffic Safety Commission. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 2008 Page 19 Commissioner Nagpal said it would be them or this Commission although she would prefer their input. Director John Livingstone said that there is nothing written that allows referring back to the Traffic Safety Commission. He added that although he does not want to speak for the Public Works Director, he can say that they prefer a simple process. The Traffic Safety Commission does not support use of mirrors, etc. Commissioner Nagpal said that she still would like the ability to consider alternatives to a visibility triangle. Commissioner Hlava said that as she reads the draft ordinance, the view triangle is something that would have to be met in Design Review. It only applies to new construction. She asked if everyone was okay with that. Commissioner Nagpal said that she is concerned about old growth having to be chopped down to create this view triangle. She said that she hopes that the Traffic Safety Commission would be open to considering alternatives on a case -by -case basis. Commissioner Rodgers said that there is the potential issue of historic markers and /or heritage trees within a proposed visibility triangle that might need to be saved. Commissioner Nagpal asked how this would be handled. City Attorney Bill Parkin said he would look into this issue. Chair Cappello asked if it might be through an exception process. City Attorney Bill Parkin said he would come back with an answer on this. Commissioner Rodgers said that staff should look at Section 15.29.090 to make sure that it has not eliminated the requirement to have illegal fences made complaint. City Attorney Bill Parkin said that the intent for legal non conforming is to leave them as they are until they are 50 percent destroyed and ready for replacement. He assured that he would make sure that illegal fencing was not unintentionally left out. Chair Cappello asked about rows of trees. Commissioner Nagpal said that they represent a green hedge. The intention is to exempt green hedges. City Attorney Bill Parkin said that this was already eliminated from the ordinance outright. Chair Cappello asked for dates for the study session. It will be noticed and the public is welcome. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 2008 Page 20 Director John Livingstone said that the Commission is not limited to meeting or site visit days. Chair Cappello asked if there are any near term options. Director John Livingstone advised that Shweta would be gone for most of June as she is to be married and go on her honeymoon. Therefore the amended draft would be brought back to this Commission for continued public hearing in July. He advised that May 14 is an option for the study session. Chair Cappello suggested May 27 from 5 p.m. for the study session, immediately following the site visits. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission CONTINUED TO A DATE CERTAIN (MAY 27, 2008 5 P.M.) consideration of amendments to the Fence Ordinance to a Study Session to be held on May 27, 2008, at 5 p.m., with the subsequent return of an amended draft to the second regular Planning Commission meeting in July. (7 -0) DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Director John Livingstone advised that he would like to schedule a Housing Tour. Work has begun on the Housing Element with a kick -off meeting. The tour would be of some existing affordable housing in Saratoga (Saratoga Court on Cox and the Oddfellows). Commissioner Kundtz asked if this would simply be a drive by tour or would the Commissioners be able to go into the facilities. Director John Livingstone said the tour would include going inside the developments. He suggested emailing a calendar matrix. Commissioner Kundtz asked about early on a Saturday. Commissioner Zhao suggested incorporating it into a site visit schedule. Commissioner Kundtz asked how long the tour might take. Director John Livingstone said about one hour. Chair Cappello asked if it could be delayed until June. Director John Livingstone said yes. Commissioner Hlava cautioned that she would be gone the week of June 9th. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Hlava called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: None Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Shweta Bhatt and Assistant City Attorney Bill Parkin APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 27, 2008. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of February 27, 2008, were adopted with edits to pages 3 and 9. (6- 0 -0 -1; Commissioner Nagpal abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 6, 2008. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION ZOA07 -0001 (City Wide): The Planning Commission will consider a draft ordinance that will update existing regulations regarding fences, walls and hedges. The draft ordinance proposes to 1) establish an exception process that would allow property owners to exceed the maximum permitted fence height; 2) add fence height limitations around driveway aprons; and 3) clarify ambiguous language and areas of the code that are currently difficult to enforce. Other related topics, such as regulations regarding chain link fencing, an initial study and negative declaration for the project will also be reviewed and discussed. Ms. Shweta Bhatt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: Reported that the Commission is being asked to review proposed changes to the draft ordinance that pertains to fences, walls and hedges. Stated that topics of interest include chain link fences, which are currently prohibited in the Hillside District but not elsewhere in the City. Proposed changes would make the Code consistent by prohibiting chain link fences throughout the City. Added that a letter in opposition of this recommendation was received and included in the packet. Said that the Planning Commission discussed eliminating height restrictions for hedges and directed staff to include language in the Code to this effect. Stated that letters from the public were received that suggested that hedges have a height limitation. The most recent was emailed to the Planning Commission and distributed this evening. Said that language is proposed that fences be measured from the higher property where two properties differ in elevation. Said that staff received feedback from the public regarding this topic suggesting that it be measured from the lower property to avoid exceptionally tall fences and walls on the lower side. Added that feedback was also received this afternoon regarding a concern about the proposed language about triangles of visibility particularly how they impact smaller lots. Advised that an exception process has been added to the proposed language and four findings are proposed to help evaluate exceptions. Informed that members of the public are present this evening to speak on the issues and provide comments. Commissioner Nagpal asked if chain link fencing would be prohibited all over Saratoga. Chain link fencing is allowed in rear yards right now. Would chain link fencing continue to be allowed in backyards? Planner Shweta Bhatt said that throughout the City, chain link fencing would not be allowed under the proposed amended ordinance. Right now, chain link fencing is only allowed for sports courts. Commissioner Cappello asked if chain link fencing would be prohibited for sports courts with the ordinance amendment. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 3 Planner Shweta Bhatt replied that chain link fencing would still be allowed for sports courts. Commissioner Zhao asked how legal non conforming fences would be dealt with. How are they determined as legal? What about pre- existing fencing? Director John Livingstone said that pre- existing fencing would be subject to Community Development Director review. In the past, old photographs were used to substantiate the age of fencing. There are different ways to prove when a fence was installed. He added that fences don't typically require a building permit. It might take some work to determine legal non conforming fencing. Chair Hlava pointed at that when non conforming houses burn down, they cannot be rebuilt to the non conforming standard but would rather have to conform to current code requirements. She pointed_out that while a non conforming wood fence would eventually rot and have to be rebuilt to code standards, fences in materials such as wrought iron could last forever. The result is that they seem to be treated differently. Director John Livingstone agreed that wood fences last less time than do other types of fences. Commissioner Rodgers reminded that Hillside zoning is limited to a 4,000 square foot enclosed area. Swimming pools must be enclosed and are permitted a 10 -foot area to be enclosed around the swimming pool. Planner Shweta Bhatt said that the 10 -foot enclosure area around a pool applies when there is already an enclosed fence area of 4,000 square feet on a Hillside zoned property. If a separate fence is required to enclose a pool elsewhere on a Hillside zoned property that is outside of the 4,000 square foot fenced in area, that pool fence must follow the contours of the pool by a maximum of 10 -feet. Director John Livingstone reiterated that per code, pools must be enclosed. There must be a fence around a pool. In the Hillside district, if that property already has the maximum allowed 4,000 square foot fence enclosed area, pool fencing is limited to a 10 -foot distance around the pool contours. On other residential zoning district properties, pools are generally located within an enclosed backyard on a typical smaller lot. Commissioner Rodgers asked why a fence exemption for pools is required. Director John Livingstone gave the example of a 10 -acre lot with a 4,000 square foot enclosed fence area on one side of a property. A pool is located on the other side of the property. If there are large trees on each side of a pool, the fencing might not best be limited to the 10- foot contour so the exception is available for consideration to retain said trees and allow them to be located within the enclosure if necessary to retain them. Commissioner Rodgers said that this exception is not intended to allow expansion above the allowed 4,000 square foot fence enclosure area. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 4 Director John Livingstone replied no and said that the exception would be a difficult process. Commissioner Zhao asked about when the amount of allowable enclosure area above 4,000 square feet might be permitted in the Hillside district. Director John Livingstone said that more fencing could be installed on a Hillside zoned property if there are periodic 30 -foot wide gaps in sections of the fence to allow natural access for wildlife to pass through. Chair Hlava said that one issue up for discussion on chain link fencing is whether black or some other color should be required to best blend into the landscape. Commissioner Nagpal said that there had been some discussion of allowing chain link fencing on certain sized residential lots with some mention of color to obscure visibility. Chair Hlava agreed that it must be something other than silver. Commissioner Rodgers said that chain link fencing in districts other than Hillside should only be allowed for recreational courts. Commissioner Nagpal again said that she had thought there was discussion to allow chain link fencing for larger lots. Director John Livingstone said that there was no direct instruction to that effect so staff started with no chain link fences anywhere in the community except for sports courts to start the discussion. Chair Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Bruce La Fountain, Resident on Pierce Road: Said that he wrote a letter regarding use of chain link fencing. Added that he is available for questions regarding his comments and pictures. Chair Hlava asked Mr. Bruce La Fountain if he is in favor of chain link fencing on Hillside district properties. Mr. Bruce La Fountain: Explained that he owns five adjacent properties, three of which are large. On all of his properties there is chain link fencing, none of which is visible from the road. Added that he took great pains to create a trail through all of his properties that allows wildlife to pass through. Reported that he toured the whole community and found lots of chain link fencing out there. It is a prevalent material. Advised that he was surprised when Code Enforcement contacted him about his fencing. Expressed concern about the uniformity of enforcement. Reiterated that there is chain link fencing everywhere in every kind of application. Pointed out that in a large open area, one really cannot see it and it looks acceptable. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008. Page 5 Added that it is a high quality product and is the product of choice for the Forest Service. Commissioner Rodgers asked what color is his chain link fencing. Mr. Bruce La Fountain said that he bought sections in brown, green and black and chose black as the most invisible. Chair Hlava reported her understanding that the Hillside Initiative of 1980 created a prohibition of chain link fencing on the hillside. This restriction may not be able to be changed. Mr. Bruce La Fountain asked the reason for the size of spacing for the wire to be four inches. Is it because of birds? Chair Hlava said that it is for birds, rabbits and field mice to clear. She added that it is not to keep deer from eating people's gardens. Mr. Bruce La Fountain said he was less concern about deer than he was about coyotes eating cats. Commissioner Rodgers said that cats should be kept indoors any way. Chair Hlava said that some properties have barn cats to provide rodent control. Mr. Bill Breck, Resident on Saratoga -Los Gatos Road: Said that he is concerned about the change in hedge heights. Thanked staff, particularly Shweta Bhatt and John Livingstone, as well as the Planning Commission for their efforts. Said that this amendment is creating way too many changes at once and it would be better to take smaller bites. Reported that he has an historic house and has for about 10 years. Stressed that he is against the proposed three -foot hedge height limitation at the front of his property, as it would result in a loss of privacy on his property. Stated that there are three driveways onto his property, two his and another belongs to his neighbor. Asked for some data that proves this requirement increases public safety. Said that this is a very big change and that 70 to 80 percent of properties have hedges to get front yard privacy. Opined that this is starting to feel like a gated community. Pointed out that codes are only enforced if a neighbor complains and the community cannot have that as a policy. It is not good for neighbor relationships. Cautioned that next, there will be dictating on acceptable car colors. Reiterated his request for data on safety. Have there been lots of accidents documented? Said he would like to see more justification. Suggested that smaller lots have different standards, as the hedge is the only tool these owners have. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 6 Chair Have asked Mr. Bill Breck if he owns the Young's house. Mr. Bill Breck replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal suggested that there are alternative ways of viewing traffic such as mirrors. Mr. Bill Breck: Agreed and said he has no problem with something like that as an alternative. That is very reasonable. Questioned whether there was going to be any grandfathering of pre- existing conditions. Cautioned that this requirement could change the character of many neighborhoods. Added that lots of changes would have to be undergone to comply with this provision. Mr. Drew Perkins, Resident on Vista Arroyo Court: Said that he has lived in the Parker Ranch neighborhood of Saratoga since about 2000. Said that these hilltop properties overlook the valley and hills. Expressed concern if hedges are not restricted in height in some way. Added that he is not concerned with cutting them back to three -foot heights as much as he is concerned with them growing to 75 feet or more. A 75 -foot high hedge will obscure views of mountains and scenery. Suggested that hedges be regulated like walls are regulated. Questioned why hedges should not be regulated. Commissioner Nagpal said that she believes in use of green fences. She asked if some language is added that deals with impacts to views would that help alleviate Mr. Breck's concerns. Mr. Drew Perkins questioned what that might actually mean. Commissioner Nagpal said that it takes years for hedges to grow. They can be restricted to an upper height limit, perhaps to no more than 75 feet. Mr. Drew Perkins said that it depends upon context and application. In his case, 75 feet is better than .100. He added that 25 is even better than 75. Ms. Holly Davies, Resident on Oak Place: Expressed her happiness with the concept of legalizing the use of lattice on six -foot tall fences to help increase privacy. Suggested that there be no height limitation on hedges. Advised that in her neighborhood, these hedges are needed. She said that she needs her high hedge to shield her property, as they must deal with high visitor traffic on smaller lots. Federated Church was a medium -sized church when she first moved into her home 32 years ago. Now it is a mega- church. There is also the Foothill Club. Celebrate Saratoga leaves her neighborhood full of happy drunks. While the event is a part of the culture of Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 7 this town, it is intense and she needs the hedge as a shield from all this activity in the street. Added that she objects to the proposal to limit the number of garden elements in the front yard. She needs them, including trellises, to create interest in her garden. Informed that she is a rosarian. She has a collection of roses, some of which are rare, and she needs trellises for climbing roses. Said that this proposed limitation is an intrusion into the life of citizens. Suggested that it be left to each family to decide their landscaping. Expressed her opposition to the vision triangle. Added that not uniformly enforcing except through complaint creates conflicts between neighbors. Said that adding the triangle to the code could result in a rise in insurance rates as liability might increase. Asked if the vision triangle is needed for every driveway in the city. Said that vision triangles are okay for those properties on busy public streets and /or on corner lots. Chair Hlava thanked all speakers and closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Hlava: Suggested discussing the issues raised by the public including the use of chain link fencing on Hillside zoned properties. Reiterated her belief that this issue was included on the Hillside Initiative. Commissioner Nagpal reminded that issues previously discussed included the impacts of not allowing chain link fencing on hillside properties as well as consideration of allowing use of chain link fencing on lots larger than 40,000 square feet. Commissioner Rodgers added that properties in the flatlands were also raised including smaller lots. Commissioner Nagpal: Said that one question to consider is just how prevalent are chain link fences. Said that use of colors other than silver could help enhance the. invisibility of chain link fencing. Stressed the need to minimize the impact from the public street and to keep chain link fencing at the back with something grown on it to hide it. Questioned whether chain link fencing should be allowed throughout Saratoga. Recounted that in her neighborhood there is a lot of existing chain link fencing. Commissioner Cappello questioned the use of chain link fencing around the perimeter of a hillside property. Commissioner Nagpal reminded of the restrictions within the Hillside zoning that allows only 4,000 square feet of enclosed fencing. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 9 Commissioner Nagpal said within 4,000 square feet in fencing area should remain the standard in the Hillside district. Commissioner Kundtz reminded that there is the provision to have more use of chain link on the hillside if the chain link fence is broken up by 30 -foot wide openings. Chair Hlava asked what about 40,000 square foot lots and those properties in the flatland areas of Saratoga. Should such fencing be allowed in the back yards? Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that chain link fencing is nicer than a wood fence for back yard properties that back onto a creek. Chair Hlava expressed support for allowing chain link fencing in back yards as long as not visible from the street. Director John Livingstone said it appears that three of four of the Commissioners support allowing chain link fences on the Hillside zoning district if they are black clad. As one moves down the hill it appears that chain link fencing is okay. He asked if it can be said that chain link fencing is acceptable citywide? Commissioner Nagpal said she could support it on 40,000 square foot lots. Chair Hlava agreed not citywide but okay on 40,000 square foot lots. Commissioner Kundtz asked how curb appeal can be addressed going uphill. He pointed out that there are two or three houses with wrought iron fences. Up further, in a more rural area, the fencing changes to chain link. Commissioner Nagpal agreed that this is the hard part. If chain link is found to be acceptable it must be a color that minimizes the impact on the public as seen from the right -of -way. Chair Hlava pointed out that chain link fencing within a back yard on a flatland property is not visible to the public. However, on a hillside property, everyone can see it. That issue is worth some research. Commissioner Nagpal said that this is a good starting point and will likely have to come back to this Commission. She asked about how to deal with existing non conforming situations. Director John Livingstone said that right now chain link fencing is not allowed. Chair Hlava said that this issue would need to be looked into. Commissioner Nagpal said that she must say that there are lots of chain link fences on the hillside. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 10 Director John Livingstone said that this issue might end up as an election level item and go onto a ballot. Right now, in general terms, chain link fencing could be allowed on the top of the hillside and go from there. Commissioner Nagpal said she supports looking into it but where to start. Commissioner Rodgers replied with the Hillside Residential zoning district. Chair Hlava agreed. Commissioner Cappello said he could support this with caveats including use of color and the restriction of not being visible from the street. In rural areas there should be an exception provision. Commissioner Kumar said he supports the concept of staff researching these issues further. Chair Hlava asked if chain link is currently not allowed in the Hillside district. Director John Livingstone replied that under current Code it is allowed. Chair Hlava said she personally could only support use of chain link fencing in properties that are a minimum of 40,000 square feet. However, it may end up being best to leave it as it is. Commissioner Nagpal said that the issue of color that enhances the invisibility from the public street must be considered. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that some people install wood slats into a chain link fence. Commissioner Cappello asked if vines cover a chain link fence, does it become a green fence. Commissioner Nagpal said that is a good question. She added that it used to be so considered. Director John Livingstone advised that the description of a hedge is one that can stand up on its own. Commissioner Cappello said he still has more of a problem with fences on the flatlands than he does on the hillsides. Commissioner Nagpal asked Commissioner Cappello if he thinks chain link fencing should not be allowed. Commissioner Cappello pointed out that one does not hear of issues, complaints or problems that result from the use of chain link fencing. Chair Hlava said that she does not feel this prohibition is enforceable, especially as fence installations do not require a building permit. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 11 Commissioner Nagpal said that allowing a three -foot high chain link fencing in a front yard could be allowed under current code. She added that she would be concerned if that was installed. Chair Hlava said why mess with this if it hasn't been an issue. Commissioner Rodgers asked the City Attorney whether discussion by this Planning Commission of the concept about banning a type of fencing but does not result in being prohibited, does it allow people to ask for such fencing in the future. City Attorney Bill Parkin said that any provisions ultimately adopted in the ordinance would mandate what will be allowed or not. Commissioner Rodgers said that if there is no specific prohibition of chain link fencing that is visible from the street, it would be allowed. Commissioner Zhao said that she would like to keep the regulations as they are currently for the flatland areas. This is for smaller lots up to 40,000 square foot lots. If not, she said she believes it results in discrimination against smaller lots. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff asked if there have been a lot of complaints about chain link fencing. Director John Livingstone replied no, especially since no permit is required for installation. Commissioner Nagpal said she might be okay with leaving it as it is. Chair Hlava said that is her thought too. Commissioner Cappello: Stated that if his neighbor would install chain link fencing in his front yard, he would have an issue with that. Advised that he simply does not like chain link fencing. Added that if it is invisible from view, it becomes a moot point although he would like to see chain link fencing prohibited. Commissioner Kumar said that there are not a lot of chain link fences in the neighborhood he lives in that is not in the hills. He said he too personally does not like them. He added that he is leaning toward changing the ordinance and creating enforcement on chain link fencing. Director John Livingstone restated his understanding of the Commission's feelings to this point. They support chain link fencing in the Hillside district but want to leave the requirements for the flatland area as it is. Chain link fencing would be allowed throughout the community with specific requirements including being invisible from the street. Chair Hlava suggested not allowing chain link fencing in front yards. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 12 Commissioner Nagpal said that the right use of color would help this fencing blend into the environment so as to be invisible. Chair Hlava again said she does not think this is enforceable. Commissioner Nagpal said that there would have to be some mechanism in the ordinance to enforce it. Commissioner Zhao said that the idea of such a fence once covered in vines must be taken into consideration. City Attorney Bill Parkin said that visibility is a subjective issue and would require an exception process. He said that specific standards, such as not be allowed in the front yard and /or use of specific colors, are more easily enforced. Chair Hlava restated the Commissioner's recommendations for use of black chain link fencing and prohibiting its use in front yards. City Attorney Bill Parkin said corner lots oftentimes front a street. He reiterated that the more subjective the regulation, the more design review is necessary. Chair Hlava: Agreed that objective standards are necessary. Suggested moving on to other issues including hedge heights and green fences; view triangles for private driveways; and use of garden elements. City Attorney Bill Parkin explained that the proposed restrictions are for side and rear setback areas. Outside of that, higher hedges are not regulated by this ordinance. He said the Commission might want to consider if it wants hedge height restrictions only at lot lines, within interior areas and /or within 15 feet of a lot line? Commissioner Nagpal said that hedges are not fences in the ordinance right now and that use of a row of Italian Cypress is not regulated today. City Attorney Bill Parkin replied correct. Commissioner Nagpal said that she would hate to see all the existing Italian Cypress chopped down. She said she is open to discussion, including possibly a discussion of view impact. Chair Hlava said that under the amended ordinance, fences anywhere on a lot could only be 6 feet tall. Right now, only the side yard and back fence heights are limited. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the provisions for accessory structures would come into play. Director John Livingstone said that there is no definition of when a fence becomes an accessory structure. It is easier for staff to enforce to keep the ordinance as it is and refer applicability to the entire lot. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 13 Chair Hlava said she often sees tall hedges in the middle point of some back yards. Commissioner Nagpal said it could take 25 years for trees to get to that point. She suggested looking at this from a view impacts perspective. She said she wants to see an allowance for a green hedge and not get around to treating them like a fence. Commissioner Cappello agreed that hedges offer some privacy. He suggested a view shed type of standard. City Attorney Bill Parkin: Suggested that the Commission stay away from views as it creates an issue for enforcement. Reminded that the City has its Tree Ordinance and the Commission does not want to conflict with that. Cautioned that view sheds would be a nightmare for staff to deal with, as views are a very subjective issue. Stated that restrictions on hedges need to be well thought out. Commissioner Cappello reminded that the Design Review process considers interference with views. Director John Livingstone said that there is a difference as Design Review deals with a permanent structure. Here you would be trying to regulate growth. The City does not regulate the planting of trees so this would be hard to enforce. Commissioner Rodgers agreed that it would be difficult to restrict what people plant. She added that most trees could not be topped to reduce their height. Director John Livingstone agreed that many species of trees should not be topped. Chair Hlava said that the ordinance as currently written sets no limit on hedge heights either in front or rear yards. Now the definition of a hedge is a green fence. Commissioner Nagpal said that these hedges offer a buffer and can be found all over. She said that she could not imagine asking people to cut down their hedges because they don't match the new ordinance. Director John Livingstone clarify that the only change that pertains to hedges are those that might be located where a triangle view area might be required. Chair Hlava said that she does not see the requirement to cut down existing hedges. She suggested moving to the subject of garden elements. As proposed, only three garden elements would be permitted within a front yard setback. That includes arbors and trellises. Commissioner Nagpal said that she appreciates gardeners so much as she did not inherit a green thumb. She said that the ordinance should not be restrictive. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 14 Chair Hlava said that this limit does not include garden gnomes and wrought iron benches, etc. Planner Shweta Bhatt clarified that the current version does not limit the number but rather just the height limit and depth. Chair Hlava said that since there is no limit in number, just size, the Commission could turn to the subject of triangle of visibility. Director John Livingstone said that there is sometimes a problem with visibility for reverse lots and /or flag lots. He added that he is not sure if there have been accidents or injuries but the visibility issue has come up. If there is a six -foot fence at the edge of a driveway, a driver cannot see clearly to exit. Commissioner Rodgers asked if there have been accidents with injuries. She stated that there are alternative ways of dealing with visibility; including use of mirrors. She added that it might be helpful to post signs reading "Blind Driveway." She stated that she is not a fan of cutting down hedges to a three -foot height. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this provision is only at public intersections or is it intended for every person's driveway? She asked how other cities regulate this. Director John Livingstone: Explained that it is not uncommon to have regulations to leave a view triangle. Said that one city had a 10 -foot standard. At one Study Session a 15 -foot standard was discussed. Right now the proposal is down to 12 -feet. Said that with the solution for flag lot fencing, said fencing can create visibility problems. Commissioner Kundtz asked how to pick between no less than 10 and /or no more than 15 feet? Commissioner Rodgers said it should be the traffic speed of the road on which the property is located. Commissioner Kundtz said that this represents many variables. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is still a traffic safety committee. Director John Livingstone replied yes, and said that the Public Works Department staffs it. He pointed out that 80 percent of the City is single family residential. The majority of property owners who pull out onto a major arterial road (such as Saratoga -Los Gatos Road) typically control that view triangle for their own safety. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is sufficient time to forward this issue to the Public Safety Commission. Director John Livingstone replied yes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 15 Chair Hlava said she was concerned with the concept of having big established hedges that are more than 20 years old cut down. She said she would support other visibility assistance. Commissioner Nagpal agreed that mirrors or some other electronic gadgetry might give people some options. She said they should not require permits but rather owners should just be allowed to install them. Commissioner Kumar said that requiring a view triangle for every single driveway in Saratoga is excessive. Chair Hlava agreed and said it makes more sense for arterial streets. Commissioner Kumar agreed and added perhaps for curvy streets. Director John Livingstone cautioned that mirrors help drivers but not pedestrians. He added that a mirror does not help a child on a bike while a view triangle benefits both pedestrian and driver. Commissioner Kumar said that drivers tend to back out carefully. Director John Livingstone said that staff is taking the direction from the Commission that requiring a view triangle should be an exception on busy roads but not be required citywide. Chair Hlava said that new construction should be required to have a triangle of visibility. Commissioner Rodgers said she would defer to the Traffic Safety Commission. Chair Hlava asked if that still existed. City Attorney Bill Parkin said yes. Chair Hlava asked how it is referred to them. Director John Livingstone said this issue would be taken to their meeting. They meet twice a month. Chair Hlava said that staff would be asked to refer this matter to the Safety Commission to discuss applicability and or necessity to impose a triangle of visibility for driveways citywide versus only for those located on arterial streets. Commissioner Cappello added that providing alternatives that would suffice would also be helpful. Chair Hlava asked if this item would come back to this Commission for additional public hearing. Commissioner Nagpal suggested that anyone listening should comment as they wish on these proposals. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of March 12, 2008 Page 16 Chair Hlava asked if the continuance should be to a date uncertain. Director John Livingstone said a date certain with a buffer of time to get the Traffic Safety Commission review would be fine. Chair Hlava suggested April 23 meeting since two Commissioners will be absent from the first meeting in April. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission continued consideration of proposed amendments to the Fencing, Walls and Hedges Ordinance to its meeting of April 23, 2008. (7 -0) DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Rodgers listed upcoming meeting dates including a Green Building Workshop on March 17 Chair Hlava mentioned the joint session with Council set for March 19 She also mentioned her attendance at a workshop sponsored by City of San Jose and San Jose State University on updating Housing Elements. It was a very interesting session and Saratoga is ahead of other cities in its process. Commissioner Nagpal announced that she, Commissioner Rodgers and Chair Hlava helped select the consultant, RBF Consulting, for Saratoga's Housing Element Update. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, Chair Hlava adjourned the meeting at approximately 9 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk DATE: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Chair Hlava called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: None Staff: Director John Livingstone, Contract Planner Heather Bradley, Planner Shweta Bhatt and Assistant City Attorney Bill Parkin PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of January 9, 2008. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of January 9, 2008, were adopted with corrections to pages 11, 13, 19, 26 and 28. (7 -0) ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. Gene Zambetti, Big Basin Way: Said he was here to provide a progress report on the relocation of tenants at Brookside Apartments. Reported that it has been a long and difficult endeavor. Reminded that he had promised to try hard to find comparable units for his tenants. Advised that they had meetings with 15 tenants. Some were relocated and others have left. Mr. Colin Gray, Saratoga Sunnyvale Road: Explained that they have reached agreement with all tenants. AM of them are on board with concessions we've made. Added that a lot of effort went into this task and that 60 apartments were available nearby. Said that they are addressing issues as promised and that the tenants will be out by the end of February. Commissioner Cappello advised that one of the tenants attended the last Planning Commission meeting complaining that little was being done to assist these tenants. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 12 Commissioner Zhao: Said that she wished that a perspective rendering had been available as she has problems with the perception of bulk due to such a long 26 -foot high ridgeline. Stated that she is not against a two -story house. Advised that she cannot make the bulk findings and seeks some creative way of doing the roofline. Informed that she cannot support at this time. Commissioner Kundtz: Stated that the privacy issue has been dealt with. Said that redesign might compromise necessary living space needed by this family. Said that with the use of opaque glass on the bath window he can make the Design Review findings. Chair Hlava: Said that she has given a lot of thought to this and was concerned about bulk. Advised that this lot is down the hill. Said that there are other two -story homes in the area. Stated that she can make the bulk and height compatibility findings. Said that obscuring the bath window in some way is an acceptable solution to the privacy concern. Stated that she can make the findings for approval. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission granted Design Review approval (Application #07 -029) to allow the demolition of an existing home and shed and construction of a new two -story residence on property located at 13921 River Ranch Circle, with the condition for opaque glass on the second -story bath window on the left elevation being made permanent, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz and Rodgers NOES: Kumar, Nagpal and Zhao ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Hlava advised that there are 15 days for appeal. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION ZOA07 -0001 (City Wide): The Planning Commission will consider a draft ordinance that will update existing regulations regarding fences, walls and hedges. The draft ordinance proposes to 1) establish an exception process that would allow property owners to exceed the maximum permitted fence height; 2) add fence height limitations around driveway Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 13 aprons; and 3) clarify ambiguous language and areas of the Code that are currently difficult to enforce. (Shweta Bhatt) Ms. Shweta Bhatt, Planner, presented the staff report as follows: Explained that the proposed amendment is to regulations for fences, walls and hedges. Reminded that the Commission has held two Study Sessions on this Ordinance. Reported that the environmental review has been completed and no comments have been received directly related to the environmental document. Stated that some input has been received from community members in response to the ordinance update that has been included in the packets. Stated that one goal of this update was to establish an exception process that allows property owners to request modifications to the ordinance standards. That provision has been added. Distributed a sheet outlining the City Attorney's recommended changes to the text. Chair Hlava suggested that each Commissioner advise of any proposed changes to this Ordinance. Commissioner Cappello said flag lots are one area of concern. Planner Shweta Bhatt said that Page 2, Subsection E regulates front property lines that abut side property lines. Chair Hlava suggested flag lots be treated as a separate fencing entity and allow up to six -foot fence heights all around a flag lot. This seems clearer. City Attorney Bill Parkin said that a flag lot would have to be defined. Chair Hlava said that it would take a lot of staff time to figure out flag lot fence height allowances under this Ordinance as it is. Commissioner Cappello said this could be addressed by titling Subsection E with Flag Lot and the rest of the text already there. Chair Hlava asked if this is okay with the City Attorney. Mr. Bill Parkin replied absolutely. It provides some clarity. He said his written comments are just clarifying suggestions. Commissioner Nagpal said she takes issue with green fences and asked if they can be exempted. Planner Shweta Bhatt said that the term "hedges" is not defined in the code. She added that there is an exemption for green fences. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there is a definition of green fences. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 14 Commissioner Cappello said there was one but it has been deleted. Commissioner Nagpal pointed to page 3. Commissioner Cappello said that it is deleted in the Attorney's recommendations. City Attorney Bill Parkin said that he suggests the use of the term "hedge" versus "green fence." Chair Hlava said that hedges should not be in the view triangle of driveways obstructing visibility. Commissioner Nagpal agreed that they are not exempt from visibility issues. Chair Hlava said that she has a problem with pool fence regulations in hillside districts. With the limit to 10 foot wide decking around the pool, she is not sure how to apply that standard. Commissioner Rodgers said that 10 feet is fine or 4,000 square feet total enclosed area. Commissioner Nagpal said that the 10 -foot standard is proposed while the 4,000 square foot standard is current. Chair Hlava suggested eliminating the Fence Exception Finding #5 that requires neighbor sign off. Commissioner Cappello asked if an owner goes to his neighbors and one objects to a fence proposal, can they still come to the Planning Commission or does he have no option to go forward. Planner Shweta Bhatt said that the owner could request Planning Commission review. The Commission could approval with the required findings. She said that she did not believe one neighbor refusing to sign off precludes a fence exception hearing. Commissioner Rodgers said that the Commission could consider with written agreement. Commissioner Nagpal said that Finding #5 could better read, "Considers the view of other adjacent property owners." Commissioner Kundtz suggested that the neighbor simply acknowledge receipt of the notice like is done with other applications. Chair Hlava said that while the Commission always considers what neighbors have to say, it is not a finding requirement. Commissioner Rodgers said that an immediate neighbor has a closer relationship to a shared fence but she did not think that written consent is feasible. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 15 Commissioner Cappello said the process as outlined in the draft is good but an uncooperative neighbor seems to result in no appeal process being available. He suggested that an appeal process be added to the language when there is not neighbor agreement. Commissioner Nagpal said that the Planning Commission makes exception findings. Commissioner Cappello said that as the Ordinance is written currently the Commission could make no decision if that finding is not met. Chair Hlava said that this is why she wants Finding #5 removed. Commissioner Nagpal asked if all findings must be made or just some of them. Chair Hlava said she reads it to mean all findings must be met. Commissioner Rodgers said she has some language issues relating to pool fencing. Commissioner Kundtz said he wants to consider Authorities /Approving Bodies. Chair Hlava opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Ms. Mahnaz Khazen, Resident on Victor Place: Said that this is a most interesting subject to her as she has a flag lot. Stated her agreement with the idea of allowing six -foot tall fencing all around a flag lot. Said that she absolutely agrees with the proposal to remove Finding #5 requiring neighbor approval. The governmental body needs the right to review notices, hear comments and make a decision based on fact. Questioned the differences between the gate pilaster height differences allowed between wrought iron versus wood gates. Iron gates have a 7 -foot maximum and wood gates an 8- foot maximum. Stated that she likes the fact that light fixtures are not included and thanked staff for that. Inquired about regulations for fencing adjacent to scenic highways. Explained that she has a property on Quito Road that is both scenic and noisy. How would that be addressed? Chair Hlava said that scenic highway refers to Saratoga -Los Gatos Road Commissioner Nagpal agreed that Quito Road is not a designated scenic highway. Commissioner Rodgers said that it might go up the hill on Highway 9. Ms. Linda Parsley, Resident on Via Regina: Said that she has a flag lot. Said she would like to see these changes as she currently has 10 different kinds of fencing surrounding her flag lot. There is a 60 -foot long solid wood fence, hedges, corral fencing, wire fencing and a fence with lattice. Nothing matches. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 16 Added that the saddest part is that wildlife has no access to her property or very limited access. Deer no longer have access. Reminded that she has an ongoing complaint about one neighbor's new fence. Stated that staff has said that since all the fencing in this area is illegal, they would not enforce just that one property but rather it should be treated as a civil matter relative to the access to the easement. Reported that she had to have a survey done when a neighbor placed a fence three -feet into her property. That fence had to be relocated to the property line. Asked for clarification on parallel fences and walls. Commissioner Nagpal said that there is horizontal distance required between a retaining wall and fence. Commissioner Kundtz said that this relates to retaining walls coming down a hill. Director John Livingstone said that no changes are proposed to #C. It is applied when retaining walls are too close together. Ms. Linda Parsley said she would like to see the fence removed off the retaining wall. Director John Livingstone said that height is currently measured from the lowest side. Ms. Linda Parsley said she would like to see fencing limited to 4,000 square feet as fencing prohibits wildlife trails. She said it would be nice if wording were added that encourages neighbors to work with neighbors on what kind of fencing would be put in. Chair Hlava said that this Commission has no desire to get between two neighbors on the issue of what types of fencing they want. Ms. Priscilla Ho, Resident on Woodmont Drive: Said that when deer are on the property whatever you plant one day is gone the next. It is hard to plant when deer traipse across the property. Mentioned the potential for eight -foot high deer fencing. Stated that she would love to have a gorgeous yard and may need that size fence to keep the deer out of it. Recounted that contacting neighbors is not always easy. For one request, she called one neighbor a number of times to no success. Said that it looks nicer if the center of a wrought iron gate is higher than the pilasters by one to two feet rather than lower at the center of the gate. Commissioner Rodgers asked if this could interfere with visibility. Ms. Priscilla Ho said that her gate is set back 30 feet. Chair Hlava closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Chair Hlava asked the City Attorney to go over his comments. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 17 City Attorney Bill Parkin: Said that there is some inconsistency between taking measurements from the bottom of a retaining wall versus the highest point. Added that the text should be stricken on how to include retaining walls. Chair Hlava said that there is a big difference between fencing on a hillside versus residential areas. Commissioner Cappello said that with every case where there are different grades there is a retaining wall. It could be just 2 x 12 wood board at the base of a fence to retain soil. Commissioner Nagpal said the use of higher versus lowest point for measurement needs to be considered. Right now the practice is to use the higher point, with the lower point for retaining walls. Commissioner Cappello said consistency is needed. Commissioner Nagpal suggested the higher point. Director John Livingstone said that there are pros and cons. It could appear that a three -foot high fence looks six -feet tall if measured from the higher point. Chair Hlava said she agrees with the measurement from the higher elevation. City Attorney Bill Parkin: Suggested defining hedge and pulling green fences out. Height limitations should not apply to hedges. Agreed that Finding #5 of the exception findings could be eliminated. Said that trellis should be renamed entryway trellis. Said that a width limit should be assigned to entryway trellis. Commissioner Cappello suggested the term pedestrian entrance. Commissioner Rodgers said that the width of the opening would define it. Commissioner Nagpal suggested a five -foot width for entryway trellis openings. City Attorney Bill Parkin: Said that the term "yard" should be eliminated and "setback areas" used. Advised that his changes on Page 3 represents simplified language on the issue of pilasters. Commissioner Nagpal asked why the one -foot maximum difference between wrought iron versus wood fence pilaster heights. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 18 City Attorney Bill Parkin explained that pilasters are allowed to exceed the fence height by two feet, which equals an eight -foot maximum height. The wrought iron gate in a front yard is limited to five -feet in height to a maximum height of seven feet for the pilasters. Commissioner Nagpal said it might be appropriate to have a gate taller than five feet in height on a larger property. The issue is the size of the property. Commissioner Cappello said that this might be an exception issue that can be brought to the Planning Commission. He added that materials in addition to wrought iron should be considered as long as it is another see through material. Chair Hlava reminded that wood gates are not allow right now. Planner Shweta Bhatt said that current Code limits wrought iron front gate heights to five feet. Staff is not proposing a change. Director John Livingstone said that the Commission could amend to allow other metal produces as long as they are in an open format. Commissioner Cappello said that there are new materials all the time and should be considered if they are see through. Chair Hlava said if the material is not wrought iron she wants it to go through a review /exception process to ensure it is a good quality and attractive material. City Attorney Bill Parkin: Said that he has made a minor language change to page 4 for clarity. Said that a very minor language suggested change on page 5 adds, "on a single site." Said that on page 6 the staff insertions of "solid" have been deleted for fences on arterial streets. Suggested that the term "Existing Non Conforming Fencing" be amended to read '`Existing Legal Non Conforming Fencing." Cautioned that amnesty is not granted with this ordinance amendment for existing fences. Commissioner Nagpal asked if dog fencing is considered electrical. Commissioner Rodgers said she is more concerned with fences that would hurt a child Chair Hlava asked why the wire fence prohibition is being removed. City Attorney Bill Parkin said that chain link fencing is limited to athletic courts. Non hillside properties can use chain link while hillside properties cannot. Director John Livingstone said that chain link fencing is allowed in areas other than hillside. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 19 Chair Hlava said that not all properties on hills are in a hillside district. She suggested that the questions and comments raised be given to staff and brought back as a clean draft ordinance. There are still too many issues. Commissioner Nagpal agreed. Commissioner Rodgers questioned whether all decisions have been made yet. Commissioner Zhao asked where the hillside districts are located. Chair Hlava said that they are within another part of the ordinances. Commissioner Nagpal reviewed proposed edits: Page 1 consistent with higher point, the hedge issue is fine. Page 2 consensus to removing Finding #5 and instead refer to noticing. Commissioner Kundtz suggested the text to Condition #4 be added to read, "adjacent property owners noticed and no negative comments received." Chair Hlava suggested, "Impact on immediate adjacent neighbors is considered." Commissioner Zhao reminded that noticing is automatic. Chair Hlava reiterated her suggestion to strike Finding #5 and add her text, "adjacent property owners noticed and no negative comments received." Commissioner Nagpal: Entryway trellis width is identified as five feet. Said that language should be added to Finding #4 that states that no adverse impact to adjacent neighbor(s) or general vicinity. Section E should read "Flag lots and front lot line not adjacent to the street." Commissioner Rodgers said that there is the issue of flag lots with different types of fences all around. Suggested the need for an exception if a flag lot becomes fenced in at more than 4,000 square feet via fences on surrounding properties. Commissioner Kundtz said that compatibility is questioned each and every time. Commissioner Rodgers said that a flag lot has the potential of feeling like "Folsom" prison if it has six foot fencing all around. Chair Hlava said that since hillside lots are a minimum of two acres, they would not feel like Folsom prison. City Attorney Bill Parkin said that this would have to be thought out carefully. Commissioner Cappello asked about the enclosed flag lot and when it becomes an issue. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 20 City Attorney Bill Parkin said the last person coming along is not the best way to deal with it. Director John Livingstone: Said that there are two questions here. Stated that one question is how to address compatibility on a flag lot. However, unless there is an exception required, they just put their fence in. Said that the next question is what to do if a flag lot in a hillside district that is surrounded by other properties' fences results in an enclosed fence area in excess of the allowed 4,000 square feet. Added that this is a rare exception. Commissioner Rodgers suggested that perhaps anyone putting in a fence that is adjacent to an interior flag lot would require some sort of review. Director John Livingstone said that this would be an administrative decision that could be appealed to the Planning Commission. Chair Hlava added that someone who buys a flag lot knows what he or she is getting. Commissioner Nagpal reminded that use of the term "yard" is replaced by "setback area." Director John Livingstone suggested adding, "edge of pavement." He added that gates couldn't go that close as they need a queuing area at least one car distance back from the street. Chair Hlava suggested text, "Pilasters for wrought iron gates need to be located behind the triangle." Commissioner Cappello suggested adding Fence, Wall, Pilaster, or Compact Hedge. Chair Hlava reiterated that they must be outside the triangle. Commissioner Nagpal said there were no changes to page 3. Page 4 should add "parallel walls" and delete reference to fences. Chair Hlava said that there are so many possibilities for pool fencing outside of enclosing 4,000 square foot of area with fencing. It does not seem clear. Director John Livingstone said that a pool has to be fenced around. If the entire lot is fenced in (non- hillside), they don't need to have pool specific fencing. However, some still fence in their pools for child safety. In hillside districts there is a limit to 4,000 square feet enclosing fencing. A lot of people want more. When an owner has a very large pool and patio area, they may not want to fence in just 4,000 square feet. While the fence around a pool is exempt, the ordinance would allow 10 -foot area surrounding the pool to be enclosed in fencing to create usable areas around these pools. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 21 Chair Hlava said that if this is appealed to the Planning Commission she might be willing to support that provision. Commissioner Nagpal said that it allows for an exception. Commissioner Rodgers said that something like this comes to the Commission for judgment. She said she has no problem with a pool enclosure and 10 feet deck area around a pool. Chair Hlava said the owner could always appeal. Commissioner Rodgers suggested adding swimming pool fence. City Attorney Bill Parkin said that if the enclosed 4,000 square foot area is enough to fit the pool, the use of the 10 -foot area around the pool might only be permitted if an exception is sought. Commissioner Rodgers said that the word "solid" should be added to page 6. City Attorney Bill Parkin suggested "solid or any other type of fence." Commissioner Nagpal asked if existing legal non conforming situations could be appealed. City Attorney Bill Parkin said any Planning Commission decision could be appealed. Chair Hlava said that enough changes have been made. Should the amended draft come back to the next meeting or to a Study Session. Commissioner Rodgers said that the issues of chain link outside of hillside districts; flag lots closed in on hillside districts and notice issues need further clarification. Chair Hlava asked if the continuance should be to a date certain or uncertain. Director John Livingstone suggested a date certain as long as Shweta Bhatt and Bill Parkin have time to go over the changes. He reminded that additional noticing is not required for items continued to a specific date. Commissioner Nagpal asked Director Livingstone if he has a suggested date. Commissioner Rodgers said that while she does not expect an additional mailing, she would like to see something reported in the newspaper to advise the community on the status of this update. Chair Hlava suggested either February 27 or March 12 Director John Livingstone said that March 12 would be fine. He clarified that appeals may be final at Planning Commission level. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 22 Commissioner Nagpal agreed that administrative decisions are appealed to the Commission. If the Commission makes the original decision, those decisions are appealed to Council. Planner Shweta Bhatt said that this is included in the Ordinance. Chair Hlava said that the whole issue of chain link fences was deleted. Director John Livingstone said that it was added back in another spot. They are allowed in non hillside zoning but not allowed in hillside zoning. Commissioner Cappello suggested forbidding them all around. Commissioner Nagpal said that with shrubbery growing on it they are invisible. Commissioner Hlava said that it is hard to do without chain link fencing with agricultural uses. Commissioner Rodgers said that those are existing fences. Commissioner Cappello added that they could be grandfathered. Director John Livingstone said that wood fences don't last. When they fall, replacements would meet ordinance standards. However, chain link fences are around for a long time although new ones can be prohibited. Commissioner Nagpal reiterated that they are not visible if landscaping is growing on them. Commissioner Cappello asked if they should be allowed with screening shrubbery. Commissioner Rodgers said that no one would see them to complain about them. Commissioner Kundtz said that they are allowed around pools. Commissioner Rodgers said also around athletic courts. Director John Livingstone said that chain link fencing painted black requires less maintenance and plants can grow on them. Commissioner Zhao asked why chain link fencing should not be allowed on hillside properties. Commissioner Cappello said because of wild life. Commissioner Zhao said that one couldn't see these chain link fences when they are located far back in their backyard. Commissioner Rodgers said that animals couldn't pass through them. Commissioner Zhao said they could not pass through a wood fence either. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 23, 2008 Page 23 Chair Hlava said that chain link fencing would still be in the ordinance. Director John Livingstone said that this issue (chain link) can be brought back as is and changes could be made at the next meeting. He said that a whole updated package would be brought to the next hearing on this ordinance. Commissioner Nagpal said that she wants this ordinance to be reflective of what's actually happening. Commissioner Rodgers suggested that staff come back with some "either /or" language. Commissioner Cappello said it could be exception versus stay as it is. Ms. Priscilla Ho pointed out that chain link fencing disappears on a larger property. It is better looking than a solid fence would be. Chair Hlava suggested chain link be allowed on properties over one acre in size. Commissioner Nagpal suggested zoning R -1- 40,000. Chair Hlava suggested lot size versus zoning. Commissioner Rodgers said right now chain link is prohibited on hillside properties. Commissioner Nagpal suggested that it be handled separately on hillside versus residential zoning. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Rodgers, the Planning Commission CONTINUED CONSIDERATION TO ITS MEETING OF MARCH 12, 2008, consideration of a draft ordinance to update existing regulations regarding fences, walls and hedges, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Rodgers advised that she would be absent from the April 9, 2008, meeting. From: John [purvisjohn @comcast .net] TTAC Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 2:29 PM To: Aileen Kao; Ann Waltonsmith; Chuck Page; Kathleen King; Jill Hunter; Planning; John Livingstone; Shweta Bhatt Cc: Dave Anderson; City Clerk; tracypurvis©comcast.net Subject: Regulations Related to Fences Importance: High Dear Sirs and Madams, I'm deeply grateful to all who have invested so much work and patience in the evolving proposed ordinance related to fences in Saratoga. My special thanks to Shweta Bhatt who has provided timely, responsive, and professional communication to those of us in the public so interested in a matter critical to preserving the unique character of Saratoga. Planning Commission Meeting Tonight Overview 1 I commend the recent simplification which narrows this proposed ordinance to "Regulations Related to Fences" from the overly broad "Regulations Related to Fences, Walls and Hedges." You accomplished this by defining a wall not a part of a building as a fence and excepting hedges from the discussion. I would encourage the Study Group, the Planning Commission and the City Council, not only to change the title of the proposed ordinance accordingly, but also to adopt the same approach of successive refinement through narrowing of scope in introducing an effective fence policy over time. With the greatest respect for much excellent work done here, I believe the delays —and the present deficiencies in the currently proposed ordinance, as I will discuss —are the result of the laudable goal to solve the whole problem at once in a single sweeping ordinance. This is a classical trap which consistently fails in government, business and life. I realize that the Study Group and the Planning Commission must be getting tired of working on this in the face of a significant delay since the December 2007 Negative Declaration of adverse impact, seven public meetings over the course of a year, and continued letters like this one. I think a sign of this understandable frustration is a recent response to my concern that a meeting at the end of the summer vacation period, with the final ordinance being published only six days before that meeting, could easily be misconstrued by cynical members of the public, if there are any. I was told that there had been seven meetings over a year and I took the implication to be that enough's enough and it's time to move forward. That may be true, but again I think that great progress could have been made —and still can be made —by addressing first the small steps that all can agree should be made. And I respectfully suggest that understandable impatience with the delays may be misconstrued as a fundamental lack of understanding of the profound nature of the change being contemplated. Part of that change is the creation of a more developer friendly ordinance. I don't mean to suggest that's all bad —there are many wonderful developers —but I think most people would agree when soaring fences are permitted by over the counter permit and an additional variance process, fences rather than greenery begin to dominate. And there can be no more fundamental change to the unique character of Saratoga than that. Whether or not true, there is a common belief that developers often push for "progress" at times when it is difficult to stop them summer vacations, weekends, etc. That's probably urban legend to begin with and, in any event, I am absolutely confident that this was not a factor in your decision to ignore my request to delay this crucial Plannin meeting, represented as the likely last stop on way to a vote by City Council, until the 4 Wednesday in August or 2 Wednesday in September. Nevertheless, I do think that it may be an indication that impatience is clouding our judgment around the critical area of public perception. Unfortunately, we are travelling this evening and will be unable to attend the meeting. I deeply regret that I will neither be able to thank you in person for your hard work, nor voice my concerns and suggestions. I'll do the best I can here. I will address below a few must -fix problems with the proposed ordinance, but I can't allow that to imply that I support a unilateral, over the counter permit process. I personally am vigorously opposed to increasing allowed height of fences above 6', certainly without written approval by directly affected property owners in a permit process. Giving such discretion to a planner over the counter will result in a denial of due process in a matter which is absolutely critical to the use, enjoyment and value of property. A pleasant manner and convincing story line over the counter cannot be allowed to trump the needs of property owners who may not be able to present such a charming case for. any of a thousand reasons including health, socio- economic background, language barriers or the simple fact that they may not even know what is being contemplated. But they will certainly have to live with the consequences of a 33% increase in proposed visual barrier height. We simply need to accept the fact many developers and otherwi' right thinking property owners see the quick fix of tall fence as an alternative to planting trees and shrubs. If the L is thinking that taller fences represent the solution for privacy given the ever more tortured placement of houses on lots inappropriate to accommodate them, it will become a self fulfilling prophecy. The first recourse should be planting, and shorter fences encourage it —that will also become a self fulfilling prophecy, a virtuous cycle. I am so disappointed that we haven't yet considered more creative solutions such as providing subsidies for those who wish to plant privacy hedges instead of erecting castle walls. In the long run, I think you will be disappointed as well. Best practice around the country is to place a premium on current adjacent property owners' agreement on any exception to strict fence height limitations. A permit process is still required but there must be bilateral application. Everyone understands that this approach does not address all neighbors concerns, but it is the very best start to allow the judgment of the people who best understand the local use, topology and character of the specific parcels at issue —the directly affected neighbors —to be treated as a more reliable indicator of on- the ground realities than a planner doing over the counter approvals, however excellent his or her work. Everyone also understands that there are modest complications because of property transference —but, after all, the fence will be in place when property is acquired. Best practice is to allow a request for a fence to be dismantled at any time by adjacent property owners if it exceeds strict height requirement —it's just that a permit on record, regardless of the owners who applied for it, will be taken as a key factor in Planning's handling of such a request. Again, I am extremely disappointed that this common sense, good -will, non bureaucratic and neighbor -based approach was not included in the permit process. Must -Fix Deficiencies of Proposed Ordinance Lattice v. Fence I have raised this issue before and we remain in respectful disagreement regarding the proposed ordinance's clarity on the necessity to seek a permit for a 6 +2 fence (6 feet solid and 2 feet lattice). The City's position is that a permit is required for this. This is almost certainly not the case, given the specific language of Article 15- 29.010. The latticr defined as something which is separate and apart from the solid fence. A permit is required when the solid fence exceeds 6', and specific authorization is additionally provided for two foot lattice additions. I gather that the intention was to include the lattice as part of the fence for the purposes of triggering permit. This is not the literal meaning of the words, in my opinion. Actual or Finished Grade A change was made to make measurement at applicant's choice. Again, this problem is magnified without the important bilateral permit process by adjoining neighbors, but building up a temporary finished grade is a standard technique to change the fundamental character of the property which an owner or developer bought. The original language "whichever is lower must be restored. Fence Posts I have also raised this issue twice and have not received an on -point response. If you think 1 am overreacting in encouraging you to remove the ambiguity of fence v. lattice, consider this from my earlier message to Planning: Code Enforcement has advised me that a fence post is not presently considered part of a fence, so that someone can erect fence posts soaring 2, 20 or 200 feet above the horizontal line of the fence top —I am advised that this is often done out of spite because a neighbor complains about a fence over 6' high. This is an absurd interpretation in terms of common sense and the law. A wooden fence comprises fence posts for support and fence boards to confer physical and /or visual security —to state the obvious with a sense of discovery, if a fence post is over 6', the fence of which it is a part is over 6'. Although it should be unnecessary, the study effort should certainly address this "loophole" if Code Enforcement truly believes it is one. No changes were made to address this problem, one of the biggest visual blights in Saratoga. The proposed ordinance addresses pilasters and allows these ornaments (by definition) to soar 2 foot above the fence. The intention is clearly to permit decorative pilasters on wrought iron fences. First, two feet is too high for this, second, code needs to make clear that wooden fence poles are not pilasters, third, the question of pilasters for wooden fences needs to be addressed, and fourth, if wooden fences can have pilasters, then the question is can they sore to 10 feet above a 6 foot solid fence with a 2 foot lattice? 2 Adjacent Properties of Different Grade Unless it is agreed by adjacent property owners, it is completely unacceptable to allow the lower property grade to use the higher property grade to meet fence height requirement. If a lower grade property cannot be developed without building castle walls, it should not be developed. The proposed ordinance recognizes that tall fences are undesirable in hilly areas because of vistas. But different property grades constitute, by definition, hilly areas. Regardless of how the property is classified unsightly castle walls in hilly areas are constant for immediate neighbors and for the entire community. This is a serious inconsistency in the proposed code. Successive Refinement I respectfully submit that the proposed ordinance be modified to deal exclusively with the four most glaring problems with fences in Saratoga today. After this is successfully implemented, further refinement will be dramatically simpler and more effective. I'll include them all in a single proposed paragraph of ordinance: Fences comprise structural fence posts, solid fencing materials such as fence slats, and lattices or other decorative elements. The maximum height of any part of the fence can be at most 6' from the lower of the natural or finished grade of the property upon which it is erected, unless property owners of affected adjacent properties apply for a permit which, if approve, authorizes erection of a fence up to 7 feet from the lower of such grades on either of the adjacent properties as requested in the joint permit application provided that the highest twelve inches of the fence is lattice which is 75% permeable to light and air movement. No fences, however, may be erected without a variance process if they are obstacles for the movement of wildlife in known foraging or migratory patterns. Fences must be maintained to meet minimal aesthetic standards to be determined by public hearing and published online; fences not in compliance with these standards will be cited by Code Enforcement with rapid escalation to City Council for public and binding disposition. Respectfully, John and Tracy Purvis 3 From: Shweta Bhatt Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 9:30 AM To: 'John' Cc: 'Mom'; Jill Hunter; 'Chelsea Purvis'; 'Taylor Purvis'; John Livingstone Subject: RE: FYI August 13 2008 PC Hearing Regulations Related to Fences Walis Hedges Hi John, Your email was provided to the Commission. You may consider coming to the meeting and speaking as well. In response to your comments, please see below. Shweta. 1. The version that is available is the version reviewed by the Commission at the July 8, 2008 study session. The version for the August 13 meeting will not become available until August 7 It will be posted on the Community Development Department's webpage as well. 2. The Planning Commission's contact information may be found at: http: /www.saratoga.ca.us /boards- commissions /planning /index.html 3. The City Council's contact information may be found at: http:// www. saratoga .ca.us /citvcouncil /index.html 4. There have been a number of hearings held regarding the update to the code. The first was held about a year ago and the Commission has met 7 times since then. 5. Yes, the change to the code would permit a 6 -foot solid fence with a 2 -foot lattice. From: John [mailto:purvisjohn ©comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:27 AM To: Shweta Bhatt Cc: 'Mom'; Jill Hunter; 'Chelsea Purvis'; 'Taylor Purvis' Subject: RE: FYI August 13 2008 PC Hearing Regulations Related to Fences Walis Hedges Importance: High Thank you, Shweta. I've reviewed the last draft (redline form) of the study group's work, and have some very serious concerns. Is it difficult to read that version or to know if and when various critical topics were discussed by the group. Certainly the concerns expressed in my email earlier this summer appear not to have been addressed. 1. Would it be possible for you to send me the current "final" of the proposal which the study group will be making to the Planning Commission? 2. Also, can you give me names, roles and contact information for the study group members? 3. I would be grateful if you would give me the names and contact information for each member of the Planning Commission and the City Council. 4. I know there's no perfect time to do anything, but I want to emphasize again how profoundly Saratoga is contemplating changing the character of our community with these plans and how an over the counter appr process can inadvertently undermine due process in a culturally heterogeneous community in which high property values attract both residents and speculators. I think it is very unfortunate that the Planning Commission is going to take this matter up at a time in summer vacation where we can reasonably predict limited opportunity by residents to participate. It exacerbates the inherent due process issue. 5. I still can't parse the language of the proposed draft. Are you truly proposing that fences with conforming lattice Sincerely, John Purvis process? Is the plan truly proposing that this 8' can be erected by a neighbor but measured from my grade' Is the plan truly proposing not to address the loophole freely acknowledged by Code Enforcement that a fence pole is not part of a fence (so that neighbors can punitively have fence poles soaring above even the 8' over the counter and unilaterally permitted fence from the highest possible grade even if that is not on the fence installer's property)? Please clarify these points. From: Shweta Bhatt [mailto:sbhatt ©saratoga.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10:20 AM To: Shweta Bhatt Subject: FYI August 13 2008 PC Hearing Regulations Related to Fences Walls Hedges Dear member of the public, You have expressed interest in and /or submitted comments for an update to regulations related to fences, walls, and hedges. Please note that this item will be heard and discussed at the August 13, 200 Planning Commission hearing. A recommendation may be made to the City Council regarding this topic. Please know that you have the opportunity to speak on this item at the hearing. In the event you wish to do so, please fill out and hand in a "request to speak form." These forms are typically located on a table in the lobby of the auditorium. Members of the public are typically provided a total of 3 minutes each to express comments, issues, or concerns. Thank you for your interest and participation! Best regards, Shweta Bhatt Associate Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 P: (408) 868 1266 F: (408) 867 8555 E: sbhatt @saratoga.ca.us From: Sent: To: Subject: Shweta, Yes, that is the section that concerns me. The Parker Ranch HOA has been discussing changes to our CC &Rs for years. Such changes require a super majority of our homeowners and therefore take quite a while to happen. I do understand that the city council has to review and approve any such changes as well, so I am looking ahead to avoid creating additional hurdles in the future. If the HOA and the city agree to amend portions of our CC &Rs addressed by Resolution FE -90 -001, then that resolution will have to be amended as well. That might then cause an amendment to section g below if it is not worded carefully. You might want to add something like "shall meet the regulations stipulated in Resolution FE -90 -001 and its successor amendments Drew infinera Drew Perkins Chief Technology Officer Infinera Corporation 169 Java Drive Sunnyvale, CA, 94089 Direct: (408) 572 -5308 Fax: (408) 904 -4644 Mobile: (408) 666 -1686 dperkins a(�infinera.com http://www.infinera.com From: Shweta Bhatt [mailto:sbhatt @saratoga.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 10:28 AM To: Drew Perkins Subject: RE: FYI July 8 2008 PC Study Session Regulations Related to Fences Walls Hedges Hi Drew, Do you mean this section? This section of the code references the resolution approved by City Council. Typically cities do not get heavily involved with CC &Rs and do not enforce them. However, since the regulations were originally reviewed and approved by C• Council by resolution, an amendment to them would require City Council review. Does this help? Shweta. Drew Perkins [dperkins @infinera.com] Tuesday, July 08, 2008 11:15 AM Shweta Bhatt RE: FYI July 8 2008 PC Study Session Regulations Related to Fences Walls Hedges Anv roperty located v h _and constituting a....p rit c }f Tracts 6526 Ranch Subdivision), as shown oil the subdivision map thereof recorded ii County Recorder shall rneet the regjdati[}ns stipulated in Resolution FE -9( From: Drew Perkins [mailto:dperkins @infinera.com] Ccnf• Mnnrlgy 1i ily n7 70f1R 17.78 tM To: Shweta Bhatt Subject: RE: FYI July 8 2008 PC Study Session Regulations Related to Fences Walls Hedges Shweta, My apologies for dropping out of participation in this the past few months. Other things in my life have had to have priority. I would like to make one comment thought that I meant to comment on months ago. I noticed new language, that I now can't find, regarding Parker Ranch. I am concerned that this new language may restrict Parker Ranch from changing their own CC &Rs in the future. The language as I remember it seemed to codify what is in the current CC &Rs. But our CC &Rs may be modified by a vote of our members and there are many people who want to do that. It would be a shame to pass an amendment and then have the city deny it because the municipal code had been changed to codify what was in our old CC &Rs only for Parker Ranch and not for the entire city. Can you please change this? Drew I nfinera Drew Perkins Chief Technology Officer Infinera Corporation 169 Java Drive Sunnyvale, CA, 94089 Direct: (408) 572 -5308 Fax: (408) 904 -4644 Mobile: (408) 666 -1686 doerkinsinfinera.com http://www.infinera.com From: Shweta Bhatt [mailto:sbhatt @saratoga.ca.us] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:39 PM To: Shweta Bhatt Subject: FYI July 8 2008 PC Study Session Regulations Related to Fences Walls Hedges Dear member of the public, Thank you for your continued interest and participation! Best regards, You have expressed interest in and /or submitted comments for an update to regulations related to fences, walls, and hedges. Please note that this item will be discussed at a Planning Commission Study Session on Tuesday, July 8, 2008. Please find attached the staff report and find below logistical information for the meeting. You are welcome to attend and participate. The Study Session is a fact finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item and asl questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the meeting. During the Stud Session, the Planning Commission may only discuss items related to the project. The agenda does no allow any formal votes or motions on the proposed project or other matters. No comments mad€ during the Study Session by the Planning Commission are binding or required to be carried through tc the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on the proposed project, What: Study Session regarding update to regulations related to fences, walls, and hedges When: Tuesday, July 8, 2008; Approximately 5:OOpm Where: Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California From: Linda Rodgers Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 11:59 AM To: Shweta Bhatt; John Livingstone Cc: jpage @mathopenfig.com Subject: FW: Fencing Ordinance comments Hi Linda As requested, here are my thoughts on the fencing ordinance proposals. I have lived up here in the hills for 20 years and have run into problems with fencing before, so these are thoughts based on actual experience, plus some personal opinion. Wildlife migration First, I think far too much emphasis is placed on allowing wildlife to move about. The deer have hundreds of square miles of habitat in the Santa Cruz mountains, and they come down to where the homes are because of the lush landscaping. They are so attracted in fact that they have become a hazard. They run in front of cars and in their turn are a food source for big cats and coyotes, so we then have more of those too. Bottom line: They don't need my backyard. They have more than enough space without it. I would suggest that the objective to provide wildlife facilities be deleted from the ordinance. Enclosed area This one has always puzzled me. The enclosed area limit seems arbitrary and pointless. To give an example, when we put in our pool, we wanted the required pool fence to be pushed further from the pool and down a slope a little. That would have made it invisible to us and the neighbors. But it violated the enclosed fence limit (4000sgft) and so was blocked. We did in the end talk the planners into it, but the limit seemed silly. 4000sq'ft sounds a lot, but it's only 40ft by 100ft. What is really the goal here? Aesthetics This is the big one for me. I think that most people worry about what the hillsides would look like with horrible fences all over the place, and I heartily agree. This is the real problem that needs to be addressed. For this reason I strongly feel that any fence in the hillside zone that can be seen by the public or another residence should require planning approval and a permit. It should be reviewed in the same way as the house itself, since an ugly fence is as offensive as an ugly house up here. I don't think you can get the desired effect by having rules. Each case is different due to it's site and style. Some fences may be deemed unnecessary and a permit refused completely. For example a fence to mark a lot line should be denied. I think a permit process -may be viewed by some as excessive, but I think it's worth it to preserve the natural beauty up here. John Page 21530 Saratoga heights Drive (408) 741 0448 From: Bruce Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 4:41 PM To: Shweta Bhatt Subject: Zoning Map Hi Shweta I checked the zoning map at your office today and I see that some of the confusion between us and our neighboring properties is because someone has drawn the property zone lines on the actual property boundary lines rather than drawing them on the center line of streets where it would be natural for the zone to divide and change with no effect between any two properties. The net effect of the manner in which they are now drawn is that you have two different sets of fencing rules (Hillside Non- Hillside) governing the exact same boundary lines as shared with adjacent properties that are in di erent zones as my 3 rear and side neighbors are from me. If there are two or more different sets of rules governing adjacent properties that are in different zones then which set of rules would be in force is always going to be in question as well as forcing one or the other owner to attempt to comply with both sets of rules simultaneously between the front and or back and sides of their respective properties. I one neighbor erects fencing under one set of rules and the other is held to a different set of standards along the exact same boundary then enforcement becomes totally ludicrous in such circumstances. This really needs to be fixed as I pointed out at the past study session and previous meetings. Please forward this to all members of the planning commission prior to the next session as I will not be in attendance for•that one. Let nie know the result if you have time and when the next PC session will be after this coming one. Thanks Regards Bruce La Fountain From: Sent: To: Subject: From: John [mailto:purvisjohn @comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 12:39 PM To: John Livingstone Cc: Jill Hunter; tracypurvis @comcast.net Subject: Changes in Fencing Code: Time is of the Essence Importance: High John, 1. Can you please point me to an electronic version of the proposed changes to fencing code? I stopped b Planning but was only allowed to view a hard copy while I was there. I gather that this matter will be taken up tonight by the study committee. 1 will try to change my schedule to make that meeting, but it appears unlikely that I will be able to do so. Will you please communicate the information in this email to the study group, planning commission and city council? Thank you. 2. I am vigorously opposed to increasing allowed height of fences above 6', certainly without written approval by directly affected property owners in a permit process. I understand from my reading in the city offices that a permit process will be required for a fence above 6', but this is completely unacceptable if it does not involve consent from directly affected parties. Giving such discretion to a planner over -the- counter will result in a denial of due process in a matter which is absolutely critical to the use, enjoyment and value of property. A pleasant manner and convincing story line over the counter cannot be allowed to trump the needs of property owners who may not be able to present such a charming case for any of a thousand reasons including health, socio- economic background, language barriers or the simple fact that they may not even know what is being contemplated. But they will certainly have to live with the consequences of a 33% increase in proposed visual barrier height! 3. Code Enforcement has advised me that a fence post is not presently considered part of a fence, so that someone can erect fence posts soaring 2, 20 or 200 feet above the horizontal line of the fence top —1 am advised that this is often done out of spite because a neighbor complains about a fence over 6' high. Thi; is an absurd interpretation in terms of common sense and the law. A wooden fence comprises fence posts for support and fence boards to confer physical and /or visual security —to state the obvious with a sense of discovery, if a fence post is over 6', the fence of which it is a part is over 6'. Although it should be unnecessary, the study effort should certainly address this "loophole" if Code Enforcement truly believes it is one. Please make the ordinance more explicit on this point so that we are all saved the embarrassment and expense of having to seek other remedies to enforce both the spirit and the letter of the current code. 4. I am vigorously opposed to the granting of any permit, under modified ordinance as may be contemplated, for the erection of a fence above 6' on property adjoining my own unless my wife and 1 explicitly approve it. 5. John, can you please explain to me the proposed timetable for approval of any contemplated chan o relevant code? Thank you, John Purvis 20602 Lomita Avenue Shweta Bhatt Wednesday, May 28, 2008 10:27 AM Yan Zhao; John Livingstone; Joyce Hlava; Linda Rodgers; Manny Cappello; Rishi Kumar; Robert Kundtz; Susie Nagpal FYI Public Comment: Changes in Fencing Code: Time is of the Essence Hi Shweta Please add this support article to my recent comments for distribution to 'D the PC. Thanks Bruce La Fountain Coyote attacks a child in her front yard in Southern California C Associated Press May 8, 2008 11:03 AM ET -0\'' LAKE ARROWHEAD, Calif. (AP) For the third time in a week a coyote has attacked a toddler in Southern California. Authorities in San Bernadino county say the latest incident happened Tuesday in the mountain community of Lake Arrowhead. Melissa Rowley had stepped inside her house while her children were playing in the front yard. When she returned, a coyote was dragging Rowley's 2 -year -old daughter to the street by the head. The animal let go when Rowley ran to rescue the girl. The toddler was treated for several puncture wounds to the head and neck, but authorities say she is back home with her parents and is expected to fully recover. Two other attacks occurred at a park in Chino Hills, about 30 miles east of Los Angeles. On Friday, a nanny pulled another 2- year -old girl from the jaws of a coyote. And on Sunday, a father chased one off that had come after his toddler. Trappers have since killed three animals, 1 of which is believed to be the coyote who bit the child. Biologists can't explain the rash of incidents. Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Public Comment Mr. Bruce LaFountain Having closely followed the current discussions of the Planning Commission's last two public meetings and /or deliberating sessions regarding the proposed changes to the current fencing ordinances in the Saratoga City and Hillside districts; I respectfully submit the following additional public /resident comments for consideration and assistance in helping the preparation and presentation of a final recommendation and proposal to the City Council for rule making approval. With a clear an understanding of the need to balance the overall ongoing natural unique ascetic appeal of the Saratoga city and hillsides with the basic interest and needs of those residents who have purchased property or homes within the Hillside district, some more recently and some many years ago, there should be a deep appreciation and consideration given to the widely divergent and differing needs of those residents as those properties vary greatly in a wide array of extremely unique terrain and topography. The commission should take care not to inadvertently create a non intended penalty for those residents who have needs that may be unique or who have come later to the region and should be afforded the same opportunity to enhance and protect their properties as the longer term residents are. Presently and as proposed relatively large parcels of up to as much as 25,000 sq. feet or more non- hillside areas of the city directly adjacent to hillside areas maybe fully and completely enc d with the full variety of permitted fencing materials while the residents with larger investments and often much greater security and safety needs in the hillsides are limited to a total area of enclosure much smaller than actual total area of their homes with no consideration given to the relational proportions of their properties. No property owner should be directly penalized in restriction by being afforded a lower overall level of safety and security for their family property enclosure simply by purchasing a larger parcel in the city than their neighbors may have. The following points that have been given consideration to date center on the following: What will be the appropriate and permitted aesthetically pleasing fencing materials? What the linear distance a given material may be used continuously should be. The combination of the total sq. allowed that would qualify as a complete and continuous enclosure. Adequate provision for migrating wildlife through a given area. As with any good set of rules their value to all concerned is always determined by those subjected to their ultimate premise and the ability to consistently apply and enforce them fairly among those citizens who are expected to follow them and benefit from them. Any provisions being considered must take into account the true fairness of application going forward and backward as well as with what now exists. The Saratoga City Hillside is unique area. To my personal knowledge he no areas within the city limits that have been designated as a wild life preserve or a stat rAation ark. Public Continent Mr. Bruce LaFountain A very significant amount of the foliage that now adorns the city hillsides did not exist here 30 to 4o years ago but rather was added by increased residency and population growth over those years creating some level of attraction for the influx of the wildlife from the surrounding open space areas into the city Many areas of inaccessibility for wildlife or "Choke Points" currently exist throughout the city on both public and private property. These might include highway sound walls, freeways and city streets as well as fenced public or private property among the numerous other restrictions currently in place in our city. Indeed the wildlife makes its natural choices and always finds its way to its natural habitat with a very few exceptions. Wild animals have the innate ability to adapt and'survive in the most difficult and inhospitable terrain around our globe; often while being stalked by numerous natural predators in confining terrain. Any property owner who has given reasonable consideration to the movement and flow of such wildlife around or through their property should not be singled out or advertently penalized when pre- existing properties may not have made such wise or prudent provisions previously forcing patterns that are not necessarily natural. For the safety and security of private property in the hillside district property owners should be afforded at minimum the same rights and privileges that a similar sized parcel in other areas of the city are currently using or proposed to be given. Current discussion and considerations have given no mention to properties that may be directly adjacent to the hillside districts but are not in the hillside districts by declaration which may share partial property lines within portions of the hillside district. Such areas may have divergent neighborhood interests and should be given individual consideration somewhere in this process. In such areas there may be only one or two shared property boundaries with the adjacent parcels while a larger property in the hillside could have five or six or more shared boundaries making consensus by agreement next to impossible or where dissimilar fencing materials may have already been put in place that a newer owner must consider during any change or improvements to their own parcel would necessarily affect their choices and decisions. A high safety consideration should be given to facts such as the many wild animals that carry and transmit diseases like rabies and ticks with Lyme disease especially when high population concentrations are present, as they are in the areas surrounding this city, the of risk is greatly increased and can easily be transmitted to humans and domestic animals with grave consequences. Personal physical security is also a paramount consideration for high profile residents on a larger parcel who through various circumstances may become specific targets to those who may wish to harm them or their families in some unforeseen manner. Law enforcement and insurance companies also recognizes a quality fencing enclosure as being th( primary first deterrent in preventing most residential crime. Public Comment Mr. Bruce LaFountain Any resident who has had a specific or an implied threat or intimidation made to their property or person should only need reasonable presentation of such facts to achieve any exception for personal security purposes. Any exception system put in place to benefit residents with increased needs in any of these areas should not place any undue burden or further unreasonable discrimination on those residents by creating bureaucratic hurdles so difficult to negotiate that they automatically are frustrated by such rule making and cannot easily accomplish obtaining the required elements of the exception. In the final form all proposed rules and or regulations changes should be measured and balanced fairly among all properties in the city Ivith the notion that if there is benefit to be achieved in some form for the entire citizenry then the specific rights of property owners in the city to protect and preserve their homes and investments must also be protected in the framework of said rules v \ithout specific discrimination or subjective inconsistent applications. From: Shweta Bhatt Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 9:42 AM To: 'merees @yahoo.com' Subject: RE: fence concern H Maria, Thanks for your comments regarding chain link fencing. As you may have heard, the Planning Commission will be discussing the fence ordinance at their meeting on April 23, 2008. Shweta. Original Message From: Jana Rinaldi Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 3:53 PM To: Shweta Bhatt Subject: fence concern Shweta, this came to me via comcate please note the fence comment. Thank you. 1 as i read the San Jose Mercury News today, I'll like to take this opportunity to comment that some of us actually need the chain fences around our properties, i have coyotes, (that eat my daughter cat that sh had for 10 years) 12 to 15 deers all at once constantly and a small bobcat that showed -up last Dec. Alsc my daughter was playing in the yard and got a tick inside her ear. I agree with some of the issues however, some of us in the hills need to keep our families and pets safe. 2 -Is there anything that the city can do to fix /make it look better the sidewalk between Mina Way and Reid Ave? It's totally awful! 3 -For sometime one of my neighbours complained about my dog barking and we did something about it i would like to know what is the rule /policy with donkeys? Someone has donkeys over the hill, they wake us up sometimes around 5:30 -6:00 am. 4 -Is their an ordinance regarding garage sale signs? I don't mind the garage sales, I actually like going to it. However, i don't like to see the signs up week after week, all over town. Can we have some sort of code enforcement issue citations? if one puts the signs up, one must remove it. Thanks, Maria Rees Rees. Maria external customer 21231 Sullivan way Saratoga ca 95070 (mat)) 408 867 -3994 Jana Nadi, Coat Compliance Specialist C'ir�; 0 f tarttor a From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Shweta Bhatt Friday, March 14, 2008 11:58 AM Yan Zhao; Joyce Hlava; Linda Rodgers; Manny Cappello; Rishi Kumar; Robert Kundtz; Susie Nagpal John Livingstone; Bill Parkin; Brad Lind FWD: Proposed Changes to City of Saratoga's Ordinances Regarding Heights of Fences, Walls and Hedges I apologize for any duplication of this message; please see below in the event this correspondence did not gei to your current email address. Original Message From: Drew Perkins [mailto:dperkins @infinera.com] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 9:09 AM To: Seijas, Eileen; Manny.Cappello @comcast.net; Rishi Kumar; robert_kundtz Linda Rodgers; jhlavaogden( yanniezhao Cc: Kennedy, Robin; Steinmetz, Camas; rtaylor Shweta Bhatt Subject: RE: Proposed Changes to City of Saratoga's Ordinances Regarding Heights of Fences, Walls and Hedges Ladies and Gentlemen, Thank you so much for allowing me to speak about hedge height restrictions at the meetir Wednesday night. I am happy that I was able to raise awareness of potential problems wit. very high and long hedges obstructing views in hillside districts. I would like to clarify one element of my concern. Unfortunately, the format of the meeting prevented me from doing that in real -time since I was only able to speak at the public part at the beginning of the meeting. The committee was very concerned about making people cut down existing hedges. My particular concern is not with existing hedges which I am happy to see grandfathered in. My concern is with new hedges. I would like to see some sort of ordinance that prevents new hedges from being planted that one day would grow to several tens of feet high and stretch for more than a few tens of feet. Please consider something like that. I would be happy to have any of you visit my property to see what I am talking about. Please let me know if you are interested in visiting. Thanks, Drew 12329 Vista Arroyo Court Saratoga, CA 95070 infinera Drew Perkins Chief Technology Officer Infinera Corporation 169 Java Drive Sunnyvale, CA, 94089 Direct: (408) 572 -5308 Fax: (408) 904 -4644 Mobile: (408) 666 -1686 dperkins(c�infinera.com http://www,infinera.com manatt manatt I phelps I phillips March 7, 2008 Robin B. Kennedy Manatt, Phelps Phillips, LLP Direct Dial: (650) 812 -1360 Direct Facsimile: (650) 213 -0280 E -mail: RKennedy@manatt.com Client Matter: 4 04 30 -0 30 Members of the Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Proposed Changes to City of Saratoga's Ordinances Regarding Heights of Fences, Walls and Hedges Dear 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. 1. 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 manatt manatt pheips 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 ...thatis 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 sucks that a boundary is created and replace the phrase "fence or wall" in the first sentence of Section 15- 29.010(a) with "fence, wall or hedge 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). (3) manatt manatt phelps 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. RBK:ehs cc: Client Richard S. Taylor, Esq. (City Attorney) Shwetta Bhatt (Associate Planner) Respectfully submitted, Robin B. Kennedy February 14, 2008 Attention: Shweta Bhatt; Planning \1\ ;•iwy Cc: Jana Rinaldi; Code enforcement FF -v N �G Dear Ms Bhatt G01 City of Saratoga Staff 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 1343 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 5o 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 ]ink 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 ordinances we undertook additional efforts to closely follow the existing rules by constructing 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. I have attached nine various photographs of our application so they may be evaluated and considered in your decision making process. Thank you all for you kind consideration. Sincerely, Bruce La Fountain 1343 Pierce Road Saratoga, Ca.95o70 9 Photos attached: Photo (A): View of (neighbor 1) chain link fencing from our property. Photo (B): Additional view of (neighbor 1) chain link fencing where our fence joins it on the upper left. This fence was in existence when we purchased our lot and is actually placed on our property. Photo C: View of existing chain link fencing (neighbor 2) along an unattended portion of their lot. Photo D: View of our own fencing from our lot along unattended portions of neighboring lots. Photo E: Additional view of our fencing from our lot along unattended portions of (neighbor number i's) lot line. Photo F: View of our fence and lot from below (neighbor #3's) patio while still on our own unfenced property. Photo G: View of access to our nature trail we created from our property and adjacent to unattended portions of neighboring lots along, long ago very dilapidated wooden fencing. Photo H: View of our nature trail wildlife access as it enters adjacent portion of unattended neighboring lots along wooden neighboring fencing being supported by one of our trees. Photo I: Extended view of our wildlife access nature trail as it exists. From: Bill Breck [bill.breck ©gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 3t, 2008 3:38 PM To: Shweta Bhatt Subject: Monster walls Shweta, I know John gave the example during the last meeting for stacking in the front yard, 3 feet on top of 3 feet retaining, "giving the appearance of 6 feet However, I think that example was much too innocuous. Here's a pic of what will happen in side or rear yards: (appx. equal to 5 foot retaining, 6 foot fence, 2 foot lattice) This would really ruin the property value of the poor property owner who would have to look at these every day. I can't imagine anyone going for this. At the very least. there needs to be helpful staaaerina for all properties, not just in the hillside districts. manatt manatt 1 phelps 1 phillips January 3, 2008 Ms. Shweta Bhatt Associate Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Proposed Changes to City of Saratoga's Ordinances Regarding Heights of Fences, Walls and Hedges Robin B. Kennedy Manatt, Phelps Phillips, LLP Direct Dial: (650) 812 -1360 Direct Facsimile: (650) 213 -0280 E -mail: RKennedy @manatt.com tar: 1 1 I 1 U I. l i J AN 0 1_006 CITY OF SAr;.=, 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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 donfused 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: 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 manatt manatt 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 ad the n two of solid fen or wall will not impair the integrity and character 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 d corner t o s. No fence or wall located within any required front setbacack k in height. No fence or wall located within any Exceptions tob area of a reversed corner lot shall ex ceed three feet in height limitations are as follows: (1) Wrought iron entrance gates, designed with openings to permit visibility through the same, may extend to a height not exceeding five feet. manatt manatt 1 phelps 1 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 intersectin 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 landscapin including but not limited to hedges and shrubs, planted in a linear and uninterrupted pattern such that (a) a boundary is created and (b) it stands on its own and does not require supports of any kind. Green fences are exempt from the height requirements prescribed in 15- 29.010(a); 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- 29.010, 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 lightand air language s not dand/or restricted to fen improvements of a ni property. Furthermore, the current 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. manatt manatt I phelps 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 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) Sincerely, Robin B. Kennedy 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: We have been residents of Saratoga for approximately 10 years. We would like to express our concerns regarding the current and proposed updates to the city code pertaining to fences, walls and hedges. As we discussed on the telephone, the current code regarding hedges in particular is highly ambiguous, and the proposed updates not only fail to eliminate these ambiguities but in fact make the code even more ambiguous. The current Article 15 -06 DEFINITIONS, 15- 06.341 Height of fences, walls and hedges, and Article 15 -29 FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES, 15- 29.010 Height restrictions, have the term "hedges" in their name, but mostly only talk about fences and walls to the exclusion of hedges. The word "hedges" is never defined. What is a hedge and how does it differ from a fence or wall? The proposed updates to this text worsens the problem further by using the additional terms "compact hedge" and "Green Fence Is a compact hedge different from a hedge? How is it different? How does a 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, AN 0 2aDa N CHAPTER 4.20 SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Sections: 4.20.010 Purpose 4.20.020 Accessory Buildings and Structures 4.20.030 Density Bonuses and Other Incentives for Affordable Housing 4.20.040 Development on Substandard Lots 4.20.050 Fences 4.20.060 Manufactured Homes 4.20.070 Motor Vehicle Repair and Storage in Residential Districts 4.20.080 Outdoor Storage 4.20.090 Recreational and Similar Vehicles 4.20.100 Refuse Storage in Multi Family and Non- Residential Development 4.20.110 Setback Encroachments and Height Exceptions 4.20.120 Tree Preservation and Removal 4.20.010 Purpose The purpose of this chapter, Supplemental Development Standards, is to provide supplemental standards for certain structures and facilities, and for types of uses not classified in Article 2, Chapter 2.10. The regulations in this chapter are in addition to any base districts regulations in Article 2 and any combining district regulations contained in Article 3. 4.20.020 Accessory Buildings and Structures SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 4.20: SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. General. Accessory buildings and structures are subject to all of the provisions of this section. B. Exemptions. The following accessory structures are exempt from the regulations in this chapter: 1. Paved driveways, patios, walkways, stairways, decks and similar structures whose height does not exceed 30 inches above grade. A railing no higher than 42 inches above the surface height may be placed around such exempt structures. 2. Retaining walls. 3. Any accessory building or structure whose combined above ground dimensions (maximum length maximum width maximum height) do not exceed 16 feet. This exception shall not be applicable to mechanical REV: FEBRUARY 2008 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 4.20: SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS provided that its area is not less than 3,750 square feet and it complies with all other applicable land development regulations. B. Setback Exceptions. See §4.20.110 for special setback exceptions for substandard lots. 4.20.050 Fences A. Fences In Urban Residential Districts. Fences in all R1, R1E, R2, R1S and RHS districts, and Al districts within urban service areas are subject to all of the following regulations: 1. Fences or hedges shall not exceed three (3) feet in height within any portion of a lot within 20 feet of the front lot line (or edge of front right -of -way). 2. Fences or hedges shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height within any other portion of a lot, except as specified in subsection 3 below. 3. On corner lots, fences along the exterior side lot line (or edge of side right -of -way) may be as tall as eight (8) feet, except that a three -foot height limitation shall apply within the following areas: (a) within the 40 -foot sight clearance triangle defined by Section B17-69 of the County Ordinance Code, which relates to vehicular sight clearance on intersecting streets, and (b) within a 20 -foot sight clearance triangle where the rear of a corner lot abuts the front and side yards of a key lot. REY: FEBRUARY 2008 Fig. 4.20 -8 Fences Urban Districts RIGHT OF WAY 3' MAXIMUM HEIGHT 8' MAXIMUM HEIGHT SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 4.20: SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 4. Where architecture and site approval is required for the establishment of a use, the regulations specified in this section may be modified through the architecture and site approval process (Chapter 5.40). 5. Fences that reasonably must exceed the height limitations specified within this section, such as enclosures for tennis courts, or due to physical circumstances such as unusual topography, or for consistency with and preservation of neighborhood character, may be allowed subject to the design review provisions of Chapter 5.50. 6. Fences in -d" and -sr" combining districts shall be subject to the design review provisions of Chapter 5.50. B. Fences in Rural Districts. Fences in A, AR, HS, RR and RS districts and Al districts outside of urban service areas are subject to all of the following regulations: 1. Fences or hedges not exceeding six (6) feet in height may occupy any portion of a lot within 20 feet of the edge of any street right -of -way. However, on corner lots where two (2) or more streets intersect, Section B17-69 of the County Ordinance Code relating to sight clearance for fences and hedges applies. 2. No fence may be built in a manner that significantly obstructs the view from vehicles exiting a driveway of approaching vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Within a triangle formed by two (2) 20 -foot sides measured from the point of intersection along the edge of pavement and the edge of driveway, no fence may exceed three (3) feet in height, unless design review approval is obtained under Chapter 5.50. 20'1 EDGE OF PAVED ROADWAY Fig. 4.20 -9 Fences Rural Districts 3. Fences or hedges not exceeding eight (8) feet in height may occupy any portion of a lot other than the restricted areas described in subparagraphs one (1) and two (2), above. SITE CLEARANCE TRIANGLE 3' MAXIMUM HEIGHT 6' MAXIMUM HEIGHT 8' MAXIMUM HEIGHT REV: FEBRUARY 2008 SANTA CLARA COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 4.20: SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 4. Where architecture and site approval is required for the establishment of a use, the regulations specified in this subsection may be modified through the architecture and site approval process. 5. Fences that reasonably must exceed the height limitations specified within this section, such as for tennis courts, or due to physical circumstances such as unusual topography, or for consistency with and preservation of neighborhood character, may be allowed subject to the design review provisions of Chapter 5.50. 6. Fences in -d" and -sr" combining districts shall be subject to the design review provisions of Chapter 5.50. [Fig. 4.20 -9] 4.20.060 Manufactured Homes Manufactured (factory built) homes and mobile homes shall be certified under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974. 4.20.070 Motor Vehicle Repair and Storage in Residential Districts A. Intent. It is the intent of this section to limit certain activities associated with the repair and storage of motor vehicles that occur on residential property so that such activities do not disturb neighboring residents. B. Limitations. On any residential lot in any zoning district, the servicing, repairing, assembling, disassembling, wrecking, modifying or otherwise working (hereinafter referred to as "work" within this section) on any motor vehicle or the placing or storing of disabled or inoperative motor vehicles, motor vehicle bodies, parts, equipment, machinery, tools or other metal materials of any kind is only permitted if all of the following are met: 1. Work may be performed only on a motor vehicle registered to a person residing on the lot. 2. Storing disabled or inoperative vehicles. A disabled vehicle is one that cannot immediately be started and moved under its own power or is not currently registered for use on the public right -of -way. a. Disabled or inoperative vehicles shall be stored in areas screened from public view and from adjacent properties. b. No more than two (2) disabled or inoperative vehicles are allowed to be stored or worked on per lot. 3. Motor vehicle repair and storage shall not constitute a legal, nonconforming use, and this provision shall supersede any contrary provision of Chapter 4.50. REV: FEBRUARY 2008 08/29/2018 04:47 FAX FROM: MOHINI BALAKRISHNAN DIRECT: 408 -868 -9998 FAX: 408- 868 -9997 FAX COVER SHEET DATE: /D/-2/6 g TIME: l (s) 1/1-- COMPANY: 241-"fe-L TO: i L 7 75 9 NUMBER OF PAGES: -4- 6 Utz COMMENTS: j 001 08/29/2018 04:47 FAX Date: 6 Oct, 2008 To: Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 From: Saratoga hillside district residents listed on attached signature pages Subj ect: New Fence Ordinance Hillside district resident's inputs To members of the planning commission, We understand that the Saratoga Planning Commission is working on a new fence ordinance and is seeking input and participation from the residents of the Saratoga hillside district for the upcoming Planning Commission meeting on October 7 We are writing this letter to provide our inputs for consideration at this meeting. Many of us also plan to attend the meeting in person. 1. We fully support the exclusion of Vineyards and Orchards from the maximum proposed fenced enclosure area of 6000 square feet for the hillside district. We understand that these exclusions were discussed at the last meeting held on August 13 and all the members of the Planning Commission are agreeable on these exclusions. We also understand that the Planning Commission is considering excluding sports courts from the maximum proposed maximum fenced area as sports courts are already restricted by the maximum allowed impervious area. We agree with the Planning Commission's view and fully support this exclusion. 3. We understand that horse corals and safety fences required for swimming pools are already excluded from the maximum enclosed fence area in the latest proposal. Once again we are in agreement with the Planning Commission. 4. As regards to the maximum proposed limit of 6000 square feet for enclosed fencing area (for purposes other than those discussed above), we believe a larger fenced area should be allowed depending on the size of the lot. We understand that this subject was also discussed at the last meeting and majority of the members of the Planning Commission were supportive of a lot size based maximum limit on fenced area. We propose that the maximum fenced area be limited to 15% of the total land area or 6000 square feet whichever is greater. The 6000 square feet corresponds to 14% of one acre and, therefore, only lots larger than approximately 1 Acre will be allowed to exceed the 6000 square feet limit. Reasons in support of item 1: L 002 0S/29/2018 04:47 FAX 0]003 Reasons in support of all items above: CC: 1. A large number of homes in hillside district have Vineyards and Orchards. 2. Vineyards and Orchards have been part of the hillside Iandscape for many decades and add to its character. 3. It is not clear how one can have vineyards or orchards without fencing due to deer and other animals that are abundant in the hillside district. 4. Without the fence, animals like deer can get entangled on the vineyard trellis causing injury and death to the animal which is safety concern. 5. Most of the vineyards and orchards are on slopes. Due to the deep roots of the vines and fruit trees, they are very effective in preventing soil erosion. 6. Vineyards and Orchards take very little water but yet provide an effective fire barrier for the homes in the hillside district. 7. A large number of the homes in Saratoga with the hillside designation/ordinance already have vineyards, orchards, horse corals and sports -courts with fencing around them. 8. Most of these fences far exceed the 6000 square feet limit. 9. Without the above exclusions, these properties will be non compliant with the city hillside ordinance. 10. Since the City of Saratoga only enforces the ordinances when the resident applies for a new permit or when they get a compliant from a neighbor, it would put an unfair time and cost burden on a few unlucky residents who will either be forced to comply with the ordinance or go through the Planning Commission Public Hearing to get an exception on their fence. 11. Any new city ordinance should be designed to allow at least 90 to 95% of the current residents to be complaint so that only a few exceptional cases need to be brought to the Public Hearing with the Planning Commission for approval. This will save both the Planning Commission and the City the burden of having to deal with so many exceptions. Sincerely, Residents of Hillside District (signatures attached) John Livingstone Community Development Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 08/29/2018 04:47 FAX Signatures of Hillside Residents that endorse the attached letter on new fencing ordinance; 9, 10. 11. 12. Address T e urf kl4A1 2. tic --cN 0004 vu\-fu Si! .1,1111 N L► 21 7 (9 /`1 t C=d'e 3- -c, an ?,Z7 a /1 Vi Ko}) Axe. -/r4 t1V1 r14iV( 6RrIPr7 R.F46, A VA i3‘ 36 Ja 7x Au c7 SA Q Fl o i 7 '3 6 f k� 2dd J�' 'Y ca✓L 2 t 1 57 V 11.-L4-0/ t 0V 7. S ,4GG, .F TT 8L-11 U cam. Ociho 2 08/29/2018 04:48 FAX Signatures of Hillside Residents that endorse the attached letter on new fencing ordinance: r r fi t' 1E.e L4 r.lt ki4A1 t C tN 2. n t 1d<‘ A a*... aai +7 8 e eae 14 /2 of Alg Vi prom N .4p 4- X 4t�r 1Wr M1/1 4. 5 kTo -RF lz 6 U T 1 1 f if A-VAN 136 34 .2� 6 1 Q. Flit c -7 5. 311 A, A i o d/1 G71 `1 7h 21 V Ceti 8. PrAI4vs gtA f raik marl cam/ 'af� C� oho V 7. St A -r ,A 9. 10. 11. 12. Address Si Z005 08/29/2018 04:48 FAX Signatures of Hillside Residents that endorse the attached letter on new fencing ordinance: k► 1 L eJ\ hC7-4, C\ C) (50iD 2. 9. 10. 11. 12. Address Weft. alai '2- ire E.Cte- ra a 4_ CM ,0 7 r5 3j SRizt o4 A 'Rrif4R l�fz 4- 5 4 1 2 A i o 6- t 6 A RAGH -/v /363` 1)6E4 TA Ail U 5. .SA4. AI o .A .1 1 6. ter 4- 41 a'' 2/181 v t 7. S Ask -a G, A -cl 572) daII/ 1 8. .r .L JL a 006 2 4,„ ,Ez/1...-. -alai 08/29/2018 04:48 FAX Address 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Address Signature Signature 0]007 08/29/2018 04:48 FAX 18/07/2008 07:91 4098681597 MAGNER Signatures of Hillside Residents that endorse the attached letter on, new fencing ordinance: 1. /35 T.ger 5121 LAUrT 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Address Z008 PAGE 01/01 08/29/2018 04:48 FAX 0 0.4‘,L)-9 37. !3 3 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 01009 CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM TO: City Council and Planning Commission FROM.: Shweta Bhatt, Associate Planner N'IE;ETING DATE: October 7 2008 SUBJECT: Fence Ordinance Update Application ZOA 07 -0001 STUDY SESSION REQUIREMENTS: The Study Session is a fact finding meeting where the Council and. 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 City Council and 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 Study Session by the City Council or Planning Commission are binding or required to be carried through to the formal public hearing Where actions will be taken on the proposed project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council review the curent fence ordinance and provide input to Planning Commission and staff regarding updates. DISCUSSION TOPICS: Overall Goals The overall goals for the update to regulations for fences, walls, and hedges include: to establish an exception process that ywould allow property owners to apply to exceed the maximum permitted fence height; and to clarify ambiguous language and areas of the code that are currently difficult to enforce. The Planning Commission -has held several study sessions and public hearings regarding the implementation of these goals. Language to establish an exception process has been added and several ambiguities in current language have been clarified. A table itemizing the proposed changes has been attached to this staff report. Goals Or Fencing with the Hillside District Fencing within hillside districts remains a topic of discussion. The language for the August 13, 2008 hearing was prepared as a result of the discussion regarding goals for fencing in the hillside district during study sessions on May 27, 2008 and duly 8, 2008. The following goals were identified during these study sessions: Ch 4 :!u P :M C..hri/iiS .0F. kiiHiuilith! 2 .1.'J1cncl/i !7i O('(' Fencing in the Hillside Residential (HR) District should: (1) Allow for wildlife movement by allowing: a. Split rail b. Three -foot high fencing c. Stone walls d. Openings in fencing Be aesthetically pleasing Provide security Identify property line Be cleared stipulated in the City's ordinance language (4) Proposed language for the fence code thus increases the maximum. permitted area of enclosure from. 4,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet. Fencing outside this enclosure (i.e. to delineate property lines), would be permitted to a maximum height of 3-feet and shall be split rail fencing, stone wall, or stucco. Discussion during August 13, 2008 hearing and for Study Session The Planning Commission discussed permitted areas of enclosure and types of uses to exclude from areas of enclosure during the August 13, 2008 public hearing. People who provided public input suggested that many hillside properties have vineyards, orchards, and other agricultural uses and that these items should not be included in the 6,000 square foot enclosure. Some commissioners added that recreational courts should not be included in the square footage total either since there are other limiting factors (such as topography and impervious coverage maximum). In summary, the discussion at the last hearing concluded with the following topics of discussion for this Study Session: Non compliance. Many properties within the hillside district do not comply with the current code regarding fencing. Proposed changes to the code may exacerbate non compliance. Area of Enclosure. Fencing surrounding vineyards, orchards, corrals, and other agricultural uses within the hillside district should not be counted towards the 6,000 square foot enclosure maximum. Some commissioners are of the opinion that recreational courts should not be included in the enclosure maximum either, however not all are in agreement with this idea. Rural Character of Hillside Residential areas. The fence code should protect the overall rural character of the hillside district. The hillside, trees, and other irreplaceable resources are reasons people move to the City. Slats in Chain Link Fencing. Slats should not be permitted in chain link Fencin Noise Mitigation. Noise mitigation for residential properties adjacent to or in the vicinity of commercial properties should be considered in the code. Properties Outside Hillside Residential Zones. Many properties in the City are not zoned H.R. but have similar characteristics to hillside zoned properties in tears of topography, wildlife, and lot size. These properties do not have the same limitations for fencing as properties zoned HR. Front Yard Fencing. .Many properties abutting streets such as Chester. Sobey Road, Peach Hill. and Montalvo Road have fencing within the front yard that are ?!r i`i c It 07-0001 1 taller than 3 feet. Perhaps 3 feet is not tall enough for many of the fences in some of these neighborhoods. Consideration may need to be given for taller fences within the front of some properties. The Planning Commission and staff are requesting the City Council provide input and guidance regarding the update to the fence code, particularly as it relates to hillside properties. NOTICING AND PUBLIC OUTREACH: A number of noticing methods were used for this meeting and the code update: Newspaper A notice for this study session was published in the September 24, 2008 edition of the Saratoga News. Over the last year, the Saratoga News and the Mercury News have published several front -page stories regarding the code update. Press Release A press release was prepared for this study session. Signs in the Community Signs announcing this study session have also been installed on Prospect Road, ii\Mlt. Eden Road, and two locations on Pierce Road. Homeowner Associations A notice has been e- mailed to homeowner association representatives regarding this study session. City's Websitc The City's website has a page regarding the proposed update: http:// www. saratoga .ca. us /comd.evlfencecode.html ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft update to regulations related to fences, walls, and hedges 2. Table summarizing proposed changes 3. Minutes from Planning Commission hearings (August 13, 2008, April 23, 2008, March 12, 2008, and January 23, 2008) 4. Public comment Topic Current Approach and Problem Proposed Changes Definitions The code does not currently define hedges and does not distinguish walls from retaining walls. The regulations use the terms interchangeably throughout the subsection, requiring assumptions and interpretations. The definition of fence will include walls (other than walls of a building and retaining walls). Definitions for fledge and retaining 11 /all have been added. Height 'Measurement Currently, fences are measuredl. from the lower elevation points and include the height. of any retaining walls. A. property owner with the higher grade on one side of a property line is thus allowed a shorter fence than a property owner on the opposite side. Where, for example, a 4 -foot grade differential exists between two properties, a property owner with the higher elevation point is allowed only 2 -foot high fence if the maximum fence height is 6 -feet. The proposed language will measure fence height from the higher of two properties. Some language has been removed so the section is consistent. Retaining \vans will be measured from the lower elevation of two properties and the 5 -foot maximum height for retaining walls has not been changed. Fence Height The code currently permits fences to a maximum of 6- feet in height. 'However, it is common practice to have a 6-foot tall fence vvith 2 -feet of lattice. These fences are not allowed by code, thus creating enforcement issues throughout the community. The proposed changes would allow a 6-foot tall solid fence with an additional 2 -feet of lattice for a maximum of 8- .feet. The proposed changes would also allow fencing composed of wrought iron or wire to a maximum height of 8- feet. Fence Exception Currently, any variation to code regulations requires a variance. Variances are reserved for situations where a hardship exists. The proposed update to the fence ordinance would establish a fence exception process that would allow property owners to request that the Planning Commission approve a .modi:flcation to regulations for a particular situation vwhere a hardship may not exist, but where deviation from the code is allowed. Green Fences The code currently does not regulate the height of trees or other natural landscaping, even when they are planted in a linear pattern and create a boundary similar to that of a fence. A definition of hedges has been added to the code in lieu of the term "green fences," which is not used in the proposed .language. The proposed language will exempt !i rt <'77 �17tlii Page 1 Topic Current Approach and Problem Proposed Changes hedges from height restrictions, except for street and driveway intersections. Driveway Intersections The code currently does not limit the height of fences near driveway intersections. The proposed update will add a height requirement of 3 -feet for fences and other elements located within a 12- foot by 12 -foot triangle near driveway intersections for projects that trigger design review. Entry Elements Currently the code does not regulate the number or the size parameters of entry elements. The proposed language suggests a height maximum of s -feet, and a G- hoot maximum for both width and depth. There are no limits on the number of entry elements. Existing Non- Conforming Fences Currently fences legally established prior to a particular date are exempt from some limitations within the code. Given that many fences do not require building permits, it is difficult to determine when a '.fence was legally established. Specific dates have been eliminated and the term "legal" has been added to ensure that the secti0n1 applies only t0 legally established fences. Removal of more than half of a legal fence or element will require the replacement structure to comply with code requirements or require review via a fence exception. Height and Materials Within Hillside 'Districts Currently, wire fencing (other than chain link, barbed wire or galvanized wire) with 4 -inch openings to allow for the passage of 'wildlife is permitted. The code specifies that the wire must be black or otherwise colored t0 blend with the terrain. Chain link fencing in the hillside district is currently prohibited except for recreational courts. The code has been modified to perrnrt fencing that delineates the area of enclosure in hillside properties to be composed of the same materials and heights that are permitted elsewhere, including chain Ink. The height and materials for fencing outside the area of enclosure have also been specified. Area of Enclosure for Hillside Properties Currently, hillside properties are permitted a maximum of 4,000 square feet of enclosure. Common practice is t0 enclose an area that is larger, but a goal is t0 allow for the passage of wildlife. The code exempts recreational courts from the enclosure The code will be modified to permit a 6,000 square foot enclosure that may be fenced with the same material and maximum heights as stipulated elsewhere in the City. lElowever, outside the area of enclosure, fer c,ing must be no taller than 3 -feet and t01!!?V U;'!3 ra, �dutt. /;�11Cx!!71 [Mize 2 Topic Current Approach and Problem Proposed Changes requirement, even though recreational courts are permitted to be as large as 7,200 square feet., consist only of split rail, stone, or stucco. Additionally, recreational courts are no longer exempt from the enclosure requirement. Chain Link Fencing Material Chain. link 'fencing is commonly used in many areas of the City, but is only prohibited in the hillside district. The ordinance has been revised to allow chain link fencing in the hillside districts within the 6,000 square foot enclosure. Swimming Pool Fences (Building Regwihions) Chapter 16 (Building regulations) of the City code regulates fences required around- pools. 1'his update will reference that section of the City code. Swimming Pool Fences (Hillside District Enclosul'e.$) The code currently limits the square footage of enclosure within the hillside district to 4,000 square feet, but exempts the area needed to fence a pool from the square footage maximum. Therefore, since the building code requires properties with a pool to be enclosed, a fence may surround the property and inadvertently enclose more than 4,000 square feet. The proposed language \Gill require fencing for pools in hillside districts to follow the contour of the pool with no more than 10-feet of distance between the water line of the pool and fence. Only properties that already have a 6,000 square foot enclosure for another purpose are subject to this requirement. Enclosure iv4axinlunl with Elillside Districts Currently there is no requirement for a minimum distance ill between two fences to be considered not enclosed. This update would add that a minimum linear distance of 30-feet must exist between any two points of discontinuation. Front Yard Side Yard Fencing The City has numerous lots (i.e. flag lots) that do not have frontage on a street, but are still required t0 adhere to a 3 -foot ma=ximum height for fences in the front setback area. This is particularly applicable when the front lot line of a lot abuts a side lot line of an adjacent lot. Where the adjacent lot may be permitted a fence that i.s 6 -foot solid with 2 -toot lattice, the subject property may be limited to a 3 -foot fence along the same property line. The proposed. language adds a provision that allows the maximum fence height for a side yard or a rear yard be allowed within the front setback area of the lot that would otherwise be limited to 3-feet in height. "(l..1 "u;tz r if iJIINr lttLnrill Coll; it :rtli S ton' I R iti Y/li(IVf!N 'fl( Ir': 1,'(10 Page 3 Topic Current Approach and Problem Proposed Changes Solid 8 -foot Fence An S -foot :Fence or wall is currently permitted for certain arterial streets and for fencing adjacent: to commercial properties. Since the proposed language would permit 6- foot solid fence with 2 -foot lattice on other properties, Language regarding, the permitted S -foot solid fence needs to be clarified. The phrase "solid or other type of fence permitted by this Article" has been added to existing language for clarification. Parallel Fences and Walls Public testimony vas received with respect to this issue at the January 23, 2008 hearing. The term "fences" has. been removed from this section and the term "retaining walls" has been added. Parker Ranch The Parker .Ranch subdivision has specific fencing requirements; however the code does not reference these regulations. The regulations describing Parker Ranch fencing requirements will be referenced in the proposed language. G.L 3 1! Yfllfh ■w From: John [purvisjohn @comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 2:29 PM To: Aileen Kao; Ann Waltonsmith; Chuck Page; Kathleen King; Jill Hunter; Planning; John Livingstone; Shweta Bhatt Cc: Dave Anderson: City Clerk; tracypurvis @comcast.net Subject: Regulations Related to Fences Importance: High Dear Sirs and Madams, I'm deeply grateful to all who have invested so rnuch work and patience in the evolving proposed ordinance related to fences in Saratoga. My special thanks to Shweta Bhatt who has provided timely, responsive, and professional communication to those of us in the public so interested in a matter critical to preserving the unique character of Saratoga. Planning Commission Meeting Tonight I commend the recent simplification which narrows this proposed ordinance to ''Regulations Related to Fences" from the overly broad "Regulations Related to Fences, Walls and Hedges." You accomplished this by defining a wall not a part of a building as a fence and excepting hedges from the discussion. I would encourage the Study Group, the Planning Commission and the City Council, not only to change the title of the proposed ordinance accordingly, but also to adopt the same approach of successive refinement through narrowing of scope in introducing an effective fence policy over time. With the greatest respect for much excellent work done here, I believe the delays —and the present deficiencies in the currently proposed ordinance, as I will discuss —are the result of the laudable goal to solve the whole problem at once in a single sweeping ordinance. This is a classical trap which consistently fails in government, business and life. I realize that the Study Group and the Planning Commission must be getting tired of working on this in the face of a significant delay since the December 2007 Negative Declaration of adverse impact, seven public meetings over the course of a year, and continued letters like this one. I think a sign of this understandable frustration is a recent response to my concern that a meeting at the end of the summer vacation period, with the final ordinance being published only six days before that meeting, could easily be misconstrued by cynical members of the public, if there are any. I was told that there had been seven meetings over a year and I took the implication to be that enough's enough and it's time to move forward. That may be true, but again I think that great progress could have been made —and still can be made —by addressing first the small steps that all can agree should be made. And I respectfully suggest that understandable impatience with the delays may be misconstrued as a fundamental lack of understanding of the profound nature of the change being contemplated. Part of that change is the creation of a more developer friendly ordinance. I don't mean to suggest that's all bad —there are many wonderful developers —but I think most people would agree when soaring fences are permitted by over -the- counter permit and an additional variance process, fences rather than greenery begin to dominate. And there can be no more fundamental change to the unique character of Saratoga than that. Whether or not true, there is a common belief that developers often push for "progress" at times when it is difficult to stop them summer vacations, weekends, etc. That's probably urban legend to begin with and, in any event, I am absolutely confident that this was not a factor in your decision to ignore my request to delay this crucial Planning meeting, represented as the likely last stop on way to a vote by City Council, until the 4 Wednesday in August or 2 Wednesday in September. Nevertheless, I do think that it may be an indication that impatience is clouding our judgment around the critical area of public perception. Unfortunately, we are travelling this evening and will be unable to attend the meeting. I deeply regret that I will neither he able to thank you in person for your hard work, nor voice my concerns and suggestions. I'll do the best I can here. Overview I will address below a few must -fix problems with the proposed ordinance, but I can't allow that to imply that I support a unilateral, over- the counter permit process. I personally am vigorously opposed to increasing allowed height of fences above 6', certainly without written approval by directly affected property owners in a permit process. Giving such discretion to a planner over the counter will result in a denial of due process in a matter which is absolutely critical to the use, enjoyment and value of property. A pleasant manner and convincing story line over the counter cannot be allowed to trump the needs of property owners who may not be able to present such a charming case for i any of a thousand reasons including health, socio- economic background, language barriers or the simple fact that they may not even know what is being contemplated. But they will certainly have to live with the consequences of a 33% increase in proposed visual barrier height. We simply need to accept the fact many developers and otherwise right thinking property owners see the quick fix of tall fence as an alternative to planting trees and shrubs. If the City is thinking that taller fences represent the solution for privacy given the ever more tortured placement of houses on lots inappropriate to accommodate them, it will become a self fulfilling prophecy. The first recourse should be planting, and shorter fences encourage it —that will also become a self fulfilling prophecy, a virtuous cycle. I am so disappointed that we haven't yet considered more creative solutions such as providing subsidies for those who wish to plant privacy hedges instead of erecting castle walls, In the long run, I think you will be disappointed as well. Best practice around the country is to place a premium on current adjacent property owners' agreement on any exception to strict fence height limitations. A permit process is still required but there must be bilateral application. Everyone understands that this approach does not address all neighbors concerns. but it is the very best start to allow the judgment of the people who best understand the local use, topology and character of the specific parcels at issue —the directly affected neighbors —to be treated as a more reliable indicator of on- the ground realities than a planner doing over -the- counter approvals, however excellent his or her work. Everyone also understands that there are modest complications because of property transference —but, after all, the fence will be in place when property is acquired. Best practice is to allow a request for a fence to be dismantled at any time by adjacent property owners if it exceeds strict height requirement —it's just that a permit on record, regardless of the owners who applied for it, will be taken as a key factor in Planning's handling of such a request. Again, I am extremely disappointed that this common sense, good -will, non bureaucratic and neighbor -based approach was not included in the permit process. Must -Fix Deficiencies of Proposed Ordinance Lattice v. Fence I have raised this issue before and we remain in respectful disagreement regarding the proposed ordinance's clarity on the necessity to seek a permit for a 6 +2 fence (6 feet solid and 2 feet lattice). The City's position is that a permit is required for this. This is almost certainly not the case, given the specific language of Article 15- 29.010. The lattice is defined as something which is separate and apart from the solid fence. A permit is required when the solid fence exceeds 6', and specific authorization is additionally provided for two foot lattice additions. I gather that the intention was to include the lattice as part of the fence for the purposes of triggering permit. This is not the literal meaning of the words, in my opinion. Actual or Finished Grade A change was made to make measurement at applicant's choice. Again, this problem is magnified without the important bilateral permit process by adjoining neighbors, but building up a temporary finished grade is a standard technique to change the fundamental character of the property which an owner or developer bought. The original language (''whichever is lower must be restored. Fence Posts I have also raised this issue twice and have not received an on -point response. If you think I am overreacting in encouraging you to remove the ambiguity of fence v. lattice, consider this from my earlier message to Planning: Code Enforcement has advised me that a fence post is not presently considered part of a fence, so that someone can erect fence posts soaring 2, 20 or 200 feet above the horizontal line of the fence top —1 am advised that this is often done out of spite because a neighbor complains about a fence over 6' high. This is an absurd interpretation in terms of common sense and the law. A wooden fence comprises fence posts for support and fence hoards to confer physical and /or visual security —to state the obvious with a sense of discovery, if a fence post is over 6', the fence of which it is a part is over 6'. Although it should be unnecessary, the study effort should certainly address this "loophole" if Code Enforcement truly believes it is one. No changes were made to address this problem, one of the biggest visual blights in Saratoga. The proposed ordinance addresses pilasters and allows these ornaments (by definition) to soar 2 foot above the fence. The intention is clearly to permit decorative pilasters on wrought iron fences. First, two feet is too high for this, second, the code needs to make clear that wooden fence poles are not pilasters, third, the question of pilasters for wooden fences needs to be addressed, and fourth, if wooden fences can have pilasters, then the question is can they sore to 10 feet above a 6 foot solid fence with a 2 foot lattice? 2 Adjacent Properties of Different Grade Unless it is agreed by adjacent property owners, it is completely unacceptable to allow the lower property grade to use the higher property grade to meet fence height requirement. If a lower grade property cannot be developed without building castle walls, it should not be developed. The proposed ordinance recognizes that tall fences are undesirable in hilly areas because of vistas. But different property grades constitute, by definition, hilly areas. Regardless of how the property is classified unsightly castle walls in hilly areas are constant for immediate neighbors and for the entire community. This is a serious inconsistency in the proposed code. Successive Refinement I respectfully submit that the proposed ordinance be modified to deal exclusively with the four most glaring problems with fences in Saratoga today. After this is successfully implemented, further refinement will be dramatically simpler and more effective. I'll include them all in a single proposed paragraph of ordinance: Fences comprise structural fence posts, solid fencing materials such as fence slats, and lattices or other decorative elements. The maximum height of any part of the fence can be at most 6' from the lower of the natural or finished grade of the property upon which it is erected, unless property owners of affected adjacent properties apply for a permit which, if approve, authorizes erection of a fence up to 7 feet from the lower of such grades on either of the adjacent properties as requested in the joint permit application— provided that the highest twelve inches of the fence is lattice which is 75% permeable to light and air movement. No fences, however, may be erected without a variance process if they are obstacles for the movement of wildlife in known foraging or migratory patterns. Fences must be maintained to meet minimal aesthetic standards to be determined by public hearing and published online; fences not in compliance with these standards will be cited by Code Enforcement with rapid escalation to City Council for public and binding disposition. Respectfully, John and Tracy Purvis 3 From: Shweta Bhatt Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 9:30 AM To: 'John' Cc: 'Mom'; Jill Hunter; 'Chelsea Purvis'; 'Taylor Purvis'; John Livingstone Subject: RE: FYI August 13 2008 PC Hearing Regulations Related to Fences Walls Hedges Hi John, Your email was provided to the Commission, You may consider corning to the meeting and speaking as well. In response to your comments, please see below, S 1., The version that is available is the version reviewed by the Commission at the July 8, 2008 study session. The version for the August 13 meeting will not become available until August 7`' It will he posted on the Community Development Department's wehpage as well. 2. The Planning Commission's contact information may be found at: http://www.saratoga.ca.us/boards- comrnissions /planning /index.ht ml 3. The City Council's contact information may be found at: http: /www.sara tog a.ca.us /citycouncil /index.html A. There have been a number of hearings held regarding the update to the code. The first was held about a year ago and the Commission has met 7 times since then. 5. Yes, the change to the code would permit a 6 -foot solid fence with a 2 -foot lattice. From: John [mailto:purvisjohn©comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:27 AM To: Shweta Bhatt Cc: 'Mom'; Jill Hunter; 'Chelsea Purvis'; 'Taylor Purvis' Subject: RE: FYI August 13 2008 PC Hearing Regulations Related to Fences Walls Hedges Importance: High Thank you, Shweta. I've reviewed the last draft (redline form) of the study group's work, and have some very serious concerns. Is it difficult to read that version or to know if and when various critical topics were discussed by the group. Certainly the concerns expressed in my email earlier this summer appear not to have been addressed. 1. Would it be possible for you to send me the current final" of the proposal which the study group will be making to the Planning Commission? 2. Also, can you give me names, roles and contact information for the study group members? 3. I would be grateful if you would give me the names and contact information for each member of the Planning Commission and the City Council. 4. I know there's no perfect time to do anything, but I want to emphasize again now profoundly Saratoga is contemplating changing the character of our community with these plans and how an over the counter approval process can inadvertently undermine due process in a culturally heterogeneous community in which high property values attract both residents and speculators. I think it is very unfortunate that the Planning Commission is going to take this matter up at a time in summer vacation where we can reasonably predict limited opportunity by residents to participate. It exacerbates the inherent due process issue. 5. I still can't parse the language of the proposed draft. Are you truly proposing that fences with conforming lattice (re: with a numerically specified wind and light porosity) can be 6' plus 2' equals 8' tall without even a variance Sincerely, John Purvis process? Is the plan truly proposing that this 8' can be erected by a neighbor but measured from my grade? Is the plan truly proposing not to address the loophole freely acknowledged by Code Enforcement that a fence pole is not part of a fence (so that neighbors can punitively have fence poles soaring above even the 8' over -the- counter and unilaterally permitted fence from the highest possible grade even if that is not on the fence installer's property)? Please clarify these points. From: Shweta Bhatt [mailto:sbhatt ©saratoga.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10:20 AM To: Shweta Bhatt Subject: FYI August 13 2008 PC Hearing Regulations Related to Fences Walls Hedges Dear member of the public, You have expressed interest in and /or submitted comments for an update to regulations related to fences, walls, and hedges, Please note that this item will be heard and discussed at the August 13, 200S Planning Commission hearing. A recommendation may he made to the City Council regarding this topic. Please know that you have the opportunity to speak on this item at the hearing. In the evens you wish to do so, please fill out and hand in a "request to speak form." These forms are typically located on a table in the lobby of the auditorium. Members of the public are typically provided a total of 3 minutes each to express comments, issues, or concerns. Thank you for your interest and participation! Best regards, Shweta Bhatt Associate Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 P: (408) 868 1266 F: (408) 867 8555 E: sbhati •saraiogo.ca.us 2 From: Drew Perkins [dperkins @infinera.cornj Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 11:15 AM To: Shweta Bhatt Subject: RE: FYI July 8 2008 PC Study Session Regulations Related to Fences Walls Hedges Shvdeta, Yes, that is the section that concerns me. The Parker Ranch HOA has been discussing changes to our CC&f s for years. Such changes require a super- majority of our homeowners and therefore take quite a while to happen. I do understand that the city council has to review and approve any such changes as well, so I am looking ahead to avoid creasing additional hurdles in the future. If the HOA and the city agree to amend portions of our CC &Rs addressed by Resolution F, 10 -001, Then that resolution will have to be amended as well. That might then cause an amendment to section t bei if it is not worded carefully. You might want to add something like "shall meet the regulations stipulated in Resolution FE -90 -001 and its successor amendments Drew infinera Drew Perkins Chief Technology Officer Infinera Corporation Direct: (408) 572 -5308 Fax: (408) 904 -4644 Mobile: (408) 666 -1686 169 Java Drive dperkins @infinera.com Sunnyvale, CA, 94089 hiro:h /m From: Shweta Matt [mailto:sbhatt @saratoga.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 10:28 AM To: Drew Perkins Subject: RE: FYI July 8 2008 PC Study Session Regulations Related to Fences Walls Hedges Drew, no von mean this section? _10 ropertv located wititin and constituting a- part of rl'racfs 6526 a Rrnnch Subdivision), as shown on the subdivision map thereof recorded it County Recorder shall meet the tue�til t_ions stipulated in resolution FE -90 This section of the code references the resolution approved by City Council Typically cities do not get heavily e with CC&f3S and do not enforce there. However, since the regulations were originally reviewed and approved by City Council by resolution, an amendment to then would require City Council review. Does this heap? 5 =,vyeta. From: Drew Perkins [mailto:dperkins @infinera.com] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 12:28 AM i To: Shweta Bhatt Subject: RE: FYI July 8 2008 PC Study Session Regulations Related to Fences Walls Hedges Shweta, My apologies for dropping out of participation in this the past few months. Other things in my life have had to have priority. I would like to make one comment thought that I meant to comment on months ago. I noticed new language, that now can't find, regarding Parker Ranch. 1 am concerned that this new language may restrict Parker Ranch from changing their own CC &Rs in the future. The language as I remember it seemed to codify what is in the current CC&Rs. But our CC &Rs may be modified by a vote of our members and there are many people who want to do that. It would be a shame to pass an amendment and then have the city deny it because the municipal code had been changed to codify what was in our old CC &Rs only for Parker Ranch and not for the entire city. Can you please change this? Drew Infinera Drew Perkins Chief Technology Officer Infinera Corporation 169 Java Drive Sunnyvale, CA, 94089 Direct: (408) 572 -5308 Fax: (408) 904 -4644 Mobile: (408) 666 -1686 dperkins(infinera.com htip: /w.vw.infinera.com From: Shweta Bhatt [mailto:sbhatt @saratoga.ca.us] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:39 PM To: Shweta Bhatt Subject: FYI July 8 2008 PC Study Session Regulations Related to Fences Walls Hedges Dear member of the public, You have expressed interest in and /or submitted comments for an update to regulations related to fences, walls, and hedges. Please note that this item will be discussed at a Planning Commission Study Session on Tuesday, July 8, 2008. Please find attached the staff report and find below logistical information for the meeting, You are welcome to attend and participate. 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 alloy any formal votes or motions on the proposed project or other matters. No comments made during the Study Session by the Planning Commission are binding or required to be carried throuuh to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on the proposed project. What: Study Session regarding update to regulations related to fences, walls, and hedges When: Tuesday, July 8, 2008: Approximately 5:OOprn Where: Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvaie Avenue, Saratoga, California Thank you for your continued interest and participation! Best regards, Shweta Bhatt 2 From: Linda Rodgers Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 11 :59 AM To: Shweta Bhatt; John Livingstone Cc: jpage @mathopenfig.com Subject: FW: Fencing Ordinance comments H Linda As requested, here are my thoughts on the fencing ordinance proposals. I have lived up here in the hills for 20 years and have run into problems with fencing before, so these are thoughts based on actual experience, plus some personal opinion. Wildlife migration First, I think far too much emphasis is placed on allowing wildlife to move about. The deer have hundreds of square miles of habitat in the Santa Cruz mountains, and they come down to where the homes are because of the lush landscaping. They are so attracted in fact that they have become a hazard. They run in front of cars and in their turn are a food source for big cats and coyotes, so we then have more of those too. Bottom line: They don't need my backyard. They have more than enough space without it. I would suggest that the objective to provide wildlife facilities be deleted from the ordinance. Enclosed area This one has always puzzled me. The enclosed area limit seems arbitrary and pointless. To give an example, when we put in our pool, we wanted the required pool fence to be pushed further from the pool and down a slope a little. That would have made it invisible to us and the neighbors. But it violated the enclosed fence limit (4000sgft) and so was blocked. We did in the end talk the planners into it, but the limit seemed silly. 4000sq ft sounds a lot, but it's only 40ft by 100ft. What is really the goal here? Aesthetics This is the big one for me. I think that most people worry about what the hillsides would look like with horrible fences all over the place, and I heartily agree. This is the real problem that needs to be addressed. For this reason I strongly feel that any fence in the hillside zone that can be seen by the public or another residence should require planning approval and a permit. It should be reviewed in the same way as the house itself, since an ugly fence is as offensive as an ugly house up here, I don't think you can get the desired effect by having rules. Each case is different due to it's site and style. Some fences may be deemed unnecessary and a permit refused completely. For example a fence to mark a lot line should be denied. I think a permit process may be viewed by some as excessive, but I think it's worth it to preserve the natural beauty up here. John Page 21530 Saratoga heights Drive (408) 741 0448 Hi Slnweta From: Bruce Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 4:41 PM To: Shweta Bhatt Subject: Zoning Map 1 checked the zoning map at your office today and I se that some of the confusion between us and our neighboring properties is because someone has drawn the property zone lines on the actual property boundary lines rather than drawing them on the center line of streets where it would be naiural for the zone to divide and change with no effect between any two properties. The net effect of the manner in which they are now drawer is that you have two different sets of fencing rules (Hillside Non- Hillside) governing the exact same boundary lines as shared with adjacent properties that are in di erent zones as my 3 rear and side neighbors are from me. If there are two or more different sets of rules governing adjacent properties that are in deferent zones then which set of rules would be in force is always going to he in question as well as forcing one or the other owner to attempt to comply with both sets of rules simultaneously between the front and or back and sides of their respective properties. I one neighbor erects fencing cinder one set of rules and the other is held to a different set of standards along the exact same boundary then enforcement becomes totally ludicrous in such circumstances. This really needs to be foxed as I pointed out at the past .study session and previous meetings_ Please forward this to all members of the planning commission prior to the next session as I will not be in attendance for'that one, Let inc know the result if you have time and when the next PC session will be after this coming one. Thanks Regards Bruce La Fountain From: Shweta Bhatt Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 10:27 AM To: Yan Zhao; John Livingstone; Joyce Hlava; Linda Rodgers; Manny Cappello; Rishi Kumar; Robert Kundtz; Susie Nagpal Subject: FYI Public Comment: Changes in Fencing Code: Time is of the Essence From: John [mailto:purvisjohn comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 12:39 PM To: John Livingstone Cc: Jill Hunter; tracypurvis @comcast.net Subject: Changes in Fencing Code: Time is of the Essence Importance: High John, 1, Can you please point me to an electronic version of the proposed changes to fencing code? I stopped by Planning but was only allowed to view a hard copy while I was there, I gather that this matter will be taken up tonight by the study committee. I will try to change my schedule to make that meeting, but it appears unlikely that I will be able to do so. Will you please communicate the information in this email to the study group, planning commission and city council? Thank you. 2. I am vigorously opposed to increasing allowed height of fences above 6', certainly without written approval by directly affected property owners in a permit process. I understand from my reading in the city offices that a permit process will be required for a fence above 6', but this is completely unacceptable if it does not involve consent from directly affected parties. Giving such discretion to a planner over -the- counter will result in a denial of due process in a matter which is absolutely critical to the use, enjoyment and value of property, A pleasant manner and convincing story line over -the- counter cannot be allowed to trump the needs of property owners who may not be able to present such a charming case for any of a thousand reasons including health, socio economic background, language barriers or the simple fact that they may not even know what is being contemplated. But they will certainly have to live with the consequences of a 33% increase in proposed visual barrier height! 3. Code Enforcement has advised me that a fence post is not presently considered part of a fence, so that someone can erect fence posts soaring 2, 20 or 200 feet above the horizontal line of the fence top —I am advised that this is often done out of spite because a neighbor complains about a fence over 6' high. This is an absurd interpretation in terms of common sense and the law. A wooden fence comprises fence posts for support and fence boards to confer physical and/or visual security —to state the obvious with a sense of discovery, if a fence post is over 6', the fence of which it is a part is over 6'. Although it should be unnecessary, the study effort should certainly address this "loophole" if Code Enforcement truly believes it is one. Please make the ordinance more explicit on this point so that we are all saved the embarrassment and expense of having to seek other remedies to enforce both the spirit and the letter of the current code. 4. I am vigorously opposed to the granting of any permit, under modified ordinance as may be contemplated, for the erection of a fence above 6' on property adjoining my own unless my wife and I explicitly approve it. 5. John, can you please explain to me the proposed timetable for approval of any contemplated changes to relevant code? Thank you, John Purvis 20602 Lomita Avenue Saratoga, CA Hi Shweta Please add this support article to my recent comments for distribution to the PC. Thanks Bruce La Fountain c rP Coyote attacks a child in her front yard in Southern California s cP 0? c Associated Press May 8, 2008 11:03 AM ET LAKE ARROWHEAD, Calif. (AP) For the third time in a week, a coyote has attacked a toddler in Southern California. Authorities in San l3ernadino county say the latest incident happened Tuesday in the mountain community of Lake arrowhead. Melissa Rowley had stepped inside her house while her children were playing in the from yard. When she returned, a coyote was dragging Rowley's 2- year -old daughter to the street by the head. The animal let go when Rowley ran to rescue the girl, The toddler was ;heated for several puncture wounds to the head and neck, but authorities say sh° is back home with her parents and is expected to fully recover. Two other attacks occurred at a park in Chino Rills, about 30 miles east of Los Angeles. On Friday, a namaypulled another 2- year -old girl from the jaws of a coyote. And on Sunday, a father chased one off that had come after his toddler. Trappers have since killed three animals, 1 of which is believed to be the coyote who bit the child. Biologists can't explain the rash of incidents. Copyrig,ht 2008 The associated Press .111 rights reserved. This material Indy not be published, lished broadcast, rewritten or redimributerd. Public Comment Mr. Bruce LaFouniain e Having closely followed the current discussions of the Planning Com mission's last two public meetings and /or deliberating sessions regarding the proposed changes to the current fencing ordinances in the Saratoga City and Hillside districts; I respectfully submit the following additional public /resident comments for consideration and assistance in helping the preparation and presentation of a final recommendation and proposal to the City Council for rule making approval. With a clear an understanding of the need to balance the overall ongoing natural unique ascetic appeal of the Saratoga city and hillsides with the basic interest and needs of those residents who have purchased property or homes within the hillside district, some more recently and some many years ago, there should be a deep appreciation and consideration given to the widely divergent and differing needs of those residents as those properties vary greatly in a wide array of extremely unique terrain and topography. The commission should take care not to inadvertently create a non intended penalty for those residents who have needs that may be unique or who have come later to the region and should be afforded the same opportunity to enhance and protect their properties as the longer term residents are. Presently and as proposed relatively large parcels of up to as much as 25,000 sq. feet or more in non- hillside areas of the city directly adjacent to hillside areas may be fully and completely enclosed with the full variety of permitted fencing materials while the residents with larger investments and often much greater security and safety needs in the hillsides are limited to a total area of enclosure much smaller than actual total area of their homes with no consideration given to the relational proportions of their properties. e No property owner should be directly penalized in restriction by being afforded a lower overall level of safety and security for their family property enclosure simply by purchasing a larger parcel in the city than their neighbors may have. The following points that have been given consideration to date center on the following: What will be the appropriate and permitted aesthetically pleasing fencing materials? What the linear distance a given material may be used continuously should be. The combination of the total sq. allowed that would qualify as a complete and continuous enclosure. Adequate provision for migrating wildlife through a given area. As with any good set of rules their value to all concerned is always determined by those subjected to their ultimate premise and the ability to consistently apply and enforce them fairly among those citizens who are expected to follow them and benefit from them. Any provisions being considered must take into account the true fairness of application going forward and backward as well as with ''hat now exists. The Saratoga City Hillside is unique area. To my personal knowledge thez n• no areas within the city limits that have been designated as a wild life preserve or a state lar ri adon ark. w 17;,n., 1 Public Comment Mr. Bruce LaFountain A very significant amount of the foliage that now adorns the city hillsides did not exist here 3o to 40 years ago but rather was added by increased residency and population growth over those years creating some of attraction for the influx of the wildlife from the surrounding open space areas into the city Many areas of inaccessibility for wildlife or "Choke Points" currently exist throughout the city on both public and private property. These might include, highway sound walls, freeways and city streets as well as fenced public or private property among the numerous other restrictions currently in place in our city. Indeed the wildlife makes its natural choices and always finds its way to its natural habitat with a very few exceptions. Wild animals have the innate ability to adapt and'sur vive in the most difficult and inhospitable terrain around our globe; often while being stalked by numerous natural predators in confining terrain. Any property owner who has given reasonable consideration to the movement and flow of such wildlife around or through their property should not be singled out or advertently penalized when pre existing properties may not have made such wise or prudent provisions previously forcing patterns that are not necessarily natural. For the safety and security of private property in the hillside district proper owners should be afforded at :minimum the same rights and privileges that a similar sized parcel in other areas of the city are currently using or proposed to be given. Current discussion and considerations have given no mention to properties that may be directly adjacent to the hillside districts but are not in the hillside districts by declaration which may share partial property lines within portions of the hillside district. Such areas may have disti,netly divergent neighborhood interests and should be given individual consideration somewhere in this process. In such areas Were may be only one or t1•vo shared property boundaries with the adjacent parcels while a larger property in the hillside could have five or six or more shared boundaries making consensus by agreement next to impossible or where dissimilar fencing materials may have already been put in place that a newer owner must consider during 'any change or improvements to their own parcel would necessarily affect their choices and decisions. A high safety consideration should be given to facts such as the many wild animals that carry and transmit diseases like rabies and ticks with Lyme disease especially when high population concentrations are present, as they are in the areas surrounding this city, the of risk is greatly increased and can easily be transmitted to humans and domestic animals with grave consequences. Personal physical security is also a paramount consideration for high profile residents on a larger parcel who through various circumstances may become specific targets to those who may wish to harm them or their families in some unforeseen manner. Law enforcement and insurance companies also recognizes a quality fencing enclosure as being the primary first deterrent in preventing most residential crime. Paue2 Public Comment Mr. }3nice L1Fowaain Any resident who has had a specific or an implied threat or intimidation made to their property or person should only need reasonable presentation of such facts to achieve any exception for personal security purposes. Any exception system put in place to benefit residents with increased needs in any of these areas should not place any undue burden or further unreasonable discrimination on those residents by creating bureaucratic hurdles so difficult to negotiate that they automatically are frustrated by such rule making and cannot easily accomplish obtaining the required elements of the exception. In the final .form all proposed rules and or regulations changes should be measured and balanced fairly among all properties in the city with the notion that if there is benefit to be achieved in some form for the entire citizenry then the specific rights of property owners in the city to protect. and preserve their homes and investments must also be protected in the framework of said rules without specific discrimination or subjective inconsistent applications. Pave From: Shweta Bhatt Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 9:42 AM To: 'merees @yahoo.com' Subject: RE: fence concern f or your con Irn nts regarding chain link fencing As you may have heaid, file i'Ic t i !rig Commission will be discussing the feric'e ordinance at their meeting on April 23. 2008. Jn weici. Original Message---- From: Jana Rinaldi Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 3:53 PM To: Shweta Bhatt Subject: fence concern Shweta, this carne to me via comcate please note the fence comment. Thank you. 1 as i read the San Jose Mercury dews today, I'll like to take this opportunity to comment that some of us actually need the chain fences around our properties, i have coyotes, (that eat my daughter cat that she had for 10 years) 12 to 1.5 deers all at once constantly and a small bobcat that showed -up last Dec. Also, my daughter was playing in the yard and got a tick inside her ear. I agree with some of the issues however, som.e of us i.n the hills need to keep our families and pets safe. 2 -1:s there anything that the city can do to fix/make it look. better the sidewalk between Mina Way and Reid Ave? It's totally awful! 3 -For sometime one of my neighbours complained about my dog 'barking and ■we did something about it, i would like to know what is the rule /policy with donkeys? Someone has donkeys over the hill, they wake us up sometimes around 5:30 -6:00 am. 4 -I.s their an ordinance regarding garage sale signs? t don't mind the garage sales, I actually like going to it. However, i don't like to see the signs up week after week, all over town. Can we have some sort: of code enforcement issue citations? f one puts the signs up, one must remove it. Thanks, Maria Rees Rees. ']aria external customer 71231 Sullivan way Saratoga ca 95070 �matJ 408-867-3994 Ci: ie (o iiip/i mice )'l;l'"(. s u1 13777 I eiI ,Sti (cl 1 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: I apologize for any duplication of ;his m ssclge; please see below in the event this correspondence- did not gel email address. Original Message From: Drew Perkins [mailto:dperkins @infinercr.com] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 9:09 AM To: Seijas, Eileen; Manny.Cappello@comcast.net; Rishi Kumar; robert_kundtzL. Linda Rodgers; jhlavaogdenr yanniezhao Cc: Kennedy, Robin; Steinmetz, Camas; rtaylor Shweta Bhatt Subject: RE: Proposed Changes to City of Saratoga's Ordinances Regarding Heights of Fences, Walls and Hedges Ladies and Gentlemen, Thank you so much for allowing me to speak about hedge height restrictions at the meeting Wednesday night. I ani happy that I was able to raise awareness of potential problems with very high and long hedges obstructing views in hillside districts. I would like to clarify one element of my concern. Unfortunately, the format of the meeting prevented me from doing that in real -time since I was only able to speak at the public part at the beginning of the meeting. The committee was very concerned about making people cut down existing hedges. My particular concern is not with existing hedges which I am happy to see grandfathered in. My concern is with new hedges. I would like to see some sort of ordinance that prevents new hedges from being planted that one day would grow to several tens of feet high and stretch for more than a few tens of feet. Please consider something like that. I would be happy to have any of you visit my property to see what I am talking about. Please let me know if you are interested in visiting. Thanks, Drew 12329 Vista Arroyo Court Saratoga, CA 95070 infinem Drew Perkins Chief Technology Officer Infinera Corporation 169 Java Drive Sunnyvale, CA, 94089 Shweta Bhatt Friday, March 14, 2008 11:58 AM Yan Zhao; Joyce Hlava; Linda Rodgers; Manny Cappello; Rishi Kumar; Robert Kundtz; Susie Nagpal John Livingstone; Bill Parkin; Brad Lind FWD: Proposed Changes to City of Saratoga's Ordinances Regarding Heights of Fences, Walls and Hedges Direct: (408) 572 -5308 Fax: (408) 904 -4644 Mobile: (408) 666 -1686 dper kins@. infinera.com htto: /ffwv''w.infinera.com 1 manatt r anatt phelps phillips March 7, 2008 Robin B. Kennedy Manalt, Phelps Phillips, LLP Direct Dial: (650) 812 -1360 Direct Facsimile: (650) 213 -0280 E-mail: RKennedy@manatt.com Client- Matter: 40430-030 Members of the Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Proposed. Changes to City of Saratoga's Ordinances Regarding Heights of Fences, Walls and Hedges Dear 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, Nvalls 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.iuto a revised ordinance for your consideration. We urge you to consider our comments and incorporate our suggestions below into this revised ordinance. 1. Height Limitation Should 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, Pala Alto, California 94304 -1006 Telephone: 650:812.1300 Fax: 650.213.0260 r 1 \Aloe hinntnn fl C manatt manatt 1 phelps 1 phillips N'lembers of the Planning Commission City of Saratoga March 7, 2008 Page 2 restrictions on green fences and/or hedges raised in our letter. While die 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, ascu1Tently 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: 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 replace the phrase "fence or wall" in the first sentence of Section 15- 29.010(a) with "fence, yytall or hedge". 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 i5- 29.010(a). (1) (3) manatt manatt I phelps 1 phillips \Members of the Planning Commission City of Saratoga March 7, 2008 Pare 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. RBK:ehs cc: Client Richard S. Taylor, Esq. (City Attorney) Shwetta Bhatt (Associate Planner) Respectfully submitted, Robin 13. Kennedy February 14, 2008 City of Saratoga Staff Attention: Shweta Bhatt; Planning Cc: Jana Rinaldi; Code enforcement Dear Ms Bhatt 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 1343 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 15o 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 5o 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 ordinances we undertook additional efforts to closely follow the existing rules by constructing 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 and 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. 1 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 \\T 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. have attached nine various photographs of our application so they may be evaluated and considered in your decision making process. Thank you all for you kind consideration, Sincerely, Bruce La Fountain 13436 Pierce Road Saratoga, Ca.95o70 9 Photos attached: Photo (A): View of (neighbor a) chain link fencing from our property. Photo (B): Additional view of (neighbor i) chain link fencing where our fence joins it on the upper left. This fence was in existence �e purchased our lot and is actually placed on Photo C: View of existing chain linl: fencing (neighbor 2) along an unattended portion of their lot. j a 4 Yltyi r Photo D: View of our own fencing from our lot along unattended portions of neighboring lots. Photo E: Additional view of our fencing rom�o� lot o 1 along unattended portions of (neighbor number Photo F: View of our fence and lot from below (neighbor #3's) patio while still on our o �m unfenced property Photo G: View of access to our nature trail we created from our property and adjacent to, unattended portions of neighboring lots along, long ago very dilapidated wooden fencing. Photo H: View of our nature "ood n fen ng being supported ted b�to one of ounattended r ee ed neighboring lots along g Photo 1: Extended view of our wildlife access nature trail as it exists. From: Bill Breck [bill.breck @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 3:38 PM To: Shweta Bhatt Subject: Monster walls Shweta, 1 know John gave the example during the last meeting for stacking in the front yard, 3 feet on top of 3 feet retaining, "giving the appearance of 6 feet However, I think that example was much too innocuous. Here's a pic of what will happen in side or rear yards: (apex. equal to 5 foot retaining, 6 foot fence, 2 foot lattice) This would really ruin the property value of the poor property owner who would have to look at these every day. I can't imagine anyone going for this. At the very least, there needs to be helpful staggering for all properties, not just in the hillside districts. Doesn't that make sense? Please let me know, -Bill 867 -5554 2 manatt manatt I phelps 1 phillips January 3, 2008 Ms. Shweta Bhatt Associate Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Re: Proposed Changes to City of Saratoga's Ordinances Regarding heights of Fences, Walls and Hedges Robin B. Kennedy Manatt, Phelps Phillips, LLP Direct Dial: (650) 812-1360 Direct Facsimile: (650) 213 -0280 E -mail: RKennedy @'manatt.com i l t �I SAN a i; Lt!u'i J CITY CF v ,r,F. aP, COMMUNITY DEVEL0PMENT 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 and 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. pnd 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: Genera] 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 lone as the top two feet comprise Janice or other material other than lattice that is at least 1001 Fage Mill Road, Building 2, Palo Alio, California 94304 -1006 Telephone: 650,812.1300 Fax: 650.213.0260 manatt manatt l phelps 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 af t or wall all ingy be Commission (or Community Development Director), such 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 h exceed three feet in within any Exceptions to setback area of a reversed corner lot shall height limitations are as follows: (1) Wrought iron entrance gates, designed with openings to permit visibility through the same, may extend to a height not exceeding five feet. manatt manatt 1 phelps 1 phillips Ms. Shweta Bhatt City of Saratoga January 3, 2008 Page 3 (2) Safety railings that are required by the Uniform Building Code shall be excluded from the height requirements of this Section. (c) Street intersections. No fence or wall hedge located within a triangle having sides fifty feet in length from a street intersection, as measured from intersecting curblines or intersecting edges of the street pavement where no curb exists, shall exceed three feet in height above the established grade of the adjoining street. (d) Driveway Intersections. No fence or wall located within a triangle having sides fifteen feet in length from either side of a driveway where it intersects with.a street or property line. (e) Vehicular Obstructions. No fence or wall shall constitute an obstruction as discussed in City Code Section 10- 05.030. Green Fences. A "green fence" shall be defined as a series of trees or other natural landscaping, including but not limited to hedges and shrubs, planted in a linear and uninterrupted pattern such that (a) a boundary is created and (b) it stands on its own and does not require supports of any ]rind. Green fences are exempt from the height requirements prescribed in 15- 29.010(a); 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 Panning Commission (Community Development Director) receives the signed, written support and approval of all adjacent property owner(s) with shared or intersecting property lines with that of the subject property. 3. The reason for the recommended changes in the "Green Fences" provision above is that, as presently written, the provision obviates the purpose of Section 15- 29.010, which is clearly to impose a maximum 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 cun language is not restricted to fences within setback areas, thereby allowing all property owners, without prior approval of the City or prior consent of ncighbors, 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 1.0- 05.030, we would recommend that the words "hedge," "shrub," "vegetation" and "other structure be defined. manatt manatt l phelps 1 Phillips Ms. Shwe 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) Sincerely, Robin B. Kennedy 4 7--J7-5-/vis 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: 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 terra "hedges" in their name, but mostly only talk about ut fences nces and differ walls to the of hedges. The word "hedges" is never defined. What is a hedg e f 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 terns! Also, the proposed Green Fence update makes the problem even worse by suggesting that "the property o\\mer 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 and the cill be sending you a letter directly with her nti conents. Hopefully these will be helpful to you Thank you. We are looking forward to your response. Sincerely Drew and Ellen Perkins