HomeMy WebLinkAbout0265.094•
,
May 12, 1994
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, california
FENCE ORDINANCE TEXT N1ENDMENTS FOR PROPERTIES
LQCN]'BD ON UNIVERSITY AVENUB
Members of the Council:
REPORT IN RRIPtE
This report fOl.'wards a proposal to amend Chaptm" 16.24 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code ('flAMe) to allow the location and C()l1stl"ucticn
of 6-foot-high fences within the front and street side yal."ds of
l"esidential properties fronting on University Avenue, between
rHddlefield Road and the eastern city limit. Currently, the
maximum height of a fence within 16 feet of a front 0);" street side
property line is 4 feet. An additional amendment to establish a 3-
foot maximum depth for pedestrian gates is also proposed.
On ~!ay 10, 1993. the City Council directed staff and the Planning
Commission t.o evaluate a proposal by the Crescent Park Neighbo:rhood
Association to allow construction of 6-foot-high tenc~(l on the
property line along University Avenue. The Crescent Park Neighbor
hood ASB'o::::iation petitioned thl':'f" City Council to amend the fence
ordinance, asserting that the current fence height limit of ... f.eet
was not adequate to protect homeowners h_'om the increasing problems
a8soc~~ted with living adjacent to University Avenue. Additional
lYr they fell,:. that the fence height variance process was too
burden~ome in terms of time and applicat.ion fees.
On December 8, 1993 r the Planning Commission reviewed this proposal
and diacllssed the issues related to construction of 6-foot-high
fences along arterial roads (excerpt minutes attached), Refer to
the attached Planning Commission staff report dated December 3 r
1993 for a detailed analysis of these issues. On a vote of 6-0-0-1
(Schl'nidt absent), the Commission ail-ected staff to return with a
draft ordinance allowing the construction of 6-foot-high fenc(:s on
'.>
\
properties fronting on University Avenue, "'subject to a set of
codified requirements.
On March 30, 1994. the Planning Commission unanimously vot.ed to
recommend that the City Council approve the draft ordinance with
two modifications (excerpt minutes attached). The fixst modifica
t ion would allow fence posts t.o extend up to one foot above a 6-
foot-high fence. These posts would be required to be both
structural and decorative. be no closer than 6 feet it-om centet' to
center. and no more than 18 inches wide. The second modification
was intehded to clarify a reference to Section 16.24.040. Fences at.
Intersections. Both recommended fllodifications have been incorpo
rated int.o the attached revised draft ordinance.
A detailed analysis o( the recommended codified requirements, to
which the construction of 6-foot-fence I-.'Ould be subject, is
contained in the attached Planning Commission staff report. dated
Harch 25. 1994.
ENVIEQNMENTAL A~WJ~.SSNBNT
The Pl.-oposed text amendments to Chapter 16.24 will not have a
significant impact on the physical environment. An environmental
assessment recolnmenaing adoption of a negative declaration is
attache.d.
RRCOMMENDJ\1.'19..N
The Planning COillmission recommends that the City Council approve
the negative declaration and adopt the attached ordinance, allowing
the construction of 6-foot-high fences within front and street side
yards of residential propert.ies fronting on University Avemle,
between ~rHddlefield Road and the eastern Cit.}. limit.
Respectfully submitted.
Nw...,JAcJM[...:U.<J"
NANCY! t.IlIDOOl! J'!yTL&
Chief Planning Official
BERNARD M. S1'ROJNY
Assistant City f-fanager
CMR, 265,94
. ,
f~t14~ If' ~~,4
KENNETH R. SCHR8IBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
5/12/94
Page 2
•
•
, .
•
\',
Attachments; Revised Draft Ordinance
Pl&nning Commission Report dated .3/25/94, with the
following attachments:
Excerpt Minutes of the 12/8/93 Planning
Commission Meeting
Planning Commission Staff Report dated
12/3/93. with attachments
Dt'iveway Sight Distance Illustration
Combined ,"'ence/Encroachment Permit
Application
Bnvirollmenta,l Impact Assessment
Letter from Sharon M. Conte dated 3/18/94
Letter fTom Drew Gibson dated 12/3/93
Letter from David & Mary Campbell received
3/24/94
"Fences on University Avenue" Booklet
prepared by the CPNA
Excerpt Minutes of the 3/30/94 Planning Commission
lofeeting
Letter from Mr. and r-Is. Gunther l:ec·~ived 3/30/9~
cc: Planning COF:'U(li!;sion
Diane Greenberg~ 1330 Univers:ity Avenue~ Palo Alto, CA 94301
Glenna M. Violette, 95 Crescent Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Margaret and t>lichael Feuer, 1310 University Av.enue, Palo
Jllto, CA 94301
Harlan A. Pinto, 1845 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Trudy 7ioo; 1341 University Avenue, Palo Alto. CA 94301
Bob Violante, 1056 Univ.arsity Avenue. Palo Alto, ell. 94301
Barbara and Philip Roberts, 1039 University Avenue, Palo
Alto, CA 94301
Bob Taylor. 480 Marlow Street. Palo Alto, CA 94301
Lorraine Rickey, 1042 University Avenue, Palo Alto. CA 94301
Ca,thie l.ehroorg, 1085 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Judy 1-laxwell, 1051 University Avenue. Palo Alto·, Ca 94301
Lynn ChiapeU.a, 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Sharon Conte, 189 University Avenue, Palo Alto, C~ 94301
Drew Gibson, 428 Maple Street~ Palo l\lto~ CA 94301
David « Mary Campbell. 3946 Louis Road~ Palo Alto CA 94303
5/12/94
Page 3
~,,--:
ORllWANCB NO.=-;=_,
ORDHlANCB OF THII COUNCIL OF THE CITY O~' PALO ALTO
AMllNDING SHCTroN 16.24.0~0 OF '[,HB PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE RBLATING TO FENCBS ON IlN1VBRSITY
AVBtlUB
i,1
WHgR~, the Planning COO'mis9ion, ~fter duly noticed public
heariJig held March 30, 1994, has xecommended that Section 16.24 of
the Palo Alto MUnicipal Coda be amended as hereinafter set forth;
and
WHBRW, the city Council, after due consideration of the
recommendation, findB that the proposed amend~nt is in the public
interest and ...,ill promote tile public health, safety and welfare.
The Council finds that tha increasing amount of traffic on
Uni .... orsity Avenue has resulted in a loss of privacy and personal
secul"lty. as well as a substantial increase in the ambient noise
level and a general degradation in the qu('tlity of life for those
who live on UnivoX'sity Avenue. The Council findo that the proposcd
amendment to allow 6· foot fences on University Avenue under certain
conditioOD is neces£.ary to alleviate Borne of the unique problems
experienced by thoBe l:eoidents, while (Jiso keeping with the spirit
and intent of the fence regulations, by lnaintairling Univet"sity
Avenl..lc as a welcoming thorQughfare.
HOW, 'rnSRBFORR. the Council of the City of Palo Alr"o does
ORDAIN 8S follows:
11~ . .l.. Section 16.24.020 of Chapter 16.24 (FenceB) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code, is. hereby amended to read as follows:
H.24. 02~ Stand",d fe.o.c.. Height ~<i .1.\)P<O.tl~'
regulations. (a) Fences between the street setback line and "t.he
lot line. A fence, wall, or other structU):,"e in the Ilature of a
fence located bet.ween the streEt setback line and the lot line,
shall be permitted up to four feet in height, exQeptaa:otberwim~
Pt:<l'i/'~!I<>4.·!~n.:"NII_.qMI'~"~' Support posts or columns, n(>t" exceeding
five -leet in heigllt at eighteen inches in width, and pedeS"tt'iAA
gateBand trellises used ft»~~fi<> .. l''''l'e.e. ~-:e(it~y
te~t,~,,~.;, not exceeding eight feet in height, Uu:ee fe<ltoindepeti
0;' 'flve feet in width shall be permitted. ---' --,
(b) Fences beyond setback line.
(1) Front yards and 8treet side )·ards. A fence.
wall, or other st.l'Ucture in the nature of a fence~ locat(>,d beyond
the street setback line in a front yal'."d or other street side yard
shall not exceed six feet in h~ight, except that, where a street
setback line exceeds sixt.eE'n feet, Ruch fences or walls may be
constructed to within sixteen feet of the lot. line.
(2) Interior sidF)' y;;trds and rear yards. A fence,
wall or other structUl."C in the nature of a fence, located beyond
1
\
-'
.','-
· ~
the street setback line 1n an interior side yard or l.-cal' yard,
shall not exceed seven feet in height, except that whore a street
setback line exceeds sixteen feet, such fence9 or .... alls may be
constructed 'to within aixteen feet of the lot line.
~(_iCJ _ FE$ce~ OJ) -University AvenuC'. A fence, ~all o.t·"Otl,LGr-
~~A~1i6~"'.re: .. l.nthenature ata fence,. "P to six ieet in hel,ght,
ex¢'"P,tiasc.l>tberWieeprovided in Section IG,Z4,>l40, ""Y ·l><tlocated
Vitllil(c·th,,·front and at~'ecc side yard sotbac1<. onre,,1<1ell.tial
.Px¢ ......•. c~.c.····l:.e .. y. "/w;.,,s,n.'iJ .. : ,.st. t·e<> .. t .. Ci:ootags ...... 0. n u.n. i. v.er. eity av~.n. "a, bet"oe.n. 1U9:!!l~fie~d·Roa(\:an4. thj> east.eru . city li!llit,provtded tbat ·the
1l\!!'1e.ei".oi<IPM"~c"l,tll the t:<>P0>lin9; .
'(1) Fences ll!taUbelo.:atGd on pdvate l'roperty, 'no
i~~=:f':'~l!l! t.~~e •.. f.e"t· tr:com the e<l9'e of tile s1de .... ll< """reet th&
la) StxuctUl'id aud'de.corat.l.ve-postEl or ,colU!ru18~ Jlot
~_¢'?I~i-p..s B~V~Q, ~e~t tn height Ok.' oighteen i.ncfte5 '.it) vidtll, aricj
~.~"~~~t~;''''r ~han six fee~ apArt, from cente,,·to .cente.', ."haU
(3) The colm,,', mat.~l-ial and d-eaigJl of the fence
.*h~Uc~.,"OI!ll'a~ible wl.th the architecture of the ."in d"ellin9'uni~
Qp::tlie.:l1i~e,c .'
(4) ScreeD landscaping and .... ()ciated irrigatioh
!'lj'all •. p<fil1"talled and maintained on the s~i'.et g1da of the f(JUN'1
IS) <,ences"xceeding fout' feet inhei9ht shalIn'lt
~e:.::'::.':.'~9n.":.'a.t ...... ~d-.:W1-.tb ... i.,.n, a ~riangulat;", ar:.ea .(Q 1I0itO. distanc.e tl:.ia.nglQ"), ~,~.J'~.~ ...•. \l.re .. d .. f.r.Oil\ .... a. d!-'"i.v.eway., as ahoW'.o in FiS'.".ra lt Ga..tea,. WhiC.h,lI{h.e.J"!. ~l):;.;\l!c:O~·w"H1Qn, axe entirely outIJidoofth. 'site distance j:'t!!!l)g~.",,~<~halr"e. permltte(!, . . ....
SHCl'rON 2. The ('-cuneil find that this project will not
have a significant environmental effect.
SECTION 3. This ol.-dinanc~ shall be effective on the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
2
.~ -.~,
'\
,
ATl'BST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FOR!>]:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
3
APPROVED:
Mayor
City t,lanager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Street
Fjgure 1
Sighl olslance Triangle
Relel' 10 Sec.16.24.020(c)
." .. ,:,
March 25, 1994
PLANNING COMMISSION
Pa!l> Alto, California
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
FENCE ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR PROPERTIES
LQCAIUUlli . .llt:lIYERSITY AVENUE __ _
Mrrnbers of the Commission:
REPORT IN BRmF
Thisrepolt forwards a pl'opos.llo amend Chapter 16.24 of the Palo Alto MWlieipal Code
(PAMe) to allow the loc-3lioo and construction of6·foot·high fences WW,ll the front and
stTe~t side yards of residential propenies fronting on University Avenue, between
Middlefield Road and the eastern City limit (draft ordinance attacbed). Currently, the
maximum height ofa fence within 16 f.<ot ofa front orstreel.ide property line is 4 feet.
IlACKGRQ11l.'ID
On May 10, 1993, the City Council directed staff and tile Planning Commission to
evalWlte a proposal by ~ Crescent Park Neighborhood Association to allow construction
of 6·foot·high fences on the property line along University Avenue. The Crescent Park
Neighborhood Association petitioned ~ City Council to amend the fence ordinance
asserting thAt the CUJttllt fence height limit of 4 feel was nol adequate to protect
homeowners from the in<:reasing problems associated with living adjacent to University
Avtoue. Additionally, they reU thAt the fence height variance process was too
burdensome in terms of time and application fees.
On December 8, 1993, the Planniog Commission reviewed this proposal and discussed
the Issues related to construction of 6·foot·hign fencts aloog arterial roads (minutes of the
meeting attacbed). Refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report dated
December 3, 1993 for a detailed analysis of the.e issues.
\.,"
, -.,
On a vote of 6·0·1).1 (Scluui<lt absent) the Commlssion directed Slaff to return with. draft
ordinance including the foUowing: I) aUow construction of 6·foot·high fences along
University Avenue only; 2) allow fence construction by right with a minimal list of
codified requirements; 3) require f"""os to have at least a 5·fOOl setback from the
sidewalk; 4) ex-plore options for f<n<:ing strcct side yards on c(lmer lots; 5} examine the
inclusion of I~ les"ictive driveway sight distan<:e criteria; and 6) comb,ne fence and
encroachment permits for required landscape and irrigation within the public right-of·
way.
ISSUES Arm ANALYSIS
The attached diraft ordinance .meuds the fence height regutaliOll~ for residential properties
frontinz on University A,'enue, between Middlelleld Road and the easlern City limit.
The ordinance would aUow construction of a 6,(001·lIigll fence by righi, pursuanl 10 the
issuance of • fence pennit (mini" .. i.1 permit, $30 fee). The ordinance includes the
elements discussed by the Commission .1 the previous public ~.earing, .s well as staffs
conclusions drawn from analysis of the issues listed below. .
Th. Commission direcled staff 10 evaluate" wide range of codified re<j1l,rements for the
construction of 6-foot·high fences. Sinec felKe. pem,its are ministerial. codified
req"irements JDiI't be limited (0 those Uu" <1o not require ~"onai judgemenl or discretion
to deleonine compliance. The Commi~ion dir«ted Mall (0 analyze all applicable
requirements and 10 include a,e minimum requirements essential for the preservation of
Ille unique character of the University Avenue '''<elScape only.
A fler evaluating a wide range of requiren~llts, staff found the majority to be burdensome
10 homoowners and dimwit 10 assess eompliaru:i: without use of some discretion. That
being the ""'e, Slaff has ul(luded two requirements in the draft ordinance thai are
intended to prese,,·. the 'treelScape and to assure thai fences arecompaUble with
improvements on University Avenue properties. To that end, • fence would be required
to be compatible with the archilOcrure, color and r,,-aterial, of the main dwelling on the
corresponding property. Installation of landseaping and irrigation on the s[ret! side of
the fence would also be required in order to screen and soften fences, and to enhance the
public realm.
Fjve-Foot Sotb.ck
3·25·94
Page 2
. ,
.... '\: .
'.
At Ih~ previous publk hearing, Ihe Commission determined that 6·foot-high f~nces should
be constructed no closer than S feet from Ute back edge (side closest to Ibe lxme} of the
sidewall:, without regard to property line location. Generally, front propert)' lines are
located from 2 to S feet behind Ihe back edge oflbe sidewalk. TheS·fool fence setback
will resUlt in sufficient spacing for screen landscaping and associate<! irrigation and will
provide a uniformed fence setback line along University Avenue. AdditiOlwly, the
setback will ensure that !he placement of • fen"" will not have a neg.tive imp.ctthe
pedestrian experience.
Street Side Yard EcnWi
'lbe COIllI11i.<sion directed staff to aruU)'ze Ibe impact of allowing 6·foot.high fern:es to
'wrap around' to the side streets on comer Jots, II was suggested that staff •• plore a
range of di,tan..,. from Ille street corner at which fenees would be require<! to transition
down to 4 feet or back to Ibe current l6-foot setback. After sun'eying many of the
University Avenue corner lots, staff bas determined that the use of an arbitrary distaD""
will lead to a large number of awkward fence transitions. Furlhermore, these transitions
would OCCUr adjacent to the property's reM yard where privacy and sec\lrit)' are highly
desired. Because of variations in lot size, orkntation, location of hw.\e and ac<essory
buildings, and location of existing mature vegetation, i! is infeasible to choose a set
distance that will work in each case.
Staff's conclusion is that me only logical trausition points arc located at the Wee! comor,
as previously propo,ed by staff, or at the inlerf."" with the adjacent property. In thb
way, a consistent height or sethack is achieved for the full length of the property line.
At Ille previous hearing, the street cnmer transition wos thoughl to be a hardship for
comer lots and contrary to the ordinan"" goals to impro'/e privacy, security and noise
attenuation. Based on the Commission's discussion at the previous hearing and ~laff's
analysis of com~r lot fencing, the draft ordinance has been written to allow construction
of6·foot-high fen..,., as close as S feel from the sidewalk, along the entire length of the
street side property lire, with exception of the sight distance requirement for fencing at
intersections ,
Driveway SiS1llIl~
Staff was rcquesled to explore the inclusion of a less restrictive driveway .igbt distance
requirement lban the one proposed at the previous hearing. It was thought that because
driveways OD University Avenue propenties tend to exeeed the minimwn widtl. of 10 feet,
it would be overly burdensome to require complian"" with the current dr,,'eway sight
P; \PCSR\UAPJ:NCEJ.FC
, '
3·25·94
Page 3
,"
I
.1.11
I',
" '-'~-....... ,....,~--...;.~
di~~ce crileria established for back-to-back comer lots_ Th~ current sight dis~ce
triangle for driveways on back-to-back c(}mer lots, where 6-foct-high fences are allowed
to be constructed at the property line at a Slated dis~ce from the comer, requires a clear
12 foct by 12 foot triangle, measured along the driveway edge and the property Iille
(refer to the attached. illustration). The draft ordinance modifies this requiremenl for
University Avellue properties to require a smaller triangle measured along the driveway
cenler Hne and the required 5-[oot fence selback line.
As shown in the attached illustration, the revised sight distance triangle has been
dnimatieally reduced over the current back-t(}-back corner 101 standa.rd. This disparity
becomes greater as the width of a driveway increases. This is due to the proposed
dis lance requirement using the driver's point of view as the basis of measuremenl, and
not the edge of the driveway paving as is currently the ease. The proposed Slandard
malntains proper sighl distances and will nol compromise the "fety of pedestrians,
bicyclis ts or motorists.
The Commission requested staff explore a method for streamHlling !he issu;mce of
encroachment permits, which in many cases will be required to install landscaping and
irrigation within the public right-of-way. Currently, tlle City has a joint
fence/encroachment pennil prace!s which was estabHshed in order 10 SlIeamline pennits
for the placement of fences within public utility casements (ministerial perotit, $90).
Staff has determined that the same one-stop-pennit can also be used 10 issue
encroachment permits for the location of required landscaping and irrigation systems
witltin the public right-of-way (application attached).
Eoto' Gates
Staff is proposing an additional lext amendment to the Fence Ordinance to add a
mayimllm depth (measurement taken perpendicular to property line) requirement on feet
for pedestrian gates and treUises. This amendment would apply to all properties.
" CurrenUy, construction of one pedestrian gate and trellis up to 8 feet tall and 5 feel wide
is pennitted per Slreet frontage. However, since a depth requirement is not given, staff
has defaulted to the support post specifications and requ ired entry gales 10 be no more
than l. 5 reet in depUl. The current depth requirement does not allow for trellis type
construction and severely inhibits landscaping of entry realUres. The proposed 3-fool
depth would enable construction of gates and Irellises that can be landscaped 10 create a
dramatic entry to the property.
P;\.PCSRIUAFENCE;2:.PC
3-25-94
Page 4
.\
.". ___ L~·';"~~~J..:;t!, ... 4_ ... <, •. •
The proposed lext amendmenlS to Chapter 16.24 will not have a significant impact on the
physical environment. An enviroomen/a1 assessment recommending adoption of a
negative declaration is attached.
RECQMMENDATION
Staff recommend~ that the Planning Cwnmission recommend that the City Council
approve the negative declaration am adopt the attached ordinance allowing the
CO'!lS!ruclioo of 6·foot·high fences within the fron! and streel side yards of residential
properties fionting on University Avenue, between Middlefield Road and the eastern City
limit.
Respectfully submilled,
Attachment:
~f1414f '-IJbd..:i.tIr:SA~k,*
NANd MADDOX LYTLE
Chief Planning Official 1
Zoning Administrator
Draft Ordinance
Minutes of the 1218193 Planning Cwnmission Meetin /
Planning Commisaion Staff Report dated 12/3/9, jth attachmenlS
Driveway Sight Distance lllustration
Combined FencelEncroachment Pe . Application
Environmental Impact Asses
teller from Sharon M. dated 3118/94
Letter from Drew . son dated 1213/93
Leller from .d & Mary Campbell received 3124194
'Fenc University Avenue" Booklet prepared by the Crescent Park
.ghborhood Association
See CHR:265:94 for attachment list.
: ..
'-., .
3·25·94
Page 5
: ':c:-i; :~'",::;';;';;;'1::7~,,;:::.:~~-:... .~Z;.;" .'.' ~::._;,;_ ;,l.:".,'._", •• ,:'
"
~: Diane Greenberg. 1330 Universily Avenue, PAlo Aho, CA 9430)
Glenna M. Violette, 9S Crescent Drive, Palo Allo, CA 94301
. "':',;" :'
Mnrg9nt and Mkhael Feuer, 1310 Universily Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
HarlAn A. Pinlo, 1845 Univef'ity Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Trudy Tiso, 1341 University Menue, Palo Allo, CA 94301
Bob Violante, 1056 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Baroara and Philip Roberts,I039 UniversiL)' Avenue, Palo Allo, CA 94301
Bob Taylor, 480 Marlow Streel, 1'&10 AHo, cA 94301
Lorcalne-Rickey, 1042 University Avenue, Palo A110, CA 94301
Cathle Lehrl>erg, 108S Univcniiy Avenue, Palo A110, CA 9430)
Judy Maxwell, )(157 Univel1'fly Avtllue, Palo Allo, Ca 94301
Lynn chiapcU., 631 Colortdo Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Sharon Conle, 789 Universily Avenue, Palo AIIO, CA 94301
Drew Gibson, 428 Maple Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
David & Mary Campb<lI, 3946 LOllis Rood, Palo Allo CA 94303
"
3-25-94
Page 6
•
r-______ ~;«l.,?(~[?tl--___ -_______ _
-~
mn r.n nn If fC.r] fQ;lve<ineSday, 0"."",,, e, 1993 WJ U UJ L~ U ~ C!J Re~u1a .. Meetin9
Planning Commission, City of Palo A Ito
_-0.-_ -----~-----------
I. Appro"l of Plonnln9 Co",isslon olnut .. of O<to~,r lI, 1993. 1
1. llIlili ON UNIVERSITY AYEHVJ;: Staff "'quests direction fro;, l
the Plannfng Commisslon regarding a propos~d f~nce
ordlnante amendment to allow conslr~ctlon of s!x~(oot-hi9h
fences on the pr<I,oert)' Hnes along University AVe(Hle (roo
Hlddlefl.ld Road to the .ast.rn city IInH. Currently,
four feet is the maxlMu~ height or a (enc~ within si~teeh
feet of a front pr.operty linE'.
3. E.Q..1..!)J1~.yiEIID'UNTS: Zoning ordinance text a"end.'!cnts 39
to est~~l;sh a Planned Oevelop~~nt (PO} lone district ~nd
amend Section J8.99 to allow the 01r{'c~or of ?laordfl9 and
Community Envir~nment to approv~ minor changes in l.nd use
for .'isting Planned Co","nlty (PC) and PO lone districts,
The PO Zone district is intended to provide a fle_ible s~t
of site development regulation~ to pro~te deyelop~ent of
r.sldentlal and mixed us. projects that contribute to tho
nelghborhoods in whil:h they are located and 1n Palo Alto,
~n general. A primary difference between thl$ n.r:w zone
district and the turrent PC zone distrt(t is that the
public benefit finding Is not lncluded, [nl'lron.ental
Ass.ssment: 110 significant impact' .ere deU""ln.a to
result from this pr~ject, and a negative decl~ratton has
been ~repared. 10n.Olstrlct: 93-ZC-17, 93-[IA.3).
4, PH.lQ!!E TEXT A1!f/IQ!1~NT: Zoning ordinance to establish a l
Planned Hotel (PH) lone dlstrict and a .. nd S.cti~n 18.99 to
allow the Oir.ctor of Planning and CO<mUnlty [nYlron~ent to
ap~roYe minor chong.s In land us. for ,xistlng Pl.nned
Communlty (PC) and PH zone districts, The PH lOne district
is lnt .. ded to pro,ld. flexlbllity to pro""t. d".lopment
of new hotels I wh~ch is a community need identiffed in the
Stanford Research Park and Gruen and Crven Associates
studies\ as well as the Economic ~esearch Plan. A prim~ry
differ~nce betwe~n this new zone district and the current
PC lone dl,trict Is Ih,t the public ben.flt findln9 is not
included. Environmental Assessment: No significant
1mpacts were determined to result from this proJect, and a
negatfve declaration has been prepared. Zone District:
93-ZC·17, 93·EIA·33.
5. Cancellation of December 29th Plannin9 CommissIon meetin9. 58
J. Slocum
IZiOB/93
-I·
'0"
',.' ,",. , ,.
~ .,~ .. ,., ~"~.-"-'" -,,-<,--.~-~,', .. ~
The planning cOrMltssion mat in a reguh:r meeting on W'~dnesday~ Oecember 8,
)993 at 7,35 p.m. in toe Council Chambers with Vice Ch.irman Ojakiaa
presiding.
Present:
Absent,
auf Present:
·Cornmlssionel's Beecham, Carras.co l Cassel~ Glazier, Ojakian
and Schlnk
Chairman Schmidt
Susan Case, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Joseph N. Colonna l Planner
Nancy lytle, Chi,f Plannin9 Officl.lllo,in9 M~lnistratol'
ORAL eOM.~UIIiCATiOIIS
Vice Chairmao.J)j.akian: lhe first item on our agenda is. Oral
COrrtnunications. At this time, .any member of the publ ic may spea~ to anj'
item that is. not on the agenda. There is a fiv~·minute 1imit per
speaker. Is there anYOfl~ 'l'Iho wishes to speak this evening? Seeing no
speakers, we will move on to the next agenda item.
AGENDA ITEM 1 Approyal of the mil'luteos of the Planning Conrnissioll minutes.
of October 27, 1993.
~: ~~~ioner Carra$to~ I move approval of the minutes.
~, By CO"",issioner Schink.
MOIIQN PASSES: Vice Chairmanlllakiaq: All thos. In fayor, say Ay.? All
opposed? That passes on a v~te of 4·0, wit~ Commi~sioner B~ec~am
abstaining and Commissi~ners Schmidt and Cassel absent, (Corrnissioner
Cass,l jOins the meeting shortly.)
AGENDA ITEM 4 PH ZOIiE TEXT AMEIlPHfllT: Zoning ordinano. to .. tabl ish.
Planned Hot.l (PH) zon. district and amend Section 18.99
to allow the Dire'do'r of Planning and COlM!unity
invironment to approve minor cl'l,anges in land use for
existing Planr,ed Co""unity (PC) and PH zone districts.
The PH z{lne di~trict is intended to proyide flexitnity to
promote development of new hotel~ , which is a community
need identified in the Stanford Research Park and Gruen
and Gruen Associates studies, as well as the Economic
Research Plan. A primary difference between this new zone
district and the current PC zone district is that the
public benefit finding is not included. Environmental
Assessment: No significant impacts were determined to
resylt from this project, and a negative declaration has
been prepared. Zone District, 93·Ze·17, 9l·EIA.33.
Vice Chairman Oiakian: There has been a request to continue this item.
Can we have a rn~ti{ln in that regard?
12/08/93
·2-
..
\
·,-f ,,;
" " '.;":>~i..;",;",~-~,;;,;;,~,,,""',.
HQ!lQH: Commjs,joner 8e~:
~£(ONO: By Co""issio"er Schink.
move that we pull Item Four for ..... ard.
tIilTlQ/1 PASSES: YkLChalrm.iJLOiakian:
opposed? That passes on a vDte ~f S·D.
Schmidt absent.
All those h fa'Jor f say Aye? All
with Commissioners Cassel and
HQ..Wlli; CqiMI1ss1onet" Beecham:
we continue Item F~ur tD a date
to work on It.
~QllQ: By Commissioner Schink.
Per the reqllest of staff. r now mGve that
uncertain to allow staff additional time
tQTU}H PASSES: ,YJce Chairman Qiakhn: All t~ose in fay or , say Aye? All
opposed? rnat passes on a vote of 5·0, with Commissioners Cassel and
Scnmidt absent.
AGE/iDA IT[M 2 FENCES ON VNI.\'f.BdJJY AVENUE; Staff requests direction
fr~m the Planning Commission regarding a proposed fence
ordinance amendment to allow constt'uction of r;l.x·foot-high
fences on the property lines along University Avenue from
Middlefield Road tQ the eastern city limit. Currently,
four feet is the maximum height of a fence within sixteen
feet of a front property 1 i ne.
Vice Chairman Qiak1iD: Does staff hav€ any additional comments?
Mr. ColQn]j: Yes, we do. Staff was asked at the pre-corrmission meeting
to c.larify several fssues covered in the staff report. The first issue is
the rationale behind the recommended three-foot setback from the property
1 ine for construction of siX·foot-high fences. lhe major reason for
milking that reco/mlendati~n fs to establish an area on the outside (or. side
closest to the housej of the side.al k that was In propol·ticn to the
remainder of the public realm. Generally, the landscape strip on the
opposHe side of the sidewalk is between five and eight feet wide. Thc
recommended setback, in addition to the tw~-to flve-foot gap between
sidewalk ilnd property 1 ine, will enhance the pedes.trian experience over a
fence built at the property line. Additionally, the setback also allows
for any 1andstape irrigation to be installed on private property and not
In the public right-of·way, where homeowners ",auld be reqlJired to obtain
an fncroac~ment Permit prior to installation, and risk damage during
public improvement ~rojects such as sidewalk replacement.
lhe next issue relates to the treatment of fencing on corner lots with
respect to the visibility, triangle and the propl!'rty line adjacent to a
side street. Slaff recommends that fences on side streets be limited to
four feet at t.he property 1 ine or 'six feet at the 16-foot setbuck , as is
(urrently the case. In effect~ this would cause t~e fence on corner lots
to transition down to four feet close to the visibility triangle. or would
cause the homp.owner to pull back a six.foot-high fence to the 16-foot
-setback"'consistent wHt"t the ,'es.t of that side street's block face.
Allowing six-foot-high fences close to the property line on a corner lot's
side street would cause an awkward tran'sHion down to the four-f{)ot-~igh
fence at the the front yard or the adjacent property I or estabJ i sh a
.'
12/QB/Sl
-3-
\
. ."" ~
'"',
patl~ .. n of slx-foot-high fences .Iong th.t side slre.t.
The 115t iss~e staff was asked to clarify was the differences between
Options I and 1 listed in the st.ff report with T<gard to the amount of
flexibility built into the t.~ processes_ While it is true that Option 2.
wlth a list of codifl~d reQuire~~nts, may afford the homeowner a measure
of freed~ by not ,ha,v;ng a required public I'evie;., process, it d{)es not
have the fle~ibility represented in Option I. For example, even if ai)
agree that a p!rti<:l.Ilar fence or 1ands<:ape design is more appropriate to a
property. If It falls outside the codified requirement set up through
Option 2, it cannot b~ approved without a variance or code modification.
However. with Option ), Innovative design solutions are encouraged and can
b. approved through the 110"" Improvem.nt [xception (IIIE) process. St.ff
rec~~ends Opt ton ) because af the flexibility afforded homeowners in the
design process.
~(tllJr.('i'.Jl·LQ.ili.ian: Are t~er~ allY questions for the staff from the
(o;",;lIlutun?
(Q~.Hl..t~1lf.r~AK..Q: JOI:, I have a question about illlotner alternative
you ~Ight have loo~ed at but ~as not covered in your options. That is one
,'~eN> typically. in the past. t~e city has looked at public right-of-way
1 ilnds<:aping. ratner than incH~tdual property ownen, dt 1east. t(J the
fenc~ line. That has been the image. So during the 1920s and 1930s,
etc., str€etsCo!J'es. wer€ looked at by a pu~l ie authoril.), rather than
leaving It t(l each property owner. In askirl9 this qut'sti<ln, J have
conferred wan several landscape arcMtects, who felt that a small
flo~erin9 plum might be ~ ~ice undergrowth as a second tree that might run
the .entire length of Unhrers1ty Avenue on both sides. It seems to me that
llnh'ers1ty A""enue, being such a spectacu1ar street with those magnolia
trees. that to leave the edges to various kinds of 1 andscaping might Mt
have a cOf)slstent feel. The floh'et'ing plum is a short tree that can be
seen under the canopy of th~ magnolia and would take the eye away from the
i'1Iany different kinds of fences that might occur, and which might
approprlately occur.
In that manner~ getting an undercover of a colorful tree might both
enhance University A\'enue and leave the property owner free to build
h'hatever kind of fence he wants. I am a little uncomfortable having this
HIE process. where ea~h property owner has to go tnrough a difficult
process just to get a six· foot-high fence, which sounds r~asonable. Could
tn~ city -~ainta1n a second row of trees that wtluld ~dd color and keep the
street con$'ste~t?
ltL_lyili: \Ie would like to tlarify in which location you were suggesting
that t~e trees b~ planted. The di~9rom on the projector i~dicates a
magnal ia tree betwe~n the cut'b and sidewalk along University Avenue. Are
you spei!King of interspersing plums witMn that area? let me get it
clarified. Are you suggesting that plums be planted up arid dOrln
University Avenue if) between the fence and the sidewalk?
_f_Q.,1fr\l s~}oner (~_r..~_Q; That is correct.
lib __ lill.g; I see. That was not considered'
r~corr~er.dation. We did not discuss it with
r.t>lt!2o·,.,ners. Jt soun.ds like a lovel.y idea.
.',
11/08/93
-4-
as part of our
th.e Univel'sitj' Avenue
Would this be a public
\,
: ... "
proj~,n
~o.'!nisslC)..n~Q.~ Yes, it would b~ a public project, and the reason
why I •• ,uggestlng this is th.1 the plu., would lake your eye ,w,y from
any kind of fe'", Ih.t "lgM happon ther •. In Inll W'y. you would leave
the property owner free to put in a f.enc~. H they so choose, (1r not put
one in. It could t>e six feet or tOUf (eet or wh.at('ver, btlt the eye would
go to the row of plum Irees rather than to the fence.
Hs. Lytl~, It Is certainly .~rth l,ttlng th, public address th.t Ide •.
Cle.rly, yarl of our .n.lysls d •• lt with Ihe pres.rvation of th.
archlteclur.l f,~ad.s of the hoo<s up and down Unlyerslty Avenu.. So w.
mlgM want to think ,b<>ut how Ihos. tr ... would frac. the homes
themselyes , .as well. not l05~"9 any ylew at all of the n~s. although it
would provide screening for then. Iher~ is no d~ubt about that.
£.o~qrtU_!:.ir.rA.H.Q: There Is a se<tion in the staff ,'eport that says
that soo.e property owners do not f':lllnlaln that strip of land outside of
their fence. I ,can undel'slind th.at. It does nDt fet:>l 1; ke their (1"',,,
piete of land. So it WQu1d b~ oi(~ If the city had one ~~inter.ance
program that Kent up and ~own UniVErsity Avenue. It ~ould also provIde
SOll',e security if SOr:1(>one fro:1 the city walked up ano dOn"n that street. Jt
~ould help fr~~ b~th ~ security potnt of vleH, a~ well as ~ visual one.
~-rn1$ ... tlQ.Il~r i:I?ccha;;:'l: J na .... e t.,.,o quest ions for staff. One lS in re~ard
to cost. Parl of th.;:> dHferellC£> betwun the first and second (lptiOIlS is
the cost of a permit. I h'onder 'Whit the $lSO·rehtlonship is to th('
typical cost of a ffnce. Can YOU 9ive ~e ~ny Idet'of what ~ f~nce would
cost?
H,... CQJOll.Qi: Sl)/I"rEone else on the comlss lor. who hilS recently constructed
a flPnce might have-i1 bC!ller idea of t~e answer to that tha'jl I. J think
that mo~t of the f'r(mhges a.1oog UniyersHy Avenue are fairly lon~. Host
of the pe(lple would considrr using supfrlor I!.-:terials. landscaplrlg would
also be added to th.t cost. 1350 .ould prob.b1y be a very s~.ll
percenlag. of the actual cost t. construct I~. f.n,. and In".11
landscaping and a sprinkler syst ••.
Co:riYliss;ongr ScMnk: 1 think yov cou1d aSS\JM that 'Iny hnce constructt'.d
'long there 15 golng to range in cost bet.e.n $20 and $60 per 1 in •• r foot.
~1oner BeechaJrl: Also. If anyone spe~kirlg tonight has any firm
information to the contrary, If you WQuld adyise us of that, that would be
useful.
My second question of staff ref~rs to the botto~ of Pdge 3 and top of
Page 4 of the staff report. It states, ·Currently, corner lots are
reQllired to l1mlt' fences to 3 feet in height within a specHic area
adjacent to an interse(tion, and fenc~s in e~cess of 4 fe~t are not
allowed within 12 feet of • driveway opening. Staff. with the strong
concurrence of the CHy Att{lrney' S office-retor-.'";;errds bas ica lly keeping
that.. I wonder what is the City Attorney's reason for strong concurren.c.e
-.. Drt thH?
Ms. Case: My suspicion is t~at the city does not want to promote unsafe
conditions. If it is deteriflined by experts that having" high fences too
,', "
12/08/93
-5-
<,'.
close to an 'nters~ction creates a visibility p(~gram, then t~e city would
n~t want to be in the business of prom~tlng un~afe conditions.
Commissioner Carrasco: To go over t~e ge~metry of that three-foot fe~ce,
it seems to me that if 1t were a consistent six-foot-high fence, H ",ould
look better than if it were stepped dewn ev.,·y so often. It .ould be hard
to design and 'Would also leak sound more easily if it is dropped dO .... ,Il. I
did a Ql1id dt'3wing ~ere. With your recom.'nendation of moving that hnce
back three feet from t~e property line, it appears to rn~ that you would
have almost I? feet between the edge of the ,Idewalk .nd the proposed
fence line, That is far enough for a dri~er to be able to lOOK in either
direction aft.r he or she passes the f.nce line. It should Altigate the
problem of the fon" having to drop three feet at the driyeway. I could
imagine that if the fence is at the property line, you would run into ~
probl.m with. six-foot height, but If It is sitting thr •• feet back, tho
geometry seems to work {Jut all right.
~tle: On Un1versity Avenue, the right·of-WdY is usually flV~ feet
back from the sidewalk.. So with the additional three feet. you would ha .. 'e
eight. Ther~ is a two-foot setback 1n some blocks of University A,'cnu€:.
SD that ; s what it a~ds up to before you get to the 5ldewa 1 L H you
incllJde the sidewalk, you ' •. iould th~n have II fet!t. But it is not eight
feet to t~e sidewalk, which is the conflict ~rea.
Corrm; ss,i9~L_~nalTl' 1 ha'w'e some quest ions about the chart on the
overhead ~rojector. Where YOli ha .... e your three-foot md)(lmUm triangle,
presume at the edge of that, you could put up a four-or six· foot rence,
depending on how we go, with no ir.1pact on the tr.lffic side. Is. thtt
correct?
Ms. Lytle: Yes. J will ask Joe Colonna to go .up and des<:dbE' the
requirements around that site distance triangle so that It is Yery deal".
Essentially, the 16-foot line that you see down where it is lcD~led ~sid~
street-is where you could have a six-foot·~1g~ fence.
Mr. CQicnna; For the location of t~e requested slx-foot-high fence on
University Avenue, staff is recommending a three-foot setback. T~at is
represented here by this line. for an:)'thing tflat would be-in fr<lnt of
that line to the pr<lperty line, we are recolMlen<llng that it re~ain at-four
feet, currently the case. Within thp. ~i$1bi11ty triangle, which Is
measured .long the curb line projected out to • right .ng1e 35 feot dow.
each curb line alld connecting thcse points, within that vlslbilHy
triangle, you would have a three·foot ma~lmum for sight distance around
the corner. Then we recorMlerid that down the side street, corner 1015
maintain a four-foot maximum height within this area which is 16 reet by
the length of that property line. As is the case now, if they wanted to
pull back 16 feet, they could have a slx-foot-hlgh fence_
On the .'ear and side propet'ty lines back 16 feet, they could have a
seven-foot-high fence.
CO~~lssioner Beecham: So lf one were to build a six· foot fer.(e to the
--maximum {!xtent pDssible, can you trJce tne olJtl1ne of now that would wor!o;
there?
Mr. tolonna; Yes. Ttli s is a tracing of where Y{lU could do that. Of
., 12/08/93
-~ ,
course, people would want to transition that 1n different places. This is
~ typical c~rner lot~ but, there are other configurations of l~ts, I wi:'
trace that for you, A six-foot-high fence would be located three feet
back from the property line on University Avenue. It wo~)d have to
respect' the visibility trlang1e, If they wanted to ("ontinu~ that along,
they would have to jog back ~nd down the 1 ine again, Jt is not
recolMl2nded that they tr.H'lsition it like that. In this case, it worked
out that there is'this unusual sawtooth at the corner. A propel'ty owner
wanting tQ maintain some sort of natural pattern there 'Would transition
that in some other way. 01' step it down.
Com~issioner Carra1~: I have a ~uestl~n about the visibility trian91~
and how it was established, especially after listening to Andres Du,ny
last Saturday. He talked ilbout cars turning corr.el·s really fast and the
transportation·oriented standards bein~ much "~re vehicle~~riented than
human-habitat-oriented. 1 ~m wondering if we could decrease that 35·foot
triangle to a 2S-foot triangle. thereby allowing the six-foot~hi9h fence
to go around the corner?
Hl ..... _ulli: Our Transportation Division continues to rec{lrnend this
trjan91e, I think the fence height restrjct10n is a much more cumbersome
burd~n on the property than this sight distance issue. It would not allow
you to square a fence around at the same distance from the sidewalk around
the entire perimeter of the property. You would still have to take it off
at an angle But I think the height restriction of pulling it 16 feet
bad: on a side street is probably a mU'ch more cumbersome requirement than
is that little <orner off the edge of tne property_ A couple of members
of the Transportation Oivjsion were at the Ouany session Saturday. But
they did not come in irrrned1ately on Honday morning and change their
requirements. That may take Hme.
(to/i,YIliss1oner Cass€l is now present.,
COmmiSSioner Beecham: 1 have a question on the same subject. Staff
rec~mmends that surrounding a dri~eway also, whp.re you have a 12-foot
trjan91e~ a ma~imum four· foot height. J assume this is also for safety of
seeing pedestrians as one exits their driveway?
~ Colonna: That is corr&ct. 80th ped!strians and bicyclists In the
bike line, and also vehicles, of cOurse.
Vice Chairman Ojakfall: To clarify for. the Planning Corrmission and the
public tonight, what ,we arc tr...,·ln9 to do is provide dlrection back to the
staff to produce something that takes into conSideration what the
corr~ission i$ going to say after we listen to the public input.
Ms'. lytle: That is correct. The University Al.lenue homeowners have a
presentation for you tonight. They would like you to consider their
recorrroendations. Staff has put forward three options. We would like you
to make selections from your array of cholces, but give us some direction
on an ordinance that you w01l1d' 1 ike us to draft and retul'n to you .
...... ~ Cnairman 01akian; If there are no additional questions, I will open
tne public hearing_
Margaret feuer. 13]0 University Avenue, Palo Alto: I am here tonight a!> a
12108/93
-7-
. ,~.
L
1"'
I
!
! •
,-
,
, :~ ,
1 -'-,
"
U!lfv~rsity Avenue resident to request your support for ar'l ordinance-lI'hich
wo"ld .llow six· foot f.nc.s on the property line. In Ilarch of 1991, the
Crescent Park Neighborhood As.s.ociation sent letters to every resident on
University AvenuE' between Middlefield Road and' Woodland Avenue l infol'tning
ttlem about the fence petition. Two wee~,s later, we went door-to·door with
the petHfofl that YOlt have in your packets. An ovet'Whelming maj~rity of
res jdent s, 85 percent, s ignerl I n favor of the s I x-foot fence ol'd I nance.
lhe general consensus was that University Avenue residents have a right I
an obvious need, and the ability to bllild attractive fences. Tonight,
eight of us will present to you our reasons for requesting a fence
ord'nance. Hy topic deals with the issue of nOise generated by t,'affic: on
University Avenue, Many of the houses. on University Avenu2 were built in
the J920.s.. They ~re gracious old home!:, but most offer nO defence against
lhe onslaught of contemporary nois~ such as cars, trucks, busses l Sirens,
boom boxes lnd late night revelers. Many of these houses have single-pane
windows wIth no insulation strips., as well as no exterior wall or roof
insulation. At pres~nt, there are 27 1 24() vehicles per day using
University AYenue~ Jmpending developments in East Palo Alto and at
Stanford will increase that number significantly, thus adding to the
already unbearable arlfOunt of noise and pollution suffered by University
Avenue residents.
AccOl'ding to Diane Steinhause:' of the CalTrans Environmental Branch, a
fence should have certain characteristics in Grder to attenuate noi~e. It
rhould ~e as cJose to the noise source as possible. It should be the
height of the offending vehicle. It should be of a rougJ'l texture with a
shnp edge on top, and it should be continuous, as any openings would
allow noise penetration. In our case, six-foot fences would attenuate
noise from tn~ majority of vehicles, which are cars. We disagree with
staff's recommendation to place the fences three feet in from the property
l~ne~ as this. will place the fences farther away from the noise source.
Fences on the propedy 1 ine will be beUer sound barri~rs and will provide
ample room for landscaping and irrigation, We also take issue with
staffJ s sU9gestion ,n Option 2 that there be a percentage of open area by
using lattice or wrought iron. This would allow noise pen~tration and
would defeat the effectivaMess of the fence in attenuating noise.
We hope that you will help us to pass an ordinance which will allow
University Avenue home{lwners the full enjoyment of their property and sOllie
degree of relief from incessant noise and pollution. We also want to
thank Nancy Lytie and Joe Colonna because they really made this process a
very worthwhile oni! in terns of open cOrrtnunication and coope_'ation. '
Before I introduce my neighbors, I would lik{! to respond to some of the
Questions posed by commissioners.
Tony mentioned the idea of trees, on city property, J ttlink that is a very
beautiful idea, but I tend to doubt that the city would do it. In terms
of ~xpensi!, it would be at city e~pens~, which would be really nice, and
really'like the idea of enabling the pedestrian to have a view, although
our feeling is that ,in walking do~n University AvenuE', pedestrians are
concentrating on the sidewalk because it is so upheaved that you ar€
-really"'not noticing the "iew very much. We really hope to do a good job
lIith landscaping if the idea of trees was not acceptable,
With regard to the question of the S350 fee versus the price of a fence,
to me, it is more a question of the amount of time and the burdensomeness
12/08/93
·8·
. .: -"",
" f:j
0-',-
,1 ,
\
I
I
\
of the process ~nd whether or not the judgment of tt.e ho:neo .... 'ner. i;~
designing the fence and the landscaping 1 s any better than the Judgmellt of
phnning staff In design'll9 a fence, I would say $20 to 560 per lineal'
fcot l<ou16 be a wood fence, I h"e heard PI';Ces of a recently built
stucco fence (lIl Chaucer that il'as $90 a linear foot. Someone mentioned to
me that a .rought iron fence is approximately $l39 a I ineat' fool. So I
don't think you' are Qo1n9 to hav~ people rus~ing out tomorrow to build
thue fences, It isnot the cost of the permit. 11 is the idea of the
process· and whetnn or not the process would result in a better lookifl9
fence and hndse.plng,
~,e of the other Issues that Co~lssioner Seecham raised was about the
tartler propert1es and lo .... erlng the fence wlthl" 12 feet of the driveway.
I h~d spoken to Joe Colonna about the reason for that myself, as I was not
Quite sure. If you back out on U~iverslty Avenue right now. you first
stop ~t the end of your driveway to see if there are pedestrians coming.
YOu certa.lnly woulc$ /lOt proceed full speed beyond that to get mit into
traffic. YQU fU\lE t..o h.a'o'c the rear of your car in the ~icycle lane i(l
order to '$~e around the trees .and the bends on Universi ty Avenue. So the
fenc~ itsel f would not pr<!'vent you frOil) rlJnniog into another car or into a
blcycl1st. One final thing abo,ut visibil it)' of pedestrians, as it is in
Illy dd\'t!Pfd)i. Me side of it has ~ neighbor's ~edge. that is the thing
h'hich prevents r.;e fro'1 seeing pedestrians. lherE' are hedges prol iterating
everj"r!'here which are overgrown and unkempt on University Avenue. The city
has no regulations to prevent those from existing. which interfere with
y\slblllly of pedeslrl.n"
As for An.d'r.es Ouany, who.:l Tony 'H~l1tioned, J cannot resist Mentioning that
I w~nt to the Saturday session also and listened intently. I only started
scribbling noles Io.'hen he r;'!ent1oned that he lives in a 192~s apartlr.rent
building in fiior1da khlth. unfortunately for him, is on a major traffiC
corridor. He Slid that th9 so)utfcn to that was a massive wall between
the ~partment c~pl~x and the traffic corrldor which made it a paradise
lnsld~ t~at wall, That Is what we are looking for, Paradis. on .arth,
~\llhon, &09 Hale Street. Palo Alto: I live on the Corner of Hale
~nd University. W~ have a sir·foot fence around our home which we have
had for .bout eight ye.rs, First I want to rel.te a little bit of my
experience as a h~eoMner with and ~Ithout a Six-foot fence. Without a
six-foot lenco, we experienced a unique group of uninvited visitors to our
home, including people ~ho were dronk, people who slept in the yard,
pfople who used o~r hose to bathe, and an in(rediblc number of
solicHors. lie had feal' for our children playing in the yard and being
exposed to 27,000 passing tars per day. Would any parent r.~t be concerned
about their children in this s~tuat1on, especially g}ven c~rrent events?
With a six-foot fence, we have had virtual1y no uninvited visitors. The
children tan play in the yard, hidden from the view of strangers. Traffic
noise in the y~rd has been reduced l and living conditions inside the house
have been improved because ~f increased privacy ~nd reduted nOise. 1 have
no doubt that the fence has Significantly improved the Quality of our
... -lives 1!nd that of our property value. as w~11.
" ..
In terms of reco;n,;)cndations. J believe that what you do in regard to a
six-foot fence ordinance should be generally a s.imple and inexpensive
process to permit a homeowner to constrtld a sh:-foot fence. keeping in
12/0B/93
-9-
,', '.-'
\ ,
,
i
i
mind the following: (I) The Htlmeowner IPlprovc~ent (xernptiof1? jdenUfi~d
in Option 1, Is not s!mp1 •• nd Is not in"pensh., 1350 paid to the.clty.
because we do not trust our neighbors to bui 1d .a der.ent fence on then Ok'il
pruperty seems excessive, ]t is time consuming. A mjni~um of seven weeks
up to twelve ~'eeks could be consumed in the process.
(2) I bell",. that six·foot·hlgh f.nce> sho"ld o. permitted .t the
property line on' UnlvE'l'sHy Ave-m;e and similar busy streets subjecl to the
~a~~ restrictions as other fences in Palo Alto. lhat is identi(ie~ as
Option 3 in the staff report. At the MOst, o",·lhe·co"nler .pprova1 by
the Planning Oep.rt .. nt should be required for six·(oot fences, .Ith the
staff directed to consid." loport.nl Issues such os vhibll lIy .t
intersections and drlvewlYs? the use of ~iterials co.patlble kith the
residence, and f~nce design which ~afntains t~e di9n1ty of th~
neighborhood and the res,denti~1 char~cler of UniversIty Aven~~ as the
gat~way to Palo Alto. If a disagreenent arose b~l~en the Pla~nin9
Department staff at the counter and the properly Crttner, the pr-"Jperty Oh"nel'
could appeal the decision to the Ar<hitectural Revle~ Board.
The staff has stated that in Opl1on 2, s1x·foo! fences would be allOk'ed,
subject to codified reQuire~ents to be de'w'e1oped. Sepna-l(l' studiES would
have to be co~p1eted for each H!el"ial~ and c1Y.l'_vatible star-dards ttiOuld
~ave to be created Utd c.edified. Ha)'be this approach \u)111d be appropriate
in a perfect \I'odd, but -a ftonce should n()t be such ~ lujor issue. Co;o;r.:-on
sense would indicate that lie do not need to uHte r:(lre .... (.'Irk and ~-ore
bllreaucracy \<When that is not neces..sary.
Finally, I think silc·f(l(tt fences shalild be ,1101(eo l!P fo lhe property
line. This would pro\lide ~de<luate rO~m tor hnds<apin9. ililH! pro·..-ision for
drip Irrigation could be requiTed to .,Inl.in tho land,caplng. T~e
bililante of the yard sl.ould be reclaimed for the hor,~owner.
A couple of specifics about our fence: . We have l long stretch or our
property on Hale Street. ~e do have a Six-foot fence along Hale Street,
.nd it really has he1 ped a gre.t de. I In 9 Iv ing OUT ho."", PI' I "cJ and
protecting us from the noise and pollution .Iong Uoiver~ity Aven"c. I do
not think a lower fence than sh"(eet would really have dQne that in our
parti<:LJhr case, on the side, street. Finally, OlJr driveway is on
University Avenue and our fence 1 s only ab!)l)t a car length bac-k frOb the
t~dewalk. We have used that for about eight years, and ~t seems to be
more than adequate for us to haye Ylslbl11ty of the sidewal, .ndo1so
University Avenue. So I don't think a further setback than that is
necessary_
Tony mentioned the idea or flowering plum trees. We dG howe seyeral plum
trees that we planted when we put our fence in. They se{,/7I to have w{)rked
wen. They ha¥e pro¥ided some a-ddlt1ooa:l screening underneath the canopy
of the magnolias. Ooe of the trees has grown quite well, whIle I~e other
is a 1itt1. stunted because the magnolia takes .way most of the sunlight.
So I would like to have an arborist co~nt on toat before the city spends
a lot of money or; flowerin.g plum trees. But that might he> a good opUon, -.
CQiTolIIlSsioner Carrasco: J have a question for you. Under Option 3, Scott,
does your committee reco~Dend that you have six·f~ot·hi9h fences on all
arterials , or only on University Avenue?
11/0B/93
-10·
Ht', ~ilsQrl: I am just comenting on an arterial where a hO~1! ;s on
Univt!rsHy Avenue and also on a side street , as OIJr hort1€' is.
Coqrn1ssioner Carras.co: So you donit want this Ordll1i1rlCe to applj' to
Emb.rc.dero Road or r.ge Mill Road, etc.
Hr. Wfl S9n: I am specff1ca11y addressing University AVMue.
Commiss1pner Schin~: Scott. does your fenr.e come right up to the edge of
your driveway?
~~: Y •• , it do •• , bec.us. we have • sliding gat. that op.ns and
shuts on the driveway. So the fence actually goes across the drhen'.:ty.
C0trmiiS;pner BItIlWlm: On the UniYersHy side of your home, did you
indi(at~ tnat your fence is about a car length back fro~ the sidewalk?
Hr. Wilson: T~at is correct.
Commjss~er ~eecham: And what kind of landscaping do you have bet~een
the sidewalk and the fence?
Mr.l"JUl..un; ~Ie have a heavy strip of agapanthus between the fence and He
Sidewalk. The distance between the sidewall< and the fence. except where
the driveway is, is no mor€ than three feet. It is set back further at
the d'·i .... cway.
Commissipn~~~: Can y~u clarify that? The fence is normally
setback from the sidewalk about one car length?
1!L..Jji!=: At the driveway, the fence is set back .bout a car length.
But for the rest of the strip along University A .... enue, it is more like
three feet,
tom~jssiQner 8eecham: Do you know what that is up to your property line.
th.t .pproxim.te three fe.t?
Mr. Wilson: At portions of the fence ~round the property line and at
~ortions of the fence, we step 'in from the property line on our own) just
to provi~e nooks to put In some landscaping, for instance, where the two
plum trees are, that I menti~ned.
~issiQl'Ier 8e~cham: Also on Hale l ytlll have a six-foot fence. How far
is that set back?
Hr. Wilson: Th.t i. at the property line. It is probably 30 or 31 f.,t.
Jtlsep~ Violette. 95 Cr~scent Orive, Palo Alto: I live one narrow lot back
from University Avenu(>, so we ha .... e the impact of t~e traffic on Urlive-nHy
Avenue, and that' is what I would like to .peak to. Both the City Counci 1
and the Planning Corr.miSSioll frequently refer to University Avenu-e as the
--gat~way to Palo Alto. They refer to it as. a beautiful, tree-lined street
with lovely, expen~ive homes. I think that describes University Avenue 6f
about 20 years ago. What University Avenue is today is quit~ different.
Because of the traffic density, University Avenue is no ltHlger iii
residential str<!let. In rHlity, it is a freeway. It is a little
12/08/93
·11·
different freeway from the BilIyshcH'e, b<!catJSe it is ill freeway that has.
sidewalks. That beautiful, friendly neighborhood that is considered the
gateway to Palo Alto has degenerate~ into. a hostne~ unfl"iend~y ~orridor
trespassed by disinterested people ,n th"r Cal'S 90,n9 to the" ,ndlvldual
destinations with littl' interest or regard for that beautiful, onc.
friendly nclghborho{)d. They dri'ole in excess of the sp<!ed limit. they
routinely violate the bike lanesj the.), have driven over the sidewalk and
run into trees. The environment in front of those homes (Ill University
Avenuf is more like what you would expect along £1 Camino Real in a
cOll111ercial dfstrjct. Chemical pollutioll, noiSf p()llution, litter
pollution. 7h~ tn'olasive and pervasive noise, even though jl may not be at
an excessive decihel range inside your home, i:$ still a psychological
pollution. That continuous din that you get from traffic on Univers;ty
Avenue is really an Intrusion in the prf~acy within your home. The noist
level, in terms of your fr~nl yard, millkes your front yard really
unusable. It is unusable for outdoor activities. and It j$, nnt safe. We
did not expect this to happen to our neighborhood when we plunked down
hundreds of thousands of dollars for the privilege of living in this very
beauti ful area. lie feel uneasy when we wal k our sidewalks in the
daytime. We al'e dOl'lnright afraid to walk thE'm at night. We feel tJnsafe
in our front yards, both real and imagined. Rea) from the vehicular
traffic, and perhaps imagined from stl'angers on ou)" sidewililks.
111 a recent (PA bl'iefing report on transportati()n. it stated that in the
past 25 years. traffiC volumes ~n the major roadways nillve increased at an
annual rate ranging from 1/2 pHcent to 3 percent. Yet traffic volumes on
the eastern reaches of University Avenue have increased almost 45 percent
in the short time span of nine years, 1984 to a most recent study about a
\leek ago. That is from over lB,OOO vahicles per day up to over 27,000
veh1c1es per day. 'That number becomes even more lrT,presslve when you
real ize that more than 76 percent of that traff1c occurs between 8 o'cl{1ck
in the morning and 7 o'clock in the evening. That is almost 2.0nO cars an
hour. To PlJt it in better perspective. that is a car about eyer)' two
seconds in that time period. I would invite yov to c~~e to some of our
neighbortlood aSSOCiation meet.ings in one of the neighbor's ttOI~t-S on
University Avenue around 5 to 7 p.m, and I think you will find the traffic
unbe11eyable. Most of our friends along University Avenue put in a long
and stressful day, and they would like to come home to the solitude and
peacef~lness of tneir homes so they can regenerate for the next day's
work. That is not possible now with the level of traffit noise that
occurs.
'T~e traffic on University Avenue has really created a barri€r between
neighbors. It is unsafe to cross the street. Cars, not people~ dominate
our 1 jves. hihat are we asking for? A simple, straightforward f~nce
ordinance that will allow us to build ~ six·foot·high fence on our front
property line. using a desigll that is in ke~ping with the architecture of
our Mmesi a fence that wll I provide some degree of abatement {rom the
noise isnd 1 itter pollution of traffic on University Avenue .. a fence that
will give us a sense of safety and security in our front yards, a fence
...... that wi I J provide a safe place fOl' OUt' chil<lren and grandchlldren to play,
safe from the heavy traffiC on Univ~rsi ty Avenue and safe from those
strang~"rs who:n we do not knowj a feel iog of privacy an<l sol itude, peace
and serenity so we can relax from our daily toil. We as~ that you create
a simple fence ordinance, not complex, not full of legal jargon. One page
should be ample for the ordinance. If we were willing to invest the
Il/O~/93
-Il·
.~--
!/
hvndreth 1,)f thousands of dolhrs in our homes, stlrely we can be trusted to
build. f.nte that will be an asset to that investment. Th.t is wh.t w.
are asking f01', Ihan~ you .
.ttlhl:...lehrbm.....LQ85 Un;vor,jtl' Aveltllh-Palo Alto: I am on the. corn.r of
UHluC~t· and UniVerSity. Today, we at'e (elebratlng the lItn annH'ersary Gf
voOv1r.g into OtJt home. I am for an ordinance which gives Unlversity Avenue
residents th~ right t~ erect six· foot f~nce~ at our property line without
city oyor$19ht. A baSic rl9ht of property owners is qui.t enjoyment of
their property, Prop~rties along University Avenue ar~ not quiet, nnr
could their front yard, he d •• ""d .njoy.ble by any r.ason.bl. standard.
,Any front yard (orwersation, which consists mainly of ~Wha.t?" "What did
yOu say?" H autOAlaUcally shared with hundreds of passersby. living in
our lovely ho>;:!es is akin t!> living: in the pro'olerbial goldfish bowl, with
20,000 or eore spectators daily. Traffic along lTnl'ole)'sity Avenue has
fntrea~ed $ubstantlal1y since W~ moved into our hOmB. The development ~f
d'<rwnto,..,., Palo Al to as the best restaur~ilt dest1nat ion Q'I~ the peninsuh has
certatnly inne~sed the times of day durin9 which re-sidential Unlvenity
Avenue carries a significant a~unt of traffic. From before five a.m.
until after Midnight, our street is a thoroughfare. Host citizens are
fr'f! to grab their IOOrnh19 paper in their pajamas, with perhaps a
fl~1ghborly tle)lo frDr!!! friend. On University Avenue, it is like opening
your door onto 101, and It is an uncomfortable process unless fully
dressed for the day·· a djsturbance of a perfectly normal morning
routine, c~ffee and the paper b~fore getting dressed.
Gardening is also ge~eral1y an enjoyable front yard activity that is
de$troy~d for University A¥~nue residents by the constant presence of
CAYS, trucks and bus activity. Gardening is not an activity where ana
nonmally feels the need to be terribly presentable, but on UniverSity
Ayen~e, we are just so exposed. Heaven forbid, one needs to bend over and
present their backside to the street. Vntversity Avenue is notorious for
solicitation reQuests at all hours of the day and night. WHo solic1ting
s;gn$ do not take care of the problem, and it is not unusual for doorbells
along the street to ring after 10 p.m. Penon'ally. I also happen to have
a hus stop 1n front of my proporty. While the majority of bus patron,
respect the privacy of the property, I have had people picnicking on my
front lawn or even using my front porch as their resting place. Also t
because of our situation on the downtown side of Chaucer and University,
we, often gel p"edes.trians trespasslng across the lawn within two feet of
the 11'lin9 roorn windows.
~ chtldre~ are now ten and twelve years old. They have never had the
ability to use our fl~ont lawn of o ..... er half the available phy space. It
is too dangerous for them and too uncomfortable for me. I have found a
syr!:1ge stuck in one of the ''!Iagnol ias out front, and was told by the
police that it is not that unusual along University Avenue. A
six.foot·high fence along my property line, which is ah'eady five feet
back from the sidewalk, is not an unreasonable request from a resident of
an arterial street, and allows plenty of r{Jom for hndo;;caping. I believe.
Ue are paying the price for the de ..... el~pment of the entire area to a far
.... -greatet ext~nt than alit" neighbors. Major measures to control traffic on
the res.idenUal arterials need to be taken. But we n~ed fences now to
reg!lln SOri",e measure-of the quality of life that we have lost in recent
years.
12/08/93
-13-
\
J believe that our neighbors loin 1 work to protect their own property
v,lues by vuttlog up eo"",tlble fences without City o,.,slght. I do not
bell.v. th,t .nything ""re than, building permit sllould be requir.d.
\11th 66 perc.nt support for six-foot fences ,from the .rteri,l residents,
what is ttle purpose ()f any hearing proc~s:s? Are you goln.g to tell SQmeone
they cannot hewe a fence-if j.O~ nei9hoor .objects? ~hy ""Quid we need
landscaping glJ1delines (or six-foot fences at poroperty lines, when they
are /lot requind'for four-fooL fences or for st<·foot fences set 16 feet
blC~? This is n!>t to sa)' we ~'(HJld not hndscape. We ,",auld, for aur own
values. But it se~~s to Ne a waste of c1ly MOney and time to h~ve it
dlct.leJ aod '",viewed.
lhe issue of (orner lots raised in the letter fr01~ St.aron Toni Conte must
alsG be .!;ddr'essf!d. .we-are COI"r,efltly person"l)y in the midst of a major
cotlStroct1on project whlth nccessHaled UH~· removal of a fonr,er s1x·foot
gate tnto om'" bad: yard. Under 'clJrrent regulations, we are no", <lnly
allow~ II four-foot fence in the setback. area ~hlch toL,lly exposfS our
pOD} and the onCE-privati! area that ""~ had. Again, stx·foot rences. at the
pr"perty line .are in order. A ,16·(<IOl setback in the side yard would put
ill six·foot fence about hie, reel fr~'U thE' houSE'. Houses that filee
University Aven'ue ar.e ty~ically 3{1 to 40 feet bacJ;. {(om the front J but
they are not that fn back froll tl'1e side. A four· foot (ellce destroys the
entjre concept and benefit of t~e six' foot fence along University Avenu.e.
University Av~nue 11 " ver.'II strong neighborhood. I have kno~i(! and
SOCialized with ev~ryonr. without ex~.eptfon, on my block, and I know ~any
of the-neighbors on other blocks. Fences will not affect oor particular
nel~hborhood negatively in terms of the neighborhood community. ~hat they wll~ do is to give us. bi!!Ck thi.~ U~e of the properties. W~ paid for, maintain
and pay taxes on. Thahk yau .
. eh.!l~W:l~JQ1~.l!ll!.y_vsHY Avm~,-...£.a.lUlli: I ,m h •• rtlly in ('VOl'
of ~n a~nd'rnent of the fenc:(' or<linance to sl10w us t{l put six·foot fences
on our property lines. 1((> have-9iven out folders to eactl of the
cOlfl.ilissh'lfUn'S entHled -renc.e.s on,Univet'slty AVMue." l would like you to
h've', look .t lhos •. lhe f1rst three sets of photographs In those
folders sbow h{lu$(!~ on UnlversHy AVenue with and without fentes. \Ire have
theodled those fences'lnto the, photographs. They do not cUI'rently
exIst. That gives you ,n ide. of what olght happen If this ordln,nce w's
,11 owed to be amended .. I don't think ,nyone here could possibly say th,t
any of those slX·fool fences 1s .esthetlcally "npleas.nt on any of those
properties. 1 sincerely doubt that any property owner on University
Av~nue would create soroething that would detract from the value of their
property or the appear, nee of their house to the people who visited, their
friends and nelghb~rs.
Photographs 4 and 5 in th~t booklet sno~ the current regulation of the
16-fool setback from the property Hne before the ho .. owner was allowed to
put up a six-font fence. In both of those cases, Photos 4 and 51 you can
see that the 16·(001 ,re, has simply been .bandoneo. It does not add
anything to the property, it detracls fro;1l the averall appearance of the
avenue. I belie-ve ttlat if people were allowed to build at the property
-line, they 'Would cO[lsider, as J would r.,yself, the five-foGt space between
the property line (in my e,se) and the sidewalk 's • sort of free gift
from the tHy. It is all!\Ost Ii\(. part of our property. \/e would .ndeavor
to mak€ it look as nice as the r-est or our pr<lperty. Jf the city says nC).
you cannot build this six~foot fence (and the si~ foot we know is required
Il/GB/93
-14·
\
-.. '
. .
,,;,._~~,,.,,~~,,,,,,~,,~',;.:..;.;;..; ...... ~":'L .~
for pI'lvacy) if w. cannot build this six·foot fence until ,·e get 16 feet
back from the property line or 21 feet oack fro." the s\de~alk (In our
case, 31 feet back from the curb), it feels li~e the clly has stolen th.1
land from us, We .pald fOI' the land, yet we 'I'e not ,llowed to use it. It
is unusable land without any degree of priv,acy.
In terms of aesthetics, y~u can see that the SiK·(oot fence on the
propertY.line looks just as ni(e~ if n~t nicer. because of th~ (act lh~l
we do not have that abandoned strip of land lit froot of U, Th. actu.l
dlff.r~nc. In the amount of archlt.ctural significance you could see from
a car passing by .. someone might b. wOI'rled that a ,h,·foot fence on the
property line would bloc.~ out more of the house, Well, It .otu.lly ~lot~s
out about two f •• t more of vertical height of the f'~'de of the house If
the house is set back 4~ fe.t from the property line. Tw. f.et on the
facade of a 20·foot·hlgh hOUSfl is not a very slgntncdnt !oount. I don't
beli.ve the archltectur.l jmp.ct will be ch'.ged slgnlflcanlly. I ootic.
in the staff report 'that they also mention the insig.nitictlnce-of that
di fference,
I also feel that as we.l as the aesthetic value thai ~ouJd be created by
different and interesting fences, we should bring the property ovt to the
property line. I also think that the ftn~e itself defines the edqe of
someone's property and tna~es the passerby, the r:>(}torist 01' pedestrian,
real ize that they arc deal ing with an individual's pr{lp2l'ly and' pn that
property, the individuals. have expressed themselves, or are playing ~n the.
yard, w~ate¥er they are doing_ It 15 th~lr property. It i~ not ~n
extension of the c{Jrb <lr an extension of the p1.ant1ng strip or sOO',e kind
of public no-man's land. It actually returns to the homeowner. and lS
therefore capable of rece1v1fi9 the care ind attention of th~ ho~~owner in
a way that homeowners will make that area loo~ nice.
I think that people have • concern that If lhisordinance of slx.fooL
fences on the property line 1> allowed, that people ar. going 10 build
something like the fr.eway sound w.lls on University Avenue. 1 think that
is unrealistiC We are perhaps hklng lo~ narrow· .. view. We are '''ery
familiar with sGund walls at tn~ moment, becluse they have recently c~e
into exist.nce and ar. proliferating, I don't thInk that ~.ll., In
general. or fences detract from a properly. I (OMe from England
originally. In a lot of small vlll'gos, hO!lles are complelely .nclosed by
six-foot fences or,tnereabouts by fences or walls. t ~ouldn't think of
those villages as b~in9 restri,ted from seeing t~e arch~tectural value-of
the houses behind those walls. I think jl rather leads to • ~ore
interesting perspective when you wonder what is happening behind H.
perhaps. or Y(lU wonder what is through that gateway. It ma~(:s it rather
intriguing. a little bit more interesting that this no·~an's land which we
cannot use. Thank you.
Judy Haxwell. ]057 Un~versity Avenue. Palo Alto; I want to speak to two
issues: height and placement of fences. Hy husband b¢ught the property
that we now live on about )5 years ago. Six y~ars ago, bec~us~ of the
terrible increase in traffic, we felt clJIr.pelled to build oursel",cs a
wal1. ... ~e spent quite a lot of money <In a brick wall. which Is very
attractive. if I say so myself. with attendant landscaping. But we did
not want to go through thE! cumbersome process of getting a variance at
that time, so we mad. the deciSion to build the wall foUl' feet high, which
was allowed at the time, and to plant hollY trees at reasonable spaces
12/0B/93
·15·
along itr hoping that one day, they would form a cant iouous. taller fence
of shrubbery. Well, it was a great ide.:). but here we are~ s,ix years
later, and they still do not quite meet. We have lovely ei9ht-fool holly
trees, but J can !:ee it is going to take several years more before we gel.
1n effect, an eight-foot fence, which is allowed by l.w.
The result of this is that .lthough we h,ve an increased feeling of
privacy, which has been good, the traffic noise has really not been
affected at all. We still hear quite a bit of tt'affic no he because. of
course, it just goes right over the fou"-fool fence and through the gaps
it} the holly trees. Al soo. we can see frem our 1,ving room the two cars
per secon~ whooshing by, so it has not been very effecliv.. Th,t Is why
would like to speak in support of an ordinance allowing six· foot fences.
I feel that ;s the minimum you need to have to be an effective sound
barrier.
As to placement, J disagree w1th the st~ff recommendation that in al1
tnree options, there be a three-foot setback from the property line. In
many (ases along University Avenue. the property line is five feet from
the sidewalk, so you are asking for an eight-foot setback. One of th£
things we talked about originally was that people who now have large
hedges set quite a bit back from the si~ewalk do not maintain that area
bet.";i!en the hedge ana: the Sidewalk. It is very unsightly. and as several
people have mentioned already, you are just asking for that. If people no
longer feel that that is theh· property. nor can they use it, they are not
going to pay much attention to it.
~e have ourselves only a~oul t~o-and-a-half feet between the sidewalk and
t~e wall. £ven w1th that small amount ~f space, it is quite a lOl of work
to maintain what lie do have there. 'Me have three different varieties of
plants, which I think is really a minimum to make it look attractiv~.
Otherwise, all you are going to have 1S hedges. It takes work to maintain
that. Also. there is a rec~mmendation that homeowners use drip
irrigation. I think that is Prob,bly something that could b. worked out
later, but I want to say that the purpose (If drip irrigation is to use
less water. but actually, if you plant something like ivy. which useS very
little water as soon .$.1t get> established, you cannot use drip
irrigation, because the ivy intel'feres with it and' tangles itself all
around it. Tnat is ttte same for any other attractive vine you might .... ·ant
to grow. It is not compatible with drip irrigation. So I think that
should be removed if It was going to be part of the wording of the
ordinance. lt would not work. Thank you.
Bob raylor. 048() tiarlo'lje str~alo Alto: Our lot has appr'oximat€ly 100
feet of frontage ~n UniverSity Avenue. The vast majority of open space on
our lot lies orl the University side. This gives us a keen inlerest in
ttl; s issue. fteedless to say, we are strongly in favor of a change in the
zoning ordinance that would permit slx-foot~high fences on University
Avenue on the property line wi,thout the CiJrrent impediment of having to
obtain a vari ance 0'· the suggestion by staff that we go thr()ugh th.e
_ J;omeow,!ler Exception Process.
J am a real estate brnker and owner of Taylor Propel'ties) which has one ~f
h,s offices in downtown Palo Alto. 1 want to 9ive the Planning COlTlni!.sion
an Instght into the effect of the current loning ordinance on rea) estate
values and the property rights of o\~ners along University. First. the
]2/08/93
-]6-
",
:. ,
\
.-"<, "",, o:_~:..... __ . __ ' __ _
'.
I r· r-
"-1
I'
... -l,'L
Issue of real estate values, lhe city is concerned about preserving and
enhancing real estate values in 9(maral, because that serves the intel'ests
of the citl,ens of Palo Alto and leads to more revenue through property
and transfer taxes. location, of cOllrse, is the key to real estate
loIalUE!. If it were not for traffic noise, Unlversity Avenue \I'Quld be ()mong
tn€ best locations in the city, Thus, anything that can be done to
mitigate the noise will enhance the privacy and usefulness of the
property, and therefore, its val ue, As a real estate brok.er, I have
listed and sold properties on University, and I can render my professional
opinion that a new fence ordinance would Increase the value of property on
UniV"'sHy Avenue by enhancing the privacy and usefulness of the
property. A major object ion which buyers raise is both the exposure to
trafflc nol,. and the ped.slt·ian traffic on the sld.walk. The fence,
while not eliminating traffic, of course, or necessarily all the street
nOise, would serve to mitigate their effects. Because of the current
dlffltulty In obta1n~n9 permission to build a six~foot fence on University
Avenue, the value of property on University Avenue is ~orth approxim~tely
2S percent less than comparable properties on neighbol'ing streets.
This differential in value would be much less if property owners we)'e
allowed to build fences on the property line because ~f the decrease in
nOise and the 1ncreas~ in privacy which a fence would allow. In facl,
tnere is a recent hom~ fOI' sale on University Alolenue, which you are
probably all famil iar with. where the owner has offered in a recent
solicitation to brokers to pay S50,OOO to a buyer who will bUlld a fence
and buy his property, This is obviOUS motivation and obvious recognHioll
that the market sees th~ lack of privacy and the noise as a problem in
selling a home.
The other real estate issue is the right of p,'operty owners to use and
enjoy their property, The zoning ordinance must seek to pt'esenoe as much
use and enjoyment to the owne)' as possible wHnout· seriously affecting the
vAiue , enjoyment or use of neighbDring lands. Unilolersity Alolenue is ~nique
because it carries a good portion of our vehicle traffic conSisting of
cars, busses and trucks, a,J:'!d it also carries a large n~mber of walking
comuters·. No other street in our c1ty has this distinction, The noise
from traffic obviously has a negBtlve tmpact on our use and enjoyment,
The negative impads Df the wal~i.ng corrmuters, are less obvious. yet they
are )"tal. Because ()f.the public access to our yard~ our pers(}nal effects
!n 00" yar<l are much more likely to be dama9.d or stolen. It is simply a
matter of statistiCS. The more people that walk bYYQur house, the more
likely it is that one of them is an opportunistic type of vandal or thief
who wl1J take advantage of a sitting duck. We cannot leave any personal
property in our fr<mt yard for any length of time because we have learned.
through sad experience. that it disappears fast. That concern means th.t
our front yard is Jess useful. Our children. when in the front yard, have
boen approached by people begging for money. r cannot readily think of
another street in our city where you have to wony about being accosted by
a panhandler just because you are gardening in the front yard. On
OCCa.SiOl-S, we ha\le had to call the police because of .. busive and
aggressive panhandlers, This is a unique situation, and) feel it calls
---for some unique action in th€ loning ordinance in order to protect tiS,
1n summary, the vehicle and foot traffic on Uni\lersity Avenue has a
significant negative impact on the val ue of real estate on University
Avenue and on the ri~hts of property owners ~ho deSire to enjoy their
12/08/93
,]7·
0:
: .
I··
I"
!
.. ,
property. A n~W' fence ordinance allowing owners tD c{lnstruct a s1x-f()ot
fence on the property line would help tDwards solving these prob~ems.
lhere are no significant negative impacts to 'neighboring propertles or to
the titlzens or P.10 Alto If • loning change were to occur, allowing
fentes as prop'osed by the neighbors on Unherslty Avenue. lhank you.
H,r1.n ~Ulni.Y_e.r~1h-A'fDue. p.llQ .. AiLtQ: Good .,.ning, memb.rs of
the Phn-nil1g (omission and tlty staff. J have been asked to coment M
the .ufely issu~s'rehtif19 to the proposed ordinance pr()'.Iiding for
Six-foot fences ,t the property line. Safety in our neighborhood and for
re~ldents of our str~et has tw~ comp~nents. One component of safety is
doculOent.d by ou~ Oep.rt .... t of Public S.fety, which usu.lly
uooe)'l!'st1Itahs. incidents and percelyes safety, which is a psychological
f~nctton. in te~s of crime statistics, homes on University Aven~e
sufferC!d 33 fnddents of burglary, 20 incfde-nts of thert from premises and
el9~t Holen • .,tor vehlcl" l"tne last l8 ""nths. A six-foot fence
provi~es the necessary privacy so that burglars have difficulty in
deletUng whether Q)" not anyon~ Is pres.ent in the hO:lle. Six-foot fen.ces
also .ar~ difficult to scale and .we an effective deterrent to all but Hie
I!".Ost deten!tloed thieves . .The-Police Department has rende-red a c09~nt
opinion that fentes will detEr th~s type of crime. As you know, the
CreSC~l"it Pnk neighborhood b<Jrders fast P.llo Al to and .... ·est~rn Hen' 0 Park,
ho arNS which have high rates of violent .and drog-related CI'ime.
Residents of our neighborhood have been terrorized by audible gun 5hots
2r!\1 shcotouts whfc~ f"lave occurred r-earby. Conditions in Ollr society have
aho br(llJgM about an explosion (If beggars and othH persons \oo'ho are
unemplQyed or h~~eless., who solfcit our names for worK, food or money. In
this c1llf1.ate of and proximity to violent crim~, our n~i9htlornood has
responded with support for the Red Team and an active block watch
progt"JI':J, Ueverth~lessl mlloy of our neighbors. fear unknown solicitors and
fe~l threatened by the very freQ.uent s~licitations we recei'lle. Sh·foot
fences will deter casual solit~tat;Qns. These fences will not make <Jur
nefghborhood less neighborly. Out of necessity, our neighborhood
r~s'dents hawe alre~dy united to protect each other, our property, and ()ur
seMe of co..-""mit)'. .
S1x-fool fentes will .ho enh.nce the safety of OU\' cMldre" as they play
In our front yards and driveways. On~ ne~ghbor who has a f(lur-foot brick
wall with t,ller landscaping has written our neighborhood associatfon that
pedestrians hove harassed .nd thr.atened her children while they play
b,,~etball in the drlvew.y. For many of us with <hlldr.n, the front yard
Is substantially more ope" and suHabl. for the Informal play of children
than our rear yards .. Uf'lfortuo3tely, without any fence, such play is
ilJlPoss~b)e. As He letter of one of our residents att€sts to, our cunent
four-foot Ilm+t is il1adeQ~ate.
Speedtng is the roos.t frequent, safety~related traffic yjohtio1'1 on
University Avenue, followed by oversize trutks, traffic signal violations,
drlying in tn. bike lane, and passing on the rigt,t. ACCidents are a
co~n occurrence, due to these violations. In the 30 months from
January, ]991 to June, 1993, 131 acddents occorred. Two lnvol ved
--pedestrians. University Avenue has be~n engineered to allo'ri fO)· vehic.ulat'
travel at speeds much hi9her than what ;s safe for a residential and
pedestrian avenue. lhese speeding cars, trucks and buses represent a
~azard to us physic.ll1y. We sense this danger when we rest in our homes,
when we seek to ~njby our front gardens I or we walk on the street, A
12108/93
·18·
"
four·foot fence can provide (lUI' homes witll a physical barrier from
reckless drivers, hf:l,..ever, a six .. (oot fencE' will a1.lay <lur sense of
physIcal d,nger and provIde us wit~ psythological ,,(.ty, ~s both vlSual
.nd .uditory senses ore shi.lded frM the thre.t of traffIc hazar~s.
In sumary, W~ urge that t~e ~lannlng (omlllssion direct the tHy staff ilnd
the CHy Coundl" to approye • slx·foot f.nce or~in •• ce for University
Avenu. at the property lin •. W. bell.ye the best ordinance would be th.
simplest to explain and 1~plt~~nt. Vr-have provided exa~les of ~ow
fences <:an aug5!ent the bc~uty of our hcm.es .and our streH. We ha~e
provided tostin"my os to how this height will lop"OY' P',<>p.l'ty v.lues on
our street 'and hour nelglrb{lYhood. bHause residents and 9'r(lspectivE'
buy.r.< can t,k •• ctlo. 10 Biligote .0 ... of th. negJthe .. peds of the
traffic. Approv.l of .n ordln.n,. ~111 also de""nst"l. Ih.t Ih. city
recognizes that resideots of this be-autHul avenve require special
protection from traffic burd~ns.
II. r.jett the slaff's suggestions that th. yj,jl>lIlty of front ~oo", .nd
por<:hes is an lll',portant co,,-p<'ncnt f(lr these fences. lni $ reco.~~nded
design elel!'.ent will sigllihc.ant)y detract fro~ the prh'~cy functl(ln and
the noise barrier function Qf a fence. w~ ar~ concern?d that the staff
,'ecomendaticns regarding ylsibt1ity trian9j~s And drive-'IIays ,have not
considered the unique feat!Jres of our street, b~c.luse f"\.!ny of the
driveways (Ire wide enou~h to accotm',Jdate tWQ cars at the ((.lfb. As such,
the visibility triangles could be J':'.eaStJr~d fro;'1; a set distance horn the
center of the dri ..... eway. not lhe edge of the dri ..... e..,ay.
On a more general note, we reject tht staff suggesl!on that developing
criteria sensiti\le to each traffic I!Irterlal 15 burciens,o:::.t. that Is part
of their job. Our city 1$ In the mld,t of d".loplng des!gn guidelines
for nf!ighborhoods as part of OLW Comprehensh'e Phn update. We bel ievl!
that traffl' mltlg.Uon on neighborhood "t.rl.l, "hich p." through
single·family resldenthl neighborhoods des.ryes the urgent and spec;al
attention of the Planr.lng (o~lssion as part ~f,the CO!prehensive'Plan
process. There are only six such .-rterl.1s Ih.1 h, •• slngle·famlly
residences on them. UniverSity Avenu!; EMbarcadero ROid. Hld~lefield
Ro.d, A1m. Str.et, Charl.s\,n/Ar •• lr.d.ro, .nd In Q.ny .r •• " the Oregon
Expressway. Each road na~d requires special s~nsitlYity regarding Its
unique features. To suggest that one ordinance CQuld address the relevant
issues on these very different rQads, or that a H~owner5 Exemption
Process would leas to'unif6r=. consistent and predtctable requirements is
simplistic .nd unsophisticated.
Jt is clear to members of t~e city 5hff that we need these fentes. It is
also (lear tnat we, as residents of UniverSity Avenue. have the resources
to erect fences which will tnhance our property valueL We ur'ge the
Planning Commissloners to facllit~te this process by recQ~~ending a si~ple
amendment to the current ordl~3nce, ~11owin9 for s~x~foot·hi9~ fences ~t
the prop~rty line for homes bordering ~r fronting on University Avenue.
Robert ViQlant~_lL~!'Iiyex}Jl'L __ ';YJmv~, P.do-..Al.iQ: My nr';~4lbors have
-pretty"much covHed all Ihe facts. I jusl w.nt to put th. thing In a
slightly different perspective. J h.ve I ived on UnlyersHy AYentle since
J98J I btlt My first acquaintance wHtr University Avenue was ~s a .gradua.te
student in the sixties. J went to many parties at plaCES on University
Avenues whittr could be d~fined as nothing more than roo~in9 hous~s~ One
c : .. \ \
.\
.-, .......
12/08/93
-19·
\
I
I
!
r
I ,
I
I
I
I
!
I
Just ~as to look at t~e 800 block on t~. nort~ ,ide to ,ee what the future
of University Avenu. Is going to be. There ;sonly one nouse left. 1~.
rest .re multi-residential dwellings, University Avenu~ could have been a
lot different gateway, but my neig~bors have spent a lot of money puttl r09
t~Gse homes back together. I am sure that ~nyone who ~as ~ad to wrestle
with homes that were ,built in the twenties knows that it costs a fortune
to maintain them and to keep them looking like anythlng.
All I would 11k. to say is to give t~ese people th. (~ance to use their
good judg~~nt to make walls the way they want to m~ke the~t be(ause $~
far, t~.y have done a great job of keeping the 9ateway tog.ther for
Palo Alto. Thank you.
l.tlln C~lapell., 631,(010r.oo Avenue, Palo Alto: 1 wish the descriptions
you have given were true only for UniverSity Avenue. Unfortunately. those
of u.s. who live on Middlefield Road in Midtown. those of us who lh'e near
Charleston, there is pan h.;;.ndling daily. J ha\'e had somc.o11t' CC1l1i> to My
door and pun a needle on me, demanding rI',oney. Thi 50 proble,il 1 S not just
Uni .... ersity Avenue. I really hate to see you tt"t:~at this as a UniversHy
Avenue problem without addr{!')sif1g all of the nter'i.al$ that are having the
problem. You have my letter so I will not repeat that , but J do ~ant to
emphasize that there should be a measurable criterion establ 1shed, SlJC~ as
10,000, 20,O{)Q cars dailYf in ordf!r for a street to Qualify for the
six-foot fence ordinance, particularly in light that ther~ is going to be
,'o;ometbing likE' ]00,000 more cars with 30,000 tc. 4G,GOO mort jobs projected
in the ne)(t 2{) years, according to the (PAC project ions for a world class
employment area. So r would 1 ike to have you lake a look. Those are
p,",otos of a sound wall across the street frClm rny house. If you, are a
pedestrian, you can see one picture there that s~ows you with the
pedestrian with it right next to your sidewalk. I am about fiv~ foot
seven fnches t and I have a three·foot span. So if l am all the sidewaH:;,
th.t is the sound .all as ) .m walking down. I t~lnk If .e do this .]1
over Palo Alto~ we are going to have a fairly hostile feeling to ~anY of
OUl' str~ets. I a:n not against tne fence ordinance, but 1 think we have to
have. little landscaping involved In this on .11 the streets. ) have.
couple of suggestions. This would b. a fairly unhospltable looking street
If all the walls lined the street 11k. t~I'. University Avenue ha, a
five-foot setback, but some of the others do not.
So I have some suggestions th.t 1 think might be con,ldered. On. woulii b.
that (I) the sound wall design would incorporate landsc.pe requirement,
and t~.t (2) t~er. b •• five-foot minimum setback from t~e side.alk. 1
don't kno. how that .ffects •• eh street wlt~ v.rious setbacks. 1 think
that on University Avenue, they already have the five-foot setback. This
would allow bolO levels of landscaping. So instead of th~ wall being here,
it would ba back here. You could then have a low level of landscaping.
with a second 1evel that is nigher with shrubs or vines I so it would
actually be attractive from the pedestrian point of view or even from the
visual point of view of a person driving. J do feel that as s~eed
increases, the uglier the street gets. and the more people disregard it
(.nd 1 know there is a prohlem on University but it I, allover). I thin~
--that on the prettler streets. people go a little s.lower as they like to
look. When you start taking ,that away, you are going to hay€' even more
speed. stich as on Middlefield Road where it has gone to 35, 45 and now 50
miles per hour on that street where it has been widened, and there is
graffiti and very u~attractive streets facing on those walls. So the
12/08/93
-20-
second part would be the two levels of landscaping that would be allowed
or Vines, ett. t.hat w{luld soften the effect 'if you it'e a pedestrian, and
we are trying to encourage that.
~o. 3 would be maintenance and replacement of landscaping for the I H. of
that fencp on that praperty. It would be an exchange of ~Yes, you can do
it n and there is a public good coming out of thi s ""hie" 1 s that the street
Is still pleasant to walk on. It won,rt fe~l 1 ike an armed camp, which we
are seeing more of these walled cOrmlun1ties" basically saying, k€ep out.
I can understand wanting that. J have wanted that. J certainly have
compl.ined enough .bout the problems I hav., but J don't think It is the
right way to go, over.ll, for Palo Alto. J think It wIll begIn to look
like some of the other communities we s€e in the eastern hills where 1t lS
just pl.ln w.lls and walls. I think we need to consider that. So I would
l;~e you to consider the ordInanc. for all of Palo Alto, not just for
lIniversity Avenue, and write it in a way UHt the staff can manage it.
You canJt manage each artery s~parately with a special set of rules. J
think y{)U need tt' ha .... e something general. P!Jt out some pr{)t{)types sO
people can see what this looks like. You know what a sound wall looks
like. It is a fairly Intense wall. University Avenue rn~y afford to do a
very nice brick one, but anot~er community may have to do a very narrow,
lESS attractive type, which J ha .... e shown you. It is adequate I but it is
not very attractive. So J would urge you to take a look at this in terms
of all Pa10 Altans. not just a speCial group. Thank you.
»~Kauffrean, IIQl Uoiverslt~~12-AltQ: My wife and I bought t~"
house at tnis address six-and-a-half years ago. About two years ago, we
did some rel ancJscaping and put in a six-f{lot fence at the 16-foot setback
on University A,enue. It b.s really made a huge dlff.rence in the
enjoyment of the front part of our property. On the other hand, we really
very much would have liked to have had it closer to the street, but we did
not do that because of the variance process.
The part! would like to co~ent on, in particular~ is the lssue of the
side streets. We live on the corner of Chaucer and University. I really
think that being able to continue a six~foot fence around the corner and
on the s1de street fo)' those ~!)lJses situated on corners would be really
important in orde}' to gain t~e ftlll benefit of the changE' in the ordlnance
that has been proposed. I certainly .tron~ly svpport the proposed
change, W. would really like to see it take into account those homes that
are on side streets~ as mentioned earller. The houses on Un;vers~ty
Avenue 'are generally fairly close to the side street. For us to put a
six, foot fence 16 feet back from the property line would literally b.
almost at the wind'ows on the side of our house. It would be really
\mp~ssible. Also, the Ylsual impact of a sl.x-foot fence having/to go that
close to the house would really be unfortunate. So J would strongly
SUPPO}'t having the ordinance be suc'"' that for tiome!; {In UnlversltJ' Avenue
that are on corners, aside f,'om the setback due to the visual impact on
the very corn." of tbe lot, that the fence be allowed to continue all the
way around. That I sail I ~ave to say, but I really suppo,'t hav i ng the
side street treated exactly the same as the University Avenue side.
Vice Chairman Ojakian: Seelng no other speakers, I will (lGse the public
portion of the hearing and bring, it back to the cOrMlission. I want to
thank .11 tho speakers tonight, inclvdlng the Crescent Park Neighborhood
Association, for a very professional presentation. You haye given us a
12/DS/93
·21,
".'
\
,)
,
'. . .
: : -,;. ..:.~'"_ .. "' .. ;." .• ':;""f=~~-';;;--,.r~-c; "..;.._ •.
lot to think about. Are there any Questions from commissioners?
COl'i'ffIiss;jooec.am.h.am: One thing that was in the repor~ was a CMcern by
staff about having fences very close to the property lIne, Then for
Irrigation, the ho"eowner would have to get .. r!ght-oF-way to put
1rrl9llion on city property. Can YOll explain how that works, and how
!nflexlble that mi9ht be?
Ms. lyth~ Ttwre is .In ep,croachment petfT1it process for dOing improvements
In the public r!ght-of-way. It Involves, I believe, some type of
discla1mff, about whether or not those improvements will be damaged in the
future. rn the case of fences. there h also an Insurance provision. I
ant not sure if that is tne caS,e for 1rrigatl<Jn., 1 carl also mention that
people h,,'e Irrigated In the public right-of-way without benefit of an
encroach~nt pe~it Q~1te comroon1y. I know many people have extended
their i=prov~~nts into what appears to be their front property without
"going through that procedure. But the procedure Is e •• entlally to apply
for the per~lt fr~ the Public ~orks Department, 1 believe the fee is on
the o"~er of 150.
~j~~er 8eecha~: If ~e go ~head with any of these three options,
would be posslb1e to fndude verbiage in the options. to a)1o',o/, more or
IfSS autom~tlclllYI for an encroac~ment permit as part of that process?
~u:: That is a policy decision, You could certainly request that
the City Council cons.lder It, Jt is obviously not in the zoning
ol'dhancQ, It is in another section of the code, The purpose for it has
to do with th. fact that the city has needs in the right-of-way that
supercede the rights of other people using the right-of-way. So it would
ho,. to be a policy docl s'on on the part of the Council. It I s something
you tould recommend,
~i.ujQnel' Beecham: 1n terms of the city's needs, just off hand~ I do
not see any driMat1c needs that are put at severe risk by having
Irrigation lines In the right-of-way, Are there some that r should be .... r. of?
~s, Case: There aro often utility lln.s In the right-of-way areas.
Traditionally, the reason for rights-of-way is so that you have the
opportunity to expand. 1 highly doubt they are gOing to be widening
Unlv~rslty Avenue any tl •• In the n.ar future. r could not say that for
othe,. "'0" of the city, but probably not. lhat Isn't the direction in
which the city Is 90in9. Utility line. are the most likely things that
might b. interf.red with.
(orrml ss 1 oner Beerham: I as sume that current 1 y, it 1 s not a city pract i ce
to have utility lin.s burled on the reSidential side of sidew,lks In that
right-of-.'ay.
~ .. ~: I think It is current practice to tl'y not to do that. lhls is
a copy of the block book we have before us. I think they try to aveid
-that aJ-"ea when they ca;n, I am not sur!': of the configut'aUon of utilities,
currenlly~ ~long University Avenue. We could pull a block book if you are
curious al>out that,
~orrtnl,~~i9ner Cassel: Uancy, if we expect people to maintain this area.
12/08/93
-22-
\
outside of tne si<1e~aH::, I cannot Imagine"that mGst people have anj idea
that you would hav~ some restrictions .bout how you .re going to ".tel· th'
out,lde of that.rea, particularly if you He expecting drip irrigation.
h,. Lytle: J ,,<leTs land Ihat It feels very unfair th.t Ihis area that the
city ~as rights over Is an area th~t you are ~xp~(ted to maintain and keep
up. 8eHeve ~ that u one whG is pel'sonal1y experienced with sidewall<
replacement projects, whe~ tn~y come fn to do work In that area and damagE'
many or your private 1mprove~nts ~Ilhout re'9ard for them, it feel seven
worn thef'!. You halfe to replace your spr1nk.1er heads: you have to replace
your orl<k walkway; you have to go in .na do • lot of work. But th.t Is
Indeed their 1.g.1 right. WOen you t.lk to Public ~ork, and to Utilities,
they ar. very coope,.U" aboul U .. They work wflh you, but they hav,
what Is conslder.d • hl~er purpose to fulfill there. and •• all have to
,uffer .• lth·th.t. In this city, tM nlc. thing .boul it that th.y pay for
all that ~rk t~ey arr. dOing out t~ere, In other cities, they come in ~nd
bill you for th.t da~ag. and d.,t,uctlon. They ~.ke you pay for that
~Idewalk repl!ce~nt on top of th~ ~n$ult of the da~ase th~y have done.
$0 we A.a.y hel ve.'y badly ab-out tht a'S Irrdi\!1duah. bvt it ;s really not
as b.d " it \, In otho, co"""nities. It Is fairly typi<.1 of all
utfljtfes to reserY~ th01C' rights. Jhey have that legal ability to do so.
~~~tr 8ee<h~~: There was a lot of concern toni9ht from the public
on the blw<fen of the pro<ess for the ho:::e i'\Prove-ment {!xception. Can you
run down for us the ti~ f(a!!'.~ and the steps that are involved. and what
someone should ('~pe,:t ill going through thit?
~ Cplonna; Gineral1y, the h~~ t~rov~~nt exception process starts
with an appltcant coming In to spelk to a plan~er ~t the counter about
their parUcular COncern. They gather infomatlon on th, submittal
rEQuirements at that ~eling, A~~!~~r p~~l1n9 is then set for the
application itself. At that pOint, .11 of th. ,ubmittal reqUirements 're
accepted h·ItO th' fee. In. applicant. ar. requir.d to ,ubmlt a "tt«
that states ther.tlon,le b.hlnd their .xc.pllon request, giving pl,n, of
the specific .rea of the project and a mailing list of everyone within 150
feel. Th.t was reduced f ..... 300 fed last year bee.us. of the slz. "d
eff.ct of "" ,I of these HI [', whl ch are v.ry s~.l1 In scope. Th.n on Ihe
tHy processing I:!nd, WI!' will send out a hearing request rtotiffcation -to
""yon. within 150 f'et, Infomlng th •• that their neighbor is requesting
an .x<eption and asking if they would like to <~ In and take a look .t
tho.e plan" comment On Ihe~, and even request a he.ring if they feej
,0l>Othlng need, tob. darlfled or If they take Issue with it, If they do
not r~Quest a hearing, then the staff or 2001n9 ad~;nistjator renders a
decl,ion th.t Is· appe,lable to the Phnnln9 C.""ission and the City
Counel L If ther.e ,is a reQueste<l hei'll'ln9't we set it on all agenda for a
lonlng adrilirJi~trator hearjn9, and then r.ender Ue dec.ision after that.
The lime frame of the non-public hearlng process is a minim~m of six to
seven we~ks, as opposed to a variance whic~ will be eight to twelve
weeks. If you do 90 thrGugh the public he.rlng process and horne
improveMent exception, it takes the sar:.e amount of time as a Variance.
COlTrnlsSjener Beecham: So if someone doe~ request a henin9, it could be
up to twel~e weeks, three mont~s.
~~_Qn~: y." It could be up to tw,lve w •• k" That is until you get
12/08/93 ·n·
\
I
I
I
I
I
a decision fro~ t~e leming administrator. If it is appealed. then-you
Mve additional appeal time with the Planning Co""lssiGn and City CO"",\1.
t2mmi~ogr_ Beecham: If Option /1 is no hearing. but you need a per~it.
how long does that normally tak.?
Mrd~: Tnat could be " 1 Ittl. as one stop ,t the count .... just an
application for a fenCE permit. as long as a planner is on hand at the
counter, which they generally are. At our one·stop tf~ period, which is
every morning from 8:00 to 11:30 •• planner Is al.ays on hand. If thoy
c.n cheCK that against th. r.qulrements tliat might be codified. sU9gested
by the Planning Commission .n~ adopt.d by the City Council. ~~ could Issue
It right at the counter.
~iss19nt)'r Btetham; A different QlJtstion, Ve .all understand thal ..... hat
we are talking about 15 a process for an arterials In the city. not Jus.t
University Aven~e, By my rou~~ ~stf~ate, there are ~orc or loss 100 hoaes
along tnfs section of University Avenue. J wonder ~Ow th~t would t~ar~
in magnitude to the rest of the city that would be affected by thl s.
Ms. Lytle: As we said in the staff report, we have not done any r~vi~~ ~f
the other arterials. other than' to identify thet'l for you h't-L~re tt>ley ha\'~
potential residential implications. $" Wt do not kno· ... how [!Jan), ho~es
would be involved. We did take a look at Ore~on E~pressw~y in rc~ponse to
a phone call that camt! in dUl'ing the public TEvieH period for this issue.
It was noted in that telephone cOf'llJersation that Oregon hpress""ay has a
barrier alr~ady in existenc~ with a separate frontage road for the
majority ~f its lengt~, with tne exception of homes on the south side,
which generally have their back y.rds f.clng Oregon ... d a1ready have the
ability to put up a six·foot fence ,long th.lr back yard,. as tho r.sult
of an earl ier amendrr.ent to the fence ordinance ~hat W~ -did sev~r'al years
ago. TMs person was saying that Oregon did not need that satlYl p'I"(lvlsion
for f.oc;og as did oth,r ,rt.rlals identified in tne staff report. But w.
hay. oot looked at Hiddlefield: we have not look.d at San Antonio.
Charleston. any of the others. We fo(osed,on the Countll assi~~~~nt.
Vice Chalrm.n Ojaki.n: As a followup to that, In tenos of the process.
wel'e the people on University Avenue notiuo for th;s, or was the Crescent
Park Neighborhood Associ.tlon noticed on thiS?
Ht~: Yos. People all along UnlYersity Avenu •• nd bat' from
University Avenue were not iced.
Vice Chairman Oiakian: How about t~e other arterials ~n the city? Were
they notl,.d?
Ms. Lytle: No, only by the general newspaper not1c€.
Yice Chairman Qiakian: let ~ take that one step further. due to the
nature of what we are doing tonight, which 1~ a little different from what
we haye typically done Oll the rlanning CO!!'fTliss1on, We ar~ 9f\l1ng you s.ome
-direction here to go back with. and then cOJr.e back to us. The decis.ions
we make tonight. or the guidance that we provide you, can that be just for
University AY~nue1 Or does it havp. to b~ for some of th~se other
arterials?
.' \
Il/GB/93
·14·
\
,'.,:
lfL,J.:d..U.: We ha\'e rats.ed the hstJ~ of fairness in terms of trea'. in9 one
ar,erial versus another~ but we have also raised the fssue that we have
nol looked al these oth.r arl.rlals. Th. effect th.t • si.·foot fence
might have on Mlddl.fleld Road could be ,,,'y di ff.r.nt from what you ...
in the photo montage work that both tht! Crescent Park Homeowners
AssGciation presented here for Univers1ty Avenue and our own staff work.
So we are not reconmending' that we proceed forward wUh other arterials
unl.ss it is through O~tion ~. tlie home im~rovoment .xceptlon option. fo,'
University A'IIenLle, WE-~re comfortabl~ witn either opt11,ln, ~(I are not
comforl.ble with the propos.l for jus! .llowlng a six-foot fence by right.
but we are cornforhbl. with the six f .. t with so,,", provisos. and w. ar.
comforhble with the home improvement exception. Wlthou,· .further study Df
thost:! other arter1als, we would not be comfortable with 'it.:.:.king
rec{lmrnendatiOIlS to you for them tonight for a stl'afght out code change.
V1te Chairman Oiaklan: And i am not tryin9 to put any words in your mouth
or get com1ssionns to gD one way or the other. It is wittlin our purview
tonight to discuss other art~rials, but we do not have to do so.
~~; Hr. Chairma~, I would like to add that the fact that notice was
or wa.s not given in any other area of tOIr,m need not preclude you from
d1r<2cting staff to maKe the ordinance wideJ' or narr~er in scope. lhere
wi 11 be another public hearing at the time the ordinance is brought
forward 1 whate'ller it ~ill be. Depending upon how n~ighborhood~specific or site~spac1f;c it is at that point, there will be different types I,)f not ices g h·en.
y1qit Cbatr:rna!L...QJ.llu.n: Sue, is it "als(l acceptable to give staff sOIl'.e
guidance on fences as they relate to University Avenue and come back with
something on that, and al~o give guidance on perhaps doin9 further
research {In some: of the othet' arterials? There is nothin; that prohibits ~s from dOing that, is there?
/:IL~: Ilo. Vou can gly. us direction" to what policy you would 11k,
to see implemented~ and then we will do our best to figure Dut a way to
draft it.
!)c:e Chairman Qjakian: Are there any further Qup.sti{lns from
corrvniss il>ners?
~~issioner Schink: My question Is, do we know how many houses along
University Avenue are two·and·a·~alf feet back from tne property line, and
now many are five fe~t back?
~CQlonn!: The majority hay •• fiye-foot setback from the Sidewalk. It
is only for several blOCKS towards the north Side that have a two.foot
setback from the sidewalk to the property line.
CqlTVllissj{lner (arrasco: Joe, it seems to me that the more \lisible form {lne
sees' is the edge of the sidewalk! not the property line-. J am wondering
why you recomenci thee feet from the property 1 ina rather than some-
~ dist.nt. from the edgeJf the sidew.lk. J would suggest. rule that says
six feet from the edge of the sidewalk.
Ms. lytle: I think Our only reason for mak.ing the recom'T1tndation from t~e
property line was becaus€ we judge the distance from the sidewalk to the
" ,;,
12/0B/93
-25-
property line. but we would like to have it be uniform frem the edge of
the $id~walk. That was the intent throughout. Our intent is to have it
consistent from the edge of the sld.walk .
.t.9~sion(>I' Cassel: 1 have a Questi<ln about the ·side street
reguJatfons. My ~nderstandln9 is that if the house faces the side street~
a fix-fool wall is allowed along University Avenue, but only a four-foot
wall on the side street. Is tnat correct?
11,. lytle, yes. The recolMlendation that staff has made does not contain
a recommendation to wrap the sfx·foot fence 'around the side. aut that is
an Issue that has come up repeatedly In public testimony, the ability to
wrap the six feet around on the side property line. Our recommendation
dfd not Includ. that. ~e r.comend.d either pulling the six-foot f.nc.
back along the side street so that it would be in line with what occurs on
the rest of the side street block face or ,else lowering it, trans1tionil1g
H down on that side street.
f2nn.~r Cassel: Is that because it would look awkuard? '(au would
have to drop; t anyway, for the corner? If you wrapped it Hound for ten
feet, which ,you would thfnk of as giving some privacy. the problem is that
you have to drop it at the corner, and would lose it.
~.4.Jxlli: That is correct. I think the judgment call was whether or not
we begin to extend the six-foot phenornenon down the side streets.. Can you
hold that at the corner, or OIlce it extends around the corner, would
people along the sid. streets st,,·t to feel they should h.y, the right to
extend ft furlh.r down? It fs a judgment call. If you can hold the line
at the corner lot, it is Jess of an jssue. Our sense was that it was
preferable to begin establish1n~ a new look on the side streets.
~~ Beecham: Following up on tnat, if the provision were that a
s1x·foot fence could be. say, five feet from the Sidewalk along University
Avenue, and then extend down the side street for perhaps 35 or SO fe~t. do
you have any comment on how that would work?
Ms, lytle: ~e could do that, but the problem is that you do not know what
those 35 f.et would do. It is hard to enyi.ion what that might do in
teTllls of how It 1 fnes up architecturally or with the back yard function.
It Is a little cleaner brook. I think It .. has been pointed out tonight
th~t the staff recommend~tion is awkward in s1tuations where you have a
bacf( yard and you ,have to take a fence around in o,ne direction and then
lower 1 t for the remainder of that yUd. It is odd. The same thing could
happen, theoretically, with some distance requirement where you can do it
at a certain height, a certain distance, and then suddenly have to drop
bas~d o~ that distance. which may have no bearing o~ what is going on on
your lot.
Corr,llissioller Beecham: On your visibility triangle for the driveway, you
re<juire a 12·foot triangle orr either Side of the driveway. I prestJ(T1e
ddveways are normally )0 to 12 feet wide if they ar~ a Single lane, so
~ altogether 1 we nave two 12-foot trlangles in about )0 feet for thp.
drlveway, so about a 35-foot cutout. A normal lot on University Avenue is
roughly how wide?
~r. Colonna; Most are 100 feet in street frontage. They are
12/08/93
-26-
,.
r'.'· ...
.,
.... '
. ,' ..
10,OOO.squ.re-foot lob, so lots tend to be on the order of 75 to 100 feet
wide.
tliE!!illJ.2!ltt Seecha.: So we are talking about one·third to 5D percent of
th.e frontage in .... olved tn the drlvewa.y setback.
~ha'irean~: Jf there .;It'!!, no further Questions from the
co~ission, we will be91n the discussion.
~Qmluloner aee-cham: for tDe~ this is a very sad night. because I tl1ink
Vnlverslty Avenue ha, • very se,er. problem. You have compelling evidence
thAt W"~at you are facEd wUn, day fn and day O'Jt, 'llGrning 1 noon and night,
YOll should not ~~ve to stand fOl"" You ha .... e a wonderful C.lSi! for having
~(h better fences than what is currently provided for. The down side of
that is th.t I also gre'atly heent the thought of having six·foot fences
ro~~'n9 t~e length 6f Univers~ty A .... ~nue, no matter ~ow attractive,
eventually on both sides. What is presented in here as pictures of how
nice things can b. does, I think. ,Ignlficantly delract fro~ Ihe
stl'eetHilpe. One should then ask., 'liho is the streetscape for? Certainly
on University Avenue, it is a traffi( corridor. both for pedestrian
traffit, as we)} for a trei:':endous amount of car traffic. SI) in general, I
thln~ that the se .... ere conditlon$ on University Av~nue do warrant an
;rr,.proyel~ent in your aM lit)' to put fences in Yotir front yard and gain back.
prfv~cYl safety. and a bit of quietness, although I believe that the
feflces certainly will not take care of the 'Whole problem f(Il' you.
So 1 do not have a~y b~slc question about whether we should do something
to 1~~roVt your ability to enj~y your homes. I do have three questions.
One I~ whether to do anything. That Is clear to me now. The second is
where? How far back? The third Is about process. On the wher~ Question,
tho City wants ~ I~t, being cautious, conservative and watching out for
the eHyr.lght·of-.ay. I think It is 1 ikely that the more land In the
front, the ~re likely lt ls to be .banaoned. I don't think that having.
s~Qrt di~tance won't Bean it won't be abandoned. We have the risk either
w.y of people not t.klng care of that strip that is not front of their
front ya(d and ls p.rt of the publlc street,eape. But I feel that a good
co.pro.1Se ln how far back to have it is to h.ve a wall allowed five feet
from the ·Side-walk. lhat, in general, 15 for most of the residences there,
what their properly 1 ;Ile Is. I don't think we can. in good conscience,
s.y that you can build. f.nce on the city rlght·of·way. I don't mind
having Irrigation th.re. I.hough. So J feel that h.ving a five-foot
setb.ad on fences on Un hle.rsi ty Avenue makes a lot of sense from the
horJt!:oh'ner l S point of view~ because that is as far forward as you can
really go, and it will give some uniform appearance.
Also. In term, of how far back it should be from the sidewalk. if one does
Imagine. hedge which eventuany 'ill grow up rather tan. that does take
up t~o or three feet •• nd I don't thin, thai should be right up to the
edge of the sidew.lk. You n,ed to have a little perception of elbow room
.s you walk down the sidewalk.
0-On the'q"slion of a side yard ,etback. I feel that for both privacy,
peace of mind and qUiet. you also need a six~foot fente on the sid~
property 11". that is more than IWo feet from your house. Side yards
often are narrower than the front yard in that area, I believe, and it
would look silly to have a si>:·foot fence l'unnin~ hom feet from your
.'". :
11/08/93
-17·
\
house, ~nd it does not do anybody much good, neither for th~ homeowner nor
the streetscape. H.owevE'r, I 'l<ould b~ concerned about Its running too far
back. One though I I h.d was 10 say •• hateve .. the parc~1 Is on University
Ayenue. they could run H 10 Ihe end of their pr<lpe"ly I ioo. If Ih.t were
100 , .. I back. hOKever. I reel that IS 100 rar. 1l1al do .. begin to 1m~1nge ~m the side street. and it r.apidJ)' loses the l#lpa<:t of protect i09
you fro~ noise as it goes that far back. So I don't ha~e any magic numter
to bas. it on. bul my guess is Ihal H"culd be in the neighborhood of 35
to 50 feet .. 35 feet beous. probably In .\",,1 .Yer .. cas •• that goes
back as far as the ,,"ouse is set back fron UnlYersit), Avenue, and SO feet
Is ,t .. 'llng to b •• pretty long str.lch .. you look down the road. So
something in Ih.1 r.nge. to ne. would b •• ppropei.t.. I would thin~ it
should be the sa~ cr~teritn fn teras of setbac~ as on~ would set for
Unlyerslty Avenue.
W'hi.le on these pt}ysi<:al aspecth 1 h'ould lU;e-to seE' written into h'hatevel"
we do sorn~ aut(lmalfc pro~ision for the ftoi'!,EO'kYler to have the r1gM-of -h!i!Y
easement, en<:roa(h~nt! ~hate\'er the corred lerr.inol{)9Y. to Include
irrigation in there, to have the fort.!: Hy, • J here-b)' aeknOlo'hdge that it
is at rhk and tflat the city (an eil'!_'f! In and rip it oul when tP'tC')' do
und~r9roundlng, {'te," But have that built into the proces.s. so that It is
not anot.her step, it is fasy, and It Is taken (are of in one fell s ..... oop.
The third part l the proces.s., I feel is a bit dlffel-ent, in terms. of
accofrrY.)dating '\>I'hat you are asking (or tonight. ~e hav(> hnrd that the
homeown(>rs along Unlversity Avenue hIve won~erful ho~es ~nd will put u~
wonderflll fences. In r."~ni uses, that is probably true. However, betaus'i:'!
J $0 la~nt th! Idea of havlng a tunnel effect r~nning along University
AY.nue ind feel thor. 1< • lot of public benefit In how a sll',etseap'
",'orks, ) am reluctant to givE' the rigM, even to, s.uch a flnt, upstanding
assaciattan, to do whatever any indIvidual h~m2Dwner pleases, When
individual homeowner costs and benefits are weighed against the pubHc,
you hay, a probl •• with thai Interf.c,. So 5/ tendency. f,irly strongly.
Is to go wH~ t~, st.ff I'e' ..... nd.llon of Optl.n I. "hiell is tile ho ••
Im~rov .... nt exception. as the ""tMd of doing this. We designEd the home
illlprovel'llent exception within the -put,SeYUd} yearh and made a hlr
effort to ensure that It .as not to~ burdens_. Thel" h no public
hearing reQuir!d tf nobody wants one, sa we do not waste tiMe doin9 that
If It I, not n"."ny. Depending "PO" ho>< things work on Unlyersity
Ayenue, there may not be any concern fr~ your neighbors, about it.
Howeyer. I think $taff Is part of the group th.t repr."nts the r •• t of
the cHy in using the street" and I ~$t rely on Uielll to Yoic~ (OnCerfls'.
in some cases, about what a wall could be. Also in here, YOU ha~e a
picture of one ~a11 that is set back hy how ~any feet J cannot tell, but
it is really a very unattractive wall. I have no doubt trut there will be
some cas.s of that without proper oversight by the city. So I know II
places a burden and extracts a time frame from all of you. On the other
hand l based on what yOll have gone throllgh, two extra months in thE' process
is. hopefully. acceplat>l~ from your point of vie.. r see it as a
re.sonable tradeoff for protectlng part of the city ana public
_ s t l'eet,!<:ape .
. \Ijce Chairm.MLJl.iakl311: Berni jn your opinlon, what we a.re d~in9 tonlght l
,houl. th,t apply to Univ .... ity Avenue slrictly. or 10 all the ,,·torials?
Commissioner Beecham: I would say, at this point. strictly to University
IZ/OB/93
·28·
\, .'
"
"
AvenlJp.. Part of my concern in allowing this and part of .... ·hy l say now,
tne home IlIlprovement exception process, Is that I have a tremendou$
concern for the whole city. As I envision truly a gre.t proble. on
Univet'sity Avenue having fences and wans go UP. then I S3)" li'ngine the
same on Embncadero Road, imagine th~ same-on (harleston. and I .oR very
concerned about it. So that is why I am saying on Universlly Avenue. use
the home improvement exc.eptlon process. for the Same reason, I 110t )let
willing to say. let's do this on all arterials throughout the city. Part
of the criteria I want to consider is the relative flow of traffic on the
other streets. I think University Avenue probably has the ~O$t con,i,tont
traffic flow throughout the day. Oth<rs have, higher Yolv"e, but they
are designe:d for a higher volume, four lanes, etc. Embarcadero Road.
Middlefield Roall. San AntoniO Road, they are all radlcallydlff.rent fro>
UniversHy Avenue. Also University Avenue has a rr,uch <II rfetenl pedestrian
mix passing along it. University Avenue has a safety and privacy issue
that is not relevant to m<lst other arterials in the city. lhat is .aha
why I would not want to exlefid this idea to those other streets without
more study.
Vice Chairman Qjaklan: One other que~tion for you, Bern. On the ~llter
of how the fence should be built. Should it b(!o a solid mHs? Shol.tld H
be a wrought iron fence? We have t~e difference of being able to s~~
through to the property under one set of circumstances versus noU·,lng
being able to do that. What is your thinKing on that?
CQl'Mljssioner Beethel]: To take care of the no Be issue at illl. tt f:li,lst be
$01 id. That is h'hat I keep enViSioning, and that is Nhy I have so"'.~
concern. but I think It mu,t be solid.
~ce Chairman Ojaki:a.n; I h,:we one question of Nancy. Th1s Is not a
typical process where we give guidance back t'O the staff. Are you
expecting from us tonight a ~otion, or some sart of consensus along tne
lines of ,issues that Bern ~as just addressed?
Ms. Lytle: Yes, a motion wau1d be h~lpful.
Ms. Ca~e: And a very specific moti~n would be he1pf~l,
~ Chai wan Oiak.ian.: To c<lntinue the d1 sct.lssion. let us heH ffOIl!
Co~is$ioner Cassel;
Commissioner Cassel: 1 will try one or two of the issues that J have on
my long list and let other people disclJSS other Issues.. Then loIe can corrie
back to anything that r do not c(wer. I am basically in wholehearte<l
agreement with the first two issues that B"errl talked about. lhe most
basic 1ss~e of concern on University Avenue that we need to address is the
noise and· the safety as it deals with people walking across property or
randomly entering the property. I cannot imagine that yards are gOing to
be any safer if you feel you have gunshots going off, whether or not the
fence is four feet or six feet high. lhe real issue here is four feet
versus six feet, because you have a four· foot fence by tight. (urrently.
~So thevdifference is in the neight. and not whether it is. 16 feel back or
not, because you have the "ight to put it 16 f •• t bac'. lhel' there is a
compromise in the middle as to whether it should be some oth~r distance,
I feel .very 5tron91y that it should not be at the sidew.lk edge. It
12/08/93
-29·
, ,.
L.
I
(
I
l'
f i .. , .. ,.,
I
I
! ,
!
~ ..
~.
1
should be five feet bick. 'or at the property line if the property line is
more than five feet back, T~at is because 1 went walking around town la::;t
night with this specific 1ssiJe in mind. I put my arms Ollt to every fence
J could find. 1 put th.m up to see how t,ll fentes were. to try and get a
sense of what it felt like. I did this after my husb,nd came home doing
this first, and he said, "YOll better go ~nd do this, Phyllis, because
although people'haye been telling you these things (as I have be.n talking
and talking 'about this fene.problem). he said it really feels funny woen
that fenco is on the street line. When it is set back, it really f .. ls
more open." And he was right. The other thing J noticed is that it
didn't ma~e any difference whether there were bushes causing that fence or
a four-foot fence or a three-foot fence or ~ six-foot fence. The area
outside ,the fence tended, over time. not to get maintained. T~ere were
all kinds of int!resting fences. There was one that must have ~een back
from the street line 20 feat. because I think that is the building line.
and the fence be carne the bui Iding. the-side wall of the hOllSe-. It was
very interesting. There was nothing on the ground. The ground was a
n~tural (over from there all the way out t~ the street.
So I aM very concerned about the way it is going to look, over time, and
what is going to happen over time, to that space outside the fence. But
we pro~a~ly have to do something with the fence height to raise ft up
because of t~e noise ;ssu~. You are right. This is a very noisy street.
J also th;nk we have to deal with this issue as best we (an allover town,
and I don't know whethet that means we do something temporarily now, i'lnd
later on, deal with the oth~r. In other words. in thinking in terms of
the f1ve·foot depth. we have to think of other places in town. Along
Arastradero R()ad, the ~ouses there are lI1uch smaller. People have a lot
Ie" money to deal with a $350 permit. Most people do not eyen think in
terms of a permit for a fence. J didn't know you had a fence ordinance
until 1 needed to do something in an area whci"'e I knew you needed a fence
penmit. r went down for that reason, and found Oijl there was supposed to
be a fence per"mit for the front yard, too. Fortunately, it met the fence
reqUirement. J was lucky. I had no idea that there was a fence
ordinance.
Jt depends upon where you come f.'om originally. if you 1 ive on the east
coast, a fence six feet high would be an absolute insult to your
neighbors. It does not build community. A solid fence four feet high
would probab1y be considered an insult. Ttle purpose of a good fence is to
keep the cows out of yOUi~ neighbor's yard. You go along wHh your
neighbor and put the ston.s back up on the stone wall so th't you can dig
YDur gardens and groW' your crops. That was the idea of a good fence. You
would never make it so high that you cOl1ldn't see your neighbor coming if
he came down the road. Or you would put up some bushes that you could see
through or to indicate the IH'operty 1 ine. It made it awkward for your
dogs. because they had to be on a line, because they couldn't r~n. Any
. small fences they would leap over or under. So fences have di fferent
views. I then 1 ived in England for six months, and I can tell you those
fnglish fences that are six feet high are pretty formidable. They are
--very C:1osed. n.,e neighborhood is very unwelcoming, and you have no idea
Ilhat is behind the fence. You have no idea for your own safety, in the
publ ic sphere, what; s gOin.g on behi nd that fence.
So ] did not have the same open, welcome feelil1g or whatever it was, or
l2/0B/93
-3~ -
.'.' f.
\
.' .
. . :.\2. __ .... _.,.:.~.,. .. ,.i.;> .. ,~ff-,~:.~.:: '"
curiosHy 'bout wh.t was going on behind the fence. I just felt very
closed In: However, I am afraid J see a real problem wit~ the n()lse. J
se~ it there and I see it on At'a'stradero. On Arastradero f you cannot put
• f<n,e 16 f~.t. back. If you put your hand out the window, you would just
about touch the fe~cc. SQ we need to look at that i~sue. High fences on
Hiddlef1eld would r~ln 1t. and it is a four-lane road along most of it.
OD~iously. It has to be a solid fence. If you have open grating on the
gates I you are 90in9 to lose that effect.
In the prate", I am looking for sO'""thing simple, if possible. What ""'e
th~ other 1ssues you were looking for a response t~?
Vjce Chairman Oialdan; Bern did a good job of going through. thein. let me
list tnem off igain. One Is the property right·Qf 4 way, which you
covered. How about the side yards and corner lots?
'_Ql.l1.'ll~t_kU.lU.; If you are going to put a six-foot fence on
Ont'iersHy Avenue:, whether it is the side yard or the front yud, It is
going to be six feet, except ~here you have the corner. I would like to
XflOW more about wrapping it around and what might nappen~ how you would
word that so that it would blend into the side yards. I would hate to see
it go down the street. )'ou have to come do,,'n to seE' the corner. I am
tnterested in se~ing what other people have to say about that option.
ComrnissiQDer Glazie~; I agree wlth Bern on the nature of the prob1em. I
was shocked at SO/ne of the statisti(s I heard tonight. J 89ree with the
iss~e of a five-foot setback from the sidewalk, because I think it is in
~~eryone~s interest to have a to~on fence line throughout the
neighborhood. J om not sure 1 .gree with him .bout the 35 0" 50· foot
extension of the fenc~ on the side street. If the average lot on
UlilversHy Avenue ls 10,000 sqUire feet, ilnd the front.lge is 7S feet, that
",e.ns tlt.t the side is lOOt or 130 feet. If you only go 35 feet, you may
n~t ev~n reac~ t~e front of the property. 1 don't think we could tome up
with the right number. Perh.ps my proposal would be to l.t it extend the
full 'lOy through.
I do agree th.t the feo,e needs to be ·solid. The noise is the biggest
15s~e. The tw~ areas where I disagree with Bern are (1) on the pr~cess.
A philosophical comment is that generally, It has b.,n Palo Alto's
p~11osophY,that ~e do not require site and design review f~r single-family
hom.s In Palo Alto, except in the foothills. J personally .spouse that
philosophy. A be~utiful University Ayenue came about as a result of
people like you 1n~est~ng ~n your homes and making them really
attracUve. fundamenlaJ)y, 1 trust you to do the right thing. The fences
that I see right now on University A~enue are, by and large, very pretty.
The couple of examples t~at we see here as not being very attractive, are
interestingly driven more by city policy than they are by personal bad
tas.te. So perhaps ttle lesson ,is that it is eaSier to trus.t the people who
are living in the hovses than people who wOI'k in City Hall.
..... My s1!cnnd poillt 1S t I admire you)' work. You have borne wi th us to:night
for two hours. and 15 minutes. Nany of you called me over the weekend, and
1 am sure you called other commissioners. You have probably met on
several occasions. That is a lot of work, and J always have a 9)'eat deal
of respect for people who are concerned about their neighborhood enough to
. .~ ,
12/08/93
-3 J.
" ',-' .. '
,
i
I· .
F
I
1,-.
do '~thln9 like that. So from a process standpoint, I r.ally do not
think It is fair for us to aSK each o( you who are interested In this to
Com<! back to CHy Hall thr .. or (ou,' t I"",, to as~ about the process, to
subt,1t the 'pplicatlon, to co,e b>e' .nd get your list o( 150 "mes. If
someb~y object~ for s~e strange reason, and ~~ all have strange neighbor
storIes, .vou ha\'e to, CI);r·e back for a public nearl119 and art appeal process
to the Planning to~lss10n and t~e City Council. ~nd get your list, and
gel your archltEttural dra"lng, dOlle, 'nd w.lt two or three months. 10
~, you have (~ a,ross as pretty 900d citllens, and I just don't think
that Is • fai, burden to put on you. So J would like a general allo",oce
for a sh::.~fe>e>t f-encE.
1he ,.cond issue Is the issue of application In other 'I'e.s, I C." think
of six 0)'" seven .arterh1 avenues where tills Is a real problem, Most of
the-m have been F:~nt Ie>ned toMght: Er-bal"<:.!dero, Ot'egon~ Church'" 1 ,
Colorado, AI." Hlddldleld, linl"rslty. I don't thin. that th. rules we
(oee up with torr1ght are gp~ng to work e\lerywnere. blJt I am very greatly
conurnEd. 1 tM nk. therE-i-s, a rea 1 prob I e~ inman), of th~se othe r
arterhls, and ~~ need t() do SQ~th1n9 abo-ut it. If WI;:' 90 through with
this tnt pro£:ess. and E''o'entually. we apply it to SEven 01' eight or nine or
~r~ different areas~ 1 have a feeling that our zoning administrator, or
.... ho~ver adf~lnisters tPle HIE process., Is going to be spending a big chunk
of their ti~ looking at t~ese thin9s OVEr the next few years. So H
l-o'ould be ~l1ch .easier HI after we do this, which is probably .. 'hat W~
should do tonight, \o(\?, over t1Jt·~, take a look .l:t other areas so that ""'~ do
not have .. cOl'lstant stream or lUEs coming til from all of the different
~rea$. lhe other are~s have very slMtlar problems to what you ~ave.
UnIversIty Avenue Is probably the toughe,t ex •• ple rIght no., but 1 lIve
vory <1os. to ChurChill, .M I emp.lhhe with I~o" ~eople, b",use thaI
Is not. pretty sight at 1:30 in Ihe mornlng. So I would l1ke to figure
out a way, after we do this (or University, to do this fiJr other
arterials. I think tynn "";:'$ right. Ther-e needs to b~ some Quantitative
jud~ent as to what we ~an by ~arter1all· because J can come up with
seven or .1~h\ streets th.t I think are pretty bad, but that I, bec.use I
happen to li~€ closer to the*, as. opposed to firther away from others,
SO" those are II\)' (.el1ngs. 1 feel the "",t strongly .bout the p,'oceSS.
Th". people have prov.n the",elves to the city over tho ye.l's, and they
are here lonlght. I don'l think we need to put them through another 15 to
20 hours of aggravation, H), susplclon, based on history (and there 1, 10
years of history her.) is that they have done a very good job.
Yice Ch';L~ia11~n: So, 9111, are you chOOSing Option 31
~Q!i)!ljss.iOI'!{!X ..... ~.~; Yes, I ilia choosing Ooor '3,
~'SSiQQfr Carrasco: 1 also thoose Ooor '3, for many of the reasons
that Co~issioneT Glazier just outlined. r think that these houses were
built without staff review and Planning Commission review, and they have
do"e an extraordhat·y Joh. J think they wi 11 continue to do that kind of
extraordinary job. ihis is a very normal kind of response to a street
...... that has. a very high (lf7KIunt of traffic. The east (oast cit ies. that nave
thi ski nd of vo I ume of tra ff1 c respond inexactly the sa.e way. They
build. more hearty type of buIlding (orm th.t Sit, close to the property
1 ine, and responds In a street-w.1I Kind of building. That kind of
buildlng usually ,its three feet up (rom the lin. of the sldewalk and has
... //.
12/08/93
-32·
its wi ndow 1 i l1e three feet up above that. m,a k1 n9 it s i)( fee t. ~'hi ch is
exactly the same kind of human i"C'SPOflS(? 'We have here as we would on the
east coast.
It not only happens on the east coast, but as Hr. Roh~rts explained, it
also happ~ns in small villages In England. 10at respon~~ is, agbio, a
six-foot-hlgh .all that buffers both nolS. and prl,.cy for the Inhablt.nt,
within. This k1nd of hwun response happen$ ",,'orldwlde in every be.autHul
city In Europe an~, here. too..
Regarding the dlstanc. aw,y from the sld.walk, I fe.l ." should have ,
consistent dimension from the ~dge of the sidewalk. I wc~!d sugge~1 six
f.et inst.ad of flv. f.et. lhe r.ason for six f,et Is that we can add
some irrlgatfon on private properly. rather than on th~ public
right-of-way, thereby ellmlnating otle rrore clJi'e'ber.s.o~e encroach~~l'lt peraH
process.
The more tr.l.ditional way 'Jf handling this k'nd of street ~s by
landscaping. So r would iS~ that starr loo~ .t Iandscap.lng wHh trees
along that entire length, bl't with each properly o,mer inshlling H H
th~ city cannot. This could occur at the tir-e when tney CD:';",e in for J
fence permit, wfthout publiC rivi~w. oth~r than a building pelTIit.
Regarding the nV(r,ber of streets we should loo~ at. we should look. at on)y
University Avenue and evaluatt? that on{) before ~e 9{) forward ~ilh H~
other streets, whith no doubt need thi~ kind of response, as well.
University Avenue ;s the most serious proble~ that ~e have. Al~a Street
i~ probably the next ~st critical one.
The issue of whether it should b~ wrought lron or stucco does not ~rouse
me because I dOI'\'t think we should b~ reviewing an Issue of tM s 501'1, We
have never looked at design review for single·farnlly hQ~e5 In the past.
and] feel we would be treading In a dangerous place. lookin9 at design
.. ,;.w in slngl.-family ~_s. lh'l covers ....,51 of th. points.
Corrmiuioner Schjn~: We have h~ard a lot of interesting t~stlmony
tonight. I w.s particularly st.rtled by the crloe st,tistlCs that wer.
recited. Recently, we have had a real waKe--up call about Iwll' criR',e U!'I
invade our neighborhoods. so J am sure you are all th~t ~ch ~re sta~tl~d
and desirous of these fences. As to the specifiCS, I ""uld only ~upport
an ordinance that covered Unlversity Av~nue at this· ti~. I think Sern
hos brought up , great idea that. f.nce permit should .lso b. the
encroachment permit for this application. I would support th~ fences
b.lng located five feet back from the Slde.alk. I .gre. ~Ilh
C{llMli ssioners Ca,'rasco and Glazier th3t the review process Is mor{: .
burdensome than b.neflci.l. I h,v. re,l f.arslh.t we might end up with.
terribly ugly fence, but the burden of the process Is Ilk.ly to wear all
of you down in a way that would detract a little bit from each of the
fences. So in judgment, I come out in favor of leavin9 it up to YGur good
tast •.
--I feel"strongly that the side yard fence should continue the I.nglh of lh.
property line. Each property. especially ~nes that ~ave been developed
many years ago, have their o~n {haracteristics. Jf you run a fence SO
feet back.. that 1S not going to be where your properly Hne ends.. If
suddefl'Y~ thlS landscaping that has been there for years ana years will be
12/08/93
-33-
interrupted by this striinge intersection of a fence retUl"ning back to a
new, arbitrary line that has been in.s.talled, it is really more important
to follow the property lines. That is the way your landscaping, your
other architectural features, th~se are the lines they ha~e respected in
the' past. So I w()uld encourage the corrmission, fr<lm an architectural
standpoint, to l€t the ne~ fence run the length of the property line in
the side yards.
nnally, I would encourage you to incl ude the sight I ines for the
drlyeways to be measured from the center line of the driveway, Otherwise,
I thInk we .re gOing to end up with some r.ther unusu.1 architectural
conditions when we use the sfght lines measured from the edge of the
driveway. In fatt, when you have a tight position, Y{lU posHion your ur
in the middle of the driveway as YOlt go (Jut ont!) a busy stre~t. I think
it fs appropriate to measore your s~ght lines from there.
JL~Chairman Ojakian: I will make a few brief comments and t~en go back
through several of tne areas we have covered, My first comment is
directed pl1rtly to the ptJblic but also back to my fellow corm'lissiuners,
Hy interest in city governlTlent a"d gettin9 lnl,loll,led in the Phllning
COlmission comes from the fact that I was part of a neighborhood
aSSOCiation that got involYed in several issues. I found myself c~~jng
d()wn to City Hall fiJr several years. Uhen asked by the City (Iuncil what
I hClped to accomplish 1n my four years on the corrmission, I"y response to
that was that r~y nlain objective was to see ttlat 1 improve the Qual Hy Df
life in the neighborhoods of Palo Alto. I (;onsfdet' that primary, lfl
fact. when I look at Unlversity Avenue, pfrhaps some people forget thi~.
This fs a residential area as we gil east of Middlefield Road. Sometimes
we tend to characterize it as part of the cOrmlerchl area that we so
fondly call the downtowo, but unlike certain other cities on the
peninsula , this Is a fairly ijnique area in that in most other cities, the
conmercial strip runs from a main thorou9hfare to a main thoroughfal"e,
such as El Cam;no to Highway 10]. or 1n the case of Mountain View, It is
E1 Camino to Central Expressway, This particular area is not in the same
situation as those. I have been sensitive, for a long period of time.
about making sure that we have ways of maintaining the residential quality
of University Avenue.in the are.s th.t do have homes. The way I look at
it is, as one speaker e~pressed it tonight in talking about th~
uniqueness, pointing out that it has becom~ almost a freeway. In fact, it
does 1nyade on people's privacy, To me, if I have to choose between
allowing for the residential quality in an area versus some ot~er
standard, I am usually going to come down On the side of improving or
trying to maintain the residential quality of life.
Tonight, what Wf! ha'Je before us. is just the fence ordinance. I hav~ heard
people tal k about othet things that need to be done .long University
Avenue in relationship to these nomes. In the future, I would be
receptive to hearing those sorts of things.
In !'elationship t() the fence ordin~nce, one of the things that has been
conSistently said t<lnight by the staff, by the neighbors, and r believe by
eve~'y"'colM"tissioner, is that nobody disagrees. that th~ fences should be s.ix
feet in height. I think th,t one I, • given.
I .gree with the majority tonight that for now, we should direct staff to
apply the principles to Unive,rsity Avenue {Inly, but also in there, I feel
11/08/93
-34·
-, ... ~
we .hould highly reeomend to .t,ff that at .ome future date, come back
and speak to us about fences as they r~late to t~e other main arteri31s in
town. The reason for doing that ;s that we just need more study O~ that.
J sense a weAriness among se'Jel'al of my colleagues to address that isslIe,
I am In .upport of that. .
In t'elatJonsh1p to the sf!tbacKs. here we bounced around a I>H, My feeling
i. t~.t the fence should b. built to the property I,n •. Perhaps for the
sake of (onsistency. that be set at five f~etl realizing that the majority
of the lots aro (I" feet, but some of them are .t two feet. In term, of
the Side yard., my feeling I. the .ame as that of Commissioner Beecham,
which is to run it In a consistent height ,11 the way around.
In terms of the' Droce-55, that is where we have the fn()st 'IIariations
expressed. It is interesting becaQse several peop1e are into Option J.
8ern s~9gested Option 1, the home improvement option. My feeling is
somewhere in between. Maybe that is the least attractive for everyone and
is perhaps roy reason for choosing it. It is an e~pcdient process.
Basically. you come in, making onf stop. get your permit. go and build
your fence. What 1t does. if loIe shape it right, is to allow for a little
protection 1n case somebody does propose a fence that re~lly is out of
context. That is protection not only for the City but for people in the
neig.htxlr,t,\lod, In fact, in our precol!'lTli ssion hearing when loIe tal ked 3bout
this. there has been at least on~ incident where so~ebody has built a
fence on University Avenue to the ire of their neighbors. So I am looking
for iii Httle pl'oteetion. That covers most (If the issue. To reinforce one
p!)int, my feel t119 fs that this is a ffrst step proct!ss and that what we
have in frent of us tonight is fences, but what I am concerned about for
people (In Un1venity Avenue is safety and security and some minimization
of the nol s. th.t is caused by the traffic there. Hopefully, down the
road, we can do something about those issues also.
Having said that, we have laid out several criteria tonight. Would
$om~one like to tie t~ese together in a "~tion?
HQ!lQH: Commissioner 8ggcham; I think we agree on most items except the
process to follow. For myself, i strongly bel ieve in Option I. I have
heard others who prefer Option 3. As a compromise motion, I am going to
move Option 2. let me go through an entire li.t of what we talked about.
l. rDOve that staff come back. to us and address in an ordinance or .... ·hatever.
fences along University Avenue only, for the time being, that the .
requ1rement allow fences to be five feet back from the sidewalk; that
six-foot fences be allowed to wrap around on a side street. On this, J
.... 'ould like staff to advis{! us on th'e impacts of a range of distances from
35 feet to 50 feet, or to the property line of the front parcel. The .all
we are talking about would be solidi that the process that the applicant
goes thr!lIJgh automat i ca lly include whatever perm; t app li cat; on i s r~<lu fred
for encroachment into the city right-of-way for irrigation; that the,city
bring forward' to us an evaluation of driveway Sight lines, conSidering the
impact of uSlng J2 feet from the center line, as well as 12 feet from the
sides of the drivewaYt so we can evaluate that more fully, Finally, that
the pel'mit process that the applicant. go through be that a. defined in
Option 2, whereby the city does have a codified set of design requir~mcnts
for design 3nd materials which, ff the application meets those
requirements, a permit is issued with no hearing, nothing else required.
fnd of motion.
12/08/93
·35·
,,' "
",! "
\
L ,
f.'·
I'
I
I
"
," :~ , .. -~ 'A;';'~~"''''~:''''''~~''":''-'-' '-._...:-": __ ._':~~...;i.;;-,-,'-'-.-~
il{Q~~: By CommisSioner C.ss.l, H.y I ask for two minor eh.ng.s? One is
that It ~ay be a solid fence, S'O that someone Is not forced to make it
solid, and the other is that 11 be no l.ss than five feet from the
sld .... lk. so th.t someone could put it f.rther back If they w.nted to.
'-rLmissfQQex .... B~echartl: I wfll accept those.
,omls~hl.ntr (auRl: Hy concerns OVH the other part'S of town are that we
do not put ,oro.thlng in thl' th.t the other parts of town will th.n "y,
they ~ust h.ve th.s. provisions by right bee.vse we have It on University
Avenu •. If we say here that It has to be on a prop.rty line, we may deal
later with s~~one whose prop~rty line is really close to the street or
si4ewalk. So I .6 concerned that we think in thos. terms, but not de.1
with those Issu.s tonight. I know th.t these .re being built on
Arastnder{).
~--m.tutooer Glazier; I ~ouJd b~ ue-nable t'O that if the c('lndltions for
th~ pemlt were no ;o.ori! restrictive than, for example~ that there be some
fom of landscaping in the area bl!'tween the sidewalk and the fence, and
that t~e fen<:e be ·consistEllt with the architectural cnaracter of the
h~u$e,· jn general. rn~king it ~s ~inimallst as possible. I am not sure if
that needs to be an am!!ndl:lcnl. This is something that will come back to
us for c.hr1f1cation of the requirements. I will be 'interested in hearing
Mhat (o~~ssfoners Carr.asco and Sch1nk have to s.ay.
CQ~is~I~Q~Ca~: I agree wilh Co~issioner Glazier and I support
tne JTl9t10fl, a,oe; well. nere 1s one point of clariflcaticlIl I h'~1l1d like to
h've. I would not like to have the guidelin.s Include the deSign of the
ience. There are a ~r1ad different kinds of fences that ar~ possible.
\/e !hould not und.erestlrniite the creativity of E-ac~ individval {lwner. To
design. fence~ ltould not be appropriate. Jf it just includes a
re(o~~endation for lanascaping, J prefer one type to k~ep the feeling of
the street constst~nt, and would support the motion. ]f the intent is to
Includ. the designing of fences, I would li~e to separate that part of the
~tion f~ t~t rest.
£Qmrn!ssloner Bgecham: Hy expeclatton Is t~at whin t~is comes back to us,
staff 0111 present the criteria to us. Right now, I do not have much of a
conception .bout th,t.
liL-UIt: (rom, drafting point of view, the more specific yo"r .
intentions now, the better, as far as we are ({IOcerned. If you donlt want
any 9uldelines. we would like to know that. If you only want guidelines
that require landscaping, we would like to koow that. If y~u think you
might want to visit the idea but leaye it wide open, we would li~e to know
th.t.
\9rrrolsslon.r Beech.m: Then I will modify my motion to specify th.t staff
c~e~ back to us and present a full range of possible design criteria,
including, but not limited to, landscaping materials. etc. We will have
to evaJuate at that time what we li~e.
~~L Sch;nk: I w{luld ll~e to ask two things. One, if we are
90in9 to have design criteria, maybe staff or we could ask the
neighborhood to write the desiqn criteria and bring them to us. Second.
11/08/93
·36·
, .,.',
, '
"
there needs to be so.e .venve of avpeal if the applicant does not '1 ike the
design criteria. I .ould sU9gest th.t it be to the Architectural Review
Bo.rd at the next ~.eting .f~r they make Ihelr pres,nt.tion to ,taff on
the conHnt calendar. Tho thinking, in my ,,'nd, Is that this decision Is
a staff d,ei,ion. The ARB opinions end up being staff deciSions .lso. so
H seems ,1 fke a reasonable (OI'Ut;ll f()r them to air their opinions: at the
MS, if that Is agreeable with the ",.ker of the .·ollon.
Co.EiHiootr CHsel: .Hy ("oncerl'l 1$ In havfng so.""e fairly genera)
guld.1 in .. on thes. fences, I would like to b. able tose. som.
cr,atl,lty so that these do nol all look .Iike going down the street .nd
heo_ a solid wall with no .,rletl. ~.<Ja;a, we we ... talking at the
Ill<letir'9 h,t Saturday about ''''''' .arlety of store fronts In ret.11 ,reas,
and how r(uch interest that crutes. If 'We are going to have f~ncesl so~
vartety amon9 the~ will (r~1le interest, On th~ other hand, there may be
some des1gn criteria needed {or safety, for wbat ~akes a safe fence,
Tt1!)st kinds of things I::<1Y be needed, In teres. of whetner 'We-.)re ~oin9 to
allow splk.es on toP. or rolled op badl't~d wire! There are t(l)!'ns that have
rules as. to 'W~ether you can (lr Cil:onot !.Ise barbed wire. $Q I am 1hlr.king
in tel"i'ls of $~ general g'Jh!ellnes.. You hugh, bvt I have seen thes€
thin9s.
t.1~: 1 'k'ould 1 ike tCl say th~1 y(lu are starting to 9~" closer to
OpUon 1. II s~erns to f!!' thllt if you want !i~ethin9 between Options 1 and
3~ then what you are talking about is essfntj~lly a ~inisteridl type of
process where there dre certain th1rlgos that holve to be done, but do (lot
involve a wh!)l~ lot of discretfon on t~e be~uty of the fente. So It seems
to me th,t jf you w,.t to 9.1 Into a be.uty (o,l.st, you OU9ht to ju,t go
to the HIE. Oth.rwlse, I fe.l you n .. d \0 h,ve '0«0 pl'etty standard
conditions that any t~'hnlc1an. sitl1ng ~t the (~unter. ((Iuld hand1e, so
that it does (,Ot take !Ianey tytle to sign off, nol' take an A~8 ipprova1.
l!L_Un~: One. option \, ,lso to Inclvde, ill co11,boratlon with
UniversH,Y Park , so.:.e guldellr,~s for the benefit of l'u)Ir,eowne-rs and fence
construction that are 1n our R:~1 handbook, whlc!l is 1'10t a mandatory
requ 1 re.ent. but It does g h'e peop 1. advl ee. .J thought 'ome of the photo
~~ntage work we saw here tonight was very nice. It might be he~pful if
they, as a 9rouP. (0,,1(1 assist ys by glylng 50«' illustrations tftat could
b. included " .n addendum to our handbOOk to b. used by people in t.<m'
of help1ng them reath SDR'I~ co.'H:.lustotls. if they fleedeJ that assi.stance.
Maybe they do not F •• l th.t they 60 .nd It would be a w,ste of time, but
that Is sOIUUdng Y(lU could .do, rather than I'uk~ng it Mandatory. Have it
as a ser'/lce, essentially.
~1'rYl1i..u.!.ru1ll...~Xr_~_~Q~ Js H possible for a rcc{l:TIir{!ndalion to t.or,.e from
the Crescent P'lid:. Homeowners Assotlation to the ihJllding Department,
saying that this fence has been reviewed by the honeowners, and the owner
can go strai9ht to the building p.rmltl
Ms-Case: Are you speaking of a neighborhoDd slgnoff? We ha~f never been
high on that k1nd of process. (hugnter) We always think it \s nice that
everyone is in favor of so:r.ething, but \\'(' w(JUld bate to ~I<'l\'e therll be a
formal" part of the review process"
Vice C-haim<'ln Qh.lil..~: I don't think I am too high on that process',
either,
12/08/93
-:17·
\ ,
"("
CommissiQner 8gecham: Regarding Jon's comment a~ut a way to en~bl~ a
process that is not compl icated, J <lm not sure what the process would be.
I am not sure the ARB is the ri9ht •• y, but I am happy to a"end the ~tion
to have staff corne back to us and recommend some review proce~s t~at is
not burdensome. Maybe it is the home improvement e~ception process. I
don't know, but some process by which a homeowner can say. ~I want (0 dD
s<lm1!thing different from what is in the code, bat I think H wods and
looks nice. Can 1 do it?" so he does n~t have to 9D through a norma)
variance pr{lcess to get It appr<lved. That would be another ilet'! in the"
II1<>t ion I made.
C<I!T!!!issioner,Cassel: So what you are saytng is, 'jOIJ "mula ha\,'e this
normal process with these casic l'eQuirements that anyone carl put up a
fence, but if they do not like that rule, then they have an appeal proce"
for dOing s<lmethir1g el se, Is that what yOlt are retoEt'!!erJ:ding?
torrrnlssJoner Beecham: Yes.
Qnrnjss1011gr Ca~sel: That sounds good"
£.QlMlissiolHu·: Car.rasco: I think W~ have 9<1Ile in the direct ton of
Option 1. We have gone into an HIE process here with design t~:!\de .. · and
specified types of f,nce,.
CO!lV',)jssiongr Bgecnam: The intent is to have staff c<lme back to us,
te11 jng us some way tnat follows Jonrs corr{j",ent on how can )o,ie enable a
homeowner j if they want to do som~thing different, to do s~elh1n9
different, and ha .... e so~ review process that ·lets them do it. Right no'l(,
we have not addressed it yet, but I think we would like to nave the
flexibility. So we are sUll doing the OpUon Z appro.ch, trying to
include some additional flexibility that is not limited to Option I,
nec-essari ly.
Hs. Case: I think staff would reasonably have. problem with that In that
you are really asking them to create a brand new, tailorrnade process that
is sort of 1 i ke the HIE but maybe. 1 ittle diff"ent frOlli the HIE. I
don't know that we really wa"t to proliferate a bunch ot' new processes
t~at are somewhat similar.
COmmissioner Beecham: If st.ff comes back and says, we cannol find a way,
then we will consider that.
Ms, C.se: It is not that it couldn't be found. But is it really
necessary for what you need to accomplish? That is what 1 think we ""ould
ask. We would probably as~ that when we came bac~,
Vice Chairman Oiakian: I:d like to bring tMs back together,as we have a
motion th.t is getting. little far .field.
CQrrmissioner GlM...iIT: We are asking (0" staff to come back \oll th some
reC{HTtnj'T1ded guidelines. Th(l cognitive d'iss<lnance I have is. that {in the
one hand, we are talking about an e~ceptiol'l pro:.::ess, but on the other
hand, .... e are talking about a set Qf guidelines that are so minimalist that
it would be hard to imagine s~mebody wanting to get around them.
Landscaping to m(l, and"apparently to Tony, is Larely minimum. We are not
,
IZ/OS/93
-38·
"
willin9 to consider soo,thlng that has no landscaping, but other than
that, it is up to your good taste. So maybe the Hlf is a little bit of an
overkill, but r just want it to be clear that I want the guideliMs to be
as mInImall sl as possible.
&.2rmli.t's1Qoer peecham: for cl,arifjcat;on. the motion is that tne staff
will c~me back with a full set of possible desi9n criteria that we will
then select at that pOint. So it is not determined, as yet. whether it is
rnintm"Jl.
Ms, lytle: The motion Is to return with an ordinance that addresses
University A'enue only: that the dlstanc. be five feet from the Sidewalk:
that six-foot fences be permitted to wrap to the side street for lots on
University Avenue with some analYSis of different distance wrapping.
either 35 feet, SO feet or completely: that solid .alls be .llo.able but
not required; tnat automatic encroac~ment for irrigation be included as
part of the mlnlster1~1 permiti that the sight l'nes be tonsidered along
driveways to be established from the center of the driveway rather than
the edges; and that some r~nge af design review triteria be considered.
On that last item, I would say that we do not have tho ability to do th.t
in much detail. Our position would be that we keep it very ministerial,
based Ort our attorney's opinion. ff 1t is going to bE.> a ministerial
permit, it neE"ds to be ministerial findings~ that it essentially be
related to a landscaping requirement l and be related. if you so choose, to
a material and quality requirement. But that would be it. I cannot
imagine what else we would bring into this if it wer€ going to be
ministerially handled. The other option would be a real design rev1ew.
~e would again recommend that the HIE be utilized, rather than creating a
new process. So that is what we wfll prGbably return with.
fKL[l~_~: vice Chairman Qjakiao: If that is the motion before us,
submitted by Comrnlssioner Beecham and seconded by Commissioner Cassell and
if there is no further distussion, let us vote. All those in fav~r, say
aye? All opposed? lhat passes on a vote of 6-0, with Commlssioner
Schmidt absent. When will this come back to us?
~tl§: A tentative date, .ccordlng toth, .ttorney tonight, is in
March. She has a legislative backlog.currently.
Yjce Chairman Qiakian: So we look forward to seeing this again in MarCh.
I thank .11 of you for bearing with us. It has been a long process, but
hopefully, it will be worked out to everybody's benefit.
AGfllDA ITEM 3 £]1-liE E .1 .m:!lJjWtl~: Zoning ",K,;",nce text amendments
to establ, a Planned Developm {,(PO) zone district and
amend Sectlo .. 8.99 to allow e Director of Planning and
Community fnvir ment to a rove minor thanges in land use
for existing Plan d Co nity (PC) and PD zone
districts. The PO district; s intended to prOldde a
flexible set of sit elopment regulations to promote
development of re dent; and mixed use projects that
contribute to t neighbor ds in which they are located
and in Palo A 0, in general. A primary difference
bet .... ·e~n this new zone district d the current PC zon~
district is that the publi< benef. finding is not
12/08/93
-39 -
,',"
.•
i-
\"
I ~ ... .
~ ...... .
" :,:::~",,:-;,.,:~,~~,...;.~ .......... ~~~~~:::::,;<-{.': .
..
PLANNING COM~ISSION 2
December 3, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION
Paio Allo, California
Members of Ibe Commission:
Rll.POJrf IN BRIEF
STAFF REPORT
On May 10, 1993, Ibe City Council directed staff and Ibe Planning Commission to
.,'aluM. a proposal by the Crescent Park Neighborhood Associ'lion (CPNA) 10 allow
ronstruOlion of 6-fool-high fences on Ibe property line along University Avenue, from
Middlefield Rood 10 the e.astem City limit (map of affected area attached). CuffeOlly, the
maximum I,eighl of a fence within 16 fee; of a fronl or street side property Hne is 4 feel.
This ,eport forwards Slafrs fmrtings and outlines three 0plions to allow conslruction of
6-fool·high fences while auempting to maintain Ibe character of University Avenue as a
"galeway" and 'striking' entrance 10 Palo Alto. Staff seeks direction on this issue and
will return wilb 3 draft ordinance Iba! reflects the Planning Commission's deliberalion.
BACKGROUND
In May 1993, the CPNA pelilioned Ibe City Council to amend the fence ordinance and
allow conslruclion of 6-foot-high fences on the property line along Universily Avenue.
They asserted that Ibe curtenl fence height limil of 4 feet was nOI adequale 10 proieci
homeowners from the increasing problems associated with living adjacenllO University
Avenue. Additionally, they felt th.t the fellce height variance process was 100
burdensome in temlS of time and applicalion fees. Oul of a lotal of"80 single-family
home. on University Al'enue, 57 homeowners responded 10 a fence survey prepared by
the CPNA (refer 10 Exhibit A attached). Of those responding, 49 residents were in fal'or
of allowing 6·foot-high fences,S were opposed and 3 were undecided. A map which
plolS those residents who responded favorably to the proposed amendment is attached
(refer to Exhibit B).
....
. ,'.,
I,',
~ .. ,-)
... -.. "
.. -•.... ~..:-:..--~-~ ....... -~---,
N.i~hOOrhood CQr=
Til<: CPNA's request is based on their concerns regarding increased noise, pollution,
safeI)' ha.zards and lack 01 privac)' associaled wilh the welHraveled arterial road. The)'
cile L~e advant.ages of a 6-fool·high fence I""<lled close to the property line as a more
effective n<),se barrier lllan either a four-foot-high fellce or hedge, OOtll of which are
allowed under the current r<gulations, They also state the additional fence height would
~llow their fami1ie~ iouse th<ir fmnt )'ards as privale space, screened from passer.sby and
from the dangers wociated with puiodic traffic accidellts. 'l1l::y also expressed a need
for increased securi\}' for life and personal property,
Although the overwhelming majori!)' olOOmes on University Avenue have large setbacks
from the sidewalk, the residents fUld thai the currenl 16-fool selback for conslruclion of
a 6-fool-high feoce docs 1101 adequaldy miligate lIlcir concerns. Their major objeclion
10 a fence setback from the propelt}' line is thal Ihe further removed from the Irafflc the
less dfwi,'e a fence is as a noise buffer. Tiley a1,0 ciled e.<omples of eX;'llng fences,
whicb arc selbaok from the propert)' line. where the homeowner has failed 10 maintain
the landscaping Oil the Slreel side WId il has become unsighlly.
JirsIT OhscmliQ1lS
Since the Council's direction to srud)' this issue, staff has atlended lIlree meelings with
the CPNA al a member'shome, localed on University Avenue (meeling notes arc
attached as Exhibil q. FAlch meeting was scheduled during peak evening l1affic so staff
could experience the ""neems relaled 10 commute traffic, Staff wilnesse-<i a heavy flow
oflraffic which. more often than 001, exceeded the legal spee<llimit of 25 miles per hour.
Due 10 the fae! ~I vehicular parking is nol penni lied along ~t portion of the str""I,
there is no barrier between the traffic flow and the front facades of the homes. Parked
cars provide an ~ffecUve psych<llogical buffer to pedesl1ians and a screen for
!lQmeown-ers, and activities associal.,j witll parked cars lend 10 slow Ihrough trame. The
existing lrafflc produced high levels of noi<o on the prope!!),. greater than that
experience<l by the majority of residenlial properties in the City.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
The Comprehensive Plan describes Universily Avenue as a 'gateway' and a curving
str""tlined wilh gracious magnolia !lees which creates a striking entrance 10 Palo Alto.
The entry is further enhanced by the large properties containing magnificeILt homes. m""l
of which are ,«back 30 10 40 feel from the sidewalk. creating a parkway effecl for the
SlreetsCllpe. The following is an analysis of the potenlial impaclS 6-foot-high fences may
have'on the University Avenue streetscape.
P;\J'('SRltIAFViCE,K
1213193
2
.',.
Visyal Analysis
In preparation for Ille second meeting with the CPN .... , slaff produced a pholographic
analysis to delennill< Ille polential impacl$ of 6·fool·high fences rn the Unlversity A vellue
slreelScape, rclalive to views of the homc$ and front yards. In order 10 SlUd)' these
effeots, staff took photographs of five homO$, each exhibillng a variety of differenl
characterisUC$ (e.g. heigbt. number ofswries, selback, glade challge). The pilolos were
taken from two vant:.ge points. The first sel of pholOS were !aken from Ihe sidewalk as
a pedC$trian, and the olller from the Slrett .s a passing motorist. Then, 4· and 6-fool
high fences were superimposed on Ille phQtos al the propen)' lin" and 81lhe 16·fool
selback, in order 10 demonslrale polential visual impaclS (photo boardS will be on display
al the hearing).
The photo boards were presemed 10 Ihe ePNA for disco"ioll. II was agrud Illat from
the per'pecti,·. of an aUlomobile, the difference belween a 6·fool-high fence localed al
the property line and on< located allhe current 16-fool selback is n<gligible. This is due.
in part, 10 the high foun<!alions of rna'! Universily homes and the relatively small dist~nce
belween the fences as c{lmparoo 10 the I~uger diSlan{:c between the viewer and the front
property line. Since the majority of people enlering the City vi. University A\'Cnue do
so in an amomobile, 6-fool-high fences localed at the properl}' line will not sigrlificantl)'
impact views for the majority of viewers.
However, views are dramatically reduced from the perspeclive of a ped.,lrian on the
sidewalk adjacent 10 the homes. The close proximity of a fen<>: 10 lhe sidewalk edge
limits views of the homes to the secon<!,slory of. multiple-slory home and the roof of
a single-slOry home. The resull is a 1<>-" in views of from doors. porches and olher
ground level features thaI enhance Ille architecture of a home an<! add 10 the characler of
the 'treelScape and the sense of comlO<;tion between home and sidewalk, or public and
private realm, Furthennore, the atmosphere of the sidewalk changes with the
construction of a six-foot·high fence so close to the sidewalk, The pedeslrian becomes
oriemed 10 the slreel and traffic I1llher than 10 the magnificent homes and large front
yards as is currently the case. In the "Landsc<lping" and 'Conclusions" scctions of this
report, staff makes reoommen<!atiollS to miligale these concems, which include
construction of open gateways or proyiding limitedpcdestrian views.
Visibility al Inrerse<:tions and D.rivewa~
Allowing a 6-foot-high fence close 10 intersections and driyeways may reduce driver
visibility and compromise the safely of motorislS an<! pedestrians. Because of the high
volume of Iraffic on Unlversity Avenue and adjacent side streelS and Ihe fae! that mosl
property owners back their vehicles OUI of Iheir drivewa)" it is importanl 10 maintain
proper visibility. Currently, corner I(,IS are required to limit fences to 3 feel in height
within a specific area adjacent 10 an tnterseolion and fen",s in e~cess of 4 feet are not
P;\PCSRIUAFENCf, PC
".''''';
1213193
3
,
;' ,
f I., .
I
I
I
,'"
I
I
i
i
,
'.-
I
1 'I
allowed within 12 feet of a driveway opening (refer to Exhibil D). Staff, with slrong
conr.urrence of Ihe City Allomey's office, re<:ommends that tho cu"em "i,ibility
standards for fences within these areas nO! change as a result of a fence ordinarn:c
amendmeol.
Landscaoing
In ordeHo adequately screen a s[,-fool-high fence and enhance the pedestrian e'perien>:e,
staff recommends that property owners be required to provide landscaping and irrigallon
within the area belween the fence and sidewalk edge. Along University Avenue propeny
lines are located between two and flve feel from the oUlSide (side closest to tile house)
sidewalk edge. In order to provide adequate space for irrigalion and planting, staff
recommends tluil six-foot-high fences be located no closer than three fee! 10 a propeny
line. Staff recommends that screen landscaping be irrigaled with drip irrigation, as nol
to spray water onto the sidewalk. Plant types should include a combination of low waler
use shrubs andlor vines, which at a mature size will not exceed tile space between the
fence and sidewalk.
Installation of a si,-foot-high fence will afford greater security for personal properly than
a four-foot-high fence. Personal property that is hidden from view is less Ilkel), to be
stolen and higher fences present obstacles to trespassers. However, tile .same screening
which provides added security for personal items may also provide hiding places.
Without direct view of the property, Police Department personnel will not be able to
detect tile actions of trespassers. The Police Departmen! dOCf· not c{lnsider tIlis a
significant problem. They maintain tluit any increased hazards associated with higher
fences will be balanced by a decre.as. in the number of tIlefts and damage to private
property .
Applicability to Other ~
Many of the single-family homes located on other arterial streelS in tile Cily"perience
similar impacts a< those cited by the CPNA (map of Palo Alto anerials attached as
Exhibit E). These streelS carry a heavy flow of traffic, especially during peak commute
hours, which subject adjacent homes to noise, pollution and los. of privacy. However,
applying the proposed University Avenue fence height standards to other anerials
.,Wbiting similar traffic pat1erns, without regard to the unique characteristics of the
streetscape may result in negative impacts. These inlpaclS may ultimately result in a
degradation of the neighborhood and a decrease in property values. For example,
application of the propo,ed fence height regulations on a street dominated by 'ingle-,to!),
homes may result in a fonre,. appearaHce, where only the roofs of the homes and none
of the front yard landscaping are visible.
P:\FCSRIUAfENCE ,pc
. ,.
12/J193
4
: ___ ,-, ___ :':';'-i.,~::,:,;,:,.;.,i:.: ,c,." _~ __ •.
. .-'-~
,~ :
! ." :. t . -,' ......
',C~ft;'l'iill::.,'·~_ ... , ..
However. sUlff recognius the need for higher fences on all anerials. SUlff believes that
this can be achieved without adverse impact. provided that fence design and plaoement
are reviewed by the Planning Division. through a discretionary process or are subject to
a set of design criteria developed for each Slreet. Ideally. staff would recommend that
a study be conducted for each .rterial as was done for University Avenue. in conjunction
with neighborhood representation and "'put from property owners. SIllff. however. does
not have resources available to respond to such a request. Therefore. staff recommends
that development offence criteria be completed on a case-by·case, block-by·block basis.
tIuough the Home Improvement Exception process.
CONCLUSION~
Based on the above analysis. staff concludes that six-foot-high fences constructed close
to the propeny line along University Avenue will provide the requested security. privac)'
and additional noise attenuation for adjacent properties. Additionally. construction of
these fences will not have a signiffcant impact on the streetscape provided they are well
designed, reveal the architecture of the homes. link the public realm to fiont porches with
a gateway or entry fearure and include scre,n landscaping which is irrigated for su",iva.!.
Additional fence height should also be allowed on other anerials in tile City provided the
design and placement is subject to design criteria developed for each street. Below. staff
has listed three options for amending the Fence Ordinance to allow construction of a six
foot-high fence. located as close as three feet from a front or street side yard property
line along University Avenue and other anerial Slreets.
QJlliQn..l: Allow construction ofa six-foot·high fence (except in visibility tli,ngles. refer
to Exhibit D). as close as three feet from tile property line. SUbject to the approval of a
Home Improvement Exception (HIE). In this case. sUiff would conclude that location on
an arterial street is an excepti onal circumstance with respect to the first flIlding of the
HIE process (findings attached as Exhibit F). This application would be reviewed by the
Zoning Administrator and include. a public review period.
SUiff recommends this option because the discretionary permit is the best tool to ensure
quality design. adequate setback. compatible materials. and proper landscaping. and at
the same time. provide a flexibility that cannot be achieved through use of a rigid set of
codified requiremenlS. Staff can also determine. on a case-by-case basis. whether a fence
proposal addresses impacts on pedestrians as discussed on page 3 of this repon. One
more advantage of this option is that it can be applied evenly to all arterials within the
community immediately and without further study. The single· family design guidelines
can be amended to include recommend.tions for University Avenue and other arterials
as they are developed.
This option was proposed to the CPNA and they rejected it as burdensome and over
regulatory. It requires a $350 fee and a minimum processing time of seven weeks.
r;\PCSR\VAFENC£,PC
1213/93
5
,.
I I-
I
i
I
I
, .
QJlliQn1: Allow construction of a six-foot-high fence (except in visibility triangles), 'I'
close as three feet from the property line, as long" it complies with a list of codifred
requirements, These requirements would be developed on a case-by-case basis for each
~rterial. III oroer to millgate the iropact on pedestrians discussed on page 3 of this report,
the r~quiremenls for University Avenue would include: I) provision of landscape screen
(clements to be detennined) with irrigation; 2) inclusion of an ornamental gate (with
spedfic dimensions) or a per<:erJIage of "open area" (Ianice or wrought iron) to reveal
."tlyways and architeeture; and 3) use of malerials compatible with the residenc.,.
Proposed fences would be compared against these requirements upon application of a
fe~ pennit,
The advanlages of this option to tile homeowner include a cost and HIlte savings over
Option I and the ."nsistency to all homeowners along an arterial, provided by codified
requirements is considered 'fair" by the public. Disadvantages include: the lack of public
input and oversight, and the inability to use creative design elements that fit a particular
property, block or street segment, but f311 outside the codified requirements, Separate
studks would have to be complete<1 for each arterial and compatible standards would have
1O be created and eodifLed. Administering separate standard, for each arterial slreet
would be cwnbe!some and developing tllCm would need to be weighed against other
"advance.J planning" 3-"igem,"ts for priority of staff resources,
Qlllion 3: . Allow construction of a six-foot-high fcr<te (except in visibility triangles), as
close as three feet from llle property line on all arterials, with no additional requirements
related 10 design, construction or screening. This is llle preferred option of the CPNA.
They believe llle individual homeowners will make sound decisions regarding fence
design and quallCy. Staff does not recommend this option because experience indicates
that individuals do not always make decisions that protect the llUblie interest, The current
('-<'mprehensive Plan poilcies, llle direction of the present Comprehensive Plan Advisory
Committee, and the R-Imne district guidelines include a common desire to protect and
enhance the qualities that ma~e Palo Alto's neighborhoods especially desirable and the
University Avenue entryway is one of the community's greatest assets,
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission choose an option, combination of
options or develop a new option, '\nd direct staff to draft an ordinance which allows.
constNction of six-fool· high fences along Unlversit)' Avenue and other arterials.
Respectfully submitted,
U'\!I·}-.C<j V)~rK,J\1~
NANCY l\!ADDOX LYTLE
Chief PI?nning Officiall
Z<Jning Administrator
P .\K'SR\\.IAffNCE.fC
/.'
1213/93
6
AuachmcO!s.:.
Map of Affected Area
Exhibit A: Cr=nt Park Neighborhood Association Survey
ExI1ibii B: Map of Favorable Responses to Fence Survey
E>d1ibit C: September 9, !993 MeeH(I& Noles
E>d1ibil 0: Visibility Triangles
Exhibit E: Palo AIIO Arceri.l.
E>d1ibil F: Home Improvement Exceplion Findings
Leller from Lynn Chiapella dated Augusl 31, 1993
LeU.r from Sharon Toni COnle daled November 29, 1993
Letler from J. Robert Tayl(l' dated July 13, 1993
. cc: Diane Greenberg, 1330 Univmity Avenue, Palo AHo CA 94301
GleM. M. Violelle, 95 Cresc"nI Drive, Palo Allo C,\ 94301
,. . . '
Margarel and Michael Feuer, 1310 Universily Avenue, Palo AIIO CA 94301
Harlan A. PirM, 1845 Ulliver.ity Avenue, 1',10 Allo CA 94301
Trudy Tiro, 1341 University Avenue, Palo Allo CA 94301
Bob Violante, 1056 University Avenue, Palo AI:o CA 94301
Barbara and l'~jlip Rol>trt', 1039 University.Menue, I'a,o Alto CA 94301
Bob Taylor, 480 Marlow Street, Palo Alto CA 94301
Lorraine Rickey, 1042 University Mcnue, Palo Alto CA 94301
Dthie teh,berg, 1085 University Avenue, P,lo A1lo CA 94301
Judy Maxwell, 105'1 University Aven"e, Palo Allo CA 9430i
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo AllO CA 94306
Sharon Toni COnle, 189 Unil'ersily Avenue, Palo Alco CA 94301
J. Robert Taylor, 480 Marlowe Slreet, Palo Allo CA 94301
1213193
7
I ,
AffEmo MEA:
Property l;no. along
University Avenue
GRAPHIC ATTACHMENT
TO STAFF REPORT
OAT[, 1I·11·<j,
FIlE NO, N~ ______ -I
PROJECT: FENGE.'> eN uN''I£''-''''IYJWElN"",C __ _
"I :.
tiORTH
\
'., ..
-, ..
:;
"
"
j
":.
l'
I.-
!
I ,
j
! ,
J
J
i
I
I
f once SUlVey
University Ave. Fonce PeUlIon • 57 of 60 Houses Respond
undecided
5%
yo.
86%
Page 1
no
9%
EXHIBIT A
L·
!'.
· ..' .
,. ,:. ·.\,._~:;"":"';';'~"'"'i~ii.:~~~:";3._{· ~:::~., '~"', ~"-.~,>,,
CRESCENT PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
P.O. Box 51885 ,-"' -_ .. ,-..,
Palo Ailo, CA, 94303.()730
FENCE PETITION
The Cre=nl Park Neighborhood Awotiafion mailed copies of the enclOSO<! pecHion
!O Ule 76 'ingle family residences on University Avenu. from Middlefield Avenue to
Woodland Avenue. After this maJJing, .5 association members went door·lo-door to all
of these resi<knoes to collect signatures (plus two on Hale and 2 on Marlowe whose
properties abut University Avenue,)
Out of a lotal of 80 houSI"...5, 57 home ovmers were personally reached. 49 re..sidents
(86%) signed in {avor of the pelition, 5 (9%) were opposed, and 3 (5%) were
undedded.
Not onty we-re an oVNw.helming majority of residents in favor of the petition but
they wae also enthusiastic in their approval -viewing the petition as a necessary step in
aHeviating the effect of gridlock traffic on their resid'ential street: Unh'crsily A venue. 11
is our hope thatlhe Coullcil will agree with the residents that the existing ordinance
should be amended to allow property line fences up to 6' on University Avenue single
fami:yparrels.
WHY 6 FOOT FENCES ARE NEEDED
UNIVERSITY AVENUE i •• heavily lraveled ,treet with over 26,000 velliele trips per
day (1985 dalO,) Noise, pollution, loss of privacy, and safety i.,ues resuit from Ihe
ever increasing traifi,c conge.s tion.
I, NOISE AND POLLUTION: With regard to noise and pollUtion, fences provide
greater protection than do barriers of hedges. Cal Trans provided our neighborhood
a$SO¢iatlon with the following infonnation: on the effectiveness of fences as noise
ilamen, FeI1ce5 block sound most effectively when clasesllo the point source, i.e"
vellicles. The ideal height is as tall as the offending vehicles, The optimal construction
is a oonti:lUous ft!l1ce with a rough. surface (wood or stucco) and a flat lOp, In the case
of University Avenue, 6 ' high walls close to lhe property Hne will obscure noise from
automobiles. th.ough not from trucks or buses.
2, PRIVACY AND SAFETY: While the large, unfenoed yards along University
Avenue may look "scenic· to passing automobile occupants, the), are unusable
liabiHl1es to homeowners. University Avenue families can not allow their children 10
play i"t~ese front gardens becanse of the reality of traffic acddenlS and gunsholS fired
from pa~ing cars. One neigh.bor likened: stepping oul to pick up his morning paper to
stepping OUI onto 1011
.; ••••• '< , ~ , •
. ','
j
~~.,~':;'~%.~d';;'i';;:~:'\'~~-~'\."'" ~ -"~
'.c'c~ ... '0'".
We ac~ awart that 'aw enfoI('cmem officers ~Iieve unfenced yards to be safer
b«aus¢ Ihey provide fewer hiding ptaces for criminals. However. the homeowners we
intervie .... "td ~'ho had fenC'~s expre.ssed increased feelings of :securilY since strangers
seem 1<$Slikely 10 approach (e~ )'af(j>. In addition, they provide a buffer vetween
gardens and the numerous rea.r·enders and more serious aUIO accidents on University
Avenue.
3. 11lE CURRENT CITY FENCE ORDINANCE: Under present rules, homeowners
wishing a feooe over 6' , mu.1 build i121' in (rom Ih. interor edge of the sidewalk. In
o~r to obtain a p:nnit to build a pro~n)'line (enreo',ler 4' in height, a University
""<nOlO homeown'" mu.t spe,," $500.00 and approximately 2 and 112 months on
cumberso~ variance and appeal prooemJ, In .<kIition, three findings must be satisfied:
I. that tl1e property is unique;
2. thai, b.a.s-ed On the \Jnlquene.ss 0( the lot, Ihe homeowner s\Jffers an unreasonable
hand,hip and doeJ oot tnjoy the same de"elopment rights as owners of typical
lou; and
3. IMt (M variance wHl not be dt!nmental 10 surrounding properly owners or
rtJidenl$.
The Cre~"tIl1 Park Neighborhood' Auociallon believes IhalLJni .... ersily Avenue
properties, ~ priori, sati!-fy Irte.se fmdings. bc-<:ause:
1. J\CJ.fd'enfial pmpcrues on Uni\'ersil)' Avcnue are unique. They face a two lane
~treel \.'o;!h tw-o blc)'cle palhs which is lotaHy unsuited to the t.\'er increasing
,u1l01)n\ of name it bears. What ~'a5 once the mos! beautiful entrance to Palo
Alto hs bcoorne a prime example of llafrLc gridlock st.ibj~ling Ihese scenic
and hislonc prope-lties to 1Jnique tHlrdens of excessi~re noise. poltulion, accidents,
and t);pos.ure 10 ~ri me.
2. Becaus.e Qf thc uniqll(ntJs of these properties. homeowners suffer the.
unr"""'Mbl. hardship of a de[e(jorating quality of life. Their development lights
are )euened as they are deprived of the appropriate use of their front gardens
aM subjoci to IO\o\-"ered propery value.s..
3. As is evident from our petition response, no detriment 10 surrounding rt.sidents
!'all be found,
CONCLUSION: The Un;"ersiIY Avenue re';dents who "ppon tMs petition urge you
10 a mend the cu rrent re.nc.c ordi na.nce. We wish to mal n tal n: Ihc beaUI y of our street and
10 recapture tile qualilY of Our livOJ. We need your help.
',.,:
'\ ,
,)
\
CRESCENT PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION _Zc_E /
UNIVERSrrr AVENUE RESIDl!NTS
PlITn'!ON TO PERM n' SI); FOOT FENCES
The unde.rslgned, living on University Avenue, are concemed by the increasing lack of
privacy, noise and dirt pollution and potential for crime which living on this busy street
causes us and our neighbors. These problems detract from aUf enjoyment of Jiving in
this beautiful part of Palo Alto and may be damaging to our property value, We are also
mindful that Unlverslty Avenue provIdes a beauUful ae<:ess to our city and Is of both
scenic and hlstoric Significance,
Several of our neighbors have bum six foot fences or "'-ails which seNe to protect them
from the problems caused by the ever increasing traffic on our str~t whlle preserving the
beauty of University Avenue by using attractive designs, buUdlng malelials and
landscaping, However, over the years the City has made it increasingl)' difficult and
expensive to obtain a permit to build a property line fence or wall oYer four feet in
height; in fact, the 1'lanningDepartment staff now denies such applications necessHating
an appeal process which is expensive and time consuming to both resident and dty staff.
We therefore request that the City Council amend the appropriate Palo Alto ordinrulce(s)
to permit property line fences or walls up to six feet ill height to be comtmctc(\ on
parcels with single family residences abutting or adj accllt to University Avenue. Such
fences should be subject to the same resllictions provided for fen::es up to foul' feet ill
height constructed on other Palo Alto streets which are less bus)' and do not have the
unique problems confronting residents Jiylng on University Avenue, ",
/
2//./
J
1/11
,1 r
-:/1' ---
-. , .. '
r(q ---
-'-------~-------
---------------
-~-------------
• .. '. ____ :.:L-___ -______ _
~'::":'--' '-< -~---...::..------
---,..---------_._----
----------------
','.'
,~,
i
I
I , , , .
CRESCENT PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
"lJNIVERSITY AVENUI, RESIDENTS
PETITION TO PERMIT SIX FOOT FENCES
\
The undersigned, living on Unh"ersity Avenue, are concerned by the increasing lack of
privacy. noise and dirt pollution" and potential for crime which Iidng on this busy street
causes uS and our neighbors, These problems detract from our enjoyment of living in
this beautiful part of Palo Alto and may be damaging to OUf property values. We are also
mindful that University Avenue provides a beautiful access to our city and is of both
scenic and historic signillcance.
Several of our neighbors have built sL~ foot fences or walls which serve to protect them
from the problems caused by the ever increasing traffic on our streel while preselving the
beauty of University Avenue by using atlractive designs, building materials and
landscaping. However. over the years the City has made it increasingly difficult and
expensive to obtain a permit to build a property line fence or wall O\"er four feel if I
height; in fact. the Planning Department staff now denies mel! applications necessH.uiflg
an appeal process which is expensive and time consuming to both reside"t aUd city staff.
We therefore request that the City Couucil amend the appropriate Palo Alto ordinance(sl
to permit property line fences or walls up to si, feet in heigh, to be constructed on
parcels with single family residences abutting or adjacent to University Avenue. Such
fences could be subject to the same reSTrictions provided for fences up to four feet in
height constructed all other Palo Alto sIT<:!ets which are less bus)' and do not have the
unique problems confronting reSidents living on Unh'ersity Avenue.
D.rug
~,h
..., '/."1 r "
HilW~
----------------------------
. ;'
.. ~--,
.~. -,. -,
:;''':';'-'':'''~?i
CRESCENT PARK Nf:lGHBORHOOD ASSOCIA nON
UNIVERSITY AVENUE RESIDENTS
PETITION TO PERMIT SIX FOOT FENCES
3
The under~igned,living on Universit)' Av'enue, are concerned by the increasillg lack of
privacv.noise and dirt pollution and potential for crime which living on tltis busy street
c!>.uses' us and our neighbors. These problems detract from our enjo~ment of living in
tltis beautlfulpan of Palo Alto and may be damaging to our propert)' values. We are also
mindful that University Avenue provides a beautiful access to our city and is of both
scenic and historic significance.
Several of our neighbors have built six foot fences or walls which serve to protect them
from the problems caused by the ever increasing traffic 011 our street while presen'ing the
beauty of UniversitY Avenue by using attractive designs, building materials and
landscaping, However, over the years the City has made it increasingly difficult and
e"'Pensive to obtain a permit to build a property line fence Or wall over four feet in
height: in fact, the Planning Department staff nOw deni~s such applications necessitating
an appeal process which is e''Pensive and time consuming [0 both residenr and city staff.
We therefore request that the City Council amend the app.-opriate Palo Alto ordinance(s)
to pemJit property line fences or walls up [0 sLx feet in height to be constructed on
parcels with single family residences abutting or adjacent to University Avenue. Such
fences could be subject to the same restrictions provided for fences up to four feet in
height constructed on other Palo Alto streets which are less busy and do not have tlle
unique problems confronting residents living on University Avenue,
I .:: -, ,:;, --, '~l'.,.
'. ;;. ,):-. ~-
-"--'
, ,
"
i-:,· ,o.-('?-. , .... I I .
'--,-'
'~.; .
I,;, .: . '"t
.. -'-... -.... -'-
Address
-, ,~,
• .-, (_, I ..... ·
, •
~--~---' -' -'-'-"-
/ .~ ...... '-
•
•
------~---------------------
, '~' •• '-J. ::.
r
I
!
I'
i
I,'
t.
,
~.,
!
i
r
I
I
i
,f
, \ .
\:
.r ",', ,', -,,' .
..':'."L;,
;U,-:-, \":,,,-:;'
--_.-, -. ":
,
'i<'" i
~.;:':!;t::~f
;;
'\
I
\
I ,
!
." ' . .•. .; ~r":,~",.n,."·,,,",,,"",,p.·"r~'>·"""'''-.,
CRESCENT PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
ljNIVERSITY AVENUE RF.5IDENTS
PETITION TO PERMIT SIX 1'001' FENCES
. '
4
he \Inderslgned. living on University .-\,·cnue, are concerned by the increasing lack of
fil'ae),. Jloise and dirt polllll;on and potential for crime which living on this busy street
luses us and our neighbors. The~e problems detract from our enjo,ment of living in
ti~ beautiful part of Palo Alto and may be damaging to our propeny values. We are also
tindful that Urilvenity Avenue provides a beautiful access to our city and is of both
:enlc and historic significance.
_, !veraJ of our neighbors have built six foot fences or walls which serve to protect them
'om the problems caused by the ever Increasing traffic on our street while presen-ing the 1; '\ ~auty of University Avenue by using allfactive designs. building matelials and
l lld~caplng. Hov"rever, over t.he years the City has made it increasingly difficult and
,pensive [0 obtain a pemlit to build a property line fence or wall over four feet in
,ight; In lact, Ule Planning Department staff now denies such applications necessitating
1 appeal process which is e,'pensive and time consunting to both resident and city staff,
'e therefore request that the City Council amend the appropriate Palo Alto ordinance(s)
permit propeny line fences or walls up to SIX feet in height to be constructed on
treels with single [,unJly residences abutting or adjacent to University Avenue. Such
nces could be subject to the same restJictions provided for fences up to four feet in
!ightconstructed on other Palo Alto streets which are less busy and do not have the
lique problems confronting residents living on University Avenue,
3//13
I
?>I "1~
, <;!,n
,I r , ~
l'!ll.!lli!
."(~.-f.:. ~,-:'.'
7:Z~~>L~~~;:~-:>~
,J 4~J! t:. ~"7j+>(,--~~
, ,
• ;---!
..i;~-.1;i ~:~".I"\~t::. _________ _
• .1 /' '. __ f' "
--IV(' 7· -.... ! _..I"~
~~-----~---------------
. --:.j"::.-~ _~:~i-<./ ___ .. _____ _
"". ';'.' ",1 •
. ...-=--.;.." .... ; :.,.,-G:....,.· --------------
. ", I "\
.~. '_"'-.... --~...,.."
. • i , ..• ""
~~~-----
, .;{ . ' ,
Address
VC_!_~,~~~1!t'~--'--
l!.(;1 ~i 111/'-£,1 s ,17-4-'---
~~~~~a~~J( _____ ~ ____ _
':,..n...."'!/ ... .r(-.
;..' :'::" '1;..' '''''/J''.r~ .......... ~;;-., -__ . ___ .-________ ...!~_::_~2" .... ~
jc. ... ! .. ,,:;.. .. _,,~t!.. 1 .. t·:,:\"i·\~.1 •
-------..--~--I-~--
,"I ..., ,-•
---------.!..---..::.~-.--',:: '-'.~ -----
-. ~ ... ~ -:, -.~~ 0?~\....
------~-----~-------
:.: ...... ,-";·)'le........... {., \\/.1>.. t ------------------------.
--c._~ ____ ,_ .. ____ '_. _',_, ____ _
CRESCENT PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
UNIVERSITY AVENUE RHSIDI:NTS
PETITION TO PERMIT SIX 1'001' FENCES
1\
\
\
The undersigned, living on Unll'erstty Avenue. are concerned by the increasing lack of
privacy, noise and dirt pollution and potential for crime which living on this bus)' street
causes uS and Our neighbors, These problems detract frolll our enjo)ment of Jiving in
tills beautiful part of Palo Alto and may be damaging to Ollr property values. We are also
mindful that UniversIty Avenue pro\'ides a beautiful access to our city and is of both
scenic and historic signlflcance.
Several of oUr neighbors have builtsb; footfences or walls which serve to protect them
from the problems caused by the ever Increasing traffic on our street while preserving the
beamy of University Av<lllue by using attractive deslglls. building materials and
landscaping, However. over the years the City has made it increasingly dlfficuit and
€\TJensive to obtalna permit to build a property line fence or wall over four feet ill
height; in fact, the Planning Department staff nOI\'denies such applications necessitating
an appeal proce.s> which is e"pensiv~ and time consuming to both resident and city staff.
We therefore request that Ihe City Council arn~ncl the appropriate Palo AltO ordillance(s)
to permit propeny line fences or walls up to six feet in height 10 be constructed on
parcels with single fantily residcncel abutting or adjacent to University Avenue, Such
fences could be subject to tile s~Jne resllictions provided for fences up to four feet in
height constructed Oil other Palo Alto srreets which are less busy aud do no! have the
unique problems confronting residents liI'ing on University Avenue.
" . '
------------------
-,; ,
d1:. .• .'tlJI.IC;';·/q :l."t ----------------------------
\ , .,
•
I' i-" :
f r
!
I
. ,
CRESCENT PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
"i.1NIVERSITY AVENUE RESIDENTS
PETITION TO PERMIT SIX FOOT FENCES
The undersigned, living on University Avenue, <lIe concerned by the increasing lack of
pri"ac\', nOise and dlrt pollution and potential for crime which !il'jng on this bus,' street
causes' us and our neighbors, These problems delract from our enjoyment of living in
lhis ::>eautiful part of Palo Alto and rna)' be damaging to our property values, We are also
mindful that University Avenue provides a beautiful access to our cHy and Is of both
scenic and historic significance.
Several of our neighbors have built sl" foot fences or walls which serve to protect them
from the problems caused by the ever increasing traffic On our street while preserving the
beauty of University Avenue by using attractive designs, buildiJlg materials and
landscaping. However, over the years the City has made it increasingly difficult and
e,pensive to obtain a permit to build a property line fence or wall m"er four feet in
height; in fact, the Planning Department staff now denies such applications nccessHating
an appeal process which is e",pensive and time consuming to bolh resident and clly slaff.
We therefore request that the City Council amend the appropriate Palo Alto ordinance(s)
to permit propeny It!le fences or walls up to six feet in height !O be constructed OIl
parcels with single family residences abutting or adjacent to Unil'ersit)' Avenue. Such
fences could be subject to the same restrictions provided for fences up tofoue feel in
height constructed on other Palo Alto streets which are less busy and do not han' the
unique problems confronting residents living 011 University Avenue.
MQr~s
bJ¥2JJ..fuY.wX;_~_L-
·
\,
CRESCENT PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
UNNERSITY AVENUE RESIDENTS
PETITION TO PERMIT SIX FOOT FENCES
The undersigned, living on Uni\'ersity Avenue. are concerned by the increasing lack of
privacy, nOise and dirt pollution and potential for crime which Ji\'ing on this busy street
causes us and our neighbors, These problems detract from our enjo~lnent of living in
tllis beautiful part of Palo Alto and may be damaging to our property values, We are also
mindful that University Avenue provides a beautiful access to our city and is of both
scelllc and Wstonc significance,
Several of our neighbors have bullt sl~ foot fences or walls which serve to protect them
from the problems caused by the ever increasing traffic on our street while preserving the
"eauty of University Avenue by using attractive deSigns, building materials and
.andscaping, However, over the years the Cit)' has made it increasingly difficult and
~\'Pensive to obtain a permit to build a propeny line fence or wall over four feel in
leight; in fact, the Planning Department staff now derties such applications necessitating
U1 appeal process which is expensive and time consurrUng to both resident and cit}' st~Jf,
.Ve therefore request that the City Council smend the appropriate Palo Alto ordinance(s)
:0 permit property line fences or wails up to sL~ feet in height to be constmcted on
)arcl'ls with Single family residences abutting or adjacent to University Avenue. Such
-ences could be subject to the same restrictions provided for fences up to four feet ill
leight constructed on other Palo Alto streets which are less busy and do not have tile
Irtique problems confronting residents living on University Avenue,
Mllrm
..L!.1f. tJ'!.:~<~.::-~_· __ _
(SUS-W'trtV ' 4t--(.
/ S {),;; U. VI (.~ v.~ __ • __ _
l[Je_ Uf!"t/. &e ____ . __ _
.l..~30 V_~:v~-,;'tr-~c:. __ _
~~--
L$:i2kbk'~,r-".!Lh~·
--------------------------
--------------------
\~~~c---
/ .. ~,;s'·:::.~, _,:,~' .. ,' ''->:i'~ , _0"
'~ . .'.
.'.' ..
i
I
I
I
I
[
i ,
1
!
I
/i
!
1\
CRESCENT PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
"UNNERSITY AVENUE RESIDENTS
PIITITION TO PERMIT SIX FOOT FENCES
\.
The undersigned. living on University Avenue. are concerned by the increasing lack of
privacy. noise and dirt pollution and potential for crime \vhich living on this busy street
causes us and our neighbors. These problems detract from our enjoyment of living in
this beautiful part of Palo Alto and may be damaging to our property value. We are also
mindful that University Avenue provides a be~"utiful access to our city and is of both
scenic and his toric significance.
Several of our neighbors have bullt six foot fences or walls which serve to protect them
from the problems caused by the ever Increasing traffic on Our street while preserving the
beauty of University Avenue bY'Hing atuactive designs. building materials and
landscaping. However. over the years the City has made it increasingly difficult and
expensive to obtain a permit to build a property line fence or wall over four feet in
height; in fact. the Planning Department staff now denies such applications necessitating
an appeal process which is expensive and time consuming to both resident and city staff.
We therefore request that the City COllncil amend the appropriate Palo Alto ordinance(s)
to pennit property line fences or walls up to six feet in height to be constructed on
parcels with single frunlly residences abutting or adjacent to University Avenue. Such
fences should be subject to the same restrictions provided for fences up to four feet in
helght constructed on other Palo Alto streets which are less busy and do not have the
unique problems confronting residents living on University Avenue.
i DiU!:
:\ I{j1P/9J
!
'1
':."
.'.".
: ." ,
--------------" -
I
I
I
i
I
"-.',
:,.-
CRESCENT PAHK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
UNIVERSITY AVENUE RESIDENTS
PlITITION TO PERMIT SIX FOOT FENCES
. .
The undersigned. living on Unil"ersHy Avenue. are concemed by the increasing Jack of
privacy, noise and din pollution and potential for crime which living on this busy sa-eet
causes us and our neighbors. These problems detract from our enjo~ment of living in
this beautiful part of Palo AltO and may be damaging to our property values. We are also
mindful that University Avenue provides a beautlful access to our city and is of both
scenic and hlstoric slgn1flcance,
Several of our neighbors have buUt sL~ foot fences or walls which serve to protect them
from the problems caused by the ever Ln~I'easLng traffic on ou" sa-eet while preserving the
beauty of UniverSity A,'enue by using atrractl\,e deSigns. building materials and
landscaping. However. over the years the City has made it increasihgly difficult and
expensive to obtain a permit 10 build a proJX'ny line fence or wall over four feet in
height; In fact, the PlaJ)nlllg Department staff now denies such applications necessitating
an appeal process which is ('"pensive and tirnecollSuming to both resident and city staff.
We therefore request that Lbe City <:ollncil amend the appropriate Palo Alto ordinance(s)
to pprmit propen)' line fences or walls liP to sLx feet inlteighr to be constructed on
parcels with single family reSidences abutting or adjacent to University Avenue, Such
fences could be subject to the same restrictions provided for fences up to four feet in
height constructed OIl other Palo Alto streets w/llrh are less bttsy and do not have the'
unique problems confronting residents living on University Avenue.
~
. ~S:-t'J
~~;~
:1kb..
~t/U
?:i£./p
?b{i3
¥fJ
~t rf" ~
44'1'$
7-!'r19? iiJJ?
!
I
!
I I. i" , ,
L· ,
j"'
i .... '
,.
\, ,
-~I
CRESCENT PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
UNIVERSITY AVENUE RESIDENTS
/0. i
PETITION TO PERMIT SIX FOOT fENCES
The undersigned,living on University Avenue, are cOJlcemed by the increasing lac!; of
privacy, noise and dirt pollution and potential for crime which lil'ing on this bus)' street
causes us and our neighbors. These problems detract from our e.nio~men( of living in
this beautiful part of Palo Alto and may be damaging to Our propert)' values, We are also
mindful that University Avenue pro"ides a beautiful access 10 our cit), and is of both
scenic and historic Significance.
Several of our neighbors have buUt sb: foo! fences or walls which serve to protect tllem
from the problems caused by the ever increaslng traffic on Our strC'et while preserving the
beauty of Univ('rslty Avenue by using attractive d~signs, buildlll& materials and
landscaping. However, over the )'ears the City has made it Increasingly difficult and
e:l.,))ensive to obtaln a permit 10 build a properly line felice or wall o"('r fOUf feet in
height; in fact, the Planning Department staff nO\\' denies sucll applications necessitating
an appeal process which is expensive and time consuming to both resident and city staff.
We therefore request that the City Council amend the appropriate Palo Alto ordinancc(s)
to pemtit property line fences or walls up to si.~ feet in height to be constructed on
parcels with single family residences abutting or adjacent 10 University Avenue, Such
fences could be subject to the same restrictions provldoo for fences up to four feet in
height constructed on other Palo Alto streets which are less bus)' and do not have.the
unique problems confronting residents living on University Avenue.
------,--------------
----------
----------------
---_._--,-------
'I:,:
j ,
\"
/1
PETITION TO PERMIT SIX FOOT FENCES
The undersigned. living on University Avenue. are concerned by the
increasing lack of privacy. noise and clirt poUution and potential for crime
which Uvlng on this busy SlTeet causes us and our neighbors. These
problems delTact from our enjoyment of living In this beautiful part of
Palo Alto and may be damaging to our property values. We are also
mindful that Univ~rslty Avenue provides a beautiful access to our cl ty and
Is of both scenic and historic Significance.
Several of our neighbors have built six foot fences or walls which serve to
protect them from the problems caused by tile ever Increasing tra:tle on
our sU'eet while preserving the beauty of University Avenue by using
attractive designs. building materials and landscaping. However. over the
years the City has made it increasingly difficult and expensive to obtain a
permit to build a property line fence or wall over four feet in height; in
fact. the Planning Department staff now denies such applications
necessitating an appeal process which is expensive and time consuming to
both re.lident and city staff.
We therefore request that the City Councll amend the appropriate Palo
Alto ordlnance(s) to pennlt property line fences or waUs up to six feet in
height to be conslTUcted on parcels with single family residences abuning
or adjac('nt to University Avenue. Such fences could be subject to the
same restrictions provided for fences up to four feet in height constrUcted
on other Palo Alto streets which are less busy and do ilothave the unique
problems confronting residents living on University Avenue.
, !
L '" r-" 1-:
r.-,', .
;
I", "
I"" .
i
;
!
L"
j,' "
~.-i ",
,","
"
CRr~CENT PARK NElGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
"UNNERSITY AVENUE RESIDEN'rS
Pl:TITJON TO PERMIT SIX FOOT FENCES
The undersigned, living On University Avenue, are concerned by the increasing lack of
pri,'acy, noise and dirt pollution and potential for crime which living on this bus)' street
causes us and our neighbors. These problems 'detract from our enjoyment of living in
this beautiful part of Palo Alto and may be damaging to our property value. We are also
mindful that University Avenue provides a beautiful access to our cir.y and is of both
scenic and historic significance.
Several of our neighbors have built six foot fences or walls which serve to protect them
from the problems caused by the ever increasing traffic on our street while preserving the
beauty of University Avenue by using attractive designs, building materials and
landscaping. However, over the years the City has made it increasingly difficult and
expensive t:'J obtain a permit to build a property line fence or wall over four feet in
height; in fact, the Planning Department staff now denies such applications necessitating
an appeal process which is expensive and time consuming to both resident and city staff.
We therefore request that the City Council amend the appropriate Palo Alto ordinance(s)
to permit property line fences or walls up to six feet in height to be constructed on
j
' parcels with single fl' .... 11ily residences abutting or adjacent to University Avenue. Such
fences should be subject to the same restrictions pl'Ovided for fences up to four feet ill
. height constructed on other Palo Alto streets which are less busy and do not have the
I unique problems confronting residents living on University Avenue,
I ~ Name __ A_d_d_re_~ ________ _
--------
---,----------
_._------_.
.
. ',\'
•. \'-,:
\'
.'~
EXHIBIT B
FAVORABLE RESPONSES TO CRESCENT PARK FENCE SURVEY
. J"
'\
'.,
EXHIBH C
Sept.ffiber 9, J993
lIoet log nl>t ••
I.
~. P21I.llliQO
3. l'r.lYill
4. ~:.l!ill .
5. life1l' -
6. lrAfl1f .
Willow ~oad truck restrict~on~ 7 tons on University al1owed.
oj Aulo., trucks (mor. Intermediate sized)
b) People at nl9h!, he •• y sidew.lk Irafflc. Foot traffic during the day.
Here, participation w/foot traffic, when traffic backs up to
craw). no ptivacy fr(X':1 "Ut05 eH~er.
Gun shot5~ thefts, fruit from trees, h01l';eless sleeping on dDofstep.
Reckless urds due to a.roount and speed" fences provide psycho I ogl" lprote< tion.
'5 ~ot (ale, ~rge$ at both places, are designed for
cOGpetltlon, no parking on one Side leaves a lack of protection.
Walls allow for SOl"!!€' control of hmed1 at~ environment.
1. 1.mru'~ Re.l Eslile VaJUtl· not e •• ry.ne will do It (put up fences).
In Palo Alto resld.nt. can be trust.d to do good design.
Se. K.uf •• ns and nelg~bor for examples of well.don, design
but Kayf •• n .~ould ~.,. b~'n .llow to
Ot~er exa~les of berms and fences
fast Cr~scent and University Nnrth corner and house next door
Corner of Lincoln I~d University developer build in
confonmancp., but it Is a disaster since maintenance is not
good on publjc side not ,nou9h .pace
Hale and Uniyerslty Southeast corner
S"jr1,y WII.on'. hou,e
Crescent on west end, new fence, good style
ProblM inherent witn University Avenue ho-mes . sales price somewhat lOiofer t~a" oth.r ofr University/more rent.l.
16 ft. setback on a few lots with l.!.r9& lots it is a lot to expect th.touch
pl'lvate maintenance of an area enj{lyed only putlllc afld with .ll! OlIch publ ic
intrusion ~ heavier landscape burden.
Current negs encourage less Investment ~n maintenance and effort.
~ should put ~re investment on public teala. en9fneerln~ for c~rs d!tracts from ·seeni(· quality.
Stre.t crossings should be e.sler for p,d,ltri.ns and bicyclIst.
---_. ".----. ,. ---'..--
I. Entry to Palo Alto University
al Beautiful hG~es, ~utstanding arc~ite(ture.
2. llull. trees It
3. Landscaping splendor.
4. mnt porch'LLtiil~!!JJ.h ~Ith p,destrian >lw:.;UttJ.ml.L~.L.!:n1u
Why hedges but structur.,?
tIC:: II b: \(toct .root tS
EXIII B IT 0
VISIBILITY TRIANGLES
No fences ove f'
tted
12'-1
Driveway •
110 fences ow."
l' pel'1l11 tted
3' maximum fence
height In shaded
area
feNCES AT DRIVEWAYS FENCES AT INTERSECTIONS
3' maxImum fence height
measured from adjacent curb,
within triangle formed by
curb lines (and their
projection) and a line
connecting them at points
35' from the intersection
of these projected curb lines.
..
:: "
. ,.
"' J
Alma Street
Arastradero/Charleston
Arboretum Road
El Camino Real
Embarcadero Road
Foothl11/Junlpero Serra
Hamilton Avenue (part}
Lytton Avenue (part}
Middlefield Road
Oregon/Page Mi I 1
San Antonio Road
Sand Hi 11 Road
University AVentle
EXHIBIT f
PALO ALTO ARTERIALS
.-. ~ '.
//
HONE HlPIlOVfM£NT EXCEPTION FINDINGS OF APPROVAL
The zoning administrator may grant a
home improvement exception if, after considera
tion of the application and all testimony offered at
the public hearing (if any), he or she finds:
(1) There are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved that do not apply generally to
property in the same district
(2) The granting of the application is
desirable for the preservation of an exisling
architectural style or neighborhood character,
which would not otherwise be accomplished
through the strict application of the regulations.
(3) The granting of the application will not
be detrimental or injurious to propeny or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience.
''.\\ .
\
EXHIBIT F
"
., <'" ".
"
Lyr,n C~ll.apeIJa
631 Color6d~ Av~nue
Palo Alt6. CA 94306
A\Jgu$l. 31 1 19'93
Palo ~Ito City Coun'll
City of P~lo Alto
2S0 Ham1lton Str~~t
palo Alto. CA 94301
Dear Councilmembers:
tI'T1C1: Cf mE CfIY M.IIiAG fH
hav~ read th~ Crescent Park petitlon requ6sl1ng lhal the fence
ordinance be .~end~d to allOW 6" fencps on the property line
along Univ~r'$Jty j\VtU1Ue without appl)'ln9 lOt" a .... uial"lc"". The
petition cites; NOJSE AND fOLt.UfIO~· and PRIVACY AND SP-FETY 4$
reasons tor this chanqe.
Sadly. Palo hH.o nt ....... has reaor strt'Hs with thli SMi'i€ problet'l \'lIth
n() so)utlon in sight. ]h tact the City of .Palo Alto
Transportation De~rt~ent~s pri~~ {unction se~ms to he how to
mov~ mQre traffIc ef{jcl~nl}Y rather than preserve the
resldfntlo1 char.a<:ler of ne19~borhQods.
Many str~~t'S hav,," heeo::ae de-facto .e.rlcrll?s with the ot'Icc-ompanying
nOise from ho~ns, sq~ealln9 of brakes, boom·boo~ box~~ And loud
radios. The I&vel of $lr~et noiSE ~ak~s it impossible lO leave
thf front door open for tr~sh Air and have a norMal conversAlion,
listen to the radio or watch TV. H~ny council ~emb~r$ And upper
echelon of P~lO ~Ito steff do not live with this constant dally
jntruston ot nOis$ trom lO.OOO~~O.OOO tars pvr" day.
I b~lleve it is diff1cult tor &ta(l and council ~~mber$ who live
on quiet cul-d~-sac~ and peaceful tree-Iln~d strQet$ with Jess
th4n 2000 cars per day to Under$l4nd the ·probl~m eXFressed by the
Crescent Park neighborhood. One 6taft ~e~ber compared the noi£e
endured by those on these busy arl~rle$ to the ~uslc played by
her next door neiqh})or on his radio.·
I do not believe any special consjd~ratton &hould b~ giv~n to
University AVI?f1uI;> propHlY mmers. jn the f~nc(> o."dinance. Rtllher
th~ ordinance should be-al1'.(>nded to" incllld~ all r,,"sidences on
~trEets that CArry more than 12,000 cars and all lots within 100
f~et of ari 1nlers~ctioh that carri~s more than 12,000 cars.
Plfas.' incJode this letter
~ark petition. ~lso please
Tr6nsportation Depart~ent.
in the file rQlat~d tv th~ Crescent
send a copy to th~ City of Palo Alto
'!j
I
. \",
;·:--""",,,:,,"-"":~·""r;·
;
November 29, 1993
Planning Co~ssion
c/o Planning Department
PO Box 10250
Polo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Sirs/Madams:
RECEIVED
OEG-11993
I rou writing rE:gatding the public hearIng on fencos on University
AVenue to be discussed on Wednesday Dece~ar 8, 1993~ AB owners
of a home at 789 University Avenue, my husband .nnd 1 are enthusi
astically in favor of tlle proposed w;'!endiTlent to allow construc
tion of 6 ft high fences on property lines along this busy
street. However, we would also like to Bubr.lit oS relllttad topic
for discussion at this time.
The proposal should he eKtended to include the backyard street
side fences, of homes on the ~n&X§ of University Avenuo ~nd
connecting cross streets. This is t~e-situation with our home.
A 6 f1:. high fence might help cut down Oll !loisa, vandalism, etc,
affecting the front of our house, but it laaves the backyard in a
potentially worse position. Our backyard fence, at the regula
tion height of 4 ft, does little to offer protection £l·om. noise
(or anything else) when faced with the combined car and pedestri
an traffic of both University Avenue and Guinda. And, as anyone
with small ~hildren knows, the backyard is where one truly needs
protection and privAcy nost.
The Planning Commission is to be commended on ~t6 understanding
of the needs of Palo Alto's citizens who increasingly find thom
selves surrounded by an ever·-growing streatn of cars arid visitors.
It would only seem logical to further extend that sympathy (and a
bit more fencing leeway) to those whose corner Unjversity Avonue
homes now more closely resemble highway traffic islands.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
~~.~T< <-. Sharon Toni Conte
789 university Avenue
,
·::.L
...
;, ..
N81tcyLytle
Zoning AdministratOT
City of Palo AU"
250 H.milron Ave~
Palo Alto. Ca~ 9430)
< .. ' 1\'
~.
X;,·."'"·~·~'!""}'~·"'~·~·=;Ti'''.'-_ -;
J. Robert Taylor
480 Marlow" Street
Palo Alto. Ca. 94301
Re: Fence petition for Un iv"",ity Ave.
!JearN.m:)':
AECEIVED
WA.'tTMEHTOF PWI~~NO
AND CO,"UIl.INHY OE\.'t .. <.:;.,,~-Zh'l'
July 13, 1993
I had intended to come 1"6 the neiAhoorbood meeting on July 12, J 993, however, b«-~\kSe
of an unexpeded charlge in work schcdufes neither my wife or r were able to come. In lieu of our
p,'lrticipotion in the "'eetinglf.~ it might be ~.Ipful for me 10 express Ollf 'on<<tTI' in aletler 10
YOIJ.
Ourproporty at 480 Mulowe SI. i. on the oomerofMulowe and University. When w<
first puren osed the property 80me ten years 880 oUCldd,ess was 11 55 University A venu e.
AlthOUgh we love our home its location has been troublesom e to us for several lUS'Ons. r would
lik.to address a number of issu .. of con«m ro our fornily w11iell we feel woutd be substantially
resolved by a revision of the zoning ordinance to allow six foo~ fencts on the property] me.
1.) As you con..,. from the enclosed pnoro. (with description, on the btck) our lot h .. the
vast majority of its open yard on tit, University .id, of our house. We also have two .mall yards
on the sides of(lur hom~ which 11 ave patios and a she<l forlools. The lack ofpriYacy makes the
front part of our yard unussble and thus other than setting us back slip,htly from traffie noise it is
good for appearances b"t dOts not function as ussble yard .pao.. A lour foot fen .. would affon!
no privacY from the steady stream offootttafflc: oTllh~ sidewalk. We have tried to ~w a dC1\!.e.
nedg •• but thi. is very difficult because oftltelarge street _ And a 11lJl' tree in our front yard
2.) Installing a fence'on thesctb.>ck lin. of 16 feet would end lip so close ro our front door
that it would croate • non-functional and very unsightly f",wee in our front yard. We would like ro
be able to practic4lly 1I •• 1ll1 of our yanl.
3.) Ai, you can,.,. from the pictu .... enclosed our luge front window was vandaiiud by
someone throwing rOcks through it. This happ..-nC'<! for severa! weeks 8J1d cost us thousands of
dollars. Th. vandal did tltis while we were home and literally telToriZ«i my funily. The
vandalism stop when I laid in wait for th, vandal and when the threw a rock I chased him off
After this he n~vcr returned.
Police reports were m.d. and naturally tltere was liHI. they conld do '" ward off this kind o{attack.
We ask every officer who took.a report what they would do and each one reoommendrd a six fool
wall. They said our large picture windows Were An attractive target.
4.) The foot traffic which travels Univ.",ity Avenue unlike most ncig11bomood streets is
nol composed of people who liv. in our n.ighborhood. Many people who use thesidewalk are
friendly and courtcNLS, others are offensive and throw bolt] es, cans, and other trash on our yard
on a daily basis. This problem is unique to University Ave. and is thus deseIVtng of special
attention In the zoning laws in Ordtr to protect the property riahts of owners along this busy street
We are fr~uent.ly pMhandled. in our own front yard. Few Pa10 Alto residential streets suffer from
this distinction. We also have at !east thr~ peoptc a week c{)me to our door as}dng for food l'Ind
money. We are therefore unable to lei our tbi!dren baby-sillhemselvcs, even though they are old
I,'
• ••••• ..:. ___ I
[
" \
i I.
I
i
i
I
I
!
I
!
i
\
\)'\}~l
\' . " . ''"". ~:.~ ': ::~:Y;!
,~ ...
~'. .,' < ":,r ',_:'-: . '-'.~ ;
~>
1'~1W0
Nancy Lytle
'.,'
'MU~" Stnn~m ooming to your door i, ""settling, espe<ially when Hlulppen, at.11 tim .. from
mOmutglo niSht. We in faet change<!' our addres.s fro.l1 11SS University Av\!. to 480 Marlowe
~U$O oflbeCOO'lant knocks on our door for peopleloo!dng for some doctors office on
University.
S.) The traffic noise 00 University has increased over the last ICJ1 years sin"" we moYed
1)1<1 will continue to inm:s..te. This is a factor we n"COgnize that we have little control over, A
fenee or waH would, however, dec:reasc some of the WHOOSH noise and afford a sense of
privacy that our yard flOW lacks. II is i.rnp0s3ible 10 c:my on a conversation in the front yard at A
norm eJ volume when there is traffic:. .
6.} Our pn>p<r1y yalue IS negatiyely impacted by thelaok of priyacy and noise in our front
yaN. Since I am a rea] t;S.tate broker and have sold property on Universily I am keenly aWaIe (If
the factors whic~J affect .... alue. Properties along Umversity that are somehow isolated from
Un:iv(',rsity by a fence or walJ are much more appealing to buyers than those that have (lpen yards.
We arc aWAre lhal there i$ concern that ifwaJls were allowed that University Ave. would take on a
txlwJing eJley app¢a!1U1c.e. This concern is not in tune w[th le.ality. It is, in fact, in the best
.""nomic;"!<rest of the honloown .... to m like P1chit«turally appealing and tastefully done ren«,
Of walls that are nicely landscaped that would have little or no negative visually impact from the
etreel. Any (enc", we would ooild would 00 huvjjy landtCSipcO with a hedge or other planting so
thai o,e fence would be rurdty noticed. Even now there are many plopenies that have landscaping
thaI make H diffi",1! to tell if they eyen have a rence of any hei$ltt
We apprKlate the City's willingness to study this iosu. and hopefully the ""noems I have
outlined above will er.courage the City to amend the wrung ordinancc to allow six fcot fences on
th'propei1y lin .. for lots whioh front on University. We dearly mee' the guidelines for getting a
\lllnan~ to build a six foot fmCoe, rut the expeC\Se and time required to obtain a variance is
sorueil1ins we have b«n unwiJIinglo endure. fh.ank .. you you as:a[n for your consideration of this
mtUtr. J am available at anytime to discuss these issues further Ifit woutd be ofh.elp.
Cordi.~ 6-
. ~-!'J;ft;/\ih.~
-1 Robert raylor Q
end.
i
I .1
I
I
Curb
DrlvG','Iay
Ap<oo
,.
Sld"",.lk --H~:
Frcot
yauj
fen", --.;-.'
wthack Une
Centerlino
01 drlvowar
\ r
EXISTING SIGHT
DISTANCE TRIANGLE
MODIFIED SIGHT
DISTANCE TRIANGLE
DRIVEWAY SIGHT DISTANCE ILLUSTRATION
.. \,
dty ot P .. lo --'1'1:0
Divltol!;," 01 &.JHd1r't'J Ir.lp.etlon
hnc. h .... lt hili iHl ... ,nhrw::.1 YII ___ 10',, _______ _
"'to [.-,.;:ro,l("I'!"'''.t tru\t tnt $II)
TU __ Io'O-iQtd ,"UI , __ _
..",,,----~
"ddT() s'. ___ ... _
euildu'
'fific-ii -5escrlptlon :--" -----PTO't"PT iil-mo."--f"i.\ Ie.
CHili, rUIJ .. ~ll
"" .. -. .. ..-....... """ ...... _~.~.~ .... ,,~ . ..-) .... _b" ... k..::.. ~..."."til .........
~ ... ~'''"'''"_."" ........ ,.CO''.I ... ...-... "t ....... , .. ~,._ .. JIot .. ..., ............... ... ~-"II_ ... ..-_'""'_ ... ~ .. __ ....................... '...,,,.lo .. _ ............ ...
oI ... ('"..,.ol ... /JIooo.l .. ...-$I..o.<.t ....... ""J,f_ ..... ~ ............ ,..,...,... .. ,~_ ...-..-..... __ ..,...,_.r-... .. ___ ... ,\;o,..(.,...,." .. ,.,..l"., ....... " ... ~ ___ 01"'1"''''''' .... _", ... ,.,... .. _..-".
noo,.. __ """" ............ _ ... ,'"""_u1r-.-t-, ....................................... _01
_f1IJ_ ... ,..,.,. ....... __ ~._J.. __ .. ,.,_"'.""ol_'WI"',."t.,_ol .... ,... ....... .......
,.. • ...-.,_.,.,_ ... ''"'' ........ ~ ... ..,""'4...tI_ .... ~ ..... "" ... -.. ,_,, __ "'!"_,~
_O"O"IU .... e.ohOo ............... c ... (...-.. ,,_ .............. _(l.>~IJIJ., .. ( ... ( .... .,,:10« ...,....ol ... C ... ....,.,~ ..... O<'J'o:.til ............. "".n,lIIoL , .. """'t.. .. ~, .. I-... I_
".
1\.
totrDnto., or n~ PllJ4n "." ~ ~~ctI)(flf't ,~U'
1ft «'f'.!dtutll'ln ot t'!'.. " .. ,,ul!<'f4I 01 tJllt ~1-'1I. OW"nn a~
r.nlnu 'Mil "M.;;ta th .. l. ttl ... r~ Iil'Qrll ioIr-,dlr thh puwit
'''111 ~ W,. III 1oC'e<;l;r4""..<:6 !,tIl/'! tM .su<rlfUQft lIat tnth In tbia
r--nlt, tn. pr.whlMt 01 th, or4iMncn 0 tlla CHy nr ralo Alto
10M IU ~rUMfl't 'hta 11.\11 ,,..l !e.\lld ort.n of ~h. e>JUdl~
I",p..::lor. ('I.'1'1U.~ taTJloltt .. 1 !\au);>y VIU'lIt ~h.'t tlla hela
.lhtt4 ~M ~lal"~ I" thh panlt H. t.nla u t::auln .Utw.
OYt .. r ahOo ~U .. to IMaJOllLfr. 6-thr04 aM MM htnhu Ult Cltr
of ,.do .t.\t<;l. it.a o'iI<-"l'a, IlJahl. Ind "l(Itorl"'. ho .. ""1 "' .... ., ••
10+8.t IhblUly or Iny rulm:. wh,ho.nJ'. U\lIr4 In IItIcle or In
~II );>)' IUWo'I ur. or 1ft Ill)' ~M4.r ~t'" lilith, 'rI)' and aU
t'<'l""y(II~, c~ntIOO\t. ItruClI.Irs" U.!l<;:' anerwo;ht.4lnt or
~ ....... $IUN'.1 .\111'1-0,11'1'" or ,.....nlt<c.*<! br Olt. pll-.lt •
.t.l>OUIO¥AL (o;)~nrolt1 or nJ!lC'i DnO.I.<:bJ:" "kiln
f'Ilr .. ':; ... ~t t.o ~«:tlM 12.12.010 ,,' ttu r.lo ABo "lJnl~IPI'l ('<>J., ~~4t ~~:~~ ~.,~ t ~o<:i ~ r4n:~~~ 'i~1J;~ IS'lle::' Ch."::~~ h. i~ .. ~r:.~
.. ~ ill tr .. ur-t'lu ""'<"rll>M ,00\', OA till. for., .ubjl'ct to lha
roll<1.I .... , .j,JI'tI'N"\ t ....... I~ ccMI'tI_ .. :
i. r;:. ....... r ""lIll, .'t 0.,,1'4.'. 11-01 ..... ~M •• r • .ov. '!lid ~~!~~~7-rt~>t~r (I<:% .. i ·lri.c°I"::~~{.;:1\~o~:.7it~,1 r ~~~,.J~3!t ~1;hf~
~~~;~~trCll~ ~~!'~. ·~~ .. h:~::;;l':f ~!~~~ ::I\~e:. ~~o~nt,,~;'!. ~~~~
.,'.:-fCO~'~ .. I.·'t or hfr,wlunt \llthl ... ~h. ~hol1l,p+clfil'd, t'ha us .. _lilY
~t::~;;~ t~~ c~~~ f:.!r~~f F~"1':r~y 17~n *~~·~i ~·W~I~t ~~~~:
PrC¥lJl'1 !"'U';Hll t..,. I~a pro .. hlonll or C!'!aptu 9JIS or U:II Palo
Alto ~'" <:: r-ll C0;:4e. 'thh pe-rdl ,'ut. 00 a"hts In lh.e. ru'.at4!'
Qt ev'UIi.
I. All or 01 ... Ol'ldLlI0¥I1I .r.S pro;lblo)l'l' Iht~ hlul,. .l,dl
t.. M""! • ..q ~ ¢Y,.u. l'IlI e<:>-ovn., •• h.lra, Inl1Jtlr, h"r.de:rul[. tnd
n"C'o:"'I·~~. 1ft Inurut (If IV't"y rlatl.lU.
I. ,.,... 11)('fw<::h.en't. ~l\ltnlCtiOrl or \II" _hall Mt .lIt .. );)
t'r~ tilt oIr"~ I.:!uttrll';i u)-J Gf"I.::ltlw In thl. ptr .. lt.
4. th ... .r,(:fOllCh:u:l't It.,11 rx>t rutrlet ,,1.lblllty to tny
Itafrle <:.:>r.trol "'t~lc,u or ~11Jn ...
5. Tt... """[o.c~,.~M .'11/1111 not 'block or cO'l~r IIC-CII'U to /lin)'
t!!!~HY p.>lt, .J!'>Moh. VIIIlJll, clur:out, .... h., l'-lfICtlon or •• tlr
. at luc.:~,a ;--rJ'{M·~·~~~':: I;~. !O'l~hin .~~"!~ ~o:re c~~,n~f!n~
(otrH''IK'U<:,n tlull be ito, <:-Of\!oruhCa 'IoIlIb phlll! .apprO'/oM Ily the City. .....
'.
' ..... .-:. ,':", .'.'
Environmental Oocuments -City of Palo Alto
ENV!RQH~Al ASSESSMENT
Project Description/Title: J.xt amendm"nt$ U the fen~QrJlliJ_lil~j>_~
.l§~24 MHO to allow the location and constryction oL§.:1Qot-bjgh fenc'ts __
withtn the front and street side setbacks fpr ~.n.UiLprop'~rty O'ontfng on
University Avenue, between Middhfield Road and the e~rn Cjty 'limit. __
location/Address: lln1w:ilty Avenue between Middlefield Ro~ {"tero .011'..
limit.
Sponsoring Agency/Applicant: Cltv of palo Alto --~----.--.
Address and T.lephone of Applicant: ~2.,50i--JlH~ar,!,'i!-,l"t,,-on~A~v,!,en,!,u!-';e,--_____ . _____ _
___________ :::========~~P£ti~I~O~AI~t;0.~~t=9~43~P~I== ____ --__ ~_-_>_-=== _ __ (4151 329-2442 ___ _
Application for: tin., Ordinance Text Amend~ ___ >.
Zoning at Project Location: Varies Fee Receipt No.: lilA_. __
!!OTIC E Q f QfillltH!!AT! ON
Based upon review of the project fi leSt t~e undt!rsigned member of the Plannillg
Department has concluded:
IXI Ne.gatiye (Jec1al'njoo: The project has no sl9n1 ficant environmental
impact. No Environmental Impact Report is required. The redStlns for a
Negative Declaration are:
in the lthched Iolthl Stydy. A rec<lrd of the project actioD is
.available {Dr review at the Palo Alto D.wt.tiIi~t of Planning anL __ _
CQmmunity EnY..ironment between the hours of B:qO AM t9 12;00 nooo ilOo.
J :pO PM to 5:0p PH. Honday through friday. located on the 5th flill.J_n_
the Palo Mto Ci~1c Center at 250 Hamilt<ln Avenue. Palo Alto.
[I The project may,h;:l,I/~ a significant environmental impact. An
£nviropmental Impact Peport will be prepared.
Planping Oep .. ·tment Official: ~t£. ~
PlanningOiNctor: ?Ji~fl:,f2 Q'/'-lraM Date:. 3/3('1Y
ElANOO
The project has been approved.
The project has been denied.
Date:
Date:
94·[lA·3
I
tIIVmONMEfITAl DOCUMENTS -PALO ALTO
INITIAL STUDY' ••
!. Project Tltle/Address: Fence Ordinan£Lkxt P""un",dm"" e"'n"'t _______ _
II. Project Description: Text amendm~nts to the Fence Ordjnance (Chapter ._
J.9..l.L!>a»Cl to .llow the loc.tion and construction of 6-foot-high fences
within the front and street side sotbacks for residential p,'ooerty
frontIng ~n University Avenue. between Middlefield RQad and the easte~
City lim1 t, ______ _
JJ I. Envh'onmental SdUng: University Ay?nue ; s an arterial rQad. The road
lJL~~ In an urban eovjroomgnt. and is bounded by single-family and
m~lllru.~.:.famlly resjdential yses. _______ _ ___ _
IV. Environmental Impact Checklist (Explanation of .11 "yes" .nd 'maybe'
answ~rs are in Section V)
I. lld!!. Wi 11 the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or changes
in geologic substructures?
b. Dtsruptions, displacements, campac·
tion or avercovering of the soil
c. Ch.nge In topo9raphy or ground
surface rel ief featUl'es?
d. The destruction, covering or modi·
f1cation of any unique geologi~ or
Physical featu .. .,?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion
of soils, either on 01' off the .site?
f. Exposure of people or property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides l mudslid~s, ground failure
or similar hazards?
ill HAVSE
* ~dapted from Appendix I, California f,uidelines for Im~lementation of
CEQA, Decemb,r 14, 1976.
** Updated 1·lay 1982, June 1983 .-.
EIACKl 94·F.IA·3
I
!ill
_L
... L
_L
..x.
..x.
.',
.:..\ .
'~(: .'.
£lACK!
.\..
9, Changes in sllt,tion, deposition, or
erosion which ro,y modify the channel
of a 1'lYel' or the bed of a bay or
inlet?
l. hlr. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial alr emissions or de
terlor.tio/\ of .mbient .irquall ty?
b. ine cr •• tlon of objectionabl. odors?
c. Alteration of air ffi~vement, moistUre
temperature, or any change fn c1;4
~ate, eHher locally or reg;cflal?
L K'lli:. Will the propos.l result in:
a. Changes in absQrption I'ates l drainage
patterns, Qr the rate and amount of
sUi'face water runDff?
b. Alterations to the course 01' flow of
flood waters?
(;, Discharge into surface waters, or in
any alteration of surface water
quality, Including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity?
d. Alteration of the direction or rate
of flo~ of ground waters?
e. hposlH'e of people (lr property to
water relat{!d hazards suc~ as flooj4
ing or tidal wav~?
f. Ch.ng, In the quantity of ground
w.t.rs, .lther through direct
add It Ions 01' withdr.w.1 s, or through
lntercopllons of an .quif,,· oy cuts
or excavations?
4. flAnJlJli~. ~ill the propos.l result in:
a. Change in the dive,'s; ty of species, or
number of any species of plants (in
cluding trees, shrubs, grass, cropsl
microflora and aquatic plants)?
94-ElA·3
2
_x_
[IACKl
b. Reduc!!or, of the n"",be,'s of ony
llnlque. rare 01" en.dangered species
of phnts?
c. Introduction of new species of
plants into an area, Qr In a barrier
to ,the l10rdal replenlsMtrtt of
existIng species?
d. Reductjo~ in acreage of any
agl'lcultur.l crop?
5. Ar!.1JllIJJJf. Will the propoHI r.sult In:
!. Cbanqc' in thE> diversity of species I
or of any 3pet:h·.s of anival s ,biros ~
land anir;ah. irH:lucUng rl!pti les.
fish and shellfish~ benthic or9anis~s.
insects or n1crofawna)?
b. Reduction of the nu:tber.s. of an),
unique, ... we 01' endangered' spec.1es
of ardrnill s1
c. Introduction of new spec1es of
animals into an area., or result In
a barrier to the rdgl'atlon or rriove·
rrRnt of an1~bls1
d. Deterioration In .. Istlng fish or
wildllf. habitat?
6. ~. lin 1 the proposal result In:
7.
8.
a. !ncreases ~tl exhting noise levels?
b. Exposure of peapJe to severe nGise
I.vels?
light .q~~-!. 11111 the propos.1
produce new light glare?
1~4-~'~' Will the propos.1 result In
a substantial alteration of the pres.nt
or planned land use of an area?
ill
94-EIA-3
3
[JACKl
s. fner9y/H.tlll·al Resourc<t.!. Will the
proposal "esult In:
10.
a. Use of substantial a~ounts of fuel
or energy:
b. Substanth) increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or
require the development of ne~
sources or energy?
c. Increase in the rate of use of al)Y
natural .~es{lurces1
d. Substantial deplet\{)n of. any IH)nre~
newab1e natural resource?
tlsk of __ ~JL~. Do.s the proposal
involve a risk of an explosion or the
tel ease of hazardous substances (in
cluding, but not limited to} oil,
pesticides, che~icals or radial ion) in
thp. Event of an accident or upset?
II. EQllYlill.P.!1Ltl9J1.l.iJJ.9..
a. Nlll the proposal alter the locatlon,
distribution, density, or growth rate
of the human population of an area?
b. Will the proposal effect existIng
housing, or create a demand for
additional housing?
11. Transportation/Cir,ulatjoQ. Will the
proposal res lilt in; ....
•. Gener,tlon of ,ubstantlal addltlonal
vehicul,H' movement?
b. Effects on existlng par~lng facili
ties, or dem~nd for new parking?
c. AlteraUons to present patterns of
c.1rculation or m()l,'em~nt of people
and/ot' goods?
d. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicycl i sts or pedes.t"ians.? .L
94·ElA-3
4
liQ
J...
.. L
.L
x
[lACKI
IJ. tubl1c Ser,;ces. Will the proposal have
an effect upon, or result in a ne~d for new
or altered goverom~nta1 services in any of
the following areas:
a. fire protection'!
b. Police protettion?
c. Schools?
d, Parks or other reneational
facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including rOilds?
f. Other govenmental serl.lh:t!S?
14. llli1l1.i.!i~. Will the proposal result in a
need fo)' n!;!w systems, or substantlal
alterations to the following utilitl.s:
a. Power or natur~ 1 gas?
b. Communicati~ns systems?
c. '~ater?
d. Sew('.r or septic tank?
e. Storm ",,'ater drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
15. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. (r.ation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard 'excluding
montal health)?
b. Exposure of people to p~tential
flealth hazards?
16. Aesthet;cs. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the pubiic, or will the
proposal result in t~e creation of an
aestnetically offensive site open to
publi<: view?
.. (
_...l __ _
9-1-£iA-3
S
h
\ ,
\\
YES t!,\Yill; !ill 17. lltill.illM . Will the proposal result
in an Impact upon the quality or quantity
of .xlsUn9 recreational opportunities? .1-
18. CultunL Resource.;.
•• Will the proposal result in th,
alt.ratlon of/or the destruction
of • pr.historlc or historic
archaeological site? ~.
b. Will the propos.l r.sult in .d·
verse physical OJ' aesthetic effects
to a prehistoric ~r historic
building, structure; or object? ..L
c. Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a phYSical cnangp. which
would affect unique c~ltural values? ..L
d. Wlll the proposal restrict existing
rei igious or sacred lIses \"Hnin the
potential impact area? ..L
19. HandatQn findjng~ of Si9Difl.uru;g.
a. Does the project hav, the pot.ntlal to
degrade the Quality of Hie envh'onment,
substantially reduce the h.bitat of a
fish or ,,,ildlife speCies, cause a fish
or wildl ife Population to drop below
self-sustaining la~e1s, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduc.e the number or restrict 'the
range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples
of the rnajc,' periods of Califomia
history or prehi story? ..L
b. Does the project "avo the potential
t~ achieve short·terro, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, env i rGlunenta 1
goals? (A short-term impact on the
env;r~nment is one which occurs in a
relativ~ly brief, definitive period
of time while long-term impacts will
endure we 11' into the future.) _L
[JACKi
94-flA·J
6
:J
<. Does tho project h.ve I',pacts which
.re Individually limited, but
(umuht iye ly conslder.b 107 (A pro·
j eel nay ill'lpact On tW{l Ol' more
separah resources-where the impact
on ~.ch resource Is relatively
sm.ll, but where tho effect of the
tohl of those ' .. pact. on the
enylro"",nt 1$ ,Ignlflcant,)
d, Ooe, the project haye e.viro""enl.l
effects vhlch will cause ,ubst.ntl.!
adyers~ effects on hUman beings,
e!the,' directly or Indirectly?
V. ExpLanation of ·yes· and ·l1aybe· answers -In eni'ironrnental checklist.
[JACK I
'. ,,' . .,;:..;.:..,~;
Se. 'thehed.
94·[!A·3
7
;.-.
'. ~ ..
, "
] Earth (f): The area is located within a s.els!:!ic area of I'l'.-oderate l"j sk, and
would be .ubject to very .trong ground sh.klng in the event of '0 e,rthqu,k •.
"The propo$ed Fence Ordinance amendment will not have a sigIllflcant ilt.pact cln
the safety of home{llfne-rs or pas;si!rs·by. Although fences up to six fed in
height are not regulated by the Vniforl1l Building Code, It hu been detemine"
that the potentl.1 Imp.ct on life and properly caused b), fences during ,elsmic
activity Is I,s$ th.n slgnlfic.nt.
UoJ1LW: There wlll be a tempo."ary incre". In the nols. during
construction of new fenc~s along University AVerHtt. All c-onstruction activity
sh.lI c",'ply with the provisions of the Moise Ordin .. " (Chapter 9.10).
Increasing the allowable fence height frOD four feel to six feel .long
UniYel's1ty Avenue illay in(n~ast? the a:::.ount of rerlected nols'E! E'xpericl1cl;!d by
residents, pedestrhns, bicyclists and r;';)torhts-. The .... uylng types of fem:~
materials and construction wnl result in varyin9 levels of oof'se reflection.
B~ca\Js~ it is expef.ted that fences. will not be (ontinu'Ous. btJt .,·;il) b~
interrupted with driveway and gat.ew,1.Y openin9s, planUng an?i!S ~ and other
openings, the potentj~l increase of refl2ct1v~ nOise c~uSEd by t~e increased
fence height fro,'i1' four to sh: feet is considered to be inslgni fk;snt.
lLJLansMLtlliQnLfinmUQUdl: The IncrNsed f.nce height witOin the
front and" street side ynd setback ~ay reduce sight rlistilnce ilt intl2"rsec:tions
and driveways, In order to prevent ha7"uds to r..otCtr vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians, fences on (orner lots will be required to c02ply with the current
visibiHty triangle at intersections, MdH1ooi!illy, drive'Way sight distance
standards al"e proposed to eliminate the risk of accidents caused by vehicles
backing out of driveways ioto the public rlght-of-.ay.
~blic Seryices-Lbl: Allowing the conslruct;on of slx-foot-high fenc.,
1"111 afford 9rl,!at~r se-curity for personal property than th~ (orrent allowable
fence h4?ight of four feet. Personal propt?rty tha.t 15. hldd'en fror."j view is less
11kely to be stolen and higher fences present obst~c)es t~ trespassers.
HowevE'I', the same screening whi<:h provides added security for personal UelTiS
may also provide hiding pl.ces. ~Ithout direct view .f lhe properly, Pollee
Department personnel may have a ~re difficult tfn€ dete(tin~ the actions of
trespassers and may be r/;!qu~red t.o devote add! lioflilil tlf1'Je an~ staff to.
appre~end suspected tr~spass€rs. The Pol;c~ Oepartrn~nt conSiders this trade
off to b. balanced ."ra11 and h.~ dclermined that this project will not n.vo
a sign1ficoJilt ,impact on Police Department personnel, a .... a1hble re:iources or
(Grrmtoflity safety and security.
li Aest!Jllill: Increased f,nce height wllhln th, front and street side y."d,
will limit views of He hoo.es aod w111 alter the UnlversHy Avcnup
streetscape. The close proximity of a fence to the sidewalk edge 1 irnits. VlH'S
of the homes to the second· story of a multlple-s.tory home and th~ roof of a
single·stGry homE!'. The result. 15 a loss in views of front doors, porches and
other ground level features that enhance the al'c~itectur€ of a home and add hI
the character of the streetscape and the sense of connection bet~een ho~e and
side',.,.alk, or public and privatf! realm. Furtfiertr,(Jr~, the co~f()rt of the
sidelialk"'changes with the construct ion Df os six· foot·high feriw agai nst the
[IACKI 94-UA-3
8
\~ . " .. " "
,,'
, '
, ,'.'
property line, The pedestrian become. otlented to the street and traffic
rather than to the homes and front yards of their neighbors as is currently
the case,
The proposed fence Ordinance amendments ~ncl\Jdes elements to reduce aesthetic
Impacts caused b)' higher fenCing and enhance the st,.etseape .. vi.".d fro.
the public right-of-way, Homeowners will be required to design fences that
are consl,tent with the .rehitecture of the home. In this way. the
interesting elements of the homes being concealed. are repeated and reflected
by the fence Itself. Fences would also be required to malnt.in at least a
five-foot setback from the Sidewalk. regardless of the location of the front
or street side property lines, This will result in s"ffklenl spacing fOl'
landscaping and irr1gation to screen tht! fence, which; s al so a proposed
reqUirement, therefore impro~1n9 the pedestrian experlence.
[JACK) 9~-EJA-3
9
,'. "
March 18, 1994
City of PAlo Alto
Plannibq Department
PO Sol< 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Sirs:
RECErVED
MAR 211994
RE: Fence Ordinance Text
AmendJ11ents
We are 'Writing once again to voice Our support of ttte proposed
text amendments to the fence ordinance which would allow the
location and construction of 6~'foot-high fences within frone and
street side setbacks for homes fronting on UniverBity Avenue. In
this area, on such a busy street, with both heavy pedestrian and
vehicle traffic, it is vital for residents to be able to protect th~m8elveB Bnd their familias fr.om the unfortunate llside effects" of such a situation.
We applaud the Planning Dep~rtment for its efficiency in framing
the proposed amendment and we thank the City of Palo Alto for its
flexibilit}, to be able to change rules to fit changing times.
Sincerely,
<--(. I' \ " ~ ~4 '" ---_ \, l to ,_ '-i-. Sharon ~I. Conte -
789 University Avenue
Palo Alto
Dec~mber 3, 199)
Planning DepBrtmant
CIT~ OF PALO ALTO
l>. o. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
C1S
GlllSO>I SPIJI'O
(OIolPAlIfl['
I
ATTENTION; Planning Director
Planning commission
City Council
RE: FeNCE ORDINANCE AMENDIIEN'r--IJlIIVERSITY AVENt'E
Gentlcll1en:
I have been a longtime resident of Palo Alto l and have
resided at 428 Haple Street for the past 10 ye~rs.
The proposed ordinance amendment" to allow the construction
of 6 foot fences along university Avenue, in my opinion, is
a seriolls threat to this major entry into the c1ty~
While I empathJ.ze with the many residents of University
AVenue who desire security and privacy, those property
o\oloars purchased with the understanding that Universit.y
Avenue lias a major t.horoughfare. To allow the construction
of ,what will end up as a whIled tunnel, similar in smaller
sCC'l;le to 'What has occurred 011 our freeways, is a very
threatening and unwise change to the present park
environment.
!lot only, will the proposed change cl.~eate a wall~d,
uninviting thoroughfare and IItr-ont door" to the neighborhood
c)nd the Downtown, I doubt thi;,.t a 2 toot height chnnge will
create a GUbstantia1 noise and/or securit~· improvement for
individual property owners. Allowing tor Visibility from
the street should be a major safety consideration. 'We have
all heard how the sound attenuation advertised by the
State's highway departrn~nt has turned out to be jllst the
opposite for the property owners beyond the freeway walls.
r can imagine the same possible impact in this insta~ce.
Finally, 1 feel that the change could actually create a
decline in property values for the Crencent P~rk
neighborhood because of a possible "walled ci ty" atmospher-e.
---------H35T«b ...... ""'''W~l.SUit~ 125 • SlIl.ktsf,CII· 95110' '-'(\8:43&-1100, Fn<M'<llS·7H/J
FENCES ON UNIV~RSITY AVENUE
pogo ~
Decellbor' 3, 1993
Please: preserv.e, :out" 119i9hborhood and boautiful antry to the
Downtovn arol'!., rather thl'ln allowinq it to be walled off
to tho outGido lJ<>rld. Our problflrls ara really due to
trAffic and, the-posf'>ible:' throat ot intrllsion onto pr';'vate
property which will. not b"" 601ved by raisin9 the
"drawbridge" by 2 teet.
Ver~~ truly yours.
~7~~_c--;~_
<-fll-oll Gi!?so1l"
CC: Crescent P<1rk Upighbo:rhood Associatioll
I
\
I
Planning Co •• ission
City ~f Pal~ Alto
Palo Alto. Ca.
Gentleaen;
3'i46 Louis Road
Palo Alto. Ca 94303
l1arch 22~ 1994
MAR 241994
.... "10 (X.(i Vt.r~1
i.I~;'''':.". _. ,:.nj
0';It;:~.yf,~·ro.-,j,*11
I understand that the Plannin9 co •• issi6n has 9r~nl~d the
ho~es along University Avenue relief 'roR the fe~ce hei~ht
requirelent of th~ buildi~g code. Tnis will allow then to raise
the fence height to abate the traffic noise caused by th~
increase auto traffic along University Avenue.
I also understand that you dlsre9arded the recQft~end~tio~
of the Department of Planning and Conlunity (nviron~ent 10
include other streets that fall in \fle S.!llle c3te90r)l-su~h dS (o1St
C hl1rleston Road.
We are writing to ask thai you reconsider granting us thr
salle relie-f along Charleston Road th~', you ga\l.(' to L1ni .... ersit)"
Avenue.
We have been living on t~e corner ~f louis Rd and
Charleston Rd since 1959. We have watched the trdffic alon~
Charleston increase until tne the noise fro. l~e traffic has
becole unbearable. The traffic ei~ Gn Charleston no~ i~cl~de~
large truc~s. lB wheelers. heavy co~.ute traffic (raveling at
speeds (in soae cases) in e~c~ss 0' ~ORph and he~vy cross town
traffic connecting between Bayst!ore.and hi9hway 280 fee-d,in9
through town arteries. This lrd,'ic hds crealed .conditions
si'il~r to Bayshore where they have erected high walls i~
residential areas to cOiba I noise pollution, Ue would li~e to do
the-saJr1e Ofl our property line along Charleston Roa(S,
We did n~l re~uest to be inclcded with Unlversit~ Avenue
because ~e-u~derstood that Charleston WAs already included in the
recoMlend~tion of the Deparlment of Planning and we did not feel
that the Board would discrieinate on the basis 01 non
par tici patioh,
We Cire. therefore, asking that Y(lU reconsider your previous
decision and include Charleston Road in conjunction with the
r'elief you have granted University Avenue,
\
t'"
, ~, .
j', ''"" ..
! I ....
!
l I.:·
t:
\ .
';',
11"
42:,v'\v'( "L~ j-..... ,'
,J: ri ':J
ON
r--.. '1
I
~_ .. I
, ~
. " t---
I
'r' , ..
._J
'.~ ,
.:; I r
';;: I "
,
, I ~.
I ,
r
I
\
, ,
.' .
, '"
L • \
:-l
. ,
!
r~ ~
i'i
¥i
Q
~ ~ "" ...
.' ,
a ~_
<, .
r-
L_
I
\
I
", ",
"-.. :; '. 't ",.. -.
• ~ I.' ',C.~ . I
,
" .:~~ . .......
L
'" ' "
""l ....
>' ! r-
.-.
L
• \
I --
EXCRRPT minutes of the Palo Alto
Planning ComroisRion ~eeting of
March 30, 1994.
AGENDA ITfM I ITtlCE OROINANCE T£XLMI_EIID!iElHS, The City of Palo Alto Is
propos1 ng text amendments to the Fence Ordinance (Chapter
16.24 PAMe) to allow the location and construction of
six·foot·hlgh f,nces within the front and street side
setbacks for reSidential property fronting on University
Avenue between Middlefield Road and the easteo'n city
limit. Environmental Assessment: A rcgative declaration
has been prepared for thi s project. rile tlos. 94.1(.2, 94·[JA-3.
khiirperson Schmidt: Are there any additional comments from staff?
Ms., Case: Yes, I have one. At your p1aces there is a suggested small
wording change to the ordinance where It mentio~s' fences located at an
Inters.ction, fmplylng that they would not be allowed to be up to six feet ~n height. Tflere 'are some sitllations in whicn a fence at an intersection
COuld b. six feet high. It Is all regulated, In any event, by Section
16.24.040, so we deCided it would be more proper to merely reference that
section. You will see the change that we have sU9gp.sted.
Chait'per~chll1i4..t: Are there questi<lns from the cOrMlissiorl?
tgmmissioner CarrascQ: ] have a question on that same section that Sue
just spoke to. How often would that sectfon apply at a corn ... where the
site distance would have c~t the fence down to four feet?
Mr. Colonna: It all depends "pan _hat the public ,·ight-of.way is 1 ike at
the corner. If it is a typical Palo Alto lot where the right-of.way f.
between 10 and 12 feet, that is the distance between the property line and
the curb line, it mfght"affect it greatly. Generally, on University
A\lenue, there is a ..... idel· right-oF-way and a Wider planting strip where the
03/30/94
-1-
\
j
I
magnol las are, It tends to be 15 feet.
tQjTlll!ssionel' Carrasco: So if you have .::I five-foot sdback from the back
edge of the sid.walk to the slx-foot·high fence, you would probably not
ell p tha t cOI·ner.
Mr. Colonna; I have a viewgraph I can project for you. This is actually
a plot plan from our block book of a lot on Un Ivers Hy Avenue. In th l S
case , the biue line ;s the at'ea f(})' the llne-of-sight distance requirement
in that code section. The I'ed is the area within which you would not be
allowed to place a fence over thre~ feet. The green dotted line is the
proposed five-foot setback line from the back edge of th, sidewalk for
slx-foot-hlgh fences.
Commissioner Carr4sc~: As I recall, those sidewalks could intersect each
oth~r at 90 degrees most of the tine. I take it that this is an unusual
cirC(Jmstance. I do. not )'ecall seeing many sidewalks with a curve. J
believe they usually come to a 90~degree corner.
HG_JJ!19M~: Ttley may. 1 cannot recall. Thls is an actual lot. It is
roore dependent upon the property line and the width of He right-of·way
from property line to curb th~n how the s1de'l'ialk is actually configured.
~..Q.llJl)iss1oner Beech~l'fI; I t,'Ould agree with Tony t~at mos.t s.idewalks are
right allgles at that cor~er, J wonder if you can take a minute and show
(Ill the chart what it would 1.001<. llke if the ~idewalk were squal'e<l.
(TI1;s is done)
So by eyeball extt'apCtl ation, we hav(' about a two-foot elem~nt of the fence
that would have to be set back. at that tt'iangular cot'ner?
Hr. Colonna: Yes, approximately.
fllll.rQ..erson Sc.h.o:lJ.I11: If there are no further questions, I wi 11 opcn t~e
puhlic hcaring, Tonight, for t~e first time, we are imposing our
fiye-minute time limits. First we will hear from representatives who
h.elped bring this ordinance change t'ecorMlendation to fruit ion, and they
are fr.om University Avenue.
~rg~e~~iversity Aye~ Palo Alto: I would like to say
that the residents of Univtrsity Avenue are pleased, even delighted, that
staff has followed the Planning Comission's recolM1endation to r>ropo·se an
ordinance that would allow six·foot fences along University Avenue.
However, when my neighbors received the staff report, a few questions and
sor"e suggestions arose. The question was that people were not quHe clear
about the ordinance with regard to the height of any posts or pi 11 at's
which a homeowner might need to constt'uct for structural or esthetic
reasons. In the little booklet that we get from the Building Department
on fences, it tells you if you haye a four~foot fence, a post or pillar
can be five feet high or a little more. I am unce}'tain about that. We
were hoping that with six-foot·high fences, posts or p;'lar~ would be
proportional, that is , on a six-foot fence, se .... en feet. I could not quite
tell about that from the ordinance.
Other th" that question, the othe,· two items at'e suggestion" J will let
03/30/94
·3·
r
.' ,. -:
~y neighbors discuss them. Dr. Pinto will be tal~ing about the placement
of fences on front property lines. The other sU9gestion concerns the
pl" .... nt of side-street fences On corner p,·op.rties. Bob Kaufman will
tall< about that. Once ag.ln, J want to thank staff for theIr report and
the tI~ and effort "pended. J also want to th.nk the pla nnin 9
cOElmlss1ofi~rs for their tons Ide ration.
tkrltn.J:lD19, 1845 Unhers.!1x..AY_enue, palo Alto: I, too, want to thank
the Planning (ovml,slon .nd staff for their receipt of the recommendation
and theraYONOle report. I do want to sp •• k about the issue of the
pl.t.".,nt of the fences. Originally, we "ere Infomed that a majorIty of
the houses had about a five-foot s.tback from the sldew.lk. I happ.n to
own on' of the houses that has a two-foot setback from the Sidewalk, which
r~lates • little bit to chang's to tho tree line th.t have already
occurred, because t~& street has been widened a little bit, so there ;s
less of • planting strIp from the sidewalk to the street. I also bappen
to O'ltf) one of the 5~a))er houses. I th1nk it is pretty clear, if you look
at $01U!' of the ~aps. that ma.ny of the property lines do relate to the
ar(hit~ture of th~ houses. as well as the size of the lots and previous
ellcNilchr...ents into the planting stdp. So the variaDl1ity of the pl'operty
lines really does vary atcording to changes that have already occurred on
the street, as we)) as: to sl)me unique cha.ractcrisUC5 of the properties
thenlselves. What I am suggesting 1:S that the property 1 illes thems:elv~s
~re really a~ adeQvat~ location for these f~nces. I called the city
agency it coup1.e of weeks ago with some information about -exactly "'here the
propel'ty lines are. I was told that there w~re a hundred properties from
Hlddlefleld Road to the city limit _ Fifty-oroe of them have a three-foot
setbaCK; 39 of them have a four· foot setbackj only eight of them have a
five-fool setbac~. Two of them hav~ a two·foot s€tback. J am sure these
were rough Hltmates, because when 1 asked about my property, ] .. las told
that It v.rled from lwo to two-and-a-half. When I called this we,k, 1 was
in t~e three-foot setback r~alm.
So I .am -suggesting U,at a five-foot setback does actually impinge on what
Is no. the sHe of a pO'oposed rence for the majorlty of the houses on the
street. In addition, it s:€~ms as if, parado.xically, that we are trading
hit> feel or lineal' feet for two feel of e1evation. It is humorous to me
that you h.,. to ~ve two feel back to get two feet higher. I would only
stress that 1 think one of the main r~asons 'Wh~Y many of our residents
prefel' the property line is because the architecture ('If the street and
pl.nting strip really do allow for fences of this heIght .t th' property
1i1l~. There is adequate room~ be it three, four, or even hJo feet,: for
.ttractlve plantlng and landscaping. I think the cO""'ission should
conslde,' th.t. Thank you very much.
t1~Xg~r_~L..iI!.e.~_~jJ19 .... f.9 .. r.J~ .. QJ'--Ka uf man •. _J HI 0 Un i ver..ti1Le.1,I e n u ~: Bob
Kauf~&n would do this [~re persuasively because his property is a corner
lot. n. has been d.layed tonight, but I have. paragraph written by him
to read. In the ordinance, it calls fO)' side-street fences on cor('J(?r
prope-dles to, be 51)( fe~t high and five feet in from the sidewalk, the
same as for fences fronting on UniveI'sity Allenue. I guess it is the
feeling of corner property owners that thay would like to r€quest, if
possible, that the ,ide fences h. on the properly line, that is, two feet
back f"om the.sidewalk. The rational. for this "'quest is two-fold.
f1rst~ corner ~Quses: are closer to the str~et on the $ide streets, the
sides of their houses. If six·fool-high fcncas are set five feet back
03/30/94
-4 -
,i'
.}
I
1
","-' ", ~~.-..:-..;.~-.. -, .
from the sidewalk, this cre.te. a so,'t of c~rri40r effect between the
hOlSse and the fence. The s«c;nd r.aUonah is that while a fi\le~foot
setback may have be,n nec,,,,,yln tr~ln9 to preserve the effect of
University Avenue as a scenic Mtry to Palo Alto and .1 so in ol'der to
protect ,the pedestrian experlentE'. it Is not seen as essential <In side
streets, as tf'l~y are not m.atn erltrartce routes to the city, nor do they
have as many pedestrians. So baslcally? corner lot property Oh'ners, at
]east Bob Kaurl~n, ll"Ould ha\'e been askfng you for permiss ion to all{)w the
six.fool·high fence to wl'ap .round but not be placed five feet ~"k.
Thank you_
Mory Ca.pb'J.LJlli.Jovls ~ad,j>jlILAUQ: I 11,. On the corner of louis
Roa.d and Char)E:ston.' Perl Ically, we have a!ked about l1.wing our fence
h.ight ratsed. lhe l.ngth of our hou,e runs .lony Charleston. When I
heard that an ordfnance was being cOO$ldered, 1 'said, "'At last. Sot;'1ebody
~nderstands aboul t~e nois~.·· Then J dls,ovcred that you are only
considering University AvemuL I atll asking you to reconsider It for
Charleston Road also, the tufnc B hei'lvYi It ls oDisy. it Is constant,
Wher'l the doors are open, you cannot hNr yourself think. It is dirty; it
is pDlltJtingi and it is lon91.asling. We "'"'Quid like s~,{' relief fro;:, it
. also. I am a~klfXJ y.ou tD r~,ons.it'er. ~e nHd the Sill;';(> relief 35-.
Uniyerslty A'IIenue residents. This ,,'01,;1d be for the sid'e setback, Ihe
frorlt setback 1s aln~"dy Hi feet on l()uB Road. But J".ore of our pr(l'p~rty
is aloll9 Charlesten. Ue also need th~ relief. Please consider It,
llli'jJ!.S~~ __ J9_!!iJ.Q_~1~KQ..a!LP.lo Alt.: Our house face, lou\5 Road
and runs lengthwise along (harlcs.ton. \ore s~w in the pilper l~at there 'Was
an ordinance change being cons.idE-red', At thlt time. 'We did not (Oi>fe do~'"
to speak. because 'n'e figured that )'(lU would not discriminate against
Charleston Road on the bas.is t~;st it \las nDt necessary to pI·oyid.: som~
relief for us.. Hy tlnd'(>rs.hndirlg 15: Hut YOlJr staff had r€(orTirtended that
Charleston Road also be-studied. I ~.'ould appreciate being lumped in with
University A\lenue because H the previous spea~er said. the nni se has
bec()me li pollution. at least at OUt' 110lJ$e. HOh't'vet'. if you should
consider a slx·fopt·hI9h fence ,Ion9 Charleston, the five· foot setback
would not b'E! very desiro1ble, since It ,"-'ould almost be up against the side
of the house. Right now) we have a four· foot fence that; s approx.imately
two f •• t from the sidewalk. r would certainty think th.t under the
circumstances, that fOllr feet would be allolfed to go to six fest, rather
than having the setback b. (tve feel. ~e .'ould appreciate it if It could
be on the proprrty 1 ine Itself, because that wou1d g1vp. us a 1 ittle oore
of a barrier between the-house and the noi se and thf sl'rest, T\(o feet rna.y
not seem like much, but it may •• k. the difference b.tween being tolerable
and intolerable. we would appreCiate it if you ~l'Ould consider us, along
with University Avenue. in the ordinance-chilr.ge, Thank you.
~,b .. airDc-I·s.on Scnm.i!J.t: J understand that Bob Kaufman has arrived, We hiwe
had a summary of his COff~ents, and we can let him spe~k, if he wishes to
do so,
ftollKaYlm.ELJ_100 JLnivenjJy. __ A.uQlJg"._Pi3.l2 ___ AJto: All I really want to say
is that we feel that the ordinJnce sn{)uld sUite that ttlt> fences can be put
.t the edge of the sidewalk, and not three feet back. I really agree with
having them as dose to ttle street a'S possible. I rea))y think that that
1 ittle bit of sp<!ce is going to be ha.rd to landscape anyway, and to give
peGpl e the full use of their front yard. the ordinance s.hould state that
03130/94
·5-
! :
~ ..
•
I
I
i
I
the fences can be put ,'Ight at the edge of the slde .. l~ line, I.~
actually happy to s •• that the ordinance did deal.lth tho sid. lots for
thos •. on corner lots, That Is one thing I spoke about last time, J a ..
glad to se. that is going to be part of the ordin,nce, lhat Is the •• in
thing I wanted to bring to people's attention, our feeling lh.t the fences
should be allowed to be as far fo.ward as possible,
Eric Gilbertson, 215 Qakhurst P~~l1Mt<Lh!:~' Nortlally, I would not
come and address what appears to be a local 1 $s\Je' in another town, but I
see this as not being a local issue. I am really t<lncerned -about .,mat we
are doing to streets and how w. are lOSing the public spaces, Stre.t, are
one of ou,' most valuable public spac.s, and I think that too ","ch publ ie
good I, being lost here for wh.t Ise. as a pretty .lnl •• 1 g.ln III prlv.t.
good, I haye been following ,ome of the CPAC p,'oeeedings and discuss Ion
about how do you reinvigorate? How do you make col!'mtJnHy spates} One
thing you ,ure don't do is to line streets with blank walls, I think that
like the traffic circle, that started up in Fair O,ks, and now we h,ve
them in Menlo Park. and they are sprouting up in Palo Alto, too, this
could be th~ straw that is going to ~e.1d to a lot r::.ore lining Qf streets
with fences and wal' s, J don't care how nice you mdke the .... , h'hat sort of
architectural embellishments they have on them, you real)), d«grade the
street, most particularly fOl' bicycle and pedestrIan traffic, but also ftil'
automotive traff1c, although I am less (Q.n.t:erned about thE:' lath-r. J
think .... ·e are losing something in the cOfTmun'ity. I think you will sec
streets that have higher volumes and high€r speed traffic genel'atin9 I'l'.ore
r1GiS2. People will say, University Avenue 1 s a low speed street. but H
h:as high volu~s at the a,rn. and p.m. peal< hours, so they are getting J
fence 0" wall, Now I want a wall. It is going to look like lindenwood in
Atherton, I don't think we want walled , fented comnunit~e5. In the
midpeninsula.
Also, if we are going to get walls, you really wilnt to wat<h the sit'£!
clearance at'ound the dri\leways, If\ere was a lot of discilssion .about
bicycle safety, but few people understar.d what the major proble~s are.
People coming in aile' out of driveways and not paying attention 15. a real
bicycle safety problem, The problem with some of tn,'ethlng' is that you
al'e ta!<ing away my defenses., my abil tty to see, Quite oft'Er" by fences
that get too close to the driYe,'ay exit on the street. So if you ,,'.
going to ha'e some walls, you want to really walch the height and the
setbacks from driveways at the street. Thank you.
Chairperson $ch_mi<!!: Seeing no oth.r speakers, I will close the public
portion of the hearing and bring it back to tne corrmission. ArC! there
q~estions from the commission for staff?
Coroissi_oner Beecham: I wanted to follow up on a COJTi!'lent ~ade tonight for
exceptions fOj" posts and columns and other architectural details that are
found in existing Parag,'aph 16,24,020 on Page I of the ordinance, This Is
the paragraph that talks about four-foot-high ffnces, and says that these
things are allowed. Aside from the f1ve·foot-hei9~t li~lt. do t~ese
provisions also apply to the si~·foot-high fence that is allowed in the
new terminology on the second page? That is., would that be .allo~cd in the
ne14 ordinance?
Mr. Colonna: No, it was not en~isioned that po~ts would be allowed
higher. In the current ordinance, posts. are not allowed to go above the
03/30/94
-6'
\
, I
I
1
I
I
I
i : i
<j
fence height of six feet. If you are allow.d , six-foot-hlgh fence, th,t
is the maximum for e\lerything that is attached to the fence, simihr to
the seven-fool-high fence. The reasoning is that when you put up a
four~foot-high fence in the fron,~ Yilrd, H is more of a decor.1tive fence
th~n a fence that is supposed to be keeping someone out or for n01se
control. But ifth. comlssion w.nted to .dd .n allowable height for
posh for the six-foot-high fences that are proposed, we could add that.
{9JImlllloner Beectum: What about the ""ral other items In thi s
para9raph about the IS· inch width of columns, about the p~destrian 9ates,
etc. These, ag.in, "'e m.ntloned in Paragraph 16,24.020. 00 they apply
to our new Section (c) that we are adding?
Hr. Colonn.: Yes, that would apply. We did not Intend to take aw.y any
ri9hts that homeowners currently have, If they wanted to do a four-foot
fence at thei I' pl'operty 1 i ne, whi ch is currently all owab J e \I! it t, a
pedestrian gate PQr street frontage, they \I'ould be allowed to d() that.
Corrmlss10ner Cass"Ll; My sense is that .... ·hen \'I'e developed the five-foot
depth, that was really considered in terms of site lines and driveway
lines and the ability to center t~e triangle of a site and still be able
to see adequately, so by setting this back five feet, we can allow for
these kinds ()f site lines. If we allow them to come up to the sidewalk,
we lose that site line.
Ms. LVtlEt~ The site line deals with the COl'ners. I think what we heard
toni9ht In testimony .lso dealt with the length of the property line. Th.
five-foot distance was established for the length of property lines
because it refleets the typical property line distance outside of the
publ ic right-of-way ill the placement of the sidewalk. So in most
instances up and down University Avenue, you would not be able to go any
closer than five feet anyway, because yOll would be in pub I ie versus
private property. ln addition, we looked at the ability to landscape in
that area and the ability to feel comfortable as a pedestrian in proximity
to a six-foot-high fente, so we weighed those three variables· -the
prevai 1 ing property di stance up and 'down University Avenue, the need for
hndscaping {J think staff originally recorrroended a wider dimension for
that purpose) and the perception of pedestrians and the pedestrian
experience as they walked along the sidewalk. You might recall that we
felt it should be eight feet, which was a similar distance to the
laJldscape strip on the other side. The best feeling for a pedestrian
would be a balance of eight feet of landscaping on either side.
T~e COrMllss}on fel t that the prevail ing prope)'ty 1 ine distance WdS
pr{lbably the Inore reasonable place to locate the fence se.tback.
&Qmi~.siQnet:_Qjakian: r have two questlons. first, your having said that
about the property lines." as they face University Avenue, if r understand
it t'ight, a lot of the setbacks on the corner lots~ as we get to the side
portion of tnt! lot, are two-foot setbacks. Is that correct?
K~.!.......lYJ1~: We cannot say 'What the prev(l i 1 i n9 sctbac k i $ on C{Jr(ler lots.
They change. There are two-foot setbllcks, and there are others, but we
did not do an analysis of wh-lt is the prevail ing corner Jot sidew.a;lk
ri9ht-of-way relaUt1nship to the property line. 'We only did it along
Unive)'sity Avenue.
03/30/94
-7-
'. "
., .';,'-""
i
•
: ',,~ .
CoamissioolU' Ofaklan,: W. had at I."t one co""ent tonight, .nd one that)
recetv~d in a p~one cal) from somp.one who could not make the meeting,
suggesting that It would be more appe.ling to them to h.,. their fence on
the side lots back two feet th.n five feet. Since'it is not the
pedestrian side of their piece of property, they did not see that as b.ing
deleterious to h.ving people enjoy the scenic view. Is there a problem
with that?
H1.~: There would be a problem in two ways. One way is th.t in no
case could you put it any closer to the sidewalk than your property line
.llows. The City would not w.nt you to h.ve your fence constructed in the
right-of-w.y. Secondly, .11 sidewalks are pedestrian sp.ces, so the side
st,· •• t sidew.lks are just as pedestri.n as the front setb.ck sidew.lks
are, We would wa~t to thln~ about t~e environment we are creating along
tl1e-side street's just a$ we have g1'11en conslderation up and down
University Avonu •.
£ru!rnlu.liwe,' Ohkhn: My second question takes off from a cOrrillent by one
of the speake"s. Tonight,"e decided to ia'k about University Avenue as
it relates to fences, 00 we have any plans, down the road, to look at
fence ordinances as they relate to other parts of the City?
~i~' We certainly have expressed the fact that there .re other
streets in the cOlTllltmity, parti<:ll1arly arteri al s, that have experienced
these sam~ types of impacts that led the University Avenue neighborhood. to
petition the council for this amendment to our code, We raised the issue
of other arterhls in the previous staff repol't. But as an assignment, we
did not take on an analysis of t~ose streets, Also, we are not in a
position to accept an assignment to analyze all other streets in to~n that
rnllY have this need. although i think it is well wo"th hanging onto as a
ptlorHy amendment "in the futur'e, onc~ we conduct out' other work in the
advance planning that we at'e dOing through the Com.or{!hensi'lle Plan as a
followup assignment at some point.
tOmmiss1oner 01aktan; The last time we had some~ne speak on a different
area of town than tonight .~ if somebody in the cltilcnry wanted to see
that pursued, then would tneir avenue be similar to what was done by the
Crescent Park Ass{lchtion? W~uld that be to petition the council?
Ms. Lytle: That is correct. r want to mention that the staff is
current1y also petitionin'g the councii to put a c{lntrol on our work load.
W~ will be (oming forward at some paint soon with a council report to
request that some kind of priorities be set ~n what legislative amendments
we tack.le in ttl£' ne.xt two years. ~'e have been given more than we can
assume.
lli..i..r~IL.~,hm.ic1!: We discllssed 1n the prccOriVJlission m.eeting today what
sort of inspection would be a part of this, The permit prQcess itself is
very simple, A homeowne.· can go in t find out information about
r~.ql1ire:nents through the feoce ordtnance and booklet that describes all
lhp. information about fences, get a p~rmit for $30 or $90, depending upon
,:hath,,· there is any encroachment into the pub I ic right·of-way in or~er to
do the irrigation or landscaping. Then at the e~ld of t~e process, is
tncre any inspection by the city?
03/30/94
+
/i ,>< .•. _
\' ! ,
,
/1
. '
,
\
1ir.,_i2J..g,IlM.! Yes, fence penoHs ,lre slollar to building permits In that ,
you need to call for a fin.l, Ourlng that final, they will check location
>nd heights, They ,""uld also chotk on codified requ;,'ements in tn,
ordinance of li1:aterials and (olor, as well as landscaping and irrigation .
thlirlluJJ!:Li>ll!!i!l.\: They would, Indeed, check to see if the Irrigation
syste~ worked versus. sprinkler tJeacjs: s.i!l."ply planted in the front setback..
Is that cor reel?
~r~ ,~Q\Mlru.: Yes.
CQ!'[J)Jss.j(ln~L __ «;':u.s_el: Tt1ere 15 an appeal process in place, is there not,
for ex<optional prope,'tles? People can go and follow an appeal process If
there Is an ",ceptlo .. l prop .. 'ty1
Hi. __ Jsll~! Right, lhete Is always a variance to our regulations as an
adl1inistrat1ve rt'CRdy to .tny TeQulret'ent tha.t does not fit an exceptional
property,
~_Mlr.J:t~.r.12!L.s_-; __ ~."}JdJ.; If there are 110 t':<)re Questions.. let us begin
dhcussicn.
C'.QIJ.OO'~ _(QrJ'ii_~_s_lQD __ ~x __ carras.co: I will fI:.(Ive the staff recoIl¥l1endatiorl.
think it is .a wen co.)siden:-d ordinance-. 1, too, like Eric tonight, was
cO!1.cerned about the loss of a beautiful stret:!t with '.i:s.ibility of nice
hOX's.. But .llso, :;In bahnco(!'l the sect.lr1ty and quiet ilnd privacy that
these ho-useS-will i].lin from this ordinance Is. worth considering the
fl,~·foot ,.tb"k, At that pDint, I co.'" down to deciding that the staff
rec(.on~ndaUof1 'Of tne f~ve·foot s&tback is ir,;pcntant. The reason fc>r that
Is thot there FlUst b. some lee.ay 0" soce added landscaping that might
happe:n in that"dls.unce fr-om the b~~k of the sidewalk to the fence. both
on the UniverSity A,venut' s.fde. as well a!. on th~ setback on HIe-side yard.
Then:! is very lHOe Question (lbout the five~foot setback on Univel'sity
Avenue. However. I a~ going to speak to the five feet on the sid~ yard
setback. like Vic, Kathy Ueber c'lled t.e and as~.d that we consider a
two'(oot "tback fro. the bock of the sidewalk, I think that seyeral of
those properties are long. over 100 feet deep, and a siX-foot-high fence
two feet "'I fl'om til. back of the sidewalk Is not a pleasant proportion
to w.lk th.t clos. to, So I think It should be .t five feet ,'.th,r than
two feet from back of $Idewalk. Other than tnat, when this is being
considered by the City Council, [ ~ope that they will 10Dk at those
droJlflngs that staff h;Jd brought to \1$ in ollr e.~rly consideration of this
tssue in order {PI" (<luncH to de.a,rJy understand the feeling and the kinds
of spaces that a fh'e~foot setback creates versus c'! two~foot setback.
~JJJillQ: By (orrmlssion'r Gl" ler,
{orrt:1issioner SchW.1i: J think we should also discuss the idea of the
dec<lratlve P{)sts bein9 allowed to perjetrate the six-foot height. I would
iike to ask the maker of the motion jf he would consider il friendly
amendment to allow U18 posts or (olur.ns tl) extend to seven feet in height .
. CQ.rr~issionel' C'lrr~$.(9.: I do not ha'lle .a problem with that. As I
understand fr~m Joe, on Page 4, Entry Gates, had somehow covered this
is~ue of posts. Is that correct'~
.-\ .
03/3Q/94
,9,
r
•
. ,
-.,._ .. _-N<,,.......:.:.f .. ~·+r.:'_ ir.~"'.:..-._..:..·,
Hr. Co)oma: No, \<I'hat J ~as .expl,ainlng was that where the current
regul.tlons .110w .Ix-foot fences. It does not .llow posts to go .bove the
six·foot 11"1t. So Ire lrere pro,oslng • sl..llar restriction -. th.t you
not allow posts to go over six feet. How~verl it w.s n?l ~ (onscioYs
decision to prevent posts from going o,er that holghl. It was Just done
to remain tonsistent.
COmmissioner r~tL~l!Q: Would you suggest th.t they be set back lhat
.ddltion.1 three feet If they were to go up to SO". feet, like you had all
P.ge 4, under Entry Gates1
IU. lytle: On Page 4. the three·foot depth requlre",n! does not. haw. to
do with setback.. It h.s to do with the depth of one of those f •• tures
that you are allowed to build. People were .l •• ys Questioning how ""ch
could they do of tnls In the setback. so we •• nted to set • 11"lt th.t
allowed for an arbor or a trellis tr.at (If! support .a stur-dy vtnp and be a
fairly s~bstantlal structur~.
tcml1~i.2Iw_Laeecham: When you say depth, does trlat J;.P.an co!"dng fOrt1ud
into the streets<:ilipe? Or pus.hlng back intD thE' yar.;:l?
f1):J010nn.,i; It would be back into t~e yard. It Is a J:.easur~;r(>nt lnto
the yard. So it would be allow1(19 a three-(oot-decp stn.lttun~ from the
property 1 ine ~ack three feel.
COfrmls.iiruleLJarrasco: I prefer that Uds hC'corr.e an .altendr;-rent to thc
motion, bet~use r thjn~ there are $Ot.~ ~s$ue$ related to how wjd~ tnose
posts can be. We need to think. those out in .. separate discussion.
CMh'person Scf.illl.ill; So you are not 3cceptin9 (II fl'1endly (It;',endment.
(Right)
/:!QIlllli: l&!Iilllli1 one.Lkh!l!l;: I would I i~e to &U99.,t an .".ndoent to
m~tion that we allow decorative colu~~s or posts to extend above the
si)(·(oot height to a maximum height of seven f~d, thE'se decoNthe
columns or posts should not be spaced closer than s.x feet on center.
s[~: By Comml,sioner OJ.kl,n.
~JQnnA: St.ff would l;ke to sugg.st so~e ,doed wording t~.t It
include structural and decorative 0)' supportive and decol'atlv~ posts.
Co""1.£<lo.e. Schjn~: I like that I.ngu.ge.
Commissioner Car~~Q: Ho~ wide would you suggest that these posts be?
Obviously, tnese posts cannot be the entire length of tJle property.
lhe
Mr. ~olonn~: That is whY they would be b.t~ supportive and decor.tlve '0
that they would haye to have some structural quality,
COrm1issioner..L(H:r~§ __ C_.Q: I am asking norr wide-can thCly be. O~ you want to
set some kind of limit?
Ms. Case: There is currently no restr-iction bec.ause the depth language
does not 'pply to posts or columns. It only .pplles to the other
03/30/9~
·10·
'\
.. ",
~ ,
!
f,,'
I
! I ..
" ,
. -'. ~ '" .
·; .
pedestrian gates and trellises.
£Q]!ll1.Ui.Qher Carrasco: I am asking how wide, not how deep. Two feet,
four feel?
Ms. Cas.: I am saying that it will be the only one that has a width.
£htlrperson Schmidt~ Doesn't the existing one about the fo'Ur~foot fences
say 18 inches in width? (yes) So perhaps .e could us. the same wording .
. Commissioner Sehin,: Could I add that to the amendment th.t the
decorative and structural pGsts or columns cannot exce~d IS inches in
wi dth'/
Chairperson Schmidt: Is that acceptabl e to the seconder? (Yes)
Cbairper~chmj~: I feel it is wise to add that capability to allow
the col umns to extend somewhat abo\le the fence. lher{! are some long
pI"operties al()ng lfn1vet'sity A\lcnue, and some reHef to a c()ntinuQus,
sir.-foot-high batTier is abs()l ut~ly appropriate. 1 wi 11 definitely
support that.
COlMlhsioner GljU'jet"; This is not necessarily specific to Unlvers1ty
Avenue!. I would love to see sometMng 1 i ke this incorporated into our
genlJral fence amendment, because many of the fences 1 have seen doni! in my
neighborhood recently that have been very attracti\le ,~iwe been ones that
have incorporated various architect~ral post elements" That lS what we
did with our fence that we just built. ~e came very close to d~ciding not
to do it becaus{! we wanted the extra four inches. We ultimately bit the
bullet and said, okay, we will h~ye a six-inch lower fence with four-Inch
posts ttlat will look very nice. It "",,ould be great if we and others 1 ike
us did not have to make that decision. J know that is I'IOt what Ne are
deciding tonight, but I think it would be wise if. at some pOint In the
futut'p., we could update the fence ordinance for the tHy. {J know this is.
nl>t something Nancy wants to dG anytime in the next two years!)
Ms. Case: Yes, the issue that was; being suggested by Corrmissioner Glazier
is a little beyond the scope of the advertised public hearing.
Also, I assume you will give us the discretion to fit this lan9ua9~ in at
an apPl'opriate location.
t:nairperson. Schm1dt: Yes, we certainly would. Shall 'fIe vote on the
amendment?
MOT rON PAS~Jl~: The motion is to add some appropriate wording in the
appropri ate 1 oeat i on regard i n9 the 'S i x· foot-hi gh fences on Unlvers ity
Avenue to add structural and decorative posts or tolumns not cJOS{!l' than
six feet on center and not wider than 18 inches to be allowed in th~
six-foot-fence. All those in fa\lGr, say Aye? All opPGsed? Th~t passes on
a vote of 7-0.
r&TJON PAS..sJ~: ~t!ill:J!y_,on Schmidt: Is there any further discussion on
the main motion?
Ccmmission~r O;a_kian: I support everything that (orrmissioner Canasco
03/30/94
-II-
'1
'.C".'""" J
···.I .. .'i;:;:~it~i,~~~ 1
• ·1
f •
~ -: .
to
> .. " -,~,;.,;:~~,"""';'~).;l,>'><';'''::i--{.,;~~~~~'--~.'
saId In proposing the motion. Although I understand where Hr. GIlbertson
Is cOfAlng from j 1 feel that on University Avenue, we have extenuating
circumstances. It Is an area that Is In,"dated with automobiles and homes
and the residents th.re are being ,ubjected to things that are not typical
In most parts of the city. I foun.d this char-ge In the ordinance for that
area, from Day One, to be a very reas(lnable reconvnendati(ll'l. I agree wHh
Tony when it comes to the two~foot setbacks on the sld~ lot, otherwt~e, we
almost create a fortress .ff,ct by doing that, Unfortunately, I
und.rstand from some of the people I know there just why they would like
to see that, but I have difficulty supporting it. M,yb. the argument can
be made better between now and w~en this gets to the City Council. In
ess€nce, r thin~ this ordindnce is gO{ld, and it provides what I consider
to be a r •• sonabl. solution for that area, It Is also nice to see that it
is sort of a coming together of the commission's thoughts with the
residents of the area to get something that p~ople are basically happy
with. So I all\ happy to support the motion.
~()[f!l1sstQner Glazjer:~ As the sec(lOaer of the motion, r obvl<lusly s.upport
It for the reas.ons that Tony has ouL)1ned tonight and which I (lutlined
several weeks ago when we looked at this. I did want to address the
Campbells ' ({lncerns as they were kind enough to write a letter to the
Planning Corrmisslon and also to come and speak to liS tonight.
I personally sympathize with your situation and agl'ee that a fence
ordinance like this might be applicable to other areas in the city. In
fact, J feel very strongly that it wOklld. Tonight, what we have done has
led us to an ordinance and set of regulaU()f)s that w(lrk. well for a
particular street, University Avenue. I think you wer~ the first to admit
that the regulations fOJ' Ur.;versity Avenue would not exactly fit yow'
street~ either Chadeston or louis. I am not in support of applying
University Avenuels, carte blancha, everywher~ else, because it probably
would just not work. It would bf> either the wrong thing architecturally
or visually, or it just wouldnlt work because nobody would build a fence~
given these rules. What I would strongly suggest you do is to work with
your neighborhood in the same way that the Univer,ity Avenue neighbOl'hood
association did. So I encourage j'OU to push this forward. [do nDt feel
this set of regulations is right for you,' street, but I do support the
concept. There may be others on the commission who d(l also. I do not
want this to stop wi th University Avenue. There are other areas where
t hel'c are possi bil it i es.
Cpllwissloner Casill: I am gOing to yote for thi s, but I am very troubled
by the tendency to go for high fences. I am persuaded by the noise
argument, but I am not persuaded ~y having a long fence on the property
line, because I do feel we need some visual feeling from the street. I
have done a very unscientific sur .... ey by walking around. Even four-foot
fences that clGse to the stl'eet feel very uncomfol't.abl(). to me, So I arn
concerned about the nOlse issue and how to abat€ it, and feel that some of
these corner properties are particularly vulllerable to noise from cal'S
that come down the street and slow down 'and turn. So I am willing t(l have
the six-foot-high fence there but no cl(lser than the rest of the ordinance
allows. They could put up a four-f(loL fence with bushes cl(lser if they
wished to.
CiuirQgJ'sonkb.midt: was not here for the first discussion on fences.
,,~ I read through the minutes, I identHied with Bemis comments about it
03/30/94
-12-
, .'
. ~ ..
being' sad night when we have to resort to putting up slx-foot-hlgh
fences to $cr~en out tr~ffic and noise and other things in our
neighborhoods. I "III s"pport this. ~. have a difficult situation 00
University Avenue, but J certainly hope that we can up with some oth.,·
solution. In other locations. I nate to think of walled communltie, gOing
up on every art.rl.l In Palo Alto. The Compreh.nsive Plan Advisory
Comlttee (CPAC) l,wo"klng very hard right now to thill' of altematl"s
th.t will help the transportation t"affic problems that Palo Alto .... and
to look .t design of .,·t,,·hls and de,lgn of the whole road space that
h{)pd~ny will, offer other s!)lutiollS , Dther improvements, rathel' than just
high w.lls. r will support this motion.
~Jlm1.u.U!neLB~I'l: I have on. COlm1ent for the record ,0 that the City
tou"cll "Ill read It. When they go through this, if they have tim. when
1hy'read th4'!se minutes, I would recorrrnend that they also read our mi:nut€s
froe the pre\l~Ous meeting of Oecerebel' 8, 1993, when we went into great
detail on .11 of the Issue, that have been re,olved in the staff report
to~19ht. That is where the bulk of the d'sc~ssion ;s on these issues.
~T1OH PASSES: ~QQrsQn Schmidt: 1s there any further discussion on
thh tr.IJli()n? We h<\ve a motion by C01'li1lissioner Canasco and seconded by
(.omlssion<?r G1a1~er tC'l sUPP{lrt the staff recoooendation wHh the change
fr"" staff In Section 16.14.020(c) deleting "except for that portion
located at an intersection-and substituting "except as (Itherwise pr{l'llided
in Stttion 16.24.040.~ w~ also have an amendment tD be located in the
appropl'iate place regClrd1ng allowing structural and decarative posts or
COllJV!.lS that will PlOt be closer HI~n six feet apart and no wider tnan
IS ~jlches. to be seven feet high in these six· foot fences. Ail those in
favor, say J\ye1 That passes unanimously on a 'Jote of 7-0.
This It.,~ goes fOlward to the City Council on May 9, 1994.
","
,.
I ..
1101 HlWllton Avl3nue
Palo Alto, CA '94301
M4t"ch '24. 199f,
City of Palo Alto
Planning Co~i&sion
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 9~lOl
Dea.r HC:llbllrs of th('J rhontr.g Co:udss.{on:
IH: (' In v,,, :)
MAR 80 1994
~-n..""'ICfFl'''ln;; ""'''''''''~';''
Bas~d on
lilJ;t'ch "23.
Revision.
u.itedftl avai.lnbh for (.\Jr rerus41 at the 1'la.nn1o& Depanaent on
lo'e V'Outd Hh to SurpaTt the Ulilv('nit), Avenue Fence Ordinance
We live on HAnllton At th,. corner of '-~ha\J(''t'r. frequently ~'Iltk And dtiv(,
along Unh'ecslty. &ncl. l'!te WHY ,,"'.Hf' or the lar&(" ... ol\l1':('~ of lU~(f1c \oIhich
clog that tts{dcntilll $(n~et.. ().c:c.lslon.sl1)' ~'h('n there Is .an et:.ergcllcy
nlong Unlverslty, tr8f:1( h lOll{ed t-y O'.Jt house. and \H;" arC 8r?:,1Zed that 8
street :Sl.I:ch .liS Univt<t"s1ty ':llll C\'Cli hMidle the nw~ber of cars, toO SAY
nothing of the he.'lV)l tn.ds And busses, vh1ch t",omally use that stre(ot.
We suppart the revised ordif':mc~ rrlnari 1)' bec8us~ "'0 oIlppr('clRto the
residents' <l",s1r~ te-bll ... " son-' q .. let ""hi prl\,<lc)' in thtdr front yards and
belitWe that 06 hight!r fi'nc{I ... 01 Ino:ease -th"s{> attributes. As \Jalkcrs
and r,eigllbors ,..c Uk!!' the ~ror(lsedi r'f:Qulr{'i:.Hlt that fences be attractive
and have phnt1ngs IlM lltlg.atio.n, .although ".'" do not think lh3t having R
fence arehHe<:tura;l\y consistent:: ",l~h tho l·eslClenec bch-i.nd it stwuld be an
absoluto. \I.e al"(; aho pleased ,hitt ('_on,,!Cleutioi1 is being given to sight
lines at drive~B)'s .l!.nd eorners.
As rosidfmts of HsaHton, not llnl ... .ersit)'_, 110 lIC'ro 11{}t. as!<.ed to sign the
Crescent Park Noi,£hborhood :AHocietlon potition to nodUy the fencE'!
ordin1ince 'Which "'.as present.ed to the City Council by Cary Fs?;;o::Ino and Dick
RosenbalJ.llo on Hay 10. 199). ~{I'\i~vr!r, VB agr<,e 'With its argu.'1'ent tha;t the
three findings 'WhLch tnlst be satisfied tor II vllri.anC(l .aro in fact fl!(!t by
the !-'ropert1es along. U.nI ... ~r$:1ty bOl'Ween Middlefield .And the E'!astenl City
limit.
)s Urd.:verslty Avenue unique 11l2:{Ing, ,f~lQ Alto arterials in hnvJng to besl'
heavy traffic? Hot at !!IIll. But \o'e bel1cvc./l cnst'l call bE' made for
revl,sing th(' ord{nllt\c.e as' IIppllcd to thls stier-t., anr.lyzillg tho results.
\Oorking out any -kin'ks," .and llu'n dc-\·e}oping a elty·'Widc ordinance to
apply to other .~rtcrlals IlS veIl,
Sincerely.
A~JJ.L~
Suzanne S. Gunther