SR-400-012 (2)
iA
MAY 1 0 2005
PCD :M:AS:J L:TK F :\CityPlanning\Share\COUNC IL \STRPT\2005\FencesHedges .051005 .doc
Council Mtg: May 10, 2005 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Report on Public Input Received Regarding New Fence, Hedge, and Wall
Regulations, and Alternative Regulatory Options
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council provide direction regarding preferred
alternatives for an Interim Ordinance regulating fences, hedges, and walls.
BACKGROUND
Over the past several years, the city has received complaints related to fences and hedges
that exceed currently authorized height limits and to the lack of enforcement of these
regulations. In response, Code Enforcement staff began a program to encourage
compliance and increase enforcement of the regulations. In FY 2003/2004, 253
complaints were initiated for fences, hedges, and walls that exceeded allowable heights, of
which 110 were deemed to be in violation. Of the 110 violations, 61 cases resulted in
compliance with the regulations. However, public feedback was critical of the enforcement
procedures being used and of the number of violations that the City was pursuing. At
Council direction, enforcement of fence, hedge, and wall height violations was placed on
hold, except where safety-related conditions exist, until the regulations and enforcement
practices could be reevaluated.
On October 12, 2004, the City Council discussed current regulations and enforcement
11t
MAY 1 0 2009
practices regarding fences and hedges and directed staff to return with an Interim
Ordinance establishing new standards. The Council directed staff to consider in particular
the following issues:
. Alternative fence and hedge height limits, including possible height increases in
required minimum yards or where properties abut different land uses such as
commercial activity, schools, higher density housing, streets, and alleys.
. Opportunities to seek height adjustments based on various criteria, including where
owners and occupants of contiguous properties are not in objection to the adjustments.
. Standards for design elements that require additional height, such as arbors and
pergolas.
. Enforcement of existing nonconforming hedges.
The Council also directed staff to review fence and hedge regulations for neighboring cities
and to conduct a public workshop to receive public input. Regulations from various cities
and results of the public workshop are summarized below.
FENCE AND HEDGE REGULATIONS FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS
All communities surveyed have fence and wall regulations. Each community also
distinguishes fence heights between front yards and interior side or rear yards, similar to
Santa Monica. Front yards adjacent to a public realm in all cases have lower heights than
more private side and rear yards. In West Hollywood, a front yard fence may extend to six
feet, but must be visually transparent for portions above 42 inches in height. Santa Monica
and two other cities surveyed have the tallest fence heights in side and rear yards at eight
2
feet. Two of the cities surveyed do not regulate hedges, Carmel and West Hollywood.
Each other city regulates hedges as fences which are subject to the same height limits.
Opportunities for property owners to seek some type of modification to the basic standards
exist in all cities surveyed, but the procedures vary between administrative and
discretionary processes, the level of public review and the criteria for which a modification
may be granted.
The table below summarizes fence and hedge regulations in Santa Monica and five other
cities:
Santa Beverly Hills Palos Verdes We~t Pasadena Carmel
Monica HollyWood
Front Yard 42" 36" (*) 42" 42" - 72" (#) 48" (+) 36" - 84" (-)
Side Yard 8' 6' -8' 6' 6" 42"-6' 6' -8' 3' -7'
Rear Yard 8' 8' 6' 6" 6' 6' -8' 6' -7'
Hazardous
Visual Yes No No Yes Yes No
Obstruction
Provision
Adjustment Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Procedure Yes.
(Administrative Administrative Administrative Administrative Administrative Administrative Discretionary
or Discretionary Discretionary Discretionary Discretionary (++)
Discretionary)
Fence Yes Yes No No No Yes
Definition
Hecjge Yes. Yes. No. No. No. No.
Definition Regulated Regulated Regulated Hedges not Regulated Hedges not
similar to similar to similar to similar to
fences fences fences regulated. fences regulated.
Notes:
* Additional 3' of open fencing allowed on top of wall in certain portions of front yard
# Portions of fences above 42" shall be at least 50% transparent
+ Half of fence area must be open
- Fence (4'), Garden Wall (3'), Retaining Wall (3'), Pillars and Gates (6'), ArborfTrellis (7')
++ Unless hearina reauested bv member of public
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP
Consistent with Council direction, a public workshop was held on March 9, 2005, at the
Ken Edwards Center. Approximately 60 people participated in the two-hour workshop that
3
consisted of an open-house format at the beginning to illustrate a variety of tree and hedge
conditions in the City, a brief staff presentation, and a small group role play activity where
participants could draft their own regulations. A questionnaire was also given to
participants to identify key themes.
Results of the small group activity were reported back to the rest of the workshop
participants. Many of the groups were able to reach a consensus and develop regulations
while others did not or felt that there should be no regulations for fences and hedges. Of
the groups that favored regulations, the following themes were identified:
. Front yard fences up to 42-48 inches in height, side and rear yard fences up to eight
feet in height are appropriate
. Regulations should reflect specific neighborhoods and take into account the context of
various areas of the City
. Opportunities for adjustments or modifications to the height regulations should be
allowed under certain circumstances
. Existing nonconforming hedges should be allowed to remain
Attached to this report are all summary sheets from each group activity. In addition, each
participant had an opportunity to express their specific views on a questionnaire that was
distributed at the workshop, also attached.
Forty-four completed questionnaires were turned in by individual participants. The
questionnaires show the broad spectrum of opinions on the matter and the wide range of
4
ideas and suggestions as to how to regulate fences and hedges. The following table
summarizes some of the key questionnaire responses:
QUESTIONS RESPONSE
(Participants were asked to select all answers that
applied; therefore, results may not total 44 - the total
number of Questionnaires received.)
Privacy (19)
Aesthetics (9)
Why is having a fence or hedge important to you? Barrier from noise/traffic/sun etc. (8)
Environmental benefit of hedges (8)
Safety (6)
Should the height of fences or hedges be regulated? Yes (27)
No (17)
Should fences and hedges be treated the same or Differently (16)
differently? Same (14)
Should height adjustments/modifications or exceptions be Yes (33)
allowed? No (4)
Unique physical circumstances associated
with the property (27)
Safety issues (24)
For what reasons should adjustments/modifications be Noise (23)
allowed? Retaining walls (20)
Reverse corner lots (19)
Privacy (18)
Pergolas or other architectural features (17)
Immediate neighbors only (14)
Who should be allowed to provide input on a proposed Neighbors within certain radius (12)
adj ustment/mod ification? Any member of the public (6)
No one (5)
Should height adjustments/modifications be allowed through Administrative process (20)
an administrative process or through a public hearing? Public hearing (18)
Should existing fences/hedges be grandparented? Yes (22)
No (14)
The results of the questionnaire illustrate the divergent opinions regarding the regulation of
fences and hedges. Of the 44 responses, 17 stated that fences and hedges should not be
regulated at all. Of those that stated that fences and hedges should be regulated, there
was a split opinion in terms of whether fences and hedges should be treated the same or
differently. However, one clear theme emerged in that the majority of those responding felt
5
that height modifications should be allowed for a variety of reasons beyond those involving
special physical circumstances related to a property. Reasons such as noise and privacy
were given equal attention. Whether modifications and adjustments should be approved
administratively or through a public hearing was not clearly identified. The majority of the
respondents also stated that existing fences and hedges should be allowed to remain,
regardless of future regulations.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission discussed options for regulating fences,
hedges, and walls. Over a dozen members of the public spoke at the hearing, most of
whom favored relaxed hedge standards and the ability for adjacent neighbors to agree
upon acceptable hedge heights. However, a few members of the public stated that the
existing limit of 42 inches in the front yard for fences and hedges should be maintained and
that greater heights should be allowed in the side and rear yards. Safety and privacy were
the main reasons cited for allowing increased fence and hedge heights.
The Planning Commission believed it appropriate to defer changes in the fence and hedge
height regulations as part of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance project, currently
underway, and approved a motion to that affect. Evaluation of various neighborhood
characteristics and context through the General Plan effort could result in specific fence
and hedge standards that address specific community concerns. Notwithstanding this
position, the Planning Commission offered several recommendations to the City Council
should an interim ordinance be approved. Specifically, the Commission expressed support
6
for fence and hedge regulations that provide for open streetscapes, embrace public
spaces, and encourage landscaping. The need for privacy and security was recognized
and a desire expressed to encourage quality design, materials, and creativity. The
Commission favored retaining the existing fence and hedge standards, but thought it
appropriate to create an opportunity to allow greater hedges heights if neighbors within a
300-foot radius agreed. Allowances for taller hedges where there are no objections from
neighbors should be based on context-oriented situations including, properties located
adjacent to busy and noisy streets, schools, higher density uses, and commercial uses.
Allowances for architectural features such as pergolas should also be considered. The
Commission also stated the need for a clearer definition of a hedge.
Regarding enforcement, the Planning Commission recommended a complaint-driven policy
that encourages neighbors to resolve disputes without City involvement. There was
support for a mediation program that would be available when differences could not be
resolved. Members from the community also supported a more proactive city role in
mediation. Should a neighbor dispute not reach an acceptable resolution, a complaint
could be filed with the city and the code established height standards would be enforced,
unless a modification based on the above criterion were granted. If neighbors (within 300
feet) did agree on solution, even if it did not comply with code standards, it would be
permitted to remain, however, there was a desire to allow future reconsideration of any
agreement should a new owner purchase a property e.ffected by the hedge or wall.
7
REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES
Changes to the existing fence, hedge, and wall regulations will provide a better
understanding of the requirements and improve code enforcement efforts. Based on past
experiences, input from the City Council, Planning Commission, the community, and
research of regulations from other jurisdictions, it is clear that some modifications would be
helpful. However, there are considerable differences on other key regulatory options that
reflect the broad range of community opinions on the subject. The following discussion
provides some alternatives on how to proceed with regulations, but also, where appropriate
given the divergent views on the matter, regulatory options for City Council consideration.
An interim ordinance will be presented in July that reflects the City Council's direction on
how best to regulate fences and hedges.
CODE STANDARD EXISTING, PROPOSED & ALTERNATIVE
(Fences, Walls, Hedges) CODE STANDARD REGULATIONS
Existing: A barrier of plant material functioning as an enclosure or used for
screening.
Proposed: Plant material cultivated in such a manner as to produce a barrier
Hedge to inhibit passage or to obscure view, including a series of
Definition shrubs, plants, or trees whose branches mayor may not touch
and whose plant material width dimension exceeds the open
space width dimension between any combination of shrubs,
plants or trees.
Alternative: Eliminate hedqe definition.
Existing: 42 inches within front yard setback (typically 20 feet from the
front property line, but ranges from 10 - 40 feet).
8 feet in side and rear yards.
Proposed: 42 inches between the front property line and the nearest building
Hedge wall, or setback line, which ever is a shorter distance.
Maximum Height Limits 12 feet at interior side and rear yards.
Alternative: Consider less or greater heights by right, and/or allow
modifications procedure for increased heights (see below).
Alternative: Do not regulate hedges, except as required for public safety.
Existing: A barrier of any material or combination of materials functioning
Fence&Wall as an enclosure or for screening.
Definition Proposed: No change proposed.
Alternative: Consider alternative language as appropriate.
8
Existing:
42 inches within front yard setback (typically 20 feet from the
front property line, but ranges from 10 - 40 feet).
8 feet in side and rear yards.
42 inches between the front property line and the nearest building
wall, or setback line, which ever is a shorter distance.
. Allow greater heights where required by the guardrail
provisions of the Santa Monica Building Code, provided the
addition is to the minimum extent necessary and the additional
height is visually transparent, i.e. guardrails.
. Allow an additional 12 inches in height for ornamental fence or
wall attachments, such as lamps or other decorative features.
8 feet in side and rear yards.
. Allow an additional two feet for lattice work or similar screening
that is visually transparent.
Allow greater fence and wall heights by right or through a
modification procedure.
Do not regulate fences and walls, except as required for public
safet .
The vertical distance between the ground and top of a fence
measured from the existing grade.
The vertical distance between the top of a fence, wall, or hedge,
and the lowest finished grade on either side of the fence, wall or
hedge.
Require a separation between walls that is equal to the height of
the nearest fence or wall (terracing). Example:
1<
I
Proposed:
Alternative:
Alternative:
Existing:
Proposed:
42" wall
Private Property
42" wall
Sidewalk P/L
Alternative: The vertical distance between the top of a fence, wall, or hedge,
and the highest finished grade on either side of the fence, wall or
hedge.
Alternative: The vertical distance between the top of a fence, wall, or hedge,
and the averaged finished grade on either side of the fence, wall
or hed e.
Existing: Adiustment Procedure: The Zoning Administrator may allow one-
foot height adjustment based on special circumstances related to
physical property. Owners and tenants within 100' radius notified
of adjustment application and can request hearing. Decisions are
appealable to the Planning Commission.
Variance Procedure: The Zoning Administrator may grant fence,
wall and hedge height modifications where special circumstances
and hardships related to physical property exist. Owners and
tenants within 300' notified and a public hearing is required.
Decisions are appealable to the Planning Commission.
Proposed: Director Approval: Allow the Director of Planning and Community
Development to administratively approve increases up to 20% of
the standard fence, wall and hedge height limit. This decision is
not appeable.
9
Fence, Wall & Hedqe Modification: Create a new process (with
less restrictive findings than the current variance or adjustment
process) that allows property owners an opportunity to seek
greater heights for fences, wall and hedges, based primarily on
the neighborhood character, context and the property's adjacency
to more intense land uses. Pergolas and other similar features
would be considered in this process. Require public notification
within 300 feet and a public hearing with decisions appealable to
the Planning Commission or Architectural Review Board.
Alternative: Modify existing Adjustment or Variance procedures to account for
fences, wall and hedge modifications.
Alternative: Create a process that involves review and approval from the
Architectural Review Board. Such decisions would be appealable
to the Planning Commission.
Alternative: Establish a process where the Director of Planning and
Community Development can approve taller hedges when it has
been demonstrated that adjacent neighbors, or neighbors within
a s ecified radius, have a reed to a set hei ht.
In addition, the City Council may want to consider alternative approaches to the overall
code enforcement effort relative to fences and hedges, and more specifically, whether
enforcement should be complaint-driven or more proactive. As to the latter option, the City
Attorney advises that purely complaint driven enforcement may be problematic if pursued
through the court system. Finally, addressing existing nonconforming fences and hedges
should also be discussed as well as consideration of employing a mediation service to
assist residents in conflict about fences, walls and hedges.
PUBLIC NOTICE
A legal advertisement was published in the "California" section of the Los Anqeles Times at
least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is contained
in Attachment A.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendations presented in this report have no budget or financial impacts.
10
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction regarding preferred alternatives
for an Interim Ordinance regulating fences, hedges, and walls.
Prepared by:
Andy Agle, Interim Director
Amanda Schachter, Planning Manager
Jonathan Lait, AICP, Acting Principal Planner
Tony Kim, Associate Planner
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachments:
A. Public Notice
B. Current Santa Monica Fence, Wall, Hedge, and Flagpole Definitions and Regulations
C. Community Workshop Surveys
D. Community Workshop Discussion Group Regulations
E. Public Correspondence
F. Fence and Hedge Regulations
11
ATTACHMENT A
Public Notice
12
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: A public hearing will be held by the City Council to receive input, discuss,
and provide direction regarding new fence wall and hedge regulations
throughout the City.
DATE/TIME:
TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2005 AT 6:45 PM
LOCATION:
City Council Chambers, Second Floor, Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California
HOW TO COMMENT
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. You may comment at the City
Council public hearing, or by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the City
Council at the meeting.
Address your letters to: City Clerk
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
If you want more information about this interim ordinance extension, please contact
Tony Kim, at (310) 458-8341, or bye-mail attony.kim@smgov.net. The Zoning
Ordinance is available at the Planning Counter during business hours and on the City's
web site at www.santa-monica.org.
The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For disability-related accommodations,
please contact Carmen Gutierrez at (310) 458-8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72
hours in advance. All written materials are available in alternate format upon request.
Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines numbered 1,2,3,5,7,8,9, and 10 serve City Hall.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is
subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues
raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public hearing.
ESPANOL
Esto es una noticia de una audiencia publica para revisar applicaciones proponiendo
desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si deseas mas informacion, favor de lIamar a Carmen
Gutierrez en la Division de Planificacion al numero (310) 458-8341.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ATTACHMENT B
Current Santa Monica Fence, Wall, Hedge, and Flagpole Definitions and
Regulations
9.04.02.030.300 Fence.
Page 1 of 1
Santa Monica California Municipal Code
^ Up << Previous >> Next - Main TOe
? Search
9.04.02.030.300 Fence.
A barrier of any material or combination of materials functioning as an enclosure or for screening.
(Added by Ord. No. 1826CCS ~ 1 (part), adopted 11/7/95)
...
. ~ - ,,-- -'--~ _L_l)~__:__() () (lA 0 /)A /)')_0 ALl A') A
()'V1()!?()(),\
9.04.02.030.395 Hedge.
Page 1 of 1
Santa Monica California Municipal Code
^ Up << Previous >> Next - Main TOe
? Search
9.04.02.030.395 Hedge.
A barrier of plant material functioning as an enclosure or used for screening. (Added by Ord. No.
1826CC5 ~ 1 (part), adopted 11/7/95)
- I!__ -1___ __L__I""l....___~__C\ n. /"\A C\ f'\A 1\..... n I"\A {v""'} {\
{\ '1 n. {\ I" {\{\ &:.
9.04.10.02.080 Fence, wall, hedge, flagpole.
Page 1 of I
Santa Monica California Municipal Code
^ Up << Previous >> Next - Main TOe
? Search
9.04.10.02.080 Fence, wall, hedge, flagpole.
Subject to the hazardous visual obstruction requirements of Section 9.04.10.02.090, any fence, wall,
hedge or flagpole shall comply with the following standards:
(a) Fences, walls, or hedges shall not exceed eight feet in height when located in a required side
yard or rear yard.
(b)(l) Fences, walls or hedges shall not exceed forty-two inches in height when located in a required
front yard.
(2) A front yard chain link fence for a school may be up to eight feet in height.
(c) Fence, wall or hedge height shall be measured from the existing grade. In all cases, the fence, wall
or hedge height shall be measured in a continuum at each point along the fence, wall or hedge.
(d) Freestanding flagpoles may not exceed the height restrictions of the district in which they are
located. (Prior code ~ 9040.8; amended by Ord. No. 1476CCS, adopted 4/25/89; Ord. No. 1732CCS ~ 3, adopted
3/8/94; amended by Ord. No. 2036CC5 ~ 1, adopted 2/26/02)
,- u ~ a ~ _ _ _ un J____~___ __~ __ J~_ -1~H _t.._I)..__:~-O 0 f\A_O f\A 1 f\_0 ()L1 1 () ()
() ~ rHI f') () ()"
9.04.10.02.090 Hazardous visual obstructions.
Page 1 of 1
Santa Monica California Municipal Code
^ up << Previous >> Next - Main TOe
? Search
9.04.10.02.090 Hazardous visual obstructions.
(a) Notwithstanding Section 9.04.10.02.080, no person shall permit any obstruction, including, but
not limited to any fence, wall, hedge, tree or landscape planting to obscure or block the visibility of vehicles
entering or exiting an alley, driveway, parking lot, street intersection or other vehicle right-of-way or to
constitute an unreasonable and unnecessary hazard to persons lawfully using an adjacent pedestrian or vehicle
right-of-way. In addition, no obstruction shall be located less than five feet from the intersection of the parcel
line with a driveway or garage door, or the intersection of parcel lines adjacent to street or alley intersections
unless the obstruction is either less than twenty-four inches above the adjacent vehicle right-of-way or is
authorized pursuant to subsection (b) of this Section. No development shall be allowed if it would otherwise
cause an existing obstruction to be in violation of this subsection (a) unless the obstruction is either less than
twenty-four inches above the adjacent vehicle right-of-way or the obstruction or development is authorized
pursuant to subsections (b) or (c) of this Section.
(b) The Zoning Administrator and Transportation Planning Manager may approve encroachments
into the five foot hazardous visual area in addition to those specified in subsection (a) of this Section when the
property owner submits a written request and satisfactory evidence that:
(1) Characteristics applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or
surroundings that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity which unreasonably restricts an owner's ability
to comply with subsection (a) of this Section; and
(2) The proposed encroachment will be designed to maintain adequate sight view and/or provide
other design elements, such as the use of mirrors and speed bumps and will not constitute a hazard to persons
lawfully using an adjacent sidewalk, alley, street or other right-of-way; and
(3) The strict application of the provisions of this Chapter would result in practical difficulties or
unnecessary hardships, not including economic difficulties or economic hardships, or would result in
unreasonable deprivation of the use or enjoyment of the property; and
(4) The granting of the encroachment will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general
purposes and intent of this Chapter, nor to the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan.
(c) The Zoning Administrator and Transportation Manager may during the plan check process
approve a detached garage located in the Rl District with alley access even if this garage would cause an
existing obstruction to be located in the hazardous visual obstruction area if the garage will be designed to
maintain adequate sight view and/or provide other design elements, such as the use of mirrors and speed
bumps and will not constitute a hazard to persons lawfully using an adjacent sidewalk, alley, street or other
right-of-way. (Prior code ~ 9040.9; amended by Ord. No. 1496CCS, adopted 9/26/89; amended by Ord. No.
2036CCS ~ 2, adopted 2/26/02)
--~-_u-u'__"__..:I____L_<}~__:~_OO OA 0 (\A 1(\0 (\A 1{\ {\
(\ 1.11. n f') nn"
Attachments C, D, E, F
Not available electronically. Available for
review at the City Clerk's Office.