Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Driveway Gates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission amends driveway-gate rules to require setback, add testing and city retest
Summary
The commission amended City Code 10.160.9 to allow driveway gates with a 19-foot setback from the street, removed the word 'manually' from testing language, added 'at least' once yearly for tests, and directed the city to retest gates after repairs.
Get email alerts on the Driveway Gates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
May 20, 2025 — The Woodland Hills Planning Commission amended language in City Code 10.160.9 to permit driveway gates with conditions designed to preserve emergency access and public safety. The changes include a setback requirement, clarification of testing frequency, and a requirement that the city retest gates after reported repairs.
Under the amended language discussed and approved at the meeting, a driveway gate must be located at least 19 feet from the street property line. Commissioners said the 19-foot setback was derived from allowing approximately one-and-a-half car lengths behind the property line to keep large vehicles off the street.
Commissioners also edited the testing provisions in Section 6: they removed the word "manually," clarified that the city may test gates at least once yearly to confirm they open in response to the city’s emergency-siren signal, and added a closing sentence stating the city will retest a gate after a property owner reports a repair. The change replaces the prior language that suggested a single, manual annual test.
During discussion commissioners debated enforcement language and fines. Several commissioners expressed concern about imposing an immediate fine on the first failed test and suggested a time frame for repairs before civil penalties would be assessed. One commissioner said a $500 fine could be appropriate if an owner willfully obstructs access — for example, by chaining a gate shut — but others emphasized distinguishing between mechanical failure and intentional noncompliance. The final motion focused on the textual edits to Section 6 and the setback requirement; no amendment fixing a specific fine‑timeframe was adopted in the recorded motion.
The commission opened the item with a public hearing; no members of the public spoke. A commissioner moved to amend City Code 10.160.9 to implement the edits described above; another commissioner seconded. The motion passed on a voice vote. The transcript records no roll‑call tally.
Commissioners noted that emergency responders retain the ability to gain entry in an emergency and that the primary intent of the testing and setback rules is to ensure gates will open automatically for emergency-siren activation and to keep vehicles off the public street.
The amended language will be incorporated into the ordinance language that the commission forwards for City Council review and publication.

