Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Portola Valley conservation panel forwards draft fence ordinance to ASCC after adopting 4‑foot required‑yard limit
Loading...
Summary
The Portola Valley Conservation Committee voted to send its revised draft fence ordinance — which requires wildlife‑friendly fencing and limits fencing in required yards to a maximum 4 feet with 16‑inch clearance — to the Architectural and Site Control Commission (ASCC) for review; the committee will ask for an ASCC study session and noted planning staff review will follow.
The Portola Valley Conservation Committee voted to forward its revised draft fence ordinance to the Architectural and Site Control Commission (ASCC) after agreeing to a maximum 4‑foot fence height in required yards and adding a minimum 16‑inch clearance to help wildlife movement.
Chair said the subcommittee met twice and incorporated feedback from an ASCC member and other reviewers before finalizing the draft. Committee member (S3), who summarized the edits, said: "The height is a maximum of 4 feet. The minimum clearance is 16 inches above the ground." The draft also distinguishes "domestic" fences from "wildlife‑friendly" fences and adds language to require or recommend wildlife‑friendly fencing by zoning district for required yards.
The committee added an exceptions path for property owners: the draft lets the ASCC consider exceptions when a fence permit application "demonstrates an alternative means of providing equal or better wildlife movement and/or habitat," language members refined during the meeting. Committee members debated whether earlier phrasing about "porosity" or a more direct reference to "wildlife movement and/or habitat" would be clearer and agreed to refine the wording with ASCC input.
Members also discussed placement of a proposed prohibition on double fencing. The subcommittee said the current draft focuses on required yards (setbacks) and that a separate code section may be a better location for any town‑wide ban on double fencing. Committee member (S3) urged including a short preamble and citations to the ordinance sections that define "required yard" so reviewers can see the scope without hunting through the code.
Committee member (S3) moved to submit the corrected draft — including the preamble and preceding code sections for context and a note that double‑fencing restrictions need to be placed elsewhere in the code — to the ASCC for review and requested an ASCC study session to obtain early input before planning staff rewrites the code. The motion was seconded and carried; the chair announced there was "one abstention and the rest in favor." The transcript does not report a full roll‑call tally of yes/no votes.
Members noted next steps and timing: town planning staff must review the draft for legal and code consistency before formal processing, and planning workload (new ADU regulations, the housing and safety elements) may delay the planner review; the committee will request a study session with the ASCC to gather early feedback.
The committee framed the ordinance as applying to fences located in "required yards" (setbacks defined elsewhere in town code) rather than to every fence on a property; members agreed to insert the relevant ordinance preamble so the scope is explicit when the draft goes to reviewers.
The committee's motion directs staff to send the subcommittee's corrected draft to planning and the ASCC for review. The ASCC abbreviation is used in the meeting transcript; the committee intends to ask for a study session so the ASCC can provide input before planning finalizes code language.
