Exhibit CC 09-07-2010 No. 34 EXHIBITS
BEGIN
HERE
C C i/) llb
Grace Schmidt�
From: Susan Sievert [spsievert@gmail.corn]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 11:51 AM
To: City Clerk
Cc: Kris Wang; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Gilbert Wong
Subject: Written Communication: Illegal Fences
Written Communication: Illegal Fences
Agenda Date and Item: TBD
From: Susan Sievert
"...As a point of clarification, the County has verified that their fence regulations mirror
Cupertino's..."
Dear Mayor Wang and council members,
That is false as it pertains to my claim. According to Bill Shoe, a Principal Planner with the Santa
Clara County planning office, their 3' high front fence ordinance was codified in 1969. Therefore,
fences built before 1969, including my elderly neighbor's abatement - lettered- basket - weave -fence
built in 1952 (attached photo), are "legal, non - conforming." Also, Mr. Shoe wondered why
Cupertino staff had not contacted the county for verification. Not before the abatement letter, and not after
my 08/08/2010 "grandfathered in" claim on my neighbor's behalf.
While we did not receive an abatement order, the neighbor that complained about being "singled out"
presented the government with a photograph of the cyclone fence along our hill as justification for
his front fence height violation. (paid for and installed by the owner of Blackberry Farm, the necessity
being to stop gatecrashers from sneaking into Golf & Picnic. It is consistent with the fence to the
north on Stevens Creek Blvd., to the west along Scenic Circle, and, until 2009, to the south on the
McClellan Ranch /Blackberry Farm property line.)
Please request the City Attorney's Office provide legal opinions per the following during this agenda item (TBD):
1) Is comparing the height of side and backyard fences to front fences relevant?
2) Regarding former County properties (Monta Vista, Garden Gate, and Rancho Rinconada) with fences installed before the
County codified its ordinance in 1969: legal non - conforming, or illegal?
It was also pointed out our property does not have curb. I fail to see what that has to do with a front fence, but since he is
concerned:
3) The lack of curbs on properties redeveloped before they were annexed into the City: legal non - conforming, or illegal?
And, given our history, I don't think it is wise to take the bait on the divisive "these vs those" teardown-neighborhood-
challenge. The issue is legal vs illegal; which is better is a matter of opinion, and irrelevant.
Thank you.
Susan Sievert
Monta Vista/Cupertino
1
. t 1 YYsJ K r F�
�; i
a tie r'+ t ; Y
j n. 7, rf
��l .. a ` . �I. ' � t f" J JS -' " d } 2 „. fi 4 .,, % •
do is
,_ 1 + _ 1
.� n• - ' ° l'ti. Imo ✓' - . n, '1�'. }'
p
i , ... ,
1 �, �r "1f F . .t � �� •
2