Letter - Joanne Hedge

“Fence or offense” on May 22 draws a simple picture of a complex

contemporary issue that demands a thoughtful and practical approach --

which the current City Council and Planning Department are to be

commended for taking for the first time in many years.

That simplification, accompanied by an invitation for letters from

readers, would fuel a now mythic tussle citywide between well-intentioned

property owners seeking security, safety, privacy -- and yes, an

attractive and unoffensive landscaping amenity -- versus fence opponents

who fear that it is the “one issue that will affect the quality of life

in Glendale forever,” to quote a northwest Glendale resident who spoke

at the May 15 council accompanied by equally intense board members from

the Northwest Homeowners Assn.

With due respect, in their passion re threats to quality of life,

you’d think they were describing the health and safety impacts of

proposed Superfund site excavation and construction in the San Fernando

Road corridor, the air pollution uptick from the increased Grayson Plant

output, the relentless freeway noise near homes still unshielded by sound

walls, the woeful lack of parks and open space, the hexavalent chromium

in potential drinking water, the badly maintained rental properties whose

tenants are afraid to complain, the need for zoning reform near

residential areas, growing pedestrian fatalities, or the social and

ethnic misunderstandings needing resolution and healing!

The May 6 Los Angeles Times carried a Real Estate feature that advised

potential homebuyers to be aware of local ordinances, and cited

Glendale’s law that bans frontyard fences in setbacks, which is unique in

southern California except for Rolling Hills Estates. It quoted

Neighborhood Services Administrator Sam Engel describing the potential

difficulty of enforcing a new law with design standards. Enforcing the

current ordinance is no cakewalk, either, especially at some $200,000 per

year for five years until the nearly 1,500 in violation under the current

“moratorium” are cited.

Fence opponents perpetually cite examples of ugly fences elsewhere,

but the case can be made equally for fences that enhance properties. I

know no one who favors chain-link or overly tall opaque fencing, or for

that matter, who has the patience for property owners who don’t maintain

their fences.

There’s justification for city opposition to same, along with

overgrown brush, unkempt trees and hedges, graffiti, trash piles, and so

on. Above-ground power lines are an equal and aging eyesore, and one

could argue that money used burying them would be better spent.

The Times piece alerted potential Glendale homebuyers in a way the

city has not to date; homebuyers of Glendale properties with frontyard

fences become aware of the ordinance only after they’ve bought their

homes and only if they are cited. In many cases, they blithely invest in

repairs, replacements and ancillary landscaping, shocked to learn later

about costly variance fees, which render only those who can afford it

able to keep their fences. This certainly is the case on Garden Street

and many others.

On May 15, Councilman Dave Weaver again listed examples that would

justify a frontyard fence including proximity to a school or public

institution, freeway ramp, hillside or on corners. Other council members

such as Frank Quintero added that favoring a fence that is installed to

support plantings like roses. The entire council favored an option to

accommodate the unique needs of the Rancho District, with its both

historic and practical precedents, asking staff to refine a “horse

overlay” amendment for review, proposed last year and nearly voted in

except for a glitch that did not accommodate existing fences in setbacks.

Meantime, current Rancho fence owners wishing to spend the money to

maintain their fences are in limbo.

At horse properties, good fences make good neighbors, and I have heard

no Rancho opposition to well-maintained frontyard fences. Factor in

shallow front lawns, narrow streets allowing parking on both sides, often

with the absence of sidewalks that force pedestrians onto lawns,

speeders, direct proximity to a large public park owned by Los Angeles

and bridal paths -- and put an unconfined horse in the mix -- you have a

dangerous situation. I’ve seen it. Remember the “stampede” last fall when

horses slipped out of a Burbank rental stable and galloped all over

Glendale? They move far, fast.

With basic design guidelines re materials (picket, split-rail, even

decorative iron with stone, brick or stucco pillars), height (42”

maximum), and color (neutrals), along with the “grandfathering in” of

existing well-maintained Rancho fences corresponding to these but in

setbacks, will satisfy longtime Rancho requirements. The city could use

the district as an example for future studies.

Let’s support city staff moving forward to meet the needs of the

Rancho and to conscientiously seeking a means to accommodate the rights

of property owners in a fair and practical way while preserving the

beauty of Glendale.

While the Rancho is of immediate concern, it’s doubtful that frontyard

fences will sprout by the scores -- they cost money to install and

maintain -- especially in areas such as Northwest Glendale where long

front lawns in front of homes set way back from the street and which have

sidewalks, invite the “open feel” they cherish while still ensuring

residential privacy. Not so in the historic equestrian Rancho district

where we truly need to keep, and be permitted to have, our fences.

Joanne Hedge

Glendale