05. MCA-2005-01 Citywide
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
MCA-2005-01
City of Cupertino
Various
City-wide
Agenda Date: December 13, 2005
Summary: Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter 16.28 (Fences)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
. Comment and provide direction to staff on how to proceed with
amendments to Chapter 16.28, Fence Ordinance.
BACKGROUND
On October 25, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing in response to
Citywide notices that invited the community to provide input on the existing Fence
Ordinance and how it might be changed to better meet the needs of the community.
During the meeting, the following comments were provided by members of the public:
Fence Heights
o City should provide a means for a property owner to have fences higher
than 6 feet if privacy impacts occur, even when the property owner cannot
obtain the adjacent property owner's approval.
Landscaping along Fence Lines (Property Lines)
o There should be restrictions regarding how close landscaping can be planted
next to fences to prevent growth onto adjacent properties. Trees should not
be planted closer than 3 feet to the property line.
o Shrubs should be no higher than fence heights.
o It should be the responsibility of a property owner to trim back trees on his
property along the property lines; otherwise, a fine should be imposed on
that property owner.
Fences (General)
o The current fence ordinance should be enforced.
o There should be a means to enforce maintenance of fencing. For example,
there is a fence along John Drive that does not appear to have been
maintained and is in bad condition.
5-1
MCA-200S-01 -- Fence Ordinance, Ch. 16.28
December 13,2005
Page 2
Electronic Gates
o Electronic gates should not be permitted as they appear to send a message of
an excluded community. Also, a gated community does not provide a nice
statement to neighbors.
o Homeowners should be permitted electronic gates.
Fence Post Caps
o Post caps are personal expressions of homeowners, and therefore, post cap
heights should not be regulated.
After hearing public comment, the Commission provided the following comments:
o Consider providing a mechanism to allow exceptions for additional fence
heights in privacy impact cases, even when owners cannot obtain adjacent
property owner's approval. Allow Planning Commission to review such
exceptions and make a determination.
o Suggest not adding regulations on tree and shrub heights, and location of
landscaping next to fencing, as these would conflict with the City's privacy
protection planting requirements.
o Consider that the health of trees and shrubs would be impacted if they were
required to be cut at the property lines.
o Make no distinction between electronic versus manual gates, but
contemplate whether driveway gates should or should not be aIlowed.
o Allow driveway gates, regardless of whether they are electronic or manual.
o Require that driveway gates, if allowed, provide a means for emergency
vehicles to access sites.
o Allow driveway gates if they meet requirements, regardless of whether they
are electronic or manual.
o Prohibit electronic driveway gates in residential neighborhoods; create an
"inclusive" neighborhood.
o Define appropriate materials for gates in residential areas versus commercial
areas.
o Consider the impacts of defining materials as it may limit property owner's
ability to suggest alternatives that may also be appropriate.
o Define meaning of "rural" as an additional condition to aIlow electronic
gates.
o Prohibit barbed wire fencing.
o Not regulate post cap height and size; leave to the discretion of the property
owner.
DISCUSSION
At the conclusion of the October 25th meeting, the Commission requested that staff
develop options to the Fence Ordinance. As a result, the following options are offered
for consideration:
5-:(
MCA-200S-0! -- Fence Ordinance, Ch. !6.28
December 13, 2005
Page 3
Fence Height
1. Permit an eight foot high fence, where a six foot fence is allowed, regardless
of the approval of adjacent property owners. However, building permit
approval would still be required.
2. Maintain existing language in the ordinance.
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends Option 2 to maintain the existing language
in the ordinance, making no changes to the process for allowing higher fences. If an
adjacent property owner does not agree to an eight foot fence, the property owner
seeking the eight foot fence may apply for a fence exception, which is reviewed and
determined by the Design Review Committee.
Option 1 is listed as an alternative to the existing fence regulations. Option 1 would
aIlow up to an eight foot high fence on a residential lot where a six foot high fence is
currently permitted by the fence ordinance, regardless of the approval of adjacent
property owners, and with the exception that the property owner would be required to
obtain a building permit. Where such fences are on common property lines, as is the
case with many fences, the decision of fence height (e.g., between a six foot or eight
foot fence) would be between the common property owners. Such a decision is a civil
matter between the common property owners as private citizens, which means that the
City would not be involved with any decision or disputes between property owners in
such instances, provided that the resulting height is allowable per the Fence
Ordinance.
Electronic Gates
1. Allow driveway gates, regardless of whether they are electronic or manual.
2. Allow driveway gates, regardless of whether they are electronic or manual,
subject to an exception.
3. Prohibit driveway gates entirely in residential areas
4. Add language regarding standards to mitigate the visibility of driveway
gates along street frontages, specific setback distances for gates to prevent
cars from queuing into the street, and Fire Department requirements to
ensure emergency vehicle access onto sites (e.g., Fremont and Gilroy
ordinances.)
5. Maintain the existing ordinance language.
6. Provide a definition for "rural" and decide whether a "rural" development
can be interpreted interchangeably as a "secluded" development, since a
"secluded" development is an identified condition in which the Commission
may grant electronic gates.
During the meeting, the Commission discussed whether or not driveway gates should
be allowed, regardless if they are electronic or manual, and also requested that setback
standards for driveway gates be included as a safety measure. The Commission also
5-3
MCA-2005-01 -' Fence Ordinance, Ch. 16.28
December 13, 2005
Page 4
asked for a definition of "rural." Staff believes this request is based upon discussions at
the August 23rd Planning Commission study session at which time the term "rural"
was used interchangeably with "secluded." "Secluded" developments are specificaIly
identified as a condition in which the Commission may grant electronic gates;
however, "rural" is not. Neither term is specifically defined.
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends Options 2, 4 and 6. Staff recommends that
all driveway gates, whether they are electronic or manual, be subject to an exception.
Staff also suggests that such gates be set back to a distance that would prevent a visual
proliferation of gates along the frontage of properties and prevent cars from queuing
into the street. For example, driveway gates that are placed on flag lots could be
placed closer to the home on the rear or "flag" portion of the lot as opposed to the long
driveway or "pole" portion of the property. This would provide the security of gates
closer to the home on such properties and would also eliminate the visibility of such
gates along the street frontage. Additionally, driveway gates that are set back in such
instances will allow for ample driveway lengths so that cars will not need to queue
into adjacent streets and create possible safety hazards for pedestrians.
Further, staff recommends that the Commission determine whether "rural"
development can be used interchangeably as "secluded" development, and provide
staff with parameters to create a definition for these terms.
Fence Materials
1. Define appropriate materials for gates in residential areas versus commercial
areas.
2. Prohibit barbed wire fencing.
3. Make no changes in the ordinance.
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends Option ~ to amend the Fence Ordinance to
prohibit barbed wire and other similar security wire, and that a definition such as the
following be considered:
"Barbed wire, razor wire, and/ or electrified fencing are prohibited unless required by
law or regulation of the City, State or Federal Government."
Staff believes that regulating security fencing reduces the need to regulate other types
of fencing. Most types of other fencing, such as wood, masonry, and wrought iron, are
likely to be acceptable.
5-4
MCA-200S-0! -- Fence Ordinance, Ch. !6.28
December 13, 2005
Page 5
Fence Post Caps
1. Provide clarification in the ordinance regarding the height and size of post
caps.
2. Maintain existing language in the ordinance that excludes post caps from
fence height requirements.
Staff recommendation: Although the Commission expressed support for Option 2,
staff would like to point out that residents have expressed concerns in the past that
post caps can be quite large and are not consistent with the six foot height limit.
Therefore, staff recommends Option 1.
Attachments
Exhibit A - Minutes of the October 25, 2005 Planning Commission meeting
Exhibit B - Staff Report of October 25, 2005, including all fence attachments
Aki Honda, Senior Planner
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development
-=5"U.c-e p . £.. ~
(/~ c/T-\""¡('.{J
. Preparedby:
Approved by:
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\pcMCAreports\Dec. 13, 200S - Fence Ordinance Study Session.doc
Ss
Cupertino Planning Commission
24
October 25, 2005
· The other thing I disagree is that rent control does not work very well; I believe that the market
should control that and this particular building is $900 to $1200, so the market will control the
rent; and by implementing a rent control ordinance in Cupertino, it is not justified.
· Said he agreed with Vice Chair Miller's and Com. Chen's suggestion about a policy; however,
this applicant should not be caught up in that policy. It sets a bad precedent for other potential
folks who want to buy homes in Cupertino, perhaps by other apar1ments that it might send a
signal that we can buy this property and do a conversion of these rental units for-sale. That is
something we have to examine at Ii later point, and may be something to suggest to the City
Council and city staff to impose a moratorium until we have the policy in place; because we
already have four projects.
· 1 strongly believe there should be a moratorium until we set some policy.
· 1 would support a continuance.
Mr. Piasecki:
· He clarified that the housing element is not completely silent on the issue of rental housing
stock; it does have some statements about trying to enhance and preserve rental housing stock.
Chair Wong:
· The reason why my statement was so strong is that I think all the Planning Commissioners
agree that we want affordable housing units in Cupertino; and as we see more of these units
convert from for-sale, they are selling for over $1 million which is beyond our control.
The applicant indicated he was agreeable to a continuance to December 13, 2005.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Saadati, to continue Application
U-200S-18, TM-200S-08, Z-200S-06, and ASA-200S-14 to the
December 13,2005 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Chair Wong declared a recess.
7.
MCA-200S-01
Citywide Location
Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter
1628 (Fences)
Aki Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Explained that the application was a continuation of the study session of the Municipal Code
Amendment of Chapter 16.28 (Fences)
· She reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the staff report, and discussed the
issues /Tom the August 23, 2005 Plaruring Commission meeting. Citywide notices of the
meetings were sent to previous fence exception applicants and community members.
· She reviewed the written responses received by the city, outlining concerns and suggestions.
The responses are outlined in the attached staff report, Page 7-2.
· Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide comment and direction to staff on
how to proceed regarding the fence ordinance after hearing public comment.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Paul Bommarito, Martinwood Way:
· Expressed frustration about waiting for 4 hours before the application was discussed.
· He expressed concern about the granny house built in the neighbor's yard only 4-112 feet /Tom
his fence which negatively impacted his privacy.
5-&
Cupertino Planning Commission
25
October 25, 2005
· Read Chapter 1628 relative to regulating the location and height of fences and vegetation in
yards of all zoning districts in order to protect the safety, privacy and property values of
residents.
· Said he spent in excess of $5,000 for landscaping in the back of his fence because he was not
permitted to build it higher, and the neighbor would not agree to adding lattice on top of the
fence. He said he was displeased with the city and what they allow.
Chair Wong:
· Said he would follow up with the city manager to see if anything could be done.
· Asked staff to research to see if the granny unit is up to code or is too close to the fence.
Ms. Wordell:
· Reminded the Planning Commission that the fence ordinance requires the permission of the
adjacent property owner to exceed the 6 foot height limit for a fence. She said it could be an
issue for the Planning Commission to consider.
· Said that a detached accessory structure can be as close as 3 feet if the wall plane is no higher
than 7 feet. If there is a sloped roof or a hip roof on an accessory structure, it can be quite
close.
JMC Tucker, resident:
· The fence ordinance does not go into any details about what can go next to a fence; a
homeowner especially today with this land would like to put shrubs or trees or some kind of
storage structure close to the fence and I don't see a problem with that provided a number of
guidelines are followed.
· He suggested that the shrubs should be no higher than the fence and not interfere with the
neighbor with debris. He added that the widest portion of the tree should not be any closer
than 3 feet; but the rule of portion is that if it should impend to the neighbor's yard and
anything that does grow into the neighbor's yard, is the tree owner's responsibility to trim.
· Said he would like the ordinance control egregious neighbors from planting trees within inches
of the fence line; in some cases the tree grows so large that the trunk pushes the boundary over.
· He said he suggested a fine system that would include a fee for filing a grievance, which would
eliminate frivolous filings. There is also a fme for being in non-compliance. He said that the
tree owner should be responsible for the maintenance of the trees.
Chair Wong:
· Asked staff to address his concem that the privacy protection plan Rl may not work. What
Mr. Tucker is suggesting is that trees should not be planted higher than the fences; however, it
will conflict with the city's RI privacy protection plan.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said it was a good observation because there are competing interests of people who want
privacy on one side and people who don't want privacy on the othèr, which could be difficult
to arbitrate.
Bruce McFarlane, Cupertino resident:
· There is no point in modifYing the fence code if there is no enforcement.
· He recalled that when he constructed a fence in the past, he had to obtain code documentation
from the city. A neighbor put in a fence over 8 feet high, next to the sidewalk; it was a
beautiful fence but in the wrong place. When he called the city, he was told by city staff that
5-7
Cupertino Planning Commission
26
October 25, 2005
they would look into the issue of the location of the fence, but never followed through. The
fence remains and is aesthetically very poor.
· He encouraged enforcement of the existing fence code.
Chair Wong:
· Asked staff to follow up on Mr. McFarlane's concern.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
· Said she was strongly opposed to electronic gates.
· There is a time and place for electronic gates in an area with large holdings or large estates.
Electronic gates in suburban areas gives the impression of a gated community and gives a bad
impression to other neighbors. It is good to have security and possibly a gate of some type
across your property that you might roll across the property; but I don't think in most of the
suburban neighborhoods in Cupertino on city-sized lots that there should be electronic gates.
· It looks like a compound and you are trying to exclude other people. It is also a nuisance for
delivery vehicles.
· Asked for a vote to eliminate the electronic fences in Cupertino unless in a remote area.
Chris Draper, Government Affairs Coordinator, Silicon Valley Assoc. of Realtors:
· Encouraged the use of electronic gates; the current ordinance already allows for gates; the
gates are aIready there; the only difference is whether they open manually or electronically.
· The gates provide privacy and security and we want to be considerate of those concerns.
· Commented that the fence post caps are an expression of individual homeowner's taste, and
asked that they not be required to go through a design review process.
Discussion ensued regarding the possibility of continuing the fence ordinance application due to
the absence of the Director of Community Development and Com. Chen, and the late hour. It was
suggested to schedule a special meeting to discuss the item.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Said they should not be regulating the fence post caps.
· Relative to electronic gates, consistency is important. The issue has arisen a number of times
and as some of the speakers pointed out, we allow gates now, but we have an issue when they
are electronic gates.
· Said they need to be consistent and allow both gates and electronic gates when they meet the
requirements of an exception. As staff pointed out, there are some requirements that need to
follow along with that so that there are not cars queuing up in the street. Staff suggested a
minimum 20 foot setback, which is a good idea. There has to be some way for emergency
vehicles to get in and out.
· Questioned why structures were being built so close to the fence line; and said it would seem a
reasonable exception in the few cases that it has occurred, to do something to improve the
neighbor's privacy who is being impacted by having the structure so close to his property line.
· Iron or wood fences should be addressed on a case-by-case basis because it is an architectural
issue and should be treated relative to whether or not the fence and the type of material used is
appropriate for the house and the neighborhood.
Com. Saadati:
· The fence post caps do not have significant impact on the fence; it is ornamental and should
not be regulated. We need to at least review it because one could put a post cap too high.
· Regarding electronic gates, we should allow it to be electronic or not allow any gates.
5-8
Cupertino Planning Commission
27
October 25, 2005
· We need to be careful about shrubs because there are some shrubs next to fences that grow
about 15 to 20 feet high and provide privacy and it doesn't affect the neighbor. It depends
what is next to you.
· If we are going to limit it, we need to word it in such a way that we don't have to revisit it very
soon. Trees cannot be too close to the fence because they tend to have branches going over the
neighbor's fence. If we require the branches be cut at the fence line, the trees won't survive.
That also needs to be addressed.
· Relative to a fence ordinance requiring the neighbor's permission for a fence over 6 feet high,
he said they needed to allow for flexibility. The public could apply to the Planning
Commission for an exception, and for privacy purposes, it is something the Planning
Commission should be able to do.
· Relative to setbacks and corner lots, if they can push the fence back some, it would be
appropriate; but most communities have a similar requirement about corner lots fencing.
Com. Giefer:
· Said that defming materials is appropriate. A fence ordinance should specifically defme what
are appropriate fence materials in a residential area. In a commercial area that abuts a
residential area, having a spiked fence post with razor wire over it, does not make for a
congenial neighborhood; or if you abut up to a creek or a channel, and the water district
decides to put razor wire behind your house, you are not going to be happy. A responsibility
exists to define materials used; an approved materials list needs to be compiled and all other
things needs to be reviewed by the DRC or as a Director's minor modification.
· She said she did not like any gates, either electronic or manual. If they are going to jettison
electronic gates and forbid them, they should get rid of driveway gates also because they add
an element of exclusivity. She asked that the term "rural" be defined if they are considering
allowing electronic gates in rural areas. She pointed out that in her opinion, rural did not mean
living on a flag lot, and she felt they were out of place as she did not feel they created a
congenial neighborhood environment when erecting buttresses and fences to prohibit people
ITom passing into other's space.
Chair Wong:
· It does not matter whether the gate is manual or electronic; a gate is a gate, and relates to
safety, health and welfare. Many people would like the convenience of an electronic gate to
open it since the gate is already there; we should allow that option and flexibility.
· Suggested that barbwire fences be illegal.
· Making a list of approved materials sets a dangerous precedent; I agree that good fences make
good neighbors; what type of material makes a good fence is in the eye of the beholder. We
should allow the flexibility to add a lattice atop a fence, or some other kind of decorative
material; and that is one of the reasons why I wanted to press the fence ordinance, to allow that
kind of flexibility. If someone wants to do a wrought iron fence or if they want to do a cyclone
fence or decorative stone fence, it should be up to the private property owner in conjunction
with their neighbors and working with city staff. If you put a list of approved materials and
then looking at different neighbors, I would prefer to let private property owners decide among
themselves. I feel very strongly that we should not have government interfere with private
property.
· Regarding the fence posts, I believe it is a private property issue; city government should not
be regulating that issue and the whole point of me bringing this forward is to allow more
private property rights.
5-q
Cupertino Planning Commission
28
October 25, 2005
Motion:
Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to continue
Application MCA-2001-01 to the December 13, 2005 Planning Commission
meeting. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Chen absent)
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee:
· Chair Wong reported the meeting was cancelled for lack of business.
Housin!! Commission:
· Com. Saadati did not attend the last meeting since he did not receive a meeting notice.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetin!! With Commissioners:
· Corn. Saadati wiII provide a report at the next meeting.
Economic Develonment Committee Meetin!!:
· Chair Wong reported the meeting was cancelled for lack of business.
Director of Communitv Develonment:
· Ms. Wordell had no additional report.
A brief discussion ensued regarding the November 8th Planning Commission meeting. Chair
Wong said he felt the meeting should be telecast.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the November 8, 2005 Planning
Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary
5-/0
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
MCA-2005-01
City of Cupertino
Various
City-wide
Agenda Date: October 25, 2005
Summary: Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter 16.28 (Fences)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
. Comment and provide direction to staff regarding Chapter 16.28, Fence Ordinance.
BACKGROUND
In April, the Planning Commission and City Council agreed to include review of the
Fence Ordinance as a part of the 2005-2006 Work Program (See Exhibit A.)
At the August 23, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission conducted a
study session to review the City's Fence and Sign Ordinances and discussed the
possibility of updating thése ordinances. Regarding review of the Fence Ordinance,
the Commission discussed the following matters:
· Whether a distinction should be made between electronic vs. manuaIly operated
gates.
· If "safety," "flag lots" and/or additional considerations should be included as
conditions to aIlow vehicular electronic security gates (Section 16.28.045 of the
Fence Ordinance)
· That the intention of the vehicular electronic security gate requirements is to
prevent the proliferation of "excluded" gated communities by way of electronic
gates
· Whether to limit the height and size of post caps on fences
The Commission also stated the importance of hearing community input before
making any recommendations for amendments to these ordinances and, subsequently,
requested that the public be notified of the next study sessions on these ordinances.
The Commission requested applicants of any fence and sign exception applications
from the previous 12-18 months be notified of these meetings. Further, the
Commission asked that these ordinances be brought back to the Commission as
separate hearing items, starting with the Fence Ordinance.
5-/1
MCA-200S-0J -- Fence Ordinance, Ch. J6.28
October 25, 2005
Page 2
In response to the Commission's request, Citywide notices and notices to previous
fence exception applicants were sent out inviting the community to the October 25th
meeting and to provide any input and feedback on how this ordinance might be
changed to better meet the needs of the community. As stated earlier, review of the
Sign Ordinance will be conducted separately and will be scheduled for the November
22, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
DISCUSSION
The City received five written statements from members of the community in response
to the notices that were sent Citywide and to previous fence exception applicants. A
statement was received from Bob Hoxsie (See Exhibit D) who stated that he is not in
support of large driveway gates (electronic or otherwise) as they are too imposing
within the neighborhoods and are provided purely for status reasons, that "security" is
not an argument for these gates and that higher fences should be allowed in rear yards
and that lattice be allowed on top of these fences up to a 7 or 8 foot height. He also
suggested that an additional foot of lattice be aIlowed on side yard fences in the front
yard setback area.
Comments were also submitted by James Ashborn (See Exhibit E) who expressed
views that he is not supportive of front yard fences, front yard waIls and waIled
compounds in residential areas.
Emails were also received from Iris Gorgen (See Exhibit F), V.R. McFarland (See
Exhibit G), and Fred Lam (See Exhibit H). Ms. Gorgen would like consideration of a
regulation prohibiting use of a common fence between property lines to support a side
of a raised bed on a property. V.R. McFarland recommends that fence heights should
be no higher than 6 or 7 feet, that no lattice or décor be allowed on top of the maximum
height, and that plantings should not intrude onto the sidewalks. A further comment
is made that hedges or plantings along the sidewalk, curbs and corners higher than
three feet are a hazard to both drivers and walkers. Mr. Lam states that he has seen
landscaping, such as Italian Cypress trees, being used as a fencing mechanism,
particularly in the hillside areas which blocks the hillside views. He requests that such
use of landscaping as a fencing mechanism be considered a nuisance and that
California Civil Code 841.4 be incorporated into the ordinance.
Prepared by:
Approved by:
Aki Honda, AICP, Senior Planner .
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~
Attachments
Exhibit A - Portion of the City Council Goals and Planning Commission Work
Program for 2005-2006
S:/~
~ ~~ ~
en N ~ ~r ~
~ ~ _. o _. 0 (¡ S
>- ~ s·6 0 ..,
>ïj :;¡ §' ¡¡: t:i .., N ~ g
¡ql g 0 entj"t:l g Z
0 - 0 F-~ ¡¡ -.?; e¡ s. ¡;; ¡;')
"t:I " a g a .., -. t:i ::t.
~ '" e: ~. g g9~ t:i
'" ~. go '" !:s t:i (Jq ~~ 0 "':
CJQ t:i 0 ~ § 0 o t:i ~
'" a - g " 8.~ CJQ
go '" "5. a ao
0\ _. 5 ~ " '"
-. t:i '" ~ -. _. ...., [:;j
0 - '" ~ t:i t:i Q
...., :::-: g '" o ()
- " .., () g § g
-I « '" >-c; ~ _. ~
_. 0 -.
'" Pi t:i t:i " '"
t:i - p.. '" '" ..,
CJQ § '" '" ~ CJQ '" ~cn ~ en
'1:1 ~'" '"
.., 3 ~ ~ i3 l::í >-c;
..s. " CD a--
g 0 '" t:i §
'" ~
" ...., ~ ~ 'g
- S- >-c; _.
'" () g
ª' ::s 00::::;:;
i5' '" - "
;:; ~ .....
'" .., '"
'8' .!"
0
-
~ >ïj ~E;
~0'Ì; ~.~ 0 ~o
.., '0 <:: g S.g
-.
~E:" o tI:I '" '" p.. ~ '" -
1iÞ· ~ & -~ 0 -.",
<:: '" Π'" ::! o p..
" - - t:i 0
'" - - '< '" N -. -
õ~ r-- en ~ i3 0 ~ SON
....,,,,
'1:1 '" '" S. 0 q t:i
Pi '" ~ 0 ~t:i ...., º ¡¡: i3
'" " t:i .. PiCJQ '1:1
s- g '" () 0 õ ª .., 5·
0 ;g.'" s g
" 0 ::S,.ñ -p.. ....
'"
o i3 " 0 '" _. "
t:i t:i .... tn. 0 0
t:i _. '" rng '" - <:: 0
'" " ~.> p.. ~ ~p..
ã 5· '" <:: q .., " '"
" ". "¡¡ g [3 ~ ¡¡: '" 0 3
....g _.0 ~ ~ g
~ P". ~J'b ¡:: :cT ~ ¡;; Pi
'" <:: -en '" '"
g '" o .... p.." ::t. " S-
o _
'" ~ ~ 8.~ t:i '" '"
cTi5' -.", '" § t:i
S.1-1 '" t:i _. , -
-'1:1 ::t. 00 " ~ ".!"
~:;j. t:i () g '" ~. ¡>
t:i <:: CJQ .., p..;::' -CJQ
Q ua~ ~~ a: § '" .
'" i3 "
"" o .
n 8. .., tI:I t:i ~ '"
if p..o ~t:i
5 '1:1 go" ¡;¡ ~
() §. G~ '"
0 rn
~ - å. ~
_.
"
~. :3 6: tI1
-
~ ~"r-< ~
~ ....p.. 0
o 0 '" _. ~
00 en::S ~ " ::t.
!<? o " g. g ~
.." '"
;¡; t:i 8 ~ p ~ p..
§. '" rn ~ '" q cT
2."'::T " '" ~
.¡¡: ,..,.tro " '"
00_ ::Trn
() -" '" ~ a. ::T
0 o .... 0 ~
~. ~~a g-~
'" _.
00 ~q.::s r::.cT Pi
00
o· ~o§ '" '" 0
= =::s B.g ~ " ....,
::S (') 0 "'. '" 0 ()
'" '='> ~ -t:i
0 '" 0
¡;¡. rn g ~ _. §
p..
.." ~~~ @
<3 o I- (3 ~
'I'¡ '" '" p..
š ~~.g i5' '"
..,
I -....
~'"
:> -. p..
'g. o cT
- iil«
.... .1
N
0
0
V>
tr:1
~
.......
0:;
.......
>-i
>-
-
"d
.,
Q
.....
~
r>
....
ø
Q
I>:>
-
r---
1J1
....
I>:>
....
=
'"
I
-
I
('j
-.
......
'-<
('j
o
=
=
~
-.
-
(j
Q
e
e
~
=
....
en
ø
o
~
-
1J1
~
=
Q.
~
-
~
~=
'" =
~ -.
.. =
~ere!
="",
~ ~ 1
-. 0
~a
~. a
_. ...,.
qrI'J
rI'J
o _.
;'0
~ =
~
o
'"'
~
~
'"'
o
ere!
'"'
~
a
N
c
C
tit
I
N
C
C
0'\
5-14
Cupertino Planning Commission
27
August 23, 2005
OLD BUSINESS: None
EXHIBIT B
NEW BUSINESS:
7. Consideration of amendments to fence ordinance (Chapter 16.28) and sign ordinance
(Chapter 17.32)
Ms. Honda presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the staff report.
· At the June 14, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission asked staff to bring back
the Fence and Sign Ordinance for review and discussion. The fence ordinance is being
reviewed as a result of a recent fence exception application for an electronic gate system,
which was denied by the DRC, upheld by the Planning Commission and subsequently the City
Council denied the appeal to grant the request for the fence exception.
· The sign ordinance is brought forward for review also.
· The issues raised at the March Planning Commission meeting relative to the fence ordinance
included:
o Distinctions between a manual1y operated gate vs. an electronical1y operated gate;
o Interpretation of meanings for conditions requiring "secluded" developments and
"demonstrated security reasons;"
o "Safety" as a consideration in addition to "security"
o Community needs.
· She reviewed the policies in other cities as set forth in the staff report.
· Reviewed the alternatives the Planning Commission may consider m recommending·
amendments to the section of the fence ordinance.
Chair Wong:
· As we have major developments in Cupertino, we also encourage architectural articulation that
may exceed a height requirement such as a tower element or a circle element to bring
articulation to the design of either the building or arence.
· He said he understood what was said regarding the white picket fence with a smal1er
articulation, but in some of our developments in Cupertino, we have been encouraging it and I
question why you are discouraging it on this particular case.
Ms. Wordell:
· Presently there are no requirements for articulation on fences; it might be something you
would want to bring up as some design guidelines.
Chair Wong:
· It shows that staff is concemed about some of these articulations being too large or massive.
Ms. Honda:
· I think staff's concern is we don't know how much higher these post caps may go or the size
they may extend to in the future; at this point wanting to bring that forth is basical1y something
that the Planning Commission can consider.
· In addition to the fence ordinance, staff is also bringing the sign ordinance to the Planning
Commission for review, at the request of the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Staff is requesting the Planning Commission's direction on amendments for the sign
ordinance.
5-/5
Cupertino Planning Commission
28
August 23, 2005
· Staff has met with the Chamber of Commerce; however, they have not had a chance to discuss
their different issues are with the sign ordinance. They will be coming back to staff within the
next month with feedback.
· Staff is requesting Planning Commission direction on how to proceed with the sign and
fencing ordinances.
Vice Chair Miller:
· How was the application noticed?
Ms. Honda:
· This is conducted as a study session so it is just for the Planning Commission and is not
noticed as a public hearing. At the time when the Commission is ready to hear it as actual
amendments to the zoning ordinance, we will notice it to the public.
Vice Chair Miller:
· We want to get feedback rrom the community before we decide what direction to go, and on
the sign ordinance clearly the Chamber of Commerce is appropriate. Also we could probably
go back on a number of sign applications that we have had over the last couple of years, and
make sure that those people be noticed as well.
· On the fence ordinance, there are some streets in town which seem to have a propensity to
come up and ask for fence exceptions. We may look at noticing those streets and also a lot of
fence exceptions seems to come having to do with flag lots; just looking for people who would
potentially have an interest in this; whether we notice the entire city or a selected area to notice
that would have a particular interest in the application.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said they could advertise in the Cupertino Scene, and possibly do a citywide mailing.
Com. Chen:
· Regarding the sign ordinance, I agree that we should wait for the Chamber to provide their
comments.
· Regarding the fence, I agree with Com. Saadati's comments rrom earlier in the meeting that if
we already allow a gate and that we provide certain restrictions on the gate, and whether it is
electronic or not, really doesn't make any difference because the [mdings or decisions have
already been made based on reasons whether it is seen as security or safety or other reasons. I
don't know why an electronic gate is something that has to be excluded rrom the fence
ordinance.
· I am pleased to see there is an exception process for the Commission or other groups to review
the need for a proposed fence proposed or proposed gate.
· I support the fence ordinance for now, unless further directions are requircd.
Com. Giefer:
· Regarding the fence ordinance, concur with Vice Chair Miller that we need to do outreach to
the best of our ability to get input rrom the public on why they want some things that are not
currently in it, and why we should not allow some things that are currently in it.
· Recalled that years ago the City Council debated electronically controlled gates across
driveways; but when they chose not to allow electronically driven fences, it was specifically
because they wanted Cupertino to look like an inclusive community and not an exclusive
community. There seems to be a proliferation of illegally constructed elec1ronically fences
5-/b
Cupertino Planning Commission
29
August 23, 2005
and a better way to go about it is to perhaps say ''No, you should not be allowed to have a
fence across your vehicular driveway at all" but there are sometimes when you do need them.
· I have not yet as a Planning Commission or DRC member come across an electronic fence
that I thought was rural enough to support. I can imagine that there are places within
Cupertino in the hillsides where one might feel they need it for security purposes, the same
reason as electronic fences. Also, I think that what we want to avoid is 'mansionizing'. We
want to avoid having people within neighborhoods which I saw in Los Angeles, where there
are neighborhoods with tract homes that have walls and electronic gates and it looks so absurd.
If we change the ordinance to make it easier to have an electronic gate, I am afÌ"aid we are
going to have a proliferation of these things in the flat lands in people's neighborhoods where
it will look outlandish. .
· We need to investigate what we would like to have as a community in terms of fence posts,
finials, etc. on top of our fences. We need to set some standards for common sense for use of
fences and such things.
· With regard to signs, we are currently seeing quite a few signs in the DRC; I welcome the
comments fÌ"om the community and also businesses within the community and understand
better what they do need. Some of the signs we have approved that have been erected, I feel
we made a mistake on them, because they look clunky where we have granted an exception.
· I think it is good to revisit this as a group and determine what is the best sign policy for us
within the city and all agree on it. I think it serves two purposes; it reduces the amount of
exceptions we have to grant if we have more of a homogenized program; it is more continuity
within the community; which makes sense as well.
Chair Wong:
· According to the staff report, the sign ordinance says that one of the goals that staff wrote is
the signage; also the Chamber is advocating to have successful advertising for the businesses.
Some drivers don't follow the speed limit and sometimes cannot see the sign when passing by
them.
Com. Saadati:
· Regarding both items, we need to have some outreach. For thè signs, go to the business
communities to those who have signs already, and get their feedback as to the impact of the
sign, the size and how it helps or doesn't help their business; some good or bad examples, and
see how we can come up with a better ordinance.
· Relative to the gate ordinance I think we should not make the distinction between electronic
and regular gates. If there is a gate, then we can allow it based on security or another reason;
if you put a gate there it looks like a gated community. We have to get input fÌ"om the
community and also get a list of all the gates that have been approved and see how many of
them we have around; and are they serving the purpose. As far as coming up with some
standards which make it more attractive and limitation on the height of post caps, etc. those are
the things we need to focus on. The major thing is just the gate itself. Should we allow it or
not, whether or not it is electronic or not? Hopefully we can get input fÌ"om community and
modify our ordinance.
Chair Wong:
· Relative to the sign ordinance, the Chamber of Commerce would like to have a successful sign
ordinance that can promote more business in Cupertino; that is really important.
· Customers can find Cupertino businesses; we want them to shop in Cupertino and also bring
sales tax back to us, so we need to help Cupertino businesses and we need to do some
outreach.
5-/1
Cupertino Planning Commission
30
August 23, 2005
· Suggested for outreach that they go back 12 to 18 months to all of the sign ordinance
exceptions granted and infonn them that the city is considering changes, and solicit input on
their experiences; if they were to change it, what would they want changed, do they want
bigger signs; different colors; how do they like the ordinance? A good resource is people who
went through the process and if we are granting these exceptions anyway, why don't we
streamline the process and have less bureaucracy. It is important to get feedback rrom those
people.
· I talked to one major hotel person in town that went through the sign ordinance and they were
happy with the process; but also they felt that if the process was streamlined, they wanted
more flexibility for more signs.
· One concern is getting entrance signs because many businesses are difficult for customers to
locate and they want the flexibility to have better identification.
· We did review the sign ordinance about a year ago and we allowed some flexibility but I think
we need more flexibility, but we need to do a better outreach and we are already starting on
that process. The key is successfully advertised business in Cupertino so we can bring more
sales tax.
· Regarding the fence ordinance, I agree with Com. Giefer that we should avoid
"mans ionization" of Cupertino. I believe that it has to be on a case-by-case study to allow an
electronic gate or not; I think that some of the findings staff came up with are very good.
· We need to add safety as a consideration in addition to security and I believe that paragraph is
very good.
· Community needs: the findings that are currently written up don't allow that flexibility and I
believe the community needs the paragraph that allows that flexibility. He concurred with
Com. Giefer that they don't want tract homes to have security gates where they don't have a
legitimate reason for them. Perhaps on flag lots, if the applicant can demonstrate child safety
or something legitimate. The way it is written, we have to grant an exception and the
community is tired of granting exceptions. Mayor K wok made it clear that he did not want to
grant more exceptions and I believe we need more flexibility in that; safety community
meetings is a start for having discussion on that.
· On Page 7-3, there are current policies that the city of Fremont and Gilroy has a well written
gate policy. Not everything in the city of Fremont or Gilroy will work in Cupertino, but I
think maybe we can borrow some of their ideas and try to implement them.
· I realize that every parcel doesn't need a gated community, but there were some emotional
pleas on St. Lucia Road for a gated community and some neighbors are waiting for us to make
a decision on it. We have to do a review process, have a public hearing and make sure this is
the right thing for us. Staff needs to do the public outreach through the community, the
chamber, through other businesses, through past sign ordinance exceptions, even the fence
ordinance exception. We need to do as much research and come back in two months.
Chair Wong:
· It needs to be advertised for the public to come and have a study session at 5 p.m., one hour
prior to our regular meeting. The next Planning Commission meeting is fully booked.
Ms. Honda:
· Clarified that when we bring this back to you do you want us to provide some specific written
draft language to you at that time, or leave it open and wait for the community.
Chair Wong:
· Said the consensus was that the Planning Commission wanted to hear more input rrom the
public and businesses.
5/6
EXHIBIT C
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Agenda Date:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
Study Session Items: Fence Ordinance (Chapter 16.28 of the Cupertino Municipal
Code) and Sign Ordinance (Chapter 17 of the Cupertino Municipal
Code)
August 23, 2005
City of Cupertino
Various .
City-wide
Summary: Consideration of amendments to fence ordinance (Chapter 16.28) and sign
ordinance (Chapter 17.32)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
. Review, comment and provide direction to staff regarding Chapter 16.28, Fence
Ordinance, and Chapter 17.32, Sign Ordinance.
BACKGROUND
At the June 14, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recorrunended
bringing the Fence and Sign Ordinances back to a meeting for review and discussion to
contemplate the possibility of amending these ordinances.
The Fence Ordinance is being reviewed by the Planning Commission as a result of a
recent fence exception application for an electronic gate system. On Februrary 7, 2005,
the Design Review Committee (ORe) considered a fence exception application, EXC-
2005-01, filed by Jirnbo Schwalb, to convert an existing permitted 7-foot taIl manual
metal gate to an electronic gate on property located at 10655 Santa Lucia Road, within
a residential neighborhood. The DRC denied the application stating that the applicant
could not meet any of the required conditions for an electronic gate.
The applicant appealed the denial to the Planning Commission, at which time on
March 22,2005, the Commission on a 3-1-1 vote (Commissioner Giefer recorrunended
denial, Commissioner Chen was absent) recorrunended to uphold the· appeal to grant
the applicant's request for a fence exception. The application then went to the May 3,
2005 City Council meeting at which time the Council denied the appeal and upheld the
DRC's denial of the fence exception. However, the Council also requested that the
Fence Ordinance be further studied and brought back for discussion and review as a
result of this application.
.;J4 5~Jq
Study Session on Fence Ordinance, Ch. 16.28, and Sign Ordinance, Ch. 17
August 23, 2005
Page 2
The Sign Ordinance is also reviewed by the Commission based upon past discussions
by the Commission and Council to det~rrnine if the ordinance is effectively business-
friendly.
As a result, staff is bringing the Fence and Sign Ordinances to the Commission as a
study session for review and discussion of possible amendments and to ask the
Commission how staff is to proceed with them.
DISCUSSION
Fence Ordinance, Chapter 16.28
At the March 22nd Planning Commission meeting, the Commission raised several
issues pertaining to the requirements to grant a fence exception for vehicular electronic
security gates per Section 16.28.045. These issues include the ne~d to address:
o Distinctions between a ¡nanmÛly operated gate vs. an electronically operated
gate.
The Commission asked for clarification on whether thE issue pertains to a distinction
between a manually operated gate vs. an electronically operated gate, or if the issue
relates to whether driveway gates s/wuld be allowed, if the rationale behind the
ordinance is to discourage the appearance of an un-neighborly, gated community.
o Interpretation of meanings for conditions requiring "secluded" developments
and "demonstrated security reasons."
The Commission asked for an interpretation of meanings for "secluded" developments
and" demonstrated security reasons." The Commission felt tlw.t "secluded" development
could mean a development tlw.t cannot be seen from thE street or is within an area that
Iw.s a rural appearance. The Commission also felt tlw.t "demonstrated security reasons"
could also be demonstrated by verified crime statistics within a neighborhood and not
necessarily just for the subject property for which the application is being considered.
o "Safety" as a consideration in addition to "security."
The Commission indicated it is essential to make a distinction between electronic gates
needed for "safety" reasom, in addition to "security" reasons. In addition to keeping
properties secure from burglary, theft, vandalism or trespassing, the Commission stated
tJuzt such gates may be needed for the safety of children, where a parked car on a slope
may fail, particularly in inclement weather, before the driver can manually open the
gate.
o Community needs.
The Commission stated tlw.t they would like to hear community input pertaining to
whether or not tl1ere is a greater need for electronic security gates in the community
beyond those stated in the ordinance and to see· if thEre is a need in single-family
residential districts for such gates. .
~
5-~o.
Study Session on Fence Ordillance, Ch. 16.28, and Sign Ordinance, Ch. 17
August 23, 2005
Page 3
Staff has conducted surveys of many of the surrounding communities in Santa Clara
County, including Los Gatos, Santa Oara, Sunnyvale, Los Altos, Campbell, Monte
Sereno, Gilroy and the cities of Fremont and Newark in Alameda County to compare
policies and regulations on electronic security gates. Of these communities, only the
cities of Fremont and Gilroy have specificaIly written policies regarding electronic
security gates (See Exhibits C and D). Many of these other communities dò not have
specific written policies or regulations; however, these communities did cite some
similar requirements they would apply. in reviewing and approving such gates.
Just as the policies for Fremont and Gilroy state, many of the communities require that
such gates, particularly when located near a driveway, are set back approximately 20-
25 feet from the public street right-of-way to prevent cars from queuing into the street
waiting for the gates to open, meet the setback requirements for fencing regardless of
being a motorized or manual gate (in which case, most six foot high fences would only
be aIlowed a minimum 20 feet from the front property line), and meet all Fire
Department requirements, particularly with respect to providing a knox key or box.
In light of this survey and the Commission's comments from the March 22nd meeting,
staff offers the following alternatives for the Commission to consider in recommending
amendments to this section of the Fence Ordinance:
o Maintain the existing conditions in the Fence Ordinance for aIlowing vehicular
electronic security gates, with expanded definitions to further clarify what the
conditions mean (i.e., clarify meanings for "secluded" developments and
"demonstrated security reasons, including "safety" within the definition for·
"demonstrated security reasons."
o Provide further explanation in the Fence Ordinance as to why electronic gates
are discouraged in the community (i.e., reiterate that the objective of this section
of the Fence Ordinance is to discourage the proliferation of creating an un-
neighborly, gated community).
o Expand the conditions in the Fence Ordinance to aIlow for additional
circumstances where electronic security gates may be allowed (i.e., cònsider
aIlowing electronic gates only on residential flag lots when such fences at six
feet in height are setback a minimum of 20 feet from the front property line of
the flag lot, rather than 20 feet from the street public right-of-way).
The Commission may also want to take into account design standards if electronic
security gates are considered for single-family residential neighborhoods, since
electronic security gates are metal gates that tend to appear commercial or industrial in
nature, as opposed to wood fencing that promotes a visuaIly softer appearance.
Additionally, staff is concerned that a proliferation of metal fencing in a residential
neighborhood would not only create an un-neighborly, gated community feel, but may
j/5
5-J}
Study Session on Fence Ordinance, Ch. 16.28, and Sign Ordinance, Ch. 17 .
August 23, 2005
Page 4
also create a perceived atmosphere that security risks exist within a neighborhood
when they don't.
In addition to electronic security gates, staff is requesting the Commission to provide
direction regarding post caps on fences. Currently, post caps are excluded from the
measurement of fence heights. In some instances, post caps may be quite large and tall;
however, the ordinance does not address parameters for the size and height of post·
caps. Therefore, staff is requesting direction on whether to proceed with clarifying
allowances for post caps, such as limiting post caps to a maximum height of six inches
above the fence height.
Staff is requesting that the Commission provide direction to staff regarding electronic
security gates and also any other sections throughout the Fence Ordinance that the
Commission would like to address.
Sie;n Ordinance
The Planning Commission and City Council have expressed interest in reviewing the
Sign Ordinance to determine if amendments are needed to provide businesses
adequate signage to successfully advertise their business. Staff has· met with
representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, who will be reviewing the Sign
Ordinance and provide feedback to staff within the next month. At this time, staff is
recommending that the Commission provide comments and feedback pertaining to the
. types of possible amendments the Commission should consider incorporating into the
ordinance.
Prepared by:
Approved by:
Aki Honda, AlCP, Senior Planner
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development ~ ~ J
CLV
Attachments
Exhibit A -- Chapter 16.28, Fence Ordinance
Exhibit B -- Chapter 17, Sign Ordinance
Exhibit C -- City of Fremont Electronic Gate Policies
Exhibit D -- City of Gilroy Electronic Gate Policies
G: \Planning\PDREPORT\pcMCAreports\Study Session~Fence Ordinance.doc
H
5-:;)~
Section
16.28.010
16.28.020
16.28.030
16.28.040
16.28.045
16.28.050
16.28.060
16.28.065
16.28.070
EXHIBIT A
16.28.010
CHAPI'EIIl16.28: FENCES'"
Purpose.
Definitions.
Pence location and height for zones
requiring site review.
Pence location. and height for zones
Dot requiring site ·review.
Vehicular electronié security gates.
Proximity of plants· and fences to
public streets.
Exceptions.
Temporary fences for construction.
Violation-Penalty.
For statutory provisions making fences taller
1han ten feet a nuisance, see Civil Code
§ 841.4.
Prior o¡rl;n.':"'.e history: Ords. 112, 686, 852,
1179,1630, 1637 ami 1777.
..
16.28.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to regul8te the location
and height of fences and vegetation in yards of all zoning
districts in oider to protect the safety, privacy, and property
values of residents ami resident/property owners of the city.
(Ord. 1788. § 1 (part). 1998)
16.28.020 Definitions.
The words and terms used in this chapter shall have
the following meanings unless the context clearly ind.ícaies
otherwise:
A. "Pence' means a man-made structure which is
designed, intended or used to protect, defend or obscure the
interior property of the owner thereof from the. view,
trespass or passage of others upon that property.
B. "PeDce height" means the verdcal distance from
the highest point of the fence (excluding post caps) to the
finish grade adjoining the fence. In a case where the finish
grade is different for each side of the fence. the grade with
the highest elevation shall be utilized in determining the
fence height. .
C. "Plant" means a vegetative matter.
D. ~Setback area, required front' means the area
extending across the front of the lot between the front lot
line and a line parallel thereto. Front yards shall be
measured either by a line at right angles to the front lot line,
or by the radial line in the case of a curved front lot line.
The front of the lot is the narrowest lot line from a public
~eeL
E. "Setback area, required rear' means the area
extending across the full width of the lot between the rear
lot line ami the nearest line or point of the main building.
. F. . Setback area, required side' means !he area
between !he side lot line and !he nearest line of the bnildÎDg.
ami extending from the front setback line to !he rear setback
line. (Ord. 1788, § 1 (part), 1998)
16.28.030 Fence Location and Height for Zones
Requirlng Site Review.
A. . The Design Review committee, Planning
Commission ami City Council shall have the authority to
require, approve. or disapprove wall ami fencing plans
including location, height and materia1s in· all zones
requiring design review.
B. The basic design review guideunes for the review
of fences and walls are as follows: .
1. Pences and walls separating commercial,
industrial, offices, and institutional zones from residential
zones shall be constructed at a height ami wi!h materia1s
designed to acoustically isolate part of or aI1 noise emitted
by future uses within the commercial, industrial. offices, or
institutional zones. The degree of acoustical isolation shall
be determined during the design review process.
2. Fences and· walls separating commercial,
índustrial. offices, and institutional zones from residential
zones shall be constructed at a height and with materia1s
designed to ensure visual privacy for adjoining residential
dwelling units. . The degree of visual privacy shall be
determined during the review process.
3. Fences and walls shall be designed in a manner
to provide for sight visibility at private and public street
intersections. (Ord. 1844, § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1788. § 1
(part), 1998)
39
~
5~ :13
ll1i.2!Ul30
C,,~o . Buildings and CIIElStroCtill1l
40
16.23.040 Fence Location and Height for Zones Not
Requ!rimg Site Review.
A. In the case of an interior residential lot, a
maximwn six-foot-high fence shall be permitted in the rear
yard setback area and in the side yard setback areas. A
maximum three-foot-high fence, measured from finish
grade, shall be permitted in the from yard setback area.
B. In the case of a comer residential lot, a maximum
six-foot-high fence shall be permitted in the required rear
yard setback area and on the side yard lines, excepting that
fence heights within the side yard setback area adjacent to
a public street shall be regulated as described below. No
portion of a fence shall extend into the from yard setback
area or forty-foot Comer triangle.
\. Situaûon in which the rear propertyline adjoins
a rear property line: The m;n;mnm side fence setback line
for a six-foot-high fence shall be five feet from the property
line.
2. Situation in which the rear property line adjoins
the side property line of a key lot: The minimum side fence
setback line shall be five ·feet from the property line, except
that the setback line within ten feet of an adjacent side
property line shall be m.;nt.;ned at twelve feet.
3. A fence not exceeding three feet in height
measured from finish grade can be constructed on any .
location within a required yard exce¡it the forty-foot comer
triangle.
. C. Where a six-foot fence is allowed, an eight- foot-
high fence can be constructed in lieu thereof subject to
building permit approval and upon receipt of written
approval from property owners.
D. In the case of parcels zoned residential hillside
(RHS) or open space (OS), the fences shall be governed by
Section 19.40.080.
16.28.045 Vehicular Electronic Security Gates.
Vehicular electronic security gates may be approved
through a fence excepûon if the development meets anyone
of the following conditions: is a mixed-use development,
where the parking for different uses needs to be separated
to assure availability of parking for each use; if a
developm=t includes a below-grade parking structure,
where the gates àre required to secure the below grade
parking; if gates are required for a development 10 obtain
federal or state funding; if the development is secluded; if
the electronic gates are needed for demonstrated security
reasons; or if the electronic gates were in existence prior to
September 20,1999. (Ord. 1833, 1999; Ord. 1802, (part),
1999)
16.28.050 Proximity of p)"",ts and Fences to Public
Streets.
The prox.iInity of plants and fences IÒ public streets
shall be controlled by the proviSions of Chapter 14.08 of the
Municipal Code. (Ord. 1788, § I (part), 1998)
16.28.06@ Exceptions.
Where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, or
results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this
chapter result from the strict application of the proviSions
hereof, exceptions I1JJ!Y be granted as provided in this
section.
A. Application and Fee. Application shall be made
in writing to the ·Design Review Committee on a form
prescnòed by the Director of Community Development.
The application shall be accompanied by a fee as prescribed
by City Council resolution.
B. Public Hearings. Upon receipt of an application
for excepûon, the Director of Community Development
shall set a time and place for a public hearing before the
Design Review Committee and order the pub1iè notice
thereof. Mailed written notice of the hearing on the fence
exception shall be given by the Director of Community
Development to all owners or record of real property (as
shown in the last assessment roll) which abut the subject
property, as well as property and its abutting properties 10
the left and right, directly opposite the subject property and
located across a street. way, highway or alley. Mailed
notice shall include ·owners of property whose only
contiguity to the subject site is a single point. Said notice
shall be mailed by first class mail at least ten days prior to
the Design Review Committee meeting in which the
application will be considered. The notice shall state the
date, time and place of the hearing. A description of the
fence exception shall. be included in the notice. . If the
Director of Co=unity Development believes the project
may have negative effects beyond the range of the mailed
.notice, particularly negative effects on nearby residential
areas. the Director, in his discretion, may expand noticing
beyond the stated requirements.
Compliance with the notice proviSions set forth in this
section shall constitute a good-faith effort to provide notice,
and failure to provide notice, and the failure of my person
to receive notice, shall not prevent the city from proceeding
. to consider or to take action with respect to an application
under this chapter.
The Design Review Committee shall hold a public
hearing at which time the committee may grant the
exception based upon the following findings:
I. The literal enforcement of the provisions of this .
chapter will result in restrictions inconsiStent with the spirit
and intent of this chapter.
2. The granting of the exception will not result in a
. condition which is materially detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare.
:;H;5
5-,)4-
41
Fences
115.28.050
3. The exception to be granted is one that will
require the least modification of the prescribed regulation
and the minimum variaDce thai will accomplish the purpose.
4.. The proposed exception will not result in a
hazardous condition for pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
5. The proposed development is otherwise consistent
with the city's General Plan and with the purpose of this
chapter as described in Section 16.28.010.
6. The proposed development meets the
requirements of the Santa Clara Fire Department and
Sheriff's Department, and if security gates are proposed.
that attempts are made to standardize access.
After closing the public hearing, the Planning
Commission may approve, conditionally approve or deny
the application for exception.
C. Appeals. AI1y application for exception which
received final approval or disapproval by the Design Review
Committee may be appealed to the Planning Commission as
provided by Section 19.136.060 of this code. (Ord. 1844,
§ 1 (part). 2000; Ord. 1822, (part), 1999; Ord. 1802,
(part), 1999; Ord. 1788, § 1 (pàrt), 1998)
16.28.065 Temporary Fences for Construction.
The Chief Building Official may require persons
CODStrDCting stroctures in the city to erect and m.inf1l;n
temporary fences around all or a portion of theconsttUCtion
site in order to secure the site from entry by the general
public. (Ord. 1777, (part). 1998)
16.211.070· VIOlatiOn-Penalty.
AI1y person who violates the provisions of this chapter
shall be guilty of an infraction and upon conviction thereof
shall be punished as provided in Chapter 1.12. (Ord. 1788,
§ 1 (part), 1998)
R
SJ5
ELECTRICALLY OR MANUALLY CO~ROLLED GATES
Cri terj a:
J..
right-of-
a minimum
Sufficient stacking room between gate and street
way to·al~ow for a minimum of two vehicles (i.e~
42 feet totaJ. J.ength).
2. Turn-a~ound outside of pub~ic street r~ght-of-way to àl10w
for vehic1e movement to exit the site without openin9 the
gate.. The entry 1ane, a ¡ni.ni:mum radi.Us or curb to curb
width of J.Gfeet is required. For the exit J.ane, a minimum
rad~us or curb tò curb width of 24 feet is requíred.
3. Knox box system "to be ínsta~1ed on the gate to al~o~
emergency vehic1es to enter the site_ subject to forma1
written approvaJ. by the poli.ce and Fire Departments, pr:i:or
to approva~ by the community Deve~opment Department -
Planning Division.
4. Height of gate and fence shall be in conformance wit~ fence
ord~nance requirement [see ArticJ.e 22 - EXCEPTIONS AND
MODIFICATIoNS}. .
s. Fenoes and gatessha11 meet the minimum setback requ~rements
as required by zoning ordinance for t~e particuJ.ar zoning
district where the property is situated.
6. The fence and 9ate design is subject to ,review and approva~
by the granting authority (i.e. community DeveJ.opment
Director or Development or9an~zation). If the project is
subjact a discretionary action prior·to Development
Organization reviéw, a submitta1 to the site Plan· and
Arch~tectura1 Review Board may a1so be required.
7. on-site parkin9 betws~n the gate and street ri9h~-of-way may
be required.
8. Specia~ paving (i.e., bomon~tQ, bricks, eta.) w~~1 not þa
a1~owed to encroach on pub1~c right-of-way.
?~ooedtlral RA~uire~ents:
~. If the proposed fencing and gate wouJ.d not affect the
approved circuJ.ation, parking/landscaping and other
elements, the app1ication for fencin9.and gate design and
instaJ.lation may be approved bY the DeveJ.opment
organization.
2. If the proposed fencing and gate requires modification to
the approved oircuJ.ation, parking/J.andscaping and other
elements, an amendment to the approved s1te p1an (i.e.
p~anned q~strict, conditiona~ use permit, or p1anned unit
dave~opment) sha11 be required pr~or to subm~tta1 to the
Development organization for permit processing.
3. BuiJ.ding and eJ.eotricaJ. permits appJ.ioation shall onJ.y be
accepted fo11owing completion "of steps #1 and 2 a~ove.
4. submittaJ. requirements for Steps 'J. and 2 shaJ.J. incJ.ude:
a. A sCâled site p1an showing 1ocation of all dr~Vêways
and other areas where the proposed gates and fence
wouJ.d be instaJ.J.ed~ Site plan shaJ.J. indicate where
nodifications to the existing landsoaping ·and
irrigation system nay be required. soala of the site
plan shal~ be. a minimum of 1 inch equals to 20 feet.
5- dfo
.~
~ROM
FAX NO. :1~1~4~444~¿
Hug. .1.0 '::::'Uo:J...J J."-'. """-'." , ,.....
b. Proposed design and height of fence and gate with
materials and colors indicated. Scale of plans shall
be a minimum of 1/4 inch equals 1 foot.
c, structural details of fence, gates, and support
struotures shall be clearly stated. Scale of plans
shall be a minimum of 1/4 inch equals 1 foot.
d. Two copies of a letter indicating approval from the
Homeowners Assooiation for the project.
e. Technical detail of gate mechanism and knox box shall
bersubmitted for review and approval by Police and Fire
Departments, prior to approval by the Community
Development Department.
. f. plans should indioate if the gate will open in case of
power failure.
5. Contact the planning Department [(51Q) '¥i"l-.#!i5"] and/or .
Development Organi~ation ((510) 444.- 4-'fÇO]for Çldditional
submittal information and applicable fees.
.;1-4r
5~27
~.
...
~'';¿'
~.of ..
..
r.;
-.:¡.
......,.#
EXHIBIT D
FXU PltBVlm'!101i1 D:nr:UI:I:01II
I!IIJBJ1W'.r ,
Bloc~r~c Security Ga~g.
,
!Bo., 3-&
Date. 12-11-91
App:r:..vod by' 11.. L41d..._
_:finiUon.
I.:n "~ectric "ecurity gate ill ~ electrioallY powered or controll.ed device
separatinq publ.f.c rCOl.dll from private roadways 01: driveway.. or IUIIY Buch
device iÏ1JitaJ.llOd for the purpo. of oontrolling abce"" to any piaoll ..it11IOr
by v..hic~. or oUAI: ¡transportation appuatu" or by pad.ll.triana.
'fJpa" .
Eleotrio ...ourity sate" are to ·be either ,,~idinq, .swinging, or croal-arm
type.. Gate.. duign"d to accommodata v"hioula.t: tJ:aftio Dhal~ hu'o a varticaJ.
clBaranoll of DC> leBS t.ba.n 13 fe..t 6 in<>he" throuSh the entire gateway. !rli..
width of ~e gate "haJ.l ba. <>0 1.... t.h4J1 the width of tha roe.dwa, that i"ç
sarvas.
B~ectric "aourity gates de"igt,ed for plOd!utrìu traff.l.c "hall h4ve a miui:mum
vertical. claaranoe 0:1: DO la"lI than 5 £....t B inoh"s and a width no le.... tohan
36 inche...
O:\?'Onin9 'rilla.
Al.l electric .."ou¡:-.l.ty gat"lI "hall op"n to full ....idth, from tha =lo"ad
poeition, in DO _r.. than 15 seoonds.
I.:nthorizatioa t.o In.ta1~J
No eleotJ:io eeouritf 'late "hall b" installed within the city wi~hout
author.!.ze.tiQn from t.ha Fire D8p~"Dt.
No eleotric "ecurity gate øbal~ be put into operation until inøgected and
approved by th.. Fir. Department.
~
5 -';2f3
~.
.,.
, .~~
Autho:iBa~iØQ ~aP~i4. a ø.curi~7 ~.
No person eball .811., maJta a gift of, or otharwi".. df.øtrilluta 0.. cauø. 1:0 be
di..~ilIut..d =y security look cylinc\ar keyed to the sp$oificatia!1s of the
Gilroy Fir.. Ilepartmab.t without øpeoifio writtGn lI.\1thorization from ~h.. ¡fire
t>ep~n"t .
wbsn r..quirod to inllljtall a ""olU"ity box, the o\fnèJ:' or an lIuthor:.z..d pe:¡;",otl,
r"l'ree.nting the owdsr of th.. property øhall r..qua/lt from the Fue
prevan"tion Division Ian authorization form to order the required.d..vice.
Key Ihd.t.CIh (!o..~rol :l!or lI'iroo DooJiarlmeø.t ACCIB../lt
EverY ..lectrio aao=ity gate ..1iall be provid..d with an a IIQrgenC;V o';o1:1:i<l..
by swi"tch eontt:ol 1!hA.t meet.. 1!.h.. following specifications I
orhe kay øwitdh shall be ·mount.$d either on II st....1. goo....-Mok
stand, on a wall, or gate post within thr.... ·(3) feet of the
roadway and with1.J1 fifteen (15) feet of the gat...
Key sw1 toll 1ø to Þe id....tified "Fire Department UI!I$ only".
Th.. key act\1&t,,4 8w1toll "hall be iii "Mødeoo~ oylinder keYl!ld to .
th.. Pir.. D..p.lrtmoont k..y oode. orhe key lIo"tivatad switch, KOdal U-2,
abal.l be ord"røc1 from "The ·!alOX compuy" uaing the autb0l1:1zII.tion
form providGli Þy th.. :r4e pr..vention Divbion.
...-.-
vail-Safe FJ:'Ovi.ionl
Al1 aleotJ:'1o ....o~ity qat... .ha1.1. b.. d.signed and inatallad to provida the
lI'ire D..partment with a seoon4s.ry I118&nS of Copen1ng th.. gat.. in t!h9 event. of II.
¡;oower or mechanical fa.ilur..
~"'.'.
l18i:hoa. tor 0pIBU11'91 Gat.. for DII1'."., !!!lI01:lut., = other AUthcr:tzecl U..I~.&
'J!he Fire Deþar1:.1llant. cion not l!Ia.inta.in OJ: enfo%'oe any po1.icy ou1!.1.ininq 1:be
methC>t5(e) whi"b ownoors, t..nanta or otb..%' fi\1tboriz..d usera "",-y e1DPloy in
or4er to e¡otiva.ta an eleotrio seourity qatlÕl except that the lIIé~od used
shall no1:. 1n any WIIJY iIIIpaot thlÕl 1'ir.. pepartmønt·. ability to "",eeSB tho
property.
c.
~
5-;n
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Bob Hoxsie [bhoxsie@acm.org]
Wednesday, October 19, 2005 10:59 AM
Aki Honda
Re: fence ordinance amendments
EXHIBIT D
Aki,
I will be out of town starting October 24, so I won't be able to attend
the meeting.
Sounds like from the planning commission that there are people that
would like to see driveway gates (electronic or otherwise) allowed. I
would not be in support of that. Large gates, even if they are open
(e.g. wrought iron), are too imposing within neighborhoods. They also
give an aura of "stay away, Ilm too good for you" that I think is
unhealthy for· a community, especially one such as Cupertino. Security
is no argument. These gates are purely for status. Of course, people
can still have gates that conform to the ordinance (31 or less).
I do believe we should allow for higher fences in back yards. As I read
the ordinance it only allows 6'. Of course, as you know, people
regularly install 8' fences. I would venture to guess that few of them
asked permission as required in the ordinance. I didn't see anywhere
that lattice work at the top of a fence is not considered part of the
fence. So, I would suggest allowing lattice up to 7' or 8' and allowing
an additional l' of lattice on side yard fences in the front setback
area. Solid fencing above 6' could still be approved with agreement
from adjoining property owners as stated in the current ordinance.
Thanks for the opportunity to provide input. If there are any other
issues that are likely to be raised at the meeting I would certainly
appreciate hearing about them before in order to have the opportunity to
provide feedback.
Thank you,
Bob Hoxsie
.
.
5-3J
ragt; 1 Ul 1
Aki Honda
EXHIBIT F
From: Kiersa Witt on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 200512:02 PM
To: Aki Honda
Subject: FW: Fence Ordinance Amendment
-----Original Message-----
From: Iris_Gorgen@amat.com [mailto:lris_Gorgen@amat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 10:22 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Fence Ordinance Amendment
I haven't read the municipal code excerpts, but would like to submit a point that I hope may be considered: there
should be a regulation on construction of raised beds against a common fence, Le., not permitting the use of a
common fence as the fourth side of a raised bed.
My ex-neighbor did this, and through the help of someone from the City, they placed a fourth side to their raised
bed, but only along the fence we have in common, not to the entire bed that was constructed.
Iris Gorgen
10470 Pineville Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
408-252-8659
10/18/2005
5- 3;?
rage j or j
Aki Honda
EXHIBIT G
From: Kiersa Witt on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 1 :40 PM
To: Aki Honda
Subject: FW: Fences, gates
-----Original Message-----
From: VOYLE R MC FARLAND [mailto:macmabel@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 200511:53 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Fences; gates
We feel that gates detract £rom the friendly feeling of our city and they can make residents feel inferior.
They reflect on the safety of Cupertino.
Fence height should be 6' or 7', no higher...no lattice, decor, etc. on top of the maximum height allowed
now. Also, hedges or similar plantings along the sidewalk, curb, and especially comers that are higher
than the 3'allowed for front yard fences are a hazard to both drivers and walkers. Plantings should not
intrude onto the sidewalks. Walkers need all the help they can get!:) We need to encourage walkers.
V.R. McFarlands
10567 John Way
533
10/19/2005
Public Hearing for Consideration of Amendments to the Fence Ordinance
Page 1 ot 1
Aki Honda
EXHIBIT H
From: Kiersa Witt on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 20054:16 PM
To: Aki Honda
Subject: FW: Public Hearing for Consideration of Amendments to the Fence Ordinance
-----Original Message-----
From: Lam, Frederick (OS SJ WO) [mailto:Fred.Lam@osram-os.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 4:10 PM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Public Hearing for Consideration of Amendments to the Fence Ordinance
Hi,
Chapter 16.28 in the City of Cupertino's Fence Ordinance only addresses proximity of plants and fences to public
streets. I would like to draw your attention to a very common issue concerning "Spite Fence" in the hillside
community.
It is very common that the downhill neighbor intentionally plant a line of very tall trees such as Italian Cypress as
close as three to four feet together along their back property line seeking privacy. According to literature from
Forest Service Department of Agriculture Italian Cypress will grow as tall as 60 feet tall. I have seen people plant
lines of Italian Cypress looks just like a 60 tall wall in the neighborhood. The practice may be acceptable in the
flat land area to prevent neighbor overlooking into their bedrooms. However, many home owners in the hillside
neighborhoods find this practice blocks the views. This defeats the original purpose of paying a premium price to
purchase a hillside property to have a view. This inconsiderate and selfish practice obstructs the view for which
the property was purchased and creates potential arguments between neighbors on the hillside, If home owners
need privacy they can plant something tall enough to block their windows but not their neighbor's view.
In reference to California Civil Code, §841.4 - a row of trees qualify as a nuisance under California's Spite Fence
statute.
Please propose adoption of the California Civil Code, §841.4 and include "Spite Fence" as an unacceptable
nuisance in the Cupertino's Fence Ordinance.
Thank you for your cooperation!
Regards........Fred Lam
10/20/2005
5~3H