DRC Summary 04-05-07
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308
To:
Mayor and City Council Members
Planning Commissioners
From:
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development
Date:
April 10, 2007
Subj:
REPORT OF DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE FINAL DECISIONS MADE
April 5, 2007.
Chapter 19.136 of the Cupertino Municipal code provides for
A eal of decisions made b the Desi Review Committee
1. Application
EXC-2007-04; Amar Gupta, 22975 Balboa Road
Description
Fence Exception for an electronic security gate
Action
The Design Review Committee approved the application on a 2-0 vote. This is
effective AprilS, 2007. The fourteen-calendar day appeal will expire on February
24, 2007.
Enclosures:
Design Review Committee Report of AprilS, 2007
Resolution No. 253
Approved Plan Set
G :planning/Drcj04050 7 summanjletter.doc
To:
From:
Subject:
Location:
Design Review Committee
Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner
Application: EXC-2007-04
22975 Balboa Road
Date: April 5, 2007
. Project Description: Fence Exception request to install a 6 foot 6 inch electronic gate at an
existing single family residence.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Design Review Committee deny the EXC-2007-04, based on the
model resolution.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant obtained approval to build an approximately 6,500 square foot single family
residential home with an approximately 3,500 square foot basement. The home is located
at the end of Balboa Road.
According to the applicant a gate is required at the entrance to his home for the following
reasons:
1. Hikers and drivers wander into the area thinking that the road is a scenic route,
2. Unknown persons
a. Broke some glass blocks on his property and left cigarette butts at the
property,
b. Stole a toilet seat bidet and four transformers from the property, and
3. The presence of bobcats.
The applicant has not filed any police reports for the vandalism or thefts.
DISCUSSION:
Section 16.28.045 of the Fence Ordinance (Exhibit B) specifies the conditions under which
roadway and driveway gates may be approved by the City in residential areas. The
development needs to meet anyone of the following conditions:
1) The project is a mixed use development, where the parking for different uses needs
to be separated to assure availability of parking for each use;
2) The project includes a below-grade parking structure, where the gates are required
to secure the below-grade parking;
3) The electronic gates are required to obtain federal or state funding;
4) The development is secluded;
5) The electronic gates are needed for demonstrated security reasons, meaning there
have been past sheriff's reports of vandalis~, trespassing or burglary; or
6) The electronic gates were in existence prior to September 20, 1999,
and has to provide evidence that the gates are needed for demonstrated security and/ or
demonstrated safety reasons.
Conditions #1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are clearly not relevant to this development. The development
does meet condition #4. However, there is no evidence that the gates are required for
demonstrated security and/ or demonstrated safety reasons, which is one of the required
1- ,
April 5, 2007
EXC-2007-04
findings. Such evidence is usually in the form of a police report.
In this case, the applicant has alleged that there has been vandalism and thefts have
occurred while construction was in progress; however, there are no demonstrated security
or safety reasons. It is not uncommon for uninhabited construction sites to attract vandals.
Once construction is completed, there are several alternative ways to protect the home
from intruders such as installing a security system and/ or motion activated lights in the
front yard.
Since more houses can be built in the Balboa Road neighborhood in the future, each of
these houses could potentially be considered secluded and be eligible to apply for a fence
exception. The Cupertino General Plan outlines strategies to implement Policy 2-22:
Neighborhood Street Planning, which includes the discouragement of vehicular access
gates since they isolate developments from the community (see Exhibit C).
One way to prevent a gated enclave in this part of Cupertino and to prevent unwanted
intrusions into the privacy of the houses on Balboa Road is to use the existing approved
electronic gate at the bottom of Balboa Drive. The fence was installed in 2000. Anne and
Phillipe Dor applied for an exception for an electronic fence at the end of 1999. The
Planning Commission approved the fence exception in April 2000, based on the findings
that the development was secluded and there were demonstrated/ documented security
reasons in the form of police reports reporting thefts and a break in at the property. In
May 2000, the City Council denied an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a
fence exception for an electronic fence on Balboa Road.
The conditions of approval of the fence exception included an option for removal of this
electronic fence, if two more properties developed on Balboa Road and a majority of the
property owners who have developable lots on Balboa Road desire the removal of the gate
or, if the road becomes a public road (See Exhibit D). However, since the applicant desires
privacy and protection by means of an electronic gate, they do have the option to use this
gate. Balboa Road is the only means of vehicular access to the neighborhood and the
property. This will serve a dual purpose of protecting the applicant's privacy with the
least modification of the fence ordinance and the least variance possible.
The location of the proposed fence meets the Fire Department's requirements with regard
to emergency access. The Fire Department does have one comment with regard to the
design of the fence. If the Design Review Committee approves the fence exception, a
condition should be added to the resolution requiring that the applicant satisfy the Fire
Department's requirements.
Enclosures:
Model Resolution
Exhibit A: Letter of Justification
Exhibit B: Fence Ordinance
Exhibit C: General Plan Policy 2-22: Neighborhood Street Planning
Exhibit D: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6017
Plan Set
2
I'~
April 5, 2007
EXC-2007-04
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner .. .", ,
Approved by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner (, c(l_~l/ ~)c~}c€e (~
G:\ Planning \ DRC\staff rep \2005\ EXC-2007-04.doc
3
,-3
EXC-2007-04
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
DENYING A FENCE EXCEPTION FOR AN ELECTRONIC SECURITY GATE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 16.28 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE
FOR 22975 BALBOA ROAD
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
EXC-2007-04
Amar Gupta
22975 Balboa Road
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee of the City of Cupertino received an
application for exceptions to the Fence Ordinance, as described in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has not satisfied any of the following requirements:
That with respect to the issue of a roadway and driveway gate in a residential area:
a) There is no evidence that the gates are needed for a demonstrated security
and! or demonstrated safety reasons.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the exception to the fence ordinance is hereby recommended
for denial.
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
Application EXC-2007-04, as set forth in the Minutes of the Design Review Committee
Meeting of April 5, 2007, and are incorporated by reference herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of April 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Design
Review Committee of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
1-4
Resolution No.
Page 2
EXC-2007-04
April 5, 2007
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Ciddy Wordell
City Planner
Cary Chien, Chairperson
Design Review Committee
g jplanning/pdreportjresjEX C-2007 -04denial.doc
1-5
Exhibit A
CHAPTER 16.28: JFENCES*
Section
16.28.010
16.28.020
16.28.030
Purpose.
Definitions.
Fence location and height for zones
requiring site review.
Fence location and height for zones
not requiring site review. .
Roadway and driveway gates.
Proximity of plants and fences to
public streets.
Exceptions.
Temporary fences for construction.
V iolation- Penalty.
Prohibited fences.
16.28.040
16.28.045
16.28.050
16.28.060
16.28.065
16.28.070
16.28.080
*
For statutory provisions making fences taller
than ten feet a nuisance, see Civil Code
~ 841.4.
Prior ordinance history: Ords. 112, 686, 852,
1179, 1630, 1637 and 1777.
16.28.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to regulate 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 and owners of properties within any
zoning district of the city, including but not limited to
residential, commercial, offices, institutional, industrial
and/or agricultural properties. (Ord. 1979, (part), 2006;
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 indicates
otherwise:
A. "Demonstrated safety" means a condition
requiring protection from the threat of danger, harm, or
loss, including but not limited to the steepness of a roadway
or driveway that may create a hazardous parking situation in
front of a gate.
B. "Demonstrated security" means a condition
requiring protection from the potential threat of danger,
harm or loss, including but not limited to a location that is
isolated and invisible from public view or that has
2006 S-8
experienced documented burglary, theft, vandalism or
trespassing incidences.
C. "Fence" 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 .
D. "Fence height" means the vertical 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.
E. "Plant" means a vegetative matter.
F. "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
street.
G. "Setback area, required rear" means the area
extending across the full width of the lot between the rear lot
line and the nearest line or point of the main building.
H. "Setback area, required side" means the area
between the side lot line and the nearest line of the building,
and extending from the front setback line to the rear setback
line. (Ord. 1979, (part), 2006; Ord. 1788, ~ 1 (part), 1998)
16.28.030 Fence Location and Height for Zones
Requiring Site Review.
A. The Design Review Committee, Planning
Commission and City Council shall have the authority to
require, approve, or disapprove wall and fencing plans
including location, height and materials in all zones
requiring design review.
B. The basic design review guidelines for the review
of fences and walls are as follows:
1. Fences and walls separating commercial,
industrial, offices, and institutional zones from residential
zones shall be constructed at a height and with materials
designed to acoustically isolate part of or all 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.
39
I-It;
:B.6.2luno
CUl]pertino - Buildings 311lid Construction
40
2. Fences and walls separating commercial,
industrial, offices, and institutional zones from residential
zones shall be constructed at a height and with materials
designed to ensure visual privacy for adjoining residential
dwell)ng 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. 1979, (part), 2006; Ord. 1844, ~ 1
(part), 2000; Ord. 1788, ~ 1 (part), 1998)
16.28.040 Fence Location and Height for Zones Not
Requiring Site Review.
A. In the case of an interior residential lot, a
maximum 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 front yard setback area.
B. In the case of a corner 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 front yard setback
area or forty-foot corner triangle.
1. Situation in which the rear property line adjoins
a rear property line: The minimum 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 keylot: 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 maintained 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 except the forty-foot corner
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. (Ord. 1979, (part), 2006)
---+ 16.28.045 Roadway and Driveway Gates.
Roadway and driveway gates may be approved through
a fence exception 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 development
includes a below-grade parking structure, where the gates
are required to secure the below grade parking; if gates are
2006 S-8
required for a development to obtain federal or state
funding; if the development is secluded; if the electronic
gates are needed for demonstrated security and/or
demonstrated safety reasons; or if the electronic gates were
in existence prior to September 20, 1999.
.- Additionally, roadway and driveway gates Ln
residential areas approved by a fence exception shall be set
back a minimum of 30 feet from the front and/or street side
property lines and shall provide~ evidence the gates are
needed for dem~~d security and/or demonstrated safety
~~
All roadway and driveway gates approved by a fence
exception shall also be required to comply with the Fire
Department Standard Details and Specifications for Security
Gates for access roadways and driveways. (Ord. 1979,
(part), 2006; Ord. 1833, 1999; Ord. 1802, (part), 1999)
16.28.050 Proximity of Plants and Fences to Public
Streets.
The proximity of plants and fences to public streets
shall be controlled by the provisions of Chapter 14.08 of the
Municipal Code. (Ord. 1979, (part), 2006; Ord. 1788, ~ 1
(part), 1998)
Hi.2lUl60 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 may 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
prescribed 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 exception, the Director of Community Development
shall set a time and place for a public hearing before the
Design Review Committee and order the public 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 to
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
1- 17
41
Director of Community 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 or her 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 any 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:
1. 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.
3. The exception to be granted is one that will
require the least modification of the prescribed regulation
and the minimum variance that 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.
7. The fence height for the proposed residential
fence is needed to ensure adequate screening and/or privacy.
After closing the public hearing, the Design Review
Committee may approve, conditionally approve or deny the
application for exception.
C. Appeals. Any 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.1979,
(part), 2006; Ord. 1844, ~ 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1822, (part),
1999; Ord. 1802, (part), 1999; Ord. 1788, ~ 1 (part), 1998)
16.28.065 Temporary Fences for Construction.
The Chief Building Official may require persons
constructing structures in the city to erect and maintain
temporary fences around all or a portion of the construction
site in order to secure the site from entry by the general
public. (Ord. 1979, (part), 2006; Ord. 1777, (part), 1998)
2006 5-8
Fences
16.28.060
16.28.070 Violation-Penalty.
Any 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. 1979,
(part), 2006; Ord. 1788, ~ 1 (part), 1998)
16.28.080 Prohibited Fences.
Barbed wire, razor wire, and/or electrified fencing are
prohibited unless required by law or regulation of the City,
State or Federal Government. (Ord. 1979, (part), 2006)
1--5
\
-!0
............
. .............
Neighbors
FRONT
H
o
u
S
E
~.
H
o
u
S
E
R
o
A
D
20'
6' Tall Fence (can be 8' with neighbor approvals and Building Pel1nits) on property line
except the front yard setback or at the street side.
3' Tall Fence on property line at Front and side. Not on Street side. No
electronic gates.
40' Comer Triangle (Entend fropt and side property line. Measure 40' back from the point of intersection and
connect those two points.) No structures in this triangle, unless, the intersection is a controlled intersection, i.e., with
a Stop sign or a Traffic Signal. You may, however, have plantings no taller than 3'.
FW: fence exception
Exhibit B
Piu Ghosh
From: Amar Gupta [agupta2000@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 7:48 PM
To: Ciddy Wordell
Cc: Piu Ghosh; tbrown1 040@aol.com; agupta2000@comcast.net
Subject: FW: fence exception
Hi Ciddy,
My family's safety is something I need your help in addressing proactively, not after
an unfortunate safety incident. During weekends, on many occasions, we have seen
hikers loitering in that area. Some of them continue to wander even after we tell
them this is a private property and a dangerous construction zone, as though they
are entitled.
Even during weekdays, many people driveup there thinking it is a scenic route,
particularly since the online maps show all the "paper" streets as existent (stella,
Paloma, EI Cerrito, etc.)
Re: security, so far, the following have occurred.
1. On Memorial Day weekend (2006), my home site was vandalized. They broke
several glass blocks and left smoldering cigarette butts in many areas. I was lucky
there was no fire. I did not file a police report thinking it was perhaps an
isolated incident.
2. On July 4th,
on right side porch.
Needless to say, we
2006 we drove up to see the fireworks and saw a bob cat sitting
When we shined the headlight at it, it just stared back;
retreated.
3. Since then, someone stole my toilet bidet seat (of all things) and four
transformers I had stored inside the house for outside use. Since I could not
exactly pinpoint the date of the theft, I did not bother to file a police report
again. I felt that perhaps all this will stop once we get the gate approved. I
certainly do not want to file a report now since it will appear I am doing it for a
different reason.
Ciddy, as you realize, no one can even see the gate from any public street. This
gate will not make the area look like a gated community. The utter seclusion itself
is a good evidence for a gate.
I ask for the staff support for my application.
thing else I can do to demonstrate the need.
live there in a state of fear or anxiety.
Please let me know if there is any
I don't think the City would want us to
Regards,
Amar Gupta
3/26/2007
/-10
2~18
LAND USE/COMMUNITY DESIGN
Exhibit C
1
SEE CHAPTER
16.28 OF THE
CUPERTINO
MUNICIPAL CODE
REGARDING FENCE
EXCEPTIONS FOR
VEHICULAR ELEC-
TRONIC SECURITY
GATES.
If.t;I,~.\'''';.'.';~f .
1 /~;',
~.. \ 'L-.
~~.
able housing and offer residents easy access
to shopping and work. Ample housing must
be available to Cupertino employees to
assure that housing prices and locations are
within reach.
While several neighborhoods have plan-
ning procedures in place, others require identi-
fication of and planning for special needs.
.~
Fairgrove neighborhood residents celebrating
their new identification sign
~ Policy2-21: Unique Neighborhood
Character
Identify neighborhoods that have an
architectural style, historical back-
ground or location that contribute to a
unique neighborhood, and develop
plans that preserve and enhance their
unique qualities.
Strategies:
1. Neighborhood Plans. Initiate or
respond to requests to create Council
approval for any budgeting needed to
prepare the plans.
2. Neighborhood Zoning. Respond to
requests from neighborhood groups to
develop zoning regulations to address
their interest in preserving neighbor-
hood character, such as single story
homes or distinctive architecture.
CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
3. Merriman-Santa Lucia Neighborhood.
Allow legally constructed duplexes to
remain in the area bounded by Santa
Lucia Road, Alcalde Road and Foothill
Boulevard.
~ Policy 2-22: Neighborhood Street
Planning
Develop pedestrian-friendly street
environments in each neighborhood
that help create neighborhood identity,
improve safety, increase opportunities
for social interaction and connections
. to shopping, schools, recreation and
other destinations.
Strategies:
1. Circulation Patterns. Evaluate neigh-
borhood circulation pattems and elimi-
nate pedestrian balTiers.
2. Public Facilities. Evaluate existing and
planned public facilities, such as schools
and parks, to improve pedestrian access.
3. Street Trees. Develop uniform street
tree planting plans for each neighbor-
hood.
4. Neighborhood Entries. Define neigh-
borhood entries through architecture,
landscaping or land forms appropriate
to the formal or rural character of the
neighborhood. Vehicular electronic
gates should generally be discouraged,
because they isolate developments from
the community.
5. Street Requirements. Determine if spe-
cial street widths, sidewalk require-
ments or light fixtures are desirable for
any neighborhoods.
I~ "
Exhibit 0
15-EXC-99
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6017
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING
APPROV AL OF A FENCE EXCEPTION FOR AN ELECTRONIC SECURITY GATE
LOCATED AT 22525 BALBOA ROAD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 16.28 OF THE
CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
15- EXC-99
Anne Dor
22525 Balboa Road
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an
exception to the Fence Ordinance, as described in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and
has satisfied the following requirements:
a) That the literal enforcement of the prOVISions of this title will result in restrictions
inconsistent with spirit and intent of this title;
b) That the approval of the exception will not result in a condition which is materially
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare; and
c) That the exception to be granted is one that will require the least modification of the
prescribed regulations and the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose;
d) That the proposed exception will not result in a hazardous condition for pedestrian and
vehicular traffic.
e) That 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.
1) That the proposed development meets the requirements of the Santa Clara Fire Department
and Sheriffs Department, and if security gates are proposed, that attempt') are made to
standardize access.
g) That the proposed development site is secluded and has demonstrated that a gate is needed
for security reasons.
I-/~
Resolution No. 6017
Page 2
15-EXC-99
April 10, 2000
===================================
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted
in this matter, the exception to the fence ordinance is hereby approved subject to the conditions
which are enumerated in this Resolution; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in tlus Resolution are
based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application 15-EXC-99, as set
forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 10, 2000, and are
incorporated by reference herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Exhibit A consisting of one sheet titled "Site Plan," Dated March 2000, except as may be
amended by the conditions contained within this resolution. Exhibit D that depicts the gate
style and color. The gate height shall not exceed six feet.
2. GATE ACCESS
Prior to final occupancy, the City requires written approval of the access mechanisms from
the Santa Clara County Sheriff s Office and Fire Department.
3. GATEREMOVAL
The gate is subject to removal at the owner of Assessor Parcel Number 342-19-037's expense
when:
The road becomes public; or if two additional properties become developed and it is required
by a majority ofthe common access developable property owners based on one vote per
developable site.
4. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code
Section 66020( d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount
of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are
hereby fhrther notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees,
dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section
66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within tlus 90-day period complying with all
of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such
exactions.
PASSED Al\TD ADOPTED this 10h day of April, 2000, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: Carr, Doyle, Kwok, Stevens and Chairperson Harris
COMMISSIONERS:
/-/3
Resolution No. 6017
Page 3
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
/s/ Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
g:/planning/pdreportlres/15exc99 _I
15-EXC-99
April 10, 2000
APPROVED:
/s/ Andrea Harris
Andrea Harris, Chairman
Cupertino Planning Commission
I -( If
\.fJ
'-
Entry Gate Element
~
~
.
2" band
Steel! Wrought Iron Gate
- Height: 6 % feet
- Open Design
, 5 I I
2" I A I I ' I
Lens I .. . .. I
12" ~
~
2" I
.
~
I Gate 1 22975
en Intercom Balboa Rd
(0 Lo
,IF ., IIIi Ii1:l (I
I ..
Left Column
Right Column
March 5, 2007
\
SCALE: 1"
2
&"."
~
~
~
:g
~
.
~
o
";
10'
~"'n".....>
t>' .. ~ . \>
"
."
7' D,'" V
EXISTING
GARAGE
EXISTING HOUSE
b .
'"
.
"
17
"
17
,
100.9"-""'"
'"
.
"
" 17 "
17
. "p'fit~~TE. PORCH
" \.
" "\.
/' ,
v ./ p. \...
t7 /r t:' 17 Q~
1>//<:)""" t7 l> -~,
/' !7' I>
v,\ b v;/ b \,.
, ,. 17 V I> ~
, ./ t7.,' ,/
lo.o!' l> /'
v f> /' -r>
17 "
~. " )z"
'EXISTfNG DRIVt.~ ':
" "
"
"
17 . " . ,,". B""''' "
t7 ~/I" .... 17
P, <,f.>' _ t t;..OU~N~lN. t7
17 't>..
0' v ~ 100;
/>: ,/\
17
"
"
"
"
.7
"17
"17
" "
"
17
17
17"
. 17
v
"
"
"
'"
,.
,.
\7
WATER VALVE
01.26
"
\7
17
FIRE HYDRANT /'
\7 "
" \7
17 .
"
17
17
1
&"''''
~:~m (~ iJ
rl
"
~
Proposed
Security Ga te
PRIVATE
~ EDGE OF PAVEMENT
~.9~.~!~
-....---
Driveway
RECEIVED
MAR 0 8 1007
BY
~PAVE~""
~90.72
REVISIONS I BY
C) C) Z N
Z Z 0 It')
ii: Ei ;:: 'ot
.... 0 '"
.... > => I
z "" "" ,...
c; => Iii It')
z II) N
.... Z ,....
0
..J 0 !Xl
0
:> ~
u
cg
IUir .
1\ III ~
....111.
C ~
IU \; ~
CCo..
III a
~
0..
::>
c..')
LL
o
(/)
o
z
~
GJ
>
0:::
::>
(/)
u
:1:0
0..<(
<(0
0:::0:::
c..')
0<(<(
o..oU
om
I- -.J ~
<(0
wmZ
> I-
-L{)O:::
~"w
W(J)o..
N::>
O:::NO
Dote: FEBRUAR'(-2007
Scale:
1"=10'
Drawn:
CAD
Job-
Sheet
111-74
1
of 1
Sheets
EXC-2007-04
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 254
OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A FENCE EXCEPTION FOR AN ELECTRONIC SECURITY GATE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 16.28 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE
FOR 22975 BALBOA ROAD
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: EXC-2007-04
Applicant: Amar Gupta
Location: 22975 Balboa Road
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee of the City of Cupertino received an
application for an exception to the Fence Ordinance, as described in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has satisfied the following requirements:
That with respect to the issue of a roadway and driveway gate in a residential area:
a) The development is secluded and
b) There is evidence that the gates are needed for demonstrated security and/ or
demonstrated safely reasons.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the exception to the fence ordinance is hereby recommended
for approval.
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
Application EXC-2007-04, as set forth in the Minutes of the Design Review Committee
Meeting of April 5, 2007, and are incorporated by reference herein.
Entry Gate Element
,
t; x.c - dOC 7- oif
Application Number
4--5-07
__ Date
Signature ~ ---1 ~ l---~
Cas Manager - ·
APPROVAL
ORe
~
.
~~';;;,w:~";';;":-;6-"';':C:"''''''~-'~''.~' ",;"" .~. -_:,.....0:'"
,
I
J
......<r,.'...;..,.I\.<""..::;...,_:r..,;l<.;...':i-......:.__.j,..:._.:::..~:;......~
2" band
Steel/Wrought Iron Gate
- Height: 6 % feet
- Open Design
~
Left Column
March 5, 2007
Right Column
o
o
~
:e:
:g
%
i
.
w
m
o
'-j
2
&,..35
(1
\
SCALE: 1"
10'
EXISTING
GARAGE
EXISTING HOUSE
rl '.
.,
p "
'02.72 t>
.
1>/4;'
. .:;.
p ",,"()U
;/ V[lo 17
<
. ,
,
. ,
'I: .
" ,
,
,
),
,
,
,
'"
. , .
'0. i>
,~
,
. ,
, '"
,
'<>
,
,
.,
,
.,
,
.o1xiF,gS',I>V
,
o p'
'7
-t4~---.-----~~
]., , ~.: c--: . ~ -=-----~---'"
eeg 10094' ... "
I. .' .. ..p'N~~TE.Pt>~CH' .
~ 180.18 ,/ '\ v !7
A . "., .
100.98 ;' '\
10F;,l' \7 //V.... \7 ~
- ",,"fi, p -C",
[> / CS t> 17 '\ t>
" , "
" ~
. ,-
"
// -f>
"
"EXISTiNG DRIV~ p.
, "
"
"
"
. ".
p "
".
~
,
, ,
" .
. ~,
\7
. p
.
.
.v
.
'",
'"
\7
,. .
\7
.\
. "
V"
.
.
\7
p
,. r.ouN}A)N
\7
. !
\7
~
.
1oo.'lll>
(7
WA TER VALVE
\7
\7
'\7
FIRE HYDRANT
v
1
~oooo
"
Proposed
Security Gate
PRIVATE
....-.'.~-?~ '~'JcY~"':":r"Y'-"'r.",-",,-'-"::~'_~:V\"e-::;:r~~::-"1~'''' .--:-..~
APPROVAL
DRe
['!0-~co7-0+
Application Number
4-5 -0 '7
EDGE OF PAVEMENT
,.
I
I
. -J~.
S;(;'~~'IL.F'e L.----'"'~
.)"n' , ~~-
Case anager . "
q
I
..,.<;-'::~:":1~.~~...~.l:1.,-;':.:,"'~',>- .....
'-.-~- )
.";"___~,;;.;.;...,...,oIJ""
~
Driveway
RECEIVED
MAR 08 2007
BY
~PAVEM~""
~9072
REVISIONS I BY
<:I <:I Z N
Z Z 0 ~
it: ~ i=
w u ...
w ~ ::;) I
Z ~ ,..,
(; ::;) ....
z en z N
W 0 .....
..J U 10
:; !
0
Cg
III ;;: .
.nUl <C
u
...= 15
z
III \; ~
w
C: lL
::;)
U
~
0...
::::>
0
l..1-
0
(f)
0
Z
:5
~
>
0:::
::::>
(f)
U
:1:0
0...<(
<(0
0:::0:::
o
0<(<(
o...OU
Om
I-~O
wmZ
> I-
-1C)0:::
~r---.w
-.Jmo...
WN::::>
O:::NU
Dote: FEBRUARY-2007
Scale:
'"-10'
Drown
CAD
Job"
111-74
Sheet
1
of 1
Sheet$