18 Amend Chapter 16.28 Fences
CI OF
CUPEIQ1NO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3251
FAX (408) 777-3333
SUMMARY
Community Development Department
Housing Services
Agenda Item No.1ff..-
Agenda Date: March 7, 2006
Application
Applicant:
MCA-2005-01
City of Cupertino
Application Summary: Amend Chapter 16.28 (Fences) of the Cupertino Municipal
Code
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve amendments to Chapter 16.28, Fences,
based on the Model Ordinance attached as Exhibit A.
BACKGROUND:
In April of 2005, the Planning Commission and City Council agreed to include review
of the Fence Ordinance as part of the 2005-2006 Work Program. The Work Program
identified goals to review the entire fence ordinance and to specifically review
electronic fence regulations and fence post caps.
Electronic fence regulations were evaluated so that the distinction between electronic
and manual gates could be addressed as well as the definition of demonstrated security.
Fence post caps were included as a Work Program item for discussion on size and
heights of post caps. Post caps may be quite large, and currently they are excluded from
the measurement of fence heights, and no parameters exist for their size and height of
post caps.
As a result, the Planning Commission held study sessions in August, October,
December and February to review the entire ordinance. Four specific subjects were
discussed that include fence height, electronic gates, fence materials and fence post
caps.
With respect to fence height, a majority of the Commissioners recommended
maintaining the existing process that would allow residential fence heights over 6 feet
and up to 8 feet with approval of a fence exception by the Design Review Committee.
On electronic gates, a majority of Commissioners recommended allowing driveway
gates, regardless of whether they are electronic or manual, subject to approval of a fence
exception. Additionally, the majority of the Commission recommended that language
be added to ensure that any electronic gates approved by an exception also meet Fire
Department requirements. A majority of the Commission also recommended that the
/t-I
MCA-200S-0!
Fenee Ordinance, Ch. 16.28
March 7, 2006
Page 2
existing language in the ordinance be maintained that excludes post caps from fence
height requirements. The Commission was able to reach consensus on fence materials,
recommending that a new section prohibiting barbed wire and the like be added.
At the December study session, the Planning Commission provided direction to staff to
prepare a draft fence ordinance for review based upon the comments that were
provided by the Commission. As a result, a draft fence ordinance was prepared,
incorporating these recommendations where a majority or consensus was reached.
On February 28, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed the draft fence ordinance and
recommended approval on a 4~1 vote (Commissioner Wong voted No).
DISCUSSION:
The attached Model Ordinance"includes the Commission's recommendations from the
December and February study sessions. Proposed text is underlined. Deleted text is
struck through.
The attached Model Ordinance outlines the additional amendments as recommended by
the Planning Commission on February 28, 2006. The following changes have been
incorporated into the Draft Ordinance;
1. Section 16.28.010 (Purpose) has been modified to include language clarifying that
the fence ordinance pertains to fences in all zoning districts.
2. Section 16.28.040C has been modified to include "adjacent" property owners.
3. A finding has been added as Section 16.28.060(B)(7) that requires the Design
Review Committee to make the finding a higher residential fence height is needed
to ensure adequate screening and/ or privacy.
4. Section 16.28.060(A) has been modified to state that no fees shall be charged for a
fence exception application where an applicant/property owner of a residential
property is requesting a fence higher than permitted by Section 16.28.040C.
Go-/
Steve asecki
Director of Community Development
Attachments
Exhibit A: Model Ordinance
Exhibit B: Planning Commission Staff Report of February 28, 2006 with attachments
/ t - .:J--
EXHIBIT A
Proposed text is underlined. Deleted text is struck through.
ORDINANCE NO. 1979
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, AMENDING CHAPTER 16.28
OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO REGULATIONS
AFFECTING FENCES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Chapter 16.28 of the Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby amended to read as
follows:
CHAPTER 16.28: FENCES*
Section
16.28.010 Purpose.
16.28.020 Definitions.
16.28.030 Fence location and height for zones requiring site review.
16.28.040 Fence location and height for zones not requiring site review.
16.28.045 Vehicular electronic security gates.
16.28.050 Proximity of plants and fences to public streets.
16.28.060 Exceptions.
16.28.065 Temporary fences for construction.
16.28.070 Violation-Penalty.
16.78.080 Prohibited Fences.
* 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.
/ '?-3
16.28.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the location and height offences and
vegetation in yards of all zoning districts in order to protect the safety, privacy, and
property values of residents and resident'property owners of properties within anv zoning
district of the city. including but not limited to residential. commercial. offices.
institutional. industrial andlor agricultural properties. (Ord. 1788, § I (part), 1998)
16.28.020 Definitions.
The words and tenns used in this chapter shall have the following meanings unless the
context clearly indicates otherwise:
A. "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 experienced documented burglarv.
theft vandalism or trespassing incidences.
B. "Demonstrated safety" means a condition requiring protection from the threat of
danger. hanl1 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.
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.
DB. "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 detennining the fence height.
.EG. "Plant" means a vegetative matter.
E.g. "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.
GE. "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.
HE "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. 1788, § I (part), 1998)
19/Lf-
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 ftom 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
detennined during the design review process.
2. Fences and walls separating commercial, industrial, offices, and institutional
zones ftom residential zones shall be constructed at a height and with materials designed
to ensure visual privacy for adjoining residential dwelling units. The degree of visual
privacy shall be detennined 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)
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
pennitted in the rear yard setback area and in the side yard setback areas. A maximum
three-foot-high fence, measured ftom fInish grade, shall be pennitted in the ftont yard
setback area.
B. In the case ofa comer residential lot, a maximum six-foot-high fence shall be
pennitted 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 ftont yard
setback area or forty- foot comer triangle.
I. 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 ftom 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 ftom 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.
{ ~/'5
C. Where a six-foot fence is allowed, an eight-foot- high fence can be constructed
in lieu thereof subject to building pennit approval and upon receipt of written approval
from adiacent property owners.
D. In the case of parcels zoned residential hillside (RRS) or open space (OS), the
fences shall be governed by Section 19.40.080.
16.28.045 '.'ehieulol" EIeetl"BBie SeeUFityRoadway and Driveway Gates.
VelIiclllar electronic scc:lrity Roadway and driveway gates may be approved through
a fence exception ifthe 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 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. 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. 1833,
1999; Ord. 1802, (part), 1999)
16.28.050 Proximity of Plants and Fences to Pnblic 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. 1788, § I (part), 1998)
16.28.060 Exceptions.
Where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, or results inconsistent with the
purpose and intent ofthis 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,
except that no tèe shaH be charged for a fence exception application where an
applicant/property owner of a residential propertv is requesting a fence higher than
pennitted bv Section 16.28.040C.
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
nJ~(ç
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 aotice 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 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 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 ITom 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.
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 Sheriffs 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 p¡ivacv.
After closing the public hearing, the Plarmin¡; CormnissioH Design Review Committee
may approve, conditionally approve or deny the application for exception.
C. Appeals. Any application for exception which received final approval or
disàpproval by the Design Review Committee may be appealed to the Planning
Commission as provided by Section 19.136.060 of this code. COrd. 1844,§1 (part), 2000;
Ord. 1822, (part), 1999; Ord. 1802, (part), 1999; Ord. 1788, § 1 (part), 1998)
1ð'-1
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 ofthe construction site in
order to secure the site from entry by the general public. (Ord. 1777, (part), 1998)
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. 1788, §
1 (part), 1998)
16.28.80
Prohibited Fences.
Barbed wire. razor wire. and/or electrified fencing are prohibited unless required bv
law or regulation of the Citv. State or Federal Govenmlent.
{~-cr
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7'h
day of March, 2006, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Cupertino this 21 st day of March, 2006, by the following vote:
Vote
Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
City Clerk
Mayor, City of Cupertino
18~q
Exhibit B
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
Citywide
Agenda Date: February 28, 2006
Summary: Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter 16.28 (Fences)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
enact the Municipal Code Amendment based on the Draft Model Resolution attached
as Exhibit A.
BACKGROUND
At its December 13, 2005 meeting, the Planning Commission conducted a second study
session on possible fence ordinance amendments, providing the following comments.
The Planning Commission may refer to these comments in determining desired fence
amendments.
Fence Height
o Maintain the existing process within the ordinance that allows fence heights up
to 8 feet with adjacent property owner approval, or with a fence exception
application to the Design Review Committee if adjacent property owner
approval cannot be obtained.
o Modify the ordinance to allow fence heights up to 8 feet, regardless of adjacent
property owner approval.
o Consider whether the applicants should be charged a fee for a fence exception
application to construct a higher fence.
Electronic Gates
o Modify the ordinance by allowing driveway gates, regardless of whether they
are electronic or manual, subject to approval of a fence exception and by adding
language requiring gates to meet Fire Department requirements.
o Consider whether gates should be permitted along the street frontage with a
minimum 20- or 30-foot setback between the street right-of-way and gate to
prevent queuing of cars into the street, or be prohibited along the street frontage
to mitigate visibility of gates, particularly pertaining to flag lots, and require
gates to be set back to the front lot line of the buildable portion of flag lots.
( J -ID
MCA-2005-0 I -- Fence Ordinanee, Ch. 16.28
February 28, 2006
Page 2
D Prohibit driveway gates, regardless of whether they are electronic or manual,
except to consider allowing gates in the RHS (Residential Hillside) zones if they
are in secluded areas.
D Provide definition for "safety" as a demonstrated reason to allow roadway and
driveway gates.
Fence Materials
D Maintain existing language in the ordinance, except add a section prohibiting
barbed wire and the like.
Fence Post Caps
D Maintain existing language in the ordinance that excludes post caps from fence
height requirements.
D Consider limits on size of post caps to ensure post caps are proportionate in size
to the fence.
DISCUSSION
A draft ordinance is attached as Exhibit A. The draft ordinance incorporates
comments from the Commission where a majority or consensus was reached regarding
fence height, electronic gates, fence materials and fence post caps.
Fence Height
The majority of the Commission recommended maintaining the current process that
allows residential fence heights over 6 feet and up to 8 feet with approval of a fence
exception by the Design Review Committee if adjacent property owner approval
cannot be obtained. Therefore, no changes have been made to the draft ordinance
pertaining to fence height.
Electronic Gates
The majority of the Commission recommended modifying the ordinance to allow
driveway gates, regardless of whether they are electronic or manual, but to still require
fence exceptions for these gates. One Commission comment recommended prohibiting
all driveway gates, except to consider allowing them in the RHS zone if in secluded
areas. Staff has modified Section 16.28.045 to replace references to "vehicular electronic
security" gates with "roadway and driveway" gates.
Additionally, the majority of the Commission recommended including "safety" as a
reason to consider allowing these gates and adding a definition for "safety." The
Commission also recommended adding language requiring gates to meet Fire
Department requirements. In response to this request, staff has added" demonstrated
safety" as a reason to allow these gates, definitions for "demonstrated safety" and
"demonstrated security" (See Sections 16.28.020A and B), and language to require
gates to comply with Fire Department requirements (See Section 16.28.045).
¡ t-/I
MCA-2005-01 -- Fence Ordinanee, Ch. 16.28
February 28, 2006
Page 3
Fence Materials
The Commission reached a consensus recommending that the existing language in the
ordinance be maintained, except to add a section prohibiting barbed wire and the like.
Staff has added this language as a Section 16.28.80 (Prohibited Fences).
Fence Post Caps
The Commission, by majority, recommended that the existing language in the
ordinance be maintained, excluding post caps from fence height requirements.
Therefore, no changes have been made to the draft ordinance regarding fence post
caps.
Section 16.28.060 (Exceptions)
Section 16.28.060(B)(6) inadvertently makes reference to the Planning Commission
rather than the Design Review Committee for approval, conditional approval or denial
of a fence exception. Staff has incorporated this change in the ordinance as a "clean up"
measure.
Prepared by:
Approved by:
Aki Honda, Senior Planner ~ .
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development ~
Attachments
Exhibit A - Draft Model Resolution
Exhibit B -- Planning Commission Minutes of December 13, 2005
Exhibit C - Staff Report of December 13, 2005, including all attachments
G:\planning\PDREPO~T\peMCAreports\Feb 28, 2006 - Fence Ordinance Draft.doe
I ç ~/2~
EXHIBIT A
MCA-2005-01
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
MODEL RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND CHAPTER 16.28 OF THE
CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO REGULATIONS AFFECTING FENCES.
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation of approval is based on Exhibit 1 as amended.
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of February 2006 at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Marty Miller, Chairperson
Planning Commission
G :\Planning\PDREPORT\RES\2005\MCA-2005-01 res.doc
/8-($
Proposed text is underlined. Deleted text is struck
throuflh.
Exhibit 1
MODEL ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO,
AMENDING CHAPTER 16.280F THE CUPERTINO
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO REGULATIONS
AFFECTING FENCES
CHAPTER 16.28: FENCES*
Section
16.28.010 Purpose.
16.28.020 Definitions.
16.28.030 Fence location and height for zones requiring site review.
16.28.040 Fence location and height for zones not requiring site review.
16.28.045 Vehicular electronic security gates.
16.28.050 Proximity of plants and fences to public streets.
16.28.060 Exceptions.
16.28.065 Temporary fences for construction.
16.28.070 Violation-Penalty.
16.28.080 Prohibited Fences.
* For statutory provisions making fences taller than ten feet a nuisance, see Civil
Code §841A. Prior ordinance history: Ords. 112,686,852,1179,1630,1637 and 1777.
16.28.010 Purpose.
J c¡;/¡L/
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 ofresidents and resident/property owners of the city. (Ord. 1788, § 1
(part), 1998)
16.28.020 Definitions.
The words and tenus used in this chapter shall have the following meanings unless the
context clearly indicates otherwise:
A. "Demonstrated secUlity" means a condition requiring protection from the
potential threat of danger. hann or loss. including but not limited to a location that is
isolated and invisible from public view or that has expelienced documented burglary,
theft. vandalism or tTespassing incidences.
B. "Demonstrated safety" means a condition requiring protection from the threat of
danger, haml or loss, including but not limited to the steepness or a roadwav or driyewav
that mav create a hazardous parking situation in front of agate.
C. "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.
DB. "Pence 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 detennining the fence height.
EG. "Plant" means a vegetative matter.
.f9. "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.
GE. "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.
!it:. "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. 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.
It,/~
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 ITom 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
detennined during the design review process.
2. Fences and walls separating commercial, industrial, offices, and institutional
zones ITom residential zones shall be constructed at a height and with materials designed
to ensure visual privacy for adjoining residential dwelling units. The degree of visual
privacy' shall be detennined 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)
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
pennitted in the rear yard setback area and in the side yard setback areas. A maximum
three- foot-high fence, measured ITom finish grade, shall be permitted in the ITont 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 ITont yard
setback area or forty-foot corner triangle.
I. 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 ITom 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 ITom 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 pennit approval and upon receipt of written approval
ITom 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.
[cf/)fp
16.28.045 Vel1ieular Eleetr6uie SecurityRoadwav and Drivewav Gates.
Vehicular eJcttronic security Roadwav and driveway gates maybe 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; i[a development includes a below-grade
parking structure, where the gates are required to secure the below grade parking; if
gates are required for a development to obtain federal or state funding; if the
development is secluded; if the electrorllc gates are needed for demonstrated security
and/or demonstrated safety reasons; or if the electrorllc gates were in existence prior
to September 20, 1999. Roadway and drivewav gates approved by a fence exception
shaH also be required to comply with the Fire Department Standard Details and
Specifications for Security Gates for access roadways and drivewavs. Card. 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. Card. 1788, § I (part), 1998)
16.28.0~0 Exceptions.
Where practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, or results inconsistent with the
purpose and intent of this chapter result ftom the strict application ofthe 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 fonn prescribed by the Director of Community Devdopment. 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 fènce exception shall be given by the Director of Community
Development to all owners or record of real property Cas 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 ofthe hearing. A description
of the fence exception shall be included in the notice. If the Director of Commurllty
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.
f 8 - /1
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.
After closing the public hearing, the PlafH1Îng Commission 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. 1844, §I (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. 1777, (part), 1998)
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. 1788, §
1 (part), 1998)
I ð ~ It
16.28.80
Prohibited Fences.
Barbed wire. razor wire, and/or electrified fencing are prohibited unless required by
law or regulation of the City, State or Federal Govemment.
{X1,¡1
STANDARD DETAILS & SPECIFICATIONS
Spec No
Rev. Date
Eff. Date
Approved By
Page 1
G-1
08/19/02
Œ1J:96
of --Z-
SUBJECT: SECURITY GATES-FOR ACCESS ROADWAYS AND
DRIVEWAYS
SCOPE
Maintaining required fire department access to properties while maintaining the
integrity of the security system.
DEFINITIONS
Driveway: A vehicular access roadway less than 20 feet in width and serving no
more than two single-family dwellings.
Access Road: A vehicular access roadway greater than or equal to 20 feet in width.
Security Gate: A gate either manually or electrically operated that separates access
roadways or driveways, allowing the passage of authorized vehicles
and persons only.
Electric Control: An electric device that controls the opening and closing operation of
a gate by the use of keys or coded number pads.
REQUIREMENTS
1. No gate may be installed across a required fire department access road or driveway
without prior approval of the Fire Department. A detailed plan shall be submitted
for review and approval prior to commencing any work. This requirement may
be modified depending upon the complexity of the installation.
2. When padlocks are used to secure gates, they shall only be of a type approved by
the Fire Department. (See also #4)
3. Gates equipped with electric control devices also shall have an override key
switch installed. The key switch shall be of a type approved by the Fire
Department. (See also #4 and #10)
4. Authorization forms for ordering fire department approved key switches and
padlocks shall be obtained by contacting the Fire Prevention Division of the Fire
Department.
-
~JiL~
FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY
.14700 Winchester Blvd· Los Gatos G CA 95032-1818· (408) 378-4010
{ ~/d-0
Exhibit B
Cupertino Planning Commission .
14
December 13, 2005
Mr. Chao:
. Reported that in terms of tree protection and thè additional condition on the screened trees,
there should be a covenant recorded on the property to mention that the trees are protected
trees.
. For the future property owner, Condition No.4 suggests four additional screening trees, and
these trees should be locked in as preserved trees on the property, so that if the property were
to change hands in the future, the next property owner would cut it down because they are not
aware of the condition. Likewise there is one oak tree that is specimen oak that is being
preserved, that is closest to the house and Condition 3 addresses that. That tree also should be
mentioned in the deed that it is a tree of significance and should be preserved.
Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to approve Application
EXC-2005-08 (EA-2005-02) as amended; No. 6 Development covenant, the last
sentence to be deleted; No.5 electric gate the covenant will be struck because it is
redundant; No. 4 additional screened trees, the four additional trees wiD be
recorded as a covenant. (Vote: 5-0-0)
The planning Commission decision is fmal unless appealed.
5.
MCA-2005-01
City of Cupertino
Citywide
Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter 16.28
(Fences) Continued from the October 25,2005
Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City
Council date: Unscheduled
Aid Honda, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Stated that the application was a continuation of the October 25, 2005 study session of the
Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter 16.28 (Fences). She reviewed the comments provided
by the members of the public at the study session as outlined in the staff report.
· Comments included fence heights, landscaping along property lines, fences, electronic gates,
and fence post caps.
· Comments provided by the Planning Commissioners at the public hearing were outlined in the
staff report. Staff was directed to develop options to the fence ordinance to be presented at the
following meeting.
· Staff recommendations include Option 1 to allow up to an 8 foot high fence on a residential lot
where a 6 foot fence is currently pennitted 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 pennit. If such fences are on common property lines, the decision of the
fence height would be between the property owners and the city would not be involved with
any decision or disputes between the property owners, provided that the resulting height is
allowable per the fence ordinance.
· Option 2 would maintain the existing language in the ordinance, with no changes to the
process for allowing higher fences. If an adjacent property owner does not àgree to an 8 foot
fence, the property owner seeking the 8 foot fence may apply for a fence exception, which is
reviewed and detennined by the DRC.
· Staff included six options relative to electronic gates as outlined in the staff report. Staff
recommends options 2, 4 and 6. The Planning Commission also considered fence materials: to
defme appropriate materials for gates in residential areas vs. commercial areas; prohibit barbed
wire fencing; and make no changes in the ordinance.
· Staff recommends Option 2 to amend the fence ordinance to prohibit barbed wire and other
similar wire, and that a definition be considered that barbed wire, razor wire, and/or electrified
[ 8> /2--1
Cupertino Planning Commission
15
December 13, 2005
fencing be prohibited unless required by law or regulation of the City, State, or Federal
Government.
o Staff presented two options relative to the fence post caps. Staff initially supported Option 2
to maintain the existing language in the ordinance excluding fence post caps from fence height
requirements. However, because of concerns expressed by residents, staff recommended
Option I to provide clarification in the ordinance regarding the height and size of the post
caps.
o Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide direction on how to proceed with the
amendment.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho RiiIconada resident:
o Said she felt that electronic gates set a precedent of exclusivity in a neighborhood.
o Non-electronic gates on properties are more appropriate for lots in the range of 10,000 square
feet, or on flag lots with the gate set back from the main road.
o Said it was appropriate to regulate the fence caps.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Chair Wong·:
o Fence Height: Said his preference was No. I; the reason as staff recommended there be some
flexibility; we saw one owner who wanted to go beyond 6 feet; the remaining two feet could
be either lattice material or 7 foot fence material and a foot of lattice material; that could be
determined at a DRC hearing with staff's input.
o Electronic Gates: stand firm on my view on electronic gates, that I do support them based on
health, safety and welfare. Relative to the six items, would modifY No.4 for the gate to be set
back based oil the fire department requirements; perhaps 20 or 30 feet; I don't want folks
being queued up in the street but on the driveway.
o Flag Lots: Said he viewed it differently. There was an applicant about a few months ago who
wanted electronic gates toward the front because they also wanted to use that driveway as
more of a play area for the children to ride their bikes.
o I can understand when Ms. Griffm is coming from, regarding we don't want a gated
community, but there have been a number of applicants who have been coming to us
concerning security. I don't see the difference of having a manual or non manual gate.
o Fence Materials: Support Option 3 with the addition of no barbed wire. I feel fences should
not be regulated. Suggestion of using appropriate materials; I see that as the beholder's eye of
what proper materials should be used, some people like to use stone. I prefer no changes to
the ordinance, with the exception of no barbed wire based on federal guidelines.
o Fence Post Caps: Support No.2 to maintain the existing language. I believe in less regulation
and allowing the residents of Cupertino to see what they like; I can understand some concerns
regarding compatibility, but we have to find some way to regulate that. People have different
tastes; it is difficult to regulate fence posts as well as fence materials.
Con¡. Giefer:
o Fence Height: Support maintaining existing language; if we allow an 8 foot fence when
neighbors don't agree on it, we are setting up to divide the neighbors more. I agree with staff's
position we have the vehicle in place today for one to get approval to go to a higher level than
6 feet. I think that mechanism is already there.
o Electronic Gates: I have not found one that I agree with yet since being on the Planning
( ~ " 2-2---
Cupertino Planning Commission
16
December 13, 2005
Commission. I have a 48 foot long driveway and could have a 8 foot high fence and an
electronic gate, and it would look like a fortress, but I don't want my neighborhood to look
that way. I don't want it to look like I am afraid or that I am very exclusive; I don't support
driveway gates in any form.
· If we are going to define rural or secluded, I suggest that we allow in RHS areas, not in Rl
areas, because I think there is an argument for having them in rural or secluded areas.
· Fence Materials: Prefer the language staff suggested with regards to security materials, barbed
wire, razor wire and/or electrified fencing; I would like to see that added to our existing fence
language. I do not want to regulate what materials people chose. I feel that industrial materials
are true security materials.
· Do not want to see broken bottles along fences. Different types of materials that are hostel
should not be used. I want to see the language that staff has listed; staff recommends Option 2
to amend the fence ordinance prohibiting barbed wire and other similar materials. It would be
adding the language barbed wire, razor wire and/or electrified fencing are prohibited unless
required by law or regulation. That would be new language to be added to the fence ordinance.
· Support staff recommendation which is No.2 to add the prohibitive materials as opposed to try
to regulate what is allowed.
· Fence Post Caps: It is an opportunity for people to express themselves. I do not recall what the
problematic ones were like. I vacillate on that one; common sense and good judgment should
prevail; I am hesitant to regulate that - no strong position on this.
Com. Saadati:
· Fence Height: 6 foot, but if there are issues with the neighbors' privacy, I think that is
something that should be brought to the Planning Commission or DRC to allow the people to
have some flexibility.
· Electronic Gates: No preference whether it is electronic or not; it needs to be set back; the
further away ITom the street the better so it is not visible. Allow elec1ronic gates but not.next
to a street, unless the situation is such that it is not possible, then apply for an exception.
· Fence Materials: Option 2 if suitable, prohibiting barbed wire. Need to have flexibility for
fence materials but it has to be desirable materials and doesn't adversely affect the area.
· Fence Post Caps: Should be some limit; some could be significant in size and not blend in
with the rest of the fence. It needs to be proportioned.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Fence Height: Not opposed to going to 8 feet, it is important that if it is a good neighbor fence,
the neighbors have input. The current ordinance states it has to go through some kind of public
hearing such as DRC, if the neighbor says yes, then it would be as staff approval by the
Director of Community Development. If the neighbor disagrees, it should be done through a
DRC hearing, staff can do the research, bring it to DRC, if they want to appeal it. That is what
the current language allows.
· Electronic Gates: Presently there is an inconsistency in terms of allowing non-electronic gates
but not allowing electronic gates, and I don't see the difference between the two. I would like
to eliminate the inconsistency and go with Option 2, allow driveway gates regardless of
whether they are electronic or manual, subject to the list of conditions. Would like to add
safety. Neutral on whether to add rural or not.
· Fence Materials: I would like to add the barbed wire language into the current ordinance.
· Fence Post Caps: Support Option 2.
Com. Chen:
· Fence Height: Support the height being changed to 8 feet; the higher fence provides good
( f! -;2-5
Cupertino Planning Commission
17
December 13, 2005
privacy screening.
· Electronic Gates: If there is a gate, it doesn't matter whether it is electronic or not. Adding
No.4 is good.
· Fence Materials: Adding language relative prohibiting barbwire is appropriate.
· Fence Post Caps: Support No.2
Chair Wong:
· Regarding electronic gate, after hearing colleagues' comments, I support No.2.
Vice Chair Miller:
· I also support No.4 on electronic gates.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to continue
Application MCA-2005-01 to the second Planning Commission meeting in
February,2006. (Vote: 5-0-0)
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee: The meeting was cancelled for lack of business. A special
ERC meeting will be held later in December.
Housin!! Commission: Com. Saadati reported that the meeting was cancelled. The next meeting
will be held in January 2006.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetin!! With Commissioners: Com. Saadati will provide a report at the next
meeting.
Economic Development Committee Meetin!!: Chair Wong reported the meeting was cancelled
for lack of business.
Director of Community Development: Ms. Wordell had no additional report.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the special Planning Commission meeting
at 6:45 p.m. on December 20, 2005.
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary
SUBMITTED BY:
Approved as amended: February 14, 2006
19/~
EXHIBIT C
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
D 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)
D 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.
D Shrubs should be no higher than fence heights.
D It should be the responsibility of a property owner to trim back trees on his
property along the property lincs; otherwise, a fine should be imposed on
that property owner.
Fences (General)
D The current fence ordinance should be enforced.
D 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.
f ~ -;L~
MCA-200S-01 -- Fenee Ordinanee, Ch. 16.28
Deeemher 13, 2005
Page 2
Electronic Gates
D 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.
D Homeowners should be permitted electronic gates.
Fence Post Caps
D 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:
D 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.
D 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.
D Consider that the health of trees and shrubs would be impacted if they were
required to be cut at the property lines.
D Make no distinction between electronic versus manual gates, but
contemplate whether driveway gates should or should not be allowed.
D Allow driveway gates, regardless of whether they are electronic or manual.
D Require that driveway gates, if allowed, provide a means for emergency
vehicles to access sites.
D Allow driveway gates if they meet requirements, regardless of whether they
are electronic or manual.
D Prohibit electronic driveway gates in residential neighborhoods; create an
"inclusive" neighborhood.
D Define appropriate materials for gates in residential areas versus commercial
areas.
D Consider the impacts of defining materials as it may limit property owner's
ability to suggest alternatives that may also be appropriate.
D Define meaning of "rural" as an additional condition to allow electronic
gates.
D 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:
/8~0
MCA-200S-01 -- Fence Ordinanee, Ch. 16.28
December 13, 2005 .
Page 3
Fence Hei~ht
1. Permit an eight foot high fence, where a six foot fence is allowed, regardless
of the approval of adjace~ 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. 1£ 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
allow 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 commOh 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 allowablé 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
J?-2--7
MCA-200S-01 -- Fenee Ordjnance, Ch. 16.28
Deeember 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 specifically
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 2 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.
(~~µ
MCA-200S-01 -- Fenee Ordmanee, Ch. 16.28
Deeember 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.
Prepared by:
Approved by:
Aki Honda, Senior Planner
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development
_____ ",=,'--. . "..::J
_:../ ,L·(_ L.'·¿' 1/.. / ~ '"
t/__·C...-vL.A:2.--"" C
1-L'Æ¿j
! .'
Attachments
Exhibit A - Minutes of the October 25, 2005 Planning Commission meeting
Exhibit B - Staff Report of October 25, 2005, including all fence attachments
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\peMCAreports\Dee. 13, 2005 - Penee Ordinance Study Session.doe
12 - ;)-H
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 apartments 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 a 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.
· I strongly believe there should be a moratorium until we set some policy.
· I 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
V-2005-18, TM-2005-08, Z-2005-06, and ASA-2005-14 to the
December 13, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Chair Wong declared a recess.
7.
MCA-2005-01
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 from the August 23, 2005 Planning 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.
Pau¡ Bommarito, Martinwood Way:
· Expressed frustration about waiting for 4 hours before the application was discussed.
· He expressed concern about the gralmy house built in the neighbor's yard only 4-1/2 feet from
his fence which negatively impacted his privacy.
13.--.30
Cupertino Plarming 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 grarmy 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 s1ructure 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 s1ructure, 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 trom 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 fme system that would include a fee for filing a grievance, which would
eliminate frivolous filings. There is also a fine 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 concern 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 Rl 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 other, 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
trom 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
l~r>1
Cupertino Planning Commission
26
Octobèr 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.
o He encouraged enforcement of the existing fence code.
Chair Wong:
o Asked staff to follow up on Mr. McFarlane's concern.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
o Said she was strongly opposed to electronic gates.
o 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 shouId be electronic gates.
o It looks like a compound and you are trying to exclude other people. It is also a nuisance for
delivery vehicles.
o Asked for a vote to eliminate the electronÌc fences in Cupertino unless in a remote area.
Chris Draper, Government Mfairs Coordinator, Silicon Valley Assoc. of Realtors:
o Encouraged the use of electronic gates; the current ordinance already allows for gates; the
gates are already there; the only difference is whether they open manually or electronically.
o The gates provide privacy and security and we want to be considerate of those concerns.
.
o 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:
o Said they should not be regnlating the fence post caps.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
Ig~32---
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.
· Ifwe 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 define 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
from 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.
rr;'-33
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.
HousiUl! Commission:
· Com. Saadati did not attend the last meeting since he did not receive a meeting notice.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetin!! With Commissioners:
· Com. Saadati will provide a report at the next meeting.
Economic DeveloDment Committee Meetin!!:
· Chair Wong reported the meeting was cancelled for lack of business.
Director of Communitv Development:
· 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
1:;-54
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
MCA-2005-0l
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 these ordinances. Regarding review of the Fence Ordinance,
the Commission discussed the following matters:
· Whether a distinction should be made between electronic vs. manually operat:d
gates.
· 1£" safety," "flag lots" and/ or additional considerations should be included as
conditions to allow 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 exceptiol~ applications
from the previous 12-18 I!lonths be notified of these meetings. Further, the
Commission asked that these ordinances be brought back to the COlmnission as
separate hearing items, starting with the Fence Ordinance.
Ið' -.$5
MCA-2005-01 -- Penee Ordinanee, Ch. 16.28
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 artd 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 tllat an additional foot of lattice be allowed 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 walls and walled
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 Developmen~---¿.,.~
Attachments
Exhibit A _ Portion of the City Council Goals and Planning Commission Work
Program for 2005-2006
¡ <¡? ~3 0
MCA-200S-0! -- FeneeOtdinanee, Ch. !6.28
Oetober 25, 2005
Page 3
Exhibit B __ Minutes' to the August 23, 2005 Planning Commission meeting
Exhibit C -- Staff Report of August 23, 2005
Exhibit D __ Statement from Bob Hoxsie received October 19, 2005
Exhibit E __ Statement from James Ashborn received October 18, 2005
Exhibit F __ Statement from Iris Gorgen received October 18, 2005
Exhibit G __ Statement from V.R. McFarland received October 19, 2005
Exhibit H __ Statement from Fred Lam received October 19,2005
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\pcMCAreports\Oetober 25, 2005 - Fenee Ordinanee Sh.dy Session.doe
.
.
·c
.
l~rQ1
Page 6 of?
Cupertino Council
Goals
& Planning Conunission Work
Program - April
I I
PLANNING PROJECTS
Implementation of General Plan policies, I
e.g., rezoning, ordinances, programs EXHIBIT A
Minor zoning ordinance amendments:
0 Pm'king (parking exceptions to
DRC)
0 Signs (DRC instead of PC for
neon and others)
. .
Minor Municipal Code amendments (not About a dozen minor code anlendments, e.g.,
zoning) definition of tree removal, other clean-up items
Sign Ordinance Focus on temporary sign regulations. Encouraged by Chamber of Commerce
Tree Ordinance Review list of protected trees. Additional trees might be considered for
protection, such as bay laurel.
Wireless Master Plan Update zoning ordinance to be consistent with new
wireless master plan (pennitted and conditional uses)
.
Affordable housing projects Possibly two: Cleo Avenue, Stevens Creek Boulevard
("Barry Swenson" site, next to existing affordable
I proj ect)
Fence ordinance Look at whole ordinance; was prompted by
concerns about electronic fence regulations.
Also need to look at fence post caps.
Sustainability Analyze economic incentives for private and public
developers to construct green buildings
Project
Goal
Status
4,2005
City Council
CommelIJts
Goals and Planning Commission Work Program 2005-2006
Items are not in priority order
Go
~f\
\
~
-
Cupertino Planning Conullission
27
Augllst 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 p"esented 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 manually operated gate vs. an electronically 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 afence.
· He said he understood what was said regarding the white picket fenee with a smaller
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 concerned about some of these articulations being too large or massive.
Ms. Honda:
o r 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 fmih is basically something
that the Planning Commission can consider. .
o In addition to the fence ordinance, staff is also bringing the sign ordinance to the Plmming
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.
¡ ð --5q
Cupertino Planning Cormnission
28
August 23, 2005
· Staff has met with the Chamber of Cormnerce; 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 Cormnission 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 Cormnission and is not
noticed as a public healing. 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 from the cormnunity before we decide what direction to go, and on
the sign ordinance clearly the Chamber of Cormnerce 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 forpeople 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
cormnents.
· Regarding the fence, I agree with Com. Saadati's comments from earlier in the meeting that if
we arready 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 findings 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 from 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 ordinallCe, concur with Vice Chair Miller that we need to do outreach to
the best of our ability to get input from the public on why they want some things that are not
cUlTent1y in it, and why we should not allow some things that are cUlTent1y in it.
o 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 COll1111Unity and not an exclusive
community. There seems to be a proliferation of illegally consh'ucted electronically fences
16' Ljò
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 afraid 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,
[mials, 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 from 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 detelmine 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 staffreport, 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. Saadatí:
· Regarding both items, we need to have some outreach. For the signs, go to the business
communities to those who have signs already, and get their feedback as to the impact of the
sign, tile 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 from 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 from 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.
I ~-'I
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 aTe granting these exceptions anyway, why don't we
streamline the process and have less bureaucracy. It is impürtant to get feedback from 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 aJready 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 cüncurred 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 Fr~mont 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 Plaruling Commission wanted to hear more input from the
public and businesses.
l g - '-f2--
EXHIBIT C
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
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
Agenda Date:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
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 recommended
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 (DRC) considered a fence exception application, EXC-
2005-01, filed by Jimbo Schwalb, to convert an existing permitted 7cfoot tall 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 tl,at the applicant
could not meet any of the required conditions for an electronic gate.
The applicant appealed the denial to the Planning Corrunission, at which time on
March 22, 2005, the Commission on a 3-1-1 vote (Commissioner Giefer recommended
denial, Commissioner Chen WaS absent) recommended 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
DRCs 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.
, 1~-4S
Study Session on Fence Ordinanee, Ch. 16.28, and Sign Ordinanee, 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 determine 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 need to address:
D Distinctions between a manually 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 should be allowed, if the rationale behind the
ordinance is to discourage the appearance of an un-neighborly, gated community.
D 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 that" secluded" development
could mean a development that cannot be seen from the street or is within an area that
has a rural appearance. The Commission also felt that" 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.
D "Safety" as a consideration in addition to "ôecurity."
The Commission indicated it is essential to make a distinction between electronic gates
needed for "safety" reasons, in addition to "security" reasons. In addition to keeping
properties secure from burglary, theft, vandalism or trespassing, tlu Commission stated
that 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.
D Community needs.
The Commission stated that they would like to luar community input pertaining to
whether or not there 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 dish'icts for such gates.
I f- Lief
Study Session on Fenee Ordinance, Ch. 16.28, and Sign Ordinanee, 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 Clara, 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 specifically written policies regarding electronic
security gates (See Exhibits C and D). Many of these other communities do 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 allowed 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 tl1e Commission to consider in recommending
amendments to this section of the Fence Ordinance:
o Maintain the existing conditions in the Fence Ordinance for allowing 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 allow for additional
circumstances where electronic security gates may be allowed (i.e., cònsider
allowing electronic gates only on residential flag lots when such fences at six
feet in height are setback a minÍInum 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, SLTlce
electronic security gates are metal gates that tend to appear corru:nercial or industrial in
nature, as opposed to wood fencing that promotes a visually softer appearance.
Additionally, staff is concerned that a proliferation of metal fencing in a residential
neighborhood would not only create 311 un-neighborly, gated community feel, but may
l f~~Ç
Study Session on Fence Ordmanee, Ch. 16.28, and Sign Ordinanee, 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 lirrjting post caps to a maximum height of six inéhes
above the fence height.
Staff is requesting tl1at the Commission provide direction to staff regarding electronic
security gates and also any other sections tI-lXoughout the Fence Ordinance that the
Commission would like to address.
Sign 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, AICP, Senior Planner
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development ~ ~~ /
CLU
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\PD REPORT\peMCAreports \Study Session-- Fence Ordinance.doe
l6,q0
Section
16.28.010
16.28.020
16.28.030
16.28.040
16.28.045
16.28.05Q
.
16.28.060
16.28.065
16.28.070
EXHIBIT A
lili.2g.@UI
CHAP'fE]!t 16.2G: JFjENCES'"
Purpose.
Definitions.
Fence location and height for zones
requiring site review.
Fence location, and height for zones
not requiring site rèview.
Vehicular electronic security gates.
Proximity of plants and fences to
public streets.
Exceptions.
Temporary fences for construction.
Violation-Penalty.
.. 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.@10 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 resident/property owners of the city.
(Ord. 17~8, § 1 (:Part), 1998)
D. '"Setback area, required front" means the area
extending across the front of the lot between the front lot
line and a !iDe 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.
E. "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 rñain building.
F. "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. 1788, § 1 (part), 1998)
16.28.030 Fence Locanonlmd 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
reqillring design review. .
B. The basic design review guidelines for the review
of fences and walls are as follows: .
1. Fences and walls . separating col1UÍlercial,
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 emir.ed
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 co=ercial,
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
dwelling unlts. . The degree of visual privacy shall be
determined during the review process.
3. Pences and walIs shall be designed in a manner
to provide for sight visibility at private and public slIeet
intersections. (Ord. 1844, § 1 (part), 2000: Ord. 1788, § 1
(part), 1998)
16.28.111.0 Delinitions.
The words and terms used in this ehapter shall have
the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates
otherwise:
A. "Pence" means a man-made strueture 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. "Fence height" means the vertical distance from
the highest point of the fence (excluding post caps) to the
ftnish grade adjoining the fence. In a case where the fulish
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.
39
¡<6~L}1
16.28.03@
C"l"'rtfuno . BWJldmW' ~d CoilSdndioJm
40
16.2S.M1I Fe",ce Locatio" BlJIld Height ,or z""os No~
ReqWriJ¡¡g Si~e Review.
A. In the ,are 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
ma:rJmum 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 YMd 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 Comer 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
iine.
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
prop....'"rty 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 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.
16.21U145 Vehicular Electromc Security Gales.
Vehicular electronic security 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 tbe below grade
parking; if gates are required for a development to 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)
16.21).1I5@ JP'rmdmity oli" PI""", ""ò! FeBlees 10 Public
Slree"'.
The. proÙnitý of plants and fences to public streets
shall be controlled by the provisions of Chapter 14.00 of the
Municipal Code. (Ord. 17Sg, § I (part), 1998)
16.1.11.* Exe"'pli""".
Where practical diffieulties, 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. Ptlblic 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 abnt 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 omy
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 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 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:
I. The literal enforcement of the provisions of this .
ehapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit
and intent of this ehapter.
2. The grantirlg of the exception will not result in a
condition whieh is materially detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare.
18/y-ß
16.ZI'I.OW
Fences
41
3. The exception to be granted is one that will
require the least modification of the prescribed regulation
and the minimum variJlnce that will accomplish the purpose.
4.. The proposed exception will not result in a
hazardous condition for pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
S. 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 staDdardize access.
After closing the public hearing, the Planning
Commission 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 PI2!Jlling Commission as
provided by Section 19.136.060 of this code. (Ord. IB44,
§ 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1822, (part), 1999; Ord. 1802,
(part), 1999; Ord. 1788, § 1 (pOrt), 1998)
16.28.1165 Teml"'rSlIY Fences for Cons\roclion.
The Chief Building Official may require persons
construCting structures in the city to erect and DJAintain
temporary fences around all or a portion of the constroction
site in order to secure the site from entry by the general
public. (Ord. 1777, (part), 1998)
16.21'1.iII7l11 Violmtio1li-1'enalty.
MY 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)
(6-4 c¡
FAX NO. :l~l~4~444~¿
HUS;_ -1-,.> c."-'''--'-' -,-u___"
FROM
ELECTRICALLY OR MANUALLY CONTROLLED GA~ES
criteria:
~.
su~fic~ent stacking room between gate and street
way to'a~loW for a minimum of two vehicles (i.e.
42 feet total length).
2. Turn-a~ound outside of public street right-of-way to a~low
for veh~c~e movement to eXLt the site without opening the
gate. The entry lane, a minimum radLus or curb to curb
width of 16'feet is required. For the exit lane, a minimum
radius or curb to curb width of 24 feet is required.
right.-of-
a minimum
3. KnDx box system 'to be insta11ed on tþe gate to allo~
emergency vehicles to enter the site. subject to formal
writte.n approva1 by the. police and Fire pepartme.hts, pri'or
to approval by the. community Development Department -
P1anning Division.
4~ Height of gate and fence shall be in conformance wit~ fence
ordinance requirement (see Article 22 '- EXCEPTIONS AND
MODIFICATIoNS J .
$. Fences and gatessha~l meet the mLnimum setback requirements
as're~ired by Zoning ordinance for the particu1ar zoning
distr~ct where the property is sìtuatéd.
6. The fence and gate design is subject to review and approva~
by the granting authority (i.e. community Dave10pment
Director or Development organ~zat~on). If the project is
subject a discretionary act~on prior·to Development
organìzation reviêW, a suÞm~tta1 to the site Plan and
Arch~tectural Review Board may a1so be required.
7. on-site parking Þetween the gate and street right-Df-way may
be required.
B. Specia1 paving (i.e6' bDIDonite, bricks, etC.) w~1ì not be
a1~o~ed to encroach on pub1~c right-of-way.
procedUral Reduirements:
1. If the proposed fencing and gate wou1d not affect the
a~proved circulation, parking/1andsCaping and other
e1ements, the application for fencing,and-gate design and
instal~atian may be approved by the Deve10pment
organization.
2. If the proposed fencing and gaté requires mod~fication to
the approved circulation, parkin9/1andSCaping and other
elements, an amendment to the approved site plan (i.e.
pìanned ~istr~ct, candit~ona~ use permit, or planned unit
deve~oproent) shall þa requ~red prior to submitta1 to the
Development organization for perm~t proceSßiTIg4
3. Buí~ding and e1ectrica1 permits app~ication sha11 on1ÿ be
accepted following comp~etion'of steps #1 and 2 above.
4. submittal requirements for steps #~ and 2 shal~ include:
a. À scaled síte p~an sbowing location of all drLvèways
and other areas where the proposed gatês and fence
would be installed·" site p1.an sha1.1. indicate where
mod~fications to the existing landscaping .and
irrigation system may þe required~ scala of the site
plan shal~ b~ a minimum of 1 inch equals to 20 feetG
I ~ ,S-b
FROM
FRX NO. :15104944402
Rug. 18 2005 10:40RM P3
b. proposed design and height of fence and gate with
materials and colors indioated. . Scale of plans shall
be a minimum of 1/4 inch equals 1 foot.
c. structural details of fence, gates, and support
structures 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 Association for the project.
e. Technical detail of gate mechanism and knox þoX shall
bersubmitted for review and approVal by police and Fire
Departments, prior to approval by the Community
Development Department.
f., plans should indicate if the gate wiD. oþen in case of
power failure,
5. Contact the planning Department [(510) 4'14~41ssJ and/or .
Development organization [(510) 4'14·- 44BO]for 1?-dditional
submittal information and applicable fèés,
L~-S\
.
EXHIBIT D
~.
."'.
-'I;'.:;
..,,.
WIRB p~tO~ DIVIaIom
s~n
El@C~r~c $~cu~ity Gä~G~
1!iIod 3-6
D",U.I ~:Z-U.-91
A¡¡>p,,"<>vM byi a. LOO"""'"
_finition.
An electric security qä~e is a~ electrioAlly powared or controllad dsvice
separating public rc>.o.dll from privata roadwaya 01: driveways or .....y such
device instaJ.l..d for tha purpoo¡a of oontrolling abcess to IIDY pJ.ace ..ith..r
by vehiel.. or oth..¡;- ¡t1:M",portation app<irAtl>8 ér by pad.".trianll.
~.s'
TiP"" ,
Elaot:¡:-ic "eo:::=i1:.1' <¡ate" arB to 'be either ",liding, .......inging, o¡;- O:1:0BØ-IU'In
type. Gates da"ignGld to aceo!Mt!odats vahioule.l' txaftic I1!hllLll ha'll" ... vertical
clearano.. at no leail than 13 faet 6 inch.." thrcuo¡¡h tlla sntira g..t........y. Th"
width of the gat" shall be no 1,os" t~ the width of the road",,"Y that jet
serves.
Electric aeourity qa~aa desigD&d for pedestrian traffio shall have ... minimum
vertioal. cle...ranoa òf no las", than 6 feat e 1noh&8 and a width no lass than
36 inch"".
opol>ing 'I!~' .
All eleotrio ~Gou~ity gates Ehall opan to full width, from the olosed
position, in nO morsthan 15 seoonds.
.
Authorization to rnatall.
No elaotrio aeourit1 gat.. shsll be installed ,,~thin thE> city yi~hout
authori"..ti<::>n from t.he Fir.. D"l?o.rt.ment. .
~o elactrio seourity qate sh...ll be put into operation until inmpaot"d and
. approved by the Fir@> Depa.rtment.
.......,,~
1 y /t;;z.-
~~.
..\,
" :'~
I>.uth<>d'''¡;''ieil loa ..."'.....:1.4.. Ii> ~..="'i't' ~,u .
No !?"raon 81M:!.:!. ",....:I., ~.. a gift of, or otherwise ð..i.GUibut.. 0" cau"" 1:0 b..
ili..tribut..d eIJ.,/ security look cylinder key..d to the a!?écificil!.tiO>tls of th€.
Gilroy :ø'ir.. Dêputmab.t without "peci:U.o w:dtten authorio:8:Hon tX"om th.. ¡fire
D"Partmant.
whan requir..d to in,,~..ll .. ~"ourity box, the owner or an author1zeª per~Ot1
r..»re"enting th.. owcIsr of th" pro9"rty IIhlll.ll requ.."t from the FU"
prevention Division Ian authori~ation form to ordGr the required. device.
Key ~i'tdh Control ~or Wi.~ þgya~Q't äee......!
Evary electrio ",,,oUDity gate ..hall bG provided with an e~rganc~ override
kay switch control. ~hAt maata tha following ~p£cificationa'
'1'ha kG;;y switdh ahall be 'mountad eithar on a "teel 9008..-"",ck
stand, on a w~l, or gata post within three '(3) feet of the
roadwa.y o.nd within rifteen (15) het of th.. gate.
Key switch is to Þ.. ida,.,tified "Fir.. Dapa.:r:t.mant.UI!IG Qnly".
~he key II.c"tu<Í.ted ewitohehe.ll :)Q a ·M.":'!"'OO~ oylinder kaYI!ic1 to'
the Fire p"Ji>~nt key code. 'rhe 1œY aotivated switch, MOdel. lIS-2,
"hall "'a ordd.",,,d f¡;,OIII "'1'h$ 'KnOX cœnpany· using the aut.hoe.\.z...tion
form p~ovid3~ þy the Fire ~rav.."tian Divi"ion.
-.-
Fail-sate provimioul
All eleot~io eeourity gatas shall. be designed and inetalled to provide tba
fir.. Department with a. eecondaJ:Y means of c.pening tba gate in tJh$ a"a"t. of "-
power or machaDical failure.
.........
ooethod" for OpeninglGat..e fo~ ~..r., ~e"m."te, er Q~r Autbarizad U~"~ØI
<rhe Fire Depart:d$nt. 0:10$9 not mai"tun oJ: enforoQ a.ny policy ou1!.lininq 1:h..
met-hoel(e) which own"r", te"!I.Ilt" or ather authorized uaers may OI"q;>ley in
ord$r to ",ativ..ta o.n elaotrio aeourity gliltQ exc"pt that the met-hod u~..d
5h..l1 not 11\ any wlJJj[ impact the 1'ir.. t>..i;II~.rtm..nt'" ability to ,,"C"ßII thn
proparty.
c.
fg,--5~
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 wonlt 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 IIstay away, I'm 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 61. 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 71 or 8' and allowing
an additional 11 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
tf-5'-f
EXHIBIT E
TO":
!'-",-'
j,~'~
'J' I ~ _,'
~.~
r /..;1 IV ¡J ¡;.¡ G í? a\ "7
City of Cupertino
Community Development Department
10300 TOITe Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
!o!¡s!oç
PRSRT -SID
US POSTAGE
PAID
CUPERTINO, CA
PERMIT NO. 43
111",("
CUPEi\JINO
CfJ) FtfoN7 YAR.v ¡=:¡;-NC¡;;; (!!p F1o¡./T- (ArtD W;1l-LS. ECRWSS
We Ales NOr.4 8ÆNMvll /t6fi/lJ/.lc. If IJNP., ,
. I
€J W¡¡U-f{) C;l?il1ibV¡VÞ5" IN t(;{¡¡)ErJ7IA¿ 1/1,8715",
POSTAL CUSTOll\lIJER
wG' Atei? No( -rrlF'm ý- uS" /# ?'¿JPi3lt7í¡./O._.I. l-foPç,
Phi ~1.-
/~-Ô-( 3 J.. ¡ViJ!ê7/1C.!?lXí f<{'-'A!1i3'
Ci/;d?(¿7IA/¡J/ eM q;-o/lf-,:;,!:/J....
'-
\f-5S
Page 1 of 1
Aki Honda
EXHIBIT F
From:
Sent:
To:
Kiersa Witt on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Tuesday, October 18, 200512:02 PM
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, I.e., 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&
Page 1 ofl
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:macmabèl@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 11:53 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept.
Subject: Fences, gates
We feel that gates detract ftom 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
10/19/2005
)){ /51
Public Hearing for Consideration of Amendments to the Fence Ordinance
Page 1 of 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 Messagem--
From: Lam, Frederick (OS SJ WO) [mallto:Fred.Lam@osram-os.comj
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 wouid 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 oftrees 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
L 8 / 5g
841.4. Any fence or other structure in the nature of a fence
unnecessarily exceeding 10 feet in height maiiciously erected or
maintained for the purpose of annoying the owner or occupant of
adjoining property is a private nuisance. Any owner or occupant of
adjoining property injured either in his comfort or the enjoyment of
his estate by such nuisance may enforce the remedies against its
continuance prescribed in Title 3, Part 3, Division 4 of this code.
¡~ /(;/1
tc.
y
l
3 hlob 1-
19
8
2005