Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sb450 Code Changes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cupertino narrows proposed SB 9-era single-family rules; council sends select items back to planning commission
Summary
After a multi-hour discussion, the City Council voted to remove two proposed front-entry and garage standards from a draft municipal-code update to comply with SB 450 and referred those provisions back to the Planning Commission for further study.
Cupertino's City Council on Wednesday moved forward with most changes to the municipal code meant to align local single-family development rules with state law (SB 9 and SB 450), but the council removed two design items and asked the Planning Commission to reconsider them.
The council's action preserves a broad set of objective standards staff proposed to bring the city into compliance with SB 450, which limits how a city may treat developments created under the state's SB 9 duplex and lot-split program. Staff said the changes update Title 18 and chapters 19.28 and 19.40 to apply previously SB 9-only rules to equivalent R-1 and RHS development and to clarify definitions and objective criteria.
Emmy Sugiyama, senior planner in the Community Development Department, explained the package and said SB 450 requires cities to treat SB 9 projects the same as other development in the same zone. "SB 450's modifications are being brought before you today to update our municipal-code standards by aligning our single-family and our SB 9 subdivision and development standards," Sugiyama said.
Councilmembers debated one provision that would have required front entry features and a front-facing main door as objective standards for future single-family construction, and another provision addressing garage fronts and related design controls. Council Member Fruin argued the front-door requirement was too prescriptive for homeowners and proposed striking the change; after substituting a motion to reinstate the existing, less-prescriptive language, the council approved the substitute motion on a 4-1 vote with Vice Mayor Moore dissenting. The council also directed staff and the Planning Commission to study a set of other proposed code cleanups and definitions separately and to return with recommendations.
The council's motion removed the newly proposed text in section 19.28.0.1106 (front entry requirements) and an item related to garage door design that council members flagged as needing additional public review. Council Member Fruin said she preferred encouraging front-facing entries rather than requiring them. "I would strike this requirement as a requirement and simply leave the language as it was," Fruin said.
Planning staff said the version before council reflects the Planning Commission's recommendation to limit the ordinance to changes necessary to meet SB 450 and to carry other code cleanup items separately for additional public review. Staff put the proposals through the Planning Commission in September; commissioners asked that broader code-cleanup edits be returned for a standalone review.
The council passed the motion 4-1 (Fruin, Mohan, Wong and Mayor Chao in favor; Vice Mayor Moore opposed). Staff said it will return with the ordinance language modified per the council's direction and will re-agendize the flagged items for additional Planning Commission review and public notice.
