Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adu Ordinance Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves changes to ADU ordinance language after HCD review; strikes proposed design matching clause
Summary
The commission voted to forward ADU ordinance amendments to the City Council with one change: removal of a structure‑design clause (subsection I, clause a/b) that HCD found must be expressed objectively. The amendments respond to an HCD review and new state statutes and update local code cross‑references.
The Cupertino Planning Commission on July 8 reviewed draft amendments to local ADU (accessory dwelling unit) regulations prompted by a review letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and by new state laws. Staff told commissioners the amendments update cross‑references to current government code sections, clarify how duplexes are treated and change several objective standards to comply with state law.
City planner John (presenting staff) summarized HCD's comments: the department requested objective, enforceable language where the city previously used subjective terms such as "compatible." Staff said the proposed ordinance removes maximum size limits for detached ADUs in multifamily developments to align with state law and adjusts occupancy, parking and design sections to reflect recent government code changes. Staff also said the city had promised HCD to complete municipal code changes by Sept. 30, 2025.
Commissioners debated detail language in the structure‑design section that would have required detached ADUs to "match" principal dwellings in materials, windows and colors in some zoning districts (Eichler areas, plan developments, Monte Vista and residential hillside). Several commissioners and staff said the phrase "shall match" risks being unduly rigid or not objectively enforceable; HCD had flagged the need for objective standards. After discussion the commission approved staff's recommendation to forward the ordinance to City Council with a single change: strike structure design subsection I, clause a and b (the item addressing matching for specified districts), and the motion passed with Commissioner Fung absent. The motion was moved and seconded on the record; the minutes record the motion as carried (no roll‑call vote tally was recorded).
Staff emphasized that the city cannot adopt local regulations that conflict with state law and that some design and fire standards are governed by building and fire codes rather than the general plan or municipal ordinance. Commissioners asked staff whether the city could limit attached ADU setbacks or otherwise favor detached ADUs; staff replied that state law constrains some local limits and that any changes touching the housing element could require revisions to that element.
The Planning Commission's recommendation will be transmitted to the City Council for consideration at its Sept. 3, 2025 meeting. No environmental determination beyond the staff recommendation was recorded at the commission meeting; staff recommended the commission find the proposed actions exempt from CEQA or to follow the proposed environmental finding in the draft resolution on the council agenda.
Public comment on the ADU item included one in‑person speaker, Jennifer Griffin, who criticized rapid state changes to ADU law and urged careful architectural controls to avoid negative impacts on neighborhood character.
The commission's action amends local code chapters 19.08 (definitions) and 19.112 (ADU rules) as reflected in the staff packet and errata; the item will proceed to the City Council with the commission's recommended edits.
