Cupertino planning commission receives 2024 general plan report; commissioners seek ADU policy review amid public concerns

The Cupertino Planning Commission on March 3 received the city's 2024 general plan annual report and heard staff data that the city approved 41 accessory dwelling unit (ADU) building permits in 2024 and finalized roughly the same number, while commissioners asked staff for more detailed breakdowns and moved to place an ADU policy review on a future agenda.

The report, presented by city planning staff member Piyu, covered implementation actions tied to the general plan and the city's housing element and noted the package of data the city must compile for the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). "We did have 41 ADU building permits approved in 2024," Piyu said, adding that staff are preparing HCD forms and will forward the required materials to the city council in time to meet state requirements.

The annual report is required under state law and will be presented to the city council by April 1, Piyu said: "According to state law we have to present it to city council by April 1, so I believe we will go to city council in the second meeting in March with the housing HCD forms included."

Why this matters: the general plan annual report is the principal local record of progress on housing, land-use and anti-displacement strategies. ADU permitting and how ADUs are sited were a central focus of the commission's questions because ADU production and design affect neighborhoods, tree preservation and emergency access.

Public comment and ADU concerns

Jennifer Griffin, the meeting's lone public commenter, raised two main concerns. She said she is closely watching SB 79, a state bill introduced by Senator Scott Wiener, and worried it would upzone areas within a half-mile of transit. "This bill would allow upzoning a half mile from transit," Griffin said. "I still don't think we're ready for SB 79. I'm really, really concerned that Senator Wiener has overreached and overstepped his bounds."

Griffin also described local ADU siting problems she said she had observed in neighboring jurisdictions: "There was an ADU built 6 months ago in Los Altos that destroyed 2 mature oak trees. Somehow the city allowed a detached ADU to be built underneath 2 probably 80-year-old oak trees. After 6 months both trees died." She urged caution and better objective standards on building design and placement, referencing Policy LU 3.3 in the general plan on building design.

Commissioner questions and staff clarifications

Commissioners asked staff for more granular ADU data. When asked how many of the ADU permits were part of new-home projects versus ADUs added to existing homes, Piyu said "about half" were connected to new homes and offered to provide a more detailed breakdown by follow-up email.

A commissioner asked whether a joint West Valley study on unhoused populations would return to the planning commission. Piyu clarified: "So that is a housing division initiative . . . that work program does not come through the planning commission; it does go through the housing commission."

On transportation demand management (TDM), Piyu said the TDM ordinance work is coming out of public works: "I would probably have to have a conversation with the transportation department about that because that is coming out of public works," and staff will bring more information when it is available.

Commissioners also thanked staff for the housing element work and suggested presentational edits to the report spreadsheets (coloration and bolding to highlight recent actions). Staff explained the spreadsheet's color key: green for completed actions, yellow for items in progress, orange for items with no policy direction, and gray for implementation of existing policies.

Future agenda request on ADU policy

A commissioner proposed placing an ADU policy review on a future agenda to revisit the commission's prior recommendation on detached ADUs and the number allowed. The motion was seconded on the record; no formal roll-call vote on that future-agenda placement was recorded during the meeting.

Votes at a glance

- Approval of minutes, Dec. 10, 2024: Motion to adopt minutes passed; Chair Rao abstained. Recorded voice roll call indicated Commissioners Fung, Linscaug and Sharp voted aye; Vice Chair Kasol Sharon voted aye; Chair Rao abstained. Outcome: approved.

- Approval of minutes, Feb. 11, 2025: Motion to adopt minutes passed with one abstention. Recorded roll call: Commissioner Fung ' Aye; Commissioner Linscaug ' Abstain; Commissioner Sharp ' Aye; Vice Chair Kasol Sharon ' Aye; Chair Rao ' Aye. Outcome: approved.

What's next

Staff will finalize HCD reporting forms and forward the report package to the council for the required April 1 submission. Staff also committed to provide commissioners with a more detailed ADU breakdown (new-home ADUs versus ADUs added to existing homes) and to follow up about the TDM ordinance timing with Public Works.

Meeting context

The item generated one public comment and moderate commission discussion focused on data clarity, ADU siting and interagency process boundaries (planning vs. housing vs. public works). No land-use entitlements or ordinances were adopted at the meeting; the general plan report was received and two sets of minutes were adopted.