Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cupertino council adopts new $10,800 fee for ministerial two‑lot SB9 splits
Summary
The Cupertino City Council unanimously approved a new fee for ministerial two‑lot lot‑splits tied to SB9. Staff said the ministerial checklist process requires roughly one‑third of the staff time of a parcel map, prompting a recommended fee of about $10,800 to recover processing costs.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Cupertino City Council on Dec. 1 unanimously adopted an amendment to the FY25‑26 fee schedule establishing a fee for ministerial two‑lot urban lot‑split applications tied to Senate Bill 9. Council approved the staff recommendation after a brief presentation explaining the change.
City planning staff said the ministerial SB9 process — a checklist streamlining subdivision approvals that has been law since 2022 — requires substantially less staff time than discretionary parcel maps. "Instead of a $30,000 fee for a parcel map … staff is proposing for the ministerial lot split a fee of about $10,800," staff said during the council presentation, describing the new charge as a cost‑recovery measure based on processing time.
Staff told the council the city had no SB9 applications in the first two years after the law (2022–2023), then received two in 2024 and 11 in the current year for a total of 13 applications to date. The city previously treated SB9 applications as parcel maps when they arrived before staff developed a separate fee for the ministerial process; the new fee is intended to align charges with the lower level of staff review required by the ministerial checklist.
There were no public speakers on the item; Council member Fruin moved to adopt the fee amendment and the motion carried on a roll‑call vote with all council members present voting aye.
The fee adoption does not change parcel‑map fees, which remain a separate, discretionary process with higher staff time and higher fees. Staff said the new ministerial fee can be revisited with future fee‑schedule updates if processing experience suggests further adjustment.
The council moved on to other agenda items after the unanimous vote.

