Exhibit CC 11-15-2016 Item No. 23 MCA-2016-05 Hearing Written CommunicationsFrom:
To:
Cc:
Nicole Montojo
Gian Martire; Piu Ghosh
Pilar Lorenzana-Campo
Subject: Re: 11/15 City Counci l Agenda Item 23, Amendments to the Cupertino Municipal Code Relating to Accessory
Dwelling Units
Date:
Attachments:
Tuesday, November 15 , 2016 4:39:44 PM
imaqeOOl.pn q
Hi Gian Paolo and Piu,
I have a question regarding the proposed amendments related to ADUs. I noticed that the
ordinance cmTently includes a process for illegal units to become legalized, and that this
section of the ordinance is redlined out in the proposed ordinance attached to tonight's staff
repo1t. What is the reason for this change?
I know this question is coming to you pretty late in the day, but I hope to hear from you even
if it's after the Council discussion.
Thanks for your work on this issue!
Nicole
On Nov 14 , 2016, at 3:43 PM, Nicole Montojo <nicole@ siliconvalleyathorne.org> wrote:
Dear Mayor Chang, Vice Mayor Vaidhyanathan, and Council members Sinks, Wong and
Paul,
On behalf of our members, SV@Home thanks you for you r consideration of potential
updates to the City of Cupertino's Accessory Dwell ing Unit Ordinance.
In light of the recent passage of SB 1069 and AB 2299 in the State Legislature,
SV@Home hopes to work with you and other elected officia ls of Santa Clara County
jurisdictions to ensure compliance with the new State la w and advance local efforts to
further facilitate the development of second li vin g units. To guide c iti es in these
efforts, we have developed the attached set of broad policy recommendations to
in crease fea sibility and affordability of seco nd living unit construction. We urge you to
consider these recommendations throughout your discussion of Cupertino's Accessory
Dwelling Unit Ordinance.
Wh il e we celebrate the passage of SB 1069 and AB 2299 and support the City of
Cupertino's efforts to comp ly w ith the new state requirements, these statewide
changes alone are not enough. In order for Cupert ino and all of Santa Clara County to
fully le verage the opportunity that secondary units provide, citi es must institute further
policy changes that streamline build i ng requirements, permitting proces ses , and costs
associated with the construction of secondary units . For example, further reduction or
elimination of fees as well as requirem ents related to minimum lot size, design
standards, parking, and setbacks would all allow many more homeowners to build
secondary units . Add ition ally, the creation of local programs that centralize
information and assist homeowners in und erstanding development pro cesses and
Grace Schmidt
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: 11/15 City Council Agenda Item 23 , Amendments to t he Cupertino Municipal Code
Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units
ADU_Coalitionletter.pdf; SVH_SecondaryUnitRecs _SCC.pdf
From: Nicole Montojo [mailto:nico le@siliconva l leyathome .org ]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 3:44 PM
To: Barry Chang <BCha ng@cupert i no .org >; Savita Vaidhyanathan <svaidhyanat han@cupertino .org >; Darcy Paul
<D Paul@cupert in o.org >; Rod Sinks <R Sinks@cu pert ino .org >; Gilbert Wong <gwong@cupert ino .org >
Cc: Pilar Lorenzana-Campo <pi lar@si lico nva ll eya th ome.org >; Piu Ghosh <PiuG@c u pert ino .o rg >; Gian Martire
<Gi anM @c u pe rt in o .org>
Subject: Re : 11/15 City Council Agenda Item 23, Amendments to the Cupertino Municipal Code Relating to Accessory
Dwelling Units
Dear Mayor Chang, Vice Mayor Vaidhyanathan, and Councilmembers Sinks , Wong and Paul ,
On behalf of our members, SV@Home thanks you for your consideration of potential updates to the City of Cupertino's
Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance.
In light of the recent passage of SB 1069 and AB 2299 in the State Legislature, SV@Home hopes to work with you and
other elected officials of Santa Clara County jurisdictions to ensure compliance with the new State law and advance local
efforts to further facilitate the development of second living units . To guide cities in these efforts, we have developed
the attached set of broad policy recommendations to increase feasibility and affordability of second living unit
construction . We urge you to consider these recommendations throughout your discussion of Cupertino's Accesso ry
Dwelling Unit Ordinance .
While we celebrate the passage of SB 1069 and AB 2299 and support the City of Cupertino 's efforts to comply with the
new state requirements, these statewide changes alone are not enough. In order for Cupert i no and all of Santa Clara
County to fully leverage the opportunity that secondary units provide, cities must institute further policy changes that
streaml i ne building requirements, permitting processes, and costs associated with the construction of secondary
units. For example, further reduction or elimination of fees as well as requirements related to minimum lot size, design
standards , parking, and setbacks would all allow many more homeowners to build secondary units . Additionally, the
creation of local programs that central ize information and assist homeowners in unde rstanding development processes
and requirements would greatly increase feasibility for homeowners. We also need cities to consider bold approaches ,
such as allowing for the legalization of unpermitted accessory dwelling units and the convers ion of existing detached
garages , which could greatly expand our region's stock of accessory dwelling units.
Accessory dwelling units are an important source of naturally occurring affordable housing as well as a critical tool for
addressing our region's severe housing crisis . These units can help keep families together, often providing a way for
retirees or returning college graduates to continue living near family, when they otherwise wouldn 't be able to afford
housing in Santa Clara County. Furthermore, accessory dwelling units promote equitable homeownership; as a potential
source of rental income , secondary units can open up doors to homeownership fo r those who otherwise cannot afford a
mortgage . However, the numbe r of secondary units actually built each year does not allow fo r these benefits to be
signifi cantly scaled. SV@Home estimates that on ave rage, fewer than 90 perm its for seconda ry units have been issued
annually throughout the County in recent years . We can and must build more . SV@Home has joined a coalition of eight
Bay Area organizations led by the Bay Area Council in support of this goal. This diverse grouping of organizations --
ranging from representatives of business, realtor, and senior communities, to advocates from the environmental,
affordable housing , and smart growth movements --demonstrates the broad regional support for second living
1
units . Despite our very different missions, we all agree that accessory dwelling units provide a key tool for addressing
the needs of the communities we serve and advocate for. Also attached, please find a letter from our coalition that
explains our position and provides additional recommendations for local action .
SV@Home looks forward to partnering with you to create thriving, sustainable communities that welcome people from
all walks of life. Please let us know if we can provide you with any technical assistance or examples of best practices for
second living unit programs from other jurisdictions.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input.
Sincerely,
Nicole Montojo
Policy Associate
nicole@sili conva ll eyathome.org
408.780.4758
sv(Q)home
350 W. Julian Street #5, San Jose, CA 95110
Website I Fa ce book I Twitter I Link ed In
2
Lauren Sapudar
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Nicole Montejo < nicole@siliconvalleyathome.org >
Monday, November 14 , 2016 3:44 PM
Barry Chang; Savita Vaidhyanathan; Darcy Paul; Rod Sinks; Gilbert Wong
Pilar Lorenzana-Campo; Piu Ghosh; Gian Martire
Re : 11/15 City Council Agenda Item 23, Amendments to the Cupertino Municipal Code Relating
to Accessory Dwelling Units
ADU_CoalitionLetter.pdf; SVH_SecondaryUnitRecs_SCC.pdf
Dear Mayor Chang, Vice Mayor Vaidhyanathan, and Council members Sinks, Wong and Paul,
On behalf of our members, SV@Home thanks you for your consideration of potential updates to the City of Cupertino's
Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance.
In light of the recent passage of SB 1069 and AB 2299 in the State Legislature, SV@Home hopes to work with you and other
elected officials of Santa Clara County jurisdictions to ensure compliance with the new State law and advance local efforts to
further facilitate the development of second living units . To guide cities in these efforts, we have developed the attached set of
broad policy recommendations to increase feasibility and affordability of second living unit construction . We urge you to
consider these recommendations throughout your discussion of Cupertino's Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance.
While we celebrate the passage of SB 1069 and AB 2299 and support the City of Cupertino's efforts to comply with the new state
requirements, these statewide changes alone are not enough. In order for Cupertino and all of Santa Clara County to fully
leverage the opportunity that secondary units provide, cities must institute further policy changes that streamline building
requirements, permitting processes, and costs associated with the construction of secondary units. For example, further
reduction or elimination of fees as well as requirements related to minimum lot size, design standards, parking, and setbacks
would all allow many more homeowners to build secondary units. Additionally, the creation of local programs that centralize
information and assist homeowners in understanding development processes and requirements would greatly increase
feasibility for homeowners. We also need cities to consider bold approaches, such as allowing for the legalization of
unpermitted accessory dwelling units and the conversion of existing detached garages, which could greatly expand our region's
stock of accessory dwelling units.
Accessory dwelling units are an important source of naturally occurring affordable housing as well as a critical tool for addressing
our region's severe housing crisis. These units can help keep families together, often providing a way for retirees or returning
college graduates to continue living near family, when they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford housing in Santa Clara
County. Furthermore, accessory dwelling units promote equitable homeownership; as a potential source of rental income,
secondary units can open up doors to homeownership for those who otherwise cannot afford a mortgage. However, the
number of secondary units actually built each year does not allow for these benefits to be significantly scaled . SV@Home
estimates that on average, fewer than 90 permits for secondary units have been issued annually throughout the County in
recent years. We can and must build more. SV@Home has joined a coalition of eight Bay Area organizations led by the Bay Area
Council in support of this goal. This diverse grouping of organizations --ranging from representatives of business, realtor, and
senior communities, to advocates from the environmental, affordable housing, and smart growth movements --demonstrates
the broad regional support for second living units. Despite our very different missions, we all agree that accessory dwelling units
provide a key tool for addressing the needs of the communities we serve and advocate for. Also attached, please find a letter
from our coalition that explains our position and provides additional recommendations for local action .
SV@Home looks forward to partnering with you to create thriving, sustainable communities that welcome people from all walks
of life . Please let us know if we can provide you with any technical assistance or examples of best practices for second living unit
programs from other jurisdictions .
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input.
Sincerely,
1
Nicole Montojo
Policy Associate
nicole@si liconva I leyathome.org
408.780.4758
sv lQJ home
350 W. Julian Street #5, San Jose, CA 95110
Website I Facebook I Twitter I Linkedln
2
Real Possibilities GREENBELT AL LI ANCE 0SPUR ~h TransForm sv ~ ome 'l!lliD'Dm~1
o..~o..u..._mt1oo..o..fl,!-.
August 15, 2016
RE: Unlocking the market for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to address the Bay Area's
housing crisis
Dear Public Official,
In the face of an unprecedented housing crisis that threatens our families, economy, and
environment, we appeal to your city to help us increase housing opportunities in the Bay Area
through an exciting new campaign to unlock the market for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).
Everyone deserves a home they can afford . Yet today , far too many couples, seniors, young people ,
and families are being priced out of the Bay Area and forced into long commutes that increase
greenhouse gas emissions and traffic congestion . Our returning college graduates, our teachers,
nurses, police and fire officers, service workers , and retirees all need a place to live. We want to
have them here, near to us , in our neighborhoods , rather than be forced out-and encourage you to
join us in our efforts.
Our groups are all supporting more funds for dedicated affordable homes, but that alone cannot
solve this crisis. We need many more "tools in the toolbox ." That is why we are urging every city in
the region to immediately modify their codes to expand the construction and legalization of ADUs
with building permit approvals only. This will provide a rapid means of providing workforce infill
housing within the existing fabric of Bay Area neighborhoods.
ADUs are simply a small second dwelling on the same property as a primary home, whether a
basement in-law apartment, a unit over a garage, or a tiny house in the backyard. ADUs can create
homes more easily than any other type of building, with no additional subsidy, and assist local
homeowners in the process .
This is the first time our organizations have collaborated on a regional policy program of this
magnitude. We have come together because the environmental, smart growth, senior, and business
community all agree that the Bay Area needs our cooperation in response to the pervasive and
alarming housing crisis facing our region. We look forward to working together with our local
government partners to tackle this crisis and make the Bay Area an even better place to live.
The Case for Accessory Dwellings
Accessory dwellings offer a number of advantages to communities who have adopted them.
1. ADUs are a popular tool to provide more housing choices
Many cities around the world have recognized the power of ADUs to increase middle income
housing and have amended their local policies to facilitate ADU development. In the United States a
wide variety of jurisdictions-including Portland, Seattle , Marin County cities , Oakland, Berkeley,
Santa Cruz, and Honolulu-have all recently created rules that allow homeowners to build ADUs
with only a building permit-taking the cost and stress out of the application process and opening up
more places where these units are viable . In Vancouver, ADUs are becoming one of the most
significant sources of new smaller homes , with over 1,000 building permits issued annually. In New
South Wales, Australia, "granny flats " accounted for 5,000 new homes in a single year.
2. AD Us are less costly to build than other forms of housing
ADUs are the most affordable type of homes to construct in the inner Bay Area . They do not require
paying for land , major new infrastructure, structured parking , or elevators. They are built with cost-
effective one-or two-story wood frame construction, which is significantly less costly than homes in
new multi-family infill buildings . And while AD Us are smaller than the single family homes they share
a property with , they often provide as much living space as the new apartments and condominiums
being built in new infill buildings and serve very well for couples, small families , young people, and
seniors.
3. ADUs offer a green housing choice
ADUs provide a host of environmental benefits. UC Berkeley studies show that ADU residents have
fewer cars and utilize transit more often than the general population. In communities already served
by trans it, ADUs can provide new homes without adding traffic , instead fostering more walking ,
biking , and transit. And ADUs make efficient use of developed areas while helping to ease
development pressure on our natural and natural lands; every new home added in transit-served
Bay Area cities is a home not pushed to the edge of the region, the middle of California, or out of
state entirely, where the greenhouse gas footprint of development is much higher.
4. AD Us promote intergenerational living and can be a form of family insurance against
catastrophic life events that could force foreclosure or relocation
ADUs give homeowners the flexibility to share independent living areas with family members and
others, allowing seniors to age in place as they require more care and helping extended families to
be near orie another while maintaining privacy. They also provide a source of income for
homeowners who have experienced a tragic illness, job loss , or divorce that puts them at risk of
losing their home.
5. Many existing large homes are underutilized and can accommodate ADUs
Studies from cities considering expansions of their ADU programs document that many existing
single family homes are occupied by fewer people than they were designed to accommodate. An
expansion of ADUs allows extra space to become a home for someone who would otherwise be
priced out of a community, while maintaining the character of single family neighborhoods.
6. Barriers to AD Us must be removed to grow this housing source
Research completed at UC Berkeley has documented that homeowners will not try to get the
approval of their neighbors or the city to add an ADU if the process is cumbersome, expensive , or
controversial. Many local zoning codes and plans create standards that homeowners cannot achieve
in order to rent a space in their home or converted garage. Ironically, it is easier to add a temporary
rental in a home than a permanent one , and yet the need for permanent housing is so much greater.
The explosive popularity of temporary rentals demonstrates that local homeowners are interested in
ways to allow their homes to be fully utilized, add a source of income for their families, or allow aging
in place. Allowing ADUs to be added on existing properties with an over the counter building permit
encourages more long term housing within existing neighborhoods . In fact, ADUs offer cities that
wish to require owner occupancy a better tool to control for temporary rentals, as the building permit
process can be used to enforce local short term rental laws .
7. Local cities offer a number of models that could form the basis for a new ADU law in your
city
We have compiled here for you several models from cities that have expanded opportunities for
ADUs on a ministerial basis. We have also included recent studies from UC Berkeley about the
types of local standards that prevent or facilitate ADUs in a number of Bay Area cities. These
materials offer examples of development standards to encourage ADUs , academ ic research on
ADUs, and press articles about cities that have shown leadership on this issue.
Recommendations for Local Action
Based on findings from UC Berkeley and elsewhere , we encourage local jurisd ictions to adopt the
following standards for ADU approval :
1. Relax parking requirements-particularly if the ADU is located within an existing home or
within ½ mile of transit.
Off-street parking requirements, requiring additional spaces to be added , are among the most
frequently cited reasons homeowners cannot add ADUs.
These requirements unfairly penalize ADUs , since homes are often occupied below their intended
density, as in the case of empty nesters or single parent homes. If an ADU improves utilization of an
existing home by rent ing extra bedrooms with a kitchen and a bath , then the number of cars
associated with the property is likely to be similar to that of a single family occupying the same
home.
Such requirements also fail to reflect the lower rates of car ownership and higher rates of transit use
among ADU residents . In an era when many families are shedding an extra car as Uber, Lyft, car
sharing and other on-demand transportation programs expand , many Bay Area communit ies are
wisely reducing off-street parking requirements for ADUs. If parking is required , consider allowing
tandem parking in existing driveways.
2. Reform land use controls to allow more ADUs with simple building permit approvals
Development standards are highly effective at preventing homeowners from adding ADUs . In
particular, lot coverage ratios and setbacks that are not needed for fire safety prevent many
otherwise appropriate areas on a single family lot from incorporating an ADU. If building and fire
safety standards can be met, we encourage your city to add no or very minimal additional
development standards to restrict ADUs . Creating clear standards for owners to simply obta in a
building permit to add an ADU with a minimum of restrictions will significantly increase the number of
owners willing and able to pursue this housing option.
3. Allow ADUs without cumbersome permitting or reporting requirements
Many homeowners will not create ADUs if it means high upfront costs , cumbersome permitting and
fee burdens, or long-term contractual obligations that owners are not familiar w ith.
In order to expand ADUs enough to add to urgently needed housing supply, we need to make the
economics work through reduced fees , to reduce the work required with easier permitting and less
process , and even to provide technical assistance for interested owners to explain the "how to " of
ADUs .
4. Broadly legalize existing ADUs that can meet basic building, health , and safety standards
even if they are non -compliant with current planning codes
Today, many homeowners illegally rent portions of their property as ADUs . Many of these ADUs
might not comply with current zoning or development standards , but they provide an existing home
for someone . If that home is safe for occupants and neighbors, it should be allowed to come into
compliance with building and safety codes and legally rented .
5. Relax utility service and hookup requirements and reduce other local fees
Requirements that treat an ADU like a new use rather than an accessory to a single family home-
such as new water or sewer hookups, new sprinklers , or new utility meters-often drive up the cost
of adding an ADU beyond what a homeowner can afford and may not be necessary when the
existing home is already served by utilities and the ADU is fire-safe . Likewise, high fees charged for
building, planning, or utility permits and review can amount to tens of thousands of dollars and
prevent homeowners from seeking permission to add an ADU. In Marin County , cities have worked
with their departments and local utilities to reduce the up-front fee and hook-up cost of ADUs to
encourage this form of housing. Cities can also allow ADUs to utilize the existing utility services
serving the primary residence , eliminating the need for costly new hookup fees and installation
costs .
Next Steps
We would like to assist you in promoting more ADUs within your jurisdiction. In addition to providing
you with the materials in this correspondence , we offer you the following :
1) Our public support for your ministerial ADU laws
Our organizations can write letters , send people to testify, and help educate the community
about the many benefits of ADUs.
2) Lenders who will help your homeowners finance their ADU work
The Bay Area Council is working with member banks and loan originators to develop a
specially targeted loan program for homeowners who would like to add ADUs.
3) Help publicize your program
We will help your city develop public outreach to inform homeowners of the existence of new
ADU rules so they can consider this option for their property.
We will be contacting your city to make an in-person presentation and offer our assistance and
relevant materials. We hope we can assist you in revising your ADU policies to help create thriving ,
sustainable neighborhoods that welcome people from all walks of life and ensure that everyone can
remain a part of their community and live in a place they are proud to call home.
Sincerely,
~'mf~
Nancy McPherson
California State Director
AARP
Jim Wunderman
President & CEO
Bay A rea Council
Jeremy Madsen
CEO
Greenbelt Alliance
Stuart Cohen
Executive Director
TransForm
Carol Galante
Donald Terner Distinguished Professor
of Affordable Housing and Urban Policy;
Faculty Director, Terner Center
University of California, Berkeley
Kristy Wang
Community Planning Policy Director
SPUR
Evan Reeves
Research & Policy Director
Center for Creative Land Recycling
Pilar Lorenzana-Campo
Policy Director
SV@ Home
sv @ home
Recommended Standards for Secondary Unit Ordinances
Updated October 18, 2016
Standards to Improve Feasibility and Affordability that Exceed SB 1069 Requirements
While SB 1069 requires several changes to local ordinances that will allow homeowners to more easily develop secondary units, local jurisdictions can do more to
improve the feasibility and affordability of construction. SV@Home recommends that cities throughout Santa Clara County adopt the following additional policies as part
of their secondary unit ordinances to support the creation of secondary units .
In addition to these policy elements, SV@Home strongly recommends the implementation of strong secondary unit programs that provide a central point of contact as
well as resources to simplify processes for homeowners desiring to create SUs. Best practices for such programs include : developing easily understood resources for
homeowners interested in building SUs, establishing a program that centralizes all SU-related procedures and information, including the cost of all associated fees , and
creating an expedited process for the approval of SUs .
Standard SB 1069 Requirements SV@Home SV@Home
Recommendation Comments
Legalization of Not applicable. We recommend that cities allow owners Many illegal -and some potentially unsafe -SUs provide an
Existing Illegal of existing SUs that were constructed existing home for someone . A legalization program would
SUs without necessary permits to retroactively encourage owners of such units to come forward and comply with
apply for the proper building permits the law by bringing their units up to code, thus ensuring the safety
without facing penalties , with the of potential tenants. Additionally , these newly legalized units
requirement that the existing SU is would provide additional property tax revenues for the City .
brought up to code .
Existing No setback shall be required for an existing We recommend allowing the conversion Allowing the conversion of existing structures is the easiest and
Accessory garage that is converted to an ADU , and a of detached garages or other existing most affordable way for homeowners to create new SUs ,
Structures I se tback of no more than five feet from the side accessory structures and compliance especially in neighborhoods where legal detached accessory
Detached and rear lot lines shall be required for an ADU with the SB 1069 stipulation th at no new units are located near or on the property line. Additional
Garages that is constructed above a garage. (Section setbacks shall be required for existing requirements, such as placement of doors and windows , can be
5.5) garages that are converted. adopted to ensure that the SU is integrated with the primary
residence.
Minimum Lot A local agency may, by ordinance, provide for We strongly recommend eliminating As a practical matter, setback and lot coverage requirements ,
Size the creation of ADUs in single-family and minimum lot size requirements and however determined, dictate the minimum lot size that works . A
multifamily residen tial zones . The ·ordinance simplifying the overa ll regulations separate minimum lot size requirement is redundant.
shall do all of the following ... (C) Provide that governing SUs and maximizing
ADUs do not exceed the allowable density for opportunities for SUs , recognizing that
the lot upon which the ADU is located, and that data shows that , in the most optimistic
ADUs are a residential use that is consistent case , only one or two homeowners on a
with the existing general plan and zoning block would create a SU .
designation for the lot. (Section 5)
SV@Home Recommended Standards for Secondary Unit Ordinances
Page 2 of 3
Standards to Improve Feasibility and Affordability that Exceed SB 1069 Requirements
Standard SB 1069 Requirements SV@Home
Recommendation
Maximum Th e increased floor area of an attached ADU We recommend eliminating the maximum
Floor Area shall not exceed 50% of the existing living area , floor area requirement to allow for the
with a max. increase in floor area of 1 ,200 sf. maximum flo or area set by SB 1069.
The total area of floorspace for a detached ADU
sha ll not exceed 1,200 sf. (Section 5)
Lot Coverage A local agency may, by ordinance, provide for We recommend using an overall lot
the creation of accessory dwelling units in coverage requirement instead of a
single-family and multifamily residential zones. minimum lot size requirement.
The ordinance shall. .. (B) (i) Impose standards
on accessory dwelling units that include , but are
not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot
Rear Setbacks coverage , landscape, architectural review , We recommend a 5-foot rear setback
maximum size of a unit, and standards that (with the exception noted on Page 1
prevent adverse impacts on any real property regarding "Existing Accessory Structures/
that is listed in the California Register of Historic Detached Garages").
Places. (Section 5)
Design We recommend allowing exterior
Standards materials and roof pitch to differ from the
primary residence .
Short-Term ... a local agency may require an applicant for a We recommend prohibiting short-term
Rentals and permit issued pursuant to this subdivision to be rentals of SUs and a requirement for the
Owner-an owner-occupant or that the property be used primary homeowner to occupy either the
Occupancy for rentals of terms longer than 30 days. primary or secondary unit. Additionally ,
(Section 5) we recommend that the City establish
meaningful penalties for violations .
SV@Home
Comments
The maximum floor area combined with minimum lot size ,
setback, and rear yard coverage restrictions are overly onerous,
making it complicated for homeowners to determine the potential
for a SU and dampening enthusiasm for pursuing a project.
These requirements can be replaced by a single requirement
related to lot coverage . On its own, a lot coverage requirement is
an effective regulatory mechanism that is easily implemented and
responsive to individual lot conditions that exist across many
neighborhoods.
See comments on "M inimum Lot Size" and "Maximum Floor
Area." A lot coverage requirement, in combination with setback
requirements , would effectively serve the same function of
limiting the size of a SU. Additional maximum floor area and
minimum lot size requirements would be redundant.
A smaller setback requirement will allow more homeowners to
locate a SU on their property while maintaining adequate open
space in the backyard .
Allowing different exterior materials and roof pitch will enable
more homeowners to consider alternative building types, like tiny
homes and other manufactured structures on permanent
foundations, as a means of reducing costs and time required for
construction.
Prohibition of short-term rentals will ensure that SUs provide
affordable housing for residents and increase our region's stock
of naturally-occurring affordable housing.
SV@Home Recommended Standards for Secondary Un it Ordinances
Page 3 of 3
Standards Defined by SB 1069
SV@Home recommends compliance w ith the following statewide requirements created by SB 1069.
Standard SB 1069 Requirements
Fees ADUs shall not be considered new residential uses for purposes of calculating local
agency connection fees or capacity charges for utilities ... shall not require the applicant
to install new or separate utility connection directly between the ADU an d the utility or
impose a related connection fee or capacity charge. (Section 5)
Parking (d) Park ing requirements for ADUs shall not exceed 1 space per unit or bedroom .
These spaces may be provided as tandem parking on an existing driveway . Off-street
pa rking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by th e local agency
or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in setback
areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon fire and life safety conditions . This
subdivision shall not apply to a unit that is described in subdivision (e).
(e) A local agency , whether or not it has adopted an ordinance governing ADUs shall
no t impose parking standards for an ADU in any of the following instances : (1) The
ADU is located within one-half mile of public transit. (2) The ADU is located within an
architecturally and historically significant historic district. (3) The ADU is part of the
existing primary residence or an existing accessory structure . (4) When on-street
parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU . (5) When there
is a car share vehicle located within one block of the ADU . (Section 5)
(xi) When a garage, carport or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction
with the construction of an ADU , and the local agency requires they be replaced, the
replacement spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the
accessory dwelling un it, including but not limited to, as covered spaces, uncovered
spaces , or tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical automobi le parki ng lifts .
(Section 5.5)
SV@Home SV@Home
Recommendation Comments
In addition to compliance with the Fees can add tens of thousands of
SB 1069 requirements regarding dollars to the cost of creating SUs.
utility fees , we suggest that that Reducing financial burden for
the City identify additional ways to homeowners through reduced fees,
reduce the costs of other fees as was recently done by Mountain
incurred when building SUs. View , or a fee-waiver program , as is
the practice in Santa Cruz , are two
ways cities can make SUs more
affordable .
We recommend compliance with Research shows that SU residen ts
the parking requirements outlined have low rates of car ownership and
in SB 1069. high rates of transit use.
Additionally , many single-family
homes are underutilized and
consequently, over-parked. The SB
1069 requirements thus ensure that
limited available land can be used to
meet housing need without requiring
the provision of unnecessary
parking .
Lauren Sapudar
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Lisa Warren <>
Tuesday, November 15, 2016 2:57 PM
City Council; City Clerk; Darcy Paul; Savita Vaidhyanathan ; Rod Sinks ; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang
Planning Dept.; Aarti Shrivastava; Benjamin Fu
November 15, 2016 City Council meeting, Agenda Item #23 -Changes to Municipal Code
Council Members and City Staff,
Consider this email as written communication for the Agenda item #23 on tonight's
(November 15, 2016) City Council agenda.
I am expected in two places at the same time tonight and am unsure that I will be able to
attend your public meeting.
I am requesting that this item not be voted on at this time.
There needs to be time for proper public discussion and comment.
The described changes to the city's residential zoning code can not be taken lightly.
Given that we have just been through an election cycle where R1 zoning was a HOT TOPIC, it
is the opinion of many residents that more time be given before deciding on a change to what
can be built on single family residential lots in the city of Cupertino. Agenda item #23 clearly
affects Neighborhoods and requires more public vetting.
With inaccurate statements being told and mailed to residents during recent campaign
blitzes .... the community was confused.
It was expressed by dozens that I personally spoke to in the last several months, that the
only reason Measure C was 'feared' was because of mis-representation of how R1
development is structured and defined.
If your constitue11ts were concerned that a 45' tall single family home would be built in their
neighborhood, it seems obvious that having multiple dwellings of increasing size, without
proper parking ... and with smaller setbacks from property lines ... would be equally
upsetting.
There needs to be a much broader and more public discussion about Residential Municipal
Code/ Zoning before a decision is made as to a change in the 'law' for this type of
development.
If a final decision is made tonight, it will only prove to create further distrust and divide in our
city.
Thank you.
Lisa Warren
1
Lauren Sapudar
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Liana Crabtree <>
Tuesday, November 15 , 2016 3:39 PM
City Council
City Clerk ; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Benjamin Fu
City Council Meeting, 11/15/2016, Agenda Item 23, Accessory Housing Units (Ordinance
16-2159)
Dear Mayor Chang, Vice Mayor Vaidhyanathan, and Council Members Paul, Sinks, and Wong:
Please consider this letter as a request to table any decision regarding proposed Ordinance 16-2159 until
the City can do more community outreach to help residents understand the changes described in the
ordinance and the City's plan to mitigate its negative aspects.
Adding accessory housing structures of up to 800 and 1,200 square feet to lots in neighborhoods that were
designed for single-family homes will likely have a significant effect on traffic, street parking, noise, and
demands on infrastructure including, schools, parkland and open space, recreational facilities, transit
demands, and others.
The community needs to be heard regarding its concerns related to changes in density in what have been
neighborhoods of single family homes. The City needs to address how it will mitigate increased demands on
infrastructure in the event that Ordinance 16-2159 were to pass.
I recall a majority of Council members demonstrated an abundance of caution regarding a myth that the
Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative would raise building heights in neighborhoods when they
inserted an opinion statement in the ballot question for the measure that was neither supported by the
content of the measure nor the General Plan. In the interest of protecting the neighborhoods from actual
over-development, I request that you table any decision regarding proposed Ordinance 16-2159 until after
gathering input from residents and offering specific mitigations in the event the ordinance were to pass in the
future.
Thank you,
Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident
1
Lauren Sapudar
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Joan Chin
Tuesday, November 15, 2016 4:53 PM
City Council
City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Benjamin Fu
CC Meeting Agenday Item 23, of 11/15/2016
£ C I d, :i I, '1 -Ii Z 'J ;
Dear Mayor Chang, Vice Mayor Vaidhyanathan , and Council Members Paul , Sinks, and Wong,
This is a very important topic , because it could be a way for Cupertino to provide more affordable housing.
That is very important to us all.
This plan needs to be absorbed by the community for understand and discussion.
It is unacceptable to push such an impactful plan though without the community participation . Please take a
lesson from the whole Measure C -Measure D battle and understand that your residents, yes we who
elected you, care about our community and want to work carefully, and with forethought, when we (yes we
residents ought to have a say) will have to live with the decision. Privacy, crowding, infrastructure, traffic --
all the same concerns we had with the Vallco Hill project, these are possible concerns with accessory
housing.
I am all for making a good ruling to allow second units where they can be done "right". But, this must not be
rushed. Please allow the public to come "up to speed" and do not attempt to make a decision in one
meeting. Or we will have the same horror show that we have all just endured.
Respectfully,
Joan Chin, 34 year resident and worker in Cupertino
1