►
Description
The Community Development Department invited residents to meet and discuss the City’s ordinance addressing the implementation of Senate Bill 9 (“SB 9”) relating to Urban Lot Splits and duplex development.
Community members learned about the State requirements of SB 9 (Government Code §65852.21 and §66411.7), reviewed the City’s current regulations, and provided input for potential revisions.
This hybrid meeting was recorded on September 28, 2022.
A
A
On
tonight's
agenda,
we'll
cover
a
brief
overview
of
state
law
in
the
sb9
bill,
as
well
as
the
interim
ordinance
that
the
city
adopted
we'll
go
over
the
objective
standards
that
the
city
has
implemented
so
far
as
well
as
our
next
steps
for
the
regular
ordinance
being
adopted.
We'll
end
out
the
night
with
a
q,
a
from
the
audience
both
on
zoom
and
in
person.
A
All
right
throughout
this
whole
presentation,
we
will
be
using
zoom's
polling
feature.
Our
in-person
attendees
do
have
a
printout
of
these
polling
questions
for
those
of
you
on
Zoom.
When
you
do
see
this
pop-up
window,
please
read
the
question:
read
the
answers,
select
one
of
the
answers
and
then
select
submit
all
right
and
so
to
start
us
off.
We
would
like
to
know
which
of
the
following
would
best
describe
you.
Are
you
a
resident
of
Cupertino?
A
B
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
We
look
forward
to
hearing
more
about
abundance.
We
will
be
speaking
about
that
a
little
more
in
depth
than
about
our
standards
related
to
that,
but
to
start
off
we'll
do
a
quick
overview
of
the
state
law.
Sb9
was
passed
by
the
legislature
on
September
1st
2021
and
then
it
was
signed
into
law
on
September
16th
of
that
same
year,
and
it
went
into
effect
at
the
beginning
of
this
year.
2022.
A
A
A
It
can't
be
in
a
historical
district,
nor
can
it
be
a
Historic
Landmark
itself,
and
once
these
units
are
developed,
they
cannot
be
used
as
short-term
rentals
all
right.
So
here
we
have
a
map
of
all
the
residentially
single-family
zoned
Lots
in
Cupertino
and
for
Cupertino.
Those
are
the
R1
and
rhs
zoned
Lots.
A
So
what
the
state
does
allow
is
the
development
of
two
units
with
a
minimum
size
of
800
square
feet.
Each
the
setbacks
for
these
units
have
been
reduced
from
the
standard
City
requirements
to
just
four
feet
in
the
rear
and
the
side
yards
Additionally.
The
state
law
does
provide
a
provision
that
there
is
no
setback
requirement
if
a
structure
is
built
where
an
existing
structure
already
exists.
A
As
for
the
urban
lot
split,
cities
cannot
require
any
off-site
improvements
that
includes
an
extension
of
a
road
as
part
of
the
urban
lot.
Split
and
non-conforming
conditions
on
a
lot
cannot
be
required
to
be
corrected
as
part
of
that
lot
split
as
well
all
right
so
just
to
go
over
what
we
typically
see
in
the
community
right
now,
most
are
one
zoned
Lots
under
standard
City
requirements
can
be
built
with
developed
with
one
Residence
One
Adu
and
one
Jadu.
A
Those
lots
are
generally
limited
to
a
floor
area
of
45
of
the
entire
lot.
The
height
is
limited
to
28
feet
and
the
setbacks
are
20
feet
in
the
front
5
to
10
feet
on
the
sides
and
20
feet
in
the
rear,
all
right,
and
so
what
this
looks
like
right
now
is
that
you'll
either
have
a
lot
developed
with
a
single
family
home
or
maybe
a
lot
that's
been
developed
with
one
Adu
or
maybe
an
additional
Jadu
as
well.
A
A
A
A
And
just
as
an
introduction
for
those
of
you
who
have
not
heard
of
the
interim
ordinance,
this
ordinance
was
adopted
on
December
21st
of
2021
by
our
city
council
to
put
into
effect
local
standards
that
would
regulate
development
under
sb9
prior
to
it
going
into
effect
at
the
beginning
of
this
year.
This
ordinance
is
set
to
expire
at
the
end
of
this
year,
which
is
why
we
are
proposing
an
update
to
that
ordinance
to
be
reviewed
just
in
the
coming
months.
A
We're
gonna
launch
another
poll
here.
We
want
to
know
which
area
of
concern
that
we
have
listed
as
part
of
our
aims.
Do
you
think,
is
most
important
when
we
are
creating
this
ordinance,
so
that
might
be
the
potential
privacy
impacts,
the
potential
changes
to
the
neighborhood
character,
traffic
concerns
and
traffic
conflicts,
or
something
else.
A
A
Okay,
well
with
the
state
law,
some
of
the
standards
and
regulations
of
the
city
are
superseded.
However,
the
state
does
allow
cities
to
implement
certain
regulations
so
long
as
they
are
objective,
which
means
that
they
don't
require
any
personal
judgment
to
implement
and
they
do
not
prevent
the
urban
lot
split
or
up
to
two
units
of
800
square
feet.
Each.
A
A
A
A
B
A
All
right
and
we're
gonna
do
another
poll,
and
this
one's
for
our
basements
again
currently
under
our
interim
ordinance,
and
what
we're
passing
along
to
our
regular
ordinance
basements
are
not
allowed
in
any
sb9
development.
And
so
do
you
think
that
the
city
should
allow
basements
for
sb9
developments.
B
A
A
B
D
A
All
right
and
similarly
currently,
standards
do
not
allow
for
sb9
developments
to
have
any
balconies
or
similar
features
unless
they're
added
after
construction
and
are
reviewed
through
a
discretionary
permit,
and
so
balconies
would
include
something
like
this,
which
is
sort
of
a
step
out
balcony.
But
it
also
would
include
a
second
story
deck
something
like
this.
A
So
again,
that
might
look
like
yes,
balcony
should
be
allowed
on
all
sb9
development.
It
should
be
allowed
only
if
there's
a
limitation
based
on
the
setback
to
the
next
home
over
they
shouldn't
be
allowed
or
they
shouldn't
be
allowed
through
sb9
development,
but
they
can
be
approved
later,
which
is
what
we
currently
allow.
A
A
B
A
All
right:
another
item
for
discussion
was
operation
requirements.
Currently,
the
city
requires
that
a
standard
interior
lot-
that's
going
to
be
a
regular
rectangular
shaped
lot,
can
be
divided
as
a
side-by-side
lot.
If
it
is
more
than
60
feet
in
width
or
has
more
than
60
feet
of
Street
Frontage
and
would
be
divided
as
a
flag
lot
if
it
had
less
than
60
feet
of
Street
Frontage.
A
I
think
all
right,
and
so
we're
looking
for
feedback
on
whether
or
not
we
should
allow
larger
Lots
to
be
able
to
create
flag
Lots
as
a
result
of
those
Urban
lot
splits.
So
we'll
open
up
that
poll,
we'll
get
some
feedback
on
those
our
options
for
tonight
are
yes,
we
should
allow
larger
lots
to
have
flag
Lots,
yes,
but
only
for
those
lots
that
are
wider
and
deeper
than
our
standard
lot.
No
flag
watch
shouldn't
be
allowed
and,
fourth
is
not
sure-
would
need
more
information.
B
A
Okay,
all
right-
and
so
our
last
item
of
discussion,
for
what
the
ordinance
standards
are,
is
a
grading
limitation
that
the
current
or
that
the
city
currently
has
and
what
the
city
currently
limits
is
the
amount
of
change
a
person
can
make
to
the
elevation
of
their
lot.
This
limit
was
originally
added
to
provide
or
to
avoid
potential
privacy
impacts,
aesthetic
impacts
and
also
environmental
impacts.
A
So,
right
here
you
can
see
an
example
of
a
home
where
the
neighbor
has
a
single
story
or
roughly
single
story
home
and
the
two-story
home
next
to
it
was
built
on
top
of
what
looks
to
be
a
mounded
lot,
meaning
that
the
elevation
has
changed
between
the
neighbor
and
them
to
create
a
higher
lot.
We
see
this
as
potentially
creating
privacy
issues
as
well
as
some
drainage
issues.
A
All
right-
and
here
is
an
example
of
what
would
be
considered
a
cut
otherwise
known
as
removing
dirt
or
cutting
into
a
hillside.
This
again
is
going
to
create
additional
environmental
impacts
in
the
hillside
areas,
where
maybe
there's
an
alternative
to
build
this
home
on
the
flatter
portion
of
the
lot.
A
So
maybe
you
think
yes,
absolutely
yes,
but
they
should
only
limit
an
increase
in
the
elevation,
as
we
saw
in
the
first
two
photos.
Yes,
but
they
should
only
limit
a
decrease
in
elevation,
as
we
saw
in
the
last
photo
or
that
they
shouldn't
impose
these
grading
limitations
at
all,
of
course,
because
this
is
kind
of
a
multi-layered
topic.
There's
also
one
other
option
for
those
of
you
who
still
don't
feel
like
you're
sure
about
what
what
to
provide
there.
A
And
then
just
so,
you
know
for
all
these
questions,
where
we
have
not
sure
or
other
or
anything
else
like
that,
please
feel
free
to
either
submit
it
in
the
Q
a
we
have
one
going
right
now
as
part
of
the
zoom
or
any
of
those
of
you
here
in
person.
You
can
ask
it
as
part
of
the
live
q
a
or
you
can
send
any
questions.
You
have
to
planning
cupertino.org
and
we'll
go
ahead
and
provide
a
response.
There.
B
A
Okay
and
we're
actually
gonna
go
back
I
think
because
we
would
want
to
get
more
information
of
those
who
joined
a
little
bit
later.
I
was
told
that
there
might
be
a
little
bit
of
a
trickle
in.
So
let
me
go
ahead
and
go
back
and
we're
going
to
relaunch
the
initial
poll
that
we
had
just
to
see
what
our
demographic
is
here
tonight,
and
so
what
we
have
right
now
is
just
a
request
for
you
to
provide
a
little
more
information
about
yourself
if
you've
already
done.
A
E
Good
evening,
thank
you
for
joining
us
tonight,
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
have
about
sb9
or
the
ordinance
that
the
city
is
proposing.
Anything
that
you
heard
about
today
that
you
might
have
questions
about
I
know
that
we
have
a
q
a
session
going
online
as
well.
We've
been
trying
to
answer
some
of
those
questions
live
as
we're
going
through
so
I.
E
We
got
a
question
about
how
to
attend.
In
person
we
provided
the
address
for
Community
Hall
I
just
wanted
to
point
that
out.
I
know
that
there
was
a
question
about
some
of
the
responses
being
more
single
answer
responses,
and
so,
if
you
do
have
any
additional
responses,
you
have
the
questions.
If
you
think
that
you
have
more
to
tell
us
please
email
us,
we
want
to
hear
from
you
at
planning
cupertino.org.
E
Let's
see
I
know,
there
was
a
question
about
the
2000
square
foot
limit
that
the
council
imposed
on
the
interim
ordinance.
They
actually
went
through
their
discussion
and
they
decided
that
the
whole
purpose
of
sb9
was
to
generate
affordable
housing
and,
as
a
result,
they
could
have
considered
that
and
imposed
a
limit
of
two
thousand
square
feet
on
any
sb9
units
as
staff.
E
We
kind
of
did
an
analysis
and
found
that
it
only
limited
house
sizes
on
potentially
about
a
hundred
of
the
approximately
sixteen
thousand
lots
that
are
impacted
by
this
ordinance,
and
so
it
didn't
seem
like
a
very
big
impact
and
so
council
did
impose
that
limit
at
the
time.
We
did
see
that
from
tonight's
poll
it
seemed
like
there
was
an
appetite
from
at
least
the
community
for
not
having
that
at
least
the
majority
of
the
community
looked
like
to
me
didn't
want.
That
limitation
will
certainly
take
that
into
consideration
and
present
that
to
council.
E
E
E
Essentially,
the
Privacy
impact
from
adding
too
much
fill
like
Brienne
showed
in
the
first
slideshow
the
picture
that
she
had
where
a
house
could
be
mounted
up
and
could
potentially
look
into
its
neighbors
there's
also
secondary
environmental
impact
from
grading,
which
is
where
you
could
actually
grade
a
hill
down
or
basically
have
to
re-contour
slopes,
and
things
like
that
which
might
have
impacts
on
drainage
and
might
impact
Neighbors,
which
of
course,
we
evaluate
when
we're
looking
at
permits.
But
we
wanted
to
ask
that
question.
E
We
wanted
to
be
clear
that
with
sb9
there
are
limitations
on,
or
rather
we
have
to
have
objective
standards
for
what
is
allowed
and
what
isn't
allowed.
So
if
there
are
no
standards,
we
would
have
nothing
that
we
could
impose
other
than
very
basic.
You
know
you
can't
drain
onto
your
neighbor's
property
or
something
like
that.
So
we
wanted
to
be
clear
about
what
those
rules
are
so
that,
if
developed,
they
can
be
developed
in
a
in
a
manner
that
is
ministerial.
E
Essentially
that
means,
if
they
check
the
box,
then
that's
allowed
anybody
in
here
that
have
a
question.
We
have
a
stand-up
microphone
here.
So
please,
sir,
if
you
wouldn't
mind
asking
them,
because
we
won't
be
able
to
hear
we
want
our
audience
online
to
hear
as
well.
So
if
you
wouldn't
mind
stepping
up
to
the
microphone.
E
We're
not
at
this
point,
so
if
you
have
a
question
about
the
ordinance
I'm
happy
to
answer
in
terms
of
the
polling,
this
is
a
community
meeting.
We
did
send
out
postcards
to
21
000
plus
people.
This
is
these
are
the
people
that
chose
to
attend
the
meeting.
Thank
you.
Anybody
else,
please,
sir,
to
the
microphone.
F
F
The
reason
I'm
asking
this
is
I'm
of
the
opinion
that
the
state
and
the
city
rightfully
impose
the
Restriction
that
once
you
apply
sp9
a
lot
cannot
be
split
again.
That's
a
fair
restriction,
otherwise
you'll
create
very
tiny
Lots.
But
that
being
said,
I
am
of
the
opinion
that
once
the
split
is
done
and
a
new
Lord
are
created,
they
should
be
treated
like
first
class
laws.
There
should
not
be
any
further
restriction.
They
should
be
treated
like
any
other
Lots
where
I'm
coming
from
is
right.
E
F
Think
it's
very
restrictive
and
the
second
restriction
I
see
is
there
is
a
cut
and
fill
limitation
of
or
2500
cubic
yards
on
a
regular
lot
and
that's
applied
as
a
sum
to
both
the
large
created
as
a
result
of
applying
sb9,
and
that's
also
not
correct,
because
to
build
a
house
you
need
certain
current
filled
outside
the
2500
cubic
yards
came
about
now,
if
you
say,
build
two
houses
to
2500
cubic
yards
of
cut
and
fill
that
becomes
too
restrictive.
How
do
you
build
two
houses
when
the
limit
is
so
serious?
E
G
H
E
H
Yep,
thank
you
so
much
and
guys
I
can't
believe
how
you
guys
were
able
to
pass
the
interim
in
the
two
months
that
the
state
gave
you
to
do
it.
So
thank
you
for
doing
that.
The
only
thing
I
would
Echo
for
all
people
here
is
a
little
bit
of
flexibility
that
we
require.
Cupertino
is
not
just
you
know:
Latin
equal,
you
have
build
sites,
you
have
larger
Lots,
you
have
smaller
Lots.
H
You
have
high
chair
blocks,
so
if
you
create
an
objective
ordinance,
it
should
have
the
flexibility
to
look
at
the
micro
neighborhoods
and
make
sure
that
we
meet
those
requirements
and
if
preserving
a
neighborhood,
look
and
feel
and
character.
The
most
important
thing
then
my
specific
case
for
you
and
came
you're
very
familiar.
The
flag
lot
is
the
best
answer,
because
the
front
house
will
have
the
nice
wide
100
foot
Frontage
that
every
other
house
in
this
neighborhood,
but
those
kinds
of
things
are
super
important
and
I.
Ask
that
the
city.
H
Please
look
at
that
kind
of
flexibility
in
an
objective
sense
to
make
sure
that
would
be.
The
second
question
which
is
was
raised
around
the
basement
sizing.
We
saw
the
polling
link
now.
Basically,
it's
what
nagesh
just
said
and
I
don't
know
nanish,
but
the
main
major
Point
here
is
once
a
lot
is
split.
It
should
be
a
first-class
citizen.
You
can't
have
this.
You
know
differentiation
between
two
six
thousand
square
foot
locks,
one
purchased
by
automatically
buyer
and
an
old
lock,
a
new
which
is
an
SQL.
H
H
Lastly,
flag:
Lots
actually
reviews
the
traffic
on
the
street
and
parking
on
the
street
because
they
have
deep
driveways
and
the
seven
people.
I've
pulled
basically
say:
hey
our
kids
learn
biking
here.
This
is
the
safest
neighborhood
we
can
have
because
of
the
long
driveway-
and
you
know
big
Diwali
parties-
you
can
just
park
easily,
but
guys
again,
flexibility
is
key.
Let's
do
it
together
and
let's
make
sure
that
Cupertino
stays
Cupertino.
Lastly,
I
have
a
question
about
the
B.
I
was
told
that
the
fee
for
the
lot
split
is
non-refundable.
H
E
B
I
I
You
know,
because
there's
a
school
of
thought
that
you're
really
interested
in
affordable
housing,
the
prime
one
of
the
primary
ways
of
achieving
that
is
more
Supply
and
so
I
think
the
restricting
the
development
possibilities
beyond
what
the
city
already
has
should
not
be
done.
So
I
think
we
should
allow
basements.
We
shouldn't
have
2
000
square
foot
limit
and
whatever
other
rules
for
grading
it
on
that
we
have
for
the
other
Lots
it's
fine,
but
we
shouldn't
have
additional
limits
for
sb9.
We
should
have
fewer
if
we
want
to
increase
the
supply
of
housing.
E
I
E
C
E
So
I
actually
did
want
to
make
it
clear
that,
once
you
do
a
lot
split
under
sb9,
you
do
still
have
the
ability
to
follow
the
city's
normal
regulations
for
developing
under
the
discretionary
permits
that
the
city
has,
which
is
through
a
two-story
permit
or
a
single-story
building
permit
that
those
regulations
are
still
available.
Those
pathways
are
still
available
for
people
that
maybe
do
a
lot
split
under
sb9.
So
it's
not
that
the
ministerial
process
of
developing
a
home
is
the
only
path
forward.
E
F
E
J
K
E
I
can
answer
that
under
state
law,
we're
only
allowed
to
require
one
parking
space
per
unit
that
you
build,
and
so,
as
a
result.
Ultimately,
if
you
build
two
primary
residences,
we
can
require
only
one
parking
space
per
unit.
However,
if
you
build
an
Adu
I
believe
state
law
does
not
require
any
parking
spaces
be
provided
for
the
Adu
and
I
know.
That
is
a
cause
for
concern.
For
many,
however,
our
hands
are
tied
pursuant
to
state
law.
K
K
E
E
That
is
something
that
the
city's
hands
are
tight
on.
We
cannot
require
the
parking
under
state
law.
State
law
prohibits
us
from
requiring
the
parking,
so
I
understand
the
frustration,
but
unfortunately,
the
state's
rules
Trump
the
city's
regulations,
even
if
the
city
had
a
regulation.
That
said,
you
need
to
provide
four
spaces
per
unit-
state
law,
trumps
that
and
we
would
have
to
comply
with
state
law
in
approving
projects.
So.
E
E
So
that
is
an
excellent
question
too
right
now
the
city
has
regulations
that
require
I,
think
mma's
presentation
she
mentioned
on
the
first
floor.
For
example,
if
you
have
a
lot,
you
need
to
have
site
setbacks
of
a
total
of
15,
so
5
and
10
7
and
a
half
seven
and
a
half
some
combination
that
adds
up
to
15..
That's
what
the
city's
regulations
are,
but
under
sb9
you
we
have
to
allow
buildings
to
be
constructed
as
close
as
four
feet
to
the
property
line.
E
E
So
a
current
resident
could
also
build
structures
under
utilizing
the
state
law.
So
if
you
had
a
lot,
for
example,
it
could
be
a
7,
500
square
foot
lot
and
you
wanted
to
utilize
the
state's
Provisions.
You
could
certainly
develop
your
property
using
the
state
regulations
to
get
as
close
as
four
feet
to.
E
E
I
think
he's
having
some
technical
difficulties.
While
we
wait
for
a
second
Mr
sidhu.
Can
you
oh
I,
don't
see
his
hand
raised
anymore?
Maybe
we'll
go
to
one
of
the
typed
questions.
There
was
a
person
that
asked
if
we
missed
some
of
the
previous
poll
questions
is
there
a
way
that
we
can
still
weigh
in.
E
Certainly
what
we
can
do
is
make
a
pdf
version
of
the
poll
available
and
please
email
planning
cupertino.org
with
your
responses
and
we'll
be
happy
to
collect
your
feedback
there.
So
thank
you
for
that
question.
There
is
a
question
about
how
the
city
is
going
to
manage
the
traffic.
That
is
something
that
we
will
have
to
evaluate
when
we
get
to
our
you
know
a
potential
future
General
Plan
update
at
this
point.
The
city's
hands
are
tied
because
of
state
law
limitations.
E
F
Hi
I'm
nagesh
again,
this
is
a
follow-up
to
an
issue
raised
by
a
gentleman
here
before
so
I
see
probably
three
possibilities.
There's
a
lot
with
a
house,
that's
already
built
or
there's
a
lot
with
the
house
and
the
house
is
redone
to
accommodate
as
B9,
because
they
want
a
certain
Lord
split
or
there's
an
empty
lot
in
which
a
first
house
is
going
to
be
built
and
I
believe
without
applying
sb9.
F
F
E
No,
you
could
still
build
a
house
on
using
the
sb9
rules.
What
sp9
allows
is
for
you
to
Simply
build
a
house
using
the
ministerial
processes
that
sb9
allows.
So
you
could
build
one
house
if
you
wanted
to
four
feet
to
the
property
line
minimum
of
two
or
you
could
build
two
homes,
actually
two
units
minimum
of
800
square
feet
as
close
as
eight
four
feet
from
the
rear
and
side
property
lines.
F
E
That
is
something
that
we
have
to
look
at.
Actually
it
is
possible
that
the
lot
split
could
be
done
so,
for
example,
if
you
had
a
lot
and
you
maxed
out
the
development
potential
of
that
lot
and
then
you
came
in-
and
you
said
that
you
wanted
to
now
split
the
lot
after
you've
maxed
out
everything,
it
is
potentially
possible
that
you
won't
be
allowed
the
lot
split
because
you've,
unless
you
reduce
the
size
of
the
existing
home
on
there.
So
that
is
something
that
is
a
possibility
for
sure.
F
E
Long
as
you're
not
like
yeah
so
yeah
as
long
as
you
have
the
ability,
if
you
have
something
you
could
be
allowed,
the
Lots,
but
you're
only
allowed
the
two
800
square
foot
Lots
you
to
800
square
foot
units
on
the
second
lot.
You
you,
we
can't
limit
that
part,
but
for
the
the
existing
house
we
don't
necessarily
have
to
apply
the
sb9
regulations.
That's
right!
Yeah
we'll
go
to
the
online
participants
now
and
I.
Just
wanted
a
heads
up
that
we
do
have
about
10
minutes
left
in
the
meeting.
E
E
L
L
L
So
could
we
establish
now
what
it
what
that
would
be
because
you
know
otherwise,
you
know
there
is
no
way
not
to
watch
all
of
this
and
the
info.
So
it's
that's
something
last
question
so
sure
have
you
thought
through
you
know,
impact
on
the
city
infrastructure
such
as
quarters,
and
you
know
electricity.
L
You
know
because,
as
it
is
right
now,
the
water
shortage-
and
you
know
we
are
being
called
you
know,
don't
turn
on
these
content
on
that
and
you
know
potentially
you
know
there
is
a
you
know,
neutering
that
you
know
the
agency
can
put
some.
You
know
limiting.
You
know
how
much
water
you
can
consume
on
all
itself.
So
have
you
thought
through
all
this.
E
So
again,
this
is
a
state
requirement
of
state
law
and
I
understand
the
concerns
that
stem
from
this.
However,
the
the
homes
that
are
going
to
be
built,
you
know,
potentially,
are
going
to
be
greener
in
some
sense,
because
they're
going
to
be,
you
know
they
have
to
meet
the
new
building
codes
that
require
less
water
usage,
they're
going
to
be
smaller,
so
they
might
have
smaller
yard
spaces.
E
G
G
Okay,
maybe
I
was
too
close
to
a
microphone
okay
in
early
this
year,
I
did
contact
the
city
planning
the
division
for
the
last
split
under
sb9
and
was
later
on
turned
off
the
plan
because
of
one
particular
important
issue,
which
is
involving
the
last
split,
which
is
has
to
do
with
the
driveway
I
think
that
particular
issue.
That
applies
to
many
many
potential
homeowners
that
will
be
interested
in
or
qualify
for
the
SBI
and
the
other
ordinances
criterias.
G
G
You,
if
you
don't
have
a
second
driveway
I,
mean
how
what's
the
purpose
of
having
I
have
the
flat
lock.
So
that
was
a
big
concern
and
big
issue.
I
think
the
city
should
look
into
that
because
of
the
type
of
houses
like
in
corner
lot
or
you
know,
houses
in
different
different
situations
can
be
can
be
opened
to
certain
directions.
G
E
Thank
you,
Wesley
I
I
mainly
heard
a
comment
about
concerns
about
driveways,
and
you
know
the
the
purpose
of
having
restrictions
around
driveways
is
twofold.
One
is
to
address
concerns
about
on-street
parking.
As
you
know,
we
cannot
require
more
than
one
parking
space
per
unit,
so
some
of
the
driveway
requirements
are
to
ensure
that
there
is
some
ability
to
park
on
Street
in
front
of
the
the
lots
that
are
being
subdivided.
E
We
do
want
to
create
a
walkable
and
bikeable
City
so
that
those
were
that
was
the
Genesis
of
the
park,
the
driveway
requirements
that
are
currently
in
the
interim
ordinance
I'm
going
to
go
to
really
quickly.
We
have
about
three
minutes
left
where
we
have
four
hands
raised,
we'll
go
through
those
four
and
then
we'll.
You
know,
I
see
some
more
questions,
typed
up,
we'll
respond
to
those
questions
separately
and,
in
the
meantime,
we'll
go
to
Jennifer.
D
You're
doing
a
great
job,
yes
I
as
a
neighbor
who
potentially
have
up
to
three
neighboring
lot
split
I
have
to
protect
my
investments.
No
one
is
talking
about
the
current
people
that
live
there
and
how
they
have
to
protect
themselves.
I
would
immediately
if
someone
wanted
to
do
an
sb9
next
to
me,
ask
to
have
a
survey
made
of
my
lot
lines
to
make
sure
that
someone
was
not
building
on
my
property
illegally.
D
A
proper
survey
can
be
up
to
ten
thousand
dollars,
so
this
is
the
thing
that
is
not
discussed
by
state
passing
these
bills.
It's
not
I
think
it's
a
fair
question
to
ask
of
the
city.
Will
someone
reimburse
me
for
my
out
of
pocket
expenses
I'm
not
doing
anything
to
generate
this?
This
is
something
that
neighboring
watts
are
doing.
So
I
am
being
asked
to
invest
money
in
the
protection
of
my
property.
They
could
damage
my
sewer
lines
they're
within
four
feet.
D
D
You
know
we
we
are
here.
Maybe
we
may
be
a
impedance
to
someone
else
trying
to
maximize
their
Lots.
Maybe
I
want
to
split
my
lot
too,
but
I
have
to
protect
my
investment.
My
family's
money,
so
I
have
I,
am
being
forced
to
to
Shell
out
five
to
ten
thousand
dollars,
just
it's
not
by
just
sitting
there.
So
this
is
the
part
where
I'm
concerned
I
want
someone
to
reimburse
me.
D
J
Hi,
can
you
hear
me
yes,
yeah
so
I
just
kind
of
summarize,
my
understanding
is
correct
for
the
for
the
three
years
residency
requirement,
once
they're
allowed
to
split
and
the
two
units
are
built
that
the
other,
how
the
one
unit
you
have
the
owner
has
to
continue
living
at
least
leave
at
least
for
three
years,
but
the
other
unit.
You
are
free
to
sell
or
keep
it
or
anyways
right.
E
B
J
Yeah
and
the
other,
the
the
other
issue,
with
the
setback
requirement
for
the
veranda
and
second,
especially
the
Second
Story
Veranda.
If
I
remember
correctly,
there
was
a
25
step
back
requirement
to
the
neighbor,
not
necessarily
to
the
neighbor
the
property
line,
I
I,
that's
how
I
read
right.
If
I
don't
have
any,
you
know
the
neighbor
beyond
my
backyard.
Does
that
mean
that
I
don't
violate
that
25
limit
because
there
is
no
neighbor
outside.
E
It's
to
the
property
line
Johnny,
so
it
the
setback,
is
25
feet
from
the
rear
property
line
and
I
believe
15
feet
from
the
side
property
lines.
That's
with
the
current
discretionary
process
that
the
city
has
to
allow
two-story,
balconies
or
Second
Story
balconies
under
sb9.
Currently,
one
is
not
allowed
with
the
ministerial
process.
One
is
not
allowed
to
have
a
balcony,
but
you
can
with
a
follow-up
with
a
a
discretionary.
What
is
called
a
minor
residential
permit
and
get.
E
J
E
E
M
M
E
So
that's
the
two
part,
two
paths,
so
you
can
do
an
sb9
lot
split
and
then
you
have
two
paths
after
that
you
could
either
go
down
the
discretionary
two-story
permit,
but
then
you
got
to
do
the
two
covered
parking.
Do
all
the
setbacks
like
we
currently
have,
which
is
you
know,
five
and
ten
on
the
first
floor,
15
and
10
on
the
second
floor
or
you
can
go
down
the
sb9
path,
which
is
ministerial,
which
is
different.
The
standards
are
different.
M
E
E
E
E
I
can't
hear
venkat
I
believe
I
just
went
over
the.
We
have
a
question
on
chat,
which
basically
says:
please
clarify
how
the
45
square
footage
of
the
lot
requirement
would
work,
including
if
basements
become
allowed
the
45
percent
currently
well
so
currently,
under
the
interim
regulations,
basements
are
not
allowed.
We
are
we're
still
working
on
our
draft
ordinance.
We're
not
exactly
sure
whether
we
will
end
up
recommending,
basements
or
not.
E
I
did
want
to
be
clear
about
that,
but
with
that
said,
one
could
build
up
to
45
percent
of
the
lot
that
you
end
up
with
whether
that's
after
subdivision
or
before
subdivision,
either
way
the
floor
area
that
you
can
build
above.
The
ground
is
45
of
the
lot,
except,
if
you're
a
flag
lot
and
then
the
the
flagpole
portion
doesn't
count
towards
what
you
can
build
and
that's
under
normal
standards
as
well.
E
Current
under
current
regulations
to
story
adus
are
not
allowed.
I
do
know
that
there
was
a
bill
working
its
way
through
the
Senate
I
believe
I,
don't
know
whether
that
bill
has
been
signed
by
the
governor
or
not
I,
understand
that
the
governor,
either
today
or
yesterday,
signed
about
41
bills,
which
they
call
their
housing
package.
I
saw
the
email,
I
haven't,
had
a
chance
to
go
through
all
41
but
I.
It's
something
that
we'll
have
to
evaluate
so
stay
tuned.
K
E
Floor,
yes,
well,
not
Adu,
so
adus
are
allowed
as
long
as
your
Adu
is
800
square
feet
or
smaller.
That
is
sort
of
a
freebie
in
a
sense.
So,
for
example,
if
you
developed
your
lot
out
to
the
maximum
possible
extent,
let's
say
you
had
a
10
000
square
foot
lot
and
you
built
a
4
500
square
foot
home,
which
is
the
maximum
that
you're
allowed
to
build
under
the
city
standards.
Then
you
can
build
an
180u
up
to
800
square
feet
as
a
freebie.
E
However,
if
your
existing
home,
let's
say
you
didn't
maximize
it
and
you
only
had
you
had
a
10
000
square
foot
lot
and
you
only
had
you
built
four
thousand
square
feet,
so
you
have
about
500
Suite
square
feet
left
over.
In
that
case,
you're
allowed
to
add
the
500
and
add
an
additional
300
square
feet
to
get
to
your
800
square
foot.
Adu.
E
E
As
long
as
your
basement
is
no
more
than
two
feet
exposed
above
the
grade
and
basically
it's
not
a
walkout
where
you
can
walk
out
from
your
basement
onto
grade
that
basement
is
not
counted
towards
floor
area,
but
that's
under
regular
rules
under
the
sb9
rules.
Basements
are
not
allowed
period.
So
that
is
something
that
I.
E
At
this
point
again,
I
do
want
to
so.
The
question
is:
if
basements
were
allowed,
would
the
policy
be
the
same
about
calc?
You
know
counting
the
basement,
not
counting
the
far
for
the
basement
against
the
far
of
the
home
I,
don't
know
where
staff
will
land
on
a
recommendation
regarding
basements.
At
this
point
we
haven't,
you
know
considered
adding
the
basement
requirement
back
in
the
council.
E
Has
the
ability
to
set
those
rules,
as
they
wish
so
I'm,
not
sure
where
we
land
on
that
just
want
to
be
clear
with
that
said,
we're
about
it's
about
7,
10
and
we're
about
10
minutes
over
our
time.
So
I
would
like
to
respect
everybody's
time
and
thank
everybody
for
being
here
tonight.
Thank
you
very
much
for
joining
us.
We
had
an
overwhelming
attendance
online
as
well,
so
I
appreciate
your
coming
out.
Thank
you
and
good
night
and
again,
if
you
have
comments
planning
at
cupertino.org,
we're
happy
to
take
any
and
all
comments.
E
Last
question
that
I
will
answer
for
tonight.
The
presentation
that
was
made
tonight
will
be
posted
on
the
city's
website,
we'll
make
that
available
and
before
I
wrap
up.
Actually,
let
me
mention
that
the
city's
website
for
this
ordinance
is
short
and
sweet.
It's
cupertino.org
forward,
slash
sb9.
So
if
you
want
any
information
about
this,
please
visit
that
website
and
you
can
find
all
kinds
of
information.
Thank
you
very
much
and
good
night.