Desk Items 03-18-2019i � � I
i,� ��� 1 �, '. � ��
�� � , __
�� _
i
_ _ - -a �:� { � - - I�i
<bobbytruong888@gmail.com<mailto:bobbytruong888@gmail.com><mailto:bobb
> ytruong888@gmail.com>>
> Date: Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:27 PM
> Subject: Fwd: Suggested item for work program
> To:
> <dpaul@cupertino.org<mailto:dpaul@cupertino.org><mailto:dpaul@cupertin
> o.org>>
> Dear Councilman Paul:
> We are writing to follow up on our email below and to provide you with some updated information.
> First, our suggested revision to the definition of "lot coverage" has been added to the list of proposed
work program items that the council will be voting on later this month (it will be included in the
discussion of objective standards).
> Second, the suggested revision has been slightly amended. Previously, we had requested that the
definition of lot coverage be changed to allow for up to two sheds to be excluded from lot coverage (for
lots that are non -single family residential). We have scaled back the requested change to allowing just
one shed (no greater than 120 square feet in size) to be excluded from lot coverage. V1/e made this
change to minimize the impact on the code and the community. Just as an example, our lot is 9,000
square feet, so 120 square feet represents only about 1% of the lot. Also, we chose the'shed size of 120
square feet because that is the size that the city has determined to be small enough to not require a
building permit. We believe that the amended suggested revision strikes the perfect balance between
the needs of property owners (to have some storage facility for storing the items that they need to
maintain their property) and the concerns of the city and the community (to not allow a lot to be over-
developed).
> Please be aware that this proposed code change is sorely needed. We have visited a number of non
single-family residential properties around the city and have found that a significant number of those
properties have storage sheds on them that cause the allowed lot coverage of the property to be
exceeded. We bring this up not to complain about the code violations, but to show that property owners
have a clear need for a storage facility to store the items that they use to maintain their property.
Unfortunately, they currently have to go outside the code to have this storage need meta We believe
that it would be much better to make a slight, unobtrusive change to the code so that these and other
property owners, can have their storage needs met and still comply with the code.
> Thank you very much for your time and consideration on this matter. We sincerely hope that we will
have your support.
> If you would like more information or clarity, or if you would like to meet with us to discuss this issue
further, please do not hesitate to contact us.
> Sincerely,
> Bobby and Robin Truong
> 408-309-0775
>---------- Forwarded message
> From: Bobby Truong
> <bobbytruong888@gmail.com<mailto:bobbvtruong888@gmail.com><mailto:bobb
,> vtru6ng888@gmail.com>>
> Date: Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:00 AM
> Subject: Suggested item for work program
> To: Steven Scharf
> <sscharf@cupertino.org<mailto:sscharf@cupertino.org><mailto:sscharf@cu
> pertino.org>>
> <Ichao@cupertino.or <mailto:lchao@cupertino.org><mailto:lchao@cupertin
> o.org>>, Jon Robert Willey
> <iwilley@cupertino.org<maiIto: iwilley@cupertino.org><mailto:iwilley cu
> pertino.org»,
><dpaul@cupertino.org<mailto:dpaul@cupertino.org><mailto:dpaul@cupertin
>.o.org>>,
><rsinks@cupertino.org<mailto:rsinks@cupertino.org><mailto:rsinks@cuper
> tino.org>>
> Dear City Council:
> We see that a priority -setting session will be held this upcoming Saturday to solicit input from the
public on what to include in the Annual Work Program for fiscal year 2019-2020. In advance of that
session, we are writing to suggest that the item discussed below be added to the work program. This
item is�of particular importance because it addresses a significant defect that exists in the.current
municipal code. Hence, we believe it deserves the attention of the city staff and the City Council. We
will, of -course, be attending the session and will be happy to discuss this issue with you at that time or
any other time.
> Overview
> A significant defect exists in Municipal Code Section 19.08.030, in the definition of "lot coverage".
> As currently written, this section of the code fails to make clear whether sheds are included in lot
coverage for non single family residential uses. In fact, as shown in a later section of this email, the code
seems to strongly imply that sheds are not included in lot coverage for such uses. Despite this, the
official position of city staff is that sheds are included in lot coverage for non single family residential
uses. However, city staff acknowledge that the current verbiage of the code makes it difficult and
logically problematic for them to support their position. Thus, they would be open to, and may even
welcome, the opportunity to change the code to make their position more defensible. Accordingly, we
respectfully request the council to add this issue to the city staff's work program so that they can
■
remedy the problem noted above.
> If this issue is added to the city staff's work program, it would present an opportunity to address and
improve another aspect of this very same code section. To elaborate, under Municipal Code Section
19.36.070A, the maximum lot coverage for a multi -family residential (133) zoned lot is 40% of the net lot
area. When an R3 lot is developed, the 40% lot coverage is usually completely consumed by the main
building, garages, and any other structures built by the developer. Thus, by the time a property owner
purchases an R3 zoned property, all of the allowable lot coverage area is already taken. This is
problematic because it leaves the property owner with no lot coverage left for accommodating any
sheds that they might need to store the items they use for maintaining the property. Speaking from
personal experience (we own a four-plex), many items are needed to properly maintain a multi -unit
property, ranging from gardening implements (e.g. lawn mower, shovels, wheelbarrow, etc.), to paints
and paint implements (e.g. rollers, brushes, etc.), to lumber, to concrete, stucco, and other building
supplies, to power tools, to plumbing supplies and tools, to electrical supplies, etc. Without sheds to
store these items, maintaining a multi -unit property is extremely cumbersome and difficult.
> Therefore, as part of updating the definition of "lot coverage", we suggest that, for non single family
residential uses, up to two sheds be allowed to be excluded from lot coverage, provided that the floor
area of each shed does not exceed 120 square feet. By limiting the number of sheds to two, and the
square footage'of each shed to 120 square feet, we believe a good balance is struck between the needs
of the property owner (to have some storage for storing the items needed to maintain the property). and
the concerns of the city to not allow a lot to be overdeveloped.
> For the reasons set forth above, we respectfully request the Council to add to the work program of city
staff the task of updating the Municipal Code in the manner suggested above.
> To aid in the code updating process, we are providing below suggested changes to the code, as well as
an analysis showing why an update is sorely needed.
• The problem with the current definition of "lot coverage"
> The current definition of "lot coverage" is set forth in Municipal Code Section 19.08.030 and is
reproduced below:
> "Lot coverage" means the following:
> 1. "Single-family, residential use" means the total land area within a site that is covered by buildings,
including all projections, but excluding ground -level paving, landscape features, lightwells, and open
recreational facilities. Sheds are included in lot coverage.
> 2. "All other uses except single-family residential" means the total land area within a site that is
covered by buildings, but excluding all projections, ground -level paving, landscape features, and open
recreational facilities.
> Notice that two definitions are provided. The first definition applies to "single-family residential use"
and the second applies to "all other uses except single-family residential".
> Under the first definition, it is specifically stated that "sheds are included in lot coverage". However,
under the second definition, no such language is present. By the presence of this language in the first
definition and its absence in the second definition, there is a strong implication that sheds are not
intended to be included in lot coverage in the second definition.
> Despite this, the official position of city staff is that sheds are included in lot coverage in the second
definition, based on the logic that a shed is a "building", and since buildings count towards lot coverage
in the second definition, so too do sheds. The problem with this logic is that the term "building" is also
used in the first definition, and if a shed is a building, then the entire phrase "sheds are included in lot
coverage" in the first definition would be completely unnecessary and redundant. -The first definition
already states that buildings are included in lot coverage. If a shed is a building, there would have been
absolutely no need to add the phrase "sheds are included in lot coverage". From this, it appears that the
drafters of the code did not consider a shed to be a building; otherwise, they would not have added the
phrase "sheds are included in lot coverage" at all. Hence, the rationale behind the city's position is
suspect and is difficult to defend.
> As shown by the above discussion, there is significant ambiguity as to
> whether sheds count toward lot coverage in the second definition.
> Consequently, an update to this section of the Municipal Code is
sorely needed
> Suggested changes to the code
> Our suggested changes to the Municipal Code are set forth below in redlined format.
> Definition of "building" in Municipal Code Section 19.08.030:
> "Building" means any structure, including a shed, used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use
-or occupancy when any portion of a building is completely separated from every other portion by a "Fire
Barrier as defined by the California Building Code, then each portion shall be deemed to be a separate
building.
> Definition of "lot coverage" in Municipal Code Section 19.08.030:
> "Lot coverage" means the following:
> 1. "Single-family residential use" means the total land area within a site that is covered by buildings,
including all projections, but excluding ground -level paving, landscape features, lightwells, and open
recreational facilities. Sheds are included in lot coverage.
> 2. "All other uses except single-family residential" means the total land area within a site that is
covered by buildings, but excluding all projections, ground -level paving, landscape features, and open
recreational facilities. Up to two sheds may be excluded from lot coverage, provided the floor area of
each excluded shed does not•exceed 120 square feet.
> The first suggested change amends the definition of "building" to make it clear that a shed is a
building.
> With that made clear, the phrase "Sheds are included in lot coverage" in the first definition of lot
coverage is no longer needed; hence, it can be removed.
> finally, to allow for up to two sheds to be excluded from lot coverage in non single family residential
uses, the second definition of lot coverage can be amended to include the verbiage: "Up to two sheds
maybe excluded from lot coverage, provided the floor area of each excluded shed does not exceed 120
square feet."
> Conclusion
> We believe that our suggested changes correct the defect that currently exists in the code, and
improvethe code by striking a good and reasonable balance between the needs of property owners (to
have some storage sheds to store the items they need to maintain a property) and the concerns of the
city (to not allow lots to be overdeveloped).
> Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Council add to the work program of city staff the task of
updating the Municipal Code in the manner suggested above.
> We thank the Council for their time and consideration.
> Bobby and Robin Truong
MI