HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 11-04-2025 Item No. 11 Municipal Code Amendments for California Buildings Standards Code and Fire Code_Written CommunicationsCC 11-04-2025
Item #11
Municipal Code
Amendments for
California Buildings
Standards Code and Fire
Code
Written Communications
From:Santosh Rao
To:City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; Benjamin Fu; City Attorney"s Office
Subject:Resident Concerns and Recommendations on 2025 Building Code Ordinance
Date:Monday, November 3, 2025 10:47:10 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the upcoming council meeting.
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino talent]
Subject: Resident Concerns and Recommendations on 2025 Building Code Ordinance
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, Council Members, Interim City Manager Kapoor, and
Director Fu,
As a Cupertino resident, I am concerned that the proposed 2025 Building Code ordinance
introduces significant new costs and complexity for homeowners who wish to remodel or
maintain their homes. While safety and sustainability are important, several provisions create
unnecessary burdens that discourage reasonable home improvements. In addition this will
raise the cost of housing for tenants as landlords will pass these costs on to tenants
Below are key resident impacts and practical alternatives that would maintain safety while
reducing burdens on residents:
1. Digital Plan Submittals and Design Professional Requirement
Impact: All plans must be digital and often stamped by a licensed design professional, even
for modest remodels.
Resident-Friendly Alternative: Permit paper or simple digital submittals for projects under
$50,000 without requiring professional stamps unless structural work is proposed.
2. Expanded Inspections
Impact: Added inspections (moisture, energy, fire) and exposure requirements increase cost
and delay.
Alternative: Streamline inspections for remodels under 1,000 sq ft and allow certified third-
party inspectors for small residential projects.
3. Roofing Replacement Mandate
Impact: Replacing more than 50% of a roof within a year triggers full replacement with Class
A fire-retardant material—an expensive requirement even outside wildfire zones.
Resident-Friendly Alternative: Exempt Cupertino homes from the Class A mandate. Residents
should retain flexibility to use Class B or C roofing materials that meet State fire standards to
avoid unnecessary cost burdens.
4. Fireplace Chimney Retrofits
Impact: Any remodel exceeding $1,000 requires installing spark arrestors, even when work is
unrelated to the fireplace.
Alternative: Exempt this entirely for remodels.
5. Pool Safety Retrofits
Impact: Existing pools must add alarms or barriers when any home remodel triggers a permit.
Alternative: Require new pool-safety devices only for new or substantially renovated pools,
not for unrelated home work.
6. Green Building Certification and Deposits
Impact: Remodels must now include CALGreen checklists, certification, and refundable
deposits forfeited if paperwork is late.
Alternative: Exempt this entirely.
7. Seismic Design Restrictions
Impact: The draft bans several standard wall-bracing methods, requiring costlier engineered
alternatives.
Alternative: Permit standard bracing methods allowed under the California Residential Code
for small remodels and additions.
8. Added Fees and Re-Inspection Charges
Impact: New re-inspection fees and green deposits raise overall project costs.
Alternative: Waive fcorrection fees and remove deposits for single-family remodels.
Requested Actions
1. Amend the draft ordinance to include homeowner exemptions and thresholds.
2. Publish a clear homeowner summary showing how new rules apply to remodels and
additions under 1,000 sq ft or $100,000.
3. Provide plain-language guidance explaining when design professionals, green
compliance, or special inspections are required.
These adjustments would keep Cupertino safe and sustainable while allowing residents to
maintain and improve their homes without excessive cost or delay. If council cannot take these
actions please continue the item rather than rush these changes raising costs on residents
Alternatively consider directing the item to the Planning Commission for review before it is
brought back to city council.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
San Rao (Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino Resident)