Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Definitions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cupertino planning commission adopts clarified definitions for square footage, garage and attic
Summary
The planning commission unanimously adopted a municipal code amendment adding a standalone definition of "square footage" and clarifying "garage" and "attic" measurements to align local rules with state housing law and reduce future interpretive disputes.
The Cupertino Planning Commission on July 28 adopted a municipal code amendment that adds a standalone definition of "square footage" and tightens definitions for "garage" and "attic" to bring the city into closer alignment with state housing statutes, including provisions used in SB 35 streamlined reviews. John Cardenas, special counsel to the city, told commissioners the changes are meant to reduce ambiguity when staff evaluates mixed-use and multifamily applications.
"These definition revisions have evolved based upon our evaluation of recent projects," Cardenas said, summarizing the rationale for a separate square-footage standard tied to state law. He told the commission the amendments are forward-looking and would not apply retroactively to already-approved projects.
Under the revised language, the new square-footage definition applies for state-streamlined projects (for instance, those evaluated under SB 35 and the Housing Accountability Act, which use a residential ratio threshold of 0.667). The garage definition clarifies that residential garages are counted as floor area for many purposes, while large structured parking with drive aisles and maneuvering areas are excluded from the residential floor-area allocation. The attic definition adds objective markers — unfinished space, lack of permanent stairs directly to the attic, and no operable windows — intended to distinguish attics from habitable floor area.
Commissioners probed enforcement and consequences. Staff noted code enforcement is typically reactive and pointed to past complaints where attics had been retrofitted with windows and permanent stairs. The commission voted unanimously after an amendment to the attic wording; the clerk announced the motion carried and staff said they would confirm any tax-assessment implications with the county assessor if needed.
The resolution was adopted as amended. Staff also noted the amendment is not a project under CEQA and therefore does not require separate CEQA review. The commission adjourned for a summer recess and expects to reconvene in September.
