Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the Planning Commission meeting for July 28th, 2026. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

City Clerk, may we please have the roll call? Commissioner Fung?

Present.

Commissioner Linscaw? Present. Commissioner Rao?

Here.

Vice Chair Scharf?

Present.

Chair Castellan?

Present. Great, thank you. So we will now move on to the approval of minutes. May we please have a motion to approve the July 14th? So moved.

Second.

And I will just comment thank you to City Clerk for taking such detailed notes in the minutes. Let's move to a vote. The motion carries unanimously. Great, so we will move on to oral communications. City Clerk, do we have anyone wishing to speak?

We have no speakers, Chair.

Great, so we will move on then to the public hearing. Tonight on agenda item two, it is the Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.08 to revise definitions of attics and garages and establish a new definition of square footage. Do we have a staff report?

Yes, good evening Planning Commission, thank you very much. I would actually like to introduce tonight, maybe a familiar face, Special Counsel to the City, John Cardenas, and he will be making the presentation tonight. So with that, I will hand it over to him.

Thank you. You all can hear me. Good evening, commissioners. I'm here tonight to address three code definition amendments that have been under discussion. And we would like to have you all consider for approval These definition revisions have, I would say, evolved based upon our evaluation of recent projects, housing projects under state law. California state law, especially the streamlined review of mixed-use developments, highlighted a mismatch between our local municipal code and state standards. So whereas state standards focus on a definition of square footage, historically the city in evaluating these projects has relied upon our local ordinance definition of floor area. And that's because the municipal code lacked a definition of square footage. That was an adequate substitute for a while, but as we're seeing ongoing, this ongoing gap or mismatch creates potential disputed interpretations that we would like to head off in the future, especially around consideration of streamlined applications. So in terms of state law, what I'm referring to is SB 35 compliance, which requires that the city verify that at least two thirds of a project that qualifies under SB 35 square footage is designated for residential use. And what we've seen is that the floor area definition in the municipal code really applies and is most appropriate to parcel level floor area ratios and general plan development allocations. So, Initially, we considered looking at a revision to floor area, but the consequences within the local ordinance, it would be impacting other areas of the zoning frameworks. So instead, what we did was focus on creating a standalone definition of square footage in the municipal code. a definition that's aligned with state housing laws, consistent with the building code, and introduces some clarifications that we think are important to ensure proportional allocation of residential and office space. Also importantly, the introduction of these new definitions is completely forward-looking, so it doesn't have any retroactive effect to existing or past projects. Along with the new definition of... square footage uh... we're interest uh... we're revising definition two definitions one for garage and one for attic again to provide clarification uh... around the the calculation methodology previously just as a note the definition of garage was described at a general level and was vague enough that in looking at larger housing projects it would pull in structured residential parking so one effort in providing a revised definition is to clarify that garage residential only applies to single level or detached structures serving smaller scale residential units. And specifically it excludes large parking structures with drive aisles and maneuvering areas. And then lastly, we've provided a revised definition for attic. And again, with clarification in mind, previously the definition of attic was stated at a pretty general level, an unconditioned, uninhabitable area between the ceiling and roof. What we're doing with this definition is introducing some objective descriptions to be able to clarify attic from floor area and ensuring that there's a clear distinction between the two. So adding additional descriptions for unfinished space, lack of permanent stairs, and no operable windows. So this, we expect, will provide greater certainty and more efficiency for the planners in determining attic space. This isn't a project under sequa. So the sequel analysis doesn't apply and then just quickly to summarize the the purpose of these definitions is to provide alignment with our local ordinances under state law we see it as protecting the city to remove ambiguities that could lead to disputes and and even possibly litigation, and to streamline the process for planning to be able to evaluate complex multi-family, multi-use projects more efficiently. So the recommended action is to adopt the resolution and that's in your package before you. That's it, open to any questions, thank you.

Great, thank you very much, and we'll bring it back to the commission for any clarifying questions. Commissioner Rao?

Yes, thank you, Chair. I'm curious about how this item comes on our agenda today. Was this part of the CWP, or was this directed to us by council or the mayor? How did this item show up today versus the sign ordinance, for example?

So, and you may... Please, planning colleagues, feel free to add. But in terms of how this has come, I really see it as a bit of cleanup in terms of looking at where the city has been in evaluating housing projects and ensuring, I mean, I think, Our code definitions are constantly evolving, but at this point in time, ensuring that consistency under state law. And again, I would point out that even though it has evolved from our prior evaluation of housing projects, application is only forward-looking, so it doesn't have any look-back or reach-back effect on earlier housing.

Thank you, yeah, that's certainly a much needed task to, I guess, continue to look at ways to bring code hygiene, I guess, as we call it in the tech industry. Code hygiene in this sense being to the Mooney Code. But I am curious, was this part of the CWP, or what directs this item to be at the top of the priority for staff? Because I know we've been waiting on ODS, We've been waiting on other things in CWP. So just curious how this item comes to the top of priorities.

So if I may chime in, I think this is a question period for the presentation. I think John is explaining it came because there needs to be cleanup of the code just to make it more accurate and consistent with state law. I hope that answers your question.

I see. So maybe this is a question for the chair then. Am I allowed to ask questions for the chair? Or is this only for staff?

Chair, I wonder whether we should take a break and we can answer and address Commissioner Rao's question. questions about why this is on today's agenda is what I understand the questions to be?

I do not need a break for that. If we need a break, then we can keep going.

Well, I want to respect the public's time in understanding what's been agendized for discussion here today, Commissioner Rao.

I think the context for the question is we have had previous discussions during the housing element cycle to increase the flow rate ratio. And that discussion received a lot of rest and feedback to not increase the floor area ratio. And I'm trying to understand, is this strictly a state law update? Are we required to keep up with these state law changes? Or how are we treating the discrepancy between state law and our local court absent this change currently?

This item is to ensure that our local code is consistent with state law.

Understood. The question, I guess, is for projects under review currently absent this change, how do we apply the difference? I have always assumed if the state law states differently than local code, state law applies. Is that accurate?

I that's not agenda is for this discussion right now Commissioner Rao, but We always seek to Conform and comply with both state law and our local laws and hopefully they are consistent Okay, that's I guess a

a question to staff, but I guess CAO would like to answer on behalf of staff. I guess this is a question of how we interpret conflicting sections of overlapping code between local code and state law.

Sorry, go on.

Go ahead, go ahead. I was going to make one comment in terms of the focus of these revisions might be a little more discreet than the question that you're answering. And I think that as Attorney Wu has stated, The effort is to bring these definitions into alignment with state law. That's not to say that in the future there might be other definitions as well that need to be brought in alignment. And so I think maybe this might be a more discreet focus and as additional items get put out there, it's likely that we'll be looking at other areas where state law requires local ordinance definitions to be considered.

So is it fair then to say the only changes in front of us today are state law driven and there is no additional changes that have come in due to a desire to add further changes beyond the state law?

It's my, yeah, that was my intent to just bring it in conformity with state law, that's correct.

And should commissioners find any clauses that were not required by state law but were proposed changes today, how should we deal with those?

Mr. Wu, do you?

Yeah, I'm not sure if I understand the question. Commissioner, can you repeat the question, please?

Yes, so the question was if the purpose of the agenda is to bring us in compliance with state law, but we find during today's deliberations there are changes not required by state law, but that are in the change packet before us today, how should we approach those changes?

I believe legal interpretation and legal recommendations within the purview of Mr. Cardenas, who's an attorney and who's reviewed state law and reviewed local law and has made recommendations to align them. If you have a separate legal opinion, we are open to hearing it.

All right, why don't we, let's open this up to other commissioners as well to ask questions. And Commissioner Rao, we can circle back to you. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Vice Chair.

Sure. So I have five questions. So if a garage is excluded from square footage, what happens when the garage is turned into an ADU?

I can try to answer that. So a garage is not excluded from square footage. Garage is included in square footage. Square footage basically is only for the state streamlined projects. That definition only applies to state streamlined projects. The definition of floor area already includes garage in it. So it doesn't change anything. So for example, if you were to build a house and you had a two-car garage and down the road you decided to convert it to an ADU, it doesn't make any difference to the floor area of that home.

Okay. Does a finished basement not count as square footage?

No. but that's only for state streamlined review. I mean, for the city's review, if a basement has to meet certain criteria in order for it to not be counted as floor area. So the square footage definition, just park it for purposes of mixed use development, larger residential development, and office development, but that's something different from what floor area is for our local purposes.

Okay, and does state law require no permanent stairs to an attic? And I can see attics being used as storage areas and somebody having a wooden stairway up there that is always there. It's not one of those pull down stairways that comes out of an opening. So does state law require no permanent stairs?

I would say the no permanent stare addition is part of a set of objective descriptions that are consistent with state law and that was our aim to bring those two into alignment as best as possible.

Okay, I'm not sure that really answered the question. Was that a no? Was that a no state law? Doesn't require no permanent stairs is what I got from that.

State law requires objective standards and to the extent that that articulates an objective standard.

So that was something that we came up with in the city, not, it's not specified in state law.

That's right, the city provided that.

Yeah, I mean, I can see the no operable windows and what was the third thing?

Yeah, I don't remember. Unfinished.

Right, unfinished, but I could see someone saying, hey, that's my storage area. I want to have those stairs there. So what was the last question? Oh, so in multifamily projects, I seem to get out of the discussion that common spaces are counted as square footage and they're apportioned somehow among the housing units?

No, it's apportioned by type of use. So if you have a lobby that's shared between residential and commercial space, then that lobby is apportioned as a percentage of the whole project.

to get to the SB 35 requirement?

Correct, for purposes of streamline, for determining any ratios for streamlined review.

Okay, that's my questions, thank you.

Any other clarifying questions? Go ahead, Commissioner Fung.

Commissioner Scharf actually addressed the only question that I had, which was around that term of permanent stairs. If I had to sort of pull down stairs, is that a permanent? in the view of this?

No.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I had a few clarifying questions around the attic. What instances are we trying to prevent on this one? Are there people trying to count addicts in their floor area?

They're trying to exclude it from floor area and then finishing it and using it, just by sticking a couch up there or sticking a vent up there and things like that.

Is that easy to enforce, though, afterwards? So, I mean, they could make these changes afterwards. So this is something that we codify, but is anyone following up to check?

Again, code enforcement is reactive and we have had complaints from people where, you know, now there are windows up in the attic and we've actually had to deal with that in the past where people have put in permanent stairs and it's become a family room all of a sudden.

Okay, got it. Thank you. And what is the definition of unfinished? Because I know people that, you know, want to put in just basic flooring in their attic so they can store things more easily, but they're not living there.

I guess plywood would count as unfinished, but if you're putting down tile and engineered wood and things like that, that would count as finished. It would drywall, et cetera.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, I think plywood is the one that I'm hearing, so it's good to know that doesn't count as a finish. On the split between residential and commercial on the square footage, I think that one got me a little bit because it seems a little bit discretionary. a proportionate allocation on areas accessible to both, but are there ever any instances where an allocation would not be proportionate? You're just saying based on square footage of office?

It's based on access. I mean, if something's only accessible to a non-residential use, it would be non-residential.

Okay. Got it, thank you. And I think my final question on this are, you know, so I did see the link in the staff report going to one project, but are we expecting any other future projects that are going to try to utilize this, or we're just kind of trying to prevent an unknown future instances?

I'm not aware of. Yeah, we're not aware of any at this point.

Okay, thank you. Those are my questions. Commissioner Ralph.

Yes, so would these changes apply for R1 as well as R2 and R3?

They already apply to these. Nothing's changing for R1, R2, or R3. Today, residential garages are already counted towards floor area, so nothing's changing there. And attic spaces are also still tenuously, but still excluded only if they meet certain criteria.

And is any of that going to change as a result of this change?

No.

So I'm trying to understand that. So if nothing changes, what is the purpose of this change?

It's for purposes of floor area where it, the definition of square footage includes attics in there. It's in the definition of square footage. And also, when you include, the clarification related to residential garage is purely a clarification. so that we treat any kind of structured parking the same. The staff report actually identifies why structured parking was always intended to not be included in floor area because we have a concept of development allocation in the city which is allocated as floor area. And so that's the purpose of clarifying that definition to make sure that the original intent remains. So nothing changes for anyone.

And how about with the attic?

It's the same because the attic, when you look at the definition of square footage, it includes all areas that are beneath the roof of a structure. And so anytime that you have that and you have those criteria met, then that gets added into square footage as well.

So after this change, is the attic square footage excluded or included?

Continues to be excluded for floor area purposes.

And before this change also it was excluded?

Correct.

And that is true for R1 as well as R2 and R3?

Yes.

And these changes apply to all three then?

It applies to everything where the word floor area comes into play.

Okay. I'm just still confused about why we're making this change. Maybe some other commissioner might be able to explain what is the significance of this agenda item before us today.

Well, I mean, from my standpoint, I think if we didn't have a clear definition of square footage in our municipal code, I actually do think it's important that we define it and we not rely on floor area ratio, which is a pretty different way of calculating areas for these different types of spaces. So I think it's fine that we're discussing this.

Thank you, Chair. So maybe another follow-on clarifying question. There are places where staff use floor area ratio today. where they would start to use square footage instead after this change.

Okay. Only for state streamlined projects, not for R1, R2, R3 review.

And what is the definition of state streamlined projects? Is that SB 330 or? The example we were talking about was SB 35.

If I can, maybe I can help.

Sorry, I still had to follow on to your question. SB 35, is that an exhaustive situation, or is there more scenarios beyond SB 35 that this would apply?

So Housing Accountability Act also defines any project as residential if it has at least two-thirds of the project be attributable to residential uses. so it could apply to any Housing Accountability Act project, but to the extent that that definition is identified, to the extent that language is used in the statute as square footage, then we have something that we can apply to it, because there is nothing clear there.

Maybe to dump this down for someone that may not be able to follow all that's happening here, including me perhaps, to builders get additional square footage that they can seek approval for and get approved that they could not without this change?

No.

After this change, do builders get approval for attic as a part of their plans that were, for whatever reasons, not approved before this change?

No.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Owens-Gogg, did you have something to, okay. Do we have any other questions from the Commission? City Clerk, do we have any comments on this item?

We have one virtual speaker, Jennifer Griffin.

Welcome, Jennifer. Thank you. Can you all hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Thank you. I appreciate that we are having this discussion. I will tell you that A lot of the upcoming ministerial housing bills make me extremely nervous, and I'm glad that the city, if it has come up, that there are issues in terms of trying to define Florida area ratio, which I'm familiar with, and what is an attic, what is a basement, et cetera, et cetera, especially if with SB 79 we're going to have potentially eight stories of multifamily housing And there are many upcoming housing bills that are allowing more ADUs. I think that we need to make sure that the city, of course, tries to stay in step with what the state is expecting for the modern vocabulary um i can understand that the public might be confused about why we're doing this but i think because there are so many potential housing bills the city has to took has to take a future view of what we're going to be doing with this. My sister-in-law in Portland has an 800 square foot unfinished basement where they store the usual exercise equipment and things that are clothes racks, et cetera. But I believe in their city, if they finished their basement, they could convert it to an ADU. So these are the types of things that are coming down the pipeline And the city needs to stay abreast of what is the modern nomenclature i see the push for adus to be something that someone might want to put them in an attic unfinished space the garages certainly we have townhouses in southern california where someone is converting the carport into an adu and they did not consult the hoa board And I'm sure this is happening all over the state. So I appreciate the city trying to muck through this to come up with a better think ahead of this wording. I think we need to make sure that any questions that come up about this, that it is fully explained to the public what we're doing with this, because there are going to be some very very large projects coming down the line multi-family housing and i really hope we're not going to be converting hallways into adus adus where you have to take a rope ladder etc so thank you i know it's confusing but this is what we're up against thank you jennifer i see no remaining requests to speak chair

Thank you, City Clerk. We'll bring it back to the Commission. Do we have any comments or further questions? Yes, Commissioner Owens-Cogg.

Hi there. So I live on Faralloni Drive in that development there. And I think the same design is used throughout that neighborhood over and over again. And Commissioner Scharf lives in that neighborhood as well. I access my attic from my upstairs bedroom. It's permanent stairs going up to the upper floor, and then there's a door in my closet that leads to my attic. There's no other stairs beyond that, right? Per this definition, that would be counted as square footage.

No, it wouldn't because you're not accessing the attic itself via permanent stairs.

Okay, so then the definition should be the permanent stairs directly to the attic. Correct. So that's not in this definition.

You could certainly add that if you wish.

Okay. Yeah, I think that would be good clarification because otherwise there's a couple hundred homes in Cupertino that would suddenly have 1,000 square feet added to their homes. Sorry, can I clarify? Your stairs don't go to your attic. Where do they go? They go to the upstairs. There's a landing. There's two bedrooms, a bathroom, and then from the master bedroom, in the closet, there's a door that goes into the attic. Okay, got it. Thank you.

It goes...

Right, it goes into the attic above the first floor. There's another attic above the second floor.

Right, but that's like a good 1,000 square feet, I think, of attic space there. Commissioner Rice?

Yes, a question for Atenebu. Given the disclosure we just heard, should the commissioner recuse on this item given the direct impact to them because of the proposed changes?

I'll defer to the commissioner to determine whether she has a conflict such that she believes she needs to recuse herself.

Okay.

Do we have any other comments?

Yes, I did have more comments. So is this going to cause an additional square footage for the purpose of property tax calculations such that property taxes go up? Will the definition of square footage change for the purpose of property taxes after this code is calculated, after this code is applied.

I do not believe, I mean, taking your home as an example possibly, I do not believe your project would qualify as something for purposes of state law.

Yeah, I wasn't referring to my home, but I was referring to the new developments that will follow the passing of this change, whether the square footage computation would change for the purpose of property tax calculations.

No, because this pretty much follows the definition of what building code is. Building code has a very, very similar definition. Anything under the roof, going off to how many other levels, you have that square footage.

Okay, and would you confirm that?

We specifically tried to limit the definition that we crafted to address that state law consistency and make sure, ensure as best as possible that there wasn't any other SECONDARY EFFECTS OR FURTHER CONSEQUENCES FROM THE CHANGE IN DEFINITION, FROM THE REVISION.

BUT CAN YOU ASSURE US THAT THIS CHANGE WILL, I MEAN, I HEAR AS BEST AS POSSIBLE AND THAT MAKES ME NERVOUS.

I CAN'T THINK OF ANY

Potential scenario where this change would have the effect that you're describing for example has staff run this by the county tax assessor's office To understand if there's any implication of this change for property tax calculations I'm gonna defer to the city attorney's office on this No Okay, have we asked the city attorney if that is something they can or have verified?

Yeah, we can double check that if possible.

Well, generally when we seek to align local law with state law, we don't look into tax consequences.

So the attic change is that, was that staff additional clarification or was that part of the state law, the language around the attic?

It was around state law. I mean, the definition of, like I pointed out, the definition of square footage includes the word attics in there and it excludes it. So we wanted to have clear objective metrics that the city must have in order to be able to make those calculations without any discrepancy.

So I'm looking at the state law language, and does that contain specifically the ATTIC-related terminology in the state law itself?

I'm sorry, what are you looking at?

Yes, so I was looking at, let's see, what is this? 65913.4A2C3, or 2C2. Would you have the state law handy that you can project?

I don't have it on screen right now, no. Okay.

But I guess the question is, was the language around the attic part of the state law verbiage?

To the extent we discussed this before I do believe that the definitions that we revised Were revised to be consistent with state law the introduction of additional Objective descriptions was provided by our local ordinance So you may not find that language directly in state law, but what I'm getting at is the consistency part and the alignment.

But specifically, the attic itself is not language that is in the state law. It refers to the parking structures, but not the attic.

The attic was an existing local definition that we provided additional clarification for.

Okay. So technically the attic could be excluded and we would be compliant with the state law if we passed the rest of it?

You'd be creating an ambiguity.

How so? I'm sorry repeat if the commissioners today passed the motion to approve staff recommendation minus the changes about the attic would that meet the compliance or the conformance of the state law and

So the objective of providing that definition and all three definitions is to provide greater clarification and to remove ambiguity. So to the extent you don't move forward with it, you would leave in place a gap in some sense, an ambiguity.

But it's not... specifically an ambiguity that the state law creates, as in the attic is not a reference in the state law itself.

The risk we're trying to address is to reduce any further disputes around these definitions. So I guess in some sense, if you didn't pass it today, you'd leave that risk in place. We're trying to address that risk.

Right. So if the word attic and verbiage around that is not in the state law, what risk do we believe this introduces? I'm just trying to understand, is there language specifically related to the attic in the state law clauses that we are looking to get in conformance with? And my understanding is there isn't.

I would defer to planning staff because I do see it in the context of evaluating and the idea is that with a more robust definition, maybe the evaluation and the result would be more efficient.

I will pause my questions for now.

I just had a clarifying question for staff. So currently, if someone is remodeling their home and they have a habitable attic area, that would usually staff would be treating that as part of the square footage, right? Correct. Okay. So from that standpoint, I'm not sure that very much changes with this clarification of a definition. It gets a little more specific, but the attic is already either being included or excluded from square footage based on how it's being used. Vice Chair?

That was kind of my question. If you have a finished attic... and you finish it, it was unfinished and you finish it, then it becomes part of the square footage and it would trigger a property tax change, I would believe, because now you have more habitable area.

Correct, and you have to meet all building code requirements, planning requirements for having a second floor, whatever it is, yeah.

Yeah, I mean, and it should trigger the property tax increase. So, yeah, thank you.

If I could just add, I think once it's finished and habitable, it's no longer an attic. I mean, that would be the way to look at it. Then it would be usable living space in part of your house. So I think that... the conflict with adequate state law i don't think there is one i think the definition is there because it's more precise about what an attic is and what it is not that's how i would put it

All right. Do we have any other comments? Commissioner Fung.

So I have two. My first comment is that one of the things that left out at me was the thing about the permanent ladder. That probably could use a little bit of clarification. I think that's the only area that was ambiguous to me. Also, I... welcome the verbiage that was added with regard to residential parking. I know that that was actually an issue in projects in the past. So I think, you know, in that respect, you know, I think this is a, you know, good set of changes. It was a little funny to see this particular item show up as a, you know, as agenda item at the same time. This is not the first time the attorney's office has come with, you know, proposed verbiage. So, you know, I think that it's certainly appropriate for that to come here. Thank you.

I have just another question as we move towards a motion. Would it be terrible, would there be negative repercussions to just removing the stair requirement? Because the whole purpose of this attic definition is just to make sure that it's not a habitable area. But to me, whether there are stairs or not stairs going to an attic does not change whether it's habitable.

That's at the commission's discretion, but I will say it's much easier to convert a space when you have permanent stairs up to it.

Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? Okay.

Do we have a motion? I'm ready to make a motion. Okay. Okay, so I move that the Planning Commission adopt the draft resolution as recommended by staff with the change that lacking permanent stairs from the floor below be changed to lacking permanent stairs directly to the attic space from the floor below.

I'll second.

Sorry, can that be clarified again?

Can that be clarified again? What was the change?

The change was to change the wording from lack permanent stairs from the floor below to lack permanent stairs directly to the attic space from the floor below.

Does that make sense?

So if there was an attic that was large enough to accommodate maybe an unfinished attic that remained with a staggered finished room a level above it, and the stairs went, I guess, to the attic, what is the consequence of this change? It would exclude the square footage? Asking to understand.

Sorry, I didn't understand your question.

So if the attic is large enough that you can basically have sort of a two-layer usage where you can, and we've actually seen attics large enough to have some of that in, I guess, Avenida. So if you've got a large enough roof area where you can accommodate living space for the kids, for example, at the very top of that attic area such that the portion beneath it is still unfinished, but the ladder goes into the unfinished attic. What is the effect of this change?

I

I'm not sure I followed that hypothetical completely. It's possible that there would be no effect to the change. The change was meant to clarify, so it's an attic or not.

In theory, if you had a large enough attic structure, and it's not uncommon, there is actually one in Avenida, and there may be more. where the attic itself may have permanent stairs, and then the improved space or the finished space has a temporary ladder. So for a kid's room, for example, that's right at the top. So that would, with the staff recommendation, that would basically include the square footage. With the revised motion, that would exclude the square footage.

I'm sorry, I honestly have to say I don't understand the question. If I can clarify, a temporary ladder would not, the definition is for permanent stairs.

Okay, let me ask differently. Can staff give an example where the behavior would be different with the staff recommended motion versus the commissioner's proposed amended motion? Can we understand an example where things would be different for one versus the other?

I think the example was provided by Commissioner Lindskog.

For the purpose of calculation of square footage?

Again, we're not going to be calculating square footage. For the purpose of calculating square footage, if you had permanent stairs going into an attic space, then it would be included in the square footage. If you did not have permanent stairs going up to it, it was uninhabitable, unfinished, no windows, then it would be excluded.

Thank you.

All right. Do we have any further comments or questions? And City Clerk, I believe we're ready for a vote.

The motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much.

So we will move on to the next items. We have no old business or new business. Do we have any staff and commission reports?

I do not have a staff report at this time except to state that the following two meetings are canceled due to the summer recess. So we will convene back in September.

Great. Do we have any commission reports? okay then we'll move to future agenda setting does anyone have any items all right then we will adjourn the meeting thank you very much wow that's a record