Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/1/2019 Item 08, Cross Wilbanks, Megan From:Brett Cross <brettcross@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Item 8 APPEAL FILED REGARDING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1121 MONTALBAN Attachments:009_27_19...montalbanletter.pdf Dear Council members, I am including Allan Cooper's correspondence which I fully agree with and the folly that City staff is valiantly trying to use to defend their position on the number of bedrooms and the resulting requirements for parking amongst other development requirements and impact fees. It's obvious to anyone, even if there were not other examples, that these rooms are going to be divided to create two bedrooms and it's beyond City staff to try and argue otherwise unless they believe the public is just plain stupid. I do not understand why City staff is so resolute in their position to the point of just making stuff up. I just don't get it. What is in it for City staff? Is it so simple that they just want to win the argument? Or, is it City staff just doesn't want to admit they're wrong?. Is about develop fees the City is collecting? It just makes no sense. As representatives of the public is incumbent on you to do what is right for the community and not what is most profitable for the developer. This gaming of the bedroom count actually is driving up land values and making more difficult to build affordable housing. The next set of projects will be forced to further erode the City's development standards to generate a normal profit margin as land values have adjusted to include the "bedroom effect". Sincerely, Brett Cross 1217 Mariners Cove San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 1 To: San Luis Obispo City Council, Michael Codron, Community Development Director, Kyle Bell, Associate Planner Re: Review Of Appeals Filed By Damien Mavis, Applicant, And David Joy, Appellant, Concerning The Planning Commission’s Decision Regarding Property Located At 1121 Montalban From: Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo Date: September 27, 2019 Honorable Mayor and Council Members - I am writing this letter in opposition to Mr. Damien Mavis’ appeal of both the ARC’s and PC’s condition to limit bedroom access to a single door (in lieu of the proposed double doors). Deflection Associate Planner Kyle Bell is misrepresenting the intent behind the decision made by these Commissions as there was never any discussion during their deliberations about “maximum occupancy”. Dragging the case of Briseno v. City of Santa Ana into this discussion appears to be a deliberate attempt to deflect our attention away from the real issue at stake here which is parking. What we are protesting is that the City is allowing the applicant to provide only 19 parking spaces (and this based on the new city-wide parking reductions included in the Zoning Reg Update) when twice that number will be required once these demising walls are made permanent. This shortfall of on-site parking will end up on the city’s streets. Moreover, inserting mention of the Density Bonus Law (DBL) and the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) has no bearing on this discussion. This 15-unit project is not being denied any benefits from either the DBL or HAA as it is receiving a 97% density bonus in exchange for providing only two deed- restricted housing units. Citing Non-Existent Codes Mr. Bell stated “The proposed partitions do not qualify as additional bedrooms under the California Building Code, or the City’s Zoning Regulations.” Five months ago, I defied Mr. Bell to actually find the citations within either the California Building Code, or the City’s Zoning Regulations that will provide you with the precise definition of a “bedroom”. He has failed to do this. In good faith, I have looked everywhere in these two documents and these definitions cannot be found. You should place the burden on staff to provide you with these specific citations before you determine that this issue is settled. Nevertheless, I can tell you how the National Building Code defines a “bedroom”. “A room must have a window for direct egress to the exterior with an opening of no less than 6 square feet and a door on it so that the room can be closed.” Each of these partitioned off spaces are provided with both a window and a door such that the room can be closed. There should be no debate that the partition, once installed, will result in meeting the definition of a “closed room”. More specifically, the California Building Code states that a bedroom must have a minimum of 70 square feet, a minimum dimension of 7 feet, in any direction, 2 means of egress, temperature controls between a specific range and a smoke detector. Mr. Bell further states that “partitions that are used as privacy screens in the proposed project do not constitute walls that create additional bedrooms in the project”. Again, I have defied Mr. Bell to find the citations within either the California Building Code, or the City’s Zoning Regulations that define a “wall”. The closest I can come to the definition of a “wall” is in the International Building Code. The 2018 IBC Code defines a wall as “a vertical element… used to enclose space.” I believe these partitions fit that description . 1 In Summary In summary, it is not a coincidence that each of these double-doored bedrooms include a demising wall separating the two doors. It is clear that these should be counted as multiple bedrooms for the purpose of determining the project’s parking requirements. Nevertheless, both of your advisory bodies determined that there was a simpler way of approaching this problem. Simply replace the double doors with one door. Please consider that this is not the first project which has come before the City that had double-doored bedrooms with demising walls. Previous projects (not incidentally designed by the same architect, Thom Jess) include 71 Palomar, 22 Chorro and 790 East Foothill. Is it not telling that the 2 and 3 bedroom units at both the Academy Chorro and the Academy Palomar are currently being advertised as 4- and 5-bedroom units? Please do not set a worrisome precedent by ignoring the wise counsel of your advisory bodies. Thank you!   (see https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2018/chapter-2-definitions) 1 Chapter 2 Definitions First Printing August 2017: “Wall (for Chapter 21). A vertical element with a horizontal length-to-thickness ratio greater than three, used to enclose space.”