HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/25/2018 Item 1, Betterslodevelopment
Goodwin, Heather
From:betterslodevelopment <betterslodevelopment@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 24, 2018
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Planning Commission USE-1187-2017
San Luis Obispo Planning Commission,
The following is a summary of concerns and thoughts about the project at 790 Foothill Boulevard, an extension of
comments I provided to the architectural review commission of July 16, 2018.
The unit design of all the market rate units allows for divisible bedrooms, converting one-bedroom to two-bedrooms, and
two-bedrooms to four-bedrooms. This guarantees double-occupancy of the bedrooms, while the development standards
for parking do not increase in kind. While there is no limitation on four occupants to a two-bedroom residence, the intent
to divide the bedrooms forces a change in the building design. Each half of the divided bedroom must have a
window/door suitable for emergency exiting to the exterior (not a corridor), or else the division of the rooms is expressly
illegal (building and fire codes require windows for each bedroom for light, air, and emergency access). In most cases
around the building, this means that there are windows on opposing sides of the units, forcing a requirement for
courtyards on two sides of the residential “buildings” and increasing the space required between them, internal to the
project. If these one- and two-bedroom units were not going to be divided, this space could be reduced, and the balance
of space be provided either at the public frontages, or for larger interior courtyards and visual breaks in the building mass
as requested by the ARC under direction item 3.1.
At the ARC hearing Michael Codron effectively said that bedrooms subdivided privacy screens were no different than
those that are not divided. “These projects are designed to have privacy screens installed, these are bedrooms as
defined by the zoning regulations, the privacy screen does not change the occupancy load of the bedroom. The bedroom
can have a certain number of people in it as prescribed by the building code and our zoning regulations and just our
normal government day to day enforcement doesn’t regulate, can’t preempt or do anything beyond what the building code
provides in terms of the occupancy standards.” And “we really aren’t looking at it as an additional bedroom triggering
these other requirements (for more parking).”
The idea that the subdivided rooms are no different analytically than those that are not is false, and this is proven in the
divided bedroom design. If the privacy screen split the room into one room with a code compliant window and one
without, the plans would be rejected by the building official and fire marshal for non-compliance. What is the conclusion of
this privacy screen loophole? Is there not a way for a clever developer to propose a one-bedroom unit that is ultimately
divisible into three or four bedrooms? Some may say that this is an exaggeration, but progress down the slippery slope is
before you already. The California Building Code specifically address movable partition walls such as the privacy screens
that will be implemented in this project. It reads:
“1.11.3.2 Movable walls and partitions. Plans or diagrams shall be submitted to the enforcing agency for approval before
the installation of, or rearrangement of, any movable wall or partition in any occupancy. Approval shall be granted only if
1
there is no increase in the fire hazard.” Since the partitions must be shown in the construction plans for review, they
create separate bedrooms as defined in the zoning code: “any space in a dwelling unit which contains a minimum of 70
square feet of floor area unless it is one of the below listed rooms or common spaces…Hallway, Bathroom,
Kitchen/Breakfast Nook, Den, Loft, Laundry Room…” When the privacy screen is closed, and it is intended to be closed at
all times given the provision of double doors split by the privacy screen, do you not have a “space in a dwelling unit which
contains a minimum of 70 square feet of floor area” that is NOT one of the listed “common spaces?” This definition was
revised a couple of years ago in an effort to provide a broad definition of a bedroom to limit over occupancy, not
encourage it.
Thank you,
A concerned long-time San Luis Obispo resident.
2