Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates 8,000‑sq‑ft cap and single‑exit limits as policy line between IRC and IBC
Summary
Members debated whether an 8,000‑square‑foot cap for six‑unit multiplexes is a technical building standard or a policy boundary between the IRC and IBC. Staff traced the cap to a calculation (1,200 sqft × 6 units = 7,200, rounded to 8,000); no change was adopted pending further review.
Council members discussed whether the 8,000‑square‑foot cap for multiplex buildings should remain a policy dividing line between allowable IRC construction and the IBC or be reconsidered as a technical building standard.
Staff summarized the origin of the number: "He figured 8,000 square feet by looking at what studies showed was the most looked for apartment at 3 bedroom averaging 1,200 square feet and calculated 1,200 times 6 units equals 7,200 then rounded up to 8,000," the staff summary said, attributing the math to Jonathan Goldsmith.
Some members characterized the cap as a policy decision meant to keep the middle‑housing purpose—making smaller, more affordable units available under IRC rules—rather than allowing very large units to use the relaxed appendix to avoid IBC requirements. Others noted there was no clear life‑safety justification for the cap and suggested the question sits at the policy level rather than the purely technical building‑standards level.
On single‑exit provisions, council members clarified the legislative intent to allow up to six stories of construction with the upper five stories served by a single stair and the ground floor using a separate exit path. Members noted that allowable stories per construction type remain governed by other sections of the code, so local jurisdictions seeking more permissive construction‑type allowances would still need to pursue council/SBCC approval processes.
No final action was taken. The council asked staff to research the policy context and legislative direction and to return with options; members and staff agreed to coordinate with absent architecture and planning seats for additional input.
