Appeals board declines hardship waiver for 1165 Coast Village Road, directs accessible route from Coast Village Road

The Building and Fire Code Board of Appeals on Thursday declined to ratify a building official’s hardship determination for permit BLD2025-00295 at 1165 Coast Village Road and instead directed staff to require a compliant accessible route from Coast Village Road to the lower-level tenant suites.

Staff told the board the project is a tenant improvement with a construction valuation of about $350,000 that converts one large suite into three tenant spaces and adds three accessible restrooms and an accessible path of travel. Under California Building Code Chapter 11B and the local ordinance, an alteration that triggers path-of-travel work generally requires the owner to spend up to 20% of the adjusted construction cost on accessibility upgrades. The applicant had committed 23% and presented two options staff estimated would raise the total to roughly 86% of the construction valuation: a ramp option (about $219,306) or a vertical lift (about $530,800).

Board members pressed staff and the appellant about exhibit plans, drainage impacts, and the need to alter a larger patio area because the project creates three points of entry where previously there was one. Several commissioners emphasized that the board’s legal role is to evaluate whether full compliance costs exceed the 20% threshold and whether the applicant provided concrete financial evidence that full compliance would render the project infeasible.

Rob Koiman, the property manager for the building, said the vacancy and repeated delays had cost the owner and that requiring 86% of the $350,000 buildout for path-of-travel work would be unreasonable. "Eighty-six percent is not reasonable for a $350,000 build out," Koiman told the board, adding that the property has been vacant for three years and that the owner has incurred legal and brokerage fees.

Commissioner Coontz moved to decline to ratify the building official’s hardship determination, arguing the appellant had failed to present lender letters, investor correspondence, pro forma analysis or other concrete evidence showing the project would be infeasible if a code-compliant accessible route were required. The board’s motion directed the building official to require a compliant accessible route from Coast Village Road to the lower-level altered areas by means of a ramp, lift or equivalent solution that meets CBC Chapter 11B path-of-travel requirements. The motion passed on roll call.

A prior related exception for Suite J from work done in 2019 was discussed; staff and the appellant said that exception no longer applies to the current proposal. Staff also noted that the ramp cost estimates provided did not include soft costs such as civil engineering, surveys and permitting, which would increase total costs beyond the line-item construction estimates.

The board’s decision requires the building official to return the project to plan review with direction to provide a compliant route. The board recorded findings that the appellant had not met the burden to demonstrate that providing an accessible route from the public right of way would create an unreasonable hardship and that denying full public right-of-way access would cause a significant inequity for people with mobility impairments.

The meeting adjourned at 3:42 p.m.