Board continues review of accessibility hardship request for 1165 Coast Village Road

The Santa Barbara Building and Safety Board continued indefinitely its review of a hardship request for 1165 Coast Village Road after members said the application and supporting documents did not yet answer key technical and cost questions.

Staff recommended the board ratify a hardship that would eliminate a required elevator or equivalent upgrade for building permit 2025-00295, which covers a tenant improvement converting a 3,400-square-foot single-tenant office into three tenant spaces. The recommendation rests on a finding that meeting full vertical-access requirements would be disproportionately costly compared with the project budget, staff said.

The matter concerns compliance with California accessibility requirements for path of travel when a project’s construction valuation exceeds the state threshold. Staff said projects above the current 2025 threshold of $203,611 must invest at least 20% of the construction valuation toward path-of-travel improvements. Staff reported that 20% of the project’s reported construction valuation was about $70,000 and that the applicant has committed $82,900 toward accessibility work, which staff said represents about 23% of the listed construction cost. The applicant’s written materials also included estimates for an exterior lift and for a full elevator; staff and the applicant said a full elevator cost would be substantially higher.

Board members pressed staff and the applicant for clearer plan-line documentation. Several members said the access-compliance checklist and site plans did not show which existing elements would be altered or upgraded (for example, restroom details, stair striping and signage) and therefore made it difficult to judge which costs should count toward path-of-travel improvements. "There were mistakes on the access compliance form and the site plan wasn't completely clear," the board chair said during the discussion. Board members repeatedly asked whether a compliant ramp around the west side of the building had been evaluated as an alternative to a lift or elevator.

Jose Barajas, a certified access specialist in staff review, told the board that the department had reviewed the application and that the "big numbers" on construction valuation and estimated accessibility work were available, but acknowledged that plan-check items still needed to be resolved. "There are definitely some elements in what has been provided to you that are still being ironed out in plan check," Barajas said, but added that staff believed the board had enough information to consider whether a hardship existed.

The applicant, Marie Evan Schumacher, said the permit documents state the new tenant restrooms "will be compliant" as part of the tenant improvements, and presented itemized pricing showing a $66,700 figure for reworking a flagstone patio area where slopes exceed a 5% cross slope limit. Schumacher also provided separate cost breakdowns for a lift and for an elevator, and said a licensed contractor prepared the estimates.

Contractor Val Knezevic (Michelson) told the board that the west side of the building "is difficult to walk down as it is" and that a ramp with the required run and landings might not physically fit in the available space. Board members asked the applicant to study that ramp option and return with cost and feasibility information.

Board members also flagged inconsistent or unclear cost figures in the record: staff cited an anticipated construction cost of $250,000 at one point and referenced a different adjusted construction cost of $350,000 elsewhere; the proposed exterior lift was described in staff materials as adding about $262,800; staff and the applicant said the lift figure would raise the accessibility-related costs to an amount that, if built, would be a large percentage of the original project budget. The board asked staff and the applicant to reconcile those numbers in plan review.

Given the outstanding technical questions about the plan documentation, restroom compliance, stair striping, signage and whether an alternate ramp could avoid vertical-lift solutions, a motion to continue the item was made, seconded and passed on a roll call vote. The roll call recorded four votes in favor of continuing the item; the motion passed and the hearing was continued indefinitely so staff and the applicant could supply the requested details.

The board did not render a final finding on the hardship at the meeting. Staff said unresolved plan-check corrections would be addressed before any permit issuance and that the applicant could return with clarified construction evaluations and options for ramping before the board takes further action.