Appeal Board declines to ratify hardship for 1165 Coast Village Road; continues item for more cost documentation

The Appeal Board on Aug. 7 considered a hardship ratification request for accessibility work at 1165 Coast Village Road and, after extended questioning about costs and site constraints, declined to ratify the building official's decision. Board members instead voted to continue the item and asked the applicant to return with additional documentation to substantiate construction costs or offer alternate accessible-path solutions.

The item centered on a tenant-improvement project converting a 3,407-square-foot office into three suites. The building department told the board the work exceeded the threshold in the accessibility rules and that code requires an owner to spend at least 20% of adjusted construction cost on path-of-travel improvements unless a hardship is demonstrated. The building official told the board he "recommends ratification of the request for hardship and eliminating the elevator and or the accessible ramp upgrade." (building official)

Marie Evan Schumacher, the applicant's agent, described two compliance paths and their costs, saying the applicant had already committed $82,900 toward accessibility work and that a proposed ramp would add about $219,306 (bringing the accessibility expenditure to roughly 86% of the stated construction valuation) while an exterior lift would add about $262,800. Schumacher said the suite had been vacant for more than three years and that the owner had recently lost two prospective seven-year leases during the review process: "They have just lost 2 viable tenants, but we're going to sign 7 year leases." (Marie Evan Schumacher)

Board members challenged both the scope of work and the construction valuations. Several questioned the city's use of ICC permit-valuation tables as a baseline for adjusted construction cost, noting the ICC valuations are intended for permit valuation rather than actual market construction costs. One board member said, "I don't feel like a hardship has been proven here," and repeatedly pressed for more objective evidence of financial infeasibility. (board member)

Michaelson Construction, the contractor who provided the project quote, told the board the $350,000 figure for interior tenant improvements is a signed bid for the specific scope, and that the contractor's itemized quote supported the applicant's numbers. Board members asked whether a signed general-contract bid should be accepted as sufficient evidence of actual construction cost.

A motion to ratify the building official's hardship determination was made, seconded and then failed on a roll-call vote. Following that vote, the board debated next steps and voted to continue the item indefinitely, asking the applicant to return with additional cost substantiation (for example, additional contractor bids or industry cost indices such as Marshall & Swift or RSMeans) or alternate accessibility solutions that could meet code without creating the claimed financial hardship.

What happens next: The applicant may resubmit the application with further documentation and alternative designs; staff said the item could be calendared as soon as the applicant provides the requested information (staff noted the earliest practicable availability would be January given calendar constraints).

Votes at a glance: approval of minutes (passed); motion to ratify hardship (failed); motion to continue the hardship item (passed).