HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11022010 - D.1RECOMMENDATION(S):
OPEN the hearing on the appeal of the decision by the County Building Official concerning
the required number of restroom facilities for the tenant improvement construction project
at 981 Bancroft Road, in an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County near the City of
Concord, APN 148-300-025; RECEIVE and CONSIDER oral and written testimony and
other evidence from the County Building Official, the Appellant, and other persons, and
CLOSE the hearing.
AFFIRM the decision of the County Building Official concerning the required number of
restroom facilities for the proposed project and that such requirements are consistent with
Plumbing Code section 412 and Table 4-1, and Building Code section 1115B.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
BACKGROUND:
The Appellant submitted an application for a building permit for the proposed
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 11/02/2010 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Susan A. Bonilla, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
ABSENT:Gayle B. Uilkema, District II
Supervisor
Contact: Jason Crapo, (925)
335-1108
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: November 2, 2010
David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
D. 1
To:Board of Supervisors
From:Jason Crapo, County Building Official
Date:November 2, 2010
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Appeal of Decision by the County Building Official Regarding Building Code Requirements for 981
Bancroft Road, Suites C & D (Appellant, Ma
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
project at 981 Bancroft Road in an unincorporated area near Concord, California on May
20, 2010. The project involves the construction of improvements to commercial office
space for the purpose of operating a business to provide physical education and training
for adults. The name of the business is Combat Fitness.
The Appellant’s architect submitted plans for the project to the Department of
Conservation and Development (DCD) for review. DCD determined that the plans do not
include a sufficient number of restroom facilities to meet County Building Code
requirements.
The required number of restroom facilities is based on the proposed use of the building
space. For purposes of interpreting Building Code requirements, the type of use is
referred to as the "occupancy type". County staff and the Appellant agree that the most
appropriate occupancy type for the use proposed by the Appellant is an "adult center".
The Building Code requires that an adult center of the square footage proposed requires
separate restroom facilities for women and men. The women’s restroom is required to
have a minimum of two water closets and a sink. The men’s restroom is required to have
a minimum of one water closet, one urinal and a sink. These facilities would need to
meet accessibility standards provided in the Building Code to accommodate individuals
with physical disabilities. These requirements are set forth in Plumbing Code section 412
and Table 4-1, and Building Code section 1115B.
The Appellant has offered no alternative interpretation of the Building Code to justify the
issuance of a building permit for the proposed project. However, the Appellant has
argued that the project should be allowed to proceed as currently proposed due to the
economic benefits to the community resulting from successful expansion of Combat
Fitness as a small business and the public safety benefits provided by Combat Fitness
through self defense training for law enforcement officers and other members of the
community. The Appellant contends that the additional restroom facilities required by the
Building Code are not necessary for combat fitness and its customer and that the
financial cost of installing the number of restroom facilities required by the Building
Code would prevent the project from proceeding.
In its current condition, the building space in question contains two unisex restrooms,
each with one water closet and a sink. The Appellant has requested that the County
Building Official issue a building permit for the project without any change to the
existing restroom facilities. The issuance of a building permit under such conditions
would not comply with Building Code requirements, and therefore this request has been
denied. The Appellant has offered no alternate interpretation of the Building Code to
justify the issuance of a building permit for the proposed project.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
The proposed project, if constructed according to the plans submitted by the Appellant,
The proposed project, if constructed according to the plans submitted by the Appellant,
would not comply with the County Building Code.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
Not applicable.
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
CLOSED the hearing; GRANTED the appeal excluding any reimbursement of
attorney costs and fees for appellant.
ATTACHMENTS
2007 Plumbing Code Table 4-1
Appeal Letter