TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
Bruce Moe, City Manager
FROM:
Talyn Mirzakhanian, Community Development Director
Ryan Heise, Building Official
Kevin Bass, Fire Marshal
SUBJECT:Title
Consideration of Options Related to the City’s Utilization of the Board of Building Appeals (Community Development Director Mirzakhanian).
(Estimated Time: 15 Mins.)
DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION
Body
_________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council discuss the item and provide direction.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no fiscal implications associated with the recommended action.
BACKGROUND:
At the May 2, 2023, City Council meeting, during the Future Agenda Items portion of the agenda, City Council directed staff to consider a broader role for the City’s Board of Building Appeals and to return with a report to City Council. Subsequent to receiving the direction, staff conducted research to understand how other municipalities may utilize the Board of Building Appeals, above and beyond what is required by the California Building and Fire Codes.
DISCUSSION:
Pursuant to Section [A] 113.1 of the Manhattan Beach Building Code (MBBC), the language for which is taken directly from the California Building Code (CBC) with no local amendments, the Board of Appeals is created in order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the Building Official relative to the application and interpretation of the Building Code. As specified in the MBBC, the limitation on the Board’s authority is to interpret the MBBC; they have no authority to waive a code requirement.
Similarly, and pursuant to Section [A] 111.1 of the Manhattan Beach Fire Code (MBFC), the language for which is taken directly from the California Fire Code (CFC) with no local amendments, the Board of Appeals is created in order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the Fire Code Official relative to the application and interpretation of the Fire Code. As specified in the MBFC, the limitation on the Board’s authority is to interpret the MBFC; they have no authority to waive a Code requirement.
What distinguishes the Board of Appeals from many of the other City’s commissions is that the members, per the MBBC and MBFC, shall be “qualified by training and experience” to make decisions on matters related to building code and fire code. This is why our Board of Appeals is made up of engineers, architects, contractors, and attorneys with construction related experience.
In the past few years, the City’s Board of Appeals has not met to consider any appeals filed by the public, as no appeals have been filed. This is largely due to the willingness of the Building Official and Fire Marshall to engage and consult with applicants on any questions or concerns they may have arising from an interpretation of an applicable Code by the City official(s) and to explain the intent and purpose of the code requirements.
To better understand how other municipalities are utilizing their respective Boards of Appeals, and to potentially learn of creative roles for the Board, Building and Safety staff reached out to 18 municipalities, including but not limited to Torrance, Redondo Beach, Santa Monica, Rancho Palos Verdes, Newport Beach, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Laguna Beach, El Segundo, Hermosa Beach, Burbank, Glendale, and Irvine.
Staff found that 11 of those 18 municipalities utilized the Board of Appeals (or their equivalent thereof) solely for consideration of appeals filed by the public, similar to City of Manhattan Beach, except that City of Burbank also utilizes the Board to consider and make a recommendation to the City Council on adoption of local amendments to the Building and Fire Codes.
The other seven municipalities contacted have not established a Board of Appeals, rather they have designated the City Council, the Planning Commission, or a Hearing Officer to serve in lieu of the Board of Appeals in considering appeals of interpretations made by the building or fire officials. This is done in accordance with Section 1.8.8.1 of the CBC, which states that “Where no such appeals board or agencies have been established, the governing body of the city, county, or city and county shall serve as the local appeals board…” Accordingly, cities without a formal Board of Appeals must designate (e.g., the Planning Commission) or create another board to hear these appeals, or the City Council must hear the appeals. Included in this category are Beverly Hills, El Segundo, Laguna Beach, Rancho Palos Verdes, Anaheim, San Fernando, and Torrance. Beyond the City of Burbank example noted above, none of the other municipalities that were contacted are utilizing the Board for matters unrelated to hearing an appeal of an interpretation made by the Building or Fire Officials.
Community Development Department staff liaise two other Commissions, the Planning Commission and the Parking and Public Improvements Commission, responsible for making recommendations and decisions on matters within their respective realms of expertise. Most of the work conducted within the Department falls within the jurisdiction of one of these two Commissions. Additionally, the duties assigned to the Planning Commission cannot be diverted to another Board, as California Planning and Zoning law requires land use matters to be heard and acted upon specifically by the Planning Commission. It is also important to note that the Building and Safety division has faced severe recruitment challenges in the last several years, leaving the division with two vacant positions over a long period of time. The Building Official and the Senior Plan Check Engineer are shepherding the review of all building permits, managing four consultants, serving the public counter, and managing building inspectors. Accordingly, the division does not currently have the capacity to conduct regular meetings of the Board, beyond those that are required by the MBBC and MBFC.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the following options and provide direction:
1. Dissolve the Board of Appeals and designate the Planning Commission or City Council to serve the necessary function.
2. Continue to utilize the Board of Building Appeals on an as-needed basis.
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
After analysis, staff determined that public outreach was not required for this issue.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The City has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that this discussion is not a project under CEQA, pursuant to Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines, as the discussion has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney has reviewed this report and determined that no additional legal analysis is necessary.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Applicable Building and Fire Code Sections
2. PowerPoint presentation