HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/25/2023 Item 3a, Hicks
Stephen Hicks <
To:Advisory Bodies
Cc:swellnitz@commercialarch.com
Subject:Comment for SLO City Construction Board of Appeals Meeting 7/25/2023
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
I would like to comment on;
A. BUILDING OFFICIAL REPORT a. Update on enforcement of municipal code sec?on 8.11 b. Alternate Method and
Materials Requests i. 481 Madonna Rd. Suite D
Building Division Response:
The applicant is seeking to allow customer access to the restrooms through the working areas of the business therefore
not having to redesign the layout, being that there is no where to sit and consume the food provided. A reasonable
request and the building division is correct in allowing this Alternate Method because the applicant clearly states a path
of travel will be provided from the front of the store to the restrooms so that those patrons doing business with the
store, wai?ng in line to order or pickup their cookies, and needing to use the restroom can be told that it is in the back
for those mothers with kids doing the po?y dance or for elderly patrons doing the po?y dance.
1
Don’t you find it most aggrava?ng when you need to use the facili?es that have been provided by law for your use, that
you cannot use them because,” they are for employee use only.” Yes, they are back there, you might be able to see
them, but you cannot use them.
The building department is making an error in its statement, “Crumble Cookie operates as a store front only, and as a
result, do not need to offer customers access to the bathroom”. The California Retail Food Code does not overrule the
California Plumbing Code requirements for providing a restrooms for patrons. It is just being used in this case to allow a
less restric?ve loca?on of the restroom and NOT to negate the specific plumbing code requirement and decent common
sense to provide a restroom for your patrons.
Building officials are taught that “the most restric?ve requirement of the code shall apply when there is conflic?ng
language.” The building official is correct in interpre?ng the these codes and allowing the loca?on of the restroom not to
be moved. But he/she sets a wrong precedent when they declare “access to restroom is not required for customers”.
This is not the intent of the plumbing code. Please do not use a less restric?ve Health Code to negate a mandatory
Plumbing Code requirement. Restroom SHALL be required for patrons. It is the loca?on in ques?on here, not the
requirement.
There are many business establishment that operate storefront only establishments but their restrooms are accessible
to their customers. They may be in the back or around the back of the building. They may restrict access to restrooms as
many do with codes/keys to the door locks provided by the staff. There are too many examples out there in the built
environment to write down in this discussion.
I respec?ully ask that you change the language in the Building Division response to read: The loca?on of the restroom is
approved.
If I am wai?ng in line to buy one of their cookies and I need to use a restroom, I would hope you would let me. I don’t
mind that it is in the back. I just need to use it.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Hicks, AIA
Re?red Building Official
805-440-8820
10 La Entrada Ave
SLO, CA, 93405
2