HomeMy WebLinkAbout1a_Additional Materials ReceivedSeptember 10, 2024, Agenda Comments
The following comments regarding items on the Newport Beach Building and Fire Board of Appeals
agenda are submitted by:
Jim Mosher (jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229)
Item 1. SELECTION OF BOARD VICE CHAIR
Why is only the Vice Chair proposed to be selected?
The Bylaws of the Building and Fire Board of Appeals (authorized by City Charter Section 704
and NBMC Sec. 15.80.010) call for the Chairman and Vice Chairman to be elected at the first
meeting of the calendar year. It also looks like the members can select the Building Official or
the Fire Marshal to serve as Board Secretary.
Item 2. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 19, 2022 MINUTES
The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections
shown in strikeout underline format..
Page 1, just before “V) New Business”: The notation that “Board Member Waltz joined the
meeting” is confusingly placed, since he is indicated as participating in the vote that precedes
the notation. It would be better to delete this and instead parenthetically note the time of his
arrival after his name in the “Roll Call” section.
Page 1, final paragraph, sentence 2: “For the Administrative Code, there are several carry
over items including the 50 percent or great greater evaluation for replacement costs,
masonry and concrete fence requirement and a three-year time limitation for one and two
family construction.”
Page 1, final paragraph, sentence 3: “He provided an example of how staff calculates the 50
percent or greater elevation evaluation and what Life Safety means.”
Page 1, final paragraph, sentence 4: “For the Building Code Section, staff proposed minimal
amendments to the State adopted Fire Code.” [??? This doesn’t make sense unless the Fire
Code is contained within the “Building Code Section.”]
Page 2, paragraph 1, full sentence 2: “For the mechanical Mechanical and Plumbing Code,
there are carry over carryover items from the previous Code.”
Page 2, paragraph 2, sentence 4: “Anyone who is doing improvements that exceeded
exceed the 50 percent evaluation, even though they are not changing the square footage,
are is required to comply to Code.”
Page 2, paragraph 4, last sentence: “Those proposals are that all existing structure with
vents be updated to have 1/8th-inch mesh screens, that homeowners create a
noncombustible zone at the base of their homes and trim existing trees away from
structures.”
Building & Fire Board of Appeals - September 10, 2024 Item No. 3C - Additional Materials Received
1113 Kings Road Appeal (X2019-3305)
Sept. 10, 2024, Building and Fire Board of Appeals comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2
Page 2, paragraph 5, sentence 2: “The rooves roofs are slick and the fire department will
use horizonal horizontal venting as opposed to vertical venting.”
Page 2, paragraph 5, last sentence: “Homeowners will receive a Safer from Fire Wilds
Wildfires Program pamphlet that outlines the changes and if done, insurance companies will
provide a discount.” [?]
Page 2, paragraph 6, sentence 1: “Board Member Chair Nour was not supportive of
1/8th-inch mesh screens because they became become blocked and clogged easily.”
Item 3. Building and Fire Board of Appeals (X2019-3305) - Site
Location: 1113 Kings Road
I have read the materials and support the Building Official’s decision.
In addition to noting the general requirement for permits in California Building Code Section
105.1, it would have seemed helpful to indicate if there are any additional regulations pertaining
to fences in the CBC. It would also have been helpful to note that CBC Section 105.2 exempts
fences “not over 7 feet (2134 mm) high,” but does not authorize any construction that would be
in violation of “any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction.” In this case, according to the
Building Official’s May 1, 2024, letter to the appellant’s attorney, whether it is in violation of other
laws or not, the construction constitutes a fence in an interior side yard whose top, as measured
by local standards, is 9 feet high, and thus not exempted.
It might also be noted that the letter (and the staff report) seem to misquote the definition of
“fence” in NBMC Section 20.70.20.F. The definition I see says ““Fence” means a structure,
solid or otherwise,that is a barrier and used as a boundary or means of protection,
confinement, or concealment,” not a “solid structure that is a barrier …” I do not know why the
letter says the latter, but it does not affect the analysis, since the structure that has been erected
without a permit is a fence by either definition.
I also agree with the Building Official’s finding that both the wood topper and appellant’s
proposed alternative solid metal topper would be inconsistent with the existing permit and its
description of a “required rail.” Nothing in the code appears to require a solid extension on top of
a retaining wall.
Building & Fire Board of Appeals - September 10, 2024 Item No. 3C - Additional Materials Received
(1113 Kings Road Appeal (X2019-3305)