• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Cities Getting Around Codes

conarb

conarb

Registered User
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
3,505
Location
California East Bay Area
As we all know the costs of code and regulation compliance has sent the costs of construction through the roof, Oakland has come up with a workaround to house the homeless by building tiny buildings at 120 square feet so codes don't apply:

East Bay Times said:
The Northgate “Tuff Sheds,” which are each approximately 120 square feet, have more windows and are more rectangular to better arrange a place for two people, said Assistant City Administrator Joe DeVries, who is in charge of homeless outreach.

The encampment will have a community space, on-site social workers, a dog run, shipping containers for storage and possibly showers.¹
Click to expand...

That's Oakland full of minorities and druggies, but even Silicon Valley has $120,000 a year Google coders sleeping on the streets, Mayor Sam Liccardo said, “we need to take a hard look at reducing our fees and reducing our red tape.”

East Bay Times said:
Luxury apartment rents in San Jose now range from $3.25 to $3.75 a square foot, Hudacek estimated during his presentation to the council. However, he added, to justify new luxury apartment development based on current construction costs, rents would have to rise to $4.25 to $4.75 a square foot. That means renters would be forced to endure an eye-popping 25 percent increase in rents before most new residential towers could be built.

The mayor indicated that he might seek City Council approval to slash the fees that San Jose charges developers for their projects.

“I don’t know that City Hall can do that much to change market forces, but at the very least,” Liccardo said, “we need to take a hard look at reducing our fees and reducing our red tape.”

Sharply rising costs for construction and labor have added a fresh complication in the market, developers and experts told the City Council study session.

“Construction costs have increased dramatically, especially in the last 18 months,” Don Peterson, senior managing director Northern California for Mill Creek Residential Trust, said during a presentation to the council.

Developers and industry experts say commercial construction costs are rising primarily due to more expensive materials such as lumber and rising labor costs.

According to Hudacek, construction costs are rising about 1 percent to 1.5 percent each month — which is far above the general rate of inflation, as measured by the consumer price index. Construction expenditures represent 60 percent to 75 percent of the total cost of developing a high-density residential project, Hudacek estimated.²
Click to expand...



¹ https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/0...ff-shed-program-to-large-homeless-encampment/

² https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/04/27/construction-costs-could-hamper-bay-area-residential-towers/
 
Hmm, 10 x 12 with a loft just might work in a "pinch".
Use a European bathroom with a floor drain and an overhead shower and you might have enough room for a Dwyr kitchenette, workspace and a sofa. You could even add an extendable patio cover for more useable space without a permit. Wonder if an extendable popout, similar to some RVs would be allowed? Maybe a 10 x 12 footprint with 1 - 3 popouts and a loft, am I on to something?
Consider that people have been using travel trailers that size for years.
 
Sounds good to me

Back to the old day of one room house,,

Little house on the Golden Gate Bridge
 
Congratulations guys, you have added code after code, regulation after regulation, now nobody can afford to buy or rent a property, if you think those 120 square foot houses are too small and you have a spare $1.5 million you could buy a 660 square foot house, of course used houses don't comply with codes like fire sprinklers, seismic protection, or green and energy efficiency.
 
Each Tuff shed comes with a free plant to make em feel right at home
images
 
Of course with Oakland's sheds they are city owned so there are no permits, fees, or red tape, I have to wonder what Mayor Sam Liccardo in San Jose meant when he said, “we need to take a hard look at reducing our fees and reducing our red tape.”? Since San Jose is in the "communitarian" urban core they want high-rise buildings, could he mean getting rid of ADA?
 
Sounds all well and dandy until the first lose of life. From that point the cities will demand retroactive inspections or dream up some other nonsensical BS as they see fit for the moment at hand.
 
Even if permits are not required, it still has to meet code.....

R105.2 Work exempt from permit. Permits shall not be
required for the following. Exemption from permit requirements
of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization
for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions
of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this
jurisdiction.
 
conarb said:
Congratulations guys, you have added code after code, regulation after regulation, now nobody can afford to buy or rent a property, if you think those 120 square foot houses are too small and you have a spare $1.5 million you could buy a 660 square foot house, of course used houses don't comply with codes like fire sprinklers, seismic protection, or green and energy efficiency.
Click to expand...

Yes, the cities being a desirable place to live has no impact on development costs. Just like people pay a price for art based on the cost to create it.
 
Rick18071 said:
I wonder why they don't just use RV's. Cheap and no code requirements.
Click to expand...

A 10x12 portable shed from HD is ~$3,000 - a used, ragged out RV from Craigslist is going to cost that much. And then you have waste tanks and hoses, water tanks and hoses, tires, leveling jacks, ramps to get in to them, etc etc.

I think both ideas are dumb.
 
ADAguy said:
Then again, "you" are not homeless (be thankful and considerate)
Click to expand...

Um??

I didn't say anything about the homeless, one way or the other. I only asserted that permitting storage sheds and/or RV's as permanent dwelling units was dumb. And I maintain that both solutions are, indeed, dumb.

There are numerous ways to resolve the problem. Putting a guy, or worse yet, a family, in a tool shed should not even be within the realm of consideration.
 
Might have to put a strap over the top of the roof to tie em down like a water heater in a seismic zone.

Simpson makes some strappin!

Will these tuff sheds be required to have an address?
The mayor will want to send some election material out, come election time!
 
Well what are cities going to do? I've been here, starting with our old bulletin board, for 18 years now, starting back when codes were minimum standards to protect the health and safety of the populace, all along all of you have been advocating for more and more regulations, then the UBC became the ICC and codes went off in all kinds of directions, many of which have nothing to do with health and safety, but became regulations implementing the political positions of a variety of special interests, from commercial, to environmental, to civil rights, and even to social justice, now codes and other goverment regulations, implemented through the doors of the building departments, have driven costs so high that only the wealthy can afford to live in a code compliant building.
 
Accessory dwelling means there are primary dwelling, not storage shed. We allow tiny homes that meeting the code minimum requirements for size, insul., elec., sanitation, etc. Basically you can't buy a storage with out making it complaint, which actually easier to build from scratch than retrofit a shed.
 
mark handler said:
California's "memo"
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwjSqL-y_OvaAhWQ2FMKHX_kCmkQFjABegQICRAB&url=http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/docs/2016-12-12-ADU-TA-Memo.docx.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0MYi1eKZsT-YgpY1Api1pR

Units can be as small as 150 sq. ft.
Click to expand...
As far as I can see this is not law, there are constant references to Assembly Bill 2406, it even cites the UBC: "as specified by ordinance or can have the same meaning specified in the Uniform Building Code, referenced in the Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations".

In addition there are references on pp 29 and 30 to Junior Accessable Dwelling units of up to 500 square feet, there are all kinds of proposals in the legislature to deal with these problems, this is just one and not a good one at that, let's stick to posting laws and not proposed laws (or at least identify them as such). What MH describes as a "memo" is an attempt by one of many legislators to deal with the problem.

I can tell you another thing, it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in (not nice) to be passed, the fact that it denies sanitary and water districts the chance to collect fees is a killer, the lobbyists for these political entities will spend a fortune to kill it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top