Laws require enforcement

[conarb]

JarI meant it as a compliment to you and as a response to conarbs statement about is it neccessary to have different inspectors. Yes, because knowledge, training and pride in your work produces good results. Those you are just there to "inspect" and collect the paycheck are a detriment to the profession whether private or government employed.

Guys:

Even the IRC references the IBC for Chapter 17 Special Inspections, I do all AHJs a favor by getting Structural Observations telling them that I am taking them off the hook for liability. Bottom line that's all they want, collect the fees and be exposed to no liability.

 

[mark handler]

... that's all they want....

You know what "they all want".....

 

[ADAguy]

Conarb, after attending a LACSI training and product show last night, if you think Simpson products added to the cost, check out the impacts of the CALGreen code on building envelopes: (CMAS calcs, increased insulation requirements) .

They are requiring an additional level of obervation/verification as to "operational" completeness of mechanical systems by ATT's (a new certification, not commissioning);

also limitations on electrical lighting types used and switching required, and daylighting requirements are significantly increased.

By 2020 "all" new housing will have to be self-sufficient as to energy (does this imply "off the grid?).

SF Remodels and alterations costs can be expected to increase too. Window changeout companies will have to significantly alter their product offerings as will roofing contractors (cool roofs).

 

[mtlogcabin]

Guys:Even the IRC references the IBC for Chapter 17 Special Inspections, I do all AHJs a favor by getting Structural Observations telling them that I am taking them off the hook for liability. Bottom line that's all they want, collect the fees and be exposed to no liability.

Even in my small jurisdiction we have found "special inspectors" who did not know what they where looking at. I am not concerned about "liability" I am concerned about having a safe and structurally sound building when it is final-ed. I am not as old school as you but I believe life-safety and structurally safe take precedent over all the other regulations and if I have to make a decision to not enforce an energy, green, accessibility or any other non-life safety code to achieve a safe building I will

 

[steveray]

He is already aware of Calgreen.....and not a fan.....Made very clear on numerous posts...

 

[Frank]

Frank:That is what is required here, the new home required $30,000 worth of Simpson metal and still had $30,000 worth or red iron moment frames, I'd speculate that the $30,000 worth of Simpson cost double that (at our rates) to install, that's why I went to all steel structures, that also gave me walls of glass since there was no need to diaphragm, and eliminate sealing up walls causing dryrot. Nobody wanted all that structure other than the AHJ, the structural engineers had to design to the cities' approvals, and as it is the city inspectors keep challenging the structural engineers. In my case I had the house designed with a German engineering program, the plan checker didn't have that program and made me bring my engineer down and animate the forces on his laptop, she made him apply seismic loads from 4 directions when he had only done two, she then made him apply wind loads from 4 directions when he had only done 2, then she made him animate seismic and wind loads concurrently from all four directions requiring 16 modelings. Very interesting to watch the animated loads to failure. BTW, all designs here are to FEMA standards, during arguments between the County SE and my SE he was constantly opening up his FEMA book to justify his designs.

We had a case here in Atherton, the house was supposed to cost $6 million and with all the city's requirements it cost $13 million, the owner sued the architect, several engineers, the contractor, and the city, the basis of the action against the city is that the city inspector drove the cost sky high and he didn't even have a college degree, he had enrolled in a junior college but there was no evidence of his ever graduating. I don't know how it turned out which means it settled with everybody kicking in some money, so the $7 million in over costs were probably split between all defendants.

Conarb

Generally our plan reviewers, most degreed engineers or similar including a couple PEs in the office, only require detailed calculations from an engineer when we see something that is likely not to work--often due to a missing input(s). There is no way we would require an engineer to come in and animate the forces on the structure--we would question specific elements or details that looked suspect.

Atherton, CA was a small town in over its head with inadequate supervision of untrained personel--per the grand jury report. In part the city relied on the soils and other reports submitted by design professionals. Also the department is too small and does not have enough volumn of permits to support a critical mass of competent people in the Buildnig Department. Alot of the extra expense was to completely redo the foundations on deep unsuitable soils.

I was looking at the complex architectural design as opposed to 4 walls and a pitched roof with straight rafters or simple trusses. Multimillion dollar house vs $150,000 homes-- hence the Ferrari vs go cart analogy.

For highly complex structures like you build in seismic areas, steel is a good chouice of material. My criticism was from the green perspective that she was missaplying with the comment about how many trees killed. In the green world, properly certified sustainable wood is better than steel in that it is renewable and uses less energy to produce.

 

[mark handler]

A normal day for my inspectors is about 20 inspections/each per inspector.

One problem with most contractors is they think the inspectors know all the issues with each buildings "critical building components".

Special inspector’s reports are a double check on those "critical building components".

Building departments do not know the plans as well as the design professional that prepared them.

Who better than the design professional to observe deficiencies?

 

[conarb]

ADAGuy:

As a contractor I'm well aware of these increased green costs, for a quality home here it's costing $1,000 a square foot and up, even the cheap affordable housing stuff is over $500 a foot in costs. There are so many toxics in building materials today that 62.2 IAQ is tripling, this is going to be counterproductive as we are sealing up and then pumping in air, my carpenters built two spec homes in the industrial city of South San Francisco, after the architect went through 7 years of permitting they built the 2,500 square foot homes and sold them for $1.25 million, that's $500 a foot, they lost money, they tried to include their land costs in construction costs and they didn't charge for their labor, so they worked for free and lost money at $500 a foot, these are efficient good carpenters who are Mexican American. In the end they had to get blower door tests to prove 62.2 compliance before the tripling, the blower door guy had them cut 2'x2' holes in the laundry rooms to pass, then they sealed them back up. Now blower door tests are going to be required before completion to make sure they are sealed up. This is crazy.

I'm well aware of the window requirements, for 14 years I've been installing U-0.18 triple pane windows, that's about R-5.6, the DOE wants the R-5 window now so all windows are going to have to be triple pane, the DOE is going for the R-10 window and nobody knows how they are going to achieve that (Cardinal has a coating that they claim will deliver R-5 in a dual pane, but that's a COG rating and the DOE wants full frame NFRC ratings, not even close). My Title 24 consultant has long told me that anything below R-5 (U-0.20) is a waste of money, replacement windows have always been a fraud, in most cases they do more harm than good. BTW, Cardinal will no longer deliver to me in California because of our tax and liability decisions, they will deliver to their fabricators, I have ongoing seal failures and since I warrant my products for life I'm having problems replacing failed units. An attorney friend told me he had a 20 year home and was paying about $3,000 to $4,000 a year in IG unit replacements, he asked if he was saving any money over just single pane windows when you factor in IG unit replacement? I told him of course not, you are not saving money you are saving the planet, it is costing a lot of money to save the planet. Why do we keep doing this, the planet has been cooling for 16 years, the fraud is over.

The cool roof thing can be confusing, Steven Chu (Obama's former Secretary of Energy and Nobel laureate in physics) has long campaigned for every roof in America to be painted white to reflect sunlight back into space to save the planet, the problem with that is in colder climates (like the city of San Francisco) you want dark roofs to absorb the heat, not reflect it. Cool roofs now code-wise have come to mean radiant barriers on the bottom of roof sheathing to reflect heat back into the home. This too is crazy, differing climates require differing approaches. This reminds me of the time the State License Board sent me to a home in San Francisco, the lady had changed her windows from the original good quality aluminum casements (that sealed well) to cheap dual pane vinyl, she was sitting in her living room covered with a blanket shivering, I asked her why she did this, she said: "I just wanted to be toasty warm." My heart went out to her so I called a guy who had just written the AAMA Manual and told him the wind was blowing right through these cheap windows, his response was: "Of course she is colder she lives in San Francisco, that is a cold city and she's blocked out her solar heat gain." I asked: "Shouldn't people in San Francisco be told that?" He said: "Of course not, we can't go dividing this state into micro-climates, on average if everyone in the state installs dual pane windows we will save 2% in our average energy consumption." So people in cold and hot climates suffer, but on average the statewide energy consumption lowers by 2%, welcome to communitarian socialism, or fascism.

 

[conarb]

Guys:

Don't get me wrong, inspectors have always been my best friends on jobsites, the City of San Leandro CBO asked me to bid on and get the remodel of their building department in the late 60s, the one inspector in Piedmont asked me to apply for and get on the Design Review Commission. If anything it's some people inside the building departments who have their own agenda, like the killing trees comment. I do see engineers under attack more than builders today. When I'm going through the process I can see the politics and find several on my side but there are always a few against any new homes, there is a huge environmental movement to kill all new homes and put everyone in mixed use developments, just look at Steve Jobs, 30 years trying to get a permit to tear an old home down and build a new modern steel and glass home, as soon as he'd get one approval another environmental group would sue and get an injunction blocking him. In the end he got a demolition permit one night, he had trucks and tractors lined up ready and actually got the old home torn down but died prior to building the new home.

I recently had a case with a head plan checker who was a great guy nearing retirement, he told me I had to get through before his retirement or I'd never make it, a few there didn't want to see me make it and he was constantly coming out ordering them to put more stamps all over my plans, in the end when I pulled the permit I think they all thought both he and I were old and they'd be done with us and then get on with their agenda. He sent me to an older gal for my Environmental approval, she noted that a deck was near a leach line, I suggested that when I dug my foundation that I continue to dig until I exposed it and call her, she said fine and signed me off with the condition I would call for an inspection. When I did call I got another young gal, she demanded another $640 up front, came out and proceeded to write up several pages of additional requirements that could cost me somewhere between $40,000 and $90,000 more. I called the original gal back and she said: "Oh no, you didn't get her, she's a Greenie from Sonoma State, I'll tear up her stuff and come out myself", she agreed to what we had originally agreed upon and all that cost me was $640.

BTW, there are so many people getting sick and suing in these Green homes that the word green has gotten a bad name, I see builders changing from green construction to "sustainable construction", I retain an industrial hygienist on every job to do repeated chemical testing, this last home was a challenge, not only the usual no caulking, no treated lumber, no plastics of any kind, but this guy wanted no paint. I had everything figured out but finishing the doors, cabinets, and walnut floors was making me lay awake nights, finally I talked to a friend who builds cabinets in yachts, he recommended a German product called Osmo Polyx oil, it is pushed down into the wood by the painter and wiped off, it is expensive to buy and apply but looks great and everyone including the owner is happy. California has eliminated much of the formaldehyde in it's products and the units of plywood, OSB etc. have been shipped to you guys in other states, but now we are getting mold growing in the formaldehyde-free products, the plywood is fine we can sand it off, but the OSB is a disaster, it doesn't even have to get wet, it can pick up mold spores in the air.

 

[Frank]

In that the green code has not been adopted in most areas, the greens are pushing to get many of the provisions duplicated in the base building, plumbing, mechanical and energy codes.

 

[mark handler]

In that the green code has not been adopted in most areas, the greens are pushing to get many of the provisions duplicated in the base building, plumbing, mechanical and energy codes.

Required in California. Mandated statewide. Not an option.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

Bleach wash from a Hudson sprayer after installation has cured the mold prob for me.

Your mileage may vary.

Brent

 

[conarb]

The night after the Court hearing I published court watchers' opinions from the right, left, and center, yesterday I read a much more comprehensive opinion piece from Dana Millbank, Millbank started out far left, and is now I'd say center left:

It has the makings of a royal mess for "King Barack."Monday's Supreme Court hearing about the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gases went badly for the Obama administration -- so much so that the real question before the justices seemed to be how severe the EPA's loss would be.

The administration's solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, pleaded with the justices to recognize the "urgent problem" of climate change.

But as the argument played out, the court's swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, made clear he agreed with the conservatives that the administration had gone too far in its carbon-dioxide regulations. Even some liberal justices voiced skepticism about the Justice Department's position.

"I know litigants hate this question," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Verrilli. She asked which of two rationales he would prefer "if you were going to lose."

"I knew you were going to ask me that question," the solicitor general replied.

The eventual ruling may not be too awful for CO2 regulation in a practical sense. The justices didn't seem inclined to overturn a 2007 decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, granting the agency the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Both sides agreed they were really arguing over whether 83 percent or 86 percent of emissions could be regulated.

Yet the politics are more significant. If the court declares some of the agency's actions unconstitutional, it would inevitably renew the howls from the right about imperial presidency, dictatorship and monarchy. And it would highlight the inherent flaw in President Obama's "pen and phone" strategy of unilateral action by the executive.

Peter Kreisler, the industry lawyer arguing against the regulations, said the administration had essentially tried to "design its own climate-change program."

Justices Samuel Alito and, particularly, Antonin Scalia seemed to believe the whole business of regulating carbon dioxide was out of bounds and perhaps unnecessary. "Where have the sea levels risen other than Massachusetts?" demanded Scalia, an apparent reference to the 2007 case in which he dissented.

But Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts weren't in the mood to revisit the 2007 precedent. Roberts observed that Kreisler suggested "putting Massachusetts v. EPA to one side ... I was in the dissent in that case, but we still can't do that."

If the conservative bloc wasn't going to succeed in freeing industry from carbon regulation, it was even more clear that at least part of the EPA's regulations were in trouble. "Reading your brief," Kennedy told the administration's lawyer, "I couldn't find a single precedent that strongly supports your position."

"I think Morton v. Ruiz comes the closest," Verrilli replied.

"But that's not cited in your brief, is it?" Roberts asked.

Verrilli conceded the point.

The liberal justices were not eager to help him out of his jam.

Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, said the EPA's solution "seems to give it complete discretion to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants" -- which she found "problematic."

And Stephen Breyer reminded Verrilli: "Even if you lose, they still can regulate 83 percent. ... Why do you need this, too?"

The argument had been scheduled for 90 minutes and Roberts gave both sides an extra five -- but the justices exhausted their questions with time still on the clock. Along the way, they got to debut some hypotheticals.

The prolific Breyer asked whether he would need a carbon permit when "all of my relatives are together."

The solicitor general assured him that "human beings are actually net neutral on carbon emissions."

Breyer was delighted. "I'm not a net emitter of carbon dioxide," he declared. "That means I'm a part of sustainable development."¹

The highlighting is mine, but note the most liberal justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, said the EPA's solution "seems to give it complete discretion to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants" -- which she found "problematic."

The relevance here is Kagen's statement that giving a government regulatory agency complete discretion to do whatever it wants whenever it wants is highly "problematic". If wording like that ends up in the decision a case could be brought, using this case as precedent, challenging the DOJ's regulatory "interpretation" of the ADA.

I'm glad Justice Breyer made his tongue-in-cheek comments about taxing people for breathing, taxing breathing would be one Hell of a lot fairer than taxing a person's income from working, it would spread taxation equally across the entire spectrum of humanity instead of using taxation as a form of wealth redistribution, it would also tax everyone here equally and we wouldn't be having these disagreements. Karl Marx has to be turning over in his grave.

¹ http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_25232895/dana-milbank-justices-skeptical-carbon-rules

 

[mark handler]

So, instead we have Congress right ALL regulations, we all know how well congress works..... Building code and standards written by congress...

Ya.

 

[conarb]

So, instead we have Congress right ALL regulations, we all know how well congress works..... Building code and standards written by congress...Ya.

Mark:

The current situation of having unelected bureaucrats write our regulations is "unsustainable" (using a favorite word of the left). Nobody sees this more than us, we all saw the coalition of the fire sprinkler industry push through the sprinkler mandate using illegal tactics, bribes that went unpunished, remember on the old bulletin board several received FOIA subpoena but nobody was punished (or at least has not admitted to being punished). Having government building department employees enacting codes that become laws is as bad as low-level Justice Department employees writing absurd regulations that have the full force of laws.

 

[mark handler]

"...building department employees enacting codes.... "

No longer legal in CA

 

[fatboy]

I've had stayed out of this till now, but in my opinion CA, you have it totally reversed, at least when it comes to the building codes. The folks that have the boots on the street are the ones that know best what needs to be done, or undone, not some fatcat politician in DC who wouldn't know jack. No thanks...........

 

[conarb]

I've had stayed out of this till now, but in my opinion CA, you have it totally reversed, at least when it comes to the building codes. The folks that have the boots on the street are the ones that know best what needs to be done, or undone, not some fatcat politician in DC who wouldn't know jack. No thanks...........

Fatboy:

I hate to see government employees enacting law, I think codes should be written by a combination of architects and engineers, all professionals, notice that I leave builders out since they will always vote the cheapest way, and by the way builders, are not professionals (unless they are also architects, engineers, or lawyers).

 

[fatboy]

Architects and Engineers do not necessarily (and most likely) do not know or understand codes. They know how to structuraly design and build a building, but all to often, thats as far as it goes. If it were different, why would I need to continue buying red pens for my plan reviewers?

And please, the obvious acception to this statement are the dedicated RDP's that frequent this forum, they go above and beyond, so no offense intended to you all.

 

[conarb]

Fatboy:

What is your proposal to the problem of industry and environmental groups "buying" codes that mandate or allow their products or agenda?

 

[mtlogcabin]

There is a mentality across the country that we can regulate ourselves into a utopian society where no one will never experience harm. We mandate sprinklers every where, locking caps on freon lines, minimum window sill heights, door alarms that access a pool from a residence, and a number of other items.

Code officials are voting based on emotions in lieu of "does this really need to be regulated". We are becoming reactionary to statistics in lieu of accepting reality that people/children will drown, huffers will huff, unattended children will climb out windows and fall, and people will always be dying in fires.

conarb

I could not deal with the attitude that you describe in your dealing with government.

 

[fatboy]

Industry has no vote in the approval process. As to wheter they "buy" it? If you figure out the solution to buying the votes then maybe you can clean up federal government. It's not a perfect process, but I am more comfortable with the folks actually out in the field, looking at plans, analyzing codes, be the ones that propose, discuss and further the codes. Whether that includes "professionals" or not, the enforcers of the codes need to have a say in them.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

So, instead we have Congress right ALL regulations, we all know how well congress works..... Building code and standards written by congress...Ya.

Or we could just stop.

What's wrong with where we are right now?

I understand needing to address new technologies, but constant interference is a burden on everybody.

When we start building carbon fiber structures we may to set some codes. For now, for damn near everything, we really could just stop. It is not furthering our civilization.

Brent

 

[nitramnaed]

Architects and Engineers do not necessarily (and most likely) do not know or understand codes. They know how to structuraly design and build a building, but all to often, thats as far as it goes. If it were different, why would I need to continue buying red pens for my plan reviewers? And please, the obvious acception to this statement are the dedicated RDP's that frequent this forum, they go above and beyond, so no offense intended to you all.

In defense of us RDP's I find in far to many instances the red pens are brought out for the way the reviewer wants it presented on paper even though the intent at code compliance is there. When I say shaft wall to meet UL design U417 I don't feel it necessary to draw sections and details of the whole system. Drives me nuts…...Just sayin'.