# More random stupid stuff



## ICE (Feb 9, 2012)

They got this far without a permit.  The proposed structure will be two levels and 729 sq. ft.   So now they have an engineered plan and permit.  First thing I noticed is that the plans depict a raised foundation and the structure is slab on grade.  This may prove to be difficult.


----------



## codeworks (Feb 9, 2012)

can't see the pic's til i get home (rasafrasafoolishrabbitblockinpictureserverblockerrasafrasase) but keep us posted. sounds like a "challenge"


----------



## brudgers (Feb 9, 2012)

The angle of repose for the new foundation is probably an issue given how close the pool appears to be.


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 9, 2012)

Does that modular fencing system meet the swimming pool requirements?


----------



## ICE (Feb 9, 2012)

The pool shell is 6' from the footing so it will not be surcharged if the footing is 24" deep as proposed.  The fence and gate isn't close to being a barrier.


----------



## north star (Feb 9, 2012)

*& & &*

At least they won't have to install decorative lighting......Their

holiday lighting is already ready to be ready!    

*& & &*


----------



## RJJ (Feb 9, 2012)

They must get alot of channels with two dishes!


----------



## righter101 (Feb 9, 2012)

I think pabco has developed a Class 3 Blue tarp, that looks like it.  Final it, next project.


----------



## ICE (Feb 25, 2012)

There used to be wood siding on the walls.  There used to be aluminum framed windows that didn't meet the current code for EERO.  The new windows made the net openings smaller because they are retro-fit windows.  Of course they will find out about all of this when they come in to get a permit.

In the long run, they will sleep better knowing that the new windows that they have yet to buy are much safer.   The new roof and furnace vent didn't go unnoticed.


----------



## ICE (Feb 26, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> I think pabco has developed a Class 3 Blue tarp, that looks like it.  Final it, next project.


Class 3 only comes in silver or white.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 26, 2012)

ICE

You should be making lots of money for the city

It is a criminal offense to violate California’s building codes

The building standards (regulations) in the California Building Standards Code in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations are authorized by various state laws that charge specific state agencies with the responsibility of developing the Title 24 provisions for adoption by the Building Standards Commission.

Many state laws establish criminal penalties for violations. Additionally, these state laws extend the criminal penalties to violations of the regulations adopted to implement the state law.

California State Housing Law (SHL) in Health and Safety Code (HSC), Division13, Part 1.5 commencing with Section 17910, charges the Department of Housing and Community Development with the task of developing the Title 24 provisions (excluding fire and panic safety) applicable to the construction of hotels, motels, lodginghouses, apartments and dwellings. Section17995 within the SHL establishes penalties for violation of the SHL and Title 24 provisions based on the SHL. HSC Section 17995 reads:

“Any person who violates any of the provisions of this part, the building standards published in the State Building Standards Code relating to the provisions of this part, or any other rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to the provisions of this part is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.” Accordingly, any violation of Title 24 shown as an HCD-1 adoption in the Matrix Adoption Tables of Title 24 is punishable as a misdemeanor.

The SHL also charges the State Fire Marshal (SFM) with the responsibility of developing the Title 24 provisions relating to fire and panic safety in hotels, motels, lodginghouses, apartments and dwellings. A violation of any Title 24 provision shown as adopted by the SFM that is implementing the SHL is punishable under HSC Section 17995 is punishable as a misdemeanor.

Another example of a criminal penalty may be found in Health and

Safety Code, Division 12, Part 2, Chapter 1, which establishes the responsibility for the State Fire Marshal to develop building standards for fire alarms, egress systems, and public address system backup in specific buildings, and for buildings located

in hazardous fire areas and or urban wildland interface areas.

Section 13112 therein establishes that any violation of the chapter or building standards adopted pursuant to the chapter is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) or more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both.

For additional study of criminal penalties for violations of Title 24, read HSC Sections 13199, 13190.4, 18700, and 19997 at www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html.

Remember that the application of penalties is generally limited to violations of that segment of law (Division, Part, Chapter, etc.) where the penalties are established. Further, the penalties are limited to the building standards adopted to implement that

segment of law. There are building standards within Title 24 that are implementing state laws that do not provide for criminal penalties.


----------



## ICE (Mar 5, 2012)

Raised floor framing inspection.  The girder has no support on the left end.  It is wrapped with the really sticky rubber flashing.


----------



## ICE (Mar 5, 2012)

They broke into the wall to install an outlet box and found this.


----------



## Big Mac (Mar 6, 2012)

You obviously need Management Blinders.  Just approve it.  It'll be fine.  Can't see it from my house.  But it's a freind of the Mayor.  etc.  etc.  etc.


----------



## jpranch (Mar 16, 2012)

I like this oneWhat da ya mean it don't meet code???
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 1252


View attachment 544


View attachment 544


/monthly_2012_03/STAIRS.jpg.0ebb7fae85bab9595b6dd32aeb424f54.jpg


----------



## chris kennedy (Mar 16, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> They broke into the wall to install an outlet box and found this.


A buried J-box??? Nobody would do that.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 19, 2012)

wow...looked like a great place to drive in a nail for my "daily bread" artwork.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Mar 20, 2012)

ICE, Do ya have to meet R319, protection from decay, FJ 18" and girder beam no closer than 12" to earth in CA?

Cross ventilation cut outs into rim, big enough?

pc1


----------



## ICE (Mar 22, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> Raised floor framing inspection.  The girder has no support on the left end.  It is wrapped with the really sticky rubber flashing.


From there it became this.  I asked to see the footing.






Then it became this.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 22, 2012)

Wow.  It's like reading a really good mystery book, just when you think the plot can't get any more convoluted, it does...can't wait to see the next "then..."


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 22, 2012)

ahhhhg I just wish you would post in a way where my security filters would let me see. Our techies wont help this poor reviewer to get a look because everyone will get upset if I can see. Reverse Discrimination I tell ya.


----------



## pwood (Mar 22, 2012)

change jobs gh!


----------



## Big Mac (Mar 22, 2012)

You may be better off not seeing.  it isn't pretty.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 22, 2012)

pwood said:
			
		

> change jobs gh!


easier said than done these days


----------

