Honorable Councilmembers,
Your agenda item calls for renewal and updates of city modifications to the state building code. I suggest that not every suggestion is in the overall best interest of residents.
1. Adding low decks and platforms to required building reviews only adds more hurdles to a long and burdensome list of city requirements to homeowners and others. Permits should cover major life safety, not the perceived improvement of "materials and methods" traditionally left to contractors. We have to draw the line somewhere, and we already have very extensive review requirements.
If staff fells strongly about the CBC 30”, perhaps a compromise could be reached, but the CBC is very responsibly written.
2. I have previously noted that outlawing gas service is an overreach of regulation. I recognize the beneficial intent, but remind you that our electrical grid is not now fully non-carbon, and is losing much of that non-carbon capacity in the next three years; we will be increasingly relying on gas and on imported energy for the immediate future.
Besides that, we no more have the right in leadership to outlaw a fuel that many depend on for cooking and cost (and can be depended on when electricity fails, as it does every year) than we have to outlaw horses and motorcycles. Put another way, we need to be able to disagree about best choices without “parenting” our residents.
3. The fire district would like a “fire room” added to the long list of Fire Code requirements, chapter 5. Note that fire is thoroughly covered in the California Building Code, and that the parallel fire code is an industry oriented publication that duplicates and exceeds CBCs well covered safety prescriptions. Another burden on commercial buildings is not well justified, in my professional opinion
4. The districts address numerals requirements were overstated years ago. Please look at 622 Santa Cruz, and in back at 622A Santa Cruz. I agree that there should be address numbers on buildings - many old buildings simply have none - but the size requirement is just out of proportion - double the reasonable need. And over-labeling new buildings doesnt make up for unlabeled old buildings!
There are some existing regulations that in fact could be removed or reduced. Perhaps that could be the subject of a future code review.
Respectfully,
Henry Riggs
