Friday, December 9, 2016

Re: [californiadisasters] No Building Inspectors Were in Oakland Warehouse for 30 years



The fire code ALLOWS inspections in all commericial or institutional business (including state owned), it does not REQUIRE them (it could be an unfair burden on a small municipality).  The State reserves the right to inspect as well, if the municipality cannot or does not.

No permit was requested (from what Oakland is saying), it was 'just done' without 'bothering' to notify anyone (often using off book 'contractors' who may/not have a license, very cheaply done).  Without the request, the city has no reasonable way to know, unless there was a complaint.  There was a complaint, for the trash that had built up; not for the usage of the building (left hand, right hand, no connection).

Yes, that's splitting hairs, but that is common.  ANY city simply can't track the current use of ALL the buildings or businesses within it's zone (let alone home operated businesses).  It's not practical and it would violate the sensitive privacy of some people as too intrusive (tough beans, it's part of business).

Having said that, once upon a time a fire inspection was made on a restaurant within my zone.  It failed (built up grease on the hood system alone, but it hadn't been serviced in 5 years and there was plenty more).  A quiet call was made to the health department (it was NASTY in the kitchen) and within a week the health dept (let them be the bad guys) shut it down for repairs to reopen within the law, six months later.  That was a gross exception as my department was VERY proactive about inspections and while we demanded code compliance, we tried to work WITH the occupant to develop a plan (they need to make money to afford the repairs/upgrades, shutting them down does no one any good).  Immediate threats fixed NOW, work on the lesser threats with a real time plan, we WILL be involved.

Do the math, if EVERY commerical building and business was inspected, EVERY year as allowed by code (unless deemed insufficient)... how long would that take?  The above restaurant took an hour for two of us just for the fire related aspects (SMALL business)... a warehouse could take DAYS.  So would a motel (and health department gets involved too).  How many folks and hours would be needed to meet the inspection load in any city?  Then add in the engineers to advise and approve changes, architects to approve plans, beautification boards (and other 'fluff'),  the legal staff to threaten (sometimes more) action, the court time to process it...  NO city can do the annual inspections of all properties.  The taxpayer would have fits at the costs.

The return on those tax costs?  Oakland paid that price in lives last week for not having the budget or will to inspect.  And that was just the opening round, the lawsuits haven't even started yet.  This will go on for decades, will cost hundreds of millions of tax dollars resulting in very little change.

This is a BIG deal (tar baby too), it's also very common so expect it to happen again.  Every city, town, county should wake up... but we all know it can't happen here.

Rick


On 12/9/2016 9:38 AM, sffdmedicwanttobe@yahoo.com [californiadisasters] wrote:
 

IN California, the State Fire Marshal's office gives the local Fire Official authority to inspect regulated occupancies.  These include Assemblies, Educational, Institutional, and Residential Occupancies.  The Fire Department also inspects occupancies that require fire permits like the use of flammable liquids, propane, welding and cutting.

If a change in use permit was issued to convert the warehouse to residential with three or more units, the building would be required to be inspected.    News reports say the official use was a warehouse which is not a regulated.  The owner/operator never submitted plans for the change in occupancy. 

If the operator secured a permit for the use of propane, etc, the building would be required to be inspected.  I do not think they ever applied for a permit for the use of propane, flammable liquids, etc.  





__._,_.___

Posted by: Rick WA6NHC <wa6nhc@gmail.com>


Be sure to check out our Links Section at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/links
Please join our Discussion Group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters_discussion/ for topical but extended discussions started here or for less topical but nonetheless relevant messages.





__,_._,___

No comments:

Post a Comment