Loading...
1994, 09-13 County Report to CourtDEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS JAMES L. MANSON, C.B.O., DIRECTOR September 13, 1994 Honorable Donna Wilson, Spokane County District Court 1100 West Mallon Spokane, Washington 99260 Re: Spokane County vs. Smith Dear Judge Wilson: • f3 • • x�rr, : tiri A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DENNIS M. SCOTT, P.E., DIRECTOR As directed, the following report examines those letters submitted as evidence by defense council supporting their claims that the residence located at N 3514 Edgerton complies with the Uniform Building Codes. RCW 19.27.031 sets forth that "there shall be in effect in all counties and cities the State Building Code which shall consist of the following codes..." and then proceeds to enumerate the several mandated codes. Codes in effect at the time of permit application pursuant to RCW 19.27 (The State Building Code Act) and Spokane County Resolution #85-1159 (attached) were the 1985 editions of the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code and the Washington State Energy Code, November 10, 1983 edition. RCW 19.27.050 follows with the mandate that "the State Building Code Regulations ... shall be enforced by the counties and cities". Therefore, it is incumbent on the county to determine compliance and that responsibility lies with the Spokane County Division of Buildings. In response to the letter submitted by Harold E. "Rocky" Stone, the following comments are presented: 1. Mr. Stone states his experience in the electrical contracting business. There is no information stating his background or qualifications in the field of administration or enforcement of the Uniform Codes nor has he ever been employed by a government or private agency to perform inspections pursuant to any Uniform Codes. 2. Mr. Stone makes the statement that the "...workmanship and well within the requirements of the building codes..." There are specific known code violations which were detectable from the exterior by qualified and experienced county inspectors such as a lack of a fire resistive wall between the garage and residence, no fire resistant exterior wall WEST 1026 BROADWAY • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 • (509) 456-3675 FAX (509) 456-4703 construction, inadequate stairs, improperly supported columns, several violations in the "exposed plumbing" discussed in Mr. Stone's letter, etc. More examples can be offered if requested. 3. Mr. Stone's opinion that the residence is within the requirements of the Uniform Building Code is inconsistent with the letter submitted to the defense by Richard Wallander, a licensed professional engineer. 4. It is noted that Mr. Stone and Mr. Smith, known as "Smitty" to Mr. Stone have a business relationship "going back 30 years" and we would question his impartiality should he be determined to be qualified to perform inspections and subsequently commissioned to perform the required inspections. In response to the letter submitted by Richard Wahl, the following is offered: 1. Again, no information on his background or qualifications stating that he is knowledgeable in the administration, enforcement or interpretation of the Uniform Codes. There are no credentials to support comments on code items, particularly, relating to life - safety issues. 2. Mr. Wahl comments that the concrete work substantially pre -dates building codes. The first codes relating to building construction went into effect in Spokane County in the late 1940's. Mr. Smith's residential additions occurred in the mid 1980's. Exposure of the footings in certain areas will not affect the concrete. The removal of dirt with a garden shovel along a footing for review of structural support and code conformance is what is being requested. We have no problems in reducing the number of visual points provided that there are no problems found with those that are exposed. 3. The concern with the exposure of the walls is that this is the only way to verify that minimum codes have been met. Spacing, lumber size and grade, are examples of code items requiring verification of compliance. It is the owner's responsibility to see that all building, plumbing, mechanical and energy inspections are called for and approved before cover. The defendant testified that he is a retired electrical and building contractor. Therefore he should be aware of these inspection requirements. We are not asking for everything to be exposed but only expose random sections. Based on those findings, additional exposure may or may not be needed. 4. To respond to Mr. Wahl's finding that the plumbing installations are all good is contrary to our inspector's initial observations of the exposed areas. There are many plumbing code violations that can be seen such as improper drainage fittings, improper venting, etc. 5. In reference to the applying new codes, it has been stated in this report what codes are applicable at the time of permit issuance. 6. The comment "Almost everything in sight has been done to more than any code C/ requirements;..." Contrary, almost everything in sight has a code violation as noted. This can be more than adequately demonstrated with code references once we are allowed to conduct a full inspection. Comments to Mr Wallander's letter are as follows: 1. The letter does identify deficiencies which need to be corrected to make the structure structurally sound. However, he did not give sufficient specifications on how to address these deficiencies. 2. References are made to the roof beam and supporting post to reduce spans. No details have been provided. 3. There is no detail on the type of concrete footers needed to support the east wall. 4. It was stated that the "new" stair construction to follow UBC. Again there is no detail on how to accomplish this since floor joists are preventing proper head clearances. 5. Mr Wallander's final comment that "With this work completed, the structure can be suitable". It may be structurally suitable but not suitable for habitation and not necessarily in conformance with minimum codes. Mr. Wallander is a structural engineer and has not demonstrated his background and experience in those areas of the building codes dealing with life, safety and sanitation. Wallander Engineering is a reputable firm and we believe it is not his intention to assume compliance for all the uniform codes but was only commissioned to respond structurally. As discussed, there is a lack of demonstrated knowledge with administration and enforcement of the Uniform Codes and inconsistencies in the "findings" of the three individuals employed by the defense. Clearly Spokane County owes a duty to protect life, limb and property regardless of the ownership. This duty cannot be transferred. Based on the preceding discussion of the letters submitted by the defense, Spokane County cannot reasonably conclude that the structure conforms to applicable codes. Since defense counsel has had the opportunity to submit additional information regarding code compliance, I feel it would be appropriate to submit an inspection report dated December 22, 1992. This inspection was agreed upon by defense counsel and we were accompanied by the defendant and Don Shaw of Van Camp and Banyan. The inspection was only for the eastern most portion of the addition to determine if said addition constituted a dangerous building. This report, which is attached, describes areas which are not in compliance with the Uniform Codes with reference to the appropriate code citations. Also being submitted in support that the residence in not in compliance with the Uniform Codes is a letter dated December 10, 1992 from Don Shaw for Russell Van Camp stating that the defendant proposed to do certain things that would very likely alleviate most if not all of concerns. However, corrective work was not being performed due to the stop work order issued on April 23,1987. In conclusion, Spokane County through the Division of Buildings is responsible for inspections and determinations of compliance. As demonstrated by this report and attached documents, there are specific code violations existing. Even the defendant concurs that violations do exist. Finally, Spokane County would encourage a site visit by your honor in order to gain first hand knowledge the issues facing the court. Sincerely L> on frAL Thomas L. Davis Code Compliance Coordinator c.Frank Christoff Russell Van Camp Bill Benish Kevin Myre Attachments