CC 2018-10-09_09f Accept Womans Club Kitchen Project
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BILL ROBESON, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: JILL MCPEEK, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE AND WOMAN'S CLUB COMMUNITY CENTER KITCHEN
RENOVATION PROJECT, PW 2016-01
DATE: OCTOBER 9, 2018
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Accept the City of Arroyo Grande and Woman's Club Community Center Kitchen
Renovation Project and begin the one-year warranty period for any defects that may arise.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
The Capital Improvement Program Budget included $266,368 for the project which
includes $55,492 in donations for design, construction, administration, inspection, etc.
The recommended action will not impact staff resources.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council accept the project improvements as constructed by
Effect Contractors in accordance with the plans and specifications for the City of Arroyo
Grande and Woman's Club Community Center Kitchen Renovation Project, PW 2016-01.
BACKGROUND:
On November 28, 2017, the Council awarded a construction contract to perform the City
of Arroyo Grande and Woman's Club Community Center Kitchen Renovation Project to
Effect Contractors in the amount of $177,344 and authorized the City Manager to approve
change orders in the amount of $35,469. The contractor’s final construction cost for this
project is $199,258.
The project consisted of expanding the kitchen area by 105 square feet by moving out
the eastern exterior wall. This expansion allows for a redesigned kitchen with increased
efficiency and capacity. Improvements include new flooring, cabinetry, sinks, plumbing
fixtures, appliances, electrical modifications and lighting.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Status of Kitchen Type: At the time of contract award, it was believed that the new
kitchen would qualify for commercial kitchen status based on discussions with City and
County of San Luis Obispo Health Agency staff. Subsequent discussions with the County
Item 9.f. - Page 1
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AND
WOMAN'S CLUB COMMUNITY CENTER KITCHEN RENOVATION PROJECT, PW
2016-01
OCTOBER 9, 2018
PAGE 2
Health Agency after contract award revealed that the kitchen would not qualify for
commercial status without additional items that were not included in the design or within
the available project budget. This included cost prohibitive items such as all appliances
to be commercial grade and an exhaust hood with a suppression system. However, it was
determined that the design did meet the intent of the Park Development funding by
expanding the use of the facility for recreational purposes such as educational and
cooking classes, and the Donations funding by upgrading the existing kitchen. Should
additional funding become available in the future, staff could coordinate with the County
of San Luis Obispo Health Agency to determine if there is way to utilize the current design
with some modifications to meet commercial status.
The contractor has completed the work in accordance with the approved plans and
specifications within the contract timelines and within the available budget. There are no
outstanding issues with the contract, and the Director of Public Works has filed a Notice
of Completion to ensure timely opportunity for potential liens to be filed and the release
of retention to the contractor should no liens be filed.
Concerned Citizen: At the final stage of completeness (dry walled, painted, all
appliances in place, and checked for functionality), and after the project permit was
deemed final, on July 13, 2018, City staff and the Council began receiving letters from a
member of the public. The concerns described in the letters (Attachment 1) were
associated with code compliance issues, mainly regarding the structural integrity of the
existing structure and the structural connection to the new 105 square foot addition.
Each letter was comprehensively reviewed by both the Design and Construction Team,
made up of a Licensed Architect, a Licensed Structural Engineer, and a Licensed
Contractor and the Permitting and Management Team that includes the City’s Chief
Building Official, CIP Project Manager and the Director of Public Works. The City Manager
met twice with the concerned citizen, then certain members of both teams met with the
concerned citizen at the site to review and address each point. At the site meeting, the
Structural Engineer proposed additional support measures that could be added to resolve
the citizens’ concerns.
After these additional measures were explained, the concerned citizen made it clear that
the only way to satisfy his issues was for the City to hire an outside of the area Structural
Engineer to perform an inspection and evaluation of the kitchen expansion project and
formulate a report that addressed his issues. This demand was made in spite of the fact
that an outside Structural Engineer was hired at the beginning of the design phase and
paid for by the project Architect as a conservative measure of safety and expertise on this
project.
Item 9.f. - Page 2
CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AND
WOMAN'S CLUB COMMUNITY CENTER KITCHEN RENOVATION PROJECT, PW
2016-01
OCTOBER 9, 2018
PAGE 3
The Structural Engineer’s details (SK-3, SK-4 and SK-5) are provided as part of Smith
Structural Group’s (SSG) field inspection attachments and provide additional support and
connection measures, mainly additional framing anchors and heavy duty connection
screws. This work was added as additional safety measures over and above the current
building code requirements. The work was completed on September 20, 2018, in about
four hours with oversight from both the design professionals mentioned above and City
staff.
The licensed professionals and City staff involved in this project remain confident in the
work performed and reaffirm that the public’s safety was never jeopardized and that the
supplemental structural measures provided are above and beyond current building code
requirements.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:
1. Accept the City of Arroyo Grande and Woman's Club Community Center Kitchen
Renovation project;
2. Do not accept the project; or
3. Provide direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
The project is complete and accepting the improvements will allow staff to close out the
project. The project expanded the overall kitchen area, improved circulation, and
increased efficiency and capacity to better serve the various user groups. The new
kitchen has the potential to generate additional rental revenues by attracting additional
user groups and is consistent with the Council goal to support City infrastructure.
DISADVANTAGES:
No disadvantages have been identified.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
No environmental review is needed to accept the project.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Letters from concerned citizen
2. Letter from Architect, Kyle Harris
3. Smith Structure Group (SSG) Field Report
Item 9.f. - Page 3
ATTACHMENT 1
Item 9.f. - Page 4
Jim Hill , Mayor
Caren Ray , Mayor pro tem
Kristen Bameich, Council Member
Tim Brown, Council Member
Barbara Harmon, Council Member
"Jim Bergman, City Manager
Johnathan R. Hurst , Building Official
Dear Jim Bergman,
August 29, 2018
RECEIVED
AUG 2 9 20m
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
At our scheduled meeting on Aug. 9, 2018, you indicated disappointment in the fact
that I did not notify the city in a timely manner during the construction process of
the many building code infractions. It is important to understand that when a
building contractor makes a contract he or she has the responsibility and right to
finish the job without interference from outsiders. Secondly, I also mentioned that I
had warned the City about problems with Value Engineering years ago. I would like
to show you an excerpt from an email from me to the Kitchen Committee, chaired by
John Rogers dated April 1, 2016. This quote was my response relating to John's
Value Engineering change items proposal to the design team on March 25, 2016.
My response quoted from an email dated 4/1/2016: "Keeping the faith sometimes
means not going with the flow of popular opinion. The devil really is in the
details . If we, the design team, choose not to look at the details in design as our
part and responsibility for our kitchen project, the City will be destined to pay
much more in change orders and time delay, during the course of construction.
The design team takes no pleasure in being a naysayer or not being able to go
along with the rest of the kitchen committee team, with what we think is blind
optimism. We think there are too many kitchen designers in the kitchen."
"For better of worse, we do not feel we have the luxury of giving you what you
want. With our knowledge of the code, and today's structural requirements, it is
our opinion that you're requested changes will not do what you hoped for in cost
savings and will render our project less desirable. We have delivered to you the
best design that we think is appropriate."
Atthattime, (4/1/2016) I had no idea of the extentto which John's Value
Engineering design ideas would influence the building official and architect on the
new City design built construction project. I did try to warn the City of their
responsibility to build the kitchen remodel within the building code regulations.
Remember, time is of the essence. To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, "Civic
responsibility delayed is civic responsibility denied ."
Respectfully submitted,
Les Dorman
Item 9.f. - Page 5
Jim Hill, Mayor
Caren Ray, Mayor pro tern
Kristen Barneich, Council Member
Tim Brown, Council Member
Barbara Harmon, Council Member
✓Jim Bergman, City Manager
Johnathan R. Hurst, Building Official
Dear City Council Members and City Manager:
August 10 . 2018
RECEIVED
AUG 1 7 2018
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
I am sending you a copy of my third letter of concerns that I am also sending to your
City Building Official. My concerns are regarding the newly completed Woman's Club
Community Kitchen Remodel construction project. Please see photos and the Building
Code reference, noted in this document.
If a person cannot solve the issue by his or her own actions, he or she may have to live
with the discomfort of bringing these issues to light to prevent harm. It would be very
close to criminal intent if I knowingly did not expose to you the City's disregard for
minimal building standards that are required by codes. Regrettably, bringing these
issues to light, may bring into question some peoples' misuse of public trust as it relates
to supervisory judgment of both elected officials and department heads. It is hard to
understand this conspiracy of silence concerning poor quality of work from craftsmen,
contractors, inspectors, architects and a building official that participated in this small
kitchen remodel. Killing public trust has serious consequences.
Obviously the City Council members should now be asking them-selves these kind of
construction management question's concerning misuse of standard practices: Did the
sight inspector question the gas piping and drain plumbing before he or she signed off on
the plumbing portion on the inspection card? Did the responsible project engineer and
Building Official confirm the fire-resistance ratings of load bearing walls above the
ceiling? Did the Building Official ask for a shaft enclosure in the concealed space above
the ceiling? Sadly, people say cruel and hurtful thing about blind inspectors, but
clearly this problem involves questionable attitudes, from more than just one inspector. I
am hoping with so many violations, the pretext of saving the City money at the cost of
public safety does not prove out to be caused intentionally by the architect and building
official. The Building Code defines Commercial Kitchens clearly, with no ambiguity
possible. This Women's Club commercial kitchen was built for community use, not for
residential use.
Value Engineering (VE) as defined by Wikipedia Value engineering -
Wikipedia
"Is a systematic method to improve the "value" of goods or products and services by
using an examination of function."
Value Engineering is a delicious sounding term but a vague term. If "Value
Engineering" has been understood to mean cost cutting without regards for Building
Item 9.f. - Page 6
Code Laws that would be a serious and costly mistake. In other words value engineering
means value comes from evaluating your needs or "Being earful for what you ask for."
Critical analysis and good procedures has to come from inside project management to be
taken seriously, not from an outsider. If an outsider like myself, with good intentions,
tries to step up and identify problems before the contractor has finished or before the City
has decided to accept this project as being finished, it would be premature and an act of
intrusion. The City could say I was interfering in the City's business and responsibilities,
and the City would be right.
The City could also say: "See how beautiful the kitchen is. We are not going to embarrass
the City by making all these changes as suggested. This talk of danger is imaginary and
being blown out of proportion. But that would be a mistake in my opinion. Tragedy like
fire in concealed space does not respect budgetary concerns. When the forces of
nature take over, in times of stress, the fact that someone didn't understand or see this
problem, will not excuse.
I am not the person to tell you what do or how to solve these issues. But I hope: first you
can now see the problem, secondly you proceed to resolve code infractions quickly, and
discreetly, and thirdly you ask yourself how these kinds of issues came about on this
project to prevent it from happening again. From our previous discussions in September
of 2016 concerning the new kitchen remodel project, I got the impression Mayor Pro tern
Barbara Harmon and Mayor Jack Hill thought every thing was being handled properly.
Please renew your concern by looking at things objectively and analytically.
The gas piping code sections come from the Plumbing Code and shaft enclosures section
comes from the Building Code and the exhaust duct requirements come from the
Mechanical Code. All of these code sections are trying to provide a safe environment
for the public. See what happened and the tragic effect of blatant disregard for Building
Codes at the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire in Southgate, Kentucky. It is the third
deadliest nightclub fire in U.S. history. It occurred on the night of May 28, 1977, during
the Memorial Day holiday weekend. A total of 165 people died and more than 200 were
injured as a result of the blaze. Often fire starts for any number of reasons in concealed
space and spreads throughout the building before anyone is aware of fire danger. The
City needs to hire a new unbiased, independent building code professional to identify,
design and oversee the repair of this remodel project. Getting qualified help is the right
thing to do. It is also the cheapest way out of this dilemma.
Speaking up as a concerned citizen has its challenges. Using cynicism or righteous
indignation degrades the message and can be detrimental to the understanding of the core
issues being exposed. The issues being brought to light have been stated clearly in a
manner that a person with little or no construction experience can understand. Hopefully
these many violations are being presented in way that the City cannot easily hide, deny,
and/or forget. Photographing the code violation before these issues are covered up can
eliminate unnecessary arguments most of the time.
Item 9.f. - Page 7
The intent of this document is not to embarrass the City publicly, but to inform and give
the City a chance to discreetly fix these problems. Hopefully the City will respond by
making public safety and code compliance their first priority. If these priorities are not
the City's priorities, then the logical next step would be to expose these building code
infractions and photos to outside officials. At that point the cat will be out of the bag and
who knows where that will lead. Like it or not, prisons, hospitals and commercial
kitchens are highly regulated construction projects, for obvious reasons.
The burden of knowledge is now on you, the City of Arroyo Grande. The question is,
what are you going to do about it? Remember time is of the essence .
Respectively submitted,
Les Dorman
Item 9.f. - Page 8
Johnathan R. Hurst, Arroyo Grande Building Official
Please be advised, I am sending you a third letter of concern about the following items
in the new woman's kitchen remodel project just completed by the city of Arroyo
Grande.
The gas line shown in the photo has b~en placed in a wall behind gas cook range. Code
as shut off valve and union to be acce ·s ib l , within six feet of ap pliance. ~.,P
--
Typical gas shutoff valve and union installed correctly. Photo shown below is a typical
example of a commercial range in_§t_allation that came from an unrelated rojecL
Item 9.f. - Page 9
1313.4 Appliance Shutoff Valves and Connections. APPli-1
ances connected to a piping system shall have an accessible,
approved manual shutoff valve with a nondisplaceable valve
member or a listed gas convenience outlet installed within six
(6) feet (1,829 mm) of the appliance it serves. Where a I
connector is used, the valve shall be installed up-stream of
the connector. A union or flanged connection shall be
provided downstream from this valve to permit removal of
controls.
104.1 General. The building official is hereby authorized and
directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building
official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this
code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the
application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and
procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose
of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the
effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code
Commercial kitchen hoods are required above all commercial food heat-processing
equipment. The only exception is when installed in a dwelling unit. The horizontal
exhaust duct requires a minimum 1 hr. fire rating shaft enclosure that serves this type 1
hood. The purpose of the enclosure is to maintain the integrity of assembly and to reduce
the possibility of smoke and fire in concealed spaces above kitchen.
Item 9.f. - Page 10
708.1 General. The provisions of this section shall apply to
shafts required to protect openings and penetrations through
floor/ceiling and roof/ceiling assemblies. Shaft enclosures
shall be constructed as fire barriers in accordance with Section
707 or horizontal assemblies in accordance with Section 712,
or both.
510.7.1 In all buildings more than one story in height, and
in one-story buildings where the roof-ceiling assembly is
required to have a fire resistance rating, the ducts shall be
enclosed in a continuous enclosure extending from the
lowest fire-rated ceiling or floor above the hood, through
any concealed spaces, to or through the roof so as to
maintain the integrity of the fire separations required by
the applicable building code provisions. The enclosure
shall be sealed around the duct at the point of penetration
of the lowest fire-rated ceiling or floor above the hood in
order to maintain the fire resistance rating of the enclosure
and shall be vented to the exterior of the building through
weather-protected openings.
70S.4 Fire-resistance rating . Shaft enclosures shall have a
fire-resistance rating of not less than 2 hours where connecting
four stories or more, and not less than 1 hour where connecting
less than four stories. The number of stories connected by the
shaft enclosure shall include any basements but not any mezzanines.
Shaft enclosures shall have afire-resistance rating not
less than the floor assembly penetrated , but need not exceed 2
hours. Shaft enclosures shall meet the requirements of Section
703.2 .1.
802.7.4.3 Single-wall metal pipe shall not originate
in any unoccupied attic or concealed space and shall
not pass through any attic, inside wall, concealed
space, or floor.
COMMERCIAL FACILITIES [DSA-ACJ are facilities that
are intended for nonresidential use and whose operations will
affect commerce , including factories, warehouses, office buildings
and other buildings in which employment may occur.
Commercial facilities shall not include railroad locomotives,
Railroad freight cars, railroad cabooses , railroad cars covered
under Title Il of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 or
facilities that are covered or express! y exempted from coverage
under the Fair Housing Amendment Act of 1988 (42 USC
3601-3631, et se
Item 9.f. - Page 11
TRAP ARM PIPE
DIAMETER
J¼"
I \,2"
2"
3"
4"
Exceeding 4"
TABLE 10-1
HORIZONTAL LENGTHS OF TRAP ARMS
(EXCEPT FOR WATER CLOSETS AND SIMILAR FIXTURES)"
DISTANCE TRAP TO LENGTH MAXIMUM TRAP ARM PIPE DISTANCE TRAP TO
VENT MINIMUM DIAMETER VENT MINIMUM
2½" 30" (2'-6") 32mm 64mm
3" 42" (3 '-6") 40mm 76 mm
4" 60" (5'-0") 50mm 102 mm
6" 72" (6'-0") 80mm 152mm
8" 120" (10'-0") 100mm 203mm
2 x Diameter 120" (I0'-0") Exceeding I 00 mm 2xDiamcter
LENGTH MAXIMUM
762mm
1,067 mm
1,524mm
1,829mm
3,048mm
3,048 mm
I am also concerned about the trap arm distance that services the three compartment floor
sinks, prep sink and dishwasher. The trap is too far from the vent, for these fixtures. The
length is important. If the trap arm is too long, the water in the drain line will siphon the trap
dry. The purpose of the trap is to create a water seal. This water seal trap prevents the floor
sink drain from letting the sewer gasses flow or vent up into the kitchen.
/
Item 9.f. - Page 12
Item 9.f. - Page 13
I am also concerned about the lack of fire resistance rating requirement for building
elements for both primary structural frame and load-bearing walls. See requirement in
chapter 6 & 7 in Building Code. Insulation & OSB sheathing alone will not qualify as fire
resistant construction.
704.4.1 Light-frame construction. King studs and boundary
elements that are integral elements in load-bearing
walls of light-frame construction shall be permitted to have
required fire-resistance ratings provided by the membrane
protection provided for the load-bearing wall.
1703.1 Approved agency. An approved agency shall provide
all information as necessary for the building official to deter-
mine that the agency meets the applicable requirements specified
in Sections 1703.1.1 through 1703.1.3.
1703.3 Record of approval. For any material, appliance,
equipment, system or method of construction that has been
approved, a record of such approval, including the conditions
and limitations of the approval, shall be kept on file in the
building official's office and shall be available for public
review at appropriate times.
Item 9.f. - Page 14
ti
Jim Hill, Mayor
Caren Ray, Mayor pro tern
Kristen Barneich, Council Member
Tim Brown, Council Member
Barbara Harmon, Council Member
Jim Bergman, City Manager
Johnathan R. Hurst, Building Official
Dear City Council members and City Manager:
REcfl\lfo
AUG OS 2D18
August 8 , 2018
I am sending you a copy of my second letter of concerns that I am also sending to your
City Building Official. My concerns are regarding the newly completed Woman 's Club
Community Kitchen Remodel construction project. Please see photos and the Building
Code reference, noted in this document. It is my hope that the City will take my concerns
and these issues more seriously than before. Based on an email received by me dated
September 27 th , 2016, from Barbara Harmon regarding Kitchen Remodel History.
Barbara said: "The City is scrutinizing the plans and using Value Engineering to reduce
costs". Also she said : "However, a full report and update is forthcoming for the council.
The project continues to be a priority for the city."
Sometimes knowledge is a burden. Concerned citizens should act on information
that could hurt individuals. I am reminding your Building Official that these Building
Code provisions are there to protect individuals from harm, both their physical
health and fire safety. But they are also there to protect the City's financial interest
pertaining to infrastructure, and if codes are complied with, the code protects the
City's liability as well as the City officials' personal liability.
The cost to correct code requirements would have been much Jess expensive if
knowledgeable people within the system would have felt free to speak up. It is hard to
understand this conspiracy of silence concerning poor quality of work from craftsmen,
contractors, inspectors, architects and a building official that participated in this small
kitchen remodel. Killing public trust has serious consequences.
Obviously the City Council should now be asking themselves these kind of construction
management questions concerning misuse of standard framing practices: Did the on sight
structural inspector question any of the framing connections, before he or she signed off
on the framing portion on the inspection card? Did the responsible project engineer
wave the requirement for a 4 ' lap splice for the top plates and consent to the roof
sheathing not being nailed as a diaphragm unit? Did the people in charge authorize the
original header rafters not be supported and connected to new rafters after the removal of
the original exterior wall? Did the Building Official ask for structural analysis of bearing
walls for both short and long-term stability when reviewing construction documents?
Sadly, people say cruel and hurtful thing about blind inspectors, but clearly this
problem involves questionable attitudes from more than just one inspector. Critical
analyses , policies and procedures must come from inside the project management to be
taken seriously , not from an outsider. If an outsider like myself, with good intentions,
Item 9.f. - Page 15
tries to step up and identify problems before the contractor has finished or before the City
has decided to accept this project as being finished, it would be premature, and an act of
intrusion. The City could say I was interfering in the City's business and responsibilities.
The City would be right.
The City could also say: "See how beautiful the kitchen is, the roof is not coming
down. This talk of danger is imaginary and being blown out of proportion. We are
not going to embarrass the City by making all these changes as suggested." But that
would be a mistake in my opinion. The reality of a poorly supported roof structure
is dangerous. Tragedy does not respect publically correct emotionalism or
budgetary concerns. When the forces of nature take over, the fact that someone
didn't understand or see this problem, will not excuse. Engineering roof loads,
connections, continuous support and wall bracing is how the building industry
protects the public in light frame construction like this kitchen.
I am not the person to tell you what to do or how to solve these issues. But I hope: first
you can now see the problem, secondly you proceed to resolve code infractions quickly,
and discreetly, and thirdly you ask yourself how these kinds of issues came about, on
this project, to prevent it from happening again. Please renew your concern, by looking
at things objectively and analytically. That does not mean criticizing everything. It means
to detach your own prejudices as much as possible and look at something through varying
perspectives to be as accurate as possible, as opposed to being na'ive, gullible and or
someone who is just a casual observer.
Hopefully the council will not takes a defensive posture, by choosing not to recognize the
magnitude of these problems. The firemen ran up floor after floor in good faith to fight
the Twin Towers fire, on 9/11, never thinking that floor connections would fail,
pancaking floor after floor, bringing the whole building down. The firemen trusted,
that the Building Officials had in good faith analyzed and determined the floor
connections could withstand the stresses of this unconventional fire behavior that they
were expecting to fight. Granted, this extreme event may not reoccur in our comm~nity
as what happened on 9/11. But the same forces of nature are always present, even in our
community .
These forces of nature also known as kinetic energy or gravity, brought those
buildings down in a matter of seconds, at a time of stress, causing death and
destruction. Public trust is at stake here. The kitchen remodel that you are responsible
for is a much simpler project than the twin towers . But the public and the building codes
require you to do your due diligence, and it requires that every subordinate under your
control perform their job at the highest skill and integrity possible. The Building Code
Councils have been very vigilant in doing substantial analysis on fire and structure safety
strategies that are reflected in the building codes. Building owners, architects,
building contractors, inspectors and state and local governments must understand
that peoples' lives and property are at stake. If the firemen and the public in New York
knew what they know now, they may not have been so willing to enter the building.
Item 9.f. - Page 16
How buildings are connected together, for the long term and in times of stress, is
important. Think about the future ramifications if the public and first responders know
the City of Arroyo Grande was not willing to consider any risk assessments, of known
inferior building structures that the City built. Think about what is happening today.
Presumably the Arroyo Grande Building Department is enforcing the very same building
code sections on local building applicants that you have sought to avoid or let infractions
happen on your own City project. If people see the shameful.injustice of that idea
actually happening on your watch, it will make a mockery of any moral authority the City
may have had when administering the building department for years to come. A decision
to do nothing about these building infractions, in my opinion, would create an even
bigger problem for the City. The City needs to hire a new unbiased, independent
building code professional to identify, design and oversee the repair of this remodel
project, before the word gets out to the public. Getting qualified help to fix the many
construction problems quickly is the right thing to do. It is also the cheapest way out of
this dilemma.
Understandably the people that are responsible will most likely not be happy to hear and
see what has happened on the City's new kitchen remodel project. But speaking up as a
concerned citizen has its challenges. The camera, the building code and history's tragic
examples are unfortunately the only tools available to an outsider trying to motivate and
reason with a typical hard-shell arrogant city-hall bureaucracy. Hopefully these many
violations are being presented in way that the City cannot easily cover up, deny and/or
be forgotten. The responsible executives within the City's management may not
respond willingly to correct these violations if they do not understand the importance
and/or see the public safety provisions incorporated in the building code sections that are
being sighted. Photographing the code violation before these issues are covered up can
eliminate unnecessary arguments most of the time.
The intent of this document is not to embarrass the City publicly, but to inform and
give the City a chance to discreetly fix these problems. If public safety and code
compliance are not the City's priorities, then the logical next step would be to
expose these building code infractions and photos to multiple outside officials. Like
it or not, prisons, hospitals and commercial kitchens are highly regulated
construction projects, for obvious reasons.
The burden of knowledge is now on you, the City of Arroyo Grande. The question is,
what are you going to do about it? Remember, time is of the essence.
Respectively submitted,
Les Dorman
Item 9.f. - Page 17
Johnathan R. Hurst, Arroyo Grande Building Official
Please be advised. I am sending you a second letter concerned about the following
items in the new woman's kitchen remodel project just completed by the city of
Arroyo Grande. The new 2"x6"wall that joins the existing 2"x4"north wall does not
have the required offset 48"splice. The new wall to existing wall connection has
about three inches of chicken wire connecting the two walls on the outside. On the
inside a nonfunctional strap is nailed to the new 2"X6"wall top plate and extends to
a single 2"x3" furred out top plate and 14.S"long block. This new nonbearing, furred
out, inside wall is not tied to roof rafters or the top plates of the original wall.
The 8d nailing does not extend through the furred out wall to the outside bearing
wall from this new nailing strap. The nailing strap will not replace the 48" 2"x6" lap
s Hee as re .uired.
2308.5.3.2 Top plates . Bearing and exterior wall studs
shall be capped with double top plates installed to provide
overlapping at corners and at intersections with
other partitions. End joints in double top plates shall be
offset not less than 48 inches (1219 mm), and shall be
nailed in accordance with Table 2304.10.1. Plates shall
be a nominal 2 inches (51 mm) in depth and have a
width not less than the width of the studs .
Item 9.f. - Page 18
The left side of the strap is nailed to the new furred out wall top plates that are not
connected to the original bearing top plates, and are also not tied to the rafters and roof
diaphra ·m .
I 04.10 Modifications. Wherever there are practical difficulties
involved in carrying out the provisions of this code, the
building official shall have the authority to grant modifications
for individual cases, upon application of the owner or owner's
representative, provided the building official shall first find that
special individual reason makes the strict letter of this code
impractical and the modification is in compliance with the
intent and purpose of this code and that such modification does
not lessen health, accessibility, life and fire safety, or structural
requirements.
Item 9.f. - Page 19
Chicken wire and stucco is the only overlapping material from new wall to outside
ori. inal bearing wall.
Two walls before chicken wire.
1604.10 Wind and seismic detailing. Lateral-force-resisting
systems shall meet seismic detailing requirements and limitations
prescribed in this code and ASCE 7, excluding Chapter
14 and Appendix 11 A, even when wind load effects are greater
than seismic load effect.
Item 9.f. - Page 20
2308.5.1. Studs shall be continuous from a support at the sole
plate to a support at the top plate to resist loads perpendicular
to the wall. The support shall be a foundation or floor,
ceiling or roof diaphragm or shall be designed in accordance
with accepted engineering practice.
2304.10.6 Load path. Where wall framing members are
not continuous from the foundation sill to the roof, the
members shall be secured to ensure a continuous load
path. Where required, sheet metal clamps, ties or clips
shall be formed of galvanized steel or other approved corrosion-
resistant material not less than 0.0329-inch (0.836
mm) base metal thickness .
In this photo the stud in not short, and the bottom top plate is missing. Nailing of
stud to t o . ,bi tes is also missin ..
Item 9.f. - Page 21
The next photo below shows that when the original east wall supporting studs were
removed, the original top plate was left in place. This procedure left the header roof
rafters totally unsupported. Header rafters are rafters that are turned 90 degrees
from common rafters. The only visible support for these header rafters, (formerly
supported by the removed bearing wall), are the electrician's flexible conduit that
crosses beneath the original top plate. See the sunlight coming between the new
single (light colored) rafter to right of the original top plate. The new rafter
should have been doubled . The new rafter is not nailed or fastened by joist hangers
to the original header rafters, as required by code. This picture shows that the new
and old roof sheath does not form a diaphragm as required by code. The old
roof sheathing is not nailed to the new roof rafter. After the removal of the
original exterior wall, four feet of original roof has no support from one side.
This fault line runs for the full length of the first adjoining new roof rafter.
Item 9.f. - Page 22
The photo below shows the old header rafters and frieze blocks were
never nailed or connected to the new rafter. This problem is typical on
both sides of new beam. This problem of not joining the old and new
roof rafters and roof sheathing together is consistent on both sides of
the new supporting LVL beam -~~---
2308.7.10 Roof sheathing. Roof sheathing shall be in
accordance with Tables 2304.8(3) and 2304.8(5) for wood
structural panels, and Tables 2304.8(1) and 2304 .8(2) for
lumber and shall comply with Section 2304.8.2.
2304.10.3 Joist hangers and framing anchors. Connections
depending on joist hangers or framing anchors, ties
and other mechanical fastenings not otherwise covered are
permitted where approved. The vertical load-bearing
capacity, torsional moment capacity and deflection characteristics
of joist hangers shall be determined in accordance
with ASTM D7147.
Item 9.f. - Page 23
The photo below appears to have doubled rafters but only one of the
two rafters has bearing on the beam on the right side of photo and the
wall on the left. This photo also shows that the header rafters also do
not have the required 1.5" bearing support hanger that is required for
header rafters.
The new north wall and the original north wall are held together by stucco
chicken wire on the outside, and a nonfunctional nailing strap and dry wall
on the inside. The new and old roof is held together on the outside by the
composition roofing and electricians' flex conduit on the inside, underside.
2308.5.1 Stud size, height and spacing. The size, height
and spacing of studs shall be in accordance with Table
2308.5.1. Studs shall be continuous from a support at the sole
plate to a support at the top plate to resist loads perpendicular
to the wall. The support shall be a foundation or floor,
ceiling or roof diaphragm or shall be designed in accordance
with accepted engineering practice.}
Item 9.f. - Page 24
1604.4 Analysis. Load effects on structural members and their
connections shall be determined by methods of structural analysis
that take into account equilibrium, general stability, geometric
compatibility and both short-and long-term material
properties.
1604.10 Wind and seismic detailing. Lateral-force-resisting
systems shall meet seismic detailing requirements and limitations
prescribed in this code and ASCE 7, excluding Chapter
14 and Appendix 11 A, even when wind load effects are greater
than seismic load effects.
The new walls and roof are butted up together but not tied together as
required by code.
TABLE 2306.2(1)-continued
ALLOWABLE SHEAR VALUES (POUNDS PER FOOT) FOR WOOD STRUCTURAL
PANEL DIAPHRAGMS UTILIZING STAPLES
WITH FRAMING OF DOUGLAS FIR-LARCH, OR SOUTHERN PINEa FOR WIND OR
SEISMIC LOADINGf
Item 9.f. - Page 25
CASE 1 load , · Slacking typical ,
. __ .,1. __ ,1 ** : ,;·· I .if used
,., -i! , r~~:: ! : : I ~ i . ;
"'.,, -t!. I I ' ' : I . ' . ~J~-------:---'·----'\! ':,I: I
u ~--:--r--~~: , ! ! . \
'--~--~._:_.~, i l: !
-----+-., --~, __ :::l. i
i -·-. --\~--'--'----~_____,:::J
\
' -Continuous panel joinll
CASE 2 .
load ; · Fro_m,ng
,. . ...il,l...,l__ _ I typical
h~ T ..• :~ :~ ~'7;i
, .. l-! --~_: J... : ~-.:. ~= ,,
'\ · ------Diophrog m boundary
Framing --
■locking
For SI: 1 inch= 25.4 mm, 1 pound per foot= 14.5939 N/m.
CASE6
Load
**** I : ... -----·-- --: :"l> ➔; i : : . ' !.:.., ___ ----=:·~---1 ~ 1 ::-: ! II --·· : · I ', -. ·-.. =i
u ➔:i l i .!~'1\--1
• :·'1 __ 1 ·. ·_ i m,·'1 -__ _.J
' !\ , : : I i ·1--c1 '. ...... G,-+L: --: J... I • ___ .,__J
\ \
'"-·-·-Continuous panel ioints
a. For framing of other species: (1) Find specific gravity for species of lumber in
AF&PA NDS . (2) For staples find shear value from table above for Structural
I panels (regardless of actual grade) and multiply value by 0.82 for species with
specific gravity of 0.42 or greater, or 0.65 for all other species.
b. Space fasteners maximum 12 inches on center along intermediate framing
members ( 6 inches on center where supports are spaced 48 inches on center).
c. Framing at adjoining panel edges shall be 3 inches nominal or wider.
d. Staples shall have a minimum crown width of 7 /16 inch and shall be installed
with their crowns parallel to the long dimension of the framing members,
e. The minimum nominal width of framing members not located at boundaries or
adjoining panel edges shall be 2 inches,
f. For shear loads of normal or permanent load duration as defined by the AF&PA
NDS, the values in the table above shall be multiplied by 0.63 or 0.56,
1704.4 Contractor responsibility. Each contractor responsible
for the construction of a main wind-or seismic forceresisting
system, designated seismic system or a wind-or
seismic force-resisting component listed in the statement of
special inspections shall submit a written statement of
responsibility to the building official and the owner or the
owner's authorized agent prior to the commencement of work
on the system or component.The contractor's statement of
responsibility shall contain acknowledgement of awareness
of the special requirements contained in the statement of special
inspections.
I recommend the city hire an independent unbiased structural
engineer that will evaluate, redesign and oversee a safe long-term
solution to rectify this project's code compliance problems.
Respectively submitted,
Les Dorman
Item 9.f. - Page 26
Jim Hill, Mayor
Caren Ray, Mayor pro tern
Kristen Barneich, Council Member
Tim Brown, Council Member
Barbare Harmom, Council Member
'v Jim Bergman, City Manager
Johnathan R. Hurst, Building Official
Dear City Council members and City Manager:
July 25, 2018
RECEIVED
JUL 2 5 2018
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
I am sending you a copy of my concerns that I am also sending to your City Building
Official. My concerns are regarding the newly completed Woman's Club Community
Kitchen Remodel construction project. Please see photos and the Building Code
reference, noted in this document. It is my hope that the city will take my concerns and
these issues more seriously than before. Based on an email received by me dated
September 27 th , 2016, from Barbara Harmon regarding Kitchen remodel History.
Barbara said: "The City is scrutinizing the plans and using Value Engineering to reduce
costs". Also she said: "However, a full report and update is forthcoming for the council
members. The project continues to be a priority for the city."
Sometimes knowledge is a burden. Concerned citizens should act on information
that could hurt individuals, but should not speak up in cases of inappropriate or
non-detrimental infractions. But if a person cannot solve an issue by his or her own
actions, he or she may have to live with the discomfort of bringing these issues to
light to prevent harm. In this case, it would be very close to criminal intent if I
knowingly did not expose the city's disregard for minimal building standards
that are required by codes. I am reminding your Building Official that these
Building Code provisions are there to protect individuals from harm, both their
physical health and fire safety. But they are also there to protect the city's financial
interest pertaining to infrastructure. If codes are complied with, the code protects
the city's liability as well as city's official's personal liability.
It is regrettable that in bringing these issues to light, they may bring into question some
people's misuse of public trust as they relate to supervisory judgment of both elected
officials and department heads. The cost to correct code requirements would have been
much less expensive if knowledgeable people within the system would have felt free to
speak up. It is hard to understand this conspiracy of silence concerning the poor quality
of work from craftsmen, contractors, inspectors, architects and a building official that
participated in this small kitchen remodel. Killing public trust has serious
consequences.
Obviously the city council should now be asking themselves these kind of construction
management questions concerning misuse of standard framing practices: 1) did the on-
sight structural inspector question any of the framing connections, before he or she signed
off on the framing portion on the inspection card? 2) did the responsible project
engineer confirm by calculating the adequacy of the ten brackets that were used in lieu of
Item 9.f. - Page 27
a standard 2"x4" trimmer? 3) did the Building Official ask for structural analysis of
bearing walls for both short and long-term stability, when reviewing construction
documents? 4) did the gas co. sign off on the lack of outside Combustion Air at water
heater, before the gas meter was reconnected? Sadly, people say cruel and hurtful
thing about blind inspectors, but clearly this problem involves questionable attitudes
from more than just one inspector. Critical analyses, policies and procedures must come
from inside project management to be taken seriously, not from an outsider. If an outsider
like myself, with good intentions, tries to step up and identify these problems before the
contractor has finished or before the city has decided to accept this project as being
finished, it would be premature, and an act of intrusion. The city could say I was
interfering in the city's business and responsibilities, and the city would be right.
The City could also say: "See how beautiful the kitchen is; the roof is not coming
down. This talk of danger is imaginary and being blown out of proportion. We are
not going to embarrass the City by all these changes as suggested." That would be a
mistake in my opinion. The reality of unrecognized kinetic energy (the poorly
supported roof beam load), will always be a danger. Tragedy does not respect
publically correct emotionalism or budgetary concerns. When the forces of nature
take over, the fact that someone didn't understand or see this problem, will not
excuse egregious oversight. Engineering roof loads, connections, continuous
support and wall bracing is how the building industry protects the public in light
frame construction such as this kitchen.
I am not the person to tell you what do or how to solve these issues. But I hope: first you
can now see the problem, secondly you proceed to resolve code infractions quickly and
discreetly, and thirdly you ask yourself how these kinds of issues came about, on this
project, to prevent it from happening again. From our previous discussions in September
of 2016 concerning the new kitchen remodel project, I got the impression Mayor pro tern
Barbra Harmon and Mayor Jack Hill though everything was being handled properly and
consequently there was no need to worry about any of the remodel details. Please renew
your concern by looking at things objectively and analytically. It does not mean
criticizing everything. It means to detach your own prejudices as much as possible and
look at something through varying perspectives to be as accurate as possible as opposed
to being na'ive, gullible and/or someone who is just a casual observer.
Hopefully the council will not take a defensive posture by choosing not to recognize the
magnitude of these problems. Recognizing and calculating the loads and stress on
bearing walls that are being modified is costly but necessary. The way these loads
are supported is also very important. Denying or not addressing these issues by the
City in my opinion would be a mistake. Hiring a new unbiased, independent building
code professional to identify and design solutions is the right thing to do. Burying the
bones with gypsum board and insulation is not a good solution. Buried bones never let
the problem go away.
Understandably the people that are responsible will most likely not be happy to hear and
see what has happened on the City's new kitchen remodel project. Speaking up as a
Item 9.f. - Page 28
concerned citizen has its challenges. Using cynicism or righteous indignation degrades
the message and can be detrimental to the understanding of the core issues being
exposed. The issues being brought to light have been stated clearly, in a manner that a
person with little or no construction experience can understand. Hopefully these many
violations are being presented in way that cannot easily covered up by the City, be
denied and/or be forgotten. The responsible people within the City's management may
not respond willingly to correct violations if they do not understand the importance and/
or see public safety reasoning for the building code sections that are being sighted.
Photographing the code violation before the issue is covered up can eliminate
unnecessary arguments, most of the time.
The intent of this document is not to embarrass the City publicly, but to inform and
give the City a chance to discreetly repair these problems. Hopefully the City will
respond by making public safety and code compliance their first priorities. If
these priorities are not the City's priorities, then the logical next step would be to
expose these building code infractions and photos to multiple outside officials. At
that point the cat will be out of the bag and who knows where that will lead. Like it
or not, prisons, hospitals and commercial kitchens are highly regulated
construction projects, for obvious reasons.
The burden of knowledge is now on you, the City of Arroyo Grande. The question is,
what are you going to do about it? Remember, time is of the essence.
Respectively submitted,
Les Dorman
Item 9.f. - Page 29
Johnathan R. Hurst, Arroyo Grande Building Official
Please be advised, I am concerned about the following items in the new woman's kitchen
remodel project just completed by the City of Arroyo Grande
~EMBLY 1M
EIISTING DIMENSIONS
EXl5Tltt'., 4XIO BEAM
11'-0 "
lITCHEN
EXISilNG ~Ai.LS
EXIST!tt, SLAB-,
Please note the unconnected 5"x20"x29.5' roof support beam above the adjacent
assembly room that lands on the newly modified existing kitchen wall. The new pass
through wall opening is directly under beam, with no trimmer support for wall opening
header. The above drawing came from a previous kitchen plan design. Have you, the
Building Official required an analysis report to determine structural stability and
inspected job site for compliance? See Building Code: #104.2, Inspect the premises;
# 1603.1, Construction Documents, and #1604.2 Strength, located on last pages.
Please see the photos on next page of the pass through wall opening connection. Note the
4"x12" header under top plate that supports the above mentioned 5"x20" beam. It is
mostly being covered up by insulation. This 4"x12" header is the wrong size and does
not have the required trimmer that supports the opening, not to mention the adjoining
Assembly room roof load. Also the beam is not tied to the wall. See Building Code#
2308.5.5.2. Header support, 2308.1.2 Connections and fasteners, on last pages.
Item 9.f. - Page 30
The new wall opening below beam Beam above header & no trimmer only
uestionable nailing and br~~ets.
Bottom of beam with no connection to wall Inferior structural lumbe r
A concentrated load on load bearing walls generally require reinforced footing . Has the
responsible engineer established the wall in question is not just a 4" slab? Note
Item 9.f. - Page 31
substandard stud choice under header. See Building Code # 2308.5.5 .2. Bearing,
2308.5.1 continuous support, 2308.3 Foundations and footings. 2304.10.6 Load
path, 2308.5 .1 Accepted engineering practice, and 2308.5 .9 Cutting and
notching on last pages
I recommend the City secure a temporary post directly under the S"x20" b~ close to
the kitchen wall. The original continuous post support that ran from beam to slab was
removed to accommodate the new pass through wall opening. This will render the
assembly room roof structure much safer. These Building Code provisions are there not
only to protect individuals from harm, but to also protect their physical health and fire
safety . They are also there to protect the City's financial interest pertaining to
infrastructure. If codes are complied with, the code protects the City's liability as well as
the City official 's personal liability. I recommend having an independent unbiased
structural engineer evaluate and redesign a safe long-term solution to these
problems.
Item 9.f. - Page 32
Respectively submitted,
Les Dorman
Item 9.f. - Page 33
Note relevant Code sections of the California Building Code
104 .1 General. The building official is hereby authorized and
directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building
official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this
code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the
application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and
procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose
of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the
effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this
code
COMMERCIAL FACILITIES [DSA-ACJ are facilities that
are intended for nonresidential use and whose operations will
affect commerce, including factories, warehouses, office buildings
and other buildings in which employment may occur.
Commercial facilities shall not include railroad locomotives,
Railroad freight cars, railroad cabooses, railroad cars covered
under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 or
facilities that are covered or expressly exempted from coverage
under the Fair Housing Amendment Act of 1988 ( 42 USC
3601-3631, et seq).
104.2 Applications and permits. The building official shall
receive applications, review construction documents and issue
permits for the erection, and alteration, demolition and moving
of buildings and structures, inspect the premises for which such
permits have been issued and enforce compliance with the provisions of this code .
1604.2 Strength. Buildings and other structures, and parts
thereof, shall be designed and constructed to support safely
the factored loads in load combinations defined in this code
without exceeding the appropriate strength limit states for the
materials of construction. Alternatively, buildings and other
structures, and parts thereof, shall be designed and constructed
to support safely the nominal loads in load combinations
defined in this code without exceeding the appropriate
specified allowable stresses for the materials of construction.
Loads and forces for occupancies or uses not covered in
this chapter shall be subject to the approval of the building
official.
1604.4 Analysis. Load effects on structural members and their
Item 9.f. - Page 34
connections shall be determined by methods of structural analysis
that take into account equilibrium, general stability, geometric
compatibility and both short-and long-term material
properties.
2308.5.5.2 Openings in interior bearing partitions.
Headers shall be provided over each opening in interior
bearing partitions as required in Section 2308.5.5.1.
The spans in Table 2308.4.1.1(2) are permitted to be
used. Wall studs shall support the ends of the header in
accordance with Table 2308.4.1.1(1) or 2308.4.1.1(2),
as applicable.
2308.1.2 Connections and fasteners. Connectors and fasteners
used in conventional construction shall comply with
the requirements of Section 2304.10.
2308.5.1 Stud size, height and spacing. The size, height
and spacing of studs shall be in accordance with Table
2308.5.1. Studs shall be continuous from a support at the sole
plate to a support at the top plate to resist loads perpendicular
to the wall. The support shall be a foundation or floor,
ceiling or roof diaphragm or shall be designed in accordance
with accepted engineering practice.
2308.5.5.2 Openings in interior bearing partitions .
Headers shall be provided over each opening in interior
bearing partitions as required in Section 2308.5.5.1.
The spans in Table 2308.4.1.1 (2) are permitted to be
used. Wall studs shall support the ends of the header in
accordance with Table 2308.4.1.1(1) or 2308.4.1.1(2),
as applicable.
2304 .9.1 Fastener requirements. Connections for wood
members shall be designed in accordance with the appropriate
methodology in Section 2301.2. The number and size of
fasteners connecting wood members shall not be less than
that set forth in Table 2304 .9.1. building safety.
2304.9 .6 Load path. Where wall framing members are not
continuous from foundation sill to roof, the members shall
Item 9.f. - Page 35
be secured to ensure a continuous load path. Where
required, sheet metal clamps, ties or clips shall be formed
of galvanized steel or other approved corrosion-resistant
material not less than 0 .040 inch ( 1.01 mm) nominal thickness.
2308.9.10 Cutting and notching. In exterior walls and
bearing partitions, any wood stud is permitted to be cut or
notched to a depth not exceeding 25 percent of its width.
Cutting or notching of studs to a depth not greater than 40
percent of the width of the stud is permitted in nonbearing
partitions supporting no loads other than the weight of the
partition .
1703.1 Approved agency. An approved agency shall provide
all information as necessary for the building official to deter-
mine that the agency meets the applicable requirements specified
in Sections 1703.1.1 through 1703.1.3.
1703.1.1 Independence. An approved agency shall be
objective, competent and independent from the contractor
responsible for the work being inspected. The agency shall
also disclose to the building official and the registered design professional in
responsible charge possible conflicts
of intereOst so that objectivity can be confirmed.
701.1.1 Air for combustion, ventilation , and dilution of
flue gases for gas utilization equipment installed in buildings
shall be obtained by application of one of the
methods covered in Sections 701.2 through 701.8.3. Gas
utilization equipment of other than natural draft and Category
I vented appliances shall be provided with combustion,
ventilation, and dilution air in accordance with the
equipment manufacturer's instructions. Where infiltration
does not provide the necessary air, outdoor air shall be
introduced in accordance with methods covered in
Sections 701.4 through 701.8.3.
151 West Branch Street; Suite E, Arroyo Grande CA 93420
P: 805.574.1550 F: 805.574.1553
September 20, 2018
Mr. Jonathan Hurst, Chief Building Official
City of Arroyo Grande
300 E. Branch St. Arroyo Grande CA 93420
Re: AG Women’s Center Kitchen, Structural Additions
Mr. Hurst;
On Thursday Sept. 20, 2018 the Contractor and Framer performed the additional support
measures at the Women’s Center. The work was done per the Structural Engineers details
labeled SK-3, SK-4, SK-5 and SK-6. These measures address the concerns raised by Mr.
Dorman in his letters to the City. I personally witnessed the installation of the blocking,
framing anchors and additional SDS screws. The Framer also added several additional A34
and LTP3 Simpson framing anchors to the existing roof framing to tighten up the diaphram
blocking. He also installed SDS screws at 6” oc the full length of the new barge rafter to
the existing. The work was done correctly and professionally.
As a side note, the addition of the new 4”x6” post over the existing header shown in SK-3
was not included in the original design or scope of work. This was added as an additional
safety measure and in no way reflects any negligence or unfinished work that the
Contractor was to perform under his contract with the City.
All of the work performed was done as an additional layer of safety; the building and public
were never in any danger or in an unsafe environment. The additional work performed
addresses the areas of concern over and above the current building code requirements.
This should close this issue permanently.
I have attached photos of the work in place for your record.
Please let me know if any further action needs to be taken.
Sincerely;
Kyle Harris, AIA
Harris Architecture & Design
ATTACHMENT 2
Item 9.f. - Page 36
HflflflI6°
Archit;ect;ure & Design
FIELD REPORT 09/20/18
JOB No.: S16361
TO: City of Arroyo Grande
1375 Ash Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
ATTN: Jim Bergman
RE: Woman’s Center
Structural Observation
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WERE NOTED:
The following items noted were observed by a representative of this office and are not intended to
substitute, supplement or replace inspections required by the governing jurisdiction nor required special
inspections.
In the Structural Supplemental Instructions No. 4 and No. 5, issued September 13, 2018 and September 20,
2018, respectively, direction was provided to address additional reinforcements to the structural framing. On
the morning of the 20th, work began on the structural details. By mid-morning, everything was complete and
a representative of this office visited to the site for a Structural Observation. All work was found to be in
general conformance with the structural details. Additional observations are noted below.
1. In detail SK-4, the detail specified a L8x6x7/16” steel angle section for the header clip. The contractor
substituted a piece of fabricated hardware in lieu of the angle.
1.1. The Project Architect has been in contact with the steel fabricator to get the fabrication detail
that was used, as well as the welding inspection reports. To date, those have not been
reviewed by this office.
1.2. Once those reports are available, they shall be forwarded to the City Building Inspector and this
office for review and comment as required.
2. For the condition depicted in SK-5, in addition to the 16d face nails, the contractor provided SDS
screws from the rafter to the blocking. This office takes no objection to the addition, and it will help
strengthen the connection.
PROJECT:
City of Arroyo Grande Woman’s Center Club, Community
Center Kitchen Renovation
LOCATION:
211 Vernon Street, Arroyo Grande
ARCHITECT:
Kyle Harris, Harris Architecture
OWNER:
City of Arroyo Grande
PRESENT AT SITE:
Jim Bergman, City of AG
Bill Robeson, City of AG
Jill McPeek, City of AG
Johnathan Hurst, City of AG
Kyle Harris, Harris Architecture
Greg Geiser, Effect Contractors
Joe Kent, Framer
Jessica Meadows, SSG
ATTACHMENT 3
Item 9.f. - Page 37
SMITH STRUCTURAL GROUP, LLP I 811 El Capitan Way , Suite 240, San Luis Obispo, CA93401 I 805-439.2110 I smithstructural.com
FIELD REPORT (cont.) 09/20/18
JOB No.: S16361
Page | 2
Photographs:
Existing Beam Connection to New Header (SK-3)
Fabricated Header Clip (SK-4)
Item 9.f. - Page 38
SMITH STRUCTURAL GROUP, LLP I 811 El Capitan Way, Suite 240, San Luis Obispo, CA93401 I 805.439.2110 I smithstructural.com
FIELD REPORT (cont.) 09/20/18
JOB No.: S16361
Page | 3
Blocking Installation (SK-5)
Stitch nailing and screwing between Existing and New Framing (SK-5)
Item 9.f. - Page 39
SMITH STRUCTURAL GROUP, LLP I 811 El Capitan Way, Suite 240, San Luis Obispo, CA93401 I 805.439.2110 I smithstructural.com
FIELD REPORT (cont.) 09/20/18
JOB No.: S16361
Page | 4
COPIES TO: Harris Architecture
SIGNED: Jessica Meadows, P.E., S.E. for
Michael Parolini, P.E., S.E.
Date Signed: 10/1/18
Item 9.f. - Page 40
SMITH STRUCTURAL GROUP, LLP I 811 El Capitan Way, Suite 240, San Luis Obispo, CA93401 I 805.439.2110 I smithstructural.com
FIELD REPORT (cont.) 09/20/18
JOB No.: S16361
Page | 5
Item 9.f. - Page 41
SMITH STRUCTURAL GROUP, LLP I 811 El Capitan Way, Suite 240, San Luis Obispo, CA93401 I 805.439.2110 I smithstructural.com
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Item 9.f. - Page 42