She's currently dealing with two overlapping regulations, one from the state, the other from the city:
(1) All electrical outlets must be placed less than 18 inches from the edge of a countertop, to make them accessible to people in wheelchairs
(2) A countertop must have an outlet every 18 inches, or less.
They're getting held up in permitting because there is a no constructible L-shaped countertop that satisfies both of these constraints. The best part, nobody on either side seems to care much, they're "just doing their job"...and housing isn't getting built.
I'm not sure what to make of this, other than that it's the newest brilliant "innovation" from the place that banned happy meal toys, and outlawed plastic bags.
I'd say this is more of a city planning office problem than a "paternalistic California" problem.
The plastic bag ban caused much gnashing of teeth, but it was a basic instance of market failure (nobody pays for the externalities of bag pollution), and people have adapted fine since the ban took effect.
You see the kind of standards worship that you described in the LA city planning office as well as SF. There will be swearing up and down that this requirement is in place for a solid reason, and then in 5 years the requirement disappears.
Runoff from buildings is my favorite example: a few years ago, you had to ensure rainwater runoff from new structures was conveyed to the street. By pumping it uphill if necessary. You signed a document promising to maintain the pump in perpetuity. (Reason: your runoff could damage nearby properties.) Now, you can't pump runoff to the street, you have to sequester some on-site. (Reason: drought, plus, city can't treat all that water itself.)
Another instance of this is installation of crosswalks. One year, the city refuses to put in new crosswalks because "it will encourage unsafe crossings". Next year, city is putting in new crosswalks all over because it will encourage pedestrian activity, make citizens healthier, etc.
What are those two regulations? The California Electrical Code 2010 has that no point on the wall space behind a countertop can be more than 600mm (24in) away from an outlet, which actually means an outlet every 4 feet (2 feet space are allowed either side) (Article 210.52). I don't see 18 in in there.
I'm not doubting that there's weird inconsistencies in the rules, but the 18in thing struck me as weird from my own experience of remodelling my house recently, so I looked up the CA code. Apparently SF are still fighting Carl Malamud to stop him putting their building code online. https://archive.org/stream/gov.ca.sf.electrical/ca_sf_electr...
(edited to fix 300mm to 600mm. I know 600mm isn't quite 24in but that's what the code says)
The plastic bag ban was one of a handful of regulations that made a HUGE difference to the health of the bay's ecosystem. Paper will at least disintegrate over time in the bay's water. Plastic does not.
You should really look at the effect and reasoning of some of these regulations rather than handwaving them away as 'bad government regulation'
Could the outlets be installed just below the countertop, in the face of the cabinet? Yes that would be ugly as hell, but most accommodations for the handicapped are.
Put up drywall against the corner so it pushes the corner of the drywall closer to the corner edge of the countertop? An octagonal sort of shape. Then you can cut it off like a foot up or something and it can be a place to put a flower vase. :)
I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time understanding why the constraints are contradictory. For example, can't you just have a thin countertop such that the corner is within 18 inches of the edge and put an outlet there?
Be glad you're not dealing with the DOB in NY, esp in Brooklyn. The code is so thick that's it's impossible to not violate it in some way... worse yet the decisioning of the employees that approve them are arbitrary.
Friend of mine were forced alter the plans to include sprinklers in the build even for a single family without a CO change. This was before this was a requirement for all new single family. They just decided that you must do it. They even got a FDNY waiver, DOB didn't care. So they had to add it to the plan (at about 40k install) just to move the process along.
Surely state regulations supersede local ones if there's a direct conflict, or they would if the city every complained and the matter were ever brought in front of a judge?
Even the most progressive cities will not go after the big progressive wins, preferring token measures. Hence, huge advertising campaigns promoting earth hour, but never ever ever in a million years will they touch the gas tax or increase allowable density or stop subsidizing parking.
Politics is more about greenwashing, because a "worse" but popular plan that actually gets enacted is more useful than a "better" but controversial plan that gets stuck in red tape.
Another thing: this is why we (tech) need to engage with politics.
If there's one thing we really understand, it's complexity: why it sucks, how to avoid it, and how piling on rule after rule can make the legal code "unmaintainable" (sound familiar?)
I live in SF and I'm active in the real estate businesses too. While on the surface, this seems like great news it comes with hidden negative externalities. Specifically, this law benefits existing owners who will be grandfathered out of this requirement.
Any new builder will see her housing development costs go up, and given the short supply of housing, will then cause RE prices to go up on all new housing. This system therefore benefits existing landowners who were able to reap higher gains on existing buildings and helps create a moat on new housing development by making it less financially lucrative.
Also, just in case anybody is curious, most solar panels are not a good economic investment for an investor. In an optimistic case, they may pay for themselves in 7-10 years but the value of the asset itself depreciates so quickly that it isn't worth the risk financially or in on-going maintenance costs.
For the cost of these solar panels, what else could we be doing to reduce carbon emissions? Here in SF or internationally?
I do think that carbon reduction is pretty essential, but it's so essential that I don't think we can waste our money on low yield actions. I'm not saying this strictly is, I'd have to read about it more, but I'm not optimistic that mandating very specific technologies will be a good approach.
Scott is pretty reasonable, but in this case I think the whole supes went overboard. I would have preferred a stipulation to make them solar ready,but not outright installed. I feel that sometimes excitement and wanting to be "leaders in x" gets the better of them, from time to time.
When I plan to buy a house I'll seriously consider installing solar, but id almost want to tear down any installation forced on by the city. If it's your property it should be up to you to consider what you want to add to your domicile. Maybe I don't want the upfront cost of solar, or maybe I planned on other renewables.
Put solar on all your city buses, put solar on all city buildings, etc. Don't force solar on homeowners who never wanted it.
The article makes it sound like the SF decided to set a goal of "100 percent renewable energy by 2020" without a clue of how to achieve that goal - but gee does it sound nice. Realizing that the city is not going to be able to fund such an endeavor, they mandate the cost of deploying solar panels be passed on to new development, completely disregarding the practicality of solar panels on city buildings. Forget spending the money on better insulation, windows, living roofs, wind power, heat pumps, grey water reclamation, etc. or just making more badly-needed housing - the city needs solar because the word gives people tingles and they have this arbitrary goal-without-a-plan.
San Francisco why would anyone want to live there ... trashy, ridiculously expensive, smell of homeless & downtrodden everywhere, the mentally ill with megaphones shouting their crazy on the streets.
I've lived in many US cities and WoW San Fran is a shock to the system!
Also there are a lot of really nice parts that you wouldn't typically see on a brief visit, both in the city and surrounding area.
The homeless are definitely a real problem but in my day to day life I somehow manage to avoid it almost always. We don't all live south of market or in the mission.
At first I liked the idea, but then I remembered what a beuacratic and hostile nightmare it is to build in San Francisco (and CA in genera) and quickly turned against it.
Would it not have been sufficient to offer tax incentive carrots instead of making it a requirement?
Not to belittle the catastrophic potential outcome, but the city is quite in a precarious spot vis-a-vis tectonic plates, which may result in new construction opportunities in time.
Seems like a good idea to have solar on every building, but I have to ask: how many new buildings go up in SF in a year?
I thought the problem was that they have a lot of architecture preservation and not enough new office and residential construction.
Similar to Boston and Manhattan, mature cities where there isn't that much new construction, so this kind of ordinance seems more symbolic than practical.
Not that San Francisco has any room for new buildings but this smells like crony capitalism. Which solar panel company lobbied to have this become law? And which politician is getting the kickback?
So how does this work for apartments? Normally apartments dont bother as the homeowners get almost no benefit (small roof relative to the power usage), and net metering shared solar panels is tricky, way to tricky for a utility to care. So who bears the cost of this?
That said might be a huge opportunity for a microgrid company to set up panels, smart meters and batteries in buildings, and then just have a single meter at the perimeter.
[+] [-] eldavido|10 years ago|reply
She's currently dealing with two overlapping regulations, one from the state, the other from the city: (1) All electrical outlets must be placed less than 18 inches from the edge of a countertop, to make them accessible to people in wheelchairs
(2) A countertop must have an outlet every 18 inches, or less.
They're getting held up in permitting because there is a no constructible L-shaped countertop that satisfies both of these constraints. The best part, nobody on either side seems to care much, they're "just doing their job"...and housing isn't getting built.
I'm not sure what to make of this, other than that it's the newest brilliant "innovation" from the place that banned happy meal toys, and outlawed plastic bags.
[+] [-] mturmon|10 years ago|reply
The plastic bag ban caused much gnashing of teeth, but it was a basic instance of market failure (nobody pays for the externalities of bag pollution), and people have adapted fine since the ban took effect.
You see the kind of standards worship that you described in the LA city planning office as well as SF. There will be swearing up and down that this requirement is in place for a solid reason, and then in 5 years the requirement disappears.
Runoff from buildings is my favorite example: a few years ago, you had to ensure rainwater runoff from new structures was conveyed to the street. By pumping it uphill if necessary. You signed a document promising to maintain the pump in perpetuity. (Reason: your runoff could damage nearby properties.) Now, you can't pump runoff to the street, you have to sequester some on-site. (Reason: drought, plus, city can't treat all that water itself.)
Another instance of this is installation of crosswalks. One year, the city refuses to put in new crosswalks because "it will encourage unsafe crossings". Next year, city is putting in new crosswalks all over because it will encourage pedestrian activity, make citizens healthier, etc.
[+] [-] bazzargh|10 years ago|reply
There's a good diagram of the regulations here: http://buildingincalifornia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/R... ... but there's similar drawings explaining this in the code itself.
I'm not doubting that there's weird inconsistencies in the rules, but the 18in thing struck me as weird from my own experience of remodelling my house recently, so I looked up the CA code. Apparently SF are still fighting Carl Malamud to stop him putting their building code online. https://archive.org/stream/gov.ca.sf.electrical/ca_sf_electr...
(edited to fix 300mm to 600mm. I know 600mm isn't quite 24in but that's what the code says)
[+] [-] tjsnyder|10 years ago|reply
You should really look at the effect and reasoning of some of these regulations rather than handwaving them away as 'bad government regulation'
[+] [-] jessaustin|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tobz|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] malisper|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rietta|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtanski|10 years ago|reply
Friend of mine were forced alter the plans to include sprinklers in the build even for a single family without a CO change. This was before this was a requirement for all new single family. They just decided that you must do it. They even got a FDNY waiver, DOB didn't care. So they had to add it to the plan (at about 40k install) just to move the process along.
[+] [-] Analemma_|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] revelation|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanBC|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nkrisc|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaronbrethorst|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] vidarh|10 years ago|reply
What the above really means is that they don't like the solutions that will satisfy the constraints.
[+] [-] stuaxo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] davidw|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saosebastiao|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toby|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cbhl|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bluthru|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eldavido|10 years ago|reply
If there's one thing we really understand, it's complexity: why it sucks, how to avoid it, and how piling on rule after rule can make the legal code "unmaintainable" (sound familiar?)
[+] [-] anxman|10 years ago|reply
Any new builder will see her housing development costs go up, and given the short supply of housing, will then cause RE prices to go up on all new housing. This system therefore benefits existing landowners who were able to reap higher gains on existing buildings and helps create a moat on new housing development by making it less financially lucrative.
Also, just in case anybody is curious, most solar panels are not a good economic investment for an investor. In an optimistic case, they may pay for themselves in 7-10 years but the value of the asset itself depreciates so quickly that it isn't worth the risk financially or in on-going maintenance costs.
[+] [-] rconti|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geebee|10 years ago|reply
I do think that carbon reduction is pretty essential, but it's so essential that I don't think we can waste our money on low yield actions. I'm not saying this strictly is, I'd have to read about it more, but I'm not optimistic that mandating very specific technologies will be a good approach.
[+] [-] mc32|10 years ago|reply
When I plan to buy a house I'll seriously consider installing solar, but id almost want to tear down any installation forced on by the city. If it's your property it should be up to you to consider what you want to add to your domicile. Maybe I don't want the upfront cost of solar, or maybe I planned on other renewables.
Put solar on all your city buses, put solar on all city buildings, etc. Don't force solar on homeowners who never wanted it.
[+] [-] No1|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] haha1234|10 years ago|reply
I've lived in many US cities and WoW San Fran is a shock to the system!
[+] [-] randyrand|10 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Valley
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tizzdogg|10 years ago|reply
The homeless are definitely a real problem but in my day to day life I somehow manage to avoid it almost always. We don't all live south of market or in the mission.
[+] [-] matt_wulfeck|10 years ago|reply
Would it not have been sufficient to offer tax incentive carrots instead of making it a requirement?
[+] [-] jkot|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dkopi|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moultano|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 6stringmerc|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cven714|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blisterpeanuts|10 years ago|reply
I thought the problem was that they have a lot of architecture preservation and not enough new office and residential construction.
Similar to Boston and Manhattan, mature cities where there isn't that much new construction, so this kind of ordinance seems more symbolic than practical.
[+] [-] pascalxus|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bcheung|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] im_down_w_otp|10 years ago|reply
Bad-um-tsch!
:-D ;-)
[+] [-] cavisne|10 years ago|reply
That said might be a huge opportunity for a microgrid company to set up panels, smart meters and batteries in buildings, and then just have a single meter at the perimeter.
[+] [-] almost_usual|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] No1|10 years ago|reply
https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=4399794&GUID=FE2...
[+] [-] pmyjavec|10 years ago|reply
Remember when Calirofrnia sued the US Government over climate change? They've been doing a whole lot of not much for some time.
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]