new ridiculous CA law for 2014

[sethas]

I just came across this thread here and went to the CALCTP website. I am thoroughly confused by this whole thing.

Can you take the classes through the JATC if you are a non-union contractor?

How long did all of the classes take?

How much did the whole process cost?

How often do you have to take CE courses or re-certify?

Thanks

 

[Fulthrotl]

I just came across this thread here and went to the CALCTP website. I am thoroughly confused by this whole thing.

Can you take the classes through the JATC if you are a non-union contractor?

How long did all of the classes take?

How much did the whole process cost?

How often do you have to take CE courses or re-certify?

Thanks

the CALCTP stuff got stirred into this "absurd rules" thread.....
you will want to look at the OTHER "absurd rules" thread....
it is here....

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=157084&highlight=

to answer your questions......

yes, you can take them at a jatc.

they seemed to take forever. calctp basic is 60 hours
calctp-at is 24 hours, i believe
the contractor course you'll need as well, is one day, but they buy lunch, i think.

so, 90 hours of your life.

it costs a lot more than if you belong to the IBEW. call them and ask.....
i'm guessing maybe $2,500 ~ $3k, not including fees from the CALCTP folks.

CALCTP cert cost me nothing
CALCTP-AT cert cost me $125
CALCTP contractor listing is $500

i had the CALCTP cert, and that was two years old, and they haven't said
anything about re qualifying.

truth is, nobody knows. they are making this up as they go.

 

[sethas]

Thanks for the reply. PGE is listed as a class provider, I emailed them and am waiting to hear back from them.

 

[Sierrasparky]

got an email from CSLB today:

"January 17, 2014	CSLB #14-01
	CSLB Clarifies New Law Requiring Replacement of Plumbing Fixtures Building permits issued for property maintenance and repairs does not trigger new requirements SACRAMENTO ? To dispel confusion over the new state Civil Code law (Senate Bill 407, 2009) that became effective January 1, 2014, for replacement of outdated plumbing fixtures with water-saving models, the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) offers the following clarification for contractors. The new law requires anyone applying for a building permit that will alter or improve a single-family residence built in 1994 or earlier to replace all plumbing fixtures with water-saving designs. Replacement is a condition of receiving final permit approval from a local building department. The law also requires, by 2019, water-conserving plumbing fixtures in multi-family dwellings or commercial properties when specific renovations are made. Although not a legal opinion, the California Building Officials (CALBO) group has interpreted ?alterations? or ?improvements? to mean any construction to an existing structure that enhances or improves the structure. Construction that is related to repairs or maintenance of the structure is not considered to be an alteration or improvement. Following is a list of permit types that CALBO considers to be repair or maintenance, and do not trigger the requirements of SB 407: ? Electrical service change out ? HVAC change out ? Re-roofing ? Sewer line replacement ? Siding or stucco ? Site work: retaining walls, fences, walkways, etc. ? Water heater replacement ? Window replacement ? Other repairs as determined by the state Building Code It is feared that property owners and licensed contractors who misunderstand the law may end up paying for new fixtures that are not required, or may avoid pulling building permits altogether to avoid the possible triggers to SB 407. Since this is not a legal opinion, CSLB encourages licensed contractors to verify requirements with their local building department before taking any action on a project."

Geeeez I just love people that are ignorant and cannot read. I also love how one agency claims to dispel confusion with a caveat!!!!!!!!......

"This is not a LEGAL opinion. CSLB encourages licensed contractors to verify requirements with their local building department before taking any action on a project.

This Clarifies nothing. The Local AHJ does not make Law in Ca it only enforces them. If they are Silent as are most what then?

What Idiots

 

[GoldDigger]

Geeeez I just love people that are ignorant and cannot read. I also love how one agency claims to dispel confusion with a caveat!!!!!!!!......

"This is not a LEGAL opinion. CSLB encourages licensed contractors to verify requirements with their local building department before taking any action on a project.

This Clarifies nothing. The Local AHJ does not make Law in Ca it only enforces them. If they are Silent as are most what then?

What Idiots

However, "the California Building Officials (CALBO) group" represents the AHJs and inspectors who will be using their judgement when applying the law. And they have apparently spoken out.

 

[Sierrasparky]

However, "the California Building Officials (CALBO) group" represents the AHJs and inspectors who will be using their judgement when applying the law. And they have apparently spoken out.

Yes they have spoken out ,and they are a group of Building officials. so what? This is not a LEGAL opinion. Both CALBO and CSLB both agree on that.

One thing that most seem to over look is that CA Title 24 is made up of several codes. CALBO has made it very clear now and in the past that for the most part does not recognize any code definitions other than what appear in the main code Title 24 part 2 and 2.5 . It is certainly clear that CALBO ignors Title 24 part 6 which is the energy code.

Just to remind you folks that in the front sections of every part of Title 24 there is language as to what code has precidence. OK ...

1.1. 7 .3 Conflicts. When the requirements of this code conflictwith the requirements of any other part of the CaliforniaBuilding Standards Code, Title 24, the most restrictive​

requirements shall prevail \

The greanies are going to have a lot to say about this.



All I ask is for a legally binding decision one way or another.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[electricguy61]

San Jose Ca Building Dept posting about new requirement

San Jose Ca Building Dept posting about new requirement

http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/25764

 

[Sierrasparky]

http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/25764

I suppose that is a legally binding decision for those in San Jose. I don't work there and none of the 4 local counties in my area have made a decision yet.
That document is a copy and paste from the CALBO analysis of SB407. CALBO has stated that it is not a Legal opinion, which means they will not stand behind it. You gotta LOVE it.

The CALBO analyisis is a very poor statement as it completely fails to tell the truth of the current law.
As I said earlier CALBO fails to recognize that the repairs listed such as roof ,HVAC change-out, Water heater replacement, window replacements, are not considered repairs by other CA codes. The more strict code prevails. The Green code as mentioned in the San Jose Memo also states.

201.3 Terms defined in other documents. Where terms are not defined in this code and are defined in the California Building Standards code or other documents, such terms shall have the meanings ascribedto them as in those publications.

I think once the Greanies see that the law is falling apart that brown stuff will hit the fan.


Messy messy