Exclusions - for unwilling owner...

[e57]

Exclusions:

• Corrections to existing site conditions known or unknown, sited by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (SFDBI), or other Building Official.
• Omissions or corrections to design or scope (Detailed above) known or unknown, sited by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (SFDBI), or other Building Official. To include specific compliance with Title 24 Part 3, Article 210.23 & Article 240.24(B) (2007 CEC) Or Title 24 Part 6 (2008 CBEES).
• Trenching, digging, non-electrical related demolition, patching & painting.
• PG&E fees
• Etc. Blah, blah, blah... (yes there was more...)

Owner swears that his multi-family dwelling (Tenancy In Common pending condo conversion) is a unique snowflake and not subject to the usual scrutiny.

Any guesses to what it is he is refusing to do? But still wants a bid for anyway!!!! (The '05 NEC = Title 24 part 3) We figured he did not want it in English - but still need to CYA.

 

[jrannis]

A bit more info might generate some thoughtful comments:roll:

 

[charlie b]

240.24(B) has the requirement that each tenant has to have access to overcurrent devices that serve conductors in their spaces. If the owner wants to exclude that from your scope, then it would appear that they don't want to add panels in each tenant's space.

210.23 has the limits for loads on branch circuits. I can't imagine what there might be in the present configuration that they want to leave in place (i.e., don't want you to include the cost for upgrading).

 

[cowboyjwc]

240.24(B) has the requirement that each tenant has to have access to overcurrent devices that serve conductors in their spaces. If the owner wants to exclude that from your scope, then it would appear that they don't want to add panels in each tenant's space.

210.23 has the limits for loads on branch circuits. I can't imagine what there might be in the present configuration that they want to leave in place (i.e., don't want you to include the cost for upgrading).

That would have been my guess too.

There are no such thing as "snowflake" buildings. It either complies or it doesn't.

 

[zbang]

There are some very special snow-flakes in San Francisco real estate, emphesis on the flake part. I hear about them all the time from my lawyer friends.

 

[macmikeman]

"Corrections to existing site conditions known or unknown, sited by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (SFDBI), or other Building Official."


Speaking of attorney's, I would change the first letter in the red word from your exclusion list to c , cause one of those attorney thingy's can get your document tossed out of court based on that error.

 

[e57]

"Corrections to existing site conditions known or unknown, sited by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (SFDBI), or other Building Official."


Speaking of attorney's, I would change the first letter in the red word from your exclusion list to c , cause one of those attorney thingy's can get your document tossed out of court based on that error.

Ooooh yes - good catch thanks... I won't say that I have not been a victim of spell-check-crutch before.... I think I need a small 'o' and a comma too I think. I was whipping this up pretty late last night...

Also it is 210.25, not 23 - Maybe I wasn't drinking enough coffee.

Essentially this guy is refusing to add a seperate meter for commom areas and seperation of common area circuits. He's building a four story out building as an additional unit, and wants a new meter for that, but not the common areas.

Exclusions:

• Corrections to existing site conditions known or unknown, cited by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (SFDBI), or other Building Official.
• Omissions or corrections to design or scope (Detailed above) known or unknown, cited by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (SFDBI), or other Building Official. To include specific compliance with Title 24 Part 3, Article 210.25 & Article 240.24(B) (2007 CEC), or Title 24 Part 6 (2008 CBEES).
• Trenching, digging, non-electrical related demolition, patching & painting.
• PG&E fees

 

[K8MHZ]

Ooooh yes - good catch thanks... I won't say that I have not been a victim of spell-check-crutch before.... I think I need a small 'o' and a comma too I think. I was whipping this up pretty late last night...

Also it is 210.25, not 23 - Maybe I wasn't drinking enough coffee.

Essentially this guy is refusing to add a seperate meter for commom areas and seperation of common area circuits. He's building a four story out building as an additional unit, and wants a new meter for that, but not the common areas.


[/LIST]

That's fine as long as he is including electricity with the rent and the bills for all the meters go to the landlord.

Some landlords that include utilities still want separate meters for their own monitoring purposes.

 

[e57]

That's fine as long as he is including electricity with the rent and the bills for all the meters go to the landlord.

Some landlords that include utilities still want separate meters for their own monitoring purposes.

If it were existing, and only one meter, and one owner that might be true - this is a TIC looking to go Condo - it requires seperating metering/OCP access to each unit, and seperate common area metering.

What this is - multiple owners - one over-seeing construction of an additional unit for both as a salable investment to what will be an additional owner. (Tenancy/ownership in common) The one over-seeing construction is clueless and thinks he is somehow exempt from these requirements. We can install it as he wants now... (as a TIC) Because the property is not legally seperated yet. But the day he goes to condo convert it will be a big red flag - requiring the common areas to be seperated. This was brought up to him, but when it comes back a few years down the road - or right at the inspection since we dont know where the branch breakers are in the house - we need to have some sort of way of having it in writing, but the guy doesn't seem like he wants it in plain english. Like: 'Common area metering and circuit seperation was suggested - but Mr. Dufus refused...'

 

[petersonra]

We can install it as he wants now... (as a TIC) Because the property is not legally seperated yet. But the day he goes to condo convert it will be a big red flag - requiring the common areas to be seperated.

Maybe he wants to be as cheap as possible for now. Considering the way the market is, it may be a long time before it goes condo.