Today we had G 98-15 disapproved. The clear reasoning was that the term R3 occupancies would include lodging houses, dormitories, and other multi family uses. The committee specifically told us to modify to only apply to 1 and 2 family dwellings. Another comment was that 3,000 sf was way to small as IRC allows unlimited garages (it was here I begun to understand that we are, for this committees thinking) talking about 4 story and above one and two family houses. Next came G-103-15. I made a floor modification changing r3 occupancies to one and two family occupancies (changed by the committee to one and two family dwellings) proposal PASSED! More later. Have a good weekend. -Jay

It is 11:45 Memphis time. Hearings today took an interesting turn. The morning we wrapped up Fire and Life Safety – largely with discussions about plastics in exterior building finishes. We skipped around a bit but went from FS. 160-15 to FS 183-15. Of the 33 proposals discussed, 3 were approved unanimously, 4 by 85%, 1 by 65% 5 were unanimously rejected, 2 received 85% no, 3 almost passed, one was a tie broken by the Chair and one could not generate votes to pass or fail (1 was withdrawn). Big items were a lot of related proposals by the Green House Manufacturer’s Assoviation (mixed results, but they made inroads and are now recognized as being something other than only a U occupancy – I am sure more in Long Beach. There was also approval to have dormitories, fraternities, sororities, and lodging houses be included in both R2 and R3 depending on the occupancy. Big news of the day was that all 6 occupied roof proposals went down in flames. We got some good feedback and have work to do, but I am sure we will get something approved in Long Beach. I will keep you up to date tomorrow. -Jay

We nearly finished up our Fire and Life Safety Group. It was a fascinating day. Much watching different insulation types battle for inclusion in the IBC. Not sure why there was so much emphasis on waterproofing, insulation and weather barriers. I think that since dome of these issues were more about fire-resistance than waterproofing and insulating the ICC decided to throw them all to Fire and Life Safety to sort it all out, We reviewed 67 Change Proposals (6.7 per hour): 23 received full approval to advance, 6 got 90%, 1 was barely approved and one withdrawn. 21 were completely rejected, 19 got about 10% vote (rejection) and 1 almost made it (all can be revisited this Fall in Long Beach – except the one that was withdrawn). I learned that a denial lets you reintroduce in Long Beach if you can get a 2/3 vote but a withdrawal means you are OUT. Many of the rejected items were told that the proposal looks good but needs to be worked on more and then should be resubmitted in Long Beach. There was a lot of tug-and-pull between radiant barrier/reflective insulation manufacturers and thermal mass manufacturers – something that we have pretty much resolved in California. The other interesting (and long) discussion about something that has been in the California Green Code for years was a discussion about wood framing needed to be dry (to 19%) before closing in. Everyone was convinced that this was an impossible thing to achieve or enforce (at least the opponents acted “confused and dazed”) At the end of the day those of us with Occupied Roof proposals caucused to plan strategy for tomorrow. That’s all for today. – Jay