Saturday, September 29, 2007

Code Compliance Contacts

BUILDING DEPT. DIRECTORY

Information as of Fall 2006

LOCATION / DEPT. PHONE NOTES

WEBSITE

Auburn 253/931-3090

Permit Center

25 SW Main St.

Auburn, WA 98001

www.ci.auburn.wa.us

Bellevue 425/452-7157

Planning & Community Development

450 110th Ave NE

P.O. Box 90012

Bellevue, WA 98009

www.ci.bellevue.wa.us

Bellingham 360/676-6550

Planning & Community Development

210 Lottie Street

Bellingham, WA 98225

www.cob.org/pcd

Bothell 425/486-8152

Community Development

18305 101st Ave NE

Bothell, WA 98011

www.ci.bothell.wa.us

Des Moines 206/870-7576

Community Development

21630 11th Ave. S.,

Suite D

Des Moines, WA 98168

www.desmoineswa.gov

Edmonds 425/771-0220

Development Services

121 5th Ave. N.

Edmonds, WA 98020

www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/devsvcs.stm

Enumclaw 360/825-3593

Public Works Dept.

1309 Myrtle St.

Enumclaw, WA 98022

www.ci.enumclaw.wa.us/comm_devel.htm

Everett 425/257-8810

Permit Services

3200 Cedar St.

Everett, WA 98201

www.ci.everett.wa.us

Federal Way 253/835-2607

33325 8th Ave S.

P.O. Box 9718

Federal Way, WA 98063

www.cityoffederalway.com

Fife 253/922-2489

Community Development

5411 23rd St. E.

Fife, WA 98424

www.cityoffife.org

Gig Harbor 360/851-6170

Community Development

3510 Grandview St.

Gig Harbor, WA 98335

www.cityofgigharbor.net

Issaquah 425/837-3100

Building Department

City Hall NW

1775 12th Ave NW

P.O. Box 1307

Issaquah, WA 98027-1307

www.ci.issaquah.wa.us

Kent 253/856-5300

Permit Center

400 W. Gowe St.

Kent, WA 98032

www.ci.kent.wa.us/permitcenter

King County 206/296-6600

Department of

Development and

Environmental Services,

900 Oaksdale Ave. SW

Renton, WA 98057

www.metrokc.gov/ddes

Kirkland 425/587-3600

Building Department

123 5th Ave.

Kirkland, WA 98033

www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/depart/fire_and_building.htm

Kitsap County 360/337-4925

Dept of Community Development

619 Division St.

Port Orchard, WA 98366

www.kitsapgov.com/dcd

Lake Forest Park 206/368-5440

Building Department

17425 Ballinger Way NE

Lake Forest Park, WA 98155

www.cityoflfp.com/city/building.html

Lynnwood 425/670-6645

Community Development

19000 44th Ave W.

P.O. Box 5008

Lynnwood, WA 98046

www.ci.lynnwood.wa.us/content/cityhall.aspx?id=35

Mercer Island 206/236-5300

Development Services

9611 S.E. 36th St.

Mercer Island, WA 98040

www.ci.mercer-island.wa.us/departments.asp

Mountlake Terrace 425/774-6267

Permit Center – Dept of Community Dev.

23204 58th W.

Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043

www.ci.mountlake-terrace.wa.us/departments/development

Mukilteo 425/355-4141

Building Department

4480 Chennault Beach Rd.

Mukilteo, WA 98275

www.ci.mukilteo.wa.us

Olympia 360/753-8314

Permits & Inspections

837 7th Ave. S.E.

Olympia, WA 98501

www.ci.olympia.wa.us/cityservices/permit

Port Angeles 360/417-4750

Community Development

321 E. 5th St.

Port Angeles, WA 98362

www.cityofpa.us/commdevelop.htm


Puyallup 253/864-4165

Development Services – Building Division

1100 39th Ave SE

Puyallup, WA 98374

www.cityofpuyallup.org

Redmond 425/556-2493

Planning & Comm. Dev – Building Div.

15670 N.E. 85th St.

Redmond, WA 98052

www.ci.redmond.wa.us

Renton 425/430-7200

Planning/Building – Development Services

1055 S. Grady Way

Renton, WA 98055

www.ci.renton.wa.us

Seattle 206/684-8600

Dept. of Planning and Development

710 2nd Ave.,

Suite 200

Seattle, WA 98104

www.seattle.gov/dpd

Skagit County 360/336-9410

Planning & Development Services

1800 Continental Place

Mount Vernon, WA 98273

www.skagitcounty.net

Snohomish County 425/388-3411

800/562-4367

Planning & Development Services

3000 Rockefeller Ave.

Everett, WA 98201-4046

www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/departments/pds

Spokane 509/625-6300

Building Department

808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd

Spokane, WA 99201

www.buildingspokane.org

Tacoma 253/591-5030

Land Use / Permits

747 Market St.

3rd Floor

Tacoma, WA 98402

www.cityoftacoma.org

Tukwila 206/431-3670

Department of Community Development

6300 Southcenter Blvd.

Suite 100

Tukwila, WA 98188

www.ci.tukwila.wa.us/dcd/dcdbuild.htm

Vancouver 360/696-8105

Development Review – Permit Center

1313 Main St.

Vancouver, WA 98668

www.ci.vancouver.wa.us

Whatcom County 360/676-6907

Planning and Development Svcs.

Building Services Division

5280 Northwest Road

Bellingham, WA 98227

www.co.whatcom.wa.us/pds/building

OTHER CITIES

Anchorage 907/343-8301

Development Services

4700 S. Bragaw St.

Anchorage, AK 99507

http://www.muni.org/bsd/mainpage.cfm

Fairbanks 907/459-6720

Building Department

800 Cushman Street

Fairbanks, AK 99701

http://www.ci.fairbanks.ak.us/departments/building/building.php

Juneau 907/586-0770

Community Development Department

155 S. Seward St.

Juneau, AK 99801

www.juneau.org/cddftp

NOTE: For names and telephone numbers for building officials of

cities and counties not listed, go to www.wabo.org

Sunday, September 23, 2007

35 Years Ago: Puget Sound Chapter 1972

Beginning in September 1972, the normal Puget Sound Chapter meeting location was changed to the AGC Building on Westlake Ave. The price of dinner was increased to $5.50, but free parking and 8-oz. top sirloin steaks on the menu kept complaints to a minimum.










A Lively Crowd Gathers During the Social Hour at a 1972 Puget Sound Chapter ASHRAE Meeting


1972-73 Meeting Topics
  • Trends & Developments in Construction Manager Contracts
  • Sizing Control Valves for Hydronic Systems
  • Total Building Automation
  • Contractor Use of Computers (see below)
  • Navy Surface Effect Ship
  • Rod Chandler, KOMO Television
  • Northwest & National Energy Problems
  • Variable Air Volume Systems
  • Computerized Building Automation

Before the Internet and Chapter Blogs…

For rapid communication, a telephone committee was established to contact one member from each page of the 1972-73 Roster & Directory who would then call all remaining members listed on his page. The Punch List article announcing this plan asked “when will ‘Ma Bell’ come up with a computerized call system for this sort of thing?”

To reduce cost overruns, dinner meeting reservations were started in 1972 with a postage-paid reply card included in the Punch List. Those who waited too late to mail the reservation could phone in a reservation by calling AT 4-1424.

Reception Committee members Dick Phalen (later to become Chapter President, 1981-82) and Joe Schauff put away dinner receipts for safe keeping after a precise prediction of meeting attendance from the new meeting reservation system.






Contractors' Early Use of Computers
The December 1972 meeting topic was "Contractor Use of Computers". Bob Bowlin (a recent panelist at the September 2007 Puget Sound Chapter meeting on commissioning) and Dwight Specker discussed advantages of using computers on the job.

It was noted “the vast unknown and lack of faith” make many contractors and engineers wary of computer use. However, both presenters discussed the tremendous time savings from using their computer for administrative tasks such as client billing and pay-roll as well as for engineering load calculations.

The presenters highly recommended the WANG computer, at a cost of $5,000 to $20,000 depending on selected add-on features.


An early-70s era WANG computer system








Friday, August 31, 2007

NYC Geothermal Heat Pump Manual sets a Lofty Goal


In August of 2002, the City of New York Department of Design and Construction published a Manual guiding engineers through the design and installation of geothermal heat pump systems in their city. This manual covered the basics of geothermal heat pump designs, the intricacies of the complicated NYC geology, and the intricacies of the complicated NYC permitting process. As such it was a positive step by a government agency to facilitate the adoption of high-efficiency building systems. And it was a somewhat counter-intuitive move, since ground-loop heat-pump systems are often considered prohibitive in dense urban areas.

This manual sets an intriguing example for other local or state governments--especially ones where the underlying geology of their areas of jurisdiction are complicated or where strict building or energy codes exist. In cities like Seattle, where both are the case, a similar manual would be of great utility to local designers.

A link to the manual can be found here:



There is probably much of benefit to any designer working in areas of jumbled glacial deposits as are found in the Puget Sound region.

Monday, August 20, 2007

Energy Modeling, Part 1

With increasing energy awareness and green building momentum, the venerated task of energy modeling has enjoyed some resurgence of notoriety recently, due in part to a higher emphasis placed on building energy performance by state codes, increasing utility rates and rebates, and a groundswell of LEED certifications.

Fundamentally, energy (and its derivative, sustainability) modeling is an art and science that has evolved over decades of continuous improvement by a dedicated cadre of engineering professionals. One of those professionals is Association of Energy Engineers cofounder James P. Waltz.

Mr. Waltz is founder and president of his own building engineering consulting firm, a noted speaker, author, and member of the HPAC Editorial Advisory Board. As an author, Mr. Waltz has written a number of books over the course of his distinguished career, including the one we'll be focusing on in this series of articles entitled Computerized Building Energy Simulation Handbook.

Mr. Waltz's company, Energy Resource Associates Inc., does not engage in new design work nor do they work for architects, focusing exclusively on energy and automation engineering of existing facilities for owners. His perspective as a result is a pragmatic one, based on 30 years of critically assessing and retro-commissioning countless building systems.

What I like most about the CBESH, and why I think it should be on the bookshelf of anyone who is doing computerized building simulations and getting paid for it, is that it's not about the software. It's about dispelling building simulation myths, defining precision levels and selecting the correct tool for the job, field assessing existing conditions, building a library of representative case studies, model construction checklists, analyzing output and model calibration, practicalities of energy conservation modeling, and the role of building simulation in performance contracting, to paraphrase the chapter titles.

Building simulation programs are like standards, the problem is we have so many to choose from... each with their own idiosyncrasies requiring multiple volumes to document and a discussion board to troubleshoot. On the other hand the fundamental ideas presented in CBESH are universal, or as they might say in the software business, "platform-independent" to the application of energy modeling.

Originally I had to planned to review this book as the basis for the first article in a series of energy modeling articles I have been asked to submit for this year's Punchlist. However I believe now that skimming over the multitude of essential concepts presented in CBESH wouldn't best answer the needs of the readership. Which brings me to the second thing I really like about this book, namely that it contains nine chapters, and there are nine newsletters in a Puget Sound ASHRAE Chapter year.

This month we have looked at the Preface and first chapter, entitled "Introduction", about three quarters of which have been summarized so far. The last item I'd like to comment about in the introduction is answering the question that every energy consultant must be ready to unhesitatingly answer, namely 'Why Do We Do Building Simulations?'

The CBESH suggests the following four justifications (in quotations), to which I have editorialized a consultant's perspective addressing new construction:
  • "To obtain funding for retrofit improvements", or to justify new high-performance systems over what may otherwise meet code compliance with minimal efficiency and limited functionality.
  • "To justify taking a risk as a third-party, such as an Esco" or utility company in the form of rebates or incentives. While not financial in nature, LEED certification may also be characterized as a form of third-party risk.
  • "To raise the level of confidence". Manual calculations are useful, and can provide valuable boundary conditions, or 'reality checks' on elements of computer simulations. However computer simulations excel in providing the detailed accounting required to justify individual energy efficiency measures in the context of complex systems interdependencies.
  • "To verify that the homework has been done. Proof that homework has been done is far more valuable than a guarantee." There's simply no substitute for the due diligence required to construct an accurate energy simulation. In the case of new construction, where we do not have existing buildings nor utility bills to help calibrate the model, careful homework tempered with sound judgment based on experience become our only guideposts.
In summary, the first chapter has defined where we are going, why anyone would want to go there, and why we should have some confidence in this fellow who has offered to be our tour guide.

Next month: Dispelling common building simulation myths.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not constitute an endorsement by ASHRAE.

Brandon Nichols, PE, LEED® AP of Hargis Engineers has over 20 years experience in facilities systems engineering and project management for consultants and owners from design through long-term sustaining operations. He is the author of the ELCCA Exchange blog, which compiles information on topics relevant to completing State of Washington Energy Lifecycle Cost Analysis reports.

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Posting Guidelines

The Puget Sound ASHRAE blog is a service to our members to facilitate communication between the members and the committee chairs and Board of Governors, as well as to foster communications and build relationships between members of the Puget Sound Chapter of ASHRAE (PSASHRAE).

In order to encourage that goal, certain guidelines shall be followed and certain understandings should be stated.

The community comments sections are intended for the use of PSASHRAE members. Others are encouraged to contribute, but PSASHRAE reserves the right to limit the posting privileges to members at any time.

Posters are encouraged to post with identifying information in their posts to facilitate off-site communication between other members of our organization. Anonymous postings, however, will not be deleted simply because they are anonymous as long as they respect the posting guidelines. Impersonating other posters or members of PSASHRAE is strictly forbidden and would be grounds for immediate revocation of posting privileges.

Opinions and statments in the comments sections represent the views of the poster alone, and do not reflect the views of the PSASHRAE organization, the Board Members or Committee Chairs, or of ASHRAE Society. Statements in the comments sections by chapter officers likewise shall be interpreted to reflect the personal views of that individual only, and shall not be interpreted to reflect the views of Society or the Chapter

PSASHRAE reserves the right to moderate user comments and delete any comments for any reason. Comments that are abusive in nature, offensive or otherwise disruptive are subject to removal.

PSASHRAE reserves the right to remove comments that do not foster ASHRAE's mission, or violate the spirit of Society's non-commercialism policy.

A note on political speech: ASHRAE is a non-partisan organization. This blog is not intended to be a platform for political action--If that is your interest there are many outlets available elsewhere on the web. Any overt campaigning or advocacy for political candidates, parties, causes or legislation will be subject to deletion. Comments that are informational in nature (i.e. "Representative John Doe has introduced a bill that would affect such-and-such a building type in such-and-such a way") are generally acceptable, but please understand that the line between reportage and advocacy is a fine one and one that is drawn in different places by different people. Please understand if a post of yours in this nature is deleted, or if a post by another that you feel crosses the line is not.

Generally, posts that deal strictly with educational, informational or technical matters are encouraged. There are areas, however, where even these sorts of comments can skirt close to political issues. A potential source of conflict would be the current emphasis ASHRAE Society is putting on Sustainability. If you are unaware of the position Society is taking on such matters, we refer you to the ASHRAE position statements. In cases of conflict, these documents can be used to help guide any decision by the moderators.

This blog is intended to be a self-policing community. The board cannot monitor every single comment made by every poster. If you observe posts that you feel are detrimental to the goals of our organization or otherwise disruptive to our community, please notify a board member. But keep in mind that this service is intended to foster open communications between members and between members and the board. A heavy moderator presence is not conducive to this goal. All comments are the opinions of the individuals using this site and should be viewed in this manner.

Please also feel free to submit comments or suggestions for the betterment of this service, the chapter in general, or for improvement in our pursuit of the ASHRAE mission.