code of California especially, because it was not entirely satisfactory when it was passed-it has had a great deal taken out of it that should have been left in.

MR. HORNER: I can agree with you if you are going to include the scope of housing. I might say we do take housing into consideration, although I didn't think to mention that before. We did not take into consideration zoning. I believe zoning and building regulations should take two different ordinances. For instance, on the highest type of fire resistance buildings-and by the way, we don't call it fire-proof-we put no limit on the height. Now, if you are in Los Angeles, the building ordinance would take care of the height. That is what we believe. And now as to housing with respect to distance from the property line, the way in which you have thus proposed, we did not take into consideration, but when it comes into the safety or a public garage being right next door to a dry cleaning establishment, a theatre or a hotel, we do take that into consideration. Housing, to my mind, has to do only with private residential buildings or residential property.

MR. ARONOVICI (Berkeley): The idea of the uniformity of housing or building regulations might be a handicap to communities not so closely built up. My experience in housing, which has been more or less varied, although not very extensive in regard to area-take for instance, outlying small towns where the lots are 150 feet by 60 feet and the situation with regard to Fire Underwriters protection is quite different from that in the large cities where the danger is greater, and I think there has been considerable abuse, if I may put it, on the part of Fire Underwriters, where the fire hazards are relatively limited to putting in building materials to make buildings last a good deal longer than is necessary. So I would like to impress upon you that

I think a standard building code is a fine thing. You do away with dishonesty on the part of the dealer. Understand me, there must be a certain amount of latitude with regard to the construction of a building, where the question of fire protection, which seems to be the greatest and foremost thing in the minds of the people and which should be fully covered in a building code—in other words—that is not very important. I don't operate from a human point of view. I know of very few incidents where people have been burned up in buildings on account of there being no fire escapes. There have been only three people burned up in the City of New York within the last three years because I believe that is on account of the demand which insurance brokers have been making and have placed an enormous cost upon the owner through the necessity of carrying fire insurance, and in that way the fire underwriters are establishing high standards in order to maintain insurance rates.

MR. HORNER: I might state in response to that we have tried to consider nothing except from the standpoint of public health, safety and welfare and we try to keep everything else out of this code and still provide safe buildings; in other words, buildings which protect the public health and to a certain extent we try to keep as near to the fundamental principles as possible, believing that the city might at some time have a comprehensive zoning plan, but if it is from such regional plan as was spoken of this morning, those things should not come into a building code but rather in an ordinance. That would have to come about through the passage of a uniform ordinance, but it should cover those things, cover building regulations from the standpoint of public health, safety and welfare and we did not go into the question of housing any further than we have.

MR. KILKENNY (Vallejo): What is the name and address of the secretary of the Pacific Coast Building Conference?

MR. HORNER: J. E. Mackie, Chief Building Inspector, Long Beach, California.

MR. KENNEDY (San Francisco): I was wondering during the discussion whether anything had been provided in this ordinance or in this proposed building regulation or code, covering the matter of inspection during construction. I have in mind two or three accidents which have occurred in buildings, and I have in mind particularly one that occurred in Pasadena, which everybody has had before them during the past year, and this calls to mind one of the things which is a vital weakness in building codes and that is the matter of inspection during construction.

You know, and most of us who have observed buildings going on in different municipalities, realize that the fundamental principle in building is to make it safe; that the fundamental inspection as applied to engineering construction, are very frequently, in fact, in the majority of cases, more or less grossly neglected, and whether or not any sort of a building code which was adopted for the protection of life should not contain a very definite method of the inspection of this work during construction, so the public is assured of the safety of the structures as designed or constructed. We engineers have very decided ideas on that subject, and, in fact, that subject has been before the Engineering Fraternity and it has been considering building regulations for several years. Last April at Columbus, Ohio, in a meeting of the eastern building officials' conference, an organization somewhat like that which we have on the Pacific Coast-the Pacific Coast Conference Mr. Kirk, who was formerly building inspector of Evansville, I think, prepared and presented a paper on Owners'

Inspection. That paper had a great many very excellent points in it, and we for weeks took that paper and discussed it out here on the Pacific Coast pro and con, hammer and tongs. We finally took his paper and used it. I would say we used 80 or 85 per cent of the ideas he had in his paper. We said this: All buildings costing over $20,000, which is an arbitrary figure, we admit-and we didn't know any other arbitrary way to put in all buildings as costing over $20,000 and all buildings involving complicated design and architecture must have an inspector constantly on the job while any portion of such building involving such complicated design is being constructed. In other words, while forms were being placed in reinforced concrete; while steel work was being erected, there must be an inspector paid by the owner while steel is being erected, rivets being driven, connecting the trusses to the rafters, putting up the trusses-the inspector must be on the job constantly. He must make daily reports every night to the building. inspector. That relieves the building inspector of a great deal of detail work. No building department of the state of California is over-manned, and there are none that I know of that are considerably under-manned. However, public health and safety is to be properly taken care of.

Now, with this inspector on the job, as I say, not only will the owner get adequate inspection of his own work, but the safety of the building is assured to the public, and the owner is assured that the work will be done in accordance with his contract with the contractor. This inspector is being paid by the owner. It is presumed the inspector will look after the owner's interest. He must also, in the first place, be competent. He must pass an examination, if necessary, with the building inspector. He must register himself to the city for which he pays a fee of $1 according to our ordinance; I

believe that is the fee. He must be on the job whenever any erection is going on. Now, we have further qualified that $20,000 that when in the opinion of the building inspectors buildings costing over $20,000 but which do not involve any complicated structural designs; you might put up corrugated iron frame 8 feet high for housing automobiles during the day, without sides. It might be a thousand feet long and 200 feet wide. It would not involve any complicated design. Then the building inspector can waive the regulation requiring owner's inspection. We think that is the most forward thing in the building requirements today and we think we will have some trouble with it, and when the owners and the public in general find the advantage of it, it will be insisted upon.

There is just one other thing and that is where a building is being used for purposes entirely different from the design for which it was intended. That question is of vital concern to public health.

MR. HORNER: I will have to go into detail to answer that. There are three fundamentals which we have taken into consideration. First, requirement because of occupancy. Now, if the building is an assembly hall it is one requirement; if it is a store house it has other requirements. If it be a garage it has other requirements. We consider the requirements from the standpoint of occupancy. We group all buildings in ten or a dozen groups and state the requirements of buildings for that group, just as we have clauses when a building is changed from one to another occupancy, that it shall meet certain requirements of the changed occupancy. That is a hard thing to enforce, and it is going to be still harder, and if a city council is not sold on this code; if you are going to listen to every fellow that comes around and tells you: "This is terrible; this is going to make trouble," and think this code is going to

create an injury, and complain that: "We have to put in ventilation here and a stairway here and there; and this building law is no good;" if you are going to listen to that sort of thing you are not going to have safety in your building regulations. So we have that clause saying that no building shall change from one occupancy to another without first complying with the provisions of the building codes with respect thereto and that a permit must be secured to change the building from one occupancy to another. If you have a building you are going to make into an assembly hall, you have to provide exits for the people that may go into that assembly hall, and otherwise make provisions which will safeguard the public. Now, if there are any other questions, I will be glad to answer them, for my time is getting short.

MR. HARMON (Alhambra): I would like to ask when this code will be ready to submit to the various municipalities?

MR. HORNER: It will be printed and ready for distribution on September 15th of this year. It will be taken to the annual conference of the Pacific Coast Building Officials Annual Meeting which will take place at the conference at San Jose on September 20th to 23rd, inclusive. It will be discussed there by perhaps 60 building inspectors. The disposition of it then depends on what the building inspectors think of it. In my opinion it will be adopted first as a rough building code and not adopted as to detail. It should not be adopted as to detail, because no building inspector has had an opportunity to go over it with respect to detail and know how it is going to apply to his own city. After September 23rd all criticisms and recommendations for changes in this final preliminary draft will be sent to the secretary and what happens after that and how long it takes before the final draft which will actually be adopted word for word by

the conference, I am not prepared to say, nor is anybody else, but it will be ready for distribution on September 15th of this year.

If

MR. VAN ALSTINE (Presiding): there are no further questions to be asked of Mr. Horner we will pass to the next number on our program. (No response.) There seems to be none. We thank you very much, Mr. Horner, for your instructive talk.

For the past few months it has gradually become known to engineers of highway construction that the California State Highway Commission is getting better results in road construction than have heretofore been deemed possible. We have already considerable 2000-pound concrete, that is, concrete which will bear up under a compression test showing strength of 2,000 pounds per square inch, which is very good concrete.

Those of us who have succeeded in getting our concrete work to stand up under a load of 2,400 to 2,800 pounds per square inch thought we were getting first-class work. The California State Highway Commission has recently been obtaining results that have been astonishing to the engineering profession. Upon learning of this I advised the program committee of the League that all of the California cities would be very much interested and very much benefited by learning of the work being done by the California State Highway Commission. Mr. C. S. Pope of the California State Highway Commission, a construction engineer under whose direct supervision this work has been done is here and will give you a talk on the work being done by the California State Highway Commission. I take pleasure in introducing Mr. Pope.

MR. POPE: I have got to read this thing to you and I am going to take a little time to go into the history of highway construction in California so you will

have an idea of the progress and the reasons for the present changes in methods of construction.

The experience of the California State Highway Commission, as you know, dates from the year 1912. The first highway constructed is a piece of highway extending from South San Francisco to Burlingame. That highway is of 1:3:6 concrete base, 5 inches thick, with a one-inch sheet asphaltum top. It is only this year that the road had to be widened and thickened. After studying the bituminous macadam highway for a number of years, the first contract let by the State Highway Commission, also in 1912, was a bituminous macadam surface highway from Madera south to Califa. That is a fifteen foot all bituminous macadam pavement. It has had no repairs except minor repairsslight repairs to the pavement. That pavement, as I say, was put in in 1912. The fifth contract let by the Highway Commission was in Stanislaus County, and that is of concrete-concrete pavement, 15 feet wide extending from Ceres to the county line south, a distance of 12 miles. This pavement required widening in 1922. At the same time it was thickened and strengthened. The analysis of the condition to be met on highway construction was not so serious in the past as it is today. You must remember the program was vast; great pressure appeared for the immediate construction of highways; there was not as much "engineering" on highway construction at that time as we have today; the publication of data was not as varied; there were no research bodies; so engineers did not have information to go on at that time as we have today.

Now, the large expenditures which we make today would not have been thought of in those days. They would simply have been thunderstruck with the idea of spending $150,000 a mile for grading only. They would probably have re