Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Code for Thought

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

> FredT5(--nospam--at) wrote in part:
>> Unfortunately, the state has no easy way to adopt
>> amendments to the model
>> codes that would apply to all occupancies. The only
>> option short of
>> legislation is to approach each and every local
>> government city council/board
>> of supervisors and ask them to amend the code via local
>> ordinances. But there
>> are over 300 such affected entities, so this option is
>> impractical.
>> The participants discussed two options: 1. Legislation
>> to authorize a state
>> agency to adopt seismic amendments to the model code
>> that would apply to all
>> occupancies. Local building officials and others don't
>> like this option. Its a
>> slippery slope that may lead to widespread amendments to
>> the model code.
>> 2. Sponsor "narrow" legislation that would make IBC's
>> Seismic Design Category
>> D .
> Fred:
> There may be another option.  Statute law already gives
> the CBSC the duty to adopt the "Model Codes".  The recent
> IAPMO court decision said the Model Codes do not have to
> be exactly the codes enumerated in the law.  The court
> said that the CBSC has some latitude in selecting these
> codes.  Why not have the CBSC adopt the SEAOC Blue Book as
> a "Model Code" and use it in lieu of the seismic
> provisions of the IBC structural chapters?  I do not think
> any legislative action would be required to do this.
> I agree that 300+ local adoptions is an accident waiting
> to happen and would reverse 30 years of trying for
> cross-jurisdiction code uniformity in California. If
> legislation is needed, it should be to give the Seismic
> Safety Commission authority to adopt necessary amendments
> to the IBC to provide minimum seismic design and
> construction standards for new buildings of all
> occupancies including schools and hospitals.  This would
> eliminate the problems with the IBC and address concerns
> with the Field Act by separating code development from
> code enforcement thereby providing some checks and
> balances on DSA/SSS and OSHPD.
> Bob Bossi