Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

ICBO California Legislative Alert

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

California is again at the forefront!


Changing from the 1994 UBC to the IBC 2000 is proceeding too quickly.  
Changes, which aren't completely understood, are being made to proposals that 
weren't completely understood, and no one knows what we are getting.

There is no reason to proceed so quickly in adopting an "International 
Building Code," which isn't International and probably won't even be 
National.  The only reason to adopt an "IBC 2000" so quickly is a Madison 
Avenue, public relations reason for its catchy sounding name.

The "Working Draft" of the IBC 2000 was a mishmash combination of the three 
model codes, the intent of which wasn't really known or used outside the 
areas of their jurisdiction.  Changes have been made to that mishmash 
resulting in a greater mishmash.  Adopting the IBC 2000 without a work-in 
period is going to result in disasters.  We know what happens to 
understanding when isolated chapters of the UBC have been rewritten such as 
provisions being left out or reworded in a confusing manner.  Now it is 
proposed to rewrite the entire Code.

The last semi-stable UBC is the 1994 UBC.  For the most part, changes for 
that code were made slowly and with considerably more study than is being 
devoted to the IBC, even with that edition going to the common code format.  
Then, changes were made to the 1994 edition to not only have a common format, 
but to progress to a common code and these changes weren't adequately 
studied.  Witness the questions that appear on this list concerning the 
meaning of 1997 UBC provisions.


A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural)
Tucson, Arizona

Constantine Shuhaibar wrote:

. > I was browing the ICBO when I stumbled on the following. Visit
. > if you are interested.

. > "The California State Assembly is considering AB-1626 in its
. > Housing and Community Development Committee. AB 1626 would mandate
. > by statute the state's adoption of the "most current edition" of IAPMO's
. > Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, and the Western Fire
. > Chiefs Association's Uniform Fire Code (a document for which no code
. > development process exists at this time). Finally, it locks the state into
. > ICBO's
. > 1997 UBC. The net effect of all of these mandated adoptions is to preempt 
. > any movement by the state of California toward the single national model 
. > code family currently being considered for adoption throughout the 
. > nation."