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

IBC Hearings

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
The report that I received from Pima County (Arizona) Chief Building 
Official, Bill Jones, confirms part of what you said; the meeting was 
dominated by other than ICBO people, primarily BOCA.

We (City of Tucson/Pima County Building Code Review Committee) had submitted 
a proposal to change the loads for residential sleeping rooms to the 40 psf 
that it currently is.  This was based on the fact that water beds, although 
not as popular now as they once were, already weigh more than the 30 psf 
proposed for the IBC even without considering the frame, support and 
additional furniture in a typical bedroom.  In addition, unused bedrooms are 
frequently used for storage, both in private residences and in apartment 
buildings.  This got defeated.  However, our proposed change to the loading 
requirements for truck storage garages *did* get approved.

Does this lack of participation by ICBO mean that ICBO is abandoning the 
IBC?  (I hope! I hope!)

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

Constantine Shuhaibar wrote:

. > Someone who attended the structural session of the IBC code hearings in 
. >      Costa Mesa last month reported that West Coast influence was 
. >      diminished by a very poor showing of CA building officials and 
. > diluted      by an obvious lack of unity, especially among engineers.
. >      SEAW and SEAOC seemed in direct opposition on many issues and SEAOC 
. > Code and SEAOC Seismology even disagreed.  West Coast building 
. >      officials weren't unified either, resulting in disapproval of many 
. >      code change proposals submitted from this part of the country.  Did 
. >      anyone else who attended come away with a different perception?