In a message dated 7/29/2000 12:39:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
<< I think it is time that the members of SEAOC demand that their leaders
the CA State legislature to change the law so that amendments and
corrections such as this can be made to the CA version of the UBC. If it is
a bad law, it should be changed ASAP, particularly if it was a simple
procedural error. From what I understand, it is nearly impossible for the
language of the UBC to be changed once the CA version is published. It is
nearly always adopted as is (except of course for schools and hospitals).
From what I understand, the 2000 IBC is a done deal (no further revisions)
and the 2003 IBC nearly so.
There is still a chance to make changes to the 2000 IBC. According to the
current state schedule for the adoption of IBC, interested parties have until
January of 2001 to submit code change proposals to the California Building
Standards Commission. Anyone can submit code change proposals. As I
understand SEAOC has already submitted some changes. (Maybe someone from the
SEAOC code committee should shed some light on this.)
The thing that throws a monkey ranch in the whole process is the strong
opposition of some vocal groups to the IBC and the parallel process of
creation of a new building code by the NFPA (national Fire Protection
Association). The picture of the next cycle of code adoption looks very
convoluted at this time. In one scenario we may be stuck with 97 UBC for
several more years.
But I would encourage everyone who has a bone to pick with an item in the
UBC, that was carried over to the IBC, to consider submitting a change
proposal. We need to take action otherwise decisions will be made for us.
Ben Yousefi, SE
San Jose, CA