Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Calif and the ICC

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I thought the intent of having one nation wide model code was so we didn't
have to learn several codes and if you cross a state or county line you did
have to play by a different set of rules.  Also didn't the government
"suggest" about 12 years ago to ICBO, BOCA, and SBCCI to get together on
this issue.  So what motivated NFPA (and IAPMO) to publish the NFPA 5000?
I'n not for (more) government regulations but it made sense to have one
model code.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Widmayer [mailto:SWidmayer(--nospam--at)WILLDAN.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:11 PM
To: Seaint (E-mail)
Subject: Calif and the ICC


The latest from ICC re Calif. adoption of the NFPA codes:

>FAILURE OF CALIFORNIA COMMISSION'S CREATES CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY CRISIS
>
>Tuesday, the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) voted against
>recommending the International Codes (I-Codes) as the state's building
>safety and fire prevention codes; they did so in spite of strong support
>from state agencies and a coalition of private and public sector interests.
>
>This recent decision by the CBSC will have wide reaching negative
>consequences on the safety of the residents and businesses of California.
>
>As a result of an extensive review of model code options, the California
>Department of Housing and Community Development, Department of General
>Services Division of the State Architect and the Office of Statewide Health
>Planning Development supported adopting I-Codes.  These state agencies were
>joined in support by a coalition representing hundreds of California
>municipalities, fire departments, code enforcement officials, labor and
>professional organizations such as, the American Institute of Architects,
>Structural Engineers Association of California and Building Owners and
>Managers Association.
>
>"California has always been at the forefront of safety in the nation and we
>are dedicated to continuing our work with our members and partners to
>improve the codes in California; residents deserve to be as safe as
possible
>in their homes, at school and in the buildings where they work," said James
>Lee Witt, CEO of the International Code Council.  "The ICC is disappointed
>in the decision, but we are not giving up.  We hope that the state agencies
>that recommended the adoption of the I-Codes will stand by their
>recommendations for the safety of the citizens of California."
>
>This recent decision could leave California as one of only two states that
>do not use I-Codes at the state or jurisdictional level. Federal agencies,
>including the Department of Defense, also reference and enforce the
>International Codes.
>
>International Codes are the logical successor of the Uniform Codes, which
>are the codes that been used in California for the past several decades.
The
>burden of the additional cost to retrain and recertify local government
>officials, who are already certified and familiar with the I-Codes, will
>fall on the California taxpayers.
>
>The preponderance of testimony clearly demonstrated the NFPA building code
>is deficient, unusable and unenforceable. However, in order to address one
>of the glaring deficiencies related to housing construction, the Commission
>decided to include provisions of the International Residential Code for One
>and Two Family Dwellings published by ICC.
>
>The ICC, a 50,000-member nonprofit association dedicated to building
safety,
>develops the codes used to construct residential and commercial buildings,
>including homes and schools. The majority of U.S. cities, counties and
>states that adopt codes choose building safety and fire prevention codes
>developed by the ICC. The ICC is chartered in California and has an office
>in the Los Angeles area. For more information please visit www.iccsafe.org.
>###

Steve Widmayer, PE





******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** 

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********