Code Advisory Committee
CODE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DATE: April 5, 2000 (Wednesday)
TIME: 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
LOCATION: 1650 Mission Street, Suite 302
MINUTES
Present |
Excused |
Absent |
Carolynn Abst Charles Breidinger, P.E. Tony Sanchez-Corea Edgar Fennie, Jr., AIA Fred Freund Dorie Lee Arnold Lerner, AIA Zachary Nathan, AIA Jim Reed |
Andy Forrest, P.E. |
Jerry Cunningham, P.E. James Guthrie, S.E. |
Others present
Stuart Posselt, California Building Standards Commission
Alan Tokugawa, DBI, Secretary CAC
Laurence Kornfield, Chief Bldg. Inspector, TSD
David Leung, TSD
Zan Turner, TSD
Lee Phillips, Member of the public
1.0 Call to Order and Roll Call
The meeting was called to order at 9:15 a.m. A quorum was established with seven members present.
2.0 Presentation by Stuart Posselt, AIA, the Managing Partner of the California Building Standards Commission’s 2000 Code Partnership. The Building Standards Commission formed the public/private 2000 Code Partnership (2kCP) to address the changes taking place in code writing industry and to recommend which model codes should be the basis of the 2001 California Building Standards Code - Title 24.
The Commission charged the 2kCP with Phase II tasks to identify any conflicts between the recommended codes and suggested solutions. The 2kCP started meeting in June of 1998 and is now in Phase II of the process.
Mr. Posselt will present a historical overview of the 2kCP, where it is now and where it is going, and when it is expected to arrive. This very large and complex task, which has never before been undertaken, is still being invented as it unfolds. This process is not intended to modify model code provisions but to address conflicts. There will be a question and answer period regarding the content of the presentation.
Ned Fennie introduced Mr. Stuart Posselt, AIA, the Managing Partner of the California Building Standards Commission’s 2000 Code Partnership. The reason for this presentation is to give the Code Advisory Committee (CAC) an update of the Title 24 California Building Code development process and a status of where the various State agencies are in this process.
Mr. Posselt began his presentation by emphasizing that what the 2000 Code Partnership is trying to do is to get all of the players involved in the process. [A Powerpoint presentation was shown at this time.] When this process was begun in May, 1998, the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) realized that there was going to be some significant changes in the code writing process and in the code adoption process. The CBSC adopted Resolution 98-2 which set up the 2000 Code Partnership with an effort toward getting all of the State agencies to adopt the same model building, mechanical, plumbing and electrical codes. Different State agencies have different authority and it was necessary that everyone was using the same code. Mr. Posselt’s responsibility is that of a facilitator to ensure that the process stays on track and meets the deadline.
It is now the triennial revision cycle for both the California State Codes and the model International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) Uniform Codes which have not been revised since 1997. There has also been published a new family of International Code Conference Codes (ICC) along with various new fire codes promulgated by different fire protection agencies. CBSC also adopted Resolution 98-4 which expanded the Partnership’s tasks to identify the conflicts between the various new and existing codes, and then to recommend some solutions. The 200 Code Partnership has no authority whatsoever. It is a fact-finding body which has to reach a consensus. It had to create a process from scratch which selected the single-subject codes, and a timetable for adoption and publication. It will make recommendations to the CBSC Code Advisory Committees via a report in a Monograph, and eventually it will come to the Commission itself for consideration.
The Partnership consists of the major State agencies which have the authority to adopt codes, the private industry code-writing bodies (IAPMO, ICBO, CALBO, Western Fire Chiefs, etc.), the private industry (AIA, SEAONC, etc.), local code officials, unions and manufacturing representatives. All are involved in the review and are part of the consensus process.
Phase I of the process was to look at the various model codes (UBC, IBC, IRC, etc.) and to recommend the code which should be used in California. The CBSC has the authority to adopt any code without State agency input, but wants to go through this public review process. In Phase II, the Partnership then identifies the conflicts between the codes and make a recommendation as to their resolution. In Phase III, the Partnership will look at the amendments put forth by the State agencies and make recommendations about them. It is not the charge of the Partnership to tweak the requirements of the building standards in the codes nor to make changes, nor to point out ambiguities, but to just identify the areas of conflict and suggest conflict resolution. It is mandated to ensure uniformity and consistency between the codes.
A question was raised as to what authority the State had to modify the model codes. Mr. Posselt stated that the State has the mandate to create Title 24 (the California Building Standards), and the different agencies have the legislative authority to modify the model codes in different areas, such as, OSHPD has authority over hospitals, HCD has authority over housing, the State Fire Marshal has authority over anything that affects fire and life safety, and the DSA has authority over structural issues in public schools.
The CBSC can adopt amendments beyond the purview of an agency if all of the agencies agree, but this provision is seldom used. Findings in support of and economic review of the amendment must also be filed.
Mr. Posselt then described the CBSC technical CBSC rule-making process consisting of publication of monographs, hearings, appeals, and response periods which are all set by the California Administrative Procedures Act. This is a one year process.
The role and responsibilities of the CBSC are as a processing and publishing entity. They coordinate that which is written by others, e.g., the model codes and the amendments submitted by the State agencies. Mr. Posselt next described the process by which State agencies propose, review and have the CBSC adopt and publish code amendments. He described the decision criteria (per Health & Safety Code Sec. 18930) which the BCSC uses to approve amendments, such as "be in the public interest," "do not conflict, overlap duplicate other standards," and "not be ambiguous or vague." The amendment package submitted to the BCSC by an agency includes a description of the amendment, a justification for it, enabling legislation if any, cost analysis, and an attorney’s opinion if requested.
The CBSC has accepted the recommendation of the Coordinating Council (comprised of the State agencies who have authority to propose and adopt building standards) at a public hearing to adopt the following model codes for the California: the International Building Code (IBC), the International Residential Code (IRC) less the mechanical, plumbing, and electrical provisions, the IAPMO Uniform Mechanical Code (UMC), the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) and the Western Fire Chiefs Uniform Fire Code (UFC.) These recommendations were accepted and not approved for adoption as yet since they are not ready for adoption at this time.
July 3, 2000 is the deadline for the Code Partnership and the State agencies to submit their proposed amendments to the CBSC, and this commences the one-year rule-making process of the Administrative Procedures Act.
In July of 2001, the CBSC is scheduled to adopt the model code, but yet not the 2001 California Building Code.
Mr. Posselt next described the structure and rules of the 2000 Code Partnership, and explained the process of review of the amendments. Phase II is currently underway, identifying the conflicts among the codes.
Mr. Posselt emphasized the problem is that the code-writing industry is never complete. You cannot wait for a particular portion of the code to written, reviewed or adopted. You need to act now, and communicate with everyone. Tape recordings of past meetings are available from Mr. Posselt. Notices and agendas of future meetings can be obtained from Mr. Posselt by giving him a name, address, phone, fax and e-mail information.
The remainder of the meeting was spent as a question-answer session.
3.0 Report, discussion and possible action on the degree of involvement of the City of San Francisco and Department of Building Inspection (DBI) with the State Building Code development process, monitoring of the State Building Codes, and current status of DBI code development process.
Laurence Kornfield stated that TSD will try to attend as many of the CBSC meetings as possible to keep up to date. TSD is also preparing a legislative update sheet to provide information on the ordinances or state legislation which may affect the Department. Laurence, Zan Turner and Alan Tokugawa will also be attending the ICC hearings in Birmingham, Alabama to stay abreast of IBC/ IRC revisions to the 2003 codes.
4.0 Secretary’s report on upcoming events and tasks for the Code Advisory Committee (CAC).
Next meeting will on May 17, 2000. Hopefully, the IBC 2000 will be available for CAC use.
5.0 Committee Member’s and Staff’s identification agenda items for the next meeting, as well as current agenda items to be continued to another CAC regular meeting or special meeting, or a subcommittee meeting. CAC discussion and possible action regarding administrative issues related to building codes.
There was no comment.
6.0 Public Comment on items not on this agenda but within the jurisdiction of the Code Advisory Committee.
There was no public comment. Chair Zachary Nathan thanked Mr. Posselt for an informative and well-done presentation.
7.0 Adjournment.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m.
Note: If any member of the CAC has not yet received copies of the 1998 codes please contact Alan Tokugawa at 415-558-6004.