HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-03-17 City Council (3)CRy Pall
C ty Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MARCH 17, 2003
CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE ADOPTION
CMR:174:03
On January 21 _00.~ the San Jose Mercury News published an article by Steve Johnson
on the outdated California Building Code and the effect it may, have on insurance costs
for building owners. This is an informational report providing Council with additional
background on this issue.
DISCUSSION
The Insurance Services Office (ISO) has been involved in grading Fire Departments for
many years. Its building code pro~am was developed in the aftermath of Hurricane
Andrew in 1992, when it became clear that lack of adequate building code enforcement
contributed as much as one-fourth of the $16 billion in insured losses. The first review of
building departments took place in Florida and the Carolinas in 1995, followed by
California the next year.
ISO grades municipalities’ code enforcement on a scale of 1 to 10, with one being best,
and provides this advisory grading information to insurers. ISO evaluates three broad
categories of factors in code enforcement:
Municipal administrative support for code enforcement, including adopted
building codes,
o The quality of plan review, including staffing levels and qualifications, and
~, The quality of field inspections, including staffing levels and qua!ifications.
Included in the ISO questionnaire are factors such as: Is the latest code adopted? Are
plan checks performed? Are plan checkers and inspectors certified? What is the training
budget?
CMR: 174:03 Page 1 of 4
Bay Area communities were reviewed in 1996-1998. Most jurisdictions received a score
of 3 or 4. Palo Alto received a 3. The program called for reevaluating building
departments approximately every five years. Currently, ISO is in this second round
revaluation phase, although Palo Alto has not as yet been contacted.
As reported in the San Jose Mercury News article, those jurisdictions that have been
reevaluated have dropped to a score of 7 due to the fact that the State has not adopted the
most current model code but elected to stay with the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC)
for at least three more years and possibly longer. Only time will tell if insurance rates
will increase due to the higher ISO scores.
The reason that the Sl~ate of California did not adopt the most current model code is
somewhat complicated.
The International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) published the first UBC in
1927. Since that time, it has been updated on a three year cycle. Palo Alto was one of
the early users of the UBC, with the first adoption occurring in 1932. Local adoption
continued on updated versions of the UBC until 1953, when State Law was enacted that
created the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). Essentially, the UBC
was mandated to be enforced throughout the State at that time, whether or not local
adoption occurred. The State code adoption process continued to operate without major
controversy through the 1990’s.
In 1994 there were three model building code organizations in the United States: the
ICBO, Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA) and the Southern Building
Code Congress International (SBCCI). Discussions were initiated at the request of the
American Institute of Architects (AIA) and other national organizations to pursue the
development of one set of building codes for the nation. The three organizations formed
a new, not-for-profit corporation, the International Code Council (ICC) and began
development of the international series of codes. Maintenance of the UBC was
suspended and the 1997 edition was the last robe published. The City’s Chief Building
Official is a former member of the ICBO Board of Directors and served as Chiarman of
ICBO in 2002. He is also a member of the current ICC Board of Directors.
The 2000 editions of the International Codes include the International Building Code
(IBC), International Residential Code (IRC), International Plumbing Code (IPC), etc.
In 1998 the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), along with its partners, the
International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) and Western
Fire Chiefs Association (WFCA), announced that it would develop its own building code
to compete with the ICC. It is important to note that these organizations are heavily
dominated by special interest groups. Its building code, NFPA 5000, was published in
the summer of 2002.
CMR: 174:03 Page 2 of 4
The major difference in the two organizations, ICC and NFPA, relates to their code
development procedures. In the ICC process, as it was in ICBO, only governmental
members (code officials) may vote on final action of a code change proposal. All
meetings are held in a public forum and anyone can speak to an issue. NFPA does hold a
public hearing but the final action takes place by a committee that is not open to
everyone. Votes are also cast by any member, including those with a monetary interest in
the outcome.
The California Building Standards Commission is charged with selecting the model
codes for use in this State. The governor-appointed commission is composed of 11
members and is designed to represent a cross section of the construction community and
two public members. The current commission is heavily slanted in favor of union
representatives and those with plumbing interests. The building official’s position is
actually filled by a plumbing inspector.
Prior to making a decision on the 2001 California codes, a committee appointed by the
CBSC, the Code 2000 Partnership, met for over a year and recommended that the CBSC
adopt the 2000 IBC and IRC. The CBSC ignored this recommendation and asked the
Attorney General for an opinion about the legality of staying on the 1997 UBC for
another tttree year cycle. The Attorney General concluded that it was possible, and the
CBSC readopted the 1997 UBC as the 2001 California Building Code with an effective
date of November 1, 2002.
The Executive Director of the CBSC stated that the staff did not have time to study the
new International Codes and that the NFPA 5000 was not available. The second
statement is true. The ICC offered to incorporate all State amendments into the IBC and
IRC at no cost to the State. The CBSC refused this offer. The State action was obviously
a delaying tactic to allow NFPA 5000 to be considered as the California Code in the next
cycle.
The International Codes, published by ICC, are in use in whole or in part in 43 other
states. To date, not one state or jurisdiction has adopted NFPA 5000.
The International Codes have a long list of supporters
o The AIA
o National Association of Home Builders
~National Multifamily Housing Council
~Department of Defense
including:
Federal Emergency Management Agency (I=EMA)
International City and County Management Association
Building Owners and Managers Association
CMR: 174:03 Page 3 of 4
ICBO, BOCA, and SBCCI no longer exist as separate bodies. All three are consolidating
into the ICC. One code and one organization for the country is still the ultimate goal.
PREPARED BY:
FRED
Chief Building Official ~ ~
// TE /gMsLIE
!/Director of Planning and Con-~munity En¥ironment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR: 174:03 Page 4 of 4