Archives

• CALBO Launches New Website – Welcome to the New www.calbo.org!
• CALBO Wins Big For Locals - CBSC Moves Forward with the 2006 UMC
• Legislature Prepares for a Busy Month of August - CALBO Continues to Push for Amendments to SB 1278 & AB 2977
• Construction Boot Camp June 12-23
• Build It Green Course Offering
• CALBO Assists Jurisdictions with Promotion of Building Safety Week 2006
• CERTIFICATE TRANSITIONS AVAILABLE UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2006!
• BECOME A DIGITAL COMMUNITY * Register for a Free Seminar!
• Apply Now for Scholarship Support to Attend 100th Anniversary Earthquake Conference
• 2006 Education Week Dates * Mark your Calendars!
• Solar Photovoltaics Training Offered by CEC
• SPECIAL TRAINING OFFER TO CHAPTERS!
• New Duct Sealing Requirements - Sample Letter to Homeowners from CEC
• World Trade Center Report & Recommendations
• Advanced CABEC Seminars on the 2005 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
• Final Report - Cost/Savings/Benefit of Applying I.T. to Building Codes Admin & Enforcement Processes
• CBIA Information Bulletin: SB 1025 - Disabled Accessibility in Multistoried Dwelling Units in Buildings without Elevators
• CALBO Sponsors EERI's 8th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering! Call for Abstracts -
• Standard Plan Sets Now Available Electronically!
• CBSC Makes History as 2003 Decision is Rescinded
• Sponsorship Opportunity for Industry Members!
• 12/22/04 PEX INFORMATION
• PEX Case December Ruling
• Your comments needed on Guide to Engineering and Land Surveying
• ICC Provides Comparison between IBC & NFPA 5000
• CALBO Offers New Service to Members!
• CALBO Sends Letter to Secretary Fred Aguiar Regarding the Adoption of NEC
• CSLB Creates Form to Assist in Permit Process
• ICC Encouraging Membership Participation
• 9/22 Update to Structural Standards to California Building Standards Code
• 7/29 CBSC Votes for NFPA 5000, NFPA 1 and the IRC
• 7/21 League of Cities Board Votes to Support the IBC
• 6/16 Comparision of Structural Aspects of the IBC & NFPA
• 6/11 State agencies recommended the IBC be used as the base model code 3 -1
• 5/14 CALBO Code Adoption Recommendation
• 5/14 FPO's Position Paper Recommends the IFC
• Comparison of IBC & NFPA Fire Safety Provisions
• Comparison of NFPA 5000 and IBC 2003
• 3/2003: 2003 IFC vs 2003 NFPA 1 Basic Comparative Analysis from the ABM
• 3/2003: 2003 IBC and NFPA 5000 Codes Comparison from the ABM.
• 3/2003: NAHB/CBIA Comparison of the NFPA 5000 and the 2003 IRC for California.
• Helpful Abbreviations for Building Departments
• 11/14 NFPA Response to CALBO Letter
• CALBO Letter to NFPA
• Important Recommendations for Regulating the Design and Construction of Steel Moment Frame Buildings in California

Construction Boot Camp June 12-23

Sierra College invites you to attend a two week instructional program to prepare students for jobs in the building trades. For more information, download the attached documents: Here

Build It Green Course Offering

Build It Green is offering a Green Points Rater Training on June 24, 2006 and June 28, 2006 in Oakland, CA. Participants will attend a two-day, 16-hour course based on the Green Points rating system. Participants will learn about the intent behind each green measure, detailed verification protocols, and the process for participating in the Green Points Rating program. Participants will take an exam at the end of the two days if they seek certification. To register for this course or for additional information, please visit Build It Green’s website: http://www.builditgreen.org/guild/index.cfm?fuseaction=become_pro

CALBO Assists Jurisdictions with Promotion of Building Safety Week 2006

Promote California Building Safety Week 2006 in your Jurisdiction – May 7-13, 2006.  CALBO is providing these News release and Resolution/Proclamation Samples to assist with your own promotional efforts.  Check your mailboxes too for other promotional materials, coming soon from CALBO!

The following suggested language has been provided by California Building Officials to assist local jurisdictions with the promotional efforts of California Building Safety Week 2006.  Please feel free to cut/paste and modify as you please.  All suggested additions have been denoted in bold type.

News Release
<jurisdiction>

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: <name> - <phone number>
<date>

<jurisdiction> Celebrates California Building Safety Week

In an effort to increase public awareness and promote the understanding and importance of building safety, the <jurisdiction> will join California Building Officials (CALBO) and other local California jurisdictions in the participation of California Building Safety Week, May 7-13, 2006.

“California Building Safety Week is an excellent opportunity to educate our community and increase public awareness of the role of Building Inspection staff in building safety,” said Sheila Lee, CALBO President and Building Official for the City of Santa Clara.

Building inspection and code enforcement offices take appropriate steps every day to ensure the safety of the places where people live, work, play, and learn by reviewing building plans, issuing building permits, and inspecting buildings during construction.  This work protects the health and safety of the public by ensuring that applicable code requirements are met and maintained.

The City Council/Board of Supervisors of <jurisdiction> has issued a proclamation/resolution declaring May 7-13, 2006 as California Building Safety Week in <jurisdiction>.  Earlier in the year, CALBO was successful in lobbying the state legislature to declare California Building Safety Week 2006 statewide for the same week.

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.  California Building Officials has been actively involved to include better seismic and safety design provisions in the California Building Code to protect California's built environment and the safety of those who utilize our structures.  This vital work is highlighted through the celebration and promotion of California Building Safety Week.

For more information on joining <jurisdiction> in celebrating California Building Safety Week 2006, please contact <name> at <number>.

###

California Building Safety Week May 7-13, 2006

WHEREAS, the safety of the buildings we occupy daily is essential to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of (City/County); and

WHEREAS, among the world’s most fundamental laws and ordinances are those which provide standards for the safe construction of buildings in which people live, work and play; and

WHEREAS, in an ongoing effort to ensure that residents and individuals patronizing business within the (City/County) are afforded the highest construction standards available, the Building (Department/Division) is proud to announce California Building Safety Week2006; and

WHEREAS, California Building Safety Week emphasizes the important role the Building (Department/Division)plays in the development and maintenance of safe buildings in our community; and

WHEREAS, the Building (Department/Division) is helping to ensure the public’s health, safety and general wellbeing by reviewing building construction plans, issuing building permits and inspecting buildings during and after construction to ensure that they comply with the minimum necessary health and safety regulations. It is this preventative work that contributes to the success of keeping the occupants of the structure safe during an emergency; and

WHEREAS, for construction and building codes to be effective and enforced, understanding and cooperation must exist between code officials and the people they serve; and

WHEREAS, through the untiring efforts of local building officials and their cooperative relationship with the design, fire and construction industries, the administration of these health and life-safety standards is assured; and

WHEREAS, this year marks the 100 year anniversary of the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, highlighting the importance of strong and secure building codes and standards; and

WHEREAS, cities and counties across California are joining to promote building safety through the observation of California Building Safety Week 2006.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, ____________, (Mayor/Supervisor)of the (City/County), do hereby proclaim the week of May 7-13, 2006, as CALIFORNIA BUILDING SAFETY WEEK. I urge all citizens to participate in California Building Safety Week 2006 activities to help promote building safety, to create awareness as to the importance of construction and building codes, and to spotlight the role of the dedicated code official in administering those codes.

Witness, my signature and the seal of the (City/County) of May in the year Two Thousand and Six.

CERTIFICATE TRANSITIONS AVAILABLE UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2006!

Until December 31, 2006, individuals who hold certifications issued by the ICBO legacy model code organization or issued by the ICC are eligible to transition to the CALBO-ICC California-Specific certifications by successfully completing one 25-item CCR Title 24 specific examination for each category of certification desired.  Upon successful completion of the exam(s) and submission of an application, a CALBO-ICC certificate and wallet card will be mailed by the end of the month following scoring of the exam.  The new certification will also be entered in the ICC Certification Registry.

For more information, call 1-888-422-7233 ext. 33815 or by email at certrenewal@iccsafe.org.

To take the transition exam, visit the ICC website at http://www.iccsafe.org/.  Find the "certification and testing" drop down menu and choose "certification."  About two-thirds of the way down this "welcome" page, click on the "new certification exams based on the California Codes" link.  Find the section titled "transition to the California-specific exams." Click on the link to go to the "registration for online examination" page and choose the transition exam you want to take. 

We are also pleased to report that ICC has approved CALBO's request to provide a Combination Inspector Certificate for those who complete all four of the inspector categories of the California-specific exams.

Good Luck!

BECOME A DIGITAL COMMUNITY * Register for a Free Seminar!

Apply Now for Scholarship Support to Attend 100th Anniversary Earthquake Conference

Press Release
Apply Now for Scholarship Support to Attend 100^th Anniversary Earthquake Conference
The Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) has signed an agreement with the Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI) (http://www.riskinstitute.org/)  to award approximately 30 scholarships to land use planners, social service providers, emergency managers, risk managers, business resumption specialists, building and public works officials, and those in related occupations to help them attend the 100^th Anniversary Earthquake Conference Commemorating the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake. The conference will be held at the San Francisco, California, Moscone Convention Center, April 18 – 21, 2006. 

PERI awarded this funding to EERI to provide recipients with a valuable educational experience dealing with seismic hazard risk reduction. The conference includes EERI’s 8^th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, the 100^th Annual Meeting of the Seismological Society of America and the ’06 Disaster Resistant California Conference of the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services.  It will bring together emergency management professionals, researchers, academicians, local and state government representatives, and private business partners to share ideas, technology, and resources for the mitigation of disasters and to provide an invaluable educational experience in all facets of earthquake risk reduction, from the latest thinking by the nation’s leading scientists and engineers to current programs and policies in emergency management.  The conference also offers a unique opportunity for participants to compare experience and knowledge with attendees from cities throughout the US and numerous other countries. 

The 4-day conference will include multidisciplinary plenary sessions, at the beginning of each day, where leading earthquake professionals will talk about:

• a centennial perspective on the 1906 earthquake
• lessons from recent major earthquakes
• a Scenario of a modern-day repeat of the 1906 earthquake
• visions for the next century of earthquake risk reduction

There will be:

• more than 100 technical sessions covering issues critical to earth scientists, building owners, planners, building officials, emergency responders, earthquake engineers, policy makers, and disaster mitigation professionals
• 35 tutorials for professionals in related fields, including teachers and members of the business community
• 25 field trips that bring home the realities and science of earthquakes
• the semi-annual General Assembly of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
• social events in historic San Francisco venues
• scores of exhibits and displays
• hundreds of poster presentations

Eligibility
To be eligible for a scholarship applicants should:

• have key responsibility within their organization or agency for an area of risk or emergency management, loss reduction planning, hazards insurance, business resumption planning, social services, municipal development, land use planning, or building code enforcement.
• come from municipal jurisdictions or non-profit institutions or organizations where they have responsibility for one or more of the above areas.

Scholarship Benefits
Each scholarship recipient will receive $1,000 in direct financial assistance, which can be applied to any conference cost, including travel, lodging, and registration fee. Recipients within the Bay Area, who do not require air transportation, will receive awards of $600.

Application Procedure
Interested applicants must complete the PERI Scholarship application on the 100^th Anniversary Conference website (www.1906eqconf.org) . Completed applications must be received by mail at EERI, 499 14^th Street, Suite 320, Oakland, CA 94612 or by fax at: 510 451 5411 no later than Wednesday, March 1, 2006.  EERI will announce the awards by March 17, 2006.
Please visit the conference website at: http://www.1906eqconf.org/ for more detailed conference information and to download an application for the PERI Travel Scholarship.

2006 Education Week Dates * Mark your Calendars!

EDUCATION WEEK 2006 DATES

SAN DIEGO (UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO) -

JUNE 5-8, 2006

ED WEEK CENTRAL (MODESTO DOUBLETREE) -

JULY 17-20, 2006

ED WEEK NORTH (CONCORD CROWNE PLAZA) - 

OCT. 2-6, 2006

ED WEEK SOUTH (ONTARIO MARRIOTT) -

NOV. 13-17, 2006

Please continue to check the website

for registration updates.

Solar Photovoltaics Training Offered by CEC

Please contact Nellie Tong at 510-891-0446 for more information on these workshops.

Future PV workshop announcements will be posted on the following websites:
http://websafe.kemainc.com/ProjectCenter/cec
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/erprebate/new_info

SPECIAL TRAINING OFFER TO CHAPTERS!

As part of our effort to provide service and value to the membership of CALBO, CTI is offering a partnership program to Chapters.  While CTI has always offered independent educational offerings throughout the state, this is the first time we have actively reached out to the chapters in partnership and collaboration on education in such a way.

The partnership program is designed to make the shared expertise and knowledge of CTI instructors throughout the state available at the chapter level. All you have to do is indicate which CTI classes you would like to have presented and provide a local contact name to secure the classroom facility and arrange dates and times.  CTI will do the rest. The Chapter will receive 30% of the profit from all classes presented in conjunction with this offer. The chapter name will appear on all advertisements and circulars used to market these classes - all with little or no effort on the part of the chapter or education committee.

Reminder: It is helpful when planning our training calendar if we are aware of upcoming Chapter meetings, events, classes, etc.  Please keep us posted so we can avoid schedule conflicts.

New Duct Sealing Requirements - Sample Letter to Homeowners from CEC

Beginning October 1, 2005, ducts must be tested for leaks when a central air conditioner or furnace is installed or replaced.  The CEC has a letter to homeowners for building departments' use.  Please feel free to download the letter from http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/changeout/index.html and provide copies at your front counter

World Trade Center Report & Recommendations

AMCBO

NEWS RELEASE

AMCBO TO COMMENT ON DRAFT WORLD TRADE CENTER

REPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS

 
June 23, 2005 – Herndon, VA.  The Association of Major City/County Building Officials, a national association representing the building commissioners of the nation's largest cities and counties, commented today on the release in New York City of the draft final report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the World Trade Center Disaster.  Claude Cooper, AMCBO Chairman and Richmond Building Official, noted that AMCBO members are "gratified that this report reinforces the fact that tall buildings involved in the disaster were built safely and, for the most part, performed as they were designed.  AMCBO is pleased that NIST has offered in this detailed report thoughtful recommendations from their research for us to consider regarding the design, construction and operation of tall and iconic buildings."

"AMCBO will review this draft report and provide NIST with formal comments from the nation's largest cities and counties on the contents of the report.  Our comments will include possible coordination of major city/county support for suggested code changes found in that report."  Among the cities that are AMCBO members are New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, Milwaukee, Denver, St. Louis, Philadelphia, and Richmond.

Among the building code issues addressed in the NIST report are: emergency egress, stairs, elevators, fire proofing of structural steel and structural integrity to reduce chances of progressive collapse in high-rise buildings during disaster situations.

 AMCBO will focus its efforts on improving the design requirements so that these buildings can be evacuated more quickly.  Of particular concern on 9/11 at the World Trade Center was the fact that 6% of the people—representing about 1,000 individuals—who evacuated the two buildings were physically challenged.  It appears that building commissioners need to consider ways to better accommodate the needs of these people.  Public comments on the draft report are due to NIST by August 4, 2005.  NIST will issue their final report on the World Trade Center in September 2005.  The draft report is available on www.nist.gov.

AMCBO was founded in 1972 to provide major city and county building officials with a venue through which they can coordinate comments on code changes, respond to proposed federal legislation and regulations, and provide assistance to cities on codes administration and enforcement issues.  AMCBO secretariat services are provided by the National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards (NCSBCS).  Information on AMCBO may be found on the NCSBCS website at www.ncsbcs.org.

Advanced CABEC Seminars on the 2005 Building Energy Efficiency Standards

Advanced CABEC Seminars on the 2005 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. 

June 23&24 – San Francisco           June 28 & 29 – Downey

Seating is limited! Register TODAY! http://www.cabec.org/CABECStandards.php 

Final Report - Cost/Savings/Benefit of Applying I.T. to Building Codes Admin & Enforcement Processes

Earlier this year, CALBO was asked to assist National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards (NCSBCS) with a survey to our members.  We were happy to assist in this endeavor.

NCSBCS has compiled their findings in a final report.  We hope the membership finds this useful with their jurisdictions.  To view this report, visit http://www.ncsbcs.org/ after May 26, 2005.

CBIA Information Bulletin: SB 1025 - Disabled Accessibility in Multistoried Dwelling Units in Buildings without Elevators

Issue Background: The first set of statewide accessibility provisions for multifamily construction took effect in September of 1985.  California’s regulations were substantially changed in 1992 to conform to the recently passed Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act. 

Simply stated, in apartment buildings of three units or more and in condominium buildings of four units or more, all ground floor units must comply with California’s disabled accessibility provisions (under the authority of the Department of Housing & Community Development).  In addition, in apartment and condominium buildings having an elevator, all units in the building (100%) must comply with HCD’s accessibility regulations.

With regard to multistoried dwelling units in buildings with elevators, all of the primary entry level floors (100%) served by an elevator must comply with HCD’s accessibility regulations.  The problem: the federal regulations failed to address the situation of the multistoried dwelling unit in a building without an elevator.  Since the state regulations have mirrored the federal guidelines, it was the intent of SB 1025 to address this situation.

When does SB 1025 take effect?

SB 1025 amended Government Code Section 12955.1(b)(1) to state: This subdivision shall apply only to multistory dwelling units in a building subject to this subdivision for which an application for a construction permit is submitted on or after July 1, 2005.  This language was patterned after Health & Safety Code Section 18938.5 that establishes a similar “effective date mechanism” for all state and local building standards. This means that SB 1025 impacts new multistoried dwelling units in buildings without elevators for which the application for a construction permit is submitted on or after July 1, 2005.  The determination of what constitutes an “application for a construction permit” is up to the discretion of the local building department. Over the years, this has generally been interpreted to be the initial application for a building permit for a single building or multiple buildings.  NOTE: With regards to “phased construction”, it is always advisable to obtain a written determination of what constitutes “permit application” from the local jurisdiction for your records.

Can the requirements for SB 1025 be found in the California Building Code yet? 

As of March of 2005, the requirements for SB 1025 have yet to be incorporated into the California Building Code (2001 Edition).  HCD is attempting to fast-track the inclusion of these provisions into the body of California’s Building Code, but it is unknown if this will occur prior to the effective date of July 1, 2005.  Regardless, the mandate is in statute [Government Code 12955.1(b)(1)} and industry is required to incorporate these provisions into applicable units for which permit applications are submitted on or after July 1, 2005.

What are the “applicable units” under SB 1025?

The statute requires ten percent (10%) of the primary entry levels of multistoried dwelling units in buildings without elevators to comply with HCD’s accessibility provisions for multifamily construction.  Under California accessibility code, a multifamily dwelling is defined as an apartment building containing three or more dwellings or a condominium/town home building containing four or more dwellings under the same roof.  One-and two-family dwelling units are exempt from these requirements, as are “carriage units”.  Please note that a “carriage unit” is a dwelling that is located directly above the private parking garage that serves that unit.  Units which are located above a common-use parking structure are not “carriage units”.

How is the “ten percent” application level calculated and applied?

As specified in the statute; To determine the total number of multistory dwelling units subject to this subdivision, all multistory dwelling units in the buildings subject to this subdivision on a site shall be considered collectively.”  Simply put, on a site with multiple buildings containing multistoried dwelling units, the “ten percent” application level is applied to the entire construction site.  It is not applied separately to each building if there are multiple buildings on a site.  Consider the following example:  A developer is going to build five individual 4-plex multistoried dwelling units on a construction site.  In this case, the “ten percent” application level is applied to the total number of “covered units” (20) on the construction site.  As such, the entry levels of two (2) units must comply with HCD’s accessibility regulations.  It is entirely up to the developer to determine which building(s) will contain the accessible entry levels.

Does SB 1025 require the installation of elevators?

No.  SB 1025 contained a specific provision amending Government Code 12955.1(b)(1) which states; “This subdivision shall not be construed to require an elevator within an individual multistory dwelling unit or within a building subject to this subdivision.”  The Legislature recognized that requiring a $25,000-$30,000 elevator in such cases could easily kill some of the most affordable housing stock built in this state.  However, an accessible route, which may include an elevator, ramp or other means, may still be required to access dwelling units in a multistory building where the first floor containing dwelling units is located above grade or ground level (i.e. located above retail facilities, common-use parking).

Information Contacts:

• Bob Raymer, CBIA Technical Director at rraymer@cbia.org or (916) 443-7933
• Dave Walls or Doug Hensel (State Housing Law Staff) (916) 445-9471 Department of Housing & Community Development

CALBO Sponsors EERI's 8th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering! Call for Abstracts -

In order to commemorate the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, the 100th Anniversary Earthquake Conference will include EERI's 8th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering (NCEE) and 58th Annual Meeting, SSA's Centennial Annual Meeting, and the OES Disaster Resistant California Conference.  The joint program will feature joint multidisciplinary plenary sessions at the beginning of each day, technical sessions, seminars, poster sessions, exhibits, and field trips.  CALBO is proud to be a sponsor of this important event.

The three technical programs will be fully coordinated throughout the four days to optimize program content.  While the unique features of EERI's 8NCEE will be maintained, participants will be free to attend sessions of the Seismological Society of America and the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services conferences. 

The conference will be held April 18 - 22, 2006 at the Moscone Convention Center in San Francisco.  Details Attached

CALL FOR ABSTRACTS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION

Authors may submit different abstracts online to each of the three co-convened events taking place within the 100th Anniversary Conference.

The guidelines and requirements for submission to each event are different.  While full manuscripts must eventually be submitted by authors participating in the 8NCEE and DRC, only abstracts are required of SSA participants.  Detailed instructions are available at the conference homepage http://www.1906eqconf.org/. Online submission information for each event will be updated as the online systems become available.

Standard Plan Sets Now Available Electronically!

CALBO is promoting for the first time a regional standard for retrofitting single family homes, making them more resistant to earthquake damage.

These plan sets will are available through our website.  Just click on the "Standard Plan Sets" bar on the left side of the home page.  They are large PDF files, 1.2mb and 500kb, and are not advised for dial-up internet connections.

CBSC Makes History as 2003 Decision is Rescinded

SACRAMENTO – CALBO is pleased to report the recent actions taken by the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) in advancing California’s next building code.  On Wednesday, March 16, 2005, the CBSC voted 8-2 in support of rescinding the July 29, 2003 decision to recommend the adoption of the NFPA 5000 building code, the NFPA 1 fire code, and the structural provisions of the International Residential Code (IRC).

 At the January meeting of the CBSC, Secretary Fred Aguiar had called upon the Coordinating Council to investigate the issues impeding the adoption of the NFPA 5000.  Over a series of three full-day meetings, the Coordinating Council heard multiple testimonies from lobbyists, industry stakeholders, disabled advocates and building officials in defense of both the NFPA 5000 and the International Building Code (IBC).  On March 8 at the third meeting, the CBSC Coordinating Council arrived at a unanimous decision to recommend that the state rescind the 2003 decision completely, and move forward with adopting the IBC, International Fire Code (IFC) and the structural provisions of the IRC. 

 The CBSC met on March 16 and the recommendation of the Coordinating Council was presented to the 11 voting members, including Secretary Aguiar, of the commission.  The auditorium where the meeting was being held was standing room only as so many testimonies were taken in defense of both codes.  Over 60 local jurisdictions were in the audience in support of CALBO’s position to recommend the dismissal of the commission’s 2003 decision. 

 CALBO leadership testified in support of the Coordinating Council’s recommendation which was followed by the expert statements of active CALBO members.  As the testimonies ceased, Commissioner Jim Barthman moved that the decision of the 2003 CBSC to adopt the NFPA 5000, NFPA 1 and the structural provisions of the IRC be rescinded.  Newly appointed Commissioner Steve Jensen eagerly seconded the motion, and discussion followed amongst the commissioners.  The vote was taken with 8 of the 11 voting members voting to rescind the 2003 decision.  Commissioner Jimmy Hill and Commissioner Tim Brink did not support the motion.  Both commissioners were appointed by Governor Davis and supported the original 2003 decision to recommend the adoption of the NFPA 5000.  The only member of the commission not voting was Commissioner Anthony Sauer who left the meeting much earlier in the day.

 Since the recommendation of the Coordinating Council was unanimous with all state agencies agreeing as to which codes California should move forward with, it was unnecessary for the CBSC to make a code adoption recommendation as it did in 2003.  By rescinding the 2003 decision and leaving it there, the state agencies now have a clear path to move forward with the adoption of the IBC, IFC and the structural provisions of the IRC.  In 2003, the recommendation of the Coordinating Council was not unanimous making it necessary to bring the issue before the CBSC for a vote.

 For nearly two years, CALBO leadership and staff have been working in a tight coalition with the California Building Industry Association (CBIA), the American Institute of Architects California Council (AIACC), and the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) to change the direction California was taking under the NFPA 5000.  These collective efforts have included the recent appointees to the CBSC, voracious lobbying of the commission, and a great deal of strategy.  We have been fortunate to have many like-minded industry allies and colleagues alongside the CALBO advocacy team working tirelessly for the common good.

 This has been a long and weary journey for the CALBO membership, but the end result has made all of our efforts worthwhile.  CALBO wishes to thank the active participants who joined the Board of Directors in Sacramento for this monumental victory.  California is now back on track with a new building code on its way, the IBC. 

Sponsorship Opportunity for Industry Members!

CALBO has recently unveiled a new sponsorship program for our industry colleagues.  We are providing an opportunity for our Associate Members to sponsor the lunch and refreshments at our CTI education seminars.

As a sponsor, your company will receive publicity on registration material and be mentioned in CALBO News.

If you are interested, please call the CALBO office at (916) 457-1103!  We look forward to hearing from you!

12/22/04 PEX INFORMATION

Following is information we received from a representative of PEX:

"Here are a few points regarding the current status of the 2001 Plumbing Code and where PEX stands.

1.) The opinion from the Court of Appeals is not final until Jan 15th.
PPFA has 30 days to explore all of the legal avenues available, which
could include an Appeal to the State Supreme Court.

2.) If the opinion becomes final Jan. 15th, the Trial Court will be
ordered to vacate the Writ of Mandamus on Feb. 15th.  

This means that the decision does not become effective until mid
February.

Worthy of noting are some specific facts concerning the 2001 CPC and
PEX tubing.

1.) PEX tubing is approved in the 2001 CPC for all commercial
construction projects covered under the Division of State Architects -
Access Compliance.

2.) PEX tubing is approved for water service applications under Title
22.

3.) PEX tubing is approved for all projects, in California, under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

4.) The 2001 CPC adopted all of the performance and health effects
standards for PEX tubing in Table 14-1. This includes ASTM F876, F877,
F1960, F2080, F1807 and NSF 61.

5.) PEX water distribution systems meet all of the requirements of all
of the referenced standards in Table 14-1 of the CPC.

6.) NSF 61 is the only Drinking Water Health Effects Standard
available. Attached is a white paper discussing NSF 61. 

7.) Over 100 million feet of PEX tubing has been installed in
California since 1996.

8.) We can not ignore the fact that there are areas of California in
which copper tubing is failing. PEX tubing has resolved these issues and
has proven to be a better alternative than copper tubing.

9.) HCD has proposed inclusion of PEX tubing in the 2004 California
Plumbing Code as can be verified by the Initial Statement of Reasons.
They have indicated that the have completed their review of PEX and have
concluded that it should be in the code."

PEX Case December Ruling

Plastic Pipe and Fittings Association v. California Building Standards Association

C.A.
12-15-2004
B166499

Cite as 04 C.D.O.S. 11090

PLASTIC PIPE AND FITTINGS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION et al., Defendants and Appellants.

No. B166499

In the Court of Appeal of the State of California

Second Appellate District

Division Three

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS076413)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Dzintra I. Janavs, Judge. Reversed with directions.

COUNSEL

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Andrea Lynn Hoch, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Louis R. Mauro, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Gary Tavetian, Christine Sproul, Ramon M. De La Guardia and Christopher E. Krueger, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Appellants.

Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney (Los Angeles), Jack Brown, Assistant City Attorney, Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney (San Francisco), and Kate Herrmann Stacy, Deputy City Attorney, for City of Los Angeles and City and County of San Francisco as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.

Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo, Daniel L. Cardozo, Richard T. Drury and Thomas E. Enslow for Sierra Club, Communities for a Better Environment, Center for Environmental Health, Planning and Conservation League, California Professional Firefighters Association, Consumer Federation of California and California Pipe Trades Council as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.

J. Scott Kuhn for Communities for a Better Environment as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.

Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Brant H. Dveirin and Jack L. Henningsen for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard and Jonathan P. Hobbs for California Building Officials as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.

Hatch & Parent and Lisabeth D. Rothman for California Building Industry Association and Building Industry Legal Defense Foundation as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.

Filed December 15, 2004

The California Building Standards Commission (Commission) and five other state agencies appeal a judgment granting a peremptory writ of mandate in favor of Plastic Pipe and Fittings Association (PPFA) (footnote 1)The writ of mandate compels the Commission and the Agencies to adopt as part of the California Plumbing Code provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code allowing the use of cross-linked polyethylene (PEX) pipes, vacate their exceptions to the adoption of those provisions, and vacate the Commission's finding that review is warranted under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) with respect to allowing the use of PEX.

The Commission and the Agencies contend (1) the superior court's conclusion that they acted arbitrarily and without evidentiary support by refusing to adopt the Uniform Plumbing Code provisions allowing the use of PEX was error; (2) the decision not to allow the use of PEX was not procedurally unfair; (3) the Commission's decision to defer approval of PEX pending CEQA review was proper; and (4) the writ of mandate impermissibly directs the Commission and the Agencies to exercise their discretion in a particular manner. We agree with the first three contentions and do not reach the fourth.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The Adoption and Approval of Building Standards.

The Commission is a state agency responsible for approving or adopting building standards adopted or proposed by other agencies, as discussed post. Building standards ordinarily are based on model codes with any amendments deemed appropriate. Building standards approved or adopted by the Commission become part of the California Building Standards Code (Code), of which the California Plumbing Code is a part.

The International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, a private organization, published the 2000 Uniform Plumbing Code, a model code, in October 1999. The model code included provisions allowing the use of PEX pipes and fittings. PEX is a form of plastic.

The Commission and the Agencies initially proposed adopting the model code to apply to buildings regulated by the Agencies, including the provisions allowing the use of PEX.(footnote 2) They each provided an initial statement of reasons for the proposed building standards and a 45-day public comment period commencing in July 2001. During the public comment period, the Commission received a letter from Daniel L. Cardozo on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council, a trade group, objecting to allowing the use of PEX. The letter attached a letter from Thomas Reid, an environmental consultant, stating his opinion that the use of PEX pipes potentially could result in contamination of potable water and the environment by chemical leaching of substances from the pipes, and that the pipes potentially could be subject to permeation by substances of low molecular weight contained in soil and groundwater, such as methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and pesticides. Reid also stated that the pipes potentially could be subject to mechanical failure, and that the pipes may rupture and create openings in the event of a fire and thereby facilitate the spread of fire. He stated that because PEX is not widely used in the United States information on its properties is not readily available.

Reid stated that normal polyethylene softens at high temperatures, and that the material can gain temperature resistance through the cross-linking of polymer chains with chemical bonds. He stated that cross-linked polyethylene (PEX) typically is manufactured using any of three different methods of chemical bonding, and that the different methods may result in different chemical and mechanical characteristics of the finished material. He also stated that PEX is a member of the polyolefin family of polymers, of which polybutylene (PB) is also a member, that antioxidants must be added to the pipe resin to protect polyolefins from oxidization and ultraviolet light, and that antioxidants in the pipe resin are consumed when the pipe is exposed to oxidizers such as chlorine and oxygen. He stated that PB pipes suffered from premature mechanical failure due to oxidant degradation despite the use of antioxidant additives, and eventually were taken off the market.

Reid stated his opinion that state agencies should not rely on certification by NSF International (NSF), a private organization that develops public health and safety standards for products, in determining whether the potential risks of using PEX are acceptable. He explained that NSF expressly disclaims any responsibility for the decision whether to use a certified product, does not make its test results available for others to review, and limits its testing protocols based on undisclosed assumptions derived from information provided by manufacturers.

The Commission also received a letter from the California Professional Firefighters stating that PEX may present dangers in the event of a fire by creating toxic smoke and accelerating the spread of fire, and urging the Commission to conduct environmental review under CEQA. The Commission and the Agencies also received comments supportive of allowing the use of PEX.

After receiving public comments and conducting a public hearing, the Agencies modified their proposed building standards by excluding the provisions allowing the use of PEX. The Commission and the Agencies provided further public comment periods on the amended proposals.

The Agencies each provided a final statement of reasons for proposed building standards. The final statements of reasons referred to Reid's comments and stated that neither the agencies nor the Commission had sufficient time to evaluate the potential environmental impact and other potential consequences of allowing the use of PEX or sufficient time to determine whether the use of PEX was "compliant with the laws of the State of California." The Agencies each provided an analysis of the nine criteria under Health and Safety Code section 18930, subdivision (a), pertaining to the building standards as a whole. The Commission provided the analyses on behalf of the Department of Health Services and the Department of Food and Agriculture pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 18928, subdivision (c).

The Commission provided a final statement of reasons in April 2002 stating in pertinent part:

"The public interest requires that when considering building products the approving agencies must always balance the potential benefits against the potential risks. When approving a product new to the California Plumbing Code, such as cross-linked polyethylene tubing (PEX), agencies have an obligation to be reasonably assured that the product does not produce an unreasonable risk to health or safety. When balancing these interests, agencies must resolve close questions in favor of protecting the health and welfare of consumers and of workers installing these products. . . .

"At this time, the CBSC [Commission] feels it is obligated to give both the positive and negative comments and evidence equal credibility. It is unable at this time to conclude the negative comments concerning leachable products and permeation are unfounded. The CBSC has limited resources and the need to complete the triennial code adoption cycle has prevented the CBSC from addressing and investigating the issues raised regarding the PEX and the public interest in approving or not approving PEX.

"Although the CBSC has not determined yet whether the claims of Mr. Cardozo are valid, the CBSC will not adopt PEX, at this time, due to insufficient time remaining in its 2001 triennial code adoption cycle to adopt the 2000 UPC and to determine if this change in the model code is compliant with the laws of the State of California. Therefore, the CBSC does not believe the adoption of PEX would [] be in the public interest at this time."

The Commission also provided an analysis of the nine criteria under Health and Safety Code section 18930, subdivision (a), stating, in relevant part, "The public interest requires the deletion of authorization for the use of PEX until further exploration of the health and safety issues raised. At this time the CBSC cannot with certainty determine that the use of PEX does no[t] present health and safety issues for consumers and installers." The Commission stated further, "in light of the conflicting claims regarding the use of PEX, it is not appropriate to approve the use of PEX in California until these conflicts have been resolved."

The Agencies adopted and the Commission approved the 2000 Uniform Plumbing Code in May 2002, but they excepted and did not adopt the provisions that would allow the use of PEX pipes in buildings regulated by the Agencies. The Commission found that the proposed approval of the use of PEX may result in a significant environmental impact and ordered the development of a coordinated procedure to proceed under CEQA.

2. Trial Court Proceedings.

PPFA filed a petition for writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085) in the superior court in May 2002 against the Commission and the Agencies challenging their failure to approve PEX for the Agencies' uses. California Pipe Trades Council, Sierra Club, Planning and Conservation League, California Professional Firefighters Association, Northern California Mechanical Contractors Association, and Consumer Federation of California moved to intervene in the proceeding in support of the Commission and the Agencies. The superior court denied the motion for intervention on the grounds that the interveners had no immediate interest in the proceeding and that the Commission and the Agencies could adequately represent the interveners' interests. The court also denied a motion by the same organizations for leave to file a brief as amici curiae.

PPFA argued in the memorandum of points and authorities in support of its petition that the decision to exclude PEX was arbitrary and capricious; that there was no substantial evidence to support the decision; that the decision was fraught with procedural irregularities and undue political influence; that as to the Department of Housing and Community Development the model code was automatically adopted and approved, including the provisions allowing the use of PEX, due to failure by the department and the Commission to act within the statutory time periods; that CEQA does not apply to the adoption and approval of building standards; and that if CEQA did apply it would apply to the entire Code rather than only to the provisions allowing the use of PEX.

The Commission and the Agencies argued in opposition that substantial evidence supported their conclusion that the information available to them was insufficient to overcome their concerns about potential problems with PEX; that there were no procedural irregularities; that the provisions allowing the use of PEX were not adopted and approved automatically as to the Department of Housing and Community Development; and that the decision to conduct review under CEQA was proper.

At the hearing on the merits of the petition, the superior court was impressed by the apparently undisputed representation that 180 local jurisdictions in California already have approved the use of PEX for some purposes, that 49 states have adopted model code provisions allowing the use of PEX, and that PEX has been used in Europe for 20 to 30 years. The court stated, "I would think that somebody would have been able to come up with something showing that, indeed, there's been a tremendous problem with this product in Europe or tremendous problem with it all over the country or a tremendous problem with it in California; and yet, there's really nothing that I can see here factually that's been pulled together with respect to P.E.X." The court questioned whether allowing the use of PEX in the Code would make any difference at all if PEX already is being used extensively in California. On the other hand, the court suggested that Code approval of PEX might not result in widespread use of PEX if the Code does not make the use of PEX mandatory. The parties disputed the extent to which PEX has been used in California and the effect of Code approval on the amount of its use.

The court stated that an agency adopting a model code must justify any exception to a model code provision, and that there must be evidence to support the reasons given for the exception. The court stated that the statements in the Reid letter were conclusory and lacked a "factual foundation." The court stated that Reid did not explain the purported chemical similarities between PEX and PB or explain how those similarities would result in significant environmental impacts. The court also suggested that the analyses of the nine criteria under Health and Safety Code section 18930, subdivision (a), did not state sufficiently why the model code provisions allowing the use of PEX were "inadequate."

The court stated that the Agencies' and the Commission's treatment of PEX appeared to be inconsistent with their treatment of other pipe materials about which they had expressed no concerns, and that they appeared to be splitting the project for purposes of CEQA by applying CEQA with regard to PEX but not with regard to other materials allowed under the Code. The court questioned why the Agencies and the Commission did not apply CEQA almost two years earlier, before the initial public comment period.

The court in a minute order granted the petition "on the grounds raised by Petitioner, except for the ground that PEX was adopted as a matter of law." The court entered a judgment in February 2003 and issued a peremptory writ of mandate ordering the Commission and the Agencies to adopt and approve the 2000 Uniform Plumbing Code provisions allowing the use of PEX, vacate their exceptions to the use of PEX, and vacate the findings that approval of PEX may result in a significant environmental impact. The Commission and the Agencies appeal the judgment.

CONTENTIONS

The Commission and the Agencies contend (1) the superior court's conclusion that they acted arbitrarily and without evidentiary support by refusing to adopt the Uniform Plumbing Code provisions allowing the use of PEX was error; (2) the decision not to allow the use of PEX was not procedurally unfair; (3) the decision to conduct a review under CEQA was proper; and (4) the judgment impermissibly directs the Commission and the Agencies to exercise their discretion in a particular manner.

PPFA contends (1) an agency adopting a model code must make "evidentiary findings" to justify any deviation from the model code, and the Agencies failed to do so; (2) Reid's comments are speculative, factually unsupported, and do not support the decision to exclude PEX; (3) the Commission's approval of PEX for some uses while excluding it for the Agencies' uses was arbitrary and capricious, and the exclusion of PEX while approving the use of corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) was arbitrary and capricious; (4) the rulemaking process was procedurally unfair because the Agencies failed to act within the statutory time period, unreasonably delayed the decision to apply CEQA, and conducted a "sham" hearing to announce a predetermined decision, among other reasons; (5) as to the Department of Housing and Community Development, the model code was automatically adopted and approved as a matter of law, including the provisions allowing use of PEX, due to failure by the department and the Commission to act within the statutory time periods; (6) CEQA does not apply because (a) there is no causal link between approval of the use of PEX and a physical change in the environment, (b) the statutory time limits for adoption and approval of building standards do not allow time for environmental review, so the Legislature impliedly exempted the activity from CEQA, and (c) application of CEQA would not achieve CEQA's goal of informing the public about the environmental consequences of approval of use of PEX before the decision is made because PEX already is widely in use; (7) the evidence does not support the conclusion that PEX may have a significant impact on the environment; (8) the Commission and the Agencies improperly delayed approval of PEX by invoking CEQA for the first time at the conclusion of the rulemaking process; (9) the Commission and the Agencies improperly split the project by applying CEQA to some uses of PEX but not others and by applying CEQA to PEX but not to other plumbing materials; and (10) the judgment compelling the Commission and the Agencies to allow the use of PEX was proper.

DISCUSSION

1. Building Standards Law.

The California Building Standards Law (Health & Saf. Code, § 18901 et seq.) provides for the promulgation of building standards by state agencies.(footnote 3) State agencies adopt or propose building standards that are then approved or adopted by the Commission. (Id., § 18930, subd. (a).) The adopting agency must submit to the Commission a written analysis of the building standards, "which shall, to the satisfaction of the commission, justify the approval thereof in terms of the following criteria:

"(1)The proposed building standards do not conflict with, overlap, or duplicate other building standards.

"(2)The proposed building standard is within the parameters established by enabling legislation and is not expressly within the exclusive jurisdiction of another agency.

"(3)The public interest requires the adoption of the building standards.

"(4)The proposed building standard is not unreasonable, arbitrary, unfair, or capricious, in whole or in part.

"(5)The cost to the public is reasonable, based on the overall benefit to be derived from the building standards.

"(6)The proposed building standard is not unnecessarily ambiguous or vague, in whole or in part.

"(7)The applicable national specifications, published standards, and model codes have been incorporated therein as provided in this part, where appropriate.

"(A)If a national specification, published standard, or model code does not adequately address the goals of the state agency, a statement defining the inadequacy shall accompany the proposed building standard when submitted to the commission.

"(B)If there is no national specification, published standard, or model code that is relevant to the proposed building standard, the state agency shall prepare a statement informing the commission and submit that statement with the proposed building standard.

"(8)The format of the proposed building standard is consistent with that adopted by the commission.

"(9)The proposed building standard, if it promotes fire and panic safety, as determined by the State Fire Marshal, has the written approval of the State Fire Marshal." (Health & Saf. Code, § 18930, subd. (a).)

Health and Safety Code section 18928, subdivision (c), states that if an agency responsible for the adoption of building standards fails to adopt a model code within one year after its publication, the Commission "shall convene a committee to recommend to the commission the adoption, amendment, or repeal, on the agencies' behalf, of the most recent editions of the model codes . . . and necessary state standards."

The Commission must either approve the building standards adopted by a state agency, return the standards for amendment with recommended changes, or reject the standards. (footnote 4) (Health & Saf. Code, § 18931, subd. (a).) If the Commission fails to act within 120 days after receiving an agency's adopted standards, the standards are deemed approved without further review. (Ibid.) Approved standards are codified in the Code. (Id., § § 18931, subd. (b), 18938.) The California Plumbing Code is part of the Code. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 24, § 101.0 et seq.)

The Commission receives proposed building standards from state agencies for consideration in an annual code adoption cycle, publishes the Code in its entirety every three years, and publishes annual supplements as necessary. (Health & Saf. Code, § § 18929.1, subd. (a), 18942, subd. (a).)

2. The Commission's Decision Not to Allow the Use of PEX Was Proper.

a. Standard of Review.

The Commission's approval of building standards under the Building Standards Law is a quasi-legislative act of administrative rulemaking. (20th Century Ins. Co. v. Garamendi (1994) 8 Cal.4th 216, 275; see International Assn. of Plumbing etc. Officials v. California Building Stds. Com. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 245, 254.) Judicial review of a quasi-legislative act in an ordinary mandamus proceeding (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085) is limited to determining whether the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious, entirely without evidentiary support, or procedurally unfair. (Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Com. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 352, 361.) This generally means that a court cannot disturb the agency's decision if substantial evidence in the administrative record supports the decision. (Id. at pp. 361, 374; Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 571-574.) A court's review is limited to evidence in the administrative record.(footnote 5) (Associated Builders, supra, at p. 374; Western States, supra, at pp. 571, 579.) A court reviewing a quasi-legislative act cannot reweigh the evidence or substitute its own judgment for that of the agency. (Shapell Industries, Inc. v. Governing Board (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 218, 230.) This deferential standard of review reflects "deference to the separation of powers between the Legislature and the judiciary, to the legislative delegation of administrative authority to the agency, and to the presumed expertise of the agency within its scope of authority." (California Hotel & Motel Assn. v. Industrial Welfare Com. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 200, 212.) A court independently determines, however, whether the agency acted within the scope of its statutory authority. (Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1, 11, fn. 4.)

On appeal, we independently review the agency's decision and apply the same standard of review that governs the superior court. (Carrancho v. California Air Resources Bd. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1275.)

Evidence is substantial if a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the evidence is reasonable, credible, and of solid value. (Wilmot v. Commission on Professional Competence (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1139.) The uncorroborated testimony of one witness can constitute substantial evidence, unless the testimony is inherently unreliable. (Evid. Code, § 411; People v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal.3d 284, 296.)

b. The Evidence Supports the Decision.

The Agencies and the Commission adopted and approved the 2000 Model Plumbing Code with the exception of certain provisions allowing the use of PEX. The Agencies' decision not to allow the use of PEX was based on their common conclusion that the use of PEX potentially could present an unacceptable danger to public health and safety and that the information in the administrative record was insufficient for them to assuage their concerns. The Commission agreed with the Agencies' conclusion and approved the adopted standards, including the exclusion of PEX, for the same reason.

We conclude that the evidence in the administrative record supports the decision by the Commission and the Agencies. The Reid letter raised grave concerns about the potential dangers posed by the use of PEX and the absence of information sufficient to reach a conclusion concerning the integrity of PEX pipes, including the potential for (1) chemical leaching of substances from the pipes; (2) permeation of the pipes by toxic substances contained in the surrounding soil and groundwater; (3) mechanical failure of the pipes; and (4) rupturing of the pipes when exposed to high heat, which may create openings that could contribute to the spread of fire. The record shows that Reid has more than 20 years of experience studying public health and mechanical performance issues related to pipe materials, has directed an environmental consulting firm since 1972, holds a bachelor's degree in chemistry, and pursued graduate study in biology for several years. On this record, there is no reasonable question that Reid is qualified to state his opinion on these subjects.

The question is not whether the evidence supports the conclusion that PEX is unsafe and unsound for plumbing uses; the Commission and the Agencies made no such finding. Rather, the question is whether the evidence supports the conclusion that the use of PEX potentially may present an unreasonable risk of harm and that the information available to the Commission and the Agencies was insufficient for them to determine whether the use of PEX actually would present an unreasonable risk of harm. We conclude that the Reid letter is substantial evidence both that PEX potentially may present an unreasonable risk of harm and that the information in the administrative record is insufficient to dispel the stated concerns. The Commission and the Agencies were entitled to rely on the Reid letter in the exercise of their discretion under Health and Safety Code section 18930, subdivision (a)(3) and (7), in determining whether allowing the use of PEX is in the "public interest" (id., subd. (a)(3)) and whether incorporation of those model code provisions is "appropriate" (id., subd. (a)(7)).

Contrary to PPFA's argument, the Commission and the Agencies were not required to make "evidentiary findings" in support of their decision. Health and Safety Code section 18930, subdivision (a), states that the adopting agency must provide an analysis of nine criteria and that the analysis must justify the proposed building standards "to the satisfaction of the commission." The Commission must review the standards and the agency's analysis. (Id., § 18930, subds. (d)(1) & (e), § 18931, subd. (a).) Section 18930 recognizes that the agency's analysis may involve "factual determinations" and states that such factual determinations ordinarily are binding on the Commission, except where the building standard is "principally intended to protect the public health and safety." (Id., § 18930, subds. (d)(1), (e).) The statute, however, does not state that the Commission or the adopting agency must make express factual findings to support its decision that a particular building standard is not in the public interest (id., subd. (a)(3)) or that a particular model code provision "does not adequately address the goals of the state agency" (id., subd. (a)(7).) Moreover, an administrative agency making a quasi-legislative decision is not required to make detailed factual findings supporting its decision. (McKinney v. Board of Trustees (1982) 31 Cal.3d 79, 88.)

We also reject the arguments that the Commission cannot properly distinguish between the use of PEX in buildings regulated by the Agencies and its use in other buildings for which the Commission approved its use, and that the Agency cannot properly disallow the use of PEX pipes in buildings regulated by the Agencies while allowing the use of CSST pipes in those buildings. The Commission's determination that PEX is appropriate for use in buildings such as hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, children's nurseries, theaters, dance halls, and jails does not compel the conclusion that it is appropriate for use in the buildings governed by the Agencies. PPFA has not shown that the evidence compels the conclusion as a matter of law that PEX must be appropriate for all buildings if it is appropriate for any or that if CSST is appropriate then PEX must be appropriate too.

c. The Model Code Provisions Were Not Automatically Adopted and Approved as a Matter of Law as to the

Department of Housing and Community Development.

Health and Safety Code section 17922, subdivision (a), states that the building standards adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development and submitted to the Commission for approval "shall impose substantially the same requirements as are contained in the most recent editions of the following uniform industry codes as adopted by the organizations specified: [¶ ] . . . [¶ ] (3) The Uniform Plumbing Code of the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials." Subdivision (b) states, in pertinent part, "Except as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with section 18901), in the absence of adoption by regulation, the most recent editions of the uniform codes referred to in this section shall be considered to be adopted one year after the date of publication of the uniform codes."

Health and Safety Code section 18931, subdivision (a), states that the Commission must, "In accordance with Section 18930 and within 120 days from the date of receipt of adopted standards, review the standards of adopting agencies and approve, return for amendment with recommended changes, or reject building standards submitted to the commission for its approval. When building standards are returned for amendment or rejected, the commission shall inform the adopting agency or state agency that proposes the building standards of the specific reasons for the recommended changes or rejection, citing the criteria required under Section 18930. When standards are not acted upon by the commission within 120 days, the standards shall be approved, including codification and publication in the California Building Standards Code, without further review and without return or rejection by the commission."

PPFA maintains that the Department of Housing and Community Development adopted the model code as a matter of law, including the provisions allowing the use of PEX, by failing to adopt building standards within one year after the publication of the model code in October 1999, and that the Commission approved the model code, including the PEX provisions, by failing to act on the adopted standards within 120 days after they were deemed adopted. Under PPFA's construction of the Building Standards Law, the most recent edition of a model code can become California law without any review by either the adopting agency or the Commission. The superior court rejected this argument, and so do we.

The legislative power of the state is vested in the Legislature. (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 1.) An unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority occurs if a statute authorizes another person or group to make a fundamental policy decision or fails to provide adequate direction for the implementation of a fundamental policy determined by the Legislature. (Carson Mobilehome Park Owners' Assn. v. City of Carson (1983) 35 Cal.3d 184, 190; Kugler v. Yocum (1968) 69 Cal.2d 371, 376-377.) For the Legislature to grant a private association such as the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials the power to make law with no direction from the Legislature and no review by a state agency would be unconstitutional. (International Association of Plumbing etc. Officials v. California Building Stds Com., supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 253.) We must construe a statute to avoid a constitutional invalidity if a constitutionally sound construction is reasonable. (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 1, 10-11.)

Assuming arguendo that the model code was deemed adopted without amendment by the Department of Housing and Community Development under Health and Safety Code section 17922, subdivision (a), we construe section 18931, subdivision (a), to mean that the Commission is deemed to approve adopted building standards through inaction only if the Commission receives the adopted standards from the adopting agency. Section 18931, subdivision (a), states that the Commission must review and act on adopted standards "within 120 days from the date of receipt of adopted standards." We conclude that the Legislature contemplated that automatic approval by the Commission could occur only if the adopting agency affirmatively adopted the building standards and forwarded them to the Commission. If the Commission did not receive adopted standards from the adopting agency, as here, the Commission cannot be deemed to approve the standards through inaction. This ensures that building standards cannot be both deemed adopted by the adopting agency and deemed approved by the Commission with no determination by either the adopting agency or the Commission that the standards are appropriate.

d. The Decision Was Not Procedurally Unfair.

PPFA contends the decision was procedurally unfair because (1) the Agencies failed to adopt the model code within one year after its publication as required by Health and Safety Code section 18928, subdivision (b); (2) the Commission and the Agencies improperly delayed the decision to apply CEQA; (3) the Department of Housing and Community Development characterized its decision not to adopt the model code provisions allowing the use of PEX as "secret" and allowed counsel for the California State Pipe Trades Council to participate in drafting a public notice; (4) the Governor appointed two new members to the Commission shortly before its hearing in May 2002, one of whom formerly represented a trade group promoting copper pipes, and the Governor received a substantial amount of campaign contributions from the California State Pipe Trades Council; (5) the Commission's hearing in May 2002 was a sham because the Commission "seemed predetermined to exclude PEX" and presented a "pre-printed motion" a copy of which had been given to the California State Pipe Trades Council; (6) the Agencies failed to make independent factual findings and acted under the direction of the Commission; (7) the Commission secretly authorized advance publication of the Code before the May 2002 hearing, so the hearing was a sham and the Commission's decision was predetermined; and (8) the Commission "threaten[ed]" to impose the costs of environmental review on PEX manufacturers without justification.

We reject the contention that the Agencies' failure to adopt the model code within one year after its publication as required by statute rendered the decision procedurally unfair so as to invalidate the Agencies' and the Commission's decision. Statutory time limits ordinarily are considered directory rather than mandatory and jurisdictional unless the Legislature clearly expressed a contrary intent. (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Bd. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1133, 1145.) The California Building Standards Law does not provide that an agency's adoption of a model code is invalid if it occurs more than one year after the model code was published or that the Commission has no authority to approve building standards that were not timely adopted. Moreover, statutory language that appears mandatory may be considered mandatory only in the sense that an administrative agency can be compelled to act if it fails to render a timely a decision, but this does not mean that the agency has no jurisdiction to act after the deadline has passed. (Id. at pp. 1146-1147.) If depriving an agency of the power to act after a deadline has passed would defeat the purpose of the statute, a court should reject such a construction. (Ibid.) We conclude that to deprive an agency of the power to adopt a model code more than one year after its publication would deprive the Commission of the agency's considered opinion and application of the agency's expertise, and would defeat the purpose of the statute.

We reject PPFA's second contention concerning procedural unfairness in section 4 post. The other contentions concerning alleged undue influence, a sham hearing, and the like are only unsubstantiated allegations and cannot justify the invalidation of the Commission's or the Agencies' decisions.

3. CEQA Applies to Proposed Building Standards

Allowing the Use of PEX.

"CEQA is a comprehensive scheme designed to provide long-term protection to the environment. [Citation.] In enacting CEQA, the Legislature declared its intention that all public agencies responsible for regulating activities affecting the environment give prime consideration to preventing environmental damage when carrying out their duties. [Citations.] CEQA is to be interpreted ' to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.' [Citation.]" (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 112.)

CEQA defines a "project" as an activity that may cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and that is either directly undertaken by a public agency, undertaken by another person with assistance from a public agency, or involves the issuance by a public agency of a permit or other entitlement. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21065; Guidelines,(footnote 6) § 15378, subd. (a).) CEQA applies to any discretionary project proposed to be carried out or approved by a public agency, unless the project is exempt. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (a).) A regulation fitting the description of a discretionary project is a discretionary project under CEQA. (Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 206 [held that the enactment of regulations by the Fish and Game Commission fixing the dates of a hunting season was a project subject to CEQA]; see Pub. Resources Code, § 21000, subd. (g); Office of Planning and Research discussion foll. Guidelines, § 15378 ["With some activities carried out by government, the plan, control, or regulation being adopted may need to be regarded as the project even though the plan, etc., is being adopted to control activities to be initiated later by other people" ];(footnote 7) Dunn-Edwards Corp. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 657-658, disapproved on another ground in Western States Petroleum Assn v. Superior Court, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 576, fn. 6, [held that the enactment of regulations relating to architectural coatings was not categorically exempt under CEQA].) Whether an activity constitutes a project under CEQA is a question of law that can be decided de novo based on the undisputed evidence in the record. (Black Property Owners Assn. v. City of Berkeley (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 974, 984.)

PPFA contends the enactment of regulations allowing the use of PEX is not a project because the causal link between the enactment of regulations and a physical change in the environment is too remote. PPFA argues that PEX is only one of several materials available for plumbing uses and that at this time there is no certainty that PEX will be used in any particular work of construction. A project, however, includes an activity that "may cause . . . a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21065.) Thus, an activity need not cause an immediate environmental impact to be considered a project. We conclude that the regulations here at issue may have a reasonably foreseeable indirect environmental impact for the reasons expressed by Reid.

PPFA contends the statutory time limits for adoption and approval of building standards do not allow time for environmental review, so the Legislature impliedly exempted the activity from CEQA. The Legislature has expressly exempted certain activities from CEQA (e.g., Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b); see Guidelines, § 15260 et seq.) and has authorized the California Resources Agency to enact Guidelines establishing other, categorical exemptions based on the finding that the activities do not have a significant effect on the environment (Pub. Resources Code, § 21084, subd. (a); see Guidelines, § 15300 et seq.). Absent an express statutory or categorical exemption, however, we cannot infer an exemption unless we discern a clear legislative intent to exempt the activity. (Sierra Club v. State Bd. of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1230; Wildlife Alive v. Chickering, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 195.) The California Supreme Court in Wildlife Alive rejected the argument that time restraints imposed by the Fish and Game Code on the enactment of hunting regulations indicated a legislative intent to exempt the activity from CEQA. The court noted that the statutory period of 50 to 70 days to hold public meetings, consider comments, and enact final regulations was sufficient time for environmental review under CEQA. (Wildlife Alive, supra, at p. 200.) Similarly, we conclude that the statutory period of one year after the date of publication of a model code for an adopting agency to adopt or propose adoption of the model code (Health & Saf. Code, § 18928, subd. (b)) is sufficient time for environmental review under CEQA, and that the 120-day period after receipt of adopted building standards for the Commission to approve building standards (id., § 18931, subd. (a)) is sufficient time for environmental review under CEQA.(footnote 8)PPFA has not shown an irreconcilable conflict between CEQA and the adoption and approval of building standards under the Building Standards Law and therefore has not shown a legislative intent to exempt the activity.

PPFA also contends to apply CEQA in these circumstances would not achieve CEQA's goal of informing the public about the environmental consequences of a decision before the decision is made because PEX already is widely in use. (footnote 9) The essence of this argument is that the enactment of statewide regulations allowing the use of PEX for buildings regulated by the Agencies would cause no direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (Pub. Resources Code, § 21065) because PEX already is widely in use. We reject this argument because on this record we cannot conclude that the enactment of these regulations would cause no direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

4. The Decision to Conduct Review Under CEQA Was Proper.

An agency must conduct a preliminary review to determine whether CEQA applies to a proposed activity. (Guidelines, § 15060, subd. (c); Association for a Cleaner Environment v. Yosemite Community College Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 629, 636.) If the agency determines that the activity is a discretionary project that may result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and that the activity is not exempt, the agency must either prepare an initial study or proceed directly to the preparation of an EIR. (Guidelines, § § 15002, subd. (k), 15060, subds. (c) & (d), 15061, 15063, subd. (d); Association for a Cleaner Environment, supra, at pp. 639-640.)

An initial study is a preliminary analysis to determine whether an EIR or a negative declaration must be prepared and to identify the environmental effects to be analyzed in an EIR. (Guidelines, § § 15063, 15365.) An agency preparing an initial study must consult with all responsible agencies and trustee agencies responsible for resources affected by the project. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080.3, subd. (a); Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (g).) An initial study includes in summary form a description of the project and its environmental setting, an identification of environmental effects, a discussion of potential mitigation measures, and an examination of the project's consistency with zoning regulations and other land use controls. (Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (d).)

An agency's decision whether to prepare an initial study is subject to judicial review under the abuse of discretion standard. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21168.5; Association for a Cleaner Environment v. Yosemite Community College Dist., supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 636.) Abuse of discretion means the agency did not proceed in a manner required by law or there was no substantial evidence to support its decision. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21168.5.)

PPFA argues that the Commission did not decide to conduct an initial study, but merely decided that the proposed approval of the use of PEX may result in a significant environmental effect and decided to prepare "a proposed procedure for a coordinated state review of PEX consistent with CEQA." Regardless of whether we construe the Commission's decision as a decision to conduct a preliminary review to determine whether an initial study was warranted or a decision to conduct an initial study, the abuse of discretion standard applies and our conclusion is the same. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Commission's decision. The Reid letter is substantial evidence that the use of PEX potentially may result in the release of contaminants into the soil, groundwater, and drinking water, mechanical failure, and the spread of fire. The decision by the Commission and the Agencies to consider further the application of CEQA was proper.

Contrary to PPFA's argument, the Commission's and the Agencies' failure to commence CEQA review earlier in the rulemaking process does not compel them to forego environmental review. CEQA contains no automatic approval provision, and its time limits are directory rather than mandatory. (Eller Media Co. v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1221.)

Finally, PPFA contends the Commission and the Agencies improperly split the project by deciding to apply CEQA only with respect to the proposed adoption by the Agencies of building standards allowing the use of PEX and not with respect to other agencies' adoption of building standards allowing the use of PEX or with respect to other plumbing materials. This is not a valid argument to forego environmental review. Rather, this is an argument to broaden the scope of the review. PPFA did not timely petition for a writ of mandate challenging the Commission's decision to approve other agencies' adoption of building standards allowing the use of PEX or the Commission's approval of building standards allowing the use of other plumbing materials, and therefore cannot challenge the absence of environmental review of those decisions. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21167, subd. (a).) In any event, the decision to conduct CEQA review does not foreclose the possibility of expanding the scope of any ensuing environmental analysis to encompass a larger project, if appropriate.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is reversed with directions to the superior court to vacate the peremptory writ of mandate issued on February 13, 2003, and enter a judgment denying the petition for writ of mandate. Appellants are entitled to recover their costs on appeal.

CROSKEY, J.

We Concur: KLEIN, P.J., ALDRICH, J.

 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: FOOTNOTE(S):::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

FN1. The other state agencies party to this appeal as appellants are the Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of the State Architect-Structural Safety, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, Department of Health Services, and Department of Food and Agriculture (collectively Agencies).

FN2. The Department of Housing and Community Development adopts building standards applicable to dwellings and transient lodging facilities (Health & Saf. Code, § 17921, subd. (a)), the Division of the State Architect-Structural Safety adopts building standards applicable to public elementary and secondary schools, community colleges, and "essential services" buildings (Ed. Code, § § 17310, 81142; Health & Saf. Code, § 16022), the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development adopts building standards applicable to hospitals and other health care facilities (Health & Saf. Code, § 129850), the Department of Health Services adopts building standards applicable to public swimming pools (id., § 116050), and the Department of Food and Agriculture adopts building standards applicable to dairies and meet inspection facilities.

FN3. The Building Standards Law defines building standards, in pertinent part, as "any rule, regulation, order, or other requirement, including any amendment or repeal of that requirement, that specifically regulates, requires, or forbids the method of use, properties, performance, or types of materials used in the construction, alteration, improvement, repair, or rehabilitation of a building, structure, factory-built housing, or other improvement to real property, including fixtures therein, and as determined by the commission." (Health & Saf. Code, § 18909, subd. (a).)

FN4. The Commission here agreed with the Agencies' decisions. We therefore need not discuss the standard of review applicable to the Commission's review of the Agencies' determinations and analyses (Health & Saf. Code, § 18930, subds. (d)(1) & (e)).

FN5. Because our review is limited to the administrative record, we reject PPFA's attempt to impeach the decision by the Department of Housing and Community Development by reference to the department's initial statement of reasons dated July 2004 in connection with a code adoption cycle subsequent to the one here at issue.

FN6. All references to Guidelines are to the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) developed by the Office of Planning and Research and adopted by the California Resources Agency. (Pub. Resources Code, § § 21083, 21087.) "[C]ourts should afford great weight to the Guidelines except when a provision is clearly unauthorized or erroneous under CEQA." (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 391, fn. 2.)

FN7. The discussions of the Guidelines prepared by the Office of Planning and Research are not part of the California Code of Regulations, but are available on the Internet at .

FN8. We need not decide whether the Commission or each adopting agency is the lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

FN9. The parties dispute the extent to which PEX has been used in California. 

Your comments needed on Guide to Engineering and Land Surveying

ICC Provides Comparison between IBC & NFPA 5000

To view, click on the following

http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes

CALBO Offers New Service to Members!

Beginning August 1, 2004, CALBO will provide a new service to its members!

As many of you know, ICC recognizes CALBO's educational offerings toward their recertification process.  Beginning August 1, 2004, CALBO will provide a service to its members to assist with the recertification process.   For no fee, CALBO staff will research courses attended for the individual requesting the information.   For each attendance certificate requested and provided, there will be a fee of $10.00 covering administrative costs.

If you would like to take advantage of this opportunity, please contact the CALBO office at (916) 457-1103.

CALBO Sends Letter to Secretary Fred Aguiar Regarding the Adoption of NEC

The California Building Standards Commission will discuss the publication of the California Electrical Code on July 20 and July 21.  Building Standards law states that California code will become effective 180 days after publication.  CALBO's position is to request CBSC not to publish the California Electrical Code out of sequence with the Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes. 

It's important that you attend next week's meetings to support CALBO's position if possible.  CALBO has sent a letter to Secretary Fred Aguiar.  Click here to view the letter.

CSLB Creates Form to Assist in Permit Process

To print the form, please go to the "News and Publications" link to the left and select "Permit Counter Form".  Feel free to print out as many as you like for your public counter.

ICC Encouraging Membership Participation

International Code Council is encouraging CALBO members to apply to the ICC IRC Code Committees. 

For more information, visit the ICC website at http://www.iccsafe.org/.

9/22 Update to Structural Standards to California Building Standards Code

Update to Structural Standards to California Building Standards Code

Building Standards Bulletin 01-03

The California Building Standards Commission recently adopted emergency regulations to update structural building standards in the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24). The update was made to further the protection of the public in and around buildings, and became effective on July 18, 2003.

Under the Commission’s leadership, a technical advisory group developed a coordinated consensus document of updates to the structural building standards contained in the California Building Code (Title 24, Part 2). Working in partnership with local jurisdictions in California, the group produced this document using proposals submitted by the Los Angeles Regional Uniform Code Program and the Tri-Chapter organization of three International Code Council chapters (Peninsula, East Bay, and Monterey).

The document makes some of the more critically needed updates to the structural standards. These updates are currently accepted, nationally recognized standards and engineering principles, which were determined to be lacking in the California Building Code.

The Commission adopted these emergency building standards to ensure public safety in the buildings it has the authority to regulate; specifically, state buildings, buildings constructed by the Trustees of the California State University, and those constructed by the Regents of the University of California. These standards will also serve as a template for local municipalities to adopt as local modifications to the California Building Standards Code, thus providing for a uniform level of public safety throughout California. To download the emergency standards go to www.bsc.ca.gov

7/29 CBSC Votes for NFPA 5000, NFPA 1 and the IRC

After eight hours of testimony the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) voted for the NFPA 5000, NFPA 1 and the IRC over the recommendations of four state agencies and an unprecedented number or stakeholders from the design, construction, enforcement, local government and school communities. 

Prior to this vote the Commission voted down two previous motions by Steve Winkel the Architect representative, which were supported by Commissioner Barthman.  The first motion was for the IBC, IRC and NFPA 1 fire code.  The second motion was for the IBC and IFC.  Both of these motions were defeated by an 8-2 vote. 

While many expected this action to happen, the real question is what does it all mean?  Under Building Standards law, the Commission has the authority to accept, reject or return the proposed code language to the proposing state agency when there is a redundancy or a conflict exists with another agency’s proposal.  As a result each agency must now decide how they are going to respond in light of the Commissions actions.

The CALBO Board of Directors would like to thank all of those involved in this on going effort to convince the Commission to make the right choice for the people of California based on the technical merits of the proposed codes.  Your dedication and passion for this cause has to be acknowledged. 

This process has resulted in a consolidation of opinions and stronger relationships between building officials and many organizations including fire officials, League of California Cities, American Institute of Architects, California Council, Structural Engineers Association of California and the California Building Industry Association, just to name a few.

The Commission’s next scheduled meeting is, Wednesday September 17, 2003.  The main items on that agenda will be establishing timeframes for the adoption, publication and enforcement dates of the codes. 

7/21 League of Cities Board Votes to Support the IBC

League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: (916) 658-8200 Fax: (916) 658-8240
http://www.cacities.org/

       July 23, 2003                                   Contact:    Dan Carrigg               Liisa Lawson    (916) 658-8222              (916) 658-8249

League of California Cities Endorses ICC Code Recommendations

Sacramento -- The board of directors for the League of California Cities has voted to support the International Building Codes produced by the International Code Council (ICC) for the State of California. 

The League is requesting adoption of the ICC Building Code for the State of California by the California Building Standards Commission, which is currently in the process of reviewing the model codes that will serve as the basis for the 2004 triennial California Building Standards Code update.

“This is about preserving the ability of local officials to participate in decisions that affect local safety standards,” said Chris McKenzie, Executive Director of the League.  “We’re supporting adoption of the ICC Building Code because we believe that the ICC development process offers better opportunities for local government participation in decision-making than other approaches. 

“We also recognize that adoption of the ICC Building Code could save cash-strapped California cities hundreds of thousands of dollars, “ added McKenzie.

The ICC Building Code is the successor of the Uniform Building Code, which California has used since 1927.  Switching to the untested National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 5000 code would cost cities hundreds of thousands of dollars to retrain fire and building officials, architects, engineers and others.  Cities already accustomed to existing and workable code structures should not bear the burden of restructuring, particularly in light of current budgetary problems.

The League’s board of directors reached its decision on July 19, after hearing the recommendations of its policy committees on Pubic Safety, and Housing, Community and Economic Development.  Those policy bodies based their recommendations following an extensive, eight-month review process and consideration of presentations made by the California Building Officials (CALBO), the International Code Council (ICC), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the California Fire Chiefs Association and Metro Chiefs Association, the League’s Fire Chiefs Department, and the League’s City Managers Department.

####

6/16 Comparision of Structural Aspects of the IBC & NFPA

TRI-CHAPTER UNIFORM CODES ADOPTION AND INTERPRETATION PROGRAM
Peninsula Chapter-East Bay Chapter-Monterey Chapter

        June 6, 2003

California Building Standards Commission
2525 Natomas Park Drive, Ste 130
Sacramento, CA 95833-2936

Dear Commissioners:

As you are all aware the schedule is set for the adoption of next generation of codes in California. And, a recommendation by the State agencies on which code to adopt is due very shortly. This decision will have a significant impact on the construction industry and local jurisdictions. Therefore, we feel compelled to bring some important differences on structural aspects of the two codes, namely NFPA 5000 and the 2003 IBC, to your attention.
The major misconceptions about the structural provisions of the two codes is that it is generally believed that they are essentially the same. While the standards referred to by both codes are identical, the extent to which essential prescriptive provisions are actually included in each code, are quite different.

In summary, the adoption of NFPA will be more challenging and costly for code enforcement officials as far as structural aspects are concerned. The need to refer to multiple standards to find some basic information such as shearwall capacity, minimum concrete cover or allowable load on an anchor bolt would be a logistical burden that would not be easily overcome. This would especially be cumbersome for field staff who do not normally have access to many standards at job sites.

In absence of a user-friendly document such as the IBC, each jurisdiction will have to develop their own streamlined standards in order to help their staff perform their jobs more effectively. This could lead to widespread inconsistency in the application of codes throughout the state. Additionally, it is possible that the need to refer to multiple standards will lead to substantial delays in plan review, which could have a detrimental effect to the design and construction industries as well as regulatory agencies.
The first attached document highlights key differences, in eight areas, between the two codes and specific examples are cited, that, in our judgment, show the superiority of IBC. The second attached document lists the jurisdictions, organizations and individuals that support our findings and the adoption of the International Codes. We strongly recommend that you approve the 2003 IBC for the next cycle of code adoption in California.
We thank the Commission chair and the Commissioners for taking the steps to ensure that California uses the best set of codes available for building safe and economical structures.
      
Sincerely,    

Amal Sinha, P.E.
Chief Building Official and
Chairman, Tri-Chapter Uniform Codes
Adoption and Interpretation Committee

Attachments

Comparison of the Structural Aspects of IBC and the NFPA

*In preparation of this analysis an Article published in the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute Journal authored by Dr. S.K. Ghosh, PhD, was used as a reference.

Seismic Provisions
Both codes reference ASCE 7-02 as the standard to use for all loading conditions. However, in the IBC, prescriptive provisions along with detailed geologic maps are included for a simplified method of analysis. This methodology can be used on its own (without reference to other standards) for buildings of up to 3 stories in height. In California nearly 80% of all buildings fall into this category. This ratio could be near 100% for many small jurisdictions. Having these provisions in the body of the code provides an excellent tool for plan checkers and inspectors alike to look up code requirements and resolve issues quickly and conveniently.

Wind provisions
In many parts of California wind design governs the lateral design of the building. IBC has complete design provisions, charts and maps for wind design of all building types. NFPA exclusively references the ASCE 7.

Other Loading Conditions
In addition to the items above IBC provides complete list of all live load criteria and complete loading combinations criteria. Neither one of these can be found in the NFPA.

Deflection Criteria
Both codes have tables for general roof and floor deflection criteria. However, NFPA requires that users refer to several other standards for additional provisions, while IBC’s criteria are all inclusive.

Quality Assurance
Both codes have detailed requirements for special inspection. However, the NFPA also references the ASCE 7 provisions, which in some cases creates a conflict with the NFPA requirements. IBC’s criteria are all inclusive and there is no need for reference to other documents. In addition, the requirements for Structural Observation in IBC are quite detailed, while NFPA’s provisions are broad and vague.

Concrete Design
Both IBC and NFPA reference the ACI 318-02 for concrete design and detailing requirements. However, IBC has several useful features that are not included in the NFPA or ACI codes. For instance the IBC has provisions for wall piers. These are special segments of wall normally seen in tilt-up construction with several openings, which is a very popular form of construction in California. This feature ensures the seismic adequacy of narrow wall panels while providing for a flexible and cost efficient method of construction.

Masonry Chimney
IBC has prescriptive detailing requirements for reinforcement and anchorage of chimneys. NFPA has no such provisions, which would require that every masonry chimney be custom designed.

Wood Design
IBC has a set of essential provisions including load tables for shear walls, joists, beams etc., which could be used for the majority of simple structures. NFPA on the other hand, has very limited provisions such as nailing schedule, but refers to other standards in most cases. Considering the prevalence of wood construction, especially in low to moderate-income housing in California, this would add additional cost to the construction of such structures by increasing the design and inspection time.

California Building Officials of the Greater San Francisco Bay Area & Surrounding Areas, Fire Prevention & Protective Services, Contractors, Design Professionals, Private Industry Manufacturing Representatives in support of the International Building Code for California.

# FIRST LAST AFFILIATION
1 Massoud Abolhoda Fremont, City of
2 Rafael Adame Watsonville, City of
3 Andrew Adelman Los Angeles, City of
4 Jack Aiello San Carlos, City of
5 Harry Attri Attri & Associates
6 Kirk B. Ballard Los Altos, City of
7 Carlos Baltodano Contra Costa, County of
8 George Barnes Fire Inspection Services
9 Howard Bell Monte Sereno, City of
10 Steven Brandvold Pacifica, City of
11 Lee Braun Rohnert Park, City of
12 Bill Bruckart Campbell, City of
13 Thomas Butt Interactive Resources, Inc.
14 William Callahan Associated Roofing Contractors of the Bay
     Area Counties
15 William Cameron San Mateo, County of
16 John Canestro Consulting Engineer
17 Bill Carino Los Altos Hills, City of
18 Greg Casteel Cupertino, City of
19 Ray Collier Newark, City of
20 Fred Cullum Burlingame, City of
21 Joseph Cyr Belmont, City of
22 Steven Davis San Mateo, City of
23 Vivian Day Alameda, City of
24 Margret Elliott Alameda, County of
25 Ali Fatapour Sunnyvale, City of
26 Jason Fell Drywall Information Trust Fund
27 Brian Fenty El Cerrito, City of
28 Kevin Gailey Danville, City of
29 Ron Geary Mountain View, City of
30 R. Clark Gertner Oakland, City of
31 Victor Gonzales Emeryville, City of
32 Jeff Gower Scotts Valley, City of
33 David Gran Monterey, County of
34 Chuck Haney Foster City, City of
35 Carl Henn Santa Cruz Seaside Company
36 Hilary Herman Hayward, City of
37 Fred Herman Palo Alto, City of
38 John Hershberger Albany, City of
39 Brent Hipsher Portola Valley, Town of
40 Jim Hodges Berryman & Henigar
41 Don Johnson Menlo Park, City of
42 Kevin Jorgensen Tracy, City of
43 Louis Kidwell Brentwood, City of
44 Stephan Kiefer Livermore, City of
45 Daniel Kostelec Capitola, City of
46 Patricia Kutzmann Kutzmann & Associates
47 John LaTorra Redwood City, City of
48 Michael Lavallee Daly City, City of
49 Sheila Lee Santa Clara, City of
50 Brad Lind Saratoga, City of
51 John Little Pittsburg, City of
52 Joan MacQuarrie Berkeley, City of
53 Mark Matthews Millbrae, City of
54 Tim McCormick Santa Monica, City Building Div.
55 Darlene Monroe Los Gatos, Town of
56 Chester Nakahara Piedmont, City of
57 Craig Oliver Marina, City of
58 James Oncay Soledad & Gonzales, Cities of
59 Dave Pasquinelli Salinas, City of
60 Ken Petersen LP2A
61 Vance Phillips Concord, City of
62 Ray Proffitt Hollister, City of
63 Kevin Reese Union City, City of
64 Jeff Rice American Institute of Building Design
65 Michael Richards Woodside, Town of
66 Douglas Rick Pacific Grove, City of
67 Edgar Rodriguez Milpitas, City of
68 John Schneider All About Homes
69 William Schock San Leandro, City of
70 Dave Scola Martinez, City of
71 Roger Sharpe Walnut Creek, City of
72 Tom Shih Santa Clara, County of
73 Gregory Shreeve Dublin, City of
74 Gary Smith Oakley, City of
75 Dick Stubendorff Santa Cruz, City of
76 George Thomas Pleasanton, City of
77 David Van Etten King City, City of
78 John Villalpando Monterey, City of
79 Mike Wasmann Atherton, Town of
80 Rex Wyatt Gilroy, City of

6/11 State agencies recommended the IBC be used as the base model code 3 -1

 State agencies recommended the IBC be used as the base model code 3 -1

HCD recommended to the Code Change Committee that the IBC/IRC be adopted.
DSA recommended that the IBC be used as the base model code
OSHPD also recommended that the IBC as the base model code for the 2004 Triennial Code Adoption.

SFM recommended that the NFPA 5000 and the NFPA 1 be used as the base codes.

Each agency handed out material to justify their position.  Contact the CBSC to get copies of this information or look on the agencies websites for this information. 

Comments related to the two codes from the agencies:

The IBC will require much less work to amend.
The IBC common code format will minimize retraining issues.
Adoption of the NFPA 5000 would result in delays in design and project review.
IBC provides a better structure to use referenced standards.
Wood Chapter of NFPA 5000 is unenforceable - will require an entire re-write.
Appears that the NFPA 5000 would increase initial costs of housing Construction.
Working with a totally different code then the rest of the nation will create economic and logistical difficulties for contractors, designers and building owners in California and will create a sever economic disadvantage for the design and construction communities when pursuing work outside California.
IBC has been field tested, having gone through a code adoption cycle and in current use.

At the end of the meeting Commissioner Cavanaugh asked HCD if they had considered using the NFPA 5000 with the structural portions of the IRC?  They indicated that they had and he then asked that they put together a document that by the 7/2 meeting that would show all the steps that would be needed to accomplish this.  Cavanaugh basically said that this is what Pasadena Texas did so why can't we do it in California.

The next meeting will be 6/26, an opportunity for the public to comment on today’s recommendation by the four agencies.  July 2, the Code Change Committee will meet again for additional input and to vote on a recommendation to be given to the full Commission on July 16.  These meetings are all opportunities to provide input and testimony on California’s code adoption and your position as a stakeholder in this process.

Please take these opportunities to express your position to the Governor, CBSC and the state agencies.  To summarize from the previous emails CALBO supports the IBC/IRC and the Fire Prevention Officers position to support the IFC as expressed in their position paper, which is available at http://www.calbo.org/

5/14 CALBO Code Adoption Recommendation

Click Here to view PDF.

5/14 FPO's Position Paper Recommends the IFC

Click Here to view PDF.
(This file is large and may take a few moments to open.)

Comparison of IBC & NFPA Fire Safety Provisions

Click Here to view PPT.
To view presentation, you must have Microsoft PowerPoint.

Comparison of NFPA 5000 and IBC 2003

Click Here to view PPT.
To view presentation, you must have Microsoft PowerPoint.

3/2003: 2003 IFC vs 2003 NFPA 1 Basic Comparative Analysis from the ABM

Click Here to view PPT.
To view presentation, you must have Microsoft PowerPoint.

3/2003: 2003 IBC and NFPA 5000 Codes Comparison from the ABM.

 Click Here to view PPT.
To view presentation, you must have Microsoft PowerPoint.

3/2003: NAHB/CBIA Comparison of the NFPA 5000 and the 2003 IRC for California.

Click Here to view PDF.

Helpful Abbreviations for Building Departments

11/14 NFPA Response to CALBO Letter

Click Here to view PDF.

CALBO Letter to NFPA

Re: Annual Building Official Forum

Dear Jim:

I want to thank you for hosting the recent Annual Building Officials Forum at your headquarters in Massachusetts. Your staff was excellent hosts and the subject matter offered in terms of your organization and specifically the work NFPA has done on the NFPA 5000 Building Code was most informative. As a Building Official for the past twenty-five (25) years, and a person who is concerned with code development and the integrity of all of us responsible for the enforcement of codes, I feel it necessary to write to you and your staff with the opinions I left the forum with regarding NFPA 5000. I understand the reasons why it was developed and compliment NFPA on its effort to develop this building code. This was understandably a very involved and complex project.

As I looked at the listing of Committee members involved in the development of NFPA 5000, it was very evident that building officials are surprisingly absent from the lists. NFPA, because of its history understands the needs of fire officials and others in related fields in the enforcement of fire code regulations but I respectfully question the ability of the people listed to understand the needs of building officials and those involved in the enforcement of building code regulations. It is this lack of understanding that I question in the development of a building code designed for enforcement by building officials. This point was supported by one of the NFPA presenters, Mr. Sal DiCristina, in the form of a statement he made to me that "They (NFPA) don’t know what the building official needs are yet. They are still finding out". I developed a good deal of respect for Mr. DiCristina in the short time I was there. I feel his comments were offered out of sincere interest and concern for NFPA and the development of NFPA 5000. He knows what a building code should be and what full services a code development organization needs to provide for building officials in order to adequately do their job.

As we progressed through the presentation of NFPA 5000, discussions ensued regarding certification programs for specific disciplines other than basic inspection certifications. Currently there are no certification programs designed to support the many deputy/special inspection disciplines the building official must rely on to adequately qualify these types of inspectors and service the varied projects and situations he faces. Along the same lines of supporting the building official and knowing the needs of the building official in the performance of his duties is the area of product evaluation. This is a support program you advised the California Building Standards Commission Coordinating Council that NFPA had. At the forum, it was stated that NFPA is just starting to look into this program and is just now developing a timeline for this development to begin. This is not an overnight process.

Another other area of major concern to me, especially with a code as new and different as NFPA 5000, is the lack of adequate staffing to service the interpretation and informational inquiries that will be generated. The need for timely interpretive services are imperative for consistency in understanding of the code among enforcement agencies. Mr. DiCristina feels as I do that adequate staffing for timely if not on the spot interpretive services must be provided. NFPA’s current staffing levels has created questions at this time as to its ability to handle this potential workload.

The outreach programs to building officials educating them as to what NFPA 5000 is all about have been close to non-existent thus far except for this forum. I am quite surprised and disappointed that a company the stature of NFPA has not provided outreach in terms of an overview of this product to the very people who will be responsible for its enforcement, the building official, in a more wide spread effort.

As I looked through this document in the brief time I was there, I saw several areas where references in the index were non-existent in the code text. Further, the International Codes as well as a myriad of standards texts are referred to in many sections making the task of referencing these code standards unnecessarily bulky and unfriendly to the user. I feel safe in saying that this is probably true, not only for the code enforcement official, but the design community as well. In comparison, the International Codes are familiar; their format and content and support services have been developed over time with the input of building officials. Most importantly, these codes and their usability have been tried and tested over time by the very people responsible for their enforcement. I am aware that clean up work is planned for NFPA 5000 and I encourage NFPA to perform this clean up work in timely fashion.

Jim, I respect NFPA for the work it has done over its many years for the fire service and even in its effort to develop a building code. I am disappointed that NFPA chose to stake is reputation on the development of a code, NFPA 5000, without first adequately obtaining representation from building officials. The California Building Officials (CALBO) have asked for comparative data on the NFPA 5000 and its competing code the International Building Code but this information to date has not been received. The question why this code is good or better has not been answered by NFPA nor been able to be answered adequately by others due to its late publication date. It is my opinion and that of others I spoke with who attended this forum, that based upon the information NFPA provided at the forum, NFPA 5000, at this time, is not ready. Not enough pre-publication work has been done. Not enough involvement from the very segment of the enforcement community responsible for its enforcement, building officials, has been utilized in its development. The support systems for the enforcement community as well as the design and construction communities is either non-existent or grossly under developed at this time. NFPA’s good reputation is on the line and the promotion of NFPA 5000 and NFPA 5000 related support services in the incomplete stage they are in is and will continue to adversely affect NFPA.

Jim, as President of the California Building Officials and with the full support of the CALBO Board of Directors, I strongly recommend that NFPA consider the negative affect the adoption of this code will have on the design and enforcement communities and construction industry as a whole. Further, I strongly recommend that NFPA remove the NFPA 5000 from California’s adoption process for this code adoption cycle and concentrate on adequately developing it with input from building officials responsible for its enforcement and providing education to the enforcement, design and construction communities on its content in similar manner to this forum.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact me at (909) 694-6439.

Sincerely,

Anthony J. Elmo, CBO

President

cc: Gary Keith-Vice President Regional Operations

Ray Bizal- Regional Manager, George Miller-President Emeritus

CALBO Board of Directors

Important Recommendations for Regulating the Design and Construction of Steel Moment Frame Buildings in California

BY CALBO SEISMIC SAFETY COMMITTEE           JULY 1, 2002

The CALBO Seismic Safety Committee has developed a set of seven specific recommendations related to the complex issues of steel moment frame design and construction. The purpose of this article is to share with you the reasons for, and the content of, specific changes to current code provisions that are recommended for the seismic design and construction of steel moment frames.

There are four primary reasons why Building Officials in California need guidance on this issue.

• First, the seismic design provisions contained in Chapter 22 (Steel) of the 1997 Uniform Building Code are quite simply outdated. However, they will remain unchanged in the state adoption of the 2001 California Building Code.
• Second, the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) has published, and some jurisdictions in California are currently enforcing, an updated set of seismic provisions (1997 and 2000) that address the problems identified by damage to steel moment frames in the Northridge Earthquake. Even newer ones may be published by the time this recommendation is printed.
• Third, there are new publications for steel moment frame design and construction, developed by the SAC Joint Venture, funded and published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as FEMA 350 and 353. The FEMA Guidelines are not codified and are recommended guidelines only, intended to provide technical resources for future code development and can be ordered free from FEMA at 1-800-480-2520. They may be inappropriately assumed to be a de facto standard by some jurisdictions.
• Lastly, the FEMA Guidelines focus primarily on major construction projects rather than the light-frame structures. Light-frame structures account for the majority of the moment frame applications encountered by CALBO members. Furthermore, the FEMA 350 definition and system restrictions (i.e., the overstrength and ductility factor R) of Ordinary Moment Frame systems are not consistent with the AISC-Seismic Provisions.

Readers may recall that an article appeared in the May 1999 CALBO Newsletter urging adoption of Parts I and III of the 1997 AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. That recommendation is still valid. However, since that time, additional information has become available that led to the development of the more specific recommendations listed below. The CALBO Seismic Safety Committee strongly believes that regulatory policies need to be updated to follow these expanded recommendations as a necessary step to adequately protect lives and property in buildings utilizing steel moment frame construction.

CALBO SEISMIC SAFETY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

1. 1997 AISC-SEISMIC PROVISIONS AND THE LATEST SUPPLEMENTS. Every jurisdiction in California should adopt and enforce, as a part of their Building Code, Parts I and III of both the 1997 AISC - Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (April 15, 1997) and Supplement No. 2 (November 10, 2000). These documents, when used together, contain the most recent steel material specifications and welding specifications. Additionally, there are related provisions in Chapter 16, which should also be amended to accommodate this adoption. Further information regarding the amendments will be available from the CALBO website at www.calbo.org. The CALBO Seismic Safety Committee will review 2002 AISC-Seismic Provisions, proposed to be published in July 2002, and may recommend certain provisions be locally adopted at a later date.
2. SPECIAL MOMENT FRAME (SMF) CONNECTIONS.
   1. The RBS connection is considered as prequalified for SMF and for all other types of moment frames, subject to the limitations of design and construction as described in FEMA 350 and these recommendations.
   2. Since research and testing as well as development of standards to specifically address the performance of SMF connections is on-going, the Building Official should require further testing of FEMA 350 "prequalified" connections as recommended in the SEAOC Seismology Committee Report entitled "Commentary and Recommendations on FEMA 350" for the following structures:
      • Structures defined in Table 16-K as Occupancy Category 1, 2 or 3;
      • Structures required to comply with Section 403 (highrise buildings);
      • Structures in Seismic Zone 4 where Na as set forth in Table 16-S is greater than one and a lateral design is required for the entire structure; or
      • Structures specifically required by the Building Official. For other buildings or structures, the Building Official may consider allowing prequalified connections in FEMA 350 on a case by case basis.
   3. New connections not reviewed by FEMA, including proprietary connection systems, must be tested in accordance with Appendix S of the 1997 AISC-Seismic Provisions, or the project-specific qualification procedures of FEMA 350, and the recommendations of this document and any proprietary specifications.

3. ORDINARY MOMENT FRAME (OMF). Allow all FEMA 350 "prequalified" connection systems and referenced proprietary connection systems for any project which is designed using OMF systems, provided the project complies with the limitations of design and construction described in FEMA 350 and these recommendations.

   A policy regarding Intermediate Moment Frame (IMF) and OMF is in the final review stage and will be published by LARUCP for certain light-frame, low rise, or non-building structures exceeding the weight and/or height restrictions as described in the Commentary of AISC-Seismic Provisions. The term IMF is not used in FEMA 350, however, the terms IMF and OMF are defined in the AISC Seismic Provisions.

4. EXTRAPOLATION OF TESTS. Limit the extrapolation of tests for all moment frames to only those connections that are within the size and weight variation for beams and columns as specified in the 1997 AISC-Seismic Provisions and Supplement No. 2.
5. VARIATIONS IN CONFIGURATIONS. When variations of any connection systems from the tested configuration that is being used as the basis for "prequalification" are proposed, such as addition of haunches or cover plates, additional welding, variations from the allowed configuration of the weld access hole at moment connections, moment connections in the weak axis direction of the column (e.g., moment connections to the column web), skewed or dual axis moment connections, project specific tests complying with AISC-Seismic Provisions shall be required to qualify their use.
6. PROJECT SPECIFIC SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE FABRICATION, ERECTION AND INSPECTION OF MOMENT FRAMES. Require the design engineer to clearly specify the following on the drawings: project specific welding procedures, welder qualifications and quality assurance procedure, including the qualifications of special inspectors. Require the design engineer to verify that the conditions, methods and materials used in the actual construction are similar to those in the tested configuration being used as the basis for the design, and are in accordance with the applicable quality assurance and quality control provisions of FEMA 350 and 353. A general reference to FEMA 350 or 353 in lieu of the project specific Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) requirements is not acceptable.
7. PLAN REVIEW. To facilitate the implementation of these recommendations, the Building Official shall require plan review by a California Licensed Engineer knowledgeable in steel moment frame design and construction.

TECHNICAL BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

The FEMA 350 publication (Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings, FEMA, July 2000) offers various prequalified configurations of steel moment-resisting connections. The SEAOC Seismology Committee performed a review of the data on which these recommended prequalifications are based. The opinion of SEAOC is that, when considered individually, the connections may have an insufficient number of tests. One connection type that, in the opinion of SEAOC, can be considered as "prequalified" by a large number of successful tests is the Reduced Beam Section (RBS), also known as the "dogbone" connection because of its shape in plan view. This SEAOC Report, entitled "Commentary and Recommendations on FEMA 350," dated January 2002, is available at www.seaoc.org.

Behavior of the connections is size and configuration dependent. Testing as well as analytical results from nonlinear finite element modeling show that variations in the sizes, configuration and geometry of the connections can change the stress distribution and failure mechanism. This is the basis for the third, fourth and fifth recommendations above.

Ordinary Moment Frames may fall short of the Special Moment Frame (SMF) acceptance requirements for SMF connections. However, OMFs are nonetheless prevalently used in low-rise, light-frame construction. With appropriate limitations, as described in the SEAOC Seismology Committee Report, these connections can continue to be used with confidence. This is the basis for the third recommendation.

The basis for the sixth recommendation is quite obvious and should always be required when structural steel moment connections are specified. General reference to the use of FEMA 350 or 353 is not an acceptable specification.

The seventh recommendation is to ensure that the qualifications of the plan reviewer are consistent with the complex nature of steel moment frame connection design.

If you would like to obtain a copy of the LARUCP Policy on this subject, please visit www.icbolabc.org on the internet or obtain additional information from the Tri-Chapter Uniform Code Adoption and Interpretation Program's website at www.icbopeninsula.org.

DEFINITIONS OF ACRONYMS USED:

AISC: American Institute of Steel Construction.

1997 AISC-Seismic: This term is used to identify the document published in April 15, 1997 by AISC, entitled Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings.

Supplement No. 2: Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (1997) Supplement No. 2, is a document published November 10, 2000 by AISC which supersedes the Supplement No.1 to the AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings dated February 15, 1999 and is used in conjunction with 1997 AISC-Seismic.

CUREe: California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (University of California, Berkeley; Caltech, Stanford University, UC Irvine, UCLA, UCSD, USC . . .)

CALBO: California Building Officials

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency.

LARUCP: Los Angeles Regional Uniform Code Program is a program consisting of 89 jurisdictions in the Greater Los Angeles basin who support and participate in developing uniform code amendments and interpretations.

SAC Joint Venture: A partnership of Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), Applied Technology Council (ATC) and California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREe).

SEAOC: Structural Engineers Association of California.

IMF: Intermediate Moment Frame is a moment frame system that meets the requirements of Section 10 of 1997 AISC-Seismic.

OMF: Ordinary Moment Frame means those connections which are currently defined as Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frame (OMRF) per Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code. Ordinary Moment Frame is a moment frame system that meets the requirements of Section 11 of 1997 AISC-Seismic.

RBS: Reduced Beam Section system, commonly known as “dogbone” connection.

SMF: Special Moment Frame means those connections which are currently defined as Special Moment-Resisting Frame (SMRF) per Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code. Special Moment Frame is a moment frame system that meets the requirements in Section 9 of 1997 AISC-Seismic.

CALBO SEISMIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

     Andrew A. Adelman (Chair), William Schock (CALBO Board Liaison), Don Wolfe (Past CALBO President), Massoud Abolhoda, Lee Braun, Ross Cranmer, John Kelly, Mark Kluver, Chuck Mendenhall, Vilas Mujumdar, Jim Russell, Roger Sharpe, Amal Sinha, Eric Tolles, Stuart Tom and Fred Turner.

OTHER CONTRIBUTORS TO ARTICLE:

     Nick Delli Quadri (Los Angeles City), Y. Henry Huang (Los Angeles County) and Steve Ikkanda (Los Angeles City).