Cal switching to ICC?

[sdpaddler50]

Heard a rumor our state may adopt the IFC/IBC in their entirety some time in the future and stop doing the CFC/CBC format? anyone esle hear this?

 

[Mark K]

Do not believe that that is possible. Besides requiring change in state law the state needs a mechanism for amending the model code. In addition I would expect the state agencies who regulates portions of the Building Standards to have objections.

The CBC is already based on the IBC.

Please provide the source of this rumor so that it can be directly addressed. Who is proposing this and exactly what are they proposing?

I do not believe that this is legally possible but also I do not believe that it is politically possible.

 

[jpranch]

That's a new one on me. Haven't heard anything about this. I'm thinking it's just that, just a rumor.

 

[sdpaddler50]

There is no reason to provide the source. A fellow consultant mentioned it to me. Like you both said, probably just a rumor. Either way, i like uniformity. I have to do work in numerous cities, and each have their own adopted ordinances. Some make sense, others dont.

 

[cda]

I take it calif is not an all or nothing state??? in that the cities cannot amend the state code???

If not an all or nothing state, then any code they adopt a city can admend

 

[Mark K]

In California the state has decided to fully occupy the field of building standards which means that local jurisdictions only have the authority that the state specifically gives them.

California gives the local jurisdictions limited authority to adopt amendments to the CBC. The problem is that a number of jurisdictions have exceeded their authority but they get away with it because there is no mechanism for a state agency to verify the legality of local amendments and because owners and contractors are unwilling to legally challenge the legality of these local amendments.

Other problems include local jurisdictions that adopt differing interpretations and building departments that impose requirements that were not adopted legally.

Thus it is suggested that a major reason for variation in requirements between jurisdictions is due to local jurisdictions acting illegally.

 

[Alias]

As Mark K stated, some local jurisdictions amend the code. The city has amended the current CBC/CRC to be more restrictive per CA state code. That is the key to an amendment, it has to be more restrictive. We have three amendments. One is for footings & frost line - CBC/CRC states 12" depth, we amended for 18" depth. We also upped the wind and snow loads due to local climatic conditions.

Sue, in the frozen high desert........-12, -15, and -17 at night this weekend..............brrrrrrrrrrrrr!

 

[cda]

Welcome to the hotel california!!!!!!!!!!

"This could be Heaven or this could be Hell"

You can find it here

Bring your alibis

And she said "We are all just prisoners here, of our own device"

But they just can't kill the beast

Last thing I remember, I was

Running for the door and it was padlocked, deadbolted, panic hardware and magnetic locked!!!!!!!!!!!

sorry lucky you do not work it the dfw area, there are so many cities around here and each one has the same thing you are running up against,

 

[Mark K]

Snow loads and frost depths fall within the permissible local amendments but many other provisions do not.

Local amendments need to be based on a finding related to local climatic, geologic, or topographic conditions. Thus a provision related to gravity loads would not be acceptable.

 

[David Henderson]

What Mark said plus all amendments are suppose to be submitted to the state for approvall prior to adoption, does not mean they do it.

 

[Mark K]

The local amendments must be filed with the Building Standards Commission but they will not be reviewed. Some jurisdictions compose findings that are inconsistent with the state statutes and file them. Building Standards Commissions position is that they have been given no authority to review let alone approve or reject the local amendments.