• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

California bill to release the state's building codes online for free

mark handler

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,678
Location
So. CA
California bill to release the state's building codes online for free

Cory Doctorow at 6:00 pm Tue, Feb 12

California bill to release the state's building codes online for free - Boing Boing

Assemblyman Brian Nestande of California has introduced Assembly Bill 292, which would open source the California Code of Regulations (including the Building Codes). The summary reads:

"This bill would provide that the full text of the California Code of Regulations shall bear an open access creative commons attribution license, allowing any individual, at no cost, to use, distribute, and create derivative works based on the material for either commercial or noncommercial purposes."

Public.Resource.Org has bulk data for the CCR and the public safety codes (known as Title 24) online, but this would all be way easier if we didn't have to double-key the building codes every 3 years and jump on the West CD-ROM every 2 months to extract the data. This move would lead to tremendous innovation, just like we've seen when the Federal Register went open source in bulk.

The bill sponsor, Assemblyman Nestande, has a long background in public policy and IP. He was campaign manager for Sonny Bono's successful 1994 congressional campaign.
 
I thought this comment interesting for those who don't read the comments.

Ito Kagehisa In my area (mid-Atlantic coast) products are sold at home supply centers and the like that proudly claim to be compliant with the California Building Code. The implication is that this code is more stringent due to the famous earthquakes and attendant fires.

However, the local tradesmen claim (and this is pure hearsay, take it with a healthy dose of salt) that the California regulating authorities are entirely corrupt, and code approval is driven by bribery and/or cronyism, and that many of the "California grade" products are absolute crap.

I myself have used wall anchors for concrete block that were labeled as "California legal" that were terrible - they barely held a wooden shelf up, and only due to the load angle. You could literally pull them out with your fingers, although I followed all instructions and used the included drill bit.

I would love to hear from some informed folks on the ground in Cali about this. Is the code approval authority as corrupt as the school textbook approval process? Or is that just a local legend here on the Right Coast?
Click to expand...
 
I do not know what California legal of California grade means. Sounds like ill informed marketing hype. There is no governmental entity in a position to make such formal classifications. At most they could say that the product was accepted by a jurisdiction in California for a project. More likely the product was used on a project in California and nobody objected.

I do not see signs of corruption and bribery in the code development process in California. This is not to say that special interest groups do not try to influence the process. Before you cast stones you should look at the influence of special interest groups in the development of the IBC. I am more concerned about the influence of special interests on the development of the IBC.

I seem to remember talk about corruption in New York City.

There have been instances of corruption and bribery by those enforcing the codes but they do not appear to be widespread.

A number of agencies are known to adopt provisions that are legally questionably or impose requirements not in the code but this is often driven by individuals who do not understand what they cannot do, have control/power issues, or who try to impose their biases or fears on the rest of society.

For the structural provisions the California Building Code is amazingly similar to the IBC and in fact for non-residential buildings where local jurisdictions provide enforcement they are identical.

From monitoring the discussions on this forum my sense is that on the average the level of enforcement is higher in California than exists in many other states. The California Building Code applies to all construction in the state in contrast to other states where some areas may have no building code.

The big difference in California is that on the average we probably do a better, not perfect, job of enforcement.
 
Some manufacturers will submit their product to a state or local AHJ and ask for a letter "approving" the use of their product in that state or local jurisdiction. I have seen a couple of letters from our state building codes division authorizing use of a paticular product within the state that I have refused to accept because the letter is generic in nature and the product would not meet our seismic zone. The sales reps and the supply houses are not happy but it is what it is.
 
mtlogcabin

Any such letters should only be issued if the state building codes division has the authorityto direct the local jurisdiction regarding code interpretations. Furthermore the state building codes division would be acting improperly if the "interpretation" was based on equivalency as opposed to compliance with the adopted regulations. If the letter is based on equivalency as opposed to compliance the state building codes division is effectively taking it upon themselves to modify the building code without going through the proper administrative process.
 
As an employee of a code modifier (State Ammendments to the ICC Codes) I have a lil knowledge of how the publishing companies (Book Sellers) iew the open online publication of even the modifed Icc codes.

It would be free to look at but the State would pay the publisher based on the number of copies that the publisher determines would be equivalent in sales. so It would be free from the left pocket but the cash is coming out of the right hand pocket.
 
The DSA also lists "certain" products as acceptable for their "covered" projects. And the fiasco of Detectable warning products and directional surfaces installed after January 1, 2001, shall be evaluated by an independent entity, selected by the Department of General Services, Division of the State Architect - Access Compliance, for all occupancies.
 
Do not assume that just because an agency such as DSA or OSHPD has done something that it is always legal.

Note that DSA has "...discontinued issuing or renewing PA reports to show conformance with the 2007 or newer CBC." I believe that this is a recognition of their inability to generically approve products that are not allowed by the code. I believe that you will find that OSHPD is also backing away from issuing product approvals.

I believe that DSA and OSHPD as well as most building departments walk a fine line between complying with the laws and allowing buildings to be built. The problem is that when they adopt a “pragmatic” but arguably illegal approach it makes it easy to ignore the underlying problems. One shortcut makes it easier to take another shortcut thus leading to a situation that does not work if you followed the rules.

I believe that our current regulatory structure and the current nature of the building codes makes it difficult to comply with the building codes. Changes should be made but changes to the basic regulatory structure do not appear possible unless you change the US Constitution. We need to find ways to bring more products under the umbrella of the building code thus reducing the need to use the alternate means of construction provisions. We also should consider rewriting some of the code provisions to allow more flexibility. The tighter we want to regulate something the harder it will be to allow flexibility.
 
Mark Handler

Refer to the current version of IR A-5 on the DSA web site where you will find my quote.

Looking at the OSHPD link you provided the focus is on preapproved details dealing with the anchorage of equipment and not on the equipment itself. From my experience these preapproved details are approved because they comply with the adopted regulations. The preapproval of anchorage details greatly reduces the review of construction documents and creates some predictability into a chaotic process.

They do talk about approval of equipment based on compliance with standards in the code, thus making the approval a ministerial act and thus acceptable. If you look at previous OSHPD approval programs you will see that they previously approved products that were not addressed by the code. As I stated I believe that they have revised their procedures because of a realization that they were limited in their ability to modify the code outside of the code adoption process.
 
Mark K

There is also OSHPD's Special Seismic Certifcation Preapproval (OSP). Typically, the equipment goes through shake table testing for the certification. I do not know of any other juristiction enforcing ASCE 7-05 Section 13.2.2 requirements for special seismic certifcation of equipment that needs to remain operational after an earthquake.
 
Phil said:
...there are some "approvals" like OSHPD's OSPs and the City of Los Angeles Research Reports (aka COLA or LARR)
Click to expand...
I've pointed other jurisdictions to LARR 25493 in regards to the approval for a 2-hour horizontal assembly with Item 4 of the report as a means to address the provision for testing floor fire door assemblies in accordance with NFPA 288 as prescribed by 712.8.
 
AegisPE

The point that I have been trying to make is that irregardless of the technical merit of the product or application, the jurisdictions are limited in what they can do because of legal constraints. ICC-ES, IAPMO, and COLA evaluation reports are regularly abused. These documents do not have any formal legal standing in our regulatory system and building officials do not have unlimited authority. In addition these documents are highly influenced by commercial interests and a limited number of individuals are involved in reviewing them.

The question is do people even care about these questions.
 
I have been holding off on jumping in on this one. But what the hell... There is the issue here of intellectual property that belongs to the standard or code writing institution. ICC, NFPA, IAPMO, etc... All of these organizations sell codes and standards and must...must have cash flow in order to exist. So I guess what I'm saying here is that any state that wants to give something like this away for "free" will most certainly be challenged in court. The state may have to pay the code / standard writing organization an annual fee and then it is no longer free. I think that Mark K made a very good point in asking if the average citizen really cares.
 
The copywright issue has already been resolved by some Federal courts, not yet in California, and in those jurisdictions it is clear that once the jurisdiction has adopted regulations access to the regulations needs to be free.

Suggest that since copywright is a federal issue the effect of the proposed legislation is that California would make it clear that they had no copwright interests and that the state would actively make the codes available.
 
Thanks Mark. Very interesting. I can assure you that this is on the radar for many code / standard writing organizations.
 
Do people care - yes. There are the diligent AHJ, the responsible designers and contractors who care, and members of the general populous who are looking to re/develop their piece of land.

Are the "approvals" of value? Well, I have had mixed success with the LARR document. Some jurisdictions accept it with some additional rational, and some conclude that because the code prescribes compliance with NFPA 288, and the "approved" product does not meet NFPA 288, it is unacceptable.
 
I surely did not mean to imply the nobody cares. I would speculate that most citizens are so busy with their own lives that it would be rare from them to delve into the minutia of the codes? I think that interest by contractors, developers, design professionals, etc... is a given or at least I would hope it would be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top