feature

by Lucy Armentrout

At the end of the workday on December 31, 2007, jurisdictions throughout the State of California packed away their old copies of the building code, based on the 1997 Uniform Building Code, and picked up its replacement, which is based on the 2006 International Building Code. Few people took much notice of the event, except those individuals directly involved in building code inspection, compliance, plan check review and construction. However, the importance of these code changes should not be underestimated. They will have long-lasting effects for California architects, contractors, property owners and developers, and will be reflected in construction for many years to come.

Composition of the Building Code
The “building code” is, in fact, a collection of many codes, assembled much like a pyramid. From 1927 through the end of 2007, the heavy base of the pyramid was the UBC, along with related plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes (like the UPC, NEC and UMC). The UBC formed the absolute foundation for all construction permit decisions and approvals throughout California for 81 years, until its very recent replacement by the IBC.

The base code is applied in conjunction with the next layer of California-specific regulations, called the California Building Standards Code (referred to, in this article, as the “basic CBC”). The basic CBC sits in the middle of this pyramid. It cannot in any way contradict or relax provisions of the base code (the UBC or IBC), but is used to further define, adapt and articulate certain of the base code provisions. For example, the basic CBC includes the additional building standards related to energy efficiency known as the “Title 24” provisions. These enforce special state requirements for the energy efficiency of buildings, without contradicting or relaxing any terms of the base code.

In addition to the base code and the basic CBC, all proposed repairs and new construction are required to comply with local jurisdiction codes. The local codes thus form the pinnacle of the pyramid, and include requirements adopted by the individual jurisdiction’s legislative body, generally the city council. Again, these may not contradict the more fundamental codes, but are used to further restrict construction methods, means and materials within that jurisdiction. Examples of local building code regulations include the City of Berkeley’s prohibition against installing new fireplaces or stoves that generate large particle pollution, and the City of Oakland’s unreinforced masonry building repair requirements and associated penalties. The local jurisdiction’s plan check and inspection processes are the means by which all of these codes are enforced.

The primary element of the recent building code change was the elimination of the UBC from this pyramid—a building code revision at the most basic regulatory level. The basic CBC and local codes have not been eliminated, but because the IBC now sits at the base of the pyramid, the basic CBC and local codes also had to be updated and brought into compliance with this new base code. Therefore, plans submitted today to the City of Oakland, Berkeley, Emeryville, Alameda and other local jurisdictions must now receive plan check approval on the basis of their compliance with the 2007 basic CBC and the local jurisdiction building codes, insofar as they comply with the new 2007 basic CBC.

Building Code as an Evolving Process
The last time California adopted a completely new model building code was in 1927, when the state adopted the UBC to replace the State Tenement Housing Act (California’s first building code, which was approved in 1909 but difficult to implement). By adopting the UBC, the state established a common foundation code for statewide use, and established uniformity in building code enforcement throughout California. The UBC was later amplified by the addition of state-specific building standards, including regulations of the California State Fire Marshal. These extra requirements were initially scattered through the California Administrative Code and the California Code of Regulations. Beginning in 1978, the state organized all of these additional state-specific building code regulations into a single code, which comprised Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also known as the California Building Standards Code (or “basic CBC”).

Both the UBC and basic CBC have been updated over the years. Many changes have been added to both codes as engineers have learned more about the properties of certain building materials (like structural and seismic performance in unreinforced masonry walls). Other revisions have been made to the codes following the adoption of laws that appear unrelated to construction. For example, numerous new code requirements arose from the adoption of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In one sense, the recent move from the UBC to the IBC can be thought of as just another step in a long series of changes designed to make our built environment safer for ourselves, our tenants, our workers and visitors in our buildings. However, there are a few big differences between past UBC code
updates and the current change from UBC to IBC.

One of the biggest differences that sets the current code change apart from prior UBC code updates lies in the different codes’ general approach to ensuring human safety within structures. Throughout its revisions, the UBC maintained a relatively constant perspective on the fundamental qualities a building must demonstrate in order to be deemed safe, particularly in terms of design for occupant safety from fires. This perspective included requiring things such as fire-proofing of structural members; providing fire-retarding separations between uses with different potential for fire creation or conduction; and designing relatively short, direct and easy to maneuver (e.g., lighted) travel paths from every room in a structure to the outside of the building. The IBC, on the other hand, applies some new assumptions in determining what makes for a safe building, and expresses these assumptions in many of the new code provisions.

As a specific example of this different perspective, consider the egress (building exiting) requirements for apartment buildings. UBC egress requirements for these multifamily occupancies emphasize creating a fairly direct passage out of the building (in case of fire), and buildings have been designed according to a strict set of architectural and geometric rules that comply with this emphasis. IBC requirements for the same type of multifamily occupancies emphasize designing and building greater fire resistance along the path. So, for example, in exchange for adding sprinklers at the building’s emergency exit level, some of the egress paths may follow a more circuitous route from one room to a building exit. This single code change does not immediately stand out as a big deal. But, the architect’s ability to provide less direct exiting from certain rooms may allow him or her to design more creative and efficient building layouts and projects in the future. It is a combination of smaller changes, like this one, that will ultimately lead to the larger design changes to come.

Moving Forward
While this code change will not affect existing permitted buildings and improvements, property owners will be expected to apply this new code to future property repairs, alterations and additions. Therefore, owners considering future improvements, particularly over the next year or two, should take care to work with architects, contractors and other property consultants who are versed in the new code, and can identify ways of adapting to new code restrictions while minimizing extra construction expenses. The new code will also create new opportunities for savvy owners and developers. Certain standards have been relaxed under new code regulations. In addition, as local jurisdictions work with this new code over the next year or two, they will generate a new body of code interpretations, some of which will benefit builders and property owners. By remaining abreast of these new code opportunities, architects, designers and project managers will bring added value to your future development or improvement project.

As local codes are updated and local jurisdictions become more familiar with the “grey areas” and discretionary decisions allowed under the IBC, new building code allowances will both open up and close down. Although the building code changed months before this article went to press, code changes move slowly. New interpretations will be forthcoming as the IBC is stretched and tested to meet various project needs. I am reminded that the UBC was heavily revised in 1997, yet friends who are plan examiners in local building departments—who are perhaps the most steeped in code of anyone in the building industry—tell me they didn’t grasp the full extent of the code changes, or see these changes expressed in creative plans and building solutions, until a few years after the revised code came into effect.

Local building codes were also supposed to be updated before the start of 2008, to ensure that no local building code provisions were contrary to the provisions of the new code. Unfortunately, some local jurisdictions were unprepared to make the code change revisions as promptly as required. A quick look at the Berkeley and Oakland online Municipal Code reveals that those two cities have not yet made all necessary local code language revisions yet, nor have they posted their updated code language online. Other local jurisdictions are also still completing code language updates at this time. It is also likely that many jurisdiction plan checkers have not yet completely internalized all sections of the new code, and may make occasional errors in plan check reviews as they become more familiar with the differences between the old and new building codes.

If you believe you submitted a plan set that complies with the new 2007 basic CBC and updated local codes, but your plans are not approved by the local jurisdiction, and if you believe the denial was improperly based on reference to old code regulations, you can appeal the plan denial to the jurisdiction’s building official. You may want to seek professional third-party review before making this appeal, so that you can base your city appeal on very solid data. It will often help if you can bring along a strong advocate like an architect, an informed attorney, or someone else who is familiar enough with the code and your rights to strongly present your position.

The myriad changes introduced with the IBC are small “tweaks,” which, taken individually, do not appear particularly significant or exciting. However, taken together in the hands of the right architects, designers and project managers, these seemingly insignificant details will be brought together in ways that will revise the shape of the homes we will build and maintain over the coming decades. As this new building code plays itself out, it will bring new financial opportunities to those property owners and developers willing to uncover and
exploit them.

 

---

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the SFAA or the SF Apartment Magazine. Lucy Armentrout, AICP is a senior environmental manager and planner at the San Francisco office of PBS & J and can be reached at 415-362-1500. Copyright © 2008 by Black Point Press. All rights reserved.