The state's process for approving building standards and selecting model codes is disjointed and lacks adequate oversight from the California Building Standards Commission. The state should develop a process for selecting a building "model code" that is based on objective criteria.

California's initial State Building Standards Law was enacted in 1953. As originally enacted, the law established the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), with limited power over the state's process for promulgating building standards regulations.

All state regulations are published in the California Administrative Code. Prior to 1980, building standards were scattered across the state's 30,000 pages of administrative code. For example, regulations associated with the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) were located in title 8 and regulations authorized by the Health Code were in Title 17. Enforcement of the regulations was inconsistent, costly and, in some cases, nonexistent. [1]

To correct the problem and the resulting confusion, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill (SB) 331 in 1979. [2] SB 331 required CBSC to review and approve building standards regulations proposed by various state agencies before they could take effect. It also required all building regulations be placed in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, which CBSC is responsible for maintaining. [3]

Title 24 is a compilation of three types of building standards from three different origins:

• Building standards proposed by state agencies without change from building standards contained in national model codes and standards;
• Building standards contained in national model code standards that have been adapted to meet California conditions; and
• Building standards not covered by model codes but required by the Legislature, the majority of which address particular California concerns, such as the state's more stringent seismic and energy requirements.

There are several "model codes" for building standards published nationally by several independent organizations. Every three years, CBSC is required to review newly published model codes for potential selection. State agencies and the public draft proposed changes to the model codes and submit them to CBSC for consideration. The changes are reviewed in public meetings conducted by one or more CBSC advisory committees. These advisory committees, called "code advisory committees," are comprised of members appointed by CBSC who represent various building standard stakeholders. CBSC selects one of the model codes to serve as the template for developing additional amendments to California's building code. The amendments are added to the model code to become Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

CBSC is responsible for administering California's building codes, which includes adopting, approving, publishing, and implementing the state's building codes and standards. The 11 members of CBSC are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the state Senate. The Cabinet Secretary of the State and Consumer Services Agency, or the secretary's representative, serves as CBSC Chair. Several positions on CBSC are designated for representatives of various sectors of the construction industry. For instance, one commissioner must be a local building official. Many of the remaining commissioner positions are designated for other professionals, such as licensed contractors, engineers and fire officials. Members serve four-year staggered terms and are not compensated, but are reimbursed for expenses. [4]

The CBSC has a staff of eight employees who serve in either executive or administrative positions. [5] The main duties of CBSC's executive employees are to coordinate stakeholder groups and conduct CBSC meetings. The commission's administrative employees ensure state agencies recommending changes to the code adhere to required processes, but they have limited financial, engineering, legal or architectural expertise. The Governor's Budget for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 lists one of the eight positions as an associate architect and none as engineers, builders, lawyers, economists or other building industry-related professionals. [6] The lack of technical expertise among CBSC employees means CBSC must rely heavily on the expertise of state agencies for which it provides regulatory oversight. [7]

This lack of technical experience also has caused the commission's regulatory oversight to be inefficient. An example of this is that the state's model building code is still based on CBSC's 1998 model code selection. Parts of this code are outdated and some of the national standards upon which it is based are no longer in print, causing delays in construction and uncertainty within the industry and enforcement agencies. [8]

There are no objective criteria in law governing CBSC's process for adopting a model code for California. California building standards laws specify criteria for adopting code amendments. These laws and criteria could be used as a guide for developing criteria for adopting model codes. [9]

The CBSC's lack of an objective process for adopting a model code became apparent during the selection of a new model code on July 29, 2003. The commission selected the National Fire Protection Association's code, called the NFPA 5000, to serve as a template for California's model code. The CBSC made this decision after acknowledging problems and deficits associated with it and despite overwhelming opposition. Those opposing the decision included three of the four code-proposing state agencies and a coalition representing California building officials, hundreds of California municipalities, fire departments, code enforcement officials, and labor and professional organizations such as the American Institute of Architects, the Structural Engineers Association of California, and the Building Owners and Managers Association. [10]

The selection of NFPA 5000 is also questionable given its limited use as a model code elsewhere. The NFPA 5000 is used as a model code by only one other public entity in the nation: Pasadena, Texas, which has a population of 150,000. [11] The cost of developing state agency amendments to the NFPA 5000 and retraining every building department, architect, contractor and engineer in the state is expected to be substantial. State agencies are predicting they will not be able to finish drafting amendments until 2006 and the code will not go into effect until 2007, nearly nine years after the last model code selection. [12]

The rationale for the commission's decision to adopt the NFPA 5000 has been attributed to political influences. The Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle reported CBSC's 2003 model code selection was tainted by accusations that it was for political reasons and not based on building science or objective criteria. They also reported the largest supporters of NFPA 5000 were the firefighters' union and the plumbers' union, which had contributed significantly to Governor Davis' unsuccessful recall campaign. [13] Additionally, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) noted that many of the commissioners who voted for the NFPA 5000 have or had relationships with NFPA and its partner, the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials. AIA summarized the vote as follows, ". . . the local building official position (on the Commission) is held by a plumbing inspector, the licensed contractor position is held by a plumbing contractor, a public position is held by a union lobbyist, and an engineer position is held by an individual with a long history of working with the NFPA. Joining with the labor and local fire official positions, this group formed the majority that supported the NFPA codes." [14]

The four state agencies that prepare building standards for the commission's review are the State Fire Marshal, the Division of the State Architect, the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. Each entity develops code amendments independently. The process they use must comply with certain procedural requirements, but each agency has its own set of internal guidelines that also affect how they develop code amendments. These internal guidelines are based upon each agency's mission, strengths, weaknesses, stakeholders and leadership. This fractured approach to developing code amendments is inefficient and contributes to the state's inability to promulgate building codes.

Recommendations
The Governor should work with the Legislature to elminate the California Building Standards Commission and transfer all of its staff, authorities, budget and responsibilities to a new office within the State and Consumer Agency or its successor.

This would restructure the state's process for promulgating building standards.

The Governor should work with the Legislature to transfer the code development sections of the State Fire Marshal, the Division of the State Architect, the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, or their successors, to the office established in recommendation A.

This would ensure oversight for the building code development process is provided by employees who have sufficient technical knowledge. It would also consolidate the state's code-development functions, further insulating the process from political influences.

The Governor should work with the Legislature to establish objective criteria and a process for selecting a model code for building standards for California.

This would help to establish an objective process for adopting a model code based more on building science. The criteria established should be clearly defined so it can be used to effectively measure competing model codes to determine which is best for California. The criteria should be patterned after existing criteria used for building code amendment approval.

The State and Consumer Services Agency, or its successor, should commission a study to determine the economic and industry impacts of selecting the National Fire Protection Association code known as the NFPA 5000, to be completed by June 2005. The study should make recommendations concerning the continued selection of the NFPA 5000, and whether or not the selection process should be re-opened.

The consolidation of the Commission's staff and operations is intended to improve the effectiveness of the program. No fiscal impact is anticipated.

---

Back to Top