BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: aB 1693
SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: Ma
VERSION: 1/28/10
Analysis by: Mark Stivers FISCAL: yes
Hearing date: June 15, 2010
SUBJECT:
Frequency of building standard adoption
DESCRIPTION:
This bill requires the Building Standards Commission to consider
building standards proposed by state agencies at 18-month
intervals, as opposed to annual intervals.
ANALYSIS:
The California Building Standards Law establishes the California
Building Standards Commission (BSC) and the process for adopting
state building standards. Under this process, relevant state
agencies propose amendments to model building codes, which the
BSC must then adopt, modify, or reject. For example, the
Department of Housing and Community Development is the relevant
state agency for residential building standards. The Office of
Statewide Health Planning and Development is responsible for
hospitals and clinics, and the Division of the State Architect
is the relevant agencies for schools and emergency service
buildings.
Current law requires BSC to publish the California Building Code
(code) in its entirety once every three years. In intervening
years, the law also requires BSC to consider building standards
proposed by state agencies on an annual basis and to publish
supplements to the code as necessary.
This bill requires BSC to consider building standards proposed
by state agencies at 18-month intervals, as opposed to annual
intervals, within the three-year code adoption cycles.
AB 1693 (MA) Page 2
COMMENTS:
Purpose of the bill . In 1992, the Legislature required BSC to
adopt building standards on an annual cycle. Instead of
agencies proposing code changes year-round, the systematized
annual cycle made it easier for interested parties to monitor
regulatory changes.
According to the author, since that time the code has become
increasingly complicated in nature, requiring a large amount of
staff time to write and analyze the changes, most of which are
technical in nature. As a result, it has become increasingly
difficult for state agencies to complete code amendments within
a 12-month window. The short timeframe also makes it difficult
for state agencies to incorporate public input in the adoption
process and to provide thorough education and training for
builders, architects, and building officials post-adoption,
especially in the current fiscal environment.
Out of growing concern for the potential legal ramifications
associated with a failure to meet the annual deadline, this bill
extends the update cycle by an additional six months. The
sponsors contend that this extension will enable participating
agencies and stakeholders to have more time to thoroughly read
and review proposed regulatory changes and will reduce the
number of supplements that the industry and agencies must
purchase to maintain a current printed copy of the Code.
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 74-0
Appr: 15-0
B&P: 11-0
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
Wednesday,
June 9, 2010)
SUPPORT: California Building Industry Association
(sponsor)
California State Pipe Trades Council (sponsor)
California Business Properties Association
(sponsor)
American Council of Engineering Companies -
California
American Forest & Paper Association
American Institute of Architects, California
AB 1693 (MA) Page 3
Council
Building Owners and Managers Association of
California
California Apartment Association
California Building Officials
California Chamber of Commerce
California Forestry Association
California State Council of Carpenters
California State Council of Laborers
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
Fire Vent Safety Association
GreenPlumbers USA
International Council of Shopping Centers
League of California Cities
National Association of Industrial and Office
Properties of California, Commercial Real
Estate Development Association
Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors of
California
Western Wood Preservers Institute
OPPOSED: None received.