Laserfiche WebLink
These amendments: <br /> <br /> 1. Adopt more recent standards (Seismic Provisions for Steel Buildings, National Design <br /> Specification for Wood Construction). - <br /> 2. Incorporate requirements developed from knowledge of recent earthquakes (Federal <br /> Emergency Management ^gency and Structural Engineer's Association of California <br /> recommendations; restrictions on gypsum board and cemen? olast~- - for lateral bracing due to <br /> failures in the Northddge and other earthquakes). <br /> 3. Allow the use of newer, less costly materials (cross-linked polyethy,ene tubing-PEX-for hot <br /> and cold water piping is less costly, is inherently more flexible in earthquakes, and is longer <br /> lasting in certain conditions as compared to copper tubing. PEX meets nationally recognized <br /> standards and the National Sanitation Foundation standard for use as a water piping <br /> material, is recognized in 48 states, and has been approved by 130 California jurisdictions). <br /> 4. Adopt improved worker and occupant safety requirements (electrical equipment room door <br /> swing and pressure plate provisions, arc fault circuit interrupters which reduce the potential <br /> for fires caused by arcing currents, and improved requirements for fire pumps). <br /> 5. Adopt more complete standards for energy-saving systems (solar photovoltaic, fuel cell, and <br /> electrical vehicle charging systems). <br /> <br />The Board of Building Review has met and recommends the adoption of these new amendments, in <br />addition to readopting the current Redwood City amendments (which are necessary due to the <br />Younger Bay Mud soil conditions). In accordance with State law and the City Charter, the ordinance <br />(Attachment1) will be published twice in the official newspaper. The City Council must also adopt a <br />resolution and the Finding of Facts for the local amendments (Attachment 2). <br /> <br />Alternatives <br /> 1. Adopt the building codes ordinance, without the local amendments. This is not recommended <br /> because Redwood City would have different code requirements than all other jurisdictions in <br /> the Bay Area (increased cos,,s for compliance and enforcement), would have less-safe <br /> provisions (increased potenti~.i for loss of life and damage to structures), and not allow a <br /> lower cost matenal. <br /> 2. Amend or reject the proposed ordinance. This is not recommended for the same reasons <br /> listed in alternative 1. <br /> 3. Adopt the set of International Codes. Although this alternative would provide safer buildings <br /> and allow less costly materials and methods of construction, it is not recommended because <br /> the Redwood City Code would differ from other codes in the region and the Attorney General <br /> has issued an opinion that this action would not comply with the intent of the State Law on <br /> code adoption. <br /> <br /> Fiscal Impact <br />The $12,000 for the purchase of new codes and the related training are included in the Building and <br />Inspection operating budget for FY 02~03. <br /> <br /> Keith P. BaC, t, ista. Chair <br /> Board of Bt~ilding Review <br /> <br /> ~n~:a Ed Everett <br />~ Brace Liedstrand <br /> Building and Inspecbon' Manager Community Development Director City Manager <br /> <br /> Affachments 1, Ordinance Adopting Building Codes <br /> 2, Resolution- Local Conditions and Finding of Facts <br /> <br /> <br />