AMENDMENT PROPOSAL
Please provide all of the following items in your amendment proposal. Your proposal may be entered on the following
form, or you may attach a separate file. However, please read the instructions for each part of the amendment
proposal.
Code Sections/Tables/Figures Proposed for Revision:
Note: If the proposal is for a new section, indicate (new).
Section 105 Unsafe Buildings, Structures, or Utilities; Paragraph 105.1 Buildings or Structures
Proposal:
Show the proposal using strikeout or underline format. At the beginning of each section, include one of the following
instruction lines:
•Revise as follows
•Add new text as follows
•Delete and substitute as follows
•Delete without substitution
Revise as follows:
105.1 Buildings or Structures. An unsafe structure, building or equipment is one which constitutes a fire hazard or a
hazard to life, health, property or public welfare by reason of use, occupancy, construction, damage, deterioration,
quality of materials, abandonment or inadequate maintenance. However, without limitation of the foregoing, the
Building Official shall deem any structure, building, equipment or project site unsafe when any one or more of the
following conditions exist:
1. Illegal or improper occupancy.
2. A wall or other vertical structural member lists, leans or buckles to such an extent that a plumb line passing
through the center of gravity falls outside of the middle third of the base.
Any building, structure, or portion thereof that meets the definition of Dangerous as defined in the
International Existing Building Code.
3. Damage or deterioration to:
A. Any structural or load-bearing member to the extent that the member does not have sufficient strength
to resist all applicable loads specified in Chapter 16.
B. Nonbearing exterior walls or enclosures to such an extent that they will not resist the wind pressure or
lateral forces specified in Chapter 16.
C. Any exposed exterior member to the extent that the member provides inadequate protection from the
elements to the occupants of the building or structure.
4. Loads upon the walls, floors, roofs or any other necessary structural member exceed the maximum design
limits specified in Chapter 16.
5. Floors or areas with inadequate means of egress.
6. Parts attached in such a manner that they may fall and cause injury to the public or property.
7. Uncompleted buildings or structures when the permit has been canceled.
8. A canceled Certificate of Occupancy.
9. Open pits, open wells and open excavations of all types when such are determined to be hazardous by the
Building Official.
10. Trenches or ditches not properly shored or cribbed.
11. Vacant buildings which are not secure and to which entry may be made through opened or unlocked doors,
windows or other openings.
12. Uninhabitable buildings or structures, including but not limited to the following conditions:
A. Building envelope damage or deterioration has caused the interior of the structure to be open to the
elements.
B. Vandalism or deterioration has caused the plumbing system, electrical system or heating system to be
no longer functional.
C. Vandalism or deterioration has caused the internal floor structure or stairways to be incapable of
supporting the weight of normal occupancy.
13. Any dilapidated building of whatever kind which is unused by the owner, or uninhabited because of
deterioration or decay, which condition constitutes a fire hazard or subjects adjoining property to danger of
damage by deterioration of structural building elements, storm effect, soil erosion or rodent infestation, or
which becomes a place frequented by trespassers and transients seeking a temporary hideout or shelter.
Supporting Information:
The following items are required to be included.
Purpose: The proponent shall clearly state the purpose of the proposed amendment to climate and/or clarify that are
specific to the City and County of Denver (e.g., clarify the Code; revise outdated material; substitute new or revised
material for physical, environmental and customary characteristics; add new requirements to the Code; delete current
requirements, etc to reflect physical, environmental and customary characteristics that are specific to the City and
County of Denver.)
Clarity and to maintain consistency with the IEBC definition of Unsafe for structural conditions, because,
where the current Denver definition of Unsafe differs from the IEBC definition, neither climate nor clarity,
and certainly not cost, can be legitimately argued as the reason.
Reasons: The proponent shall justify changing the current Code provisions, stating why the proposal is necessary to
reflect physical, environmental and customary characteristics that are specific to the City and County of Denver.
Proposals that add or delete requirements shall be supported by a logical explanation which clearly shows why the
current does not reflect physical, environmental and customary characteristics that are specific to the City and County
of Denver and explains how such proposals will improve the Code.
There is no justification on the basis of physical, environmental, or customary characteristics specific to the
City and County of Denver for the definition of Unsafe for structural conditions to differ from the IEBC
definition of Unsafe. This pertains to Current Conditions 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 6, and 12C, none of which define
characteristics that are in any way unique to the City and County of Denver. Furthermore, the meanings of
most of these six conditions are vague, as described below. As such, we have proposed that these conditions
should be deleted and substituted with a reference to the definition of Dangerous, as defined in the IEBC
with a SEAC-proposed amendment, which, will provide the needed clarity and consistency with the I-Codes.
Substantiation: The proponent shall substantiate the proposed amendment based on technical information and
substantiation. Substantiation provided which is reviewed and determined as not germane to the technical issues
addressed in the proposed amendment shall be identified as such. The proponent shall be notified if the proposal is
considered an incomplete proposal, and the proposal shall be held until the deficiencies are corrected. The burden of
providing substantiating material lies with the proponent of the amendment proposal. A minimum of two copies of all
substantiating information shall be submitted.
Current Conditions 2, 6, and 12C are adequately addressed by the current IEBC definition of Unsafe, which
refers to the current IEBC definition of Dangerous (see Substantiation and Bibliography below).
Current Condition 2 does not describe a fundamentally unsafe situation where the member in question is
laterally braced top and bottom, and where it possesses adequate shear strength, flexural strength, and
stiffness to resist the resulting internal forces.
The condition described in 12C lacks clarity because the term “weight of normal occupancy” is not defined
and could be interpreted in a variety of ways by reasonable and prudent engineers. For example, does the
“normal weight of occupancy” refer to the actual live loads that a structure sees on a day-to-day basis, or
does it refer to the Nominal Loads (including dead, live, soil, wind, snow, etc.) defined in Chapter 16 of the
International Building Code, either unfactored or factored?
Current Conditions 3A, 3B, and 4 lack clarity and, as such, can be ambiguous. Specifically, any analytical
assessment of these three conditions could give widely divergent results depending on whether a strength
approach is used or whether an allowable stress approach is used. The SEAC proposed amendment to the
definition of Dangerous (see Substantiation and Bibliography below) will eliminate this lack of clarity.
For example, Current Condition 3A refers to a member that “does not have sufficient strength to resist all
applicable loads…” It is not clear whether this expression is referring to allowable strength or design
strength. It is also not clear whether this expression intends for the “applicable loads” to be unfactored or
factored.
Current Condition 3B refers to “nonbearing exterior walls” that “will not resist the wind pressure or lateral
forces specified in Chapter 16.” Why does this condition not address bearing walls? And similar to
Condition 3A, does this condition refer to allowable strength, design strength, unfactored loads or factored
loads?
Current Condition 4 refers to “loads…….exceed the maximum design limits specified in Chapter 16.” This
condition does not state whether the loads are unfactored or factored, and whether the design limits are
intended to be allowable design limits or strength design limits. Without these clarifications, the results of
an analysis could be easily misinterpreted and/or meaningless.
Finally, we have proposed that the deleted conditions be substituted with the following for clarity and
consistency with the IEBC: Any building, structure, or portion thereof that meets the definition of Dangerous
as defined in the International Existing Building Code.
Bibliography: The proponent shall submit a bibliography when substantiating material is associated with the
amendment proposal. The proponent shall make the substantiating materials available for review.
Definition of Dangerous as it appears in the 2015 IEBC (see attachment), and the SEAC-submitted Denver
Amendment Proposal to amend the definition of Dangerous.
Definition of Unsafe as it appears in the 2015 IEBC. (See attachment.)
Referenced Standards:
List any new referenced standards that are proposed to be referenced in the code and provide a minimum of one
electronic copy. Should the amendment proposal be recommended for inclusion in the amendment package, you must
provide two hard copies.
No new referenced standards are proposed.
Impact:
Discuss the impact of the proposed amendment and answer the three questions below on the impact of the amendment
proposal.
Effect of the proposed amendment on the cost of design:
Increase
Reduce
No Effect
Effect of the proposed amendment on the cost of construction:
Increase
Reduce
No Effect
Is the amendment proposal more or less restrictive than the I-Codes?
More
Less
Same
Departmental Impact:
To be filled out by CPD/DFD
Note: The department shall indicate one of the following regarding the impact of the amendment proposal:
Effect of the proposed amendment on the time to review:
Increase
Reduce
No Effect
Effect of the proposed amendment on the cost of enforcement/inspection:
Increase
Reduce
No Effect