Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: California Building Code seismic provisions.[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: MWJ(--nospam--at)eqe.com, seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Re: California Building Code seismic provisions.
- From: FEMCCLURE(--nospam--at)aol.com
- Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 15:57:33 EST
- Cc: FEMCCLURE(--nospam--at)aol.com, ROH(--nospam--at)eqe.com
Martin Johnson, Thank you for your important informative email message on the subject matter. Your example of permitting essentially unreinforced masonry construction to be used in the Sacramento area of one of the important problems with the 2000 IBC. I am encouraged that you and the SEAOC Seismology and Code Committees are actively involved in the 2000 IBC and 2001 IBC Supplement code changes process. Your example of the permitting unreinforced masonry construction in certain areas of California, based on the IBC mapping, would be but one example of future California Building Code amendments to correct the 2000 IBC before the 2000 IBC is adopted in California. Your comments concerning FEMA's serious desire to establish a "uniform national standard" are very important. The power of the Federal government to withhold federal funds from local and state projects if the local and state jurisdictions do not follow FEMA's desires are real concerns to many and represent just one of the concerns that Henry Degenkolb had about having a Federal mandated uniform national standards and building codes. Please keep us informed about the state of the IBC code developments and the activities of the SEAOC Seismology committee. Thank you again for the time and effort you took to prepare your important message. Frank E. McClure December 27, 1999
- Prev by Subject: RE: California Building Code seismic provisions.
- Next by Subject: Re: California Building Code seismic provisions.
- Previous by thread: RE: California Building Code seismic provisions.
- Next by thread: Re: California Building Code seismic provisions.