Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: IBC in California

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
You guys have got to be kidding.  As it is now the 1997 has three ways to
design a building: Ultimate Strength, Working Stress and Alternate Working
Strength and who knows how many interpretations.  Now we will all have the
IBC.  Hell is not ICBO still issuing errata's to their errata's?  We have
still not settled on what the '97 wants and now we get to start arguing
about what's in the IBC.

Tom, time to raise those plan check fees of yours.

George Richards, PE thinking I am going to have to add an Esq. in there just
to figure out how to be a PE. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Yousefi, Ben [mailto:Ben.Yousefi(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 9:30 AM
To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)'
Subject: RE: IBC in California

The California building standards commission is apparently going to discuss
an action item on March 7 in regard to asking for the Attorney General
opinion on the Pasadena ordinance.

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Tom VanDorpe [SMTP:tvandorpe(--nospam--at)]
	Sent:	Tuesday, February 27, 2001 9:25 AM
	To:	seaint(--nospam--at)
	Subject:	IBC in California

	What's happening lately with the IBC in California??  I read that
the City
	of Pasadena, CA passed an ordinance that allows a designer to use
the IBC as
	an approved alternate method of design.  Opinions?

	I thought things were already confusing...but this has some real

	Tom VanDorpe