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


[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Some additional information for those pesky furriners:
1) California has yet to adopt IBC 2000, and probably won't for some time.
The essential facility code (called "Title 24" to insiders) will be at
least a full cycle behind this.
2) All the OSHPD/DSA reviewers are supposed to be SE's, and these aren't 
dumb agencies. [No offense intended to my colleagues in City building
departments.] The fact that they have yet to adopt the '97 , let alone IBC
2000 is not necessarily a black mark against them. Structures designed to
the Field Act in California, and its successors, have yet to experience a
major failure. Murphy's 4th(?) law (i.e. don't fix it if it ain't broke)
has a lot to do with their conservatism.

We may disagree, but one can't fault their record. [And yes, I do have a
few favorite items that they let me put in there which exist nowhere else,
but that doesn't have a lot to do with my opinion.]

Peter Higgins, SE

Message text written by INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)
>OSHPD has not adopted the 1998 California Building Code, which is 
basically the 1997 UBC with the state amendments.  OSHPD uses a "1998 
California Building Code" with the letter "B" attached to all the
that is based on the 1994 UBC with state amendments. <

*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at) Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: