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

Re: Plan Checking

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Bob:
Since April 1998, the eighty-nine member jurisdictions of the Los Angeles
Regional Uniform Code Program have worked to provide consistency in building
department functions.  At www.icbolabc.org/laruc/phase2.htm you can view and
download uniform interpretations and handouts, including plan check lists
and policies regarding structural issues.  
With this approach, if a plan checker uses a structural correction list or
quotes one of the LARUCP policies, it is an interpretation endorsed by
LARUCP jurisdictions after much deliberation.  We continue to expand the
topics addressed by the LARUCP, and welcome comments and suggestions for
additional information design professionals would find useful.  
Rick Becker, PE
Webmaster, ICBO-LABC
=======================================
Los Angeles Regional Uniform Code Program:
http://www.icbolabc.org/laruc.htm


> List,
> What or where is the line on what a structural plan check is supposed to
> provide. I have seen plan checks that check nearly nothing and the
response
> is "you are stamping the drawings not me" to the far end of spell check.
> Does ICBO have a standard of performance? My view is plan check should try
> to catch gross errors, point to code sections that may not have been
> considered, and verify that there is enough information or quality into
the
> documents to provide life safety and for the inspector to spot items of
> importance. If the EOR differs in his opinion on code sections we have a
> dilemma.  I think for the most part that a plan checker can not master all
> the materials and all the structure types nor be a master
> draftsperson/spelling checker. I feel it is the EOR with his nitch who
> should know every code item related to his submittal. If the EOR has a
> problem with what is required in the code he should not look to shoot the
> messenger.  In the case of a dilemma, or in the case of the EOR not
feeling
> compliance is required(blatant items excepted) I think the EOR should be
in
> control. Opinions?
> Bob Hanson, S.E.
>


* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. 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: http://www.seaint.org