CEBC · California Existing Building Code
When is peer review required and what must the peer reviewer approve?
If you choose the CEBC’s Method B for seismic evaluation/design, an independent, qualified peer reviewer must be selected early to accept the analysis approach, models, assumptions and conclusions; the reviewer issues written reports at key design stages and enforces required approvals (the building official resolves conflicts).
Last reviewed: July 6, 2026
What the code requires — 2–4 sentences
The California Existing Building Code requires independent peer review when a project uses Method B for seismic evaluation and design: the approach, models, analysis procedures, assumptions on material and system behavior and conclusions must be peer‑reviewed and accepted by the peer reviewer(s) per § 321. The peer reviewer must also meet the independence and qualification rules, be selected early in the work, and issue written reports at key design stages as set out in § 322.
The single most important rule: if you choose Method B for evaluation/design, the code requires an independent, qualified peer reviewer to accept the analysis approach, methods and conclusions before the design proceeds.
Requirements in detail
When peer review is required (trigger)
- Choosing Method B for seismic evaluation/design requires peer review of the approach, models, assumptions and conclusions. § 321.2 mandates peer review and acceptance by the peer reviewer(s).
- The selection of a peer reviewer is subject to building official approval when Method B is begun; the seismic criteria and planned evaluation provisions must be approved by the building official after peer reviewer selection. § 319.1.2 and § 321.2.
- Exceptions: the enforcement agency may perform, modify or waive peer review when qualified staff is available or when appropriate. § 321.2 (exceptions).
Who the peer reviewer must be (qualifications & terms)
- Reviewer(s) must be independent from the design/construction team and have no other project involvement except review. § 322.3 and § 322.3.1.
- Reviewer(s) must have technical expertise in evaluation/retrofit of buildings similar to the project and are selected and paid by the owner, subject to enforcement agency determination. § 322.3.2.
- The reviewer (or the chair of a review team) shall be a California‑licensed structural engineer familiar with the technical issues and regulations; exceptions possible with building official approval. § 322.3.3.
- Reviewer serves through project completion; if terminated/resigned a replacement must be appointed within 10 working days and the departing reviewer must deliver records within 10 working days. § 322.3.4.
What the peer reviewer must review and approve (scope)
- The reviewer shall examine construction documents, design criteria, inspection/testing reports, analytical models and analyses, retrofit/repair design, and representative observations of the building condition. Review includes proposed design approach, methods, materials, details and constructability. § 322.4.
- Specifically, under § 321.2 and its subparts the reviewer must accept the chosen approach, models, analysis procedures, assumptions on material and system behavior, acceptance/rejection criteria, and the conclusions and design decisions. Nonlinear procedures require peer review of the representation of seismic ground motion prior to any analysis. § 321.2, § 321.2.1–321.2.4, § 321.2.3.
Timing and deliverables
- The reviewer must be selected prior to initiation of substantial portions of the design/analysis to be reviewed, and review should begin as soon as practical after Method B adoption. § 322.2.
- Written peer review reports are required: after the schematic phase, during design development, and at completion of construction documents but prior to plan submittal—unless a specific phase report is waived by the building official. Reports must cover scope, status, findings, conclusions and recommendations. § 322.5.
- The final pre‑permit report must state that the design conforms with the approved evaluation and design criteria. § 322.5.
Interaction, responses and dispute resolution
- The Registered Design Professional (RDP) must review peer review reports, prepare corrective actions and submit reports/resolutions to the enforcement agency and owner. § 322.6.
- If the peer reviewer’s conclusions conflict with the RDP’s design, the enforcement agency (building official) makes the final determination. § 322.7.
Quick decision table
| Decision dimension | Trigger / Value | What the peer reviewer must approve | Code Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of compliance method | Method B selected for evaluation/design | Peer review of approach, models, analysis procedures, assumptions and conclusions | § 321.2 |
| Selection timing | Before substantial design/analysis work | Reviewer selection and start of review | § 322.2 |
| Reviewer qualifications | Independent; CA‑licensed structural engineer (chair) | Independence, experience with similar buildings | § 322.3, § 322.3.3 |
| Nonlinear analysis | Use of nonlinear procedures | Representation of seismic ground motion must be approved prior to analysis | § 321.2.3 |
| Reports & stages | Schematic, design development, CDs (pre‑permit) | Written reports documenting scope, findings, conformance | § 322.5 |
| Exceptions | Enforcement agency staff available or waiver | Agency may perform/modify/waive peer review | § 321.2 (exceptions) |
Exceptions & special cases
- Enforcement‑agency‑performed peer review: the code allows the enforcement agency to perform the work of peer review when qualified staff is available. § 321.2 (Exception 1).
- Waiver/modification: the enforcement agency may modify or waive peer review requirements when appropriate. § 321.2 (Exception 2).
- State school projects: for some public school/community college matters (representation of seismic ground motion), other agencies (e.g., California Geological Survey) have review/approval roles — see § 321.2.3 notes.
- Alternative procedures: any method of analysis is permitted if accepted by the peer reviewer(s) and the building official; using methods other than ASCE 41 may require building official concurrence. § 321.2.2.
If your project fits a narrow Appendix A procedure permitted “without peer review” (state‑owned, specific construction types) check § 319.1.1.
Common mistakes
- Waiting too long to select a reviewer — the reviewer must be chosen before substantial design/analysis work begins; delaying can trigger rework. § 322.2.
- Using a reviewer with a conflict of interest — the reviewer must be independent and have no other project role. § 322.3.1.
- Failing to obtain reviewer approval of nonlinear ground motion representation before analysis — required when nonlinear procedures are used. § 321.2.3.
- Assuming peer review is optional simply because the owner pays the reviewer — selection and qualifications remain subject to the enforcement agency’s acceptance. § 322.3.2–322.3.3.
- Not submitting required peer review reports at schematic / design development / construction document stages (or not getting a building‑official waiver). § 322.5.
Worked example — concrete scenario
Scenario: A private owner proposes a seismic retrofit for a 5‑story wood‑frame building and elects to use Method B. The design team includes an RDP who plans to use a nonlinear dynamic analysis.
Step‑by‑step application of the code:
- Because the owner selected Method B, the project must have peer review of the proposed approach, models, assumptions and conclusions under § 321.2. The owner selects a peer reviewer and submits credentials to the building official for approval.
- The peer reviewer must be independent and the reviewer (or chair) must be a California‑licensed structural engineer familiar with similar retrofits — per § 322.3.2–322.3.3. The owner pays the reviewer.
- Because the RDP plans a nonlinear dynamic analysis, before any analysis starts the peer reviewer must review and approve the representation of seismic ground motion (selection of ground motions, scaling, record set) as required by § 321.2.3. The RDP cannot proceed with the nonlinear analysis until the reviewer signs off.
- The reviewer issues a written report at schematic design noting whether the analysis approach and acceptance criteria are acceptable, a second report in design development with preliminary findings, and a final report at completion of construction documents stating the design is in conformance with the approved evaluation/design criteria (per § 322.5).
- If the reviewer finds that the initial modeling underestimates expected deformations and recommends changes, the RDP must prepare corrective actions and submit responses/resolutions to the enforcement agency as required by § 322.6. If dispute remains, the building official makes the final determination under § 322.7.
Numbers for schedule/turnaround to keep in mind: select reviewer and start review prior to substantive design; if the reviewer resigns/terminated, a qualified replacement must be named within 10 working days and documentation turned over in 10 working days. § 322.3.4.
Related provisions
- § 319.1 — Seismic criteria selection; Method B requires independent peer review as noted.
- § 319.1.2 — Peer reviewer selection subject to building official approval when Method B is begun.
- § 317.3 / § 317.4 / § 317.5 — Scope, applicability and minimum seismic performance levels that drive the need for evaluation and possible retrofit.
- § 321.2.1–321.2.4 — Detailed requirements for acceptance of approaches, methods, material assumptions and conclusions to be peer reviewed.
- § 322.2–322.7 — Timing, qualifications, scope, reports, responses and conflict resolution for peer review.
Code references
Grounded in the retrieved California Existing Building Code — click a citation to read the verbatim passage:
CEBC § 317.5 High relevance — show source text
When the evaluation indicates the building does not meet the required performance levels given in Table 317.5 for the risk category, then a retrofit and/or repair design shall be prepared that provides a structure that meets these performance objectives and reflects the appropriate consideration of existing conditions. Any approach to analysis and design is permitted to be used, provided that the approach shall be rational, shall be consistent with the established principals of mechanics and shall use the known performance characteristics of materials and assemblages under reversing loads typical of severe earthquake ground motions.
Exception: Further consideration of the structure’s seismic performance may be waived by the enforcement agency if both the registered design professional and peer reviewer(s) conclude that the structural system can be expected to perform at least as well as required by the provisions of this section without completing an analysis of the structure’s compliance with these requirements. A detailed report shall be submitted to the responsible building official that presents the reasons and basis for this conclusion. This report shall be prepared by the registered design professional. The peer reviewer(s) shall concur in this conclusion and affirm to it in writing. The building official shall either approve this decision or require completion of the indicated work specified in this section prior to approval.
321.2 The approach, models, analysis procedures, assumptions on material and system behavior and conclusions shall be peer reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Section 322 and accepted by the peer reviewer(s).
Exceptions: 1. The enforcement agency may perform the work of peer review when qualified staff is available within the jurisdiction. 2. The enforcement agency may modify or waive the requirements for peer review when appropriate.
321.2.1 The approach used in the development of the design shall be acceptable to the peer reviewer and the enforcement agency and shall be the same method as used in the evaluation of the building. Approaches that are specifically tailored to the type of building, construction materials and specific building characteristics may be used, if they are acceptable to the independent peer reviewer. The use of Method A allowed procedures may also be used under Method B.
321.2.2 Any method of analysis may be used, subject to acceptance by the peer reviewer(s) and the building official. The general requirements given in ASCE 41, Chapters 6 and 7, shall be complied with unless exceptions are accepted by the peer reviewer(s) and building official. Use of other than ASCE 41 procedures in Method B requires building official concurrence before implementation.
321.2.3 Prior to implementation, the procedures, methods, material assumptions and acceptance/rejection criteria proposed by the registered design professional will be peer reviewed as provided in Section 322. Where nonlinear procedures are used, prior to any analysis, the representation of the seismic ground motion shall be reviewed and approved by the peer reviewer(s) and the building official.
[DSA-SS, DSA-SS/CC] For public school and community college projects, the representation of the seismic ground motion shall be reviewed and approved by the California Geological Survey.
321.2.4 The conclusions and design decisions shall be reviewed and accepted by the peer reviewer(s) and the building official.
SECTION 322 [BSC, DSA-SS & DSA-SS/CC]—PEER REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
CEBC § 322.1 High relevance — show source text
322.1 General. Independent peer review is an objective, technical review by knowledgeable reviewer(s) experienced in the structural design, analysis and performance issues involved. The reviewer(s) shall examine the available information on the condition of the building, the basic engineering concepts employed and the recommendations for action.
322.2 Timing of independent review. The independent reviewer(s) shall be selected prior to initiation of substantial portions of the design and/or analysis work that is to be reviewed, and review shall start as soon as practical after Method B is adopted and sufficient information defining the project is available.
322.3 Qualifications and terms of employment. The reviewer(s) shall be independent from the design and construction team.
322.3.1 The reviewer(s) shall have no other involvement in the project before, during or after the review, except in a review capacity.
2025 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE 3-21
on Jul 18, 2025 11:14 AM (CDT) THEREUNDER.
PROVISIONS FOR ALL COMPLIANCE METHODS
322.3.2 The reviewer(s) shall be selected and paid by the owner and shall have technical expertise in the evaluation and retrofit of buildings similar to the one being reviewed, as determined by the enforcement agency.
322.3.3 The reviewer (or in the case of review teams, the chair) shall be a California-licensed structural engineer who is familiar with the technical issues and regulations governing the work to be reviewed.
Exception: Other individuals with acceptable qualifications and experience may be a peer reviewer(s) with the approval of the building official.
322.3.4 The reviewer shall serve through completion of the project and shall not be terminated except for failure to perform the duties specified herein. Such termination shall be in writing with copies to the enforcement agency, owner and the registered design professional. When a reviewer is terminated or resigns, a qualified replacement shall be appointed within 10 working days, and the reviewer shall submit copies of all reports, notes and correspondence to the responsible building official, the owner and the registered design professional within 10 working days of such termination.
322.3.5 The peer reviewer shall have access in a timely manner to all documents, materials and information deemed necessary by the peer reviewer to complete the peer review.
322.4 Scope of review. Review activities shall include, where appropriate, available construction documents, design criteria and representative observations of the condition of the structure, all inspection and testing reports, including methods of sampling, analytical models and analyses prepared by the registered design professional and consultants, and the retrofit or repair design. Review shall include consideration of the proposed design approach, methods, materials, details and constructability.
Changes observed during construction that affect the seismic-resisting system shall be reported to the reviewer in writing for review and recommendation.
322.5 Reports. The reviewer(s) shall prepare a written report to the owner and building official that covers all aspects of the review performed, including conclusions reached by the reviewer(s). Reports shall be issued after the schematic phase, during design development, and at the completion of construction documents but prior to submittal of the project plans to the enforcement agency for plan review. When acceptable to the building official, the requirement for a report during a specific phase of the project development may be waived.
CEBC § 1617A.1.41 High relevance — show source text
1617A.1.41 Peer Review Requirements. [OSHPD 1, 1R, 2 & 5] 1. General. Independent peer review is an objective technical review by knowledgeable reviewer(s) experienced in structural design, analysis and performance issues involved. The reviewer(s) shall examine the available information on the condition of the building, basic engineering concept employed and recommendations for action. Exception: OSHPD may perform the work of peer review when qualified staff is available. 2. Timing of Independent Review. The independent reviewer (s) shall be selected prior to initiation of substantial portion of the design and analysis work that is to be reviewed, and review shall start as soon as practical and sufficient information defining the project is available. 3. Qualifications and Terms of Employment. The reviewer shall be independent from the design and construction team. 3.1. The reviewer(s) shall have no other involvement in the project before, during or after the review, except in a review capacity. 3.2. The reviewer shall be selected and paid by owner and shall have technical expertise similar to the project being reviewed, as determined by enforcement agent. 3.3. The reviewer (in case of review team, the chair) shall be a California-licensed structural engineer who is familiar with technical issues and regulations governing the work to be reviewed. 3.4. The reviewer shall serve through completion of the project and shall not be terminated except for failure to perform the duties specified herein. Such termination shall be in writing with copies to enforcement agent, owner and the engineer of record. When a reviewer is terminated or resigns, a qualified replacement shall be appointed within 10 working days or a timeframe mutually agreed to by the Owner, Registered Design Professional (RDP) and the Office. 4. Scope of Review. Review activities shall include, where appropriate, available construction documents, design criteria, obser- vation of the condition of structure, all new and original inspection reports, including methods of sampling, analyses prepared by the engineer of record and consultants, and the new, retrofit or repair design. Review shall include consideration of the proposed design approach, method, materials and details.
2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 16A-43
on Jul 18, 2025 11:14 AM (CDT) THEREUNDER.
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
5. Reports. The reviewer(s) shall prepare a written report to the owner and responsible enforcement agent that covers all aspect of the review performed including conclusions reached by the reviewer. Report shall be issued after the schematic phase, during design development, and at the completion of construction documents, but prior to their issuance of permit. Such report shall include, at the minimum, statement of the following: a. Scope of engineering design peer review with limitations defined. b. The status of the project documents at each review stage. c. Ability of selected materials and framing systems to meet the performance criteria with given loads and configuration. d. Degree of structural system redundancy and the deformation compatibility among structural and nonstructural elements.
e. Basic constructability of the new, retrofit or repair system. f. Other recommendation that will be appropriate for the specific project. g. Presentation of the conclusions of the reviewer identifying any areas that need further review, investigation and/or clarification.
h. Recommendations.
CEBC § 322.3.4 High relevance — show source text
322.3.4 The reviewer shall serve through completion of the project and shall not be terminated except for failure to perform the duties specified herein. Such termination shall be in writing with copies to the enforcement agency, owner and the registered design professional. When a reviewer is terminated or resigns, a qualified replacement shall be appointed within 10 working days, and the reviewer shall submit copies of all reports, notes and correspondence to the responsible building official, the owner and the registered design professional within 10 working days of such termination.
322.3.5 The peer reviewer shall have access in a timely manner to all documents, materials and information deemed necessary by the peer reviewer to complete the peer review.
322.4 Scope of review. Review activities shall include, where appropriate, available construction documents, design criteria and representative observations of the condition of the structure, all inspection and testing reports, including methods of sampling, analytical models and analyses prepared by the registered design professional and consultants, and the retrofit or repair design. Review shall include consideration of the proposed design approach, methods, materials, details and constructability.
Changes observed during construction that affect the seismic-resisting system shall be reported to the reviewer in writing for review and recommendation.
322.5 Reports. The reviewer(s) shall prepare a written report to the owner and building official that covers all aspects of the review performed, including conclusions reached by the reviewer(s). Reports shall be issued after the schematic phase, during design development, and at the completion of construction documents but prior to submittal of the project plans to the enforcement agency for plan review. When acceptable to the building official, the requirement for a report during a specific phase of the project development may be waived.
Such reports should include, at the minimum, statements of the following: 1. Scope of engineering design peer review with limitations defined. 2. The status of the project documents at each review stage. 3. Ability of selected materials and framing systems to meet performance criteria with given loads and configuration. 4. Degree of structural system redundancy and the deformation compatibility among structural and nonstructural components. 5. Basic constructability of the retrofit or repair system. 6. Other recommendations that would be appropriate to the specific project. 7. Presentation of the conclusions of the reviewer identifying any areas that need further review, investigation and/or clarification.
8. Recommendations.
The last report prepared prior to submittal of permit documents to the enforcement agency shall include a statement indicating that the design is in conformance with the approved evaluation and design criteria.
322.6 Response and resolutions. The registered design professional shall review the report from the reviewer(s) and shall develop corrective actions and responses as appropriate. Changes observed during construction that affect the seismic-resisting system shall be reported to the reviewer in writing for review and recommendations. All reports, responses and resolutions prepared pursuant to this section shall be submitted to the responsible enforcement agency and the owner along with other plans, specifications and calculations required. If the reviewer resigns or is terminated prior to completion of the project, then the reviewer shall submit copies of all reports, notes and correspondence to the responsible building official, the owner and the registered design professional within 10 working days of such termination.
322.7 Resolution of conflicts. _When the conclusions and recommendations of the peer reviewer conflict with the
CEBC § 3-20 High relevance — show source text
3-20 2025 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE
on Jul 18, 2025 11:14 AM (CDT) THEREUNDER.
PROVISIONS FOR ALL COMPLIANCE METHODS
319.12.2 Public schools and community colleges. [DSA-SS, DSA-SS/CC] When Section 319.12 is the basis for structural modifications, the approved design documents must clearly indicate the scope of modifications and the acceptance criteria for the design.
SECTION 320 [BSC, DSA-SS & DSA-SS/CC]—METHOD A
320.1 General. The retrofit design shall employ the Linear Static or Linear Dynamic Procedures of ASCE 41, Section 7.4.1 or 7.4.2, and comply with the applicable general requirements of ASCE 41, Chapters 6 and 7. The earthquake hazard level and performance level given specified in Section 317.5 for the building’s risk category shall be used. Structures shall be designed for seismic forces coming from any horizontal direction.
SECTION 321 [BSC, DSA-SS & DSA-SS/CC]—METHOD B
321.1 The existing or retrofitted structure shall be demonstrated to have the capability to sustain the deformation response due to the specified earthquake ground motions and meet the seismic performance requirements of Section 317. The registered design professional shall provide an evaluation of the response of the existing structure in its modified configuration and condition to the ground motions specified. If the building’s seismic performance is evaluated as satisfactory and the peer reviewer(s) and the enforcement agency concurs, then no further structural retrofit and/or repair of the lateral load-resisting system is required.
When the evaluation indicates the building does not meet the required performance levels given in Table 317.5 for the risk category, then a retrofit and/or repair design shall be prepared that provides a structure that meets these performance objectives and reflects the appropriate consideration of existing conditions. Any approach to analysis and design is permitted to be used, provided that the approach shall be rational, shall be consistent with the established principals of mechanics and shall use the known performance characteristics of materials and assemblages under reversing loads typical of severe earthquake ground motions.
Exception: Further consideration of the structure’s seismic performance may be waived by the enforcement agency if both the registered design professional and peer reviewer(s) conclude that the structural system can be expected to perform at least as well as required by the provisions of this section without completing an analysis of the structure’s compliance with these requirements. A detailed report shall be submitted to the responsible building official that presents the reasons and basis for this conclusion. This report shall be prepared by the registered design professional. The peer reviewer(s) shall concur in this conclusion and affirm to it in writing. The building official shall either approve this decision or require completion of the indicated work specified in this section prior to approval.
321.2 The approach, models, analysis procedures, assumptions on material and system behavior and conclusions shall be peer reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Section 322 and accepted by the peer reviewer(s).
Exceptions: 1. The enforcement agency may perform the work of peer review when qualified staff is available within the jurisdiction. 2. The enforcement agency may modify or waive the requirements for peer review when appropriate.
CEBC § 1617A.1.40 High relevance — show source text
Where the detailed joint evaluation report is not submitted within the timeframes specified above, the building shall not be issued a building permit for any projects except for those for seismic compliance, maintenance and repair until the detailed joint evaluation work is complete.
1617A.1.40 Operational nonstructural performance level requirements. [OSHPD 1 & 4] New general acute care hospitals and new building(s) required for general acute care services shall satisfy Operational Nonstructural Performance Level (NPC-5) requirements.
Exception: A new building which is required for general acute care services that is added to an existing general acute care hospital and which has a building area of 4,000 square feet (371 m [2] ) or less, need not satisfy the NPC-5 requirements until the deadline speci- fied in California Administrative Code (Part 1, Title 24 CCR), Chapter 6.
Hospitals and buildings designed and constructed to the provisions of this code for new construction shall be deemed to satisfy Operational Nonstructural Performance Level (NPC-5) requirements when: 1. The facility has on-site supplies of water and holding tanks for sewage and liquid waste, sufficient to support 72 hours of emergency operations for the hospital or building, which are integrated into the building plumbing systems in accordance with the California Plumbing Code. 2. An on-site emergency system as defined in the California Electrical Code is incorporated into the building electrical system for critical care areas. Additionally, the system shall provide for radiological service and an onsite fuel supply for 72 hours of acute care operation.
Emergency and standby generators shall not be located below the higher of the Design Flood Elevation (DFE) or Base Flood Eleva- tion (BFE) plus two feet (BFE + 2 ft.) or 500 year flood elevation, whichever is higher, and shall be located at an elevation close to grade for easy accessibility from outside for maintenance.
1617A.1.41 Peer Review Requirements. [OSHPD 1, 1R, 2 & 5] 1. General. Independent peer review is an objective technical review by knowledgeable reviewer(s) experienced in structural design, analysis and performance issues involved. The reviewer(s) shall examine the available information on the condition of the building, basic engineering concept employed and recommendations for action. Exception: OSHPD may perform the work of peer review when qualified staff is available. 2. Timing of Independent Review. The independent reviewer (s) shall be selected prior to initiation of substantial portion of the design and analysis work that is to be reviewed, and review shall start as soon as practical and sufficient information defining the project is available. 3. Qualifications and Terms of Employment. The reviewer shall be independent from the design and construction team. 3.1. The reviewer(s) shall have no other involvement in the project before, during or after the review, except in a review capacity. 3.2. The reviewer shall be selected and paid by owner and shall have technical expertise similar to the project being reviewed, as determined by enforcement agent. 3.3. The reviewer (in case of review team, the chair) shall be a California-licensed structural engineer who is familiar with technical issues and regulations governing the work to be reviewed. 3.4. The reviewer shall serve through completion of the project and shall not be terminated except for failure to perform _the duties specified herein.
CEBC § 321.2.1 High relevance — show source text
321.2.1 The approach used in the development of the design shall be acceptable to the peer reviewer and the enforcement agency and shall be the same method as used in the evaluation of the building. Approaches that are specifically tailored to the type of building, construction materials and specific building characteristics may be used, if they are acceptable to the independent peer reviewer. The use of Method A allowed procedures may also be used under Method B.
321.2.2 Any method of analysis may be used, subject to acceptance by the peer reviewer(s) and the building official. The general requirements given in ASCE 41, Chapters 6 and 7, shall be complied with unless exceptions are accepted by the peer reviewer(s) and building official. Use of other than ASCE 41 procedures in Method B requires building official concurrence before implementation.
321.2.3 Prior to implementation, the procedures, methods, material assumptions and acceptance/rejection criteria proposed by the registered design professional will be peer reviewed as provided in Section 322. Where nonlinear procedures are used, prior to any analysis, the representation of the seismic ground motion shall be reviewed and approved by the peer reviewer(s) and the building official.
[DSA-SS, DSA-SS/CC] For public school and community college projects, the representation of the seismic ground motion shall be reviewed and approved by the California Geological Survey.
321.2.4 The conclusions and design decisions shall be reviewed and accepted by the peer reviewer(s) and the building official.
SECTION 322 [BSC, DSA-SS & DSA-SS/CC]—PEER REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
322.1 General. Independent peer review is an objective, technical review by knowledgeable reviewer(s) experienced in the structural design, analysis and performance issues involved. The reviewer(s) shall examine the available information on the condition of the building, the basic engineering concepts employed and the recommendations for action.
322.2 Timing of independent review. The independent reviewer(s) shall be selected prior to initiation of substantial portions of the design and/or analysis work that is to be reviewed, and review shall start as soon as practical after Method B is adopted and sufficient information defining the project is available.
322.3 Qualifications and terms of employment. The reviewer(s) shall be independent from the design and construction team.
322.3.1 The reviewer(s) shall have no other involvement in the project before, during or after the review, except in a review capacity.
2025 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE 3-21
on Jul 18, 2025 11:14 AM (CDT) THEREUNDER.
PROVISIONS FOR ALL COMPLIANCE METHODS
322.3.2 The reviewer(s) shall be selected and paid by the owner and shall have technical expertise in the evaluation and retrofit of buildings similar to the one being reviewed, as determined by the enforcement agency.
322.3.3 The reviewer (or in the case of review teams, the chair) shall be a California-licensed structural engineer who is familiar with the technical issues and regulations governing the work to be reviewed.
Exception: Other individuals with acceptable qualifications and experience may be a peer reviewer(s) with the approval of the building official.
CEBC § 31F-1 Medium relevance — show source text
This classification does not apply to marine terminals that transfer LNG.
TABLE 31F-1-1—MOT OIL SPILL EXPOSURE CLASSIFICATION Col2 Col3 Col4 SPILL CLASSIFICATION EXPOSED TOTAL
VOLUME OF OIL (VT) (bbls)MAXIMUM NUMBER OF
TRANSFERS PER BERTHING
SYSTEM PER YEARMAXIMUM VESSEL
SIZE (DWT×1,000)High ≥ 1200 N.A. N.A. Moderate < 1200 ≥ 90 ≥ 30 Low < 1200 < 90 < 30 3101F.7 Management of Change. Whenever physical changes are made to the built MOT that significantly impact operations, a Management of Change (MOC) process shall be followed per Section 6.6 of API Standard 2610 [1.4].
3101F.8 Review requirements.
3101F.8.1 Quality assurance. All audits, inspections, engineering analyses or design shall be reviewed by a professional having simi- lar or higher qualifications as the person who performed the work, to ensure quality assurance. This review may be performed in- house and shall include a concluding statement of compliance with this code.
3101F.8.2 Peer review. The Division may require peer review of advanced engineering analyses and designs, including, but not limited to, nonlinear dynamic structural analyses, alternative lateral force procedures, complex geotechnical evaluations, subsea pipeline analyses and designs and fatigue analyses. Peer review shall be performed by an external independent source to maintain the integrity of the process.
The peer reviewer(s) and their affiliated organization shall have no other involvement in the project, except in a review capacity. The peer reviewer(s) shall be a California registered engineer(s) familiar with regulations governing the work and have technical expertise in the subject matter to a degree of at least that needed for the original work. The peer reviewer(s)’ credentials shall be presented to the Division for approval prior to commencement of the review.
Upon completion of the review process, the peer reviewer(s) shall submit a written report directly to the Division that covers all aspects of the review process, including, but not limited to: 1. Scope, extent and limitations of the review. 2. Status of the documents reviewed at each stage (i.e. revision number and date). 3. Findings. 4. Recommended corrective actions and resolutions, if necessary.
5. Conclusions.
6. Certification by the peer reviewer(s), including whether or not the final reviewed work meets the requirements of this code.
31F-4 2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
on Jul 18, 2025 11:14 AM (CDT) THEREUNDER.
MARINE OIL TERMINALS
7. Formal documentation of important peer review correspondence, including requests for information and written responses.
The owner and operator shall cooperate in the review process, but shall not influence the peer review. If the original work requires modification after completion of the peer review, the final analyses and designs shall be submitted to the Division.
CEBC § 3.3. Medium relevance — show source text
BSE-C RESPONSE ACCELERATION PARAMETERS [BSC] are the parameters (S XS and S X1 ) taken from 5-percent/50-year maximum direction spectral response acceleration curves or by a Site Specific Response Spectrum developed in accordance with ASCE 41, Section 2.3.3.
BSE-R RESPONSE ACCELERATION PARAMETERS [BSC] are the parameters (S XS and S X1 ) taken from 20-percent /50-year maximum direction spectral response acceleration curves or by a Site Specific Response Spectrum developed in accordance with ASCE 41, Section 2.3.3.
SECTION 319 [BSC, DSA-SS & DSA-SS/CC]—SEISMIC CRITERIA SELECTION FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS
319.1 Basis for evaluation and design. This section determines what technical approach is to be used for the seismic evaluation and design for existing buildings. For those buildings or portions of buildings for which Section 317 requires action, the procedures and limitations for the evaluation of existing buildings and design of retrofit systems and/or repair thereof shall be implemented in accordance with this section.
One of the following approaches must be used: 1. Method A of Section 320;
2. Method B of Section 321, with independent review of a peer reviewer as required in Section 322; or 3. For state-owned buildings only, the use of one of the specific procedures listed in Section 319.1.1.
When Method B is chosen it must be approved by the building official, and, where applicable, by the peer reviewer. All referenced standards in ASCE 41 shall be replaced by referenced standards listed in Chapter 35 of the California Building Code.
Exceptions: 1. [BSC] For buildings constructed to the requirements of California Building Code, 2019 or later edition, as adopted by the governing jurisdiction, that code is permitted to be used in place of those specified in Section 319.1. 2. [DSA-SS & DSA-SS/CC] For the conversion of nonconforming buildings to conforming school buildings in accordance with Section 4-307 of the California Administrative Code, nonconforming buildings constructed to the requirements of California Building Code, 2019 or later edition, that code as it was adopted by the governing jurisdiction is permitted to be used in place of those specified in Section 319.1 provided the building complies with Seismic Design Category D or higher.
319.1.1 Specific procedures. [BSC] For state-owned buildings, the following specific procedures located in Appendix A may be used, without peer review, for their respective types of construction to comply with the seismic performance requirements for Risk Category I, II or III buildings: 1. Seismic Strengthening Provisions for Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Buildings (Chapter A1). 2. Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Reinforced Concrete and Reinforced Masonry Wall Buildings with Flexible Diaphragms (Chapter A2).
319.1.2 When a design project is begun under Method B the selection of the peer reviewer is subject to the approval of the building official. Following approval by the peer reviewer, the seismic criteria for the project and the planned evaluation provisions must be approved by the building official. The approved seismic criteria and evaluation provisions shall apply. Upon approval of the building official these are permitted to be modified.
CEBC § 1803A.8 Medium relevance — show source text
1803A.8 Geotechnical peer review. [DSA-SS and DSA-SS/CC] When alternate foundations designs or ground improvements are employed or where slope stabilization is required, a qualified peer review by a California-licensed geotechnical engineer, in accordance with Section 322 of Part 10, Title 24, CCR, may be required by the enforcement agency. In Section 322 of Part 10, Title 24, CCR, where reference is made to structural or seismic-resisting system, it shall be replaced with geotechnical, foundation or ground improvement, as appropriate.
18A-6 2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
on Jul 18, 2025 11:14 AM (CDT) THEREUNDER.
SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS
SECTION 1804 A —EXCAVATION, GRADING AND FILL
1804 A .1 Excavation near foundations. Excavation for any purpose shall not reduce vertical or lateral support for any foundation or adjacent foundation without first underpinning or protecting the foundation against detrimental lateral or vertical movement, or both, in accordance with Section 1803 A .5.7.
1804 A .2 Underpinning. Where underpinning is chosen to provide the protection or support of adjacent structures, the underpinning system shall be designed and installed in accordance with provisions of this chapter and Chapter 33.
1804 A .2.1 Underpinning sequencing. Underpinning shall be installed in a sequential manner that protects the neighboring structure and the working construction site. The sequence of installation shall be identified in the approved construction documents.
1804 A .3 Placement of backfill. The excavation outside the foundation shall be backfilled with soil that is free of organic material, construction debris, cobbles and boulders or with a controlled low-strength material (CLSM). The backfill shall be placed in lifts and compacted in a manner that does not damage the foundation or the waterproofing or dampproofing material.
Exception: CLSM need not be compacted.
1804 A .4 Site grading. The ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than 1 unit vertical in 20 units horizontal (5-percent slope) for a minimum distance of 10 feet (3048 mm) measured perpendicular to the face of the wall. If physical obstructions or lot lines prohibit 10 feet (3048 mm) of horizontal distance, a 5-percent slope shall be provided to an approved alternative method of diverting water away from the foundation. Swales used for this purpose shall be sloped not less than 2 percent where located within 10 feet (3048 mm) of the building foundation. Impervious surfaces within 10 feet (3048 mm) of the building foundation shall be sloped not less than 2 percent away from the building.
Exceptions:
- Where climatic or soil conditions warrant, the slope of the ground away from the building foundation shall be permitted to be reduced to not less than 1 unit vertical in 48 units horizontal (2-percent slope).
- Impervious surfaces shall be permitted to be sloped less than 2 percent where the surface is a door landing or ramp that is required to comply with Section 1010.1.4, 1012.3 or 1012.6.1.
CEBC § 104.2.3.7 Medium relevance — show source text
[A] 104.2.3.7 Peer review. The building official is authorized to require submittal of a peer review report in conjunction with a request to use an alternative material, design or method of construction, prepared by a peer reviewer that is approved by the building official.
[OSHPD 1, 1R, 2, 4 & 5] When peer review is required for new or existing buildings, it shall be performed in accordance with Section 1617A.1.41.
104.2.3.8 Earthquake monitoring instruments. [OSHPD 1 & 4] The enforcement agency shall be permitted to require earth- quake monitoring instruments for any building that receives approval of an alternative system for the Lateral Force Resisting System (LFRS). There shall be a sufficient number of instruments to characterize the response of the building during an earth- quake and shall include at least one tri-axial free field instrument or equivalent. A proposal for instrumentation and equipment specifications shall be forwarded to the enforcement agency for review and approval.
The instruments shall be interconnected for common start and common timing. Each instrument shall be located so that access is maintained at all times and is unobstructed by room contents. A sign stating “MAINTAIN CLEAR ACCESS TO THIS INSTRU- MENT” shall be posted in a conspicuous location.
The Owner of the building shall be responsible for the implementation of the instrumentation program. Maintenance and service of the instruments shall be in accordance with Section L101.3 of this code.
[A] 104.2.4 Modifications. Where there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this code, the building official shall have the authority to grant modifications for individual cases, provided that the building official shall first find that one or more special individual reasons make the strict letter of this code impractical, and that the modification is in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code and that such modification does not lessen health, accessibility, life and fire safety or structural requirements. The details of the written request for and action granting modifications shall be recorded and entered in the files of the department of building safety.
[A] 104.2.4.1 Flood hazard areas. The building official shall not grant modifications to any provision required in flood hazard areas as established by Section 1612.3 unless a determination has been made that:
A showing of good and sufficient cause that the unique characteristics of the size, configuration or topography of the site render the elevation standards of Section 1612 inappropriate.
A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship by rendering the lot undevelopable.
A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety or extraordinary public expense; cause fraud on or victimization of the public; or conflict with existing laws or ordinances.
A determination that the variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief, considering the flood hazard.
Submission to the applicant of written notice specifying the difference between the design flood elevation and the elevation to which the building is to be built, stating that the cost of flood insurance will be commensurate with the increased risk resulting from the reduced floor elevation, and stating that construction below the design flood elevation increases risks to life and property.
[A] 104.3 Applications and permits. The building official shall receive applications, review construction documents, issue permits, inspect the premises for which such permits have been issued and enforce compliance with the provisions of this code.
CEBC § 1-25 Medium relevance — show source text
2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 1-25
on Jul 18, 2025 11:14 AM (CDT) THEREUNDER.
ADMINISTRATION
[A] 104.2.3.5.1 Fire Tests. Tests conducted to demonstrate equivalent fire safety in support of an alternative material, design or method of construction application shall be of a scale that is sufficient to predict fire safety performance of the end use configuration. Tests shall be performed by a party acceptable to the building official.
[A] 104.2.3.6 Reports. Supporting data, where necessary to assist in the approval of materials or assemblies not specifically provided for in this code, shall comply with Sections 104.2.3.6.1 and 104.2.3.6.2.
[A] 104.2.3.6.1 Evaluation reports. Evaluation reports shall be issued by an approved agency and use of the evaluation report shall require approval by the building official for the installation. The alternate material, design or method of construction and product evaluated shall be within the scope of the building official’s recognition of the approved agency. Criteria used for the evaluation shall be identified within the report and, where required, provided to the building official.
[A] 104.2.3.6.2 Other reports. Reports not complying with Section 104.2.3.6.1 shall describe criteria, including but not limited to any referenced testing or analysis, used to determine compliance with code intent and justify code equivalence. The report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer, specialist, laboratory or specialty organization acceptable to the building official. The building official is authorized to require design submittals to be prepared by, and bear the stamp of, a registered design professional.
[A] 104.2.3.7 Peer review. The building official is authorized to require submittal of a peer review report in conjunction with a request to use an alternative material, design or method of construction, prepared by a peer reviewer that is approved by the building official.
[OSHPD 1, 1R, 2, 4 & 5] When peer review is required for new or existing buildings, it shall be performed in accordance with Section 1617A.1.41.
104.2.3.8 Earthquake monitoring instruments. [OSHPD 1 & 4] The enforcement agency shall be permitted to require earth- quake monitoring instruments for any building that receives approval of an alternative system for the Lateral Force Resisting System (LFRS). There shall be a sufficient number of instruments to characterize the response of the building during an earth- quake and shall include at least one tri-axial free field instrument or equivalent. A proposal for instrumentation and equipment specifications shall be forwarded to the enforcement agency for review and approval.
The instruments shall be interconnected for common start and common timing. Each instrument shall be located so that access is maintained at all times and is unobstructed by room contents. A sign stating “MAINTAIN CLEAR ACCESS TO THIS INSTRU- MENT” shall be posted in a conspicuous location.
The Owner of the building shall be responsible for the implementation of the instrumentation program. Maintenance and service of the instruments shall be in accordance with Section L101.3 of this code.
Frequently asked questions
Who must pay the peer reviewer?
The owner pays the peer reviewer; the reviewer is selected and paid by the owner but must meet the enforcement agency’s determination of technical expertise. § 322.3.2.
Can the building official do the peer review?
Yes — the enforcement agency may perform peer review when qualified staff is available, or may modify/waive the requirement where appropriate. § 321.2 (exceptions).
Is a peer reviewer required for Method A?
No — peer review is required for Method B. Method A follows prescribed procedures (ASCE 41 linear procedures) and does not invoke the peer review requirement in § 321.2. § 319.1 and § 321 explain the difference.
What must be approved before running nonlinear analyses?
The representation of seismic ground motion must be reviewed and approved by the peer reviewer(s) (and building official, where noted) prior to any nonlinear analysis. § 321.2.3.
What if the peer reviewer and RDP disagree?
If conclusions conflict, the enforcement agency (building official) makes the final determination for the required design. § 322.7.
More in California Existing Building Code
- Administration and Definitions (Scope, enforcement, code official duties, definitions)
- Provisions for All Compliance Methods (general requirements that apply to all compliance options; Chapter 3 / 3A)
- Seismic retrofit and evaluation (Appendix A and seismic provisions/sections for evaluation and retrofit)
- Referenced Standards and Appendices (Chapter 16 and Appendices A–E, Resource A)
- Repairs (Chapter 4 — repair-specific rules for materials, means of egress, structural, MEP, etc.)
- Alterations — Level 1, Level 2, Level 3 (technical requirements for each alteration level; Chapters 7–9)
- Change of Occupancy and Additions (requirements for occupancy changes and additions; Chapters 10–11)
- Compliance Methods — Prescriptive, Work Area, Performance (Chapters 5, 6–11, 13)
- Relocated Buildings (requirements for buildings moved or relocated; Chapter 14)
- Construction Safeguards (site safety, means of egress and life-safety during construction; Chapter 15)
Ask about the CEBC
Get cited, plain-English answers on the California Existing Building Code for your project — any code section, any scenario.
Start Free Trial