Can seismic upgrade be exempted from plan check?

[Yikes]

I have a client that wants to do a voluntary seismic upgrade to a 1914-era craftsman home in California. The wood-frame house has an existing river-rock foundation and there's a 30" tall crawl space.
The engineer has developed plans and calcs to pour new footings alongside the adjacent existing foundation. Because the house is pre-existing/nonconforming, there is no code requirement to upgrade the foundation or anchorage of walls, so this is strictly voluntary. In other words, IMO there is no minimum design for the building department to plan check.

My problem is, I think this should be an over-the-counter permit, and we have a contractor ready-to-go. However, the permit technician thinks it has to be submitted for a formal plan check, adding a minimum of 4-6 weeks to the project start.

Can you give me a reason as to why this should be plan checked vs. an express permit? By the way, all the work is below the floor and inside the house, so there are no planning or historic preservation issues - - it's already been signed off by the planning department.

 

[Joe.B]

Check out CA Existing Building Code Appendix A (probably A3). Also, many jurisdictions will accept the "Standard Plan A" but that may or may not fit the scope of your project.

 

[Joe.B]

To answer your question, yes and no.

If you want this to be permitted work that leaves the owner with record of reviews, approvals, and inspections, then yes it should be reviewed.

I do believe that both CEBC A3 provisions and the standard plan A are meant to help streamline the review process, so I hope that helps.

If they don't care about the approvals and records, then no, just do it. Hopefully they don't catch you... I mean, we all know what the speed limit is, some choose to push it more than others...

 

[Yikes]

Thanks! It looks like A303.1.4 is the applicable code section:
https://up.codes/viewer/california/...seismic-retrofit-of-existing-buildings#A303.1

 

[ICE]

Seismic upgrades are typically the installation of hardware that adds a measure of resistance to earthquakes. The work is considered voluntary. Permits can be issued but are not required. Your description of a new footing within the footprint of the building doesn't come with an explanation how that will function as a seismic upgrade. If there is a foundation on top of that footing, then plan check is required and that would include more than just the footing.

 

[Yikes]

Seismic upgrades are typically the installation of hardware that adds a measure of resistance to earthquakes. The work is considered voluntary. Permits can be issued but are not required. Your description of a new footing within the footprint of the building doesn't come with an explanation how that will function as a seismic upgrade. If there is a foundation on top of that footing, then plan check is required and that would include more than just the footing.

We're doing this:

 

[ICE]

All of it comes down to a row of A-35s 16"oc. Not to be disrespectful but this doesn't look like it will work.

As an aside:
110 year old lumber can be hard enough that it will reject nails and screws.

 

[mark handler]

I have a client that wants to do a voluntary seismic upgrade to a 1914-era craftsman home in California. The wood-frame house has an existing river-rock foundation and there's a 30" tall crawl space.
The engineer has developed plans and calcs to pour new footings alongside the adjacent existing foundation. Because the house is pre-existing/nonconforming, there is no code requirement to upgrade the foundation or anchorage of walls, so this is strictly voluntary. In other words, IMO there is no minimum design for the building department to plan check.

My problem is, I think this should be an over-the-counter permit, and we have a contractor ready-to-go. However, the permit technician thinks it has to be submitted for a formal plan check, adding a minimum of 4-6 weeks to the project start.

Can you give me a reason as to why this should be plan checked vs. an express permit? By the way, all the work is below the floor and inside the house, so there are no planning or historic preservation issues - - it's already been signed off by the planning department.

Some cities do not have "over-the-counter permits".
Many counter staff do not have the Knowledge, to do OTC permits for anything other than water heaters, and replacement of electrical Outlets....

 

[Yikes]

All of it comes down to a row of A-35s 16"oc. Not to be disrespectful but this doesn't look like it will work.

As an aside:
110 year old lumber can be hard enough that it will reject nails and screws.

It is admittedly a tight detail, but it has successfully worked before on other projects. It might require one of those pneumatic angled palm nailers to install the A35s.
I agree that the 110 year old wood is dense, but this house has seen minor remodels in the past and it has been workable.

When you think about it, it is basically creating a continuous series of 14.5" long wood boxes that are themselves attached to new concrete that bonds the whole assembly together.

Again, it is in a historic district, so we are saving the river rock exterior while upgrading from the interior of the crawl space. This not a full seismic upgrade of the entire house - - we are not adding shear walls - - we are just stabilizing the foundation attachment.

 

[ICE]

it has successfully worked before on other projects.

Just because you were able to construct it does not equate to success in an earthquake. I can see that the assembly might work with the wave in one specific direction but not any other. I see no advantage in uplift. It appears as tho it would unravel in practice. But then I am not an engineer so what do I know?

 

[Joe.B]

Just because you were able to construct it does not equate to success in an earthquake. I can see that the assembly might work with the wave in one specific direction but not any other. I see no advantage in uplift. It appears as tho it would unravel in practice. But then I am not an engineer so what do I know?

I assume you're referencing the A35 itself, not the complete design? I am also not an engineer, but I tend to agree. However, Simpson has this to say about their A35's:

The A35 is a balanced and completely reversible framing angle designed for making a variety of connections. The angle’s exclusive bend slot allows instant and accurate field bends for all two- and three-way ties. The A35 is secured with nails and features a speed prong to temporarily hold the connector in place for easy and fast installation.

Key Features
Load rated for wind and seismic forces
Suitable for both new and retrofit applications

Of course, whoever is taking the responsibility for the design would need to crunch the numbers. They also have a whole bunch of other products, many specifically for seismic retrofits.

Wood Construction Connectors

<p>Wood construction connectors are specifically designed to provide support for applications in wood structural systems. These metal (steel) connectors are crucial for securing wood-to-wood, wood-to-masonry or wood-to-concrete connections.</p>

www.strongtie.com

Specifically, this looks like it could be used in the same application as an A35, but would probably perform better.

HSLQ™

The HSLQ transfers lateral loads from wood solid sawn joists or blocking into a solid sawn element such as a moment frame nailer. This versatile angle allows up to a 2" gap between structural members.

www.strongtie.com

Also, based on your detail, wouldn't this be a lot simpler?

FJA

The FJA is designed to provide a direct connection between the foundation and a joist to resist uplift and lateral forces and can be nailed or bolted directly into floor joists for easy installation.

www.strongtie.com

 

[Joe.B]

 

[mark handler]

We're doing this:

View attachment 13997

Is the 6-inch wall adequate to resist the lateral forces?
Is the 6-inch concrete wall adequate if the stone rubble wall fails? vertical and lateral loads?
What is the 6-inch concrete wall sitting on? Is there a footing?