Standard of care and good ol boys ?

[skyhook]

Architect discovers (e) charter school, and it's proposed k-12 classroom(s) expansion within (e) City mall is non-compliant.

Four years ago, the new tenant school did not obtain structural risk factor survey-certification for (e) building during change of use permit(retail to educ). B.O. apparently did not require it and says "occupancy is only for webinar programs, no on site students"...(so the (e) three classrooms and 60 elementary age kids present the day we measured facility were midgets ?).

(E) building is some 50k s.f., is 65% rented with retail and the school will-is occupying 35%. A very disruptive scenario was presenting itself.

Following architect's recommendation to provide structural survey and any cure measures - and some serious hand wringing from Contractor, B.O. and School Admin. - architect terminated and paid in full by Contractor-Client. Plans were 90% complete.

Given an unpopular discovery, payment in full and shown the door, one wonders if the odor is a rat. If true rats, what protocol- if any- to follow here ?

Thanks in advance.

PS- this is an awesome forum - well done !

 

[cda]

The media is always looking for a good story!!!

Drop a quarter

Seems like the state would have some regulation over the school, certified letter to them

All can be anonymous

 

[mtlogcabin]

did not obtain structural risk factor survey-certification for (e) building during change of use permit(retail to educ).

Where are you located? Is this certification a CA requirement

May not be a problem under the IBC depending on seismic zone

2009 IBC

3408.4 Change of occupancy.

When a change of occupancy results in a structure being reclassified to a higher occupancy category, the structure shall conform to the seismic requirements for a new structure of the higher occupancy category. Where the existing seismic force-resisting system is a type that can be designated ordinary, values of R, W0 and Cd for the existing seismic force-resisting system shall be those specified by this code for an ordinary system unless it is demonstrated that the existing system will provide performance equivalent to that of a detailed, intermediate or special system.

Exceptions:

1. Specific seismic detailing requirements of this code or Section 1613 for a new structure shall not be required to be met where it can be shown that the level of performance and seismic safety is equivalent to that of a new structure. Such analysis shall consider the regularity, over strength, redundancy and ductility of the structure within the context of the existing and retrofit (if any) detailing provided.

2. When a change of use results in a structure being reclassified from Occupancy Category I or II to Occupancy Category III and the structure is located in a seismic map area where SDS < 0.33, compliance with the seismic requirements of this code and Section 1613 are not required.

 

[north star]

& - & - &



skyhook,

Yes, this is an awesome Forum !.........This is THE BEST code Forum on the internet.

I \ we would like you to help us make it an even more awesome Forum.......Would you

please consider becoming a Sawhorse, and supporting this extremely valuable

resource ?

Thanks for your contributions and consideration !



& - & - &

 

[Mark K]

In California there is no requirement for a "structural risk factor survey-certification for (e) building" including private schools. The code addresses the change of occupancy but that is the same for all private buildings. When work is done on a private school the statutes place certain obligations on both the local building department and the design professional but the technical requirements are the same as for non-private school buildings.

 

[skyhook]

Mark, are you the welcome committee, captain obvious or telling me that asce 7 occupancy categories are 'optional' ?

I'm going with captain.