Voluntary Seismic Reinforcement - do existing RR need to be accessible? (California)

[Cali_Code_Architect]

We're considering a voluntary seismic reinforcement on an existing commercial building in California. It's a masonry building and we're considering adding additional reinforcement.

An existing RR, where one wall be reinforced, is currently not accessible. Does it need to be made compliant? Or does a voluntary seismic reinforcement exempt having to be accessible compliant?

I recall something about a voluntary structural alteration not triggering the same accessibility requirements as a required structural alteration, which would require meeting the accessibility standards of chapter 11B. I can't seem to find anything it, and perhaps I'm getting it confused with 503.13 Voluntary Lateral Force-Resisting System Alterations.

 

[ICE]

For some reason this thread is not getting the attention of the people that know about this stuff.....and I don't. Hopefully that changes in the next day or two. In the meantime, it appears to me that none of chapter 11B applies to this.

It is not an addition nor is it an alteration of an element or space. In my jurisdiction, voluntary residential seismic retrofits do not even require a building permit. That's not to say that the same is true for non-residential and I have inspected many permitted residential and commercial seismic retrofits.

But as I said, I am not to be trusted for this.

11B-202 Existing buildings and facilities
11B-202.1 General. Additions and alterations to existing buildings or facilities shall comply with Section 11B-202.

11B-202.2 Additions. Each addition to an existing building or facility shall comply with the requirements for new construction and shall comply with Section 11B-202.4.

11B-202.3 Alterations. Where existing elements or spaces are altered, each altered element or space shall comply with the applicable requirements of Division 2, including Section 11B-202.4.

 

[Joe.B]

As with so many questions posted here it really comes down to your local AHJ. I am of the opinion that any logical mind would not want to inhibit a voluntary retrofit because you're proposing something that could save lives. I do believe that it should be permitted and inspected, and 'round here I wouldn't be surprised if I showed up for an inspection and found there was a lot more work going on beyond just a retrofit.