ReverenceEng
Structural
- Feb 18, 2016
- 81
Greetings!
I have a lovely plan checker (licensed civil) in San Francisco who we have dealt with from time to time who is particularly risk-averse and very zealous in his application of special inspections and other requirements.
We have a 7'-0" tall architectural sign with a small concrete pedestal going along a small road (private property) into a shopping center. You know, one that has all the tenant names on it, like "STARBUCKS" and "TREK" or whatever. It is probably 20-30 feet from a parking garage, located along a sidewalk.
We design almost every sign ever like these to RC II, though reasonably a lot of them could be RC I. If the client requests RC III or it is actually attached to RC III structure, then we generally adopt those requirements.
This particular plan checker has asked for structural observation, which has no basis in the building code, and to keep things short, he is now trying to justify that this sign is RC III. His initial rationale was that "someone could get hurt if it fails" (to which my brain collapsed), then he jumped to it being over 400 lb (which obviously does have triggers for seismic provisions, but doesn't relate to RC), and then he tried to tie it to public/private land (which has no direct relation to RC, but it's private anyway).
He has now gone so far as to submit an inquiry to the ICC for a ruling.
What am I missing here?
I have a lovely plan checker (licensed civil) in San Francisco who we have dealt with from time to time who is particularly risk-averse and very zealous in his application of special inspections and other requirements.
We have a 7'-0" tall architectural sign with a small concrete pedestal going along a small road (private property) into a shopping center. You know, one that has all the tenant names on it, like "STARBUCKS" and "TREK" or whatever. It is probably 20-30 feet from a parking garage, located along a sidewalk.
We design almost every sign ever like these to RC II, though reasonably a lot of them could be RC I. If the client requests RC III or it is actually attached to RC III structure, then we generally adopt those requirements.
This particular plan checker has asked for structural observation, which has no basis in the building code, and to keep things short, he is now trying to justify that this sign is RC III. His initial rationale was that "someone could get hurt if it fails" (to which my brain collapsed), then he jumped to it being over 400 lb (which obviously does have triggers for seismic provisions, but doesn't relate to RC), and then he tried to tie it to public/private land (which has no direct relation to RC, but it's private anyway).
He has now gone so far as to submit an inquiry to the ICC for a ruling.
What am I missing here?
