Risk Category Showdown!
Risk Category Showdown!
(OP)
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?
Talk To Other Members
RE: Risk Category Showdown!
Did you request that he point to the specific line in table 1604.5 that he's using to justify it the RC? Unless the footing is going to have a gas main embedded in it that could rupture and blow up the block if it falls, there's no sensible reason for it.
Some reviewers are like that, though - they want to put the design engineers "in their place" and you can't tell them they're wrong. Maybe that's not the case here, but it sounds like it may be. Hopefully you excluded that observation from your fee and you can tell your client that the reviewer is being unreasonable - if they want the sign built they have to pay you more to watch them pour the concrete.
RE: Risk Category Showdown!
I have requested so many times something actually from the code, and it's always something new. He's gone back and forth between ASCE's descriptions of RC, to IBC, to it being heavy, yadda yadda, which no actual "this is the line of code that makes me think it is RC III".
Interested to see if others concur with our assessment.
RE: Risk Category Showdown!
RE: Risk Category Showdown!
RE: Risk Category Showdown!
Deker - yes, true - a lot of my clients normally just pay the additional fee for an additional inspection or for larger bolt sizes or what-have-you, but here, he wanted all sorts of special inspections and structural observations on this one structure and my client was already in the red (or at least that's what they told me)...
Be that as it may, we won our case! It may have taken a supervisor, but...success!
RE: Risk Category Showdown!
RE: Risk Category Showdown!
Ultimately, there are a lot more features to be fabricated and installed at this project site, and we couldn't let this one set precedent.
RE: Risk Category Showdown!
I really really wanted to provide him this quote from ASCE7-16 Ch 1.
HOWEVER
the same paragraph also ends with:
So some officials might say well that gives me the ability to set it whatever I like. Which is why historically most people I know don't argue with building officials even when they are obviously mistaken.