Does pouring a concrete cap to a brick foundation violate Oakland's building code?
July 19, 2010 6:43 PM Subscribe
The builder I hired capped an existing brick foundation with a "simple concrete cap," i.e., a rectangle of poured concrete on top of the brick, or in some places, on top of an earlier concrete cap on top of the brick. Can you cap brick like that, according to City of Oakland building codes? Can you cap a cap? What do city building codes say on this topic?
My question is fairly simple: how can I learn what the building codes require about foundation retrofits and modifications in the City of Oakland?
The house had an existing brick foundation, in some places with some existing concrete capping that may or may not have been torn off before capping further. The existing foundation was not far enough above the exterior grade. The ground floor unit is about 24" below grade, and when I bought it, the house had 1" of water on the floor. The concrete slab is also below the height of the original brick footing. (If you lay a drill flat against the floor and drill horizontally, you find 1" of concrete, then dirt.) In June, the contractor tried to bring the foundation wall up to a sufficient height by pouring a new "simple" cap (as opposed to a "half-saddle" or "full-saddle" cap). Bolting into the mud sill appears sporadic: 12' centers on half, 4' centers on half, then one wall with nothing. This is not how the contract said they'd address this issue, so we're now having some tough discussions. One factor in the discussions could be the extent to which their approach met the building codes.
So, is this approach allowed by the local building codes? What are the related requirements: the final height above grade, bolting of the new cap to the mud sill, attachment of the poured concrete to the underlying brick and/or concrete cap, shear walls, exterior plywood, and so forth?
I'm happy to read details, but I've found the code impenetrable so far. On the page that the city building department links to, I found the following documents that might pertain: California Building Code, Oakland Building Construction Code, Oakland Building Maintenance Code, Oakland Housing Code, Oakland Municipal Code, Oakland Grading Ordinance, Oakland Homeowner Volunteer Seismic Upgrade Ordinance, and the Oakland Homeownership Seismic Strengthening Ordinance. I don't know where to start. If all you can do is provide some general guidance about the relationship between different building codes and ordinances, that would be much appreciated.
I'm also assuming it depends on what specifically was there and what would get grandparented in. The building permit that was pulled seems very general and does not include plans or drawings, so I don't think the City will be inspecting this closely.
The building is in West Oakland, so it's definitely a seismically-active area. It's on a flat site with clay soils (previously mudflats).
My question is fairly simple: how can I learn what the building codes require about foundation retrofits and modifications in the City of Oakland?
The house had an existing brick foundation, in some places with some existing concrete capping that may or may not have been torn off before capping further. The existing foundation was not far enough above the exterior grade. The ground floor unit is about 24" below grade, and when I bought it, the house had 1" of water on the floor. The concrete slab is also below the height of the original brick footing. (If you lay a drill flat against the floor and drill horizontally, you find 1" of concrete, then dirt.) In June, the contractor tried to bring the foundation wall up to a sufficient height by pouring a new "simple" cap (as opposed to a "half-saddle" or "full-saddle" cap). Bolting into the mud sill appears sporadic: 12' centers on half, 4' centers on half, then one wall with nothing. This is not how the contract said they'd address this issue, so we're now having some tough discussions. One factor in the discussions could be the extent to which their approach met the building codes.
So, is this approach allowed by the local building codes? What are the related requirements: the final height above grade, bolting of the new cap to the mud sill, attachment of the poured concrete to the underlying brick and/or concrete cap, shear walls, exterior plywood, and so forth?
I'm happy to read details, but I've found the code impenetrable so far. On the page that the city building department links to, I found the following documents that might pertain: California Building Code, Oakland Building Construction Code, Oakland Building Maintenance Code, Oakland Housing Code, Oakland Municipal Code, Oakland Grading Ordinance, Oakland Homeowner Volunteer Seismic Upgrade Ordinance, and the Oakland Homeownership Seismic Strengthening Ordinance. I don't know where to start. If all you can do is provide some general guidance about the relationship between different building codes and ordinances, that would be much appreciated.
I'm also assuming it depends on what specifically was there and what would get grandparented in. The building permit that was pulled seems very general and does not include plans or drawings, so I don't think the City will be inspecting this closely.
The building is in West Oakland, so it's definitely a seismically-active area. It's on a flat site with clay soils (previously mudflats).
This post was deleted for the following reason: poster's request -- jessamyn
I'm not really understanding how your contractor was able to pull a permit without plans. At any rate, the city should have been sending out inspectors during the construction- what did they say about the work? Unreinforced masonry foundations are not allowed, so I'm curious how you got a permit to just have it "capped", but maybe I'm not really understanding the description of the work you're having done. At any rate, it's sounds shady, to be honest. Brick foundations can be reinforced with anchor bolts and steel- does your foundation already have that?
Your contractor is licensed, correct? The licensing board will help investigate claims if it comes to that.
posted by oneirodynia at 7:57 PM on July 19, 2010
Your contractor is licensed, correct? The licensing board will help investigate claims if it comes to that.
posted by oneirodynia at 7:57 PM on July 19, 2010
Best answer: Oakland City code is most likely not going to cover additions to existing brick foundations. That's an issue covered by the Cailfornia Building Code, or CBC, which is an adaptation of the International Building Code, or IBC. Oakland's own codes will mostly have to do with how things look aesthetically, or what types of buildings you can build where and how big they can be. How they are actually built is CBC.
However, the City of Oakland probably administers local implementation of the CBC, which is what plan checks and permits and inspections are all about. If you have a permit, even if it's a no-plan permit, there may be some sort of inspection program for your construction, and they'd have to sign off on it.
Basically, looking at "local" building codes isn't what you're looking to do. But, I'd call the inspection office and see if what your contractor did was acceptable. Either that or it's a trip to the building department, and I don't know if want to enter that level of hell.
I'm not really understanding how your contractor was able to pull a permit without plans.
It's called a no-plan permit. There are a lot of situations where just about any city will give you one.
posted by LionIndex at 8:27 PM on July 19, 2010
However, the City of Oakland probably administers local implementation of the CBC, which is what plan checks and permits and inspections are all about. If you have a permit, even if it's a no-plan permit, there may be some sort of inspection program for your construction, and they'd have to sign off on it.
Basically, looking at "local" building codes isn't what you're looking to do. But, I'd call the inspection office and see if what your contractor did was acceptable. Either that or it's a trip to the building department, and I don't know if want to enter that level of hell.
I'm not really understanding how your contractor was able to pull a permit without plans.
It's called a no-plan permit. There are a lot of situations where just about any city will give you one.
posted by LionIndex at 8:27 PM on July 19, 2010
Best answer: Hmm, I'm not sure how I cut this part out:
Here's California Building Code basics on foundations and footings.
posted by oneirodynia at 8:30 PM on July 19, 2010
Here's California Building Code basics on foundations and footings.
posted by oneirodynia at 8:30 PM on July 19, 2010
From that list you link to, you can get to the CBC, but I'm not sure I'd recommend that you start looking around in there. There's also a link to Oakland's building construction standards, which are basically Oakland's amendments to the CBC for certain parts of the code that they feel are important or need clarification.
What he did sounds a little hinky, and maybe he should have dowelled in with rebar and epoxy, but it may depend on how far he's coming up with his concrete cap.
If you call the city, make sure you have your permit number handy, but your address might work in a pinch.
posted by LionIndex at 8:39 PM on July 19, 2010
What he did sounds a little hinky, and maybe he should have dowelled in with rebar and epoxy, but it may depend on how far he's coming up with his concrete cap.
If you call the city, make sure you have your permit number handy, but your address might work in a pinch.
posted by LionIndex at 8:39 PM on July 19, 2010
Best answer: Here's California Building Code basics on foundations and footings.
For new buildings. Chapter 34 covers existing buildings.
posted by LionIndex at 8:40 PM on July 19, 2010
For new buildings. Chapter 34 covers existing buildings.
posted by LionIndex at 8:40 PM on July 19, 2010
Best answer: It's called a no-plan permit. There are a lot of situations where just about any city will give you one.
Unlikely for a foundation in earthquake country. Oakland will not give permits for Major or Minor Repairs or Alterations without construction drawings or plans.
Like I said, maybe I'm misunderstanding the work being done. But I'm familiar with contracted work in Oakland, and the city is pretty fussy about many things that other parts of the country are not.
posted by oneirodynia at 8:44 PM on July 19, 2010
Unlikely for a foundation in earthquake country. Oakland will not give permits for Major or Minor Repairs or Alterations without construction drawings or plans.
Like I said, maybe I'm misunderstanding the work being done. But I'm familiar with contracted work in Oakland, and the city is pretty fussy about many things that other parts of the country are not.
posted by oneirodynia at 8:44 PM on July 19, 2010
Yeah - I checked their website on when a permit is required. Some kinds of foundation repairs or small retaining walls might be in the no-plan permit or no permit required zone, which I thought this situation might fall into. I'm in San Diego, also earthquake country, and here you can do a whole bunch of retaining walls on your site, up to 6' high, just by providing a site plan and using the City's standard retaining wall details; so depending on what you're doing, the amount of plans required could be pretty minimal. Capping an existing masonry wall seems like pretty small potatoes in comparison. Apparently Oakland will let you build 4' retaining walls without even needing a permit at all (foundation walls are not included in that exemption).
Anyway, slidell's course of action will sort of depend on what the permit is for, and what is shown in the permit drawings, and what provisions the city has for inspecting that work. If the contractor submitted for permits not expecting to have to do any kind of concrete work, what he did could very well be shady and unpermitted. He may have done it anyway and still gotten it signed off by the inspector informally, just by explaining what he did. I don't think the answer to the question really lies in any specific code section - it's going to be more of an interpretation by the building officials of what the existing situation was and what steps were taken to "remedy" the situation as required. It's probably worth a call to Building Services at the very least.
posted by LionIndex at 9:59 PM on July 19, 2010
Anyway, slidell's course of action will sort of depend on what the permit is for, and what is shown in the permit drawings, and what provisions the city has for inspecting that work. If the contractor submitted for permits not expecting to have to do any kind of concrete work, what he did could very well be shady and unpermitted. He may have done it anyway and still gotten it signed off by the inspector informally, just by explaining what he did. I don't think the answer to the question really lies in any specific code section - it's going to be more of an interpretation by the building officials of what the existing situation was and what steps were taken to "remedy" the situation as required. It's probably worth a call to Building Services at the very least.
posted by LionIndex at 9:59 PM on July 19, 2010
This is a completely different tangent, but are you raising the foundation height because the house had 1" of water on the floor when you bought it? I ask because it seems unlikely that the flooding was due to the fact that the existing foundation was not far enough above the exterior grade. If the old foundation was above grade even a couple of inches, I wouldn't expect water to come in over top of it unless the whole neighborhood was flooded.
posted by jon1270 at 3:34 AM on July 20, 2010
posted by jon1270 at 3:34 AM on July 20, 2010
it sounds to me like the permit does not include this scope of work, probably because the contractor didn't tell the city about it. anyway, this is the foundation of the house. don't trust the contractor, but don't depend on your own non-expert reading of the code, either. alert the city and/or consult with a structural engineer.
posted by Chris4d at 7:31 AM on July 20, 2010
posted by Chris4d at 7:31 AM on July 20, 2010
« Older A huckleberry over my persimmon. | Finding a TV commercial for Wegmans WPOP (It's... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by fshgrl at 7:53 PM on July 19, 2010