Hey California guys.......

[Chuck Kiser]

I've got a friend in Oakland who is thinking about a deck for his daughters house. Deck will be 10 ft wide (attached to house) and 13 ft deep. House is two story stucco. The deck will be 10 ft off the ground. Beneath the deck area is a concrete pad of unknown thickness. The pad appears to be in good condition, no cracks, chips or spalling.

Plans are required by the city. He is in the process of designing the deck and I want to give him some insight on what might or will be required from a structural standpoint. He is not a builder by trade but is a Phd engineer so he understands ' the basics'.

Any info would be appreciated.

Thanks Guys.

[David Meiland]

I've pulled a lot of permits in Oakland, and the first thing I would do is go down to the counter and get the official line on what will be needed for plan check. Submitting without knowing what they are going to want is a complete waste of time, and if you go down there they will tell you.

[Dick Seibert]

Chuck:

The City of Oakland will require structural engineering, they usually require the plans be sealed by a SE, they might accept engineering calculations from a homeowner who is an engineer as long as the plan checkers can follow the engineering calculations through and everything proves out according to accepted engineering practices, the plans will be checked by a SE. Oakland is very structural (read earthquake) conscious and fire protection conscious (think Oakland Hills fires).

[Fyrzowt]

Dick/Dave,
Are they (Oakland) requiring anything extra in terms of fire protection as far as boxing in the under side of the deck, etc?

[Dick Seibert]

There may be, I don't know not having built there since the fire, I don't see any reference to decks, but all walls and roofs must be fire protected, it may depend on whether the home is located in a high fire zone, I understand the council passed something else just this month.

If the deck underside is boxed in it will require a waterproof surface on it, and they may consider it an extension of the home, I would think it better not to box it in so it would be considered a free-standing deck. If it is considered an addition it will probably trigger fire sprinklers throughout, but I think this is still under debate.

[Chuck Kiser]

Thanks Guys,

Just the information I was looking for. I told him yesterday that the structural issues would be significant. I had not thought about the potential problems with fire. I'll have him talk with the city before he spends alot of time up front on the design.