• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

CBC 1029 Emergency Escape Retrofit window - does it need to meet current code?

Y

Yikes

SAWHORSE
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
3,964
Location
Southern California
I have a client with a 140 unit California apartment building built circa 1968. The existing bedroom escape windows presumably complied with code at time occupancy, but do not comply with current code for max sill height. Replacement windows were installed under permit in the early 1990s, and they are due for another replacement. However, the current code official is telling them the replacement must comply with current code for emergency escape, including max. 44" AFF sill height. this means that a simple wiodw replacement job becomes a major demo and reframing and re-stucco job.

My read on CBC 34 is that in-kind replacements should be allowed without having to reframe the openings, provided they don't create an additional hazard. Am I correct?

***

Code references:

3401.4.2 New and replacement materials. Except as otherwise

required or permitted by this code, materials permitted

by the applicable code for new construction shall be

used. Like materials shall be permitted for repairs and alterations,

provided no hazard to life, health or property is created.

Hazardous materials shall not be used where the code

for new construction would not permit their use in buildings

of similar occupancy, purpose and location.

3404.1.1 [Alterations] Replacement, retention and extension of original

materials. [bCD1] Local ordinances or regulations shall

permit the replacement, retention and extension of original

materials, and the use of original methods of construction,

for any building or accessory structure, provided such

building or structure complied with the building code provisions

in effect at the time of original construction and the

building or accessory structure does not become or continue

to be a substandard building. For additional information,

see Health and Safety Code Sections 17912, 17920.3,

17922(d), 17922.3, 17958.8 and 17958.9.

FYI 3405.1.2 "Repair" is likewise worded similar to 3404.1.1 above.
 
= = =

Yikes,



"Code references: 3401.4.2 New and replacement materials......Exceptas otherwise required or permitted by this code, materials permitted by the

applicable code for new construction shall be used.......Like materials shall

be permitted for repairs and alterations, provided no hazard to life, health

or property is created.......Hazardous materials shall not be used where the

code for new construction would not permit their use in buildings of similar

occupancy, purpose and location."
Click to expand...
IMO, ...there is a [ potential ] of hazard to life & health......The occupantswill not have a compliant EE& RO !...........Also, ...IMO, they WILL need to

meet current code for egress.

Here's one way to look a this.......Would you want your son or daughter to

be stuck in one of those rooms needing to get out ?



= = =
 
north star, I understand what you are saying, but how is this any different from (for example) an old stair that was legally permitted at 7 1/2" risers, and now we are replacing the treads in-kind?

Regarding the son or daughter question: how is this different from having them drive a car that is old enough that it doesn't have side airbags?

The truth is, with that sill height, it would be just he same as the house I grew up in.

If fact, "back in the day" the bedroom sills were high enough that we put our beds against the wall underneath them. My dad had us practice an escape in event of fire: we just climbed up on the bed and popped out the window.

We're not talking a window that is unusable - -we're only talking about an existing, once legally permitted sill height of 48" instead of 44".
 
More to the point we are not CREATING an additional hazard. We are only replacing the existing window in-kind. The sill height will remain the same as when it was previously permitted.
 
I would not require the sill to be lowered in this case. Where does the code require this window replacement to meet the current standard? Slippery slope to require it.
 
CBC 1029 Emergency Escape Retrofit window - does it need to meet current code?

Does not appear to be required per what I am reading in your post.

Do they have local ordinances or amendments to the CBC?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Doesn't look like yu are creating a new hazard to me.
 
= = =

Yikes,

Respectfully offered, but it is just my opinion that the window replacements

would require a lowered sill height

"and the building or accessory structure does not become or continueto be a substandard building."
Click to expand...
= = =
 
2010 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE

1.1.3 Scope. The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement,repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures throughout the State of California.

2401.2 Glazing replacement. The installation of replacement glass shall be as required for new installations.

.

3407.1 Conformance. The installation or replacement of glass shall be as required for new installations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mark, I agree with your comment about GLASS. We want to replace the previous 20+ years old replacement windows with new widnows that are low-E, dual-glazed. The client has special funding related to energy efficiency. The funds aren't enough to cover making the exisiting openings larger (re-framing, re-stucco, etc.).

Therefore the cleint's choice based on scope and available funds is to either:

1. Replace the existing legally nonconforming inefficient windows with new energy efficient windows of the same size, OR

2. Not replace the windows at all.
 
Chapter 34 and the IEBC are all silent when it comes to emergency egress and rescue openings in existing buildings. They are not part of the means of egress. If you look at the compliance alternative you will receive no credit for having emergency egress windows in an existing building.

Yikes is the building sprinkled?
 
3404.1.1 replacement, retention, and extension of original materials. (HCD1) Local ordinances or regulations shall permit the placement, retention, or extension of original materials, and the use of original materials of construction for any building or accessory stucture provided such building or struture complied with the building code provisions in effect at the time of original constuction and the building or accessory structure does not become or continue to be a substandard building. For additional information, see Health and Safety Code Sections 17912, 17920.3 17922(d), 17922.3, 17958.8 and 17958.9
 
UPDATE: I looked at the Code Matrix Adoption table, and just now noticed that California never adopted IBC 3407, therefore it should NOT applicable to a California project, correct?

The (apparently unadoped) IBC 3407.1 states:

Conformance.

The installation or replacement of glass shall be as required for new installations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top