Does new CA guardrail code have exception for *existing residential structures?

[L4Gray]

I manage a 24-unit condo built to code in 1981. IRC 312.1.3 (a new code) states that pickets on guardrail system can’t be spaced as to allow a 4" object to pass through. Will this condo building now be required to comply with the NEW code requirement, or is there an exception for existing buildings which were built to code at that time? Their iron railing has 6” spacing between rails, and it would cost a fortune to now have to comply with the new code requirement.

 

[ADAguy]

If built to then code, code does not require upgrades (unlike ADA); If wider than 4" best practice to upgrade for insurance protection. What is your height?

 

[tbz]

I manage a 24-unit condo built to code in 1981. IRC 312.1.3 (a new code) states that pickets on guardrail system can’t be spaced as to allow a 4" object to pass through. Will this condo building now be required to comply with the NEW code requirement, or is there an exception for existing buildings which were built to code at that time? Their iron railing has 6” spacing between rails, and it would cost a fortune to now have to comply with the new code requirement.

First off welcome L4Gray,

Next a 24 unit Condo would not be built under the IRC. It would be built under the IBC.

Additionally, neither the IBC, nor the IRC were published prior to 2000, so if the building was built in 1981, it was built under another code.

Buildings are held to the code that was enforced based on the the permit. Codes change over time and approximately every 3-6 years and as thus you can't expect a building built in 1981 to update every portion of the building every 3-6 years to meet new building code requirements.

Hence, what ever was required at the time the permit was pulled is what you need to check and compare to what is there.

However, any new work will be required to meet the current code, not the code when built.

As to the guards and spacing, if this building is being purchased and there is funding source, the funding source and or insurance carrier may request updates to get financing or coverage.

 

[L4Gray]

If built to then code, code does not require upgrades (unlike ADA); If wider than 4" best practice to upgrade for insurance protection. What is your height?

If built to then code, code does not require upgrades (unlike ADA); If wider than 4" best practice to upgrade for insurance protection. What is your height?

Thank you!
Don‘t have height measurement handy right now, but when Farmers Ins said it was good. They wrote saying we “might want to” do something about the spacing, and cited the code requirement.

I read that there would not be a liability to the HOA as long as it was built to code AND was not in need of repair, as long as the HOA was never made aware of a need for repair. I’m wondering if that’s true as well.

 

[L4Gray]

First off welcome L4Gray,

Next a 24 unit Condo would not be built under the IRC. It would be built under the IBC.

Additionally, neither the IBC, nor the IRC were published prior to 2000, so if the building was built in 1981, it was built under another code.

Buildings are held to the code that was enforced based on the the permit. Codes change over time and approximately every 3-6 years and as thus you can't expect a building built in 1981 to update every portion of the building every 3-6 years to meet new building code requirements.

Hence, what ever was required at the time the permit was pulled is what you need to check and compare to what is there.

However, any new work will be required to meet the current code, not the code when built.

As to the guards and spacing, if this building is being purchased and there is funding source, the funding source and or insurance carrier may request updates to get financing or coverage.

Thank you for all of that information! VERY helpful!

 

[MACV]

You would need to upgrade the guards and handrails only if you were modifying or replacing them.
I believe the California code at that time was the Uniform Building Code which required the height to be 42" and the openings not allowing a 6" sphere to pass at least through 1988.
The only requirements I've seen that were retroactive in a consensus code were egress requirements.

 

[ICE]

I read that there would not be a liability to the HOA as long as it was built to code AND was not in need of repair, as long as the HOA was never made aware of a need for repair. I’m wondering if that’s true as well.

Sounds like a liability to me. Just because it was legal thirty-nine years ago doesn't mean that it has ever been safe. If a child were injured or worse, a jury could easily decide that the HOA knew that there was a danger and ignored that danger due to the cost to make it safe. Then that jury could award the family an unreasonable amount of Farmer's Insurance dollars.

If I were on such a jury I would find that unreasonable amount to be totally reasonable. But then I don't like HOA's.

 

[ADAguy]

You would need to upgrade the guards and handrails only if you were modifying or replacing them.
I believe the California code at that time was the Uniform Building Code which required the height to be 42" and the openings not allowing a 6" sphere to pass at least through 1988.
The only requirements I've seen that were retroactive in a consensus code were egress requirements.

California code is the CBC based on UBC with California amendments. Some cities: Los Angeles, SF and others have their own codes so it depends on your city.
If a child falls through you still better have deep pockets.

 

[L4Gray]

You would need to upgrade the guards and handrails only if you were modifying or replacing them.
I believe the California code at that time was the Uniform Building Code which required the height to be 42" and the openings not allowing a 6" sphere to pass at least through 1988.
The only requirements I've seen that were retroactive in a consensus code were egress requirements.

Thank you! I have a call into the City to look up 1980/81 code spacing requirement.

 

[L4Gray]

Sounds like a liability to me. Just because it was legal thirty-nine years ago doesn't mean that it has ever been safe. If a child were injured or worse a jury could easily decide that the HOA knew that there was a danger and ignored that danger due to the cost to make it safe. Then that jury could award the family an unreasonable amount of Farmer's Insurance dollars.

If I were on such a jury I would find that unreasonable amount to be totally reasonable. But then I don't like HOAs.

Good point! Then maybe the compromise would be to only address all upper walkway railings, and let the individual owners make their own decision based on all known facts?

 

[e hilton]

One way to start getting compliant would be for the HOA to enact a rule that the railings would need to be upgraded when the unit is sold. Also, i’m not sure it would cost a fortune ... can’t you just add a picket in between the existing to get 3” spacing? No need to replace the old railing.

 

[mark handler]

First off welcome L4Gray,

Next a 24 unit Condo would not be built under the IRC. It would be built under the IBC.

Additionally, neither the IBC, nor the IRC were published prior to 2000, so if the building was built in 1981, it was built under another code.

Buildings are held to the code that was enforced based on the the permit. Codes change over time and approximately every 3-6 years and as thus you can't expect a building built in 1981 to update every portion of the building every 3-6 years to meet new building code requirements.

Hence, what ever was required at the time the permit was pulled is what you need to check and compare to what is there.

However, any new work will be required to meet the current code, not the code when built.

As to the guards and spacing, if this building is being purchased and there is funding source, the funding source and or insurance carrier may request updates to get financing or coverage.

The project, in CA, would have been built under the UBC 1979
UBC 1979 Sec. 1716. All unenclosed floor and roof openings, open and glazed sides of landings and ramps, balconies or porches which are more than 30 inches above grade or floor below, and roofs used for other than service of the building shall be protected by a guardrail. Guardrails shall be not less than 42 inches in height. Open guardrail and stair railings shall have intermediate rails or an ornamental pattern such that a sphere 9 inches in diameter cannot pass through.

Unless replaced or construction to the deck/balcony, the Guardrails can remain.
Your insurance company may require it be brought up to current code, as a condition of insuring the property
or
a lender may require it be brought up to current code, as a condition of financing the property
but the building department should not require it, unless, renovations occur.

Why are you asking?

 

[L4Gray]

The project, in CA, would have been built under the UBC 1979
UBC 1979 Sec. 1716. All unenclosed floor and roof openings, open and glazed sides of landings and ramps, balconies or porches which are more than 30 inches above grade or floor below, and roofs used for other than service of the building shall be protected by a guardrail. Guardrails shall be not less than 42 inches in height. Open guardrail and stair railings shall have intermediate rails or an ornamental pattern such that a sphere 9 inches in diameter cannot pass through.

Unless replaced or construction to the deck/balcony, the Guardrails can remain.
Your insurance company may require it be brought up to current code, as a condition of insuring the property
or
a lender may require it be brought up to current code, as a condition of financing the property
but the building department should not require it, unless, renovations occur.

Why are you asking?

Thank you for your very informative response!
This 24-unit building has thousands of feet of iron railing, on all walkways, 60 ft long balconies. We’re trying to figure out the best approach to deal with this situation: address liability, cost and also the significant way in which alterations will change the look of the entire building. The HOA was notified by Farmers Insurance:

The property looks really good; however, there is one recommendation. The rail spaces on the elevated walkways and balconies measure 6 ½”. The requirement is rail spacings must be 4” or less. The railings can be covered with a mesh covering to lessen the spaces. Unfortunately, this usually effects all buildings built before the 1990s, when the Pediatric Association set new guidelines.

 

[ADAguy]

Consider the addition of sections of grill or perforated screen to meet the 4" requirement or maybe adding cables between support posts ( not the best idea but maybe least expensive. View what you do as an enhancement. Don't you have a reserve account?

 

[ICE]

Don't you have a reserve account?

What they have is insurance.

 

[Mark K]

California has strict limits on the nature of code modifications by cities and counties. This criteria could not be used to justify local changes to these requirements. You will need to establish that he City has the legal authority to make such changes.

 

[MtnArch]

As a reminder, UC Berkeley has digitized (PDF) the UBC from 1927 through 1994 - you can view them here: https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/ubc/

 

[tbz]

The project, in CA, would have been built under the UBC 1979
UBC 1979 Sec. 1716. All unenclosed floor and roof openings, open and glazed sides of landings and ramps, balconies or porches which are more than 30 inches above grade or floor below, and roofs used for other than service of the building shall be protected by a guardrail. Guardrails shall be not less than 42 inches in height. Open guardrail and stair railings shall have intermediate rails or an ornamental pattern such that a sphere 9 inches in diameter cannot pass through.

Based on what Mark posted, there was a 9-inch spacing requirement when the building was erected and the installed product meets 6-inch. Thus at the time of construction they were being conservative in the design for safety, in todays comparison with the 4-inch sphere requirement it would be like meeting a 2.67 inch sphere.

Thus, when constructed they built on the side of safety, even though by todays standards it is well over the maximum by 50%.

Without full site review by an engineer or design professional, modifying the existing Guard System with additional bars to close the spacing down, might not be wise, because the existing frame structure might not meet today's load requirements. Thus adding more weight to a project that doesn't meet the loads is not wise.

There are (2) ways you can go at this point IMO.

• The first is to call out 2 - 3 firms that do guards and get preliminary estimates to replace and bring the guards up to todays code.
  • Have them price the project in 3 phases
    • The first is one lump sum to do it all at one time, having them do the permits, design, removal and installation.
    • The next is to divide the private balconies from the common areas again with them dong everything from permits to installation
    • The 3rd is to divide the private balconies pricing to show each units price and the common areas by each floor or major region to be done in phases.
• The second option is to pay a design professional / engineering firm to put together package that request the above.

The first might be the way to get an idea at very low cost what the scope of the work is going to be and an approximate budget without paying a design professional yet.

If the project is many of thousands of feet, getting a few fabrication/installation firms in to provide budgets can be an eye opener and maybe one of them will have a simpler way or idea to updating the existing compliant guards in question.

 

[ICE]

I am not convinced that a permit would be required.

 

[mark handler]

I am not convinced that a permit would be required.

I would not retroactively require it, but, if replaced i would require a permit to insure it is installed to code.
The insurance company may require the upgrade in order to insure it. it is a safety issue.

 

[tbz]

I am not convinced that a permit would be required.

One of the biggest misconceptions on retrofitting guards is modifying older guards to comply with the 4-inch sphere without engineered supervision, and though a permit might not be needed, I always suggest going through the process of applying for one and then being told you don't need one by the AHJ; aka: the building department. If something odd happens down the road, the Monday morning oversight of being informed one was not needed, get it in writing, is simpler to explain than we didn't get one.

As to what I have seen first hand, many of the older guards built with large sphere spacing have improper structure to hold the additional weight of added infill, as they also normally have larger support post spacing combined with smaller post size than would be required with todays codes. Thus, just adding infill without complete review can be also be the undoing of a simple fix. Engineered review and plans are a must!!!!

example: In NJ on a masonry front entry porch/stoop, lets say 3 steps and a platform, normal everyday home in that area. A contractor is allowed to pull the entire top landing, treads, façade brick, even replace block work and concrete, as long as, they don't change the size or change or modify the foundation; without a permit, it is considered a repair because the foundation was not touched. However, to install new handrails/guards on the so called repaired porch/stoop we have to pull a permit. I am telling you 75% of the mass replaced and no permit required does not make sense to me.

Though a permit might not be needed, its a life safety upgrade on the property, to obtain the permit you will be required to have a complete set of engineered drawings that are stamped. The cheapest insurance policy you can get is a issued permit with a final inspection that you as the purchaser did everything properly by the book, get one IMO if they will issue it. If they wont, get a letter one was denied to be issued because it was not required.

I learned this lesson early in life and it has served me well, the building department is your friend, not your problem. It is simpler to explain why the town wouldn't issue it with paperwork, than just words. You still need all the engineer review to make certain that the retrofit is not going to cause a set of other issues. So in reality the permit is the minor cost.

Just my 2 cents

Tom

 

[ADAguy]

What they have is insurance.

I believe reserve accounts are a requirement for condos, no?

 

[ADAguy]

One of the biggest misconceptions on retrofitting guards is modifying older guards to comply with the 4-inch sphere without engineered supervision, and though a permit might not be needed, I always suggest going through the process of applying for one and then being told you don't need one by the AHJ; aka: the building department. If something odd happens down the road, the Monday morning oversight of being informed one was not needed, get it in writing, is simpler to explain than we didn't get one.

As to what I have seen first hand, many of the older guards built with large sphere spacing have improper structure to hold the additional weight of added infill, as they also normally have larger support post spacing combined with smaller post size than would be required with todays codes. Thus, just adding infill without complete review can be also be the undoing of a simple fix. Engineered review and plans are a must!!!!

example: In NJ on a masonry front entry porch/stoop, lets say 3 steps and a platform, normal everyday home in that area. A contractor is allowed to pull the entire top landing, treads, façade brick, even replace block work and concrete, as long as, they don't change the size or change or modify the foundation; without a permit, it is considered a repair because the foundation was not touched. However, to install new handrails/guards on the so called repaired porch/stoop we have to pull a permit. I am telling you 75% of the mass replaced and no permit required does not make sense to me.

Though a permit might not be needed, its a life safety upgrade on the property, to obtain the permit you will be required to have a complete set of engineered drawings that are stamped. The cheapest insurance policy you can get is a issued permit with a final inspection that you as the purchaser did everything properly by the book, get one IMO if they will issue it. If they wont, get a letter one was denied to be issued because it was not required.

I learned this lesson early in life and it has served me well, the building department is your friend, not your problem. It is simpler to explain why the town wouldn't issue it with paperwork, than just words. You still need all the engineer review to make certain that the retrofit is not going to cause a set of other issues. So in reality the permit is the minor cost.

Just my 2 cents

Tom

all points well made Tom

 

[rkenney]

I manage a 24-unit condo built to code in 1981. IRC 312.1.3 (a new code) states that pickets on guardrail system can’t be spaced as to allow a 4" object to pass through. Will this condo building now be required to comply with the NEW code requirement, or is there an exception for existing buildings which were built to code at that time? Their iron railing has 6” spacing between rails, and it would cost a fortune to now have to comply with the new code requirement.

Nothing new about that code. As pointed out in other replies the IBC only goes back to 2000. The earliest copy I have is 2003 and 4 inches is the spacing given in 1012.3 for guardrail balusters.