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

[mark handler]

Leave the pickets and add mesh

 

[L4Gray]

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?

Thank you for those suggestions!
Yes, there is a reserve account, but have recently expended 70k for subterranean garage waterproofing and have more plumbing all the time.

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?

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/

Thank you!!

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.

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.

The letter from Farmers Insurance was worded as a “recommendation” because it was a “building code requirement.”

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

There is a reserve account.

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.

Yes. I was provided a link here with the 1979 UBC code in effect during construction and completion of this condo building, which states 9 inches.

 

[tbz]

Leave the pickets and add mesh
View attachment 7438View attachment 7439

Mark,

We recently had 2 projects that we were asked to look at adding those types of mesh to the existing guards with wide spacing, the issue was the frame work would not meet the loads, not to mention the new wind loads. We even looked at 3x3 squares of 1/8" wire.

Many of the older frames wont meet todays code requirement for the new loads, posts are to light and spaced to far a part. Thus when you add new product, the mesh is new, this is not a repair of the existing design, it is adding new product and is a upgrade, technically the engineers need to verify at a minimum if the frame work will hold to todays codes with the mesh added. Many fail this set of calculations.

Adding Mesh is not a repair.

 

[ADAguy]

unintended/anticipated consequence but for the right reason?

 

[L4Gray]

Mark,

We recently had 2 projects that we were asked to look at adding those types of mesh to the existing guards with wide spacing, the issue was the frame work would not meet the loads, not to mention the new wind loads. We even looked at 3x3 squares of 1/8" wire.

Many of the older frames wont meet todays code requirement for the new loads, posts are to light and spaced to far a part. Thus when you add new product, the mesh is new, this is not a repair of the existing design, it is adding new product and is a upgrade, technically the engineers need to verify at a minimum if the frame work will hold to todays codes with the mesh added. Many fail this set of calculations.

Adding Mesh is not a repair.

So if they were to add mesh to the 1979/80 fencing to protect the HOA against potential liability, that would be considered an *alteration (not repair) and therefore then be against code?

 

[L4Gray]

So if they were to add mesh to the 1979/80 UBC code for fencing to protect the HOA against potential liability, that would be considered an *alteration (not a repair) and therefore they‘d be against current code?

 

[mark handler]

So if they were to add mesh to the 1979/80 fencing to protect the HOA against potential liability, that would be considered an *alteration (not repair) and therefore then be against code?

Against code?
No it would make it compliant, and yes it is an alteration, not a repair.
a repair does not include the change of any required means of egress, or rearrangement of parts of a structure affecting the egress requirements.

Make sure it is done correctly, get a permit

 

[ADAguy]

How big is your insurance policy?

 

[tbz]

So if they were to add mesh to the 1979/80 fencing to protect the HOA against potential liability, that would be considered an *alteration (not repair) and therefore then be against code?

The original construction project had a set of requirements, minimum code requirements, the original guard was designed and built to those parameters in 1979/1981. If the Guard needs repair you have to think of it as a restoration for mind thought. You are fixing it to be the same as it was when it was originally installed.

Once you change that design or alter the guard to improve it, adding mesh, it is now an improvement, not a repair.

I am wordsmithing to make a point that the lawyers are going to make if there is an issue after the work / alteration is done.

I am not saying you can't make improvements, I actually believe your complex should look at the option of adding mesh, large openings are well documented as a safety concern with injury reports and studies.

However, don't treat it as a repair, look at it for what it is, an improvement; thus make sure what ever you do, complies with the code requirements of today because what you may think is a repair and drastic improvement, could be a major conflict with the structural section of the code for compliance. Thus creating an even bigger issue and liability.

It cost money, but an engineer will need to get involved to provide documentation that your improvement is actually a good thing, and not creating an even bigger problem.

Why do EMT's make sure to stabilize people when removing them from a accident, to make sure they don't do more damage doing something they think is helping, but is really doing more harm if there is an underlying unforeseen issue.

 

[L4Gray]

The original construction project had a set of requirements, minimum code requirements, the original guard was designed and built to those parameters in 1979/1981. If the Guard needs repair you have to think of it as a restoration for mind thought. You are fixing it to be the same as it was when it was originally installed.

Once you change that design or alter the guard to improve it, adding mesh, it is now an improvement, not a repair.

I am wordsmithing to make a point that the lawyers are going to make if there is an issue after the work / alteration is done.

I am not saying you can't make improvements, I actually believe your complex should look at the option of adding mesh, large openings are well documented as a safety concern with injury reports and studies.

However, don't treat it as a repair, look at it for what it is, an improvement; thus make sure what ever you do, complies with the code requirements of today because what you may think is a repair and drastic improvement, could be a major conflict with the structural section of the code for compliance. Thus creating an even bigger issue and liability.

It cost money, but an engineer will need to get involved to provide documentation that your improvement is actually a good thing, and not creating an even bigger problem.

Why do EMT's make sure to stabilize people when removing them from a accident, to make sure they don't do more damage doing something they think is helping, but is really doing more harm if there is an underlying unforeseen issue.

Thank you, tbz!
That was very helpful.

 

[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.

Hello again, tbz.

UPDATE— For ins compliance on the 4” sphere spacing, we considered adding mesh to the railing but didn’t like the way it looked. I found a contractor who proposed welding 1/4” square solid steel rods between the current 5/8” square rods to reduce the size of the current 6-1/2” spacing and still look nice. We were about to enter into a contract, so I reached out to our city permits dept for guidance on permit requirements.

I was informed that “ANY change will trigger new permits,” meaning the railings and the surfaces on which the railings are attached (the decks, the cement, the stucco) will ALL then have to come up to current code. He said even if we added mesh, same thing, would trigger new permits up to current code. He said we may even have to rip out the walkway decks to get up to current code.

He told me since our bldg was built according to the 1976 UBC code section, “no one can tell you to change it.” After I explained the ins loss prevention requirement, he said he’s not aware of any bldg in the city requiring alterations such as this for ins compliance purposes. A few times, he said “Something‘s fishy” and suggested I contact the head of bldg & safety to seek guidance in this regard. He said he didn’t understand how an ins company could demand that we incur such a huge expense when our City code clearly states that none of that is necessary.

So right now we’re between a rock and a hard place, just trying to comply with everyone’s requirements.
Any input would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you!

 

[ADAguy]

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/

CD's from ICC have been available in the past too.

 

[L4Gray]

CD's from ICC have been available in the past too.

Yes, thank you! The city provided me that link. 9” spacing was required according to 1979 UBC. Ours was built with 6-1/2” spacing. I just don’t know what to do next. The City said that since this is not an ADA issue, we’re under no obligation to change things. Insurance is saying otherwise ‍

 

[L4Gray]

Yes, thank you! The city provided me that link. 9” spacing was required according to 1979 UBC. Ours was built with 6-1/2” spacing. I just don’t know what to do next. The City said that since this is not an ADA issue, we’re under no obligation to change things. Insurance is saying otherwise ‍

Lol, for some reason a symbol came up when I entered a shrugging my shoulders emoji

 

[e hilton]

Insurance company is going to win. They will insist you reduce their liability and risk of a payout by making the guardrail to their liking. If you don’t, they will either increase your premium by a substantial amount, or they will cancel your policy.

 

[L4Gray]

Insurance company is going to win. They will insist you reduce their liability and risk of a payout by making the guardrail to their liking. If you don’t, they will either increase your premium by a substantial amount, or they will cancel your policy.

****! This could cost us tens of thousands. ThinkI ’ll pit the head of Glendale Ca bldg & safety against them.. take my chances.
This is Crazy!!

 

[L4Gray]

****! This could cost us tens of thousands. ThinkI ’ll pit the head of Glendale Ca bldg & safety against them.. take my chances.
This is Crazy!!

Our HOA management co says none of their 50+ properties have received such notice.
Crazy crazy!!

 

[e hilton]

ThinkI ’ll pit the head of Glendale Ca bldg & safety against them.. take my chances.

That won’t do any good. The city says you are not required to make the changes, but you are allowed to make them. The insurance company says you are required to make the changes.

 

[L4Gray]

That won’t do any good. The city says you are not required to make the changes, but you are allowed to make them. The insurance company says you are required to make the changes.

City says ANY change to the railings triggers all new permits, everything related to the railings brought up to current code (including all upper walkway decks, all balcony decks, stucco, cement, etc). This could mean well over $100k, probably more like $200k. They won’t even let us put mesh against the railings without it triggering new permits. Something‘s gotta be wrong!

 

[e hilton]

My point is ... the city is not part of the equation, they are being reasonable and telling you that you don’t have to do anything. Your issue is with the insurance carrier. They don’t care what it cost you, they don’t care what other work is triggered, they want the openings corrected.

 

[Paul Sweet]

Might be time to start talking to other insurance companies.

 

[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

 

[ADAguy]

For warned is for armed, document and retain all correspondence, HOA is required to maintain the property for its intended use (housing). Safety of its owners should be a high priority, especially if children are allowed.
Comes down to $'s vs risk management. One claim may cost many times more than the upgrade.
Remember Oakland apartments overloaded balcony collapse? People can and do stupid things on balconies.

 

[tbz]

Our HOA management co says none of their 50+ properties have received such notice.
Crazy crazy!!

L4Gray,

Here is how I see it, the insurance carrier I believe you noted said it was not required, but would like it done, a wink and a nod to premium increases coming...

The AHJ is correct, the building was built to code based on the 1976 UBC, which was required when built. Changes to it would trigger the new product to be installed to todays code.

I am not sure why you would be required to change all the walkways, there is nothing wrong with them unless they won't hold the new guard loads with the changes when the only reason you are changing the "GUARDS" existing configuration is to reduce the opening size from 6 - half that. And you are not technically replacing the existing guards you are adding to the existing guards and you are doing less than 9% of work to the existing product in place.

Example: lets say 5ft section between posts so you have 10 openings of 5.375" between the 5/8" balusters set at 6" C/L, so 6 * 8.5% = 0.51 or the size of the 1/2" bar you are proposing to add, so you are doing less than that since posts will deduct even more space from the overall guard size.

If the "Guard" Company says in writing they can provide the 1/2" bar and install it to the existing frame work, and the guard will meet todays codes (including loads and current mounting) without having to be replaced, I would file for a appeal or allowed modification for safety reason, because lets say the small alteration cost $10 grand and they are pushing into a $200 grand direction, You should be able to file and go before some department, or town council some how some way and present what you want to do and the cost differences.

YEs it is Crazy, when you are trying to improve something and the blind mice remove all common sense from the equation. That is why I always follow don't touch it till all the ducks are in a row.

As to maintaining the property to safe levels, only a lawyer can provide you proper counsel as they have the LAW degrees and Licenses as to what fly's and what does not, no one here unless they are a practicing CA Lawyer is only speculating personal OP.

If the AHJ is saying you are fine by the LAW they enforce and the insurance company is saying you are fine by the LAW they see and the insurance carrier is still writing the policy and not refusing coverage, and your legal counsel says you are good. Then who here can say otherwise, as you have checked all the boxes for now and are working on a plan for future none required upgrades of things that the HOA would like to do.

I will end with again:

• The local City - AHJ says you are good like is.
• The Insurance Carrier says your good - But we would like you to look at these items for the future
• I will add this here
  • An engineer's review says the existing guards still meet the code they were installed to and no repairs are needed at the time of the report.
    • Or repairs were needed, then done and engineer inspected and approved the "Repairs"
• And your Legal Counsel says you are good

I am only guessing, but its not like you are neglecting the issue, you are doing something and "Bureaucrats" are inserting the process of slowing down a simple fix because of exerting overly restrictive requirements which now require getting funding, vs the quick simple fix.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, we wanted to add the balusters to the spacing and had the funding in place, and the engineers said it would work, we had the contractor ready to go, BUT the AHJ said we can't do it, because the AHJ said closing down the opening size triggers complete complex upgrades which exceeds 20 times the original cost and now requires us to rip apart the complex and change the walkways and balcony structures to todays New Codes, and as thus we needed to regroup, bring in an architectural firm, get bids and see what funding we can secure, if any and well it all takes time, our first approach would have covered this, and by the way according to the City we don't need to close the spacing down, the insurance carrier said we are fine but suggest we look at it which we were in the process of doing.

What weren't we doing?

Yes the world is Crazy

My satire is a little old this morning....

Enjoy the day everyone.....