• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

How do I "prove" a code requirement doesn't exist?

Y

Yikes

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
3,089
Location
Southern California
I have a window replacement project on a California apartment building orignally permitted under the 1961 UBC. In 1961 there was no emergency escape opening requirement for bedrooms (see http://www.washoecounty.us/repository/files/5/washoe_co_window_egress.pdf

), and the existing windows are too small/ too high to meet today's requirements.

The building official told me that per CBC 3405.1 it's OK to replace these windows in-kind without enlarging them, IF I can provide him a code reference showing that escape windows were not required in the 1961 UBC/CBC.

How do I prove a code requirement did NOT exist?

Do I get him a copy of the 1961 UBC, and ask him to read it cover-to-cover? My only access to a copy of the 1961 UBC is in our local library's reference section (I can't borrow it), 40 miles away from the jurisdiction. The building official said he doesn't have a copy of the 1961 UBC, and he didn't think the city clerk had one either.
 
See if you can find a series of codes and show the building official which edition brought in the requirement. In the old UBC's you should only have to copy Chapter 12 of each version.
 
ICC has copies of the old codes they can sell you.

Suggest that the building official has it wrong. You are innocent unless you can be proven guilty. Have him show you where it was required.
 
I'm pretty sure that we have a copy at the office. I will check tomorrow. If we do I can post a picture of the code....if there is a code.
 
Coug Dad said:
See if you can find a series of codes and show the building official which edition brought in the requirement. In the old UBC's you should only have to copy Chapter 12 of each version.
Click to expand...
very good idea
 
I have found our 1956 and 1962 UBC books and there is no mention of EERO in either book. And oh what little books they are.
 
ICE said:
I have found our 1956 and 1962 UBC books and there is no mention of EERO in either book. And oh what little books they are.
Click to expand...
Maybe suggest next code cycle adopt them in their entirety
 
mtlogcabin said:
egress window code [Archive] - The Building Code ForumThis might help
Click to expand...
Thanks - - that was an interesting read. To be specific the 1963 aluminum windows were previously retrofitted under permit. Therefore our newer, more energy efficient windows are replacing the retrofits, and we will not be further decreasing the size of the previous openings. This is truly a unique situation.
 
I would think the owner would want to update the house, it is real easy to make the bedroom replacement window meet code.
 
Yikes said:
Thanks - - that was an interesting read. To be specific the 1963 aluminum windows were previously retrofitted under permit. Therefore our newer, more energy efficient windows are replacing the retrofits, and we will not be further decreasing the size of the previous openings. This is truly a unique situation.
Click to expand...
We used to do the same but not anymore. If a window in a bedroom that lacks an EERO is being replaced, there will be a window that meets the requirements of an EERO.

I might add that the "no more restrictive" exemption was a pita. The old windows are gone so you have no idea what was there. Retrofits almost always make the opening smaller by several inches. The argument commences and then you hear, "You will just have to trust me" and, "Are you calling me a liar"? So often the windows that are being replaced are replacement windows that had no permit and for that matter are in a house that was built before EERO came into the code.

All of the possible arguments and uncertainty go away with the rule that there shall be an EERO if the window is replaced. It makes so much sense that I am surprised that we did it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ICE said:
All of the possible arguments and uncertainty go away with the rule that there shall be an EERO if the window is replaced. It makes so much sense that I am surprised that we did it.
Click to expand...
Part of the issue is that there are funding programs for not-for-profit affordable housing providers that pay for replacement windows for purposes of energy efficiency. The amount of money is just enough to cover the cost of the window replacement itself. It is not enough money to also re-frame / enlarge the opening, re-do the building paper and siding, etc. So if the original permitted building did not have ANY EERO requirement per code (in my case, that's objectively verifiable), then my client is faced with a choice:

Replace the windows but not enlarge them, because that's all the program will fund, and hey, we saved some energy costs, and we've not increased the danger form a code standpoint;

OR

Don't replace the window. In that case, nobody gains anything, energy wise or safety wise.

The only other option is to do like we've done in California with URM buildings, smoke and CO detectors: force everybody to do it no matter what.
 
There was a rule from years ago that allowed a window to be replaced with the exact same window that had the same net free opening. That worked for many years but along came retrofit windows. Retrofit windows, by design, make the net free opening smaller. Many times the retrofit adds 2.5" bottom, top and sides. 9.999 out of 10 window jobs are retrofit.

I suggest that the free window companies stay out of the bedroom if they can't get it done right. They could spend more on free refrigerators. Another thing these outfits get wrong too often is safety glazing.

The same free stuff programs pay for wall furnaces. I would be more than happy to roll-back the rule on windows if they would quit installing wall furnaces.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Check out California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.5 which seems to say that you can replace the window in a residence with essentially the same window even if it does not comply with the current code. Since it is in state law the building code is irrelevant.
 
Well I don't know about that. I figured that what with the building code being state law....that's all I needed to hear.

How about a copy of that other law. Who is tasked with enforcing that law?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tiger, here it is, more latitude for the Green scammers:

17958.5. Except as provided in Section 17922.6, in adopting theordinances or regulations pursuant to Section 17958, a city or county

may make those changes or modifications in the requirements

contained in the provisions published in the California Building

Standards Code and the other regulations adopted pursuant to Section

17922, including, but not limited to, green building standards, as it

determines, pursuant to the provisions of Section 17958.7, are

reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or

topographical conditions.

For purposes of this section, a city and county may make

reasonably necessary modifications to the requirements, adopted

pursuant to Section 17922, including, but not limited to, green

building standards, contained in the provisions of the code and

regulations on the basis of local conditions.
Click to expand...
I don't see that as allowing any size reduction, which almost every retrofit window requires, also how can be replacing a wood window with a vinyl window ever be green given the sea of plastic the size of Texas? Furthermore, for window replacements to ever make any appreciable difference the coatings have to be engineered for each elevation and U-factors must be below 0.20, most dual pane windows are up at 0.33 to 0.35.

Here are the window specs that I engineered for a home I just built: Triple-Pane w/LoĒ³-366, LoĒ-179, LoĒ-i81, Argon 0.15. Require something like that for every window replacement permit you get, it is done using LBL's Window 5 program, elevations are done with their Resfen 5.0 program. ¹ Here is Window 6.1²

¹ LBNL Window & Daylighting Software -- RESFEN

² http://windows.lbl.gov/software/window/6/WINDOW6.1-THERM6.1ResearchDoc.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The reference should have been to Section 17958.8.

"17958.8. Local ordinances or regulations governing alterations and repair of existing buildings shall permit the replacement, retention, and extension of original materials and the use of original methods of construction for any building or accessory structure subject to this part, including a hotel, lodginghouse, motel, apartment house, or dwelling, or portions thereof, as long as the portion of the building and structure subject to the replacement, retention, or extension of original materials and the use of original methods of construction complies with the building code provisions governing that portion of the building or accessory structure at the time of construction, and the other rules and regulations of the department or alternative local standards governing that portion at the time of its construction and adopted pursuant to Section 13143.2 and the building or accessory structure does not become or continue to be a substandard building."

There is a difference between regulations and statutes adopted by the legislature. Building codes are adopted as regulations. Regulations are subservient to statutes which are adopted by the legislature. Thus whenever there is a conflict between a building regulation and a statute adopted directly by the legislature the building regulation looses.

While California law gives HCD the authority to adopt building regulations for residential occupancies the when a competing regulation provides specific limits on that authority the specific limits apply. The fact that a specific statute is not reflected in the adopted regulation does not allow the building official to ignore the statute. It should be noted that Health and Safety Code Section 17958.8 is referenced in CBC Section 1.8.10.1

California statutes can be found at Code Search
 
17958.8 said:
......regulations governing alterations and repair of existing buildings shall permit the replacement, retention, and extension of original materials and the use of original methods of construction....
Click to expand...
I'd interpret that as meaning that alterations and repairs can be made as long as the original materials and methods are used, that does not allow retrofit windows to be installed inside of existing frames decreasing egress requirements, even dual pane glass is usually not an original material.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top