• 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

Would you allow former code to be used to justify existing building construction?

Y

Yikes

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
3,076
Location
Southern California
Client previously built an R-3 home in Los Angeles under 2014 LA Building Code (based on the CBC and IBC), with the intention of changing it into an R-2.1 occupancy in the future, if planning code allowed it. The original plans did not call for type X gyp board (but crawling through the attic I can verify that at least the ceiling gyp board has Type X labels). The rest of the membranes are unverifiable without tearing them all off.
Client now has planning approval but has an uphill battle forensically demonstrating the one-hour construction required for a licensed facility.

In 2014, table 601 footnote (d) allowed a full NFPA 13 system to substitute for 1 hour construction at all interior structural bearing walls and the roof. As far as I can tell, that option no longer exists in the 2022 LABC/CBC/IBC.

Question: if you were the building official, would you allow a modification request to utilize the 2014 code provision in 2023, and sprinkler it in lieu of completely re-drywalling the entire structure?

If "no", then a follow-up question: would you allow it if the request was accompanied by a report form a Fire Protection Engineer?
 
Pick three locations that are remote from each other. Remove drywall until a label is found. If 5/8” TypeX is found at each location, would it be out of line to assume that 5/8” Type X was used throughout?

There’s also the fasteners for type and spacing as well as staggered joints that are required to pass a hose stream test.
 
If they were performing only alterations, I would say the building official has the authority to allow the use of the former code per the Exception to Section 301.3 of the 2020 LA EBC.

However, it appears they are requesting a change of occupancy, which in that case I would say the LA EBC does not allow it.
 

Would you allow former code to be used to justify existing building construction?​


Yes, existing....BUT, You are altering the Occupancy. All Bets are off.
 
If they were willing to sprinkler the whole building I think that should buy them some leniency. But all depends on the one in the hot seat making that call.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top