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



## L4Gray (Jan 29, 2021)

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 (Jan 29, 2021)

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 (Jan 29, 2021)

L4Gray said:


> 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 (Jan 29, 2021)

ADAguy said:


> 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?





ADAguy said:


> 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 (Jan 29, 2021)

tbz said:


> First off welcome L4Gray,
> 
> Next a 24 unit Condo would not be built under the IRC.  It would be built under the IBC.
> 
> ...


Thank you for all of that information!  VERY helpful!


----------



## MACV (Jan 29, 2021)

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 (Jan 29, 2021)

L4Gray said:


> 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 HOAs.


----------



## ADAguy (Jan 29, 2021)

MACV said:


> 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 (Jan 29, 2021)

MACV said:


> 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 (Jan 29, 2021)

ICE said:


> 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 (Jan 30, 2021)

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 (Jan 30, 2021)

tbz said:


> First off welcome L4Gray,
> 
> Next a 24 unit Condo would not be built under the IRC.  It would be built under the IBC.
> 
> ...


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 (Jan 30, 2021)

mark handler said:


> 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.
> ...


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 (Jan 30, 2021)

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 (Jan 30, 2021)

ADAguy said:


> Don't you have a reserve account?


What they have is insurance.


----------



## Mark K (Jan 31, 2021)

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 (Jan 31, 2021)

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 (Jan 31, 2021)

mark handler said:


> 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 (Jan 31, 2021)

I am not convinced that a permit would be required.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 1, 2021)

ICE said:


> 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 (Feb 1, 2021)

ICE said:


> 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 (Feb 1, 2021)

ICE said:


> What they have is insurance.


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


----------



## ADAguy (Feb 1, 2021)

tbz said:


> 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!!!!
> 
> ...


all points well made Tom


----------



## rkenney (Feb 1, 2021)

L4Gray said:


> 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.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 1, 2021)

*Leave the pickets and add mesh*


----------



## L4Gray (Feb 1, 2021)

ADAguy said:


> 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.


ADAguy said:


> 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?





MtnArch said:


> 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!!


mark handler said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> ...





ADAguy said:


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


There is a reserve account.


rkenney said:


> 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 (Feb 1, 2021)

mark handler said:


> *Leave the pickets and add mesh*
> View attachment 7438
> View 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 (Feb 2, 2021)

unintended/anticipated consequence but for the right reason?


----------



## L4Gray (Feb 4, 2021)

tbz said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Feb 4, 2021)

L4Gray said:


> 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 (Feb 4, 2021)

L4Gray said:


> 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 (Feb 4, 2021)

How big is your insurance policy?


----------



## tbz (Feb 5, 2021)

L4Gray said:


> 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 (Feb 5, 2021)

tbz said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Thank you, tbz!
That was very helpful.


----------



## L4Gray (Apr 30, 2021)

tbz said:


> First off welcome L4Gray,
> 
> Next a 24 unit Condo would not be built under the IRC.  It would be built under the IBC.
> 
> ...


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 (Apr 30, 2021)

MtnArch said:


> 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 (Apr 30, 2021)

ADAguy said:


> 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 (Apr 30, 2021)

L4Gray said:


> 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 (Apr 30, 2021)

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 (Apr 30, 2021)

e hilton said:


> 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 (Apr 30, 2021)

L4Gray said:


> ****!  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 (May 1, 2021)

L4Gray said:


> 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 (May 2, 2021)

e hilton said:


> 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 (May 2, 2021)

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 (May 3, 2021)

Might be time to start talking to other insurance companies.


----------



## ADAguy (May 4, 2021)

tbz said:


> 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!!!!
> 
> ...


----------



## ADAguy (May 4, 2021)

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 (May 5, 2021)

L4Gray said:


> 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.....


----------



## ADAguy (May 5, 2021)

Seems to have covered most of the bases.


----------



## L4Gray (May 5, 2021)

tbz said:


> 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...
> 
> ...


tbz - That was all VERY helpful info.  Thank you so much!!!


----------



## tbz (May 7, 2021)

L4Gray said:


> tbz - That was all VERY helpful info.  Thank you so much!!!


L4Gray,

The changes the AHJ is saying you might or most likely may need to do by adding the 1/4" baluster to the existing guard system is were I would start by interviewing 3 engineering firms / architectural engineering firms.  Have them give you bids to do a study and see what work needs to be done with adding in the balusters and or if other changes are going to be required.

I would also check out if you can separate the common areas that visitors and owners have access to everyday from the private balconies for each of the 24 units.

IF you can, and one does not trigger and require all to be done, just upgrade the common areas under the HOA and require the individual owners of each unit to be on their own.  I would offer the cost and option for their unit to be done, but leave it to them, but require it be done before a unit can be transferred or rented to a new occupant, or even make any owner who rents the unit out have to upgrade when the complex is being done on their own dime.

Obviously, it will cost less for each unit if all are done at one time, and who is responsible for a non-required upgrade is your best guess, I haven't a clue, stacked city living is not my cup of tea, I like watching the deer and the occasional bear wander by during the day, friendlier neighbors IMO.

But all my notes are just food on the wall for thought, an engineering / architectural firm is the only one that can get you a precise project scope and direction of improvement to obtain cost estimates.  If you were on the east coast, I would toss you a few names, but I haven't a clue for the west coast.  

Good luck


----------



## Yikes (May 7, 2021)

Just to remind everyone, when someone suggests to "bring it up to current code" - - 
It already meets current code: The 2019 California Existing Building Code.


----------



## L4Gray (May 10, 2021)

tbz said:


> L4Gray,
> 
> The changes the AHJ is saying you might or most likely may need to do by adding the 1/4" baluster to the existing guard system is were I would start by interviewing 3 engineering firms / architectural engineering firms.  Have them give you bids to do a study and see what work needs to be done with adding in the balusters and or if other changes are going to be required.
> 
> ...


Thank you once again!

I had a chance to speak to a different planner in building & safety and briefly describe the alterations we need to make for insurance compliance.  All he’s asking from us is a site plan, photos and info from the contractor.  i have no idea how to create a site plan. The planner sent a sample of someone else’s site plan for railings, but I definitely need help in creating one to submit to the planning dept.  Can you or anyone else suggest where I might go for the creation of site plan??


----------



## tbz (May 11, 2021)

A site plan is an overall general map layout of the building by floor level with the basics on it.

You might be able to get a copy of the original floor plans from the building department if they have simple access to them.

Then make copies of each level, highlight and label each section of railing on the map with a number and then take a photo of that guard (the railing) and put your notes on it what is going to be done.

From my perspective, the fabricator / railing company you are going to hire, I would contact them and see if they can prepare the whole thing for your submittal.  
They want to be able to know where all the work is being done, what is being done, and then follow along and inspect the project and verify it was done correctly.

This is normally what the architectural firm or engineering firm does, but for simple projects like this, the railing contractor should be able to put it together for you unless it needs am Lic. Architects stamp.


----------



## L4Gray (May 11, 2021)

tbz said:


> A site plan is an overall general map layout of the building by floor level with the basics on it.
> 
> You might be able to get a copy of the original floor plans from the building department if they have simple access to them.
> 
> ...


Once again, tbz, I thank you!  That same planner in the building dept also sent what he called a “short list” of architectural firms who might do a site plan for us.  There were 15 firms his short list, lol.  Having no idea who to choose, I simply chose the only woman.. She just happened to be “very good” friends with that same city planner and said not to worry, she’ll help me through this process. She provided a link to the City to request all site plans for our bldg, told me it’ll probably take 10 days and to email her once the City responds. I am beyond grateful for everyone’s help in this regard!  Remaining hopeful...


----------



## ADAguy (May 29, 2021)

We are here for you.


----------



## Jutka (Oct 25, 2021)

L4Gray said:


> 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 Insura





L4Gray said:


> 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:





L4Gray said:


> 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:


Do you have an update on what you've decided to do?  Do you have more details on what kind of rail covering the insurance company accepts?


----------



## L4Gray (Oct 25, 2021)

Jutka said:


> Do you have an update on what you've decided to do?  Do you have more details on what kind of rail covering the insurance company accepts?


Yes, Jutka.  Thank you for asking!  Got so caught up with the process of accomplishing this feat, that I forgot all about those who helped me get started!!  I used everyone’s input here and we got it done!! 

Steel fabricating contractor chosen to do the work (and I) worked with the City on a constant basis, and I got someone at the City to help me out and expedite wherever possible.  Finally got approved for permit at the end of August!  ($470 for permit and fees.)  Work completed near end of September and received final City signoff (delays on their end) mid October.

Everyone is thrilled, it looks beautiful, and now we’re all good with respect to our bldg’s insurance going forward!!  I’m so very grateful for all your input!!  Thank you!


----------



## tbz (Oct 26, 2021)

Great to hear you got this done and it worked out for your building.

If you are able to post maybe some before and after pictures through a link to a share photo site I think it would help archive the post to show others in the future how it can be worked out and done.


----------

