2007 California Code Question Archives
Select the Archive
2008 Archive
File: 08-01
I would like some clarification, please. In the past, I have always designed my own projects in accordance with the provisions of UBC Ch 23, regarding conventional light-frame construction.
Section 2308 of the new code is similar to Ch 23, listing general light-frame construction requirements. However 2308.2, item 8 (8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4) requires that "engineering analysis" shall be furnished. Does this mean that in addition to following the requirements of Sec 2308, a separate engineered design is required? In other words, do I really have to hire an engineer?
I notice that in the Matrix Adoption Table at the beginning of Ch 23, not all agencies have adopted 2308.2 item 8. Have you adopted it?
Building Division response:
The simple answer to your specific question is: Section 2308.2.8 is not adopted for commercial or residential buildings. The adopting agencies cited oversee hospital and essential facilities. See Sections 2301.1 and Section 2301.2. When you look at the matrix, look under HCD 1 & 2 for the requirements that we enforce. Please keep in mind that we are considered Seismic Category D and the requirements are more restrictive in regards to many items within conventional construction, wall bracing as one example. Please see Table 2308.12.4 and Section 2308.12 for bracing requirements.
File: 08-02
Hello
I understand that foundations for one-story metal buildings will now
be designed with 3000 psi concrete and thus will require
special inspection. For a design utilizing footings at column
bases am I correct that 1704.4 exception 1. will apply and no
special inspections will be required?
Building Division Response:
This section establishes criteria for special inspections of elements of buildings and structures of concrete construction. Exceptions to the requirements of this section address concrete components that have little or no load-carrying requirements, such as nonstructural slabs on grade, driveway, patios, etc, or footings and foundations that require no reinforcement and carry relatively low loads. As an example, the isolated spread footings in 1704.4 exception 1. would apply to the footings for a floor girder system. (light frame construction). Therefore, a load bearing footing, outside of the scope of Sec 1704.4 exception 1 with 3000 psi concrete would require special inspection for concrete strength.
File: 08-03
Which portion of the code is right or will be enforced?
With Regards to C.B.C. Chapter 11 and accessibility………..
The exemption still exists for Multistory Office Buildings in 1103B.1., exception 2.2
In the occupancy specific portions of chapter 11, there are multiple locations were the requirement for accessibility seems to be a bit broader (more restrictive)……specifically multi story buildings do not seem to be addressed. For instance, the aforementioned code section says that an office can be on the second floor. But looking at 1105B3.1, it seems as if that is not the case. Similar things seem to be described with different occupancies (ie. 1104B.4; 1104B.6)
While these 2 portions of the code seem to be in conflict, there was some methodology in place in the prior code that seems to be missing. There was a “rule of redundancy”, a practice that as long as an accessible use was provided at a location within a facility, that second areas providing the same use need not be accessible. Think of this in terms of a two story office……if you provided a conference or break room on the ground floor, another could be provided in an upstairs area that is not served by an elevator. I know think that this is a more restrictive approach than is allowed by 1103B.1, exception 2.2.
Building Division Response:
2007 CBC Section 1103B is the general requirements for Building Accessibility. Specific occupancy requirements (1104B, 1105B, 1106B, etc…) may modify the general requirements but, never excludes them.
Section 1103B.1 exception 2.2, (and exceptions 1, 2 and 2.1) are the exemption(s) to the general requirement for an elevator/ramp to access each level of Multistory Buildings including mezzanines.
The other sections of the CBC that you refer to: 1105B.3.1, 1104B.4 & 1104B.6, are accessibility requirements for Specific Uses within different Occupancy Groups.
In closing; The General Building accessibility requirements for all levels, elements and spaces within a Building or Facility are found in Section 1103B. The Specific Occupancy Group access requirements for will be found under Sections 1104B, 1105B, 1106B, etc…
Example~
Per 1103B.1, although a “B” Occupancy 2 Story Office Building will require an accessible route of travel to be provided to all elements and spaces within the building, this may be accomplished by the use of stairways (instead of an elevator/ramp ) when exempted by Section 1103B.1 exception 2.2. In addition, the accessibility requirements in Section 1105B for the “B” Occupancy shall apply while still utilizing the same “stairway” access permitted by 1103B.1 exc. 2.2.
File: 08-04
Does an isolated concrete footing supporting a metal column which meets the requirements of 1908.1.15 (b) need temperature and shrinkage reinforcing? Nothing in ACI 318 22.4 through 22.8 (see 1909.4) requires it.
Building Division Response:
No, it may be plain concrete providing the projection of the footing beyond the face of the supporting member does not exceed the footing thickness.
File 08-05
Can you please inform me of what code you use for ADA compliance. Is it chapter 11 of the California building code? Are there any exceptions?
Building Division Response:
The 2007 California Building Code Chapter 11A applies to covered multifamily dwelling units, but not limited to, lodging houses, dormitories, timeshares, condominiums, shelters for homeless persons, congregate residences, apartment housed, dwelling, employee housing, factory-built housing and other types of dwellings containing sleeping accommodations with or without common toilet or cooking facilities.
Chapter 11B applies to public buildings, publicly funded housing, and commercial buildings.
Refer to Chapter 1, 2007 CBC for exceptions and details to your specific project.
File 08-06
Per code section 1133B.4 hand rail returns are required top and bottom of exterior steps. Is this correct?
Building Division Response:
Yes this is correct. 2007 CBC Section 1134B.4.2.2 also gives use this exception: that in new construction, the inside handrail on switchback or dogleg stairs shall always be continuous. And in existing buildings and facilities, full extension of handrails at stairs shall not be required in alterations where such extensions would be hazardous or impossible due to plan configuration.
File 08-07
Can you please let me know if the acceptable slope for a path of travel is 5% direction and 2% cross? And can you go to 8.33% if you have handrails?
Building Division Response:
Yes, the maximum allowable slope for walks and sidewalks (2007 CBC Sec. 1133B.7 and Sec. 1113A) in the direction of travel is 1 unit vertical in 20 units horizontal (5-percent slope) and surface cross slopes shall not exceed 1/4 inch per foot (2.083-percent slope).
8.33% is the maximum slope for ramps on an accessible route and all the provisions of 2007 CBC Sec. 1114A or 1133B.5 are required including handrails. Other design requirements include widths, heights, landings, strike edge extension, change of direction, hazards, wheel guides, and guards. Lastly other requirements pertain to curb ramps so do not confuse the two.
File 08-08
Is is allowable to have a sidewalk leading to a HC restroom have a 10% directional slope without handrails?
Building Division Response:
When under new construction, 2007 CBC 1114A or 1133B.5 tells us 8.33% is the maximum slope along a accessible path of travel. Handrails would not make the 10% slope acceptable.
File 08-09
Are open riser exterior stairs permitted in local apartment buildings? 1133B.4.5.3 does not allow open risers. Is this code section applicable for apartment stairs in Chico?
Building Division Response:
Unless these apartment buildings are publicly funded, we should be reviewing 2007 CBC Sec.1115A. First, for new construction this section shall not apply to exterior stairways serving floors of dwelling units not required to be accessible. Then 1115A.2 tells us that open risers shall not be permitted along accessible routes.
For other design information for stairways see 2007 CBC Sec. 1009.
File 08-10
When installing rebar into existing footings, is it necessary to have an inspection prior to gluing the rebar in?
Building Division Response:
The City of Chico does not require a special inspector to view the installation of epoxied dowels into the existing footing or slab. However, the newly constructed footing or slab re-bar attached to the dowel is inspected at the required footing/slab inspection.
File 08-11
My question concerns the minimum plumbing fixture count table to be used in the City of Chico. The 2007 CBC is based on the IBC and 2007 CPC is base on the UPC, these codes do not agree with each other on fixture counts. We would prefer to use the CBC's table 2902.1, can you please verify this is acceptable?
Building Division Response:
California has not adopted Table 2902.1 for required plumbing fixtures. C.P.C. Table 4-1 is the applicable table to utilize.
The good news, is some circumstances, unisex facilities are permitted to be utilized. See C.P.C 412.3 and the footnotes to table 4-1.
File 08-12
I wanted to verify the minimum required plumbing fixtures for a mercantile space and how that is tabulated under the 2007 CPC. Is it still determined by taking the square footage and dividing by 200? Then for ONE required fixture in the mens and womens restroom, the previously calculated number shall be less than 50? Please verify.
Building Division Response:
Step A) Determine the occupant load per Table A (of Table 4-1)
Occupant Load factor= 200 sq. ft. per person for Mercantile.
Step B) When occupant load is determined, utilize Table 4-1 for minimum required fixtures per person or fraction there of.
Some good news is that for low occupant load/small square footage uses, there are some exceptions to eliminate some fixtures and also to utilize unisex facilities. See the introduction & footnotes to CPC Table 4-1 and CPC section 412.3
File 08-13
What is the allowable percentage of unprotected openings in a wall 3'-5' from a property line in a single family residence (R3 occupancy)? Footnote c of table 704.8 is unclear and is referenced three times in the table headings. One of the references is for walls 5'-10' from a property line. Footnote g already says that walls in a R3 occupancy greater than 5' from a property line are allowed to have unlimited unprotected openings. I am presuming that footnote c is allowing 25% unprotected openings and 25% protected openings in these walls. Is this correct? Thank you for clarifying this.
Building Division response:
0-3 feet: no openings
3-5 feet: 15% protected openings, 10% unprotected. (Max. openings 25% of wall AREA) You may go for the less restrictive first: in other words, if you have lets say 12% windows: 10% may be unprotected and the 2% protected 5 feet and greater: no restrictions (see footnote g, footnote c is shown in the chart, but it doesn't relate)
File 08-14
Hello. I have a question about building codes and exterior doors. We areconsidering replacing a door in our dining room, currently opening into theroom, with a door that would open out. This door is not a primary means of entering or exiting the house, and there is another exterior door about 25 feet away, and yet another exterior door about 35 feet away. We want the dining room door to open out because it is difficult to open the door inwardly when the room is occupied with table and chairs.
Is it permissible for an exterior door to open out?
Building Division response:
First you must obtain a permit if the existing door opening size is needing to increased or an exterior light is non existing. Otherwise it's permissible to have an exterior door swing out-ward, as long-as the door doesn't swing over the top of a step. A landing will be required in this case. The landing shall be 36" in the direction of travel and as wide as the door opening.
2009 Archive
File: 09-01
Re: Handicap access to zero lot line housing units
I would like confirmation on the treatment of zero lot line housing units in regard to their status regarding handicap access requirements. Zero lot line housing units are on separate parcels and are connected only by nonstructural trim elements at the wall siding and roofing. Each unit is completely independent of adjacent units from the foundation through the roof. Each unit has firewall and opening protection adjacent to the property line per CBC requirements. It is my understanding that each unit is therefore a separate building on a separate parcel per the R3 occupancy classification in the CBC. These units would therefore not be considered to be subject to handicap access requirements.
Thank you for your help in clarifying this issue.
Building Division response:
The residential accessibility standards of the 2007 CBC apply to, what the code terms, "covered multifamily dwellings" which includes apartment buildings with 3 or more units, condominiums with 4 or more units, lodging houses, congregate residences, homeless shelters, dormitories, and certain publicly funded housing. Accessibility standards do not apply to single family homes.
In the case of zero lot line housing as described above, the question is one of title, ownership, and structural independence. If the units are structurally independent, and individually titled so that each unit exist on a separate parcel and may be owned by individual parties, then the units are considered single family homes which are exempt from accessibility standards.
File: 09-02
Handrails -
2001 CBC provided an exception for handrails on both sides of a private stair to be required only on 1-side provided that the landing was less than 30" in ht. This exception appears to be eliminated from 2007 CBC. Is that exception provided in another section of the 2007 code or is it that all stairs regardless of height and usage, require handrails on both sides? Even for storage and /or maintenance service access areas?
Building Division response:
You are correct that the exception has been eliminated and is not provided elsewhere in the 2007 CBC. Section 1009.10 clearly states stairways shall have handrails on each side. However, exception 2 allows handrail on one side of dwelling units and exception 4 does not require handrail for a continuous flight of stairs with fewer than 4 risers. There is no reference to storage and /or maintenance service access areas for handrail requirements other than what was initially mentioned. Thank you for your question.