This survey ended on at
15 Responses

If the jurisdiction finds that both of these conditions exist, can it be determined no $'s need to be spent towards H/C improvements if the "actual work of the project", (in the case of structural repairs due to fire or some other circumstance), does not include any of the H/C elements listed(roof truss repair for instance).

For existing buildings CBC 1134B.2 states:

“General. All existing buildings and facilities, when alterations, structural repairs or additions are made to such
buildings or facilities, shall comply with all provisions of Division I-New Buildings, except as modified by this division. These requirements shall apply only to the area of specific alteration, structural repair or addition and shall include those areas listed below:

A primary entrance to the building or facility and the primary path of travel to the specific area of alteration, structural repair or addition, and sanitary facilities, drinking fountains, signs and public telephones serving the area.”

Under Exception 1. it states if 2 conditions exist:
1. When the total construction cost of alterations, structural repairs or additions does not exceed a valuation threshold of$50,000, based on January 1981, "El-lR US20 Cities" Average Construction Cost Index of3372.02 (Engineering News Record, McGraw Hill Publishing Company), the current Valuation $126,764.66 can be found at the following link:


2.The enforcing agency finds that compliance with this code creates an unreasonable hardship.

Compliance shall be limited to the actual work of the project.
Yes, If the area or repair did not include any or the H/C elements this exception would apply.
No. 20% of the actual repair costs would still need to go towards any of the missing elements mentioned in the order of 1.1 - 1.6 of Exception 1.
This survey was originally posted to a topic here.
Posted by Jim Mack_modesto ·

Comments (0)