Existing back alleyway less than 44" - can it qualify as one of the exits/exit discharge? (California)

[Cali_Code_Architect]

Working on a TI for an existing commercial building. There are existing doors in front and back of the building. The front is an accessible exit but the back doors lead to a narrow alleyway less than 44" inches wide. Can this back alley be one of the exits?

 

[Cali_Code_Architect]

Does the following exception exempt an existing alleyway to remain an egress. It's still not wider than 44" though.

(CEBC 305.6 exception 2. Accessible means of egress required by Chapter 10 of the International Building Code are not required to be provided in existing facilities.)

 

[Paul Sweet]

Are there less than 50 occupants using this exit? If so, a 36" width should be adequate.

 

[Cali_Code_Architect]

Are there less than 50 occupants using this exit? If so, a 36" width should be adequate.

Yes, it's only 29 occupants. but I don't think we even have 36" tbh.

 

[classicT]

1028.2 Exit Discharge Width or Capacity
The minimum width or required capacity of the exit discharge shall be not less than the minimum width or required capacity of the exits being served.

1028.4 Egress Courts
Egress courts serving as a portion of the exit discharge in the means of egress system shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1028.4.1 and 1028.4.2.

1028.4.1 Width or Capacity​

The required capacity of egress courts shall be determined as specified in Section 1005.1, but the minimum width shall be not less than 44 inches (1118 mm), except as specified herein. Egress courts serving Group R-3 and U occupancies shall be not less than 36 inches (914 mm) in width. The required capacity and width of egress courts shall be unobstructed to a height of 7 feet (2134 mm).​

​

The width of the egress court shall be not less than the required capacity.​

​

Exception: Encroachments complying with Section 1005.7.​

1028.4.2 Construction and Openings​

Where an egress court serving a building or portion thereof is less than 10 feet (3048 mm) in width, the egress court walls shall have not less than 1-hour fire-resistance-rated construction for a distance of 10 feet (3048 mm) above the floor of the egress court. Openings within such walls shall be protected by opening protectives having a fire protection rating of not less than 3/4 hour.​

​

Exceptions:​

1. Egress courts serving an occupant load of less than 10.
2. Egress courts serving Group R-3.

 

[classicT]

Sorry for separate posts, but trying to keep it organized.

Per 1028.2, the minimum width of the exit discharge would need to be the same as the required width of the exit, which for a total occupant load of 29 will be 36-inches.

The issue that may come up, is that the alleyway is going to serve as an egress court, therefore will be subject to 1028.4.2. In this case, the walls need to be 1-hr rated up to a height of 10-ft.

And here are the applicable definitions:

[BE] EGRESS COURT. A court or yard which provides access to a public way for one or more exits.​

[BG] COURT. An open, uncovered space, unobstructed to the sky, bounded on three or more sides by exterior building walls or other enclosing devices.​

[BG] YARD. An open space, other than a court, unobstructed from the ground to the sky, except where specifically provided by this code, on the lot on which a building is situated.​

 

[Yikes]

Is the "alley" an actual public right-of-way (not private land)?

 

[Cali_Code_Architect]

Is the "alley" an actual public right-of-way (not private land)?

No, it's private. Basically the space between the exterior wall and property fence. It's been used as access for all these years but not consistent in width. Probably varies between 24" - 36" but I haven't measured.

 

[e hilton]

Laymans opinion. Seems awful coincidental that code threshold is 30 occupants and your situation has 29. And evacuating through a 24” path? Tiny.

 

[Cali_Code_Architect]

Laymans opinion. Seems awful coincidental that code threshold is 30 occupants and your situation has 29. And evacuating through a 24” path? Tiny.

Why is that an awful coincidence? What are you implying?

 

[e hilton]

Why is that an awful coincidence? What are you implying?

I don’t know you, i have not seen the location either in person or pictures, and i’m not a code official. However comma your OP is asking for loopholes and exemptions for a questionable situation. And since one of the possible exemptions hinges on occupancy less than 30 i find it curious that … taadah! … yours is 29. I'm probably too cynical.

 

[Yikes]

I don’t know you, i have not seen the location either in person or pictures, and i’m not a code official. However comma your OP is asking for loopholes and exemptions for a questionable situation. And since one of the possible exemptions hinges on occupancy less than 30 i find it curious that … taadah! … yours is 29. I'm probably too cynical.

ehilton, I don't know his situation either, but there are plenty of times when I've reverse-engineered and based room sizes on a maximum of 29 occupants, 49 occupants, etc. depending on the code compliance issue. Nothing nefarious or unethical about that - - just utilizing code knowledge to right-size a workable design. So IMO, no need to throw shade just yet.

In regards to calling it an "alley", I often associate that word with a public right-of-way, which is where IBC responsibility for MOE typically terminates. However, given that it is private land, I think that classicT in post #6 has it right: it should be called an Egress Court, subject to the provisions of 1028.4 and 1028.5. Note that in 1028.4.1 there are also limitations on "encroachments" per 1005.7, which includes other doors, etc. swinging into the required width.

 

[ICE]

I am in the camp with e hilton. Using code to justify a sketchy setup for getting people out of a building is never without skepticism. The information so far has the path between 24" and 36" wide....maybe because no tape measure has been applied. I am wider than 24" at the shoulders.
So if I were the inspector for this project I would be inclined to not care that it's quasi legal.....which at 24" is probably not legal....at least it shouldn't be.....okay it's not.

 

[e hilton]

ehilton, I don't know his situation either, but there are plenty of times when I've reverse-engineered and based room sizes on a maximum of 29 occupants, 49 occupants, etc. depending on the code compliance issue.

There is a lot of missing … and changing … information. He said it’s an existing commercial building, so he is dealing with some fixed parameters. And the width of the “path” seems to be in flux. So i’m not accusing of anything, just taking it with a big grain of salt.

 

[Cali_Code_Architect]

Yikes, you're right. I shouldn't call it an 'alley', it's an egress court. Thank you for clarifying.

I'm sorry but I have limited info myself. I just know that there are existing area with doors that is used to get in and out the building. I haven't been there but it appears to be narrow so I'm trying to get the required code to verify if it would be compliant. The existing fence and building aren't exactly parallel so it varies, I'm not sure what the minimum width is, but people use it so I imagine it's wide enough to get through.

As for the occupant load, there's some latitude on how it's calculated. I reviewed it another way and got 24 occupants. If I exclude all unoccupied spaces like hallways and bathrooms, it would be 21 occupants. So fixating on 29 occupants being too convenient misses the point. But this is really for the AHJ to determine.

There also seems to be some moralizing about how codes should be applied or interpreted, with an implication that it's being used to justify a 'sketchy' situation. I'd rather leave all those judgements up to the AHJ and building inspector. Personally, I don't think so because this building will not be open to the general public and will only have a few people using it at any given time. There are also other exiting options that I'm considering. But all of this is irrelevant because my questions are really about the wording in the code and which sections apply to a particular situation, in this case an existing commercial property with a narrow walkway in the back.

 

[Cali_Code_Architect]

There is a lot of missing … and changing … information. He said it’s an existing commercial building, so he is dealing with some fixed parameters. And the width of the “path” seems to be in flux. So i’m not accusing of anything, just taking it with a big grain of salt.

Also worth mentioning, that for this particular existing building, there are 6 existing doors that could be considered exits. Only one is required by code and the main one will be made fully accessible and exits directly to the street. So any additional exits are above and beyond the requirements by code.

 

[e hilton]

So any additional exits are above and beyond the requirements by code.

Yes, but if they are available they have to meet code.

 

[Cali_Code_Architect]

Yes, but if they are available they have to meet code.

That's my original question. Does a backyard walkway less than 44" meet code if it's existing? In other words, is there an exception for existing egress court?

If not, we won't use them as an exit and it's debatable if they can remain doors or not.

I drove by the site again and didn't measure but it seems like the walkway is mostly 36", but there seems to be a narrow spot that's probably closer to 32". We do not intend to do any work on the walkway.

 

[bill1952]

I don't think it could have ever been a legal egress nor will it become one, especially at 32" clear. So I would not allow it to be a means of egress. I guess if you could prove it had been approved previously, some would allow it.

If you only need one means of egress, make it compliant and move on. I think you clarified occupant load is less than 29, so one is probably fine, as long as common path of travel and egress distances etc. are met. The consensus here at thebuildingcodeforum on another thread was that if the door to the outside was "not intended" to be for egress, it does not have to meet the egress requirements. (I was NOT in the majority, but majority is the way codes work and I accept that.) https://www.thebuildingcodeforum.co...dg-required-to-be-code-compliant-exits.31438/

You need to check if a single m.o.e. is permitted - too much I don't know to be sure.

 

[e hilton]

The consensus here at thebuildingcodeforum on another thread was that if the door to the outside was "not intended" to be for egress, it does not have to meet the egress requirements.

I don’t think there was a consensus, and there was this …

I argue with BOs all the time and win. But in this case the BOs insisting all doors meet egress requirements have code to back them up.

1010.1Doors.​

P​

Means of egress doors shall meet the requirements of this section. Doors serving a means of egress system shall meet the requirements of this section and Section 1022.2. Doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code shall meet the requirements of this section.

The rationale is that people don't check the code plans for the designed egress route in a fire event, they look for the nearest way to get out of the building.

 

[bill1952]

But if the intent is they are not "provided for egress" then they don't have to meet egress requirements. I recommend reading entire thread.

 

[e hilton]

I did read the entire thread. There are good postings supporting both sides of the discussion.

 

[ICE]

But if the intent is they are not "provided for egress" then they don't have to meet egress requirements. I recommend reading entire thread.

It’s hard to know the intent until one tries to use the door. At that point it might be unfortunate to discover that the intent was not egress. Hence the code section that states that if more doors than the required doors are provided, those additional doors shall meet the same code requirements as those that are applied to the required egress door.

It makes no sense to do otherwise.

As to the many doors involved with the OPs thread….well it’s a crap shoot with one door out of six that enters a crevice.

 

[bill1952]

ice - I agree with your point of view, but you leave out an important few words which others use to justify not treating additional as exit doors, namely "Doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code shall meet the requirements of this section."

Again, I agree that these additional doors to exterior should meet the code requirements as if they were provided for egress. I believe in the other thread the consensus was that if someone - owner, architect, tennant, othere - makes the case that they are not "provided for egress purposes" then no requirements comply.

I have and will advocate in my projects that they meet the requirements, right to illuminated sign.

Now, I have to wonder if this was more intended to include all the doors in a group, for instance so it matched the opposite even if fewer were required, in a foyer or lobby for instance, and not for a door in the corner provided to turn on the sprinklers or get to the flag pole or access to a mechanical yard or other purely service task. Those doors are presumably not required for nor intended for nor provided for egress. Should they have to meet the requirements? (my opinion - yes - and save more by eliminating the discussion - but not sure it's required).