Where's the exit?

[Yikes]

I do CEU's for multiple licenses in multiple states, plus AIA CEUs. California now requires it for both accessibility and for energy. The vast majority of them are so dumbed-down as to be merely a performative exercise, like going to comedy traffic school. (I've certainly never had one explain exit access / exit / exit discharge.)

IMO, the most useful CEUs are usually provided by an approval agency ("such as "DSA Academy") or are related to obtaining a specific certification.
On the private level, the second-best are solving a very specific code problem, such as how to detail a Type 3A exterior wall, or sound wall ratings. Memorable CEUs usually include plenty of horror stories where things went wrong.

 

[Sifu]

I do CEU's for multiple licenses in multiple states, plus AIA CEUs. California now requires it for both accessibility and for energy. The vast majority of them are so dumbed-down as to be merely a performative exercise, like going to comedy traffic school. (I've certainly never had one explain exit access / exit / exit discharge.)

IMO, the most useful CEUs are usually provided by an approval agency ("such as "DSA Academy") or are related to obtaining a specific certification.
On the private level, the second-best are solving a very specific code problem, such as how to detail a Type 3A exterior wall, or sound wall ratings. Memorable CEUs usually include plenty of horror stories where things went wrong.

When I attend code seminars or classes the instructors usually, in one way or another, seek to identify the attendees by profession. Usually a few design professionals are there for one reason or another. I assume to get the AIA hours at a minimum, but I always make note of them since they appear be placing some level of importance on code.

In reference to the site plan topic....very often I don't receive a site plan. I had one the other day; no site plan. I asked for one, with the accessible route identified, from the accessible parking (none was shown), to the entrance, and to identify the accessible toilets (it was a temporary use). I received a site plan, had a single accessible space, but not for a van. Still had no accessible toilets. This is a major architectural and engineering firm with global projects. But they couldn't handle a tiny temporary use. They got rejected again. I guess I am an obstructionist.

I sometimes get a site plan from the architect. Sometimes I get a civil site plan as well. Most of the time they don't match.

And EVERYTHING says "ADA" now.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

In reference to the site plan topic....very often I don't receive a site plan. I had one the other day; no site plan. I asked for one, with the accessible route identified, from the accessible parking (none was shown), to the entrance, and to identify the accessible toilets (it was a temporary use). I received a site plan, had a single accessible space, but not for a van. Still had no accessible toilets.

That is, unfortunately, par for the course these days.

This is a major architectural and engineering firm with global projects. But they couldn't handle a tiny temporary use. They got rejected again. I guess I am an obstructionist.

Welcome to the club. Obstructionists-R-Us.

I sometimes get a site plan from the architect. Sometimes I get a civil site plan as well. Most of the time they don't match.

And usually it's the zoning site plan, so it may show property line setbacks but doesn't show fire separation distances. ("Fire WHAT distances?")

And EVERYTHING says "ADA" now.

Yep.

 

[steveray]

It may not be a big deal, but that evades the question. Suppose it was one door, right in the middle of the rear wall of the office area. I'm concerned with the general question of whether a door that discharges into a roofed, occupiable area can be considered to be an exit door (which would make the path of travel under the pavilion roof exit discharge), or would such doors properly be classified as exit access, the egress travel under the pavilion roof considered to be exit access, and the exit discharge is wherever people can leave the shelter of the roof and be under open sky.

As for a site plan -- there isn't one. This architect does a lot of commercial alterations in town. I always ding him for lack of a site plan (and I cite the code sections that specifically require one), and he always cops an attitude when we ask him to just fly the mission.

Maybe getting this back OT...Even though we did answer the question....For this building in particular and if it truly is an open pavilion, travel distance typically shouldn't be an issue. They get at least 200' to one of the exits and it looks like are 4 in the building with walls and the 2 into the pavilion seems like you would get out within 8'....If they start chopping it up into smaller tenants, CPET could be an issue, but if they can go left and right when they get under the pavilion, that should not be an issue either...I find a lot more CPET issued than travel distance ones...

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

^^^

Your arrows agree with how I see it. It's not (apparently) a question of not being able to meet the travel distance or common path requirements, it's a question of the architect not understanding -- and not showing on his egress diagram -- what the actual "exits" are.

Sadly, I encounter this too often. Too many architects don't understand what constitutes an exit.