Existing secondary egress stair needs repair - town said it can't be

[iOne]

We've got a 1960's building in California with a primary stair, and smaller rear stairway made of wood, presumably to meet egress codes at the time. The secondary stair serves four single bedroom units. None of the units have sprinklers.

The stair is in poor condition.

The building is 10 feet (well, 3 inches less) from the property line, the stair extends into the ten foot setback.
The setback is concrete and used for garbage, nothing else (wasted space).

The town has said that repairs to the stair are impossible, would have to be fireproof anyway, and they won't approve a variance to the setback.
The town does not have a suggestion, just a set of fire and zoning rules that seem to rule out anything nice.
A metal spiral staircase would meet need, not code.

The town has NOT, yet at least, complained that the 2nd egress goes through two unlocked doors and a storage area.
The town claims there's no building permit for the 2nd egress stair, but without evidence. On the contrary the physical evidence suggests it's original to the building.

Thoughts, other than wait for single stair egress to be approved?

 

[steveray]

Get a code section….Cali use the IEBC?

 

[e hilton]

Would a straight metal stair be allowed?
Second choice is to move to another state.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

California, or one of the cities or counties with its own version of the codes?

California adopts an IEBC -- have you reviewed it?

 

[iOne]

Would a straight metal stair be allowed?
Second choice is to move to another state.

A straight stair would have an over 9" rise. There's no room for a shallower straight stair without violating the side setback.
We did get quotes for moving the building, but the new Interstate tariffs between blue and red states made that infeasible.

---
The CEBC (California Existing Building Code) based on the IEBC does touch this topic.
But we're not talking with the building department rather the zoning department. They don't seem to care about the IEBC,
instead caring about fire separation distance. It's stuck in zoning, so whatever fun the Fire Department has in store is still unknown.

 

[Yikes]

The town has said that repairs to the stair are impossible, would have to be fireproof anyway, and they won't approve a variance to the setback.
The town does not have a suggestion, just a set of fire and zoning rules that seem to rule out anything nice.

You did not state which town the building is located in, so we can't help you with the specifics of your locally adopted code, we can only speak in generalities about what most building departments would do in a similar situation.

The building department enforces the California Residential Code (and the California Existing Building Code) with any locally adopted amendments. They care about structural and fire safety, but they technically don't "care" about zoning code, other than to make sure they don't accidentally issue a building permit for something the planning department finds objectionable.
Likewise, the planning department enforces the zoning code and the zoning code technically does not "care" about fire separation. It deals with separation based on what the city council deemed important to the well-being of the neighborhood, and how neighbors relate to each other and the public right-of-way. The concerns about setbacks for fire reasons and for zoning reasons are two completely separate issues.

By the way, your illustration does not provide a dimension between the stairs and the property line. You only indicate that it is closer than 10, but did not provide the actual minimum clearance dimension. What is it?

The town claims there's no building permit for the 2nd egress stair, but without evidence. On the contrary the physical evidence suggests it's original to the building.

What is this physical evidence? The apparent age of the wood framing?
Keep in mind that from the city's perspective, without permit records or other substantiating evidenced described above it's entirely possible that the stairs and even the apartments were bootlegged, even in the 1960s. The burden of proof is as much or more on you than it is on them.

By the 1960s many California cities were keeping records of building permits, but even the best-run departments can lose paperwork. The town probably has some kind of formal or informal protocol for establishing whether buildings without records can be determined as legally "pre-existing, nonconforming". It's in your best interest to gather any other evidence that the stairs would have possibly legally existed in the 1960s.

What do the city records show for other permits on your property? Are their permit records for the apartments and balcony and the other stair? Does the city have old aerial photos from the time of original construction that might show the stairs? What do the county tax assessor's records show for the types of improvements on the property, and how far back does that go? Does the electric or gas utility company have records of meters being installed for individual apartment units?

Once you can establish the earliest date of potentially legal existence of the apartments, then you can research the applicable codes under which those apartments were built. You may need to go to the city clerk's office to see copies of old zoning and building codes.

Based on your analysis of the building, fire and zoning codes during that era of original construction:
1. Would it be reasonable for a plan checker, using the codes of that era, to conclude 2 sets of stairs would have been required at time of permit for the apartments?
2. Would the secondary stairs, as currently located and built, have met the prescriptive building and planning codes requirements that were in effect during the 1960s era of original construction?

The CEBC (California Existing Building Code) based on the IEBC does touch this topic.
But we're not talking with the building department rather the zoning department. They don't seem to care about the IEBC,
instead caring about fire separation distance. It's stuck in zoning, so whatever fun the Fire Department has in store is still unknown.

Unless you can build a case as described above, you will be stuck in limbo with any or all of the departments (building, planning, fire) for separate but related reasons.

Has anyone from the government issued either a notice of code violation, or have they red-tagged ("do not enter") any portion of the building?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

You posted in the "Residential Building Codes" discussion area, which apparently isn't appropriate for multiple reasons. It now appears that -- so far -- it's not even a building code issue, it's a zoning issue.

If it is correct that the stair violates current [zoning] setback requirements ... it's there. It's an existing, non-conforming use. 1960 wasn't all that long ago. Doesn't the zoning department have a record of what was approved at the time of original construction? Doesn't the building department have the original permit plans?

If it is a legally existing, non-conforming use, then the owner should be allowed to maintain and repair it. If maintaining it means replacing it, that should be allowed, as well. (At least, it would be under my states laws. Each state is different, so I can't speak to California law.)

I think the key is to establish the origin of the stair. In a dispute like this, I don't know where the burden of proof lies. I suspect it lies with the zoning department. If they say the stair was never approved, I think they should have to come up with documents showing that the building was approved without that stair.

You might also consult tax assessor records. Around here, the assessor's record for each property includes a dimensioned footprint sketch of each structure on a property.

The town has said that repairs to the stair are impossible, would have to be fireproof anyway, and they won't approve a variance to the setback.

Who says repairs are impossible, the building department or the zoning department? Who says repairs would have to be fireproof, the building department or the zoning department?

The town does not have a suggestion, just a set of fire and zoning rules that seem to rule out anything nice.

Repairing an existing structure is not "new."

Please don't refer just to "the town." You are dealing with at least three separate departments, each of which operates under different codes, rules, and regulations. It's important to understand when you are discussing a zoning issue, when you are discussing a building department issue, and when you are discussing a fire marshal issue.

 

[iOne]

1) It's a San Francisco East Bay Charter City, I don't want to speak poorly of.

2) The existing rear wall of the building is ~10 feet from the property line, in a 10 foot rear setback district.
The existing stair is about 40 inches deep (36 inch clear treads).
The bottom tread of the stairs encroaches about 7 inches into the 5 foot side sideback.

3) The circumstantial evidence that the stair was original includes the design of the rear wall, which has an apparently original doorway with a period appropriate door that leads nowhere but out at the 2nd floor level. Numerous buildings of the era nearby (even on the same block) use the same design. The materials, wood type, concrete work and paint tell the same story. The stairwell is supported by (now rotted) cantilever joists, that could not have been anything other than original without an incredibly skilled plasterer making the wall perfect.

The building has not been red tagged.
This was a voluntary upgrade. However a January 1st 2026 deadline applies for deck safety inspections, with a six month window to correct.

---------------------------------------------------
But I can say that when barriers and costs like this are imposed by jurisdictions, no freaking wonder owners do so much work without permits, don't repair what needs repairing, and in California at least pass things like AB103 to try at least slow down the pace of building code overreach. On this stair repair project alone the costs are are roughly $20,000 so far just in paperwork, plans and survey. That's prior to a single nail or board.

---------------------------------------------------
4) If the planning department said this stair was not required in 1958, then great.
We'd just board up the door and feel happy. But I get the feeling they won't be willing to make such a determination,
and the fire department might have a different idea.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

4) If the planning department said this stair was not required in 1958, then great.
We'd just board up the door and feel happy. But I get the feeling they won't be willing to make such a determination,
and the fire department might have a different idea.

The planning department regulates the use of the land, not the layout and construction of the building. I think that's true in California just as it is in virtually every state. Whether or not the stair is required is a function of building codes and fire safety codes. The planning department cannot say that the stair was or was not required in 1958. Back then, California was under the Uniform Building Code, and I have no idea what this unnamed municipality used as a fire code or if California had a statewide fire code in 1958.

 

[Yikes]

To clarify:
1. You originally said it was built in the 1960s, now you say it was 1958. What year was it first built, and do you have building permit records for the whole building in general, even if it doesn’t mention the stairs in particular?
2. Generally speaking, only the building department will care if 2 stairs are required. Planning departments typically don’t care about this. They only care if whatever was built is sticking into their required setbacks.
3. Is your preference to repair/ replace in-kind the stair framing? Or, is your goal to completely remove the old stair and build a new one, even if the city said it is ok to repair the old one?
4. Based on what you wrote in post #8, is this an accurate drawing of your stair setback dimensions?

 

[iOne]

To clarify:
1. You originally said it was built in the 1960s, now you say it was 1958. What year was it first built, and do you have building permit records for the whole building in general, even if it doesn’t mention the stairs in particular?

1958 Construction per public records. Changed hands in 1968, not since. No records are available, and so far the City has not come up with any.

2. Generally speaking, only the building department will care if 2 stairs are required. Planning departments typically don’t care about this. They only care if whatever was built is sticking into their required setbacks.

All the other buildings in the area are two stairs, that's really all I know.

Current code appears to be:
CBC 1006.3.3 Egress Based on Occupant Load
Each story and occupied roof shall have the minimum number of separate and distinct exits, or access to exits, as specified in Table 1006.3.3. A single exit or access to a single exit shall be permitted in accordance with Section 1006.3.4. The required number of exits, or exit access stairways or ramps providing access to exits, from any story or occupied roof shall be maintained until arrival at the exit discharge or a public way.
TABLE 1006.3.3 MINIMUM NUMBER OF EXITS OR ACCESS TO EXITS PER STORY
Occupants 1-500 2
Occupants 501-1,000 3
Occupants More than 1,000 4

The current code structure appears to date to 1981.

History of the California Building Code - Title 24, Part 2

www.dgs.ca.gov

CBC 1981 : effective January 1, 1982 : based on UBC 1979
CBC 1985 : effective? : Based on UBC 1979, UBC 1982, UBC 1985


I did find an AI reference to:
Some historical documents refer to exit requirements for buildings constructed after July 26, 1958, which mandate "access for each dwelling unit or guest room to two exits" for apartment houses and other similar buildings.

The 1958 UBC is at

Uniform Building Code 1958 : International Council of Building Officials : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

404 p., 20 cm

archive.org

Chapter 33 - Stairs, Exits and Occupant Loads
Section 3302 (b) Number of Exits. Not less than two exits shall be provided from buildings or portions thereof housing Group D, E, H, and I occupancies having an occupant load of more than 10; or housing Group F occupancies having an occupant load of more than 30; or housing Group A. B. C. and G occupancies having an occupant load of more than 50. Group C and D occupancies more than one story in height shall have not less than two remotely located exits from each floor.

(d) Arrangement of Exits. If only two exits are required they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one-fifth of the perimeter of the room.


Which is not super clear if it covers this situation.

Current situation is each of the top four floor
apartments has only one exit door, onto a common balcony. From there
Option A) Continue on the common balcony to the front stairs.
Option B) On the balcony re-enter the building, pass through the utility room, to the rear door to the secondary egress stair. Then travel around the laundry room, then under the same balcony along the entire length of the building, to reach the street.

The top floor of this Group H occupancy has four single bedroom units. Assuming two occupants per unit, that's eight which is less than 10.
So maybe the rear stair is a bonus ?

3. Is your preference to repair/ replace in-kind the stair framing? Or, is your goal to completely remove the old stair and build a new one, even if the city said it is ok to repair the old one?

The preference is to rebuild the stair to have a lower step height and better railings, for a less risky egress.

That said even better is completely removing the stair, which is of minimal egress value (however this could affect insurance or liability).

4. Based on what you wrote in post #8, is this an accurate drawing of your stair setback dimensions?
View attachment 16602

That's correct in schematic.
The actual distance from building to rear fence is 11 feet.
The survey says the distance from building to side property line is 5 feet. To the rear property line is 9.72 feet.

The rear is 100% covered in apparently original concrete, which surrounds the stair footings (more forensic evidence it's an original stair structure).


---
Unit 7 was the subject of a residential fire some years ago,
which was contained to that unit.

 

[Yikes]

I’m confused. You said “1958 Construction per public records”, but then you also said “No records are available”.

Which is it?

 

[iOne]

I’m confused. You said “1958 Construction per public records”, but then you also said “No records are available”.
Which is it?

Zillow & the assessor say it was constructed in 1958. No drawings or other records are available.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Where having accurate information is crucial, AI is the last thing I would consult. Same for Zillow.

The assessor's record is an official record, so you can use that. Do the assessor's records include an outline of the building footprint?

 

[e hilton]

Can you find any old photographs that show when it was built? I have seen expensive building appraisals that had old photographs to show prior conditions.

 

[Yikes]

Even back in the 1950s-1960s, many cities would pay to get an aerial photo of their town. Check with your local historical society for photos.
Your approach to the city should be this:
1. An independent government agency (the tax assessor) says these apartments and this square footage existed in 1958. (Go to the assessor and get any records you can. Zillow will mean nothing to them.)
2. The building code in 1958 said that for this many apartments, a second stair was needed. (Again, do your homework to prove it, or determine it was unnecessary.)
3. The zoning code in 1958 did not prohibit this type of encroachment. (Check to see if roof eaves, chimneys or other projecting elements were allowed in the 1958 ZONING code. Maybe the bottom tread can just be considered a tall bump on the ground.)

Ask this East Bay city what they have done with other properties in the past where they did not have a record of original construction. For example, there’s probably old Victorian homes in the area where they had to come to terms with their lack of records on file. Have you ever asked what was that process for other buildings like that?

Keep in mind that after the Ghost Ship fire in Oakland and the apartment balcony collapse in Berkeley, the cities may not just be concerned about safety, they may also be concerned about the public perception of their commitment to safety. If there’s ever a fire or other tragedy on your property and the the press or some ambulance-chasing lawyers asks the building department for a comment, they shouldn’t be stuck in the position of responding “Zillow told us there was nothing to worry about”.
You may need to partner with them to figure out how to get more justifying paperwork in their files. Perhaps it takes the form of a code analysis / memorandum of understanding letter that gets copied onto the plans you submit to do the repair work, along with copies of the assessor’s records.

 

[danSAA]

Even back in the 1950s-1960s, many cities would pay to get an aerial photo of their town. ...

Also try: UCSB Library's collection of aerial photography https://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder/

 

[redeyedfly]

...the new Interstate tariffs between blue and red states made that infeasible.

What???

 

[iOne]

OP here:
a) None of the historic air photos, even the current best ones, quite show the stair. All you can see is the fuzzy edge of the building, sort of.
b) The assessor/zillow record shows only the construction date of 1958 with no floor plan or detail.
The assessor records cover square habitable footage only, and thus would NOT EVEN TODAY indicate if a stair was present.
c) The Sanborne maps from 1911 and 1940 both predate the construction. Sanborne was going out of business by 1958 I imagine, at least paper updates were not applied to the 1940 Sanborne maps for the area.

The City says it's not their job to research historic building code. Nor do they have old plans.

--
When you spend $20,000 before even putting a nail in wood, something is wrong with the planning/zoning system.

 

[steveray]

It’s their job to prove a violation… and order a correction…with code sections…

 

[Yikes]

1. Does the assessor's record habitable square footage roughly correspond to the square footage of the 4 apartments you've described, and does that square footage compel 2 exits according to the 1958 building code?

2. What does the city's municipal code or zoning code say about repairing "nonconforming buildings"? For an example from Berkeley, see here: https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/23.324.050

3. No I would not spend $20k. And I don't think you need to spend $20k to get this resolved or at least to force the planning department's hand on this, rather than be stuck in limbo. Do the research described above regarding nonconforming buildings, send the head of city planning a letter stating your intention to repair based on the municipal code analysis, cite your evidence from the assessor, and compel them to either cite a specific violation on the existing construction, or explain (citing the city's own municipal code regarding nonconforming existing construction) why they are unable to approve the repair in-kind.
This letter should not take more than a few hours of research and writing.

 

[steveray]

So here is the problem I think because we still don’t know if this is a zoning or building issue as we have no code section for the alleged violation :

1027.5​

Exterior exit stairways and ramps shall have a minimum fire separation distance of 10 feet (3048 mm) measured at right angles from the exterior edge of the stairway or ramps, including landings, to:

1. 1.Adjacent lot lines.
2. 2.Other portions of the building.
3. 3.Other buildings on the same lot unless the adjacent building exterior walls and openings are protected in accordance with Section 705 based on fire separation distance.

For the purposes of this section, other portions of the building shall be treated as separate buildings.

Exception: Exterior exit stairways and rampsserving individual dwelling units of Group R-3 shall have a minimum fire separation distance of 5 feet (1525 mm).

Non-combustible is irrelevant, it needs to be rated if it needs to meet current code…

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

California adopted the IEBC.







On a quick read, it looks to me like the IEBC operates pretty much the same in California as it does in the rest of the country. Rebuilding an existing stair that has deteriorated, in its original configuration, is a repair, not an alteration. The general rule for repairs is that materials permitted at the time or the original construction are allowed, as long as the repairs don't make the structure less safe.

That said, the information we have been given so far is a mixed bag that just refers to "the town" without providing any specific information as to which agency or agencies, and which code or codes.

xx

 

[iOne]

I was asked in a private message to post a photo of the stair in question. Here it is:

Capture hosted at ImgBB

Image Capture in Forum Posts album

ibb.co

The jurisdiction is a charter city in the San Francisco Bay Area. The department objecting to stair replacement is the Planning Division of the town, on setback grounds. The architect did ask the planning division to cite the basis of their objection which they apparently would not do in writing, but did verbally say it was based on the setback. The architect prepared a half dozen plans, and was rebuffed on each attempt.

The project won't make it to outside building code check, unless it gets passed by the planning staff.