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

[iOne]

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?

The 1958 building code quoted above is not all that easy to read.

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

"Any nonconforming use or structure, or any combination thereof, may be improved subject to the following conditions:
A. Maintenance of Nonconformity. Any maintenance of a nonconforming structure, a structure on a nonconforming lot, or a structure containing a nonconforming use, consisting of repair work necessary to keep the structure in sound condition shall be permitted."

Nonconforming Structures: Moving. Any nonconforming structure that is moved shall conform to the standards for setbacks, height of structures, maximum allowable floor area, distances between structures, driveways, or open space prescribed in the regulations for the district to which the structure is moved.

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.

The owner has already spent nearly $20k on surveys, application fees and architectural plans.

It's not quite as clear cut as it may seem. The process started with a deck inspection which, correctly, called out the stair as having safety issues. The owner started with a proposal to rebuild the stair with modern handrails and slope. That morphed and spiraled into multiple architectural fees, permit fees, a land survey, consultant fees and more.

 

[iOne]

If we get past zoning, I will be ready to invoke:

IEBC 503.1 General. Except as provided by IEBC Sections 302.4, 302.5 or this section, alterations to any building or structure shall comply with the requirements of the Building Code for new construction. Alterations shall be such that the existing building or structure is not less complying with the provisions of the Building Code than the existing building or structure was prior to the alteration.

Exceptions:

1. An existing stairway shall not be required to comply with the requirements of Section 1011 of the Building Code where the existing space and construction does not allow a reduction in pitch or slope.
2. Handrails otherwise required to comply with Section 1011.11 of the Building Code shall not be required to comply with the requirements of Section 1014.6 of the Building Code regarding full extension of the handrails where such extensions would be hazardous because of plan configuration.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Oh, dear God!

I'll almost guarantee that stair was NOT part of the original construction. What are the tread and riser dimensions on that stair? I'm going to guess they're 8" treads and 9" risers. Even the 1958 UBC limited risers to 7-1/2" and treads had to be 10" minimum. There's no way that stair meets those proportions.

There is an exception that for stairs serving an occupant load of 50 or less the risers can be 8" and the treads 9", but to me that photo looks like the risers are 9" and the treads are 8".

 

[iOne]

Oh, dear God!
I'll almost guarantee that stair was NOT part of the original construction.

Yet, it has to be.
This building has a twin, with a folded stair in the same position.
Everything about the cantilever beams says it's original or at least a Frankenstein version of original.
The painted wood (lead paint of course) totally matches the original era.
And who would put a door leading out to a non-stair ?

Maybe you see why the deck inspector called out the stair as needing replacement.

(Clearly the treads, deck are modern repairs. The stringers though, look damn original)

 

[iOne]

Maybe the original stair came down to a raised landing at the property line.
To get to the back yard to had to cross the raised landing. Just a thought as to how this came to be.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Yet, it has to be.
This building has a twin, with a folded stair in the same position.
Everything about the cantilever beams says it's original or at least a Frankenstein version of original.
The painted wood (lead paint of course) totally matches the original era.
And who would put a door leading out to a non-stair ?

Maybe you see why the deck inspector called out the stair as needing replacement.

(Clearly the treads, deck are modern repairs. The stringers though, look damn original)

I concede that the door (which we can't see) and the upper landing may be original. The stair -- I doubt it. What are the riser and tread dimensions?

 

[iOne]

I concede that the door (which we can't see) and the upper landing may be original. The stair -- I doubt it. What are the riser and tread dimensions?

The upper landing is definitely a repair. The stringers seem to be the original.
Treads are uneven with all the repairs. The upper landing to 1st stair is at least an inch greater than the next tread.
Lower landing to first (concrete) tread is at least an inch short.

Total run 9 feet
Total rise 9 feet 9 inches
Number of treads is 12
See attached scale diagram

 

[arwat23]

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.

For what it's worth, I've seen a fair share of unpermitted work that was done during the original construction. Just because it was built around the time of the original permit doesn't mean it was part of the permit. Best chance is to look through their archive and (hopefully) find a plan showing those stairs. Otherwise, there's no evidence one way or the other. You or the architect will probably need to go down to the city and look yourselves - I've never met a planning department willing to go through that process unless code enforcement gets involved.

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.

Generally speaking, if the stairs were permitted and compliant at the time of construction, a city usually allows repair even if it's in the setback. I've never seen them not allow it at least, but the bay area has some weird AHJs (I work in the area). You need to get something in writing from them.

The stair is in poor condition.

What do you mean by "poor condition"? If it's structurally unsafe and can be proven to be unsafe, the city should, imo, allow a replacement. Otherwise they're putting people at risk. Are there other ways you could remove those stairs while providing egress for those units? I'm guessing it wouldn't be cheap, but what are your other options, if any?

Total run 9 feet
Total rise 9 feet 9 inches
Number of treads is 12

Unless I'm doing my math wrong (did it very quick), those are about 10" risers. That's unlikely to have ever been permitted in CA, at least since the 70s. I know your building is older, but I would find it odd if that height was ever allowed. It's steep. The drawing shows a 9' rise, so that would allow 9" risers, which I believe would be allowed under old code pre-2000.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Unless I'm doing my math wrong (did it very quick), those are about 10" risers. That's unlikely to have ever been permitted in CA, at least since the 70s. I know your building is older, but I would find it odd if that height was ever allowed. It's steep. The drawing shows a 9' rise, so that would allow 9" risers, which I believe would be allowed under old code pre-2000.

Not allowed. 1958 UBC:




Either the stair was never legal, or it was rebuilt at some time after the original constructin.

 

[Sifu]

Been working on a project similar to this for more than 2 years.
Old Adjacent buildings, existing wood stair (worse than yours), from existing door on 2nd level. Stairs were unsafe and not to code.
Applicant went to planning and said we would like to repair the stairs, planning said AWESOME. No permit was applied for, stairs came down entirely. I think the unfortunate thing for these situations is they exist in a very bad state until someone wants or needs to fix them, then they end up finding they can't be saved. Now, it is new and even with some elasticity in the existing building codes they don't work on either the planning or building side. So we end up with situations where compliance without modification or massive investment is impossible and if a path to compliance can't be found now we have unusable space. For two years we have been trying to find a path that everyone can agree on. Well, we actually found one, but they balked in the 11th hour because it didn't serve their future plans. That future remains elusive.

Keep this updated if possible, very interested in the outcome.

 

[iOne]

The drawing shows a 9' rise, so that would allow 9" risers, which I believe would be allowed under old code pre-2000.

The drawing shows 9' 9" rise for the stairs (lower floor zero is at 9" above grade).

The stairs are unsafe by any measure. Structure, handrails, treads, cadence, railing height.

 

[arwat23]

The drawing shows the ground floor as 9' high, but 9' 9" rise for the stairs.

Level 1 is at 0 feet 9 inches.
Level 2 is at 9 feet 9 inches.
Total difference (total rise) is 9 feet 0 inches.

 

[iOne]

Level 1 is at 0 feet 9 inches.
Level 2 is at 9 feet 9 inches.
Total difference (total rise) is 9 feet 0 inches.

Ground level is 9 inches below the lower floor plate.
Total rise appears to be 9 feet 9 inches.

--
I was just told the planning department told the architect "we don't want to hear about 1958 building code"

 

[Yikes]

It is true that the planning department does not "care" about building code.
But the planning department does "care" about zoning code, and whether the city planning department previously allowed that stair to exist when first constructed in 1958. So your goal should be to eith:
(a) show the "secondary stairs" were not required, then you tear it out and don't rebuild it; or
(b) provide evidence that the city would have / should have required them in 1958.

For (a) if your second floor total enclosed apartment floor area (units 5+6+7+8) is under 2000 SF, then you didn't need a second exit in 1958, and you might get the city to approve it being torn down with no replacement.

For (b), your first goal should be to get the stair location (horizontal dimensions and setbacks) as "legally nonconforming" by the planning department.
After that, you can fight the battle about how to get a new stair to fit within the same space.
For example, if the planning department would allow you to build a 24" high concrete pad in the side yard, with steps leading up and down, then the wood flight of stairs could be shortened and could have longer treads and lower risers.



For example, if you East Bay City is Berkeley, they allow stairs and landings to encroach 6' into the rea yard setback, and 1.5' into the side yard setback.
Landings that are lower than 30" high have no restriction in the setback.

 

[Yikes]

Here's what the 1958 UBC required for H ("Housing") occupancies for stairs in yards:

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The upper landing is definitely a repair. The stringers seem to be the original.
Treads are uneven with all the repairs. The upper landing to 1st stair is at least an inch greater than the next tread.
Lower landing to first (concrete) tread is at least an inch short.

Total run 9 feet
Total rise 9 feet 9 inches
Number of treads is 12
See attached scale diagram

So the treads are 9" and the risers are 9". The 1958 UBC allowed 9" treads if the occupant load is 50 or less, but only allowed 8" risers. So the stair didn't meet the code that was in effect when the building was constructed.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Ground level is 9 inches below the lower floor plate.
Total rise appears to be 9 feet 9 inches.

--
I was just told the planning department told the architect "we don't want to hear about 1958 building code"

That's entirely proper. As I posted above, the zoning department enforces the zoning regulations. The building department enforces the building code. The fire marshal enforces the fire code.

The current building code is worse. The current requirement is 11" minimum for treads and 7" maximum for risers, and there's no 9" x 8" exception for occupant loads of 50 or fewer. However, the Existing Building Code may provide that, dependng on location:


But the existing stair doesn't meet that, either.



I don't understand the politics involved. California has a housing shortage. This is an existing building with four apartments on the second floor. It appears that if they don't all have access to two remote means of egress, they are not legal to occupy. Since the rear means of egress has been declared unsafe, that means if the rear stair isn't repaired those four apartments will have to be condemned and vacated.

That puts four families out of their homes, PLUS it removes four apartments from the tax roles. That doesn't benefit anyone. I have worked as an assistant building official in three different municipalities, and I've consulted to several others. In all of the towns where I've worked, in a situation like this the planning administrator, the building official, and the fire marshal would all sit down with the owner and his architect and they'd hammer out a solution that everyone could live with. Why isn't that happening here?

 

[iOne]

For example, if you East Bay City is Berkeley, they allow stairs and landings to encroach 6' into the rea yard setback, and 1.5' into the side yard setback.
Landings that are lower than 30" high have no restriction in the setback.

If it was Berkeley, which it is not: I'd face 32 other requirements including snail safe paint, and adding solar panels.

 

[iOne]

Actual measurements from today. The original stringers are 9" rise.
It gets funky with the past repairs. Half of the original stair stringer is roughly 2" settled vs. the foundation.
Then a bit more was lost at the bottom tread.

The past repair monkey patched the ground settlement:


The stairs are unsafe, full stop.
The stairs may violate zoning.
The stairs don't meet current building codes.
The stairs may or may not have met the 1958 building and zoning codes. And the 2nd form of egress may or may not have been required. The stairs may or may not have met the 1958 egress requirements.

But most of all, nobody should use these stairs.