California Accessible Means of Egress for an Existing Building

[Yikes]

Yes, I disagree. I have always regarded that as meaning that the construction of new elements has to be done in accordance with the current code for new construction. However, the IEBC has a blanket statement that accessible means of egress are not required in existing buildings. That's my bright line. If it's an existing building, it doesn't need accessible means of egress. (See post #2 for the code citation.)

The California Conundrum (per the title of this thread) - IEBC 306.7.2 was not adopted in the CEBC in California:

 

[steveray]

Yes, I disagree. I have always regarded that as meaning that the construction of new elements has to be done in accordance with the current code for new construction. However, the IEBC has a blanket statement that accessible means of egress are not required in existing buildings. That's my bright line. If it's an existing building, it doesn't need accessible means of egress. (See post #2 for the code citation.)

And from your post 2 I agree that that don't need to be added......But when you choose to add egress then you have to make it accessible in the non-discriminatory sense....And I would go with the "general" of 306.7.2 does not trump the "new is new " of 804.1....

The commentary of 306.7.2 speaks about upgrading existing elements not being feasible in existing buildings which I get, but my opinion is if it is new then.....

 

[arwat23]

And from your post 2 I agree that that don't need to be added......But when you choose to add egress then you have to make it accessible in the non-discriminatory sense....And I would go with the "general" of 306.7.2 does not trump the "new is new " of 804.1....

The commentary of 306.7.2 speaks about upgrading existing elements not being feasible in existing buildings which I get, but my opinion is if it is new then.....

Lets say you don't NEED to add an exit door but WANT to add an additional exit for whatever reason. Would that exit be required to be accessible? I don't see anything saying that additional exits in excess of the required exits needs to be accessible in IBC. Yes, I know all new construction needs to comply with IBC as IEBC 801.4 states, but what part of IBC requires all new, non-required exits to be accessible? All I see is that, according to IBC 1009.1, only the means of egress required by 1006.2 or 1006.3 need to be accessible. Anything not required by those sections does not need to be accessible. Is my understanding of this incorrect? If so, that's fine, but I would like to see the section that changes this, or explain how I'm interpreting this differently than you. Not trying to be combative, I just want to learn.

This is ignoring CA changes to these codes since I think that part has been answered. I just want to know how the IBC handles this for my own knowledge .

 

[steveray]

Lets say you don't NEED to add an exit door but WANT to add an additional exit for whatever reason. Would that exit be required to be accessible? I don't see anything saying that additional exits in excess of the required exits needs to be accessible in IBC. Yes, I know all new construction needs to comply with IBC as IEBC 801.4 states, but what part of IBC requires all new, non-required exits to be accessible? All I see is that, according to IBC 1009.1, only the means of egress required by 1006.2 or 1006.3 need to be accessible. Anything not required by those sections does not need to be accessible. Is my understanding of this incorrect? If so, that's fine, but I would like to see the section that changes this, or explain how I'm interpreting this differently than you. Not trying to be combative, I just want to learn.

This is ignoring CA changes to these codes since I think that part has been answered. I just want to know how the IBC handles this for my own knowledge .

See post 12....only the first 2 are required to be AMOE....After that you can put in 500 not.....Bear in mind that is two from any space requiring two....Not just the building