• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Egress windows

classicT said:
What did they cite? EERO are just that, the openings.

R310.1 provides that "Emergency escape and rescue openings shall open directly into a public way, or to a yard or court having a minimum width of 36 inches (914 mm) that opens to a public way."

Does your EERO open via a dormer onto the roof below? A picture or sketch may help here.
Click to expand...
Problem could be:
[RB] 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.

One of my staffers got an interp from ICC that said there should be nothing above or below an EERO.....And of course, I called BS on that....
 
steveray said:
One of my staffers got an interp from ICC that said there should be nothing above or below an EERO.....And of course, I called BS on that....
Click to expand...
Yes, I would call B.S. on that as well...

Particularly given R310.2.4 -

2021 IRC R310.2.4 Emergency Escape and Rescue Openings Under Decks, Porches and Cantilevers​

Emergency escape and rescue openings installed under decks, porches and cantilevers shall be fully openable and provide a path not less than 36 inches (914 mm) in height and 36 inches (914 mm) in width to a yard or court.
 
Jact said:
I was cited by our local plan reviewer where I indicated on plan to egress to an approved egress window (meeting all the requirements), and exiting through a sloping roof (5:12). How different is that to jump off a 2nd floor window down to public way below to a side yard or rear yard. And what if the side and rear yard slopes. Is that not allowed? Pls advise!
Click to expand...
To be technically precise with your plan checker, don't call it an "egress" window and don't use the word "exiting", lest they start piling on requirements related to an exit system (which it is not). It is an "escape and rescue" opening.

I noticed you are in San Diego. Is the project also in San Diego or southern California? There have been a number of plan checkers, particularly those doing title 19 fire code reviews, who (mistakenly) believe that NFPA guidelines regarding use/maintenance of fire department ladders somehow implies that a emergency personnel must be able to place a ladder directly up against a window sill, and place it at a maximum 75 degree angle. This has been refuted by the California State Fire Marshal - - see the link here and excerpt below. So obstructions below the EERO are allowed, whether it is landscape, or even a yard that is too narrow to properly tilt a rescue ladder on the EERO.


1702585937369.png

Also, notice the definition of "court" in CBC 202 requires it to be open to the sky , but not "from the ground to the sky".
Lastly, worth noting that So Cal is filled with buildings where the EERO opens onto a balcony, or onto a podium courtyard deck, or onto a hillside yard that slopes at least as much as your roof... all kinds of construction below it.
 
Last edited:
steveray said:
Problem could be:
[RB] 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.

One of my staffers got an interp from ICC that said there should be nothing above or below an EERO.....And of course, I called BS on that....
Click to expand...

Did your staffer get a written interpretation from the ICC, or a verbal staff opinion?
 
steveray said:
Nothing I don't agree with is binding...unless it is a formal interp or mod from OSBI....
Click to expand...

This is true. That said, a formal ICC interpretation gets vetted by the technical committee responsible for the code section involved, so it's a pretty good representation of what the people who wrote the section think it means. I'll take a very hard look at ICC formal interpretations, but I'm usually not impressed by their staff opinions.
 
Bit of a drift here. Given that California has pretty much relinquished oversight of PV, this is something that is worth a mention.

R324.6.2.2 Emergency escape and rescue opening.
Panels and modules installed on dwellings shall not be placed on the portion of a roof that is below an emergency escape and rescue opening. A pathway not less than 36 inches wide shall be provided to the emergency escape and rescue opening.
 
ICE, I don't think that's a drift in the original topic, because it demonstrates that the code contemplated roofs underneath EEROs.
That said I don't see R324.6.2.2. in the California Residential Code - - CRC 324 covers material recycling.

CRC 331 covers roof access vs. solar panel placement.
 
Yikes said:
ICE, I don't think that's a drift in the original topic, because it demonstrates that the code contemplated roofs underneath EEROs.
That said I don't see R324.6.2.2. in the California Residential Code - - CRC 324 covers material recycling.

CRC 331 covers roof access vs. solar panel placement.
Click to expand...
My latest version of the CRC is 2020 based on 2019 and 324 is solar. Perhaps because it is LA County code it has been altered. Anyway, all of my digital codes are outdated by one cycle so I’ll quit posting code soon.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top