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.