# Existing back alleyway less than 44" - can it qualify as one of the exits/exit discharge? (California)



## Cali_Code_Architect (Dec 9, 2021)

Working on a TI for an existing commercial building. There are existing doors in front and back of the building. The front is an accessible exit but the back doors lead to a narrow alleyway less than 44" inches wide. Can this back alley be one of the exits?


----------



## Cali_Code_Architect (Dec 10, 2021)

Does the following exception exempt an existing alleyway to remain an egress. It's still not wider than 44" though.

(CEBC 305.6 exception 2. Accessible means of egress required by Chapter 10 of the International Building Code are not required to be provided in existing facilities.)


----------



## Paul Sweet (Dec 10, 2021)

Are there less than 50 occupants using this exit?  If so, a 36" width should be adequate.


----------



## Cali_Code_Architect (Dec 10, 2021)

Paul Sweet said:


> Are there less than 50 occupants using this exit?  If so, a 36" width should be adequate.


Yes, it's only 29 occupants. but I don't think we even have 36" tbh.


----------



## classicT (Dec 10, 2021)

*1028.2 Exit Discharge Width or Capacity*
The minimum width or required capacity of the exit discharge shall be not less than the minimum width or required capacity of the exits being served.

*1028.4 Egress Courts*
Egress courts serving as a portion of the exit discharge in the means of egress system shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1028.4.1 and 1028.4.2.

*1028.4.1 Width or Capacity*​The required capacity of egress courts shall be determined as specified in Section 1005.1, but the minimum width shall be not less than 44 inches (1118 mm), except as specified herein. Egress courts serving Group R-3 and U occupancies shall be not less than 36 inches (914 mm) in width. The required capacity and width of egress courts shall be unobstructed to a height of 7 feet (2134 mm).​​The width of the egress court shall be not less than the required capacity.​​*Exception:* Encroachments complying with Section 1005.7.​
*1028.4.2 Construction and Openings*​Where an egress court serving a building or portion thereof is less than 10 feet (3048 mm) in width, the egress court walls shall have not less than 1-hour _fire-resistance-rated_ construction for a distance of 10 feet (3048 mm) above the floor of the egress court. Openings within such walls shall be protected by opening protectives having a fire protection rating of not less than 3/4 hour.​​*Exceptions:*​
Egress courts serving an occupant load of less than 10.
Egress courts serving Group R-3.


----------



## classicT (Dec 10, 2021)

Sorry for separate posts, but trying to keep it organized.

Per 1028.2, the minimum width of the exit discharge would need to be the same as the required width of the exit, which for a total occupant load of 29 will be 36-inches.

The issue that may come up, is that the alleyway is going to serve as an egress court, therefore will be subject to 1028.4.2. In this case, the walls need to be 1-hr rated up to a height of 10-ft. 

And here are the applicable definitions:

*[BE] *EGRESS COURT. A court or yard which provides access to a public way for one or more exits.​*[BG] *COURT. An open, uncovered space, unobstructed to the sky, bounded on three or more sides by exterior building walls or other enclosing devices.​*[BG] *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.​


----------



## Yikes (Dec 10, 2021)

Is the "alley" an actual public right-of-way (not private land)?


----------



## Cali_Code_Architect (Dec 10, 2021)

Yikes said:


> Is the "alley" an actual public right-of-way (not private land)?


No, it's private. Basically the space between the exterior wall and property fence. It's been used as access for all these years but not consistent in width. Probably varies between 24" - 36" but I haven't measured.


----------



## e hilton (Dec 12, 2021)

Laymans opinion. Seems awful coincidental that code threshold is 30 occupants and your situation has 29.  And evacuating through a 24” path?   Tiny.


----------



## Cali_Code_Architect (Dec 12, 2021)

e hilton said:


> Laymans opinion. Seems awful coincidental that code threshold is 30 occupants and your situation has 29.  And evacuating through a 24” path?   Tiny.


Why is that an awful coincidence? What are you implying?


----------



## e hilton (Dec 12, 2021)

Cali_Code_Architect said:


> Why is that an awful coincidence? What are you implying?


I don’t know you, i have not seen the location either in person or pictures, and i’m not a code official.  However comma your OP is asking for loopholes and exemptions for a questionable situation.  And since one of the possible exemptions hinges on occupancy less than 30 i find it curious that … taadah!  … yours is 29.  I'm probably too cynical.


----------



## Yikes (Dec 13, 2021)

e hilton said:


> I don’t know you, i have not seen the location either in person or pictures, and i’m not a code official.  However comma your OP is asking for loopholes and exemptions for a questionable situation.  And since one of the possible exemptions hinges on occupancy less than 30 i find it curious that … taadah!  … yours is 29.  I'm probably too cynical.


ehilton, I don't know his situation either, but there are plenty of times when I've reverse-engineered and based room sizes on a maximum of 29 occupants, 49 occupants, etc. depending on the code compliance issue. Nothing nefarious or unethical about that - - just utilizing code knowledge to right-size a workable design.  So IMO, no need to throw shade just yet.

In regards to calling it an "alley", I often associate that word with a public right-of-way, which is where IBC responsibility for MOE typically terminates.  However, given that it is private land, I think that classicT in post #6 has it right: it should be called an Egress Court, subject to the provisions of 1028.4 and 1028.5.  Note that in 1028.4.1 there are also limitations on "encroachments" per 1005.7, which includes other doors, etc. swinging into the required width.


----------



## ICE (Dec 13, 2021)

I am in the camp with e hilton.  Using code to justify a sketchy setup for getting people out of a building is never without skepticism.  The information so far has the path between 24" and 36" wide....maybe because no tape measure has been applied.  I am wider than 24" at the shoulders.
So if I were the inspector for this project I would be inclined to not care that it's quasi legal.....which at 24" is probably not legal....at least it shouldn't be.....okay it's not.


----------



## e hilton (Dec 13, 2021)

Yikes said:


> ehilton, I don't know his situation either, but there are plenty of times when I've reverse-engineered and based room sizes on a maximum of 29 occupants, 49 occupants, etc. depending on the code compliance issue.


There is a lot of missing … and changing … information.  He said it’s an existing commercial building, so he is dealing with some fixed parameters.  And the width of the “path” seems to be in flux.  So i’m not accusing of anything, just taking it with a big grain of salt.


----------



## Cali_Code_Architect (Dec 14, 2021)

Yikes, you're right. I shouldn't call it an 'alley', it's an egress court. Thank you for clarifying. 

I'm sorry but I have limited info myself. I just know that there are existing area with doors that is used to get in and out the building. I haven't been there but it appears to be narrow so I'm trying to get the required code to verify if it would be compliant. The existing fence and building aren't exactly parallel so it varies, I'm not sure what the minimum width is, but people use it so I imagine it's wide enough to get through.

As for the occupant load, there's some latitude on how it's calculated. I reviewed it another way and got 24 occupants. If I exclude all unoccupied spaces like hallways and bathrooms, it would be 21 occupants. So fixating on 29 occupants being too convenient misses the point. But this is really for the AHJ to determine.   

There also seems to be some moralizing about how codes should be applied or interpreted, with an implication that it's being used to justify a 'sketchy' situation. I'd rather leave all those judgements up to the AHJ and building inspector. Personally, I don't think so because this building will not be open to the general public and will only have a few people using it at any given time. There are also other exiting options that I'm considering. But all of this is irrelevant because my questions are really about the wording in the code and which sections apply to a particular situation, in this case an existing commercial property with a narrow walkway in the back.


----------



## Cali_Code_Architect (Dec 14, 2021)

e hilton said:


> There is a lot of missing … and changing … information.  He said it’s an existing commercial building, so he is dealing with some fixed parameters.  And the width of the “path” seems to be in flux.  So i’m not accusing of anything, just taking it with a big grain of salt.



Also worth mentioning, that for this particular existing building, there are 6 existing doors that could be considered exits. Only one is required by code and the main one will be made fully accessible and exits directly to the street. So any additional exits are above and beyond the requirements by code.


----------



## e hilton (Dec 15, 2021)

Cali_Code_Architect said:


> So any additional exits are above and beyond the requirements by code.


Yes, but if they are available they have to meet code.


----------



## Cali_Code_Architect (Dec 15, 2021)

e hilton said:


> Yes, but if they are available they have to meet code.


That's my original question. Does a backyard walkway less than 44" meet code if it's existing? In other words, is there an exception for existing egress court?

If not, we won't use them as an exit and it's debatable if they can remain doors or not.

I drove by the site again and didn't measure but it seems like the walkway is mostly 36", but there seems to be a narrow spot that's probably closer to 32". We do not intend to do any work on the walkway.


----------



## bill1952 (Dec 15, 2021)

I don't think it could have ever been a legal egress nor will it become one, especially at 32" clear.  So I would not allow it to be a means of egress.  I guess if you could prove it had been approved previously, some would allow it.

If you only need one means of egress, make it compliant and move on. I think you clarified occupant load is less than 29, so one is probably fine, as long as common path of travel and egress distances etc. are met. The consensus here at thebuildingcodeforum on another thread was that if the door to the outside was "not intended" to be for egress, it does not have to meet the egress requirements. (I was NOT in the majority, but majority is the way codes work and I accept that.) https://www.thebuildingcodeforum.co...dg-required-to-be-code-compliant-exits.31438/

You need to check if a single m.o.e. is permitted - too much I don't know to be sure.


----------



## e hilton (Dec 15, 2021)

bill1952 said:


> The consensus here at thebuildingcodeforum on another thread was that if the door to the outside was "not intended" to be for egress, it does not have to meet the egress requirements.



I don’t think there was a consensus, and there was this …



redeyedfly said:


> I argue with BOs all the time and win. But in this case the BOs insisting all doors meet egress requirements have code to back them up.
> 1010.1Doors.​P​_Means of egress doors shall meet the requirements of this section. Doors serving a means of egress system shall meet the requirements of this section and Section 1022.2. *Doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code shall meet the requirements of this section.*_
> 
> The rationale is that people don't check the code plans for the designed egress route in a fire event, they look for the nearest way to get out of the building.


----------



## bill1952 (Dec 15, 2021)

But if the intent is they are not "provided for egress" then they don't have to meet egress requirements.  I recommend reading entire thread.


----------



## e hilton (Dec 16, 2021)

I did read the entire thread.  There are good postings supporting both sides of the discussion.


----------



## ICE (Dec 16, 2021)

bill1952 said:


> But if the intent is they are not "provided for egress" then they don't have to meet egress requirements.  I recommend reading entire thread.


It’s hard to know the intent until one tries to use the door.  At that point it might be unfortunate to discover that the intent was not egress.  Hence the code section that states that if more doors than the required doors are provided, those additional doors shall meet the same code requirements as those that are applied to the required egress door.

It makes no sense to do otherwise.

As to the many doors involved with the OPs thread….well it’s a crap shoot with one door out of six that enters a crevice.


----------



## bill1952 (Dec 16, 2021)

ice - I agree with your point of view, but you leave out an important few words which others use to justify not treating additional as exit doors, namely "Doors *provided for egress purposes* in numbers greater than required by this code shall meet the requirements of this section." 

Again, I agree that these additional doors to exterior should meet the code requirements as if they were provided for egress.  I believe in the other thread the consensus was that if someone - owner, architect, tennant, othere - makes the case that they are not "provided for egress purposes" then no requirements comply.

I have and will advocate in my projects that they meet the requirements, right to illuminated sign.

Now, I have to wonder if this was more intended to include all the doors in a group, for instance so it matched the opposite even if fewer were required, in a foyer or lobby for instance, and not for a door in the corner provided to turn on the sprinklers or get to the flag pole or access to a mechanical yard or other purely service task.  Those doors are presumably not required for nor intended for nor provided for egress.  Should they have to meet the requirements?  (my opinion - yes - and save more by eliminating the discussion - but not sure it's required).


----------



## e hilton (Dec 16, 2021)

If there is a door that leads from inside the building to the outside … pray tell what purpose does it serve other than egress?   Decoration?


----------



## classicT (Dec 16, 2021)

e hilton said:


> If there is a door that leads from inside the building to the outside … pray tell what purpose does it serve other than egress?   Decoration?


First off, I get your point and agree... but no, not all exterior doors are intended for egress.

Case in point, the door pictured below is most likely (not my picture) for access to replace mechanical equipment or facilitate some other process.


----------



## bill1952 (Dec 16, 2021)

e hilton said:


> If there is a door that leads from inside the building to the outside … pray tell what purpose does it serve other than egress?   Decoration?


I did offer some examples above, even though I asked very similar question in other thread.


----------



## bill1952 (Dec 16, 2021)

e hilton said:


> But if you don’t mark the door with a lighted exit sign, or any signs … seems like you would not need full compliance.


Certainly seems you were on other side before.


----------



## bill1952 (Dec 16, 2021)

And more supporting the door does'nt have to comply if not intended for egress:



Yikes said:


> If you have a space that requires 2 exit doors but has 12 exit doors, then only 2 doors need to be made "code compliant" with the provisions IBC chapter 10 'Means Of Egress'. You certainly would not have exit signs on the other 10 doors if you don't intend to use them for exiting.





tmurray said:


> If the door is required to be an exit for some reason under the code, it must meet all the requirements for an exit door.
> If the door is signed as an exit, even if it is not required by code, it has to function like an exit (occupants cannot be expected to spot a "fake" signed exit).
> If it is what most people call a convenience door and is not signed as an exit, I don't care what you do with it, provided it does not violate other code provisions.





steveray said:


> TM has the best synopsis.....No AHJ should be making you do what the code does not.


----------



## e hilton (Dec 16, 2021)

bill1952 said:


> Certainly seems you were on other side before.


I’m taking lessons from my wife.  
More importantly, if someone offers good logic or proof that my way is wrong, i’m not so stubborn that i can't change.  .


----------



## ICE (Dec 17, 2021)

bill1952 said:


> ice - I agree with your point of view, but you leave out an important few words which others use to justify not treating additional as exit doors, namely "Doors *provided for egress purposes* in numbers greater than required by this code shall meet the requirements of this section."
> 
> Again, I agree that these additional doors to exterior should meet the code requirements as if they were provided for egress.  I believe in the other thread the consensus was that if someone - owner, architect, tennant, othere - makes the case that they are not "provided for egress purposes" then no requirements comply.




_1010.1 Doors. Means of egress doors shall meet the requirements of this section. Doors serving a means of egress system shall meet the requirements of this section and Section 1022.2. Doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code shall meet the requirements of this section._

It does come down to who determines the purpose of a door.  The purpose of a door is obvious.  To assume that a door that is in addition to the required means of egress door need not meet the requirements of a means of egress door simply because an entity has determined that said door was not provided for egress purposes …. That’s just wrong.

How about the homeowners that tell you that no smoke alarm is required in that bedroom because they are using it as an office.  Did that bedroom magically become not a bedroom.  Didn’t happen did it.  It didn’t happen because there is no reason to rely on the the occupants to respect the designation as an office and not use it as a bedroom.  It is after all a bedroom.

Providing doors that do not meet the same requirements as a “means of egress system” doors Is legal as long as it is not possible to “egress“ through the door.  Well then, what is the definition of egress through a door?  My conclusion is that egressing a space means exiting that space.

I’ll provide an example.  A nightclub is required to have four exits.  The club has six doors to the exterior.  Four of the doors open in the direction of travel and two swing in.  All but the blind people see the six doors.  The people don’t perform a mental exercise to decide which doors are the required egress doors…you know, much as the architect did.  No, not at all.  They see the doors….they know that the other side of the door is outside.

Now unfortunately a pyrotechnic display ignites the ceiling.  People are fleeing.  The people that found the four required exit doors got out.  The people that found the extra exit doors that swung in were found later that night.

Buildings will present individual situations.  Residential as opposed to commercial, etc.  The final arbiter is the occupant that opens the door.  An absolute exception applied to doors over and above the required number of doors due to semantics is not just wrong but is also unjustifiable.


----------



## bill1952 (Dec 17, 2021)

ICE - I said early in other thread what you say here, which was a minority opinion.  Wish you were as emphatic in that thread as you are in this one.

Count the posters and their views in other thread.  Majority feel you it's fine to have a door to exterior which is not required for MOE not comply with code requirements.

If not provided for egress WTF is it intended for? Based on over a 100 projects in nearly as many jurisdictions, I don't recall on building department that would allow a non-compliant door no matter what anyone insisted it was intended for.


----------



## ICE (Dec 17, 2021)

bill1952 said:


> ICE - I said early in other thread what you say here, which was a minority opinion.  *Wish you were as emphatic in that thread as you are in this one*.
> 
> Count the posters and their views in other thread.  Majority feel you it's fine to have a door to exterior which is not required for MOE not comply with code requirements.
> 
> If not provided for egress WTF is it intended for? Based on over a 100 projects in nearly as many jurisdictions, I don't recall on building department that would allow a non-compliant door no matter what anyone insisted it was intended for.


Done……


----------



## my250r11 (Dec 17, 2021)

If this was a new build every door would absolutely need to be complaint. This is existing and the door that has to narrow a walkway/egress path, I would have it marked as not an exit and the other doors made a complaint as possible. Just my 2 cents but it really comes down to what the local AHJ is willing to accept.


----------



## tmurray (Dec 20, 2021)

ICE said:


> _1010.1 Doors. Means of egress doors shall meet the requirements of this section. Doors serving a means of egress system shall meet the requirements of this section and Section 1022.2. Doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code shall meet the requirements of this section._
> 
> It does come down to who determines the purpose of a door.  The purpose of a door is obvious.  To assume that a door that is in addition to the required means of egress door need not meet the requirements of a means of egress door simply because an entity has determined that said door was not provided for egress purposes …. That’s just wrong.
> 
> ...


The issue I have with the argument that people see a door in an emergency and blindly go through it, is simply false. The numbers change somewhat, but the numbers I've heard thrown around by fire engineers are that about 90% of people try to go back out the door they came in, in an emergency. 

So, we are in a building and it catches on fire. Are you going to just try to go through random, unsigned, doors to get out? Oops, this one is an office. And here is a janitors closet. Why are people not just going towards the signed exits? 

Did we not do our jobs to make sure there were sufficient exits distributed properly throughout the building during construction/renovation? Did something change in the operation and did fire officials not do their job to ensure that it was being used properly from a commodities level, occupant loading, or compromising the exits? Maybe the codes are wrong and need revised. If people are so desperate to find an exit in an emergency they are picking between door number one, two, or three, surely something else must be wrong. 

We've had this discussion already in another thread. The decision to include the wording "provided for egress purposes" cannot be anything but an intentional intention to limit the application of this clause from applying to any door. Re-read the section without those words and that is what you have. A clause that applies to every door regardless of why the designer included the door. 

Just to clarify, your interpretation indicates that the base code does not provide sufficient exits, and that the additional doors provided by the designer are necessary to the safe operation of the suite and must be turned into exits. This seems like a very tenuous reliance on the building's conditions to meet life safety requirements for the occupants. Why are we not amending the code to ensure the proper number of exits are installed and located properly? I mean really, these extra doors can be located anywhere, or the designer can simply remove them since they are not required to meet code. Lets codify it and make sure we are meeting life safety requirements.


----------



## bill1952 (Dec 20, 2021)

tmurray said:


> people try to go back out the door they came in


So if everyone comes in a door that is not provided for egress, swings in, has a complicated lock, and no landing, that's OK?

You mention office doors and janitors closets, but this has generally been about doors to the exterior, in exterior walls, and for the most part having access to the public way.


----------



## tmurray (Dec 20, 2021)

bill1952 said:


> So if everyone comes in a door that is not provided for egress, swings in, has a complicated lock, and no landing, that's OK?
> 
> You mention office doors and janitors closets, but this has generally been about doors to the exterior, in exterior walls, and for the most part having access to the public way.


1. Main entry doors have to be an exit in our code and meet certain capacity requirements for the entire suite (I would presume it is similar in yours). There is a capacity exception for buildings like malls (which entrance is the "main entrance"???).

2. How is the building user to know what doors open to the outside? If there is a window in it or they work there sure they would, but otherwise, they are blindly opening doors hoping that they lead outside because they cannot reach a signed exit. 

If this truly is the issue people are making it, the code needs revised. Travel distances to exits needs reduced to require a better distribution of exits throughout the building. If this interpretation is true, we're relying on designers to place doors at the right locations in the interest of public safety and then forcing them to make them exits. How does this make sense?


----------



## bill1952 (Dec 20, 2021)

1. Might not be main entrance, just the one nearest free street parking that employees use, and are familiar with.
2.  If the door complied, with hardware, size, landings, swing, signage, etc., it would be easy.

If there are doors in exterior walls providing access to the public way but not provided for egress, what are they provided for?  Future tenant build out perhaps, but when built out, they'd probably have to comply and would be provided for egress.

I'd be curious what staff says.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Dec 20, 2021)

Some doors to public spaces are intended to move furnishings, equipment, exhibits, etc. in and out of the space, and not for egress.

Why not do what ADA requires for non-accessible exits and put a sign on the door saying "Not an exit" with an arrow pointing to the nearest exit?


----------



## bill1952 (Dec 20, 2021)

I'm not sure the compelling reason to not treat "extra" doors to the exterior like required doors.  Can't save much money.  As far as "not an exit" is that illuminated, in braille, and or in Spanish?  Also one near floor for smokey environment?  I'll ignore the active shooter in direction of the required and operable egress.

Luckily we can all do as we please to some degree and I'll remain a proponent of treating them like egress doors, because it will ultimately save time and money.  Too often told by official that if it can be used as an exit, it will be, and therefore better comply. A change order for one to be made compliant at end of construction will cost more than making 10 or 20 or more compliant in design.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 20, 2021)

bill1952 said:


> If there are doors in exterior walls providing access to the public way but not provided for egress, what are they provided for?


Not all doors in an exterior wall are for exiting some may be for fire department access
An F-2 or S-2 non sprinklered windowless building for example
2018 IBC
[F] 903.2.11.1 Stories without openings.
An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed throughout all stories, including basements, of all buildings where the floor area exceeds 1,500 square feet (139.4 m2) and where the story does not comply with the following criteria for exterior wall openings:

2.    Openings entirely above the adjoining ground level totaling not less than 20 square feet (1.86 m2) in each 50 linear feet (15 240 mm), or fraction thereof, of exterior wall in the story on not fewer than one side. The required openings shall be distributed such that the lineal distance between adjacent openings does not exceed 50 feet (15 240 mm). The height of the bottom of the clear opening shall not exceed 44 inches (1118 mm) measured from the floor.

2018 IFC

SECTION 504
ACCESS TO BUILDING OPENINGS AND ROOFS

504.1 Required access.
Exterior doors and openings required by this code or the International Building Code shall be maintained readily accessible for emergency access by the fire department. An approved access walkway leading from fire apparatus access roads to exterior openings shall be provided where required by the fire code official.

504.2 Maintenance of exterior doors and openings.
Exterior doors and their function shall not be eliminated without prior approval. Exterior doors that have been rendered nonfunctional and that retain a functional door exterior appearance shall have a sign affixed to the exterior side of the door with the words THIS DOOR BLOCKED. The sign shall consist of letters having a principal stroke of not less than 3/4 inch (19.1 mm) wide and not less than 6 inches (152 mm) high on a contrasting background. Required fire department access doors shall not be obstructed or eliminated. Exit and exit access doors shall comply with Chapter 10.* Access doors for high-piled combustible storage shall comply with Section 3206.7.*


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 20, 2021)

Many times I see exterior doors to loading docks without a stairway to grade and to fenced in storage areas. I would not make these be a means of egress.


----------



## Yikes (Dec 20, 2021)

ICE said:


> Now unfortunately a pyrotechnic display ignites the ceiling.  People are fleeing.  The people that found the four required exit doors got out.  The people that found the extra exit doors that swung in were found later that night.
> 
> Buildings will present individual situations.  Residential as opposed to commercial, etc.  The final arbiter is the occupant that opens the door.  An absolute exception applied to doors over and above the required number of doors due to semantics is not just wrong but is also unjustifiable.


What I find interesting about this is that if this was at a nightclub for 49 occupants and I was the first one to reach the door, the code assumes I would be able to overcome the force of 48 other people pressing in behind me so that I can swing the door inward; but hey, 50 people pressing behind me is just too much to handle.



Yes, in a non- "I" occupancy, the final arbiter of who makes it out alive is the occupant that opens the door.  But when it comes to building design for purposes of declaring life-safety, the prescriptive requirements of the building code are the final arbiter of what society deems as meeting the minimum requirements to be called "safe".  Yes, I know that sounds callous, but that's how risk management works.


----------



## bill1952 (Dec 21, 2021)

Rick18071 said:


> Many times I see exterior doors to loading docks without a stairway to grade and to fenced in storage areas. I would not make these be a means of egress.


Which is why I said with access to the public way.


----------



## tmurray (Dec 21, 2021)

bill1952 said:


> 1. Might not be main entrance, just the one nearest free street parking that employees use, and are familiar with.
> 2.  If the door complied, with hardware, size, landings, swing, signage, etc., it would be easy.
> 
> If there are doors in exterior walls providing access to the public way but not provided for egress, what are they provided for?  Future tenant build out perhaps, but when built out, they'd probably have to comply and would be provided for egress.
> ...


Who cares? Code says what is says. That is what I can enforce. When the code provides clear and concise language like it does here, there is little room for interpretation. 

I have neither the ego nor the will to enforce what I think the code should say over what the majority of experts have deemed to be safe design practices, which was then enacted into law by my democratically elected officials, to say nothing of the potential liability exposure.

Besides, if occupants have that concern, the owner and/or designer can install additional exits. It is not the building official's responsibility to satisfy the safety concerns of building occupants.


----------



## bill1952 (Dec 21, 2021)

tmurray said:


> When the code provides clear and concise language


Really?  When your interp is far from a majority opinion? I don't take exception to your other thoughts but  the code is anything but "clear and concise" on this.


----------



## tmurray (Dec 22, 2021)

bill1952 said:


> Really?  When your interp is far from a majority opinion? I don't take exception to your other thoughts but  the code is anything but "clear and concise" on this.


Using the majority to base your opinion off of is a logical fallacy called appeal to majority. Basically, it is the belief that since the majority of people believe something it must be true. A good example of this is when most people believed the Earth was the center of the solar system. It was not and they were all wrong.

I guess I am just having trouble understanding what is not clear with "provided for egress purposes". 

Is it every door? Nope, just those provided for egress purposes.

Is it every door someone could possibly use for egress? Nope, just those provided for egress purposes.

When I can answer plain English questions with the literal wording from the code, it's clear and concise. Belief that it is anything else is likely a function of confirmation bias forcing the individual to believe they are right to either avoid cognitive dissonance or prevent damage to their ego. Maybe both. 

I have yet to hear a compelling argument on why the opposing interpretation is correct, other than the concern for people's safety, which is coincidentally another logical fallacy called appeal to emotion. A well considered counter argument would focus on the the emphasis being in a different part of the clause, which may change the meaning. Evidence presented at the code change meeting where this clause was approved. Something tangible and factual about the clause itself. Anything else is just creating an excuse as to why the official is allowed to misinterpret the code to provide them powers outside of what has been lawfully provided to them. 

I would agree there are times where it may be necessary to step in and work through a problem with owners and designers where the code does not really address a specific situation. This is not what is happening here.


----------



## e hilton (Dec 22, 2021)

tmurray said:


> , other than the concern for people's safety, which is coincidentally another logical fallacy called appeal to emotion.


If codes were not created for peoples safety … then why do they exist?  What is the purpose of EERO?   Handrails on stairs?   GFCI outlets?


----------



## ICE (Dec 22, 2021)

tmurray said:


> Using the majority to base your opinion off of is a logical fallacy called appeal to majority. Basically, it is the belief that since the majority of people believe something it must be true. A good example of this is when most people believed the Earth was the center of the solar system. It was not and they were all wrong.
> 
> I guess I am just having trouble understanding what is not clear with "provided for egress purposes".
> 
> ...



I've been accused of a lot of things but appealing to the majority is not one of them.  As to cognitive dissonance, I am fairly consistent in my beliefs.  Now ego....I have one.



tmurray said:


> It is not the building official's responsibility to satisfy the safety concerns of building occupants.



 My dept. is the Building Safety Dept.  Your dept. appears to be the Building Accommodating Dept.  It seems as though the Canadian outlook is go with the flow as much as possible whereas in my corner of the US a theory of proactive enforcement prevails.


_1010.1 Doors. Means of egress doors shall meet the requirements of this section. Doors serving a means of egress system shall meet the requirements of this section and Section 1022.2. Doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code shall meet the requirements of this section.
Means of egress doors shall be readily distinguishable from the adjacent construction and finishes such that the doors are easily recognizable as doors. Mirrors or similar reflecting materials shall not be used on means of egress doors. Means of egress doors shall not be concealed by curtains, drapes, decorations or similar materials._

There’s more to that paragraph than just the “numbers greater than required.”  It is up to the regulator to determine the purpose of a door.  Examples have been proffered of doors that clearly have no relation to an egress door such as from a commercial kitchen or twenty feet above grade.  So what.  Does that answer the question of the six doors from the OP’s building?  No it does not.  The only way to know about those six doors is to see a floor plan.  Common sense must be applied.  Do the doors meet all of the usual parameters of an egress door?  Are they easy to spot? Do they lead to the exterior and then on to a public way? Just because someone states that a door, that has the earmarks of an egress door, is there for decoration does not change reality.


----------



## bill1952 (Dec 22, 2021)

tmurray said:


> Using the majority to base your opinion off of is a logical fallacy called appeal to majority. Basically, it is the belief that since the majority of people believe something it must be true. A good example of this is when most people believed the Earth was the center of the solar system. It was not and they were all wrong.
> 
> I guess I am just having trouble understanding what is not clear with "provided for egress purposes".
> 
> ...


If you're saying the masses are asses, sure.  But if the a significant number of users interpret the wording differently, its obviously not clear and concise.

It could say "Doors *designed and intended* for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code shall meet the requirements of this section." and it would more clearly support your interp.  On the other hand, it could say "Doors *providing* egress in numbers greater than required by this code shall meet the requirements of this section."  which is crystal clear for a different interp.


----------



## tmurray (Dec 22, 2021)

e hilton said:


> If codes were not created for peoples safety … then why do they exist?  What is the purpose of EERO?   Handrails on stairs?   GFCI outlets?


I'm not saying they were not created for and do facilitate safety. What I'm saying is that officials appear to be trying to justify a misinterpretation of the code with "but it's for public safety". If we allow that argument to stand, what else can be required that the code does not require?


----------



## tmurray (Dec 22, 2021)

ICE said:


> It is up to the regulator to determine the purpose of a door.


Maybe this is where our codes differ. Our administration section requires the designer to expressly identify the exit doors on the plan. 

I would question your position that the regulator determines which doors are provided for egress. If the regulator did not decide to place a door there, how can they decide if it is for egress? If the door is not required to meet exiting requirements for size and travel distance and the designer can simply remove the door, so how can it be for egress purposes? I would agree in an existing building, the regulator is responsible for what doors are required to be maintained to ensure proper travel distance and capacity.

Also, your personal attack is another good example of a logical fallacy called an ad homonym fallacy. It also adds nothing of substance to the argument.


----------



## tmurray (Dec 22, 2021)

bill1952 said:


> If you're saying the masses are asses, sure.  But if the a significant number of users interpret the wording differently, its obviously not clear and concise.
> 
> It could say "Doors *designed and intended* for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code shall meet the requirements of this section." and it would more clearly support your interp.  On the other hand, it could say "Doors *providing* egress in numbers greater than required by this code shall meet the requirements of this section."  which is crystal clear for a different interp.


I believe willful ignorance would be a better statement. Potentially even a misunderstanding of their role in the process. 

Could it be written better? Sure. Most things could. I've seen code changes simply because people had inconsistent interpretations before (i.e., they interpret it one way when it comes to one thing and another way when it comes to something else).


----------



## ICE (Dec 22, 2021)

tmurray said:


> Maybe this is where our codes differ. Our administration section requires the designer to expressly identify the exit doors on the plan.
> 
> I would question your position that the regulator determines which doors are provided for egress. If the regulator did not decide to place a door there, how can they decide if it is for egress? If the door is not required to meet exiting requirements for size and travel distance and the designer can simply remove the door, so how can it be for egress purposes? I would agree in an existing building, the regulator is responsible for what doors are required to be maintained to ensure proper travel distance and capacity.
> 
> Also, your personal attack is another good example of a logical fallacy called an ad homonym fallacy. It also adds nothing of substance to the argument.


Ad Hominem…..and to the point.  You taking it personal is like Dr. Fauci saying that an attack on him is an attack on science.…in reverse.  Many posts from the Canadian contingent have led me to believe that Canadian code enforcement is just a tad bit too soft.  But hey now, that’s just me and I’m probably a tad bit too strict.  Hells Bells, there’s building officials at this forum that have said that they would fire me in a heartbeat and I’m pretty sure that I’d be run out of Canada in short order.


----------



## Rick18071 (Dec 22, 2021)

I would also question your position that the regulator determines which doors are provided for egress. The designer does this. Just like a regulator cannot decide what a room is used for. The regulator cannot call it a medical exam room if the designer says it's a waiting room.


----------



## ICE (Dec 22, 2021)

Rick18071 said:


> I would also question your position that the regulator determines which doors are provided for egress. The designer does this. Just like a regulator cannot decide what a room is used for. The regulator cannot call it a medical exam room if the designer says it's a waiting room.


That’s comparing apples to oranges. If you want to talk about rooms, I mentioned a room earlier.  That was a bedroom that was labeled as an office in order to not install a smoke alarm.  The regulator in me said no.

Present a plan with six doors that all function as an exit in every respect.  Call one door the required egress door because only one egress door is required and say nothing about the rest of the doors.  Or if you like, label five doors as not required egress doors. Now depending on the situation I might agree or I might not agree but that is my prerogative.  I could go along with the “not a required egress door” label and still require every code that applies to a required egress door to be applied to the five, not required, egress doors.

The doors do not become “provided for egress purposes” by a label.  If the doors exist and they function as a means of egress they have been “provided”….well there you have it.

A goose waddles into a bar and orders a whiskey sour.  Ya I know….the goose has self esteem issues.  The bartender Shirley misunderstood and set up six whiskey sours.  The goose drank five and as he stumbled towards the door he says thanks but he’s changed his mind. 
Only one whiskey sour was required (the one that’s left on the bar) but six were provided.  That’s how the goose got stewed.


----------



## bill1952 (Dec 22, 2021)

Is that asking if doors which do provide egress are provided for egress?


----------



## tmurray (Dec 23, 2021)

ICE said:


> Ad Hominem…..and to the point.  You taking it personal is like Dr. Fauci saying that an attack on him is an attack on science.…in reverse.  Many posts from the Canadian contingent have led me to believe that Canadian code enforcement is just a tad bit too soft.  But hey now, that’s just me and I’m probably a tad bit too strict.  Hells Bells, there’s building officials at this forum that have said that they would fire me in a heartbeat and I’m pretty sure that I’d be run out of Canada in short order.


I'm not sure I would agree with you. In Canada, I do not benefit from statutory immunity. The municipality I work for was sued multiple times a year before I took over. Sometimes for being too soft. Sometimes for being too strict. Always for not enforcing the code.

11 years ago they cleared house in the building inspection department and I came in. I have yet to see a single lawsuit against the municipality for the work during my tenure.


----------



## e hilton (Dec 23, 2021)

tmurray said:


> I have yet to see a single lawsuit against the municipality for the work during my tenure.


Not trying to start an argument … why do you think it has worked well for 11 yrs?  Do you go strictly by the book?   How do you handle issues like this one (this discussion about narrow alley, or possibly noncompliant exits)?


----------



## ICE (Dec 23, 2021)

tmurray said:


> I'm not sure I would agree with you. In Canada, I do not benefit from statutory immunity. The municipality I work for was sued multiple times a year before I took over. Sometimes for being too soft. Sometimes for being too strict. Always for not enforcing the code.
> 
> 11 years ago they cleared house in the building inspection department and I came in. I have yet to see a single lawsuit against the municipality for the work during my tenure.


I can't recall an instance when I was shielded by statutory immunity....but then that's a symptom of statutory immunity.  I also can't recall the concept having been a consideration in the performance of my job.  In California, lawsuits fly irregardless of statutory immunity.  My jurisdiction is sued when it needs to be sued.


----------



## tmurray (Jan 4, 2022)

e hilton said:


> Not trying to start an argument … why do you think it has worked well for 11 yrs?  Do you go strictly by the book?   How do you handle issues like this one (this discussion about narrow alley, or possibly noncompliant exits)?



There are two basic concepts that go into effective liability mitigation for building officials in Canada based on settled law:

1. You do not get to enforce your interpretation of the code. While we are all experts, proper interpretation of the code is the least restrictive, reasonable interpretation. Building regulations encroach upon rights guaranteed under our charter (and I believe your constitution). Because some infringement is reasonable in the operation of an orderly society, the law (adopted code is considered a law) generally can accept infringements written into laws shown to be for the public good. However, because these laws infringe an guaranteed freedoms, judges will interpret them to be the lease amount of infringement possible, while being reasonable in their interpretation. There is naturally an exception to this which many of us have likely encountered, there might be a less restrictive interpretation, but it is not reasonable because it lacks consistency with the remainder of the code, or would outright create conflicts with other provisions. This is why the "reasonable" measure is so important. It falls to us to be certain that we can prove that our interpretations are "reasonable" as building officials.

2. Just because a violation exists, does not mean it needs remedied. When a violation is encountered in the course of construction, the violation must be reviewed to understand the potential impact it could have on the building users, the building itself, and any other interest groups using a three part analysis. We need to review the gravity of harm (how bad could someone get hurt), the likelihood of harm (how likely someone would get hurt), and the cost of repair (self-explanatory). Based on this outcome, some violations would not make sense to correct, and instead become learning opportunities for contractors. And I do hope they learn, because next time they are fixing it regardless.

The final thing we do, which is a significant deviation from what is standard liability mitigation practice is to admit when we make a mistake. We work with the damaged party to find solutions to the issue and to fix the process to reduce the chances of it happening again. In speaking with a friend of mine who literally makes her living suing various levels of government here, this is the most effective liability mitigation practice for governments. Judges are not very inclined to find against government entities that when presented with a problem that they exacerbated actually engage in helping to find a solution to the problem. The alternative rewards stonewalling and causing the owners to suffer further damages, which they wish to de-incentivize. 

It's not that we haven't made mistakes, it's that when we do, I sit down with them in their home at their kitchen table. I listen to their side and how it affected them. I empathize with them, I tell them how sorry I am that this happened to them, and we work together to develop a solution. I've had to do this twice in my career. Both times it was awful to see how the mistakes we made really affected the owners. Both times we were successful in ensuring we helped get the issues straightened out. 

More to your question, how do we handle issues like this, existing buildings are hard. Contractors know it. RDPs know it. Building officials know it. Sometimes the best you can do is the best you can do. We have a system in Canada where designers can propose an alternative to the code that meets the same level of performance. In situations like this, we would be looking at timed egress studies for the width reduction. We would also be looking at ensuring queuing at this exit is reduced to minimize any crowd crush created. Existing buildings are frequent users of this system. From a liability perspective, the designer retains liability. The building official is only responsible to ensure the designer follows the proper process for the alternative solution (which includes demonstrating their professional capacity to perform the evaluation) and the designers responsibility is for if the design actually works. If I start deciding what an exit is and what is not, I am not regulating, I am engaged in designing and have significantly more liability.


----------



## Yikes (Jan 4, 2022)

OK, it appears this thread has now morphed from the specific of exit doors to the general legal theory discussion of rules, evaluation and discretion.  The discussion has already encompassed legal concepts of "bright line" aka "hard line" rules that require no judgement call vs. more subjective "soft rules", standards and principles, which require "reasonableness" in interpretation.

A famous example of a hard line rule is the US constitutional requirement that the President be at least 35 years old.  That's a "bright line" rule.  If it had said instead the President must be an "adult", that is a soft rule, because it requires a common, unchanging societal understanding of what constitutes an "adult".  18 years old?  21 years old?  25 years old?  Does maturity and wisdom = adult?

Likewise, the" smoke detector in a sleeping room" example looks like a "bright line" rule, but requires a reasonable understanding of what constitutes a "sleeping room", and "reasonable" = soft rule.  Who decides?  Whose "reason" do we use?  The property owner's?  The building official?  The tax assessor's recording of the # of bedrooms in a dwelling unit?  
If a person sleeps on their living room couch, is the living room now a sleeping room?

"Walks like a duck, squawks like a duck = it is a duck" is a soft rule statement of "reasonableness", utilizing analogy for inference.  This is not to say that soft rules are inferior to a hard-line rule; it just means that soft rules require more effort and individual attention during application, and are subject to more second-guessing.


----------



## ADAguy (Jan 5, 2022)

Cali_Code_Architect said:


> Yikes, you're right. I shouldn't call it an 'alley', it's an egress court. Thank you for clarifying.
> 
> I'm sorry but I have limited info myself. I just know that there are existing area with doors that is used to get in and out the building. I haven't been there but it appears to be narrow so I'm trying to get the required code to verify if it would be compliant. The existing fence and building aren't exactly parallel so it varies, I'm not sure what the minimum width is, but people use it so I imagine it's wide enough to get through.
> 
> ...


Not an alley, a side yard, no? what is the min. side yard required for this zone? If only one exit is required then what is the purpose of the rear door?


----------

