# Emergency egress from basement?



## ElMasGrecus (Jul 23, 2014)

This is a code question about a new single family residence I am working on in Los Angeles subject to the 2010 California Residential Code.

We have a 1,200 SF basement that we have identified as "storage". As such, the only means of egress is the interior stair used to access the basement. CRC Section R310 "Emergency Escape and Rescue Openings" states: "basements, habitable attics and every sleeping room shall have at least one operable emergency escape and rescue opening." Our plan checker did not require us to have this rescue opening, just the interior door leading to the storage space. Why did he not require it? I would ask him, but sometimes asking opens a can of worms so I wanted to do some research first. Thanks in advance for your help.


----------



## cda (Jul 23, 2014)

Welcome.....

So how did you find out about the requirement??

Hate to asked how it was missed in design??

Yes appears it should be there.

Better to question it now than down the line when it will cost more time and money


----------



## cda (Jul 23, 2014)

SECTION R310 EMERGENCY ESCAPE AND RESCUE OPENINGS

R310.1 Emergency escape and rescue required. Basements, habitable attics and every sleeping room shall have at least one operable emergency escape and rescue opening. Where basements contain one or more sleeping rooms, emergency egress and rescue openings shall be required in each sleeping room. Where emergency escape and rescue openings are provided they shall have a sill height of not more than 44 inches (1118 mm) above the floor. Where a door opening having a threshold below the adjacent ground elevation serves as an emergency escape and rescue opening and is provided with a bulkhead enclosure, the bulkhead enclosure shall comply with Section R310.3. The net clear opening dimensions required by this section shall be obtained by the normal operation of the emergency escape and rescue opening from the inside. Emergency escape and rescue openings with a finished sill height below the adjacent ground elevation shall be provided with a window well in accordance with Section R310.2. Emergency escape and rescue openings shall open directly into a public way, or to a yard or court that opens to a public way.

Exception: Basements used only to house mechanical equipment and not exceeding total floor area of 200 square feet (18.58 m2).

R310.1.1 Minimum opening area. All emergency escape and rescue openings shall have a minimum net clear opening of 5.7 square feet (0.530 m2).

Exception: Grade floor openings shall have a minimum net clear opening of 5 square feet (0.465 m2).

R310.1.2 Minimum opening height. The minimum net clear opening height shall be 24 inches (610 mm).

R310.1.3 Minimum opening width. The minimum net clear opening width shall be 20 inches (508 mm).

R310.1.4 Operational constraints. Emergency escape and rescue openings shall be maintained free of any obstructions other than those allowed by this section and shall be operational from the inside of the room without the use of keys, tools or special knowledge.


----------



## ElMasGrecus (Jul 23, 2014)

An inspector brought up the question just after we poured the basement walls. We had discussed this with our plan checker during plan check and he explicitly told us that it was not needed if the basement was being used as storage. Once the inspector mentioned it, we did further research and thoroughly reviewed CRC section R310. We just contacted the plan checker and he acknowledged that he was in error. I double checked with another senior plan checker and he told me the same thing at first: no emergency egress needed if it is being used for storage. I then pulled out section R310 and he revised his opinion to conform to the code.

So, yes, we should have had it in the design (our error) and the plan checker should not have sworn up and down that no emergency egress was needed (his error).


----------



## cda (Jul 23, 2014)

Nice,

It is not bad when it is a small miss, but you asked.

It is better for them to get the code book out and read the black and white

Maybe the inspector ought to be doing plan check????


----------



## ElMasGrecus (Jul 23, 2014)

cda said:
			
		

> Nice, It is not bad when it is a small miss, but you asked.
> 
> It is better for them to get the code book out and read the black and white
> 
> Maybe the inspector ought to be doing plan check????


I know. I rarely take anything code-related on faith. Almost always I will dig up the code and read it myself. This plan checker was VERY knowledgeable about code and very certain on this call. It will be a lesson to me.


----------



## cda (Jul 23, 2014)

ElMasGrecus said:
			
		

> I know. I rarely take anything code-related on faith. Almost always I will dig up the code and read it myself. This plan checker was VERY knowledgeable about code and very certain on this call. It will be a lesson to me.


Yea been there before

My problem is been through to many editions and a few different brands,

So sometimes trying to enforce something a few years old out of a different brand.


----------



## JBI (Jul 23, 2014)

ElMasGrecus - Welcome to the forum.

Regrettable error by the plan checker I would agree. A bit easier to fix early in the process though.

And you accept that your plan preparer/DPR is also at fault for not including the EERO in the design.

Like cda, I too have dealt with multiple versions of different codes over the last 20+ years, and it can get confusing at times.

Frankly something like a basement EERO probably _shouldn't_ have been missed at plan review, that is a fairly standard requirement that has been in place for some time now. Hopefully that is the biggest error/ommission on the plans...


----------



## ElMasGrecus (Jul 23, 2014)

JBI said:
			
		

> ElMasGrecus - Welcome to the forum. Regrettable error by the plan checker I would agree. A bit easier to fix early in the process though.
> 
> And you accept that your plan preparer/DPR is also at fault for not including the EERO in the design.
> 
> ...


JBI - Thanks for the welcome to the forum.

You are right, two different parties _should _have caught it. Actually, the plan checker _did _catch it since we discussed it explicitly. It's just that he wasn't familiar enough with the code, I guess. Again, it was quite a surprise. We had an 8-month plan check process on a residence in an area of Los Angeles that is known to be extremely difficult to permit projects. I am surprised he didn't catch it during those 8 months. Will be more careful in the future.


----------



## cda (Jul 24, 2014)

ElMasGrecus said:
			
		

> JBI - Thanks for the welcome to the forum.You are right, two different parties _should _have caught it. Actually, the plan checker _did _catch it since we discussed it explicitly. It's just that he wasn't familiar enough with the code, I guess. Again, it was quite a surprise. We had an 8-month plan check process on a residence in an area of Los Angeles that is known to be extremely difficult to permit projects. I am surprised he didn't catch it during those 8 months. Will be more careful in the future.


Since we are self funded and the advice on here is top notch,

If you would like to help this forums endeavor please follow the info in this thread , thanks

http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14626&p=131830#post131830


----------

