# Somebody please explain to me ...



## MtnArch (Jan 1, 2019)

... how this is legal in California?

This is a new residential build (permitted and built in 2018), recently received their final.  This is the access from the alley to a 1-bedroom unit above the garage (that is for a detached large home 25' away).  Per CRC R311.7.8 (Handrails) runs with four or more risers are required to have a handrail on at least one side, and per CRC R311.7.8.2 (Continuity) it must be continuous for the full flight.

What am I missing on this?


----------



## fatboy (Jan 1, 2019)

Nothing, handrail should be continuous from/through the bottom rise....


----------



## ICE (Jan 1, 2019)

The fabricated stairs should have reached the ground.  Landing on an illegal landing is not going to work.  Another handrail will not fix this mistake.

_R311.7.6 Landings for stairways. There shall be a floor or landing at the top and bottom of each stairway. The width perpendicular to the direction of travel shall be not less than the width of the flight served. Landings of shapes other than square or rectangular shall be permitted provided that the depth at the walk line and the total area is not less than that of a quarter circle with a radius equal to the required landing width. Where the stairway has a straight run, the depth in the direction of travel shall be not less than 36 inches (914 mm)._


----------



## Keystone (Jan 1, 2019)

If I understand your concern. It does appear there is a landing at the base of the concrete stairs, landing/sidewalk..   The concrete stairs are not acting as a landing, it's a continuity of the stairs albeit not ideal. The riser and tread, are the dimensions consistent from the concrete stairs vs the metal? Why couldn't the railing assembly be continued at the same width to the base of all the stairs and the garage side receives some type of railing assembly? 


Despite this job being CO'd and as an alternate talking point, why not have the concrete stairs re-poured as a landing and switch the remaining stair drop away from the garage into the mulch then place an appropriate landing.


----------



## ICE (Jan 1, 2019)

Has someone determined this to be two sets of stairs?  With the concrete stairs being three risers and therefor exempt from a handrail requirement?  The treads and risers appear to differ in dimension from one set to the other.  Both sets require landings at the top and bottom.  Neither set meet that code.

If this is declared to be one stairway there is missing handrail.....out of bounds treads and risers.....no 36" deep landing at the bottom.


This is a code that applies to the bottom landing....just in case anyone wants to include the street swale as a part of the landing.
_R311.7.7 Stairway walking surface. The walking surface of treads and landings of stairways shall be sloped not steeper than one unit vertical in 48 inches horizontal (2-per- cent slope). _


----------



## tmurray (Jan 2, 2019)

We recently had some clarification on this item. Here, you are permitted a maximum of 2 risers before a handrail is required. Many building inspectors were permitting a handrail to start after two risers on longer sets of stairs, similar to what is pictured. The Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes amended the code to explicitly require a handrail for the entire staircase (bound by landings), not just a portion. 

As Keystone and ICE are saying, if they want the concrete stairs to be evaluated as their own stairs, a compliant landing must be installed between the steel prefab stairs and the concrete.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 2, 2019)

tmurray said:


> As Keystone and ICE are saying, if they want the concrete stairs to be evaluated as their own stairs, a compliant landing must be installed between the steel prefab stairs and the concrete.



Agree, not compliant unless CA code has amended the stair section to allow this mistake.


----------



## steveray (Jan 2, 2019)

If it is approved, then it is legal....


----------



## classicT (Jan 2, 2019)

Someone made a mistake, as ICE has referenced, either a continuous handrail is required (and tread/risers w/in dimensional tolerances for full flight) or landings at each transition are required.



steveray said:


> If it is approved, then it is legal....


 How do you figure? Are inspectors immune from mistakes?


----------



## steveray (Jan 2, 2019)

[A] APPROVED. Acceptable to the building official.

Not immune, the Town just owns it now....


----------



## classicT (Jan 2, 2019)

steveray said:


> [A] APPROVED. Acceptable to the building official.
> 
> Not immune, the Town just owns it now....


That's not how it works. There is no implied consent when an item is mistakenly not identified by the Building Official's representative (the inspector).


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 2, 2019)

Not sure if CA has the same language but under the IRC it can still be corrected

R110.1 Use and occupancy.
No building or structure shall be used or occupied, and no change in the existing occupancy classification of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be made until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy therefor as provided herein. Issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not be construed as an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction. Certificates presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid.


R110.5 Revocation.
The building official shall, in writing, suspend or revoke a certificate of occupancy issued under the provisions of this code wherever the certificate is issued in error, or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or where it is determined that the building or structure or portion thereof is in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code.


----------



## steveray (Jan 2, 2019)

Ty J. said:


> That's not how it works. There is no implied consent when an item is mistakenly not identified by the Building Official's representative (the inspector).



Correct, but it is assumed that the department did their job...

[A] 111.2 Certificate issued. After the building official
inspects the building or structure and does not find violations
of the provisions of this code or other laws that are enforced
by the department of building safety, the building official
shall issue a certificate of occupancy that contains the following:

Not finding is not "not looking"....


----------



## tmurray (Jan 2, 2019)

I don't know if the distinction is important. If the municipality wants to go back and have the deficiency corrected at this point they will likely have to pay for the correction regardless. It would be relatively easy to prove the inspector was negligent of their duties (this forum thread being proof that a reasonable diligent inspector would be able to detect the deficiency).


----------



## mark handler (Jan 2, 2019)

*California Residential Code
R311.7.8.2 Continuity*
Handrails for stairways shall be *continuous for the full length of the flight,* from a point directly above the top riser of the flight to a point directly *above the lowest riser *of the flight. Handrail ends shall be returned or shall terminate in newel posts or safety terminals. Handrails adjacent to a wall shall have a space of not less than 11/2 inches between the wall and the handrails.


----------



## steveray (Jan 2, 2019)

If the concrete worked as a landing, it would be good


----------



## mark handler (Jan 2, 2019)

steveray said:


> If the concrete worked as a landing, it would be good


If the concrete worked as a landing, the stair would end in the gutter


----------



## steveray (Jan 2, 2019)

Speed bump.......Or the metal stairs would be steeper....


----------



## classicT (Jan 2, 2019)

steveray said:


> Correct, but it is assumed that the department did their job...
> 
> [A] 111.2 Certificate issued. After the building official
> inspects the building or structure and does not find violations
> ...


Revocation of the CO and forcing a fix is possible. May be a little harsh, but good luck thinking a building department will pay for the fix.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 2, 2019)

Tubular metal == weld on another five or so feet.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 2, 2019)

ICE said:


> Another handrail will not fix this mistake.


Extend the one you have


----------



## steveray (Jan 2, 2019)

mark handler said:


> Tubular metal == weld on another five or so feet.



There will still be issues with the bottom landing.......IF.....All of the treads and risers and nosings work....<3/8" uniformity


----------



## mark handler (Jan 2, 2019)

steveray said:


> There will still be issues with the bottom landing.......IF.....All of the treads and risers and nosings work....<3/8" uniformity


Steve
Cannot tell from a picture.


----------



## JPohling (Jan 2, 2019)

The railing extension is an easy fix.  The landing is not so simple.  Egress is directly onto a vehicular way??
Perhaps they need a landing at bottom of metal stair and then turn 90 and stairs down into landscaped area.


----------



## mark handler (Jan 2, 2019)

JPohling said:


> The railing extension is an easy fix.  The landing is not so simple.  Egress is directly onto a vehicular way??
> Perhaps they need a landing at bottom of metal stair and then turn 90 and stairs down into landscaped area.


nothing that says it cannot be in vehicular way...


----------



## ICE (Jan 2, 2019)

I think that it is easy to tell that the bottom landing is way short of 36".  I would not count any part of a street and besides that there is a curb.

There may not be a prohibition spelled out in the code about counting the street as part of a landing.....but then the code doesn't say that you can either......so no, I would not allow that.


----------



## classicT (Jan 3, 2019)

Most streets and gutters that I have been around have greater than 2% slope, thereby exceeding the maximum slope for a landing.

Plus, how do you treat the curb/gutter - is it an additional step? Subject to tolerances on tread depth and riser height?

In the end, this has numerous issues and should have never been approved.


----------



## ADAguy (Jan 8, 2019)

Lesson learned:  "never", "ever" assume anything, especially code compliance because the inspector signed off


----------



## texasinspector (Jan 15, 2019)

steveray said:


> Correct, but it is assumed that the department did their job...
> 
> [A] 111.2 Certificate issued. After the building official
> inspects the building or structure and does not find violations
> ...


Nope. I always assume that the department is not doing its job.


----------



## ADAguy (Jan 16, 2019)

"Trust" does not exist in your vocabulary?


----------

