Can I demolish these stairs? They might be required for egress.
September 26, 2011 1:20 AM Subscribe
A question for California architects and builders and city permit experts -- are there egress options I don't know about? Can I demolish a (worthless) egress staircase and rebuild it later?
I own a dilapidated fixer-upper house. It's a three (or 2.5) story house split into three flats -- a main one, an attic, and a "basement" (in reality, it is only 2' below grade). I have a limited budget, so I have to do work in stages and cannot do all the necessary repairs right now.
I want to tear down a staircase to the tiny third floor attic flat. This is not the main entrance to that flat. That main entrance is off a deck behind the house. This is a second staircase that goes up the side of the house to a balcony above the front porch.
It makes so much sense to get rid of it. The stringers are pretty bad and half of the treads are completely rotted out. It is in the stucco crew's way. Also, it looks bad. It attaches to the side of the house in a way that ruins its symmetry. It forces the front balcony to be wider than it would otherwise be, such that its railing messes up the roof line. It would look better and be cheaper to get rid of the staircase and make the balcony a bit narrower.
However, it is most likely required as the second egress for the third floor unit. One of the city engineers pulled out the code book and unofficially said he thought I wouldn't be able to eliminate it, though I was free to bring in plans and discuss it with them more officially.
(a) Is there any way that I don't need this as egress? The City of Oakland guy said that they follow the 2010 California Building Code for this. The egress chapter appears to say that on the third floor, there must either be two routes for egress, or if there are fewer than 10 occupants, one exit and a sprinkler system. A sprinkler system sounds harder. Is there some ladder option that I'm overlooking? Commercial buildings have fire escape balconies with ladders. Why can't I just attach a metal ladder to the side of my front porch balcony and call it good? I do plan on moving into the third-floor unit just as soon as it has plumbing, which will be soon.
(b) What is the best way to do permitting and inspections in this situation where I'd like to demolish something now and rebuild it in a year or two? The stucco and roofers would like it gone now. I'm assuming that my only option is to pull a permit for its replacement before I tear it down. But they give you six months from your last inspection before the permit expires. And I've been advised by a number of people to keep it standing until I'm ready to replace it. I do know I have the setback to rebuild it to code, so I don't fully understand their rationale.
(c) The stucco person is right that it's a big deal to work around the stairs, aren't they? It looks like it would be. It cuts diagonally up the middle of the wall. Pulling it off the wall without knocking it over seems hard, and flashing around it... makes no sense at all. I'd initially told them that I thought we could demo the stairs (after checking that we'd be able to rebuild them if necessary). When I came back and said we might have to keep them, they said they might have to change the price a bit before we finalize the contract. That seemed reasonable to me, but does this sound right to you, or is it just a negotiating tactic?
I own a dilapidated fixer-upper house. It's a three (or 2.5) story house split into three flats -- a main one, an attic, and a "basement" (in reality, it is only 2' below grade). I have a limited budget, so I have to do work in stages and cannot do all the necessary repairs right now.
I want to tear down a staircase to the tiny third floor attic flat. This is not the main entrance to that flat. That main entrance is off a deck behind the house. This is a second staircase that goes up the side of the house to a balcony above the front porch.
It makes so much sense to get rid of it. The stringers are pretty bad and half of the treads are completely rotted out. It is in the stucco crew's way. Also, it looks bad. It attaches to the side of the house in a way that ruins its symmetry. It forces the front balcony to be wider than it would otherwise be, such that its railing messes up the roof line. It would look better and be cheaper to get rid of the staircase and make the balcony a bit narrower.
However, it is most likely required as the second egress for the third floor unit. One of the city engineers pulled out the code book and unofficially said he thought I wouldn't be able to eliminate it, though I was free to bring in plans and discuss it with them more officially.
(a) Is there any way that I don't need this as egress? The City of Oakland guy said that they follow the 2010 California Building Code for this. The egress chapter appears to say that on the third floor, there must either be two routes for egress, or if there are fewer than 10 occupants, one exit and a sprinkler system. A sprinkler system sounds harder. Is there some ladder option that I'm overlooking? Commercial buildings have fire escape balconies with ladders. Why can't I just attach a metal ladder to the side of my front porch balcony and call it good? I do plan on moving into the third-floor unit just as soon as it has plumbing, which will be soon.
(b) What is the best way to do permitting and inspections in this situation where I'd like to demolish something now and rebuild it in a year or two? The stucco and roofers would like it gone now. I'm assuming that my only option is to pull a permit for its replacement before I tear it down. But they give you six months from your last inspection before the permit expires. And I've been advised by a number of people to keep it standing until I'm ready to replace it. I do know I have the setback to rebuild it to code, so I don't fully understand their rationale.
(c) The stucco person is right that it's a big deal to work around the stairs, aren't they? It looks like it would be. It cuts diagonally up the middle of the wall. Pulling it off the wall without knocking it over seems hard, and flashing around it... makes no sense at all. I'd initially told them that I thought we could demo the stairs (after checking that we'd be able to rebuild them if necessary). When I came back and said we might have to keep them, they said they might have to change the price a bit before we finalize the contract. That seemed reasonable to me, but does this sound right to you, or is it just a negotiating tactic?
"One of the city engineers pulled out the code book and unofficially said he thought I wouldn't be able to eliminate it, though I was free to bring in plans and discuss it with them more officially."
Any reason why you can't just use this option? I'm sure they see this kind of thing all the time, and might even have ideas for alternative egress routes that would be less of an eyesore, less expensive, or easier to work with. Certainly they'll be able to help clear up your questions with the building code requirements.
As someone who is occasionally in a position similar to your city engineer, let me tell you that when I really don't know for sure what could ultimately be permitted in a particular situation, it's easier to give people bad news unofficially, knowing that ultimately it might work out favorably. Nothing is worse than telling someone their idea sounds reasonable, only to take a closer looks at the plans and realize that it's totally unworkable.
posted by Jemstar at 6:36 AM on September 26, 2011
Any reason why you can't just use this option? I'm sure they see this kind of thing all the time, and might even have ideas for alternative egress routes that would be less of an eyesore, less expensive, or easier to work with. Certainly they'll be able to help clear up your questions with the building code requirements.
As someone who is occasionally in a position similar to your city engineer, let me tell you that when I really don't know for sure what could ultimately be permitted in a particular situation, it's easier to give people bad news unofficially, knowing that ultimately it might work out favorably. Nothing is worse than telling someone their idea sounds reasonable, only to take a closer looks at the plans and realize that it's totally unworkable.
posted by Jemstar at 6:36 AM on September 26, 2011
Alternate solution: remove them because they are a safety hazard. Build something else if/when you are forced to.
posted by gjc at 7:31 AM on September 26, 2011
posted by gjc at 7:31 AM on September 26, 2011
Response by poster: Thanks for the answer so far. Meatbomb, I don't think I want to eliminate the value, housing supply, etc. It's been a legal triplex forever, and I don't want to be the one to change that. It probably couldn't go back the other direction, because it wouldn't meet current parking requirements. Future owners will probably live in the main unit and rent the attic, so I would want to be able to say it's legal.
Any reason why you can't just use this option?
I might end up having to, jennstar. But if AskMe knew what the alternative was, or that I was definitely out of luck, it would save me a lot of time. It'll probably take 3-4 hours to draw plans and elevations, and 3-4 hours at city offices (also my vacation time from work). If I did it right the first time, I could go through that cycle once rather than twice, which would help since it should happen ASAP this week.
Thanks for the thoughts so far. I appreciate it.
posted by slidell at 7:53 AM on September 26, 2011
Any reason why you can't just use this option?
I might end up having to, jennstar. But if AskMe knew what the alternative was, or that I was definitely out of luck, it would save me a lot of time. It'll probably take 3-4 hours to draw plans and elevations, and 3-4 hours at city offices (also my vacation time from work). If I did it right the first time, I could go through that cycle once rather than twice, which would help since it should happen ASAP this week.
Thanks for the thoughts so far. I appreciate it.
posted by slidell at 7:53 AM on September 26, 2011
One thing to be careful of - if you demolish and rebuild this egress stair, you will have to rebuild it to current code, so if it was excessively steep, didn't have any required landings, clearances, etc, you may not be allowed to rebuild it exactly as it was.
I know it sucks, but I really think it is worth your time to walk in and talk with a code official over the counter. Plans can be extremely crude - they will mostly care about square footage of each floor, bedrooms, plumbing fixtures, and stairs. And possibly any windows in bedrooms that you may want to use for egress.
If you go in to the City before you do any demolition, you will be treated quite well, as a homeowner trying to do the right thing. If you try to act first and beg for forgiveness later, it likely will not go well.
(I am not your architect)
posted by misterbrandt at 8:31 AM on September 26, 2011
I know it sucks, but I really think it is worth your time to walk in and talk with a code official over the counter. Plans can be extremely crude - they will mostly care about square footage of each floor, bedrooms, plumbing fixtures, and stairs. And possibly any windows in bedrooms that you may want to use for egress.
If you go in to the City before you do any demolition, you will be treated quite well, as a homeowner trying to do the right thing. If you try to act first and beg for forgiveness later, it likely will not go well.
(I am not your architect)
posted by misterbrandt at 8:31 AM on September 26, 2011
Best answer: You might already know this based on your meeting with the engineer, but the building your'e looking at is classified as an R-2 occupancy because it has three units. If it only had two, you'd be looking at an R-3 (basically, single family residences and duplexes only), for which the requirements are much more lenient.
For an R-2 building, you absolutely need 2 means of egress from the third floor. Your first out on that may be that since you've got a basement, if you can demonstrate that the attic is actually the second floor above the grade plane, then it removes the third floor requirements for egress.
For fire escapes, you see them around because they used to be allowed by code. They're not really acceptable any more unless they're existing on an existing building, and in some cases, not even then. There are stipulations for adding fire escapes to an existing building, but the requirements for them are such that you'd essentially be adding a stair anyway. Ladders are almost certainly not allowed at all. Here's the code quote from Chapter 34 of the 2010 code - chapter 34 deals with existing buildings, section 3406 deals with fire escapes: 3406.1.3 New fire escapes. New fire escapes for existing buildings shall be permitted only where exterior stairs cannot be utilized due to lot lines limiting stair size or due to the sidewalks, alleys or roads at grade level. New fire escapes shall not incorporate ladders or access by windows.
Since you've already got a stair in the location in question, you'll have a very hard time convincing the building department that you're unable to replace the stair with another one.
Alternate solution: remove them because they are a safety hazard. Build something else if/when you are forced to.
Ehnnnn...this could put the building into a non-compliant situation, and if the City finds about it, they'd assess fines and force you to fix it, so you'd have to do the same thing already, pay a fine, and you'd be on the City's radar as a potential violator.
posted by LionIndex at 8:33 AM on September 26, 2011
For an R-2 building, you absolutely need 2 means of egress from the third floor. Your first out on that may be that since you've got a basement, if you can demonstrate that the attic is actually the second floor above the grade plane, then it removes the third floor requirements for egress.
For fire escapes, you see them around because they used to be allowed by code. They're not really acceptable any more unless they're existing on an existing building, and in some cases, not even then. There are stipulations for adding fire escapes to an existing building, but the requirements for them are such that you'd essentially be adding a stair anyway. Ladders are almost certainly not allowed at all. Here's the code quote from Chapter 34 of the 2010 code - chapter 34 deals with existing buildings, section 3406 deals with fire escapes: 3406.1.3 New fire escapes. New fire escapes for existing buildings shall be permitted only where exterior stairs cannot be utilized due to lot lines limiting stair size or due to the sidewalks, alleys or roads at grade level. New fire escapes shall not incorporate ladders or access by windows.
Since you've already got a stair in the location in question, you'll have a very hard time convincing the building department that you're unable to replace the stair with another one.
Alternate solution: remove them because they are a safety hazard. Build something else if/when you are forced to.
Ehnnnn...this could put the building into a non-compliant situation, and if the City finds about it, they'd assess fines and force you to fix it, so you'd have to do the same thing already, pay a fine, and you'd be on the City's radar as a potential violator.
posted by LionIndex at 8:33 AM on September 26, 2011
I'm not your architect, and I'm not California or city specific code fluent.
It sounds like this stair will need to be re-built. One option may be to schedule demolition and rebuilding the stair now as part of a defined length project. If you can demonstrate to the city that you are committed to rebuilding the stair with new materials in its current configuration within a limited timeframe (likely a year) then you may be able to classify it as structural repair and avoid needing to permit a new configuration. This might allow you to remove the stair, allow the stucco and painting work to be completed, and rebuild the stair all as part of the same work sequence.
This of course presumes you can afford this full scope or a time limited duration. You should also expect that your top unit will need to remain unoccupied for the duration of the period that your stair is not in place. However, by closing the unit off as a construction precaution you can likely avoid the zoning implications of declaring the property to have few occupied units. As you say the stair is starting to rot out, hopefully you can get some cooperation from the city by making this an effort to structurally reinforce/maintain your needed egress.
posted by meinvt at 8:50 AM on September 26, 2011
It sounds like this stair will need to be re-built. One option may be to schedule demolition and rebuilding the stair now as part of a defined length project. If you can demonstrate to the city that you are committed to rebuilding the stair with new materials in its current configuration within a limited timeframe (likely a year) then you may be able to classify it as structural repair and avoid needing to permit a new configuration. This might allow you to remove the stair, allow the stucco and painting work to be completed, and rebuild the stair all as part of the same work sequence.
This of course presumes you can afford this full scope or a time limited duration. You should also expect that your top unit will need to remain unoccupied for the duration of the period that your stair is not in place. However, by closing the unit off as a construction precaution you can likely avoid the zoning implications of declaring the property to have few occupied units. As you say the stair is starting to rot out, hopefully you can get some cooperation from the city by making this an effort to structurally reinforce/maintain your needed egress.
posted by meinvt at 8:50 AM on September 26, 2011
"Commercial buildings have fire escape balconies with ladders. Why can't I just attach a metal ladder to the side of my front porch balcony and call it good?"
Residences are not commercial buildings and they have different requirements. Good for you because commercial buildings are more expensive than residential buildings (at least around here they are generally required to be non-combustible) however bad in this particular case because residential building code assumes occupants will include small children where commercial code either doesn't or is more relaxed about the needs that assumption creates.
posted by Mitheral at 9:03 AM on September 26, 2011
Residences are not commercial buildings and they have different requirements. Good for you because commercial buildings are more expensive than residential buildings (at least around here they are generally required to be non-combustible) however bad in this particular case because residential building code assumes occupants will include small children where commercial code either doesn't or is more relaxed about the needs that assumption creates.
posted by Mitheral at 9:03 AM on September 26, 2011
Response by poster: Your first out on that may be that since you've got a basement, if you can demonstrate that the attic is actually the second floor above the grade plane, then it removes the third floor requirements for egress.
I wonder if I could qualify for this. How is it determined, do you know? This and any otherloopholes finer details of the regulations would be extremely helpful.
Alternate solution: remove them because they are a safety hazard. Build something else if/when you are forced to.
Ehnnnn...this could put the building into a non-compliant situation...
This was my other main question, so just to confirm: is there really no above-board practice that would allow me to demolish it now and then pull a permit for its replacement later? (I'm trying to do things by the book; I just don't know the full latitude that book allows. I do know I have the space to rebuild at current staircase standards.)
You should also expect that your top unit will need to remain unoccupied
I do need to inhabit the upper unit ASAP as I'm going broke paying rent and a mortgage, on a triplex no less.
Thanks for all the advice so far.
posted by slidell at 10:08 AM on September 26, 2011
I wonder if I could qualify for this. How is it determined, do you know? This and any other
Alternate solution: remove them because they are a safety hazard. Build something else if/when you are forced to.
Ehnnnn...this could put the building into a non-compliant situation...
This was my other main question, so just to confirm: is there really no above-board practice that would allow me to demolish it now and then pull a permit for its replacement later? (I'm trying to do things by the book; I just don't know the full latitude that book allows. I do know I have the space to rebuild at current staircase standards.)
You should also expect that your top unit will need to remain unoccupied
I do need to inhabit the upper unit ASAP as I'm going broke paying rent and a mortgage, on a triplex no less.
Thanks for all the advice so far.
posted by slidell at 10:08 AM on September 26, 2011
If you wanted to be above board and demolish the stairs now, you'd pretty much have to do what meinvt describes, shutting down the attic unit until the stairs are rebuilt and inspected. Any further slack on that would be something you'd have to discuss with a reviewer at the building department.
I wonder if I could qualify for this. How is it determined, do you know? This and any other loopholes finer details of the regulations would be extremely helpful.
For the basement to not qualify as the first story, it would have to be a certain distance below ground, or actually, what you consider the first story would have to not be a certain distance above the ground, or what the code considers the "grade plane". I'm not sure of that distance requirement off the top of my head. The basic gist is that if someone from the attic only has to descend one level to reach grade, it may be considered a second story instead of a third, although that will sort of depend on the opinion of the reviewer. I can go check the actual distance requirement, but that'll take a bit, so I'll check back in later.
I had a similar situation with an R-3 building, where the top floor exceeded the square footage allowed for having only one stair (this is the difference between R-2 and R-3 - in R-2, any floor area on the third floor requires 2 exits while in R-2 it's only required if you exceed 500 square feet or so), so the reviewer required that we add a stair. The house was on a sloping lot, so while the basement daylighted on the back side, it was completely buried on the front, and if people on the top floor went out through the front door, they'd only be descending one level to exit. I just demonstrated that to the reviewer and he cleared the additional stair requirement.
posted by LionIndex at 10:33 AM on September 26, 2011
I wonder if I could qualify for this. How is it determined, do you know? This and any other loopholes finer details of the regulations would be extremely helpful.
For the basement to not qualify as the first story, it would have to be a certain distance below ground, or actually, what you consider the first story would have to not be a certain distance above the ground, or what the code considers the "grade plane". I'm not sure of that distance requirement off the top of my head. The basic gist is that if someone from the attic only has to descend one level to reach grade, it may be considered a second story instead of a third, although that will sort of depend on the opinion of the reviewer. I can go check the actual distance requirement, but that'll take a bit, so I'll check back in later.
I had a similar situation with an R-3 building, where the top floor exceeded the square footage allowed for having only one stair (this is the difference between R-2 and R-3 - in R-2, any floor area on the third floor requires 2 exits while in R-2 it's only required if you exceed 500 square feet or so), so the reviewer required that we add a stair. The house was on a sloping lot, so while the basement daylighted on the back side, it was completely buried on the front, and if people on the top floor went out through the front door, they'd only be descending one level to exit. I just demonstrated that to the reviewer and he cleared the additional stair requirement.
posted by LionIndex at 10:33 AM on September 26, 2011
Excuse me - in R-3 a second stair is required only if you exceed a certain square footage.
posted by LionIndex at 10:40 AM on September 26, 2011
posted by LionIndex at 10:40 AM on September 26, 2011
Best answer: OK, more code definitions:
BASEMENT. A story that is not a story above grade plane (see "Story above grade plane" in Section 202).
STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE. Any story having its finished floor surface entirely above grade plane, or in which the finished surface of the floor next above is:
1. More than 6 feet (1829 mm) above grade plane; or
2. More than 12 feet (3658 mm) above the finished ground level at any point.
GRADE PLANE. A reference plane representing the average of finished ground level adjoining the building at exterior walls. Where the finished ground level slopes away from the exterior walls, the reference plane shall be established by the lowest points within the area between the building and the lot line or, where the lot line is more than 6 feet (1829 mm) from the building, between the building and a point 6 feet (1829 mm) from the building.
So, to translate to English, first you figure out your building's grade plane, which is the average level of grade around your structure. Basically, you take the high elevation point and the low elevation point and average them, and that's the level of your grade plane. For your basement to qualify as a basement, and not a story above grade plane, per code, the floor level above it must be less than six feet above where you determine the grade plane to be and not more than 12 feet above the finished ground (note: not grade plane) at any point.
If you're able to meet all that, you meet the allowances for having a single exit listed in table 1021.2 in Chapter 10, which says that an R-2 building can have one exit on the second story as long as there's fewer than 4 units on that floor and the travel distance is less than 50 feet.
posted by LionIndex at 11:40 AM on September 26, 2011
BASEMENT. A story that is not a story above grade plane (see "Story above grade plane" in Section 202).
STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE. Any story having its finished floor surface entirely above grade plane, or in which the finished surface of the floor next above is:
1. More than 6 feet (1829 mm) above grade plane; or
2. More than 12 feet (3658 mm) above the finished ground level at any point.
GRADE PLANE. A reference plane representing the average of finished ground level adjoining the building at exterior walls. Where the finished ground level slopes away from the exterior walls, the reference plane shall be established by the lowest points within the area between the building and the lot line or, where the lot line is more than 6 feet (1829 mm) from the building, between the building and a point 6 feet (1829 mm) from the building.
So, to translate to English, first you figure out your building's grade plane, which is the average level of grade around your structure. Basically, you take the high elevation point and the low elevation point and average them, and that's the level of your grade plane. For your basement to qualify as a basement, and not a story above grade plane, per code, the floor level above it must be less than six feet above where you determine the grade plane to be and not more than 12 feet above the finished ground (note: not grade plane) at any point.
If you're able to meet all that, you meet the allowances for having a single exit listed in table 1021.2 in Chapter 10, which says that an R-2 building can have one exit on the second story as long as there's fewer than 4 units on that floor and the travel distance is less than 50 feet.
posted by LionIndex at 11:40 AM on September 26, 2011
Response by poster: Thanks, LionIndex! It is going to be close. At what I would consider the low point of the grade plane, the second level is 6'5" above ground. I will have to go measure and find the high point.
posted by slidell at 12:22 PM on September 26, 2011
posted by slidell at 12:22 PM on September 26, 2011
If your high point is significantly higher than your low point, you should be pretty clear for the stair, but you may still need to go through a whole permit approval process to be able to demolish the stair. I'm not familiar with Oakland's requirements, but in my area, you do have to get demolition permits for things, and they may require you to have a contractor on board, provide drawings, and some other things.
I gave you a simplistic way to figure the grade plane - they may require you to give the lengths of the perimeter walls and what the ground heights are against those so that you get a weighted average for the grade plane measurement instead of just interpolating between two points. So like, if you have 100' of wall at 6'-5" below the second floor level, and then 20' of wall at 5' below (or something like that), they may require you to take that into account.
posted by LionIndex at 12:55 PM on September 26, 2011
I gave you a simplistic way to figure the grade plane - they may require you to give the lengths of the perimeter walls and what the ground heights are against those so that you get a weighted average for the grade plane measurement instead of just interpolating between two points. So like, if you have 100' of wall at 6'-5" below the second floor level, and then 20' of wall at 5' below (or something like that), they may require you to take that into account.
posted by LionIndex at 12:55 PM on September 26, 2011
Response by poster: I just wanted to come back and thank everyone and share an update.l.
I measured, and this is officially a third floor. So, we told the stucco crew they'd have to work around it, and they decided they could deal with that on our current contract amount.
Now, we are likely getting a small loan so that we can finish the rest of the job and final all the permits. That means we probably could have demolished the staircase at the outset. But I've been glad we left ourselves options, because replacing these stairs could stay on the bottom of our priority list, and under a different scenario, it would've come in very handy that the staircase was still there.
Thanks again for all your help, and particularly to LionIndex for finding and providing all the code citations.
posted by slidell at 9:59 AM on October 23, 2011
I measured, and this is officially a third floor. So, we told the stucco crew they'd have to work around it, and they decided they could deal with that on our current contract amount.
Now, we are likely getting a small loan so that we can finish the rest of the job and final all the permits. That means we probably could have demolished the staircase at the outset. But I've been glad we left ourselves options, because replacing these stairs could stay on the bottom of our priority list, and under a different scenario, it would've come in very handy that the staircase was still there.
Thanks again for all your help, and particularly to LionIndex for finding and providing all the code citations.
posted by slidell at 9:59 AM on October 23, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Meatbomb at 4:38 AM on September 26, 2011