Restaurant Conversion in an Unsprinklered 1925 Masonry Building
An owner submits plans to convert a two-story, 10,000-square-foot masonry building built in 1925. The first floor was mercantile (M) and the second floor storage (S-2). The proposal is a 5,000-square-foot restaurant (A-2) with 120 occupants on the first floor and 5,000 square feet of offices (B) with 60 occupants on the second. The only interior stair is 44 inches wide, serves both floors, and discharges into the first-floor dining room. A rear door at grade from the kitchen is the only other exit from the first floor. The building has no sprinkler system, no fire alarm, and no rated stair enclosure. The owner's architect filed under the IEBC work area compliance method for a Level 2 alteration covering 2,000 square feet on the first floor, arguing that the existing stair may remain because the work area is limited. The farthest point on the second floor is 130 feet from the stair; the first-floor dining room has a 40-foot common path to the rear door. The CBO must act on the permit.
1. Does the work area compliance method excuse evaluation of the existing stair? What is your decision on the permit as submitted?
Read the worked answer
Start with scope. The project changes the occupancy classification of both floors, so the IEBC change-of-occupancy provisions apply in addition to the work area chapter. The work area method addresses how much alteration work must be upgraded; it does not make an inadequate existing means of egress acceptable for a new, higher-hazard occupancy.
For A-2 at 120 occupants and B at 60 occupants, each floor exceeds the 49-occupant threshold for a single exit. Two independent means of egress are required from each floor. The 44-inch stair counts as one exit. The rear kitchen door is not a second exit for the second floor, and from the first floor its path runs through the kitchen. More importantly, the only stair discharges through the A-2 dining room rather than directly outside or through a protected exit discharge. The 130-foot travel distance is not the controlling failure.
Decision: deny the permit as submitted. The applicant may revise to add a second remote exit from each floor and a compliant discharge, or reduce and legally enforce occupant loads below 50 and demonstrate that the single-exit arrangement, stair enclosure, capacity, and discharge meet the adopted code. Any approval must be in writing with the basis stated.
2. If the owner reduces the restaurant to 49 occupants and the offices to 49, what else must be verified before approval?
Read the worked answer
A reduced occupant load can eliminate the second-exit requirement only if the reduction is real and enforceable, not just a number on the plans. Verify the furniture layout and use: fixed seating, table spacing, no standing areas, and no future tenant improvement that would silently add occupants. Require posted occupant loads and a floor plan that matches the certificate of occupancy.
Then check the remaining single-exit elements. The 44-inch stair has capacity for about 146 occupants at 0.3 inch per occupant, so 98 occupants is not a width problem, but capacity is only one test. The stair must be arranged as an exit with proper enclosure, opening protection, handrails, landings, and a discharge that does not pass through the restaurant. The rear door must be usable without a key or special knowledge and must provide the required clear width.
Also re-run the change-of-occupancy analysis. Even at 49 occupants, the IEBC may require fire protection, fire alarm, or separation upgrades because the use changed from M/S-2 to A-2/B. Do not treat the occupant-load reduction as a waiver of those requirements. Approval should be conditioned on the reduced load, revised plans, and field verification.
3. The owner asks for a temporary certificate of occupancy for a soft opening at 120 occupants before the second exit is built. What should the CBO do?
Read the worked answer
A temporary certificate of occupancy is not a tool for waiving egress requirements. It may be issued only when the portions of the building covered by it are safe for the intended occupancy, with written conditions and an expiration date.
At 120 occupants on the first floor, the building lacks the required second exit and has a stair discharging through the dining room. Issuing a TCO for that load would approve a known life-safety deficiency. The CBO should refuse the 120-occupant TCO.
The CBO may consider a TCO limited to 49 occupants on the first floor, with the second floor closed and blocked from occupancy, only if all other applicable requirements for that limited use are satisfied and the reduced load is enforceable. Conditions should include posted limits, no standing or assembly use beyond the approved seating, maintained exits, and a schedule for the permanent second exit. If fire alarm or sprinkler work remains incomplete and is required for the limited occupancy, a fire watch may be considered as a temporary compensatory measure, but it does not substitute for the missing exit. Document the decision, the expiration, and the revocation authority.