Plan Review: Mixed-Use Egress and Accessibility Conflicts

The egress issues are serious. A single exit stair is not permitted for the first-story restaurant because its occupant load of 120 exceeds the single-exit limits for Group A-3. Even if each floor were considered separately, the building's total occupant load of 360 requires egress capacity. At 0.3 inches per occupant for stairs, the required stair width is 108 inches; the proposed 44-inch stair is far below that. The exit passageway and stair enclosure also need to be evaluated for the required fire-resistance rating and for discharge requirements. The accessibility issues are also clear: the 6-inch step requires a ramp, and the ramp landing must be at least 60 inches long in the direction of travel; a 3-foot landing is noncompliant. These are not minor field adjustments. Egress deficiencies affect life safety and cannot be deferred because they determine whether occupants can evacuate during a fire. Accessibility deficiencies are civil-rights obligations under the adopted accessibility standards and cannot be waived by a permit condition. The reviewer should not approve the permit with a condition to resolve either issue later, because the building would be occupied before the corrections are made. The proper path is to deny the permit with written reasons and require revised plans that show compliant exits and an accessible entrance.

The reviewer has three practical options. First, deny the permit and issue a written plan-review comment listing each deficiency. This is the most defensible option because the egress problems are life-safety violations and the accessibility problem is a clear standards violation. The risk is delay and a possible appeal, but the record will be strong if the reviewer cites the specific code sections and calculations. Second, approve with conditions that require revised plans before permit issuance. This can work for the accessibility item if the applicant agrees to obtain a variance from the accessibility board and submits revised plans before construction, but it is risky for the egress item because the building cannot be made safe by a later condition; the exit configuration must be corrected in the plans. Third, approve a partial permit for foundations only, with a clear written limitation that no superstructure work may proceed until egress and accessibility are resolved. That option is acceptable only if the jurisdiction allows partial permits and the limitation is enforceable. The reviewer should avoid an unconditional approval with a promise to resolve items later, because that would violate the jurisdiction's no-deferral policy and could expose the city to liability if an occupant is injured.

The reviewer should recommend denial of the variance as presented, because the 3-foot landing is not a minor dimensional tolerance; it is a fundamental accessibility deficiency that prevents a person using a wheelchair from safely turning or opening the door. The reviewer should first check whether the applicant can achieve compliance without a variance by reconfiguring the entrance, reducing the slope, or relocating the door. If the site constraints make compliance technically infeasible, the applicant should be directed to the jurisdiction's formal accessibility variance or reasonable-accommodation process, not to a plan-review condition. The reviewer should document the technical infeasibility analysis and require the applicant to show that no compliant alternative exists. The reviewer should also consider whether the 6-inch step can be removed entirely, which would eliminate the need for the ramp and landing. If a variance is granted by the appropriate board, the reviewer should ensure the permit plans reflect the approved alternative and that the approval is in writing. The reviewer should not treat the variance request as a reason to approve the rest of the plans, because the egress deficiencies independently justify denial.