Alarming Change Made to BC Building Code Reduces Emergency Egress. Part One of Two.
Firefighters raise real reasons for concern but YIMBY letter-writer to City council claims fire departments "know zilch" and their concerns should be treated with "a grain of salt."
On August 27th, 2024, ignoring the objections of a long list of fire chiefs, firefighter associations, researchers, and even the leaders of the city they had held up as a model, the BC (NDP) Government changed the BC Building Code. The change eliminates the requirement for more than one stairwell as an emergency exit (Single Egress Stairs) in residential apartment buildings up to 6 stories.
I had many questions. As Co-Chair of Vancouver City Planning Commission I requested a representative of Vancouver Fire and Rescue to come speak to the Commission.
According to the presentation by Assistant Chief Cheung “the Vancouver fire department is aligned with the fire services across BC, Canada, and the US with their concerns with SES buildings. We’d like the Province to put a pause on the implementation of the SES changes until the National Building Code change process has completed its work thoroughly.”
At the end of Cheung’s presentation the Commission voted unanimously in support of the Vancouver Fire Department’s position.
The announcement of this policy just weeks before the writ dropped and with mudslinging campaigns already in full-swing, resulted in it receiving very little media or public scrutiny. Some articles described fire department as ‘concerned’ which sounded vague and rather benign in the language of our times. No time to dig into why this went from the YIMBY bucket list to provincial policy with such speed.
“The process was rushed and was driven primarily by proponents who, although they have good intentions, have no experience in fire safety or firefighting operations, while the concerns of the fire service were pushed aside.” Assistant Chief Rick Cheung
I know I’m fighting for your attention so I’m going to try to stick to some of the key points but the fiery red hot devil in this case is indeed in the details here.
Number One: Why two separate sets of stairs matters?
Second stairwells play a critical role in fighting fires and are used for staging, access and running hose. During a firefight, second staircases are generally not available to evacuees. Len Garis
If you’ve had a fire in your apartment building - and sadly I have lived through more than one - you will know that one stairwell is utilized by firefighters for hoses, equipment, and quick unobstructed access, for fighting the fire. The second is used for evacuation.
People, who are not fire fighters and who are not wheelchair users such as myself who require assistance to evacuate, tell me one stairwell will be fine for both since occupants who are able to, will have evacuated before the firefighters arrive. It’s a lovely theory but it is not reality. False alarms, alarms triggered by burnt toast, the complacency of others around you, etc. all tend to lessen the impulse to leave in even the most safety-conscious. People in my building wait for the fire department to arrive and then wait to see if the alarm is shut off (we all have a good sense by now of how long that will take) if it’s a false alarm, and then, if the alarm continues, some will leave. More will wait for an order to evacuate from firefighters over the P.A. system.
The alternative second means of egress provided under the changed BC Building Code.
Worth also remembering emergency egress is not just important during fires
“A nonfire event in Chicago resulted in 21 deaths when the occupants of a nightclub tried to exit using one stairwell after a security guard used pepper spray. This caused panic throughout the crowd.” Source
Number Two: How was this change made?
“The practice of a jurisdiction opting out of a portion of a code is not just a matter of choice, it’s a decision that nullifies the whole process—and endangers the public and those who are responsible for responding to fires and other life safety hazards,” says Victor Stagnaro, CEO of the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation.
“Codes are created with multiple factors in mind as part of a larger system to protect the public,” he says. “When legislators opt out of one portion of the code, it affects other systems in an occupancy and endangers everyone who works, lives, and otherwise occupies the affected building. This should raise concern about the potential risks.” Source
Earlier this year the BC Government hired consultants to write a report about changing the Building Code to reduce the number of emergency exits in apartment buildings down to one. What is striking here is not just why this of all things was deemed a priorty (which we will get to later), but that it was given such urgency that the typical process of building consensus with stakeholders - such as fire departmenta - was abandoned.
In a letter that laid out a list of reasons they urged BC to press pause and not immediately proceed with this change to the building code, the President of the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs wrote:
“While it is not usually CAFC’s practice to intervene in provincial matters, and that provincial building codes are within provincial jurisdiction, your government is moving faster than any other province or territory on this. If a decision is rendered prior to the federal consultation results, it could render a national or federal consultation moot, deny British Columbians of its benefits, and begin a dangerous legacy, given the intention to harmonize codes across the country…Finally, while we appreciate the report prepared by Jensen Hughes, there are issues in it. Their reference to fire data from the National Fire Information database, which CAFC co-led, is over ten years old and unsuitable for this analysis. The literature review is on the history of single egress rather than fire safety or operational considerations.”
But there was no time for discussion.
In his presentation Cheung explained:
“Two meetings were held between the fire service representatives, the Minister and their consultant.
On June 27, 2024, the Minister of Housing issued the engineering report on technical options to enable SES building designs in the BC Building Code.
On July 12, 2024 the Ministry invited stakeholders to comment on the draft code changes and requested information on benchmarking an adequate level of fire service.
The fire service representatives provided both the critical technical feedback to the Minister on the technical report on July 16, and provided a benchmark of an adequate level of fire service on August 8.
On August 28, 2024, by Ministerial Order, the BC Building Code was amended to enact the code changes. None of the fire service recommendations or benchmarks were included in the order.
Normally code changes of this significance take many years of study, research, consultation and deliberations from various stakeholders across the country to reach consensus to amend the National Building Code of Canada. Code changes require a cost benefit analysis.”
Without a cost/benefit analysis there is no data supporting that the potential cost savings or convenience associated with single-staircase buildings outweigh the risks to human life and safety.
Assistant Chief Cheung continued:
“In BC, the normal process is to adopt the National Building Code and customize it for situations unique to BC to produce the BC Building Code.
For Vancouver, the normal process is to adopt the BC Building Code and customize it for situations unique to Vancouver or to achieve some objectives of City Council, to produce the Vancouver Building By-law.
A few years ago, the Province of BC committed to join with all the provinces across Canada to harmonize the buildings codes and to reduce the variations amongst the provinces. A significant and abrupt change such as this for SES which was done unilaterally by one province would not have been considered in such a harmonized code change process.
In fact, the National Building Code committees have struck a task group and will be studying the SES proposal brought forth by the Province of Ontario early last year.
I am intimately familiar with the code change process as I have been a member of the National Code committee for the last 20 years.
For the BC code amendments, to my knowledge, no cost benefit analysis was produced.
The fire service in BC is asking that the recent BCBC code change be paused until the
National Code committee has done its work, so that BC can be harmonized with the rest of the country.”
What was the response from the group who not only seems to have the ear of government but seems to be capable of pulling the Premier and Minister by it?
A portion of a letter from someone associated with Abundant Housing Vancouver, the local YIMBY group), was read aloud by Councillor Pete Fry at the October 9th Standing Committee meeting on finance and services: “Europe and Asia can do single stair buildings safely, we should be able to as well. I'd urge that you take the firefighters' concerns with a grain of salt; most of them know zilch about how how things are done in other countries.”
Number Three: The Hype.
A lot of the hype and discourse defending this policy change is based on its existence elsewhere. As always with YIMBYs the rhetoric had a cultish over-zealous quality. Everything is a panacea and zero critique is tolerated.
In particular, two places are mentioned repeatedly and uncritically including in much local media coverage on this issue - Seattle and Europe.
Let’s start with Seattle.
Seattle has five times the number of firefighters on scene in the first 8 minutes compared to Vancouver.
Seattle protocol for fire response is 30 to 40 firefighters on scene within the first 8 minutes.
Vancouver protocol for fire response is 8 firefighters expected on scene within the first 8 minutes. A major difference made more so by single stair exit design’s assumption that fire department assisted window or balcony rescue will provide a secondary means of emergency egress. As a result, the number of fire fighters on scene, (as well as the presence of ladder trucks), could literally be the difference between life and death.
Seattle itself warns against using it as a model or justification in other jurisdictions.
“The city building department, the fire marshal, and myself are all against the single exit stair as the code for everyone because we feel that most fire jurisdictions are not situated like we are in Seattle.”
Karen Grove, Seattle’s executive director of fire prevention, as quoted by Greater Vancouver Fire Chiefs Association in presentation on Single Egress Exit Stairs to Metro Vancouver Mayors Council September 12, 2024
What about Europe?
Different history. Different culture. Different building materials. Different Data. Different housing design.
A proper comparison to European - or elsewhere - single egress stairs, requires understanding the differences in culture, history, housing, infrastructure, related policies, firefighter training, equipment, infrastructure, and comparable data. But that is not what has been done.
Use of smaller fire compartments and non-combustible materials is favoured or standard in Europe unlike B.C.. In fact BC was the first province to allow wood buildings up to 12 stories, a policy advocated for by many of the same people who pushed for SES. The mandating of two stairwells was referenced repeatedly by public officials and housing industry after as reason why the Grenfell Tower (which had single egress stair), fire that tragically claimed 72 lives would not happen in BC.
“The building codes applicable in the province, the BC Building Code (BCBC), Vancouver’s Building Bylaw (VBBL), and the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC), include measures such as at least two exit systems, as well as automatic fire sprinklers, to prevent the type of outcome experienced at Grenfell Tower for new buildings.” Architectural Institute of British Columbia
A US article looking at this issue points out the impossibility of accurate comparisons in safety as measured in residential fire deaths because whereas US breaks it down by one or two-family homes versus apartment buildings, (the latter having a lower rate of fire deaths due to increased fire features including dual staircases), European data is not broken down in same way. Birgitte Messerschmidt, NFPA’s director of research stated in the article: “Whether European apartment buildings with a single exit stair can match that safety record is hard to know because European countries do not filter their fire data by occupancy in the same way.”
This policy, like too many others, is a demand that governments copy and paste from policies in place in different places without any consideration of what is different and leaves no room for local problems or solutions.
In looking at the specifics of his region, an interesting point was made about insufficient and aging water infrastructure by the Fire Chief in Austin, Texas. “Changes in our land development code will allow small, multi-family properties up to five stories to be developed in residential areas that may not have sufficient water flow and pressure to suppress a fire in a five-story building.”
Number Four: Flattening, Fallacies, Fanciful Imaginary Worlds and Failures in Reality.
The Plan: The BC Building Code change to allow for Single Egress Stairs is heavily reliant on consistent and effective oversight, maintenance and enforcement. This policy shifts the safety and redundancy that was created in the permanent structure itself through two separate stairwells, onto impermanent elements within the structure such as back-up power, stairwell pressurization, magnetic doors, etc.
According to BC Government website: “Maintenance of fire safety systems is essential for all buildings but becomes increasingly important when redundancies, such as a second and separate exit, are reduced or eliminated. The provisions for residential buildings with single exit stairs were developed with the expectation that fire officials routinely enforce the British Columbia Fire Code to ensure that the inspection intervals specified within are carried out, and that follow up inspections resulting from observed non-compliances occur at expedited intervals. Building owners and managers are required to be actively involved in carrying out the maintenance and upkeep of the building’s fire safety systems. Residential buildings with a single exit should not be located in jurisdictions where a high level of fire prevention oversight cannot be maintained.” Source
The reality: Most people who have experience with renting an apartment, particularly those of us who are poor, know this is not what happens. Fire inspection data shows that 40% of fire and life safety systems in Canadian apartment buildings are not compliant with fire codes and may not function properly.
Cheung explained that with the new Fire Safety Act which that was just implemented on August 1, “fire inspectors cannot enter a private dwelling without reasonable cause and a warrant from the law courts.”
He added, “Citations and orders to repair life safety systems may take weeks or months to resolve, sometimes through the court system. In the meantime, the building and its occupants are left in a vulnerable state for a long period of time until the repairs can be completed.”
“It’s nearly impossible to ensure all systems work and all escape routes are cleared on a CONTINUOUS basis.” Assistant Chief Rick Cheung
As a legion of fire fighting professionals have pointed out, and as most of us can readily point to examples of, systems fail. There is a reason redundancy is a cornerstone of safety. And with single egress stairs there is a shift from redundancy created by the permanent built structure itself to reliance on systems operating within it that require monitoring, upkeep, updating, replacing, etc. And even in the best case scenario, sometimes things just don’t work as intended.
“THINGS DO NOT ALWAYS GO AS PLANNED. And it’s the firefighters on scene who must deal with the situation.
The regulations assume everyone will be able to exit the building without delay using the stairs or elevators. Fires will be contained within the fire rated compartments. Sprinklers will suppress and control the fire every time.
But we all know fire doors and their self-closing devices wear out. Elevators break down and sometimes takes months to fix. In an emergency evacuation, there may be an elderly with mobility issues who might slow the pace of exiting down the stairs. It is a certainty that over the life of the building there will be at least one person who will require assistance coming down the stairs.
Yes, sprinklers are great at putting out a fire with just one or two heads. However, after every successful activation, the sprinkler system must be shut down for repairs.
Unfortunately, that was the case in 2022 at the WINTERS HOTEL fire where 2 persons were trapped and killed. After successfully extinguishing a fire on a Friday night, the sprinklers were shut down for repairs. It was still shut down when the 2nd and fatal fire occurred the following Monday morning.” Assistant Chief Rick Cheung
He adds that all this has been further “complicated by the proliferation of lithium-ion devices such as scooters and bicycles.”
The Plan: Pressurized Stairwell makes it safe.
The Reality: See above about systems failing. As well, calculations for pressurized stairwells are often based on assumption that all doors are closed. But in an emergency doors can be open, and if there is only one stairwell at least two doors will be kept open by fire fighters as they run a hose from ground up to fight the fire. This is not even accounting for the unpredictable behaviour of people during emergencies.
The impact of one interior stairwell door opened required an approximately 20% increase to the stair pressurization fan size.
• The impact of one exterior stairwell door opened required an increase of approximately 400% to the stair pressurization fan size.
• The impact of multiple open doors at the top and bottom of the stairwell required an increase of approximately 300% to the stair pressurization fan size. Source
The Plan: People can be evacuated via windows and balconies. This design will not be used for seniors buildings
The Reality: Window and balcony evacuation is time consuming, labour intensive, requires specific equipment and many more additional fire fighters, it adds risk to both fire fighter and occupants, and there appears to be no consideration of the aging population or the increase in rate of disability. Does this mean only owners of single family homes have the right to age-in-place? Will people be evicted when they reach a certain age or become disabled?
As a wheelchair user I note the lack of analysis of risk for disabled people or elders in a balcony rescue versus being carried down a flight of stairs possibly in their own wheelchair. For myself for example, I do not have diaphram strength to push against resistance, such as would be the case if I was carried fire fighter style over shoulder. And contractures mean the lower half of my body would not drape down but rather stick up at an angle. I assume this would be challenging for a fire fighter if I needed to be carried down a ladder versus a flight of stairs.
The Plan: It will help keep people safe during heat and avoid the need for cooling.
The Reality: Not only will some units having a potential ‘cross-breeze’ be insufficient for many in regular heat, it won’t be sufficient for anyone at the extreme temperatures we have experienced and that we are supposed to be planning for. As well, heat events tend to be concurrent with poor air quality from ground level ozone and other pollutants, as well as the presence of wild fires. Many of BC hottest days also had advisories to stay inside and keep the windows closed.
The Plan: One stairwell is safe because fires can be kept contained in apartments.
The Reality: Almost one out of every ten fires starts in a hallway or stairwell. “Research of Canadian apartment building fires showed 9% originated in the means of egress—such as hallways and stairwells—and that smoke affected primary access routes in more than 42% of the fires.”
As well, fire does not have to reach your unit to affect you. 68% of residential fire-related deaths were a result of smoke inhalation alone.
The Plan: Occupant limits will ensure there are never more than 24 people on any floor in need of rescue by fire department.
The Reality: Occupant limits are inherently unenforcable. Holiday parties or other gatherings could result in a higher number of people needing evacuation assistance. One party could double or triple the number of people needing to be evacuated on a single floor. .
PLEASE READ PART TWO: Why The Urgency? Are The Lobbyists Writing Policy? And If So Who Is Protecting The Broader Public Interest?
And please forgive typos as I am not great at proofing my own writing.