1. ATTENTION returning members. If you are coming here from the old forum for the first time, you will need to reset you password. However, we had an email problem getting password reset links set out to a lot of the email addresses. That problem is temporarily rectified but IF you still have an issue, email me direct at info@thebuildingcodeforum.com and I will give you a temporary password.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by clicking here: Upgrades
    Dismiss Notice

Tenant Improvement ADA Upgrade

Discussion in 'Accessibility' started by ELLEN09US, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:32 PM.

  1. ELLEN09US

    ELLEN09US Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hello all,

    I have a tenant improvement project in the City of LA.
    The building is 52,638 SF and the tenant that I'm working on is just 617 SF.
    The ADA plan checker gave me the whole upgrade of everything. ADA parking and shared restrooms. include adding more ADA parking stalls and Van ADA stalls.
    These items are the landlord upgrades and I'm sure the landlord does not want to upgrade these items.

    I know if the valuation of the project be less than $156,162.00 we can have 20% dedicated to upgrading ADA.
    There's not enough items within the tenant space to be upgraded for ADA.

    I don't know what to do with these plan checks that are related to the landlord.

    Please HELP!!!!
     
  2. cda

    cda Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    13,185
    Likes Received:
    626
    Talk to his boss??

    So only a 617 sq ft office?? ,, some other businesses are occupying the rest of the building??
     
  3. ELLEN09US

    ELLEN09US Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    1
    I will talk to her supervisor on Monday
    The land lord says I do not want to upgrade anything and the tenant says it is not in my tenant space.
     
  4. Robert

    Robert Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2016
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    10
    Both tenant and landlord are responsible. They can delegate who does the work in their lease, but ultimately each is legally responsible. CA Senate Bill 1186 requires commercial property owners to disclose on their lease (executed since 7/1/13) whether the property has undergone CASP inspections, and if so, what areas do and do not meet accessibility requirements. Start with the entry first, then the path of travel from the nearest accessible parking space, then the restroom. When you hit 20% of construction cost (excluding the cost of the upgrades) you can stop. See the building code for a more detailed breakdown of items to upgrade.
     
    JBI likes this.
  5. ADAguy

    ADAguy Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2013
    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes Received:
    147
    What year was this building built?
    Year last tenant improvements done?
     
  6. Rick18071

    Rick18071 Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    45
    I don't know CA codes but the ICC codes only require spending 20% on a change of occupancy. Is this a change of occupancy?
     
  7. steveray

    steveray Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    5,375
    Likes Received:
    534
    20% on all remodeling affecting an area of primary function....3411.7 maybe of 2012 IBC and 702ish IEBC....? So $30 grand on that $150,000....Starting from site arrival into and through the 617ft space.
     
    JBI likes this.
  8. tmurray

    tmurray Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    227
    30 grand can get spent pretty quickly...
     
  9. ELLEN09US

    ELLEN09US Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    1
    The building is 30 years old.
    Yes, the remodeling is about 30K and I'm under the threshold for spending 20%.
    But the problem is the the Landlord doesn't want to spend and the tenant says it's not in my tenant space.
    There's already another tenant that is under construction! I don't know how they didn't require ADA upgrade.
    Thanks all for your feed backs!
     
  10. steveray

    steveray Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    5,375
    Likes Received:
    534
    Not sure how it works in LALA land, but the IBC and IEBC both require 20% minimum be spent with no threshold for alterations....

    3411.7 Alterations affecting an area containing a primary
    function. Where an alteration affects the accessibility to, or
    contains an area of primary function, the route to the primary
    function area shall be accessible. The accessible route to the
    primary function area shall include toilet facilities or drinking
    fountains serving the area of primary function.
    Exceptions:
    1. The costs of providing the accessible route are not
    required to exceed 20 percent of the costs of the
    alterations affecting the area of primary function.
     
  11. ADAguy

    ADAguy Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2013
    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes Received:
    147
    Owner is open to an ADA lawsuit for failure to remove existing barriers.
    City of LA has CASps on its staff who should be clarifying this issue.

    1. is their compliant parking?
    2. POT to entrance of building?
    3. Door hardware compliant?
    4. Compliant restrooms?
    5. What does lease say as far as tenant's responsibility vs landlords?
     
  12. Sifu

    Sifu Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    Messages:
    890
    Likes Received:
    35
    We do not require upgrades to the core-shell bathrooms on a T/I space unless upgrades to those T/I spaces triggers an upgrade to the bathrooms, such as increased occupant load/fixture count. Typically, that is covered on a separate permit for the common spaces. But I understand CA is a little stricter so............
     
  13. steveray

    steveray Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    5,375
    Likes Received:
    534
    I repeat:

    3411.7 Alterations affecting an area containing a primary
    function. Where an alteration affects the accessibility to, or
    contains an area of primary function, the route to the primary
    function area shall be accessible. The accessible route to the
    primary function area shall include toilet facilities or drinking
    fountains serving the area of primary function.

    If the "shell" bathrooms are common, then they get upgraded...Just like parking...
     
  14. ADAguy

    ADAguy Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2013
    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes Received:
    147
    It seems the issue is not with the tenant but with the owner's unwillingness to comply.
    Its simple, no compliance, no tenant.
     
    tmurray and mark handler like this.
  15. Sifu

    Sifu Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    Messages:
    890
    Likes Received:
    35
    2012 IBC: 3411.7 Alterations affecting an area containing a primary
    function.
    Where an alteration affects the accessibility to, or
    contains
    an area of primary function, the route to the primary
    function area shall be accessible. The accessible route to the
    primary function area shall include toilet facilities or drinking
    fountains serving the area of primary function.

    (same for IEBC)

    If the tenant space does not contain the primary function, nor does it affect the accessibility to the primary function, it is not within the scope of this section, IMHO. If, on the other hand, a permit is secured to remodel the bathrooms, they would need to be upgraded since they contain an area of primary function, and the entire route to them from the public way.
    It is long held that only the elements being altered must be brought into compliance, and if the original element met code at the time it was installed it may remain. The commentary to this section confirms that notion. I understand some places take it further, and that is their prerogative, since the code is a minimum and an AHJ can require more. If CA has chosen that path then you must comply with it. But I don't think the IBC mandates it unless the T/I alterations somehow affect the accessibility to the bathrooms. Does that mean the building owner isn't subject to a lawsuit? No, but they are never safe from that. At least that's the way I see it.
     
  16. steveray

    steveray Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    5,375
    Likes Received:
    534
    Sifu....can you give me an example of a tenant space that would not be an area of primary function? An office remodel, in an office building, is an AOPF.....IMO
     
  17. mark handler

    mark handler Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,142
    Likes Received:
    373
    If the landlord want to rent the facilities someone needs to belly up to the bar.

    Just remember failures to comply with ADA Standards all the parties can be sued, they are jointly and severally liable.
     
  18. Paul Sweet

    Paul Sweet Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    870
    Likes Received:
    91
    What would give a tenant the authority to remodel a space that is outside the space they are leasing? The tenant is caught between a rock and a hard place if the landlord isn't willing to have accessible parking added or restrooms (or at least one of them if that is all the 20% is adequate for) upgraded.

    I don't know about California, but the ADA only grandfathers restrooms that complied with ADA or UFAS. Hopefully the UBC didn't have anything like the infamous 42" wide handicap stalls that BOCA required in the 1980s.
     
  19. mtlogcabin

    mtlogcabin Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    6,485
    Likes Received:
    415
    The issue is a law that names two parties responsible for the same thing when one has no legal right to make modifications to the others property without their consent.
    Maybe a different approach would be the tenant modify's their leased space and brings it into compliance. They spend 5% of the required 20% amount with the remaining 15% is put into an escrow fund to be used by the owner for other improvements that need to be made to the common areas. The tenant is now out of the equation and only the building owner is now responsible for the improvements.
    It might be a faster and more efficient method of getting buildings upgraded than the current way of suing everyone and giving the money to the lawyers
     
  20. steveray

    steveray Sawhorse

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    5,375
    Likes Received:
    534
    The permit is the property of the property owner, not the tenant.....If they want the permit (and the tenant), then the authorize the work...
     
    tmurray likes this.

Share This Page