Accessibility Advisory 202.4 Alterations Affecting Primary Function Areas.

[jar546]

If you ever need clarification on this aspect of accessibility requirements for an existing building, you can start by reading this advisory.

Advisory 202.4 Alterations Affecting Primary Function Areas. An area of a building or facility containing a major activity for which the building or facility is intended is a primary function area. Department of Justice ADA regulations state, “Alterations made to provide an accessible path of travel to the altered area will be deemed disproportionate to the overall alteration when the cost exceeds 20% of the cost of the alteration to the primary function area.” (28 CFR 36.403 (f)(1)). See also Department of Transportation ADA regulations, which use similar concepts in the context of public sector transportation facilities (49 CFR 37.43 (e)(1)).

There can be multiple areas containing a primary function in a single building. Primary function areas are not limited to public use areas. For example, both a bank lobby and the bank’s employee areas such as the teller areas and walk-in safe are primary function areas.

Also, mixed use facilities may include numerous primary function areas for each use. Areas containing a primary function do not include: mechanical rooms, boiler rooms, supply storage rooms, employee lounges or locker rooms, janitorial closets, entrances, corridors, or restrooms.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

This is one of my biggest beefs. Too many times the architect states that the existing building that is getting alterations is 100% accessible on the plan review then when I do a final inspection, I find out it is not and it holds up the C. O. because now they need get another plan review for the accessibility repairs, then construction on it and then inspections.

 

[arwat23]

This is one of the things I'm glad California removed. We don't use the "primary function" language, meaning almost any alteration needs to comply with the 20% path of travel improvement requirements. Makes things far simpler imo, although sometimes slightly more expensive.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

This is one of my biggest beefs. Too many times the architect states that the existing building that is getting alterations is 100% accessible on the plan review then when I do a final inspection, I find out it is not and it holds up the C. O. because now they need get another plan review for the accessibility repairs, then construction on it and then inspections.

I don't believe architects. When I get plans for an alteration and the plans don't show the toilet rooms (and the accessible route all the way back to the accessible parking) I ask them to put that on the drawings. The response is always, "But that's outside of my scope of work." Our response to their response is, "See IEBC 306.7.1."

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I don't believe architects. When I get plans for an alteration and the plans don't show the toilet rooms (and the accessible route all the way back to the accessible parking) I ask them to put that on the drawings. The response is always, "But that's outside of my scope of work." Our response to their response is, "See IEBC 306.7.1."

I don't think that would work for me. I think drawing it on paper may be a waste of paper and time because what the architect draws on paper would not necessarily match what is really there. The architect properly would not go to the building to check for accessibility compliance but just add the generic accessibly pages that they use for all the new buildings. Also, you could not check the flow of the water for a drinking fountain or the weight or closing speed of a door or if there are cracks or unevenness in the concrete or blacktop on paper.

If there are any architects reading this, how do you do this?

 

[arwat23]

I don't think that would work for me. I think drawing it on paper may be a waste of paper and time because what the architect draws on paper would not necessarily match what is really there. The architect properly would not go to the building to check for accessibility compliance but just add the generic accessibly pages that they use for all the new buildings. Also, you could not check the flow of the water for a drinking fountain or the weight or closing speed of a door or if there are cracks or unevenness in the concrete or blacktop on paper.

If there are any architects reading this, how do you do this?

I have been called out on multiple projects for not showing the existing conditions of a space, specifically for the restrooms. Since then, we've made it a point to measure the existing conditions of the restrooms thoroughly and draw them on our plans.

Recently, a jurisdiction we typically work in hired a new senior plans examiner who is really, really strict and wants a ton of accessibility details for all existing conditions (not just a note). It's been a bit of a headache, but now we throw a ton of standard ADA details on a sheet and just reference those for existing conditions. For example, when we show the path of travel from the parking to the main building entry, we note how wide the path is, how it meets the "changes in level" requirements (referencing a standard detail), how it meets requirements for ground surfaces, how there's no openings in the path of travel (and if there are openings, we reference a standard detail)... etc. Anything new or altered we use unique details specific to the building obviously. The only existing room we detail out, even if it's outside our scope of work, is the restrooms.

It's more work, but it's better than being called out and delaying a project by weeks / months.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I have been called out on multiple projects for not showing the existing conditions of a space, specifically for the restrooms. Since then, we've made it a point to measure the existing conditions of the restrooms thoroughly and draw them on our plans.

Recently, a jurisdiction we typically work in hired a new senior plans examiner who is really, really strict and wants a ton of accessibility details for all existing conditions (not just a note). It's been a bit of a headache, but now we throw a ton of standard ADA details on a sheet and just reference those for existing conditions. For example, when we show the path of travel from the parking to the main building entry, we note how wide the path is, how it meets the "changes in level" requirements (referencing a standard detail), how it meets requirements for ground surfaces, how there's no openings in the path of travel (and if there are openings, we reference a standard detail)... etc. Anything new or altered we use unique details specific to the building obviously. The only existing room we detail out, even if it's outside our scope of work, is the restrooms.

It's more work, but it's better than being called out and delaying a project by weeks / months.

Even with all of this info the inspector still needs to check all of this anyway. But at least if anything does not comply, the inspector and contractor already have the plans showing how to fix it and we won't need more plans and another plan review, saving some time.

 

[Yikes]

Architect here:
I had a small commercial kitchen alteration project inside a historic building. The POT from street to building entry was not accessible. The restrooms were also not accessible.
I did not provide bathroom plans because just the cost of making the entry POT accessible already exceeded 20% of the construction cost, and so the restrooms were not changing anyway under the priorities set in 202.4 exc. #8.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I don't think that would work for me. I think drawing it on paper may be a waste of paper and time because what the architect draws on paper would not necessarily match what is really there. The architect properly would not go to the building to check for accessibility compliance but just add the generic accessibly pages that they use for all the new buildings. Also, you could not check the flow of the water for a drinking fountain or the weight or closing speed of a door or if there are cracks or unevenness in the concrete or blacktop on paper.

If there are any architects reading this, how do you do this?

I am still a licensed architect. I have no doubt that you are correct in saying that architects [generally] won't go to the building to verify accessibility. MY point to them is that the code requires them to do that, and the code requires me as the plan reviewer/code official to verify that. If they didn't quote enough in their fee to do what the code requires, that's an issue between the architect and the client. Not my problem.

If they show accessible toilet rooms serving an altered area containing a primary function as being 100% accessible, thereby satisfying the code, do we check it? Yes, generally we do. As Ronald Reagan said: "Trust, but verify." (Actually, I don't trust -- architects or engineers.)

When I was working as an architect, we absolutely verified accessibility in existing facilities.

 

[Robert]

I'm seeing more jurisdictions requiring accessibility uprade checklists (forms) to be filled out by architect, and signed by owner, to be submitted on plan review. This forces each item (POT, entry doors, threshold, bathrooms, etc) to be addressed, with a cost estimate of each improvement, to be filled out until you hit 20%. They even give you the priority of what gets done first before hitting 20% (based on CBC) taking some guesswork out of it. If it's not filled out, they won't accept the intake. Definately adds more time because Contractor needs to break down his/her estimates. The gray area will be the cost estimate.....Shirley people will lower the value to avoid some upgrades, so this needs to be watched....but having signatures on the form applies some accountability.

 

[arwat23]

I'm seeing more jurisdictions requiring accessibility uprade checklists (forms) to be filled out by architect, and signed by owner, to be submitted on plan review. This forces each item (POT, entry doors, threshold, bathrooms, etc) to be addressed, with a cost estimate of each improvement, to be filled out until you hit 20%. They even give you the priority of what gets done first before hitting 20% (based on CBC) taking some guesswork out of it. If it's not filled out, they won't accept the intake. Definately adds more time because Contractor needs to break down his/her estimates. The gray area will be the cost estimate.....Shirley people will lower the value to avoid some upgrades, so this needs to be watched....but having signatures on the form applies some accountability.

This is one of our biggest headaches when submitting commercial projects. We often don't have contractors lined up for the project until after the drawings are submitted / under review or approved. So, we'll submit a hardship application (the checklist) with rough estimates for the costs of things. We'll get comments (or approval), then likely have to submit additional revisions because we don't know how much things costs and were just estimating things until we got a concrete number (as my boss says, "Never trust an Architect when it comes to construction costs. Architects are terrible at estimating that."). This just leads to more time wasted time and more revisions.

Don't get me wrong, I think the idea and implementation of these forms are great on paper! So many projects get away without doing the path of travel improvements required by code. But it can be a headache too.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

How to enforce the 20% requirement when an alteration doesn't achieve full accessibility is and always has been a headache. There's nothing in the building codes or in our state's statutes that allows us to require the applicant to fill out a checklist, so all we can do is ask for a construction cost estimate in sufficient detail to break out the costs of qualifying accessibility improvements against the total cost. In general, if they are doing something we're not going to argue that their 20.315% isn't really more than 17.992%.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

This is one of our biggest headaches when submitting commercial projects. We often don't have contractors lined up for the project until after the drawings are submitted / under review or approved. So, we'll submit a hardship application (the checklist) with rough estimates for the costs of things. We'll get comments (or approval), then likely have to submit additional revisions because we don't know how much things costs and were just estimating things until we got a concrete number (as my boss says, "Never trust an Architect when it comes to construction costs. Architects are terrible at estimating that."). This just leads to more time wasted time and more revisions.

Don't get me wrong, I think the idea and implementation of these forms are great on paper! So many projects get away without doing the path of travel improvements required by code. But it can be a headache too.

I like that idea of adding a form to the approved plans for them to fill out later but before a final inspection. I would like it if someone could show be a form some jurisdictions use so I can copy and edit it with our company logo and use it the next time I get a commercial project for an existing building that it would apply to. This might be a smother way to do it.
Please, if you have a form that I can use I would like to copy it.

 

[steveray]

I like that idea of adding a form to the approved plans for them to fill out later but before a final inspection.

That is what we do-ish.....Often we get applications without a contractor on board yet and it just gets messy and isn't worth the fight....

 

[steveray]

​

ICC ANSI A117.1/IEBC Section 705.2 Compliance Form​

Date: ____________________ Permit #: _________________________



Project Name & Address__________________________________________________________________________



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 primary function area.

Exceptions:

1. The cost of providing the accessible route is not required to exceed 20 percent of the costs of the alteration affecting the area of primary function.
2. This provision does not apply to alterations limited solely to windows, hardware, operating controls, electrical outlets and signs.
3. This provision does not apply to alterations limited solely to mechanical systems, electrical systems, installation or alteration of fire protection systems and abatement of hazardous materials.
4. This provision does not apply to alterations undertaken for the primary purpose of increasing the accessibility of an existing building, facility or element.
5. This provision does not apply to altered areas limited to type B dwelling and sleeping units.

Renovation costs______________________ Required 20% for accessibility improvements____________________

Round to nearest dollar



Complies Cost to provide Cost of alteration Balance of 20%

Yes or No full compliance to be performed left to apply



Accessible Parking _______ ___________ ___________ ___________



Accessible Entrance _______ ___________ ___________ ___________



Accessible Route _______ ___________ ___________ ___________



Accessible Signage _______ ___________ ___________ ___________



Accessible Bathroom _______ ___________ ___________ ___________



Accessible D. Fountains _______ ___________ ___________ ___________



Accessible Alarms _______ ___________ ___________ ___________



Accessible Telephone _______ ___________ ___________ ___________







_____________________________ _______________ ______________________________________________

Signature of Applicant Date Printed Name


Well...that doesn't paste well.....And not current code section here....


_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Street Address City State Phone &/or Email

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

That's an interesting form. I can see handing it out (after some edits) as a worksheet, but I'm not sure we can require anyone to fill it out. On the other hand, we always get push-back when we ask for the detailed cost breakdown (which I think the code does give us authority to ask for), so it might be worth trying this.

 

[steveray]

[A] 107.2.1 Information on Construction Documents​

Construction documents shall be dimensioned and drawn on suitable material. Electronic media documents are permitted to be submitted where approved by the building official. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail.......

 

[MtnArch]

I like that idea of adding a form to the approved plans for them to fill out later but before a final inspection. I would like it if someone could show be a form some jurisdictions use so I can copy and edit it with our company logo and use it the next time I get a commercial project for an existing building that it would apply to. This might be a smother way to do it.
Please, if you have a form that I can use I would like to copy it.

From the City of Santa Cruz here in Cali: https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/75359/638404912255600000

 

[arwat23]

I like that idea of adding a form to the approved plans for them to fill out later but before a final inspection. I would like it if someone could show be a form some jurisdictions use so I can copy and edit it with our company logo and use it the next time I get a commercial project for an existing building that it would apply to. This might be a smother way to do it.
Please, if you have a form that I can use I would like to copy it.

These are all unique to CA Building Code (which has different requirements than IBC / ADAS), but here's a few I've used with some jurisdictions:

Santa Rosa: https://www.srcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/2619/Unreasonable-Hardship-OverThresh---2022-CBC-PDF
or

https://www.srcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/36633/Unreasonable-Hardship-UnderThresh--2022-CBC-PDF

Novato: https://www.novato.org/home/showpublisheddocument/9291/636009125271230000

Those two formats seem to be the most popular layouts I've come across. The Santa Rosa one has the better forms imo since they account for both over and under the valuation threshold (not sure if this threshold is a CA unique thing or if other states do this too). You could probably alter these fairly easily to comply with IBC / ADAS.

 

[Joe.B]

There's nothing in the building codes or in our state's statutes that allows us to require the applicant to fill out a checklist,

SECTION 104
DUTIES AND POWERS OF BUILDING OFFICIAL
[A] 104.1 General. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code.

 

[Joe.B]

I like that idea of adding a form to the approved plans for them to fill out later but before a final inspection. I would like it if someone could show be a form some jurisdictions use so I can copy and edit it with our company logo and use it the next time I get a commercial project for an existing building that it would apply to. This might be a smother way to do it.
Please, if you have a form that I can use I would like to copy it.

 

[Paul Sweet]

It is best to break out and document these costs during construction in case anybody brings a lawsuit for not spending enough to improve accessibility during a renovation.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

​

ICC ANSI A117.1/IEBC Section 705.2 Compliance Form​

Date: ____________________ Permit #: _________________________



Project Name & Address__________________________________________________________________________



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 primary function area.

Exceptions:

1. The cost of providing the accessible route is not required to exceed 20 percent of the costs of the alteration affecting the area of primary function.
2. This provision does not apply to alterations limited solely to windows, hardware, operating controls, electrical outlets and signs.
3. This provision does not apply to alterations limited solely to mechanical systems, electrical systems, installation or alteration of fire protection systems and abatement of hazardous materials.
4. This provision does not apply to alterations undertaken for the primary purpose of increasing the accessibility of an existing building, facility or element.
5. This provision does not apply to altered areas limited to type B dwelling and sleeping units.

Renovation costs______________________ Required 20% for accessibility improvements____________________

Round to nearest dollar



Complies Cost to provide Cost of alteration Balance of 20%

Yes or No full compliance to be performed left to apply



Accessible Parking _______ ___________ ___________ ___________



Accessible Entrance _______ ___________ ___________ ___________



Accessible Route _______ ___________ ___________ ___________



Accessible Signage _______ ___________ ___________ ___________



Accessible Bathroom _______ ___________ ___________ ___________



Accessible D. Fountains _______ ___________ ___________ ___________



Accessible Alarms _______ ___________ ___________ ___________



Accessible Telephone _______ ___________ ___________ ___________







_____________________________ _______________ ______________________________________________

Signature of Applicant Date Printed Name


Well...that doesn't paste well.....And not current code section here....


_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Street Address City State Phone &/or Email

Thanks all. I think I like this best because I can edit it. Also, the IEBC does not mention any priorities. Not sure if a parking space, alarms, signage and telephones are part of the accessible route. A117.1 says:
402.1 Components. Accessible routes shall comply with Section 402.
402.2 Components. Accessible routes shall consist of one or more of the following components: Walking surfaces aith a slope not steeper than 1:20, doors and doorways, ramps, curb ramps excluding the flared sides, elevators, and platform lifts. All components of an accessible route shall comply with the applicable portions of this standard.

Parking spaces are not mentioned here. We know that toilet rooms and drinking fountains are included because the IEBC say they do.
The IEBC does not have a definition of an accessible route, but the IBC says:
[BE] ACCESSIBLE ROUTE. A continuous, unobstructed path that complies with Chapter 11.

And there is nothing about parking in Section 1104 "Accessible Route". But it does say an accessible route is required from accessible parking:
1104.1 Site arrival points. At least one accessible route
within the site shall be provided from public transportation
stops, accessible parking, accessible passenger loading
zones, and public streets or sidewalks to the accessible building
entrance served.

I would like to discuss if a parking space is part of an accessible route and should be on this list or not.

 

[arwat23]

Thanks all. I think I like this best because I can edit it. Also, the IEBC does not mention any priorities. Not sure if a parking space is part of the accessible route. A117.1 says:
402.1 Components. Accessible routes shall comply with Section 402.
402.2 Components. Accessible routes shall consist of one or more of the following components: Walking surfaces aith a slope not steeper than 1:20, doors and doorways, ramps, curb ramps excluding the flared sides, elevators, and platform lifts. All components of an accessible route shall comply with the applicable portions of this standard.

I would like to discuss if a parking space is part of an accessible route and should be on this list or not.

My understanding is that it should be. The first thing that comes to my mind is in the 2010 ADAS (I'm assuming this is in IEBC / IBC somewhere too since ADAS has this).

206.2.1 Site Arrival Points. At least one accessible route shall be provided within the site from accessible parking spaces and accessible passenger loading zones; public streets and sidewalks; and public transportation stops to the accessible building or facility entrance they serve.

EXCEPTIONS:

1. Where exceptions for alterations to qualified historic buildings or facilities are permitted by 202.5, no more than one accessible route from a site arrival point to an accessible entrance shall be required.
2. An accessible route shall not be required between site arrival points and the building or facility entrance if the only means of access between them is a vehicular way not providing pedestrian access.

Edit: Or maybe I'm getting my California amendments mixed up with what's required by ADAS...