• 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 first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Will motel conversions for homeless require add'l accessibility?

Y

Yikes

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
3,062
Location
Southern California
The city of LA (and Orange county) has been in the news lately for tryignh to solve our homeless crisis by paying to put homeless into local motels. In theory, those motels should already be complying with ADA, but in practice, we know how that goes, especially with old motels.

Question: does the use of city funds to pay for motel housing trigger additional accessibility requirements (section 504, UFAS, ADA), or put the city on the hook to ensure compliance?
 
Yikes said:
Question: does the use of city funds to pay for motel housing trigger additional accessibility requirements (section 504, UFAS, ADA), or put the city on the hook to ensure compliance?
Click to expand...

Interesting question Yikes, as a matter of fact the state is ignoring federal drug and immigration law deliberately, so I would assume they could ignore ADA as well. The question is can we ignore our own state version of ADA, whatever you call it? I guess we now pick and choose whatever law we want to enforce based upon what our governor calls "our core values".
 
Unrhu Act suit just waiting to happen. As the motels are T-IIIs they must comply with barrier removal, state cannot give them a pass on ADA compliance.
As motels are designed (should be) for transitory housing, newer ones should be ok, it is the pre - ADA that will require compliance.
 
I can't find the article now, but I read the other day that LA is paying homeowners to place homeless folks in converted garages, extra spaces in their houses? I wonder how that's affecting the code enforcement guys job?
 
The bigger question is they are going from an R-1 transient occupancy to an R-2 non-transient occupancy which will requires sprinklers if not installed I assume CA has the same requirement.

TRANSIENT. Occupancy of a dwelling unit or sleeping unit for not more than 30 days.

2012 IEBC
1012.2.1 Fire sprinkler system.
Where a change in occupancy classification occurs that requires an automatic fire sprinkler system to be provided based on the new occupancy in accordance with Chapter 9 of the International Building Code, such system shall be provided throughout the area where the change of occupancy occurs.

We are going through this same problem where older non sprinkled hotels are renting the rooms out for indefinite stay.
 
JCraver, they started that as a pilot program last fall. On that one, as a "duplex" they might skate under some accessibility thresholds. However, I am curious as to whether the funding source will trigger prevailing wage, as it often does for block grant improvements like insulation, weatherstripping, etc.
(But since this is a code forum, that's another topic for another day.)
 
If the source if funds is not CDBG funds then Davis Bacon may not be in play. City of LA general funds allocation.
 
mtlogcabin said:
The bigger question is they are going from an R-1 transient occupancy to an R-2 non-transient occupancy which will requires sprinklers if not installed I assume CA has the same requirement.

TRANSIENT. Occupancy of a dwelling unit or sleeping unit for not more than 30 days.

2012 IEBC
1012.2.1 Fire sprinkler system.
Where a change in occupancy classification occurs that requires an automatic fire sprinkler system to be provided based on the new occupancy in accordance with Chapter 9 of the International Building Code, such system shall be provided throughout the area where the change of occupancy occurs.

We are going through this same problem where older non sprinkled hotels are renting the rooms out for indefinite stay.
Click to expand...

What if they move them to a different room every 29 days?
 
When they quit paying the bed tax under the hotel motel license they are no longer a R-1 IMHO
When they quit providing maid service and clean towels and linen they are no longer an R-1 IMHO
even if they move them every 29 days
 
ADAguy said:
Why is that good intentions can lead to unintended consequences?
Click to expand...
Because we have too many laws and regulations, they are bound to come into conflict. Yesterday when I drove into Walnut Creek, a town with an average income of over $100,000 per year, there were many police cars with lights flashing with city trucks picking up loads of mattresses, bicycles, and bags of garbage, the homeless were standing there trying to pull some of their stuff out of the garbage. These people are all getting some kinds of benefits from the county, they are building all kinds of apartments but rents will probably be averaging about $3,000 a month, few will be able to afford to move into these new apartments.

In 1939 my dad had a new house built in Walnut Creek, the home and lot cost $3,500, of which the lot was $500. When the war started all kinds of people showed up in old cars with mattresses and springs tied to the tops, they homesteaded land and built tar paper shacks, there were codes then but nobody enforced them.
 
Last edited:
Yes, and there were less people, minimum wage and price of living were zilch, the war was about to begin and with it the baby boom. This was all forseeable.
 
I don’t know but I’ve been told that the poor will be with us always......we can never eliminate “poor” but we can influence the degree. Lacking a safe place to sleep is beyond wrong.

Getting hung up on codes is no excuse to delay action. Provide the safe place and work out the details later.....and please don’t worry about ADA or occupncy types.

It’s the least that we can do. And also the best that we are willing to do.
 
Last edited:
ICE said:
Getting hung up on codes is no excuse to delay action. Provide the safe place and work out the details later.....and please don’t worry about ADA or occupncy types.
Click to expand...

I agree with your thinking ICE my friend, to the point you had that already in Oakland... remember the Ghost ship! The code details did't get worked out.

It's hard to believe you can go to an Angels baseball game at the "A" and know that there's over a mile long route of homeless people along the river and your watching a multi-millionaire play a game!

And then there's some dude wanting to send rocket ships to the moon for a million a pop.

Please keep "Moonbeam!"
 
[QUOTE "Pcinspector1, post: 180556, member: 161"]I agree with your thinking ICE my friend, to the point you had that already in Oakland... remember the Ghost ship! The code details did't get worked out.

It's hard to believe you can go to an Angels baseball game at the "A" and know that there's over a mile long route of homeless people along the river and your watching a multi-millionaire play a game!

And then there's some dude wanting to send rocket ships to the moon for a million a pop.

Please keep "Moonbeam!"[/QUOTE]
There Is no longer a "mile long" encampment adjacent to the angel stadium. The powers that be have spread them out in the community. The homeless are still there but now they are in everyones neighborhoods. It was not the governor it was the courts. One of the reasons we have 1/4 of the nations homeless is the weather. We do not have the extreme cold weather.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top