20% Rule

[Yikes]

Check out CBC Chapter 1, Section 1.9, referenced in 11B-101.1

Also check out that link I posted earlier if you haven't already, specifically there's a link on that page that takes you here:

Access Compliance Reference Materials

www.dgs.ca.gov

The last sentence does NOT say: "All buildings and facilities in which additions, alterations and structural repairs occur shall comply with these provisions for new buildings except as otherwise provided and specified herein."

As written in 1.9, the subject of the sentence in the code is: additions, alterations, and structural locations.
The modifier is the location/instances where these additions, alterations and structural repairs locations occur: "in all buildings and facilities" (e.g. public buildings, private buildings, public housing as further described in 1.9.1.1, 1.9.1.2, 1.9.1.3).
The buildings and facilities are not the subject of the sentence that compels compliance; the additions, alterations and repairs inside the buildings are the subject.

To be clear, the area of my $2 million interior alteration would comply with the provisions for new buildings. And any 202.4 path-of-travel improvements triggered by the alteration would also comply with the provisions for new buildings.

But the exterior parking lot is not part of my interior alteration scope, and the 5 required path-of travel improvements triggered by alterations in 202.4 do not mention or include parking.

Since the existing parking lot is neither an addition nor an alteration nor a structural repair, I don't see how 1.9.1 triggers its compliance.

 

[Joe.B]

Good point, and I think that's a valid argument you could try to make with your AHJ. Generally speaking if your over the valuation threshold you are required to meet full ADA compliance. ADA requirements apply even when there's not a construction project. By your stance I'm assuming your existing ADA parking is not compliant? There are people out there who make a living off of ADA cases. If they see you do a $2m project and see your ADA parking is non-compliant they will likely wait till your done and patting yourself on the back, then take you to court. You may be technically correct, after reading your post and re-reading the code I think you are, but will the judge agree? "$2m budget and you couldn't fix the parking?" is what I'm betting they will think.

 

[Yikes]

Joe B., I agree that ADA is still enforceable via the courts. But I always like to know what the AHJ can enforce vs. what the courts will enforce.
The reason for this is because sometime the AHJ is not entirely competent, or their interpretations of the code are subjective.

To be honest, my project is not really $2 million, I just threw out an extra-high high number so that people would be compelled to actually deal with code application issue rather than make suggestions about how to reduce the project cost below the threshold.

In my case, we have 1950s era buildings served by a common parking lot that shared by many other businesses and buildings, at the rear of the buildings. The existing accessible parking stalls are located adjacent to the side street, so the accessible POT for parking involves going from the accessible stall to the side street's sidewalk, then going up that sidewalk and rounding the corner to the main entrances at the front of the buildings. We already have the code-required stalls. This is the shortest possible route to the primary entrances to each building.

The plan checker now wants us to convert an additional stall to be accessible, and he wants it to be the stall closest to the rear door of our building. There's a 24" grade drop there, and a wheelchair ramp would take away critical space for trash bins, utilities, and fire department access aisle. I believe he misunderstands 11B-208.3.1, and at this point it's easier to argue that 11B doesn't compel another accessible parking stall, instead of arguing the finer points of what constitutes "shortest possible route" to a parking facility that serves multiple buildings.

 

[Joe.B]

Has there been an occupancy analysis? The existing number of spaces may not serve the proposed occupancy. They may determine that more spaces are needed, but they shouldn't be able to tell you where they want them. Just my opinion though. And everyone's got one. AHJ's can get into trouble when they stick their opinions where they don't belong, but as you probably know from experience it's better to try to work with them than against them.

 

[Yikes]

Yes, there's been an occupancy analysis, and the alteration does not change the amount of parking required by the zoning code.

 

[Joe.B]

Is there money in the budget to hire a CASp to give you a report on existing site conditions? That might help you move forward with this. If the existing parking meets the occupant load and a third party will put their name on it as being compliant this should be a non-issue.

 

[Yikes]

Joe B. sorry to trickle out the information, but the building official abruptly left and the interim official is a hired gun and not the kind of person for whom a CAsp report will provide sufficient cover. It is better just to remove the issue from his plate, if I can.

 

[Joe.B]

Joe B. sorry to trickle out the information, but the building official abruptly left and the interim official is a hired gun and not the kind of person for whom a CAsp report will provide sufficient cover. It is better just to remove the issue from his plate, if I can.

All good. I feel your pain even though I'm on the other side of the counter, or maybe more so because. We have been without a BO since Jan 1st. In my 4 years doing this I've had 5 different BO's. It may still be beneficial to hire a CASp for a couple reasons. First if you have to go above or around this person (CMO, appeals board, council, or whatever) it will be helpful to have a 3rd party report to show that you're not just pushing your own opinion/agenda. Also (from what I understand) a CASp report caries a certain amount of legal bearing to both protect you in potential future lawsuits and to show the legal compliance of existing conditions. A CASp certification is a whole different category of it's own. Unlike my inspector certifications the CASp certification holds a certain legal responsibility that will hold up in court and appeals boards. As such the CASp certification is much more difficult to achieve. If I final a project and something was missed I have protections from liability built into code, the CASp does not have that, if they sign something off they are on the hook.

 

[ADAguy]

CASp certification is a "Voluntary" certification to act as an advisor/observer unless they are a building official; ICBO certification is not the same thing,
State law requires cities to contract with or have staff CASp's or defer permitees to use a CASp. AG only believes AHJ's are responsible for code, not Federal law.
CAGC would seem to indicate otherwise.

 

[nealderidder]

Ha! I've been trying to have this same conversation in another thread. See -

Accessible Parking Upgrades Required for Alteration?​

I think I'm asking the same question as Yikes - What in the code requires me to improve accessibility (for an interior-only alteration project) beyond the five items listed in 11B-202.4? And I don't see an answer to that here other than - cause it's the right thing to do. Which may be true but the question is what does the building code require?

I'm dealing with this right now. Have a $20M TI in CA, all interior remodel, no exterior work and the city is asking us to bring the existing accessible parking up to code. I argued that parking is not listed in 11B-202.4 and got this response:

Unfortunately, CBC 11B-202.4 is not very clear on what they mean by primary entrance but there must be an accessible route from all site arrival points per CBC 11B-206.2.1 to the primary entrance. This includes the public right of way and parking.

There is a little bit of added clarity in CBC 11B-202.4 exception 8 when they discuss how to prioritize accessible elements to be upgraded when filing for a hardship and not all elements of the primary entrance can be met. Here they label the order things should be upgraded and they do specify parking which additionally implies parking is part of the accessible upgrades per CBC 11B-202.4


First, I think it's a real stretch to look forward to 11B-206.2.1 and treat it as a scoping item for every project, including alterations. Scoping for alterations is pretty clearly given in 11B-202.4.

But... it's hard to argue with the second point. Parking is listed as #6 in the list of priorities when you have to decide where to allocate funds for an alteration project. It's unfortunate we have to fish around for this info and make inferences based on keywords found buried in exception #8. Seems like a good thing to put of the committee's list of things to change in the next CBC - Just change Primary entrance to Path from the public way, parking, and primary entrance. And then Yikes and I don't even have a question.

 

[Joe.B]

I'd give you the same answers as I gave Yikes, and you'd give me similar responses, and etc... I don't feel like typing that all out again. I understand your frustration, please re-read post #23 on for my two cents.

 

[Joe.B]

Good point, and I think that's a valid argument you could try to make with your AHJ. Generally speaking if your over the valuation threshold you are required to meet full ADA compliance. ADA requirements apply even when there's not a construction project. By your stance I'm assuming your existing ADA parking is not compliant? There are people out there who make a living off of ADA cases. If they see you do a $2m project and see your ADA parking is non-compliant they will likely wait till your done and patting yourself on the back, then take you to court. You may be technically correct, after reading your post and re-reading the code I think you are, but will the judge agree? "$2m budget and you couldn't fix the parking?" is what I'm betting they will think.

 

[Yikes]

Unfortunately, CBC 11B-202.4 is not very clear on what they mean by primary entrance but there must be an accessible route from all site arrival points per CBC 11B-206.2.1 to the primary entrance. This includes the public right of way and parking.

There is a little bit of added clarity in CBC 11B-202.4 exception 8 when they discuss how to prioritize accessible elements to be upgraded when filing for a hardship and not all elements of the primary entrance can be met. Here they label the order things should be upgraded and they do specify parking which additionally implies parking is part of the accessible upgrades per CBC 11B-202.4


First, I think it's a real stretch to look forward to 11B-206.2.1 and treat it as a scoping item for every project, including alterations. Scoping for alterations is pretty clearly given in 11B-202.4.

I agree that it's a real stretch to say what the code "implies". The actual wording of 202.4 exception 8, item 6 is "when possible, additional accessible elements such as parking, signs, storage and alarms".

The key word is "additional":

"Additional" means that it is in addition to the other 5 basic prioritized items in exception #8. There's no way that parking can be considered both basic AND additional at the same time. It's either one or the other.

The intent of CBC 202.4 is that your goal in alterations is to provide the 5 basic items, and parking ain't one of them.
When (and ONLY when!) the cost of meeting those 5 basic items exceeds 20% of the adjusted construction cost, then 11B-202 202.4 exception 8 allows you to cap the required compliance cost at 20%.
You do that by picking the items in a preferred order:
1. entrance
2. Accessible route to altered area
3. Accessible restroom(s)
4. Accessible phones
5. Accessible drinking fountains
6. When possible (a subject term), additional accessible elements such as... (various examples, not an all inclusive list)

In order for a building official to compel "additional elements such as accessible parking" under 11B-202.4 exception #8, all 3 of the following conditions must first exist:
- Achieving the basic 5 in 202.4 can't be done for less than 20% of the construction cost.
- The building official records and files a finding that providing all of the basic 5 in 202.4 is an unreasonable hardship.
- One or more of the prioritized basic 5 can't be achieved without exceeding 20% of the adjusted construction cost.
Only then can the BO look at "additional" elements to meet the 20% exception.

 

[Joe.B]

When (and ONLY when!) the cost of meeting those 5 basic items exceeds 20% of the adjusted construction cost, then 11B-202 202.4 exception 8 allows you to cap the required compliance cost at 20%.

Except when you exceed the CA accessibility valuation threshold, currently $172,418.00. When you exceed that valuation you're expected to real full accessibility and I don't think any of those exceptions still apply. I think that's the only part that I feel like you may be glossing over because otherwise I agree with everything you're saying.

 

[Joe.B]

*expected to reach full accessibility compliance

 

[Yikes]

When you exceed the CA valuation threshold of $172,418.00 for an alteration, "full accessibility" is what's required in 11B-202.1, which says:

• "Additions and alterations shall comply with Section 11B-202". Stated another way, alterations only need to provide what's found or referenced in 202 in order to fully comply with building code accessibility requirements.
• From there, 11B-202.3 describes the full accessibility requirements for the altered space: that space itself (and only the altered space itself) must comply with all of division 2 (e.g. as if that space was new construction.)
• Next, 11B-202.4 describes all the additional requirements for the "path of travel" components that serve the area of alteration. Those total up to 5 items in order achieve a fully compliant path-of travel. Parking is not listed as one of the 5 items.

Please show me any viable flow chart based on the structure/format of 11B division 2 that would trigger more building code compliance beyond what I've described above.

 

[Joe.B]

I'm not disputing that, just that when you exceed the threshold you no longer are counting 20%. That's all I'm saying.

 

[nealderidder]

Except when you exceed the CA accessibility valuation threshold, currently $172,418.00. When you exceed that valuation you're expected to real full accessibility and I don't think any of those exceptions still apply. I think that's the only part that I feel like you may be glossing over because otherwise I agree with everything you're saying.

It's a good point Joe. When is the last time any of us worked on a project with a valuation less than $172K? So pretty much every project requires full accessibility for the items listed in 202.4. But since the sky's the limit in CA, are we to assume that the items listed as #6 under exception 8 must also be brought into full compliance? When possible, additional accessible elements such as parking, signs, storage and alarms. If so, where do you stop? I would still think you are only required to update those things serving/related to altered portions of the building... This all could certainly be clarified, especially in CA rather than having each BO having to make their own determination.

 

[Yikes]

You "stop" when you don't apply for exception #8. The stopping point is outlined in post #40.

 

[Joe.B]

It's a good point Joe. When is the last time any of us worked on a project with a valuation less than $172K? So pretty much every project requires full accessibility for the items listed in 202.4. But since the sky's the limit in CA, are we to assume that the items listed as #6 under exception 8 must also be brought into full compliance? When possible, additional accessible elements such as parking, signs, storage and alarms. If so, where do you stop? I would still think you are only required to update those things serving/related to altered portions of the building... This all could certainly be clarified, especially in CA rather than having each BO having to make their own determination.

On this side of the counter, all the time. I deal with multi-million dollar projects, and water heater exchanges.

 

[nealderidder]

You "stop" when you don't apply for exception #8. The stopping point is outlined in post #40.

I hear you, and I agree. And I'm losing this argument with a BO who's insisting I bring the accessible parking up to current code. Not really an expense issue, but we don't want to lose the five parking spaces that have to be sacrificed to make the fix.

 

[Joe.B]

I hear you, and I agree. And I'm losing this argument with a BO who's insisting I bring the accessible parking up to current code. Not really an expense issue, but we don't want to lose the five parking spaces that have to be sacrificed to make the fix.

In my experience when people on either side of the counter dig in their heels, so do the people on the other side. I've seen the most success by people coming up with creative ways to meet code and satisfy the users wants/needs. Obviously I don't know the specifics of your situation, and nobody is paying me to come up with a design, but I have to believe there's some other solution besides losing 5 spaces.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Did you ask for an section that requires an accessible parking spaces in the IEBC?
Adding a accessible parking space can be impossible or very expensive in tight spaces or on a slope. What if you had 5 apartments with only 5 parking spaces and you had to add an accessible parking space?

I think you have good grounds for an appeal.

 

[nealderidder]

Did you ask for an section that requires an accessible parking spaces in the IEBC?
Adding a accessible parking space can be impossible or very expensive in tight spaces or on a slope. What if you had 5 apartments with only 5 parking spaces and you had to add an accessible parking space?

I think you have good grounds for an appeal.

Thanks for the comment Rick. Even though I don't agree that this is required by code we're going to give them what they want. Not the hill we want to die on!