Accessibility and 20% Yet Again

[jar546]

I already know the answer (in PA anyway) but would like to get a sense of where everyone is on this subject. Here is the scenario to evaluate, contemplate and make a decision:

In addition to the ADA, Chapter 11 and the appendix of the 2012 IBC and 2009 ANSI A117.1 apply

Existing, 2 story building approved 10 years ago as a B use.

FFWD to today, they are doing a level 3 renovation that includes 100% of the 1st floor and 10% of the 2nd floor. Each floor has the same square footage.

The new classification will stay the same as a B. The 1st floor is a basic gut job, the 2nd floor is some partition wall and door moving.

Here is the question:

The accessibility requirements for this building have changed since it was last approved and issued a C of O, specifically the bathrooms on the 2nd level. Would the 20% have to apply towards upgrading the 2nd floor bathrooms to meet the new standards that have changed since it was previously built 10 years ago? Basically, do they have to upgrade the 2nd floor bathrooms to meet today's accessibility codes even though they did 10 years ago?

 

[steveray]

Yep....as requirements change it will be an ongoing process.......Wait till they make the 60" diameter circle bigger, people are going to explode....

Let me clarify....they need to spend 20%...How they choose to is up to them....They don't necessarily have to touch the second floor bathrooms....

 

[mtlogcabin]

let me clarify....they need to spend 20%...how they choose to is up to them....they don't necessarily have to touch the second floor bathrooms....

ditto..............

 

[jar546]

Yep....as requirements change it will be an ongoing process.......Wait till they make the 60" diameter circle bigger, people are going to explode....Let me clarify....they need to spend 20%...How they choose to is up to them....They don't necessarily have to touch the second floor bathrooms....

Agree, the only issue is that there are no other accessibility issues so the bathrooms are basically the only things that need to be updated.

 

[steveray]

What is now wrong with them?

 

[Chad Pasquini]

Jar, does your state have a dollar amount that if project renovation exceeds, would then need to fully comply with accessibility, like California I believe the dollar amount is 143,303, then project needs to be fully compliant.

 

[JPohling]

Chad, That was going to be my question as well, as I am not familiar with IBC. CBC would require full compliance as I am sure the renovations are over the threshold

 

[jar546]

Jar, does your state have a dollar amount that if project renovation exceeds, would then need to fully comply with accessibility, like California I believe the dollar amount is 143,303, then project needs to be fully compliant.

no, 20% no cap or threshold

 

[north star]

= & = & =



FWIW, ...I too agree that the 20% rule should be used.

jar,

Are you sure that they cannot spend 20% somewhere

else besides the upstairs restrooms [ i.e. - signage, ...ADA

parking or ADA parking identification, ...marking the shortest

route the the nearest ADA compliant entrance(s), other ] ?



= & = & =

 

[mtlogcabin]

410.7 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 work on the second floor is not in an area of primary function then nothing is required on that floor per IEBC.

You have stated this is a level 3 alteration. Remember you do not decide if the alteration is done under the prescriptive compliance method or the classification of work method. That is the designer/owners choice. Basically the 20% rule is in each method but how you determine the cost could be debated. 1st floor is Level 3 but the second floor could be a Level 1 and the 20% rule could be argued that the 20% would only apply to the cost on the 2nd floor for the Level 1 work since the 1st floor is a complete gut a rebuild and accessibility is included within the scope of work.

 

[JBI]

With partitioning second floor would be a level 2 alteration, but since that area is necessarily included in the level 3 determination I don't believe the EBC would allow splitting the work area.

That said, remember it is not total 'construction cost', as that term is defined in the regulating sections. 20% of all applicable construction costs.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Is the work on the second floor within the primary function area? if not then nothing is required regardless of what is happening on the 1st floor is my understanding

Where an alteration affects the accessibility to, or contains an area of primary function, the route to the primary function area shall be accessible

PRIMARY FUNCTION. A primary function is a major activity for which the facility is intended. Areas that contain a primary function include, but are not limited to, the customer services lobby of a bank, the dining area of a cafeteria, the meeting rooms in a conference center, as well as offices and other work areas in which the activities of the public accommodation or other private entity using the facility are carried out. Mechanical rooms, boiler rooms, supply storage rooms, employee lounges or locker rooms, janitorial closets, entrances, corridors and restrooms are not areas containing a primary function.

 

[Sifu]

I thought the 20% was allocated to accessible routes to an area of primary function first. It makes sense that an accessible bathroom wouldn't be much good if the route to the bathroom is not accessible.....doesn't it??

 

[jar546]

MORE INFO:

This is a two story that is on a slope so the upper level (2nd floor) is accessible from grade at the front of the building and the lower level (1st floor) is accessible from grade in the rear of the building. Both levels are primary function areas for different physician offices and all part of the same business. The renovations to the 1st level are extensive and signage was already submitted in the plans along with changes in accessible parking due to the change in use of the new 1st level. The only thing left is to upgrade the restrooms on the upper level. Everything else had to be done anyway because it is new.

 

[JBI]

And they are balking at doing the restrooms because... why?

 

[jar546]

And they are balking at doing the restrooms because... why?

No, they are being fully compliant. During initial submission they did not address the 20% which was brought to their attention during plan review. They decided to do the bathrooms on their own. Again, they about the only thing not compliant with the new standards since previously approved.

 

[kilitact]

Would safe harbor come into play?

The final rule retains the safe harbor for required elements of a path of travel to altered primary function areas for public entities that have already complied with the 1991 Standards with respect to those required elements. The Department believes that this safe harbor strikes an appropriate balance between ensuring that individuals with disabilities are provided access to buildings and facilities and potential financial burdens on existing public entities that are undertaking alterations subject to the 2010 Standards. This safe harbor is not a blanket exemption for facilities. If a public entity undertakes an alteration to a primary function area, only the required elements of a path of travel to that area that already comply with the 1991 Standards are subject to the safe harbor. If a public entity undertakes an alteration to a primary function area and the required elements of a path of travel to the altered area do not comply with the 1991 Standards, then the public entity must bring those elements into compliance with the 2010 Standards.

 

[ADAguy]

Duty to maintain accessibility of existing compliant elements and to have removed pre-existing barriers (if not already done so) remains and upgrades only apply to new work.

They appear to grasp their responsibility, leaving the 20% to be not applicable if the new work is compliant.