Accessibility Upgrade Worksheet

[walker.t]

I did a search online for “accessibility upgrade worksheet” today after re-reading this post:

We have a little game we play in our jurisdiction with accessibility in remodel.

We have a form the RDP fills out when applying for a permit, and it gives them two options: is the building already fully accessible, or not? If it's not, what all are you going to fix to meet the 20% of the project cost laid out in the advisory for 202.4 in the 2010 ADA?

The game begins where the RDP marks the "already fully accessible" box without checking to see if it is or not. I show up for inspection, and areas affecting a primary function are not accessible. So I tell the contractor to have his RDP figure out what he wants to fix to meet the 20%.

"The bathroom is not in our scope, we didn't touch the bathroom!" It is now, too bad your RDP didn't handle it on the front end when we gave them the opportunity - take it up with them.

There were a number of links to forms documenting the cost of work in the project, here’s one example:

https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/3612/Accessibility-Upgrade-Worksheet---Fillable-Form-PDF

I only noticed links to California jurisdictions in the first few pages of search results, several of the forms looked very similar except the heading with the jurisdiction’s name, I assume something provided by the State of California. Seemed like a nice tool to help with plan review and approval.

 

[Joe.B]

I don't know where it first came from, but it seems like everybody just copy/pastes from each other. Anytime I need a new form I just go to City of San Jose's building department webpage, they have a form for everything. Swap out the logo, change a few things, done.

 

[mark handler]

The 2025 valuation threshold is $203,611.00

 

[Yikes]

We have a little game we play in our jurisdiction with accessibility in remodel.

We have a form the RDP fills out when applying for a permit, and it gives them two options: is the building already fully accessible, or not? If it's not, what all are you going to fix to meet the 20% of the project cost laid out in the advisory for 202.4 in the 2010 ADA?

I disagree with the question being asked: "Is the building already fully accessible?" in order to apply the 20% rule.
The 20% rule, CBC 11B-202.4 exception #8, is an exception to 202.4. so we have to look at 202.4 to see the normally required scope.

202.4 does NOT require "the building" to be "fully accessible". It only requires a (minimum of one) primary path of travel to be accessible to the area of addition/alteration, and it further limits the definition of path of travel to the following scope:

(1) a primary entrance;​

(2) toilet/bathing facilities, (3) drinking fountains, (4) public phones that are serving the area of alteration/addition​

(5) signs​

If those 5 components* are already accessible as defined in CBC 11B, then the requirements of 202.4 are fulfilled and exc. #8 is not needed to be applied, and no further upgrades (20% expenditures) are required by code.
Furthermore, please note that (for example) if there are no public phones serving the area, then 202.4 does not trigger a requirement new phones to be installed.

So IMO the correct question to ask is: "Is a primary accessible path-of travel, including all applicable components described in 11B-202.4, provided to the specific area of alteration or addition?"

*As stated in other threads, some AHJs may further enumerate or imply a few other components based on the CBC 202 definition of "path of travel" and its cross-reference to the CBC 202 definition of "accessible route".

 

[Yikes]

The 2025 valuation threshold is $203,611.00

Interesting to see the valuation through the years: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/DSA/Resource...rials?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

In 2000, it was $90,900.40.
25 years later, it is $203,611.00, 224% increase in 25 years.

Meanwhile, the Consumer Price Index has risen 83.28% during that same period.
https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2000?amount=90900.40





It serves to show how volatile our construction market is in California.

 

[BN4537]

I disagree with the question being asked: "Is the building already fully accessible?" in order to apply the 20% rule.
The 20% rule, CBC 11B-202.4 exception #8, is an exception to 202.4. so we have to look at 202.4 to see the normally required scope.

202.4 does NOT require "the building" to be "fully accessible". It only requires a (minimum of one) primary path of travel to be accessible to the area of addition/alteration, and it further limits the definition of path of travel to the following scope:

(1) a primary entrance;​

(2) toilet/bathing facilities, (3) drinking fountains, (4) public phones that are serving the area of alteration/addition​

(5) signs​

If those 5 components* are already accessible as defined in CBC 11B, then the requirements of 202.4 are fulfilled and exc. #8 is not needed to be applied, and no further upgrades (20% expenditures) are required by code.
Furthermore, please note that (for example) if there are no public phones serving the area, then 202.4 does not trigger a requirement new phones to be installed

So IMO the correct question to ask is: "Is a primary accessible path-of travel, including all applicable components described in 11B-202.4, provided to the specific area of alteration or addition?"

*As stated in other threads, some AHJs will further enumerate of imply a few other components based on the CBC 202 definition of "path of travel" and its cross-reference to 202 definition of "accessible route".

You are correct, our form addresses that with a series of yes/no questions that I summarized into "is the building already fully accessible?" for brevity. You bring up a very good point for future readers of this thread to understand.

 

[Yikes]

You are correct, our form addresses that with a series of yes/no questions that I summarized into "is the building already fully accessible?" for brevity. You bring up a very good point for future readers of this thread to understand.

Yeah, I've had AHJs try to compel additional 20% expenditures on projects that already had a fully compliant path of travel, so maybe I'm a bit sensitive to the distinction.

 

[MtnArch]

We are seeing a certain 3rd party plan checking company (I won't name names, but they Can't Stinking Get it) asking us to DETAIL *ALL* existing conditions (showing all dimensions, slopes, etc. not only in plan view but in elevation views as well. For a simple $20,000 TI for one of our manufacturing clients that is leasing an existing space that was built-out for another tenant in 2019 (including fully compliant toilet rooms), we have exceeded our fee by double simply to show that all items are compliant. We'll now have to build in a hefty fee up-front simply to go and perform a detailed site and building measurement so that we can "detail" the existing compliance to satisfy them.

Although we can request the CBO override those requirements, there should be some form of reigning these checkers in PRIOR to having to draw and detail these items. And the request may languish in the CBO's email/in-box for multiple weeks (or months) until they have dealt with the normal crises and functions of THEIR job.

(off my soap box .. for now)

 

[Joe.B]

We are seeing a certain 3rd party plan checking company

Does their name rhyme with "more beef"?

there should be some form of reigning these checkers in PRIOR to having to draw and detail these items.

Yeah, switch companies. They're running a business and some companies (no names, but we all know who I'm talking about) will squeeze every penny out of a project. A lot of jurisdictions love using third party companies because they can limit staff, and any cost incurred can be passed directly onto the applicants. Because the private companies are not restricted by jurisdictional boundaries they can cover a lot more territory. Local AHJ's (especially small ones) will constantly either be over-worked or twiddling their thumbs.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Interesting to see the valuation through the years: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/DSA/Resource...rials?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

In 2000, it was $90,900.40.
25 years later, it is $203,611.00, 224% increase in 25 years.

Meanwhile, the Consumer Price Index has risen 83.28% during that same period.
https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2000?amount=90900.40

View attachment 15074
View attachment 15072


It serves to show how volatile our construction market is in California.

Interesting that the increase was fairly linear and consistent -- until COVID.

 

[steveray]

simply to go and perform a detailed site and building measurement

This should probably be done anyway.....But I don't need it drawn for me... When people don't know, they ask for more information....Hopefully that information has some value...

 

[arwat23]

We are seeing a certain 3rd party plan checking company (I won't name names, but they Can't Stinking Get it) asking us to DETAIL *ALL* existing conditions (showing all dimensions, slopes, etc. not only in plan view but in elevation views as well.

Maybe one of those comments that was used on some big project that got thrown into their "standard" comments list? There's a different 3rd party plan checker that has a laundry list of typical comments they slap on every commercial plan review. If we're lucky, they'll notice the comment isn't applicable and remove it, but most of the time they stays on. I usually just respond with "this info is on detail _____" or request the CBO to override the comment when the reviewer is being particularly stubborn.

 

[Yikes]

We are seeing a certain 3rd party plan checking company (I won't name names, but they Can't Stinking Get it) asking us to DETAIL *ALL* existing conditions (showing all dimensions, slopes, etc. not only in plan view but in elevation views as well. For a simple $20,000 TI for one of our manufacturing clients that is leasing an existing space that was built-out for another tenant in 2019 (including fully compliant toilet rooms), we have exceeded our fee by double simply to show that all items are compliant. We'll now have to build in a hefty fee up-front simply to go and perform a detailed site and building measurement so that we can "detail" the existing compliance to satisfy them.

(off my soap box .. for now)

In the past I've had DSA K-12 school projects where it was readily observable that the path of travel was already compliant. In that scenario, in lieu of a formal survey and plans/details of all existing conditions, DSA let us apply a dotted line showing the path-of-travel and location of related features (restrooms, etc.), along with a note that said to "verify or provide" the accessible path of travel. This made reference to another sheet of the usual standard accessibility notes (main slope, cross-slope, door clearances, bathroom features, etc.).
Verification was also easier because we had the previous "A" numbers (permit numbers) cross referenced for those areas.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Just did a final inspection for an existing warehouse building that had about a million-dollar alterations done. I also did the plan review, sent them an accessibility upgrade worksheet that I use, and the architect wrote that it was 100% accessible. Well, I don't think he ever went into the toilet rooms or looked at the drinking fountains at all. They will have to do a lot to get it up to code.

I expect this to happen a lot because it's easier for an architect to have me inspect for accessibility and write-up a list of violations then for architect to do it, especially because most architect don't seem to know the accessibility codes or the IEBC very well.