Accessible toilet rooms in existing building

[Yankee Chronicler]

Sorry, I meant per suite. Like, get at least one restroom that serves each area into compliance first so there's at least one fully complaint toilet room for everyone / each area.

That would certainly be preferred, but the code language doesn't require it.

 

[arwat23]

That would certainly be preferred, but the code language doesn't require it.

Why not? IEBC 305.7 says "the route to the primary function area shall be accessible. The accessible route to the primary function area shall include toilet facilities and drinking fountains serving the area of primary function." The way I read this, you need to provide an accessible route (toilet rooms) to the area of primary function. If each suite is its own area of primary function, then a toilet room for each suite (or one for all suites) should be provided, no?

The state I work in doesn't use "area of primary function", so maybe I'm just wrong on how that's applied here...?

 

[Sifu]

Why not? IEBC 305.7 says "the route to the primary function area shall be accessible. The accessible route to the primary function area shall include toilet facilities and drinking fountains serving the area of primary function." The way I read this, you need to provide an accessible route (toilet rooms) to the area of primary function. If each suite is its own area of primary function, then a toilet room for each suite (or one for all suites) should be provided, no?

The state I work in doesn't use "area of primary function", so maybe I'm just wrong on how that's applied here...?

Logical, but only up to 20% I think. I just can't find a code that says they can't put it 18 grab bars for 6 bathrooms, maybe stripe the accessible parking aisle, extend the ramp handrails etc. and VOILA! they reach 20%. Code has never dictated how it is spent but it is so obviously logical I wondered if I was missing something. Maybe not though.

 

[arwat23]

Logical, but only up to 20% I think. I just can't find a code that says they can't put it 18 grab bars for 6 bathrooms, maybe stripe the accessible parking aisle, extend the ramp handrails etc. and VOILA! they reach 20%. Code has never dictated how it is spent but it is so obviously logical I wondered if I was missing something. Maybe not though.

Agreed fully on the 20% exception. Rereading this, I think I got some CA specific amendments mixed in. My bad.

CA makes it explicit and says "When the cost of full compliance with Section 11B-202.4 would exceed 20 percent, compliance shall be provided to the greatest extent possible without exceeding 20 percent." (CBC 11B-202.4, exception 8). Using this language, you'd provide greater accessibility if each space had access to a fully accessible toilet room rather than multiple "semi-accessible" rooms. Seems like that's just a CA thing though.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Why not? IEBC 305.7 says "the route to the primary function area shall be accessible. The accessible route to the primary function area shall include toilet facilities and drinking fountains serving the area of primary function." The way I read this, you need to provide an accessible route (toilet rooms) to the area of primary function. If each suite is its own area of primary function, then a toilet room for each suite (or one for all suites) should be provided, no?

It's IEBC 306.7.1 in our IEBC, but that section is immediately followed by a laundry list of exceptions. Exception #1 is:

The costs of providing the accessible route are not required to exceed 20 percent of the costs of the alterations affecting the area of primary function.

This means they don't have to make any toilet room 100% accessible if the cost of doing so exceeds 20% of the project cost attributed to the alterations affecting the area of primary function. And if they spend the 20% on accessibility improvements to other portions on the accessible route, they don't have to spend a nickle on toilet room improvements.

This is in the IEBC, but it's straight out of the ADAS.

 

[steveray]

Logical, but only up to 20% I think. I just can't find a code that says they can't put it 18 grab bars for 6 bathrooms, maybe stripe the accessible parking aisle, extend the ramp handrails etc. and VOILA! they reach 20%. Code has never dictated how it is spent but it is so obviously logical I wondered if I was missing something. Maybe not though.

You are correct….20% unless you push the other avenues…

 

[arwat23]

It's IEBC 306.7.1 in our IEBC, but that section is immediately followed by a laundry list of exceptions. Exception #1 is:



This means they don't have to make any toilet room 100% accessible if the cost of doing so exceeds 20% of the project cost attributed to the alterations affecting the area of primary function. And if they spend the 20% on accessibility improvements to other portions on the accessible route, they don't have to spend a nickle on toilet room improvements.

This is in the IEBC, but it's straight out of the ADAS.

Yes, I agree with everything you're saying here. Like I said, if you can't bring any restroom up to 100% compliance, then do what you can. But, ideally (IMO), if you have the budget to make at least one toilet room that serves each suite, then do that. Accessibility isn't a slider. It's a "yes" or "no". Is a restroom accessible or not? No grey area.

To me, it's far better to make something "fully" accessible than make a bunch of stuff not "fully" accessible. Of course, that's assuming the 20% allows for bringing a restroom that serves each primary function area up to code. If you can't make something accessible without exceeding 20%, then yeah, of course you don't need to make it fully accessible.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Logical, but only up to 20% I think. I just can't find a code that says they can't put it 18 grab bars for 6 bathrooms, maybe stripe the accessible parking aisle, extend the ramp handrails etc. and VOILA! they reach 20%. Code has never dictated how it is spent but it is so obviously logical I wondered if I was missing something. Maybe not though.

You are not missing anything.

I thought the ADA had a priority order (non-mandatory) for where the 20% should be spent first, but I can't find it. I did find this advisory in he 2010 ADAS:

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.

Found it. It's in a guideline from the Access Board: https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-2-alterations-and-additions/

Prioritization​

Compliance is required up to the point the 20% cost cap is reached, even where it does not result in a fully accessible path of travel. Where costs exceed this cap, compliance should be prioritized in this order:

1. an accessible entrance
2. an accessible route to the primary function area
3. restroom access
4. an accessible telephone
5. an accessible drinking fountain
6. access to other elements such as parking and storage

"Should," of course, is not mandatory language