Accessible toilet rooms in existing building

[Sifu]

Not sure how it got this way...

Large medical office building, 4 separate suites. Intent is a single permit to remodel 3 of the 4 suites. (That is a question that needs addressed, but lets go with it for now.)

Suite 1 has 6 individual toilet rooms within the suite, only 1 is intended to be scoped as accessible. The intended scope of work does not include the other 5 that are not accessible.

Suite 2 has 2 individual toilet rooms, neither is accessible, neither in the intended scope of work.

Suite 3 has 2 individual toilet rooms, neither is accessible, 1 is in the intended scope of work.

Suite 4 has 1 toilet room, and the scope of work is to make it accessible. This one is in the lobby that serves all suites.

Bottom line, 11 total individual toilet rooms, only 2 are scoped to be accessible. Except in the case of technical infeasibility, would they all be required to be accessible per IEBC 305.7 unless the cost exceeds 20%?

From what I can tell, the original build-out for most of this was in 2009, with a few scattered remodel permits since then. Sad that this exists, but not acceptable to keep giving this a pass. But also hard to say the rest are now subject to the code when they have apparently been ignored in the past. Isn't this why we have the 20% exception so that each time work is done it gets a little better?

 

[bill1952]

So out of 11, 4 will be accessible?

 

[Sifu]

Actually, found another one. So 12 individual toilet rooms, only 2 are accessible. One accessible in one suite, one accessible in the main lobby area.

 

[arwat23]

Not completely sure since I don't see that section in IEBC (and we don't use IEBC for accessibility in my state), but I'd say they'd be required to be brought up to code per 202.4 of the 2010 ADAS (20% exception). I assume this language or something similar exists in IEBC (again, I'm not familiar enough with that code to know where that is)

Unless they're clustered together, yeah, make them all accessible.

 

[steveray]

20%...always...

 

[walker.t]

Isn't this why we have the 20% exception so that each time work is done it gets a little better?

That’s the way I’ve thought about it. It wouldn’t be fair to make them bring the entire building up to current requirements, but they have to do something to improve accessibility any time they do work in the building.

Sad that this exists, but not acceptable to keep giving this a pass. But also hard to say the rest are now subject to the code when they have apparently been ignored in the past.

The topic of how something might have gotten missed starts to drift, but the applicant may question why the 20% rule wasn’t enforced in the past. You won’t know the answer to that question but you can tell them that you do know that they need to spend 20% on the accessibility upgrades now.

Found this comment on the forum regarding non-compliant work that is discovered later:

the new inspector can only conclude that someone either changed the gate after the original inspection was done without a permit, or the first inspector missed it, which as we all know is not an approval of compliance.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I'm currently on a laptop from a hospital room so I don't have access to my full library. If the jurisdiction uses the Existing Building Code, the answer is in Chapter 3 under Accessibility. The basic rule is that the toilet rooms serving an altered area containing a primary function must be accessible or must be made accessible. The limitation of 20% of the total project cost is one of the exceptions.

If each suite has its own toilet rooms, I don't see any way around ensuring that each suite has at least one fully accessible toilet room. (Subject to the 20% rule.)

 

[steveray]

I'm currently on a laptop from a hospital room

Take Care....hopefully not from the job stress...

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Take Care....hopefully not from the job stress...

Unfortunately, that probably is a factor -- as you know.

 

[Sifu]

Unfortunately, that probably is a factor -- as you know.

First....hope all turns out well, one of the reasons I am over it and trying to hang it up in the next year or so...at least go part time.

As far as accessibility and the previous plans go, I found the most recent remodel plans. Bathrooms were approved as non-accessible without any comments or budgets, but they gotta start some time. If they try the technically infeasible route and the CBO approves it, the exception requires they be in the same area, and it is hard to justify having non-accessible toilets within the suite and using the one accessible toilet in the lobby as being "in the same area", but I'll let the CBO be the deciding factor. His AHJ after all, and previously approved under his watch.

The CBO says separate permits, so now they can do the 20% for each. Makes me wonder if trying to combine them under one permit had an ulterior motive.

And this AHJ did adopt the IEBC, but as usually no reference to it whatsoever so IEBC path is not provided.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

And this AHJ did adopt the IEBC, but as usually no reference to it whatsoever so IEBC path is not provided.

The deeper I dig into the IEBC, the more certain I am that it is a fundamental requirement for the designer to state the compliance method on the construction documents. If this is not stated, we reject the drawings and won't issue a permit. If you don't know which method, you can't even begin a plan review.

 

[steveray]

The deeper I dig into the IEBC, the more certain I am that it is a fundamental requirement for the designer to state the compliance method on the construction documents. If this is not stated, we reject the drawings and won't issue a permit. If you don't know which method, you can't even begin a plan review.

302.1 or 301.2 I believe....Without looking

 

[Sifu]

The deeper I dig into the IEBC, the more certain I am that it is a fundamental requirement for the designer to state the compliance method on the construction documents. If this is not stated, we reject the drawings and won't issue a permit. If you don't know which method, you can't even begin a plan review.

Yes, that is the way I start. The IBC requires the use of the IEBC for existing buildings, but If they can't or won't then I suppose we can just go with the IBC as if it were a new building. The few times I have gone this route they usually find their way to it pretty quickly. In this case unfortunately, they have been given a pass on this issue multiple times, so the can has just been kicked down the road. They will complain about not having been "told" before now which I counter with the concept that A) it has always been their responsibility to apply the code correctly, and B) the previous miss-steps by the AHJ benefited them but they are being told now. It has to start somewhere.

What is ironic is that the IEBC is the only document that offers help for these buildings, it was written precisely for them. Yet, so few DP's even reference it, let alone use it.

On this plan, I did a little digging and found that the previous remodel eliminated an accessible toilet room, which left only non-accessible toilet rooms. This is one of the problems with "minor" remodels where the entire scope of the space isn't provided, and not asked for in the review process. It requires a little critical thinking, which is sadly lacking.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Yes, that is the way I start. The IBC requires the use of the IEBC for existing buildings, but If they can't or won't then I suppose we can just go with the IBC as if it were a new building.

I tried that a long time ago. I quickly realized that the code doesn't allow me to do that. The applicant is required to tell me the compliance method. I won't waste my time reviewing as if they used the prescriptive method only to have them respond that they had used the work area method.

 

[Sifu]

IMO, IEBC 305.7 exc. #1 would not require ALL toilet rooms to be accessible, but would require 20% of the budget to be spent on improvements to the accessible route. If the only non-compliant elements to the accessible route were the toilet rooms, the 20% would need to be spent there. So maybe each suite ends up with one toilet room that is accessible. But, what if a claim is made that the 20% can be spent of grab bars and new water closets, but the clear space is still not provided in any of them? Is there a code that requires at least one be provided, even if it is in excess of the 20%? IEBC 305.8.10 kind of implies it, but I'm not sure that is valid. Or is it enough to spread the 20% across all areas of the accessible route and not provide a fully accessible toilet room?

This question applies to the aforementioned project, but I have another one where it would apply as well that has 3 toilet rooms, none accessible, so I need to make sure I apply the code correctly AND consistently.

 

[arwat23]

But, what if a claim is made that the 20% can be spent of grab bars and new water closets, but the clear space is still not provided in any of them? Is there a code that requires at least one be provided, even if it is in excess of the 20%? IEBC 305.8.10 kind of implies it, but I'm not sure that is valid. Or is it enough to spread the 20% across all areas of the accessible route and not provide a fully accessible toilet room?

In my experience (gain of salt, I'm from CA, our rules can be different), most jurisdictions would prefer making something fully accessible rather than partially accessible. If you have the budget to make one toilet room fully accessible or make multiple partially accessible, then the one fully accessible route is the way to go. If you don't have the budget to fully upgrade anything, then it's whatever would provide the greatest accessibility (meaning there's no clear answer).

As far as I'm aware, it's up to the AHJ for what's preferred. There's nothing in code that explicitly defines where in a restroom the money must be spent first.

 

[steveray]

They pick where to spend the 20%...as long as they get there, I don't get to care.....Unless you want to get crazy with 306.7:

 

[Sifu]

I do not want to go crazy, especially if it is more than I can justify with code. I would imagine that one fully accessible toilet room is better than several partially accessible toilet rooms, but I'm not sure there is a code I can cite for that.

In the first case (the large medical facility) some of the suites are doing nothing to improve them. That one is easier.
In the second case they want to "refurbish" the toilet rooms but not make them fully accessible. That one is murkier because if they could "refurbish" with enough partially accessible elements they may get to the 20% before they need to provide fully accessible toilet.

 

[steveray]

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

But, what if a claim is made that the 20% can be spent of grab bars and new water closets, but the clear space is still not provided in any of them? Is there a code that requires at least one be provided, even if it is in excess of the 20%? IEBC 305.8.10 kind of implies it, but I'm not sure that is valid. Or is it enough to spread the 20% across all areas of the accessible route and not provide a fully accessible toilet room?

Not that I'm aware of, and I don't even see how/where that's even implied.

The exception says the owner does not need to spend more than 20% of the project cost. It doesn't in any way stipulate where it should be or must be spent.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

In my experience (gain of salt, I'm from CA, our rules can be different), most jurisdictions would prefer making something fully accessible rather than partially accessible. If you have the budget to make one toilet room fully accessible or make multiple partially accessible, then the one fully accessible route is the way to go. If you don't have the budget to fully upgrade anything, then it's whatever would provide the greatest accessibility (meaning there's no clear answer).

But what's the point of making one toilet room in one suite fully accessible while leaving all the toilet rooms in the other suites 100% inaccessible?

 

[Sifu]

But what's the point of making one toilet room in one suite fully accessible while leaving all the toilet rooms in the other suites 100% inaccessible?

That will not be the approach. They will be required to treat each one individually. So if they spend 20% in one suite, they still must spend 20% in each of the other suites. I actually believe the reason they tried it as one permit was to avoid this. Hard to believe that would be the case in the large building, operated under the banner of a mega-healthcare organization, but I can't help the way I feels.

It isn't really implied, but it just didn't make enough sense to not require one fully accessible instead of several partially accessible, so I wasn't sure if my thinking was correct.

I will just stick to the 20% exception. If they opt for spreading out across each toilet in a given suite, then next time they can pay another 20%. Someday they will get there.

 

[Inspector Gift]

Oregon has raised the exception to 25%.

 

[arwat23]

But what's the point of making one toilet room in one suite fully accessible while leaving all the toilet rooms in the other suites 100% inaccessible?

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.