At What Point Would You Consider A Ground Surface Not Accessible?

[arwat23]

There's some accessible parking spaces at an office building that I would argue are not accessible due to the loose aggregate on the ground. Problem is, code doesn't directly address when something like this becomes non-compliant, so I wanted to get some second opinions.

Here's close up image of what it looks like. You can see some loose rocks and sand. The entire parking lot is like this.


To my eyes, this looks like a violation of ADAS / A117.1 § 302.1, but I'd love to hear other thoughts on this.

And yes, the spaces need to be restriped.

 

[Joe.B]

The easy answer is when somebody takes you to court. But I know that's not the intent of your question. I'll answer from an AHJ perspective. Most of what I deal with is relating to construction, when we sign something off, we're basically done with it. Some of us also have to deal with code enforcement, which is where this might come up. I get a call about a "hazardous" parking lot, I go out and see what you're showing? At most I might send the owner a courtesy notice. If I received "pressure" from my boss to enforce it, I'd have to start digging. There are three places I would look: CA Existing Building Code, IPMC (adopted locally), and my Muni-Code.

2022 CEBC
101.8 Maintenance. [BSC, HCD 1, HCD 2] Buildings and structures, and parts thereof, shall be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition. Devices or safeguards which are required by this code shall be maintained in conformance with the code edition under which installed. The owner or the owner's designated agent shall be responsible for the maintenance of buildings and structures. To determine compliance with this subsection, the building official shall have the authority to require a building or structure to be re-inspected. The requirements of this chapter shall not provide the basis for removal or abrogation of fire protection and safety systems and devices in existing structures.

2021 IPMC
302.3 Sidewalks and driveways. Sidewalks, walkways, stairs, driveways, parking spaces and similar areas shall be kept in a proper state of repair, and maintained free from hazardous conditions.

Muni-Code
H. Surfacing.
1. All parking spaces and maneuvering areas shall be paved and permanently maintained with a durable pervious surface, asphalt, concrete, or comparable all-weather surfacing material approved by the City Engineer, and shall be graded to dispose of all surface water consistent with stormwater runoff detention/retention and BMPs per Subsection XXXXXXX of this Land Use Code to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Basically, "shall be maintained" would be the general citation, I'd send the letter and then hope that the owner doesn't come check out our parking lots...

 

[RLGA]

I say the surface is still compliant. ALL surfaces (especially exterior surfaces) will, at some point, be subject to some degree of loose debris. The degree of loose material is the material factor. Loose aggregate in small quantities all over the parking surface does not imply non-compliance with the ADA or ANSI A1171. However, a lack of maintenance could be a risk management issue regardless of whether people are disabled, and the courts will decide if the surface is compliant.

 

[Yikes]

We know that 303.2 and 303.3 limit intentional vertical changes in elevation to 1/4" or 1/4" depending on the surface shape. Your picture seems to show gaps between level aggregate, as well as loose stones and fines - - but for the sake of this discussion I will assume the issue is not vertical elevation change.

Given that 302.2 allows carpets and 302.3 allows holes (grates) of 1/2" or less, the main issue appears to be an interpretation as to what constitutes a stable, firm and slip resistant surface. We also see carpet, decomposed granite and some artificial turf as unpaved surfaces that claim to comply.

I believe that the standard is ultimately performance-based, with little objective criteria given.
In 1999, the US Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board published a pilot study that has been referenced often in courts and other jurisdictions. They use ASTM F1951 (now ASTM 1951-21) as the test method, and it involves a rotational penetrometer to see how wheels turn on the surface:


Here's a link to the study: https://www.access-board.gov/files/research/exterior-surfaces.pdf
See also: https://www.access-board.gov/aba/guides/chapter-10-play-surfaces/

So to respond to your original question: You might not be able to make a formal determination without a penetrometer test. Even after doing the test, if there were ever a lawsuit, it would be a pi$$ing contest between expert witnesses, though it is likely that if it passed the penetrometer test you would have a strong case.

My recommendation is if you believe the intent was to have a firm asphalt surface, thoroughly clean (compressed air or water blast) the surface to remove all loose fines. Check for gaps and obvious vertical changes. If it looks questionably unstable and you are advising the owner, and they really want to have a compliant surface, they should either (a) get a penetrometer test, or better yet (b) just spend the money to grind and overlay a new smooth surface instead.
These days, most of my clients are opting to (c) tear it out and replace it with concrete for durability and slope control.