CBC 44" path to accessible toilet compartment

[nealderidder]

Hello all. I've got an existing building with some inconvenient columns and was hoping I might find some flexibility in the 11B-403.5.1 requirement for a 44" path to the accessible stall. Exception #1 allows for pinching down to 32" for a maximum length of 24" but can you apply an exception to another exception? The requirement for 44" to the stall is exception #5. I've got one tight corner at an existing column (see attached) reduces my path to about 38" but only for the briefest of moments. Any thoughts?

I likely can't claim a hardship because of existing conditions since we completely demo'd and rebuilt them.

Thanks!

 

[mark handler]

There are always options

 

[ADAguy]

exception for structural member allowed as long as 32" clr. is available.

 

[Yikes]

If you demo the furring around the column and use intumescent paint for the fire rating, will that get you to 44" clear?

Or can you rebuild that wall with an angled end?

 

[nealderidder]

If you demo the furring around the column and use intumescent paint for the fire rating, will that get you to 44" clear?

Or can you rebuild that wall with an angled end?

View attachment 8778

That's the fall back position

 

[nealderidder]

Heard back from the AHJ - they're OK with the reduction in width at the column.

Tanks for the replies.

 

[Access Specialist]

Heard back from the AHJ - they're OK with the reduction in width at the column.

Tanks for the replies.

Just asking a question to the CA people here. Even if the AHJ accepts this condition, there would still be a liability, correct? A failure to meet the CBC 11B can still land you in lawsuit? Does the AHJ have the authority to allow modifications or waivers to CBC 11B?

 

[Yikes]

Just asking a question to the CA people here. Even if the AHJ accepts this condition, there would still be a liability, correct? A failure to meet the CBC 11B can still land you in lawsuit? Does the AHJ have the authority to allow modifications or waivers to CBC 11B?

That's a very good question. Of course, anyone can sue - - the issue when it hits a civil court is whether there's evidence of intent to discriminate.
The usual low-hanging fruit for a plaintiff's attorney is lack compliance with accessibility codes or regulations.

The unique situation here is that the 42" wide pinch point is not an ADA violation. ADA will allow the 44" path to shrink down to 32" for a maximum length of 24". With that compliance, ADA Standards can't be utilized by an attorney as evidence of discrimination.

California went one step further than ADA, adding CBC 11B-403.5.1 exc. #5 which normally requires 44" min. width to accessible toilet compartments.
The CBC is enforced by the building official, who has the powers under CBC 104.10 to allow modifications to the code based on their own determination that it will not lessen accessibility. When such a modification is recorded and filed, the modified design then is considered to be in compliance with the provisions of the CBC.

So, the OP now has a finished building which complies not only with ADA Standards, but also the CBC (via the approved modification). Therefore there is no code or regulatory non-compliance that can be entered as evidence of an intent to discriminate.

 

[nealderidder]

Thanks Yikes, this was the conclusion I also reached and why I was comfortable with the final solution. In practical terms I don't feel like I've made the bathroom less useable. There may be the rare occasion when someone has to pause for the briefest of moments and let some one pass, but is that so much to ask of people?

 

[Yikes]

Neal, the other thing I would say is that CBC 11B-403.5.1 exc. #5 is poorly written.

While other parts of the code take great care to express dimensions with "min" and "max", exc. #5 reads as an absolute of 44" clear. Taken literally, this mean you must provide an obstruction to keep the clearance from becoming wider than 44"!

Secondly, 11B-403.5.1 could be interpreted to mean that exception #1 applies as an exception to exception #2-5. At the restroom, the application would be like this:

• #5 The clear width for accessible routes to accessible routes to accessible toilet compartments shall be 44" [minimum] except for door opening widths and door swings, and except that the 44" min. width shall be permitted to be reduced to 32" min. for a length of 24 inches max...

 

[nealderidder]

Neal, the other thing I would say is that CBC 11B-403.5.1 exc. #5 is poorly written.

While other parts of the code take great care to express dimensions with "min" and "max", exc. #5 reads as an absolute of 44" clear. Taken literally, this mean you must provide an obstruction to keep the clearance from becoming wider than 44"!

Secondly, 11B-403.5.1 could be interpreted to mean that exception #1 applies as an exception to exception #2-5. At the restroom, the application would be like this:

• #5 The clear width for accessible routes to accessible routes to accessible toilet compartments shall be 44" [minimum] except for door opening widths and door swings, and except that the 44" min. width shall be permitted to be reduced to 32" min. for a length of 24 inches max...

View attachment 8783
View attachment 8784

I hereby cast my vote for your proposed change!