CBC Site Accessibility in Shopping Center

[knelson]

I'm working on a project that is in a shopping center. The project is on a separate parcel from the rest of the shopping center but it is only legally separate, not physically. It shares the same parking lot with the larger parcel. Do we still have to comply with 2022 CBC 11B-206.2.2 Accessible Routes Within a Site if they are technically separate parcels?

Currently, there is an existing curb ramp that leads to a path that connects it to other accessible buildings in the shopping center. Unfortunately, whoever built it just made it 6' long without double checking the actual height of the curb. As a result, the curb ramp is steeper than 1:12. We already have to fix the parking spot that has a van sign so that it is actually the size of a van spot and replace the sidewalk to the accessible parking because the cross slope is over 2%. Do we have to upgrade this existing curb ramp too?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I won't presume to answer for California but I have encountered similar questions (sometimes in regard to accessibility and sometimes in regard to things like fire separation and/or fire resistance ratings). We treat each parcel independently. I don't think there is any legal way to do oherwise -- at least, not under this state's laws.

Looking in UpCodes, it appears that "Site" is only defined in one of California's codes, but there is a definition, and it's fairly clear:


Is the project new construction, or an alteration? If it's an alteration, California includes the 20% rule:

 

[steveray]

I mean…they always have to comply with ADA….correct? Putting building codes aside a second….

 

[Joe.B]

I mean…they always have to comply with ADA….correct? Putting building codes aside a second….

Theoretically if you comply with 11-B you will also be in compliance with federal rules. 11-B is based off of ADA standards and include CA amendments that are more stringent.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The Texas Accessibility Code was based on the ADA, too, and was even officially declared by the DOJ as fully ADA compliant.

Ask Cinemark how that worked out for them.

 

[arwat23]

Is the project new construction, or an alteration? If it's an alteration, California includes the 20% rule:

It's a bit different here in CA, because of course it is... CA's rules differ depending on the cost of construction (over a certain number, 20% is the MIUNIMUM. Under that number, 20% is the maximum - very confusing stuff when the existing building code contradicts this) and "area of primary function" doesn't exist for accessibility purposes here. The accessibility provisions in the Existing Building Code are not adopted by DSA-AC, which, is simple terms, means you ignore them. The only reason I can think of for why they haven't purged IEBC 306 from our code is because the State Fire Marshal adopted 306.7.7. If I had my way, that entire section would be removed because all it does is add confusion, even for people who only work in CA...


But to answer the OP's question, is that route a "site arrival point"? You should be looking at 11B-206.2.1. That, imo, is what's applicable here.

Also, 11B-202.4 exception 8. Depending on the valuation, this can be useful.

 

[knelson]

The project is an alteration, but the construction cost is more than the valuation threshold per Exception 8 of CBC 11B-202.4. Therefore there is not a limit on how much has to be spent for accessibility upgrades.

It looks like the building code and ADA have the same definition for site, so the curb ramp to the rest of the shopping center may be able to remain as is. I'll still discuss with our client to see how they want to proceed. Thank you everyone.

 

[arwat23]

The project is an alteration but the construction cost is more than the valuation threshold per Exception 8 of 11B-202.4, therefore no limit on how much has to be spent for accessibility upgrades.

I've never met a jurisdiction that would force more than 20.1%. There's a minimum, yeah, but most jurisdictions I've worked in are fine with just barely getting over that minimum. That is, of course, assuming the numbers work out and the PoTI don't come in at like 30% of the cost of construction with no way to reduce it (one really expensive element to fix). Then you're screwed...

 

[Joe.B]

I've never met a jurisdiction that would force more than 20.1%. There's a minimum, yeah, but most jurisdictions I've worked in are fine with just barely getting over that minimum. That is, of course, assuming the numbers work out and the PoTI don't come in at like 30% of the cost of construction with no way to reduce it (one really expensive element to fix). Then you're screwed...

CBC 11B-202.3 Exception 2. is often overlooked. If they can make the case for that exception, then they're not necessarily "screwed" per say...

2. Technically infeasible. In alterations, where the
enforcing authority determines compliance with
applicable requirements is technically infeasible, the
alteration shall provide equivalent facilitation or
comply with the requirements to the maximum
extent feasible. The details of the finding that full
compliance with the requirements is technically
infeasible shall be recorded and entered into the
files of the enforcing agency.

Also, 11B-202.4 Exception 8. includes provisions for limiting compliance to 20% even when they've exceeded the threshold.

When the adjusted construction cost, as defined,
exceeds the current valuation threshold, as defined,
and the enforcing agency determines the cost of com-
pliance with Section 11B-202.4 is an unreasonable
hardship, as defined, full compliance with Section
11B-202.4 shall not be required. Compliance shall be
provided by equivalent facilitation or to the greatest
extent possible without creating an unreasonable
hardship; but in no case shall the cost of compliance
be less than 20 percent of the adjusted construction
cost of alterations, structural repairs or additions.
The details of the finding of unreasonable hardship
shall be recorded and entered into the files of the
enforcing agency and shall be subject to Chapter 1,
Section 1.9.1.5, Special Conditions for Persons with
Disabilities Requiring Appeals Action Ratification.

 

[arwat23]

CBC 11B-202.3 Exception 2. is often overlooked. If they can make the case for that exception, then they're not necessarily "screwed" per say...

2. Technically infeasible. In alterations, where the
enforcing authority determines compliance with
applicable requirements is technically infeasible, the
alteration shall provide equivalent facilitation or
comply with the requirements to the maximum
extent feasible. The details of the finding that full
compliance with the requirements is technically
infeasible shall be recorded and entered into the
files of the enforcing agency.

True, but in practice I've never had that work for something that is technically feasible but would push costs up above what exception 8 calls for, unless that cost is just absurd.

When the adjusted construction cost, as defined,
exceeds the current valuation threshold, as defined,
and the enforcing agency determines the cost of com-
pliance with Section 11B-202.4 is an unreasonable
hardship, as defined, full compliance with Section
11B-202.4 shall not be required. Compliance shall be
provided by equivalent facilitation or to the greatest
extent possible without creating an unreasonable
hardship; but in no case shall the cost of compliance
be less than 20 percent of the adjusted construction
cost of alterations, structural repairs or additions.
The details of the finding of unreasonable hardship
shall be recorded and entered into the files of the
enforcing agency and shall be subject to Chapter 1,
Section 1.9.1.5, Special Conditions for Persons with
Disabilities Requiring Appeals Action Ratification.

The minimum is 20% in that situation, with no maximum. Either full compliance or at least hit 20%. Like I said, I've never seen a jurisdiction require much more than just barely getting over that 20% minimum requirement, but it's something that can (and has) happened. Hit exactly 20% or slightly more and get the BO to agree that any more would be an unreasonable hardship technically complies with code. However, you run the risk of not actually hitting that 20% minimum after construction is all said and done.

Story time: I had a commercial TI project a few years ago. Over the threshold, so 20% minimum was required. We were approved for a hardship at exactly 20%. The contractor found a more affordable way to achieve compliance with a few elements. So, obviously, they did it the more affordable way. The jurisdiction, however, started tracking the actual costs for those types of alterations to ensure projects complied with 11B-202.4 ex 8. When they saw the actual costs coming in noticeably lower than the hardship application, they told us we needed to remove more path of travel barriers until we hit that 20% minimum. Because of that, I now aim for slightly above 20%, even if most jurisdictions don't bother looking at the final numbers.

 

[Yikes]

Looking in UpCodes, it appears that "Site" is only defined in one of California's codes, but there is a definition, and it's fairly clear: View attachment 17171

Even if it's a separate site, I presume they have some type of shared use easement across the site for use of the parking lot along with a shared parking agreement. If they are paying to lease parking access from another site, it is reasonable to assume the POT to that parking is their responsibility, with the 20% exceptions discussed above.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Even if it's a separate site, I presume they have some type of shared use easement across the site for use of the parking lot along with a shared parking agreement. If they are paying to lease parking access from another site, it is reasonable to assume the POT to that parking is their responsibility, with the 20% exceptions discussed above.

IMHO, once you start ignoring code definitions for convenience, you might as well burn the book.