Deferred accessible parking requirement for TI

[danSAA]

In California, does a TI with no change of use require adding accessible parking where none exists?

Permit scope is partial core & shell renovation of existing 2 tenant retail building. Gutting interior of one tenant space, reworking (e) toilet room to be fully accessible, facade repair, and restriping of (e) rear parking area which current has (5) standard parking stalls accessed from alley, none accessible. Rear parking area is 3 feet above finish floor with interior stair which we are rebuilding stair to meet current code. There is no access from the rear parking area to the front of the building except through building. Power company requires adding bollards to protect exterior electrical panels which requires restriping parking to provide clear means of egress / exit discharge from rear doors to public way alley. We have a clear accessible path of travel from front sidewalk entrance into building to restrooms.

Gone thru one round of plan check, all building & safety comments cleared except for this comment:

As this project is for a core & shell and not tenant improvement, a note shall be added to the site plan to indicate that future tenant shall address accessible parking requirements at time of TI submittal.

Your response indicates that only resurfacing work will take place to the rear surface parking area, which is acceptable for this specific limited core & shell work. However, once a TI is proposed, accessible parking will be required.

I had already cited 11B-202.4 in response to 1st round plan check comments to make parking area accessible, citing exception 5 about restriping of (e) parking lots.

11B-202.4 Path of travel requirements in alterations, additions and structural repairs. When alterations or additions are made to existing buildings or facilities, an accessible path of travel to the specific area of alteration or addition shall be provided. The primary accessible path of travel shall include:
1. A primary entrance to the building or facility,
2. Toilet and bathing facilities serving the area,
3. Drinking fountains serving the area,
4. Public telephones serving the area, and
5. Signs.
Exceptions
...
5. Alterations of existing parking lots by resurfacing and/or restriping shall be limited to the actual scope of work of the project and shall not be required to comply with Section 11B-202.4.

I plan on responding again with 11B-202.4, stating that because there is no change of use, we only need to provide a primary accessible path of travel through the primary entrance. It also makes no sense to make the rear parking area accessible, with the loss of a parking space, because of the rear stairs.

Is this correct? The plan check reviewer is outside contractor and their 1st round of comments showed some inexperience.

Thanks,

Dan

 

[Joe.B]

I would hazard a guess that you're over-thinking this. They literally just want you to add a note on the site plan: "a note shall be added to the site plan to indicate that future tenant shall address accessible parking". You are not the future tenant; they want that note there for the next "future" tenant.

Never mind if this is legally binding, or even acceptable, just add a note somewhere on the site plan that says, word for word, what their comment says. Done.

 

[danSAA]

I am serving the landlord in preparing the tenant space, which has already been leased. It could just come back to me anyway, the tenant submits their plans, the corrections to common lease area are landlord's responsibility, and I'm stuck making the same argument again later, but I've weakened my argument by adding the note to the plans. I believe the plan checker is wrong, but wanted to ask the community to see if I'm missing something. And if I'm wrong, the landlord has to spend money restriping twice.

 

[arwat23]

In California, does a TI with no change of use require adding accessible parking where none exists?

Yes. Well, maybe. It could depend on the adjusted cost of construction. See CBC 11B-202.4 exception 8. Parking is part of the accessible path of travel. I've never had a jurisdiction not require upgrades to the parking unless a hardship was determined.

Gone thru one round of plan check, all building & safety comments cleared except for this comment:

I had already cited 11B-202.4 in response to 1st round plan check comments to make parking area accessible, citing exception 5 about restriping of (e) parking lots.

I plan on responding again with 11B-202.4, stating that because there is no change of use, we only need to provide a primary accessible path of travel through the primary entrance. It also makes no sense to make the rear parking area accessible, with the loss of a parking space, because of the rear stairs.

Exception 5 covers the resurfacing and restriping, not any of the other work being done and definitely not the TI work.

All that said, just do what Joe says. Unless the lease specifically says the landlord is responsible for accessibility items, the tenant cannot force the landlord to pay for accessible upgrades resulting from a TI. Granted, most LL would because it covers their ass from lawsuits, but some would refuse. I got in hot water once with a lawyer for even suggesting that a landlord is responsible for path of travel improvements outside the area of work (parking accessibility specifically). Granted, I'm not a lawyer nor do I know what their lease agreement is.

I am serving the landlord in preparing the tenant space, which has already been leased. It could just come back to me anyway, the tenant submits their plans, the corrections to common lease area are landlord's responsibility, and I'm stuck making the same argument again later, but I've weakened my argument by adding the note to the plans. I believe the plan checker is wrong, but wanted to ask the community to see if I'm missing something. And if I'm wrong, the landlord has to spend money restriping twice.

I've never been able to submit plans successfully without some path of travel improvements (or showing that everything already complies with code). If you don't show the improvements, the TI certainly will need to show them.

TL;DR, parking spaces and access aisles are part of the accessible path of travel and will almost certainly need to be installed if there are none.

 

[danSAA]

But how would a wheelchair user get into the tenant space with a 3 foot stair rise? Would the tenant then be required to add a wheelchair lift?

Otherwise they would have to travel around through alley which is likely not compliant with 2% cross slope.

 

[danSAA]

Yes. Well, maybe. It could depend on the adjusted cost of construction. See CBC 11B-202.4 exception 8. Parking is part of the accessible path of travel. I've never had a jurisdiction not require upgrades to the parking unless a hardship was determined.

Exception 8 just says we need to comply with 11B-202.4, which only requires a primary entrance, which we comply with. The parking is a secondary entrance.

8. When the adjusted construction cost, as defined, is less than or equal to the current valuation threshold, as defined, the cost of compliance with Section 11B-
202.4 shall be limited to 20 percent of the adjusted construction cost of alterations,...

 

[arwat23]

But how would a wheelchair user get into the tenant space with a 3 foot stair rise? Would the tenant then be required to add a wheelchair lift?

Otherwise they would have to travel around through alley which is likely not compliant with 2% cross slope.

That's what the hardship is for. I'd wager that to get an accessible route from any new accessible parking would either be technically infeasible or cause a hardship.

Also, it looks like the building is part of a shopping center or some complex. Assuming my eyes aren't lying to me, you may be able to make an argument that some other accessible parking in the center is meant to be used for this space. I've done this before with mixed results. Given the assumed technically infeasibility of the new parking space within the property lines shown on your plan, it may make your argument more valid.

Exception 8 just says we need to comply with 11B-202.4, which only requires a primary entrance, which we comply with. The parking is a secondary entrance.

Correct, but most (literally every single one) jurisdictions I've worked in consider parking to be a site arrival point. It is the primary path of travel. Realistically, at least where I work, most people will drive to a place. I've always had to show an accessible route from accessible parking unless there was no parking provided at all. Some jurisdictions specifically call it out on their hardship application forms (see below for an example).


Now, maybe you AHJ is different, which is fair, but based on my experience parking is always required unless an exception applies.

 

[danSAA]

It's urban downtown, the adjacent parking serves a drugstore on another property. The back parking is employee only, doors are locked, not even a buzzer.
I'll fight it on hardship grounds. Talked to owner, they don't want to lose parking and then have to revise leases.

 

[arwat23]

It's urban downtown, the adjacent parking serves a drugstore on another property. The back parking is employee only, doors are locked, not even a buzzer.
I'll fight it on hardship grounds. Talked to owner, they don't want to lose parking and then have to revise leases.

Well shoot... At least the hardship / infeasibility should be easy to argue given what needs to happen to get accessible parking installed.

That said, I would still suggest just following what the plan check comment says and let the team working on the TI know that they'll need to run a hardship on this. Both permit valuations will need to be used to determine hardship. Get your plans approved so work can begin. And the TI team will still need to show path of travel improvements / existing accessible path of travel regardless.

Or call the plan checker and verify that they'll accept what you're proposing. Sometimes a call to the plan checker clears everything up real quick (or lets you verbally slap the plan checker with info on why you can't do what they're asking).

 

[danSAA]

I still think 11B-202.4 says we only need primary entrance. If parking was an any way accessible to the front entrance then I totally agree it would need to be compliant. Owner doesn't want to defer to TI, so I'm writing up my response now. Will do the hardship form also, gives the plan checker their pound of flesh, likely kicks the review back up to city official who I assume will use common sense.

Thanks for feedback.

 

[arwat23]

I still think 11B-202.4 says we only need primary entrance. If parking was an any way accessible to the front entrance then I totally agree it would need to be compliant. Owner doesn't want to defer to TI, so I'm writing up my response now. Will do the hardship form also, gives the plan checker their pound of flesh, likely kicks the review back up to city official who I assume will use common sense.

You're correct, but how does someone who's disabled who parks in the parking lot get to the primary entrance?

 

[danSAA]

The rear parking is employee only. If the business has a disabled employee, I assume they would have a placard and could park on the street in front. Or the business owner would make some other kind of accommodation. Same issue with a 2 story building that doesn't have an elevator.

 

[arwat23]

The rear parking is employee only. If the business has a disabled employee, I assume they would have a placard and could parking on the street in front. Or the business owner would make some other kind of accommodation. Same issue with a 2 story building that doesn't have an elevator.

Employee only or not, accessible parking is still required. Just because it's employee only doesn't change the requirement. Is there an accessible parking space on the street in front already? Use that space as your accessible parking then.

True, but 2-story building have limitations. Can't be a big building, can't have healthcare providers on a non-accessible route, can't have a majority of it's services on the second floor, etc. Parking is a site arrival point. It needs to be accessible.

11B-206.2.1 Site Arrival Points​

At least one accessible route shall be provided within the site from accessible parking spaces and accessible passenger drop-off and loading zones; public streets and sidewalks; and public transportation stops to the accessible building or facility entrance they serve. Where more than one route is provided, all routes must be accessible.



Parking is provided, therefor accessible parking is required, therefore an accessible route from the accessible parking to an accessible entrance is required.

At least, this is the way the jurisdictions up here do things... Maybe I and the cities I work in are wrong (honestly wouldn't be the first time haha).

 

[danSAA]

Employee only or not, accessible parking is still required. Just because it's employee only doesn't change the requirement. Is there an accessible parking space on the street in front already? Use that space as your accessible parking then.

The front is street metered parallel parking (public way).

 

[ICE]

But how would a wheelchair user get into the tenant space with a 3 foot stair rise?

It’s not always about a wheelchair user.

 

[jar546]

But how would a wheelchair user get into the tenant space with a 3 foot stair rise?

To add to ICE's reply, it is not always about people in wheelchairs. There are people who:

• Had a stroke with limited mobility
• Are deaf
• Are legally blind
• Recently had a medical procedure and are on crutches
• Use a cane
• Have diseases such as MS or MD with limited mobility
• Are retired building inspectors from the Los Angeles area

 

[danSAA]

Got it. We'll just add a sign saying accessible parking stalls, except not for wheelchair users?
Obviously that is sarcasm. I don't see how we can add accessible parking stalls without adding a wheelchair lift also. And 11B-202.4 doesn't require that for secondary entrances.

 

[jar546]

Got it. We'll just add a sign saying accessible parking stalls, except not for wheelchair users?
Obviously that is sarcasm. I don't see how we can add accessible parking stalls without adding a wheelchair lift also. And 11B-202.4 doesn't require that for secondary entrances.

Dan, I think you’re right to be concerned about accessibility for everyone, including those in wheelchairs. However, the current scope of work is limited, and CBC 11B-202.4 Exception 5 clearly states that restriping alone does not trigger full compliance upgrades. The project already provides a compliant accessible path of travel from the front entrance to the building, which satisfies the requirements for this phase. Given the elevation difference and the lack of a practical accessible route from the rear parking area, adding a wheelchair lift or ramp would require significant modifications beyond the project’s scope. Addressing these challenges during future tenant improvements makes more sense, as the specific needs of the tenant can be considered at that time. This phased approach ensures the project remains compliant while leaving room for future accessibility improvements when they are both practical and required.

 

[ICE]

We'll just add a sign saying accessible parking stalls, except not for wheelchair users?

Where's the fun in that?

 

[ICE]

Addressing these challenges during future tenant improvements makes more sense

Well maybe not. What type of use for the space would be permitted without accessibility? Under what conditions and code exception/interpretation would accessibility not be required? Those issues are better addressed sooner than later. Putting it off on the future tenant could limit the pool beyond what is prudent.

 

[MtnArch]

Going a little off-topic here, but ...

Long ago (1985 or so?) Judd Boies (dating myself here, and am not sure of the spelling) from DSA held a seminar about accessibility, and explained WHY, although you didn't need to provide an elevator, you would need to make both the lower AND upper floors accessible. He explained that some disabled needed a wheelchair during the day but were able to climb stairs (which needed to be accessible), and that they would have wheelchairs available to use at both floors.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I have a related question that this situation triggers: Let's say you allow this to go forward as an unimproved shell, with a note about future tenant improvements having to take care of accessible parking. At the conclusion of this phase of the work, then, you are faced with a half of a building that isn't compliant with the code.

What sort of document (if any) do you issue to close out the permit?

Spoiler alert: my state gives us a tool to address situations such as shell building. Our state amendments add a provision creating a certificate of approval, to be issued when a certificate of occupancy is not justified. [Note: I wish they would call it a certificate of completion rather than certificate of "approval," but they didn't ask me.]

111.6 Certificate of approval. The building official shall
issue a certificate of approval indicating substantial compliance
with the requirements of this code for all completed
work that requires a building permit but does not require a
certificate of occupancy. Such work shall include, but not be
limited to: fences greater than 7 feet (2134 mm) in height;
retaining walls greater than 3 feet (914 mm) in height; decks;
garages; swimming pools; basements and attics converted to
habitable space; and electrical, plumbing, and mechanical
repairs or alterations. No certificate of approval shall be
issued for work subject to the zoning regulations of a municipality
without certification in writing by the official charged
with the enforcement of such regulations that the work is in
conformity with such regulations or is a valid nonconforming
use under such regulations.

We use this for shell buildings, and we also use it for interior alterations in buildings or spaces that already have a valid certificate of occupancy.

For those in jurisdictions that don't have such a document available, how do you deal with things like shell buildings, where completing the work shown in the construction documents doesn't result in a building or space that meets all requirements for occupancy (and may not even establish a use group or occupancy classification)?

 

[BN4537]

We don't issue a CO. We approve all of the inspections in their scope of work, and when they say they are done we do a "final" to ascertain what status they left the project in, document it on the permit for future use, send them the inspection report with the note on there that no CO will be issued and a new permit will be pulled to finish out the space, and then we close the file.

We see people doing work without a permit to finish the space, we bust them for WWOP.