RLGA
SAWHORSE
Just the implication that they are accessible is not a requirement; if there is nothing that directly says they are required to be accessible then they are not required to be accessible. There are other instances where areas are required to be on an accessible route, but the area itself is not required to be accessible (e.g., employee work areas).
I don't believe it is the intent for the IBC to be more restrictive than the ADA. The ADA Standards, as I mentioned above, do not use the term "family/assisted-use" toilet rooms, but instead use single-user and unisex toilet rooms, which means single-use or family. Per the ADA Standards, when multiple single-user (i.e., unisex) restrooms are clustered, only 50% are required to be accessible--this is nearly identical to what the IBC requires. Thus, the intent of the IBC language is to codify the ADA Standards within the building code.
I don't believe it is the intent for the IBC to be more restrictive than the ADA. The ADA Standards, as I mentioned above, do not use the term "family/assisted-use" toilet rooms, but instead use single-user and unisex toilet rooms, which means single-use or family. Per the ADA Standards, when multiple single-user (i.e., unisex) restrooms are clustered, only 50% are required to be accessible--this is nearly identical to what the IBC requires. Thus, the intent of the IBC language is to codify the ADA Standards within the building code.