# 20% Rule



## Min&Max (Aug 24, 2021)

So I am getting differing opinions as to when the 20% rule kicks in. I have got a remodel project where a conference room is being remodeled to accommodate additional staff. It is my understanding that the cost of this, which includes an ADA bathroom, *does not* count towards the 20% additional that must be spent for ADA mitigation since it must be constructed to ADA standards anyway. There are two additional non-ADA public restrooms that can be remodeled to meet ADA requirements. If these two restrooms are remodeled it is my opinion that the cost would be applied to the 20% requirement. I should add that the architect has indicated that he has done numerous projects and this is the first time the 20% rule has been brought up. Estimated cost of remodel is $200,000.00.


----------



## Joe.B (Aug 24, 2021)

If the estimate is $200k then you need to show that $40k of that will directly improve accessibility. Not an additional $40k above that amount, and not required to expand beyond the area of work. Sounds like you're doing an ADA bathroom in that area so you should be good. That is my understanding anyways.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 24, 2021)

The *maximum *you are required to spend on the accessible route is 20%. 
The bathroom will be close and you can always change out door knobs and such to get to the maximum 20% amount. 

305.7 Alterations affecting an area containing a primary function.
Where an alteration affects the accessibility to, or contains an area of primary function, *the route to the primary function area shall be accessible. The accessible route to the primary function area shall include toilet facilities and drinking fountains serving the area of primary function.*

Exceptions:

1.    *The costs of providing the accessible route are not required to exceed 20 percent of the costs of the alterations affecting the area of primary function.*

2.    This provision does not apply to alterations limited solely to windows, hardware, operating controls, electrical outlets and signs.

3.    This provision does not apply to alterations limited solely to mechanical systems, electrical systems, installation or alteration of fire protection systems and abatement of hazardous materials.

4.    *This provision does not apply to alterations undertaken for the primary purpose of increasing the accessibility of a facility.*

5.    This provision does not apply to altered areas limited to Type B dwelling and sleeping units.


----------



## Min&Max (Aug 24, 2021)

Joe.B said:


> If the estimate is $200k then you need to show that $40k of that will directly improve accessibility. Not an additional $40k above that amount, and not required to expand beyond the area of work. Sounds like you're doing an ADA bathroom in that area so you should be good. That is my understanding anyways.


And then this was presented; "5)Alterations triggering additional requirements--ADAAG: Alterations to primary function areas (where major activities take place) trigger a "path of travel" requirement, that is, a requirement to make the path of travel from the entrance to the altered area--and telephones, restrooms and drinking fountains serving the altered area--accessible. But, under the Department of Justice title III rule, a public entity is not required to spend more than 20% of the cost of the *original alteration *on making the path of travel accessible...". Isn't that requiring an additional 20% beyond the cost of the planned remodel/alteration?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 24, 2021)

Min&Max said:


> . I have got a remodel project where a conference room is being remodeled to accommodate additional staff


What are the hard cost of the conference room remodel. Do not include furniture. Now take 20% of that cost and that is the maximum you are required to spend on an accessible route which includes the items you mentioned. You do not have to spend a dime upgrading the restroom if you can spend the 20% on other items along the accessible route


----------



## Min&Max (Aug 24, 2021)

mtlogcabin said:


> What are the hard cost of the conference room remodel. Do not include furniture. Now take 20% of that cost and that is the maximum you are required to spend on an accessible route which includes the items you mentioned. You do not have to spend a dime upgrading the restroom if you can spend the 20% on other items along the accessible route


I agree. Originally they had everything lumped together. I suggested they back the restroom remodels out of the equation, calculate 20% of the remaining and apply that total to making the restrooms ADA compliant. The restrooms are the only ADA issue to  mitigate in connection with this project. The architect claims that he has never heard of the 20% requirement and that he has designed many similar projects and this type of thing has never come up before. It has developed into an uncomfortable mess as this is also a project for our police dept.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 24, 2021)

The original alteration is the conference room. 
I have asked for the break out cost a couple of times when it was unclear from the scope of work. I also tell them by breaking out the cost they may get a tax credit but talk to their accountants. Nobody ever balked at the request.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Aug 24, 2021)

"The architect claims that he has never heard of the 20% requirement ..."

It's only been required by ADA for the last 30 years.


----------



## Joe.B (Aug 24, 2021)

Paul Sweet said:


> "The architect claims that he has never heard of the 20% requirement ..."
> 
> It's only been required by ADA for the last 30 years.


Yeah, big red flag there.


----------



## Tim Mailloux (Aug 26, 2021)

It has always been my understanding that you don't exactly get to cherry pick what the 20% gets applied to, to improve the accessible path, and that there is an order to things. Basically you need to start at the parking lot and make sure you have code compliant handicap parking, then the acesible path from the handicap parking to the entrance, then the accessible entrance and so on, working you way further into the building as you go. And once you hit that 20% value you stop, and pick up from there during the next project.


----------



## Joe.B (Aug 26, 2021)

Tim Mailloux said:


> It has always been my understanding that you don't exactly get to cherry pick what the 20% gets applied to, to improve the accessible path, and that there is an order to things. Basically you need to start at the parking lot and make sure you have code compliant handicap parking, then the acesible path from the handicap parking to the entrance, then the accessible entrance and so on, working you way further into the building as you go. And once you hit that 20% value you stop, and pick up from there during the next project.


Yes I've been told similar, with the caveat that an argument can be made for "area of work" meaning that if the remodel only takes place in a certain area of the building that the request can be made to focus the 20% required improvements in that area of work. Often the AHJ will have a worksheet that the designer completes and they can state that parking and path of travel are already compliant (or whatever) and the improvements will be made by.... If the project doesn't have complaint parking or path of travel the designers would probably be denied the request unless there was some other justification.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 26, 2021)

Our state has guidelines that recommend you start from the parking lot and work your way in which is a logical way to go


----------



## steveray (Aug 26, 2021)

Applicant chooses....If you get them in and then they don't have a bathroom to use, which is worse......And they are always told that they are always on the hook for ADA.....


----------



## Mr209Smith (Aug 26, 2021)

Joe.B said:


> If the estimate is $200k then you need to show that $40k of that will directly improve accessibility. Not an additional $40k above that amount, and not required to expand beyond the area of work. Sounds like you're doing an ADA bathroom in that area so you should be good. That is my understanding anyways.


From CalDAG 2020, so only applicable in California:

*Hardships When Alteration Costs DO NOT EXCEED the ENR Average Construction Cost Index*
_To explain this requirement, let's look at a proposed tenant improvement that will cost $50,000. This $50,000 is the cost to remodel the specific tenant's space alone. Upon reviewing the entrance, path of travel, restrooms, drinking fountains and public telephones that service the proposed alteration, it is determined that it will cost an additional $20,000 to make these features accessible. If the builder applies for a determination of unreasonable hardship, from the local building agency, the builder will still have to spend up to $10,000 (20% of $50,000 is $10,000) making these additional modifications before the overall alteration is considered disproportionate. Under previous hardship allowances, the builder would only have been required to complete the original $50,000 remodel. Under the current regulations, the builder must spend up to $60,000 even with a hardship determination in this example._

I don't have my CASp Academy notes with me, but I believe they also said the 20% is supposed to be in addition to the stated alteration costs. This is how the jurisdiction I work for interprets the requirement.


----------



## Rick18071 (Aug 27, 2021)

I don't think accessible parking spaces are part of the accessible route, only the route from the parking spaces:

ACCESSIBLE ROUTE. A continuous, unobstructed path
that complies with Chapter 11.

Also accessible parking is in IBC Section 1106 and is not mentioned in 1104 section 1104 "Accessible Route".


----------



## mark handler (Aug 27, 2021)

Mr209Smith said:


> From CalDAG 2020, so only applicable in California:
> 
> *Hardships When Alteration Costs DO NOT EXCEED the ENR Average Construction Cost Index*
> _To explain this requirement, let's look at a proposed tenant improvement that will cost $50,000. This $50,000 is the cost to remodel the specific tenant's space alone. Upon reviewing the entrance, path of travel, restrooms, drinking fountains and public telephones that service the proposed alteration, it is determined that it will cost an additional $20,000 to make these features accessible. If the builder applies for a determination of unreasonable hardship, from the local building agency, the builder will still have to spend up to $10,000 (20% of $50,000 is $10,000) making these additional modifications before the overall alteration is considered disproportionate. Under previous hardship allowances, the builder would only have been required to complete the original $50,000 remodel. Under the current regulations, the builder must spend up to $60,000 even with a hardship determination in this example._
> ...


In CA 11B-202.4. 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, structural repairs or additions. When the cost of full compliance with Section 11B-202.4 would exceed 20 percent, compliance shall be provided to the greatest extent possible without exceeding 20 percent.

When the adjusted construction cost, as defined, exceeds the current valuation threshold, as defined, and the enforcing agency determines the cost of compliance 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. *
For the purposes of this exception, the adjusted construction cost of alterations, structural repairs or additions shall not include the cost of alterations to path of travel elements required to comply with Section 11B-202.4.


----------



## steveray (Aug 27, 2021)

Rick18071 said:


> I don't think accessible parking spaces are part of the accessible route, only the route from the parking spaces:
> 
> ACCESSIBLE ROUTE. A continuous, unobstructed path
> that complies with Chapter 11.
> ...


Good point Rick, but I believe the intent is the site arrival point as it is covered in 1104.1:

1104.1 Site arrival points. At least one accessible route
within the site shall be provided from public transportation
stops, accessible parking, accessible passenger loading
zones, and public streets


----------



## Joe.B (Aug 27, 2021)

mark handler said:


> In CA 11B-202.4. 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, structural repairs or additions. When the cost of full compliance with Section 11B-202.4 would exceed 20 percent, compliance shall be provided to the greatest extent possible without exceeding 20 percent.
> 
> When the adjusted construction cost, as defined, exceeds the current valuation threshold, as defined, and the enforcing agency determines the cost of compliance 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. *
> For the purposes of this exception, the adjusted construction cost of alterations, structural repairs or additions shall not include the cost of alterations to path of travel elements required to comply with Section 11B-202.4.


Yup, that's how we see it here. We have the CalDAG, but that's an interpretive manual only, not a code book. We use it as a reference, but always look to the code for the actual language.


----------



## Joe.B (Aug 27, 2021)

Mr209Smith said:


> From CalDAG 2020, so only applicable in California:


See last post


----------



## Yikes (Aug 27, 2021)

mark handler said:


> In CA 11B-202.4. 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, structural repairs or additions. *When the cost of full compliance with Section 11B-202.4 would exceed 20 percent, compliance shall be provided to the greatest extent possible without exceeding 20 percent*.
> 
> When the adjusted construction cost, as defined, exceeds the current valuation threshold, as defined, and the enforcing agency determines the cost of compliance 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. *
> For the purposes of this exception, the adjusted construction cost of alterations, structural repairs or additions shall not include the cost of alterations to path of travel elements required to comply with Section 11B-202.4.


Mark, here's my question:
11B-202.4 defines the full extent of path-of-travel alterations as 5 items, and parking isn't one of them:


Q: If I have a $2 million interior tenant improvement project that will provide all 5 of these items, such that no declaration of "unreasonable hardship" is needed, then I don't need to utilize the 20% rule in 11B-202.4 exc. #8, right? 
In that scenario, if I achieve all 5 items, and it cost me less than 20%, can the building official still compel me to provide additional accessibility beyond the 5 items listed above such as an accessible parking storage, and alarms, until I've spent 20%?


----------



## Joe.B (Aug 27, 2021)

Yikes said:


> Q: If I have a $2 million interior tenant improvement project that will provide all 5 of these items, such that no declaration of "unreasonable hardship" is needed, then I don't need to utilize the 20% rule in 11B-202.4 exc. #8, right?
> In that scenario, if I achieve all 5 items, and it cost me less than 20%, can the building official still compel me to provide additional accessibility beyond the 5 items listed above such as an accessible parking storage, and alarms, until I've spent 20%?


CA has a valuation threshold, currently $172,418. Once you exceed that value then full ADA compliance is expected, the 20% rule is out the window. You can still apply for a hardship exemption but that's a different story.

See:





						Valuation Threshold Updated for 2021
					






					www.dgs.ca.gov


----------



## mark handler (Aug 30, 2021)

Yikes said:


> Mark, here's my question:
> 11B-202.4 defines the full extent of path-of-travel alterations as 5 items, and parking isn't one of them:
> View attachment 8184
> 
> ...


If the project is 2M, You shall fully comply with ALL code items, including those not on the list.


----------



## Yikes (Aug 30, 2021)

Joe and Mark, help me understand this for alterations.
Mark, you said:


mark handler said:


> If the project is 2M, You shall fully comply with ALL code items, including those not on the list.



11B-202.3 requires that each altered element comply with Division 2.
11B-202.4 additionally requires 5 "path of travel" components to be made accessible.

But beyond this where in the scoping requirements does it say that the entire facility ("ALL code items, including those not on the list") must be brought up to current code?


----------



## Joe.B (Aug 30, 2021)

Yikes said:


> Joe and Mark, help me understand this for alterations.
> Mark, you said:
> 
> 
> ...


Check out CBC Chapter 1, Section 1.9, referenced in 11B-101.1

Also check out that link I posted earlier if you haven't already, specifically there's a link on that page that takes you here:





						Access Compliance Reference Materials
					






					www.dgs.ca.gov


----------



## Yikes (Aug 30, 2021)

Joe.B said:


> Check out CBC Chapter 1, Section 1.9, referenced in 11B-101.1
> 
> Also check out that link I posted earlier if you haven't already, specifically there's a link on that page that takes you here:
> 
> ...






The last sentence does NOT say: "All buildings and facilities in which additions, alterations and structural repairs occur shall comply with these provisions for new buildings except as otherwise provided and specified herein."

As written in 1.9, the subject of the sentence in the code is: additions, alterations, and structural locations.
The modifier is the location/instances where these additions, alterations and structural repairs locations occur: "in all buildings and facilities" (e.g. public buildings, private buildings, public housing as further described in 1.9.1.1, 1.9.1.2, 1.9.1.3).
The buildings and facilities are not the subject of the sentence that compels compliance; the additions, alterations and repairs inside the buildings are the subject.

To be clear, the area of my $2 million interior alteration would comply with the provisions for new buildings.  And any 202.4 path-of-travel improvements triggered by the alteration would also comply with the provisions for new buildings.

But the exterior parking lot is not part of my interior alteration scope, and the 5 required path-of travel improvements triggered by alterations in 202.4 do not mention or include parking.

Since the existing parking lot is neither an addition nor an alteration nor a structural repair, I don't see how 1.9.1 triggers its compliance.


----------



## Joe.B (Aug 31, 2021)

Good point, and I think that's a valid argument you could try to make with your AHJ. Generally speaking if your over the valuation threshold you are required to meet full ADA compliance. ADA requirements apply even when there's not a construction project. By your stance I'm assuming your existing ADA parking is not compliant? There are people out there who make a living off of ADA cases. If they see you do a $2m project and see your ADA parking is non-compliant they will likely wait till your done and patting yourself on the back, then take you to court. You may be technically correct, after reading your post and re-reading the code I think you are, but will the judge agree? "$2m budget and you couldn't fix the parking?" is what I'm betting they will think.


----------



## Yikes (Aug 31, 2021)

Joe B., I agree that ADA is still enforceable via the courts.  But I always like to know what the AHJ can enforce vs. what the courts will enforce.
The reason for this is because sometime the AHJ is not entirely competent, or their interpretations of the code are subjective.

To be honest, my project is not really $2 million, I just threw out an extra-high high number so that people would be compelled to actually deal with code application issue rather than make suggestions about how to reduce the project cost below the threshold.

In my case, we have 1950s era buildings served by a common parking lot that shared by many other businesses and buildings, at the rear of the buildings.  The existing accessible parking stalls are located adjacent to the side street, so the accessible POT for parking involves going from the accessible stall to the side street's sidewalk, then going up that sidewalk and rounding the corner to the main entrances at the front of the buildings.  We already have the code-required stalls.  This is the shortest possible route to the primary entrances to each building.

The plan checker now wants us to convert an additional stall to be accessible, and he wants it to be the stall closest to the rear door of our building.  There's a 24" grade drop there, and a wheelchair ramp would take away critical space for trash bins, utilities, and fire department access aisle.  I believe he misunderstands 11B-208.3.1, and at this point it's easier to argue that 11B doesn't compel another accessible parking stall, instead of arguing the finer points of what constitutes "shortest possible route" to a parking facility that serves multiple buildings.


----------



## Joe.B (Aug 31, 2021)

Has there been an occupancy analysis? The existing number of spaces may not serve the proposed occupancy. They may determine that more spaces are needed, but they shouldn't be able to tell you where they want them. Just my opinion though. And everyone's got one. AHJ's can get into trouble when they stick their opinions where they don't belong, but as you probably know from experience it's better to try to work with them than against them.


----------



## Yikes (Aug 31, 2021)

Yes, there's been an occupancy analysis, and the alteration does not change the amount of parking required by the zoning code.


----------



## Joe.B (Aug 31, 2021)

Is there money in the budget to hire a CASp to give you a report on existing site conditions? That might help you move forward with this. If the existing parking meets the occupant load and a third party will put their name on it as being compliant this should be a non-issue.


----------



## Yikes (Sep 1, 2021)

Joe B. sorry to trickle out the information, but the building official abruptly left and the interim official is a hired gun and not the kind of person for whom a CAsp report will provide sufficient cover.  It is better just to remove the issue from his plate, if I can.


----------



## Joe.B (Sep 2, 2021)

Yikes said:


> Joe B. sorry to trickle out the information, but the building official abruptly left and the interim official is a hired gun and not the kind of person for whom a CAsp report will provide sufficient cover.  It is better just to remove the issue from his plate, if I can.


All good. I feel your pain even though I'm on the other side of the counter, or maybe more so because. We have been without a BO since Jan 1st. In my 4 years doing this I've had 5 different BO's. It may still be beneficial to hire a CASp for a couple reasons. First if you have to go above or around this person (CMO, appeals board, council, or whatever) it will be helpful to have a 3rd party report to show that you're not just pushing your own opinion/agenda. Also (from what I understand) a CASp report caries a certain amount of legal bearing to both protect you in potential future lawsuits and to show the legal compliance of existing conditions. A CASp certification is a whole different category of it's own. Unlike my inspector certifications the CASp certification holds a certain legal responsibility that will hold up in court and appeals boards. As such the CASp certification is much more difficult to achieve. If I final a project and something was missed I have protections from liability built into code, the CASp does not have that, if they sign something off they are on the hook.


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 2, 2021)

CASp certification is a "Voluntary" certification to act as an advisor/observer unless they are a building official; ICBO certification is not the same thing,
State law requires cities to contract with or have staff CASp's or defer permitees to use a CASp. AG only believes AHJ's are responsible for code, not Federal law.
CAGC would seem to indicate otherwise.


----------



## nealderidder (Sep 2, 2021)

Ha! I've been trying to have this same conversation in another thread. See - 
Accessible Parking Upgrades Required for Alteration?​
I think I'm asking the same question as Yikes - What in the code requires me to improve accessibility (for an interior-only alteration project) beyond the five items listed in 11B-202.4? And I don't see an answer to that here other than - _cause it's the right thing to do_. Which may be true but the question is what does the building code require?

I'm dealing with this right now. Have a $20M TI in CA, all interior remodel, no exterior work and the city is asking us to bring the existing accessible parking up to code. I argued that parking is not listed in 11B-202.4 and got this response:

_Unfortunately, CBC 11B-202.4 is not very clear on what they mean by primary entrance but there must be an accessible route from all site arrival points per CBC 11B-206.2.1 to the primary entrance. This includes the public right of way and parking. 

There is a little bit of added clarity in CBC 11B-202.4 exception 8 when they discuss how to prioritize accessible elements to be upgraded when filing for a hardship and not all elements of the primary entrance can be met. Here they label the order things should be upgraded and they do specify parking which additionally implies parking is part of the accessible upgrades per CBC 11B-202.4 _


First, I think it's a real stretch to look forward to 11B-206.2.1 and treat it as a scoping item for every project, including alterations. Scoping for alterations is pretty clearly given in 11B-202.4.

But... it's hard to argue with the second point. Parking is listed as #6 in the list of priorities when you have to decide where to allocate funds for an alteration project. It's unfortunate we have to fish around for this info and make inferences based on keywords found buried in exception #8. Seems like a good thing to put of the committee's list of things to change in the next CBC - Just change *Primary entrance* to *Path from the public way, parking, and primary entrance. *And then Yikes and I don't even have a question.


----------



## Joe.B (Sep 2, 2021)

I'd give you the same answers as I gave Yikes, and you'd give me similar responses, and etc... I don't feel like typing that all out again. I understand your frustration, please re-read post #23 on for my two cents.


----------



## Joe.B (Sep 2, 2021)

Joe.B said:


> Good point, and I think that's a valid argument you could try to make with your AHJ. Generally speaking if your over the valuation threshold you are required to meet full ADA compliance. ADA requirements apply even when there's not a construction project. By your stance I'm assuming your existing ADA parking is not compliant? There are people out there who make a living off of ADA cases. If they see you do a $2m project and see your ADA parking is non-compliant they will likely wait till your done and patting yourself on the back, then take you to court. You may be technically correct, after reading your post and re-reading the code I think you are, but will the judge agree? "$2m budget and you couldn't fix the parking?" is what I'm betting they will think.


----------



## Yikes (Sep 6, 2021)

nealderidder said:


> _Unfortunately, CBC 11B-202.4 is not very clear on what they mean by primary entrance but there must be an accessible route from all site arrival points per CBC 11B-206.2.1 to the primary entrance. This includes the public right of way and parking.
> 
> There is a little bit of added clarity in CBC 11B-202.4 exception 8 when they discuss how to prioritize accessible elements to be upgraded when filing for a hardship and not all elements of the primary entrance can be met. Here they label the order things should be upgraded and they do specify parking which additionally implies parking is part of the accessible upgrades per CBC 11B-202.4 _
> 
> ...


I agree that it's a real stretch to say what the code "implies".  The actual wording of 202.4 exception 8, item 6 is "when possible, additional accessible elements such as parking, signs, storage and alarms".

The key word is "additional":


"Additional" means that it is in addition to the other 5 basic prioritized items in exception #8.  There's no way that parking can be considered both basic AND additional at the same time.  It's either one or the other.

The intent of CBC 202.4 is that your goal in alterations is to provide the 5 basic items, and parking ain't one of them.
When (and ONLY when!) the cost of meeting those 5 basic items exceeds 20% of the adjusted construction cost, then 11B-202 202.4 _exception_ 8 allows you to cap the required compliance cost at 20%.
You do that by picking the items in a preferred order: 
1. entrance
2.  Accessible route to altered area
3.  Accessible restroom(s)
4.  Accessible phones
5.  Accessible drinking fountains
6.  When possible (a subject term), additional accessible elements such as... (various examples, not an all inclusive list)

In order for a building official to compel "additional elements such as accessible parking" under 11B-202.4 exception #8, all 3 of the following conditions must first exist:
- Achieving the basic 5 in 202.4 can't be done for less than 20% of the construction cost.
- The building official records and files a finding that providing all of the basic 5 in 202.4 is an unreasonable hardship.
- One or more of the prioritized basic 5 can't be achieved without exceeding 20% of the adjusted construction cost.
Only then can the BO look at "additional" elements to meet the 20% exception.


----------



## Joe.B (Sep 7, 2021)

Yikes said:


> When (and ONLY when!) the cost of meeting those 5 basic items exceeds 20% of the adjusted construction cost, then 11B-202 202.4 _exception_ 8 allows you to cap the required compliance cost at 20%.


Except when you exceed the CA accessibility valuation threshold, currently $172,418.00. When you exceed that valuation you're expected to real full accessibility and I don't think any of those exceptions still apply. I think that's the only part that I feel like you may be glossing over because otherwise I agree with everything you're saying.


----------



## Joe.B (Sep 7, 2021)

*expected to reach full accessibility compliance


----------



## Yikes (Sep 7, 2021)

When you exceed the CA valuation threshold of $172,418.00 for an alteration, "full accessibility" is what's required in 11B-202.1, which says:

"Additions and alterations shall comply with Section 11B-202".  Stated another way, alterations only need to provide what's found or referenced in 202 in order to fully comply with _building code_ accessibility requirements.
From there, 11B-202.3 describes the full accessibility requirements for the altered space: that space itself (and only the altered space itself) must comply with all of division 2 (e.g. as if that space was new construction.)
Next, 11B-202.4 describes all the additional requirements for the "path of travel" components that serve the area of alteration.  Those total up to 5 items in order achieve a fully compliant path-of travel.  Parking is not listed as one of the 5 items.
Please show me any viable flow chart based on the structure/format of 11B division 2 that would trigger more building code compliance beyond what I've described above.


----------



## Joe.B (Sep 7, 2021)

I'm not disputing that, just that when you exceed the threshold you no longer are counting 20%. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## nealderidder (Sep 7, 2021)

Joe.B said:


> Except when you exceed the CA accessibility valuation threshold, currently $172,418.00. When you exceed that valuation you're expected to real full accessibility and I don't think any of those exceptions still apply. I think that's the only part that I feel like you may be glossing over because otherwise I agree with everything you're saying.


It's a good point Joe. When is the last time any of us worked on a project with a valuation less than $172K? So pretty much every project requires full accessibility for the items listed in 202.4. But since the sky's the limit in CA, are we to assume that the items listed as #6 under exception 8 must also be brought into full compliance? _When possible, additional accessible elements such as parking, signs, storage and alarms. _If so, where do you stop? I would still think you are only required to update those things serving/related to altered portions of the building... This all could certainly be clarified, especially in CA rather than having each BO having to make their own determination.


----------



## Yikes (Sep 7, 2021)

You "stop" when you don't apply for exception #8.  The stopping point is outlined in post #40.


----------



## Joe.B (Sep 8, 2021)

nealderidder said:


> It's a good point Joe. When is the last time any of us worked on a project with a valuation less than $172K? So pretty much every project requires full accessibility for the items listed in 202.4. But since the sky's the limit in CA, are we to assume that the items listed as #6 under exception 8 must also be brought into full compliance? _When possible, additional accessible elements such as parking, signs, storage and alarms. _If so, where do you stop? I would still think you are only required to update those things serving/related to altered portions of the building... This all could certainly be clarified, especially in CA rather than having each BO having to make their own determination.


On this side of the counter, all the time. I deal with multi-million dollar projects, and water heater exchanges.


----------



## nealderidder (Sep 10, 2021)

Yikes said:


> You "stop" when you don't apply for exception #8.  The stopping point is outlined in post #40.


I hear you, and I agree. And I'm losing this argument with a BO who's insisting I bring the accessible parking up to current code. Not really an expense issue, but we don't want to lose the five parking spaces that have to be sacrificed to make the fix.


----------



## Joe.B (Sep 10, 2021)

nealderidder said:


> I hear you, and I agree. And I'm losing this argument with a BO who's insisting I bring the accessible parking up to current code. Not really an expense issue, but we don't want to lose the five parking spaces that have to be sacrificed to make the fix.


In my experience when people on either side of the counter dig in their heels, so do the people on the other side. I've seen the most success by people coming up with creative ways to meet code and satisfy the users wants/needs. Obviously I don't know the specifics of your situation, and nobody is paying me to come up with a design, but I have to believe there's some other solution besides losing 5 spaces.


----------



## Rick18071 (Sep 10, 2021)

Did you ask for an section that requires an accessible parking spaces in the IEBC?
Adding a accessible parking space can be impossible or very expensive in tight spaces or on a slope. What if you had 5 apartments with only 5 parking spaces and you had to add an accessible parking space?

I think you have good grounds for an appeal.


----------



## nealderidder (Sep 15, 2021)

Rick18071 said:


> Did you ask for an section that requires an accessible parking spaces in the IEBC?
> Adding a accessible parking space can be impossible or very expensive in tight spaces or on a slope. What if you had 5 apartments with only 5 parking spaces and you had to add an accessible parking space?
> 
> I think you have good grounds for an appeal.


Thanks for the comment Rick. Even though I don't agree that this is required by code we're going to give them what they want. Not the hill we want to die on!


----------



## Yikes (Mar 14, 2022)

So I talked to a DSA staffer today on yet another alteration project, asking them whether an alteration that provides all 5 items in 11B-202.4 also has to make parking accessible, even though it isn't mentioned as one of the 5 items.
The staff said "yes, that's our interpretation".  I pointed our that the code doesn't explicitly say that, and I asked him how they could arrive at an interpretation that exceeds code.
He conceded that 202.4 was poorly written if the intent was to require parking.
They hang their hat on the CBC 202 definition of "Path Of Travel" where it says that a path of travel "*connects a particular area with AN* _[singular, not plural]_ *exterior approach (including sidewalks, streets, and parking areas), an entrance to the facility, and other parts of the facility.*"


I pointed out that we have "an" (one) POT from the public sidewalk through the accessible entry door and to the area of alteration.  So why would we need a second POT from the parking.  He responded that the way they interpreted it, it was all one big route, akin to spokes on a wheel all being part of one wheel.
I would counter that if that is how they interpret CBC 202 definition of path of travel, then this hub-and spoke definition must include not only accessible "parking areas" but also accessible "sidewalks" and accessible "streets", which of course belong to the city.  When was the last time you saw an office remodel become responsible to provide an "accessible street"?

Furthermore, even if you agree with DSA's reach on this interpretation, it does not say the parking space(s) needs to be accessible - - it only says the path to the parking area needs to be accessible.  You could have a path going right to the edge of the parking lot, with no accessible parkign, and the requirement would be fulfilled.


----------



## Rick18071 (Mar 15, 2022)

DSA is wrong. You are right it does not say accessible parking or anything else just the POT needs to be accessible. What happens if there is no parking lot or sidewalk on the site? I don't know how hard it is to appeal in CA. In PA it's easy to appeal an accessibility interpretation and you can get a temporary C. O. after you ask for an appeal which cost only $100.


----------



## Tim Mailloux (Apr 11, 2022)

In my experience on the design side here in CT, when applying the 20% rule, the accessible route starts at and includes the handicap parking spaces. The IEBC doesn’t have a definition for accessible route, but the IBC does.

*ACCESSIBLE ROUTE.* A continuous, unobstructed path that complies with Chapter 11.

Seeing how Handicap parking spaces are covered under chapter 11, I can easily see hoe someone could infer that handicap parking is covered under the 20% rule.


----------



## Yikes (Apr 12, 2022)

Tim Mailloux said:


> In my experience on the design side here in CT, when applying the 20% rule, the accessible route starts at and includes the handicap parking spaces. The IEBC doesn’t have a definition for accessible route, but the IBC does.
> 
> *ACCESSIBLE ROUTE.* A continuous, unobstructed path that complies with Chapter 11.
> 
> Seeing how Handicap parking spaces are covered under chapter 11, I can easily see hoe someone could infer that handicap parking is covered under the 20% rule.


Yes, but your key phrase is "when applying the 20% rule".
Q:  When does the 20% rule apply to an alteration?
A:  When you are proposing less than full compliance with the accessibility requirements for a path of travel serving an alteration.
Q:  But what if DO intend to provide full compliance for a path of travel for alterations - - does that include a requirement to make parking accessible?
A:  No, it is not one of the 5 items listed to achieve a fully compliant path-of-travel.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 12, 2022)

The state requires a paved accessible parking space and the order of priority with regards to expenditure of the 20% rule. 

Montana Code Anointed 

(5) (a) If a paved parking lot is not planned or present for a public building, a person or entity constructing the public building is not required to pave the entire lot, unless otherwise required by law, ordinance, or applicable building code, *but shall provide pavement or a similarly firm, stable, and slip-resistant surface for parking spaces designated for persons with disabilities.*

(2) (a) A person or entity is not required to make alterations to provide an accessible path of travel to an altered primary function area if in terms of cost and scope the alterations to the path of travel are disproportionate to the cost of the alterations to the primary function area. Alterations to a path of travel to an altered primary function area must be considered disproportionate if the cost exceeds 20% of the cost of the alterations to the primary function area. This subsection does not prohibit an expenditure to alter a path of travel that exceeds 20% of the cost of the alterations to a primary function area.

(b) If the cost of altering a path of travel to an altered primary function area is disproportionate as provided in subsection (2)(a), the path of travel must be made accessible to the extent possible without incurring disproportionate costs.* The alterations to the path of travel must be made by providing, in the following order or priority:*

(i) an accessible entrance and accessible exterior route to the accessible entrance from accessible parking and passenger loading zones or from a public sidewalk if the public sidewalk is immediately adjacent to the public building site;

(ii) an accessible path of travel to the altered primary function area;

(iii) accessible restrooms for each sex or a single unisex restroom when allowed by the applicable building code; and

(iv) accessible elements, including but not limited to storage spaces and alarms.


----------



## Yikes (Apr 12, 2022)

mtlogcabin said:


> The state requires a paved accessible parking space and the order of priority with regards to expenditure of the 20% rule.
> 
> Montana Code Anointed
> 
> (5) (a) If a paved parking lot is not planned or present for a public building, a person or entity constructing the public building is not required to pave the entire lot, unless otherwise required by law, ordinance, or applicable building code, *but shall provide pavement or a similarly firm, stable, and slip-resistant surface for parking spaces designated for persons with disabilities.*


I've always seen the number of required parking spaces in Zoning code, not in building code.  The way I'm reading this excerpt, it is not telling us that every public building must have a parking space.  It is saying that when parking spaces are provided for a public building, and the building code says that xx% of those spaces shall be designated accessible,  then those designated accessible parking stalls need to either be paved or have a similar-performing surface treatment.


----------

