# Does an Alteration trigger the need for path to street?



## nealderidder (Oct 8, 2019)

I'm working on a TI in an existing building. It's a big TI, includes the entire two floors of the building. This is in California.

CBC 11B-206.2.1 calls for an accessible route from the building to the street. It notes "at least one". 

CBC 11B-202.4 tells me that in an alteration I'm only required to provide a path of travel to altered elements from the primary entrance to the building. It would appear that my TI wouldn't trigger the need for an accessible route to the street. Am I right?


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 9, 2019)

If not, then how is one to approach and enter the building if not by an accessible POT? especially if the building is not presently served by one?
(there I go being logical?)


----------



## JPohling (Oct 9, 2019)

That POT from the public sidewalk is often not achievable in an existing building that was constructed prior to this requirement.  Is this a change in use?  You will need to provide a compliant POT from the accessible parking area serving your suite.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 9, 2019)

*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:

*A primary entrance to the building or facility,*
Toilet and bathing facilities serving the area,
Drinking fountains serving the area,
Public telephones serving the area, and
Signs.

Chapter 2 Definitions
PATH OF TRAVEL. An identifiable accessible route within an existing site, building or facility by means of which a particular area may be approached, entered and exited, and which connects a particular area with an *exterior approach (including sidewalks, streets and parking areas),* an entrance to the facility, and other parts of the facility. When alterations, structural repairs or additions are made to existing buildings or facilities, the term “path of travel” also includes the toilet and bathing facilities, telephones, drinking fountains and signs serving the area of work.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 9, 2019)

JPohling said:


> That POT from the public sidewalk is often not achievable in an existing building that was constructed prior to this requirement.  Is this a change in use?  You will need to provide a compliant POT from the accessible parking area serving your suite.


*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._


----------



## JPohling (Oct 9, 2019)

mark handler said:


> *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._



In California I have also used 11B-206.2.1 exception 2.  "An accessible route shall not be required between site arrival points and the building or facility entrance if the only means of access between them is a vehicular way not providing pedestrian access."


----------



## mark handler (Oct 9, 2019)

JPohling said:


> In California I have also used 11B-206.2.1 exception 2.  "An accessible route shall not be required between site arrival points and the building or facility entrance if the only means of access between them is a vehicular way not providing pedestrian access."


But if there is any pedestrian access, Accessible or not, you can not use this.


----------



## Yikes (Oct 9, 2019)

mark handler said:


> *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:
> 
> ...



I have a related question.  I am doing a T.I for a religious organization in California on a project that has its own parking garage.  It was approved by the AHJ 10 years ago with two accessible stalls, but only the van stall has a POT that does not go behind another vehicle; the other accessible stall goes behind the van stall.

Q: Since I can comply with POT for all things except access stall #2, should just the one van stall be sufficient for satisfying 11B-202.4?


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 9, 2019)

Hmmm


----------



## Yikes (Oct 9, 2019)

(I reference that it is a religious organization to note their exemption from ADA lawsuits; this is purely a CBC -11B compliance issue for the remodel, on a parking lot already approved by the AHJ several years ago.)


----------



## north star (Oct 9, 2019)

*# ~ #*


> *" Q: Since I can comply with POT for all things except access stall #2, should*
> *just the one van stall be sufficient for satisfying 11B-202.4 ? "*


IMO, ...Yes, you have satisfied the Accessibility POT.......In your jurisdiction, is there a
precedent for having an Accessible POT for "all" Accessible Parking Spaces, or is it a
"Gray Area" to be determined by the AHJ ?

*# ~ #*


----------



## JPohling (Oct 10, 2019)

mark handler said:


> But if there is any pedestrian access, Accessible or not, you can not use this.


Agreed!


----------



## mark handler (Oct 11, 2019)

Yikes said:


> Q: Since I can comply with POT for all things except access stall #2, should just the one van stall be sufficient for satisfying 11B-202.4?


IMHO, No. But that is up to the AHJ and the CASp.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 11, 2019)

Careful MH, CASps can only opinion unless they are an AHJ. Theirs is a "voluntary" certification, overseen by the state.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 11, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> Careful MH, CASps can only opinion unless they are an AHJ. Theirs is a "voluntary" certification, overseen by the state.


Certification, Which is recognize by the courts.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 11, 2019)

Accepted by state but up to feds to accept or reject.


----------



## Yikes (Oct 11, 2019)

mark handler said:


> IMHO, No. But that is up to the AHJ and the CASp.



I agree, Mark.  But when it comes to being a sounding boards on accessibility questions on this forum, you are analogous to "Mikey" in the old Life Cereal commercials: if I can get you to 'like' something, chances are good that most everyone else (incl. AHJ and CASp) will eventually 'like' it too.
(And I seriously mean this as a major compliment to you!)


----------



## nealderidder (Oct 31, 2019)

JPohling said:


> That POT from the public sidewalk is often not achievable in an existing building that was constructed prior to this requirement.  Is this a change in use?  You will need to provide a compliant POT from the accessible parking area serving your suite.


Nope, not a change of use.


----------



## nealderidder (Oct 31, 2019)

Thanks for all the feedback, looks like my thread got quasi-hijacked but I appreciate the responses!


----------



## classicT (Oct 31, 2019)

nealderidder said:


> Nope, not a change of use.


Be very careful in your use of change of occupancy. Per the Ch. 2 definition, it is:

*[A] *CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY. A change in the use of a building or a portion a building which results in one of the following:

A change of occupancy classification.
A change from one group to another group within an occupancy classification.
Any change in use within a group for which there is a change in application of the requirements of this code.
#3 can trip you up. Some occupancy types have requirements that are specific to a use, not just the occupancy classification.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 31, 2019)

Yikes said:


> , but only the van stall has a POT that does not go behind another vehicle; the other accessible stall goes behind the van stall.


Where in the IBC or ADA does it state a person can not be required to go behind another vehicle? I agree it is not a good idea but is it prohibited by the IBC or ADA? I am not interested in California regulations.


----------



## classicT (Oct 31, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> Where in the IBC or ADA does it state a person can not be required to go behind another vehicle? I agree it is not a good idea but is it prohibited by the IBC or ADA? I am not interested in California regulations.


It is allowed; however, per the Advisory, it is discouraged.

*A117.1 - 502.3 Access Aisle*
Access aisles serving parking spaces shall comply with 502.3.  Access aisles shall adjoin an accessible route.  Two parking spaces shall be permitted to share a common access aisle.
A*dvisory 502.3 Access Aisle.*  Accessible routes must connect parking spaces to accessible entrances.  In parking facilities where the accessible route must cross vehicular traffic lanes, marked crossings enhance pedestrian safety, particularly for people using wheelchairs and other mobility aids.  Where possible, it is preferable that the accessible route not pass behind parked vehicles.​


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 4, 2019)

This most often occurs on gas station sites where service bays are converted to mini-marts, sites are tight and only drive aisles exist.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 5, 2019)

Big box stores where there is a fire lane in front of the store. All of the HC parking spaces you have to travel in the driving aisle to get to the HC parking space of which there could be 6 or more of them


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 5, 2019)

Too true.


----------



## Yikes (Nov 11, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> Big box stores where there is a fire lane in front of the store. All of the HC parking spaces you have to travel in the driving aisle to get to the HC parking space of which there could be 6 or more of them



Yes, but travelling across a drive aisle is not the same as travelling behind a parked vehicle.

The recommendation (requirement, in California) to not travel behind another person's parked vehicle stems from concern that the wheelchair user sits below the field of vision in a rearview mirror, especially with tall vehicles (vans, SUVs, etc.).  A person backing out their parked vehicle might not be aware that there is a wheelchair directly behind their rear bumper.

This problem does not exist in a drive aisle, where theoretically all vehicles are moving in a forward direction and drivers should clearly see what's in front of them.

I realize that rearview camera technology in newer vehicles will eventually make this issue obsolete - - but while old cars are still on the road, it remains valid.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 12, 2019)

I was not referring to the drive aisle I was referring to the other 4 or 5 HC parking spaces a person wouls have to roll behind if they are parked in the farthest HC spot


----------



## mark handler (Nov 12, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> I was not referring to the drive aisle I was referring to the other 4 or 5 HC parking spaces a person wouls have to roll behind if they are parked in the farthest HC spot


In The picture(4) of those stall do not Meet Code, they lack loading zones. So traveling behind is just another violation for a law suit.


----------



## Rick18071 (Nov 12, 2019)

What state requires loading zones?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 12, 2019)

mark handler said:


> So traveling behind is just another violation for a law suit.


 So is it a violation of a code or just a violation of "best pratices"? If code please provide the section from ANSI or ADA


----------



## Paul Sweet (Nov 12, 2019)

The "Loading zone" is the 5 ft. (or 8 ft. for a van space) aisle between accessible spaces.

Apparently having to travel behind other parked cars is a violation in California, but just bad design elsewhere.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 12, 2019)

Paul Sweet said:


> The "Loading zone" is the 5 ft. (or 8 ft. for a van space) aisle between accessible spaces.
> 
> Apparently having to travel behind other parked cars is a violation in California, but just bad design elsewhere.


Yes
*ADASAD Advisory 502.3 ...*Where possible, it is preferable that the accessible route not pass behind parked vehicles.


----------



## ADAguy (Nov 12, 2019)

"Loading Zones" differ from access aisles, which are required next (or shared) at/to accessible spaces. "LZ"s are intended for drop offs only.


----------



## JPohling (Nov 12, 2019)

mark handler said:


> *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:
> 
> ...



Mark,  Are we in agreement that for an existing building and no change in use, bank to bank, there is no code requirement to provide a POT from the public sidewalk and we are only required to provide a POT from the accessible parking area to the buildings primary entry?  I am still a bit puzzled by some of the wording.


----------

