# Define "substantially altered" in CBC



## Yikes (Apr 27, 2018)

CBC 11B-233.3.4.2 triggers accessibility requirements when a residential kitchen or bath is substantially altered.  I cannot find any code definition of "substantially altered".

The IEBC has Alterations level 1, 2, and 3, but none of those related chapters were adopted in California.

IEBC has a definition of "substantial improvement", that can include "alteration", but I don't see a clear definition of "substantial alteration".

Specific example:  I have clients who want to do a "refresh" rehab of existing publicly-funded apartments.  this typically involves replacing all kitchen cabinets in-kind, replacing existing toilets with low-flow toilets, and replacing worn-out fiberglass tubs / surrounds and sinks.  This is all done due to significant wear and tear.  In one sense it is maintenance, a type of glorified "repair".  But if the existing kitchen or bath clearances do not meet 11B/ADA, they don't want the refresh to compel structural alterations.

"11B-233.3.4.2 Alterations to individual residential
dwelling units. In public housing facilities with individual
residential dwelling units, where a bathroom or a
kitchen is substantially altered, and at least one other
room is altered, the requirements of Section 11B233.3.1
shall apply to the altered residential dwelling
units until the total number of residential dwelling units
complies with the minimum number required by Sections
11B-233.3.1.1, 11B-233.3.1.2, and 11B-233.3.1.3."


----------



## ICE (Apr 29, 2018)

An alteration is a change from the existing.  A "substantial" alteration would be more than new cabinets.

_"where a bathroom or a kitchen is substantially altered, *and at least one other room is altered*"_

There's only so much that can be done to an "other room" that falls under alter.  It can be made larger or smaller and that's about it.  That must take place to trigger the requirements of Section 11B233.3.1.
This indicates that a substantial alteration results in moving walls.

Other scenarios could produce different opinions. For example, the argument could be made that adding a window is an alteration to a room.  Remember that only the kitchen or bathroom require a "substantial" alteration whereas the other room must simply be altered.

Poorly written code.  But then chapter 11 is supposed to be a mess.  Try asking a certified CASp.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 29, 2018)

*DOJ Advisory *11B-233.3.4.2 Alterations to individual residential dwelling units. Section 11B233.3.4.2 uses the terms *"substantially altered"* and *"altered." *A *substantial alteration *to a kitchen or bathroom includes, but is not limited to, alterations that are changes to or rearrangements in the plan configuration, or replacement of cabinetry. *Substantial alterations *do not include normal maintenance or appliance and fixture replacement, unless such maintenance or replacement requires changes to or rearrangements in the plan configuration, or replacement of cabinetry. The term *"alteration" *is defined in Chapter 2, Section 202.


----------



## ICE (Apr 29, 2018)

mark handler said:


> *DOJ Advisory *11B-233.3.4.2 Alterations to individual residential dwelling units. Section 11B233.3.4.2 uses the terms *"substantially altered"* and *"altered." *A *substantial alteration *to a kitchen or bathroom includes, but is not limited to, alterations that are changes to or rearrangements in the plan configuration, or replacement of cabinetry. *Substantial alterations *do not include normal maintenance or appliance and fixture replacement, unless such maintenance or replacement requires changes to or rearrangements in the plan configuration, or replacement of cabinetry. The term *"alteration" *is defined in Chapter 2, Section 202.


There ya go.  Plans dashed on the rocks of semantics.  Chapter 11 is government gone haywire.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 29, 2018)

No different than the semantics you use in forms of grounding. The code is  all semantics.


----------



## conarb (Apr 29, 2018)

ICE said:


> There ya go.  Plans dashed on the rocks of semantics.  Chapter 11 is government gone haywire.



I'd say that building departments do not have to follow DOJ rulings, if the code writers intended that they would have published such definitions in the code.


----------



## ADAguy (Apr 30, 2018)

*Key word* (term) in DOJ description is *"replacement";* vs alter, change, modify (ie:refacing or refinishing in place).
_to replace,_ as to take the place of, substitute 

Ultimately the "code" determination may be subject to the acceptance and determination of the local AHJ. 
As to the jurisdiction of DOJ I believe it is limited to ADA issues that may arise from attempting to sidestep the requirements of landlords when "upgrading" existing rental units (could impact upgrades to Airbnb units?).


----------



## conarb (Apr 30, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> *Key word* (term) in DOJ description is *"replacement";* vs alter, change, modify (ie:refacing or refinishing in place).
> _to replace,_ as to take the place of, substitute
> 
> Ultimately the "code" determination may be subject to the acceptance and determination of the local AHJ.
> As to the jurisdiction of DOJ I believe it is limited to ADA issues that may arise from attempting to sidestep the requirements of landlords when "upgrading" existing rental units (could impact upgrades to Airbnb units?).



Well then ADA Guy you are enforcing ADA, Federal Law, better we arm the inspectors and take them down to the border to enforce *Federal Immigration Law*, since our Commie Governor won't help.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 30, 2018)

Enforcing the State Laws
All prior to the *1990 *ADA
The Unruh Civil Rights Act was enacted in* 1959*
California Civil Code 54.1, often known as the California Disabled Person Act 1964
*1977, California enacted Government Code 11135 barred any program or acti*vity funded by the state from discriminating “on the basis of ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, color, or physical or mental disability
*1980 *California Fair Employment and Housing Act
Unruh Act updated in *1987* which covered both physical and mental disabilities


----------



## conarb (Apr 30, 2018)

mark handler said:


> Enforcing the State Laws
> All prior to the *1990 *ADA
> The Unruh Civil Rights Act was enacted in* 1959*
> California Civil Code 54.1, often known as the California Disabled Person Act 1964
> ...



I don't know but I doubt that the DOJ definitions are in any of those statutes/acts; furthermore, our state picks and chooses which Federal Laws it wants to enforce, so why do we have to enforce any state laws?  In addition to that, the Inspector General's report has exposed the fact that the DOJ is totally corrupt, untill these crooks are behind bars no DOJ laws should be enforced.   

Law Schools have a course in "Conflict of Laws", premption is core, an example is back in the 50s the City of Alameda  started licensing electricians, on the peninsula a painting contractor was issued a citation by a city for not having a city license decal on this truck windshield, on the way home that same day he was stopped and issued a ticket by the California Highway Patrol for having too many city decals on his windshield obstructing his vision, he appealed up through the court system and the courts ruled that contractor licensing was preempted by the state, and cities couldn't require licensing or decals, the courts ended up clarifying that saying that cities could license for revenue only (which is of course what they wanted). A case could be made that the 1990 ADA preempted all prior state laws rendering them unenforcable, all disability laws are now Federal laws.


----------



## ADAguy (Apr 30, 2018)

State law says our code shall be not less than the ADA Standards for Accessible Design (ADASAD) but may exceed those standards, as set by the State Architect with the concurrence of the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC)
The ADASAD continues to be a minimum to be accepted in total (or not) but it is not a building code, as the IBC is only a model code to be accepted or altered as determined by the local AHJ's.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 30, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> State law says our code shall be not less than the ADA Standards for Accessible Design (ADASAD) but may exceed those standards, as set by the State Architect with the concurrence of the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC)
> The ADASAD continues to be a minimum to be accepted in total (or not) but it is not a building code, as the IBC is only a model code to be accepted or altered as determined by the local AHJ's.


IBC outside CA
CBC inside CA
TAS in Texas


----------



## conarb (Apr 30, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> State law says our code shall be not less than the ADA Standards for Accessible Design (ADASAD) but may exceed those standards, as set by the State Architect with the concurrence of the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC)
> The ADASAD continues to be a minimum to be accepted in total (or not) but it is not a building code, as the IBC is only a model code to be accepted or altered as determined by the local AHJ's.



The part stating that the state standards can be more but not less is legal, but the ADA has preempted all of those state laws passed prior to the ADA.  If you've noticed defendants win over 90% of the cases that go to trial, the problem is few can afford to litigate them so they become in effect blackmail, when the states, or even courts, fear a challenge they try to keep them out of court fearing precedent setting adverse rulings.  My hope was that with a new administration the DOJ could be cleaned up ridding us of all DOJ regulations, then a new DOJ write new regulations, unfortunately, the DOJ has many bigger problems to address than just ADA regulations, it's going to take some good court cases to clean up the regulations.  The legal principal of "Void for Vagueness" alone should get rid of a lot of them.


----------



## Yikes (May 1, 2018)

Mark, it would appear that CBC left it undefined, but the ADAS advisory is clearer.  Long-term, I think the CBC should be amended to add the definitions.


----------



## mark handler (May 1, 2018)

Yikes said:


> Mark, it would appear that CBC left it undefined, but the ADAS advisory is clearer.  Long-term, I think the CBC should be amended to add the definitions.


The Quote was taken from the CA DSA guidelines....
They quoted the DOJ


----------

