# Tenant Improvement ADA Upgrade



## ELLEN09US (Jan 12, 2018)

Hello all,

I have a tenant improvement project in the City of LA. 
The building is 52,638 SF and the tenant that I'm working on is just 617 SF.
The ADA plan checker gave me the whole upgrade of everything. ADA parking and shared restrooms. include adding more ADA parking stalls and Van ADA stalls.
These items are the landlord upgrades and I'm sure the landlord does not want to upgrade these items.

I know if the valuation of the project be less than $156,162.00 we can have 20% dedicated to upgrading ADA. 
There's not enough items within the tenant space to be upgraded for ADA.

I don't know what to do with these plan checks that are related to the landlord. 

Please HELP!!!!


----------



## cda (Jan 12, 2018)

Talk to his boss??

So only a 617 sq ft office?? ,, some other businesses are occupying the rest of the building??


----------



## ELLEN09US (Jan 12, 2018)

I will talk to her supervisor on Monday
The land lord says I do not want to upgrade anything and the tenant says it is not in my tenant space.


----------



## Robert (Jan 14, 2018)

Both tenant and landlord are responsible. They can delegate who does the work in their lease, but ultimately each is legally responsible. CA Senate Bill 1186 requires commercial property owners to disclose on their lease (executed since 7/1/13) whether the property has undergone CASP inspections, and if so, what areas do and do not meet accessibility requirements. Start with the entry first, then the path of travel from the nearest accessible parking space, then the restroom. When you hit 20% of construction cost (excluding the cost of the upgrades) you can stop. See the building code for a more detailed breakdown of items to upgrade.


----------



## ADAguy (Jan 16, 2018)

What year was this building built?
Year last tenant improvements done?


----------



## Rick18071 (Jan 16, 2018)

I don't know CA codes but the ICC codes only require spending 20% on a change of occupancy. Is this a change of occupancy?


----------



## steveray (Jan 16, 2018)

Rick18071 said:


> I don't know CA codes but the ICC codes only require spending 20% on a change of occupancy. Is this a change of occupancy?



20% on all remodeling affecting an area of primary function....3411.7 maybe of 2012 IBC and 702ish IEBC....?  So $30 grand on that $150,000....Starting from site arrival into and through the 617ft space.


----------



## tmurray (Jan 16, 2018)

30 grand can get spent pretty quickly...


----------



## ELLEN09US (Jan 16, 2018)

The building is 30 years old. 
Yes, the remodeling is about 30K and I'm under the threshold for spending 20%.
But the problem is the the Landlord doesn't want to spend and the tenant says it's not in my tenant space.
There's already another tenant that is under construction! I don't know how they didn't require ADA upgrade.
Thanks all for your feed backs!


----------



## steveray (Jan 16, 2018)

Not sure how it works in LALA land, but the IBC and IEBC both require 20% minimum be spent with no threshold for alterations....

3411.7 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 or 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.


----------



## ADAguy (Jan 16, 2018)

Owner is open to an ADA lawsuit for failure to remove existing barriers.
City of LA has CASps on its staff who should be clarifying this issue.

1. is their compliant parking?
2. POT to entrance of building?
3. Door hardware compliant?
4. Compliant restrooms?
5. What does lease say as far as tenant's responsibility vs landlords?


----------



## Sifu (Jan 16, 2018)

We do not require upgrades to the core-shell bathrooms on a T/I space unless upgrades to those T/I spaces triggers an upgrade to the bathrooms, such as increased occupant load/fixture count.  Typically, that is covered on a separate permit for the common spaces.  But I understand CA is a little stricter so............


----------



## steveray (Jan 16, 2018)

Sifu said:


> We do not require upgrades to the core-shell bathrooms on a T/I space unless upgrades to those T/I spaces triggers an upgrade to the bathrooms, such as increased occupant load/fixture count.  Typically, that is covered on a separate permit for the common spaces.  But I understand CA is a little stricter so............



I repeat:

3411.7 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 or drinking
fountains serving the area of primary function.

If the "shell" bathrooms are common, then they get upgraded...Just like parking...


----------



## ADAguy (Jan 16, 2018)

It seems the issue is not with the tenant but with the owner's unwillingness to comply.
Its simple, no compliance, no tenant.


----------



## Sifu (Jan 17, 2018)

2012 IBC: * 3411.7 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 or drinking
fountains serving the area of primary function.

(same for IEBC)

If the tenant space does not contain the primary function, nor does it affect the accessibility to the primary function, it is not within the scope of this section, IMHO.  If, on the other hand, a permit is secured to remodel the bathrooms, they would need to be upgraded since they contain an area of primary function, and the entire route to them from the public way.  
It is long held that only the elements being altered must be brought into compliance, and if the original element met code at the time it was installed it may remain.  The commentary to this section confirms that notion.  I understand some places take it further, and that is their prerogative, since the code is a minimum and an AHJ can require more.  If CA has chosen that path then you must comply with it.  But I don't think the IBC mandates it unless the T/I alterations somehow affect the accessibility to the bathrooms.  Does that mean the building owner isn't subject to a lawsuit?  No, but they are never safe from that.  At least that's the way I see it.


----------



## steveray (Jan 17, 2018)

Sifu....can you give me an example of a tenant space that would not be an area of primary function? An office remodel, in an office building, is an AOPF.....IMO


----------



## mark handler (Jan 17, 2018)

If the landlord want to rent the facilities someone needs to belly up to the bar.

Just remember failures to comply with ADA Standards all the parties can be sued, they are jointly and severally liable.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Jan 17, 2018)

What would give a tenant the authority to remodel a space that is outside the space they are leasing?  The tenant is caught between a rock and a hard place if the landlord isn't willing to have accessible parking added or restrooms (or at least one of them if that is all the 20% is adequate for) upgraded.

I don't know about California, but the ADA only grandfathers restrooms that complied with ADA or UFAS.  Hopefully the UBC didn't have anything like the infamous 42" wide handicap stalls that BOCA required in the 1980s.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 17, 2018)

The issue is a law that names two parties responsible for the same thing when one has no legal right to make modifications to the others property without their consent.
Maybe a different approach would be the tenant modify's their leased space and brings it into compliance.   They spend 5% of the required 20% amount with the remaining 15% is put into an escrow fund to be used by the owner for other improvements that need to be made to the common areas. The tenant is now out of the equation and only the building owner is now responsible for the improvements. 
It might be a faster and more efficient method of getting buildings upgraded than the current way of suing everyone and giving the money to the lawyers


----------



## steveray (Jan 17, 2018)

The permit is the property of the property owner, not the tenant.....If they want the permit (and the tenant), then the authorize the work...


----------



## ADAguy (Jan 17, 2018)

A basic contracts issue, either the owner wants the tenant, or not.
Sounds as if he is already in an exposed position.


----------



## Sifu (Jan 18, 2018)

I am not saying the T/I space isn't an area of primary function, and it would need to be upgraded in so far as it is an employee work space.  But the bathrooms are not contained within that space, nor (as far as I know) does the T/I improvement affect the accessible route to those bathrooms.  By this reasoning, a tenant couldn't upgrade a space unless every single space in the building met code.  I don't think that is the intent of the code, but I could be wrong.  

My philosophy is that as each space, or element within that space, is upgraded, it is brought into compliance.  I do 90% commercial, and hundreds of T/I's every month.  

The buildings here are in an upgrade frenzy, and many of them are getting common space/bathroom permits, and that is when they are brought into compliance.  

The code seams pretty clear when it says _alterations_ shall comply.  I think the code is saying that when you upgrade a tenant space to be accessible, then you must upgrade the route to the bathrooms, not that the bathrooms must be included in the upgrade.  The code implies that it would make no sense to provide an accessible space if one can't get to it, and by the way, that accessible route must include the route to the bathrooms, cuz HEY, if I invite you in, and you gotta go, you ought to be able to get to the bathroom!
This is how we do it.  If an AHJ has more restrictive provisions like the CA system, more power to 'em.  I am by no means an accessibility code basher, but I think there is a limit to the enforcement of it, and I think including the bathrooms in this situation goes too far...........IMHO.


----------



## ADAguy (Jan 18, 2018)

It may be in your opinion only ok to "get to" a rr, but what good is the RR if you can't "use it?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 18, 2018)

Who says it can't be used by people with disabilities? Not everybody in a wheelchair needs to actually transfer over to the WC. There are many who can use a non-accessible RR if they can get to it or in the door.
We pretty much follow what Sifu outlined


----------



## Sifu (Jan 18, 2018)

Not saying its a perfect solution.  They will use the restroom the same way they did before the permit, only now if there were any barriers on the way to the restroom, they will have been addressed.


----------



## steveray (Jan 18, 2018)

I say again:

The accessible route to the primary function area shall include toilet facilities or drinking fountains *serving* the area of primary function.

Note the use of serving, not *in*, the AOPF......


----------



## tmurray (Jan 19, 2018)

I know of a couple people personally who use a wheelchair for mobility, but are able to stand for short periods of time and walk short distances. Most people with mobility impairments I know would take whatever they could get. Get the to the rest room and throw a grab bar beside they toilet and they are pretty happy with that. Sure a fully compliant room is better, but sometimes it just isn't possible...

Sounds like the owner doesn't actually want the tenant in this case.


----------



## steveray (Jan 19, 2018)

Exactly TM.....I am going through a tiny (300 sqft space) old commercial remodel now for a hair salon. They owe their 20% (which comes out to about $1400), add accessible height toilet in maybe a 3X5 bathroom, maybe a couple grab bars, and tune up the front door threshold and I will think they will be there....The 20% will get you some stuff that will make it better for some users, without killing the project hopefully....Change of use is a whole 'nother animal....

I do also caution the owner that they are probably still on the hook for ADA, but I did what I needed to do...


----------

