# Existing Building - Projection into maneuvering clearance



## formdb (Sep 10, 2019)

We're doing a minor tenant improvement to an existing building in California, built around 2000. There is an existing exterior door that has the electrical meter mounted within 6 inches of the strike side of the door, on the exterior. This obviously doesn't comply, as I need 24" clear on the strike side. The door isn't required for exiting, and leads to an employee/delivery area, no public access. 

What are my options here? I believe we could qualify for a hardship, as we're already doing other upgrades elsewhere, in order of priority. Other than that, it's either seal up the door, or relocate the panel, correct? Am I missing anything? Sorry for the dumb question, thanks for the help!


----------



## RLGA (Sep 10, 2019)

Does the door open out or in? Is there a closer on the door?


----------



## formdb (Sep 10, 2019)

Opens out, toward the exterior. No closer.


----------



## RLGA (Sep 10, 2019)

So I assume by your mention of 24 inches that you're looking at a latch approach and not a forward approach.

If this is a _restricted entrance_ (i.e., not for public use by definition of the 2010 ADA Standards), then, per the 2010 ADA Standards, it must comply with Section 404. If you have more than one restricted entrance, then only one needs to comply with Section 404. If this is primarily a _service entrance_ (by definition per the 2010 ADA Standards), then it does not need to comply with Section 404 if it is not the only entrance into the building.


----------



## formdb (Sep 10, 2019)

Oh wow, I must have missed that exception, is it in CBC or in the ADA standards?

Thanks so much for your help and quick replies!


----------



## RLGA (Sep 10, 2019)

formdb said:


> Oh wow, I must have missed that exception, is it in CBC or in the ADA standards?
> 
> Thanks so much for your help and quick replies!


That's in the ADA--I'm not as familiar with the Title 24 requirements of the CBC. Maybe Mark Handler can chime in...?


----------



## mark handler (Sep 10, 2019)

RLGA said:


> That's in the ADA--I'm not as familiar with the Title 24 requirements of the CBC. Maybe Mark Handler can chime in...?


The only exception I know of is doors accessible by security personnel only. 11B-404.1

What I allow and have used in the past, is a automatic door opener.


----------



## formdb (Sep 10, 2019)

mark handler said:


> The only exception I know of is doors accessible by security personnel only. 11B-404.1
> 
> What I allow and have used in the past, is a automatic door opener.



Interesting, thanks for the reply Mark. I don't think we can use that exception, though. Here is the full text of 11B-404.1 Exception 1:

Exceptions:
1. Doors, doorways, and gates designed to be operated
only by security personnel shall not be required to
comply with Sections 11B-404.2.7, 11B-404.2.8,
11B-404.2.9, 11B-404.3.2 and 11B-404.3.4 through
11B-404.3.7. A sign visible from the approach side
complying with Section 11B-703.5 shall be posted
stating “Entry restricted and controlled by security
personnel”.

The maneuvering clearance is in 11B-404.2.4, which isn't listed as one of the exempted sections. Right? At least from a strict interpretation of the Code.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 11, 2019)

formdb said:


> Interesting, thanks for the reply Mark. I don't think we can use that exception, though. Here is the full text of 11B-404.1 Exception 1:
> 
> Exceptions:
> 1. Doors, doorways, and gates designed to be operated only by security personnel shall not be required to comply with Sections 11B-404.2.7, 11B-404.2.8, 11B-404.2.9, 11B-404.3.2 and 11B-404.3.4 through 11B-404.3.7. A sign visible from the approach side complying with Section 11B-703.5 shall be posted stating “Entry restricted and controlled by security personnel”.
> ...



I was not implying that you use the exception. 
Ask the AHJ if they will allow an automatic door opener, in leu of the required clearances.


----------

