Questions discussed this episode
Roger – What is your opinion on the changes by the House of Representatives to the ADA? (ADA Education and Reform Act H.R.620)
ADA Education and Reform Act H.R.620
Nickolas – Hello, my question is regarding public sidewalks. I understand that the typically required width is 5 feet, and if the sidewalk were less than 5 feet wide then 5′ by 5′ passing zones would be required. My question is regarding full-width sidewalks that have more than 5′ available. If you have an unobstructed pedestrian access route that is 5′ wide and has less than 2% cross slope can you have a grade break that increases the cross slope to more than 2% toward the curb? For example, 10′ wide sidewalk, with 5′ wide at 2% cross slope and the other 5′ at more than 2% cross slope with tree wells, benches, tables, chairs, parking meters, etc. If a grade break is not acceptable what are some solutions when you have an existing sidewalk with a cross slope that exceeds 2% with the existing building located on the property line? Thank you.
Dave – One of our clients wants to use an ADA compliant shower tower in the pool area of an apartment complex in lieu of a roll in shower described in Section 1127A5.3, is the shower tower allowed as the only shower for the pool area? Thanks
Andrew – I am reviewing plans for alterations to an existing two-story, B occupancy building. The building was built well before 1991. The alteration includes a change in occupancy of the second floor from B to five R-2 apartments. Would these be considered newly constructed covered multi-family dwellings? Would they be subject to 11A of the CBC?
Dave- Hi Mark and Paul. I was plan checking a new senior housing project adjacent to our campus (new construction in California falling under the 2016 CBC) and noticed that the plan set’s standard accessible details include curb cuts with the 12″ grooved borders. That got me looking at Chapter 11A vs. 11B. 11A still calls for the grooves (Chapter 11A, 1112A.8), but 11B no longer requires them. If I’m not mistaken, the grooves were omitted in the last mid-cycle express terms, correct? I’m curious if you know of other areas where Chapter 11A and 11B conflict with each other and how best to resolve the conflicts? FYI: For our project currently under review, we are leaning toward keeping the grooves in. Since 11B does not forbid them and 11A requires them, we feel that the grooves may be installed, even in areas that specifically fall under 11B like the leasing office, just so the entire complex is consistent.
David – I have an applicant that is having solar canopies installed in the parking lot of a church. They will be installed over existing parking spaces. Will there be a requirement to have accessible parking under the panels? They don’t truly provide shade and they are separated so there is no protection from weather elements. They also mentioned that there is a “solar rights acts” that limits the additional cost to the installation of the system not to exceed $2000. (attached – it seems like a stretch regarding this) To create what I would believe is a compliant situation, they will need to re-stripe and provide a curb ramp. Let me know what you think.
Get You CASp CEU’s with our CalCasp Online Course
For News, Updates & Training Go To The CORADA Calendar Here
ADA Shop Talk Sponsored By:
BlueDAG- Accessibility Inspection and Plan Reviews at Your Fingertips
CalCasp – Your online Accessibility Training & Education Resource
I believe that the change in occupancy from B to R-2 would be considered newly constructed – they did not exist prior. As such they would be covered.
I agree with you George, the apartments did not exist prior to 1991
Hello George and thank you for your comment.
This is a counterintuitive section of the code, but Andrew stated that the change of occupancy was for a building built well before 1991, specifically March 13th, 1991 as the key date under both the Fair Housing Act and the CBC. If you look at the definition in the CBC for “Newly Constructed” it states: NEWLY CONSTRUCTED. [HCD 1-AC] A building that has never before been used or occupied for any purpose.
So, to apply 11A you must look at section 1101A Scope which talks about “newly constructed” covered multifamily dwelling which are new multi-family dwellings built after March 13th, 1991 if the building was built for the first occupancy prior to March 13th, 1991 then by definition it is not “newly constructed” and therefore Section 1101A Application does not apply.
Secondly, section 1102A.2 is for Existing buildings which this change of occupancy certainly is an existing building, but this section states that this chapter (11A) does not apply to the alteration, repair, rehabilitation or maintenance of multifamily dwellings constructed for the first occupancy prior to March 13, 1991. This building was a B occupancy and does not meet the definition of a multi-family dwelling. This section goes on to state that additions, when the addition considered alone, meets the definition of a covered multifamily dwelling and new common use spaces serving existing covered multifamily dwellings shall be subject to the requirements of this chapter. This change of use is neither an addition or new common use space serving a covered multi-family dwelling.
So, this change of occupancy for this building built for first occupancy prior to March 13th, 1991 is exempt from the accessibility standards in Chapter 11A of the CBC as well it does not meet the definition of a Public Accommodation, so CBC Chapter 11B does not apply either. This is consistent with the Fair Housing Act as well as the ADA. No federal or state building accessibility standards apply here. The FHA does apply for reasonable accommodations and non-discriminate practices.
Hope that helps.
I am sorry Paul I don’t agree with you on this one. Regarding the definition of “Newly Constructed” you cannot separate that from the second half of CBC 1101A.1.1. IMHO this is speaking of a building that has never before been used or occupied for any purpose AS a covered multifamily dwelling. So in my opinion 11A would apply since this space is now being occupied as a covered multifamily dwelling
Regarding 1102A.2 it is referring to alterations to multifamily dwellings construction prior to 1991. This is not an alteration to a multifamily dwellings, this is new construction
Hello Wayne,
Its ok to disagree, that’s what makes this stuff interesting and how we all learn(o:
I agree with you that you cannot disregard the second part of CBC 1101.1.1 which states: “All Newly-Constructed Covered Multi Familly Dwellings”. Ther is no doubt that a building containing 3 or more apartments or 4 or more condominiums would meet section 1102A.1. & 1102A.1.2. But you have to include the term and definition of “Newly Constructed” in the application of sections 1101A.1 (Scope) and 1102A.1 (Where required).
NEWLY CONSTRUCTED. [HCD 1-AC] “A building that has never before been used or occupied for any purpose” together with ” Covered Multi Familly Dwelling”. So in the scenario, we would agree that it’s 3 or more apartments or 4 or more condos, but because they are going into an existing building that was occupied for first occupancy, it does not meet the definition of a Newly Constructed Covered Multi Familly Dwelling.
Unlike the ADA, where CA had years of accessibility codes in place for public accommodations prior to the adoption of the ADA, there was very little for multi-family dwellings and CA was able to adopt the FHA without many amendments or changes which is the basis for 11A.
Blow is the Joint Statement of HUD and the DOJ regarding the Fair Housing Act. Question #15 & #16 address this. Here is a link to the document:
https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/JOINTSTATEMENT.PDF
16. Do the Fair Housing Act’s design and construction requirements apply to the alteration or renovation of nonresidential buildings into residential buildings?
No. First occupancy means a “building that has never before been used for any purpose.” The conversion of a nonresidential building into a residential building through alteration or renovation does not cause the building to become a covered multifamily dwelling. This is true even if the original nonresidential building was built after March 13, 1991. This situation needs to be distinguished, however, from additions of covered multifamily
dwellings (see questions 12, 13 and 14, above). See 24 C.F.R. § 100.201; Questions and Answers, Q. 4, 8 and 9, 59 Fed. Reg. at 33,364-65.
Example: A warehouse built in 1994 is being rehabilitated into a small
condominium residential building with two stories and a total of 12 dwelling
units. This conversion of this building is not covered because at the time of its
first occupancy it was not designed and constructed as a covered multifamily
dwelling.
Yes, new construction but not a “newly constructed covered multifamily dwelling”. Thanks for your comments.
Once again thank you Paul and Mark for your advise and interesting discussions on so many topics on accessibility. CBC Division 6 Plumbing Elements And Facilities 11B-602.7 Drinking Fountains for standing persons, spout outlet 38 inches minimum and 43 maximum, above finished floor, what if only one drinking fountain is installed and meets accessibility requirements, would one for standing persons with bad lower backs needed to be installed also. Respectfully.
Jose Guillen City of S.B. Ca.
Hello Jose,
Thank you for the comments and glad you are enjoying the show.
The short answer is yes. Remeber you have to start in scoping which is section 11B-211.2 Minimum number and states that “No fewer than two drinking fountains shall be provided”…….but you have to go through this scoping section which also allows for an integrated single drinking fountain that complies with both ie a hi-low.