ADA Shop Talk Episode 043 - Vertical Access Not Required For A Medical Office…..?

February 2, 2018

What Is ADA Shop Talk?

ADA Shop Talk is for professionals or business owners who may struggle with understanding the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act Standards or the ADA as we call it. If you are worried about lawsuits, legal exposure or just want to make your facility more accessible to persons with disabilities, then join Paul & Mark for the "ADA Shop Talk” Internet Radio Show. ADA Shop Talk is a fun and informative discussion regarding the application of the various codes, laws and standards that effect business owners, architects, engineers, contractors, code officials, and consultants throughout the the United States.

Your Hosts

• Paul Klein loves talking taking chances and trying new things. This is one reason why he wanted to create ADA Shop Talk. This is a perfect platform to talk about accessibility, help others and play with all the cool gadgets necessary to produce the show.

• Mark Wood loves talking about accessibility and teaching others about access. Being semi retired, he didn't really want to commit to another one of Pauls projects, but in the end Mark said "what the hell, good enough reason to get together, talk about access and have a beer"

Questions answered this episode:

Dave – In your opinion would an ophthalmology office on the second floor of an office building be required to have vertical access provided? An ophthalmologist is actually an MD, so I am thinking that the elevator exemption might not be allowed. Would it be different for an optometrist, chiropractor, dentist, etc. who are not actually physicians? What about a psychiatrist’s office? Psychiatrists are MDs where psychologists are not. The California Building Code specifically states that offices of physicians or surgeons must be accessible, (11B-202.4 Exception 9.2) but not other types of doctors.

Keith – Hi there, (Parcel is zoned commercial) I have a proposed tenant improvement project that is a change of use from an R-3 residence to a commercial use F-1 processing cannabis products and an M occupancy retail section for people to come into and purchase product. The proposed site has enough room for a loading zone for vendors bringing a product to the facility. However, there is not enough room to provide parking on this parcel. If the planning department grants offsite parking for this project would there have to be an accessible path of travel from parking to a new change of use building? There would really be no way due to the street and no public sidewalks. The proposed off-street parking area is 390 feet away from the site. If planning department grants offsite parking would there be any liability for the path of travel if not provided? Thank you for your help on this.

Dave- Current California building codes are starting to adopt electric vehicle charging station requirements for parking lots. In a recent parking lot we built, we installed one EV charging station adjacent to a van accessible parking stall as well as a non-accessible stall. This charging station is accessible to both stalls. However, we are not clear as to what (if any) ratio requirement would be for providing a certain number of charging stations at accessible stalls. As our campus grows, we want to ensure we are providing the necessary amenities to all. Is this something that may need to be addressed with the new code cycle?

David – Mark and Paul: CBC Division 2 & 10 establish areas of accessibility for recreation facilities in specific areas (amusement rides, miniature golf courses, campgrounds, boat facilities, etc.). But what about areas not specifically noted such as paintball centers, zip-line facilities, etc.)? Of course, the parking lots, access to any public reception/gift shop, restrooms and observation points would need to be accessible. But what about the actual areas of activity? Is there an exception somewhere in the code that states that activities requiring specific physical ability are not required to be accessible? Or are the exempt by omission? Or included by omission?