ONE OF THE QUESTIONS that came up during a recent planning tour of the premises was: “How is Mishkon expected to trade off the competing considerations between making the building more accessible to mobility-challenged persons and preserving it as a historic-cultural monument? What do the relevant laws, codes, and preservation guidelines tell us?”
When questions like this arise, I consult the Historic Structure Report (“HSR”; 2003), because that is exactly what an HSR is for. As the National Park Service noted in 1991, “Historic Structure Reports are reference documents for the purpose of minimizing the loss of significant [historic] fabric during restoration or rehabilitation work.”
Below the jump, this post summarizes what our HSR has to say on the matter.
The HSR advocates for better accessibility
Accessibility is the very first topic treated in the HSR’s Recommendations section. It suggests that Mishkon make a targeted plan:
Adopt a written plan to remove barriers to accessibility, even if the plan must be carried out on a phased basis. A plan for accessibility should be designed by an architect of record, reviewed by local building officials, and should take into account the alternative codes and standards described in this report (e.g., California Historical Building Code).
One specific suggestion was that Mishkon should alter the men’s and women’s toilet rooms in the basement adjacent to the Social Hall, so as to provide full accessibility.
Early consultation is recommended
Prior to proceeding with a design for the removal of barriers, Mishkon should consult with at least three parties:
- the City’s building official (who administers the Calif. Building Code);
- our legal advisor (because ADA is a civil rights statute enforced by the U.S. DOJ); and
- individuals or organizations who are interested in accessibility at Mishkon Tephilo.
Special codes/standards apply to historic buildings
Recognizing the national interest in preserving historic properties, Congress has established alternative requirements for properties that cannot be made accessible without “threatening or destroying” their significance. This is part of the ADA.
The architect and engineer of any prospective project should, in the design and detailing phases, examine the detailed provisions of the L.A. Building Code for existing and historic buildings as well as the SHBC, and possibly other widely accepted alternative standards such as the Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (2000).
Applicable codes likewise allow Mishkon to demonstrate that an existing condition or proposed alternative “performs” in such a way that it meets the requirements of public codes/standards, even if it differs technically from them.
California Historical Building Code
Mishkon Tefilo is a qualified historical property under the California Historical Building Code (“SHBC”; CA Building Code, Ch. 34, Div. II). Therefore application of this code is mandatory upon Mishkon’s request to the L.A. Dept. of Building and Safety, Fire Department, Planning Department, etc.
The HSBC allows some leeway, compared to the usually applicable codes/standards. For example, it holds that:
- Accessible entrances may be established at other than the “main entry.”
- One separate accessible unisex toilet may be provided in lieu of separate-gender accessible toilets.
- Upgrading to one-hour fire-rated construction and corridors is not required if an automatic fire sprinkler system is provided throughout.
- The building envelope (walls, windows, ceilings, roof, and floors) is exempted from compliance with energy conservation standards.
General requirements
Existing facilities
Mishkon is not required to make each of its existing facilities accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. Rather, in general, our programs and services should be available to them.
Removal of barriers is not required if it creates undue financial and administrative burdens. “Undue burden” means that it would be much more onerous than what is “readily achievable.”
Alterations
Any alterations to Mishkon Tephilo’s facilities must be readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities.
ADA Title III
Owners of “public accommodations” (theaters, restaurants, retail shops, private museums) must make “readily achievable” changes — whatever can be easily accomplished without much expense. (E.g., installing a ramp, adding grab bars in bathrooms, or modifying door hardware.) This requirement is triggered by restoration and rehabilitation work.State code, too
“Title 24” [California Building Code, Vol. I, Title 24, Part 2] likewise provides specific guidelines for physical accessibility that are relevant. (Where there are inconsistencies between it and the ADA, the more stringent guideline applies.)
Prioritizing
In choosing which accessible elements to provide, priority should be given to those elements that will provide the greatest access, by providing code compliance in the following order:
- An accessible entrance
- An accessible route to the altered area
- At least one accessible restroom for each sex
- Accessible drinking fountains
No comments:
Post a Comment