Builders want accessibility rule eased
Washington residents with disabilities might soon have a harder time finding accessible housing, if a state panel reduces the required number of accessible units that builders must include in apartments and condominiums.
On one side of the issue are some contractors and architects, who favor reducing the number of “Type A” accessible units from the state standard of 5 percent to the national standard of 2 percent. The code applies to multifamily buildings with 10 units or more of housing.
“Our concern is that over the years we have probably overbuilt these units, which are very expensive to construct,” said Brian Minnich, legislative affairs director of the Building Industry Association of Washington.
On the other side are disabled rights advocates, who argue that there are not enough accommodations for people with disabilities.
“People who need accessible housing are encountering significant difficulty in finding it when they need it,” said Toby Olson, executive secretary of the governor’s Committee on Disability Issues. “The aging of our population is only going to make the demand worse.”
Caught in the middle is the Building Code Council for the state, which has led the nation in disability rights issues. The council will decide on the proposal at its Nov. 17 meeting in Renton, Wash. Public testimony on the issue ended Oct. 13, said Timothy Nogler, the council’s managing director.
This year, the council is reviewing the state codes as it does every three years, Nogler said.
“As part of that review some constituents came forward with concerns” about the 5 percent requirement, Nogler said, citing contactors and architects in particular.
However, Nogler said, most of the testimony the council has received was that there are not enough units as demand increases.
“Five percent of the public has mobility issues now, and that is expected to increase to 7 percent by 2010 as the population ages,” Nogler said.
Among other requirements, Type A units include wider doors, greater toe clearances under sinks in kitchens and bathrooms, grab bars around toilets and showers and more space to maneuver a wheelchair.
The cost of building a Type A unit is 0.5 percent to 2 percent higher than that of a normal unit, Olson said.
“It is not an issue of not wanting to provide enough units for those who need that kind of accommodation,” Minnich said. “It’s matching them up with those who need them.”
He said a 1995 survey showed few of such units were actually occupied by someone who required that level of accessibility.
“Our feeling is we have produced enough of them,” said Minnich, who called for better communication between those who help people with disabilities find accessible units and property managers that have them available.
Reducing the requirement to 2 percent would be consistent with the International Building Code, the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disability Act. However, under the Rehabilitation Act, housing projects that receive federal funds are required to provide wheelchair access in 5 percent of units.
The Washington Independent Living Center Coalition, which includes Spokane’s Coalition of Responsible Disabled, has called for keeping the code at 5 percent.
If the Building Code Council approves the reduction, some Washington residents with disabilities will suffer their second defeat of the year.
In July, the state Supreme Court, ruling in McClarty v. Totem Electric, narrowed the definition of disabled, significantly limiting the ability of Washingtonians with disabilities to file claims under the Washington Law Against Discrimination.
Though the council’s pending decision on the building codes is independent of the Supreme Court ruling, disability rights advocates opposed both.
“The state has always been in the forefront,” said Marc Brenman, executive director of the state Human Rights Commission. “This is a step backward.”
Any revisions in the state building codes would take effect on July 1, after the Legislature has a chance to review them, Nogler said.