• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

3409.6 letter....2003 IBC

steveray

SAWHORSE
Joined
Nov 25, 2009
Messages
14,063
Location
West of the river CT
See if this works...first time attaching a PDF....Professionals like this make me sad in my heart..... :( View attachment 1732I asked of proof of compliance with 3409.6 which is now:3411.7 Alterations affecting an area containing a primary function. Where an alteration affects the accessibility to, or contains an area of primary function, the route to the primary function area shall be accessible. The accessible route to the primary function area shall include toilet facilities or drinking fountains serving the area of primary function. Exceptions: 1. The costs of providing the accessible route are not required to exceed 20 percent of the costs of the alterations affecting the area of primary function.

View attachment 1841

34096letter.pdf

34096letter.pdf
 
I have tried talking to the people at DCP on many occasions....for designers and contractors....the outcome has always been less than good.....as in nothing.....
 
Is this better?

To whom it may concern,

Per request, I have inspected the installation and operation of the new platform lift in the new card room as it relates to Americans with Disabilities Act (2010 ADASAD) and the accessibility portion of the California Building Code Compliance

Below is a summary of our findings

Per 2010 CBC section 1116B.2 and 2010 ADASAD section 206.7, a wheelchair Platform lifts may be provided as part of an accessible route to provide access where existing site constraints or other constraints make use of a ramp or an elevator infeasible. There appears to be insufficient space to make a compliant pedestrian ramp.

The existing platform, formally a stage, is being used as a raised gaming area is approximately twenty percent of the new gaming room.

• The lift was tested and appears to be in compliance with 2010 CBC section 1116B.2.2 and 2010 ADASAD section 410.1 for Unassisted entry and operation.

• There is sufficient space around the lift to provide the required maneuverability spaces as required by 2010 CBC section 1116B.2.3 and 2010 ADASAD section 410.1 and 410.2 Landing size.

• The lift is adjacent to the common path of travel 2010 CBC section 1116B.2.4 Relationship to the path of travel.

• We were unable to test the 2010 CBC section 1116B.2.5.1 and 2010 ADASAD section 207.2 requirements for Standby power.

• The lift was tested and appears to be in compliance with 2010 CBC section 1116B.2.6 and 2010 ADASAD section 410.5 Doors and gates.

• At the time of inspection the Restriction sign was on order

2010 CBC section 1116B.2.7 Restriction sign. A sign complying with Section 2010 CBC section 1117B.5.1, shall be securely fastened in a conspicuous place at each landing and on the platform. The sign shall state "No Freight" in letters not less than 5/8 inch high and include the International Symbol of Accessibility.

After the signs are installed and the backup power function is tested the lift will be fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (2010 ADASAD) and the accessibility portion of the California Building Code
 
He probably spent a whole 15 minutes (if that) preparing the letter. Yet, architects will spend hours trying to select that perfect floor tile or draw that unique (but irrelevant) detail.
 
RLGA said:
He probably spent a whole 15 minutes (if that) preparing the letter. Yet, architects will spend hours trying to select that perfect floor tile or draw that unique (but irrelevant) detail.
Some Architects, not all.
 
RLGA said:
He probably spent a whole 15 minutes (if that) preparing the letter. Yet, architects will spend hours trying to select that perfect floor tile or draw that unique (but irrelevant) detail.
The letter was longer, but that is the "lift" portion.
 
Sorry, Mark, I was referring to the letter steveray posted. I agree with steveray: your letter would be exceptional.

I was trying to point out how some (you're correct--not all) architects spend considerable time on relatively insignificant issues, but gloss over important issues, such as accessibility (the handicap code?) and the building code.
 
...the handicap code
disabled or handicapped or ??? Which terms should be used?

Accessibility Tools: Disabled or handicapped or ??? Which terms should be used?

Though individuals who have disabilities use a variety of terms to refer to themselves, as an agency we must ensure that we use terminology that complies with legal direction and is considered acceptable by the majority of people. With these points in mind, the following guidance is offered.

The two terms most commonly used to describe a person who has a limitation are "handicapped" and "disabled."

A disability is the result of a medically definable condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities.

A handicap is a barrier or circumstance that makes progress or success difficult, such as an impassable flight of stairs or a negative attitude toward a person who has a disability.

A practical example: Janet Zeller, who has quadriplegia (some level of paralysis in all four limbs), has been told that she doesn't look "handicapped" when she is out paddling her sea kayak. Think about the situation. When Janet is paddling her sea kayak she is part of a sleek craft gliding through the water. There are no barriers to stop her or to "handicap" her. But she still has a disability.

The correct term is "disability"—a person with a disability. Person-first terminology is used because the person is more important than his or her disability.

Examples of person-first terminology:

" the person who is blind"—not the blind person

" the person who uses a wheelchair"—not the wheelchair person.

It is also important to understand that there are negative connotations to the term "handicapped" when referring to a person who has a disability. The word has been around for centuries, but was not used to refer to people with disabilities until the late 1800s. Many people believe that the term "handicapped" was first used in relation to individuals who have disabilities when Civil War veterans whose injuries prevented them from working were begging on the streets with "cap in hand." Standard references do not support this story. But because the story has become legend and begging for a living is degrading, describing people with disabilities as "handicapped" is offensive.

In 1992, when Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act was renewed and amended, one of the amendments was to correct terminology. Recognizing the negative impact of certain terms, the word "handicapped" was replaced with the phrase "persons with disabilities."

Also in 1992, Federal agencies were directed to correct terminology in their regulations, policies, and other documents. So when you participate in updating policies, the Forest Service Handbook or Manual, guidelines for the agency, direction to the field, or have input into other documents, please use the opportunity to correct the term "handicapped" and other references to persons with disabilities that do not place the person first.

Accessible means in compliance with the Federal accessibility guidelines and standards. Accessible sites and facilities do not contain barriers limiting their use by people with disabilities.

A site, facility, or program is accessible, or it is not accessible. The only way to evaluate accessibility is by using the legal standards and guidelines.

There are no shades of accessibility.

For instance, a parking space either meets the requirements and is accessible or it does not meet the requirements and is not accessible. The specific surfacing, slope, size, and walkway connection requirements must be met, regardless of the conditions around the parking space. "Almost" doesn't count.

If you have questions or concerns about this direction, or the use of other terms, please contact Janet Zeller, USDA Forest Service, Accessibility Program Manager, Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Resources staff in the Washington, DC, office. Her phone number is (202) 205-9597. Her e-mail is jzeller@fs.fed.us
 
I am just tired of less than acceptable seeming to be the standard these days, everything is a fight and an education...(and the weather sucks here)....although I did call the DP from one project in town (CVS remodel) and thank them for having good plans! Done venting...
 
steveray said:
I am just tired of less than acceptable seeming to be the standard these days, everything is a fight and an education...(and the weather sucks here)....although I did call the DP from one project in town (CVS remodel) and thank them for having good plans! Done venting...
A lot of poor plans has to do with owners seeing no value in complete and comprehensive plans, they won't pay the fees.

and you have GC's that try to value engineer the sh*t out of everything.
 
RLGA said:
I was trying to point out how some (you're correct--not all) architects spend considerable time on relatively insignificant issues, but gloss over important issues, such as accessibility (the handicap code?) and the building code.
The same can be true for some code officials. I had a project yesterday where the inspector was more concerned about membrane penetrations in a fire partition in a hotel then the through penetrations in a rated floor/ceiling assembly. The inspector didn't care if the through penetrations were protected with a firestop assembly, but went out of their way to make sure that the membrane penetrations, which already met IBC 713.3.2 , exception 2.2, had some sort of firemud on the partition walls.
 
Back
Top