• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

ADA Excuses

The DOJ did accept the 2003 for the ADAAG but it is not in the scoping documents of the 2010. It is in the FAIR HOUSING Guidelines.

But anyone who complies with the ANSI 117.1 won't have an issue with the DOJ. The 2010 ADASAD is based on the ANSI documents with slight variations.

I will continue to say if you comply with the code in force in your area you will not have any lawsuits, it it the people that do not want to comply or don't think they need to comply with the accessibility codes at all are the ones that get sued

So I was incorrect that it was a safe harbor doc for the 2010 ADASAD
 
ADAguy said:
You are "waiting" why? Feds write laws of national importance and expect states to draft enabling laws of their own based on the minimums set by the Feds, no?

Is not a code an enforceable law?
It depends on if the federal laws are favored by the current administration or not--Immigration is an example where the Feds have repeatedly under various administrations have decided they do not want to enforce so they wont let the states enforce.

Energy code-- the states are not permitted to enforce higher equipment efficiency requirements than the federal requirements.

California had to get federal permission to enforce lower emmission requirements on cars and appliances.
 
Ah, those words "it depends", depends on: "If enforced (subject to local interpretation - "code enforcement officers?)", "if Politically correct (want to remain in office?)", if budget allows (agency (staffing) or property owner?, if implementing regulations are written and approved for inclusion in state law, etc.
 
conarb said:
Darren:You are in Kansas, has Kansas incorporated ADA requirements into it's building codes? For that matter what concern is it of Jeff's, he's in Pennsylvania and to my knowledge Pennsylvania hasn't incorporated ADA into it's codes. Enforcing ADA is none of your business anymore than enforcing federal immigration or drug laws. We have a constitutional situation now where the attorney general of the United States is refusing to enforce federal drug laws, this is derilection of his duties since the executive is required to enforce all federal laws, he can't pick and choose the laws he wants to enforce. As far as I know this is only a California issue.
FYI the PA Dept of L&I adopted the ADA and has been enforcing it right from the beginning. In April of 2004 PA adopted the I-Codes and local & State enforcement is Chapter 11 and Appendix J of the IBC along with the ANSI A117.1

This is nothing new whatsoever to PA. And, for the record, this was a bathroom in Florida.
 
Alias said:
"Quote Originally Posted by ADAguy

Ride around in a WC for a day and you just might better understand user issues."

Amen to that.

Sue, been there, done that.........
ditto to that
 
I mentioned that I was having lunch with a probate attorney yesterday, his problem is that he's the attorney for a trust that includes several buildings, in the process of administrating the trust he has had appraisals done on all real property, on one commercial property the appraiser has noted possible ADA violations that could negatively affect value, the appraisal is conditioned upon obtaining estimates of the cost of correction. I told him that he was stepping into a minefield, that his best option was to put the property on the market rather than distributing it to one or more beneficiaries fully disclosing the appraisal, and that I couldn't give him an estimate without plans for compliance. I told him about California's CASp program but warned him to be prepared to get ripped off, it could cost in the thousands, I told him that after getting the report to retain an architect to design the necessary work, but to be sure that the architect selected carried E&O insurance that would name all contractors and other parties as additionally insured, a contractor's general liability insurance does not include the work of design professionals, so we generals have to get named on the architect's policies as additionally insured. I've done that for years but recently have found that some architects' insurers are refusing to name contractors on their policies. After all that I could give him a cost estimate of compliance so he could sell or distribute the property. It is his opinion from what he's heard and read that all attorneys representing these rolling extortionists should be disbarred, that the real problem here is a state bar problem.
 
New ADA and Energy Use Disclosure Requirements for Commercial Property Owners

Beginning July 1, 2013, owners of commercial property in California will need to comply with new disclosure requirements when entering a new lease, amending a lease, or when owners sell or finance a commercial building. The first disclosure requirement relates to disability access and the other requirement relates to a building’s energy use and consumption.

Certified Access Specialist Disclosure

Under California SB 1186, commercial property owners must include a disclosure in all commercial leases or lease amendments stating whether the property has been inspected by a certified access specialist and, if so, whether the property is in compliance with construction-related accessibility standards. A certified access specialist (also known as a “CASp”) is a professional certified by the State of California to assess commercial properties and their compliance with federal and state disability-related laws and regulations. After an inspection, the specialist issues a report which identifies areas of non-compliance with accessibility standards. The report can be used by property owners to create a practical and financially reasonable plan for fixing problems in advance of litigation.

While the CASp disclosure in leases and lease amendments is mandatory, property owners are not required obtain such inspections. The new law provides incentives, however, to having the building inspected. Property owners who timely correct ADA violations identified in a CASp report or have had their property inspected by an approved inspector prior to being served with a complaint by an ADA plaintiff can be eligible for reduced statutory damages or a 90 day stay of proceedings in the event of a lawsuit. The stay is granted to give the owner the opportunity to correct accessibility issues and dismiss the lawsuit.

Energy Use Reporting

Another California law, known as AB 1103, provides that prior to the leasing, sale or financing of an entire commercial building of more than 50,000 square feet (the requirement hits smaller buildings in 2014 – all the way down to 5,000 square feet on July 1, 2014!), the landlord, seller or borrower is required to disclose energy use data for the building for the prior 12 months, together with information regarding the building’s operating characteristics and ENERGY STAR Energy Performance Score. To comply, building owners are required to open an account for the building at the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager Website, operated by the US EPA, no later than 30 days prior to the date the disclosure is required. Under the law, once an account is opened, utility companies are required to provide energy data within 30 days of the date of the request. Then, the owner must log back in to the account, complete a compliance report, and download certain Energy Use Materials for disclosure to the prospective tenant, purchaser or lender. The disclosure requirement applies to virtually all commercial building use types.

The ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager is a free online software tool that allows property owners to track and evaluate energy consumption in light of the occupancy of the building in specified land use categories. A building is given a score on a scale of 1 to 100. A rating of 50 means that the building performs at the midpoint when compared with similar buildings. The Portfolio Manager uses national weather data to compare buildings in similar climates, so that buildings in locations that have snow in the winter and high humidity in the summer are not are scored against buildings in temperate climates. A building that scores 75 or above qualifies for an ENERGY STAR certification. Because the consequences of having a poor score can have consequences in attracting tenants that have green building requirements, it is important for property owners to retain knowledgeable staff or consultants to handle the inputs into the ENERGY STAR database. Even small mistakes can affect an overall score considerably in the wrong direction.

The new law will allow tenants, buyers and lenders to compare a building’s performance with other similar buildings. In addition, the disclosure requirement provides more information than a disclosure of monthly utility bills, as is typical when tenants evaluate utility pass through expenses, buyers estimate future operating costs in their pro formas, or when lenders evaluate which assets have a better ability to maintain profitability and support loan repayment. On the other hand, the cost and expense of complying with the law’s new disclosure requirement is an added cost of doing business as a commercial property owner in California
 
CASp is not a rip off conarb, just like anything else it is buyer beware.

Lawmakers finally heard me and added the suto commercial disclaimer requirement into the bill. It is only a notice to inform but does not require you to have a survey or report performed.

It has caught the attention of BOMA who missed it during the hearings (smiling). Fact is if no realtor is involved then we will still have owner to tenant leases written without disclosure and the requirement does not extend to sales of commercial property, here again it remains buyer beware.
 
ADAguy said:
CASp is not a rip off conarb, just like anything else it is buyer beware.Lawmakers finally heard me and added the suto commercial disclaimer requirement into the bill. It is only a notice to inform but does not require you to have a survey or report performed.

It has caught the attention of BOMA who missed it during the hearings (smiling). Fact is if no realtor is involved then we will still have owner to tenant leases written without disclosure and the requirement does not extend to sales of commercial property, here again it remains buyer beware.
Casp may not ALWAYS be ripoff.

Brent
 
ADAguy said:
A sloped mirror only allows me to see the top of my head, not my face. Want to apply makeup to the top of "your" head?Ride around in a WC for a day and you just might better understand user issues.
And the tall person will do what? Apply makup where it don't belong.
 
JPohling said:
Mark, Those prices on that link are a bargain
Just like any service shop around

Dick keeps harping on 2000 to 2500 minimum and what I am seeing is pricing all over the map
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If legitimate attorneys think that members of the bar should be disciplined by the state bar for exploiting the disabled for profit, shouldn't architects and CASps be disciplined for exploiting them as well? I remember once I pulled a permit to do ADA work in a major Catholic church and was suprised at the building department's fees vs. a residential permit, I explained that the work was exempt from ADA and voluntary on the part of the church. I was told that churches are commercial buildings and pay higher fees than residential like any other business, so shouldn't building departments charge lower fees for ADA work rather than exploiting the disabled for their profit?
 
conarb said:
.... so shouldn't building departments charge lower fees for ADA work rather than exploiting the disabled for their profit?
Talk to your State Senator and Assembly person. I think they will refer you to the "tax breaks" that have been previously ridiculed
 
conarb said:
Mark:Since you are now a CBO does your department charge higher permit fees for ADA work like Contra Costa County does?
No all occupancies are charged based on the value of the work equally. I have visited several chuches and assisied with accessibility issues, for free
 
mark handler said:
No all occupancies are charged based on the value of the work equally. I have visited several chuches and assisied with accessibility issues, for free
That's nice of you, it would be interesting to poll the building inspectors here to see how many charge higher fees for commercial than residential, and hence charge more for ADA compliance.
 
I don't know about the rest of you but I have found churches to be notorious scofflaws when it comes to obtaining permits. If they paid triple for every permit, they would still only be paying half of what they should. To top it off, they get an attitude when you refuse to waive fees.

Taxpayers do not pay for a building dept., users do. So if you use the services of the building dept., you must pay for it
 
Taxpayers do not pay for a building dept., users do. So if you use the services of the building dept., you must pay for it
Agree and our fees are based on the value of construction. We do not make a distinction between residential or commercial nor do we care if it is for ADA, profit or non-profit entities everybody pays

Zoning will consider ADA ramps as part of a sidewalk and allow them to encroach into set backs on existing buildings.
 
conarb said:
That's nice of you, it would be interesting to poll the building inspectors here to see how many charge higher fees for commercial than residential, and hence charge more for ADA compliance.
City of Alturas' permit fees are based on valuation, not whether the project is commercial or residential. Churches are charged the same as everyone else for permits.

Sue
 
Alias said:
City of Alturas' permit fees are based on valuation, not whether the project is commercial or residential. Churches are charged the same as everyone else for permits. Sue
As you should, the state of California mandates fees be based on the cost of the department to administer the services for that project, usually a fee formula based on the valuation of the work.

Cities can no longer use the permit process to generate revenue for the city.
 
Top