• 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.

Dueling Casps, what to do?

pwood

pwood

REGISTERED
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
1,067
Location
state of jefferson
doing a plan check for a box store and I made a call that the archi did not like regarding ada stuff. I said get a casp to approve it with name number etc,,, The archi succeeded to get a favorable response after several tries. The situation is a grey area at best and I would not want to be this casp trying to defend my position in a court of law. Would you approve based on the casps written opinion and move on or do you cry bull$hit and deny? I'm sure others have been here?
 
if you know it to be incorrect I would write a correction for it. Out of curiosity what are we talking about?
 
When you told the architect to get a CASp approval, the implication is that you would follow suit. I may be mistaken but I don't think that CASp certified individuals have authority to approve anything in the same sense as an AHJ.
 
pwood said:
doing a plan check for a box store and I made a call that the archi did not like regarding ada stuff. I said get a casp to approve it with name number etc,,, The archi succeeded to get a favorable response after several tries. The situation is a grey area at best and I would not want to be this casp trying to defend my position in a court of law. Would you approve based on the casps written opinion and move on or do you cry bull$hit and deny? I'm sure others have been here?
Click to expand...
What does your "required "CASp on staff or your consultant have to say?
 
You said the situation is gray. Is the applicants interpretation one of the possible interpretations?

There is a legal doctrine "void for vagueness" that says that if the regulations are vague the applicant gets to select the interpretation that he prefers. Thus if the applicant's interpretation is a reasonable interpretation you are obligated to accept it.
 
CAlifornia CC55.53 Requires a local building department to employ or retain CASp inspectors to perform plan checking and inspections of construction for access compliance. The requirement began in 2010 requiring each agency to employ at least one CASp inspector. As of January 1, 2014, the requirement is for a building department to employ a "sufficient number of building inspectors" who hold the CASp certification. If you have not read CC55.53 recently, here is the part that becomes operative with the new year:Commencing January 1, 2014, a local agency shall employ or retain a sufficient number of building inspectors who are certified access specialists to conduct permitting and plan check services to review for compliance with state construction-related accessibility standards by a place of public accommodation with respect to new construction, including, but not limited to, projects relating to tenant improvements that may impact access. If a local agency employs or retains two or more certified access specialists to comply with this subdivision, at least one-half of the certified access specialists shall be building inspectors who are certified access specialists.

What does YOUR CAS say?
 
Mark K said:
You said the situation is gray. Is the applicants interpretation one of the possible interpretations?There is a legal doctrine "void for vagueness" that says that if the regulations are vague the applicant gets to select the interpretation that he prefers. Thus if the applicant's interpretation is a reasonable interpretation you are obligated to accept it.
Click to expand...
Not even close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_for_vagueness
 
There is more than Wikipedia.

Rather than totally overturning a vague courts will preserve as much as possible by allowing the individual the choice of interpretation. This is very similar to contract law where when there are alternate interpretations the person who did not write the contract will get his choice of interpretation.
 
The fun is only just beginning. The potential for dueling CASp's was disccusssed from the very beginning.

A CASp's opinion is just that, "an opinion". It carries with it no force of law.

It is based on comparisons of observations vs application of prescriptive and performance requirements which as noted above, can be (are often) vague.

The State Architect has been directed to determine whether or not a CASps findings can be/should be challenged.

He being an appointee and not a CASp.
 
mark handler said:
What does your "required "CASp on staff or your consultant have to say?
Click to expand...
truncated dome location is the issue. Instead of locating them in a 300' long line where the vehicular way meets a sidewalk and is flush, the proposal is to surround the entry/ exit doors with a U shaped configuration. Me,My guy and several other CASP say no but there is one who will put it in writing who says yes. That my friends is the situation.
 
"Smiling" you don't have that virus in FL.

In Texas it is referred to as a TAS or registered access specialist.

In CA CASp is Certified Access Specialist by the State Architect's examination and the payment of some hefty fees.
 
You have to take both casps and meld them together into a single opinion just to be safe. Then get a third casp to approve the first two.

There should not be a problem as ADA is so simple and cut and dried.

I say cover the whole parking lot and inside the store with those rediculous things to be safe.

Brent.
 
I do not believe that once they exit the door they are in a vehicular way. The truncated domes should be along the zero curb line between the sidewalk and the vehicular way. planters, railings, curbs will also work to reduce the amount of detectable warnings. To bad they didn't do this before the code change and do a nice contrasting color of dots, now they will need to use the required yellow.
 
Understand that yellow is the last color one looses the ability to see as one goes color blind and that it shows better under snow then blue.
 
ADAguy said:
Understand that yellow is the last color one looses the ability to see as one goes color blind and that it shows better under snow then blue.
Click to expand...
Don't eat yellow snow.

Blue snow isn't too bad.

;)
 
Understand that no building owner wants 300' of bright yellow dots at the entry to their building. California has very specific locations for these detectable warnings. In this case I believe that it is 11B-247.1.2.5 Hazardous vehicular areas. It is very clear where they are needed. At the boundary between vehicular and pedestrian areas where these surfaces are not separated by curbs, railings or other elements.
 
Rick, CA no longer requires dots on private property but it remains an owners risk management issue.

How is a cane user to get from a bus stop, across a big box parking lot to the entrance of a building while crossing many traffic aisles?
 
ADAGuy, Are you saying there is an exception for complying with 11B-247.1.2.5 on private property? I am not aware of that exception and neither are any of the jurisdictions that we work with.
 
mark handler said:
Really? Can you cite the section? In the CBC 2013?
Click to expand...
mark,

Plan checked under the 2010 cbc but if they aren't required in the new cbc per ADA guy then I won't require them. Oh yeay just where would I find that in the new code?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top