-
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.
Some light reading.
- Thread starter MASSDRIVER
- Start date
jar546
CBO
That's a lot of non-compliance in California. Who is not doing their job with inspections out there?
On a good note, I found a way to reduce or eliminate ADA lawsuits. Comply with the law. Really simple, comply.
Unfortunately it takes lawsuits like this to get people to wake up and pay the piper for years of non-compliance.
I am not saying this is all legit and a good thing but rampant non-compliance got them there. I'm not being sued for many things because I am compliant with what I have to be.
Instead of focusing on lawsuits, how about focusing on compliance as an inspector. Maybe a career in political activism would be more fitting.
On a good note, I found a way to reduce or eliminate ADA lawsuits. Comply with the law. Really simple, comply.
Unfortunately it takes lawsuits like this to get people to wake up and pay the piper for years of non-compliance.
I am not saying this is all legit and a good thing but rampant non-compliance got them there. I'm not being sued for many things because I am compliant with what I have to be.
Instead of focusing on lawsuits, how about focusing on compliance as an inspector. Maybe a career in political activism would be more fitting.
Msradell
SAWHORSE
You raised some great points! It's not really abuse if a business is being sued because they are not in compliance, which many are not! IMHO a CofO should not be issued for any new or remodeled building if it doesn't meet ADA standards. Especially in California where there is a state law allowing local code officials to enforce the ADA this should be a simple matter. Maybe if a few of the local code departments were sued for not correctly enforcing the standards things would turn around quickly.jar546 said:
conarb
REGISTERED
The problem is that state law conflicts with federal ADA law, an AHJ enforcing state law could be forcing citizens to violate federal law. We recently had something similar going on here, parties leased commercial space and set up state legal medical marijuana dispensaries, the feds ordered the landlords to evict the tenants because they were violating federal law, problem is that evictions are done in state and not federal court and the landlords had no valid basis to evict the tenants, I haven't heard how it all worked out.Msradell said:
Fort
Silver Member
In CA the inspector need only enforce CBC Ch.11A and 11B. It is pretty well in-sync with ADA these days, only a few lingering differences.
When you say it could be forcing someone to violate federal law, it is just not true... But I see how you figured it would be a way to go off on the pot tangent. Tangents are common when pot is involved.
When you say it could be forcing someone to violate federal law, it is just not true... But I see how you figured it would be a way to go off on the pot tangent. Tangents are common when pot is involved.
MASSDRIVER
REGISTERED
An Inspector? And get put on the Homeland Security Terrorist and no-fly list and be constantly buzzed by little Obama Drones that look like bumblebees? No thank you Mr. Fivefoursix, whoever you are.jar546 said:
As for political activism, would you rather do that, or sit here with an ice-cold Coors and a plate of salami and cheese and poke at the bears with sticks?
Wait, before you answer that I need to put a little more tinfoil on my hat...
Brent.
MASSDRIVER
REGISTERED
What are those?Fort said:
Brent.
Fort
Silver Member
Since CA will begin enforcing the 2013 CBC on Jan 1st, that is probably the best place to look.
Things are going to be even more in-sync than they are now,
but where differences remain it will be that CA is more restrictive on certain issues.
See here: http://www.sia-jpa.org/documents/Significant_Changes_to_the_2013_California_Building_Code_Chapter_11B_Accessibility_Standards.pdf
Things are going to be even more in-sync than they are now,
but where differences remain it will be that CA is more restrictive on certain issues.
See here: http://www.sia-jpa.org/documents/Significant_Changes_to_the_2013_California_Building_Code_Chapter_11B_Accessibility_Standards.pdf
Fort
Silver Member
Posted the wrong link...meant to do this one for the DSA Access 2013
MASSDRIVER
REGISTERED
They actually made a code for the Smart Level. They didn't say "go get an accurate level and learn to use it", they said " we love our smart level as much as our kids, but it's only accurate to 1%, so we will increase the slope allowance to make our smart level happy".Fort said:
I like that one a lot.
Most of that stuff makes sense.
Brent.
jar546
CBO
We need this discussion to be more about the reason there has been such non-compliance and the reason there are so many lawsuits and less about politics which I don't allow on this forum. Start a topic? Then keep on topic.
I think that many us hate frivolous lawsuits and unnecessary litigation. I don't want to see unnecessary waste either, whether governmental or private. The key is balance, keeping everything in balance with common sense. Where is the ball being dropped? Is there a lack of information for the businesses? Is there a lack of enforcement?
In our towns, if we see someone reseal a parking lot and repaint the lines, we stop them and tell them they need a permit because that falls under Chapter 11 of the IBC and ANSI A117.1. I personally verified this with our illustrious state and they agree and do the same thing for state owned properties. I would be hard pressed to find many other BCOs in PA doing what I do and I mean that. Most of the time, the parking lots have no accessible spots and those that do are not properly sized, nor do they have the signage. We make them correct those issues and usually, actually, most of the time get resistance. The line painting companies always say they are putting it back the way it was. After I had one particular company go back and reline part of the parking lot 2 different times on 3 different occasions, they finally got it and have been an asset with explaining compliance to their customers now.
That is one small example of where we fall short and where the public may just be unaware.
When a business pulls a permit for some interior renovations, we always apply accessibility based on the IBC/IEBC/ANSI A117.1 requirements to whatever extent necessary. Many times we have to tell architects and owners that what they planned and what they actually have to do may be 2 different things. We know that in many instances it is impossible for compliance and for that, each and every time an RDP attempts to use the phrase "technically infeasible" we have to tell that only the state of PA can make that determination and they have to go in front of the state accessibility advisory board. We then, as inspectors must make sure that we enforce all aspects of accessibility, including whatever the decision was by the advisory board.
Whenever I do plan review, I can count on accessibility defects on the prints 99.9% of the time. That is pathetic so another area is education of the RDP's. Why don't they know this stuff and why are they not telling their clients?
I believe that this is a multi-faceted problem:
1) ADA is a reactively enforced law, not proactively enforced.
2) For those states and areas that have accessibility laws, there is no enforcement and leaving compliance in the hands of the RDP's, contractors and owners simply does not work since they know no one is looking. (they accept risk)
3) RDP's do not have adequate training in accessibilities at many levels and are to blame for not driving the ship vs using the excuse "I was doing what I was told by my client". Really Mr. Spineless?
4) Local/State enforcement needs to be stepped up. We may bitch about getting audited every 3 years in PA by L&I for accessibility but it has given accessibility a new life in PA. Now we have commercial inspectors who don't know their *** from a hole in the ground about construction but they know every accessibility dimension requirement. Why? Because they know they are going to be audited on it.
5) Businesses are naturally resistant to change and rules and don't take the requirements seriously. I just completed a post flood renovation for a restaurant and we brought the Men's room up to compliance. After I issued a C of O the owner reversed the door and added a partition around the water closet, taking away turning space, and compartment compliance along with pull side door compliance because he also added a closer to the door. I am no longer the BCO there so I wrote a letter to the new BCO. What did he do about it? Nothing. Why? No reason to because I did the accessibility and he did not. His audit won't be affected by that job except now there is a letter letting him know what happened and he failed to act on it.
Unfortunately it takes extreme measures sometimes to get the attention of the people. I may not agree with all of the tactics but they would not be so prevalent if there was compliance to begin with.
But it figures its in CA. To me it is like a whole new world there with the mentality of many people. No one wants to be responsible for their actions and it always seems like there is an excuse for everything. Excuses are like a$#holes. Everyone has one and they all stink.
I think that many us hate frivolous lawsuits and unnecessary litigation. I don't want to see unnecessary waste either, whether governmental or private. The key is balance, keeping everything in balance with common sense. Where is the ball being dropped? Is there a lack of information for the businesses? Is there a lack of enforcement?
In our towns, if we see someone reseal a parking lot and repaint the lines, we stop them and tell them they need a permit because that falls under Chapter 11 of the IBC and ANSI A117.1. I personally verified this with our illustrious state and they agree and do the same thing for state owned properties. I would be hard pressed to find many other BCOs in PA doing what I do and I mean that. Most of the time, the parking lots have no accessible spots and those that do are not properly sized, nor do they have the signage. We make them correct those issues and usually, actually, most of the time get resistance. The line painting companies always say they are putting it back the way it was. After I had one particular company go back and reline part of the parking lot 2 different times on 3 different occasions, they finally got it and have been an asset with explaining compliance to their customers now.
That is one small example of where we fall short and where the public may just be unaware.
When a business pulls a permit for some interior renovations, we always apply accessibility based on the IBC/IEBC/ANSI A117.1 requirements to whatever extent necessary. Many times we have to tell architects and owners that what they planned and what they actually have to do may be 2 different things. We know that in many instances it is impossible for compliance and for that, each and every time an RDP attempts to use the phrase "technically infeasible" we have to tell that only the state of PA can make that determination and they have to go in front of the state accessibility advisory board. We then, as inspectors must make sure that we enforce all aspects of accessibility, including whatever the decision was by the advisory board.
Whenever I do plan review, I can count on accessibility defects on the prints 99.9% of the time. That is pathetic so another area is education of the RDP's. Why don't they know this stuff and why are they not telling their clients?
I believe that this is a multi-faceted problem:
1) ADA is a reactively enforced law, not proactively enforced.
2) For those states and areas that have accessibility laws, there is no enforcement and leaving compliance in the hands of the RDP's, contractors and owners simply does not work since they know no one is looking. (they accept risk)
3) RDP's do not have adequate training in accessibilities at many levels and are to blame for not driving the ship vs using the excuse "I was doing what I was told by my client". Really Mr. Spineless?
4) Local/State enforcement needs to be stepped up. We may bitch about getting audited every 3 years in PA by L&I for accessibility but it has given accessibility a new life in PA. Now we have commercial inspectors who don't know their *** from a hole in the ground about construction but they know every accessibility dimension requirement. Why? Because they know they are going to be audited on it.
5) Businesses are naturally resistant to change and rules and don't take the requirements seriously. I just completed a post flood renovation for a restaurant and we brought the Men's room up to compliance. After I issued a C of O the owner reversed the door and added a partition around the water closet, taking away turning space, and compartment compliance along with pull side door compliance because he also added a closer to the door. I am no longer the BCO there so I wrote a letter to the new BCO. What did he do about it? Nothing. Why? No reason to because I did the accessibility and he did not. His audit won't be affected by that job except now there is a letter letting him know what happened and he failed to act on it.
Unfortunately it takes extreme measures sometimes to get the attention of the people. I may not agree with all of the tactics but they would not be so prevalent if there was compliance to begin with.
But it figures its in CA. To me it is like a whole new world there with the mentality of many people. No one wants to be responsible for their actions and it always seems like there is an excuse for everything. Excuses are like a$#holes. Everyone has one and they all stink.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
Fire department, police department or building department we all have jobs to do and limited resources to do them. There is no way I can spend the time or manpower on non-life safety building code violations after we have finalized a project. Is that an excuse or a priority based on some one possibly being hurt or loosing their life versus an individuals "civil rights" where violated. I vote priority. I am all for doing what we can to achieve compliance during construction but after that my main concern is addressing life safety issues that we find.
Fair housing is a strong watch dog in this state and have sued local building departments and won. The settlement included training of the AHJ staff and requiring the building department to provide information about the Fair Housing requirements for construction. However Fair Housing will not look at your plans or even advise a builder about a specific project during its design or construction phase but they will be out on site sometime after it is complete with their tape measures and smart levels and don't be off by a 1/8 of an inch or you will fix it.
Ca and other states have outside firms do energy compliance reviews maybe that would be a better solution than local AHJ's reviewing plans for accessibility compliance.
Does anybody know of a third party plan review firm that specializes in reviewing plans for ADA, IBC, ANSI compliance
Fair housing is a strong watch dog in this state and have sued local building departments and won. The settlement included training of the AHJ staff and requiring the building department to provide information about the Fair Housing requirements for construction. However Fair Housing will not look at your plans or even advise a builder about a specific project during its design or construction phase but they will be out on site sometime after it is complete with their tape measures and smart levels and don't be off by a 1/8 of an inch or you will fix it.
Ca and other states have outside firms do energy compliance reviews maybe that would be a better solution than local AHJ's reviewing plans for accessibility compliance.
Does anybody know of a third party plan review firm that specializes in reviewing plans for ADA, IBC, ANSI compliance
Mac
Gold Member
The requirement for upgrading accessibility in parking lots is also in the Property Maintenance Code:
302.3.1 Off Street Parking Lots. Whenever a person, firm or corporation performs the following work in an off street parking lot, within a six month period of time, the design of designated handicap parking shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of New York State Section 1106 and the design features found in this section.
1. Repave or repaint more than one half of the total number of parking spaces in an off street parking lot, which contains designated handicapped parking spaces.
2. Creates designated handicapped parking spaces in an off street parking lot.
3. Repave or repaint more than one half of the total number of designated handicapped parking spaces in an off street parking lot.
Unless the lot undergoes an expansion or alteration, the number and placement of accessible spaces remains the same.
302.3.1 Off Street Parking Lots. Whenever a person, firm or corporation performs the following work in an off street parking lot, within a six month period of time, the design of designated handicap parking shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of New York State Section 1106 and the design features found in this section.
1. Repave or repaint more than one half of the total number of parking spaces in an off street parking lot, which contains designated handicapped parking spaces.
2. Creates designated handicapped parking spaces in an off street parking lot.
3. Repave or repaint more than one half of the total number of designated handicapped parking spaces in an off street parking lot.
Unless the lot undergoes an expansion or alteration, the number and placement of accessible spaces remains the same.
conarb
REGISTERED
Back in the mid 70s I built a dental building, it is a beautiful building all clad in redwood with large glass walls looking out into a grove of redwood trees. The dentist built the building near Rossmoor, a retirement community, looking for older people as patients, he anticipated people in wheelchairs as patients (and is also a classic car collector) so all parking spaces are oversized, entering the building he has a long 8' wide ramp, all doors are wide and thresholds are level, there is one unisex bathroom that is oversized.
A few years ago he called me telling me that he was looking at retirement in a few years and was going to be taking an associate to train him and sell the business to him while keeping the building and renting it to him, he wanted to add an operatory. After measuring the bathroom I told him about ADA and that the room was a few inches shy, that to comply I usually combined both bathrooms into one compliant unisex bathroom, but in his case with only a unisex bathroom we would have to take space from an operatory. I also told him that I would have to hire an architecet because of ADA, there was no way I would take the liability of ADA compliance and in fact insisted that architects' give me a certificate of insurance naming both myself and him as additionally insured in case of ADA litigation.
He immediately got mad stating that he didn't want to even work in a society that took peoples' freedoms to do what they want away from them, freedoms that Americans had fought and died for. He retired immediately and sold the practice to a young guy, the building remains the same, and there are old people in wheelchairs there almost every time I go there, probably because it is not only near a retirement community but is also so readily assessable to them.
We are giving up our freedoms to special interest groups and those who profit by exploiting them.
A few years ago he called me telling me that he was looking at retirement in a few years and was going to be taking an associate to train him and sell the business to him while keeping the building and renting it to him, he wanted to add an operatory. After measuring the bathroom I told him about ADA and that the room was a few inches shy, that to comply I usually combined both bathrooms into one compliant unisex bathroom, but in his case with only a unisex bathroom we would have to take space from an operatory. I also told him that I would have to hire an architecet because of ADA, there was no way I would take the liability of ADA compliance and in fact insisted that architects' give me a certificate of insurance naming both myself and him as additionally insured in case of ADA litigation.
He immediately got mad stating that he didn't want to even work in a society that took peoples' freedoms to do what they want away from them, freedoms that Americans had fought and died for. He retired immediately and sold the practice to a young guy, the building remains the same, and there are old people in wheelchairs there almost every time I go there, probably because it is not only near a retirement community but is also so readily assessable to them.
We are giving up our freedoms to special interest groups and those who profit by exploiting them.
I really do not believe that I understand the first part of this comment fully, and if it is how I am interpreting it in the context of this thread then that's just a ridiculous position.conarb said:
But in any case, there is no new information here........there are people who will take advantage of opportunities provided to them to make unfounded claims for profit............this has been going on in our legal system for centuries.
The real point to be made is that these deficiencies are still very easy to find in both past projects and new construction. Until you take these codes as seriously as a fire/life safety issue and provide compliant designs and construction the opportunity for abuse will still be there. Get it right, and build it right then we would not need to have these discussions.