# ADA class action filed in Pittsburgh federal court



## mark handler (Aug 8, 2014)

ADA class action filed in Pittsburgh federal court

LEGAL NEWSLINE STAFF WRITER • | AUGUST 7, 2014 | 12:56 PM

http://washingtonexaminer.com/another-ada-class-action-filed-in-pittsburgh-federal-court/article/feed/2155330

PITTSBURGH (Legal Newsline) – Americans with Disabilities Act class action lawsuit has been filed in Pittsburgh federal court, this one against Bob Evans Farms Inc.

The lawsuit claims that handicapped parking spaces at several of Bob Evans’ Pittsburgh-area restaurants are too steep, making it difficult for those in wheelchairs.

Christopher Mielo claims Bob Evans violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations, in connection with accessibility barriers at various properties owned and managed by defendant, according to a complaint filed Aug. 4 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Mielo, who has a mobility disability and dependent upon a wheelchair, claims the defendants are required to remove the access barriers on its properties.

“Therefore, on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, plaintiff seeks a declaration that Defendant’s facilities violate federal law as described and an injunction requiring Defendant to remove the identified access barriers so that Defendant’s facilities are fully accessible to, and independently usable by individuals with mobility disabilities, as required by the ADA,” the complaint states.

The plaintiff visited the defendant’s retail property in Pittsburgh, and during his visit, he experienced unnecessary difficulty and risk due to excessively sloped surfaces within a purportedly accessible parking space, according to the suit.

Mielo claims he examined multiple retain locations in Pennsylvania, all of which were in violation of the ADA.

As a result of Defendant’s non-compliance with the ADA, the plaintiff’s ability to access and use the defendant’s facilities has been significantly impeded, according to the suit.

“Though defendant has centralized policies regarding the management and operation of its facilities, defendant has never had a plan or policy that is reasonably calculated to make its facilities fully accessible to, and independently usable by individuals with mobility disabilities,” the complaint states.

Mielo claims as an individual with a mobility disability who is dependent upon a wheelchair, he has a keen interest in whether public accommodations have architectural barriers that impede full accessibility to those accommodations by individuals with mobility impairments.

The plaintiff intends to return to the defendant’s facilities to shop and to ascertain whether those facilities remain in violation of the ADA, according to the suit, however, so long as the numerous architectural barriers at the defendant’s facilities continue to exist, he will be deterred from returning to the defendant’s facilities.

Mielo is seeking class certification and compensatory damages. He is being represented by R. Bruce Carlson, Benjamin J. Sweet and Stephanie Goldin of Carlson Lynch Ltd. They also filed the seven July complaints.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Arthur J. Schwab.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case number: 2:14-cv-01036

From Legal Newsline: Kyla Asbury can be reached at classactions@legalnewsline.com.

Content provided by Legal Newsline, which is owned by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 8, 2014)

Long overdue, low hanging fruit? You would think national chains would "be aware" by now.


----------



## incognito (Aug 9, 2014)

Leeches trying to cash in.


----------



## Msradell (Aug 10, 2014)

incognito said:
			
		

> Leeches trying to cash in.


I really don't believe this is true.  If I'm not mistaken in Pennsylvania like most other states the only monetary recovery can be for legal fees.  California is the only state where the complaint can cash in!  Besides, it sounds like the restaurants are definitely in violation and restaurants that are part of a chain like this definitely know the requirements and abide by them.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 10, 2014)

Msradell said:
			
		

> Besides, it *sounds* like the restaurants are *definitely in violation* and restaurants that are part of a chain like this definitely know the requirements and abide by them.


Mielo *claims* he examined multiple retain (sic) locations in Pennsylvania, all of which were in violation of the ADA.

So it _sounds_ like they are "definitely in violation"?

Are they definitely in violation just because Mielo says so? He must be an ex-spurt.

Why even take it to court? Definitely in violation. Definitely.

What would be great if there are no violations and all.

Brent.


----------



## kilitact (Aug 10, 2014)

Mielo is seeking class certification and compensatory damages. Looks like money.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 10, 2014)

Business owners have two basic obligations, to their customers, under the ADA:

1) remove existing architectural barriers to the premises; and

2) comply with all building code requirements when doing any construction work.

if Bob Evans Farms Inc., failed to do this, they are in violation of the law. Some feel that 24 years is too long for buisneses to remove existing architectural barriers to the premises.

If there is no penelty, there will be no compliance. Just like a traffic ticket

I have *Never* seen any buisness that made "Readily Achievable" improvements, sued.

Readily achievable means "easily accomplishable and able to be carried out by the property owner without much difficulty or expense." The ADA requires consideration of a number of factors including: the nature and cost of the action needed and the overall financial resources of the owner/buisness. Accordingly, restriping a parking lot to provide the required number of parking spaces for persons with disabilities, because it is relatively inexpensive, is likely to be considered readily achievable.

By contrast, installing an elevator to provide access to the building manager’s office on the third floor of 100 year-old building (in the absence of other renovations), is not likely to be considered readily achievable. In that situation, an intercom at the ground level, for example, would be a more readily achievable means of providing a wheelchair user access to the building manager.


----------



## ICE (Aug 10, 2014)

The government created the law.

The government should be the entity that enforces the law.

Turning anything over to lawyers is guaranteed to become a ripoff.

Who would argue that the system, as it is, works?

The snails pace of compliance is a farce.

The lawsuits are mostly a scam.

An illegal alien high on cocaine falls out of a tree and successfully extorts a fortune from hardworking Americans.

I thought that first big A in ADA was Americans.

The principle behind ADA is laudable.

The results are laughable.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 10, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> The government created the law.  The government should be the entity that enforces the law.  Turning anything over to lawyers is guaranteed to become a ripoff.


The government creates all law.

We are the government.

therefore, We created the law. And we allow the lawyers to rip us off.

The lawyers could not rip off compliant buisness owners.......


----------



## ICE (Aug 10, 2014)

There will come a time when you and everyone else will admit that ADA is a social engineering experiment that failed.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 10, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> There will come a time when you and everyone else will admit that ADA is a social engineering experiment that failed.


As is the everyone for themself additude, to h*ll with everyone else, whats in it for me. And how does if effect me.

Without Social responsibility you end up with ISIS

Just take them out and execute them, it's cheaper than putting in a ramp


----------



## ICE (Aug 10, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> As is the everyone for themself additude, to h*ll with everyone else, whats in it for me. And how does if effect me.Without Social responsibility you end up with ISIS
> 
> Just take them out and execute them, it's cheaper than putting in a ramp


No law will ever change the everyone for themselves mentality.  That's human nature.  What's in it for me and how does it affect me are what we are made of.

Did you miss the part where I said the principle is laudable?  It fits in with our need to level the playing field.  We recognize that life isn't always fair.  Some are the Haves and some are the Nots.

It isn't just about wheelchairs either.  We have smart and stupid, tall and runt, attractive and not so, wealthy and poor, healthy and sick, sane and me.  I'm pretty sure that we can thank Adam for all of that.  I am also pretty sure that we will never be able to change any of that.

ADA is a subtle form of communism.  Communism doesn't work long term.

Look at the actual scope of the problem.  Admit that the percentage of the population that is physically disadvantaged is small.  Admit that the expense of the effort to level the field is huge.  So much so that it is way out of proportion to the number of citizens/illegal aliens that will benefit.

Run the numbers and you will see that every disadvantaged person cost society a million dollars.....well that's if we did what you want.

In the meantime there's way more hungry children in the country than there are disadvantaged.  How about we invest in feeding them and then consider ramping the world so that <1% can get into Hooters.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 10, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> Did you miss the part where I said the principle is laudable?  .


You mean where you changed your post, after my post? My quote of you was not edited.

"Last edited by ICE; 1 Hour Ago at 18:02."

Without Social responsibility you end up with ISIS


----------



## mark handler (Aug 10, 2014)

Thank you jeff for adding the "when edited" feature


----------



## ICE (Aug 10, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> You mean where you changed your post, after my post? My quote of you was not edited."Last edited by ICE; 1 Hour Ago at 18:02."


You are right.....now and then.  I add stuff later a lot.



> Without Social responsibility you end up with ISIS


 We have ISIS because we killed Saddam Hussein.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 10, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> We have ISIS because we killed Saddam Hussein.


And now we have a society that has no moral control, they care about themselves, not about others


----------



## ICE (Aug 10, 2014)

> And now we have a society that has no moral control, they care about themselves, not about others


Some people need to have a dictator.  It is no surprise that democratically elected leaders can't keep a lid on in the middle east.  That's us and our social engineering at work.

But really now Mark, a lack of ADA success will not result in the abject moral decay of out country.  MMA maybe but not a lack of ramps and truncated domes.

Truncated domes...theres a perfect example.  Almost every day I see someone in a wheelchair.  I am unique in that I'm outdoors all day and on the move.  What I don't see more than a few times a year are blind people with a cane.  I bet that few of you do either.

I had a blind relative.  My parents would pick him up for picnics and such.  I know that he didn't venture out on his own.  Think about it.  Trying to make it to Piggly Wiggly blindfolded.. and oh ya, we'll give you a stick.

Are blind people being served with domes at hundreds of thousands of locations in this country?  For every bird chirping traffic signal, there's less than a dozen blind people......that wouldn't even consider crossing the street.

How many people are injured every year falling on those slippery domes?

It's ridiculous stuff like this that has society fed up with the ADA lobby.  Society has compassion but not at the end of a gun.  You say we wouldn't do it unless we are forced into doing it.

That says it all for me.

We don't want to do it....so we're not going to do it.  Oh we will in dribs and drabs but embracing the folly will never happen.  No matter what comes down from on high...it's just not going to happen and the sooner everybody accepts that, the sooner we can feed the hungry kids....

Oh my, that's not going to happen either is it?  I guess we prefer it being the Have and the Have Not world we live in.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 10, 2014)

Mma? . . ...


----------



## mark handler (Aug 10, 2014)

You might want to join the "CREATIVITY ALLIANCE" in california.

They also are speaking out against the ADA, as a social engineering experiment


----------



## ICE (Aug 11, 2014)

MMA at it's finest.

Sadly, porn took a hit today.

http://www.tmz.com/2014/08/08/mma-fighter-war-machine-wanted-suspect-girlfriend-domestic-violence-christie-mack-las-vegas/

You're not making much sense Mark.  I give you facts and you hand back insults.  That is the typical emotional response from people that take your side of the issue.

I understand their place in this.  Their hands are tied by the facts.  The argument is that we want it and damn the facts because we think it is morally justified.  That's the same reasoning applied by ISIS when killing Christians.  For certainly, they believe that they are morally justified.

http://creativityalliance.com/

I wonder if they are tax exempt.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 11, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> MMA at it's finest.Sadly, porn took a hit today.
> 
> http://www.tmz.com/2014/08/08/mma-fighter-war-machine-wanted-suspect-girlfriend-domestic-violence-christie-mack-las-vegas/
> 
> ...


Facts?

You provided opinions, not facts.

ADA is intended to protect twenty percent of the population. A fact.

Your "opinion" would exclude these citizens


----------



## mark handler (Aug 11, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> The government created the law.  The government should be the entity that enforces the law.
> 
> Turning anything over to lawyers is guaranteed to become a ripoff.
> 
> ...


Only one fact in this, the rest is opinion


----------



## ICE (Aug 11, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Facts?You provided opinions, not facts.
> 
> ADA is intended to protect twenty percent of the population. A fact.
> 
> Your "opinion" would exclude these citizens


The only way to get to twenty percent is to include fat people and redheads.  That's two impairments fatboy.  Your placard is in the mail.

Give it a few years and it will be 100%.

I wonder, can someone provide a synopsis of the growth of ADA since the inception?  That would be facts.  Then we could form an opinion of where we are headed.

And not just the body of law but also the inclusion of ever more disadvantages.  You know what I mean....the day hammer toe showed up in 16B.

Gosh Mark, those Creativity folks would love me huh.

I can argue the Devil's side for the fun of it....


----------



## mark handler (Aug 11, 2014)

According to Webster's Dictionary a fact is "anything that is done or happens; anything actually existent; any statement strictly true; truth; reality."

Whereas an opinion is defined as "indicating a belief, view, sentiment, conception."


----------



## mark handler (Aug 11, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> The only way to get to twenty percent is to include fat people and redheads.  That's two strikes fatboy.  Give it a few years and it will be 100%


The 20% is not chair users, 2.6 percent are chair/scooter users

The rest have other impairments

Facts


----------



## ICE (Aug 11, 2014)

Where are you getting those numbers?  Couple some opinions with the numbers.  Break down the numbers.  Tell us how many of the wheelchair users go anywhere in the wheelchair.  Be transparent.

You tell me that my facts about blind people are only one mans opinion.  Therefor those facts about blind people do not count in the discussion.  The ADA justification is based solely on numbers.  The ADA lobby will not tolerate a dissection of the numbers to form opinions.  Only the numbers count and only the numbers are accepted as fact.  What BS.  The decision to endorse ADA is based on an opinion of the facts.  We decide everything in life based on opinions.  Sometimes we have the facts and sometimes we don't but we always have an opinion.

I don't know what to trust for ADA facts.  I do know what I experience and I am entitled to form an opinion based on the facts that I have at hand.  Your 2.6% of wheelchair users may or may not be accurate.....but here's an indisputable fact about that 2.6% .....it's a small number....it doesn't warrant a trillion dollars worth of ugly construction.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 11, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> Where are you getting those numbers? ....it doesn't warrant a trillion dollars worth of ugly construction.


You can strat with these

UC San Francisco

http://dsc.ucsf.edu/publication.php?pub_id=2&section_id=4

Cornell University.

http://www.disabilitystatistics.org/

http://www.disabilitystatistics.org/reports/cps.cfm?statistic=prevalence

U.S. Department of Labor

http://www.dol.gov/odep/pubs/fact/data.htm

a trillion dollars, where did that come from, thought we were talking facts


----------



## Paul Sweet (Aug 11, 2014)

Going back to the OP, I believe that a 5% slope was allowable before ADAAG reduced it to 2%.

Correcting the grade for accessible parking spaces in an existing parking lot isn't always "readily achievable".  If the tenant doesn't own the parking lot, he can't force the landlord to regrade and restripe the parking lot.

We had to add 2 accessible parking spaces to a community college parking lot with a 5% slope a couple years ago.  It took 4 spaces to do this (1/2 space each side for transition, the 2 accessible spaces, and a van aisle between).  This was in a parking lot of several hundred spaces, so nobody notices the 2 lost spaces.  It would be different in a small lot with only a couple dozen spaces.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 11, 2014)

The OP was about "several" locations. If they are not "readily achievable", or if they complied with the original ADAAG, the case will be dismissed.


----------



## conarb (Aug 11, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> The OP was about "several" locations. If they are not "readily achievable", or if they complied with the original ADAAG, the case will be dismissed.


Mark:

So you believe in shotgun suing people just to see what sticks?  It can cost 10s of thousands of dollars in legal fees just to defend against a claim and get it dismissed.  In the instant case if the plaintiff gets certified as a class action it will cost 100s of thousands of dollars, much of it just to try to defeat the certification.

People who I know who are really handicapped want nothing to do with this because of the backlash.

Why are you so obsessed about ADA?


----------



## mark handler (Aug 11, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> Why are you so obsessed about ADA?


And why are you?

Maybe I'm trying to get a bad law repealed by enforcing it, strictly


----------



## mark handler (Aug 11, 2014)

My apology to Frank Zappa

I believe it is a good law, poorly written and randomly enforced.


----------



## conarb (Aug 11, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> And why are you?


Because it reeks of egalitarianism and redistribution of wealth.

Bad laws should not be enforced, did you see that New Jersey has banned enforcement of red light traffic tickets from other states to protect it's citizens from extortion:



			
				AOL said:
			
		

> Speed and red-light cameras are supposed to make driving safer by changing driving behavior over time, but increasingly, critics say the safety benefits are dubious and the cameras are nothing more than revenue generators for states and municipalities. Rather than improve traffic safety, a 2008 study conducted by University of South Florida researchers found they "significantly" increase crashes.¹


We all know that red light traffic enforcement is nothing but municipal blackmail to line the pockets of corrupt cities, maybe some states should look at banning ADA enforcement within it's borders, Federal law always superceeded statute until the present administration has elected not to enforce Federal law if it conflicted with state law.

¹ http://autos.aol.com/article/new-jersey-shields-drivers-other-states-red-light-speed-cameras/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-sb-bb%7Cdl7%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D513404


----------



## mark handler (Aug 11, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> Bad laws should not be enforced...


But yet you say



			
				conarb said:
			
		

> “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly,” Abraham Lincoln.


Make up your mind


----------



## mark handler (Aug 11, 2014)

d e l e t e


----------



## Frank (Aug 11, 2014)

Many Pittsburgh area Bob Evans locations are likely pre ADA or the old 5% standard.  Regrading of parking spaces in this hilly area is at least debatable if it is "readily achieveable" without creating other hazards, not to mention costly.  You have to tie into existing street and building floor grades, many of which would have been designed at maximum grades in the design standards of the time.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 11, 2014)

Frank said:
			
		

> Many Pittsburgh area Bob Evans locations are likely pre ADA or the old 5% standard.  Regrading of parking spaces in this hilly area is at least debatable if it is "readily achieveable" without creating other hazards, not to mention costly.  You have to tie into existing street and building floor grades, many of which would have been designed at maximum grades in the design standards of the time.


The questions then become;

Did they remodel? When? extent?

and

Have the repaved the parking lot since 1994?


----------



## conarb (Aug 11, 2014)

Yesterday I had lunch at a hot dog place, one of a chain I have mentioned before, a new CASp sign has appeared on a wall indicating that it has met all requirements, but still no restrooms available to the public.  Are they given time to comply and allowed to display the sign in the meantime?

 I've done this work before, I'd roughly estimate that adding one unisex restroom will cost something just over $100,000 and they may loose seating (if they asked me I'd bring in my architect who is knowledgeable about ADA and work with him and the owner to see if it is at all possible to expand the employees' restroom in their back kitchen/store room, but they will loose something important there too even if it is possible). They are located in a small strip mall and Handicap Parking is not near the doors, and is certainly inadequate with no van spaces. BTW, they do have many disabled customers on a daily basis, probably because they are near a large retirement community, to my knowledge nobody has complained or sued.  To tear out and jackhammer out floors they will have to shut down for a couple of weeks, on the other hand I've remodeled restaurants where they wanted to stay open and I've worked at night paying time and a half, it does cost a lot more but may restaurants have thought the extra cost was worth it not to shut down (I've priced it both ways).  The center owner is a large real estate development company  with many complexes, there are several other restaurants in this strip mall sharing the limited parking, I think their biggest financial hit will/would be the loss of parking to all businesses in the center.


----------



## Frank (Aug 11, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> The questions then become; Did they remodel? When? extent?
> 
> and
> 
> Have the repaved the parking lot since 1994?


Correcting parking grades may not be feasible even if repaving, alot of that area is pretty hilly.  If you flatten out the parking space to the 2% from 5% you have raised the far corner of a 2 spaces and aisle pair as much as 11 inches, tapering this back out to existing grades while chasing down hill can create high centering, approach, and breakover angle issues.  I can have a flat parking space, but what good does it do if I cannot get into it because the car bottoms out on the vehicular approach?  Fixing the accessible space may create violations of vehicular way design standards the make the vehicular route unusable by some vehicles either by tearing off spoilers or by high centering damaging the undercarriage.  It can also create excessive vehicular way crossslopes creating an issue in bad weather. Not everyone drives a truck or SUV all the time.


----------



## steveray (Aug 11, 2014)

Frank said:
			
		

> ................ Not everyone drives a truck or SUV all the time.


Why not?....Says the man with the dumb comment to the guy having the intelligent discussion....


----------



## mark handler (Aug 11, 2014)

Frank said:
			
		

> Correcting parking grades may not be feasible even if repaving, alot of that area is pretty hilly.  If you flatten out the parking space to the 2% from 5% you have raised the far corner of a 2 spaces and aisle pair as much as 11 inches, tapering this back out to existing grades while chasing down hill can create high centering, approach, and breakover angle issues.  I can have a flat parking space, but what good does it do if I cannot get into it because the car bottoms out on the vehicular approach?  Fixing the accessible space may create violations of vehicular way design standards the make the vehicular route unusable by some vehicles either by tearing off spoilers or by high centering damaging the undercarriage.  It can also create excessive vehicular way crossslopes creating an issue in bad weather. Not everyone drives a truck or SUV all the time.


That will be for the judge to decide


----------



## mark handler (Aug 11, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> Yesterday I had lunch at a hot dog place, one of a chain I have mentioned before, a new CASp sign has appeared on a wall indicating that it has met all requirements, but still no restrooms available to the public.  Are they given time to comply and allowed to display the sign in the meantime?  I've done this work before, I'd roughly estimate that adding one unisex restroom will cost something just over $100,000 and they may loose seating (if they asked me I'd bring in my architect who is knowledgeable about ADA and work with him and the owner to see if it is at all possible to expand the employees' restroom in their back kitchen/store room, but they will loose something important there too even if it is possible). They are located in a small strip mall and Handicap Parking is not near the doors, and is certainly inadequate with no van spaces. BTW, they do have many disabled customers on a daily basis, probably because they are near a large retirement community, to my knowledge nobody has complained or sued.  To tear out and jackhammer out floors they will have to shut down for a couple of weeks, on the other hand I've remodeled restaurants where they wanted to stay open and I've worked at night paying time and a half, it does cost a lot more but may restaurants have thought the extra cost was worth it not to shut down (I've priced it both ways).  The center owner is a large real estate development company  with many complexes, there are several other restaurants in this strip mall sharing the limited parking, I think their biggest financial hit will/would be the loss of parking to all businesses in the center.


CASp signs do not indicate that it has met all requirements, The certificate says the premises * was inspected.*

Based on the inspection, A report is written, and it is up to the Owner to correct the deficiencies.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 11, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> adding one unisex restroom will cost something just over $100,000 .


WOW Dick I think that is a little high


----------



## steveray (Aug 11, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> CASp signs do not indicate that it has met all requirements, The certificate says the premises * was inspected.*Based on the inspection, A report is written, and it is up to the Owner to correct the deficiencies.


Kinda like a Florida's Natural Label meaning it is not Natural or from Florida....


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 11, 2014)

Apple groves in Florida:lol:


----------



## conarb (Aug 11, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> WOW Dick I think that is a little high


Architects and building inspectors have never understood costs, building inspectors is understandable because we always take out our permits for a fraction of actual costs for two reasons, 1) keep our fees down, and 2) keep the owners' property taxes down.  It's frustration with architect, their owners always want more than they can afford, or are willing to pay, and when bids/or prices come in the poor architects are always engaging in value engineering, in many times seriously compromising their designs.  The last ADA I did was remodeling two baths to ADA standards 11 years ago, it ran about $70,000 (building permit over $3,000), removing old VAB flooring brings in the abatement contractors in space suits, covered walkways to covered trucks, and apparently taking the stuff by train to a huge canyon in Arizona (the last I heard).  Now we have lead paint and Green Code recycling requirements as well.

BTW, contractors' liability does not cover design professionals, when it comes to ADA the architect has to have his insurance company name the contractor and the owner on their policies as additionally insured, lots of architects' E&O policies are now refusing to do that, so we are limited to architects who have policies that will do that.  If somebody does sue for an ADA violation my insurance will not countenance the lawsuit, I have to submit it directly to the architect's insurance carrier for defense .  I did an ADA compliance a a large Catholic church once, several members were architects and contractors, none of them could provide the insurance for ADA compliance work, I was building a home near a committee member and he asked if I could do it?  I submitted a proposal, their diocese attorneys, my insurance attorneys, and my attorney spent three weeks arguing over one word in the hold harmless and indemnification clause.

This is just the start of the paperwork, I then have to fill out multipage subcontract agreements with every subcontractor, before I allow any on the job I have to collect certificates of insurance from all of them naming me, the architect, and the owner as additionally insured.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 11, 2014)

Are they morally justified to "stone" adulterers? In California we allow them to hold office: Lt. Gov., former mayor. Are they any more moral than us?

Pull out of the middle east, let them drink oil! Use our technology to live without their oil. Imagine what that would do for the world's economy?

To many MBA's in this country and not enough mechanics. Must all of our products be built overseas?


----------



## mark handler (Aug 12, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> Architects and building inspectors have never understood costs, building inspectors is understandable because we always take out our permits for a fraction of actual costs for two reasons, 1) keep our fees down, and 2) keep the owners' property taxes down.  It's frustration with architect, their owners always want more than they can afford, or are willing to pay, and when bids/or prices come in the poor architects are always engaging in value engineering, in many times seriously compromising their designs.  The last ADA I did was remodeling two baths to ADA standards 11 years ago, it ran about $70,000 (building permit over $3,000), removing old VAB flooring brings in the abatement contractors in space suits, covered walkways to covered trucks, and apparently taking the stuff by train to a huge canyon in Arizona (the last I heard).  Now we have lead paint and Green Code recycling requirements as well.BTW, contractors' liability does not cover design professionals, when it comes to ADA the architect has to have his insurance company name the contractor and the owner on their policies as additionally insured, lots of architects' E&O policies are now refusing to do that, so we are limited to architects who have policies that will do that.  If somebody does sue for an ADA violation my insurance will not countenance the lawsuit, I have to submit it directly to the architect's insurance carrier for defense .  I did an ADA compliance a a large Catholic church once, several members were architects and contractors, none of them could provide the insurance for ADA compliance work, I was building a home near a committee member and he asked if I could do it?  I submitted a proposal, their diocese attorneys, my insurance attorneys, and my attorney spent three weeks arguing over one word in the hold harmless and indemnification clause.
> 
> This is just the start of the paperwork, I then have to fill out multipage subcontract agreements with every subcontractor, before I allow any on the job I have to collect certificates of insurance from all of them naming me, the architect, and the owner as additionally insured.


So you are saying you have been lying on legal documents for years.

BTW I carry two million in E and O insurance as an architect/BO


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 12, 2014)

Valuation is never set at the full finish of project. Finishes and such are not considered. And usually it is set by the building department per a square foot formula. That's the bd's own table.

Brent.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 12, 2014)

A] 109.3 Building permit valuations.

The applicant for a permit shall provide an estimated permit value at time of application. Permit valuations shall include total value of work, including materials and labor, for which the permit is being issued, such as electrical, gas, mechanical, plumbing equipment and permanent systems.

The cost for DP's, geo tech reports, owners due diligence, other state and federal regulatory requirements such as site drainage, site mitigation, environmental impacts and numerous other "hidden" cost are never includes in what is submitted to the building department.

We only want the cost from the foundation up. No site work, site utilities, do not include anything exterior of the building and not part of the building.

So Conarb is correct when stating building departments do not know the total cost of a project.

No he is not lying on "legal" documents when the code does not require those cost be included


----------



## mark handler (Aug 12, 2014)

You are including site drainage, site mitigation, environmental impacts and numerous other "hidden" costs in a restroom renovation?

We are talking a TI, restroom, nothing more, nothing hidden


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 12, 2014)

Here's one worksheet.

Some "drawers" never get it right. The client gets an estimate of cost based on the building depts schedule which is not all-inclusive. When they get a proposal based on actual cost then YOU get to be the bad guy. It beehooves the architect to understate the price to make it appear feasible to do the job for a lower budget, sometimes securing the work for themselves. That behavior is prevelant.

http://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/183

Brent


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 12, 2014)

Response to comment:

"I've done this work before, I'd roughly estimate that adding one unisex restroom will cost something just over $100,000 and they may loose seating"

1. (ADA does not require you to provide a restroom in resturaunts, they also do not require you to lose income generating seating in existing resturaunts with non-compliant restrooms) "If provided" it must comply (they can be deleted if not required by local codes, but doing so inconviences "all" patrons). Provison requirements are based on local codes.

 (if they asked me I'd bring in my architect who is knowledgeable about ADA and work with him and the owner to see if it is at all possible to expand the employees' restroom

2. If less than (15?) employees, accessible employeee bathrooms are not required (but RRs for employees are required by health codes) but a mistake not to do so in the event a disabled employee is hired.

3. Existing small resturants with liquor licenses can be an issue as many health codes require both a urinal and a WC in the mens room. I have found many of these lacking in clear floor space. If the mens room is a single occupant, some agencies will allow removal of the urinal. thereby providing the required clear floor space. Each existing facility must be reviewed on a site by site basis, there is no "one size fits all" answer. Within reason barrier removal can be addressd for far less than you indicate.

in their back kitchen/store room, but they will loose something important there too even if it is possible). They are located in a small strip mall and Handicap Parking is not near the doors, and is certainly inadequate with no van spaces. BTW, they do have many disabled customers on a daily basis, probably because they are near a large retirement community, to my knowledge nobody has complained or sued. To tear out and jackhammer out floors they will have to shut down for a couple of weeks, on the other hand I've remodeled restaurants where they wanted to stay open and I've worked at night paying time and a half, it does cost a lot more but may restaurants have thought the extra cost was worth it not to shut down (I've priced it both ways). The center owner is a large real estate development company with many complexes, there are several other restaurants in this strip mall sharing the limited parking, I think their biggest financial hit will/would be the loss of parking to all businesses in the center.


----------



## conarb (Aug 12, 2014)

ADAGuy said:
			
		

> 1. (ADA does not require you to provide a restroom in resturaunts (sic), they  also do not require you to lose income generating seating in existing  resturaunts (sic) with non-compliant restrooms) "If provided" it must comply  (they can be deleted if not required by local codes, but doing so  inconviences (sic) "all" patrons). Provison (sic) requirements are based on local  codes.


ADA Guy:

Your post is confusing, if the plumbing code requires the rest rooms then ADA is in effect requiring them since everyone is governed by the plumbing code.


----------



## Min&Max (Aug 13, 2014)

Actually ADAguys' post is accurate. If the plumbing code requires a bathroom to be provided, the ADA requirements then require that bathroom to be ADA accessible. If the plumbing code does not require a bathroom but you choose to provide it anyway, the ADA requirements then require that bathroom to be ADA accessible.


----------



## steveray (Aug 13, 2014)

If the plumbing code requires a bathroom the building code requires it to be accessible with VERY limited exceptions....No need to go to ADA.....

And I don't even have #3 yet....

1109.2 Toilet and bathing facilities.

Each toilet room and bathing room shall be accessible. Where a floor level is not required to be connected by an accessible route, the only toilet rooms or bathing rooms provided within the facility shall not be located on the inaccessible floor. At least one of each type of fixture, element, control or dispenser in each accessible toilet room and bathing room shall be accessible.

Exceptions:

1. In toilet rooms or bathing rooms accessed only through a private office, not for common or public use and intended for use by a single occupant, any of the following alternatives are allowed:1.1. Doors are permitted to swing into the clear floor space, provided the door swing can be reversed to meet the requirements in ICC A117.1;1.2. The height requirements for the water closet in ICC A117.1 are not applicable;1.3. Grab bars are not required to be installed in a toilet room, provided that reinforcement has been installed in the walls and located so as to permit the installation of such grab bars; and1.4. The requirement for height, knee and toe clearance shall not apply to a lavatory.

2. This section is not applicable to toilet and bathing rooms that serve dwelling units or sleeping units that are not required to be accessible by Section 1107.

3. Where multiple single-user toilet rooms or bathing rooms are clustered at a single location, at least 50 percent but not less than one room for each use at each cluster shall be accessible.

4. Where no more than one urinal is provided in a toilet room or bathing room, the urinal is not required to be accessible.

5. Toilet rooms that are part of critical care or intensive care patient sleeping rooms are not required to be accessible.

6. Where toilet facilities are primarily for children’s use, required accessible water closets, toilet compartments and lavatories shall be permitted to comply with the children’s provisions of ICC A117.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 13, 2014)

Min& Max, thank you.

My point beeing Conard, that if bathrooms are not required by the plumbing code and a complaintaint finds existing to be noncompliant and their is not enough room to expand them or cost is considered prohibitive, they can be removed.

Not good for business but if you don't have the dollars, and RRs are not provided, no compliance is required.  Meets the letter of the ADA.


----------



## Min&Max (Aug 13, 2014)

Existing restrooms are not required to meet ADA if: 1). They were constructed prior to ADA regs and a building permit has not been issued for that structure since ADA regs took effect, 2). Bathroom remodel exceeds 20% of the planned project cost. Although 20% of project cost must be applied to ADA mitigation, or 3). It is technically infeasible to modify/enlarge existing bathrooms. It is not necessary to remove non-ADA compliant bathrooms to insure that the entire customer populace suffers equally. That would be ridiculous and petty.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 13, 2014)

Min&Max said:
			
		

> Existing restrooms are not required to meet ADA if: 1). They were constructed prior to ADA regs and a building permit has not been issued for that structure since ADA regs took effect, 2). Bathroom remodel exceeds 20% of the planned project cost. Although 20% of project cost must be applied to ADA mitigation, or 3). It is technically infeasible to modify/enlarge existing bathrooms. It is not necessary to remove non-ADA compliant bathrooms to insure that the entire customer populace suffers equally. That would be ridiculous and petty.


And a restroom was not part of the renovation/remodel


----------

