# Dueling Casps, what to do?



## pwood (Mar 6, 2014)

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?


----------



## JPohling (Mar 6, 2014)

if you know it to be incorrect I would write a correction for it.  Out of curiosity what are we talking about?


----------



## ICE (Mar 6, 2014)

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.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 6, 2014)

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?


What does your "required "CASp on staff or your consultant have to say?


----------



## Mark K (Mar 6, 2014)

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.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 6, 2014)

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?


----------



## ICE (Mar 6, 2014)

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.


Not even close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_for_vagueness


----------



## Mark K (Mar 6, 2014)

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.


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 7, 2014)

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.


----------



## pwood (Mar 12, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> What does your "required "CASp on staff or your consultant have to say?


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.


----------



## chris kennedy (Mar 12, 2014)

Excuse my ignorance but what is CASp?


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 12, 2014)

"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.


----------



## chris kennedy (Mar 12, 2014)

Thanks, I tried 'acronym finder' and that didn't come up.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Mar 12, 2014)

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.


----------



## JPohling (Mar 12, 2014)

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.


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 12, 2014)

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.


----------



## mjesse (Mar 12, 2014)

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.


Don't eat yellow snow.

Blue snow isn't too bad.


----------



## Rick18071 (Mar 12, 2014)

The IBC does not require truncated domes. What does the CA code say?


----------



## JPohling (Mar 12, 2014)

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.


----------



## steveray (Mar 12, 2014)

Icc ansi 117


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 13, 2014)

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?


----------



## JPohling (Mar 13, 2014)

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 (Mar 13, 2014)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> Rick, CA no longer requires dots on private property but it remains an owners risk management issue. ?....?


Really?  Can you cite the section? In the CBC 2013?


----------



## pwood (Mar 13, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Really?  Can you cite the section? In the CBC 2013?


 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?


----------



## mark handler (Mar 13, 2014)

pwood said:
			
		

> 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?


There is no exception in the CBC 2010 or 2013 that I have seen. A CAS may have a special interpretation, but not that I an aware of.....


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 13, 2014)

Zero curbs are not ramps or blended transitions (which is what, or are they?) 11B-705. 2 & 11B-705.1.2.5 Hazardous Vehicular Areas (no "clear" definition given in CBC),


----------



## pwood (Mar 14, 2014)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> Zero curbs are not ramps or blended transitions (which is what, or are they?) 11B-705. 2 & 11B-705.1.2.5 Hazardous Vehicular Areas (no "clear" definition given in CBC),


  I recommend that the word "hazardous" be eliminated from the code because it creates a grey area for enforcement. Who decides if the situation is hazardous enough to warrant the dreaded domes? Could a couple of Franklins in an envelope make a hazardous vehicular way safe? Don't like it one bit. One CASP said a car backing out of a parking space makes for hazardous and another says no. The ahj has to put on the rubber boots and wade thru the $hit and make a decision. ADAguy has not validated his opine with code sections yet.


----------



## JPohling (Mar 14, 2014)

Yeah, there is no exception in the CBC for detectable warnings on public property.  Could have been made up by a Casp, if so change Casp's?  Here even a rolled curb is not considered a separation and dots are required.  My understanding is that any traffic over 5mph is "hazardous".  I have even tried a "solution" where we would post 5 MPH maximum signs in the lots, thereby eliminating the "hazard"  and therefore no dots would be required.  Have not gotten anyone to buy into that yet!


----------



## mark handler (Mar 14, 2014)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> Hazardous Vehicular Areas (no "clear" definition given in CBC),


Thus the special interpretation.....


----------



## conarb (Mar 14, 2014)

Are CASps required to carry E&O insurance?  If not required can they buy it?


----------



## mark handler (Mar 14, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> Are CASps required to carry E&O insurance?  If not required can they buy it?


Anyone that provides a service can get it.

Can they be sued, yes.  Can they"go bare" or with out insurance yes, the state does not require it.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 14, 2014)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> Zero curbs are not ramps or blended transitions (which is what, or are they?) 11B-705. 2 & 11B-705.1.2.5 Hazardous Vehicular Areas (no "clear" definition given in CBC),


Detectable warning in hazardous location is always an interpretation.

I have required them in some locations and not others.  That was based on the size of the lot the anticipated speed of the cars and the lot configuration.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Mar 14, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Thus the special interpretation.....


Having seen many built-in architectural hazards, It would seem easier to address that, thereby benefiting everybody, rather than a few.

I refer specifically to rows of columns or vernacular detail placed almost directly at entrances adjacent to the roadway. It's like playing Frogger waiting to see who might pop out of occlusion. This seems to be a trend the past few years.

Better to see the entrance itself and have more time to react to shopper stupidity, or those walking along in Condition White, oblivious to traffic.

Brent.


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 14, 2014)

Might have been wishful thinking on my part, thought I heard it mentioned on a recent Access Board webinar.

MH seems to agree that it is a judgement call, subject to a property owners decision.

The use of decorative (architectural) bollards  is great but cane spacing dimension is often seen as too frequent (hence expensive) by some owners.

Even with them, there is no prevention for speedy drivers.


----------



## JPohling (Mar 14, 2014)

I think you mean AHJ's decision.  The property owner does not get a say.


----------



## pwood (Mar 14, 2014)

i believe the decision falls soley on the ahj. The building standards commission and the state architects office shape the $hitstorm and hang the ahj out to dry interpretating the  "language" of the code. The ahj can toss it to an appeals board if all else fails in order to resolve conflicts or disputes. Seems to me that the CASP program has creatd one more headache for the ahj to deal with and a cash cow for someone else!


----------



## JPohling (Mar 14, 2014)

From my experience every AHJ is going to error on the side of safety.  The dots will go in.


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 14, 2014)

Not a bad way to error, no? Anyone get an insurance underwriters take on dots?


----------



## mark handler (Mar 15, 2014)

Not good to put them where they are not necessary.

Confusion for the blind and pi$$es off the non visually impaired


----------

