# 1" tolerance at sink?



## Yikes (Oct 24, 2018)

I just read a CASp report done by a very respected inspector for a very large transit center.  In the restrooms, there is a sink with CL 17" away from the end wall.  CBC 11B-606.6 requires a minimum of 18".

The CASp report says:

"The centerline of the lavatory is 17" from the adjacent wall (minimum 18" required).  We believe this is within 'dimensional tolerance' and no action is recommended".
Since when is a "minimum" dimension allowed to have ANY tolerance?


----------



## jar546 (Oct 24, 2018)

When someone above him is directing him to let it go


----------



## RLGA (Oct 24, 2018)

Even minimum and maximum dimensions have construction tolerances. However, with that stated, 1 inch is a rather large tolerance for a sink location in my opinion--I would say that a +/- 1/4-inch tolerance is more realistic and achievable.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 24, 2018)

I agree with Ron
Where a requirement is a minimum or a maximum dimension that does not have two specific minimum and maximum end points, tolerances may apply. but, 1"is excessive.
The restroom may have been designed for no tile and changed to tile.


----------



## JCraver (Oct 25, 2018)

And in the real world, that 1" will never ever make any difference to anyone who ever uses that sink. 

I'd have written it up just like he did.


----------



## ICE (Oct 25, 2018)

JCraver said:


> And in the real world, that 1" will never ever make any difference to anyone who ever uses that sink.
> 
> I'd have written it up just like he did.


While I agree that 1" is trifling with regards to the placement of a sink the fact that this is California Accessibility 1" is as good as a mile.  Recently I caused the lowering of a urinal 1"....of course with that one I had a vision of pee on my boots and thought ....You know......


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 25, 2018)

We saw this coming with regards to CASps. 
In court this may be seen as a "technical" violation of the CBC but has it damaged the plaintiff? That remains to be proven.
As to tolerance, see the recent 9th Circuit appeal findings with regards to City of San Francisco specific to tolerances. Bill Hecker is the defense expert.


----------



## RLGA (Oct 25, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> We saw this coming with regards to CASps.
> In court this may be seen as a "technical" violation of the CBC but has it damaged the plaintiff? That remains to be proven.
> As to tolerance, see the recent 9th Circuit appeal findings with regards to City of San Francisco specific to tolerances. Bill Hecker is the defense expert.


ADAguy, do you have a link or a court case citation?


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 25, 2018)

In PA where our accessibility inspections get audited we get a 1/4" tolerance


----------



## HForester (Oct 25, 2018)

Note that ICC A117.1 Standard for Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities started moving away (in the 2003 edition) from indicating "fixed" values for many dimensions. The fixed dimensions relied on inspection to consider what is "reasonable construction tolerances" . No one can build to a fixed dimension and be "on the mark" every time. The classic example is the well known "18 inches from the center of a WC to the wall" for an accessible toilet.  Now, ICC A117.1 indicates a dimension range of 16 to 18 inches. Therefore, if you shoot for 17 inches, there is a high probability that you end up (at inspection) being in the range of 16-18 inches. The key is to NEVER _design_ to a maximum or a minimum because doing so causes the _actual _dimension to (sometimes) exceed those values.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 25, 2018)

RLGA said:


> ADAguy, do you have a link or a court case citation?


indeed I do, I will send it later.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 25, 2018)

9th Circuit No. 14-17521 D.C. No. 4:07-cv-03685-SBA OPINION here you go.


----------



## JPohling (Oct 25, 2018)

You would never get a 1" tolerance on that application.  Cannot understand how a licensed CASp would allow that.


----------



## Yikes (Oct 25, 2018)

so maybe this CAsp is thinking, if toilets used to be exactly 18" and now they're 16-18", that's the code self-confessing that 1" tolerance is really  OK??


----------



## mp25 (Oct 25, 2018)

ADA 104.1.1 discusses tolerances.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 26, 2018)

see case above


----------



## HForester (Oct 27, 2018)

Case was an interesting read. No, I wouldn't think because 1 inch tolerance allowed for one thing that same tolerance works for other dimensions.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 27, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> 9th Circuit No. 14-17521 D.C. No. 4:07-cv-03685-SBA OPINION here you go.


Link to case 
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/06/22/14-17521.pdf


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 29, 2018)

same as above MH?


----------



## steveray (Oct 30, 2018)

Whyfor 18" instead of the ANSI 15"?


----------



## Yikes (Oct 30, 2018)

In California, sinks adjacent to a side wall or other obstruction require 18" minimum clearance.  This exceeds ADA, but we also have the Unruh civil rights act, so I don't want the client getting sued under state law for a building code-related accessibility violation.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 31, 2018)

ADAguy said:


> same as above MH?


Yes, and?
I provided the link


----------



## steveray (Oct 31, 2018)

Must be holding it to the "alcove" 36" 24" deep standard, even though it may only be one side.......I can see that.....


----------



## Yikes (Oct 31, 2018)

No, it's not an alcove.  The 18" to CL is triggered by a unique section in California code:

_11B-606.6 Adjacent side wall or partition. Lavatories, when
located adjacent to a side wall or partition, shall be a minimum
of 18 inches (457 mm) to the centerline of the fixture._


----------

