BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:icalendar-ruby CALSCALE:GREGORIAN METHOD:PUBLISH BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260417T023802Z UID:8bde05b9-9658-4f55-8284-20f2b0575587 DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20170802T000000 DESCRIPTION:We are back in the studio this week and loaded with code questi ons for you.\n\nQuestions answered this episode:\n\nJose – How more effe ctive and wise it is to use a 2-foot level in lieu of a 4-foot level pleas e advise I look forward to attending your seminar once again thank you.\n\ nDOJ Survey Tools and Techniques\n\nADA National Network Recommend Tools\n \nTolerance Info ETA\n\nUS Access Board – Dimensional Tolerances in Cons truction and for Surface Accessibility\n\nDavid – Hi guys. A couple quic k questions regarding accessible pools in California. Do Title II universi ty dorms with pool facilities need to comply with the pool access requirem ent? And what about Title III apartments (available only to tenants and th eir guests)? Do the requirements for apartments change if the apartment co mplex is state owned?\n\nPhilip – Hello Paul and Mark I really enjoy you r show and appreciate all the time and effort you both put into it. My que stion concerns platform lifts. A restaurant in Ca is building a raised out door deck with a bar and dining area. Vertical access is being provided wi th a platform lift. The lift has an 11% threshold ramp with a 24? run and a 2.5?rise to enter the platform lift. (see attached photo) Citing CBC 11B -410.7 I wrote a correction notice to provide a minimum 60?X60? landing wi th a maximum 1/2? rise for the threshold to enter the lift. The architect and lift installer responded citing CBC 11B-410.1 which states platform li fts shall comply with ASME A18.1. Section 2.1.5.1 allows a threshold ramp with a rise of 1 in 8 for heights up to 3?. This is a clear conflict with the CBC- 11B requirements and I believe the building code trumps ASME A18. 1\, but why does the code refer to conflicting documents? What are your th oughts? Thanks Phil\n\nJun -An existing metal stair has 3? wide C-channels on both sides of treads &\; risers. The width of the treads is 40?\, w hich makes the width of the stair assembly itself to be 46? wide\, which i s greater than 44? min. required for a means of egress stair. However\, if you only include the walking surface by itself\, the width of stair seems to be less than 44? min. Which way of measuring is more reasonable (?) Wi dths of many existing stairs (especially in old pre-ADA buildings) often f all between 40? and 46?.\n\nAndrew  – In one of my recent plan reviews for a new hotel\, I commented on the entry door of a guest room required t o have mobility features being in series with the bathroom door. The respo nse from the architect was that from his research this only applied to egr ess doors and also attached an excerpt from Appendix B to Part 36\, Analys is and Commentary on the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design to show how the three guest room layouts they provided as examples all had this co nfiguration. The commentary did not specifically mention doors in series. These figures provided for example do occasionally have oversights\, so I am reluctant to base my decision on the figure provided. In this specific instance\, he would have to reconfigure the bathroom to use a sliding door \, because the wall it would slide into is a plumbing wall (water closet). However\, 11B-404.1 states “Doors\, doorways\, and gates that are part of an accessible route shall comply with Section 11B-404.” There are no exceptions provided that I can see. Do you have a position on this?\n\nLor ena – Accessories: seat covers\, located behind a toilet above the grab bar does not meet the clear floor space. When writing a correction how do you address this? In 305 it doesn’t specifically state Accessories.\n\nD amon – I have a designer who has submitted for a permit here in. He woul d like to build a 3 unit condominium building and a 2 Unit condominium bui lding on one property.  1102A.3.1 states that “the minimum number of ac cessible units shall be calculated using the total number of all multistor y dwelling units in buildings on a site which are subject to this section. ”  The designer claims that he is exempt from having to meet these requ irements because he does not have more than 4 condos in any one building.   I feel we should be requiring one accessible unit due to 5 units being submitted for the site.  What do you guys think?\n\nBuilding Standards fo r the Implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 1025 (Accessibility of Multistory Dwelling Units)\n\nCalCasp Academy September 25th\, 26th\, 27th &\; 28 th 2017\nDouble Tree Hotel Ontario\, 222 North Vineyard Ave\, Ontario\, CA 91764\nEarly Bird Discount: Register For Your CalCasp Academy Membership Before September 11th and Save $100 Use Coupon Code: calcasp2017\nREGISTER HERE\n\nFor News\, Updates &\; Training Go To The CORADA Calendar Here \n SUMMARY:ADA Shop Talk Episode 033 – We’re Back! Nuthin’ But Code Ques tions BEGIN:VALARM ACTION:DISPLAY TRIGGER:-P6D SUMMARY:Alarm notification END:VALARM BEGIN:VALARM ACTION:DISPLAY TRIGGER:-P SUMMARY:Alarm notification END:VALARM END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR