BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:icalendar-ruby
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTAMP:20260417T010753Z
UID:6aec0280-62bd-495d-83dd-adf7d4225a9d
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20171212T000000
DESCRIPTION:ADA Shop Talk Episode 040 – The door landing is on the public
  sidewalk\, what do I do?\, Are signs required to comply on the second flo
 or of a CMDU?\, More on truncated domes.\n\nInternet Radio Talk Show With 
 Paul Klein\n\nDecember 12\, 2017\n\nQuestions answered this episode:\n\nJo
 hn – Hey guys. Just wanted to follow up on your ADA Shop Talk discussion
  regarding yellow detectable warnings. I understand your logic for yellow 
 not being required at curb ramps\, islands or cut-through medians being th
 at those elements are not ‘specifically’ identified in 11B-705.1.1.3 f
 or the yellow requirement\, but if a curb ramp is positioned adjacent to t
 he vehicular way wouldn’t that be considered at a ‘hazardous vehicular
  area’ requiring yellow detectable warnings? I know the term ‘hazardou
 s vehicular areas’ is not defined in the CBC and I’ve seen multiple on
 line discussions and jurisdictional interpretations. We view the term in o
 ur office as a known areas where vehicles may be in motion (e.g. parking s
 paces\, loading zones\, drive aisles)\, areas which would be a potential h
 azard to those with disabilities\, particularly those with site impairment
 s for whom detectable warnings are designed to service. I’ve attached an
  older Placer County Building Department notice for your review that makes
  analytical sense of the term to us. Any additional thoughts?\n\nKeith –
  Hi there\, I have a proposed exterior facade remodel to an existing resta
 urant building built in the 1970’s. They are installing new canopies\, s
 iding\, and new entry door and sidelights. They are also installing new ov
 er head lighting in the new canopies. The front of the building has a publ
 ic sidewalk and public street parking in front. The building has no onsite
  parking\, the exterior walls are on the property line. The issue is that 
 the existing entry door is 4 inches above sidewalk elevation and the entry
  door has this step up. The existing door has a sign posted caution step u
 p. I think since they are replacing door they should provide accessible en
 try. If they are to get a landing and ramp they would have to do major str
 uctural work to existing floor framing and interior structure. They asked 
 public works if they could encroach a landing ramp into the sidewalk and t
 hey replied no. I am not sure how to proceed on this. Thank you for your i
 nsight on this\, Keith\n\nDave – Hi Guys. CBC/Housing question for you. 
 In your opinion\, for private apartments (not student housing dorm rooms) 
 accessed from the exterior (and not an interior corridor)\, are unit numbe
 r latch signs required to be provided with Braille and tactile characters?
  Is there a difference if the units are accessed directly from the exterio
 r vs. an interior corridor?\n
SUMMARY:ADA Shop Talk Episode 040 – The door landing is on the public sid
 ewalk\, what do I do?\, Are signs required to comply on the second floor o
 f a CMDU?\, More on truncated domes.
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