HOW TO AVOID
(AND/OR MINIMIZE)
CONSTRUCTION
DEFECTS
INTRODUCTIONS
Contact Information:
Paul A. Joelson AIA NCARB CASp
Joelson Vail Associates LLC
330 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 202-G
San Diego, CA 92024
Office - (858) 836-3210
Cell – (619) 788-7172
Web Site: www.joelsonvail.com
Email: pjoelson@joelsonvail.com
© Joelson Vail Associates LLC – 2015
DENNIS STRYKER
MONICA SLEV
PROJECT SET UP AND
YOUR KEY PLAYERS
Dennis Stryker
PROJECT SET UP AND YOUR KEY PLAYERS
▪ Knowledgeable/experienced construction person,
construction manager?
▪ Insurance expert/broker
▪ End user expert for the product type you are building
▪ Attorney
PROJECT DESIGN TEAM
Fred Nolta
PROJECT DESIGN TEAM
▪ Experienced in product type, brought on up front, all services
required to be included at the right price in each team’s
scope of work.
PROJECT DESIGN TEAM: PLAYERS
▪ Architect, structural engineer, MEP engineer, civil engineer, soils
▪ Interior design (sooner vs. later)
▪ Acoustic consultant
▪ Waterproofing consultant
▪ Special product type needs such as food service, hotel operations,
lighting, etc.
PROJECT DESIGN TEAM: PLAYERS
▪ Window washing consultant, Operation Procedure Outline Sheet OPOS,
OSHA required (OSHA not enforced by permit process)
PROJECT DESIGN TEAM: PLAYERS
▪ ADA consultant – why?
▪ What is CASP certified?
PROJECT DESIGN TEAM: PLAYERS
▪ Attorney and insurance expert review the baseline of
consultant agreements (Dennis Stryker)
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
Fred Nolta
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
▪ Engage all consultants to:
▪ Cross check each other’s work
▪ Perform interim pricing, and
▪ Do budget check as the design develops
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
▪ Avoid last minute cost cutting and VE.
▪ Start engaging general contractors “GCs” and solicit
preliminary budgeting.
▪ Consult with GCs and specialty contractors for their opinions
and recommendations.
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
▪ Ensure all are reviewing manufacturer’s recommendations,
invite manufacturer’s rep into discussions and attending
meetings.
▪ Include quality control procedures to be specified during
construction.
▪ Make sure the owner and end user fully understand what is
in the plans and specs to avoid last minute changes.
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
▪ Start developing your contract with the GC – Dennis
▪ Risk evaluation; and
▪ Insurance
MOST COMMON
PROBLEM AREAS
Fred Nolta
MOST COMMON PROBLEM AREAS
▪ Missing details, undefined scope of work, narratives
defining work.
▪ Transitions horizontal to vertical and at different
materials.
MOST COMMON PROBLEM AREAS CONT’D
▪ Balconies and decks, especially over interior spaces,
inadequate slope to drain.
3.0—Second Floor Decks
Typical View of Second Floor Decks
3.0—Second Floor Decks
Water Ponds Due to Improper Slope. Retro-fit Drains Are Haphazardly Placed and Do
Not Fully Discharge Water on Deck. Decks Slope Away from Edges and Toward Walls and
Center of Decks. Condition is a Safety Hazard and Will Lead to Premature Deterioration
of the Deck Membrane. Installation of Expansion Joints and Retro-fit Wall Flashing Is
Poor.
3.0—Second Floor Decks
Plumbing for Retro-fit Drains.
Arrows Indicate Unsealed Penetrations Through Rated Soffit.
3.0 – Second Floor Decks
“Zero” Slope Leads to Ponding. Metal Edge (Green Arrow) Is High
Resulting in Improper Drainage. Red Arrow—Depression in Deck Surface.
3.0 – Second Floor Decks
Decks Slopes Toward Center—Ponding Stains Visible Throughout Deck
Surface.
3.0 – Second Floor
Water Stains on Plaster Soffit under Decks.
3.0 – Second Floor Decks
Decks Typically Slope in Reverse Direction away from Edges at Gradient of 2-4%.
3.0 – Second Floor Decks
Utility Room Door Install without Sill Pan Flashing.
3.0 – Second Floor Decks
Water from “Short” Scupper Burbles Back onto Stucco and Soffit Below. Evidence of
Water Stains on Soffit.
4.0 – Plaza Decks, Drains and Planters
Trench Drain Discharges Water from Roof and Upper Deck Out-flow. Drain System
Appears Undersized and Over Burdened. Red Arrows—Slab Cracks. Green Arrows—
Heaving between Main Slab and Strip Around Drain.
4.0 – Plaza Decks, Drains and Planters
Trench is Shallow, Inlet Undersized and Cavity Filled with Debris. Secondary (Weep)
System not Visible. System Appears to be Job Built.
4.0 – Plaza Decks, Drains and Planters
Evidence of Water under Topping Slab / Hydrostatic Pressure / Heaving
and Cracks
4.0 – Plaza Decks, Drains and Planters
Waterproofing and Drainage Failure at Planters / Source of Water under
Topping Slab
4.0 – Plaza Decks, Drains and Planters
Water Infiltration Through Open Joints in Sheet Metal Flashing
Hydrostatic Pressure / Heaving and Cracks
5.0—Parking Garage—Block Wall & Structural Slab
Active Water Dripping Through Cracks and Pipe Penetrations in Structural Slab onto
Garage Floor and Cars
Likely Source is Water Infiltration Through Breaches in Plaza Deck Waterproofing Above
at Laps, Penetrations and/or Interface to Drains.
5.0—Parking Garage—Block Wall & Structural Slab
Active Water Dripping Through Cracks and Pipe Penetrations in Structural Slab onto
Garage Floor and Cars
Likely Source is Water Infiltration Through Breaches in Plaza Deck Waterproofing Above
at Laps, Penetrations and/or Interface to Drains.
5.0—Parking Garage—Block Wall & Structural Slab
Leaks Through Garage Walls / Result of Waterproofing and Drainage Failures.
Remedial Repairs Using Koester Have Failed
5.0—Parking Garage—Block Wall & Structural Slab
Leak Through Garage Walls / Result of Waterproofing and Drainage Failures
Streaks on Wall Are Result of Rust Bleed from Exposure of Rebar to Moisture
5.0—Parking Garage—Block Wall & Structural Slab
Leak Through Garage Walls / Result of Waterproofing and Drainage Failures
Streaks on Wall Are Result of Rust Bleed from Exposure of Rebar to Moisture
5.0—Parking Garage—Block Wall & Structural Slab
Leaks Through Wall and Floor Penetrations in Electrical Rooms / Result of Waterproofing
and Drainage Failures / Condition is Extremely Dangerous
MOST COMMON PROBLEM AREAS
▪ Custom installations, adapting products to fit outside of manufacturer’s
recommendation.
▪ Failing to adhere to manufacturer’s recommendation for application
and installation – Number One Problem!!! (Trumps code, plans/specs,
agreements, industry standards, etc.)
6.0—Exterior Finishes & 7.0—Building Envelope
Poor Workmanship / Unresolved Details / Unsealed Gaps at Material
Transitions
6.0—Exterior Finishes & 7.0—Building Envelope
Poor Workmanship / Unresolved Details / Unsealed Gaps at Material
Transitions
INGRESS/EGRESS &
OTHER ADA ISSUES
Paul Joelson
▪ California Building Code—2013 or California Code of
Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Vol 1—Chapters 10 (Means of
Egress)
▪ California Building Code Chapter 11A—Housing Accessibility
▪ California Building Code Chapter 11B—Accessibility in Public
Accommodations
▪ ADA compliant products
1.0—Accessibility Compliance (Reference Standards: ADA & FHA)
Size of Landings at Main Entry Ramps Do Not Comply with Referenced
Standards.
1.0—Accessibility Compliance (Reference Standards: ADA & FHA)
Handrail and Guardrail Configurations at Stairs and Ramps Do Not Comply
with Referenced Standards.
1.0—Accessibility Compliance (Reference Standards: ADA & FHA)
Project Lacks Detectable Warning Strips at Transitions between Vehicular
Area and Accessible Paths, Aisles and Elevator Landing Areas as Required
by the Standards
1.0—Accessibility Compliance (Reference Standards: ADA & FHA)
Columns are Obstructions in Accessible Aisle / Loading Zone, and Are
Barriers to Unencumbered Use as Required by the Standards.
1.0—Accessibility Compliance (Reference Standards: ADA & FHA)
Bicycle Parking is an Obstruction in Accessible Aisle / Path of Travel, and is
a Barrier to Unencumbered Use as Required by the Standards.
1.0—Accessibility Compliance (Reference Standards: ADA & FHA)
Second Level Deck Surface Does Not
Comply with Standards—Cross Slopes and
Main Path of Travel Slopes Exceed the 2%
Maximum per Standards. Expansion Joints
are a Tripping Hazard.
1.0—Accessibility Compliance (Reference Standards: ADA & FHA)
Water Infiltration under Topping Slab Has Caused Heaving. Vertical
Transitions measured at 3/8-to-3/4”. Maximum Allowable Per
Standards—1/4”. Condition is a Tripping Hazard.
Paul A. Joelson AIA NCARB CASp and Staff
Provides ADA and Accessibility Compliance Audits
and Consulting Services as follows:
• Peer Review of Plans and Compliance Strategies
• Witness to Architects, Builders, Developers & Property Owners
• CASp Property Inspections and Compliance Reports
• Barrier Removal Analysis, Design and Construction Documents
• Cost Estimating and Value Engineering with Risk Analysis
• Third Party Site Inspections – New Construction and Alterations
• Coordination with Local Building and Planning Departments
Access Compliance
Frequent Claims of Non-Compliance with
Fair Housing Act, ADA Standards vs. CBC Requirements
Learning Objectives:
At the end of this presentation, the participants should
understand current trends in Access Compliance Standards and Regulations to increase
awareness on the following topics:
• Review of the Top Infractions Cited by Plaintiff Attorneys
• Review of Photographs and Conditions that Support Plaintiff’s Claims
• Designing for Compliance in California Housing and Public Accommodations
• Demonstrate the Importance of Understanding the Building Blocks and Scope
of Federal Standards and California Building Code—Chapter 11A & 11B.
• Presentation illustrates the Top Issues from Recent Cases with Photos, Field
Sketches and Code Diagrams
Was This Building Accessible in the 1920’s
ADA / ABA Standards Applied in the Real World on Public Building
Architect Case Gilbert designed the US Supreme Court Building in the late 1920’s to convey an
image that the occupants and goings-on within were above the political fray of its sister branches of
government—Congress and the Presidency
One may ask: Though the 44 steps ascending to the main level promote an image of authority and
power – did the design provide access to persons with disabilities in the way we have come to define
the term – passage without architectural barriers?
From Supreme Court Website – Ramp access to the building is located along Maryland Avenue on
the left side of the building. Limited “handicap parking” is also available along Maryland Avenue.
Was This Building Accessible in the 1920’s
ADA / ABA Standards Applied in the Real World on Public Building
From Supreme Court Website – Ramp access to the building was
not provided in the original design.
Litigation
Basis for Allegations Raised by Plaintiff Attorneys
“California ‘s Unruh Civil Right Act Cited as Basis for Claim:
• California Civil Code § 51 states, in part, that: All persons with
the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal
accommodations, advantages and privileges or services in all
business of every kind whatsoever.
• California Civil Code § 51.5 also state, in part, that: No business
establish of any kind whatsoever shall discriminate against any
person in this state because of the disability of the person.
• California Civil Code § 51 (f) specifically incorporates (by
reference) an individual’s rights under ADA into the Unruh Act.
Litigation
Considerations for Mitigation and Design
Removal of Barriers – Goals
• Goal – Place People at the Same “Starting Line”
• Clear, Convenient and Direct Access – Upon arrival on site and
throughout facility provide – information/directional signage;
accessible parking and paths of travel; accessible entry and doors;
accessible sanitary facilities; accessible drinking fountains and
telephones; and means of egress.
• Access Shall Be Permanent – Not Temporary
• Access Shall Not Require Assistance – At Doors, Sanitary Facilities,
etc.
• Equal Facilitation – Alternate, but Equal, Means of Access Provided
in Existing Buildings—Difficult to Make Argument in New Buildings.
Litigation
Considerations for Mitigation and Design
Unreasonable Hardship (CBC)
Per 1134B.2.1 Exception 1…Unreasonable Hardship (CBC) exists when the
cost of providing accessible features to a existing building are disproportionate
to cost of overall project – greater than 20% of budget
• Per Section 202...Factors for consideration: 1) Cost of providing access,
2) Cost of all Construction, 3) Financial impact of proposed improvements
on feasibility of project, 4) Nature of accessibility to be gained or lost, and
5) Use of the facility and its availability to disabled persons…
• Use of this approach is the decision of owner which may subject him/her
to financial scrutiny by the Courts
Readily Achievable (ADA)
• “Easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty
or expense
• Factors for determining whether an action is readily achievable are similar
to the language in CBC
Why are we here today?
What is SB 1608…
and how does it affect the Industry?
• Creates “California Commission on Disabled Access”
• Mandates Continuing Education for Architects and Building Officials
• Creates CASp—Certified Access Specialist Program
• Goal: Protection for Property Owners from and during Litigation
• Goal: Increase Awareness of Rights of Disabled Citizens
• Goal: Properly Coordinate Code Requirements into Design Solutions
• Goal: Establish Uniform Standards and Applications for Construction
Senate Bill 1608…
“California Commission on Disabled Access”
Why?
The disability community logged complaints that the building
industry— architects, inspectors and contractors were not sufficiently
educated about requirements for disability access
What?
Creates commission whose responsibilities include:
• Monitor disability access compliance to public accommodations
• Make recommendations to the Legislature for changes in
disability access laws
• Develop a master compliance check list for building inspectors
• Assess and report on the effectiveness of the CASp Program
Senate Bill 1608…
“Mandatory Continuing Education for Architects”
California Architect’s Board – Basic Requirements for License Renewal:
• Complete coursework provided by an Qualified Provider
• Course shall cover the ADA-1990, State Laws and Relevant Standards that
govern access to Public Facilities and Accommodations
• Requires 5 hours on Individual Renewal Date:
• Certify completion and provide documentation of Coursework on Form
provided by California Architect’s Board
GOALS – INCREASE AWARENESS TO VIEW ACCESSIBILITY AS A
DESIGNED SYSTEM OF INTERCONNECTED COMPONENTS RATHER
THAN SEPARATE CODE REQUIREMENTS
Senate Bill 1608…
“CASp—Certified Access Specialist Program”
Scope of Program – Certification of Inspectors:
• Self Certification is offered to Architects, Building Inspectors,
Contractors and Members of the Disabled Access Community
• DSA qualifies, tests and certifies successful candidates
• Candidates are tested on the knowledge of both federal and state
codes and standards that address disabled assess covering
Housing and Public Accommodations
• SB 1608 requires local building departments to employ or retain by
July 1, 2010 at least one inspector who is CASp certified
• CASp inspector may provide consultation to the local agency,
permit applicants and public – Service is subject to additional fees
Senate Bill 1608…
“CASp—Certified Access Specialist Program”
Intent and Scope:
• Program to assist business owners to
ensure compliance with disability access
codes and standards
• Requires a CASp inspector to file status
report identifying “construction related”
items for correction
• After corrections are made CASp inspector
will issue a final report of compliance
• Qualified businesses may display a CASpissued, numbered, watermarked “Disability
Access Certificate”
• Goal—Reduce risk and expense of litigation
Senate Bill 1608…
CASp – Litigation Control and Containment
• CASp Certificate does not prevent a lawsuit – goal is early resolution
and reduction of legal costs
• CASp Certificate does not prevent plaintiff from filling a claim of
access violation or a reduce business’ liability for damages
• Business with CASp certificate is a “qualified defendant”
• Can apply for 90 day stay of lawsuit and an mandatory early
evaluation conference (ECC) within 35 days
• Defendant required to produce CASp report for plaintiff review 15
days prior to ECC
• Plaintiff must provide basis of claimed violations and costs 15
days prior to ECC
• At ECC parties discussions may include settlement, correction of
alleged violations, continuation of stay, etc.
Housing Accessibility—Private and Public…
Fair Housing Act and California Building Code
REQUIREMENTS—MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING AND MIXED-USE
1. PRIVATE (CHAPTER 11A) / PUBLICLY FINANCED (CHAPTER 11B) PROJECTS
2. APPLIES TO UNITS FOR SALE OR RENTAL
3. APARTMENTS - THREE (3) OR MORE /CONDOMINIUMS - FOUR (4) OR MORE.
4. PROJECTS BUILT FOR FIRST OCCUPANCY AFTER MARCH 13, 1991.
5. FEDERAL FINANCING—FIVE (5) UNITS OR MORE—5% ACCESSIBLE (UFAS)
6. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990—PUBLIC USE AREAS
7. LOCAL (STATE) REQUIREMENTS—CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE—2013
COVERED HOUSING / COMMON AREAS – CHAPTER 11A
MIXED USE - PUBLIC USE AREAS — CHAPERT 11B
Housing Accessibility—Private and Public…
Fair Housing Act and California Building Code
COMMON VIOLATIONS
1. Accessible Parking - Insufficient number of spaces, remote location, obsolete signage, etc.
2. Accessible Route to Building Entrance - steep ramps and cross-slopes, no signage, etc.
3. Common Areas – Barriers in public restrooms, stairs/ramps, fitness rooms, pools, etc.
4. Usable Doors - Insufficient clear floor space, sloped landings, improper hardware, etc.
5. Accessible Route within the Living Unit - Narrow hallways / doors, clear floor space, etc.
6. Access to Operable Controls and Devices – Light switches too high,
7. Adaptability—Grab Bars / Sink Counters – Lack of backing and removable base cabinets
8. Usable Kitchens / Bathrooms – Insufficient storage, counters lengths, clearances, etc.
HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS
Issue #1—Accessible Parking
COMMON VIOLATIONS
1. Insufficient number of spaces.
2. Improper border stripping, stall
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
or aisle sizes, and pavement
markings.
Remote location that requires
navigating behind cars and in
driveways.
Cross Slopes exceed 2% in
space and aisle.
Obsolete stall signage.
Lack of tow-away sign(s).
Transition to accessible route
via non-compliant curb ramps,
sidewalks, etc.
HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS
Issue #1—Accessible Parking
1. All “covered multifamily projects” must have accessible parking
according to CBC-11A-1109A.
2. The referenced section prescribes the required sizes for the parking
stall and aisle, on-pavement markings, signage and the transition to
the accessible route that leads to the building entrance
3. If public accommodations are provided on site design and construct
parking according to CBC-11B -502—Parking Stalls for the portion
that serves the commercial section of project.
4. Note requirements for different stall counts for projects with
“assigned” (2% of total spaces provided) versus “unassigned” (5%)
parking per 1109A.4 and 1109A.5, respectively.
HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS
Issue #2—Accessible Route to the Building Entrance
COMMON VIOLATIONS
1. Steep Curb Ramps **Flares.
2. Lack of Signage on large
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
projects with numerous routes
and changes in direction.
Sidewalks and entry door
landings with steep cross
slopes exceed 2.0%.
Missing or improper
configuration of handrails at
ramps and stairs.
Ramps steeper than 8.3%
Detectable Warnings missing
or installed in wrong location.
Obstructions in Accessible
Route—bike racks, trash cans,
broken sidewalks, etc.
HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS
Issue #2—Accessible Route and Building Entrance
1. All covered multifamily dwellings must have at least one accessible
building entrance on an accessible route unless it is impractical to do
so because of the terrain or unusual characteristics of the site.
2. An accessible route means a continuous, unobstructed path
connecting accessible elements and spaces within a building or site
that can be negotiated by a person with a disability who uses a
wheelchair, and that is also safe for and usable by people with other
disabilities.
3. An accessible entrance is a building entrance connected by an
accessible route to public transit stops, accessible parking and
passenger loading zones, or public streets and sidewalks.
HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS
Issue #3—Accessible and Usable Common Area Facilities
COMMON VIOLATIONS
1. Raised steps/thresholds at
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
laundry and community rooms,
and rental offices.
Common area restrooms lack
required grab bars, dispensers,
mirrors, accessible controls,
etc.
Service counters are higher
than 34” AFF.
Tables in game and dining
areas not accessible or
provided.
Drinking fountains are
obstructed, too low or too high.
Kitchen sink is not accessible
Saunas, Pools, Space, etc. are
required to be accessible and
many times are not.
HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS
Issue #3—Accessible and Usable Common Area Facilities
1. Covered housing must have accessible and usable public and common-use
areas.
2. Public and common-use areas cover all parts of the housing outside individual
units.
3. They include -- for example -- building-wide fire alarms, parking lots, storage
areas, indoor and outdoor recreational areas, pool and spas, lobbies,
mailrooms and mailboxes, and laundry areas.
HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS
COMMON VIOLATIONS
Issue #4—Accessible Doors
1. Lack of clear floor space and
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
“level landing” at exterior.
Reduced CFS on strike side of
door—less than 18” at interior and
24” at exterior.
Operating force is heavy and
closing speed is too fast—closers
not adjusted.
Non-compliant hardware requires
pinching and grasping with fingers
or twisting of the wrist to operate.
Doors swing into the clear floor
space of vending machines,
drinking fountains and other
accessible devices, etc.
Conflicting door swings—
insufficient clearance between.
Doors to walk-in closets / storage
rooms do not provide a nominal
32" clear opening (31 5/8").
HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS
Issue #4—Accessible Doors
1. All doors that allow passage into and within all premises must be wide enough
to allow passage by persons using wheelchairs.
2. Accessible Hardware—Useable by persons with mobility problems with limited
ability to manipulate device with hands.
3. Clear Floor Space—Approach to both sides provides sufficient space for a
wheelchair user to independently open door.
HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS
Issue #5—Accessible Route into and throughout Living Unit
There must be an accessible route into and through each covered unit.
HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS
Issue #5—Accessible Route into and throughout Living Unit
There must be an accessible route into and through each covered unit.
COMMON VIOLATIONS
1. Insufficient clear floor space at doors and within kitchen and bathrooms.
2. Hallways are narrower than 36” clear—finish to finish between baseboards!
3. Access not provided to all rooms on the ground floor of covered units.
Key Requirements to Remember:
• Hallways must be 36” wide minimum;
• The first level of multi-level units must be accessible;
• All Doorways must be 32” wide minimum with the door open 90 degrees;
• Clear Floor Space must be provided at kitchen appliances and both kitchen and
bathroom fixtures;
• Walk-in Closets and Storage Closets must be accessible.
HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS
Issue #6—Accessible to Operable Controls and Devices
COMMON VIOLATIONS
1. Insufficient clear floor space below
device for a parallel or forward
approach.
2. Switch or controls are mounted
above maximum height limit of 48”
AFF or below 15” – minimum
height AFF.
3. Controls require pinching or
grasping with fingers, or twisting of
the wrist to operate.
Light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats and other environmental controls
must be in accessible locations.
Provide 30” x 48” clear floor space for either a forward or parallel approach.
Maximum high reach is 48” AFF to top of outlet box.
HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS
Issue #7—Adaptability—Grab Bar Backing / Removable Sink Counters
COMMON VIOLATIONS
1. Backing not provided completely
at tubs, showers and/or at toilets
according to CBC text and
diagrams
2. Removal base cabinets not
provided.
3. Finish flooring not provided under
cabinet as required.
HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS
Issue #7—Adaptability—Grab Bar Backing / Removable Sink Counters
1. Reinforcements in bathroom walls must be installed, so that grab bars at bathtubs and
toilets can be added when needed. The code does not require installation of grab bars in
bathrooms.
2. Provide removable base cabinets under sink counters so a wheelchair user may make a
forward approach.
HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—REQUIREMENTS
Issue #8—Accessible Kitchens and Bathrooms
Kitchens and bathrooms must be usable - that is, designed and constructed so an
individual in a wheelchair can maneuver in the space provided and perform
functions as illustrated
HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY—COMMON VIOLATIONS
Issue #8—Accessible Kitchens and Bathrooms
COMMON VIOLATIONS
ERROR In the kitchen there is not 30" x 48" clear floor area parallel to and centered
on the kitchen sink and range. Many times the sink or range is positioned into the
"elbow" of an L-shaped kitchen, or sometimes in a small angled section of counter that
doesn't provide a full 48" clear floor area.
RESULT The purpose of the 30" x 48" clear floor area in front of the sink or range is
to allow people using a wheelchair to position themselves in front of the sink and use it.
If there is not a clear floor area centered in front of the sink, a person using a
wheelchair may encounter obstructions that can keep them from being able to reach
the faucets and use the sink.
ERROR Sinks in bathrooms are not positioned with 30" x 48" clear floor area parallel
to and centered on the sink. Faucet is not a lever style—round knobs installed instead.
RESULT A person using a wheelchair cannot reach accessible faucets or the sink
PERMITTING
Fred Nolta
PERMITTING
▪ Just because your plans went through plan check, do not
assume the plans are buildable.
▪ Consider a 3rd party plan and spec review expert while plans
are in plan check.
▪ Ensure all changes in transitions and materials are detailed on
the plans.
ADDITIONAL DISCRETIONARY
TESTING
PREVENTION
RISK MANAGEMENT
Fred Nolta
ADDITIONAL DISCRETIONARY TESTING;
PREVENTION; RISK MANAGEMENT
▪ Quality control
▪ Lender Required inspections
▪ Architect to identify all special submittals
▪ What triggers a special inspection
▪ Consider purchasing additional (more than required by your
permit) field inspection
▪ Field inspections by consultants
1.
Mock ups
2.
Concrete floor flatness and levelness test (F Tests)
3.
Re-shoring concrete decks
4.
Earth shoring systems
5.
Building envelope
6.
Flood tests
7.
Moisture content concrete slabs
CONSTRUCTION
ADMINISTRATION
Fred Nolta
CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION
▪ Documentation (meeting notes, RFIs, site visit reports by
consultants, daily reports, etc).
▪ Who and how are you watching the contractors and design
team?
▪ Changes, incorporating into the job and plans correctly.
CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION
▪ Owner’s FF&E and other contractors interface
▪ As-builts
▪ Operation and maintenance manuals
▪ Ensure your GC has and follows quality control program in place
▪ Product submittals – have one for each product used
▪ Dealing with substitutions
CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION
▪ Ensure substitutions meet the specs in the design
▪ Verify/confirm if there any changes on how to install the substituted
product
▪ Counterfeit or mislabeled products: Ex lumber liquidators
▪ Keep a submittal log
▪ Have weekly site meetings
▪ If you make changes, make sure the drawings reflect those changes
POST CONSTRUCTION
Monica Slev and Dennis Stryker
POST CONSTRUCTION
▪ Initial investigation
▪ Attorney and team of consultants – physical inspection
▪ Review plans and specs
▪ Review contracts and change orders
▪ Review available insurance - CGL vs OCIP vs. Wrap
▪ Mediation vs Arbitration vs. Litigation – contract dictates
▪ Cost benefit analysis/business decision – cost to repair vs cost to litigate
POST CONSTRUCTION
▪ Time Limitations
▪ 10 years from date of notice of completion
▪ 4 yrs breach of contract
▪ 4 yrs open/obvious defects
▪ 2 yrs for personal injuries
▪ Why negotiate repairs or litigate:
▪ To preserve your investment;
▪ Fiduciary responsibility to investors/partners;
▪ To get reimbursed for repair costs ;
▪ To preserve funds for future maintenance and expensive repairs;
▪ Have your team review any proposed repairs before agreeing to ensure maximum
benefit.