SB 1186, which has far reaching changes for the ADA is an attempt to help businesses be more compliant with the ADA without hurting them.

One of the requirements of SB 1186 is that as of July 1st, 2013, leases on commercial property will need to state whether or not a CASp inspection was performed on the site.

Here are some articles on the subject:

• http://www.natlawreview.com/article/new-disability-access-law-imposes-notification-requirements-commercial-leases
  
• http://cbpa.com/sb-1186-provisions-ada-lawsuit-reform

Additionally, cities are now facing pressure to get their own CASp licensed personnel to help them curb their own liability.

Here are articles on this subject:

• http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/news/article_6209a7c4-ac2e-11e2-82b7-001a4bcf887a.html
  
• http://www.reedleyexponent.com/articles/2013/04/04/news/doc515b6b8319870320624177.txt

While local ordinances are only required to enforce state law (ADA is Federal law and out of their jurisdiction), a CASp educated official should at least let the city be more aware of when they are putting their businesses in jeopardy when they enforce local ordinances which may violate the ADA.  Often, government buildings also have plenty of ADA violations (http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/03/madison_county_courthouse_sett.html) At most though, your local ordinance will only urge you to get a CASp inspection.

CASp inspections will not only help you become compliant, they will also offer legal benefits to your site as protection in the case of future lawsuits.  We posted an article on this subject last year, nearly a year ago: CASp and SB 1186.

So what does this all mean?  The process for occupancy is slowly including CASp inspections as part of the normal routine.  If you are a property manager or a commercial real estate agent, you will be urged to get a CASp inspection to protect your site.  If you have or have not, you need to alert your prospective and renewing tenants!  Those businesses need to be aware of what they are getting into.  If you haven’t gotten a CASp inspection, this will reflect on your how you conduct your business — if you are concerned about compliancy and the well being of your tenants or not.

If you are a prospective tenant or a renewing tenant you should urge your landlord to get this protection for you and for him.  It’s a one time charge.  You both can enjoy its legal benefits indefinitely.

Any questions or comments?  Contact us at help@ytaccess.com or call us at 866 982 3212.

This is how widespread ADA compliance problems are:

Even an attorney who regularly files lawsuits regarding ADA violations at businesses has violations at his site.  Strange thing, he claims that this suit itself is frivolous but faces the very real fact that his visitors can only see him if they use the stairs.

The only real defense of an ADA lawsuit is to get the law on your side.

CASp inspections can help you with this as they do carry legal benefits.  More information on CASp?  Read SB 1186.

Original Articles about this attorney being sued?  See below:

• http://fox40.com/2013/03/08/ada-lawyer-facing-his-own-ada-violation-lawsuit/
• http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130308/A_NEWS/303080322/-1/A_NEWS02
• http://www.lodinews.com/news/article_0f529012-171a-5742-b40c-aa55bb885169.html

There is a bill in the CA legislation, AB 223, that will introduce a cure period of 30-60 days for violations.

This does not get around the fact that issues that need to be fixed need to be fixed, even in the case of a lawsuit.  Anyone who understands the nature of disabled access violations understands that this bill will only impact items that are “Readily Achievable”, meaning items that are easy to fix.

For more complex items, such as parking striping or re-arranging  a restroom, costs can increase to the point of needing the approval of the local building authority.  Depending on where you are and how much traffic those departments get, 30-60 days may not be enough.

This means that as a stakeholder of property, you might as well fix these items immediately.

Better yet, why not get a CASp inspection?  This way you can have a timeframe on the order of YEARS to fix the items that need more attention.  AB 223 sounds like it offers relief to the layman, but 30-60 days is not enough.

This doesn’t even take into account that CASp will protect a site from future lawsuits FOREVER.  To read more about CASp go here: SB 1186 or contact us (866 982 3212 or help@ytaccess.com)

To read the original article on AB 223 go here: http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2013/02/ada-lawsuits-and-the-public-sector/

In order to better eliminate some more difficult compliance items, the Division State Architect has recommended some emergency updates to the 2010 California Building Code. The California Building Standards Commission has agreed to these changes. Many of the items, such as the Braille Signage as specified under the California Building Code are so different from the Americans with Disabilities Act 2010 that compliance with one standard means non-compliance with the other. So either way you can get sued.

These changes comes as a welcome alteration from the point of view of building owners, property managers and construction and design professionals working in California. Interestingly enough, many of these changes alter the sign requirements making the white papers released by Nova Polymers now outdated, as far as the California code is concerned.

I have reproduced these changes below for your convenience.

Emergency Express Terms 1 of 7 06/27/2012
EMERGENCY EXPRESS TERMS FOR PROPOSED BUILDING STANDARDS OF THE DIVISION OF THE STATE ARCHITECT REGARDING PROPOSED CHANGES TO CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 24, PART 2 ACCESSIBILITY TO PUBLIC BUILDINGS,  PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS, COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND
PUBLICLY FUNDED HOUSING
Legend for Emergency Express Terms:
1. California amendment: California language will appear in italics text.
2. Amended, or repealed language: Amended or repealed language will appear in underline
and strikeout.
3. Adopted language: Adopted language will appear in underline.
4. Rationale: The justification for the change is shown after each section or series of related
changes.
5. Notation: Authority and reference citations are provided at the end of each section.
6. Abbreviations:
CBSC (California Building Standards Commission)
DSA-AC (Division of the State Architect – Access Compliance)
USDOJ (United States Department of Justice)
ADA Standards (2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design)
EXPRESS TERMS
ITEM 1
1104B.3 Auditoriums, assembly halls, theaters and related facilities. …
1104B.3.9 Designated aisle seats. In addition to the wheelchair spaces required, 5 percent, but not less than one, of all fixed aisle seats, shall be designated aisle seats with no armrests on the aisle side, or with removable or folding armrests on the aisle side. The designated aisle seats shall be those located closest to accessible routes. Each such seat shall be identified by a sign or marker with the International Symbol of Accessibility (see Figure 11B-6). Signage notifying patrons of the availability of such seats shall be posted at the ticket office. Signs and markers shall comply with Section 1117B.5.1 items 2 and 3, as applicable.

Statement of Reason: During the 2010 rulemaking cycle, DSA-AC intended to incorporate the basic requirement of 2010 ADA Standards, Section 221.4, which requires at least five percent of the total number of aisle seats provided shall be designated aisle seats. Due to an inadvertent error, the approved amendment indicated at least five percent of fixed seats rather than aisleseats. DSA-AC is proposing to amend the provisions of 1104B.3.9 to correct this error.
Authority: Gov. Code§ 4450
Reference: Gov. Code§ 4450-4461, 12955.1 & 14679; Health & Safety Code§ 18949.1 &
19952-19959 & Vehicle Code§ 22511.8
ITEM 2
1115B.4 Accessible fixtures. …
1115B.4.1 Accessible water closets. Water closets required to be accessible shall comply with
this subsection:

1. The centerline of the accessible water closet fixture shall be 16 inches (405 mm) minimum and 18 inches (457 mm) maximum from the side wall or partition. On the other side of the water closet, provide a minimum of 28 inches (711 mm) wide clear floor space if the water closet is adjacent to a fixture or a minimum of 32 inches (813 mm) wide clear floor space if the water closet is adjacent to a wall or partition. This clear floor space shall extend from the rear wall to the front of the water closet.

Exception: The centerline of accessible water closets located in ambulatory accessible compartments shall be 17 inches (430 mm) minimum and 19 inches (485 mm) maximum from the side wall or partition.

2. Provide clear floor space and maneuvering space at accessible water closets in compliance with Section 1115B.4.1, Item 2. Refer to Section 1115B.3.1, Items 4.2 and 4.3 for additionally required maneuvering space at multiple-accommodation toilet facilities. Refer to Section 1115B.3.2, Item 3 for additionally required maneuvering space at single-accommodation toilet facilities.

2.1…
2.2…
2.3…

Exception: An adjacent fixture at the rear wall is permitted to encroach into the required
clear floor space at the wide side of the water closet where clearances are provided in
compliance with Section 1115B.4.1, Item 1.

Statement of Reason: DSA-AC is proposing to amend this section to align the CBC with the 2010 ADA Standards, Section 604.2. The requirement to locate the centerline of a water closet 18” absolute from a side wall or partition is being revised to provide a range of 16” minimum to 18” maximum from the side wall or partition. An exception is provided for water closets in ambulatory accessible toilet compartments. The exception provides that water closets within ambulatory accessible compartments be located 17” minimum to 19” maximum from the side wall or partition. In construction, the technological capacity to achieve an exact and precise placement of a water closet can be quite difficult. Variations in wall finish thicknesses or structural members can easily influence the final constructed condition, especially in concrete slab construction. Specifying a range rather than an absolute value for the location of the centerline of a water closet will better ensure that facilities accomplish the level of accessibility intended.
Additionally, DSA-AC is proposing to amend this section to delete the provision and exception which allow fixtures adjacent to an accessible water closet at least 28 inches from the water closet on the wide side, and to delete the provision which allows a wall or partition at least 32 inches from the water closet on the wide side. Under the 2010 ADA Standards, Sections 604.3.1 and 604.3.2, these elements are not permitted to overlap the required clear floor space at a water closet. Clear floor space requirements for water closets, as indicated in CBC 1115B.4.1, Item 2,
accurately reflect the 2010 ADA Standards clear floor space requirements for water closets not within a compartment (604.3.1), wall mounted water closets within a compartment (604.8.1.1) and floor mounted water closets within a compartment (604.8.1.1), and the current language in these sections remains unchanged.
Related code changes are proposed for Figures 11B-1A and 11B-1B for consistency.
Authority: Gov. Code§ 4450
Reference: Gov. Code§ 4450-4461, 12955.1 & 14679; Health & Safety Code§ 18949.1 &
19952-19959
ITEM 3
1115B.8 Accessories. …
1115B.8.4 Toilet tissue dispensers. Toilet tissue dispensers shall be located on the wall within 12 inches (305 mm) of the front edge of the toilet seat, wall or partition closest to the water closet, 7 inches (180 mm) minimum and 9 inches (230 mm) maximum in front of the water closet measured to the centerline of the dispenser, mounted below the grab bar, with the outlet of the dispenser at a minimum height of 19 inches (485 mm), and 36 inches (914 mm) maximum to the far edge from the rear wall. Dispensers that control delivery or that do not permit continuous paper flow shall not be used. See Figure 11B-1A.
Statement of Reason: DSA-AC is proposing to amend this section to align the CBC with the 2010 ADA Standards, Section 604.7. The CBC currently requires toilet tissue dispensers to be located in accessible water closet compartments within 12 inches of the front edge of the toilet seat and within 36 inches of the rear wall. The amendment to this section will require the centerline of the toilet tissue dispenser to be within a range of 7-9 inches in front of the water closet. Additionally, language consistent with the 2010 ADA Standards, Section 604.7 is being added to clarify the regulated height of the toilet paper dispenser is measured to the outlet of the dispenser.
Authority: Gov. Code§ 4450
Reference: Gov. Code§ 4450-4461, 12955.1 & 14679; Health & Safety Code§ 18949.1 &
19952-19959
ITEM 4

1117B.1 Accessible drinking fountains. Where drinking fountains are provided, they shall comply with this section: …

4. Operable parts, spout height and location. The bubbler shall be activated by a manually operated system complying with Section 1117B.6, Item 4 that is front mounted or side mounted and located within 6 inches (152 mm) of the front edge of the fountain or an electronically controlled device. The bubbler outlet orifice shall be located within 6 inches (152 mm) of the front edge of the drinking fountain and within 36 inches (914 mm) of the floor. The water stream from the bubbler shall be substantially parallel to the front edge of the drinking fountain. Spout outlets shall be 36 inches (914 mm) maximum above the finish floor or ground. The spout shall be located 15 inches (381 mm) minimum from the vertical support and 5 inches (127 mm) maximum from the front edge of the unit, including bumpers.

5. Water flow. The spout shall provide a flow of water at least 4 inches (102 mm) high so as to allow the insertion of a cup or glass under the flow of water minimum and shall be located 5 inches (127 mm) maximum from the front of the unit. The angle of the water stream shall be measured horizontally relative to the front face of the unit. Where spouts
are located less than 3 inches (76 mm) of the front of the unit, the angle of the water stream shall be 30 degrees maximum. Where spouts are located between 3 inches (76 mm) and 5 inches (127 mm) maximum from the front of the unit, the angle of the water stream shall be 15 degrees maximum. On an accessible drinking fountain with a round or oval bowl, the spout must be positioned so the flow of water is within 3 inches (75 mm) of the front edge of the fountain.

 

Statement of Reason: DSA-AC is proposing to amend this section to align the CBC with the 2010 ADA Standards, Sections 602.4, 602.5, and 602.6. CBC Section 1117B.1, Item 4 is being amended to incorporate language from 2010 ADA Standards Section 602.4 which requires the drinking fountain spout to be located 15 inches minimum from the vertical support and 5 inches maximum from the front edge of the unit, including bumpers. A title for this section is also being added.CBC Section 1117B.1, Item 5 is being amended to incorporate federal language which requires a
water flow location of 5 inches maximum from the front of the unit. Language is also being added to describe acceptable angles of water flow, relative to the front of the drinking fountain, based on varying spout locations as measured from the front of the unit. A title for this section is also being added.
A related code change is proposed for Figure 11B-3A for consistency.
Authority: Gov. Code§ 4450
Reference: Gov. Code§ 4450-4461, 12955.1 & 14679; Health & Safety Code§ 18949.1 &
19952-19959
ITEM 5
1117B.5 Signs and identification. …
1117B.5.3 Proportions. Characters Visual characters on signs shall be selected from fonts that have a width-to-height ratio of between 3:5 (60 percent) and 1:1 (100 percent) where the width of the uppercase letter “O” is 60 percent minimum and 110 percent maximum of the measured by the width of the uppercase letter “O” and height of the uppercase letter “I”, and a stroke width-toheight ratio of between 1:5 (20 percent) and 1:10 (10 percent) measured by the width and height of the uppercase letter “I”. Stroke thickness of the uppercase letter “I” shall be 10 percent minimum and 20 percent maximum of the height of the character.
…
1117B.5.5 Raised characters and pictorial symbol signs. When raised characters are required or when pictorial symbols (pictograms) are used on such signs, they shall conform to the following requirements:

1. Character type. Characters on signs…
2. Character size. Raised characters…
3. Pictorial symbol signs (pictograms). Pictorial symbol signs…
4. Character placement. Characters and Braille…
5. Proportions. Raised characters on signs shall be selected from fonts where the width of the uppercase letter “O” is 60 percent minimum and 110 percent maximum of the height of the uppercase letter “I”. Stroke thickness of the uppercase letter “I” shall be 15 percent maximum of the height of the character.
Statement of Reason: DSA-AC is proposing to amend CBC Section 1117B.5.3 to address character proportions and stroke width requirements of fonts used for visual signs to align with the requirements of the 2010 ADA Standards, Sections 703.5.4 and 703.5.7.DSA-AC is also proposing to amend CBC Section 1117B.5.5 to add Item 5 which addresses character proportions and stroke width requirements of fonts used for tactile signs to align with
the requirements of the 2010 ADA Standards, Sections 703.2.4 and 703.2.6.
Authority: Gov. Code§ 4450
Reference: Gov. Code§ 4450-4461, 12955.1 & 14679; Health & Safety Code§ 18949.1 &

19952-19959
ITEM 6
1117B.5 Signs and identification. …
1117B.5.7 Mounting location and height. Where permanent identification signs are provided for rooms and spaces, signs shall be installed on the wall adjacent to the latch side of the door. Where there is no wall space on the latch side, including at double leaf doors, signs shall be placed on the nearest adjacent wall, preferably on the right.
Where permanent identification signage is provided for rooms and spaces they shall be located on the approach side of the door as one enters the room or space. Signs that identify exits shall be located on the approach side of the door as one exits the room or space.
Mounting height shall be 60 inches (1524 mm) above the finish floor to the center line of the sign. Signs with raised characters and Braille shall be located 48 inches (1220 mm) minimum above the finish floor or ground surface, measured from the baseline of the lowest line of Braille and 60 inches (1525 mm) maximum above the finish floor or ground surface, measured from the baseline of the highest line of raised characters. Mounting location shall be determined so that a person may approach within 3 inches (76 mm) of signage without encountering protruding objects or standing within the swing of a door.

See also Section 1115B.6 for additional signage requirements applicable to sanitary facilities.
Statement of Reason: DSA-AC is proposing to amend this section to align the CBC with the 2010 ADA Standards, Section 703.4.1. The 2010 ADA Standards require tactile characters on signs to be located 48 inches minimum above the finish floor to the baseline of the lowest tactile character, and 60 inches maximum above the finish floor to the baseline of the highest tactile character. The CBC currently requires identification signs with tactile text to be mounted 60 inches above the finish floor to the centerline of the sign. DSA-AC is proposing to require tactile characters on signs to be located 48 inches minimum above the finish floor to the baseline of the lowest tactile character, and 60 inches maximum above the finish floor to the baseline of the highest tactile character.

Authority: Gov. Code§ 4450
Reference: Gov. Code§ 4450-4461, 12955.1 & 14679; Health & Safety Code§ 18949.1 &
19952-19959
ITEM 7
1134B Accessibility for Existing Buildings …

1134B.2 General. When alterations, structural repairs…

1134B.2.1 A primary entrance to the building or facility and the primary path of travel to the specific area of alteration, structural repair or addition, and sanitary facilities, drinking fountains, signs and public telephones serving the area.

Exceptions:
1. …
2. …
3. …
4. …
5. If an element listed in Section 1134B.2.1, Exception 5, Items 5.1 through 5.5 has been constructed or altered in accordance with the accessibility requirements in either the 2007 or 2010 California Building Code, retrofit of that element to reflect the incremental changes in the August 1, 2012 Emergency Supplement to the 2010 California Building Code shall not be required solely because of an alteration to an area served by the element.
5.1 Accessible water closet – distance to adjacent wall or partition.
5.2 Accessible water closet – encroachment of the adjacent fixture at the rear
wall into the required clear floor space at the wide side of an accessible
water closet.
5.3 Toilet tissue dispenser – distance in front of water closet.
5.4 Drinking fountain spout outlet (bubbler outlet) – distance from front edge of
the fountain.
5.5 Drinking fountain spout – angle of water stream.

Statement of Reason: DSA-AC is proposing to add an exception to this section to coordinate with the 2010 ADA Standards, Section 35.151(b)(4)(ii)(C) of 28 CFR Part 35, which includes a ‘safe harbor’ provision for path of travel elements constructed or altered in accordance with the 1991 ADA Standards. This federal provision does not require path of travel elements to be modified to reflect incremental changes in the 2010 ADA Standards solely because of an
alteration to an area that is served by that path of travel. DSA-AC is proposing to amend this section to include a similar provision which provides relief from the requirement to upgrade specified elements constructed or altered in accordance with the accessibility requirements in either the 2007 or 2010 California Building Codes. The proposed exception will not require the specified elements to be modified to reflect incremental changes in the Emergency Supplement to the 2010 California Building Code solely because of an alteration to an area served by that element. This exception includes a list of the five elements which will qualify for the exception. Only elements proposed for amendment in this emergency rulemaking package have been included in the list of qualifying elements.

DSA-AC believes that this proposed amendment will ensure access for individuals with disabilities to buildings and facilities, while providing financial relief for alteration projects subject to the Emergency Supplement to the 2010 California Building Code. This amendment does not provide a blanket exemption for facilities. If an area is undergoing alteration, and required elements serving that area do not comply with either the 2007 or 2010 California Building Codes, then those elements must be brought into compliance with all applicable accessibility code requirements, including those items in the Emergency Supplement to the 2010 California Building Code.
Authority: Gov. Code§ 4450
Reference: Gov. Code§ 4450-4461, 12955.1 & 14679; Health & Safety Code§ 18949.1 &
19952-19959

If you want to see the original state posting it can be reached here: http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/access/2010CBC_Emergency-Express-Terms_06-27-12.pdf

As ADA experts we keep up with the latest code changes, and stay on top of this complex changing field. If you are interested in getting an inspection why wait? Avoid an Accessibility Lawsuit! Your site has many of these conflicts already, you should address those conflicts and remove the contradictory code elements from your site so you are compliant.

If you have any questions or comments call 866 982 3212 or email us at help@ytaccess.com to schedule an inspection or ask questions about how accessibility effects your site.

Even though there aren’t many ADA consultants around (there is a void in the marketplace) many individuals have realized the significant amount of money in this area.

ADA consulting isn’t all that easy — there’s a great deal of information to consider — but nonetheless, many are attracted to this area in order to make a quick dollar.

Here’s an interesting article posted by one of our competitors on choosing an ADA consultant.  [Their website mainpage is ADA Consultant... I couldn't find the name of their company at all, I guess their website is still in development.]

The basic idea is that one ought to get a consultant who is experienced, who can provide references and isn’t a fly-by-night individual who just wants to make a quick buck.

I quoted their conclusion below:

The moral to this story is that it takes a little work to find the right Consultant for you and your business.

Ask questions, check references, call the Better Business Bureau and look for actual training and experience.

Expect to pay a reasonable price for services, like to old saying goes; you get what you pay for. If you get services for nothing, then that is probably what they are worth.

The cost of an audit, training or other ADA Consulting Service is FAR LESS than the legal fees, fines and bad press of failing to comply and receiving an ADA Violation.

Make sure your consultant can fully meet your needs. Don’t pay for services that you don’t need or for several subcontractors to cover all of your compliance needs.

Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) doesn’t need to be painful, frightening, overly stressful, or be so expensive that it puts you out of business.

But ADA Compliance does need to be done and a Qualified ADA Compliance Consultant can help!

Overall, their conclusion is apt, chosing the WRONG consultant is much like doing work incorrectly, you pay for something that can get you further in violation.

Any questions or concerns? help@ytaccess.com or 866 982 3212.

The following is a guest article by a CASp certified architect:

SB 1186 Passes Senate Judiciary Committee on May 8

By Yung Kao, CASp CBO NCARB

May 10, 2012

When the U.S. Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1991, some people called it a “Bill of Litigation” as it requires building and business owners to retrofit existing buildings and remove “architectural barriers” that were created prior to the law. Combined with California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and other anti-discriminatory laws, the ADA became a much more potent mechanism for lawsuits.

About 12,000 ADA claims were filed nationwide from 1991 to 2011, and about 8,000 of them were filed in California within the past 8 years alone.  These filed lawsuits represents only a fraction of the actual number of threats that have been made on businesses as most threat of lawsuit results in a settlement rather than a court action.

A big portion of those cases in California have been filed by a couple dozen lawyers. These self-proclaimed access rights crusaders are generally perceived by the business community as “drive-by” litigants.  Some of them do appear to be more interested in collecting monetary settlements than improving access on the premises they sue. These cases are often filed in large batches by geographic location.  The main vehicle for these threats originates in a demand letter, stating that the stakeholder pay money otherwise a lawsuit situation will erupt.

Most businesses and property managers settle, as a court battle could result in a larger fine, along with an increased payment to the opposing attorney.

In response to the outcry from the business community, California has at least six bills dealing with accessibility claims in the current legislative session. An unexpected event to accentuate this drama is an open letter in March from Senator Dianne Feinstein to California Senate President pro Tem Darrel Steinberg, urging him to use his leadership to advance legislation that would curb what she called “predatory lawsuits” and “coercive demand letters” that are “unfairly and unnecessarily threaten the viability of some small businesses in our State”. The letter specifically mentioned California’s SB 1186 introduced by Republican State Senator Dutton as an example of such legislation. Steinberg’s reply letter elaborated on SB 1608 of 2008 to illustrate the legislature’s efforts in deterring frivolous ADA claims. He further explained that the “90 day to cure” provision in SB 1186 is inconsistent with other protected categories in California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.  This inconsistency with the other protected civil rights in the Unruh Act explains why any bills with provisions to include a cure period are consistently defeated.

In April, Steinberg took over SB 1186 and introduced an extensive amendment to the bill. The 90-day period to cure was deleted from the bill, while other similar bills still containing various time periods to cure, have been defeated.  Because of the lack of a cure period, Steinberg’s version of SB 1186 became the only accessibility bill in this session that was being seriously considered.

If passed, the following three major provisions would become law:

1.  Prior to filing a lawsuit, no attorneys or other parties may serve a letter that demands monetary settlement or implies that business and building owners may be liable for damages and attorney fees because of alleged ADA violations.
2. Attorneys who intend to file an ADA claim must serve a notice to the intended defendants at least 30 days prior to the filing.
3. Commercial property landlords need to disclose to prospective tenants in the lease agreements whether the premises are CASp-inspected or not.

Four accessibility bills were heard by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on May 8, and on that same day the Senate Judiciary Committee processed another two accessibility Bills, including SB 1186 as amended by Steinberg.  The Committee passed the Bill 4-1, with the descending vote interestingly by none other than the Senate Majority Leader and author of SB 1608, Senator Ellen Corbett.

It is almost inevitable that this Bill resort to the CASp inspection as established in SB 1608 in 2008 as the real solution. A major goal of the Construction-related Accessibility Standards Compliance Act (CASCA) of 2008 is to devise some sort of protection for the property and business owners who have made a proactive effort to obtain compliance or are in the process of obtaining compliance. The CASCA considers a comprehensive survey of the property by a (CASp) key evidence to define that proactive effort.

The CASp program was a result of two years negotiation among different stakeholders, and was widely hailed by the business communities including California Chamber of Commerce, California Restaurants Association, California Business Properties Association and California Hotel and Lodging Association. Though SB 1186 would not mandate any CASp inspections, it does reaffirm that the CASp inspection program is still the best solution to reduce and eventually eliminate ADA claims in California.

While SB 1168 would not eliminate ADA lawsuits entirelyhopefully it would effectively curtail the scare tactic of demand letters.  The only full protection against ADA claims, however, is to fully comply with the laws, and that begins with a CASp inspection.

You can reach Yung Kao directly for comments and inquiries about his services at his direct email: accessolution@att.net, or his direct number: 626.209.9709

Alternately, you can find out more about the details of CASp and its many benefits by emailing us at help@ytaccess.com or calling us at 866 982 3212.  Any messages you leave for Yung with us, we will also forward to him.

The recent ADA lawsuit scare has had some landlords behaving strangely.

One of our clients a few months ago was sued by her landlord for not making ADA upgrades.

This is a troubling turn of events. It’s in the ADA that one’s responsibility cannot be passed onto another. The way the chips fell in this case was that the landlord had his tenant sign an updated lease otherwise he would not renew the contract with her. There was a clause in this contract which stated that she was to perform all necessary ADA upgrades to become ADA compliant within 45 days of signing the lease.

She obviously did not know what this meant.

She signed the lease, and was later sued by her landlord for failing to enlarge the restroom.

In this situation, we do not have a complaint stemming from a violation of the ADA — we have a complaint stemming from a breach of contract.

How everything stands from here depends on what can be reasonably understood by both parties as being their responsibility within the ADA — and if when signing she understood what ADA upgrades entailed.

Nonetheless, tenants should more than ever educate themselves about what ADA compliance means, and in all cases at least 1) get an estimate for the work and 2) inform their landlord of the issues with a report of their shared liability. Landlords are legally required to comply with the ADA as well — but this tactic does provide an interesting twist. We’ll have to see if he is successful at forcing his tenant to pay for all the upgrades.

Thoughts? Comment below, or write us at help@ytaccess.com. If you have specific questions about your own fiduciary responsibilities, you can call us at 866 982 3212.

Since we’ve gotten some requests for inexpensive door knob alternatives, I thought I’d put this on here.

These door knobs are ADA compliant, come in a variety of finishes are highly rated and inexpensive.

Take a look:

Door lever with a lock (for restrooms, private offices, etc.)

Standard door lever

Other designs and keyed locks are also available by clicking here.

This is the fifth time.

A business owner went to one of our seminars about six months ago. Saw our presentation on ADA compliance. Heard about

1. the gap between the coverage of the California Building Code and the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act,
2. learned that in the California Civil Code Section 52 and 54 he was liable for 4k worth of damages minimum of affected violations of the ADA

Of course when asked if he was interested in getting our help, he said no. He went back to his store, fixed a few items immediately that he learned from our presentation… and then was several months later sued for 80 thousand dollars worth of damages. He then went and hired us.

Another one of our clients heard our seminar, decided to hire us and then upon having a consultation and an inspection paid for our services. In following up with this client, when asked if they were going to look through the report and start to fix issues they said “No. We don’t need to. We have the report.”

I don’t know what else to say. We have started working with contractors to try and offer inspections and fixes — but in general most of our clients only want us to do the report. This is okay but reports are useless unless you also fix the actual issues! Getting sued is the worst case scenario — most disabled visitors simply won’t go to your store if they can’t get in. The only ones who sue are either extremely frustrated or looking for money.

It’s so unfortunate that it takes a lawsuit to get a perfectly good business to comply, but is that what it takes? Personally I would like to see businesses hire us and let us help them find effective ways to comply. Suing a business doesn’t help that business in any way. In fact, it’s an incredibly hurtful process that doesn’t leave the business in better shape before it was sued.

So avoid lawsuits! It’s many of the very simple things that can get a business in trouble. Most of our clients that have been sued have been sued over parking paint and signage. How expensive is that? Now, maybe not everything can be fixed right away, (like signage or parking paint) but most things can be taken care of eventually. If you can only afford $100 a month for accessibility, or even $50 by all means, budget it! Get it done! Also, look for ADA experts who can tell you what needs to be done and how to remediate that violation so you ARE accessible. It’s painful to see businesses that have done work trying to become accessible and getting it so wrong.

I don’t know what else we can do. We give free seminars, and publish free information… I guess that’s really all we can do.

We are working on putting one of our older education seminars online. In the meantime, stay tuned. I am a little swamped with work so I haven’t had time to write too much on here, but I do have some more updates planned.

In the mean while, here’s an older website about some factoids about the access lawsuit situation in California (which is on the rise, by the by). The website is called ADA Crisis. It’s full of interesting facts, like “Did you know, at least 42% of the ADA/accessibility lawsuits in the U.S. are filed in California?”

Anyway, as always, our contact information if you have any questions: 866 982 3212 and help@ytaccess.com.

I used to work largely doing web development. I didn’t design the look of websites, I built them — from the ground up. I made sure the technical back end worked properly.  In fact I still do it, but mostly for YTA.

What’s interesting about working with programmers and other free lance technicians much holds true for many architects and contractors. While construction and design is different from web development, there’s a similar mentality as both are a kind of engineering.

Sometimes your independent contractor will get a request from a prospective client to do something new. They would know enough that this particular thing could be done — but not know how. Nonetheless they would lie and bullshit and agree to do everything. The general mentality is to go home and spend the next 72 hours agonizing over a book trying to learn how to do what it is you’ve requested of them. The funny part about this is that often these free lance consultants would charge you a ton of money and quote you a huge amount of time. So not only do they want to have time to get it right, they also want to charge you for making them learn something new.

With this in mind I would like to introduce to you the California Division of State Architect‘s access compliance manual.

While this manual consists of largely technical information, such as occupancy type, and a re-printing of what is otherwise in the California Building Code, it does include some helpful dimensions on many of the specific measurements we perform. The application of those measurements and their types may be a little confusing.

This code reference, however, isn’t completely up to date. Included in the checklist is a regulatory list of applicable dimensions and requirements. It’s up to the consultant to decide if they apply. The issue with this checklist though, is that it doesn’t include the latest ADA 2010 — only the older ADA of 1992.

Most likely, a construction or design expert wouldn’t turn to the DSA, as the DSA is a state entity. The issue for accessibility in CA revolves around they would probably buy a access manual combo, such as CAARM or CalDag. I don’t know of a more recent CAARM, but if you look at the description, it’s applicable for the building code of 2001. For CalDag, the building code it references is the building code of 2008, not the latest California Code of 2010.

If this construction expert was savvy enough to recognize this outdated code, he would have to then cross-reference this book with the California building code, something he would have to do for the ADA 2010.

To complicate things further, if your building had not been altered since say, 2002, then the building code of 2001 may actually apply — but the ADA 2010 also applies, meaning he would have to cross-reference texts anyway.

In either case, before you hire anyone for your ADA needs, if you have the time, I would urge you to look at the Division State Architect’s Access Manual and get a taste for the complexity involved.

All of this cross-referencing and page flipping means more billable hours to you. Not only that, but why not hire someone who is already familiar with these different codes and regulations? The problem isn’t in using reference materials — no one can remember every number exactly, and the codes are always changing.  The problem is the general familiarity of the application.  How can someone catch all the nuances if they don’t know the basic applicability?

In this case, hiring someone who is new to this field will not only cost you more in money, but also in liability.  If they miss something or interpret something incorrectly, it’s your lawsuit.  Why not go with someone who is familiar with the risk?

Any questions or concerns?  Call us at 866 982 3212 or email us at help@ytaccess.com.