• Inform our clients of their liability for accessibility issues.
• Identification of compliant accessibility features.
• Identification of non-compliant accessibility features.
• Identification of necessary accessibility upgrades.
• Identification of the pathway to full compliance.  Only through an on-site survey can a trained professional understand and interpret each site’s features and deficiencies and recommended corrections.

The California Building Code requires documented accessibility compliance upon application for a building permit.

Both State and Federal accessibility guidelines have specific provisions allowing certain features of a facility to be constructed without providing for full and strict compliance with the minimum requirements.  These allowable deviations are called “Exceptions”.  Many of these exceptions have conditions attached that must be satisfied in order to be utilized.  In many cases, California’s guidelines require that a determination of “unreasonable hardship” be found in order to be eligible for a specific exception. California’s definition and conditions for the unreasonable hardship can be found in Section 202 of the California Building Code.  The ADA does not allow cost to be a factor in determining whether or not a facility, or portion thereof, be made accessible in new construction.  Under the ADA, the requirement that new construction be accessible does not apply where an entity can demonstrate that it is structurally impractical to meet the requirements of the regulation.

In existing buildings, the provisions of this section do not apply when legal or physical constraints would not allow compliance with the building standards or equivalent facilitation without an unreasonable hardship.  See section 1091.5. CBC Section 1134B.2.1, Exception 1, of the California Building Code states that when the construction cost of a proposed alteration, structural repair or addition does not exceed the January 2010 “ENR US20 Cities” average construction cost index threshold ($128,410.90 Jan. 2010), 20% of the cost of the project must be spent on upgrading the following existing elements: 1) an accessible entrance, 2) an accessible route to the altered area, 3) at least one accessible restroom for each sex,4) accessible public telephones (if any), 5) accessible drinking fountains.

When alteration costs exceed the ENR average construction cost index, the obligation to spend 20% of the alteration cost on the path of travel becomes a minimum instead of a maximum one.  It is at the building agencies discretion to determine how much over the 20% constitute a hardship.

We are very interested in your comments and feedback, please email us at feedback@aaidesign.com

Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations

Effective January 2010, the California Energy Commission promulgated changes to the “2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards”, for residential and non-residential buildings.

I recommend a visit to their website at www.energy.ca.gov/title 24 to familiarize the design team with these important changes which will affect non-residential projects.  Even though we don’t document energy compliance, the following are some highlights of interest to designers from a summary of changes compiled by Mazi Shirakh, P.E.:

• Revisions and clarification to Sections 130-134, Mandatory requirements for Lighting Systems and Equipment related to Luminaire Power determination, sign lighting controls, and other clarifications.

• Updates for compliance to require side-lighting (§131) and day-lit areas near windows, change definition of day-lit area and requirements for daylighting controls.  Update skylight requirements to include smaller buildings (8,000 sf vs. 25,000 sf), buildings with 15 ft ceiling heights (§143(c)).

• Add requirements for occupant sensors in new indoor areas including small offices, multipurpose rooms less than 1,000 sf, classrooms, and conference rooms(§132(d)).

• Compliance credit for high efficacy load shedding ballasts to reduce energy use when signaled (§146).

• Demand response controls to reduce indoor lighting when signaled (§146).

• Revise the outdoor lighting compliance procedure and update outdoor lighting power densities, require outdoor lighting to meet title 24 standards when alterations replace 30% of fixtures (§147).

• Revised Cool Roof requirements for low-slope roofs and add prescriptive Cool Roof requirements for steep-sloped roofs (§143).

• Refinements to additions and alteration requirements for non-residential buildings (§149).

• Revisions and clarifications to Section 118, Mandatory Requirements for Insulation and Roofing Products including introduction of Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) for cool roof compliance.

• Revisions and clarifications to section 119, Mandatory Requirements for Lighting Control devices.

• Changes to Joint Appendix JA4 for wall, roof, and floor assemblies.

We are very interested in your comments and feedback, please email us at feedback@aaidesign.com

“When all is said and done, one of the most influential architectural voices to come out of the Bay Area has been Christopher Alexander—not for his buildings as much as his search for humane ways to assemble buildings and communities that can resonate through time.

Now the professor emeritus of architecture at UC Berkeley has another title to add to the list.  He’s the recipient of the 11^th Vincent Scully Prize from the National Building Museum, an award given “to recognize exemplary practice, scholarship, or criticism in architecture, historic preservation, and urban design.”

The $40,000 honor is named after historian-critic Scully, a longtime professor at Yale University; past winners include Jane Jacobs and Prince Charles.  Not a bad crowd for someone who in 2005’s The Nature of Order lay down the simple definition by which buildings should be judged; “the satisfaction people felt when using them.”

For the record, the above work has four volumes and is subtitled “An Essay on the Art of Building and the Nature of the Universe.”  For a more accessible taste of Alexander’s contribution to our architectural conscience—one you can draw from endlessly—I suggest A Pattern Language.”

We are very interested in your comments and feedback, please email us at feedback@aaidesign.com

Big ticket construction projects typically pay the bills.  As is the case in many cities, the San Jose Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Building Division has been heavily impacted

by the real estate downturn and its consequences.  In general, the City is facing the most challenging fiscal crisis in its history.  City revenues have been drying up, with the bulk of construction being commercial tenant improvements, remodels and additions, often with low valuations.

Despite the cities’ grim financial state, currently there are not any plans to change the STI, ITI, or Express   Permit processes.  City sources also indicate that there are no plans to change the permit fee, plan check fee structure or to extend the turnaround time for standard submittal plan checks.  However, as a result of staff reductions, there will be fewer appointments available each day.

To cut costs, the Building Division has further reduced its hours of operation where walk-in submittals are accepted and consultations are held.  This has exacerbated the already long wait times for those without appointments.

Previous estimated wait times ran in the range of 2 ½ to 3 ½ hours. Recent layoffs and retirements have further reduced the current counter staff to two technicians from the previous six to eight, who are available to serve the general public without appointments.  They are only available from 9:00 to 11:00AM, and from 1:00 to 3:00PM.  The same reduced hours of staff counter availability also appear

to apply to Express appointments as well, further constraining and already crowded calendar.

It is reasonable to expect wait times far in excess of 3 ½ hours.  Designers should not consider visiting the Building Division without an appointment.

We are very interested in your comments and feedback, please email us at feedback@aaidesign.com

Some of us attended a very informative tile installation seminar given by Crossville’s Director of Technical Services, specifically addressing two types of installations that have a history of producing unsightly, undesirable results.  He discussed the do’s and don’ts of glass tile and large format rectangular tile installation.  If not specified correctly, the installation of these tiles will almost always be problematic, guaranteeing an irate and unhappy client.

Exercise caution when specifying glass mosaics, especially in wet locations.  Obtain installation recommendations from your Rep. Be sure to review and discuss with the installer the manufacturer’s ‘Installation Guide’ for recommendations on substrate preparation, setting material types and colors, grout type and color, provision for expansion and contraction, and proper tile cutting and installation tools and methods.  All of these are critical for a successful, trouble-free installation.

Since we specify many large format rectangular tiles, we must be aware of the installation pitfalls that can occur when we don’t properly specify or require use of the correct large tile installation method. Many large format tiles have precisely cut rectified edges which ensure uniformity in two dimensions. However, even the most precision tiles meeting industry standards are subject to warpage (arc or crown) due to tension developed during pressing and drying.  Rectangular tiles are more prone to warpage than square shapes. To minimize these problems, Crossville and other manufacturers may cut rectangular tiles from larger square tiles.

Some recommendations to minimize lippage (edge to edge misalignment) between tiles:

Use a loose (wetter) sand-rich mortar mix

Mechanically vibrate or tamp edges of tile into proper alignment

Use medium bed (not thinset) mortar

1/8” min. joint (not credit card width)

Don’t use a half tile staggered pattern

In concrete Spec Section 3100, specify that substrate shall be level to max.1/8” in 10ft (not typ. ¼”)

Please review Crossville product literature for more detailed tile installation recommendations.

We are very interested in your comments and feedback, please email us at feedback@aaidesign.com

Other design firms report similar findings. They say companies of varying sizes in multiple industries are reducing per-employee office space by as much as 50%, and their total footprint by as much as 25%.  The article goes on to state that some companies are removing cubicle walls to create open floor plans.  Others are eliminating assigned workspaces for employees who primarily work off campus or spend most of their time in meetings. At any given time, Gensler estimates that 60% of employees are away from their desks.

On the downside, tighter quarters and open floor plans also can present challenges.  Open floor plans and low cubicle walls can create discord and lead to increased turnover.

We are very interested in your comments and feedback, please email us at feedback@aaidesign.com

We are very interested in your comments and feedback, please email us at feedback@aaidesign.com

Most people associate IT equipment with computer rooms and data centers. Most IT equipment is not housed in such locations.  For example, any desktop computer, server rack, fax machine or printer is a piece of IT equipment, but isn’t found in computer rooms, and isn’t directly covered by the NEC.

When a room is full of electronic equipment racks and dedicated cooling equipment, most people call it a data center, server room or computer room.  Designers often look to the NEC and assume that it must comply with Article 645.  Only Chapters 1-4 of the NEC are mandatory.  If they choose to install their equipment in accordance with Chapters 1-4 and do not need the leniency granted by Article 645, then they do not have to meet all the additional requirements spelled out in Article 645.

To avoid misinformed over-reactions from building officials, I recommend that facilities not be named ”server room”, “computer room”, or “data center”, but rather have a room names such as “equipment room”.

The authors emphasize that before designing a room to comply with NEC Article 645, assess the risks and benefits that the article provides.

Note that the additional requirements of, and leniency granted by Article 645 only apply when the following room prerequisites exist; Emergency power off and HVAC stations, personal entry limitations, fire resistant walls, ceilings and floors, automatic smoke dampers, smoke detectors if a raised floor is used, IT listed equipment.

We are very interested in your comments and feedback, please email us at feedback@aaidesign.com

A recently published article in the ‘Technology’ section of the January-February ‘Iluminate’ publication titled “The Potential of Hybrid Fluorescent-LED Products” bears reading.  The author writes that combining fluorescent and LED sources in a single fixture makes a great deal of sense for those wishing to produce good ambient and task illumination. Pendants using fluorescents provide indirect illumination-something LEDs are not well suited for, while LEDs allow focused task illumination that fluorescents are unable to match.

There is a compelling opportunity for manufacturers to combine solid-state with conventional lamp-based products in hybrid luminaire designs.  Hybrid products apply the best attributes of each source into luminaries that deliver greater performance or unique aesthetics beyond the capability of a single source approach. The challenge that manufacturers currently face in applying the hybrid approach in luminaire design is finding a viable match between the capabilities of the two sources.

We are very interested in your comments and feedback, please email us at feedback@aaidesign.com

Many jurisdictions, such as the City of San Jose, utilize CBC Table 2902.1 and Occupant Load Table 1004.1.1., while others may use CPC Table 4-1 and CPC Occupant Load Table ‘A’, or some mixture of the two codes.  For example, the City of Cupertino requires that the most restrictive calculation method be used.

We are very interested in your comments and feedback, please email us at  feedback@aaidesign.com