Does Path of Travel Improvements Include Street Parking That's Down The Street?

[arwat23]

I'm working on a TI for a new restaurant moving in to an existing building. We need to make accessible path of travel improvements using the 20% minimum exception (CA specific requirement), which basically means everything needs to be accessible since this is a pretty expensive project. Most path of travel elements aren't a concern; these improvements are straight forward and relatively simple. The only issue I'm having is with the accessible parking.

The site is kind of weird (at least for the area). There's no on-site parking, only street parking. There's no parking that's immediate adjacent to the building unless to cross the street or walk down the block. Providing new accessible parking immediate adjacent to the building is infeasible since there's no space for any parking. The city doesn't require us to provide parking for this building. There's a non-compliant accessible space on the street a few building's down. The parking attaches to the same sidewalk that runs to the building we're working on.

Would we need to make the non-complaint accessible parking space that's a few buildings down (a couple hundred feet away) accessible and provide a accessible path of travel to it?

Using 2022 California Building Code / 2010 ADAS.

 

[mtlogcabin]

The city doesn't require us to provide parking for this building.

I think that is your answer. You can't be forced nor can you force your requirements on property you do not own.

 

[Yikes]

​

"11B-208.1: Where parking spaces are provided, parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 11B-208. "
If no onsite private parking for the building is required by your zoning code, then no accessible parking is required.

Note that for the "20% rule", exception #8.6 says:
6. When possible, additional accessible elements such as parking, signs, storage and alarms.

Since a private building owner does not have control over usage of parking in the public right of way, I would say that accessible parking is "not possible".

Furthermore, note that exception #8 s an EXCEPTION. Put another way, if you already comply with all of the applicable provisions of 202.4 listed below, then you don't need the exception:

11B-202.4 Path of Travel Requirements in Alterations, Additions and Structural Repairs​

When alterations or additions are made to existing buildings or facilities, an accessible path of travel to the specific area of alteration or addition shall be provided. The primary accessible path of travel shall include:

1. A primary entrance to the building or facility,
2. Toilet and bathing facilities serving the area,
3. Drinking fountains serving the area,
4. Public telephones serving the area, and
5. Signs.

No mention of parking in the list above.

 

[LR419]

ADA 206.2.1 requires an accessible route from each site arrival point (parking space, loading zone, public street, sidewalk, public transportation stop) to the building entrance. If the site arrival point is a street or sidewalk, that's where the accessible route starts. There is no requirement for off-site work.

 

[Jean Tessmer-HI]

I'm working on a TI for a new restaurant moving in to an existing building. We need to make accessible path of travel improvements using the 20% minimum exception (CA specific requirement), which basically means everything needs to be accessible since this is a pretty expensive project. Most path of travel elements aren't a concern; these improvements are straight forward and relatively simple. The only issue I'm having is with the accessible parking.

The site is kind of weird (at least for the area). There's no on-site parking, only street parking. There's no parking that's immediate adjacent to the building unless to cross the street or walk down the block. Providing new accessible parking immediate adjacent to the building is infeasible since there's no space for any parking. The city doesn't require us to provide parking for this building. There's a non-compliant accessible space on the street a few building's down. The parking attaches to the same sidewalk that runs to the building we're working on.

Would we need to make the non-complaint accessible parking space that's a few buildings down (a couple hundred feet away) accessible and provide a accessible path of travel to it?

Using 2022 California Building Code / 2010 ADAS.

ADA 206.2.1 requires an accessible route from each site arrival point (parking space, loading zone, public street, sidewalk, public transportation stop) to the building entrance. If the site arrival point is a street or sidewalk, that's where the accessible route starts. There is no requirement for off-site work.

I'm working on a TI for a new restaurant moving in to an existing building. We need to make accessible path of travel improvements using the 20% minimum exception (CA specific requirement), which basically means everything needs to be accessible since this is a pretty expensive project. Most path of travel elements aren't a concern; these improvements are straight forward and relatively simple. The only issue I'm having is with the accessible parking.

The site is kind of weird (at least for the area). There's no on-site parking, only street parking. There's no parking that's immediate adjacent to the building unless to cross the street or walk down the block. Providing new accessible parking immediate adjacent to the building is infeasible since there's no space for any parking. The city doesn't require us to provide parking for this building. There's a non-compliant accessible space on the street a few building's down. The parking attaches to the same sidewalk that runs to the building we're working on.

Would we need to make the non-complaint accessible parking space that's a few buildings down (a couple hundred feet away) accessible and provide a accessible path of travel to it?

Using 2022 California Building Code / 2010 ADAS.

Would we need to make the non-complaint accessible parking space that's a few buildings down (a couple hundred feet away) accessible and provide a accessible path of travel to it?
Answer is Yes, under the Federal ADA law. Or find an accessible city drop off parking zone nearby, or ask the city to provide a technical infeasibility letter to you that they would accept to process the permit? Under the ADA there is more flexibility for existing construction. You will need to document the costs applied to the 20% (representing the portion of actual total cost) and work your way out from the point of improvement to the parking to show how far your 20% got towards compliance with barrier removal to ADA parking stall. You'll probably run out of funds before you get to the parking stall, especially if the cities sidewalks, curb ramps, cross walks, are not in ADA title II compliance.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Would we need to make the non-complaint accessible parking space that's a few buildings down (a couple hundred feet away) accessible and provide a accessible path of travel to it?
Answer is Yes, under the Federal ADA law.

Please cite chapter and verse on where the ADA says this. I've been dealing with accessibility issues since 20 years before there was an ADA and I have never encountered anything suggesting that a building/property owner has any responsibility or duty to provide accessible features beyond the limits of their own property. (**Except in specific cases such as medical facilities.**)

 

[Jean Tessmer-HI]

Please cite chapter and verse on where the ADA says this. I've been dealing with accessibility issues since 20 years before there was an ADA and I have never encountered anything suggesting that a building/property owner has any responsibility or duty to provide accessible features beyond the limits of their own property. (**Except in specific cases such as medical facilities.**)

You are correct.

 

[arwat23]

Would we need to make the non-complaint accessible parking space that's a few buildings down (a couple hundred feet away) accessible and provide a accessible path of travel to it?
Answer is Yes, under the Federal ADA law.

Please explain, because this in new to me. I've not heard of a private entity being responsible for accessibility features outside for their property / on public streets.

or ask the city to provide a technical infeasibility letter to you that they would accept to process the permit? Under the ADA there is more flexibility for existing construction. You will need to document the costs applied to the 20% (representing the portion of actual total cost) and work your way out from the point of improvement to the parking to show how far your 20% got towards compliance with barrier removal to ADA parking stall.

Why would I need to do this. No parking is required on site per local ordinance. If no parking is required, and no parking provided on site (only parking is street parking outside of the property), then what would trigger ADAS 208 / CBC 11B-208?

You'll probably run out of funds before you get to the parking stall, especially if the cities sidewalks, curb ramps, cross walks, are not in ADA title II compliance.

California has a fun little addition to the 20% exception (I don't think IEBC or ADA have this, but please correct me if I'm wrong). We have a strict order we're required to follow when determining improvements. It starts with "an accessible entry", which, according to multiple jurisdictions, includes the path from accessible parking spaces. That's #1. Can't go to #2 "An accessible route to the altered area" (usually interior work) or #3 "At least one accessible restroom for each sex or one accessible unisex (single-user or family) restroom" until #1 is complete or a hardship determined.

Ignoring the 20% exception, if we need to provide accessible parking and that accessible parking down the street counts as a "site arrival point", then the first thing we need to provide is an accessible route from the parking, regardless of if the existing accessible parking is actually accessible. So that would involve sidewalk work outside of the property.

 

[Joe.B]

which basically means everything needs to be accessible since this is a pretty expensive project.

Over or under the $203,611 threshold?

 

[arwat23]

Over or under the $203,611 threshold?

Over, likely no less than $500k.

 

[Joe.B]

Over, likely no less than $500k.

Are they (you?) arguing for a hardship? If not, it's full compliance within the site. If there's parking, it's included, if not, it's only required to provide an accessible route to the PROW. Right?

 

[arwat23]

Are they (you?) arguing for a hardship? If not, it's full compliance within the site. If there's parking, it's included, if not, it's only required to provide an accessible route to the PROW. Right?

The plan is to not argue hardship and say no parking is provided. All parking is off site (street parking) and not the responsibility of the owner. No on-site parking means no accessible parking required for this project. The parking is the only element that's not on the property. We're improving everything else other than the parking.

That's my team's plan at least...

 

[Joe.B]

Check out 11B-206.2.1. "...within the site". It sounds like in this case you can bring your accessible route to the PROW and call it done. Exception 2 has come in handy for me before, but not likely applicable to your project.

 

[Yikes]

The plan is to not argue hardship and say no parking is provided. All parking is off site (street parking) and not the responsibility of the owner. No on-site parking means no accessible parking required for this project. The parking is the only element that's not on the property. We're improving everything else other than the parking.

That's my team's plan at least...

I agree that both ADA and CBC 11B-208.1 and Table 208.2 only require parking to be accessible when parking is provided.
If there are no zoning requirements for onsite parking, and the only parking around there is not specifically leased or reserved for the hotel but is rather a general public parking lot, then there's no accessible parking related to the hotel operation.

An analogy would be that 11B-202.4 also requires public telephones serving the area of alteration to be accessible. I think the public phone that's closest to my office is at a mountain resort 30 miles from my city. When doing an alteration in town, no one is requiring that phone to be made accessible or be provided with a 30 mile long accessible route.
Once you have determined that the phone, or the parking stall, is not located on site and is not required by other laws or regulations to meet onsite obligations, it is off the table for scope of accessiblity.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The plan is to not argue hardship and say no parking is provided. All parking is off site (street parking) and not the responsibility of the owner. No on-site parking means no accessible parking required for this project. The parking is the only element that's not on the property. We're improving everything else other than the parking.

That's my team's plan at least...

If parking is not provided on the site, I believe an accessible route has to be provided to an accessible entrance from a/the "site arrival point." Has that been taken into account?

 

[arwat23]

If parking is not provided on the site, I believe an accessible route has to be provided to an accessible entrance from a/the "site arrival point." Has that been taken into account?

I believe so. The arrival point to the site is the front door (one of those site where the property line and the exterior walls are basically the same thing). The side walk in front of the building is accessible, everything interior is or will become accessible.

Closest public transit is multiple blocks away, no drop offs on the block, and all parking is street parking.

 

[steveray]

1104.1​

At least one accessible route within the site shall be provided from public transportation stops, accessible parking and accessible passenger loading zones, and public streets or sidewalks to the accessible building entrance served. Where an accessible route must cross speed bumps or vehicle wheel stops, there shall be a minimum clear passage width of not less than 32 inches (815 mm).

 

[mark handler]

Cities can require off-site improvements in connection with development projects.
These requirements are often tied to zoning changes, conditional use permits, or other development approval, as conditions of Approval.

 

[Joe.B]

Capital improvements. Good point.

 

[steveray]

We can't in CT...

Cities can require off-site improvements in connection with development projects.
These requirements are often tied to zoning changes, conditional use permits, or other development approval, as conditions of Approval.