Are FHA and ADA resident parking requirements cumulative, or concurrent?

[Yikes]

A recently constructed 24 unit affordable apartment "elevator" building (publicly funded, in Los Angeles, subject to CBC 11B and ADA) has a parking lot with 10 stalls, all exclusively for resident use (no guest or staff parking required or provided).
5% the units are thus subject to CBC 11B/ ADA, and the remainder of the units are subject to CBC 11A / FHA for covered dwelling units.

- ADA/CBC 11B says that for the first 1-25 parking stalls, I need at least one accessible (van) stall, which I've provided.
- FHA / CBC 11A says that accessible parking must be provided to serve all covered dwelling units at the rate of 2% of all parking stalls. 2% of 10 stalls = 0.2 accessible stalls, and as mentioned above, I've provided one van accessible stall.

I have a CASp who thinks that the ADA/FHA requirements are exclusive of each other and therefore cumulative. His math is: 1 ADA stall + 0.2 FHA stall = 1.2 stalls, round up to two accessible stalls required.

My response is that the 11B/ADA units are also "covered multifamily dwelling units", and therefore, the parking requirements are not separate or cumulative. 1 accessible van stall for a 10 space parking lot used exclusively by residents of a 24 unit building should satisfy both ADA/11B and FHA/11A.

Do you think I am correct on this one?

 

[classicT]

Two different regulations that are typically (aside from Cali) looked at by two separate entities. Do not double dip.

Plan reviewer should review per one code at a time.

 

[mtlogcabin]

24 units and only 10 parking spaces. Who decides who gets to use the parking spaces?

 

[mark handler]

IMHO
2 Stalls required.

 

[mtlogcabin]

I assume you have one accessible apartment so one van accessible space is required. The second parking space can share the van accessible access aisle so you will only need to add the signage if there is a second tenant who needs a HC parking space. Again who decides who gets to use the parking spaces since they are for the tenants only and not guest. this is similar to employee parking lots. If no employees require an accessible parking space then an employer does not have to provide one. Then again you are in California

 

[SCBO1]

24 units and only 10 parking spaces. Who decides who gets to use the parking spaces?

Here they have pushed and piled snow in the ADA spot if not being used.

Not on subject, but curious...FHA makes loans on residential property, does the parking requirements address residential parking and does not allow on street parking?

 

[mark handler]

Here they have pushed and piled snow in the ADA spot if not being used.

That is a violation, and can be a fine in CA.
Access shall be maintained

 

[tmurray]

A recently constructed 24 unit affordable apartment "elevator" building (publicly funded, in Los Angeles, subject to CBC 11B and ADA) has a parking lot with 10 stalls, all exclusively for resident use (no guest or staff parking required or provided).
5% the units are thus subject to CBC 11B/ ADA, and the remainder of the units are subject to CBC 11A / FHA for covered dwelling units.

- ADA/CBC 11B says that for the first 1-25 parking stalls, I need at least one accessible (van) stall, which I've provided.
- FHA / CBC 11A says that accessible parking must be provided to serve all covered dwelling units at the rate of 2% of all parking stalls. 2% of 10 stalls = 0.2 accessible stalls, and as mentioned above, I've provided one van accessible stall.

I have a CASp who thinks that the ADA/FHA requirements are exclusive of each other and therefore cumulative. His math is: 1 ADA stall + 0.2 FHA stall = 1.2 stalls, round up to two accessible stalls required.

My response is that the 11B/ADA units are also "covered multifamily dwelling units", and therefore, the parking requirements are not separate or cumulative. 1 accessible van stall for a 10 space parking lot used exclusively by residents of a 24 unit building should satisfy both ADA/11B and FHA/11A.

Do you think I am correct on this one?

If it were cumulative, there should be wording to that effect. Otherwise, you have two competing clauses and the most restrictive applies.

Just my two cents.

 

[my250r11]

I'm just an inspector but I only inspect for code and local ordinances, not FHA or ADA. A117 I can enforce, ADA I can suggest or let the feds know. Here the zoning would not allow for that few of spaces. FHA & ADA are the owner and designers problems which ultimately it's the owners.
My 2 cents

 

[Yikes]

24 units and only 10 parking spaces. Who decides who gets to use the parking spaces?

This project is in a transit-oriented district. The planning department has drastically reduced the number of required parking stalls. There are now parts of LA where you can build apartments with zero parking spaces - - in which case you would also have zero accessible parking spaces. The total number of required parking spaces is determined by planning code, not building code or other accessibility codes / regs.
Once planning code has established the required number of parking stalls, then the building codes and accessibility regs determine the percentages / quantities of those stalls that must be accessible.

I assume you have one accessible apartment so one van accessible space is required. The second parking space can share the van accessible access aisle so you will only need to add the signage if there is a second tenant who needs a HC parking space. Again who decides who gets to use the parking spaces since they are for the tenants only and not guest. this is similar to employee parking lots. If no employees require an accessible parking space then an employer does not have to provide one. Then again you are in California

In ADA / CBC 11B-208.2.3.1, when your overall residential parking ratio is less than one stall per dwelling unit, then you don't need to provide one accessible stall for each accessible dwelling unit. Instead California requires you to follow Table 208.2, which is the same table as for nonresidential accessible parking. In this case the table requires one accessible stall (van accessible) for a parking facility with 1-25 total parking stalls. Regarding who gets to use the stalls, since all of the 10 parking stalls are unassigned, it is first come, first served.
FHA and CBC 1109A.5 only require assignment of accessible stalls if the other nonaccessible stalls are also assigned.

If it were cumulative, there should be wording to that effect. Otherwise, you have two competing clauses and the most restrictive applies.

Just my two cents.

If I were to do a venn diagram of FHA covered dwelling units and ADA dwelling units, they would not be two separated circles. The circle of ADA/11B would sit entirely inside the larger circle of FHA, and thus IMO the single van stall serves 100% of the FHA units and 100% of the ADA/11B units.

 

[ADAguy]

If it were cumulative, there should be wording to that effect. Otherwise, you have two competing clauses and the most restrictive applies.

Just my two cents.

As often stated on the forum, AHJ's review for code only. It is up to the designer/owner to comply with the law (federal).

 

[Yikes]

As often stated on the forum, AHJ's review for code only. It is up to the designer/owner to comply with the law (federal).

ADAguy, in that instance, do you agree that following whatever is the most stringent between local code and federal law will then satisfy both the AHJ and federal law?

 

[ADAguy]

Yes, ADA is a minimum; if local ordinances exceed it then they apply and then the AHJ bears responsibility for "code" compliance.
Owner bears responsibility for "legal" compliance.

 

[north star]

$ ~ $ ~ $

Yikes,

IMO, ...I believe that you are applying two different Standards
and therefore, two different sets of compliancy [ non-cumulative ]
FWIW, ...I vote 2 separate stalls !

$ ~ $ ~ $

 

[georgia plans exam]

If the IBC requires a guard on a roof with equipment within 10' of the edge and the IMC requires a guard on a roof with equipment within 10' of the edge, do I need to install 2 guards? No, the one guard satisfies both code requirements. IMHO, the one parking space satisfies the requirement for both entities.

GPE