OK to eliminate existing parking stalls to create accessible stalls?

[Yikes]

OK, this is probably more of a zoning/planning question:
Assuming for the moment when you restripe an existing non-accessible parking lot, that triggers requirements for accessible stall striping. Creating a van stall requires 17' of width, roughly the same as 2 conventional stalls, resulting in a net loss of one stall.

I had heard that in California, there is some state law for existing parking lots that allows you to reduce existing total parking stall counts as-needed for providing extra width for accessible parking. This can be done without re-opening old entitlement cases, etc. I cannot find this in the state law (California Government Code). Do you know if this is true?

 

[steveray]

Zoning would typically bend to code here....

 

[SCBO1]

I would think that would be a zoning regulation that needs to be adjusted for a reduction but feel most would allow an ADA space with signage be installed where there was none. It would also trigger routes to be upgraded, like cutting curbs or installing ramps for accessibility .

Some states have modified their laws for restriping parking lots, I hope those laws don't keep someone from doing the right thing!

 

[arwat23]

Zoning would likely bend to the CBC. In a jurisdiction I typically work in, there is a section in their municipal code that says "required parking may be reduced... based on quantitative information provided by the applicant...". My firm has used this before to reduce the required number of parking spaces to allow for new accessible spaces at old parking lots (only when there isn't enough space to add new parking to meet all of the parking requirements for zoning).

CBC usually takes priority over local zoning, at least when it comes to Ch11B and parking. Providing accessible parking is more important than meeting whatever zoning requires typically.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The building code doesn't regulate the number of parking spaces on a site, or the size of parking spaces other than accessible stalls. The number of parking spaces is a zoning issue, and the building code then regulates the number of accessible spaces as a function based on the total number of spaces actually provided.

To lose one space may not even be a zoning issue. Zoning codes generally (but I can't speak for California, since I'm on the other side of the country) establish a minimum number of spaces, but it's rare that the number of spaces provided works out to be exactly the minimum number required by zoning. There's usually enough that one or two spaces can be lost to accessible aisles without triggering a zoning crisis.

 

[Yikes]

The building code doesn't regulate the number of parking spaces on a site, or the size of parking spaces other than accessible stalls. The number of parking spaces is a zoning issue, and the building code then regulates the number of accessible spaces as a function based on the total number of spaces actually provided.

To lose one space may not even be a zoning issue. Zoning codes generally (but I can't speak for California, since I'm on the other side of the country) establish a minimum number of spaces, but it's rare that the number of spaces provided works out to be exactly the minimum number required by zoning. There's usually enough that one or two spaces can be lost to accessible aisles without triggering a zoning crisis.

Out here in California, the minimum quantity of parking spaces is typically established via zoning code. I dense urban places with small lots, especially in older areas where lot lines may have been established before the advent of cars, it is not uncommon for a small commercial lot to have only a few parking spaces.
Example - commercial building with 4 stalls at a very acute angle:

Restriping for a single van accessible stall plus a ramp up to the entry door would wipe out almost all other parking.

 

[mark handler]

Barrier Removal is a Federal and State mandate, the number of stalls provided to a building or structure is a local Planning issue.
Federal and state laws/mandates supersede Local Planning.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Restriping for a single van accessible stall plus a ramp up to the entry door would wipe out almost all other parking.

Understood. That's still a zoning issue, not a building code issue.

 

[Yikes]

Understood. That's still a zoning issue, not a building code issue.

Right. That's my point: the building (accessibility) code requirement to provide accessible stalls when you re-stripe is setting up an inherent conflict with previous zoning approvals. In that case, which code "wins" the fight?

 

[arwat23]

Right. That's my point: the building (accessibility) code requirement to provide accessible stalls when you re-stripe is setting up an inherent conflict with previous zoning approvals. In that case, which code "wins" the fight?

Accessibility requirements will, in almost every situation (and likely in the situation your in) "win" over local municipal code. There are exceptions to this that can make accessible parking not required, but if those CBC exceptions don't apply, then CBC / ADAS wins.

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that would potentially allow you to not need to install accessible parking is if it is "technically infeasible" to create an accessible parking space, or if its an unreasonable hardship per CBC 11B-202.4, exception 8. Based on what I've done in my work, if CBC / ADAS require something, zoning must bend to it.