# Commercial kitchen accessibility



## khsmith55

Can someone give me a brief overview of accessibility requirements for commercial kitchens. I have always treated them as an "employee work area", which means you must be able to enter (36" wide path) and exit ("backing out"? no wheelchair turning space, 60"). Would waitress stations have similar requirements? 2006 Ibc
Thanks, Ken


----------



## mark handler

28 CFR Part 36, Appendix B to Part 36 - Analysis and Commentary on the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design

206.2.8 of the 2010 Standards exempt common use circulation paths in employee work areas from the requirements of section 402 where it may be difficult to comply with the technical requirements for accessible routes due to the size or function of the area
Common use circulation paths within employee work areas that are less than 1,000 square feet and are defined by permanently installed partitions, counters, casework, or furnishings are exempt. Kitchens in quick service restaurants, cocktail bars, and the employee side of service counters are frequently covered by this exception


----------



## mp25

On my projects (typically QSR's), i provide accessible entry, turning space, and exit. If the turning space is not close to the entry i have a 36" path to the turning area.


----------



## JBI

mark handler said:


> 28 CFR Part 36, Appendix B to Part 36 - Analysis and Commentary on the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design
> 
> 206.2.8 of the 2010 Standards exempt common use circulation paths in employee work areas from the requirements of section 402 where it may be difficult to comply with the technical requirements for accessible routes due to the size or function of the area
> Common use circulation paths within employee work areas that are less than 1,000 square feet and are defined by permanently installed partitions, counters, casework, or furnishings are exempt. Kitchens in quick service restaurants, cocktail bars, and the employee side of service counters are frequently covered by this exception



ADA is not directly enforceable by Code Officials (generally). The adopted Code and the Referenced Standard are.


----------



## ADAguy

It depends Mark, in CA the state architect is directed by GC 4450 to enforce a standard no less than ADASAD at a minimum.
The CBC does not however require barrier removal on existing buildings and sites. That is an ADA requirement.

There in lies the conumdrum, if no work is being done to a pre-ADA building/site it is the owners responsibility to know of the ADA and its requirements.
How are they to know? Therein lies the issue, one of notification on a recurring basis. Who provides/is responsible for providing the notification? How often?
States are directed to comply with the ADA with responsibility to enforce falling to DOJ unless individual states allow for enforcement on a state level (Unrhu), AHJ's only being responsible for the CBC.

The unintended result of Unrhu is to create "Bounty Hunters" who are "rewarded" by law to seek out and file actions against providers of public services. Was this the intent of Unrhu? Maybe not at the time but attempts to cure it have met with considerable resistance. The most recent revision has been SB 269 which has further clarified the circumstances associated with filing claims. 

Much of this could have been avoided with ongoing notification to owners, just as we are notified about car license renewals and taxes.


----------



## north star

*& = &*

ADAguy,

Unfortunately, that "ongoing notification to owners" would cost the
taxpayers more money ( i.e. - staffing, office resources, materials,
etc. ) and create more levels of bureaucracy.

I do not like the "playing field" as it is today, or as it is developing
in to, ...but IMO, if someone is either in business, or thinking about
going in to business, they should at least have a due diligence report
performed initially, and probably annually........To not do so just
exposes them in one more area........Unfortunately, that is one of
the many costs of owning & operating a business.   

*& = &*


----------



## mark handler

JBI said:


> ADA is not directly enforceable by Code Officials (generally). The adopted Code and the Referenced Standard are.


True BUT, it give you *guidance* as to the intent.
Designers and Owners are required to comply with the federal and state laws.


----------



## north star

*$ ~ ! ~ $*

Continuing with this Topic,  ...are Commercial Kitchens
required to comply with ADA compliance  [  i.e. - countertop
heights, ...appliance controls heights & graspability,
...circulation paths, ...cabinetry storage of goods,
...electrical switches & equipment control panel switches,
...other ]  ?....*RE:* Section 804, `10 ADASAD.

Please cite your sources !......Thanks !


*$ ~ ! ~ $*


----------



## ADAguy

Compliance, as has been noted is a tight rope walk, especially when dealing with new vs existing restaurants.
Starting with a clean sheet and knowing the minimums, there should be no excuse for poor design when designing a new facility.


----------



## Robert

I have a similar scenario as Ken though it is a backbar rather than a commercial kitchen. The health inspector is requiring a hand sink behind the bar (existing bar, 80 years old, no major work over the years which would otherwise trigger accessible upgrades. Don't know why all of a sudden she is requiring this when nothing has changed in decades). Anyway, does this sink need to be 34" max. height or can it match existing work counter height of 36"?


----------



## ADAguy

If new or an alteration to existing it should comply with 34", then again unless it is requested by an employee of a large bar as opposed to one with 5 or less employees then it might be allowed at 36". The bar does have a lower height section for wheelchair users doesn't it?


----------



## north star

*$ ~ $*

ADAguy,

In doing some reading on this topic, what I read
said that it is a "gray area" regarding requiring
full ADA compliance [ with all aspects ] of the
Comm. Kitchen layout \ the back areas of a
restaurant.......As I read it, there seems to be
some "current" limits on design on manufactured
equipment [ design heights & graspability of the
controls ], working spaces designed for fully
able persons versus larger aisles between
equipment & appliances, ...non-slip floors,
...access to stored inventory, etc.

For the most part, it is desired for prepared food
to be prepared & served quickly, not always, but
for the most part, so speed is a critical factor in
assisting in keeping a restaurant business solvent.
I am also not saying that challenged individuals
could not perform in a well thought out & designed
restaurant.....It is just not the "norm".......Access
to electrical panels & controls is also another
issue, not just wall mounted switches.

*$ ~ $*


----------



## Robert

The bar has fewer than 5 employees. None of the bar top is accessible...all at 42". Bar top has been in place for probably 80 years (original to the building.)


----------



## mark handler

Robert said:


> The bar has fewer than 5 employees. None of the bar top is accessible...all at 42". Bar top has been in place for probably 80 years (original to the building.)


Is there equivalent bar space  somewhere?


----------



## Jmb

Wouldn't the ability to approach, enter and exit a commercial kitchen come into play (IBC 2009: 1103.2.3)?
This ability would give potential door maneuvering clearances on both sides, but not require the route through the space (IBC 2009: 1104.3.1)
Also, if a hand wash sink is provided, wouldn't that possibility be a common use sink? If not used to perform work, shouldn't it be accessible?


----------



## ADAguy

I would tend to agree with you.

As to 1937 Bar, does it have any historic designation, if not barrier removal is required.


----------



## Robert

The hand sink the health inspector is requiring the owner to install is in the back bar area, an employee only space so would not be used by the public. According to the CA Retail Food Code the hand sink in the bathrooms meets the sink requirement UNLESS major revisions have taken place since 1996, which there have been none. So I am still shaking my head as to why she is requiring one.

Mark, yes there are loose tables at 32" height.

ADAguy...can you please elaborate on the barrier removal? The restrooms are not in compliance, nor is the entry, hall width, levers, bar, etc. An old building that hasn't been remodeled....pre ADA. I am always hit with "what are we required to do" vs. what should we do. Thanks.


----------



## tmurray

If you are questioning the official's grounds for requiring a the sink, you are well within your rights to ask for the section that requires it. You can also ask for a written interpretation if the application of the section is unclear. Depending on the official, you may have to put a nice bow on the ask so you don't offend them. We get asked for code interpretations a fair amount and gladly issue them.


----------



## steveray

Do you want the person handling your food to have to go into the bathroom to wash their hands or should it be near their workstation so that it actually happens...?


----------



## north star

@ @ @


Usually, the State Health Departments "require" the Hand Washing
Sink in the Kitchen Areas.......Whether the State actually enforces
it, or checks the water temps. is another story.


*???*


----------



## Robert

I agree, having a handsink near food prep makes sense, but according to CA Retail Food code, if the building did not have a handsink near food prep before 1996, it does not need one now, unless the owner remodels. Keep in mind too, this is a bar that happens to have hot pockets, microwave pizzas, mostly prepackaged food and not a fresh food commercial kitchen with cooktop, hood, 3 compartment sink, food prep sink, grease trap, etc. I will recommend to the owner to ask for the section citing the need for the sink. They have given him 90 days to comply. It wouldn't be the first time I have missed fine print somewhere!


----------



## JPohling

Lets bring this topic back for discussion.....................California and a commercial kitchen is the area in question,   I have a plan reviewer that is asking for accessibility compliance with sections 11B-212 and 11B-804.  In addition to sections relating to sink and appliance access.

I believe we are exempt from most accessibility requirements within the kitchen with the exception of a path into the kitchen, a turning circle, and the path back out.  11B-206.2.5 only pertains to "functional areas"  I believe we would fall under  11B-206.2.8  Employee Work Areas, exception #2  which eliminates compliance with 11B-402.

anyone have additional scoping or code sections to support this?


----------



## north star

*# # #*

JPohling,

You could draft your response letter to the Plan Reviewer
with the Code Sections and Exceptions that you listed.
Provide your reasoning and see if it holds up......If the Plan
Reviewer doesn't agree with your Code sections and
interpretations, ...kindly request an interpretation from the
B.O. and go from there.

*# # #*


----------



## mark handler

I do belive the sinks do need to be accessible if they are "common" space for all users of the kitchen. If The sinks are in an individual's work space then no.


----------



## ADAguy

Also Robert, as to your note of non-compliant RR's, etc. please read the ADA regs, "no" grandfathering, you "must" remove barriers that are readily achievable in patron areas. Where have you been for the past 27 years?


----------



## Paul Sweet

Making pre-ADA restrooms accessible isn't often "readily achievable"


----------



## ADAguy

It depends:
1. Is there both a mens and womens? Then consider making them into a unisex.
2. is there only a single? May have to take some add'l sq. ftg or file a hardship.
3. If Health dept requires both a men's and womens due to serving liquor you may have to file an appeal to eliminate the urinal, I've done this with some success.
4. In many cases the use of unisex works, if not then post as employees only but beware Title I EEOC claims.


----------



## Robert

There are 2 existing noncompliant restrooms. The plumbing code will not allow one unisex as the occupancy load dictates 2 restrooms. The cost to make these restrooms would at least triple the square footage of the existing restrooms...probably be in the $70,000 range. Do you consider this readily achievable? Not to mention the area of the bar/restaurant that would be lost to the new restroom area. "Readily achievable...really?"


----------



## mark handler

Robert said:


> There are 2 existing noncompliant restrooms. The plumbing code will not allow one unisex as the occupancy load dictates 2 restrooms. The cost to make these restrooms would at least triple the square footage of the existing restrooms...probably be in the $70,000 range. Do you consider this readily achievable? Not to mention the area of the bar/restaurant that would be lost to the new restroom area. "Readily achievable...really?"


$70, 000 really?


----------



## north star

*+ + = =*

Which Code book or Standard is the term "readily achievable"
listed in ?

*= = + +*


----------



## mark handler

north star said:


> *+ + = =*
> 
> Which Code book or Standard is the term "readily achievable"
> listed in ?
> 
> *= = + +*


Federal ADA


----------



## north star

*= = + +*

Thanks Mark !  

*+ + = =*


----------



## north star

*o + o + o*

For all:

*Readily Achievable Barrier Removal* 
*"* The ADA requires that small businesses remove architectural barriers
in existing facilities when it is "readily achievable" to do so.......Readily
 achievable means "easily accomplishable without much difficulty or
expense.".........This requirement is based on the size and resources
of a business.........So, businesses with more resources are expected
to remove more barriers than businesses with fewer resources.

Readily achievable barrier removal may include providing an accessible
route from a parking lot to the business's entrance, installing an entrance
ramp, widening a doorway, installing accessible door hardware,
repositioning shelves, or moving tables, chairs, display racks, vending
machines, or other furniture........When removing barriers, businesses are
required to comply with the Standards to the extent possible......For
example, where there is not enough space to install a ramp with a slope
that complies with the Standards, a business may install a ramp with a
slightly steeper slope........However, any deviation from the Standards must
not pose a significant safety risk.*"*


*+ o + o +*


----------



## mark handler

Robert said:


> There are 2 existing noncompliant restrooms. The plumbing code will not allow one unisex as the occupancy load dictates 2 restrooms. The cost to make these restrooms would at least triple the square footage of the existing restrooms...probably be in the $70,000 range. Do you consider this readily achievable? Not to mention the area of the bar/restaurant that would be lost to the new restroom area. "Readily achievable...really?"





mark handler said:


> $70, 000 really?


*National average *$9,000 (restroom remodeling)

https://www.fixr.com/costs/disability-remodeling


----------



## Robert

We are in SF bay area....much higher construction cost here than national average. Correct me if I'm wrong but In addition to construction cost, fees also include A & E costs (structural will be required), energy consultant, lead and asbestos abatement (remember this is an old building), plan check and permit fees. I believe it is up to the AHJ to determine what is readily achievable, yes?


----------



## mark handler

Robert
You may have higher construction costs than national average.
Are you remodeling or adding?
Architectural structural maybe, but not always required.
Energy consultant not always required
Lead and Asbestos abatement, are you remodeling more than 100 sq ft?
not always required,
Plan check and permit fees, a couple hundred, not thousands.

You fill out the request on what is readily achievable
Not $70,000 unless you're adding over 500 sq. ft. of new restrooms


----------



## Paul Sweet

The $9K is for a residential restroom.  Restaurants are often slab-on-grade, so you have to do a lot of jackhammering and patching concrete.  A lot of times restrooms are wedged in a small area between the kitchen and a lobby where there is no room for expansion, so you have to have a remote restroom, which means more jackhammering and patching.

It's always doable, but not always "readily achievable".


----------



## Robert

Thanks Mark and Paul. Yes this would be an addition (requiring design review) as the extra space required would take away from the interior bar area. There would be structural engineering and one wall is bearing. New footings, probably a shear wall too. Energy will be required T24 for new lighting and ductwork (mandatory measures). I didn't know about the abatement exception to asbestos and lead, but the addition will be over 100 sq. ft. as the bathrooms will require multiple stalls. Also, these restrooms will have better finishes and fixtures than fast food restrooms. I also know from previous remodel work there are always surprises in old buildings...dryrot, mold, termites, electrical and pluming...all of those great unforseen conditions that clients need to be prepared for. Anyway I'm more interested in who makes the decision as to what is readily achievable? AHJ?


----------



## steveray

"Technically infeasible" is what the ICC uses...and it is the AHJ, here it is the State...


----------



## ADAguy

Robert, ADA is very specific as to barrier removal requirements for existing unaltered facilities,
have you read it.  I am doing a 1947 bar in Alhambra. CA with 21" doors on the RR's, they may
remain if owner provides a compliant single occupant unisex RR.  Front door closer exceeds
5 lbs of force, simple adjustment, old bar too high - provide barmaid, parking required restriping,
change (1) table base for access, not so hard to bring it into compliance; all readily achievable,
but he was sued first.


----------



## JPohling

ADA guy,  How does a barmaid provide compliance for a bar top that is to high?  No permitted work being done?  this is just barrier removal?


----------



## ADAguy

By providing table service as a reasonable accommodiation, given that back of bar equip and front floor space limits reconstructing the bar. Post a sign indicating that patrons requiring assistance will be served by bar attendants.


----------



## Robert

ADAguy, thanks for your suggestions. For me, the biggest gray area is what constitutes feasible or infeasible? In your case the improvements had a cost of X, in other cases the cost may be 5X (see my earlier post on structural, A&E fees, abatement, design review, etc.). And if I am understanding things, the AHJ decides what is feasible. If one gets sued, AHJ is held harmless (I would assume) so it is up to the owner to defend the cost of upgrades vs. the feasibility based on the business income? I see many pre-1990 mom & pop business with non-compliant restrooms, and the area & cost required to make them accessible sends them into a tailspin. If a mom & pop coffee shop makes 50k a year, and a new unisex addition costs them 20k, is this technically feasible? What would be a fair percentage of business profit to divert toward being deemed "technically feasible"? I'm just thinking out loud here but is this how a judge might look at it?


----------



## ADAguy

There is a difference between technical (structurally) undoable and financial hardship. Barriers don't have to be removed all at once but as income allows, but be prepared to open your books if you plead hardship, most won"t.


----------



## Paul Sweet

The $50K the mom & pop coffee shop makes is probably their income, not profit that is available for improvements.


----------



## mark handler

A Lawsuit can still be filed even if a hardship is asked for and/or Granted.
Lawyers will generally cost more than the fixing of the issue.


----------



## Robert

I really think this is an area that needs work on the law and code books. CA has done a wonderful job with the 20% rule with remodeling work triggering accessible upgrades. It is clear, spelled out very well in the code for any work requiring a permit (with some exceptions) and lists the order of importance starting with path of travel all the way down to drinking fountains. Yet, there is nothing in place for out of compliance buildings with owners just going about their business. Many are vulnerable and don't even know it. This whole grey area about technically feasible and infeasible is open for exploitation on both sides and needs to be spelled out similar to the 20% rule. And it may very well require business owners to open their books. It may be that X% of their income (based upon a tax return statement) be used for upgrades and have X amount of time to achieve it. This way it is more of a sliding scale with their income, yet holds them accountable. We do this in CA for seismic retrofitting of soft story buildings that are at-risk structures to the public so why not for accessibility.


----------



## Thomas Fallon

Robert said:


> There are 2 existing noncompliant restrooms. The plumbing code will not allow one unisex as the occupancy load dictates 2 restrooms. The cost to make these restrooms would at least triple the square footage of the existing restrooms...probably be in the $70,000 range. Do you consider this readily achievable? Not to mention the area of the bar/restaurant that would be lost to the new restroom area. "Readily achievable...really?"


I apologize if someone already wrote this (I looked and didn't see) - most building/plumbing codes allow the buidling official to make a judgement on the number of fixtures required.  In addition, I believe Oregon and maybe some other building codes actually state that it is ok to reduce the number of required fixtures by one to meet ADA in a remodel (not applicable in new construction).  Check your adopted: 1. Existing Building Code, Building Code, Plumbing Code.  Then check with your building official (or maybe start with the official).


----------



## mark handler

Technically infeasible” is defined as something that has little likelihood of being accomplished because existing structural conditions would require removing or altering a load-bearing member that is an essential part of the structural frame; or because other existing physical or site constraints prohibit modifications or additions that comply fully with the Standards. The 2010 Standards also contain an exemption for certain alterations that would threaten or destroy the historic significance of an historic property.


----------



## Thomas Fallon

My comm


mark handler said:


> Technically infeasible” is defined as something that has little likelihood of being accomplished because existing structural conditions would require removing or altering a load-bearing member that is an essential part of the structural frame; or because other existing physical or site constraints prohibit modifications or additions that comply fully with the Standards. The 2010 Standards also contain an exemption for certain alterations that would threaten or destroy the historic significance of an historic property.


My comment is about the plumbing/building/existing building code - not the ADA requirements.  It is about the idea of making a single ADA unisex restroom where two restrooms might be required.  I'm not suggesting someone not comply with ADA nor the locally adopted accessibility requirements, but that they get approval if needed, to reduce the number of fixtures required.  (This would also apply if you needed two men's fixtures and two women's but the best option would be to do two single occupant restrooms).  Technically infeasible does not apply where I have seen this allowance - it becomes more common sense.  The building official will not allow you to do this if you have the space for it.  It's on a case by case basis.  Especially if this is a part of a barrier removal program (where you were not doing other renovations).


----------



## ADAguy

If liquor is served you may have to get an exception from your local health department as you may not have enough room for urinals.
Most AHJs will allow a reduction in fixture count for pre-ADA facilities which lack space.


----------



## Thomas Fallon

ADAguy said:


> If liquor is served you may have to get an exception from your local health department as you may not have enough room for urinals.
> Most AHJs will allow a reduction in fixture count for pre-ADA facilities which lack space.


An EXCELLENT point!


----------



## Thomas Fallon

ADA Guy:  I sent this question to the Access Board as is causing quite a bit of controversy in my office, with a client, and with a vendor.  Someone in this thread alluded to complying with this via the same method I use.  203.9 requires you to be able to enter and exit an employee work area.  If the work area is small and exempt from the common circulation requirement, my interpretation is that you still need to be able to enter AND exit.  And if there is a door closing behind you, (and you are expected to get into the space), in order to exit you must be able to turn around.  So I require a turn-around within this space (or three point turn compliant with code).   I have not found anything official on this.  Thoughts/rulings/knowledge?

Thank you!


----------



## ADAguy

If you can enter it you must be able to exit, however the alteration of the space may not be required other than to address possible Title I issues if an employee applied for a position.


----------



## Thomas Fallon

ADAguy said:


> If you can enter it you must be able to exit, however the alteration of the space may not be required other than to address possible Title I issues if an employee applied for a position.


That is consistent with my interpretation and view.  I will note that this is a new employee work area so my feeling is that it must either be integrated now or easily modified (for example by taking a door off the hinges or removing/relocating a piece of equipment that does not require a permit).


----------



## K3v1n

I thought it might help w/ forum organization to add on to this existing thread.

I have two commercial kitchens that are about 400-500 sf a piece.  They will get the double action traffic doors for entering/exiting.  Vision lites will make the doors safer, but I never see vision lites that meet ANSI below. Am I missing something?  

Per IBC 1103.2.2:  

Spaces and elements within employee work areas shall only be required to comply with Sections 907.5.2.3.1, 1009 and 1104.3.1 and shall be designed and constructed so that individuals with disabilities can approach, enter and exit the work area.

ANSI A117.1: 

404.2.10 Vision Lites. Doors and sidelites adjacent to doors containing one or more glazing panels that permit viewing through the panels shall have the bottom of at least one panel on either the door or an adjacent side lite 43 inches (1090 mm) maximum above the floor. EXCEPTION: Vision lites with the lowest part more than 66 inches (1675 mm) above the floor shall not be required to comply with Section 404.2.10.


----------



## Rick18071

In the ANSI A117.1 the vision lites requirements are in Chapter 4 "Accessible Routes". So that makes makes me believe if the door is the  accessible route to the the employee working area it must comply.


----------



## K3v1n

Rick18071 said:


> In the ANSI A117.1 the vision lites requirements are in Chapter 4 "Accessible Routes". So that makes makes me believe if the door is the  accessible route to the the employee working area it must comply.



thank you Rick, that's my interpretation too.


----------



## ADAguy

Ditto


----------

