# Raised Booth in Restaurant



## fj80

Is it acceptable per ADA and IBC accessibility codes, to have booths in a restaurant that are raised one step up from the main dining area? My thinking is there would be accessible height tables in the same dining area that the booths are in, so this would be acceptable. One section I referenced is IBC 1108.2.9.1 Dining Surfaces.


----------



## mark handler

Be carful that the raised tables do not have a different classes of spaces.
5 percent of "table types" should be accessible.


----------



## fj80

mark handler said:


> Be carful that the raised tables do not have a different classes of spaces.
> 5 percent of "table types" should be accessible.


I don't see that wording in 1108.2.9.1. It says "Where dining surfaces... are provided, at least 5 percent... of the dining surfaces... shall be accessible." I interpret that as 5% of all the dining surfaces in the restaurant must be accessible.


----------



## Pcinspector1

There's a chain restaurant with the outer wall having raised booths and the floor area with loose tables and chairs. I would think as long as you provide roll up to a table seating it should be covered which the center tables would provide. Now on the other hand if the disabled person wants to look out the window during his/hers/other's eating experience, there's the rub! Your in big trouble now buddy! 

This same chain restaurant, I believe in the bar area it has the same set up with raised booths along the outer perimeter, raised high tops and bar seating. 

At the entrance there's a big 7-foot bear that gives me the creeps when you waiting for a table and I'm always afraid that the ceiling fan belts going break and slap us all silly. Dilly...Dilly!


----------



## ADAguy

"All'' Patrons must be able to (have the option to) participate at "all" types of seating.


----------



## mark handler

Under the 1991 ADAAG standards, 5 percent of restaurant tables needed to be accessible.
The 2010 ADASAD guidelines expand this to 5 percent of all eating surfaces.
Fixed Seating, Bars and Tables.
If tables are provided, such as in restaurants and snack bars, and the tables are attached to the wall or floor (fixed), then 5% of the tables or at least one.


----------



## ADAguy

fj80, I have been in your great state but it appears that enforcement/ compliance with the ADA is not seen as a priority.
If you "chose" to build it new or remodel and existing facility the you must comply. Exception if it is a historic building (maybe, it depends).


----------



## fj80

ADAguy said:


> "All'' Patrons must be able to (have the option to) participate at "all" types of seating.


What section of the ADA says this?


----------



## ADAguy

See Marks previous post above


----------



## mark handler

fj80 said:


> What section of the ADA says this?


2010 ADASAD
https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAstandards.htm#pgfId-1011000

226.1 General. Where dining surfaces are provided for the consumption of food or drink, at least 5 percent of the seating spaces and standing spaces at the dining surfaces shall comply with 902. In addition, where work surfaces are provided for use by other than employees, at least 5 percent shall comply with 902.

226.2 Dispersion. Dining surfaces and work surfaces required to comply with 902 shall be dispersed throughout the space or facility containing dining surfaces and work surfaces.

Advisory 902.1 General. Dining surfaces include, but are not limited to, bars, tables, lunch counters, and booths. Examples of work surfaces include writing surfaces, study carrels, student laboratory stations, baby changing and other tables or fixtures for personal grooming, coupon counters, and where covered by the ABA scoping provisions, employee work stations


----------



## mark handler

2015 IBC
1109.11.1 Dispersion
Accessible fixed or built-in seating at tables, counters or work surfaces shall be distributed throughout the space or facility containing such elements and located on a level accessed by an accessible route.

1109.11 Seating at Tables, Counters and Work Surfaces
Where seating or standing space at fixed or built-in tables, counters or work surfaces is provided in accessible spaces, at least 5 percent of the seating and standing spaces, but not less than one, shall be accessible.


----------



## steveray

Mark, what does an accessible standing space look like? Or are we requiring the lowered section of the bar still?


----------



## tmurray

Grab bars...


----------



## mark handler

steveray said:


> Mark, what does an accessible standing space look like? Or are we requiring the lowered section of the bar still?


Accessible standing space?  Do you mean standing at a bar, or high top?
Yes you are required to have a lowered section of the bar, if there is a high portion.


----------



## mark handler

tmurray said:


> Grab bars...


For what?


----------



## ADAguy

To assist a WC user to rise to a standing position at the bar? (some can do that) but the code doesn't require it.


----------



## tmurray

ADAguy said:


> To assist a WC user to rise to a standing position at the bar? (some can do that) but the code doesn't require it.


Exactly. Thus the requirement around urinals.

The comment was a joke, but I could see how some would install it.


----------



## mark handler

tmurray said:


> Exactly. Thus the requirement around urinals.
> The comment was a joke, but I could see how some would install it.


No


----------



## fj80

mark handler said:


> 2010 ADASAD
> https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAstandards.htm#pgfId-1011000
> 
> 226.1 General. Where dining surfaces are provided for the consumption of food or drink, at least 5 percent of the seating spaces and standing spaces at the dining surfaces shall comply with 902. In addition, where work surfaces are provided for use by other than employees, at least 5 percent shall comply with 902.
> 
> 226.2 Dispersion. Dining surfaces and work surfaces required to comply with 902 shall be dispersed throughout the space or facility containing dining surfaces and work surfaces.
> 
> Advisory 902.1 General. Dining surfaces include, but are not limited to, bars, tables, lunch counters, and booths. Examples of work surfaces include writing surfaces, study carrels, student laboratory stations, baby changing and other tables or fixtures for personal grooming, coupon counters, and where covered by the ABA scoping provisions, employee work stations


The way I read it, not ALL seating spaces need to be accessible. Just 5% of the seating spaces need to be accessible, and also dispersed throughout the space.


----------



## fj80

There is no wording I can find in 2010 ADASAD that says you need 5% seating for each type of seating.


----------



## fatboy

Chipotles was successfully sued because wheelchair patrons could not enjoy the same experience of seeing the ingredients and their food prepared as persons standing.

https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/DR-CA-0034-0005.pdf

I can see where the same could follow for the booth experience.

Don't necessarily agree, but I can see it happening.


----------



## Pcinspector1

I want to see the sunset or my Cadillac Escapade from this window, but I can't because of the raised booth. I can see that lawsuit coming, can't you?


----------



## tmurray

fj80 said:


> The way I read it, not ALL seating spaces need to be accessible. Just 5% of the seating spaces need to be accessible, and also dispersed throughout the space.



I think it would depend on how you limit the definition of "dining spaces" are they all the same space? Or are the booths and tables with chairs different "spaces"


----------



## ADAguy

"Each" fixed or built-in (as Mark noted) as opposed to "furniture (moveable)". So, if you don't want any built-ins and only a service only (no seating) bar and try to use tall stools and tables, knock your self out.


----------



## fj80

tmurray said:


> I think it would depend on how you limit the definition of "dining spaces" are they all the same space? Or are the booths and tables with chairs different "spaces"


Agreed, and I don't see a definition of "spaces" or "seating spaces" in the ADA...


----------



## mark handler

you guys are over thinking this. PUT IN ACCESSIBLE TABLES AND CHAIRS in all different dining rooms..


----------



## ADAguy

Fj what is your role with regards to this question or are you or your client merely not wanting to comply?


----------



## tmurray

fj80 said:


> Agreed, and I don't see a definition of "spaces" or "seating spaces" in the ADA...


I wonder if there is any rulings that would provide guidance either way. That would be the only way I could see of getting a concrete answer. Personally, if I were the owner, I would err on the side of caution and provide an accessible booth.


----------



## Francis Vineyard

"If the bar is the only seating, or the bar is in a separate area, a portion of the bar is required to be lowered to provide accessible seating. However, if the bar is part of the general dining area, or if other seating is provided in the bar area, a portion of the bar is not required to be lowered.

This applies whether seating is fixed or loose, as clarified in the 2012 IBC codes, Section 1108.2."

Source: Building Safety Journal By Kimberly Paarlberg, RA, Senior Architect, International Code Council


----------



## ADAguy

Ok Fj, cat got your tongue?


----------



## steveray

From what FB posted....

As with the issue of whether the high counter walls themselves comply with the ADA Guidelines, Chipotle has already litigated and lost this issue in the individual case, wherein the Ninth Circuit held in clear terms: The violations of the [ ADA] we have found are that, because of the wall, Antoninetti was unable to see the food arranged on the food counter or the preparation of his order, as non-wheelchair-bound customers could do, and thus was unable to enjoy the “Chipotle experience.”

Whether "code" requires it or not, you may want to do it...So that your customers can enjoy the "booth or bar" experience....Until Ms. Paarlberg and the DOJ issue a formal interpretation together, that is how I will keep calling it....


----------



## mark handler

By not being acessible, You are writing off about twenty percent of the population from your customers. That could be the difference between surviving in business or going belly up.



steveray said:


> From what FB posted....
> 
> As with the issue of whether the high counter walls themselves comply with the ADA Guidelines, Chipotle has already litigated and lost this issue in the individual case, wherein the Ninth Circuit held in clear terms: The violations of the [ ADA] we have found are that, because of the wall, Antoninetti was unable to see the food arranged on the food counter or the preparation of his order, as non-wheelchair-bound customers could do, and thus was unable to enjoy the “Chipotle experience.”
> 
> Whether "code" requires it or not, you may want to do it...So that your customers can enjoy the "booth or bar" experience....Until Ms. Paarlberg and the DOJ issue a formal interpretation together, that is how I will keep calling it....


----------



## Yikes

Speaking as someone who has designed restaurants and bars and other "Third Places":  A lot of what goes intro a successful design is the experience of the environment.  It's about more than the ability to chow down some food or slug a drink.  There's a lot of subtle interaction.  People often like to be in a room where there's lots of activity, but don't like to be the center of activity themselves.  You will notice this for example, when people come out of an assembly space into a main lobby, they won't keep walking - - they'll gather off to one side of the doors and observe others coming in and out.  It's almost like leaves in the eddy of rocks in a stream.

All that to say that the raised platforms around the perimeter of a bar or restaurant provide that kind of experience: a sense of being in the activity, but not the center of activity.  (Private boxes at the opera house have a similar function.)  I understand what Mark is saying about don't write off 20% of your customers.  But have a generic, undifferentiated space can be a turnoff to customers as well.

Back to the legalities of it:  Chipotle got into hot water because they promoted the idea of being able to see how fresh your food is while it's being made, and (for example) being able to look at the scoop and tell the employee, OK that's enough sour cream".  If a restaurant actively promoted their tiered seating, they could get in trouble.  But if is not actively touted as part of a unique dining experience, then the design decision is more akin to unstated aesthetic choices of lighting temperature, etc., and IMO you can go with the general code concept of providing accessible seating elsewhere, not just the booths.

A "universal design" approach, if you have the space for it, is to provide a wide raised aisle adjacent to the raised booths, and have an accessible wheelchair area in the aisle.


----------



## fatboy

Excellent reply Yikes..............


----------



## ADAguy

Ok FJ, we respond and yet you have no replied as to the motivation for your questions? The court has spoken.


----------



## fj80

Yikes said:


> Speaking as someone who has designed restaurants and bars and other "Third Places":  A lot of what goes intro a successful design is the experience of the environment.  It's about more than the ability to chow down some food or slug a drink.  There's a lot of subtle interaction.  People often like to be in a room where there's lots of activity, but don't like to be the center of activity themselves.  You will notice this for example, when people come out of an assembly space into a main lobby, they won't keep walking - - they'll gather off to one side of the doors and observe others coming in and out.  It's almost like leaves in the eddy of rocks in a stream.
> 
> All that to say that the raised platforms around the perimeter of a bar or restaurant provide that kind of experience: a sense of being in the activity, but not the center of activity.  (Private boxes at the opera house have a similar function.)  I understand what Mark is saying about don't write off 20% of your customers.  But have a generic, undifferentiated space can be a turnoff to customers as well.
> 
> Back to the legalities of it:  Chipotle got into hot water because they promoted the idea of being able to see how fresh your food is while it's being made, and (for example) being able to look at the scoop and tell the employee, OK that's enough sour cream".  If a restaurant actively promoted their tiered seating, they could get in trouble.  But if is not actively touted as part of a unique dining experience, then the design decision is more akin to unstated aesthetic choices of lighting temperature, etc., and IMO you can go with the general code concept of providing accessible seating elsewhere, not just the booths.
> 
> A "universal design" approach, if you have the space for it, is to provide a wide raised aisle adjacent to the raised booths, and have an accessible wheelchair area in the aisle.


Yikes hit the nail on the head. My clients and I (I'm the architect) are looking for a design solution to break up a very large existing space into two general areas- bar style dining on one half of the room and restaurant seating on the other half. They don't want a full-height wall that completely separates the spaces and a low wall doesn't create enough visual separation between the two spaces (these are aesthetic choices). So we'd like to create a row of booths on a 6" raised platform that becomes the separation between the two spaces. There would be significantly more accessible seating on both sides of the restaurant (with the typical tables and chairs seating) than there would be booths. From my reading of the ADA and IBC it seems like this should be acceptable.


----------



## ADAguy

Not quite, now that you have better explained what you are trying to do. Your proposal creates two (2) separate experiences, one dining in a bar atmosphere and one a dining experience; each has a different ambiance and noise level. As such the raised seating in the bar area disallows those in wheelchairs to participate with the booth users unless you make the booths accessible by a ramp.
Was in a Ruth Chris the other evening with a similar issue.


----------



## fj80

I appreciate all the comments and different perspectives on this interesting issue.

Here's something interesting I found:

Kimberly Paarlberg, Senior Architect with ICC, wrote an article regarding whether or not wheelchair spaces are required at bars. Long story short, she says they are not, and she goes on to say that "The assumption in the codes is that if other types of seating are provided adjacent to the bar, services provided at the bar also will be available at the adjacent seating."

It seems that the same logic would apply to a booth as well as the bar seating.

She also states that wheelchair spaces are not dispersed by type of seating:

"One of the reasons wheelchair spaces are not dispersed by type is the effect accessibility requirements would have on a type. For example, if you had bar-height tables and lowered some to get the 34-inch maximum height dining surfaces (ICC A117.1 Section 902.4), you no longer had a bar-height table, you have a standard height table. If you had booths, and pulled off one side to allow for wheelchair spaces, you now have a banquette seating. Each time you apply the accessibility requirements, you create another type of seating—the result being that a designer could never provide wheelchair spaces at all types."

Here's the full article:

https://www.kmaccess.com/wp-content...es_required_at-bars_2016_10_oct_bsj_final.pdf


----------



## fj80

ADAguy said:


> Not quite, now that you have better explained what you are trying to do. Your proposal creates two (2) separate experiences, one dining in a bar atmosphere and one a dining experience; each has a different ambiance and noise level. As such the raised seating in the bar area disallows those in wheelchairs to participate with the booth users unless you make the booths accessible by a ramp.
> Was in a Ruth Chris the other evening with a similar issue.


Again, the ADA and IBC do not require accessible seating each TYPE of dining surface, as I read them.


----------



## Pcinspector1

fj80 said:


> Kimberly Paarlberg, Senior Architect with ICC, wrote an article regarding whether or not wheelchair spaces are required at bars. Long story short, she says they are not, and she goes on to say that *"The assumption in the codes is that if other types of seating are provided adjacent to the bar, services provided at the bar also will be available at the adjacent seating."*



I think Kimberly is right on, I had the same opinion, thought maybe the code may have changed.

You got a bar and you provided a table for the wheelchair user near the bar, the bar tender or the bar hop took your order. 

Has the code changed to require different "experiences!" Is this true?


----------



## mark handler

fj80
You can justify it whatever way you want,* BUT;
You and your Client CAN be sued under ADA
You are doing a disservice to the restaurant owner By disregarding the ADA requirements. 
*
2010 ADASAD
226 Dining Surfaces and Work Surfaces
226.1 General.  Where dining surfaces are provided for the consumption of food or drink, at least 5 percent of the seating spaces and standing spaces at the dining surfaces shall comply with 902.  In addition, where work surfaces are provided for use by other than employees, at least 5 percent shall comply with 902.
226.2 Dispersion.  Dining surfaces and work surfaces required to comply with 902 shall be dispersed throughout the space or facility containing dining surfaces and work surface
902.4.2 Height.  The tops of tables and counters shall be 26 inches minimum and 30 inches maximum above the finish floor or ground.


----------



## fj80

mark handler said:


> fj80
> You can justify it whatever way you want,* BUT;
> You and your Client CAN be sued under ADA
> You are doing a disservice to the restaurant owner By disregarding the ADA requirements.
> *
> 2010 ADASAD
> 226 Dining Surfaces and Work Surfaces
> 226.1 General.  Where dining surfaces are provided for the consumption of food or drink, at least 5 percent of the seating spaces and standing spaces at the dining surfaces shall comply with 902.  In addition, where work surfaces are provided for use by other than employees, at least 5 percent shall comply with 902.
> 226.2 Dispersion.  Dining surfaces and work surfaces required to comply with 902 shall be dispersed throughout the space or facility containing dining surfaces and work surface
> 902.4.2 Height.  The tops of tables and counters shall be 26 inches minimum and 30 inches maximum above the finish floor or ground.


I'm not trying to justify it or argue with you. I just don't see how any section you've quote disallows what I'm proposing. Well over 5% of the seating spaces would be accessible by way of accessible height tables and would be dispersed throughout the restaurant, exactly as ADASAD reads. I do appreciate your comments though.


----------



## mark handler

This is from the Texas Access Standards
http://www.johnsonkelley.com/accessible-dining-surfaces-under-the-2012-tas-2010-ada/


----------



## Paul Sweet

mark handler said:


> By not being acessible, You are writing off about twenty percent of the population from your customers. That could be the difference between surviving in business or going belly up.



Saying that 20% of people have some sort of disability isn't saying that 20% of potential customers can't get into a booth that is raised 6".  Only the 1% of so who are in wheelchairs couldn't get up a 6" step.

If the booths are raised just to create a slightly higher divider between the two parts than a floor level booth would provide, and there are accessible tables or booths that aren't raised in both parts, then people who aren't at a raised booth aren't missing anything, except for a chance to trip getting into or out of the booth.

If the raised booth provides a better view, than it's a different story.


----------



## ADAguy

FJ 226 and Mark couldn't be any clearer as to the intent of ADASAD. As an architect you and your client "must" comply with "both" the code and Federal law.
Many families seek out booth seating in the bar areas as big screens are often there and many of these families have members in WC's.
This is a planning issue, you have the space so make it comply.
Last resort, speak to the Access Board in DC for a ruling.


----------



## fj80

ADAguy said:


> FJ 226 and Mark couldn't be any clearer as to the intent of ADASAD. As an architect you and your client "must" comply with "both" the code and Federal law.
> Many families seek out booth seating in the bar areas as big screens are often there and many of these families have members in WC's.
> This is a planning issue, you have the space so make it comply.
> Last resort, speak to the Access Board in DC for a ruling.


Yes, there are clearly strong and differing opinions here about this issue, so I'll run it by the Access Board. I felt it was a little unclear, at least to me, so that's why I created this post. 

As always, I appreciate the great input and insight from everyone here. This forum is a great resource.


----------



## mark handler

Paul Sweet said:


> Only the 1% of so who are in wheelchairs couldn't get up a 6" step.


*Not necessarily true. there are people with mobility issues, not using wheelchairs, that can not raise their feet 6 inches.*




Paul Sweet said:


> then people who aren't at a raised booth aren't missing anything, except for a chance to trip getting into or out of the booth. If the raised booth provides a better view, than it's a different story.


*Without further information, we are shooting in the dark. Someone will say it is "special" and I am not included, then sue.* 

With the info provided, Better to nip it in the BUD now​


----------



## ADAguy

Ditto !!! Just do the "right" thing.


----------



## Yikes

Mark, I would challenge you on something that I'm reading into your post:
The requirement for "dispersal" is a geographic one:  don't creat a wheelchair ghetto.  However, "dispersal"does not necessarily imply that each _type_ (not just location) of dining surface must be accessible.

For example, I could have an 80'x80' square dining room, no windows, with elevated booths on all perimeter walls.  If I put accessible seating all on the main floor but scattered towards the north, south, east, and west walls, I have successfully dispersed the accessible seating, even though it isn't in an elevated booth.


----------



## fj80

Yikes said:


> Mark, I would challenge you on something that I'm reading into your post:
> The requirement for "dispersal" is a geographic one:  don't creat a wheelchair ghetto.  However, "dispersal"does not necessarily imply that each _type_ (not just location) of dining surface must be accessible.
> 
> For example, I could have an 80'x80' square dining room, no windows, with elevated booths on all perimeter walls.  If I put accessible seating all on the main floor but scattered towards the north, south, east, and west walls, I have successfully dispersed the accessible seating, even though it isn't in an elevated booth.


I think that's the crux of the issue: Is it 5% of the total dining surfaces, or 5% of each type? I'm not saying I'm right, I just think the ADA wording is unclear and does not say it's 5% of each type.


----------



## ADAguy

Again, if unsure then ask Access Board for a clarification.


----------



## mark handler

If you have raised windo seats, you better have accessible seating as well.


----------



## fj80

I spoke to the Access Board and they said essentially the same thing Mark Handler and some others have said here- although the ADA text doesn't use the word "type" it's their intention that 5% of each type of seating be accessible.


----------



## mark handler

What they have told me in the past is to stop analyzing each word and design base on the intent.


----------



## tmurray

mark handler said:


> What they have told me in the past is to stop analyzing each word and design base on the intent.


Are they enforcing laws based on intent? While I agree with designing to the intent of the law from an professional ethics standpoint, if the law is not clear in its requirements it should be clarified so the true intent can be enforced through the court system. As it stands, good designers following the intent of the law will be penalized.


----------



## JBI

If more designers, owners and (yikes!) attorneys would stop and think "what if I were disabled?" before they make a decision, there'd likely be fewer lawsuits and more compliant buildings and facilities...


----------



## Francis Vineyard

tmurray said:


> Are they enforcing laws based on intent? While I agree with designing to the intent of the law from an professional ethics standpoint, if the law is not clear in its requirements it should be clarified so the true intent can be enforced through the court system. As it stands, good designers following the intent of the law will be penalized.


In the US of A a special prosecutor can perceive it as a Hate Crime; where it presumes criminal intent.

Although "the Congress apparently did not think that disabled people compromised [sic] a 'high risk' group in relation to interpersonal violence" when it first contemplated hate crime legislation, disability was later added to federal hate crime law via the reauthorization of the Hate Crime Statistics Act

Examining the Boundaries of Hate Crime Law: Disabilities and the Dilemma of Difference


----------



## mark handler

tmurray said:


> they enforcing laws based on intent? While I agree with designing to the intent of the law from an professional ethics standpoint, if the law is not clear in its requirements it should be clarified so the true intent can be enforced through the court system. As it stands, good designers following the intent of the law will be penalized.


The DOJ typically does not enforce the small Instances or infractions, those are done by individuals and lawyers. The DOJ goes after the big guys.


----------



## ADAguy

9/10s of the law deals with "intent" specifics, or lack there of. Defense atty's rely on "specific" language vs intent.
FJ, yours is a best practices/standard of care issue; what does your E & O carrier recommend?


----------



## fj80

I've already decided to add at least 5% accessible booths to the design, dispersed throughout the space. Case closed. Fairly easy solution to work into the facility.


----------



## ADAguy

Thumbs up to you!


----------



## Rick18071

Why does not a bar need to follow 2012 IBC 1109.12.3. Point of sale and service counters. Where counters are provided for sales or distribution of goods and serves, at least one each type provided shall be accessible.

Don't they distribute goods and services when they give you a beer or food and provide sales when you pay for it?


----------



## ADAguy

Difference between distribution and consumption, you transfer at one and consume at the other.


----------

