Commercial kitchen accessibility

[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]

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]

+ + = =

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]

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?

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]

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).