Equivalent Facilitation at Bars

[Phil B]

My understanding is that equivalent facilitation requires that a section of a restaurant bar needs to be at 34", and that a nearby table at that height does not comply. Everyone agree?

 

[Sifu]

Not necessarily. If an adjacent table is provided that is accessible I do not require a lowered bar section. Attaching an article on the subject. This is an IBC article, so FL may be different, or have a different take on the same language. The rub can be the subjective "adjacent" or "nearby" language. My take has been that if it is in the same dining area is counts, but even that can be viewed subjectively.

 

[Phil B]

Not necessarily. If an adjacent table is provided that is accessible I do not require a lowered bar section. Attaching an article on the subject. This is an IBC article, so FL may be different, or have a different take on the same language. The rub can be the subjective "adjacent" or "nearby" language. My take has been that if it is in the same dining area is counts, but even that can be viewed subjectively.

Thank you!

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

My understanding is that equivalent facilitation requires that a section of a restaurant bar needs to be at 34", and that a nearby table at that height does not comply. Everyone agree?

I agree. The accessibility standards in the building codes are nothing more than a codification of the ADA. The ADA is federal non-discrimination legislation. The purpose is to provide equivalent access to goods, services, and facilities to the able-bodied and to the disabled.

In the earliest days of accessibility awareness it was considered forward-thinking to provide a single block of wheelchair spots in a theater, for example. Just as theater seating now requires that wheelchair spaces be dispersed throughout by both ticket prices and sight lines, IMHO the same applies to restaurants. If there is bar seating for patrons at a bar, there must be accessible patron seating at a compliant portion of the bar -- even if there is an accessible table three feet away.

 

[Yikes]

I agree. The accessibility standards in the building codes are nothing more than a codification of the ADA. The ADA is federal non-discrimination legislation. The purpose is to provide equivalent access to goods, services, and facilities to the able-bodied and to the disabled.

A bar is a unique type of seating / restaurant experience.


If your facility is in California, the state has further clarified what they intend this "dispersion" to achieve:

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Not necessarily. If an adjacent table is provided that is accessible I do not require a lowered bar section. Attaching an article on the subject. This is an IBC article, so FL may be different, or have a different take on the same language. The rub can be the subjective "adjacent" or "nearby" language. My take has been that if it is in the same dining area is counts, but even that can be viewed subjectively.

It's surprising and disappointing that Kim would have written that. She should have known better. I would point out that the article dates to 2016 and was based on the 2012 IBC. Kim is still with the ICC -- I wonder if her opinion remains the same today?

 

[steveray]

It's surprising and disappointing that Kim would have written that. She should have known better. I would point out that the article dates to 2016 and was based on the 2012 IBC. Kim is still with the ICC -- I wonder if her opinion remains the same today?

This has been a long standing difference of opinion issue.....I'm with the seating at the bar camp.....

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

This has been a long standing difference of opinion issue.....I'm with the seating at the bar camp.....

So am I, and that's how I have always seen it enforced.

I have known Kim Paarlberg for more than 25 years and I respect her highly. That's why I'm so shocked to see her name on an article that goes against this. That article goes completely against the express intent of the ADA.

 

[steveray]

So am I, and that's how I have always seen it enforced.

I have known Kim Paarlberg for more than 25 years and I respect her highly. That's why I'm so shocked to see her name on an article that goes against this. That article goes completely against the express intent of the ADA.

While I do respect Kim....the only time I spoke with her we disagreed....That was spring hinges/ fire rating....

 

[Sifu]

Yes, this has been a debate for some time, and I understand both sides of the debate. Attaching another article that reflects a couple of things I have considered on the issue, and that reinforces the lack of clarity on the issue. It seems (as this article contends) that this could easily have been cleared up, and it that it may have been considered when written, so I think maybe they intended to provide flexibility in the administration of the requirement. I have not seen any official interpretation of this issue from ANSI, ICC, or the ADA.

 

[tmurray]

Off topic - are ICC interpretations of code binding, or merely informative for building officials in the US?

 

[Sifu]

I think an interpretation is binding, but they also offer a lot of technical opinions, which are informative. The article I attached from ICC is only an opinion, to be used as informative.

I look at interpretations as code. I ask for and receive technical opinions to help me form my own opinion....when I don't exactly know what the code means in the absence of clear code (those grey areas we discuss).

 

[steveray]

Off topic - are ICC interpretations of code binding, or merely informative for building officials in the US?

Nothing is binding….other than a decision from the courts….

 

[tmurray]

In Canada, the only thing that is truly binding would be an appeal or court decision.

Interpretations and technical opinions from Codes Canada are not binding on the official.

 

[steveray]

Remember...ICC PUBLISHES the code......"WE" write it.....They Shirley have experts that can weigh in, but their opinions can only be used for guidance and don't mean anything legally....

 

[Jean Tessmer-HI]

Not necessarily. If an adjacent table is provided that is accessible I do not require a lowered bar section. Attaching an article on the subject. This is an IBC article, so FL may be different, or have a different take on the same language. The rub can be the subjective "adjacent" or "nearby" language. My take has been that if it is in the same dining area is counts, but even that can be viewed subjectively.

Sifu, thank you for the article by Richard Hunt. I thought it was excellent reading. Showed the ambiguity of the DOJ ADA requirements as applied to bar seating. I think better to be safe and provide that drop down counter long enough for two wheelchair users to fit.

 

[jc_ks]

Nobody brought up IBC 1109.11. To me, this does require that a bar have a lowered surface for wheelchair use. Thoughts?

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.

 

[Yikes]

A common situation in many crowded restaurants is for the host to say (for example): “We’ll have a table available in 30 minutes but in the meanwhile you are free to sit at the bar.”
This statement has created two types and two areas of restaurant experiences.
So a person in a wheelchair goes to the bar, there’s no 34” high counter, and the adjacent table is of course occupied. The wheelchair user has to go back to the foyer while others can enjoy a drink at the bar.
Discrimination?

 

[steveray]

A common situation in many crowded restaurants is for the host to say (for example): “We’ll have a table available in 30 minutes but in the meanwhile you are free to sit at the bar.”
This statement has created two types and two areas of restaurant experiences.
So a person in a wheelchair goes to the bar, there’s no 34” high counter, and the adjacent table is of course occupied. The wheelchair user has to go back to the foyer while others can enjoy a drink at the bar.
Discrimination?

I like that....

 

[Sifu]

Sifu, thank you for the article by Richard Hunt. I thought it was excellent reading. Showed the ambiguity of the DOJ ADA requirements as applied to bar seating. I think better to be safe and provide that drop down counter long enough for two wheelchair users to fit.

That is a sound decision, better to do it if you can. Users are certainly free to use it or not, their choice. Like I say about so many things....better to have it and not need it, then to need it and not have it. I just don't think the code is clear enough to compel it in all cases. The article I provided spells it out rather well.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Yes, this has been a debate for some time, and I understand both sides of the debate. Attaching another article that reflects a couple of things I have considered on the issue, and that reinforces the lack of clarity on the issue. It seems (as this article contends) that this could easily have been cleared up, and it that it may have been considered when written, so I think maybe they intended to provide flexibility in the administration of the requirement. I have not seen any official interpretation of this issue from ANSI, ICC, or the ADA.

You don't have to read too far into that word salad to realize that it was written by an attorney.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Off topic - are ICC interpretations of code binding, or merely informative for building officials in the US?

The ICC is not the AHJ in any jurisdiction in the United States. Therefore, there interpretations are advisory only. The AHJ can use ICC interpretations to justify his/her actions, but is not bound to accept them.

In my state, by statute only the State Building Inspector is authorized to issue interpretations, so here it's crystal clear that an ICC interpretation is not binding.

 

[Yikes]

Excerpt from the article:



Understanding that in describing "ordinary adults" he means no ill will against those who are shorter in stature, and with a caution about going down the rabbit hole of googling "dwarf in bar", a 34" high space at a bar could still a viable standing space for some adult bar users.

 

[Jean Tessmer-HI]

My understanding is that equivalent facilitation requires that a section of a restaurant bar needs to be at 34", and that a nearby table at that height does not comply. Everyone agree?

Phil B - here is a response from the US Access Board the federal agency that writes the ADA standards for the DOJ to enforce. I hope this helps. Jean Tessmer

Access is required to at least 5% of the seating spaces and standing spaces at dining surfaces. If a space only has a bar or counter, access must be provided at the bar or counter. If a space also has fixed tables, access must be provided at the fixed tables and at the bar or counter, even if the same service is provided at both locations. Previously, access could be provided only at the fixed tables if the same service were provided at both locations, but based on recent interpretations by the DOJ, accessible dining surfaces must now be provided at both locations. See the settlement agreement between the United States of America and HARRISBURG MILLWORKS LLC. Providing access to non-fixed dining surfaces instead of to fixed dining surfaces required to be accessible is not recognized by the Standards.

Josh Schorr
TA Coordinator/Accessibility Specialist
U.S. Access Board
1331 F. Street, NW, Suite 1000
Office: 202.272.0029
Cell: 202.480.7206
Website: www.access-board.gov