California SB-1194 permits local gov't to mandate all public toilet facilities to be gender neutral

[Yikes]

Just thought you'd be interested to see that the state of California is proposing to authorize local jurisdictions to require new and renovated public toilet facilities (i.e. accessible to the public, not merely public owned) to be gender neutral. The specifics are shown below.

A local jurisdiction that goes with this can require all new+renovated public toilet facilities to be gender neutral. Specifically, not just a men's room + women's room + an additional gender neutral room, but no more mens and womens restrooms at all.
(It does say that those jurisdictions can make exceptions at their "own discretion".)

The context is that all toilet and urinal stalls must be private compartments, with floor-to-ceiling walls and doors. I believe this means each stall becomes a separate room in context of the building and mechanical codes. Is that correct?

As someone who has previously done extensive design work on emergency shelters for women, I have seen women become "service resistant" when their facilities must be shared with men. Their concerns are often based on past history of sexual assault at enclosed facilities such as toilets when they were enduring life on the streets. I have also seen fully enclosed (floor-to-ceiling) toilet compartments cause other security issues (drug use, sex trade, etc.). I realize that California takes pride in its progressive values and believes that gender-neutral facilities may promote additional safety among non-gender-conforming individuals, but isn't it possible that this safety goal could also be accomplished simply by providing an additional separate gender-neutral restroom, without also eliminating the gender-specific restrooms?

(Also wondering how this will play out for new public toilet rooms at religious facilities such as mosques.)

Here's the text:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB1194

Status: out of committee - - ordered to third reading on 6/2/32022.
As Amends the Law Today

​

SECTION 1.​

Section 118507 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:
​

118507.​

(a) Notwithstanding Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 401.0) of the California Plumbing Code (Part 5 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), a city, county, or city and county may require new or renovated public toilet facilities within its jurisdiction to be designed, constructed, and identified for use by all genders instead of the design standards for separate facilities for men and women found in the applicable provisions in Chapter 4 of the California Plumbing Code.
(b) If a city, county, or city and county exercises the authority provided in subdivision (a), it may adopt any of the following standards by ordinance or resolution.​

(1) For public toilet facilities:​

(A) A public toilet facility shall be designed to serve all genders.​

(B) The location of the public toilet facility shall be along open circulation paths that will maintain privacy and allow for high visibility of common-use areas for security.​

(C) Toilet rooms shall have no more than one water closet or urinal and designated for use by no more than one occupant at a time or for family or assisted use.​

(D) Toilet rooms shall be enclosed on all sides by walls or partitions extending from the floor to the ceiling and a door with a locking mechanism controlled by the user enclosing the water closet or urinal for privacy.​

(E) Urinals shall be located either in the toilet rooms or in an area visually separated from the remainder of the public toilet facility.​

(F) Lavatories shall be located either in toilet rooms or grouped in an immediately adjacent common-use area accessible to all users.​

(G) Adequate light and ventilation shall be provided within each toilet room and each area of the public toilet facility.​

(H) Signage in compliance with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations shall identify them for use by all genders.​

(2) Single-use toilet facilities shall comply with the requirements of Part 5 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.​

(c) This section does not prohibit a city, county, or city and county that exercises the authority provided in subdivision (a) from adopting, by ordinance or resolution, design standards for single-use, public toilet rooms identified for use by all genders not included in subdivision (b).
(d) Adoption of an ordinance or resolution pursuant to this section shall not be construed as requiring or authorizing either of the following:​

(1) A reduction in the total number of plumbing fixtures that are required by Part 5 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.​

(2) A reduction in the number of toilet facilities accessible to persons with disabilities that are otherwise required under either Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations or the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.).​

(e) A city, county, or city and county may, in its discretion, exclude certain occupancies from standards adopted pursuant to this section.​

 

[steveray]

It’ll be interesting to see how they reconcile this:



405.3.2 Public lavatories. In employee and public toilet

rooms, the required lavatory shall be located in the same

room as the required water closet.



Unless they no longer consider floor to ceiling partitions a “room”….

 

[ICE]

(B) The location of the public toilet facility shall be along open circulation paths that will maintain privacy and allow for high visibility of common-use areas for security.

The lavatories are in the common use area. High visibility for security is an admission that there is a likelihood of danger for female users. The lavs will be out there for everybody to see which seems odd.

E) Urinals shall be located either in the toilet rooms or in an area visually separated from the remainder of the public toilet facility.

The only separation of the urinals is "visual separation" .....So anyone can enter the area where the urinals are located?

California takes pride in its progressive values and believes that gender-neutral facilities may promote additional safety among non-gender-conforming individuals

The tail is wagging the dog. Non-gender-conforming individuals should not be a consideration in the design of the built environment. I'm not saying that they can't choose the aberration as a lifestyle....not at all....just don't expect accommodation to follow suit.

 

[Yikes]

It’ll be interesting to see how they reconcile this:



405.3.2 Public lavatories. In employee and public toilet

rooms, the required lavatory shall be located in the same

room as the required water closet.



Unless they no longer consider floor to ceiling partitions a “room”….

In a separate but related move the California Building Standards Commission is trying to figure out how to modify the California Plumbing Code to address multi-user gender neutral facilities. They have a rulemaking workshop coming up on July 19, 2022, 9:00am-12:00pm for the intervening 2022 code cycle. Announcement here: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Rulemaking/2022-Intervening-Cycle/2022-PreCycle
A pdf of the powerpoint presentation for the workshop is here: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/-/media/Divi...PC-Gender-Neutral-Workshop-071922-BSC-DSA.pdf

The powerpoint shows 5 options. The first 4 are for modifying the plumbing code to allow for (but not necessarily require) multi-user gender neutral facilities. Option 5 simply points to SB 1194 as allowing local jurisdictions to require gender neutral multi-user facilities.

 

[Msradell]

The separate rooms are sure going to throw a major kink in HVAC design standards!

 

[Yikes]

It’ll be interesting to see how they reconcile this:



405.3.2 Public lavatories. In employee and public toilet

rooms, the required lavatory shall be located in the same

room as the required water closet.



Unless they no longer consider floor to ceiling partitions a “room”….

Circling back to this - - California Plumbing Code is still based on the 2018 UPC, not the IPC. I can't yet find the equivalent requirement in the CPC/UPC.

 

[steveray]

Circling back to this - - California Plumbing Code is still based on the 2018 UPC, not the IPC. I can't yet find the equivalent requirement in the CPC/UPC.

Apparently California does not care how much stuff you touch before you wash your hands....But it is a bit foolish that you can touch the compartment hardware, but not a "door".....

 

[Yikes]

Apparently California does not care how much stuff you touch before you wash your hands....But it is a bit foolish that you can touch the compartment hardware, but not a "door".....

If we do have to put a lavatory inside each toilet room, at that point each one becomes an ADA single user toilet room. ADA/CBC 11B-213.2 would require 50% of these rooms to be ADA accessible. The space ramifications would be huge, easily doubling the previously required floor area for multi-user restrooms.

 

[ICE]

Apparently California legislators do not care about the expense to cater to such a minuscule group of constituents. This is reminiscient of the battery operated garage door openers. Four people perished in their garage during a wildfire and now everyone is required to have a battery backup for a garage door opener.

 

[Yikes]

Apparently California legislators do not care about the expense to cater to such a minuscule group of constituents. This is reminiscient of the battery operated garage door openers. Four people perished in their garage during a wildfire and now everyone is required to have a battery backup for a garage door opener.

Either the "if it saves just one life" naivete applied to public safety risk assessment, or just a lack of understanding unintended consequences, or both.

I found it interested to watch Jerry Brown's political evolution as he went from 1970s "Governor Moonbeam", to mayor of Oakland, then back to governor.
As mayor, his eyes were opened to how well-intentioned CEQA had weaponized into anti-development. He also saw how community redevelopment agencies bloated into independent fiefdoms. When he became governor the again, his approach to governance was more fiscally conservative than most of his fellow democrats in state office, clawing back CRA funds, pushing the state to set up a 'rainy day' fund instead of overcommitting to spending priorities during flush times, etc.

I really wish more politicians had to live with the consequences of their own legislation.

 

[tmurray]

We've been seeing designs like this for some time. Not really seeing any issues, HVAC or otherwise.

 

[bill1952]

If we do have to put a lavatory inside each toilet room, at that point each one becomes an ADA single user toilet room. ADA/CBC 11B-213.2 would require 50% of these rooms to be ADA accessible. The space ramifications would be huge, easily doubling the previously required floor area for multi-user restrooms.

You mean if there were 6 single user gender neutral restrooms in a row, all 3 would have to be accessible? Do you think the Access Board or ANSI A117.1 committee or whomever in CA makes these regulatory decisions intended this? Think there is a chance they might modify it to permit groups of single user restrooms with just 1 or 5% accessible?

 

[mtlogcabin]

oops

 

[Yikes]

You mean if there were 6 single user gender neutral restrooms in a row, all 3 would have to be accessible? Do you think the Access Board or ANSI A117.1 committee or whomever in CA makes these regulatory decisions intended this? Think there is a chance they might modify it to permit groups of single user restrooms with just 1 or 5% accessible?

See yellow highlight below from CBC 11B-213.2 exception #4. Same requirement is found in ADA 213.2 exception #4 as well.

 

[Yikes]

We've been seeing designs like this for some time. Not really seeing any issues, HVAC or otherwise.

tmurray, we are typically designing multi-user toilet rooms with a single supply duct at one end and an exhaust at the other end. Partitions are typically raised about 12" off the floor and the top is at about 70-72" high. this provides privacy but allows free air circulation, and also allows people to glance and see feet to know if a stall is unoccupied, without knocking on every door.

The proposed law when enacted locally would require multi-user restroom facilities to have each toilet in its own separate room, and it says "Toilet rooms shall be enclosed on all sides by walls or partitions extending from the floor to the ceiling and a door with a locking mechanism controlled by the user enclosing the water closet or urinal for privacy."

the phrase "Extending from floor to ceiling" means that each individual compartment/room is no longer capable of a free exchange of air; each room needs its own dedicated supply duct and exhaust duct, correct? Is that how you've been doing it?

I haven't been to Canada for about 5 years, but I don't recall seeing floor-to-ceiling partitions in the Calgary airport.

 

[tmurray]

tmurray, we are typically designing multi-user toilet rooms with a single supply duct at one end and an exhaust at the other end. Partitions are typically raised about 12" off the floor and the top is at about 70-72" high. this provides privacy but allows free air circulation, and also allows people to glance and see feet to know if a stall is unoccupied, without knocking on every door.

The proposed law when enacted locally would require multi-user restroom facilities to have each toilet in its own separate room, and it says "Toilet rooms shall be enclosed on all sides by walls or partitions extending from the floor to the ceiling and a door with a locking mechanism controlled by the user enclosing the water closet or urinal for privacy."

the phrase "Extending from floor to ceiling" means that each individual compartment/room is no longer capable of a free exchange of air; each room needs its own dedicated supply duct and exhaust duct, correct? Is that how you've been doing it?

I haven't been to Canada for about 5 years, but I don't recall seeing floor-to-ceiling partitions in the Calgary airport.

There is a couple of ways we've seen this approached. We rarely see supply provided in the washroom itself, instead supply for the washroom is provided in the adjacent space, resulting in the washroom having a negative relative pressure, helping to ensure contaminants (and by extension odor) are removed at the source. This is not new by any means.

Usually there is either exhaust in the room, or an an air transfer grill/jump duct to an exhaust in the main area serving the toilet rooms. Given the small area of the room and small occupant load, there is little ventilation required. Maybe even a door undercut would work...

 

[bill1952]

tmurray, we are typically designing multi-user toilet rooms with a single supply duct at one end and an exhaust at the other end. Partitions are typically raised about 12" off the floor and the top is at about 70-72" high. this provides privacy but allows free air circulation, and also allows people to glance and see feet to know if a stall is unoccupied, without knocking on every door.

The proposed law when enacted locally would require multi-user restroom facilities to have each toilet in its own separate room, and it says "Toilet rooms shall be enclosed on all sides by walls or partitions extending from the floor to the ceiling and a door with a locking mechanism controlled by the user enclosing the water closet or urinal for privacy."

the phrase "Extending from floor to ceiling" means that each individual compartment/room is no longer capable of a free exchange of air; each room needs its own dedicated supply duct and exhaust duct, correct? Is that how you've been doing it?

I haven't been to Canada for about 5 years, but I don't recall seeing floor-to-ceiling partitions in the Calgary airport.

I have noticed in many MacDonalds, the partitions around the toilet are full height, tiled, base, etc., but the doors with hospital steel frames are cut short - maybe a 8" above the floor and below the top jamb. Not sure if the legislation clearly prohibits that.

Codes and standards have never been ready for societal and design trends and changes. Open plan schools, sky scrapers, shopping malls, accessibility, etc. all were code challenged and challenged the code, but we survived those. Changes can and will be made to accommodate this.

 

[tmurray]

Building on my post regarding ventilation, here is one example showing dedicated exhaust in each of the toilet rooms. You will note there is no supply in the washroom area itself. Instead, the area adjacent to the washroom is supplied to meet the intended negative pressure I indicated in the previous post.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5ttt6tsxgj46tna/snapshot-1657712519776.jpg?dl=0

 

[steveray]

enclosed on all sides by walls or partitions extending from the floor to the ceiling

What if the plane 12" above the floor identifies as the floor?...Asking for a friend....

 

[mtlogcabin]

IMHO all of this is BS. The codes already provide requirements for restrooms based on the plumbing an individual has been born with or surgically modified. The codes already address restrooms that are private and can be used by any sex. Gender is self perceived and as such the codes should not require facilities designed to satisfy an individuals self perception or feelings.

At a minimum require one unisex all gender inclusive restroom and quit with the rest of the BS

 

[Yikes]

There is a couple of ways we've seen this approached. We rarely see supply provided in the washroom itself, instead supply for the washroom is provided in the adjacent space, resulting in the washroom having a negative relative pressure, helping to ensure contaminants (and by extension odor) are removed at the source. This is not new by any means.

Usually there is either exhaust in the room, or an an air transfer grill/jump duct to an exhaust in the main area serving the toilet rooms. Given the small area of the room and small occupant load, there is little ventilation required. Maybe even a door undercut would work...

The undercut could work for an area that small. Still looks like a additional ductwork. Thanks for providing an example!
Is there something in Canadian codes or law that requires toilets to be in individual rooms (instead of partitions), or is this just typical practice?

 

[tmurray]

The undercut could work for an area that small. Still looks like a additional ductwork. Thanks for providing an example!
Is there something in Canadian codes or law that requires toilets to be in individual rooms (instead of partitions), or is this just typical practice?

Nothing in law, it's just becoming more and more common. Owners seem to like it because you don't have one washroom sitting empty when there is a line up for the other one. Ultimately, our code does not expressly require separate facilities based on gender, so this remains the choice of the owner/designer.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Ultimately, our code does not expressly require separate facilities based on gender, so this remains the choice of the owner/designer.

And that is the way it should be

 

[Yikes]

Nothing in law, it's just becoming more and more common. Owners seem to like it because you don't have one washroom sitting empty when there is a line up for the other one. Ultimately, our code does not expressly require separate facilities based on gender, so this remains the choice of the owner/designer.

Thanks!
And for the record, I'm all for letting property owners decide for themselves whether they want their multi-user restrooms to be gender-neutral. (Sanitation was generally gender-neutral up until the industrial revolution, when both indoor plumbed toilets and the increase of the female workforce in urban factories came into place.) I remember when the TV show "Ally McBeal" had a mixed-gender bathroom, mostly as a location for personal dialogue in a setting that was not normally seen in real life.

If a property owner wants to do gender-neutral multi-user facilities, it is up to them, and their occupants and customers can decide if they want to use those facilities or go elsewhere. What I am concerned about is a local government agency requiring multi-user gender-neutral restrooms, and additionally specifying the design parameters, without regard to the impacts on cost or on the demographics of the users. See my previous comments about service-resistant homeless females, misuse of restrooms for criminal activity, etc., as well as all the costs related to technical issues, increased space requirements, etc.

Worth noting that Starbucks just announced they are closing 16 locations due to employee safety concerns related to visitors with issues of mental health and drug use, which occurs in restrooms. I've also seen fast-food places with single-user restrooms have problems with people locking themselves in for hours at a time. Toilet facilities are no longer being used just for sanitation purposes, but can become places of unhealthy activity, and our society has not have a one-size-fits-all solution for how to manage public access to these private, secure spaces.

Again, I think owners ought to be able to exercise their best judgement on restroom configurations that work best for their own needs.