• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Daycare Nap Room Occupancy Load Factor

RobertP

GREENHORN
Joined
Oct 29, 2024
Messages
2
Location
California
Hi, I have a question about the appropriate occupant load factor to use for a nap room in a commercial childcare/daycare facility with an I-4 classification.

We are a California based childcare facility. We are licensed for around 30 infants (0-2y) and 90 preschoolers (2-5y). The building is a ground level former elementary school with an automatic fire alarm. We have 11 classrooms on our campus, all with exterior access. We’ve been operating since 2015. This year our fire inspector did something new and applied a different load factor to one of our rooms.

Adjacent to an infant classroom we have a 260sf room. This room has one exterior exit and two exits to adjacent rooms, both of which have immediate exterior access. Currently this room is furnished with some cribs and used as a quiet nap/sleep room for up to 6 infants and 1 supervising teacher/caretaker. Our fire inspector recently applied a load factor of 120 instead of 35 to this room, drastically decreasing the occupancy from 7 to 2. He says that is because he is applying the OLF for “institutional sleeping areas” and not daycare or daycare nap rooms because we are an I-4.

My understanding of the definition of an “institutional sleeping area” is that it is how you describe hospitals, nursing homes, prisons, but not daycares. Is there any clearer definition of an institutional sleeping area? Even dormitories have a lower OLF of 50, so we are concerned this is being incorrectly applied. Fire inspector also gave no explanation as to how this room passed inspection with an OLF of 35 for the past 9 years, when nothing about our operations have changed in that time.
 
I agree with you -- I think "Institutional Sleeping Areas refers to hospital wards, with full-size beds and space around each bed for equipment. Even dormitories uses a ratio of 50 s.f/occupant.

Several questions come to mind:
  1. Isn't there a certificate of occupancy? If you have been operating for 9 years, how does a fire inspector have any authority to arbitrarily change the approved occupant load of any room or space?
  2. Let's take the approach that a room full of cribs doesn't neatly fall into any of the categories shown in CBC Table 1004.5. CBC section 1004.5 ends with the statement, "Where an intended function is not listed in Table 1004.5, the building official shall establish a function based on a listed function that most nearly resembles the intended function." [The building official, not the fire inspector. The CFC says the same thing, but substitutes "fire code official" for "building official." "Fire code official" is defined as "The fire chief or other designated authority charged with the administration and enforcement of the code, or a duly authorized representative."]
  3. Then there's the exception to section 1004.5:
Exception: Where approved by the building official, the actual number of occupants for whom each occupied space, floor or building is designed, although less than those determined by calculation, shall be permitted to be used in the determination of the design occupant load.

What the exception is talking about is reducing the occupant load if there's a need to reduce either the capacity/size of the required exits or the number of exits required. Here we have the opposite -- you need more occupants than what this fire inspector says is appropriate. Oh,my! The code anticipated that!

1004.5.1 Increased Occupant Load
The occupant load permitted in any building, or portion thereof, is permitted to be increased from that number established for the occupancies in Table 1004.5, provided that all other requirements of the code are met based on such modified number and the occupant load does not exceed one occupant per 7 square feet (0.65 m2) of occupiable floor space.
Where required by the building official, an approved aisle, seating or fixed equipment diagram substantiating any increase in occupant load shall be submitted. Where required by the building official, such diagram shall be posted.

It has always been primarily about ensuring sufficient numbers and capacity of means of egress for the occupant load. A 260 s.f. room could have dimensions of 13" x 20' or 16' x 16'. To limit the occupant load of a room that size to 2 occupants is ridiculous. You wrote that this room has three means of egress. Let's assume they are all 3-foot doors, each providing 33 inches of clear width. That's an egress capacity of 99 inches. You didn't say if the building is sprinklered, so assume it's not. The capacity requirement is 0.2" per occupant, so 99" of width allows for up to 495 people based on the number and capacity of the means of egress.

I see no functional reason to arbitrarily reduce the allowable occupant load in the sleeping room. I also think the fire inspector is exceeding his authority, since he isn't the fire chief or the fire marshal. An inspector's role is to ensure that the posted occupant load isn't being exceeded. If the room has been approved for an occupant load of 7, that's where I think his authority ends. Annual re-inspections are not open to changing the previously-approved occupant loads of rooms and spaces.
 
Yay! After nearly a month and a half of not receiving any email notifications, I am starting to receive them again...go figure.

I agree with the others; the inspector got it wrong. It is still a daycare use, whether they are sleeping or not. Just because you set aside a space just for sleeping children does not make it an institutional sleeping area.
 
I agree with you -- I think "Institutional Sleeping Areas refers to hospital wards, with full-size beds and space around each bed for equipment. Even dormitories uses a ratio of 50 s.f/occupant.

Several questions come to mind:
  1. Isn't there a certificate of occupancy? If you have been operating for 9 years, how does a fire inspector have any authority to arbitrarily change the approved occupant load of any room or space?
  2. Let's take the approach that a room full of cribs doesn't neatly fall into any of the categories shown in CBC Table 1004.5. CBC section 1004.5 ends with the statement, "Where an intended function is not listed in Table 1004.5, the building official shall establish a function based on a listed function that most nearly resembles the intended function." [The building official, not the fire inspector. The CFC says the same thing, but substitutes "fire code official" for "building official." "Fire code official" is defined as "The fire chief or other designated authority charged with the administration and enforcement of the code, or a duly authorized representative."]
  3. Then there's the exception to section 1004.5:


What the exception is talking about is reducing the occupant load if there's a need to reduce either the capacity/size of the required exits or the number of exits required. Here we have the opposite -- you need more occupants than what this fire inspector says is appropriate. Oh,my! The code anticipated that!



It has always been primarily about ensuring sufficient numbers and capacity of means of egress for the occupant load. A 260 s.f. room could have dimensions of 13" x 20' or 16' x 16'. To limit the occupant load of a room that size to 2 occupants is ridiculous. You wrote that this room has three means of egress. Let's assume they are all 3-foot doors, each providing 33 inches of clear width. That's an egress capacity of 99 inches. You didn't say if the building is sprinklered, so assume it's not. The capacity requirement is 0.2" per occupant, so 99" of width allows for up to 495 people based on the number and capacity of the means of egress.

I see no functional reason to arbitrarily reduce the allowable occupant load in the sleeping room. I also think the fire inspector is exceeding his authority, since he isn't the fire chief or the fire marshal. An inspector's role is to ensure that the posted occupant load isn't being exceeded. If the room has been approved for an occupant load of 7, that's where I think his authority ends. Annual re-inspections are not open to changing the previously-approved occupant loads of rooms and spaces.
Thank you, this is incredibly helpful. At this point our local fire inspector and his boss seem to be dug in on the idea of this being an "institutional sleeping area" because of the I-4 classificaiton, so we will be contacting the state fire marshal for clarification and interpretation.
 
Back
Top