Exceptions to separate-sex bathroom requirement (in California or elsewhere)?

[Anjarch]

Hi all,

I'm a newcomer to this forum and have a question: is anyone aware of a situation in which a building department allowed an exception to the separate-sex restroom requirement under the CPC, where the use of the space makes it very unlikely that people of one sex will ever occupy the building? The background is that I've designed a new, 2-story commercial building with 2 separate spaces: a small tenant space (most likely to be occupied by a business) and a retail women's clothing store of a very particular type: a bridal salon. Odds are that a handful of men will occupy this space over the course of a year, and it seems extreme to provide a separate men's bathroom, but of course the building code doesn't always recognize "reality-based" considerations...

Thanks for any thoughts/experiences you can share!

 

[globe trekker]

Anjarch,

Welcome to the Building Codes Forum!

 

[fatboy]

Welcome to the forum! I'll have to look it up, but I believe there is language in the IBC (not sure about CBC) that allows the building official some latitude on separate sex fixture counts. But, I don't see how you can get away from it altogether. We had a women's only workout facility, didn't want to provide a mens. Sorry, there still will be male visitors, maintenance, deliveries.... need to at least have one, JMHO

Here you go from the IBC;

Exception: The total occupant load shall not be

required to be divided in half where approved statistical

data indicate a distribution of the sexes of other than 50

percent of each sex.

 

[pwood]

what is the square footage?

 

[Gregg Harris]

What about IPC 403.2

 

[mtlogcabin]

Unless CA modified UPC 412.3 allows B & M uses of less than 1500 sq ft to have one toilet facility

 

[globe trekker]

Anjarch,

Please provide the designed Occupant Loads for each of the two spaces.

Also, refer to Section 403.3, 2006 IPC. If you have statistical data to

support your designed (mostly female) Occupant Loads, the BO might

let it go, as long as there are restroom facilities that WILL accomodate

the male populus if/when they visit the business.

 

[fatboy]

Sorry, I made the assumption (I know) that the OP had taken other code provisions into account, and had they had arrived at the conclusion that separate facilities would be required.

 

[mark handler]

Unless CA modified UPC 412.3 allows B & M uses of less than 1500 sq ft to have one toilet facility

Not only B & M limited, also see exception 1 and 2....

2010 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE

412.3 Separate Facilities.

Separate toilet facilities shall be provided for each sex.

Exceptions:

(1) Residential installations.

(2) In occupancies serving ten (10) or fewer people, one (1)

toilet facility, designed for use by no more than one (1)

person at a time, shall be permitted for use by both sexes.

(3) In business and mercantile occupancies with a total floor

area of fifteen-hundred (1,500) square feet (139.4 m2) or

less, one (1) toilet facility, designed for use by no more

than one (1) person at a time, shall satisfy the requirements

for serving customers and employees of both

sexes.

412.3.1 [OSHPD 1, 2, 3 & 4J Separate toilet facilities

shall be prOVided for the use of patients, staff personnel

and visitors.