When I look at the exceptions in 412.3 (California Plumbing Code), I find numbers 2 & 3 somewhat confusing. I interpret number 3 to apply to offices, merchantiles and small businesses but I interpret number 2 to apply to restaurants, pubs and such. If they are either/or, then why are they not worded the same? I am not stuck in my interpretation, so would like to hear how others in California look at these exceptions. I have a small coffee shop/pub (with live entertainment) trying to use exception 3. Their occupant load is 54, but the total floor area is less than 1500.
-
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
Exceptions to separate toilet facilities - California
- Thread starter Arcal
- Start date
jar546
Forum Coordinator
Re: Exceptions to separate toilet facilities - California
Where are our California posters?
Where are our California posters?
RJJ
Co-Founder
Re: Exceptions to separate toilet facilities - California
Can you post some text from the code so others can help with a conclusion?
Can you post some text from the code so others can help with a conclusion?
Alias
Registered User
Re: Exceptions to separate toilet facilities - California
Without a full set of plans, I can only take a guess at this one. Having said that, I will tell you that I would go to Chapter 3 in the CBC and classify this as an A-2. Because it is an A-2, with that amount of floor space and using the less concentrated floor area, I come up with a possible occupant load of at least 100 for 1500 sq. ft. This would automatically trigger the need for a minimum of two bathrooms. Throw out the exceptions to Section 412.3 as they do not apply.
Sue, living la vida loca in the land of fruits and nuts (CA)
Arcal -Arcal said:
Without a full set of plans, I can only take a guess at this one. Having said that, I will tell you that I would go to Chapter 3 in the CBC and classify this as an A-2. Because it is an A-2, with that amount of floor space and using the less concentrated floor area, I come up with a possible occupant load of at least 100 for 1500 sq. ft. This would automatically trigger the need for a minimum of two bathrooms. Throw out the exceptions to Section 412.3 as they do not apply.
Sue, living la vida loca in the land of fruits and nuts (CA)
Alias
Registered User
Re: Exceptions to separate toilet facilities - California
CPC Section 412.3 Separate Toilet Facilities
Separarte 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, designated for use by no more than one (1) person at a time, shall be permitted for use by both sexes.
3. In business and merchantile occupancies with a total floor area of fifteen hundred (1500) square feet or less, one (1) toilet facility, designated for use by no more than one (1) person at a time, shall satisfy the requirements for serving customers and employees of both sexes.
Sue
CPC Section 412.3 Separate Toilet Facilities
Separarte 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, designated for use by no more than one (1) person at a time, shall be permitted for use by both sexes.
3. In business and merchantile occupancies with a total floor area of fifteen hundred (1500) square feet or less, one (1) toilet facility, designated for use by no more than one (1) person at a time, shall satisfy the requirements for serving customers and employees of both sexes.
Sue
Re: Exceptions to separate toilet facilities - California
Thank you Sue for posting the language of the code.
This is an existing coffee shop that is in a converted house. The coffee shop was approved in the late 90's (95 CBC) with an occupant load of less than 50. The plans examiner allowed one restroom based on the fact that there was less than 4 employees. Since that time the new owner has removed a wall, enlarging the seating area, began serving alcohol and added a deck, again adding seating area. All of these were done without a permit. He is now trying to come into compliance because of "pressure" from the City and I have told him he needs two restrooms. There are a number of other issues, but the restroom is the hangup. It is going to the Board of Appeal and I know I am going to be asked what the difference is between 2 & 3 of the exceptions.
Thank you Sue for posting the language of the code.
This is an existing coffee shop that is in a converted house. The coffee shop was approved in the late 90's (95 CBC) with an occupant load of less than 50. The plans examiner allowed one restroom based on the fact that there was less than 4 employees. Since that time the new owner has removed a wall, enlarging the seating area, began serving alcohol and added a deck, again adding seating area. All of these were done without a permit. He is now trying to come into compliance because of "pressure" from the City and I have told him he needs two restrooms. There are a number of other issues, but the restroom is the hangup. It is going to the Board of Appeal and I know I am going to be asked what the difference is between 2 & 3 of the exceptions.
Re: Exceptions to separate toilet facilities - California
Based on what Alias has posted, IMO, exception 3 only applies to Mercantile (M) occupancies, where the floor area is 1500 sq. ft. or less. It would not apply to offices or small businesses that are not M occupancies. Exception 2 would apply to any occupancy (including M) where the occupant load is 10 or less.
In your example, exception 3 can not be applied, because it is not an M occupancy. If I were asked to explain the difference between exceptions 2 and 3, I would say that 2 is an exception that could apply to any occupancy if the occupant load is low enough. 3 is a more lenient exception but can only be applied to M occupancies.
IMO the reason for the more lenient exception for M occupancies is because occupants in an M occupancy are in and out more quickly. They spend less time there than occupants in any other occupancy.
Based on what Alias has posted, IMO, exception 3 only applies to Mercantile (M) occupancies, where the floor area is 1500 sq. ft. or less. It would not apply to offices or small businesses that are not M occupancies. Exception 2 would apply to any occupancy (including M) where the occupant load is 10 or less.
In your example, exception 3 can not be applied, because it is not an M occupancy. If I were asked to explain the difference between exceptions 2 and 3, I would say that 2 is an exception that could apply to any occupancy if the occupant load is low enough. 3 is a more lenient exception but can only be applied to M occupancies.
IMO the reason for the more lenient exception for M occupancies is because occupants in an M occupancy are in and out more quickly. They spend less time there than occupants in any other occupancy.
Alias
Registered User
Re: Exceptions to separate toilet facilities - California
Arcal -
Sounds like you have more than one problem here. :roll: Old codes, probably the old bathroom isn't accessible so, the new bathroom must be CALDAG accessible.
EPrice -
I'll agree with you on the interpretation. I based my decision on the fact that there were more than 50 people using the coffee house/bar currently which automatically triggers the change in occupancy and thus the need for two restrooms. Neither exception 2 or 3 fit the new occupancy.
Sue
Arcal -
Sounds like you have more than one problem here. :roll: Old codes, probably the old bathroom isn't accessible so, the new bathroom must be CALDAG accessible.
EPrice -
I'll agree with you on the interpretation. I based my decision on the fact that there were more than 50 people using the coffee house/bar currently which automatically triggers the change in occupancy and thus the need for two restrooms. Neither exception 2 or 3 fit the new occupancy.
Sue