Plumbing fixture count

[Sanman023]

Hello All, I have client who just purchased a 5400sf building (existing M occupancy). He wants to change it to an A-3 (jiu jitsu gym). It currently has two restrooms, one water closet and one lav each. Based on the occupant load in CPC table 4-1, we have 36 male and 36 female occupants, we will need 1 WC, 1 urinal, 1 lav for the mens and 2 WC and 1 lav for the female. Are there any exceptions in the code that the existing restrooms will work without adding more fixtures?
Thanks.

 

[steveray]

Change of occupancy in the existing building code and if you’re not increasing the occupant load by 20% you don’t have to do anything

 

[arwat23]

Change of occupancy in the existing building code and if you’re not increasing the occupant load by 20% you don’t have to do anything

Any change in use that results in an increase in occupant load requires plumbing to be brought up to code for fixture count. See CPC/UPC 422.1. There's no 20% threshold as far as I see.

"Table 422.1 applies to new buildings, additions to a building, and changes of occupancy or type in an existing building resulting in increased occupant load."

 

[arwat23]

Are there any exceptions in the code that the existing restrooms will work without adding more fixtures?

No exceptions as far as I see. Use CBC Table 1004.5 to determine OL for plumbing unless the project falls under the BSC, DSA-SS, or DSA-SS/CC jurisdictions - Table 4.1 only applies to those jurisdictions.

 

[Joe.B]

Any change in use that results in an increase in occupant load requires plumbing to be brought up to code for fixture count. See CPC/UPC 422.1. There's no 20% threshold as far as I see.

"Table 422.1 applies to new buildings, additions to a building, and changes of occupancy or type in an existing building resulting in increased occupant load."

Before July 1, 2024, you would have been correct. Check out the supplements in the CA Existing Building Code. Biggest change I've ever seen in a mid-cycle amendment.

 

[steveray]

IEBC 1009.1 exception?

 

[Joe.B]

IEBC 1009.1 exception?

Before July 1st, 2024, no. As of now, yes.

2022 California Existing Building Code (Supplement)
SECTION 1009
PLUMBING
1009.1 Increased demand. Where the occupancy of an existing building or part of an existing building is changed such that the new occupancy is subject to increased or different plumbing fixture requirements or to increased water supply requirements in accordance with the California Plumbing Code, the new occupancy shall comply with the intent of the respective California Plumbing Code provisions.
Exception: Only where the occupant load of the story is increased by more than 20 percent, plumbing fixtures for the story shall be provided in quantities specified in the California Plumbing Code based on the increased occupant load.

 

[arwat23]

Well... I'll be damned. I hardly ever crack open that code book for the work I do and my firm still hasn't received the updated pages for our physical code book, so I had no idea that changed so dramatically.

 

[Joe.B]

Before the July 1st, 2024, supplement CA did not adopt anything beyond Chapter 5. Now there are whole new chapters that are pretty game changing. It's a real PITA for those of us on this side of the counter, but if you're a designer it opens up a whole realm of new possibilities.

 

[Joe.B]

Most people in CA (from my limited perspective) have been politely ignoring the CEBC because it was pretty meaningless to us. Not any more.

 

[Joe.B]

I had no idea that changed so dramatically.

You're not alone.

 

[Joe.B]

You can download the supplements here:

Codes

www.dgs.ca.gov

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Before the July 1st, 2024, supplement CA did not adopt anything beyond Chapter 5. Now there are whole new chapters that are pretty game changing. It's a real PITA for those of us on this side of the counter, but if you're a designer it opens up a whole realm of new possibilities.

When this state first adopted the IEBC, the then-State Building Inspector (a licensed architect) used to stand up in front of classes for building officials and say, "I hate the existing building code. I don't know why anyone would ever use it."

As a code consultant, I viewed it as a godsend for owners of older existing buildings (of which this state has a LOT) who just want to keep their buildings viable without breaking the bank. I could not have disagreed with the State Building Inspector more about the value of the IEBC. The sad part was that he took his same "Don't ever look at the IEBC" to the AIA chapter in the state. The result was that when architects contacted me for help with projects involving existing buildings, my first question would be to ask why they were only looking in the IBC. The answer was "Because [___] says the IEBC is awful."

You could see the amazement in their eyes over a landline telephone when I'd say something like, "The IEBC says if you add two exit signs and change the hardware on the entrance door you're done." And, quite literally, sometimes it was as simple as that. (Going back to an earlier edition of the IEBC.)

Note to the design professions here: If you are dealing with an existing building your code path STARTS with the IEBC (if your state adopted it). You then choose which of the three compliance methods to follow. Then you look in the IBC only when and where the IEBC sends you there.

 

[Joe.B]

Yup, I'm still wrapping my head around some of the implications of this. There are potentially some very interesting CA specific consequences if someone were to dig deep. California has very strict sprinkler requirements, the only exception for R-3 is found in the CRC. The CBC can be used for R-3 projects, but why would you? Well, the answer is that the Residential code is relatively new to CA and many people on the design side are not familiar with it at all, so they just use CBC.

CEBC 101.2 Scope basically says this code or the residential. The new (to us) provisions of the existing building code do make some very interesting allowances for designers, but if they choose to use them instead of the CRC, then you're installing sprinklers...

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

CEBC 101.2 Scope basically says this code or the residential. The new (to us) provisions of the existing building code do make some very interesting allowances for designers, but if they choose to use them instead of the CRC, then you're installing sprinklers...

The ICC model IEBC says the same thing. The IRC has its own provisions applicable to alterations.

R101.2 Scope. The provisions of this code shall apply to the
construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement,
repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, removal and
demolition of detached one- and two-family dwellings and
townhouses not more than three stories above grade plane in
height with a separate means of egress and their accessory
structures not more than three stories above grade plane in
height.

Definition:

[RB] ALTERATION. Any construction, retrofit or renovation
to an existing structure other than repair or addition that
requires a permit. Also, a change in a building, electrical, gas,
mechanical or plumbing system that involves an extension,
addition or change to the arrangement, type or purpose of the
original installation that requires a permit. For the definition
applicable in Chapter 11, see Section N1101.6.

R102.7.1 Additions, alterations or repairs. Additions, alterations
or repairs to any structure shall conform to the
requirements for a new structure without requiring the existing
structure to comply with the requirements of this code, unless
otherwise stated. Additions, alterations, repairs and relocations
shall not cause an existing structure to become less compliant
with the provisions of this code than the existing building or
structure was prior to the addition, alteration or repair. An
existing building together with its additions shall comply with
the height limits of this code. Where the alteration causes the
use or occupancy to be changed to one not within the scope of
this code, the provisions of the International Existing Building
Code shall apply.

Essentially, the IRC defaults to what would be the Prescriptive Method in the IEBC.

 

[Joe.B]

Well, I don't know anything about chapter 11 because our residential code stops at 10. But yeah, looking at 102.7.1, if someone proposed a complete kitchen remodel (down to the studs) wouldn't that trigger several new electrical code requirements? Such as two SABC 210.52(B)(1)?

It seems to me like CEBC 806.4 (Level 2 Alteration) would provide some leeway to that.

So, in a State that did not require sprinklers for new R-3, the existing building code provides an easier path to compliance. However, in CA it would be a trade-off. I could forego the new circuits, but I'd have to install a sprinkler system.

 

[steveray]

Well, I don't know anything about chapter 11 because our residential code stops at 10. But yeah, looking at 102.7.1, if someone proposed a complete kitchen remodel (down to the studs) wouldn't that trigger several new electrical code requirements? Such as two SABC 210.52(B)(1)?

No…it wouldn’t….

 

[Joe.B]

No…it wouldn’t….

That's where I think CA codes are more restrictive. And, obviously, up to the interpretation of the AHJ...

 

[steveray]

That's where I think CA codes are more restrictive. And, obviously, up to the interpretation of the AHJ...

Not really....you can remove every piece of drywall in a house and there is typically nothing that is going to make you install 2 BC's...Level 2 gets you some upgrades but generally outlets not circuits....That outlet may then have to be AFCI GFCI and maybe on it's own circuit, but not just because....And if they choose prescriptive it is even worse...But lets try to get back on topic....

 

[Joe.B]

But lets try to get back on topic....

I feel like this is still somewhat on topic because the original post (in Sacramento CA) was referred to (by you) to the existing building code. Then someone else (also from CA) posted that we don't use the existing building code, and we went down this rabbit hole. Since the OP hasn't commented again since the first post, I seriously doubt we are going "to get back on topic" anyways.

To my statement I should clarify, when I said "down to the studs" I should have been more specific. In several recent kitchen remodels the applicants are choosing to go all the way because they want to completely change the layout and replace all of the electrical and plumbing anyways. In that scenario it's all new work that would have to comply with the current codes.

 

[steveray]

. In several recent kitchen remodels the applicants are choosing to go all the way because they want to completely change the layout and replace all of the electrical and plumbing anyways. In that scenario it's all new work that would have to comply with the current codes.

Then you are correct...Mostly....If they choose to remove it all, they put it back in a fashion to meet new code....

 

[Yikes]

Our firm does many California multifamily rehab/refresh projects, including public housing where we need to reconfigure 5% of thr kitchens for mobility accessibility, The approach that most building departments take (and I agree with it) is:

In the (non-mobility) units where we are removing all the old cabinets and countertops and appliances because they are worn out, and we are replacing them in-kind, like-for-like, in the same configuration, no new electrical loads: typically there is no code upgrade, particularly on the electrical work. We leave the old switch and outlet locations as they were. We will typically swap out the countertop outlets with GFI outlets, but that/s about it. Replacement lighting needs to meet current energy codes.

If we are reconfiguring the cabinets and countertops and appliances in a new arrangement, then we redo the electrical outlets to meet code, including adding dedicated appliance circuits where none may have existed previously, which may also result in an upgrade to the panel and breakers for an increased number of breakers, swapping out with AFIC breakers, etc.
If the reconfiguration is necessitated because it is becoming a mobility accessible unit, then of course the cabinets, outlets, switches and appliance/range hood controls are designed to be within reach range, and are given appropriate floor clearances. This typically requires a major repositioning of appliances, and new segments of countertop that trigger outlet spacing along the backsplash.
In these major kitchen reconfigurations, I’ve never had a building department compel us to change a previously recirculating kitchen hood into a vented kitchen hood.

 

[steveray]

If we are reconfiguring the cabinets and countertops and appliances in a new arrangement, then we redo the electrical outlets to meet code, including adding dedicated appliance circuits where none may have existed previously, which may also result in an upgrade to the panel and breakers for an increased number of breakers, swapping out with AFIC breakers, etc.

Which is still generally not required under the I Codes...Other than if you move or install a 12" or greater counter where one did not previously exist, you would add a receptacle(s)....Sorta....

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

To my statement I should clarify, when I said "down to the studs" I should have been more specific. In several recent kitchen remodels the applicants are choosing to go all the way because they want to completely change the layout and replace all of the electrical and plumbing anyways. In that scenario it's all new work that would have to comply with the current codes.

Words have meaning. "Down to the studs" means the studs remain. If the layout is being changed, then it's more than just stripping finishes "down to the studs."