Toilet issue

[earshavewalls]

We have a new restaurant going into an existing space. They are completely 'gutting' the space for the new tenant. Upon first review, the designer was notified that under California Plumbing Code, they were required to match the minimum number of combined water closet and urinal counts with water closets in the women's toilet room per footnote 14 of Table 4-1. The space is not very large, and the restaurant kitchen is quite large, so this created a problem.

Their solution was to provide a non-accessible toilet closet with a lavatory for women in addition to the accessible toilet room provided, and they wish to provide signage to let people know that this restroom is NOT accessible, but the other IS and directs women to the accessible toilet room, which is to be on the opposite wall of the same hallway, directly across from the accessible facility.

It is my feeling that this meets the intent of the code, but it is a little off from the provisions in CBC 1134B.2.2 and 1117B.5.8.1.3 in that these are separate, single-use facilities for women, NOT Unisex toilets.

Another plan checker is disagreeing with this interpretation, so we are sending out 'feelers' to ADA, California DSA, and to others who may give some insight. We have an Accessibility Consultant on retainer, but that will be a last resort.

Thanks in advance for input!

 

[mtlogcabin]

they wish to provide signage to let people know that this restroom is NOT accessible, but the other IS and directs women to the accessible toilet room, which is to be on the opposite wall of the same hallway, directly across from the accessible facility.

Might as well direct them to the back of the buse. Personally I see nothing wrong wilth multiple single user facilities as you described but their are others who believe if you are not sharing bodily functions in the same room then you are discriminating.

I bet the "feelers" you put out will agree with the other plan checker

 

[TJacobs]

Separate but equal is a loser...in my opinion. I think it could be different if you were only remodeling, but since it is a gut job, no excuse for not making it accessible.

 

[fatboy]

I tend to agree with both the above posts........

 

[mark handler]

All new commercia toilet rooms in CA SHALL BE accessible

Moot issue, Does not comply to intent or letter of CA code

Your designer, I assume, unlicensed, is setting you up for a lawsuit

 

[Gene Boecker]

Both the CA and federal regs require that for new toilet rooms "one of each type of fixture" must be accessible. If there is a new toilet rooms without any accessible fixtures it's in violation of both state and federal law. mark's right. The designer is stepping out past the end of the limb and holding your hand at the same time.

 

[Bootleg]

The way I understand the Accessibility code for new public restrooms is ALL new restrooms are required to be accessible.

Except:

In toilet rooms or bathing facilities accessed only through a private office, not for common or public use and intended for use by a single occupant.

 

[mark handler]

In toilet rooms or bathing facilities accessed only through a private office, not for common or public use and intended for use by a single occupant.

A private toilet room for the occupant of a private office shall be adaptable.

Notice the Singular wording and the room shall be adaptable, so it does not save space

 

[earshavewalls]

Thanks to all for your input, especially Mark, for your concern over our legal well-being! We have not approved anything as yet. I am searching for some sort of reason to permit what they would like to do, but I don't think I'm going to find it. I have seen this method in use in other states, with existing restrooms, to provide at least one restroom that is accessible, but Mark (again) was correct in that California does not enforce the ADA, we enforce Chapter 11 of the CBC, and as that chapter is written, all restrooms ARE required to be accessible (or adaptable), even if serving a private office.

This all came up, mostly, because of the California Plumbing Code REQUIRING a urinal in the men's room, which also triggers matching the total number of urinals and w/c's with w/c's for the women, which meant that the women are to be provided with two water closets, even though the table says that only one is required. (footnote 14 requires they be equal). The I-Codes do NOT require urinals, they are optional...........or at least they didn't in the 2003 IPC.

Thanks for all of your input on this subject. With the new Accessibility requirements for jurisdictions now in California, along with the Department of Justice running around to businesses here (see other posts in this forum), they all seem to be looking to chop off heads over a very obsequious and poorly written code..............IMHO.

We will, more than likely, NOT permit this design proposal. But, I REALLY agree with Fatboy's post............................

 

[peach]

It won't work in most places, ears..

Particularly in new buildings and complete guts...

need to comply.. or you could be on the hook; enforce what the State requires you to enforce.

Good luck

 

[TimNY]

I just went through this.. There is no section in the code to allow the construction of a bathroom that does not meet the clearances per A117.1.

I've had the private bathroom discussion and as noted above it does not modify the required clearances. With the private bathroom exception you take a completely compliant accessible bathroom, swing the door the opposite way, install a vanity and omit the grab bars (although you do provide blocking for them). If it isn't used as a private bathroom for one person (the same person, ie the occupant of the office, and other staff/public are not permitted to use it), it doesn't meet the exception.

 

[Alias]

I agree with the others that it must comply. A complete gut puts it in that category.

On the other hand, creatively thinking and speaking, is the urinal necessary or could you get your fixture count per occupant without it? I have a lot of experience dealing with old buildings and trying to retrofit bathrooms.

Sue, living where just about everything is non-compliant because it was built pre-ADA

 

[mark handler]

Sue, living where just about everything is non-compliant because it was built pre-ADA

There is no grandfathering of the ADA. It is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

 

[Gene Boecker]

Alias,

For existing facilities with no other work, a new toilet room with unisex facilities can be used to meet the ADA requirements for existing barrier removal. In situations where there is no room for remodeling existing toilet rooms or it is technically infeasible, the separate room is OK. This would create a new complying toilet room and two existing, non-complying rooms.

Maybe this is what you were thinking about, EHW (ADAAG 4.1.6(e)(i)). This is also the case in California (1134B.2.2). However, since this situation is the construction of two new restrooms, there is no such allowance.

 

[earshavewalls]

Thanks to all who gave their comments. The only times this HAS been allowed was with existing conditions where it was not feasible or met the definition of "hardship". We are NOT permitting the proposed layout. The architect has come up with a redesign that actually meets the owners' needs better than the previous design, so everyone is happy now!

Thanks again for the comments. This forum has always been a great source for bouncing code thoughts and interpretations off of others who do this for a living. Too bad the ICC forum went south........keep up the good work!

 

[Gene Boecker]

So the problem appears to be the CA Plumbing code and not so much the accessibility concern. Maybe you could get the state (or IAPMO) to change the code - or adopt the IPC.

 

[mark handler]

So the problem appears to be the CA Plumbing code and not so much the accessibility concern. Maybe you could get the state (or IAPMO) to change the code - or adopt the IPC.

NO it is also in the ADAAG, NOT just a CA issue

 

[Gene Boecker]

This all came up, mostly, because of the California Plumbing Code REQUIRING a urinal in the men's room, which also triggers matching the total number of urinals and w/c's with w/c's for the women, which meant that the women are to be provided with two water closets, even though the table says that only one is required. (footnote 14 requires they be equal). The I-Codes do NOT require urinals, they are optional...........or at least they didn't in the 2003 IPC.

Mark, THIS is what I was making reference to. Had it not been for the footnote, there would not be the issue about trying to get extra sausage into that skin.

I'm sorry if I was unclear.

 

[peach]

there are historic buildings out there not on the planet of being accessible, and because of the historic district cannot make the entrance accessible.. that might be a situation where you may not have to make the restrooms accessible.

 

[mark handler]

there are historic buildings out there not on the planet of being accessible, and because of the historic district cannot make the entrance accessible.. that might be a situation where you may not have to make the restrooms accessible.

Your right Peach, But there are totaly seperate requirements/allowances for historic buildings.

 

[TimNY]

Yeah Historic Buildings are covered in the EBC. If the building can qualify as historic, go for it! I don't think being in the historic district counts, but if the building is historic then there are all sorts of gimmes.

 

[mark handler]

Existing Building Code, Sometimes, in some places, Historic Building Code, other times, in some places.

 

[Alias]

There is no grandfathering of the ADA. It is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Mark -

I know. But if there is no work done on an existing building, I can't go in and tell them to bring it up to CA ADA standards. I need a reason..........

Sue, on the frontier