# CPC 422.4.1 - Couple questions



## formdb (Jun 18, 2018)

I have a couple questions about interpretation of CPC 422.4.1, which states that in multi-story buildings, accessibility to required toilet facilities shall not exceed one vertical story. It also states that toilet facilities accessible only to private offices shall not be counted to determine compliance.

I am working on a remodel of an existing building that will ultimately have a basement, first and second floors, and an occupiable roof deck. A portion of the building is going to be a co-working space (shared/private offices), and the other portion will be a coffee shop and public use space. There are existing restroom facilities on the first floor in the co-working space; the plan was to locate the remaining required restroom facilities at the basement level immediately adjacent to a new elevator.

First, for the purposes of this section, would the roof deck be considered a 'story'? For instance, if I had restrooms on the first floor, would that satisfy this section?

Second, is there any exception when an elevator is installed? I'm assuming there is no official exception as there is nothing mentioned, and I certainly see the logic of having restrooms conveniently located, just curious if anyone here has been granted an exception for this requirement.

Finally, the existing restrooms on the first floor are within the co-working space, which will typically be controlled to prevent public access. However, if there was an access keycard or something that could be given to coffee shop patrons to access the first-floor restroom facilities, would that address the "accessible only to private offices" requirement?


----------



## ICE (Jun 20, 2018)

First question.
CBC definition:
_STORY. *That portion of a building included between the upper surface of a floor and the upper surface of the floor or roof next above *(see “Basement,” “Building height,” “Grade plane” and “Mezzanine”). A story is measured as the vertical distance from top to top of two successive tiers of beams or finished floor surfaces and, for the topmost story, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters. _

Second question.
Doubtful.


Third question.
_422.4.1 Access to Toilet Facilities. In multi-story buildings, accessibility to the required toilet facilities shall not exceed one vertical story. Access to the required toilet facilities for *customers shall not pass through areas designated as for employee use only* such as kitchens, food preparation areas, storage rooms, closets, or similar spaces. Toilet facilities accessible only to private offices shall not be counted to determine compliance with this section. 

The public is not allowed to pass through the designated worker only areas, with or without permission.  If there were toilet facilities in the office area that can be reached without passing through a restricted area, then it might fly.
_
CAVEAT:  I am consistently wrong when it comes to heavy thinking stuff like this.  But nobody was saying anything so I thought I would give it a shot.  
_
_


----------



## ICE (Jun 20, 2018)

So where are you smart guys?  He asked two legitimate questions.  Two and a half days ago.  You just gonna leave it up to me?  Is there a cover charge I don't know about?  
Would it make a difference if he was a supporter? Aha! that's the ticket.  Here's a designer type that wants help, needs help, awaits help.  And you can bet this won't be the last time it happens.

Well then formdb it looks like it's a bust and all you're getting is me...Now I wouldn't pay for that but there's people here that are worth the money.  Perhaps an $80 investment in your future will light up this thread.

Hostage taking is a specialty trade.  You can thank me later.


----------



## georgia plans exam (Jun 21, 2018)

I’ll bite. I am reluctant to get too far into California codes, since I have not lived there for about 15 years but, it seems to me that it does not matter if the roof deck is considered to be a “story”. The code requires that the toilet facilities be located not more than one story above or below the “space” requiring toilet facilities. 2012 IPC 403.3.3.   GPE


----------



## HForester (Jul 20, 2018)

I would have run right by this one BUT, you CAUGHT me with the Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap! A stupid but great song.

So here's my two cents:

First, for the purposes of this section, would the roof deck be considered a 'story'? For instance, if I had restrooms on the first floor, would that satisfy this section? It is not whether the roof deck is a story. It is whether the travel requires traversing more than one story. For the the roof deck, the required toilet facilities can be on the floor below (but no further below.) 

Second, is there any exception when an elevator is installed? I'm assuming there is no official exception as there is nothing mentioned, and I certainly see the logic of having restrooms conveniently located, just curious if anyone here has been granted an exception for this requirement.  No exception. Travel from the starting point can't be more than one floor above or below. 

Finally, the existing restrooms on the first floor are within the co-working space, which will typically be controlled to prevent public access. However, if there was an access keycard or something that could be given to coffee shop patrons to access the first-floor restroom facilities, would that address the "accessible only to private offices" requirement? I have a "hinky feeling" about that arrangement.  In my mind, it is about who has control of the (leased ?) spaces. I generally do not see a problem with security for public toilet facility doors (having to obtain a "key" from lessee of the space). There are many situations where this is necessary in order to make toilet facilities usable and available to customers, visitors and patrons associated with the use of the tenant space.  However, your described situation is a little different as the coffee shop area might be one lessee that is dependent on another lessee (the co-working space) for the required toilet facilities.  If the whole area (coffee shop area +co-working space) is all under the same control (lessee), then that seems reasonable. But if they are two separate lessees, then it is not acceptable. This would be analogous to multiple tenant spaces in a strip center all sharing the toilet facilities in one tenant's space.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jul 23, 2018)

Don't have CBC but I think what ICE  said.


----------

