# Small Restaurant: Single Unisex Restroom?



## Fort (Feb 11, 2014)

Questions, with attempts at answers:

1. Can a small dining use be served by one single accommodation (unisex) restroom?

2. If the total plumbing occupants are 10 or less, then the answer is YES, per CPC 422.2, exception 2.

3. If the total plumbing occupants are 25 persons? Answer appears to be NO. Even though it is tempting to apply CPC 422.2, exception 3, it is very specific to "business and mercantile" occupancies, and a restaurant is clearly a Group "A" and never considered a "B" occupancy in CPC Table A (see where it lists dining rooms under Group A-2 Occupancies, and specifically says "including restaurants classified as Group B occupances." Table 422.1 does not have a way of looking at a restaurant as a B either, even though CBC Ch.3 may classify it as a "B" when less than 50 Egress Occupant Load.

I am hoping someone has an interpretation that can refute this and allow one single accommodation unisex in this application.

Code Background:

_2013 California Plumbing Code._

_CPC 422.2 Separate Facilities. Separate toilet facilities shall be provided for each sex._

_Exceptions:_

_1. Residential._

_2. Total Occupant Load of 10 or less, including customers and employees, one toilet facility, designed for use by no more than one person at a time shall be permitted for use by both sexes._

_3. In business and mercantile occupancies with a total occupant load of 50 or less including customers and employees, one toilet facility, designed for use by no more than one person at a time shall be permitted for use by both sexes._

Now when Plumbing Code is talking about Occupant Load, we all know that it is really a "Plumbing" Occupant Load, calculated using CPC Table A. Not the same as Ch.10 for Egress compliance. Note also that Table A includes footnote **, which says accessory spaces may be excluded (for example hallways, restrooms, stair enclosure), and the load factors are lower than they are for egress, so it is often the case that a Plumbing Occupant Load is much less than an Egress Occupant Load.

Link to CA Codes:

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/code/bsc.ca.gov/


----------



## north star (Feb 11, 2014)

*= = = = =*

What is your calculated Occ. Load  for this "small dining"

use ?

*= = = = =*


----------



## Fort (Feb 11, 2014)

Occupant Load per Plumbing Code Table A is 25 persons.

Lets assume the "Egress" Occupant Load per Ch.10 Table 1004.1.2 is 49 persons.


----------



## north star (Feb 11, 2014)

*= > < =*

Your calculated Occ. Load should be performed from your

sq. footages of the Dining spaces and any Kitchen areas.

How much actual sq. footage do you have dedicated for

the Dining Areas, ...for any Order \ Queuing Areas, ...for

the Kitchen areas, etc. ?

*= > < =*


----------



## north star (Feb 11, 2014)

*= & = & =*

In reviewing your statement about the CPC, ...it appears as

though at least two separate,  ADA compliant restrooms will

be required, even though you may have less than the 50

calculated occ. load.

*= & = & =*


----------



## JPohling (Feb 11, 2014)

If you do not want a surprise i would recommend that you speak to the health department in your jurisdiction. They often times have additional requirements that are more restrictive.


----------



## RLGA (Feb 11, 2014)

This is a great example of what happens when you mix codes.  The CPC is based on the _Uniform Plumbing Code _published by IAPMO and is not coordinated with the IBC like the IPC is.  I don't care how much an adoption committee will try, they can't find every potential conflict when codes of differing code development organizations are adopted.


----------



## JBI (Feb 11, 2014)

Generally speaking... The occupancy classification should be decided in the _Building Code_, which has an exception in the 'A' category for occupant loads below 50 placing these small assembly spaces in the 'B' classification. Once the Occupancy Classification is decided, one can apply whatever plumbing code is adopted for the fixture counts, materials etc.

How's that work for you?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 11, 2014)

The occupancy classification for the building is not always the best way to go.

Each room within a building is classified by its use and the occupant load is determined in each room by its use. They are all added together for a total occupant load of the building and that is usually what determines the plumbing fixture count.

With small restaurants I count the number of dining chairs and add the occupant load for the kitchen area. It usually works well.

FYI

We use the UPC but have our own fixture table per state regulations along with IBC Chapter 29 which allows 15 occupants for a single toilet facility.

 [P] 2902.2 Separate facilities.Where plumbing fixtures are required, separate facilities shall be provided for each sex.

Exceptions:

1.	Separate facilities shall not be required for dwelling units and sleeping units .

2.	Separate facilities shall not be required in structures or tenant spaces with a total occupant load , including both employees and customers, of 15 or less.

3.	Separate facilities shall not be required in mercantile occupancies in which the maximum occupant load is 50 or less.


----------



## Alias (Feb 11, 2014)

Fort,

If the restaurant is 50 or less, the CBC classifies it as a "B" occupancy.  B occupancy allows one unisex ADA compliant restroom for the business.

I inspected a Quiznos that was built in Alturas and it has one bathroom.

Sue


----------



## mark handler (Feb 11, 2014)

Alias said:
			
		

> Fort,If the restaurant is 50 or less, the CBC classifies it as a "B" occupancy.  B occupancy allows one unisex ADA compliant restroom for the business.  Sue


Sue you got it

In business and mercantile occupancies with a total occupant load of 50 or less including customers and employees, one toilet facility, designed for use by no more than one person at a time shall be permitted for use by both sexes.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 11, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Sue you got itIn business and mercantile occupancies with a total occupant load of 50 or less including customers and employees, one toilet facility, designed for use by no more than one person at a time shall be permitted for use by both sexes.


California no longer uses chapter 10 for plumbing loads


----------



## Codegeek (Feb 11, 2014)

The California Plumbing Code uses different factors to determine the occupant load for plumbing fixtures only.  While the occupant load for egress may be higher, it's the plumbing occupant load that will determine the fixtures.  For a B or M use group with an occupant load of less than 50, a single unisex facility is permitted.  It's a new exception in the 2013 CPC - http://www.iapmo.org/2013%20California%20Plumbing%20Code/Chapter%2004.pdf.  Scroll to page 10 of the 22 page pdf file.  It's about 1/2-2/3 of the way down on the left.


----------



## JPohling (Feb 11, 2014)

Just another caution....SD Health department will require separate mens and womens toilet facilities if there are more than 5 employes per shift.  And the access to these toilet rooms cannot be thru food preparation areas.


----------



## mark handler (Feb 11, 2014)

jpohling said:
			
		

> just another caution....sd health department will require separate mens and womens toilet facilities if there are more than 5 employes per shift.  And the access to these toilet rooms cannot be thru food preparation areas.


Not required in the California health and safety code

part 7. California retail food code


----------



## Alias (Feb 11, 2014)

Fort -

New restaurant or existing doing a remodel?

Sue


----------



## JPohling (Feb 11, 2014)

Mark, it is required by County of San Diego Health


----------



## mark handler (Feb 11, 2014)

JPohling said:
			
		

> Mark, it is required by County of San Diego Health


I understood that. All i was saying is it is not a California thing. That's all.


----------



## fatboy (Feb 11, 2014)

I don't have a dog in the fight here, but nice to see John and Sue posting!


----------



## JPohling (Feb 11, 2014)

Understood!


----------

