# Child day care facility



## mtlogcabin (Mar 24, 2010)

Existing child day care facility was classified as an E occupancy under the UBC Ol of 39

They care for about 15 children under 2.5 years old. There is no door leading directly to the outside from the room the 2.5 year olds are in.

Question would you still classify this as an E occupancy or would you require a door to be installed under 2006 IFC Section 102.1

 102.1 Construction and design provisions.

The construction and design provisions of this code shall apply to:

1.	Structures, facilities and conditions arising after the adoption of this code. NA

2.	Existing structures, facilities and conditions not legally in existence at the time of adoption of this code. Yes

3.	Existing structures, facilities and conditions when identified in specific sections of this code. Yes

4.	Existing structures, facilities and conditions which, in the opinion of the fire code official, constitute a distinct hazard to life or property. Require exit door to be installed 2.5 year olds are not capable of self preservation


----------



## vegas paul (Mar 24, 2010)

Re: Child day care facility

Under the current code, the "E" classification is only for facilities for children older than 2.5 years...

So, no, I would NOT classify it as an E occupancy.  Under today's code it would be an I-4 if less than 24-hour care and I-2 if 24-hour care.


----------



## cda (Mar 24, 2010)

Re: Child day care facility

mtlogcabin

if they were doing remodel work:::: possibly yes depending on the work

No work:: leave it alone


----------



## AegisFPE (Mar 24, 2010)

Re: Child day care facility

It may be hard to justify that the inability of a 2.5-year-old to self-evacuate as a distinct hazard if this specific hazard were expressly permitted in the space under the UBC (in which case isn't IFC 102.1 Item 2 a "No"?), and has continued to be permitted under multiple editions of the IFC containing a similar "distinct hazard" clause, until today.

The use may now be defined as an I-4 Day Care based on the current code, but the facility should not be subject to evaluation for a change of use in the building if it was the definition that changed, not the use.  It seems far-fetched to say that they have to put in an exterior door to meet an exception so the jurisdiction doesn't have to revise the letter E its records.  Besides, adding the door and being a Group E could trigger installing a fire alarm system per IFC 907.3.1.1!

IFC 1001.1 clarifies that existing buildings are subject to 1027 and 1028.  Table 1028.17.2 identifies that there is no common path of travel limit for an existing daycare (specific reference as you noted from IFC 102.1 Item 3), and the travel distance may be up to 200 feet in an unsprinklered building.  Seems that if the IFC means of egress provisions for an existing day care are satisfied, there shouldn't necessarily be a distinct hazard in continuing to use the space as a daycare (unless the FCO sees a "distinct hazard" other than what the code may anticipate to be present (e.g. little kids) in a daycare).


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 25, 2010)

Re: Child day care facility

The UBC did not have an age limit to differentiate between an I-4 and an E, they where all E's.

The babies where re-located from a room with an Emergency rescue window to a room with no windows. Less safe :?:

I don't believe it could be classified today as an I-4 because it is not sprinklered.

The exception to an I-4 classification which would allow it to be classified as an E is a door that leads directly outside from the room the babies are located in.

This one just gnaws at me. If something where to happen I don't know that I could sleep at night.


----------



## cda (Mar 25, 2010)

Re: Child day care facility

"""The babies where re-located from a room with an Emergency rescue window to a room with no windows. Less safe """"

You might contact state day care people if there is such thing to see if they require a window, or have to approve the move.

and if no remodel work it still is an E under the U code, and do not think U code required a window??

so if no window required it still meets code under what it was approved.


----------



## AegisFPE (Mar 26, 2010)

Re: Child day care facility

Perhaps based on that condition there should already be smoke detection connected to a building fire alarm system, based on '97 UBC 1007.3.4 (2nd paragraph).


----------



## Hfp65m (Oct 22, 2018)

If it was classified as an I-4 daycare what would the building requirements be other than sprinklers and fire alarm?


----------



## cda (Oct 22, 2018)

Hfp65m said:


> If it was classified as an I-4 daycare what would the building requirements be other than sprinklers and fire alarm?




Welcome

Comply with IBC construction for I-4


----------

