# Exceptions to separate toilet facilities - California



## Arcal (Dec 1, 2009)

When I look at the exceptions in 412.3 (California Plumbing Code), I find numbers 2 & 3 somewhat confusing.  I interpret number 3 to apply to offices, merchantiles and small businesses but I interpret number 2 to apply to restaurants, pubs and such.  If they are either/or, then why are they not worded the same?  I am not stuck in my interpretation, so would like to hear how others in California look at these exceptions.  I have a small coffee shop/pub (with live entertainment) trying to use exception 3.  Their occupant load is 54, but the total floor area is less than 1500.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 1, 2009)

Re: Exceptions to separate toilet facilities - California

Where are our California posters?


----------



## RJJ (Dec 2, 2009)

Re: Exceptions to separate toilet facilities - California

Can you post some text from the code so others can help with a conclusion?


----------



## Alias (Dec 2, 2009)

Re: Exceptions to separate toilet facilities - California



			
				Arcal said:
			
		

> When I look at the exceptions in 412.3 (California Plumbing Code), I find numbers 2 & 3 somewhat confusing.  I interpret number 3 to apply to offices, merchantiles and small businesses but I interpret number 2 to apply to restaurants, pubs and such.  If they are either/or, then why are they not worded the same?  I am not stuck in my interpretation, so would like to hear how others in California look at these exceptions.  I have a small coffee shop/pub (with live entertainment) trying to use exception 3.  Their occupant load is 54, but the total floor area is less than 1500.


Arcal -

Without a full set of plans, I can only take a guess at this one.  Having said that, I will tell you that I would go to Chapter 3 in the CBC and classify this as an A-2.  Because it is an A-2, with that amount of floor space and using the less concentrated floor area, I come up with a possible occupant load of at least 100 for 1500 sq. ft.  This would automatically trigger the need for a minimum of two bathrooms.  Throw out the exceptions to Section 412.3 as they do not apply.

Sue, living la vida loca in the land of fruits and nuts (CA)


----------



## Alias (Dec 2, 2009)

Re: Exceptions to separate toilet facilities - California

CPC Section 412.3 Separate Toilet Facilities

Separarte toilet facilities shall be provided for each sex.

*Exceptions*

1. Residential installations

2. In occupancies serving ten (10) or fewer people, one (1) toilet facility, designated for use by no more than one (1) person at a time, shall be permitted for use by both sexes.

3. In business and merchantile occupancies with a total floor area of fifteen hundred (1500) square feet or less, one (1) toilet facility, designated for use by no more than one (1) person at a time, shall satisfy the requirements for serving customers and employees of both sexes.

Sue


----------



## Arcal (Dec 2, 2009)

Re: Exceptions to separate toilet facilities - California

Thank you Sue for posting the language of the code.

This is an existing coffee shop that is in a converted house.  The coffee shop was approved in the late 90's (95 CBC) with an occupant load of less than 50.  The plans examiner allowed one restroom based on the fact that there was less than 4 employees.  Since that time the new owner has removed a wall, enlarging the seating area, began serving alcohol and added a deck, again adding seating area.  All of these were done without a permit.  He is now trying to come into compliance because of "pressure" from the City and I have told him he needs two restrooms.  There are a number of other issues, but the restroom is the hangup.  It is going to the Board of Appeal and I know I am going to be asked what the difference is between 2 & 3 of the exceptions.


----------



## EPrice (Dec 2, 2009)

Re: Exceptions to separate toilet facilities - California

Based on what Alias has posted, IMO, exception 3 only applies to Mercantile (M) occupancies, where the floor area is 1500 sq. ft. or less.  It would not apply to offices or small businesses that are not M occupancies.  Exception 2 would apply to any occupancy (including M) where the occupant load is 10 or less.

In your example, exception 3 can not be applied, because it is not an M occupancy.  If I were asked to explain the difference between exceptions 2 and 3, I would say that 2 is an exception that could apply to any occupancy if the occupant load is low enough.  3 is a more lenient exception but can only be applied to M occupancies.

IMO the reason for the more lenient exception for M occupancies is because occupants in an M occupancy are in and out more quickly.  They spend less time there than occupants in any other occupancy.


----------



## Alias (Dec 2, 2009)

Re: Exceptions to separate toilet facilities - California

Arcal -

Sounds like you have more than one problem here.   :roll:   Old codes, probably the old bathroom isn't accessible so, the new bathroom must be CALDAG accessible.

EPrice -

I'll agree with you on the interpretation.  I based my decision on the fact that there were more than 50 people using the coffee house/bar currently which automatically triggers the change in occupancy and thus the need for two restrooms.  Neither exception 2 or 3 fit the new occupancy.

Sue


----------



## Arcal (Dec 2, 2009)

Re: Exceptions to separate toilet facilities - California

Thanks.  I will just wait and see where the Appeals Board takes it.  They are a pretty good group of men.


----------

