Commercial building Receptacle height

[jnthn00]

I am doing a medical office building in Los Angeles CA, and there are wall mounted computers with a person and data outlet called out to be 3'10" to the bottom. This puts the top above 48". An on-site QA/QC is citing California Building Code 11b-308 which calls for Max 48" to the top. I don't agree that it applies to power for permanently fixed equipment such as this computer. I think the ADA requirements apply to general use receptacle. Can someone give me some ammunition to fire back and prove this guy wrong?

 

[david]

Are these public use areas? Are these employee work areas? If these are in areas that the public has access to it sounds like these are general use REC. doubt you will get away with calling these a disconnect for a computer

 

[growler]

I am doing a medical office building in Los Angeles CA, and there are wall mounted computers with a person and data outlet called out to be 3'10" to the bottom.

It's going to be close but could you mount the box horizontal ?

 

[mopowr steve]

If you mount the receptacle any lower does it encroach the desk or whatever the computer is setting on?

 

[JFletcher]

Welcome to the forum.

Section 4.27.3 states that electrical and communications system receptacles on walls shall be mounted no less than 15" above floor. However, the exception indicates that this does not apply to receptacles not intended for use by building occupants.

So a jack for a wall mounted computer, or for an ATM machine, or a wall mounted TV 8' up in a sports bar would not apply to height requirements.

If they press the issue, remount it, mount an additional box <48", hard-wire it, or blank it off.

eta: be careful about what else may be mounted in the vicinity. I know with hotel guest room desks, the jacks above it had to be pretty spot-on height wise as a mirror or picture was frequently mounted 4-8" above the desk's backstop. Same with telephone jacks with headboards and end tables in the way.

 

[mpoulton]

The building code section cited does not mention receptacles at all, and states that it applies to "reach ranges". The question is why this inspector believes that receptacle is subject to this "reach range" provision. Some other code cite is required to support this ruling. This provision alone does not do it.