View Report — Community & Economic Development Committee, December 13, 2022

ncr,r~ - F^ED
lit, of the cu
OAKlAND5 Cl f?-tjin
AGENDA REPORTH8JAN30 PM 5= 48CITY OF OAKLAND
TO: Sabrina Landreth,
City Administrator
FROM: William A. Gilchrist
Director, PBD
SUBJECT: Proposed Alternative Joint Live
Work Quarter Provisions
DATE: January 17, 2020
City Administrator Approval Date /
7 RECOMMENDATION
Staff Recommends That The City Council Approve A Report and Recommendation 1) Comparing The Proposed Alternative Joint Live Work Quarter (JLWQ) Provisions Submitted To The City Council On November 19, 2019 As “Technical Amendment To Agenda Item 9.1” And The 2019 California Model Building Construction Codes; And 2) Describing Recommendations For Permitting New and Converted JLWQ To Maintain Safety And Code Compliance.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At its November 19, 2019 meeting, the City Council approved the first reading of an ordinance to adopt' on behalf of the City of Oakland, the 2019 California Model Building Construction Codes (2019 CBC), along with certain local amendments supported by appropriate findings.

During this City Council meeting, under item 9.1 “Local Amendments to the 2019 California Model Building Construction Code,” a Councilmember made a motion to include alternative joint live/work quarter (JLWQ) provisions, based on previous JLWQ provisions adopted under prior code cycles when no such provisions existed in the California Model Building Construction Codes in effect at that time. While the motion did not pass, the City Council did request that the Planning and Building Department (PBD) return with analysis and potential findings to support the proposed alternative JLWQ provisions (Alternative JLWQ Provisions).

The 2019 CBC includes provisions that provide live/work building standards. However, these standards are different than the Councilmember’s proposed Alternative JLWQ Provisions. As with other amendments, the 2019 CBC permits local jurisdictions to adopt different live/work standards to address local conditions, as long as such standards are equivalent to or more stringent than the State standards and supported by appropriate findings.

After extensive research, Staff has found a number of potential amendments relating to JLWQ conversions that provide equivalent safety standards to the 2019 CBC and could be supported by findings (see Attachment A), and recommends that the City Council consider an Ordinance adopting these amendments at a later City Council meeting. However, other amendments CED Committee
February 11, 2020

Sabrina Landreth, City Administrator
Subject: Proposed Alternative Joint Live Work Quarter Provisions Date: January 17, 2020___________________________ Page 2 included in the proposed Alternative JLWQ Provisions cannot be supported for adoption because they are neither equivalent nor more stringent than what is required by the 2019 CBC nor can the requisite findings be made.

BACKGROUND / LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
The California Health and Safety Code (HSC §§ 18941.5; 17958.7; 17922) requires that local technical amendments to the Model Construction Codes be equivalent to or more stringent than these State codes. Before making any changes or modifications to the California Model Building Construction Codes, the governing body must make an express finding that each such change be reasonably necessary because of specified topographic, climatic, or geologic conditions unique to the jurisdiction.

In the late 1990s, the City Council adopted the Alternative JLWQ Provisions applying to conversions of industrial or commercial buildings to JLWQ of four or fewer residents per unit.

When adopted, the California Model Building Construction Codes did not contain provisions relating to JLWQ, but the 2019 CBC now contains JLWQ standards. The Alternative JLWQ Provisions applied until the adoption of Oakland’s local amendments in 2016, and this adoption did not carry forward the Alternative JLWQ Provisions because the recently-added JLWQ provisions in the California Model Building Construction Codes obviated the need for many of the Alternative JLWQ Provisions that had been previously adopted.

New construction of JLWQ and conversions of existing buildings to JLWQ units are now governed by the 2019 CBC. Building Codes are always evolving and changing. Codes that have worked in the past are superseded by new ones that are based on better information and cases.

Alternative JLWQ Provisions were acceptable in the past due to the lack of provisions for live work occupancies. However, now that the State has mandated specific JLWQ provisions in the State code, the City can no longer keep the past provisions that conflict with the current State provisions.

ANALYSIS AND POLICY ALTERNATIVES
Local jurisdictions are required to enforce the provisions of the 2019 CBC, but they may adopt local amendments through specific statutory authorization set forth in the Health and Safety Code.

As noted above, the City can only adopt an alternative standard to the 2019 CBC if it is equivalent or more stringent than the current CBC provisions. Adopting Alternative JLWQ Provisions that are less restrictive than the 2019 CBC would be a violation of State law. As shown in Attachment A, most of the proposed Alternative JLWQ Provisions are less stringent than the 2019 CBC and, therefore, cannot be adopted into Oakland’s local amendments.

Those that are different than the 2019 CBC but that provide equivalent safety are discussed as items 5 and 6 of Attachment A. These items relate to sleeping mezzanines and existing building exits. Staff intends to prepare a draft Ordinance for the City Council to consider CED Committee
February 11, 2020

Sabrina Landreth, City Administrator
Subject: Proposed Alternative Joint Live Work Quarter Provisions Date: January 17, 2020_______________________' Page 3
these standards as local amendments at a future meeting, based on Council’s action on the proposed recommendations.

Furthermore, Staff has identified the following administrative opportunities to bring existing converted JLWQ into safety compliance without further City Council action: (a) utilizing the AMMR process for JLWQ of any size/occupancy, ensuring that each unit provides equivalent safety to the current California Model Building Construction Codes, and (b) implementing recommendations based on the findings developed through the Planning and Building Department’s ongoing contract with an outside consultant to research and conduct studies in developing alternative JLWQ code provisions.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this informational report.

PUBLIC OUTREACH / INTEREST
Public outreach was not conducted in the development of this informational report. However, the Planning and Building Department has contracted with an outside consultant to research and conduct studies in developing additional code amendments relating to JLWQ conversions.

COORDINATION
The Office of the City Attorney has reviewed this informational report.

SUSTAINABLE OPPORTUNITIES
Economic: There are no economic opportunities.

Environmental: There are no environmental opportunities.

Race & Equity: There are no racial equity opportunities associated with this informational report.

CED Committee
February 11,2020

Sabrina Landreth, City Administrator
Subject: Proposed Alternative Joint Live Work Quarter Provisions Date: January 17, 2020_______________________________ Page 4

ACTION REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Staff Recommends That The City Council Approve A Report and Recommendation 1) Comparing The Proposed Alternative Joint Live Work Quarter (JLWQ) Provisions Submitted To The City Council On November 19, 2019 As “Technical Amendment To Agenda Item 9.1” And The 2019 California Model Building Construction Codes; And 2) Describing Recommendations For Permitting New and Converted JLWQ To Maintain Safety And Code Compliance.

For questions regarding this report, please contact William A. Gilchrist, Director of the Planning and Building Department, 238-2229.

Respectfully submitted,
wJu^A^ILCHRISr
Direptef^Planning and Building Department
Reviewed by:

Issam Shahrouri, Deputy Director/Building
Official
Building Bureau
Prepared by:

Alain Placido, Supervising Civil Engineer
Building Bureau
Attachments (1):

Attachment A - Comparison of key means of egress provisions between the recommended JLWQ provisions and the 2019 CBC
CED Committee
February 11,2020

ATTACHMENT A - COMPARISON OF KEY MEANS OF EGRESS PROVISIONS BETWEEN THE RECOMMENDED JLWQ PROVISIONS AND THE 2019 CBC Difference Between
2019 CBC and
Recommended
Provisions
2019 CBC
Provisions (2020
Adoption)
Does the Recommended
Provision Constitute a
Violation of the CBC?
Recommended 2020 JLWQ
Provisions by Council Resolution1Item Remarks
The live/work unit is
permitted to be not
greater than 3,000 square
feet in area (Ref. CBC
419.1.1)
The recommended provisions propose communal
"live/work" style accommodations with common
spaces on the order of 10,000 square feet have
been proposed
The proposed live/work
provisions exceed the area
limitations set forth in the
CBC (10,000 sf vs. 3,000 sf)
YES: Would waive the explicitly
stated provision that a live/work
unit may not exceed 3,000 sf, which
is neither equivalent nor more
stringent as compared with the state
regulations_____________________
Alternative provisions, via an
Alternative Means and Methods
Request (AMMR), may be
pursued to compartmentalize
the JLWQ unit into 3,000 square
feet functional areas.
1 Emergency Escape and
Rescue Openings (EERO):

Sleeping Rooms and
Basements provided with
EERO openings that open
directly into a public way
or to a yard or court that
opens to a public way
(Ref. CBC 1030.1)
Section 3B.12.6.2 Sleeping Area.

If a sleeping area is in the common atmosphere of
a room, the required EERO may be located in the
room provided:

1. The required emergency escape and rescue
window or door is directly visually
ascertainable from the sleeping area which it
serves

2. A direct path of travel, which may include
stairways, is provided between each sleeping
area and its required EERO. More than one
sleeping area may use the same EERO as long
as the EERO serving each sleeping area meets
the above requirements
2019 CBC requires the
EERO be located within
each sleeping room and
that the EERO is located
next to a yard or court
which, by CBC definition, is
unobstructed to the sky.

The recommended
provisions to council only
require the EERO to be
"visually ascertainable"
from the sleeping area so
long as there exist direct
paths of travel from the
sleeping areas to the EERO
YES: The purpose of the EERO is to
provide a method for firefighters to
extract unconscious or otherwise
incapacitated residents (i.e. via
smoke inhalation) who are most
likely to be in their sleeping
quarters. By only requiring the EERO
to be within sight of the sleeping
area, the proposed amendment
would require a firefighter to
expend additional time and effort to
find victims who have succumbed to
smoke inhalation placing the
firefighter and victims in more risk
by increasing rescue times.

Additionally, an inhabitant would
have to travel additional distances
and possibly over and through
potential obstructions in search of
the EERO.

With the adoption of the 2019
California Building Code, new
provisions have been
incorporated to omit the
requirement for EERO's which,
by means of diligent egress
planning, would render the need
•for alternate EERO provisions
obsolete.
2 Emergency Escape and
Rescue Openings (EERO):

Sleeping Rooms and
Basements provided with
EERO openings that open
directly into a public way
or to a yard or court that
opens to a public way
(Ref. CBC 1030.1)
The alternative EERO provisions
may have been considered
adequate for the number of
occupants allowed per prior
planning regulations. However,
the current planning regulations
allow as many as fourteen
occupants (higher if
accompanied with a Conditional
Use Permit). Such provisions
would be ineffective for the
Section 3B.12.6.3 Alternative Emergency Escape
and Rescue in Existing Buildings.

In an existing building where no exterior wall of
the sleeping area of an individual space or JLWQ
abuts a public street, public alley, yard .or exit
court any one of the following alternatives may be
used:

1. An EERO may open directly into a corridor if
the corridor is constructed to meet the
requirements for an extent of stairway
enclosure pursuant to Section [1011.2]
including provisions for openings and doors,
The proposed alternative
EERO provisions would not
provide EERO with direct
frontage onto a public way
or yard or court that opens
to a public way as required
by CBC 1030.1.

YES:

1. Would require firefighters to
traverse an enclosed, although
"protected", building element.

Firefighters would have to
expend additional time and
energy traveling through the
building searching for occupants.

Additionally, inhabitants would
have to travel through the
building possibly encountering
obstacles.
3 1

2. A one-hour fire-resistive compartment with
one-hour label exit door and equipped with a
ships ladder to the roof. Emergency lighting, a
counter-balanced roof hatch, and marked exit
path across the roof to an approved fire
escape or escape ladder shall be provided.

3. If a court without access to a public way on '
the property is available, then an approved
fire escape or escape ladders may either lead
to the roof similar to alternative 2 above, or to
the bottom of the court. An approved fire
department access path to the bottom of the
court shall be provided.-

4. When the roof is part of an alternative
emergency escape and rescue method, the
roof structure at the exit path and the queuing
area to the escape ladder or stair off of the
roof shall consider the live loads added to
Table 3B.16-A in Section 3B.16. The queuing
area provided shall be 3 square feet per
occupant for the occupant load served by the
alternative EERO
Would require firefighters and
inhabitants to traverse obstacles
(i.e. ship's ladder to roof, roof
hatches, etc....) above levels
which may already be on or
above a fire. Additional hazards
such as falling off the roof are
introduced. Violates the Exit
discharge provisions in the 2019
CBC prohibiting reentering a
building when in the exit
discharge component of a means
of egress system.

Similar to Item 2 above.

No explicit requirement to
provide equivalent fire
protection of structural elements
supporting escape and rescue
path. The requirement for a
queuing area indicates
anticipated escape and rescue
times due to bottlenecks along
the route.
increased demand on the means
of egress.

2. With the adoption of the 2019
California Building Code, new
provisions have been
incorporated to omit the
requirement for EERO's which,
by means of diligent egress
planning, would render the need
for alternate EERO provisions
obsolete.

See page 1
3 See page 1
(cont.)

3. 4.

YES: Means of egress stairways
would be narrower, steeper, have
less headroom clearance, and
landing dimensions would be
narrower and shorter than allowed
by the CBC.
2019 CBC Stair
Requirements (ref. CBC
1011)

1. 36" minimum width

2. 7" max rise, 11" min
tread

3. 6 ft. 8-inch minimum
headroom

4. 36" minimum landing
length
Handrails located 34"-
38" above stair nosing
3B.12.4.8 Existing Stairways Serving Two or More
Individual Units or Ten or More Occupants

1. Section 3B. 12.4.9 Width of existing stairways
shall not be less than 30" clear from wall to wall

2. Section 3B.12.4.10 Rise and run of existing
stairways... the maximum rise does not exceed
eight inches and the minimum tread is not less
than nine inches.

3. Section 3B.12.4.11 Headroom of existing
stairways shall not be less than 6 feet 6 inches.

4. Section 3B.12.4.12 Existing landings of existing
stairways... shall not be less than 30 inches in
the direction of travel.

5. Section 3B.12.4.13 The top of existing handrails
shall not be less than 32 inches in height above
landings and the nosing of treads
2019 CBC Requirements vs.

Recommended Provisions

1. 36" vs. 30" minimum
width

2. 7" max rise, 11" min
tread vs 9" rise and 8"
, tread

3. 6'-8" vs. 6'-6" minimum
headroom

4. 36" vs. 30" minimum
landing length

5. Handrails located 34"-
38" vs. 32" above stair
nosing
4 2

ATTACHMENT A - COMPARISON OF KEY MEANS OF EGRESS PROVISIONS BETWEEN THE RECOMMENDED JLWQ PROVISIONS AND THE 2019 CBC Difference Between
2019 CBC and
Recommended
Provisions
2019 CBC
Provisions (2020
Adoption)
Does the Recommended
Provision Constitute a
Violation of the CBC?
Recommended 2020 JLWQ
Provisions by Council Resolution1Item Remarks
3B.8.1.2 Sleeping Mezzanine
3B.8.1.3 Headroom
The minimum sleeping mezzanine headroom shall
be a headroom "envelope" clearance to the
ceiling or any projections from the ceiling that has
a height of 4' with an increasing height of 4"
vertical to 12" horizontal...
3B.8.1.5 Floor Area
The area dimensions of a sleeping mezzanine may
be 5' minimum deep by T minimum long or 7'
minimum deep by 5' minimum long with a
maximum area of 120 square feet...
3B.8.1.6 Sleeping Bunk
A built-in sleeping bunk... shall have space
dimensions as provided herein.
3B.8.1.7 Headroom
The minimum built-in sleeping bunk headroom
clearance shall be a headroom "envelope"
clearance to the ceiling or any projections from
the ceiling with a height of 3' and with an
increasing height of 4" vertical to 12" horizontal of
steeper running towards the access to the built-in
sleeping bunk. The minimum clearance for a flat
ceiling shall be 42 inches above the built-in
sleeping bunkfloor.
3B.8.1.8 Floor Area
A built-in sleeping bunk shall meet the area
dimensions requirements for a sleeping
mezzanine pursuant to Section 4B.8.2.3.

However, the area of the built-in sleeping bunk
may not exceed 60 square feet.

Section 3B. 12.4.3 Ship Stair
A ship stair (ship's ladder)... may provide access to
a private mezzanine, sleeping mezzanine, or built-
in sleeping bunk within an individual unit of JLWQ
Occupancy...

Section 3B.12.4.4 Ladder
A ladder may provide access to a sleeping
mezzanine or a built-in sleeping bunk within an
individual JLWQ Occupancy... ____________
Because the CBC does not
specifically address Sleeping
Mezzanines and Sleeping Bunks,
and because the Planning and
Building Department does not
consider such accommodations -
adversely affecting the safety of
JLWQ, they can be incorporated
as amendments to the California
Existing Building Code.

No corresponding
provision5 NA No
3 ATTACHMENT A - COMPARISON OF KEY MEANS OF EGRESS PROVISIONS BETWEEN THE RECOMMENDED JLWQ PROVISIONS AND THE 2019 CBC Difference Between
2019 CBC and
Recommended
Provisions
Does the Recommended
Provision Constitute a
Violation of the CBC?
2019 CBC
Provisions (2020
Adoption)
Recommended 2020 JLWQ
Provisions by Council Resolution1Item Remarks
Section 3B.12.3.3 Existing Building Exits
One of the required exits for an existing Building-
may be a fire escape in conformance with Section
8-502 of the California Historical Building Code.

The Planning and Building
Department believes the use of a
fire escape as one of the
required exits could be
incorporated as an amendment
to the California Existing Building
Code.

California Existing
Building Code and
California Historical
Building Code allows the
use of fire escapes for
existing buildings
6 Minor No

1. Technical Amendment to Agenda Item 9.1, Introduced at November 19, 2019 Oakland Council Meeting as Revised Attachment A, StatementofFindings and Attachments, Restoring Chapter 3B Use and Occupancy, Division 1, Requirements for Joint Living and Work Quarters... 4

Community & Economic Development CommitteeDecember 13, 2022

Community & Economic Development Committee
December 13, 2022