Orinda City Council
December 6, 2022

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THIS MEETING: To protect our residents, officials, and staff, and in alignment with AB 361 and Orinda City Council Resolution No. 42-21, in which certain teleconference requirements of the Brown Act have been suspended, including the requirement to provide a physical location for members of the public to participate in the meeting, this meeting will be held by Teleconference.

BY

TELECONFERENCE
VIA

ZOOM WEBINAR
By PC:

MEETING URL:
https://tinyurl.com/ncusvn4h
MEETING ID: 924 9319 5201
By Telephone:
+1 669-900-9128
MEETING ID: 924 9319 5201

CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
Tuesday, December 6, 2022
7:00 PM - REGULAR MEETING
City Council
Agenda Page 1 12.06.22
How to follow or participate in the meeting:
• Members of the public may observe and participate in the meeting at the teleconference location highlighted above. To ensure that the City Council receives your comments, we strongly encourage you to submit your comments in writing in advance of the meeting by following instructions below:

Send your e-mail to [email protected] by 3pm on the day of the meeting.

Those e-mails will be forwarded to the City Council. They will also be made a part of the public record and be available to view in the public review binder at Orinda City Hall, 22 Orinda Way. In addition, they will be available electronically by 5pm on the day of the meeting by selecting the date of the meeting in this Box account link:https://cityoforinda.box.com/s/aqrelwbwv0wc37m5hkju2o8a0sta7bup • Comments may also be submitted by e-mail during the meeting up until the closure of public comment period on the relevant agenda item. These will be read into the record by staff at their normal cadence and will be limited to a maximum of 3 minutes. To be read into the record, e-mail must contain in the subject line “Public Forum – Not on the Agenda” or “Public Comment – Agenda Item #” with the relevant agenda item indicated.
• To comment orally in real time during the meeting, you may use the Zoom “raise your hand” function on your computer screen or the *9 function on your phone.

City Council
Agenda Page 2 12.06.22
7:00 PM - REGULAR SESSION
A. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Councilmembers: Darlene Gee, Nick Kosla, Amy Worth
Vice Mayor Inga Miller, Mayor Dennis Fay
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The City Council may take action on any item listed on the agenda.

D. ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY
D.1. Certificate of Appreciation – The Dougherty-Lijphart Family – Ascending Dancers Sculpture Donation
D.2. Certificate of Recognition - Vince Dell'Aquila - Orinda Community Foundation Citizen of the Year 2022
D.3. Certificate of Recognition - Kent and Teresa Long - Orinda Community Foundation Volunteer Award 2022
D.4. Introduction of James Duff, New Outreach and Education Coordinator
D.5. Contra Costa Transportation Authority Presentation by Executive Director Tim Haile
E. PUBLIC FORUM
The public forum provides an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item within the jurisdiction of the City Council that is not on the agenda.

Additionally, a speaker has the option of addressing the Council on an item listed on the agenda, if the speaker will not be present when that agenda item is taken up. When an item is not listed on the agenda, State law prohibits Council discussion or action. Councilmembers may only “briefly respond” to statements made and questions posed. For example, State law allows Councilmembers to ask questions for clarification and provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information. Additionally, consistent with the “Matters Initiated” rule contained in its Policies and Procedures Manual, the Council may also direct staff to report back and/or place a matter on a future agenda for discussion.

F. CONSENT CALENDAR
F.1. City Council Minutes
Recommendation:

City Council
Agenda Page 3 12.06.22
Approve City Council Minutes:

1. November 15, 2022 - Closed Session Meeting

2. November 15, 2022 - Regular Meeting
F.2. Authorization For Continued Use of Remote Teleconference for City Meetings
Recommendation:

Approve the Ratification of Orinda City Council Resolution No. 42-21 and Authorize the Continued Use of Teleconference Meetings for the Period of December 7, 2022 to January 6, 2023 Pursuant to the Provisions of Assembly Bill 361.

F.3. Approval of Third Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding with Orinda School District for Scheduling and Maintenance of Sports Fields
G. PUBLIC HEARING
H. POLICY MATTERS
H.1. Brookwood Rd mitigation measures as a result of vegetation removal to meet current Fire Fuel reduction requirements.

Recommendation:

City Council to receive staff presentation of the various options being considered and provide direction to Staff.

H.2. Introduce Ordinance 23-01 to adopt by reference the 2022 editions of the California Building Code, California Residential Code, California Green Building Standards Code, California Energy Code, California Electrical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and Existing Building Code (“Building Codes”), with modifications to those codes to reflect local conditions, and review Resolution 23-01, adopting Contra Costa County’s Findings in Support of Changes, Additions and Deletions to Statewide Building Standards Code and readopting the City’s findings regarding the need for modifications to the California Green Building Standards Code, which find that the modifications to the Building Codes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, and topographical conditions.

Recommendation:

Introduce Ordinance 23-01, which includes a determination that it is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), waiving a full reading.

H.3. Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding Possibly Honoring Longtime Acclaimed Miramonte High School Teacher, Coach, and Mentor Otis (Odie) McCain.

Recommendation:

City Council
Agenda Page 4 12.06.22
Review the Facilities Naming Policy and consider directing staff to proceed with honoring long-time acclaimed Miramonte High School teacher, coach, and mentor Otis (Odie) McCain.

I. COUNCILMEMBERS' REPORTS
J. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
K. MATTERS INITIATED
L. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the Orinda City Council will be held on Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 6:00 PM.

Please visit the City’s website at www.cityoforinda.org to view the City Council Calendar.

I, Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that this special meeting agenda has been posted at least 24 hours in advance at the Orinda City Hall, 22 Orinda Way and the Orinda Library, 26 Orinda Way.

Additional copies are available at the Orinda Library, 26 Orinda Way, and at the City’s website at www.cityoforinda.org. At least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, this agenda was also delivered to and received by each member of the City Council as well as each local newspaper, radio station and television station requesting written notice of special meetings.

I, Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that this regular meeting agenda has been posted at least 72 hours in advance at the Orinda City Hall, 22 Orinda Way and the Orinda Library, 26 Orinda Way. Additional copies are available at the Orinda Library, 26 Orinda Way, and at the City’s website at www.cityoforinda.org
~ Notices ~
There is a 90-day limit for the filing of a challenge in Court to certain City decisions that require a hearing by law, the receipt of evidence, and the exercise of discretion. The 90-day limit begins on the date the decision is final (Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6). Further, if you file a challenge in Court, you may be limited by California law, including but not limited to Government Code §65009, to those issues raised in connection with the public hearing. The City Council may be requested to reconsider a decision if the request is made prior to the next City Council meeting. For information on the next City Council meeting, please call 925.253.4221 or visit the website at www.cityoforinda.org. Unless otherwise noted, City Council actions include a determination that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply. ~ Accessible Public Meetings ~
The City of Orinda will provide special assistance for disabled citizens to participate in public meetings upon advance notice. If you need auxiliary hearing aid or sign language assistance at least two (2) working days advanced notice is necessary. Please contact the City Clerk’s Office, 22 Orinda Way, Orinda, Ca 94563 or 925.253.4221 or [email protected] with the following information: name, mailing address, phone number and type of assistance requested.

CONNECTING COMMUNITIES
Tim Haile, Executive Director
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
D.5
Packet Pg. 5
Communication: Contra Costa Transportation Authority Presentation by Executive What We Do

PEDESTRIAN
Improvements to sidewalks, crosswalks, trails, and paths

LOCAL STREETS
Smooth traffic flow on major roads and make surface
improvements such as pothole repairs
BUSES
Invest in a reliable, comfortable and convenient bus network

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS
Focus on programs and projects aimed at bicycle and
pedestrian safety for K-12 students

FERRIES
Expand ferry system by looking to ferries as an alternate commute method between West County and San Francisco

BICYCLE
Invest in safe routes and infrastructure improvements for bicyclists BART
Improve BART service and stations, extend routes and increase parking

HIGHWAYS
Complete Contra Costa’s highway system, and improve air quality and noise protection along corridors

INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS
Implement smart transportation infrastructure to reduce congestion and encourage greener travel

PROGRAMS FOR SENIORS AND DISABLED
Enhance transit options to improve mobility for seniors and people with disabilities
D.5
Packet Pg. 6
Communication: Contra Costa Transportation Authority Presentation by Executive D.5
Packet Pg. 7
Communication: Contra Costa Transportation Authority Presentation by Executive Leverage Local
Funding $1.4B
Measure C/J
$4.2B
State / Regional /
Federal Funds
$5.6B
Total Investment
3:1

LEVERAGING
RATIO
D.5
Packet Pg. 8
Communication: Contra Costa Transportation Authority Presentation by Executive It’s
Time
For
Change
Photo credit: Noah Berger/AP, Peter Beeler, the San Diego Union-Tribune D.5
Packet Pg. 9
Communication: Contra Costa Transportation Authority Presentation by Executive I-680 Willingness to Use Modes
51%
46%
43%
41%
38%
37%
35%
33%
31%
30%
27%
23%
22%
15%
22%
31%
17%
12%
42%
47%
54%
20%
26%
51%
54%
27%
45%
51%
22%
20%
15%
50%
70%
77%
78%
84%
30%
31%
30%
27%
24%
26%
22%
16%
17%
21%
22%
20%
19%
12%
21%
15%
13%
14%
14%
11%
13%
17%
14%
9%
5%
Carpool with household
Private bus or shuttle
Rail
App-based ridehail ALONE
Public bus
Carpool with others
Walk
Telecommute
BART
Bicycle, skateboard, or scooter
App-based carpool
Carshare
Vanpool
Bikeshare or scootershare
How much are you willing to use each of the following modes? Already use Will probably never use Will consider using Most interested in using Will Consider/
Most Interested
D.5
Packet Pg. 10
Communication: Contra Costa Transportation Authority Presentation by Executive 7 Vision Zero
D.5
Packet Pg. 11
Communication: Contra Costa Transportation Authority Presentation by Executive Countywide Safety through Connected Signal
System
o Developing Countywide Synchronized
Signal System to install modern traffic
controllers in all 19 cities and towns in
Contra Costa County to:
o Proactive approach to safety by
identifying ‘close call’ situations and
preventing future tragedies
o Installing bicycle detection software
o Prioritization and potential corridorclearing for emergency vehicles o Transit vehicle priority
o Smart infrastructure
o Controlling and smoothing traffic flow
D.5
Packet Pg. 12
Communication: Contra Costa Transportation Authority Presentation by Executive

TRANSIT FIRST
Leading an effort to building a better transportation
system
• Optimize existing transit network
• Identify strategies and infrastructure
• Development of transit and mobility hubs
• Creating first and last mile connections
• Moving to zero emissions
• Addressing equity priority communities
• Overcoming institutional challenges
• Identify local and regional service funding
D.5
Packet Pg. 13
Communication: Contra Costa Transportation Authority Presentation by Executive Clean
Corridors
D.5
Packet Pg. 14
Communication: Contra Costa Transportation Authority Presentation by Executive

MOBILITY FOR ALL
Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan
D.5
Packet Pg. 15
Communication: Contra Costa Transportation Authority Presentation by Executive Building a
Transportation
Plan from the
Ground Up
CCTA’s Process
• Updated Every 4-5 Years
• Documents the Authority’s Goals, Vision, and Strategies • Action Plans are Developed by the Regional Committees • Includes 10- and 20-Year Financially Constrained Project Lists RTPCs
Develop Draft
Action Plans
CCTA Issues
Draft CTP
Public
Outreach
Plan
Authority
Adopts Final

SEIR & CTP
RTPCs Adopt
Final Action
Plans
RTPC = Regional Transportation Planning Committee
D.5
Packet Pg. 16
Communication: Contra Costa Transportation Authority Presentation by Executive

REDEFINING

MOBILITY
D.5
Packet Pg. 17
Communication: Contra Costa Transportation Authority Presentation by Executive Coming to a city near you
D.5
Packet Pg. 18
Communication: Contra Costa Transportation Authority Presentation by Executive Glydways
A new mobility option
being explored at
GoMentum Station.

D.5
Packet Pg. 19
Communication: Contra Costa Transportation Authority Presentation by Executive INNOVATE 680
6 Projects, 1 Fully Connected Corridor
Imagine the Possibilities
D.5
Packet Pg. 20
Communication: Contra Costa Transportation Authority Presentation by Executive D.5
Packet Pg. 21
Communication: Contra Costa Transportation Authority Presentation by Executive @ccta @tthaile Tim Haile
Thank You
Timothy Haile
Executive Director
[email protected]
D.5
Packet Pg. 22
Communication: Contra Costa Transportation Authority Presentation by Executive AGENDA TITLE: City Council Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve City Council Minutes:

1. November 15, 2022 - Closed Session Meeting

2. November 15, 2022 - Regular Meeting
ATTACHMENTS:

A. City Council Closed Session Minutes of November 15, 2022 B. City Council Minutes of November 15, 2022
Respectfully Submitted by:

Sheri Smith
City Clerk
Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved by:

F.1
Packet Pg. 23
NOVEMBER 15, 2022

CITY OF ORINDA

CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MINUTES
6:00 PM - SPECIAL MEETING
A. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL
Mayor Fay called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and City Manager Biggs called the roll. All Councilmembers were present.

OPEN SESSION IDENTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
City Attorney Wolff identified the Closed Session Matter.

C. PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
There were no members of the public wishing to speak.

D. CLOSED SESSION

1. CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9 (1 potential case)
E. OPEN SESSION REPORT REGARDING CLOSED SESSION
City Manager Biggs announced that there was no reportable action.

F. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:00 P.M.
_______________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.1.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: City Council Closed Session Minutes of November 15, 2022 (2946 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 1 of 18 11.15.22
November 15, 2022

CITY OF ORINDA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Note: Written communications received from the public prior to the start of this meeting can be viewed at: http://orindaca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=2103 They are also kept in the City Clerk’s Office as part of the public record and available upon request. 7:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING– BY TELECONFERENCE
A. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL:

Mayor Fay called the Regular Meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m.

COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Darlene Gee, Nick Kosla, Amy Worth Vice Mayor Inga Miller, Mayor Dennis Fay
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None.

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Vice Mayor Miller and an Orinda Cub Scout Troop 225.

C. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
MOTION by Councilmember Worth moved and seconded by Councilmember Kosla to adopt the agenda. Said motion carried by unanimous (5-0) roll call vote.

D. ITEMS FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY
D.1. Proclamation Declaring November as Homelessness Awareness Month
Mayor Fay introduced the Proclamation declaring November as Homelessness Awareness Month and read portions into the record.

Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum, and there were no speakers.

E. PUBLIC FORUM
None
F. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Fay announced corrections to the City Council minutes which have been posted, as well as an amendment to Item F.4; the Street Sweeper purchase budget. He asked and confirmed there were no speakers or requests for removal of items.

F.1. City Council Minutes
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 15, 2022 (2946 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 2 of 18 11.15.22
Recommendation:

Approve City Council Minutes:

1. November 1, 2022 - Closed Session Meeting

2. November 1, 2022 - Regular Meeting.

F.2. Authorization For Continued Use of Remote Teleconference for City Meetings
Recommendation:

Approve the Ratification of Orinda City Council Resolution No. 42-21 and Authorize the Continued Use of Teleconference Meetings for the Period of November 16, 2022 to December 15, 2022 Pursuant to the Provisions of Assembly Bill 361.

F.3. Approval of Lease between the East Bay Municipal Utility District and the City of Orinda for Use of Property for the Orinda Sports Fields.

Recommendation:

Authorize the City Manager to execute the 2023 “Ballfields Lease” with the East Bay Municipal Utility District
F.4. Authorize Purchase of Replacement Street Sweeper for Public Works Department
Recommendation:

Approve Resolution 59-22 waiving the formal bid process pursuant to Chapter 2.55.100 of the Orinda Municipal Code, and approving issuing a purchase order to TYMCO, Inc. to replace the city street sweeper at a cost of $270,731.30; and approve a Budget Change in the amount of $45,731 from the Vehicle Replacement Fund.

MOTION by Councilmember Gee and seconded by Councilmember Worth to approve Consent Calendar Items F.1.1, F.1.2, F.2, F.3 and F.4. Said motion carried by (5-0) roll call vote.

G. PUBLIC HEARING
G.1. Wilder Development Agreement Annual Review and Public Hearing Regarding OGLLC Default
Recommendation:

Conduct a continued public hearing regarding noncompliance by OG Property Owners, LLC (“OGLLC”) with the terms of the Second Amendment and Restatement of the Development and Pre-Annexation Agreement for Gateway Valley (“DA”) and related approvals, including the 2009 Reimbursement Agreement, the Orinda Geologic Hazard Abatement District (“GHAD”) Plan of Control, and the 2008 Subdivision Improvement Agreement, all as amended. Staff recommends the Council adopt Resolution No. 58-22 to conclude the 2002 annual review process and find that OGLLC remains out of compliance with the terms of the DA.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 15, 2022 (2946 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 3 of 18 11.15.22
City Manager David Biggs stated this item was continued from a prior meeting and he asked City Attorney Osa Wolff to explain the public hearing process.

City Attorney Wolff announced this is the Council’s fourth review of the Wilder Annual Review and she first asked for ex-parte communications from Councilmembers and there were none. Staff will then provide a summary and questions from the Council, then OGLLC will then be given 15 minutes to make any comments. The Council will follow with any questions from OGLLC and any interested members of the public will be given 3 minutes each to speak. OGLLC will then have 5 minutes for any rebuttal, and then the Mayor will declare the public hearing closed and return the matter to the Council for deliberation and decision.

Mr. Biggs reported that staff believes the Council should conclude the annual development review process at this time. The City provided the developers a notice of default under the terms of the DA and related documents, and while there has been some movement towards addressing some outstanding items OGLLC has not brought itself into complete compliance and remains in default. Staff recommends this be the final hearing and requests the Council adopt a resolution confirming that. Staff is still working with the developer to address issues, but for this year in 2022 OGLLC is not able to be compliant in totality.

He then referred to the staff report which outlines updates on key default items, a few of which he highlighted. Progress payments are continuing to be made but the deposit is still not at the amount it is required to be. After the prior review, staff identified OGLLC is delinquent on their 2021/22 property taxes for all developer-owned parcels which will eventually be conveyed to the GHAD, EBMUD, and EBRPD. The GHAD recently agreed to accept 3 parcels that had some delinquent taxes which have been brought current as of today, but this is an outstanding obligation not yet rectified. Some subdivision improvements have also not been completed and though many have been assigned to the merchant builders who are building sidewalks and driveways, the City identified one outstanding obligation from the developer which is the need to repair a bridge joint based on a Caltrans inspection. There are limited subdivision improvements that remain outstanding.

Other repairs include the Brookside EVA gate pending necessary parts and winterizing of the soils disposal area which cannot be done during the winter.

The developer has proposed eliminating the Red Hawk Trail staging area and the City is still reviewing this with EBRPD, are working with agencies on the grazing plan and improvements needed, as well as outstanding mitigation issues in the conservation areas and the future endowment true-up. OGLLC has provided a revised signage and striping plan but some of the signage elements are pending clarification of the staging area, given it may or may not proceed.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 15, 2022 (2946 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 4 of 18 11.15.22
Allegedly, the LLC completed a transfer in 2020 and staff has been reviewing that. The City has determined that even if it was an affiliate transfer it did not follow the required steps under the terms of the development agreement, rendering it likely invalid. Staff received documentation about the original endowment calculations and will have to consult with resource agencies on the true-up process. Documentation has been received that the HOA has been assigned rights and obligations under the Wilder Landscape Agreement and Easements and determined the Amendment of the Wilder Circulation Plan 8th amendment eliminated the trails that were originally to occur near the detention ponds. This is something that could be done once the parcels are transferred to the GHAD.

Staff has received updated improvement plans for Wilder Road as is, have determined the warranty period for Wilder Road expired, and any concrete repairs would be the City’s obligations on City lands. The BART shuttle has not been implemented given the lack of demand for available parking at BART in a COVID environment. The HOA has that future obligation by recorded CC&Rs, and staff will work with the HOA in the future.

Mr. Biggs concluded with a description of continued outstanding issues which remain in default and said staff was available for questions. They have a meeting with the developer weekly and are seeing some progress but they are not in compliance to date. By adopting the resolution, staff is asking for completion of the Annual DA process, to continue to identify areas in default but that does not mean they will not work with the developer to get things addressed and closed out.

Mayor Fay asked for questions from the Council, and there were none. He called upon OGLLC to comment.

Bruce Yamamoto, OGLLC, stated they have been working closely with City staff and are making progress. The weekly meetings help to keep everyone informed. They are working directly with EBMUD and EBRPD and next steps will be to reach out to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to talk about endowments and closing out their mitigation obligations. He thanked City staff and the Council for working with them through this process.

Councilmember Kosla said when he and Councilmember Worth had the Wilder Subcommittee meeting two to four weeks ago, residents were concerned about some drums towards the rear of the property and vegetation piled up in the front of the property which OGLLC was going to remove, and he asked for the timeframe for removal.

Mr. Yamamoto said they removed the drums during the last meeting, and new drums have been dumped there over the weekend which have been removed. These drums not belong to any of their contractors or builder contractors. He said they are also cleaning up a load of concrete that got disposed at the soils site and have spent close to $30,000 on just cleaning up illegally dumped materials. They have not chipped the brush material but plan to do so.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 15, 2022 (2946 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 5 of 18 11.15.22
Councilmember Worth thanked Mr. Yamamoto for being here and continuing to work with City staff and agencies. She asked for an update on how they are developing the grazing plan, as this will be important to maintain over the years given fire risk.

Mr. Yamamoto said they spoke with the EBRPD and EBMUD and asked them to take a harder look at the grazing plan infrastructure plan. Many lines were drawn back in 2005 and they want to see if any of the fencing can be eliminated or moved in different areas to support actual grazing operations. Right now, the mitigation endowment totals $5.7 million from an initial funding of $3.25 million.

An analysis was done with GHAD, EBRPD and EBMUD which indicated the amount of endowment sufficient for operations and monitoring would only total $3.26 million, so they are looking to restructure that endowment or use the par analysis mechanism to use any excess funding the endowment to fund some of the capital improvements. They all hope to visit the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and present this case of using excess funding.

Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum, and there were no speakers.

Mr. Yamamoto waived any rebuttal period.

Mayor Fay closed the public hearing and asked for comments from Councilmembers.

MOTION by Vice Mayor Miller moved and seconded by Councilmember Kosla to adopt Resolution No. 58-22 to conclude the 2002 annual review process and find that OGLLC remains out of compliance with the terms of the DA. Said motion carried unanimously by (5-0) roll call vote.

H. POLICY MATTERS
H.1. Draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis
Recommendation:

Staff recommends the City Council receive the report, take public testimony, and provide feedback on the draft Safety Element AB 747 Evacuation Analysis.

City Manager Biggs briefly introduced and provided background on the item.

Planning Director Drummond Buckley stated in their surveys as part of the Safety Element they found that the number one concern of residents is wildfire and evacuation. This was an important add-on to the Safety Element effort and he introduced Allison Giffin and Jaqueline Protsman Rohr of PlaceWorks to provide a presentation.

Allison Giffin, PlaceWorks, said she has been leading the evacuation study efforts and introduced colleagues Tammy Seale, Principal-in-Charge and Jacqueline Protsman Rohr, Assistant Project Manager, stating Eli Krispi is unable to join them tonight.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 15, 2022 (2946 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 6 of 18 11.15.22
She said the PowerPoint presentation will focus on project goals, wildfire analysis methods, results, and recommendations, the landslide analysis methods, results, and recommendations. This is a Citywide programmatic level assessment of where evacuation routes in Orinda are, where they are the most congested, and other factors, but the study does not constitute an emergency operations plan or specific set of instructions.

The methodology routes residential areas to the closest exit from the City. In a real-time scenario, however, people might act differently. It is very important for people to sign up through Nixel and other local emergency notifications systems. The methodology does not assess how traffic impacts will change on a minute-by-minute basis. It determines traffic impacts assuming a one-hour evacuation worst case scenario. In the heavily congested scenario, the methodology assumes a flat 5 mph traffic speed which is a generalized assumption. They compared results of that speed with other comparable jurisdictions and found the results in terms of drive times are very similar.

Ms. Giffin then displayed the congestion index and described evacuation scenarios where residents are routed to their nearest safety gateway or exit. They are counting how many households they expect to be moving through certain intersections and roadways and comparing the count within an associated capacity for each roadway to determine which roadways are likely to be the most constrained. She then presented mapping, safety gateways, major evacuation routes previous identified, roadway network, the three evacuation scenarios and assumptions, and constrained intersections. She described demographic indices and said they evaluated social vulnerability constraints for households with higher share than countywide average for seven different demographic indicators, such as seniors, limited English speaking households, limited access to communications, poverty, children under 6, limited access to a vehicle, and those with disabilities, and others, and maps showing combined traffic and social vulnerability constraints.

Wildfire analysis recommendations are to:
• Employ red flag day parking restrictions and/or contra-flow lane policies for certain roadway segments when there is a clear direction of travel • Activate preferred signal timing for signalized intersections along evacuation routes in direction of evacuation travel
• Facilitate evacuation of vulnerable populations and residential facilities • Reduce vehicle counts during an evacuation
Ms. Giffin then described landslide analysis methods which is different in that it is high throughout most of Orinda. It looks at key road sections in at-risk landslide areas and there is concern about landslide impacts on evacuations. They identified which evacuation route segments are most vulnerable to landslides, and arrived at the following recommendations:

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 15, 2022 (2946 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 7 of 18 11.15.22
• Recommend Orinda staff maintain database of evacuation route segments susceptible to landslide (identified in report) and use database to track geotechnical studies and associated capital improvements at these locations. • Implement proposed General Plan Safety Element Policies S-19, S-20, S-21, S22, and S-23 related to requirements for geotechnical studies and resulting capital improvements, like grading and retaining walls, to fortify these particularly vulnerable and critical route segments against landslide risk.

Jacqueline Protsman Rohr described how these evacuation analyses will be integrated into the larger Orinda General Plan Safety Element Update, as follows:
• Findings and recommendations will be integrated into Safety Element update • Safety Element policies support implementation of specific recommendations • Full study will serve as an appendix to Safety Element • Social vulnerability for evacuation consistent with Vulnerability Assessment prepared as part of Safety Element update
Ms. Protsman Rohr concluded the presentation and said their team can answer questions, and she noted the PowerPoint also provides important links for the Council.

Mr. Biggs commented that a resident had asked about the identification of evacuation routes. These were identified previously by former Police Chief David Cook and this is what is contained in the evacuation guide. This analysis would further refine potential evacuation routes. When getting into the recommendations, there are alternative or secondary evacuation routes, and he noted these are possibilities that would be explored as work programs under the Safety Element. It is unlikely they would be anything other than secondary routes that would open under certain circumstances.

Councilmember Gee asked if this is a common basis methodology used by other communities and questioned if the entire County could see what the cumulative effect is.

Ms. Giffin said there is no formal guidance from the State on what is the preferred method but the method they are employing here has been used by other jurisdictions and could fit in a larger countywide plan that employs the same methodology. The first step of the analysis is to ensure they are not leaving out any households that might be using the Orinda evacuation network and causing traffic along that network, and that is the purpose of including households outside of Orinda.

Mr. Buckley added that staff is doing the AB 747 analysis ahead of schedule. State law requires is that it be done in conjunction with the local hazard mitigation plan process and its 2017 plan is part of a countywide effort and cities will be required for all cities. While Orinda is not doing it at the same time as the rest of the county, they will still go through that process with the county later.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 15, 2022 (2946 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 8 of 18 11.15.22
Vice Mayor Miller asked and confirmed the deadline for the AB 747 compliance is not until the City prepares its local hazard mitigation plan which is required by the State for the County in a few years; that the City could adopt its element to be compliant and then continue the process and update the plan during the time other County cities would be doing their evacuation planning; that the AB 747 analysis will be the equivalent of an appendix to the Safety Element; and, that the evacuation study can be acted upon separately from the evacuation analysis.

She questioned if information based on the scenarios had come from MOFD. Mr. Biggs summarized that the purpose of the three scenarios are to evaluate what the effects on the rest of the roadway network if they assume certain routes are or are not accessible given high fire risk, and this generally came from conversations from MOFD. Scenario 3, even though it is labeled Briones, analyzed any fire starting in the northern part of the City.

He thinks the Fire Chief would say that most fire scenarios would be wind-driven. In response to other broader hazards in the community, the Safety Element considers these and addresses some scenarios but the main evacuation concerns arise out of the two scenarios the City is looking at relating to likely events and things that would affect greater numbers such as wildfire and landslides. He noted earthquakes could also trigger landslides and wildfire, as well.

Mayor Fay and Councilmembers confirmed with staff that surveys have been conducted, multiple meetings held, and staff and the consultant are now introducing the AB 747 evacuation analysis and routes which will be used to further refine the Safety Element, which will go before the PC and City Council after the first of the year. They thanked PlaceWorks representatives for their detailed presentation, background on the methodology, and it is assumed that everyone is evacuating within one hour as measured by the unit of analysis of the U.S. Highway Capacity Manual to define capacity, and that LOS is generally a ration of volumes to the expected capacities.

Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum.

City Clerk Smith stated the Council received an email from Karl Richtenburg which is available on the website.

Gene Gottfried said PlaceWorks has paid more attention to the potential of a northern exit route than has been done before with access to upper El Toyonal, Grizzly Peak as their preferred exit route during an evacuation. Those at the top of El Toyonal think that a 2- mile drive down the narrow road will only lead to a jam by the first two panicked drivers.

One area he thinks is confusing is about the evacuation potential through the gated area in upper El Toyonal. In 1998, that street was dedicated by the County as a public street going straight up to Wildcat Canyon Road which is a county street. There has been a lot of confusion by EBMUD, EBRPD, and others who think they own that land rather than the City.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 15, 2022 (2946 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 9 of 18 11.15.22
The reason for the gate was there was the possibility of a very large, new development in the northern part of that area that was going to impede traffic on El Toyonal even more so residents agreed they would keep the road closed; however, it is still a public road and some people have access to those gates. In the event of an evacuation, it is a viable route out to the north and he is happy to see that PlaceWorks noted that and included it into their plans.

Chase Sun asked if the report can show the actual time for evacuation of the entire City for each scenario. He is concerned because of what happened at Paradise because residents did not get notification until the fire was almost in front of them. He asked how is the timing for evacuating people being addressed in the report.

Ms. Giffin said they are not looking at dynamic, minute-by-minute assessment of how much longer it would take any one resident to evacuate given the spread of wildfire and exact place of origin. All those things depend on where the hazard area is located, its origin, and how quickly it is spreading. The report includes maps of generalized evacuation times and one figure shows different zones or areas within the City that would take less time to evacuate using a 5 mph assumption along all roads. Areas furthest from their closest safety gateways would take about 90 minutes to evacuate using the 5 mph assumption.

Lynn Trowbridge voiced concern with areas that have gates that need to be opened for safe evacuation to take place.

Councilmember Kosla echoed Mr. Gottfried’s comments and thought arming some of the residents with keys would be a great idea to ensure gates can get opened. There is a lot of open space and winds between Grizzly Peak and neighborhoods on Claremont and El Toyonal, and he asked if the consultants could add this to study.

Mayor Fay said he and Councilmember Gee have learned from meetings with the Fire Chief and 2x2 meetings is that it is unlikely a fire will come from the west and go east because humidity associated with it will dampen it down. The Chief believes the greatest source is coming from the northeast.

Councilmember Worth concurred with Councilmember Kosla’s comments, thanked Gene Gottfried for his work, and asked if the gates are designed such that a car would be able to break open the gates.

Mr. Biggs said they have identified this and will have work through some of the EVA and road access issues with the community and the Fire Department.

Vice Mayor Miller concurred with comments, spoke about the importance of evacuation planning and signing up for alerts. She thanked Gene Gottfried for continuing carrying messages about safety, asked to ensure the gates are part of the plan, and to see this as a living document.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 15, 2022 (2946 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 10 of 18 11.15.22
Mr. Biggs said in labeling Scenario 3 as the Briones Scenario, he suggested PlaceWorks expand or modify it to describe it as a high possibility for a fire in Briones or alternatively something that might originate in the Oakland Hills.

Ms. Giffin stated they can modify the language in the report to be broad. She said Scenario 1 states southwest Orinda, but based on the number of gateways that are not assumed available, they could say “the entire western area” and for Scenario 3, they could modify that to say “northern/northwest”.

Councilmember Kosla said he would not want to dilute the importance of Briones by making it a bigger area because it is very specific. This is the highest probable area of where a huge fire would start, plus the evacuation route where people in El Toyonal will go up El Toyonal and over into Berkeley versus if there is a fire in the Berkeley or Oakland Hills on Grizzly Peak, they will be coming down so these are totally different and he did not think they could be clumped together.

Mayor Fay and Vice Mayor Miller agreed and Vice Mayor Miller asked to include in the Safety Element clarification that they are getting the fire scenarios from the Fire Chief because the City is bifurcated and relies on this information from MOFD and does not have that resource within the City. They also cited the importance of being able to open the EV gates.

Mr. Biggs concluded the introduction of the item, and said additional information will be made to the Safety Element and staff will continue discussions relating to improvements.

H.2. Consider Recommendation for Brookwood Rd mitigation measures as a result of vegetation removal to meet current Fire Fuel reduction requirements.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends the City Council receive the report on various mitigation options being considered for Brookwood Road and provide direction to Staff to move forward with the recommended option.

City Manager Biggs stated this item arises out of fire fuel mitigation. The City had an obligation to clear an orphan parcel along Brookwood Road. Neighbors appeared at a Council meeting and the Council opted to budget funds to mitigate that. City staff has worked on some design options and worked with the neighborhood, and is recommending they proceed with a 6 foot fence and landscaping and irrigation.

Public Works Director Scott Christie introduced the City Engineer who has been working with neighbors and the consultant.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 15, 2022 (2946 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 11 of 18 11.15.22
City Engineer Sivakumar Natarajan said they are looking at three different options. Option 1 which is being recommended by staff came about based on feedback from residents and it involves installing a 6 foot high redwood fence for half the length of the limits of the area, and the rest will have native drought- and fire-retardant landscaping. This is one of the most feasible options because of some existing conditions where they still have some trees that will interfere with the fence layout, and this will cause the least impact to the remaining vegetation. It is also less expensive of the three options.

City Public Works staff does not have the capacity to continue long-term maintenance so the option will involve an initial plant establishment period and then propose to have the residents look after the plants on a longer term. Neighbors’ second concern was that the expectation for the fence was it should be at least 12 feet high and not a 6 foot fence.

Staff then worked with the consultant team to see what a 12-foot fence option would look like. Due to the height and having to navigate the remaining existing vegetation in that area, there would be some constructability issue and the cost was more than twice what a 6 foot fence would cost. In addition, a 12 foot redwood fence is not common so received feedback that zoning is not so clear for this area and it could be interpreted there is no height limit. However, the practice of the City is to limit fence heights to 6 feet within City limits.

Therefore, staff wanted to look at a third other option which is to install a 6-foot fence for the entire area with no landscaping with the primary goal of determining cost implications.

This was slightly more than Option 1 which was $70,000, at $100,000 so staff is looking for direction as to which option to move forward with.

Based upon the conceptual analysis done which is included as an attachment, it points out that there are some constraints that will play a major role depending on which option they move forward with, and that is the primary reason staff is recommending Option 1.

Councilmembers questioned impacts to the Hwy 24 scenic corridor designation, whether the estimate for Option 1 include finishing both sides of the fence so they look the same, confirmed that cutting of the vegetation was done for fire mitigation work and that the vegetation has already started to grow back, questioned how landscaping would be irrigated and maintained, confirmed that resident feedback and concerns involve visual impacts, safety impacts, and noise concerns.

Mr. Buckley and Mr. Natarajan confirmed all improvements being considered are to occur adjacent to the existing Caltrans chain link fence running along the Caltrans right-of-way, that annual maintenance would be needed for landscaping, that the fence would become the City’s responsibility to maintain, and plantings will be closer to the roadway and away from the fenced area.

Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 15, 2022 (2946 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 12 of 18 11.15.22
City Clerk Smith announced that Councilmembers have received three emails from residents Steve Cohn, Sean Garrish and Kristin Rumpf earlier in the day which are also available to the public on the City’s website.

She indicated that she received one email during the meeting and read it into the record from Tara Kolar: “Good evening Mayor and Councilmembers. My name is Tara Kolar and my family and I reside at 16 Brookwood Road which is on the western end of Brookwood. I wish to speak to the Council about my family’s experience living on Brookwood before and after the vegetation was removed last year. Putting it simply, we feel less safe being in front of our house and walking down our street now. While the prior vegetation did not entirely eliminate the noise from the freeway it did provide a visual and auditory barrier from the cars speeding by. Since the removal of vegetation, we do not feel safe walking down the street with our 2 year old because it is incredibly challenging to hear on-coming cars on our street due to freeway noise. I have trouble distinguishing between the cars on the freeway and the cars on the street.

Also, the visual distraction of having cars in your peripheral vision constantly driving by further impacts my family’s ability to remain safe on an already pedestrian unfriendly street. My husband and I also have concerns about only a 6 foot fence being constructed partially at the western end of Brookwood Road. There is a downhill grade between Brookwood Road and the freeway. Therefore, a 6 foot fence will not provide a visual or auditory barrier to the actual road. A taller fence such as a 12 foot fence suggestion in Option 2 would provide much more protection to the area and would create a safer environment for all families living on Brookwood Road. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Tara Kolar.”
Sean Garrish, 20 Brookwood, said he is representing over 100 residents around Brookwood Road who have been impacted by the tree removal. He requested the City Council provide funding for Option 2. Mayor Fay proposed the initial budget of $100,000 as a temporary symbolic budget in a City Council meeting in June of last year, which he quoted. The City proceeded with the work of researching some options. Larry Theis told Orinda News that the City was exploring the possibility of building a concrete sound wall.

He described estimates sought through the Public Works Department and options provided ranged from $470,000 and an average project value of $232,000. The City shared these findings with residents. At meetings, the City Manager assured residents that $110,000 was not the absolute limit.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 15, 2022 (2946 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 13 of 18 11.15.22
During a second meeting when they had a better idea of costs, he told them they would go back to the Council for additional funding, and he thanked Mr. Biggs for being consistent. They request a mix of landscaping and a 12 foot wooden fence and feel maintaining the landscaping is an unreasonable burden on the residents, the majority of which are senior citizens or with children under 5 with fixed budgets. A 6-foot fence along a major stretch of highway would do little to address traffic noise. Pedestrians have no sidewalk and cannot hear passing cars. Many daily commuters walk along Brookwood each day and now that a variety of options have been researched, it is evident that the original placeholder budget was too small for a viable solution. Therefore, they request that the City allocate enough additional funding for the project to support Option 2 or landscaping. This would be significantly more effective to reduce the noise and would not place an unreasonable burden on residents to maintain landscaping. The cost of this option was $190,000 which is still below the average of options considered by the engineering firm.

Sarah Garrish said she is concerned that the proposed solution is not effective or realistic.

A 6 foot fence for only a portion of the area that was clear cut and vegetation for the rest will not be effective for noise reduction and will not improve safety on Brookwood. The fence is not tall enough or long enough to block out highway noise and neither is vegetation. She is concerned for the safety of her very young children. Living within walking distance to the downtown has been one of the highlights of living here. Now, she will only walk with both kids in a stroller because she cannot hear local traffic, making it very unsafe.

She is also concerned for the safety of her neighbors, stating there are more people walking to BART again and these measures will not alleviate the highway noise to make it safe for pedestrians to commute. The City has deemed it too expensive for them to maintain so they are putting the onus on the residents to maintain vegetation which is unfair. She is concerned if vegetation is not maintained it will become a fire hazard and then they will be back to where they started. She noted that the images selected and shared do not fully capture the extent of the impact of the clear cutting and she would encourage the Council to look for themselves on Google Street View. It is so loud that she cannot have a conversation outside without yelling. Residents support Option 2 to build a 12-foot fence the entire way along the exposed area and she requested the City re-evaluate the budget placeholder so they can have a solution that is effective and realistic. She also requested they continue to work diligently to resolve this as quickly as possible since it has been over a year since the clear cutting.

Frances Valdez said she and her husband live at 38 Brookwood Road and said residents have been significantly impacted by the City’s removal of trees and brush between Brookwood Road and Hwy 24. In short, the current proposal does not adequately address the resident safety concerns. They do not believe a 6-foot fence along a short part of Brookwood and some landscaping will protect pedestrians from wayward vehicles or traffic noise.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 15, 2022 (2946 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 14 of 18 11.15.22
She walks along Brookwood Road daily and there is no sidewalk so she needs to pay extra attention when walking her small dog and infant. It is very disorienting to walk along Brookwood because it is difficult to distinguish car noise from the highway versus cars traveling on Brookwood Road. They urge the City to take seriously their concerns regarding noise and said it is an accident waiting to happen. They also think asking residents to maintain landscaping is not reasonable. Option 2 with a 12-foot fence would better address the neighborhood’s concerns, understands the City does not have endless funds; however, they believe an increase in funding will better solve the problem created by the brush removal and make Brookwood Road more livable.

Heidi Fong said she and her husband live at 24 Brookwood Road. Her husband is 70 years old and she is not far behind, and are both retired. They love to walk down Brookwood Road with their grandchild to the Orinda Theater, water fountain and around town. They are blessed with giant oak and redwood trees that live among them. Sadly, they lost some of the trees last year when the City’s contract worker came out and cut down the big trees and vegetation that shaded their lovely road. Now, they are faced with wide open space on the freeway side with no privacy and thundering loud noises. A retired friend of theirs came over recently and he works for Caltrans. He suggested possibly Caltrans might be able to help them on the noise reduction.

They strongly object to Option 1 and feel the 6 foot fence is not high enough and it is unreasonable and impossible for residents to provide water and maintain new landscaping. Brookwood Road is narrow, has no sidewalks, with cars coming up and down all day long. It would be an unsafe burden to them. She thinks Option 2 should be instituted with no landscaping and thanked the Council for their consideration.

Councilmember Gee said she does not see the rationale for landscaping as well as residents being asked to maintain it. The reality is that the City has funding for the 12-foot fencing and did not believe a 6-foot fence would come close to doing much of anything in terms of noise reduction for neighbors and the road, but it would create much more of a visual and safety barrier. Therefore, she would prefer installing the 12 foot fence with no landscaping.

Mayor Fay said because of his previous career, he knows wood walls provide no sound attenuation whether they are 6 or 12 feet, as well as vegetation. He voiced concern that the City will spend more money than budgeted and residents will not achieve anything.

This really is a location for a Caltrans masonry sound wall which are the only things that really work as wood walls do not. Therefore, he has very serious concerns about whether it is worth spending any money and instead, taking $100,000 to match money they would get to build a real sound wall that Caltrans would construct through CCTA.

Councilmember Gee said she would amend her comments if there is a chance for this to be funded to be a real soundwall.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 15, 2022 (2946 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 15 of 18 11.15.22
Councilmember Kosla said he has never seen a 12 foot redwood fence, thinks it would make residents feel safer but likely would not provide sound attenuation. He also agrees that if the City provides landscaping there should be a budget to maintain it and water it.

Vice Mayor Miller echoed comments and agreed with the need for a sound wall, but wondered how to proceed forward given the need to maintain a scenic corridor.

EXTEND MEETING
MOTION by Vice Mayor Miller moved, and seconded by Councilmember Worth, to extend the meeting until 11:45 p.m. Said motion carried unanimously by (5-0) roll call vote.

Vice Mayor Miller asked and Mayor Fay confirmed there are no noise barriers along Hwy 24 but there are some retaining walls which would be a significant expense. It is the only thing that would provide that neighborhood with any kind of noise attenuation.

Councilmember Worth said when the Council first discussed this after the clearing was done, the intent was to do the best they could to replicate and replace what the existing conditions were. There was no sound all but landscaping that provided visual screening from the freeway. This is where she sees the origins of the staff recommendation for Option 1; to restore existing conditions. In terms of funding, there has not been any for sound walls and it was only through CCTA when Caltrans and CCTA widened I-680 which included sound walls.

If the desire is to address concerns of neighbors and bring back characteristics in terms of a visual block and replicating what the vegetation did, she recommended Option 1 which would provide the 6 foot fence and landscaping at the top of the hill to provide a good visual block of the freeway.

Mr. Natarajan displayed the map and said the line with the access on it is the new wood fence and the trees are existing. The darker hash line is where the new landscaping is proposed to be and the faded background shows Brookwood Road. The reason this is pushed back a bit is because there is an existing parking area.

Councilmember Worth confirmed the landscaping goes to the point where the fence picks up. She thought they were going to consider landscaping further up to provide more visual screening. Mr. Natarajan explained that the reason the landscape was not extended through here is that the difference between the highway and Brookwood Road is relatively low so there is not much land left remaining in that space. However, they could extend the landscaping farther down to soften the fence and that it could potentially grow higher.

Councilmember Worth said the goal would be to do something now, but she voiced concern with whether a 12-foot fence would hold up within the confines of that corridor and thinks the combination of the landscaping and fence would replicate what the situation was before the trimming.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 15, 2022 (2946 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 16 of 18 11.15.22
Councilmember Gee said what she would like to see what this looks like before voting on Option 1, what neighbors across the street will see, how high up the landscape is going, and thinks it is ludicrous to cut it down for fire risk and then completely replant it, albeit they could plant it with fire-resistant vegetation.

Mayor Fay said he would also want to know if they did not install the fence and just installed landscaping all the way along there, and he was not ready to vote on this. He drove to the area which is very noisy, especially at the upper end.

Councilmember Kosla said he realizes this would be planting an area they just unplanted, but he would like to see two examples. One would be a cross-section with the wood fence with 12 to 16 foot bushes that are 4 feet wide. He knows for $5,000 you can buy a fully grown Olive tree that is 16 feet tall and very bushy. The fence with vegetation gives that immediate relief. If they want to look at Caltrans putting in their CIP some sound wall or beautiful wall, that could be a Plan B that will take much longer.

Mayor Fay said his reason for bringing up a masonry sound wall was to make sure what they are talking about is not going to accomplish what the neighbors really want, which is real safety and noise attenuation. It will just be what they had before which was probably not that much.

Vice Mayor Miller said one benefit of not voting on this tonight is that it gives the opportunity to hear from residents on what they think of that 6-foot fence with vegetation being watered and maintained by the City. They cannot replace exactly what was there, but the intent of this planting would be to do that and she likes the idea of having the planting for the upward area where the curve goes uphill.

Mayor Fay asked if this item could be continued to their next meeting in early December and asked if this will give staff time to answer questions raised tonight. Mr. Biggs and Mr.

Natarajan said they could develop a drawing of what it would look like from across the street and bring it back.

Councilmember Worth suggested staff could also check with CCTA to see what is happening with some of the mitigating freeway impacts.

MOTION by Councilmember Worth moved and seconded by Councilmember Gee to continue the item to December 6, 2022, with direction to staff. Said motion carried unanimously by (5-0) roll call vote.

H.3. Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 56-22 Approving and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute the Second Amendment to Employment Agreement between the City of Orinda and David Biggs, City Manager Recommendation:

Consider adoption of Resolution No. 56-22 approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute the Second Amendment to Employment Agreement between City of Orinda and David Biggs
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 15, 2022 (2946 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 17 of 18 11.15.22
Mayor Fay summarized that the City manager’s agreement includes a 3% salary increase, an additional 40 hours of administrative leave annually, and an annual review that would be done in the fall.

Mayor Fay opened the Public Forum, and there were no speakers.

MOTION by Vice Mayor Miller moved and seconded by Councilmember Gee to adopt Resolution No. 56-22 approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute the Second Amendment to Employment Agreement between City of Orinda and David Biggs.

Said motion carried unanimously by (5-0) roll call vote.

I. COUNCILMEMBERS’ REPORTS – Mayor Fay reported that the next meeting of the City and MOFD 2x2 Committee is December 12, 2022 and he will attend with Councilmember Gee.

J. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT – City Manager Biggs acknowledged the efforts of the Parks and Recreation Department and the Orinda Garden Club. The landscaped area immediately adjacent to the Café Teatro at the Library Plaza has been redone. The Garden Club helped design the area and selected plants and it looks great.

On Sunday, December 4th from 3-5 p.m., the City will host a reception to honor Councilmember Amy Worth’s 24 years of service on the Orinda City Council. On December 13th, they expect the Council to ratify the election results and they will welcome three new Councilmembers and saying goodbye to incumbents who are leaving with a brief meeting that will start at 6 p.m., followed by a reception.

K. MATTERS INITIATED – Councilmember Kosla stated long-time cross-country coach Otis McCain at Miramonte High School passed away last month. He ran through Wilder for decades. When Wilder was being conceptualized, there was discussion that a trail or something would be named after him within Wilder. Given Wilder is influx, he wants to be sure this is remembered. Mr. McCain was also a biology teacher and Marine and is having his memorial in January. He would love to see if the City could do a plaque or a bench in the Art and Garden Center or at least discuss this at a future meeting.

Vice Mayor Miller seconded that item to be initiated, stating Otis McCain was a fabulous individual in the community. He began in the 1960’s as a biology teacher right out of school and he served his entire career in Orinda. She was lucky enough to be one of his cross country students. He won awards for their team and led championship teams and is inducted in the Miramonte Hall of Fame for his many accolades statewide.

F.1.b
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 15, 2022 (2946 : City Council Minutes) Orinda City Council Minutes Page 18 of 18 11.15.22
MOTION by Councilmember Kosla moved and seconded by Vice Mayor Miller to initiate a Matters Initiated to agendize a discussion regarding recognition of Otis McCain.

Said motion carried unanimously by (5-0) roll call vote.

L. ADJOURNMENT
The Regular Meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:43 p.m. to the next Regular Meeting on Tuesday, December 06, 2022 at 7:00 p.m.
______________________________________
Sheri Marie Smith, City Clerk
F.1.b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: City Council Minutes of November 15, 2022 (2946 : City Council Minutes) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.2
Date: December 6, 2022
Department: City Clerk
AGENDA TITLE: Authorization For Continued Use of Remote Teleconference for City Meetings
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the Ratification of Orinda City Council Resolution No. 42-21 and Authorize the Continued Use of Teleconference Meetings for the Period of December 7, 2022 to January 6, 2023 Pursuant to the Provisions of Assembly Bill 361.

BACKGROUND:

On October 5th, 2021 the Orinda City Council adopted Resolution No. 42-21 approving the continued use of teleconferencing for the meetings of all City legislative bodies pursuant to the provisions of Assembly Bill 361. The resolution was ratified on October 19, 2021, and at subsequent meetings through 2021 and 2022.

DISCUSSION:

At the time of adoption, the City Council anticipated that the resolution would appear on its consent calendar for review and ratification or update at regular Council meetings.

The State law authorizes the continuation for as long as the Governor’s proclaimed State of Emergency relating to the COVID-19 pandemic remains in effect. On On October 17, 2022, Governor Newsom announced that the COVID-19 State of Emergency will end on February 28, 2023. State law also provides that the City Council determine that they desire to continue remote public meetings and make the necessary findings at least every thirty days. Those findings were contained in Orinda City Council Resolution No. 42-21, which staff recommends the Council vote to ratify based on current conditions.

Approval of this item will allow all public bodies established by the City of Orinda and covered by Resolution No. 42-21 to continue to conduct teleconferencing meetings.

On October 4, 2022, Contra Costa Health Services issued the attached revised Recommendations for Safely Holding Public Meetings in which online meetings are still encouraged.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Weblink to: Staff Report, Adopted Resolution at October 5, 2021 Council Meeting B. Recommendations for Safely Holding Public Meetings
F.2
Packet Pg. 43
Respectfully Submitted by:

Sheri Smith
City Clerk
Prepared By: Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Approved by:

F.2
Packet Pg. 44
Recommendations for safely holding public meetings
Each local government agency is authorized to determine whether to hold public meetings in person, on-line (teleconferencing only), or via a combination of methods. The following are recommendations from the Contra Costa County Health Officer to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission during a public meeting.

1. Online meetings (i.e. teleconferencing meetings) are encouraged, where practical, as these meetings present the lowest risk of transmission of SARS CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID 19. This is particularly important when community prevalence rates are high. Our current trends as of October 4, 2022 in Covid-19 case rate, test positivity, Covid-19 hospitalizations, and COVID-19 wastewater surveillance are decreasing, but community transmission, as noted in CDC community transmission map, remains high. In addition to this, the predominant variant of COVID-19 being identified continues to be the Omicron variant and it’s subvariants the impact of which on the spread of COVID-19 has shown to dramatically increase COVID-19 transmission.

2. If a local agency determines to hold in-person meetings, offering the public the opportunity to attend via a call-in option or an internet-based service option is recommended, when possible, to give those at higher risk of and/or higher concern about COVID-19 an alternative to participating in person.

3. A written safety protocol should be developed and followed. It is recommended that the protocol require social distancing, where feasible – i.e. six feet of separation between attendees; and consider requiring or strongly encouraging face masking of all attendees and encouraging attendees to be up-to-date on their COVID-19 vaccine.

4. Seating arrangements should allow for staff and members of the public to easily maintain at least six-foot distance from one another at all practicable times.

5. Consider holding public meetings outdoors. Increasing scientific consensus is that outdoor airflow reduces the risk of COVID-19 transmission compared to indoor spaces. Hosting events outdoors also may make it easier to space staff and members of the public at least 6 feet apart. If unable to host outdoors, consider ways to increase ventilation and flow of the indoor space to reduce the risk of COVID-19 while indoors.

6. Current evidence is unclear as to the added benefit of temperature checks in addition to symptom checks. We encourage focus on symptom checks as they may screen out individuals with other Covid-19 symptoms besides fever and help reinforce the message to not go out in public if you are not feeling well.

7. Consider a voluntary attendance sheet with names and contact information to assist in contact tracing of any cases linked to a public meeting.

Revised 10-4-2022
Sefanit Mekuria, MD, MPH
Deputy Health Officer, Contra Costa County
F.2.b
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Recommendations for Safely Holding Public Meetings (2967 : Ratify Continued Teleconference Resolution) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: F.3
Date: December 6, 2022
Department: Parks and Recreation
AGENDA TITLE: Approval of Third Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding with Orinda School District for Scheduling and Maintenance of Sports Fields RECOMMENDATION:

BACKGROUND: The City and the Orinda Union School District (District) have a long standing relationship that has produced a number of successful partnerships for the community. In keeping with this tradition, the City and District entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the maintenance and scheduling of the District’s six athletic fields in October 2018. The maintenance efforts commenced in January 2019 and the acceptance of rental requesting beginning for the spring of 2019.

Both the City and District have an interest in providing an improved recreational resource to meet district and community demand, generating revenue to offset maintenance and operating costs, and enhancing the existing partnership between the entities.

Due to lack of financial and staff resources at the District, the fields had not been maintained at a level which either the district or the field users would prefer. In fact, during the last few years the District was managing field usage and maintenance, rental usage dropped significantly and, in the fall of 2018, the Lamorinda Soccer Club, the District’s largest renter, stopped using the fields due to safety concerns.

With the extremely wet winter and spring in early 2019, the fields were not usable for most of the first half of the year. The City then utilized the summer break to address the most glaring safety and maintenance issues at several fields, including significant work at Del Rey Elementary. However, since many previous field renters had moved to different facilities and/or remained apprehensive about the condition of the school fields, the amount of paid rentals for the remainder of 2019 was limited. At the end of 2019, the deficit of expenses over revenues was approximately $51,000.

The coronavirus pandemic reprioritized actions for both entities and, in May 2020, the City Council and the District Board approved the first amendment to the MOU, which, among other things, placed a higher priority on reducing the ongoing deficit and the District agreed to pay $10,000 each quarter in which the health order prohibited public use of the sports fields. The goal was to offset the City maintenance expenditures that had not been covered by the collection of rental fees. As the pandemic continued into 2021, field revenue remained minimal while necessary maintenance continued. And even with the quarterly payments agreed to in the first amendment, a deficit of approximately $40,000 remained as of March. After meetings with the school district, staff from both entities arrived at an agreement in which the paying back of the incurred F.4
Packet Pg. 46
deficit remained a higher priority than both extensive field improvements and reimbursement to OUSD for previously realized revenue.

The 2nd Amendment of the MOU was approved by the school board on April 12, 2021 and was approved by the City Council on April 13, 2021. The primary stipulation of the amended agreement stated that, in an effort to further reduce the deficit, OUSD agreed to make quarterly payments of $15,000 to cover the maintenance expense during each of the final three quarters of 2021. With the condition that a deficit remained after 2021, the quarterly payments from the OUSD would return to the previous amount of $10,000.

OUSD made the increased payments in a timely fashion during the final three quarters of 2021, but a deficit remained, and payments were reduced.

DISCUSSION: Since the adoption of the MOU in the fall of 2018, the City has a new City Manager, while the District has a new Superintendent as well as a new Director of Facilities, Maintenance, and Operations. Staff from both entities continue with the transition and City staff, overall, continue to be pleased with the arrangement.

Communication, for the most part, has been good and we continue to work through and address any challenges and issues.

The most prominent adjustment with the third amendment of the MOU involves the elimination of the previous maintenance deficit. By late 2022, the maintenance deficit has been eliminated, and it is recommended that the previous quarterly payments by the District cease unless a deficit exists at the end of a quarter. If a deficit does exist, the previous $10,000 quarterly payments would begin, and remain, until the deficit is eliminated.

The maintenance contract continues to be based entirely on time and materials, and City staff will monitor expenses. The District requests the City consider pursuing an annual rate contract for the school fields when the City-wide landscape maintenance contract is finalized this coming spring to better anticipate monthly expenses.

Maintenance and repairs beyond basic services may be necessary to keep the fields safe and attractive to users and renters and District and City staff continue to work together to ensure the most sensible and successful maintenance efforts. Attachment A is a Redline Draft of the proposed changes to the MOU. Staff is seeking the City Council authorization for the City Manager to execute the final version.

As pandemic restrictions have loosened, staff are optimistic that sufficient ongoing revenue will be collected to off-set expenses. Field rental revenue increased by approximately $35,000 from 2020 to 2021 and, at this time, Staff anticipate a more modest revenue increase from 2021 to 2022 of approximately $12,000. However, Staff does not anticipate, currently, annual revenue to surpass annual maintenance costs.

Attachment B shows revenue and expenses from the time the MOU was approved.

NEXT STEPS: This item will appear on the December 12, 2022 agenda of the OUSD Board of Trustees meeting for review and approval.

F.4
Packet Pg. 47
FISCAL IMPACT: By late 2022, the maintenance deficit had been eliminated. The maintenance contract continues to be based entirely on time and materials, and City staff will monitor expenses. Staff are considering pursuing an annual rate contract for the school fields when the City-wide landscape maintenance contract is finalized this spring. As pandemic restrictions have loosened, staff are optimistic that sufficient ongoing revenue will be collected to off-set expenses; although Staff do not anticipate, at this time, annual revenue to surpass annual maintenance costs.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT B. ExpensesRevenueUpdatedPresent
Respectfully Submitted by:

Todd Trimble
Director of Parks and Recreation
Prepared By: Todd Trimble, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by:

F.4
Packet Pg. 48
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) F.4.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: OUSD-City of Orinda Play Field Agreement 3rdAmendment DRAFT (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) Orignal MOU approved on 9/18/20 for term of 9/18/18 - 9/1/20 First Amendment approved 5/21/20 for term 1/1/20 - 12/31/21 Second Amendment approved 4/13/21 for term 1/1/21 - 12/31/22 Rental
Revenue
OUSD
Cont.

Total
Revenue
Basic
Maintenance
SubContract
Work
Total
Expenses Difference Balance
2019 Totals $24,009 $24,009 -$75,147 -$75,147 -$51,138 -$51,138 Jan-20 $487 $487 -$820 -$820 -$333 -$51,471
Feb-20 $6,135 $6,135 -$4,315 -$4,315 $1,820 -$49,651
Mar-20 $2,040 $2,040 -$2,436 -$2,436 -$396 -$50,047
Apr-20 $0 $0 -$1,727 -$1,727 -$1,727 -$51,774
May-20 $0 $10,000 $10,000 -$4,060 -$4,060 $5,940 -$45,834 Jun-20 $1,680 $1,680 -$5,932 -$5,932 -$4,252 -$50,086
Jul-20 $3,045 $3,045 -$6,517 -$6,517 -$3,472 -$53,558
Aug-20 $0 $10,000 $10,000 -$4,852 -$4,852 $5,148 -$48,410 Sep-20 $900 $900 -$4,149 -$4,149 -$3,249 -$51,659
Oct-20 $1,395 $10,000 $11,395 -$4,624 -$4,624 $6,771 -$44,888 Nov-20 $0 $0 -$1,930 -$1,930 -$1,930 -$46,818
Dec-20 $0 $0 -$807 -$807 -$807 -$47,625
2020 Totals $15,682 $30,000 $45,682 -$42,169 -$42,169 $3,513 -$47,625 Jan-21 $171 $10,000 $10,171 -$643 -$643 $9,528 -$38,097 Feb-21 $1,041 $1,041 -$2,859 -$2,859 -$1,818 -$39,915
Mar-21 $3,699 $3,699 -$2,915 -$2,915 $784 -$39,131
Apr-21 $8,006 $8,006 -$3,333 -$3,333 $4,673 -$34,458
May-21 $10,202 $15,000 $25,202 -$5,758 -$5,758 $19,444 -$15,014 Jun-21 $4,649 $4,649 -$8,653 -$8,653 -$4,004 -$19,018
Jul-21 $8,384 $15,000 $23,384 -$5,596 -$5,596 $17,788 -$1,230 Aug-21 $1,852 $1,852 -$8,515 -$8,515 -$6,663 -$7,893
Sep-21 $5,231 $5,231 -$6,336 -$6,336 -$1,105 -$8,998
Oct-21 $5,676 $5,676 -$3,630 -$3,630 $2,046 -$6,952
Nov-21 $950 $15,000 $15,950 -$3,251 -$3,251 $12,699 $5,747 Dec-21 $825 $825 -$1,758 -$1,758 -$933 $4,814
2021 Totals $50,686 $55,000 $105,686 -$53,247 -$53,247 $52,439 $4,814 Jan-22 $1,208 $10,000 $11,208 -$1,460 -$1,460 $9,748 $14,562 Feb-22 $4,046 $4,046 -$2,016 -$2,016 $2,030 $16,592
Mar-22 $9,765 $9,765 -$3,863 -$3,863 $5,902 $22,494
Apr-22 $7,442 $7,442 -$4,501 -$4,501 $2,941 $25,435
May-22 $9,668 $9,668 -$3,446 -$3,446 $6,222 $31,657
Jun-22 $10,234 $10,234 -$5,016 -$22,425 -$27,441 -$17,207 $14,450 Jul-22 $2,507 $10,000 $12,507 -$5,187 -$5,187 $7,320 $21,770 Aug-22 $2,312 $2,312 -$4,977 -$4,977 -$2,665 $19,105
Sep-22 $5,271 $5,271 -$3,922 -$3,922 $1,349 $20,454
Oct-22 $5,687 $5,687 -$1,715 -$1,715 $3,972 $24,426
Nov-22
Dec-22
2022 Totals $58,140 $20,000 $78,140 -$36,103 -$22,425 -$58,528 $19,612 $24,426 Overall
Totals $253,517 -$229,091 $24,426
Jan 2021: $10,000 payment from OUSD for 4th Quarter (billed 1/6/21; submitted 1/26/2021) May 2021: $15,000 payment from OUSD for 2nd Quarter (billed 5/3/21; submitted 6/8/21) Jul 2021: $15,000 payment from OUSD for 3rd Quarter (billed 7/1/21; submitted 7/26/2021) Nov 2021: $15,000 payment from OUSD for 4th Quarter (billed 10/1/21; submitted 11/5/2021) Jan 2022: $10,000 payment from OUSD for 1st Quarter (billed 1/5/22; submitted 1/31/2022) Jul 2022: $10,000 payment from OUSD for 2nd Quarter (billed 4/1/22; submitted 7/12/22) OUSD Maintenance and Use MOU
Monthly Report
F.4.b
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: ExpensesRevenueUpdatedPresent (2970 : Approval of 3rd Amendment to MOU with OUSD) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.1
Date: December 6, 2022
Department:

Public Works and
Engineering Services
AGENDA TITLE: Brookwood Rd mitigation measures as a result of vegetation removal to meet current Fire Fuel reduction requirements.

RECOMMENDATION:

City Council to receive staff presentation of the various options being considered and provide direction to Staff.

BACKGROUND:

At the November 17, 2022 City Council Meeting, the subject item was discussed and City Council requested staff to prepare renderings for the various options that are being considered to mitigate the vegetation removal along Brookwood Road.

DISCUSSION:

Staff will present renderings of the three options that are being considered, along with some updated information received from MOFD and the Engineering consultant.

Staff is recommending that City Council receive presentation and provide direction to staff to proceed with a preferred option.

NEXT STEPS:

Staff will work with the City selected engineering firm to prepare construction documents for the option selected.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The 2021 Capital Improvement Program budget allocated $110,000 from Add-On Sales Tax Measure R (Fund #106), toward the Brookwood Road mitigation project. Total expenditure on the project to date is $16,250. Additional funds may be necessary but will depend on the option selected for mitigation.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Communication from Brookwood Rd Residents 11-16-2022-1 B. Communication from Brookwood Rd Residents 11-16-2022-2 Respectfully Submitted by:

Scott Christie
Public Works Director
H.1
Packet Pg. 88
Prepared By: Sivakumar Natarajan, City Engineer
Approved by:

H.1
Packet Pg. 89
1 Sivakumar Natarajan
From: Sean Gerrish <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2022 9:00 AM
To: Dennis Fay; Inga Miller; Amy Worth; Darlene Gee; Nick Kosla; Orinda Planning; Julie Tamayo; Sheri Smith; Scott Christie; Sivakumar Natarajan; David Biggs; John Herceg Subject: Brookwood Road mitigation
Attachments: 2022-21-9.Brookwood Rd John Herceg.pdf
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments! Dear Councilmembers,
On behalf of the residents of Brookwood Road, I wanted to thank you for your time considering our situation at last night's council meeting and for understanding our concerns.

I wanted to answer a few questions that came up during councilmembers' discussion.  Regarding the acoustics mitigation of a wooden fence: I agree that a wooden fence wouldn't be perfect, and residents know this.  However, *any* rigid barrier would be far better than what we have now (which is a 6' chain‐link fence) and a 12' wooden fence would be far better than a 6' fence. o That said, we are open to other options. I have attached helpful notes from a retired acoustical engineer provided by their friend John Herceg (who is also an impacted resident, CCed). I would like to emphasize that residents are open to creative options that address the safety and aesthetic problems we're facing, and Orinda has an opportunity to be a trend‐setter here. o Larry Theis put together a Brookwood Mitigation Measures Matrix of sound mitigation options and shared it with City Council June 29th of last year. You may want to review this. o Regarding a proper sound wall from CalTrans: Our neighbor's friend, who worked a CalTrans, told us that the situation was absolutely something CalTrans could address, and that we simply needed to be persistent.  I would be very happy for the city to help us in this regard. Please let me know how I can help (e.g. gathering a letter signed by a number of impacted residents).  The height differential between Brookwood and Highway 24 varies by location on Brookwood. At my house (28 Brookwood), it's completely flat, and there is no height differential. Further west, at the park, the differential  is a bit higher, and Brookwood is perhaps 5‐8 feet above 24 (from memory).  While I think a rendering from a consultant wouldn't hurt, I suspect that councilmembers would have a much more clear idea of the effectiveness of the options if they were to simply visit in person (I'm happy to show any of you around).  A 6' fence wouldn't do much in some areas due to the changing differential.  Regarding aesthetics of the corridor: There is a large concrete retaining wall immediately west of the impacted area of Brookwood that sets a precedent for very large concrete walls in this stretch of 24. A concrete sound wall would be a seamless transition here.
 While we are hoping for a good solution, residents are also eager for a solution soon, as we've been impacted for over a year and a half now.

Thank you again for your time,
Sean Gerrish
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Communication from Brookwood Rd Residents 11-16-2022-1 (2966 : Brookwood Road Mitigation) Following comments shared a former industrial acoustical specialist (friend) who asked to remain anonymous, but felt this information may be of help to our situation.

1. Subject: mitigating against freeway sight and sound as it effects residents and pedestrians along several hundred feet of Brookwood Road at its west end, intersecting Spring Road. The freeway noise also impacts residents farther up the hill, nosier with time, since the last Cal-Trans paving several decades ago; as such, some properties may need to disclose freeway noise when selling.

2. Objectives:
a. Visuali. block line of sight to freeway traffic
ii. improve appearance as seen from Brookwood Road houses or by pedestrians b. Acoustic-reduce noise
i. Safety: For benefit of Brookwood pedestrians-now, they often can’t hear cars on Brookwood as they approach. That is, local traffic sounds are totally “masked” by louder freeway noise.
ii. Conversation and sleep: Reduce noise at residences; enable normal voice conversation when entertaining outdoors

3. Mitigations:
a. Methods of noise reduction
i. Dense vegetation of substantial thickness can have a minor noise reduction benefit; it can in favorable cases noticeably reduce the highest-pitched “sizzle” of traffic noise. However, despite this, don’t depend on vegetation for any substantial noise reduction.
ii. Highway noise barrier (really, just a wall) Rule of Thumb: To be effective, a noise barrier should break the line of sight between noise source and the receiver by 3 feet or more. More is better, if economically possible. iii. The barrier material in nearly all cases should be impervious. If wind can leak through a noise wall, so can sound. Noise leaks do reduce effectiveness, often greatly. The barrier material should weigh 2 pounds per square foot or more.

Multi-layer materials sometimes can weigh slightly less. Very thick wall of well fitted rock may be an exception but the noise reduction depends strongly on how well fitted the rocks are and how thick the wall is. Barrier effectiveness is modestly limited by tall dense trees that, if above the wall, will reflect sound downward to the otherwise noise protected zone.
iv. Schemes for increasing wall height include:

1. A levee of raised ground supporting the wall; this can economically raise the wall footing and decrease the apparent height as viewed from nearby.

2. Any substructure capable of safely supporting a wall; K-Wall was mentioned at the City Council presentation with a post and panel wall system above the K-Wall and supported by it. Polycarbonate is just H.1.a
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Communication from Brookwood Rd Residents 11-16-2022-1 (2966 : Brookwood Road Mitigation) Lexan clear plastic sheet in this case, which is quite rugged and can be sunlight resistant.

3. post and panel systems up to 20 to 30 feet tall use power poles as the posts -they can be quickly placed into drilled holes in the ground. Panels have included pressure treated plywood (3/4 inch or thicker) mounted on 2x8 boards or instead, panels rugged fabric sheets carefully lashed in place. In my experience in Hawaii, a very wet climate, both have lasted 30 years. Critical design items are wind loads and how they fail in a hurricane-the parts must be able to partly break away rather than the whole thing toppling. These walls would have looked a lot better with natural or artificial vines on them. plants painted on walls for visual effect offers no watering, no pruning, no rats, and longer life. Used more in Europe than here. Trend-setter opportunity!)
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Communication from Brookwood Rd Residents 11-16-2022-1 (2966 : Brookwood Road Mitigation) 1 Sivakumar Natarajan
From: Sean Gerrish <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2022 9:54 AM
To: Dennis Fay; Inga Miller; Amy Worth; Darlene Gee; Nick Kosla; Orinda Planning; Julie Tamayo; Sheri Smith; Scott Christie; Sivakumar Natarajan; David Biggs; John Herceg Subject: Re: Brookwood Road mitigation
Attachments: PXL_20221116_171950047.jpg; Screen Shot 2022-11-16 at 9.27.35 AM.png; PXL_20221116_ 173435975.jpg
CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Be careful when clicking links or opening attachments! I have also attached to this email several photos to add some more color to your questions. x One photo, which I took just now, shows a typical situation: a resident pushing a baby in a stroller as a car passes.Because there are no sidewalks, this resident needed to walk *on Brookwood*.Cars driving at 60 mph on 23 are much louder than those driving at 30 mph on Brookwood. This is the ongoing safety risk we've discussed.
x Another photo shows the highway alongside Brookwood to give you a sense for what a 12' wall might do. The existing chainͲlink fence is 5'4"; even taking this to a 12' wouldn't fully block the highway, but it would help considerably at street level, and we believe 12' is a reasonable compromise considering cost. x A final photo shows Google Streetview for the same area before vegetation was removed. If you spend a few minutes to compare photos, you'll see that highway is hidden behind about 7'Ͳ10' of green vegetation for much of the stretch.

Thank you again,
Sean Gerrish
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 8:59 AM Sean Gerrish <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Councilmembers,
On behalf of the residents of Brookwood Road, I wanted to thank you for your time considering our situation at last night's council meeting and for understanding our concerns.

I wanted to answer a few questions that came up during councilmembers' discussion. x Regarding the acoustics mitigation of a wooden fence: I agree that a wooden fence wouldn't be perfect, and residents know this.However, *any* rigid barrier would be far better than what we have now (which is a 6' chainͲlink fence) and a 12' wooden fence would be far better than a 6' fence. o That said, we are open to other options. I have attached helpful notes from a retired acoustical engineer provided by their friend John Herceg (who is also an impacted resident, CCed). I would like to emphasize that residents are open to creative options that address the safety and aesthetic problems we're facing, and Orinda has an opportunity to be a trendͲsetter here. o Larry Theis put together a Brookwood Mitigation Measures Matrix of sound mitigation options and shared it with City Council June 29th of last year. You may want to review this. o Regarding a proper sound wall from CalTrans: Our neighbor's friend, who worked a CalTrans, told us that the situation was absolutely something CalTrans could address, and that we simply needed to be persistent.I would be very happy for the city to help us in this regard. Please let me know how I can help (e.g. gathering a letter signed by a number of impacted residents). x The height differential between Brookwood and Highway 24 varies by location on Brookwood. At my house (28 Brookwood), it's completely flat, and there is no height differential. Further west, at the park, the differentialis a bit higher, and Brookwood is perhaps 5Ͳ8 feet above 24 (from memory).While I think a rendering from a H.1.b
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Communication from Brookwood Rd Residents 11-16-2022-2 (2966 : Brookwood Road Mitigation) H.1.b
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Communication from Brookwood Rd Residents 11-16-2022-2 (2966 : Brookwood Road Mitigation) H.1.b
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Communication from Brookwood Rd Residents 11-16-2022-2 (2966 : Brookwood Road Mitigation) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.2
Date: December 6, 2022
Department: Planning Department
AGENDA TITLE: Introduce Ordinance 23-01 to adopt by reference the 2022 editions of the California Building Code, California Residential Code, California Green Building Standards Code, California Energy Code, California Electrical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and Existing Building Code (“Building Codes”), with modifications to those codes to reflect local conditions, and review Resolution 23-01, adopting Contra Costa County’s Findings in Support of Changes, Additions and Deletions to Statewide Building Standards Code and readopting the City’s findings regarding the need for modifications to the California Green Building Standards Code, which find that the modifications to the Building Codes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, and topographical conditions.

RECOMMENDATION:

Introduce Ordinance 23-01, which includes a determination that it is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), waiving a full reading.

BACKGROUND:

The California Building Standards Commission has adopted the 2022 California Building Standards Code (CBSC), replacing the 2019 CBSC. The CBSC includes the California Building, Residential, Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, Green Building Standards, Fire, Energy, Historical Building, and Existing Building Codes (“Building Codes”). These statewide codes will be effective January 1, 2023. The 2022 Building Codes represent the new minimum required standards for building construction in California. The 2022 editions of the Building Codes reflect changes in technology, fire safety techniques, and the building industry. Although these codes apply statewide, Health and Safety Code sections 17958.5 and 18941.5 authorize a local jurisdiction to modify or change these codes and establish more restrictive building standards if the local jurisdiction finds that the changes and modifications are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, topographical, or environmental conditions. The attached proposed ordinance would adopt the statewide codes and amend them to address local conditions.

Contra Costa County (the “County”) provides building inspection services within the City of Orinda by contract with the City. At a public hearing held on November 8, 2022, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance 2022-35, which adopts the 2022 editions of the Building Codes with modifications to those codes to reflect local conditions. The County recommended local amendments contained in the proposed Ordinance are predominantly designed to address the risk of seismic activity, to protect public health and safety, and to promote sustainable energy and waste management policies and practices.

H.3
Packet Pg. 96
The purpose of this agenda item is to introduce modifications to the Building Codes that reflect the County’s modifications thereto, with the exception of the County’s modifications to the California Energy Code concerning all-electric buildings and the California Green Building Standards Code concerning construction and demolition debris recovery, as discussed below, and to review proposed findings of fact in support of the County’s and City’s modifications.

DISCUSSION:

With the adoption of proposed Ordinance 23-01, the City would adopt the 2022 editions of the Building Codes with amendments to reflect local conditions. In the interest of uniformity, the amendments the City would adopt are substantively the same as those adopted by the County, with the exception of the County’s modifications to the California Energy Code concerning all-electric buildings and the California Green Building Standards Code concerning construction and demolition (“C&D”) debris recovery.

On January 18, 2022, the County Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance 2022-02, adopting modifications to the California Energy Code requiring that all newly constructed residential, detached accessory dwelling unit, hotel, office, and retail type buildings that do not have vested rights before June 1, 2022 be all-electric buildings. An all-electric building is defined as a building that has no natural gas or propane plumbing within the building, and that uses electricity as the sole source of energy for its space heating, water heating, cooking appliances and clothes drying appliances. This amendment would impose a stricter standard than that included in the statewide code as the statewide code has no requirement for all-electric buildings. On September 27, 2022, Orinda Planning Staff brought the policy discussion of building electrification to the regular City Council meeting; at this meeting, the Council provided direction to not build this into the standard option of the three-year building code. Therefore, the proposed ordinance for adoption in Orinda does not contain this County-approved provision.

Orinda regulates C&D recycling separately from the County with recommendations from RecycleSmart, of which Orinda and several other cities within Contra Costa County are members. RecycleSmart approves and certifies C&D facilities for compliance with C&D diversion requirements set by the California Green Building Code Standards in pursuit of AB 939 (The California Waste Management Act). Ordinance 23-01 therefore reflects the City’s adoption of specific local amendments to C&D measures.

While Ordinance 23-01 Appendix A presents a clean version of the proposed new, updated chapters of the Orinda Municipal Code that would be effective upon the ordinance’s adoption (included as Attachment A to this staff report), a redlined version of Appendix A – showing all of the changes between the existing Orinda Municipal Code and the proposed new, updated chapters – is also attached for the Council’s information as Attachment B.

As a whole, the local amendments to 2022 editions of the Building Codes serve the public interest by reducing the risk to life and property of the citizens of the City of Orinda. These amendments must be justified by findings of fact based upon the unique H.3
Packet Pg. 97
geological, topographical, and climatic conditions of the City. A proposed resolution adopting the findings of the County upon which its amendments to the Building Codes are based and readopting the City’s findings supporting its amendments to the C&D provisions is included as Attachment C. This resolution should be formally approved when the City adopts Ordinance 23-01 (currently scheduled for January 10, 2023).

The County’s amendments to the 2022 editions of the Building Codes continue the amendments that were made to prior versions (2019, 2016), and also include substantive changes to the 2022 editions of the Building Codes, which the City would adopt with Ordinance 23-01. The County Ordinance is included as Attachment D. A summary of the amendments is below:

1. Modifications to the 2022 California Building Code
a. Require installation of hard-wired smoke detectors in existing flat roof buildings when a pitched roof is added on top of the existing flat roof, and the solid sheathing of the flat roof is not removed. This amendment is the same as the local amendment made to the 2019 statewide code. b. Require more reinforcing in some building foundations to better withstand seismic forces found in the region of California. This amendment is the same as the local amendment made to the 2019 statewide code.

2. Modifications to the 2022 California Residential Code a. Prohibit the use of gypsum wallboard as seismic bracing. This amendment is the same as the local amendment made to the 2019 statewide code. b. Restrict the use of Portland Cement Plaster as seismic bracing to singlestory single- and two-family dwellings and accessory structures. This amendment is the same as the local amendment made to the 2019 statewide code.

3. Modifications to the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (“CALGreen” or “CGBSC”)
a. The electric vehicle charging station (EVCS) requirements in the statewide code for new multi-family buildings now meet or exceed the local amendments made to the previous statewide code with the substantive exceptions noted below.
i. The statewide code does not require fully-functional EVCS for new multi-family dwellings, hotels, and motels when fewer than 20 dwelling units, sleeping units, or guest rooms exist. The statewide code requires that 10 percent and 25 percent of the total number of parking spaces be “EV Capable” or “EV Ready” respectively. These spaces are equipped with the electrical conduit and other associated electrical infrastructure to support the future installation of electric vehicle charging devices. The ordinance would require that in addition to the statewide requirements as noted above, an additional 10 percent of the total number of parking spaces be equipped with fully-functional electric vehicle charging equipment.

This amendment would impose a stricter standard than that included in the statewide code.

H.3
Packet Pg. 98
b. The electric vehicle charging station (EVCS) requirements in the statewide code for new non-residential buildings now meet or exceed the local amendments made to the previous statewide code with the substantive exceptions noted below.
i. The statewide code requires that building sites include spaces for both future “EV Capable” spaces that are equipped with the electrical conduit and other associated electrical infrastructure to support the future installation of electric vehicle charging devices and fully-functional EVCS, however the number of fully-functional EVCS spaces required by the statewide code is generally limited to 4-5 percent of the total number of parking spaces. The ordinance would amend the number of fully-functional EVCS spaces required to a minimum of 10 percent of the total number of parking spaces.

This amendment would impose a stricter standard than that included in the statewide code.
ii. The statewide code does not require fully-functional EVCS where the total number of parking spaces provided is fewer than 26. The ordinance would require a proportional number of fully-functional EVCS spaces where the number of parking spaces is 10 or more.

This amendment would impose a stricter standard than that included in the statewide code.
c. More restrictive construction waste reduction, disposal, and recycling standards consistent with those presently enforced in the City, including:

Apply construction waste management requirements in the statewide code to certain projects for existing residential buildings, including: Projects where the addition or alteration is 1,000 square feet or larger. Projects where the project valuation is $50,000 or greater. Projects where the addition or alteration increases the building’s conditioned area, volume, or size. Demolition projects when a demolition permit is required, except demolition projects that are necessary to abate a public nuisance. Require measuring and documentation of all generated debris to ensure that at least 65% is diverted from landfills.

4. Modifications to the 2022 California Existing Building Code a. The amendments to the 2022 California Existing Building Code are not substantive in nature and are limited to administrative provisions for the use and enforcement of this Code and to be consistent with the administrative provisions of the other statewide codes as amended.

5. Modifications to the 2022 Electric Code
a. The amendments to the 2022 California Electric Code are not substantive in nature and are limited to administrative provisions for the use and enforcement of this Code and to be consistent with the administrative provisions of the other statewide codes as amended.

6. Modifications to the 2022 Plumbing Code
a. The amendments to the 2019 California Plumbing Code are not substantive in nature and are limited to administrative provisions for the use and enforcement of this Code and to be consistent with the administrative provisions of the other statewide codes as amended.

H.3
Packet Pg. 99

7. Modifications to the 2022 Mechanical Code
a. The amendments to the 2022 California Mechanical Code are not substantive in nature and are limited to administrative provisions for the use and enforcement of this Code and to be consistent with the administrative provisions of the other statewide codes as amended.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT:

The proposed ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), in that the adoption of State codes and the local amendments herein described do not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, pursuant to Sections 15061(b) (3) and 15378(b) (5) of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations).

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

NEXT STEPS:

Staff will bring Ordinance 23-01 and Resolution 23-01 back for a public hearing and adoption at the January 10, 2023 City Council meeting. At least 15 days prior to the January 10, 2023 meeting, at least one full copy of the 2022 editions of the Building Codes must be filed with the City Clerk for public inspection. Staff will also publish a special notice of the public hearing in the local newspaper once a week for 2 successive weeks, with at least 5 days intervening between the 2 publication dates. After the public hearing and the adoption of Ordinance 23-01 and Resolution 23-01, staff will send copies of Ordinance 23-01 and Resolution 23-01 to the California Building Standards Commission, the Department of Housing and Community Development, the Moraga Orinda Fire District (“MOFD”), and the County. The statewide codes will be effective January 1, 2023, and will apply to all projects submitted on or after that date, regardless of Orinda’s adoption of Ordinance 23-01 and Resolution 23-01. Staff have been coordinating with MOFD staff, and have received and are reviewing MOFD’s proposed local amendments to the Building Codes. Staff will separately bring those amendments forward for Council consideration, consistent with the procedures described in State law.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Draft Ordinance 23-01 with Appendix A (2022 Building Code adoption with modifications)
B. Redlined Appendix A
C. Draft Resolution 23-01 with Appendices A and B (Findings in Support of Changes, Additions, and Deletions to Statewide Building Standards Code) D. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 2022-35 Respectfully Submitted by:

H.3
Packet Pg. 100
Drummond Buckley
Director of Planning
Prepared By: Celina Palmer,
Approved by:

H.3
Packet Pg. 101

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE
2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING,

RESIDENTIAL, GREEN

BUILDING STANDARDS,

ENERGY, PLUMBING,

ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL,

AND EXISTING BUILDING

CODES WITH MODIFICATIONS

FOR LOCAL CONDITIONS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDINANCE NO. 23-01
The City Council of the City of Orinda DOES ORDAIN as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Orinda finds that:

1. The State of California has adopted the 2022 editions of the California Building Code, California Residential Code, California Green Building Standards Code, California Energy Code, California Electrical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and Existing Building Code (“Building Codes”).

2. On December 6, 2022, the City Council of Orinda introduced this ordinance by title only, waiving a full reading, and scheduled a public hearing on the adoption of the Building Codes for January 10, 2023.

3. At least 15 days prior to the January 10, 2023 public hearing, at least one true copy of the Building Codes was filed with the City Clerk for public inspection, pursuant to California Government Code Section 50022.6.

4. Notice was published prior to the January 10, 2023 public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Sections 50022.3 and 6066.

5. As detailed in the findings in Resolution No. 23-01, the additions, deletions, modifications, and amendments hereinafter noted are deemed reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 17958.5 and 18941.5. Those findings will be filed with the California Building Standards Commission pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17958.7.

9. While this ordinance is in force, a true copy of the Building Codes shall be kept for public inspection in the office of the City Building Official and a reasonable supply of the Building Codes shall be available for public purchase in the office of the City Clerk in accordance with Government Code Section 50022.6.

SECTION 2. Chapter 15.08 is repealed in its entirety, and a new Chapter 15.08, as shown in Appendix A attached to this ordinance and incorporated by this reference, shall be added to the Orinda Municipal Code.

H.3.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Draft Ordinance 23-01 with Appendix A (2022 Building Code adoption with modifications) (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) SECTION 3. Chapter 15.09 is repealed in its entirety, and a new Chapter 15.09, as shown in Appendix A attached to this ordinance and incorporated by this reference, shall be added to the Orinda Municipal Code.

SECTION 4. Chapter 15.10 is repealed in its entirety, and a new Chapter 15.10, as shown in Appendix A attached to this ordinance and incorporated by this reference, shall be added to the Orinda Municipal Code.

SECTION 5. Chapter 15.11 is repealed in its entirety, and a new Chapter 15.11, as shown in Appendix A attached to this ordinance and incorporated by this reference, shall be added to the Orinda Municipal Code.

SECTION 6. Chapter 15.12 is repealed in its entirety and a new Chapter 15.12, as shown in Appendix A attached to this ordinance and incorporated by this reference, shall be added to the Orinda Municipal Code.

SECTION 7. Chapter 15.16 is repealed in its entirety and a new Chapter 15.16, as shown in Appendix A attached to this ordinance and incorporated by this reference, shall be added to the Orinda Municipal Code.

SECTION 8. Chapter 15.20 is repealed in its entirety and a new Chapter 15.20, as shown in Appendix A attached to this ordinance and incorporated by this reference, shall be added to the Orinda Municipal Code.

SECTION 10. This ordinance is consistent with the Orinda General Plan.

SECTION 11. This ordinance will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

SECTION 12. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after adoption.

SECTION 13. The City Clerk shall either (a) have this ordinance published once within 15 days after adoption in a newspaper of general circulation or (b) have a summary of this ordinance published twice in a newspaper of general circulation, once 5 days before its adoption and again within 15 days after adoption.

The foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Orinda held on December 6, 2022, and was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting held on January 10, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

H.3.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Draft Ordinance 23-01 with Appendix A (2022 Building Code adoption with modifications) (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
__________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________
Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Appendix A: New Chapters 15.08, 15.09, 15.10, 15.11, 15.12, 15.16, 15.20. 1586642.1
H.3.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Draft Ordinance 23-01 with Appendix A (2022 Building Code adoption with modifications) (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption)

APPENDIX A
Chapter 15.08 - BUILDING CODE

15.08.010 - Adoption.

A. The building code of this city is the 2022 California Building Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2), the 2022 California Residential Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2.5), the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), the 2022 California Existing Building Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 10), and the 2022 California Energy Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6), as amended by the changes, additions, and deletions set forth herein.

B. The 2022 California Building Code (CBC) with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter and other chapters of this title is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth.

C. The 2022 California Residential Code with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter and other chapters of this title is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth.

D. The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter and other chapters of this title is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth.

E. The 2022 California Existing Building Code with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter and other chapters of this title is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth.

F. The 2022 California Energy Code with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter and other chapters of this title is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth.

G. At least one copy of this building code is now on file in the office of the City Clerk and the City Building Department, and the other requirements of Government Code Section 50022.6 have been and shall be complied with.

H. As of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, the provisions of the building code are controlling and enforceable within the city.

15.08.020 Reserved.

15.08.030 Reserved.

H.3.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Draft Ordinance 23-01 with Appendix A (2022 Building Code adoption with modifications) (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption)

15.08.040 - Smoke detectors in flat roof buildings.

Section 907.2.11.2.5.1 is added to Section 907.2.11.2.5 (Existing Group R Occupancies) of CBC Chapter 9 (Fire Protection Systems) to read:
907.2.11.2.5.1 Existing flat roof buildings. In existing flat roof buildings, the installation of a smoke detector that complies with California Residential Code Section R314.6 shall be required when a pitched roof is added on top of the existing flat roof and the solid sheathing of the flat roof is not removed.

15.08.050 - Reserved

15.08.060 - Wood shakes or shingles.

Section 1405.2 is added to Section 1405 (Combustible Materials on the Exterior Side of Exterior Walls) of CBC Chapter 14 (Exterior Walls) to read:
1405.2 Wood shakes or shingles. Wood shakes or shingles used for exterior wall covering shall be fire treated unless there is a minimum of 10 feet from the exterior wall (including shakes or shingles) to the property line or the exterior wall faces a street.

15.08.70 – Structural Tests and Special Instructions – Concrete Construction.

Section 1705.3 (Concrete construction) of CBC Chapter 17 (Structural Inspections and Tests), Exception 1 is amended to read:

1. Isolated spread concrete footings of buildings three stories or less above grade plane that are fully supported on earth or rock, where the structural design of the footing is based on a specified compressive strength of no greater than 2,500 pounds per square inch (psi) (17.2 Mpa).

15.08.080 - Soils and foundations.

A. Section 1809.8 (Plain concrete footings) of CBC Chapter 18 (Soils and Foundations) is deleted.

B. Section 1810.3.9.3 (Placement of reinforcement) of CBC Chapter 18 (Soils and Foundations) is amended by deleting Exception 3.

15.08.090 - Concrete.

A. Section 1905.1.7 (ACI 318, Section 14.1.4) of CBC Chapter 19 (Concrete) H.3.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Draft Ordinance 23-01 with Appendix A (2022 Building Code adoption with modifications) (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) is amended to read:
1905.1.7 ACI 318, Section 14.1.4. Delete ACI 318, Section 14.1.4, and replace with the following:

14.1.4 - Plain concrete in structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E, or F.

14.1.4.1- Structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E, or F shall not have elements of structural plain concrete, except as follows:
(a) Reserved.
(b) Isolated footings of plain concrete supporting pedestals or columns are permitted, provided the projection of the footing beyond the face of the supported member does not exceed the footing thickness.
(c) Plain concrete footings supporting walls are permitted, provided the footings have at least two continuous longitudinal reinforcing bars. Bars shall not be smaller than No. 4 and shall have a total area of not less than 0.002 times the gross crosssectional area of the footing. A minimum of one bar shall be provided at the top and bottom of the footing. Continuity of reinforcement shall be provided at corners and intersections.

B. Section 1906 (Footings for light-frame construction of CBC Chapter 19 (Concrete) is deleted.

C. Section 1907.1 (Minimum Slab Provisions – General) of CBC Chapter 19 (Concrete) is amended by adding the following sentence to that section:

Slabs shall have a minimum reinforcement of 6-inch by 6-inch by 10-gauge wire mesh or equal at mid-height.

D. Appendix C and Appendix I of the CBC are incorporated into the Orinda Building Code. Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix D, Appendix E, Appendix F, Appendix G, Appendix H, Appendix J, Appendix K, Appendix L, and Appendix M of the CBC are excluded from the Orinda Building Code.

15.08.100 - Administration.

CBC Chapter 1 (Scope and Administration) is amended by the provisions of other Chapters of Title 15 of this code and as follows:

H.3.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Draft Ordinance 23-01 with Appendix A (2022 Building Code adoption with modifications) (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) A. Sections 103 and 113 of CBC Chapter 1 are deleted.

B. Section 105.2 (Work Exempt from Permit) of CBC Chapter 1, subsection 4 is amended to read:

4. Retaining walls that are not more than 3 feet in height measured from the top of the footing to the top of the wall and that have a downward ground slope at the bottom of the retaining wall not exceeding 1(vertical):10(horizontal), unless supporting a surcharge or ground slope exceeding 1(vertical):2(horizontal) or impounding Class I, II, or III-a liquids.

D. Section 107.2.1 (Information on construction documents) of CBC Chapter 1 is amended to read:
107.2.1 Information on Construction Documents. Construction documents shall include dimensions and shall be drawn to scale on suitable material.

Electronic media documents may be submitted when approved in advance by the building official. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature, and extent of the work proposed and to show in detail that it will conform to this code and all relevant laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The first sheet of each set of plans shall include contact information for the owner and the person or persons who prepared the plans.

Plans shall include a plot plan showing all existing property lines labeled and fully dimensioned, the elevations of the top and toe of cuts and fills, and the location of the proposed building with distances to all property lines and to every existing building on the property. Instead of detailed specifications, the building official may approve references on the plans to a specific section or part of this code or other ordinances or laws.

E. Section 110.1 (Inspections - General) of CBC Chapter 1 is amended by adding the following to the end of that section:

At the time of first inspection by the building official, a California licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer shall certify in writing that the structure is placed according to the approved set of plans. The written certification must include the site address and permit number. This requirement does not apply to alterations or repairs to existing structures that do not affect the exterior limits of the existing structures.

15.08.110 – Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging for New Construction.

Section 420.14 [HCD] (Electric vehicle (EV) charging for new construction) of CBC Chapter 4 (Special Detailed Requirements Based on Occupancy and Use) is amended to read:

H.3.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Draft Ordinance 23-01 with Appendix A (2022 Building Code adoption with modifications) (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) 420.14 Electric vehicle (EV) charging for new construction. Newly constructed Group R-1, R-2, and R-3 buildings shall be provided with infrastructure to facilitate future installation and use of electric vehicle (EV) chargers, and, where required, newly constructed Group R-2 buildings shall be provided with electric vehicle charging spaces equipped with fully-operational EV chargers, in accordance with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), Chapter 4, Division 4.1.

Chapter 15.09 – CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL
CODE

15.09.010 - Adoption.

A. The 2022 California Residential Code ("CRC"), as amended by the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter and other chapters of this title, is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth. Section numbers used below are those of the 2022 California Residential Code.

B. At least one copy of this building code is now on file in the office of the City Clerk and the City Building Department; the other requirements of Government Code Section 50022.6 have been and shall be complied with.

C. As of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, the provisions of the residential code are controlling and enforceable within the city.

D. Sections R103 and R112 of CRC Chapter 1 (Scope and Application) are deleted.

E. In Section R105.2 (Work exempt from permit) of CRC Chapter 1 (Scope and Application), subsection 3 is amended to read:

3. Retaining walls that are not more than 3 feet in height measured from the top of the footing to the top of the wall and that have a downward ground slope at the bottom of the retaining wall not exceeding 1(vertical):10(horizontal), unless supporting a surcharge or ground slope exceeding 1(vertical):2(horizontal) or impounding class I, II, or III-a liquids.

F. Section R314.8.1.1 is added to Section R314.8 (Existing Group R-3 occupancies) of CRC Chapter 3 (Building Planning), to read:

R314.8.1.1 Existing flat roof buildings. In existing flat roof buildings, the installation of a smoke detector that complies with Section R314.6 shall be H.3.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Draft Ordinance 23-01 with Appendix A (2022 Building Code adoption with modifications) (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) required when a pitched roof is added on top of the existing flat roof and the solid sheathing of the flat roof is not removed.

G. Section R602.10.3(3) (Bracing Requirements Based on Seismic Design Category) of CRC Chapter 6 (Wall Construction) is amended as follows:

1. The title of Table R602.10.3(3) is amended to
read: TABLE R602.10.3(3)i

2. Footnote “i” is added to Table R602.10.3(3), to read:
i. In Seismic Design Categories D0, D1, and D2,
Method GB is not permitted and the use of Method
PCP is limited to one-story dwellings and accessory
structures.

H. Section R602.10.4.5 is added to Section R602.10.4
(Construction methods for braced wall panels) of CRC Chapter 6 (Wall Construction), to read:

R602.10.4.5 Limits on methods GB and PCP. In Seismic Design Categories D0, D1, and D2, Method GB is not permitted, but gypsum board is permitted to be installed on the opposite side of the studs from other types of braced wall panel sheathing. In Seismic Design Categories D0, D1, and D2, the use of Method PCP is limited to one- story dwellings and accessory structures.

I. Appendix AH and Appendix AX of the CRC is incorporated into the Orinda Building Code. Appendix AA, Appendix AB, Appendix AC, Appendix AD, Appendix AE, Appendix AF, Appendix AG,
Appendix AI, Appendix AJ, Appendix AK, Appendix AL, Appendix AM, Appendix AN, Appendix AO, Appendix AP, Appendix AQ, Appendix AR, Appendix AS, Appendix AT, Appendix AU,
Appendix AV, Appendix AW, Appendix AY, and Appendix AZ of the CRC are excluded from the Orinda Building Code.

Chapter 15.10 – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE

15.10.010 - Adoption.

A. The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (“CALGreen” or “CGBSC”), Part 11 of the California Building Standards Code in Title 24, is amended by the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter and other chapters of this title, is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth. Section numbers used below are those of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code.

H.3.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Draft Ordinance 23-01 with Appendix A (2022 Building Code adoption with modifications) (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) B. At least one copy of this building code is now on file in the office of the City Clerk and the City Building Department; the other requirements of Government Code Section 50022.6 have been and shall be complied with.

C. As of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, the provisions of the CALGreen code are controlling and enforceable within the city.

D. The purpose of this chapter is to cause a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from buildings; promote environmentally responsible, costeffective, healthier places to live and work; reduce energy and water consumption; and respond to the directives by the Governor.

15.10.015 – Definitions.

Section 202 (Definitions) of CGBSC Chapter 2 (Definitions) is amended by replacing the definition of Electric Vehicle Charging Space (EV Space) with the following:

ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING SPACE (EV SPACE). A space intended for current or future installation of EV charging equipment and charging of electric vehicles.

15.10.020 – Green Building
A. Section 301.1.1 (Additions and alterations) of CGBSC Chapter 3 (Green Building) is amended to read:

Section 301.1.1 Additions and alterations. The mandatory provisions of Chapter 4 shall apply to additions or alterations of existing residential buildings where the addition or alteration increases the building's conditioned area, volume, or size. The requirements shall apply only to and within the specific area of the addition or alteration.

The mandatory provisions of Section 4.106.4.2 may apply to additions or alterations of existing parking facilities or the addition of new parking facilities serving existing multifamily buildings. See Section 4.106.4.3 for application.

NOTE: Repairs including, but not limited to, resurfacing, restriping, and repairing or maintaining existing lighting fixtures are not considered alterations for the purpose of this section.

The mandatory provisions of Section 4.408 shall apply to the following types of construction or demolition projects for existing residential H.3.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Draft Ordinance 23-01 with Appendix A (2022 Building Code adoption with modifications) (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) buildings:

1. Projects where the addition or alteration is 1,000 square feet or larger,

2. Projects where the project valuation is $50,000 or greater,

3. Projects where the addition or alteration increases the building’s conditioned area, volume, or size, or

4. Demolition projects when a demolition permit is required.

Exception: Demolition projects undertaken because the
enforcing agency has determined that the demolition is
necessary to abate a public nuisance or otherwise protect public health and safety.

For the purposes of determining whether a project meets the foregoing thresholds, all phases of a project and all related projects taking place on a single or adjoining parcel(s) may be deemed a single project at the discretion of the enforcing agency, regardless of the number of different permits issued for the project(s).

B. Section 301.3.2 (Waste diversion) of CGBSC Chapter 3 (Green Building) is amended to read:

Section 301.3.2 Waste diversion. The requirements of Section

5.408 shall apply to additions, alterations, and demolition whenever a permit is required for work.

Exception: Demolition projects undertaken because the
enforcing agency has determined that the demolition is
necessary to abate a public nuisance or otherwise protect public health and safety.

C. Section 4.106.4.2.1 (Multifamily development projects with less than 20 dwelling units; and hotels and motels with less than 20 sleeping units or guest rooms) of CGBSC Chapter 4
(Residential Mandatory Measures) is amended by adding the following Item 3 to the end of the section:

1. EV Chargers. Ten (10) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with fully-operational Level 2 EVSE. Where common use parking is provided,
at least one EV charger shall be located in the common
use parking area and shall be available for use by all
H.3.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Draft Ordinance 23-01 with Appendix A (2022 Building Code adoption with modifications) (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) residents or guests.

When low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles or
Level 2 EVSE are installed beyond the minimum
required, an automatic load management system (ALMS)
may be used to reduce the maximum required electrical
capacity to each space served by the ALMS. The
electrical system and any on-site distribution
transformers shall have sufficient capacity to deliver at least 3.3 kW simultaneously to each EV charging station (EVCS) served by the ALMS. The branch circuit shall
have a minimum capacity of 40 amperes, and installed
EVSE shall have a capacity of not less than 30 amperes.

ALMS shall not be used to reduce the minimum required
electrical capacity to the required EV capable spaces.

D. Section 4.106.4.2.1.1 is added to Section 4.106.4.2.1 (Multifamily development projects with less than 20 dwelling units; and hotels and motels with less than 20 sleeping units or guest rooms) of CGBSC Chapter 4 (Residential Mandatory
Measures), to read:

Section 4.106.4.2.1.1 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS). Electric vehicle charging stations required by Section

4.106.4.2.1, Item 3, shall comply with Section 4.106.4.2.1.1.

Exception: Electric vehicle charging stations serving public accommodations, public housing, motels and hotels shall not be required to comply with this section. See California Building Code, Chapter 11B, for applicable requirements.

Section 4.106.4.2.1.1.1 Location. EVCS shall comply with at least one of the following options:

1. The charging space shall be located adjacent to an
accessible parking space meeting the requirements of
the California Building Code, Chapter 11A, to allow use of the EV charger from the accessible parking space.

2. The charging space shall be located on an accessible route, as defined in the California Building Code, Chapter 2, to the building.

Exception: Electric vehicle charging stations designed and constructed in compliance with the California Building Code, Chapter 11B, are not required to comply with Section
H.3.a
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Draft Ordinance 23-01 with Appendix A (2022 Building Code adoption with modifications) (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption)

4.106.4.2.1.1.1 and Section 4.106.4.2.1.1.2, Item 3.

Section 4.106.4.2.1.1.2 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCS) Dimensions. The charging spaces shall be designed to comply with the following:

1. The minimum length of each EV space shall be 18 feet (5486 mm).

2. The minimum width of each EV space shall be 9 feet
(2743 mm).

3. One in every 25 charging spaces, but not less than one, shall also have an 8-foot (2438 mm) wide minimum aisle.

A 5-foot (1524 mm) wide minimum aisle shall be
permitted provided the minimum width of the EV space is 12 feet (3658 mm).
a. Surface slope for this EV space and the aisle shall
not exceed 1 unit vertical in 48 units horizontal
(2.083 percent slope) in any direction.

Section 4.106.4.2.1.1.3 Accessible EV Spaces. In addition to the requirements in Sections 4.106.4.2.1.1.1 and

4.106.4.2.1.1.2, all EVSE, when installed, shall comply with the accessibility provisions for EV chargers in the California Building Code, Chapter 11B. EV ready spaces and EVCS in multifamily developments shall comply with California Building Code, Chapter 11A, Section 1109A.

E. Section 4.106.4.2.2 (Multifamily Development Projects With 20 or More Dwelling Units, Hotels and Motels With 20 or More Sleeping Units or Guest Rooms) of CGBSC Chapter 4
(Residential Mandatory Measures) is amended by revising Item 3, to read:

3. EV Chargers. Ten (10) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with fully-operational Level 2 EVSE. Where common use parking is provided, at least one EV charger shall be located in the common use parking area and shall be available for use by all residents or guests.

When low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles or Level 2 EVSE are installed beyond the minimum required, an automatic load management system (ALMS) may be used to reduce the maximum required electrical capacity to each space served by H.3.a
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Draft Ordinance 23-01 with Appendix A (2022 Building Code adoption with modifications) (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) the ALMS. The electrical system and any on-site distribution transformers shall have sufficient capacity to deliver at least 3.3 kW simultaneously to each EV charging station (EVCS) served by the ALMS. The branch circuit shall have a minimum capacity of 40 amperes, and installed EVSE shall have a capacity of not less than 30 amperes. ALMS shall not be used to reduce the minimum required electrical capacity to the required EV capable spaces.

15.10.030 – Residential Mandatory Measures.

A. Section 4.408.1 (Construction waste management) of CGBSC Chapter 4 (Residential Mandatory Measures) is amended to read:

Section 4.408.1 Construction waste management. Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 4.408.2 or 4.408.4.

Exceptions:

1. Excavated soil and land-clearing debris

2. The City may identify alternate waste reduction requirements if the City determines that an owner or contractor has adequately demonstrated that diversion facilities necessary for the owner to comply with this section do not exist or are not located within a reasonable distance from the jobsite.

B. Section 4.408.2 (Construction waste management plan) is amended to read:

Submit a construction waste management plan (WMP) for the project, on a form approved by the City in conformance with Items 1 through 5. The construction waste management plan shall be updated as necessary upon approval by the City and shall be available during construction for examination by the City.

1. Identify the construction and demolition waste materials to be diverted from disposal by recycling, reuse on the project or salvage for future use or sale.

2. Specify if construction and demolition waste materials will be sorted onsite (source-separated) or bulk mixed (single stream).

3. Identify diversion facilities where the construction and demolition waste material will be taken and identify the waste management companies, if any, that will be utilized to haul the construction and demolition waste material. A waste management company utilized to haul construction and demolition waster material must have all applicable approvals.

4. Identify construction methods employed to reduce the amount of construction and demolition waste generated.

5. Specify that the amount of construction and demolition waste materials shall be calculated consistent with the City’s requirements H.3.a
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Draft Ordinance 23-01 with Appendix A (2022 Building Code adoption with modifications) (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) for the weighing of debris. The owner shall ensure that all construction and demolition debris diverted or disposed are measured and recorded by weight or volume using the most accurate method of measurement available. To the extent practicable, all construction and demolition debris shall be weighed using scales. Scales shall be in compliance with all regulatory requirements for accuracy and maintenance. For construction and demolition debris for which weighing is not possible due to lack of scales or not practical due to materials being reused on-site or elsewhere or other considerations, a volumetric measurement shall be used. The owner shall convert volumetric measurements to weight using the standardized conversion factors approved by the City for this purpose.

C. Section 4.408.3 (Waste management company) of CGBSC Chapter 4 (Residential Mandatory Measures) is deleted and reserved.

D. Section 4.408.5 (Documentation) is amended to read:

A construction waste management final report containing information and supporting documentation shall be provided to the City which demonstrates compliance with Section 4.408.1, Section 4.408.2, Items 1 through 5, and, when applicable, Section 4.408.4 or Section 4.408.4.1, shall be provided to the City before the final inspection. All final reports must be entered into an electronic reporting system approved by the City. The required documentation shall include, but is not necessarily limited to the following:

1. Documentation of the quantity by weight of each material type diverted or disposed, consistent with the requirements of Section 4.408.2, Item 5, and receipts or written certification from all receiving facilities utilized to divert or dispose waste generated by the project that substantiate the amounts specified on the construction waste management final report; or

2. For projects that satisfy the waste stream reduction alternative specified in Section 4.408.4 or Section 4.408.4.1, documentation of the quantity by weight of each material type disposed and the total combined weight of construction and demolition waste disposed in landfills as a result of the project, the corresponding pounds disposed per square foot of the building area, and receipts or written certification from all receiving facilities utilized to dispose waste generated by the project that substantiate the amounts specified on the construction waste management final report.

Notes:

3. Sample forms found in “A Guide to the California Green Building Standards Code (Residential)” located at http://hcd.ca.gov/buildingstandards/calgreen/cal- green-form.shtml may be used to assist in documenting compliance with this section.

4. Mixed construction and demolition debris (C&D) processors can be located at the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery H.3.a
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Draft Ordinance 23-01 with Appendix A (2022 Building Code adoption with modifications) (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) (CalRecycle).

E. Section 4.408.6 is added to read:

To be counted toward the diversion requirement, construction and demolition waste material must be taken to a construction and demolition waste materials recovery facility that appears on the CCCSWA list of approved facilities.

15.10.040 – Nonresidential Mandatory Measures.

A. Section 5.106.5.3.1 (Electric vehicle (EV) charging) of CGBSC Chapter 5 (Nonresidential Mandatory Measures) is amended to read:

Section 5.106.5.3.1 Electric vehicle (EV) Capable Spaces. [N] EV capable spaces shall be provided in accordance with Table 5.106.5.3.1 and the following requirements:

1. Raceways complying with the California Electrical Code and no less than 1- inch (25 mm) diameter shall be provided and shall originate at a service panel or a subpanel(s) serving the area, and shall terminate in close proximity to the proposed location of the EV capable space and into a suitable listed cabinet, box, enclosure or equivalent. A common raceway may be used to serve multiple EV capable spaces.

2. A service panel or subpanel(s) shall be provided with panel space and electrical load capacity for a dedicated 208/240 volt, 40-ampere minimum branch circuit for each EV capable space, with delivery of 30-ampere minimum to an installed EVSE at each EVCS.

3. The electrical system and any on-site distribution transformers shall have sufficient capacity to supply full rated amperage at each EV capable space.

4. The service panel or subpanel circuit directory shall identify the reserved overcurrent protective device space(s) as "EV CAPABLE". The raceway termination location shall be permanently and visibly marked as "EV CAPABLE”.

Note: A parking space served by electric vehicle supply equipment or designed as a future EV charging space shall count as at least one standard automobile parking space only for the purpose of complying with any applicable minimum parking space requirements established by an enforcement agency. See Vehicle Code Section 22511.2 for further details.

H.3.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Draft Ordinance 23-01 with Appendix A (2022 Building Code adoption with modifications) (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) TABLE 5.106.5.3.1

TOTAL NUMBER OF ACTUAL

PARKING SPACES

NUMBER OF

REQUIRED EV

CAPABLE SPACES

NUMBER OF EVCS (EV

CAPABLE SPACES

PROVIDED WITH
EVSE)2
1-9 0 0
10-25 4 3
26-50 8 5
51-75 13 8
76-100 17 10
101-150 25 15
151-200 35 20
201 and over 20 percent of total1 10 percent of total1

1. Calculation for spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number

2. The number of required EVCS (EV capable spaces provided with EVSE) in column 3 count toward the total number of required EV capable spaces shown in column 2.

B. Section 5.106.5.3.2 (Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS)) of CGBSC Chapter 5 (Nonresidential Mandatory Measures) is
amended to read:

Section 5.106.5.3.2 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCS).

EV capable spaces shall be provided with fully-operational EVSE to create EVCS in the number indicated in Table 5.106.5.3.1. The EVCS required by Table 5.106.5.3.1 may be provided with EVSE in any combination of Level 2 and Direct Current Fast Charging (DCFC), except that at least one Level 2 EVSE shall be provided.

One EV charger with multiple connectors capable of charging multiple EVs simultaneously shall be permitted if the electrical load capacity required by Section 5.106.5.3.1 for each EV capable space is accumulatively supplied to the EV charger.

The installation of each DCFC EVSE shall be permitted to reduce the minimum number of required EV capable spaces without EVSE by five and reduce proportionally the required electrical load capacity to the service panel or subpanel.

C. Section 5.408.1 (Construction waste management plan) is amended to read:

Section 5.408.1 Construction waste management. Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 5.408.1.1.

Exceptions:

H.3.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Draft Ordinance 23-01 with Appendix A (2022 Building Code adoption with modifications) (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption)

1. Excavated soil and land-clearing debris.

2. The enforcing agency may identify alternate waste reduction requirements if the agency determines that an owner or contractor has adequately demonstrated that diversion facilities necessary for the owner to comply with this section do not exist or are not located within a reasonable distance from the jobsite.

D. Section 5.408.1.1 (Construction waste management plan) is amended to read:

Section 5.408.1.1 Construction waste management plan. Submit a construction waste management plan for the project, on a form approved by the City in conformance with items 1 through 5. The construction waste management plan shall be updated as necessary upon approval by the City and shall be available during construction for examination by the City. The plan must do all of the following:

1. Identify the construction and demolition waste materials to be diverted from disposal by recycling, reuse on the project, or salvage for future use or sale.

2. Specify if construction and demolition waste materials will be sorted on- site (source-separated) or bulk mixed (single stream).

3. Identify diversion and disposal facilities where the construction and demolition waste material will be taken and identify the waste management companies, if any, that will be utilized to haul the construction and demolition waste material. A waste company utilized to haul construction and demolition waste material must have all applicable approvals.

4. Identify construction methods employed to reduce the amount of construction and demolition waste generated.

5. Specify that the amount of construction and demolition waste material shall be calculated consistent with the enforcing agency’s requirements for the weighing of debris. The owner shall ensure that all construction and demolition debris diverted or disposed are measured and recorded by weight or volume using the most accurate method of measurement available. To the extent practicable, all construction and demolition debris shall be weighed using scales. Scales shall be in compliance with all regulatory requirements for accuracy and maintenance. For construction and demolition debris for which weighing is not possible due to lack of scales or not practical due to material being reused onsite or elsewhere or other considerations, a volumetric measurement shall be used. The owner shall convert volumetric measurements to weight using the standardized conversion factors approved by the enforcing agency for this purpose.

E. Section 5.408.1.2 (Waste management company) of CGBSC Chapter 5 H.3.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Draft Ordinance 23-01 with Appendix A (2022 Building Code adoption with modifications) (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) (Nonresidential Mandatory Measures) is deleted and reserved.

F. 5.408.1.4 (Documentation) is amended to read:

Section 5.408.1.4 Documentation.

A construction waste management final report containing information and supporting documentation that demonstrates compliance with Section

5.408.1, Section 5.408.1.1, Items 1 through 5, and, when applicable, Section

5.408.1.3, shall be provided to the enforcing agency before the final inspection. All final reports must be entered into an electronic reporting system approved by the City. The required documentation shall include, but is not necessarily limited to, the following:

1. Documentation of the quantity by weight of each material type diverted or disposed, consistent with the requirements of Section 5.408.1.1, Item 5, and receipts or written certification from all receiving facilities utilized to divert or dispose waste generated by the project that substantiate the amounts specified on the construction waste management final report; or

2. For projects that satisfy the waste stream reduction alternative specified in Section 5.408.1.3, documentation of the quantity by weight of each new construction material type disposed and the total combined weight of new construction waste disposed as a result of the project, the corresponding pounds of new construction disposal per square foot of the building area, and receipts or written certification from all receiving facilities utilized to dispose waste generated by the project that substantiate the amounts specified on the construction waste management final report.

Notes:

3. Sample forms found in “A Guide to the California Green Building Standards Code (Nonresidential)” located at http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx may be used to assist in documenting compliance with this section.

4. Mixed construction and demolition debris (C&D) processors can be located at the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).

G. Section 5.408.4 is added to read:

To be counted toward the diversion requirement, construction and demolition waste material must be taken to a construction and demolition waste materials recovery facility that appears on the CCCSWA list of approved facilities.

Chapter 15.11 – EXISTING BUILDING CODE

15.11.010 - Adoption.

H.3.a
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Draft Ordinance 23-01 with Appendix A (2022 Building Code adoption with modifications) (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) A. The existing building code of the city is the 2022 California Existing Building Code (California Code of Regulations,Title 24,Part 10)(“CEBC”), as amended by the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter and other chapters of this title, is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth. Section numbers used below are those of the 2022 California Existing Building Code.

B. At least one copy of this existing building code is now on file in the office of the City Clerk and the City Building Department; the other requirements of Government Code Section 50022.6 have been and shall be complied with.

C. As of the effective date of the ordinance from which this division is derived, codified in this chapter, the provisions of the existing building code are
controlling and enforceable within the city.

15.11.020 - Administration.

CEBC Chapter 1 (Scope and Administration) is amended by the provisions of other Chapters of Title 15 of this code and as follows:

A. Sections 103 and 112 of CEBC Chapter 1 are deleted.

B. Section 106.1 (Construction Documents - General) of CEBC Chapter 1 is amended by deleting the exception.

C. Section 106.2.1 (Construction documents) of CEBC Chapter 1 is amended to read:
106.2.1 Construction documents. Construction documents shall include dimensions and shall be drawn to scale on suitable material. Electronic media documents may be submitted when approved in advance by the building official. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature, and extent of the work proposed and to show in detail that it will conform to this code and all relevant laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The first sheet of each set of plans shall include contact information for the owner and the person or persons who prepared the plans.

Plans shall include a plot plan showing all existing property lines labeled and fully dimensioned, the elevations of the top and toe of cuts and fills, and the location of the proposed building with distances to all property lines and to every existing building on the property. Instead of detailed specifications, the building official may approve references on the plans to a specific section or part of this code or other ordinances or laws.

Chapter 15.12 - ELECTRICAL CODE
H.3.a
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Draft Ordinance 23-01 with Appendix A (2022 Building Code adoption with modifications) (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption)

15.12.010 - Adoption.

A. The electrical code of the city is the 2022 California Electrical Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 3) (“CEC”), as amended by the changes, additions, and deletions set forth herein.

B. The 2022 California Electrical Code, with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter and in other chapters of this title is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth.

C. At least one copy of this electrical code is now on file in the office of the City Clerk and the City Building Department; the other requirements of Government Code Section 50022.6 have been and shall be complied with.

D. As of the effective date of the ordinance, codified in this chapter, the provisions of the electrical code are controlling and enforceable within the city.

E. The purpose of this chapter is the practical safeguarding of persons and property and of buildings and their contents from hazards arising from the use or generation of electricity for light, heat, power, radio, television, signaling, and other purposes.

Chapter 15.16 - PLUMBING CODE

15.16.010 - Adoption.

A. The plumbing code of the city is the 2022 California Plumbing Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 5), as amended by the changes, additions, and deletions set forth herein.

B. The 2022 California Plumbing Code, with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter and in other chapters of this title is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth.

C. At least one copy of this plumbing code is now on file in the office of the City Clerk and the City Building Department; the other requirements of Government Code Section 50022.6 have been and shall be complied with.

D. As of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, the provisions of the plumbing code are controlling and enforceable within the city.

Chapter 15.20 - MECHANICAL CODE

15.20.010 - Adoption.

H.3.a
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Draft Ordinance 23-01 with Appendix A (2022 Building Code adoption with modifications) (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) A. The mechanical code of the city is the 2022 California Mechanical Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 4), as amended by the changes, additions, and deletions set forth herein.

B. The 2022 California Mechanical Code, with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter and in other chapters of this title is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth.

C. At least one copy of this mechanical code is now on file in the office of the City Clerk and the City Building Department; the other requirements of Government Code Section 50022.6 have been and shall be complied with.

D. As of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, the provisions of the mechanical code are controlling and enforceable within the city.

H.3.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Draft Ordinance 23-01 with Appendix A (2022 Building Code adoption with modifications) (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption)

APPENDIX A
Chapter 15.08 - BUILDING CODE

15.08.010 - Adoption.

A. The building code of this city is the 2019 2022 California Building Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2), the 2019 2022 California Residential Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2.5), andthe 2019 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11), and the 2019 2022 California Existing Building Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 10), and the 2022 California Energy Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6), as amended by the changes, additions, and deletions set forth herein.

B. The 2019 2022 California Building Code (CBC) with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter and other chapters of this title is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth.

C. The 2019 2022 California Residential Code with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter and other chapters of this title is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth.

D. The 2019 2022 California Green Building Standards Code with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter and other chapters of this title is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth.

E. The 2019 2022 California Existing Building Code with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter and other chapters of this title is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth.

F. The 2022 California Energy Code with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter and other chapters of this title is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth.

F.G. At least one copy of this building code is now on file in the office of the City Clerk and the City Building Department, and the other requirements of Government Code Section 50022.6 have been and shall be complied with.

G.H. As of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, the provisions of the building code are controlling and enforceable within the city.

15.08.020 Reserved.

15.08.030 Reserved.

15.08.040 - Smoke detectors in flat roof buildings.

Section 907.2.10.9.111.2.5.1 is added to Section 907.2.10.911.2.5 (Existing Group R Occupancies) of CBC Chapter 9 (Fire Protection Systems) to read:

H.3.b
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Redlined Appendix A (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) 907.2.10.9.111.2.5.1 Existing flat roof buildings. In existing flat roof buildings, the installation of a smoke detector that complies with California Residential Code Section R314.6 shall be required when a pitched roof is added on top of the existing flat roof and the solid sheathing of the flat roof is not removed.

15.08.050 - Reserved

15.08.060 - Wood shakes or shingles.

Section 1405.2 is added to Section 1405 (Combustible Materials on the Exterior Side of Exterior Walls) of CBC Chapter 14 (Exterior Walls) to read:
1405.2 Wood shakes or shingles. Wood shakes or shingles used for exterior wall covering shall be fire treated unless there is a minimum of 10 feet from the exterior wall (including shakes or shingles) to the property line or the exterior wall faces a street.

15.08.70 – Structural Tests and Special Instructions – Concrete Construction.

Section 1705.3 (Concrete construction) of CBC Chapter 17 (Structural Inspections and Tests), Exception 1 is amended to read:

1. Isolated spread concrete footings of buildings three stories or less above grade plane that are fully supported on earth or rock, where the structural design of the footing is based on a specified compressive strength of no greater than 2,500 pounds per square inch (psi) (17.2 Mpa).

15.08.080 - Soils and foundations.

A. Section 1809.8 (Plain concrete footings) of CBC Chapter 18 (Soils and Foundations) is deleted.

B. Section 1810.3.9.3 (Placement of reinforcement) of CBC Chapter 18 (Soils and Foundations) is amended by deleting Exception 3.

15.08.090 - Concrete.

A. Section 1905.1.7 (ACI 318, Section 14.1.4) of CBC Chapter 19 (Concrete) is amended to read:
1905.1.7 ACI 318, Section 14.1.4. Delete ACI 318, Section 14.1.4, and replace with the following:

14.1.4 - Plain concrete in structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E, or F.

14.1.4.1- Structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E, or F shall not have elements of structural plain concrete, except as follows:
(a) Reserved.

H.3.b
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Redlined Appendix A (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) (b) Isolated footings of plain concrete supporting pedestals or columns are permitted, provided the projection of the footing beyond the face of the supported member does not exceed the footing thickness.
(c) Plain concrete footings supporting walls are permitted, provided the footings have at least two continuous longitudinal reinforcing bars. Bars shall not be smaller than No. 4 and shall have a total area of not less than 0.002 times the gross cross-sectional area of the footing. A minimum of one bar shall be provided at the top and bottom of the footing. Continuity of reinforcement shall be provided at corners and intersections.

B. Section 1906.1 (Structural Plain Concrete Scope) of CBC Chapter 19 (Concrete) is amended by deleting the exception.Section 1906 (Footings for light-frame construction of CBC Chapter 19 (Concrete) is deleted.

C. Section 1907.1 (Minimum Slab Provisions – General) of CBC Chapter 19 (Concrete) is amended by adding the following sentence to that section:

Slabs shall have a minimum reinforcement of 6-inch by 6-inch by 10-gauge wire mesh or equal at mid-height.

D. Appendix C and Appendix I of the CBC are incorporated into the OrindaBuilding Code. Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix D, Appendix E, Appendix F, Appendix G, Appendix H, Appendix J, Appendix K, Appendix L, and Appendix M of the CBC are excluded from the Orinda Building Code.

15.08.100 - Administration.

CBC Chapter 1 (Scope and Administration) is amended by the provisions of other Chapters of Title 15 of this code and as follows:

A. Sections 103, and 113, 114, and 116 of CBC Chapter 1 are deleted.

B. Section 105.2 (Work Exempt from Permit) of CBC Chapter 1, subsection 4 is amended to read:

4. Retaining walls that are not more than 3 feet in height measured from the top of the footing to the top of the wall and that have a downward ground slope at the bottom of the retaining wall not exceeding 1(vertical):10(horizontal), unless supporting a surcharge or ground slope exceeding 1(vertical):2(horizontal) or impounding Class I, II, or III-a liquids.

D. Section 107.2.1 (Information on construction documents) of CBC Chapter 1 is amended to read:
107.2.1 Information on Construction Documents. Construction documents shall include dimensions and shall be drawn to scale on suitable material.

Electronic media documents may be submitted when approved in advance by the H.3.b
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Redlined Appendix A (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) building official. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature, and extent of the work proposed and to show in detail that it will conform to this code and all relevant laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations.

The first sheet of each set of plans shall include contact information for the owner and the person or persons who prepared the plans. Plans shall include a plot plan showing all existing property lines labeled and fully dimensioned, the elevations of the top and toe of cuts and fills, and the location of the proposed building with distances to all property lines and to every existing building on the property.

Instead of detailed specifications, the building official may approve references on the plans to a specific section or part of this code or other ordinances or laws.

E. Section 110.1 (Inspections - General) of CBC Chapter 1 is amended by adding the following to the end of that section:

At the time of first inspection by the building official, a California licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer shall certify in writing that the structure is placed according to the approved set of plans. The written certification must include the site address and permit number. This requirement does not apply to alterations or repairs to existing structures that do not affect the exterior limits of the existing structures.

15.08.110 – Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging for New Construction.

Section 420.13 14 [HCD] (Electric vehicle (EV) charging for new construction) of CBC Chapter 4 (Special Detailed Requirements Based on Occupancy and Use) is amended to read:
420.13 14 Electric vehicle (EV) charging for new construction. Newly constructed Group R-1, R-2, and R-3 buildings shall be provided with infrastructure to facilitate future installation and use of electric vehicle (EV) chargers, and, where required, newly constructed Group R-2 buildings shall be provided with electric vehicle charging spaces equipped with fully-operational EV chargers, in accordance with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), Chapter 4, Division 4.1.

Chapter 15.09 – CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE

15.09.010 - Adoption.

A. The 2019 2022 California Residential Code ("CRC"), as amended by the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter and other chapters of this title, is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth.

Section numbers used below are those of the 2019 2022 California Residential Code.

B. At least one copy of this building code is now on file in the office of the City Clerk and the City Building Department; the other requirements of Government Code Section 50022.6 have been and shall be complied with.

C. As of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, the provisions of the residential code are controlling and enforceable within the H.3.b
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Redlined Appendix A (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) city.

D. Sections R103, and R112, and R113 of CRC Chapter 1 (Scope and Application) are deleted.

E. In Section R105.2 (Work exempt from permit) of CRC Chapter 1 (Scope and Application), subsection 3 is amended to read:

3. Retaining walls that are not more than 3 feet in height measured from the top of the footing to the top of the wall and that have a downward ground slope at the bottom of the retaining wall not exceeding 1(vertical):10(horizontal), unless supporting a surcharge or ground slope exceeding 1(vertical):2(horizontal) or impounding class I, II, or III-a liquids.

F. Section R314.8.1.1 is added to Section R314.8 (Existing Group R-3 occupancies) of CRC Chapter 3 (Building Planning), to read:

R314.8.1.1 Existing flat roof buildings. In existing flat roof buildings, the installation of a smoke detector that complies with Section R314.6 shall be required when a pitched roof is added on top of the existing flat roof and the solid sheathing of the flat roof is not removed.

G. Section R602.10.3(3) (Bracing Requirements Based on Seismic Design Category) of CRC Chapter 6 (Wall Construction) is amended as follows:

1. The title of Table R602.10.3(3) is amended to read:

TABLE R602.10.3(3)gi

2. Footnote “gi” is added to Table R602.10.3(3), to read:
gi. In Seismic Design Categories D0, D1, and D2, Method GB is not permitted and the use of Method PCP is
limited to one-story dwellings and accessory structures.

H. Section R602.10.4.5 is added to Section R602.10.4 (Construction methods for braced wall panels) of CRC Chapter 6 (Wall
Construction), to read:

R602.10.4.5 Limits on methods GB and PCP. In Seismic Design Categories D0, D1, and D2, Method GB is not permitted, but gypsum board is permitted to be installed on the opposite side of the studs from other types of braced wall panel sheathing. In Seismic Design Categories D0, D1, and D2, the use of Method PCP is limited to onestory dwellings and accessory structures.

I. Appendix AH and Appendix AX of the CRC is incorporated into the Orinda Building Code. Appendix AA, Appendix AB, Appendix AC, Appendix AD, Appendix AE, Appendix AF, Appendix AG, Appendix AI, Appendix AJ, Appendix AK, Appendix AL, Appendix AM, Appendix AN, Appendix AO, Appendix AP, Appendix AQ, Appendix H.3.b
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Redlined Appendix A (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) AR, Appendix AS, Appendix AT, Appendix AU, Appendix AV, and Appendix AW, Appendix AY, and Appendix AZ of the CRC are excluded from the Orinda Building Code.

Chapter 15.10 – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE

15.10.010 - Adoption.

A. The 2019 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (“CALGreen” or “CGBSC”), Part 11 of the California Building Standards Code in Title 24, as is amended by the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter and other chapters of this title, is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth. Section numbers used below are those of the 2019 2022 California Green Building Standards Code.

B. At least one copy of this building code is now on file in the office of the City Clerk and the City Building Department; the other requirements of Government Code Section 50022.6 have been and shall be complied with.

C. As of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, the provisions of the CALGreen code are controlling and enforceable within the city.

D. The purpose of this chapter is to cause a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from buildings; promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; reduce energy and water consumption; and respond to the directives by the Governor.

15.10.015 – Definitions.

Section 202 (Definitions) of CGBSC Chapter 2 (Definitions) is amended by replacing the definition of Electric Vehicle Charging Space (EV Space) with the following:

ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING SPACE (EV SPACE). A space intended for current or future installation of EV charging equipment and charging of electric vehicles.

15.10.020 – Green Building
The first paragraph of Section 301.1.1 (Additions and alterations) is amended to read:

The mandatory provisions of Chapter 4 shall be applied to additions or alterations of existing residential buildings where the addition or alteration is 1,000 square feet or larger, or where the project valuation is $50,000 or greater, or where the addition or alteration increases the building's conditioned area, volume, or size. For the purposes of determining whether a project meets the foregoing thresholds, all phases of a project and all related projects taking place on a single parcel may be deemed a single project for purposes of waste diversion at the discretion of staff, regardless of the number of different permits issued for the project(s).

A. Section 301.1.1 (Additions and alterations) of CGBSC Chapter 3 (Green Building) is amended to read:

H.3.b
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Redlined Appendix A (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) Section 301.1.1 Additions and alterations. The mandatory provisions of Chapter 4 shall apply to additions or alterations of existing residential buildings where the addition or alteration increases the building's conditioned area, volume, or size. The requirements shall apply only to and within the specific area of the addition or alteration.

The mandatory provisions of Section 4.106.4.2 may apply to additions or alterations of existing parking facilities or the addition of new parking facilities serving existing multifamily buildings. See Section 4.106.4.3 for application.

NOTE: Repairs including, but not limited to, resurfacing, restriping, and repairing or maintaining existing lighting fixtures are not considered alterations for the purpose of this section.

The mandatory provisions of Section 4.408 shall apply to the following types of construction or demolition projects for existing residential buildings:

1. Projects where the addition or alteration is 1,000 square feet or larger,

2. Projects where the project valuation is $50,000 or greater,

3. Projects where the addition or alteration increases the building’s conditioned area, volume, or size, or

4. Demolition projects when a demolition permit is required.

Exception: Demolition projects undertaken because the enforcing agency has determined that the demolition is necessary to abate a public nuisance or otherwise protect public health and safety.

For the purposes of determining whether a project meets the foregoing thresholds, all phases of a project and all related projects taking place on a single or adjoining parcel(s) may be deemed a single project at the discretion of the enforcing agency, regardless of the number of different permits issued for the project(s).

B. Section 301.3.2 (Waste diversion) of CGBSC Chapter 3 (Green Building) is amended to read:

Section 301.3.2 Waste diversion. The requirements of Section

5.408 shall apply to additions, alterations, and demolition whenever a permit is required for work.

Exception: Demolition projects undertaken because the enforcing agency has determined that the demolition is necessary to abate a public nuisance or otherwise protect public health and safety.

H.3.b
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Redlined Appendix A (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) C. Section 4.106.4.2.1 (Multifamily development projects with less than 20 dwelling units; and hotels and motels with less than 20 sleeping units or guest rooms) of CGBSC Chapter 4 (Residential Mandatory Measures) is amended by adding the following Item 3 to the end of the section:

1. EV Chargers. Ten (10) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with fully-operational Level 2 EVSE. Where common use parking is provided, at
least one EV charger shall be located in the common use parking area and shall be available for use by all residents or guests.

When low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles or Level 2 EVSE are installed beyond the minimum required, an
automatic load management system (ALMS) may be used
to reduce the maximum required electrical capacity to each space served by the ALMS. The electrical system and any on-site distribution transformers shall have sufficient capacity to deliver at least 3.3 kW simultaneously to each EV charging station (EVCS) served by the ALMS. The
branch circuit shall have a minimum capacity of 40
amperes, and installed EVSE shall have a capacity of not less than 30 amperes. ALMS shall not be used to reduce
the minimum required electrical capacity to the required EV capable spaces.

D. Section 4.106.4.2.1.1 is added to Section 4.106.4.2.1 (Multifamily development projects with less than 20 dwelling units; and hotels and motels with less than 20 sleeping units or guest rooms) of CGBSC Chapter 4 (Residential Mandatory Measures), to read:

Section 4.106.4.2.1.1 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS). Electric vehicle charging stations required by Section

4.106.4.2.1, Item 3, shall comply with Section 4.106.4.2.1.1.

Exception: Electric vehicle charging stations serving public accommodations, public housing, motels and hotels shall not be required to comply with this section. See California Building Code, Chapter 11B, for applicable requirements.

Section 4.106.4.2.1.1.1 Location. EVCS shall comply with at least one of the following options:

1. The charging space shall be located adjacent to an
accessible parking space meeting the requirements of the California Building Code, Chapter 11A, to allow use of the EV charger from the accessible parking space.

2. The charging space shall be located on an accessible route, as defined in the California Building Code, Chapter H.3.b
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Redlined Appendix A (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) 2, to the building.

Exception: Electric vehicle charging stations designed and constructed in compliance with the California Building Code, Chapter 11B, are not required to comply with Section

4.106.4.2.1.1.1 and Section 4.106.4.2.1.1.2, Item 3.

Section 4.106.4.2.1.1.2 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCS) Dimensions. The charging spaces shall be designed to comply with the following:

1. The minimum length of each EV space shall be 18 feet (5486 mm).

2. The minimum width of each EV space shall be 9 feet (2743 mm).

3. One in every 25 charging spaces, but not less than one, shall also have an 8-foot (2438 mm) wide minimum aisle. A 5-foot (1524 mm) wide minimum aisle shall be permitted
provided the minimum width of the EV space is 12 feet
(3658 mm).
a. Surface slope for this EV space and the aisle shall
not exceed 1 unit vertical in 48 units horizontal
(2.083 percent slope) in any direction.

Section 4.106.4.2.1.1.3 Accessible EV Spaces. In addition to the requirements in Sections 4.106.4.2.1.1.1 and 4.106.4.2.1.1.2, all EVSE, when installed, shall comply with the accessibility provisions for EV chargers in the California Building Code, Chapter 11B. EV ready spaces and EVCS in multifamily
developments shall comply with California Building Code, Chapter 11A, Section 1109A.

E. Section 4.106.4.2.2 (Multifamily Development Projects With 20 or More Dwelling Units, Hotels and Motels With 20 or More Sleeping Units or Guest Rooms) of CGBSC Chapter 4 (Residential
Mandatory Measures) is amended by revising Item 3, to read:

3. EV Chargers. Ten (10) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with fully-operational Level 2 EVSE.

Where common use parking is provided, at least one EV charger shall be located in the common use parking area and shall be available for use by all residents or guests.

When low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles or Level 2 EVSE are installed beyond the minimum required, an automatic load management system (ALMS) may be used to reduce the maximum required electrical capacity to each space served by the ALMS. The electrical system and any on-site distribution H.3.b
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Redlined Appendix A (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) transformers shall have sufficient capacity to deliver at least 3.3 kW simultaneously to each EV charging station (EVCS) served by the ALMS. The branch circuit shall have a minimum capacity of 40 amperes, and installed EVSE shall have a capacity of not less than 30 amperes. ALMS shall not be used to reduce the minimum required electrical capacity to the required EV capable spaces.

15.10.030 – Residential Mandatory Measures.

A. Section 4.106.4.2 (New multifamily dwellings) of CGBSC Chapter 4 (Residential Mandatory Measures) is amended to read:

Section 4.106.4.2 New multifamily dwellings. For any new multifamily dwelling other than a dwelling type specified in Section 4.106.4.1, if residential parking is provided, 10 percent of the total number of parking spaces at the dwelling site shall be electric vehicle charging spaces (EV spaces). Half of the EV spaces, but not less than one, shall be equipped with fully-operational electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). The remaining EV space shall be identified on construction documents. The location and type of each EV space shall be identified on construction documents. Calculations to determine the number of EV spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number.

A. Section 4.408.1 (Construction waste management) of CGBSC Chapter 4 (Residential Mandatory Measures) is amended to read:

Section 4.408.1 Construction waste management. Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 4.408.2 or 4.408.4.

Exceptions:

1. Excavated soil and land-clearing debris

2. The City may identify alternate waste reduction requirements if the City determines that an owner or contractor has adequately demonstrated that diversion facilities necessary for the owner to comply with this section do not exist or are not located within a reasonable distance from the jobsite.

B. Section 4.408.2 (Construction waste management plan) is amended to read:

Submit a construction waste management plan (WMP) for the project, on a form approved by the City in conformance with Items 1 through 5. The construction waste management plan shall be updated as necessary upon approval by the City and shall be available during construction for examination by the City.

1. Identify the construction and demolition waste materials to be diverted from disposal by recycling, reuse on the project or salvage for future use or sale.

2. Specify if construction and demolition waste materials will be sorted on-site (source-separated) or bulk mixed (single stream).

3. Identify diversion facilities where the construction and demolition waste material will be taken and identify the waste management companies, if any, that will be utilized to haul the construction and demolition waste material. A waste management company utilized to haul construction and demolition waster material must have all applicable approvals.

H.3.b
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Redlined Appendix A (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption)

4. Identify construction methods employed to reduce the amount of construction and demolition waste generated.

5. Specify that the amount of construction and demolition waste materials shall be calculated consistent with the City’s requirements for the weighing of debris. The owner shall ensure that all construction and demolition debris diverted or disposed are measured and recorded by weight or volume using the most accurate method of measurement available. To the extent practicable, all construction and demolition debris shall be weighed using scales. Scales shall be in compliance with all regulatory requirements for accuracy and maintenance. For construction and demolition debris for which weighing is not possible due to lack of scales or not practical due to materials being reused onsite or elsewhere or other considerations, a volumetric measurement shall be used. The owner shall convert volumetric measurements to weight using the standardized conversion factors approved by the City for this purposewaste materials diverted shall be calculated by weight or volume, but not by both.

C. Section 4.408.3 (Waste management company) of CGBSC Chapter 4 (Residential Mandatory Measures) is deleted and reserved.

C.D. Section 4.408.5 (Documentation) is amended to read:

A construction waste management final report containing information and supporting Ddocumentation shall be provided to the City which demonstrates compliance with Section 4.408.1, Section 4.408.2, Items 1 through 5, and, when applicable, Section 4.408.3 4 or Section 4.408.4.1, shall be provided to the City before the final inspection. All final reports must be entered into an electronic reporting system approved by the City. The required documentation shall include, but is not necessarily limited to the following:

1. Documentation of the quantity by weight of each material type diverted or disposed, consistent with the requirements of Section 4.408.2, Item 5, and receipts or written certification from all receiving facilities utilized to divert or dispose waste generated by the project that substantiate the amounts specified on the construction waste management final report; or

1.2. For projects that satisfy the waste stream reduction alternative specified in Section 4.408.4 or Section 4.408.4.1, documentation of the quantity by weight of each material type disposed and the total combined weight of construction and demolition waste disposed in landfills as a result of the project, the corresponding pounds disposed per square foot of the building area, and receipts or written certification from all receiving facilities utilized to dispose waste generated by the project that substantiate the amounts specified on the construction waste management final report.

Notes:

2.3. Sample forms found in “A Guide to the California Green Building Standards Code (Residential)” located at http://hcd.ca.gov/building-standards/calgreen/calgreen-form.shtml may be used to assist in documenting compliance with this section.

3.4. Mixed construction and demolition debris (C&D) processors can be located at the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).

H.3.b
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Redlined Appendix A (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) D.E. Section 4.408.6 is added to read:

To be counted toward the diversion requirement, construction and demolition waste material must be taken to a construction and demolition waste materials recovery facility that appears on the CCCSWA list of approved facilities.

15.10.040 – Nonresidential Mandatory Measures.

A. Section 5.106.5.3.1 (Electric vehicle (EV) charging) of CGBSC Chapter 5 (Nonresidential Mandatory Measures) is amended to read:

Section 5.106.5.3.1 Electric vehicle (EV) chargingCapable Spaces. [N] EV capable spaces shall be provided in accordance with Table 5.106.5.3.1 and the following requirements:New nonresidential construction shall provide the required number of electric vehicle charging spaces (EV spaces) per Table 5.106.5.3.3. Each EV space shall be equipped with fullyoperational electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). Each EV space shall be construed in accordance with the California building code and California Electrical Code.

1. Raceways complying with the California Electrical Code and no less than 1- inch (25 mm) diameter shall be provided and shall originate at a service panel or a subpanel(s) serving the area, and shall terminate in close proximity to the proposed location of the EV capable space and into a suitable listed cabinet, box, enclosure or equivalent. A common raceway may be used to serve multiple EV capable spaces.

2. A service panel or subpanel(s) shall be provided with panel space and electrical load capacity for a dedicated 208/240 volt, 40-ampere minimum branch circuit for each EV capable space, with delivery of 30-ampere minimum to an installed EVSE at each EVCS.

3. The electrical system and any on-site distribution transformers shall have sufficient capacity to supply full rated amperage at each EV capable space.

1.4. The service panel or subpanel circuit directory shall identify the reserved overcurrent protective device space(s) as "EV CAPABLE". The raceway termination location shall be permanently and visibly marked as "EV CAPABLE”.

Note: A parking space served by electric vehicle supply equipment or designed as a future EV charging space shall count as at least one standard automobile parking space only for the purpose of complying with any applicable minimum parking space requirements established by an enforcement agency. See Vehicle Code Section 22511.2 for further details.

B. Section 5.106.5.3.1 (Single charging space requirements) of CGBSC Chapter 5 (Nonresidential Mandatory Measures) is deleted.

C. Section 5.106.5.3.2 (Multiple charging space requirements) of CGBSC Chapter 5 (Nonresidential Mandatory Measures) is deleted.

D. Section 5.106.5.3.3 (EV charging space calculations) of CGBSC Chapter 5 (Nonresidential Mandatory Measures) is amended to read:

H.3.b
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Redlined Appendix A (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) Section 5.106.5.3.3 EV charging space calculations. [N] For new nonresidential construction, the required number of EV charging spaces equipped with fully-operational EVSE is calculated in accordance with Table

5.106.5.3.3.

Exception: On a case-by-case basis, the building official may authorize new construction to include fewer EV charging spaces than would otherwise be required by Table 5.106.5.3.3, or require no spaces, if the building official determines either of the following:

1. There is insufficient electrical supply to the new construction to adequately serve the required number of EV charging spaces.

2. The cost of the new construction will be substantially adversely impacted by any local utility infrastructure design requirements that are directly related to the installation of the required number of EV charging spaces.

TABLE 5.106.5.3.31

NONRESIDENTIAL CHARGING SPACE CALCULATION

TOTAL NUMBER OF ACTUAL

PARKING SPACES

NUMBER OF

REQUIRED EV

CHARGING

CAPABLE SPACES

NUMBER OF EVCS (EV

CAPABLE SPACES

PROVIDED WITH
EVSE)2
1-9 0 0
10-25 14 3
11-25 2
26-50 38 5
51-75 513 8
76-100 617 10
101-200150 1225 15
151-200 35 20
201 and over 6%*20 percent of total1 10 percent of total1 *Calculation for spaces shall be rounded up to the
nearest whole number

1. Calculation for spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number

2. The number of required EVCS (EV capable spaces provided with EVSE) in column 3 count toward the total number of required EV capable spaces shown in column 2.

B. Section 5.106.5.3.2 (Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS)) of CGBSC Chapter 5 (Nonresidential Mandatory Measures) is
amended to read:

Section 5.106.5.3.2 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCS).

EV capable spaces shall be provided with fully-operational EVSE to create EVCS in the number indicated in Table 5.106.5.3.1. The EVCS required by Table 5.106.5.3.1 may be provided with EVSE in any combination of Level 2 and Direct Current Fast Charging (DCFC), except that at least one Level H.3.b
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Redlined Appendix A (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) 2 EVSE shall be provided.

One EV charger with multiple connectors capable of charging multiple EVs simultaneously shall be permitted if the electrical load capacity required by Section 5.106.5.3.1 for each EV capable space is accumulatively supplied to the EV charger.

The installation of each DCFC EVSE shall be permitted to reduce the minimum number of required EV capable spaces without EVSE by five and reduce proportionally the required electrical load capacity to the service panel or subpanel.

Section 5.106.5.3.4 (Identification) of CGBSC Chapter 5 (Nonresidential Mandatory Measures) is deleted.

Section 5.106.5.3.5 (Future charging spaces) of CGBSC Chapter 5 (Nonresidential Mandatory Measures) is amended to read:

Section 5.106.5.3.5 Designated parking credit. [N] Each EV charging space required by Section 5.106.5.3.3 shall be counted as one designated parking space required by Section 5.106.5.2.

C. Section 5.408.1 (Construction waste management plan) is amended to read:

Section 5.408.1 Construction waste management. Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 5.408.1.1.

Exceptions:

1. Excavated soil and land-clearing debris.

2. The enforcing agency may identify alternate waste reduction requirements if the agency determines that an owner or contractor has adequately demonstrated that diversion facilities necessary for the owner to comply with this section do not exist or are not located within a reasonable distance from the jobsite.

D. Section 5.408.1.1 (Construction waste management plan) is amended to read:

Section 5.408.1.1 Construction waste management plan. Submit a construction waste management plan for the project, on a form approved by the City in conformancethat complies with items 1 through 45. The construction waste management plan shall be updated as necessary upon approval by the City and shall be available during construction for examination by the City. The plan must do all of the following:

1. Identifies Identify the construction and demolition waste materials to be diverted from disposal by efficient usage, recycling, reuse on the project, or salvage for future use or sale.

2. Determines Specify if construction and demolition waste materials will be sorted on- site (source-separated) or bulk mixed (single stream).

H.3.b
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Redlined Appendix A (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption)

3. Identifies Identify diversion and disposal facilities where the construction and demolition waste material collected will be taken and identify the waste management companies, if any, that will be utilized to haul the construction and demolition waste material. A waste company utilized to haul construction and demolition waste material must have all applicable approvals.

3.4. Identify construction methods employed to reduce the amount of construction and demolition waste generated.

4.5. Specifies Specify that the amount of construction and demolition waste materials diverted shall be calculated consistent with the enforcing agency’s requirements for the weighing of debris. The owner shall ensure that all construction and demolition debris diverted or disposed are measured and recorded by weight or volume using the most accurate method of measurement available. To the extent practicable, all construction and demolition debris shall be weighed using scales. Scales shall be in compliance with all regulatory requirements for accuracy and maintenance. For construction and demolition debris for which weighing is not possible due to lack of scales or not practical due to material being reused on-site or elsewhere or other considerations, a volumetric measurement shall be used. The owner shall convert volumetric measurements to weight using the standardized conversion factors approved by the enforcing agency for this purposeby weight or volume, but not by both.

E. Section 5.408.1.2 (Waste management company) of CGBSC Chapter 5 (Nonresidential Mandatory Measures) is deleted and reserved.

E.F. 5.408.1.4 (Documentation) is amended to read:

Section 5.408.1.4 Documentation.

A construction waste management final report containing information and supporting documentation that demonstrates compliance with Section 5.408.1, Section 5.408.1.1, Items 1 through 5, and, when applicable, Section 5.408.1.3, shall be provided to the enforcing agency before the final inspection. All final reports must be entered into an electronic reporting system approved by the City. The required documentation shall include, but is not necessarily limited to, the following:

1. Documentation of the quantity by weight of each material type diverted or disposed, consistent with the requirements of Section 5.408.1.1, Item 5, and receipts or written certification from all receiving facilities utilized to divert or dispose waste generated by the project that substantiate the amounts specified on the construction waste management final report; or

1.2. For projects that satisfy the waste stream reduction alternative specified in Section 5.408.1.3, documentation of the quantity by weight of each new construction material type disposed and the total combined weight of new construction waste disposed as a result of the project, the corresponding pounds of new construction disposal per square foot of the building area, and receipts or written certification from all receiving facilities utilized to dispose waste generated by the project that substantiate the amounts specified on the construction waste management final report.Documentation H.3.b
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Redlined Appendix A (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) shall be provided to the City which demonstrates compliance with Sections

5.408.1.1 through 5.408.1.3. The waste management plan shall be updated as necessary and shall be accessible during construction for examination by the City. All final reports must be entered into an electronic reporting system approved by the City.

Notes:

3. Sample forms found in “A Guide to the California Green Building Standards Code (Nonresidential)” located at http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx may be used to assist in documenting compliance with this section.

4. Mixed construction and demolition debris (C&D) processors can be located at the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).

F.G. Section 5.408.4 is added to read:

To be counted toward the diversion requirement, construction and demolition waste material must be taken to a construction and demolition waste materials recovery facility that appears on the CCCSWA list of approved facilities.

Chapter 15.11 – EXISTING BUILDING CODE

15.11.010 - Adoption.

A. The existing building code of the city is the 2019 2022 California Existing Building Code (California Code of Regulations,Title 24,Part 10)(“CEBC”), as amended by the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter and other chapters of this title, is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth. Section numbers used below are those of the 2019 2022 California Existing Building Code.

B. At least one copy of this existing building code is now on file in the office of the City Clerk and the City Building Department; the other requirements of Government Code Section 50022.6 have been and shall be complied with.

C. As of the effective date of the ordinance from which this division is derived, codified in this chapter, the provisions of the existing building code are controlling and enforceable within the city.

15.11.020 - Administration.

CEBC Chapter 1 (Scope and Administration) is amended by the provisions of other Chapters of Title 15 of this code and as follows:

A. Sections 103, and 112, 113, and 115 of CEBC Chapter 1 are deleted.

B. Section 106.1 (Construction Documents - General) of CEBC Chapter 1 is amended by deleting the exception.

C. Section 106.2.1 (Construction documents) of CEBC Chapter 1 is amended to read:

H.3.b
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Redlined Appendix A (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) 106.2.1 Construction documents. Construction documents shall include dimensions and shall be drawn to scale on suitable material. Electronic media documents may be submitted when approved in advance by the building official.

Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature, and extent of the work proposed and to show in detail that it will conform to this code and all relevant laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The first sheet of each set of plans shall include contact information for the owner and the person or persons who prepared the plans. Plans shall include a plot plan showing all existing property lines labeled and fully dimensioned, the elevations of the top and toe of cuts and fills, and the location of the proposed building with distances to all property lines and to every existing building on the property.

Instead of detailed specifications, the building official may approve references on the plans to a specific section or part of this code or other ordinances or laws.

Chapter 15.12 - ELECTRICAL CODE

15.12.010 - Adoption.

A. The electrical code of the city is the 2019 2022 California Electrical Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 3) (“CEC”), as amended by the changes, additions, and deletions set forth herein.

B. The 2019 2022 California Electrical Code, with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter and in other chapters of this title is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth.

C. At least one copy of this electrical code is now on file in the office of the City Clerk and the City Building Department; the other requirements of Government Code Section 50022.6 have been and shall be complied with.

D. As of the effective date of the ordinance, codified in this chapter, the provisions of the electrical code are controlling and enforceable within the city.

E. The purpose of this chapter is the practical safeguarding of persons and property and of buildings and their contents from hazards arising from the use or generation of electricity for light, heat, power, radio, television, signaling, and other purposes.

Chapter 15.16 - PLUMBING CODE

15.16.010 - Adoption.

A. The plumbing code of the city is the 2019 2022 California Plumbing Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 5), as amended by the changes, additions, and deletions set forth herein.

B. The 2019 2022 California Plumbing Code, with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter and in other chapters of this title is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth.

H.3.b
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Redlined Appendix A (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) C. At least one copy of this plumbing code is now on file in the office of the City Clerk and the City Building Department; the other requirements ofGovernment Code Section 50022.6 have been and shall be complied with.

D. As of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, the provisions of the plumbing code are controlling and enforceable within the city.

Chapter 15.20 - MECHANICAL CODE

15.20.010 - Adoption.

A. The mechanical code of the city is the 2019 2022 California Mechanical Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 4), as amended by the changes, additions, and deletions set forth herein.

B. The 2019 2022 California Mechanical Code, with the changes, additions, and deletions set forth in this chapter and in other chapters of this title is adopted by this reference as though fully set forth.

C. At least one copy of this mechanical code is now on file in the office of the City Clerk and the City Building Department; the other requirements of Government Code Section 50022.6 have been and shall be complied with.

D. As of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, the provisions of the mechanical code are controlling and enforceable within the city.

H.3.b
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Redlined Appendix A (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption)

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORINDA
In the Matter of:

RESOLUTION adopting Contra Costa )
County’s findings of fact and readopting )
the City’s findings regarding the need for )
the modifications to the provisions of the )
2022 California Building Standards Code )
made in the Orinda Municipal Code. )
RESOLUTION NO. 23-01
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Section 18938 makes certain provisions published in the California Building Standards Code pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17922 applicable to all occupancies throughout the state and effective one hundred eighty days after publication by the California Building Standards Commission (“Commission”), or at a later date established by the Commission; and WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Section 17958 permits cities to amend the requirements of the California Building Standards Code in accordance with Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7; and
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Section 17958.5 permits cities in adopting provisions of the California Building Standards Code to make such changes in such provisions as the city determines, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7, are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions; and
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7 requires that a city, before making changes pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17958.5, must make an express finding that such changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions; and
WHEREAS, under Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7, changes pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17958.5 may not become effective until the required findings, and the changes, have been filed with the Commission; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 50022.2 permits enactment of city ordinances that adopt codes or statutes, including codes of the State of California, by reference; and
Resolution No. 23-01

H.3.c
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Draft Resolution 23-01 with Appendices A and B (Findings in Support of Changes, Additions, and Deletions to Statewide Building WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orinda (“City Council”) intends to adopt an ordinance adopting by reference certain provisions of the Building Codes; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to adopt an ordinance containing modifications to the Building Codes that reflect the modifications adopted by Contra Costa County, with the exception of the County’s modifications to the 2022 California Energy Code concerning all-electric buildings and to the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (“CGBSD”) concerning construction and demolition debris recovery; and
WHEREAS, the City Council intends to readopt modifications to certain sections of the 2022 CGBSC that reflect local conditions and the construction and demolition debris recycling policies that have been developed in cooperation with the Contra Costa County Solid Waste Authority (Recycle Smart); and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed Contra Costa County’s Findings in Support of Changes, Additions, and Deletions to Statewide Building Standards Code, which finds that modifications to the statewide building code are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the City of Orinda’s Findings in Support of Local Amendments to the 2016 and 2019 California Green Building Standards Code which finds that modifications to the California Green Building Standards Code are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby declare and find that the changes to the provisions of the California Building Standards Code set forth in Ordinance 23-01, are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7, as set forth in Contra Costa County’s Findings in Support of Changes, Additions, and Deletions to Statewide Building Standards Code, and as set forth in the City of Orinda’s Findings in Support of Local Amendments to the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orinda does hereby adopt Contra Costa County’s Findings in Support of Changes, Additions, and Deletions to Statewide Building Standards Code (Appendix A); and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orinda does hereby readopt the City’s Findings in Support of Local Amendments to the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code (Appendix B); and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution, Contra Costa County’s Findings in Support of Changes, Additions, and Deletions to Statewide Building Standards Code, shall be filed with the California Building Standards Commission in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Orinda at a meeting held on January 10, 2023, by the following vote, to wit:

H.3.c
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Draft Resolution 23-01 with Appendices A and B (Findings in Support of Changes, Additions, and Deletions to Statewide Building AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Mayor
ATTEST:

Sheri Smith, City Clerk
Appendix A: Contra Costa County’s Findings in Support of Changes, Additions and Deletions to Statewide Building Standards Code
Appendix B: City Of Orinda’s Findings in Support of Local Amendments to the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code
1204696.1
H.3.c
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Draft Resolution 23-01 with Appendices A and B (Findings in Support of Changes, Additions, and Deletions to Statewide Building FINDINGS FOR ORDINANCE NO. 2022-35
1 Appendix A:

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS

TO STATEWIDE BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
The California Building Standards Commission has adopted and published the 2022 Building Standards Code, which is comprised of the 2022 California Building, Residential, Green Building Standards, Energy, Electrical, Plumbing, Mechanical, and Existing Building Codes. These codes are enforced in Contra Costa County by the Building Inspection Division of the Department of Conservation and Development.

Although these codes apply statewide, Health and Safety Code sections 17958.5 and 18941.5 authorize a local jurisdiction to modify or change these codes and establish more restrictive building standards if the jurisdiction finds that the modifications and changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. For amendments to the California Green Building Standards Code, local climatic, geological, and topographical conditions include local environmental conditions.

Ordinance No. 2022-35 adopts the statewide codes and amends them to address local conditions.

Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17958.7, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors finds that the more restrictive standards contained in Ordinance No. 2022- 35 are reasonably necessary because of the local climatic, geological, and topographic conditions that are described below.

I. Local Conditions
A. Geological and Topographic

1. Seismicity
(a) Conditions
Contra Costa County is located in Seismic Design Categories D and E, which designates very high risk for earthquakes. Buildings and other structures in these zones can experience major seismic damage. Contra Costa County is near numerous earthquake faults including the San Andreas Fault, and all or portions of the Hayward, Calaveras, Concord, Antioch, Mt. Diablo, and other lesser faults. A

4.1 earthquake with its epicenter in Concord occurred in 1958, and a 5.4 earthquake with its epicenter also in Concord occurred in 1955. The Concord and Antioch faults have a potential for a Richter 6 earthquake and the Hayward and Calaveras faults have the potential for a Richter 7 earthquake. Minor tremblers from seismic activity are not uncommon in the area. A study released in 2015 by the Working Group of California Earthquake Probabilities predicts that for H.3.c
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Draft Resolution 23-01 with Appendices A and B (Findings in Support of Changes, Additions, and Deletions to Statewide Building FINDINGS FOR ORDINANCE NO. 2022-35
2 the San Francisco region, the 30-year likelihood of one or more earthquake of 6.7 or larger magnitude is 72%. The purpose of this Working Group is to develop statewide, time-dependent Earthquake Rupture Forecasts for California that use best available science, and are endorsed by the United States Geological Survey, the Southern California Earthquake Center, and the California Geological Survey. Scientists, therefore, believe that an earthquake of a magnitude 6.7 or larger is now slightly more than twice as likely to occur as to not occur in, approximately, the next 30 years.

Interstates 680, 80, 580 and State Route 4 run throughout Contra Costa County.

These interstates and state route divide the County into west, south, north and east areas. An overpass or undercrossing collapse would significantly alter the response route and time for responding emergency equipment.

Earthquakes of the magnitude noted above could cause major damage to electrical transmission facilities and to gas and electrical lines in buildings, causing disruption and starting fires throughout the County.
(b) Impact
A major earthquake could severely restrict the response of Contra Costa County Fire Districts and their capability to control fires. When buildings not equipped with earthquake structural support move off their foundations, gas pipes may rupture. Fires may develop from line ruptures and spread from house to house, causing an extreme demand for fire protection resources. The proximity of large areas within the County to fault traces necessitates adopting stricter structural construction standards.

2. Soils
(a) Conditions
The area is replete with various soils, many of which are expansive. Many areas have landslide prone soils and some areas are potentially liquefiable during severe seismic shaking.

Throughout Contra Costa County, the topography and development growth has created a network of older, narrow roads. These roads vary from gravel to asphalt surface and vary in percent of slope, many exceeding 20%. Several of these roads extend up through the winding passageways in the hills providing access to remote, affluent housing subdivisions. The majority of these roads are private with no established maintenance program. During inclement weather, these roads are subject to rock and mudslides, as well as downed trees, obstructing all vehicle traffic. It is anticipated H.3.c
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Draft Resolution 23-01 with Appendices A and B (Findings in Support of Changes, Additions, and Deletions to Statewide Building FINDINGS FOR ORDINANCE NO. 2022-35
3 that during an earthquake, several of these roads would be unpassable preventing fire protection resources from reaching fires caused by gas line ruptures or other sources.

3. Topographic
(a) Conditions
i) Vegetation
Highly combustible dry grass, weeds, and brush are common in the hilly and open space areas adjacent to built-up locations 6 to 8 months of each year. Many of these areas frequently experience wildland fires, which threaten nearby buildings, particularly those with wood roofs, or sidings. This condition can be found throughout Contra Costa County, especially in those developed and developing areas of the County. Earthquake gas fires due to gas line ruptures can ignite grasslands and stress fire district resources. ii) Surface Features
The arrangement and location of natural and manmade surface features, including hills, creeks, canals, freeways, housing tracts, commercial development, fire stations, streets, and roads, combine to limit feasible response routes for Fire District resources in and to District areas.
iii) Buildings, Landscaping, and Terrain
Many of the newer large buildings and building complexes have building access and landscaping features and designs, which preclude or greatly limit any approach or operational access to them by Fire District vehicles. In addition, the presence of security gates and roads of inadequate width and grades that are too steep for Fire District vehicles adversely affect fire suppression efforts.

When Fire District vehicles cannot gain access to buildings involved with fire, the potential for complete loss is realized. Difficulty reaching a fire site often requires that fire personnel both in numbers and in stamina. Access problems often result in severely delaying, misdirecting or making impossible fire and smoke control efforts. In existing structures where pitched roofs have been built over an existing roof, smoke detectors should be required to warn residents of smoke and fire before the arrival of fire personnel.
(b) Impact
The above local geological and topographical conditions increase the magnitude, exposure, accessibility problems, and fire hazards presented to the County fire resources. Fire following an earthquake has the potential of causing greater loss of life H.3.c
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Draft Resolution 23-01 with Appendices A and B (Findings in Support of Changes, Additions, and Deletions to Statewide Building FINDINGS FOR ORDINANCE NO. 2022-35
4 and damage than the earthquake itself. Most earthquake fires are caused by natural gas line ruptures. Hazardous materials, particularly toxic gases, could pose the greatest threat to the largest number, should a significant seismic event occur. Public safety resources would have to be prioritized to mitigate the greatest threat and may be unavailable forsmallersingle dwellingsthat affected orthreatened by broken gaslines.

Other variables may intensify the situation:

1. The extent of damage to the water system

2. The extent of isolation due to bridge and/or freeway overpass collapse.

3. The extent of roadway damage and/or amount of debris blocking the roadways.

4. Climatic condition (hot, dry weather with high winds).

5. Time of day will influence the amount of traffic on roadways and could intensify the risk to life during normal business hours.

6. The availability of timely mutual aid or military assistance.

7. The large portion of dwellings with wood shake or shingle coverings (both on the roof diaphragm and sides of the dwellings) could result in conflagrations.

8. The large number of dwellings that slip off their foundations and rupture gas lines and electrical systems resulting in further conflagrations.

More restrictive electric vehicle charging standards, construction and demolition waste recovery requirements, and building electrification requirements would not impact the availability of the County’s fire or public safety resources.

B. Climatic

1. Precipitation and Relative Humidity
(a) Conditions
Precipitation ranges from 15 to 24 inches per year with an average of approximately 20 inches per year. 96% of precipitation falls during the months of October through April, and 4% from May through September. May through September is a dry 5-month period each year. Additionally, the area is subject to occasional drought. Relative humidity remains in the middle range most of the time. It ranges from 45 to 65% during spring, summer, and fall, and from 60 to 90% in the winter. It occasionally falls as low as 15%. (b) Impact
H.3.c
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Draft Resolution 23-01 with Appendices A and B (Findings in Support of Changes, Additions, and Deletions to Statewide Building FINDINGS FOR ORDINANCE NO. 2022-35
5 Locally experienced dry periods cause extreme dryness of untreated wood shakes and shingles on buildings and non-irrigated grass, brush and weeds, which are often near buildings with wood roofs and sidings. Such dryness causes these materials to ignite very readily and burn rapidly and intensely. Gas fires due to gas line ruptures can also spark and engulf a single-family residence during these dry periods.

Because of dryness, a rapidly burning gas fire or exterior building fine can quickly transfer to other buildings by means of radiation or flying brands, sparks or embers. A small fire can rapidly grow to a magnitude beyond the control capabilities of the Fire Districtresulting in an excessive fire loss.

2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(a) Conditions
The California Air Resources Board has collected information on emissions from air pollution sources since 1969. This information is periodically compiled by State and local air pollution control agencies to create regional and statewide greenhouse gas emissions inventories. The California greenhouse gas emissions inventory maintains information on various air pollution sources and identifies “transportation” (all on-road vehicles such as automobiles and trucks, and off-road vehicles such as trains, ships, aircraft, and farm equipment) as a primary pollution source. According to the 2019 statewide inventory, the transportation sector remains the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 39. 7 % of the total greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions from recycling and waste, comprising 2% of the total greenhouse gas emissions, have grown by 20% since 2000, and 96% of that amount is landfill emissions. California adopted land use and transportation policies and mandatory recycling laws to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by promoting the use of renewable energy sources and reducing landfill disposal.

Contra Costa County also completed a local greenhouse gas emissions inventory as well as a community-wide Climate Action Plan. The County’s Climate Action Plan contains measures reducing greenhouse gas emissions pertaining to renewable fuel vehicles and reducing landfill disposal for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. (b) Impact
More restrictive electric vehicle charging standards, construction and demolition waste recovery requirements, and building electrification requirements would be consistent with the intent of State legislation and County requirements to aggressively implement energy and waste policies designed to ensure success in meeting their greenhouse gas emission reduction and reusable energy and recycling goals.

H.3.c
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Draft Resolution 23-01 with Appendices A and B (Findings in Support of Changes, Additions, and Deletions to Statewide Building FINDINGS FOR ORDINANCE NO. 2022-35
6 3. Temperature
(a) Conditions
Temperatures have been recorded as high as 114° F. Average summer highs are in the 75° to 90° range, with average maximums of 105° F in some areas of unincorporated Contra Costa County.
(b) Impact
High temperatures cause rapid fatigue and heat exhaustion of firefighters, thereby reducing their effectiveness and ability to control large building, wildland fires, and fires caused by gas line ruptures.

Another impact from high temperatures is that combustible building material and nonirrigated weeds, grass and brush are preheated, thus causing these materials to ignite more readily and burn more rapidly and intensely. Additionally, the resultant higher temperature of the atmosphere surrounding the materials reduces the effectiveness of the water being applied to the burning materials. This requires that more water be applied, which in turn requires more fire resources in order to control a fire on a hot day. High temperatures directly contribute to the rapid growth of fires to an intensity and magnitude beyond the control capabilities of the Fire Districts in Contra Costa County. The change of temperatures throughout the County between very low and extreme highs contributes to a voltage drop in conductors used for power pole lines.

This necessitates that voltage drops be considered.

More restrictive electric vehicle charging standards, construction and demolition waste recovery requirements, and building electrification requirements would not have a negative impact on the temperature conditions within the County.

4. Winds
(a) Conditions
Prevailing winds in many parts of Contra Costa County are from the north or northwest in the afternoons. However, winds are experienced from virtually every direction at one time or another. Velocities can reach 14 mph to 23 mph ranges, gusting to 25 to 35 mph. 40 mph winds are experienced occasionally and winds up to 55 mph have been registered locally. During the winter half of the year, strong, dry, gusty winds from the north move through the area for several days creating extremely dry conditions.

H.3.c
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Draft Resolution 23-01 with Appendices A and B (Findings in Support of Changes, Additions, and Deletions to Statewide Building FINDINGS FOR ORDINANCE NO. 2022-35
7 (b) Impact
Winds such as those experienced locally can and do exacerbate fires, both interior and exterior, to burn, and spread rapidly. Fires involving non-irrigated weeds, grass, brush, and fires caused by gas line ruptures can grow to a magnitude and be fanned to an intensity beyond the control capabilities of the fire services very quickly even by relatively moderate winds. When such fires are not controlled; they can extend to nearby buildings, particularly those with untreated wood shakes or shingles.

Winds of the type experienced locally also reduce the effectiveness of exterior water streams used by all Contra Costa County Fire Districts on fires involving large interior areas of buildings, fires which have vented through windows and roofs due to inadequate built-in fire protection and fires involving wood shake and shingle building exteriors. Local winds will continue to be a definite factor toward causing major fire losses to buildings not provided with fire resistive roof and siding materials and buildings with inadequately separated interior areas, or lacking automatic fire protection systems, or lacking proper gas shutoff devices to shut off gas when pipes are ruptured, or lacking proper electrical systems. National statistics frequently cite wind conditions, such as those experienced locally, as a major factor where conflagrations have occurred.

More restrictive electric vehicle charging standards, construction and demolition waste recovery requirements, and building electrification requirements, would not have a negative impact on the wind conditions within the County.

II. Necessity of More Restrictive Standards
Because of the conditions described above, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors finds that there are building and fire hazards unique to Contra Costa County that require the more restrictive fire protection, structural and design load requirements, and energy and waste management policies set forth in Ordinance No. 2022-35. • The ordinance amends the 2022 California Building Code by:
o Clarifying the reference to electrical vehicle charging for new residential constructions to include both future and fully operational chargers in accordance with local amendments made to the CGBSC.(§74-4.002(b).)
o Requiring the installation of a smoke detector in each existing flat roof building when a pitched roof is added on top of the existing flat roof, and the solid sheathing of the flat roof is not removed. (§ 74-4.002(c).)
o Requiring most wood shakes or shingles used for exterior wall covering to be fire treated. (§74-4.002(d).)
H.3.c
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Draft Resolution 23-01 with Appendices A and B (Findings in Support of Changes, Additions, and Deletions to Statewide Building FINDINGS FOR ORDINANCE NO. 2022-35
8 o Requiring special inspectionsfor concrete compressive strength at certain foundations to be consistent with code requirements for concrete at other locations. (§ 74-

4.002(e).)
o Addressing the poor performance of plain concrete structural elements during seismic events. (§ 74-4.002(f), § 74-4.002(h), § 74-4.002(i).)
o Prohibiting placement of reinforcement while the concrete is in a semifluid condition thus increasing quality control during construction. Enhanced quality control is necessary because of seismic considerations. (§ 74-4.002(g).) • The ordinance amends the 2022 California Residential Code by:
o Requiring the installation of a smoke detector in each existing flat roof building when a pitched roof is added on top of the existing flat roof, and the solid sheathing of the flat roof is not removed. (§ 74-4.004(c).)
o Prohibiting the use of gypsum wallboard as braced wall panels in single- and twofamily dwellings and accessory structures, and by limiting the use of Portland Cement Plaster braced walls to only one story single- and two-family dwellings, as these materials have performed poorly during recent California seismic events. (§74-

4.004(d), and §74-4.004(e).)
• The ordinance amends the 2022 California Green Building Standards Codeby:
o Imposing more restrictive electric vehicle charging standards, as follows:
▪ Amending the definition of electric vehicle charging space to include both current and future installations in contrast to the statewide code that includes only future installations in the definition. (§ 74-4.006(a).)
▪ For new multi-family buildings:
• Requiring ten percent of the total number of parking spaces (but not less than one space) be fully operational Electric Vehicle Charging Spaces (“EV spaces”) for all multi-family buildings irrespective of the number of units. Statewide code only requires five percent fully operational EV spaces for new multi-family developments with 20 or more units. (§ 74-4.006(d), § 74-4.006(f).) ▪ For new non-residential buildings:
• Requiring that a minimum of ten percentof the total number of parking spaces in new construction be fully operational Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (“EVCS”). The statewide code requires 4-5 percent of the total number of parking spaces be EVCS. (§ 74-4.006(k).)
• Requiring fully functional EVCS where the total number of parking spaces provided exceeds 9. Statewide code requires fully functional EVCS where the total number of parking spaces provided exceeds 25. (§ 74-4.006(k).) o Imposing more restrictive construction waste reduction, disposal and recyclingstandards consistent with those presently enforced in the County asfollows:
▪ Imposing the mandatory restrictions from Chapter 4 of the 2022 CGBSC on certain projects for existing residential buildings, including:
• Projects that increase the total combined conditioned and unconditioned building area by 5,000 square feet or more. ((§ 74-4.006(b).)
H.3.c
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Draft Resolution 23-01 with Appendices A and B (Findings in Support of Changes, Additions, and Deletions to Statewide Building FINDINGS FOR ORDINANCE NO. 2022-35
9 • Projects that impact 5,000 square feet or more of the total combined conditioned and unconditioned building area. ((§ 74-4.006(b).)
• Demolition projects when a demolition permit is required, except demolition projects that are necessary to abate a public nuisance. (§ 74-4.006(b), and § 74-

4.006(c).)
▪ Eliminating the exception from construction waste management requirements for projects solely based on their isolated location from diversion facilities. ((§ 74-

4.006(g).)
▪ Requiring measuring of all generated debris to ensure that at least 65% is diverted from landfills. (§ 74-4.006(j), and § 74-4.006(p).)
▪ Requiring more comprehensive documentation for construction waste management be provided to the enforcing agency and making submittal of the same a prerequisite for scheduling final inspections. (§ 74-4.006(h), and § 74-4.006(n).) • The amendments to the 2022 California Existing Building Code are not substantive in nature and are limited to administrative provisions for the use and enforcement of this Code, and to be consistent with the administrative provisions of the statewide codes as amended.
• The ordinance amends the 2022 California Energy Code by:
o Adding the definition of an all-electric building to mean a building that has no natural gas or propane plumbing within the building, and that uses electricity as its sole source of energy. (§ 74-4.010(b).)
o Requiring that all newly constructed residential, detached accessory dwelling unit, hotel, office, and retail type buildings that do not have vested rights before June 1, 2022 be allelectric buildings. The statewide code has no mandatory building electrification requirements. (§ 74-4.010(a).)
H.3.c
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Draft Resolution 23-01 with Appendices A and B (Findings in Support of Changes, Additions, and Deletions to Statewide Building Appendix B:

City of Orinda’s Findings in Support of Local Amendments to the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code
Although the 2016 California Building Standards Code applies statewide, Health and Safety Code sections 17958.5 and 18941.5 authorize a local jurisdiction to modify or change these codes and establish more restrictive building standards if the jurisdiction finds that the modifications and changes are reasonably necessary because of local, climatic, geological or topographical conditions. For the California Green Building Standards Code, local, climatic, geological, or topographical conditions include local environmental conditions.

Ordinance 16-06 amends the state code to address local conditions related to construction waste diversion documentation. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17958.7, the Council finds that the more restrictive standards contained in Ordinance 17-06 are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, and topographic conditions that are described below.

I. Local Conditions
A. Geological and Topographic
Limited Landfill Space. Orinda is located in the central/west portion of Contra Costa County. The City is nearly built-out and there are no landfills located within this jurisdiction. There is limited landfill space in the surrounding area in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. In fact, of the two active landfills in our region, one (ACME) is in the process of closing and does not accept waste for landfilling at this time. The other landfill, Keller, has 49 years of capacity remaining.

High Proportion of Addition and Remodel Projects. Due to the built out nature of the city, there is not as much new construction in this city as compared to other jurisdictions across the state. The majority of building permits issued in Orinda are for interior renovations or other building alteration such as re-roofs.

Under section s4.408 and 5.408 of the 2016 Building Standards Code, California construction projects are required to divert at least 65% of construction and demolition waste. This diversion requirement applies to residential and commercial new construction, addition and demolition projects, as well as non-residential remodels. The requirement does not apply to interior renovations or re-roof projects.

Orinda is a member agency in the Contra Costa County Waste Management Authority (RecycleSmart). Every year, RecycleSmart submits total waste diversion data to the state for review. The state reviews both overall diversion in tons and as a percentage of construction waste generated. In 2006, this data indicated that RecycleSmart member jurisdictions were not meeting minimum required diversion requirements. Orinda’s rate that year was 45%, below the state mandate of 50%. Since that time, Recycle Smart H.3.c
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Draft Resolution 23-01 with Appendices A and B (Findings in Support of Changes, Additions, and Deletions to Statewide Building has worked closely with jurisdictions to improve diversion documentation. In 2016, the diversion rate for RecycleSmart member agencies was 61%. Re-roof and addition projects are a very common project type in Orinda, and by excluding these project types from diversion requirements under the new building code in 2017, Orinda’s reported diversion numbers are likely to be lower than the actual diversion that is occurring.

Local Recycling Documentation Process. Since Orinda is a member agency in RecycleSmart, Orinda and other member agencies utilize a common process for waste diversion documentation. RecycleSmart audits facilities and verifies that they can meet the 65% diversion requirement. Project applicants compete a Waste Management Plan in the electronic GreenHalo system, at which point they choose a facility where waste will be hauled. Only those facilities that have been approved by RecycleSmart are available for applicants to choose on GreenHalo. At the end of a project, applicants upload recycling receipts into the GreenHalo system for review by Planning Department staff. The adopted building code simply requires that a “waste management plan” be prepared for projects that are subject to construction waste diversion requirements.

There is no specific information about the format or content of the plan or how it should be submitted and reviewed. It is important that the construction waste diversion documentation process is state more clearly in the municipal code so that staff can point directly to this code section when explaining diversion requirements to project applicants or processing code enforcement cases related to non-compliance.

B. Climatic
Greenhouse Gases. The California Air Resources Board has collected information on emissions from air pollution sources since 1969. This information is periodically compiled by State and local air pollution control agencies to create regional and statewide greenhouse gas emissions inventories. The California greenhouse gas emissions inventory maintains information on various air pollution sources and identifies “mobile sources” (all on-road vehicles such as automobiles and trucks; off-road vehicles such as trains, ships, aircraft; and farm equipment) as a primary pollution source.

According to the 2016 statewide inventory, emissions from recycling and waste comprising of 2% of the total greenhouse gas emissions, have grown by 19% since 2000, and 94% of that amount are landfill emissions. California adopted recycling laws to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing landfill disposal.

A greenhouse gas inventory was completed for the City of Orinda in 2009 based on 2005 data and revealed that the City’s emissions by sector are different from the states proportion of emissions by sector. In particular, solid waste accounted for 4.3% of emissions in Orinda, more than twice the statewide rate of 2%. As a result, recycling policies in this City have a larger proportional impact on emission reduction. According to the City’s online construction waste tracking system, GreenHalo, over the past year a total of 880.40 tons carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). If additions and remodels valued at $50,000 or covering 1,000 square feet were also required to document recycling and reuse, CO2e savings would increase substantially.

H.3.c
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Draft Resolution 23-01 with Appendices A and B (Findings in Support of Changes, Additions, and Deletions to Statewide Building More restrictive construction and demolition waste recovery requirements would be consistent with the intent of State legislation to aggressively implement waste policies designed to ensure success in meeting greenhouse gas emission reduction goals.

Weather. Orinda’s weather is typical of the Norther California Coast, with mild summers and cool, wet winters. Due to its inland location on the east side of the East Bay Hills, temperatures are somewhat less moderate than that of communities west of the hills along the San Francisco Bay. It occasionally freezes in the winter and there are occasional summer days with temperatures in the 90s. The July high is typically 82 degrees and the January low is typically 40 degrees. Prevailing winds are from the north or northwest in the afternoons. On average, there are 261 sunny days per year, and the City receives 28 inches of rain. More restrictive construction and demolition waste recovery requirements would not have a negative impact on the temperature, wind or precipitation conditions within the City.

II. Necessity of More Restrictive Standards.

Because of the local climatic, geological, and topographical conditions described above, the Council finds that there are local conditions unique to Orinda that require the increased construction waste diversion documentation requirements set forth in Ordinance 17-06.
933257.2
H.3.c
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Draft Resolution 23-01 with Appendices A and B (Findings in Support of Changes, Additions, and Deletions to Statewide Building H.3.d
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 2022-35 (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) H.3.d
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 2022-35 (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) H.3.d
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 2022-35 (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) H.3.d
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 2022-35 (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) H.3.d
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 2022-35 (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) H.3.d
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 2022-35 (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) H.3.d
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 2022-35 (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) H.3.d
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 2022-35 (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) H.3.d
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 2022-35 (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) H.3.d
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 2022-35 (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) H.3.d
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 2022-35 (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) H.3.d
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 2022-35 (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) H.3.d
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 2022-35 (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) H.3.d
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 2022-35 (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) H.3.d
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 2022-35 (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) H.3.d
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 2022-35 (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) H.3.d
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 2022-35 (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) H.3.d
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 2022-35 (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) H.3.d
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 2022-35 (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) H.3.d
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 2022-35 (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) H.3.d
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 2022-35 (2969 : 2022 Building Code Adoption) City Council
Staff Report
Agenda Item: H.3
Date: December 6, 2022
Department: Parks and Recreation
AGENDA TITLE: Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding Possibly Honoring Longtime Acclaimed Miramonte High School Teacher, Coach, and Mentor Otis (Odie) McCain.

RECOMMENDATION:

Review the Facilities Naming Policy and consider directing staff to proceed with honoring long-time acclaimed Miramonte High School teacher, coach, and mentor Otis (Odie) McCain.

BACKGROUND: At the November 15, 2022, City Council meeting, Councilmember Nick Kosla, under Matters Initiated, requested that an agenda item come before the City Council to consider honoring Odie McCain. The City Council agreed to add a discussion of the matter to a future agenda and this staff report is provided to allow for that opportunity.

The City of Orinda has a policy allowing for naming of City facilities, parks, open space, and trails to remember shared history, to identify local natural resources and to honor individuals who have contributed significantly to the City of Orinda. Specifically, Section 2 stipulates:

Memorializing: Facilities, or portions thereof, may be dedicated in memory, or honor of, individuals who have contributed significantly to the City of Orinda and will be considered on a case-by-case basis for appropriate parks, open space, trails, and facilities.

DISCUSSION: Mr. McCain was an acclaimed teacher, coach, and mentor at Miramonte High School for 46 years. Mr. McCain, who passed away in October at the age of 87, devoted nearly fifty years serving the Orinda community. Odie was a kind, fun-loving, intelligent, positive, enthusiastic, and artistic human being and he had a substantively positive effect on many students, athletes, family, and friends. Mr. McCain was an accomplished coach at Miramonte, particularly with the women's track and cross-country teams, which dominated the league from the mid-1970s to 1990s (Odie was North Coast Cross Country Coach of the Year in 1995 was inducted into the Miramonte Athletic Hall of Fame in 2019). Odie loved the outdoors and nature and often trained his athletes on the hilly trails of what are now part of the Wilder community. Odie was also an avid outdoorsman as well as an accomplished athlete and artist.

The City Council can consider the possibility of a memorialization under the adopted policy, discuss the matter, and provide direction on how to proceed.

H.5
Packet Pg. 178
NEXT STEPS: Discuss and provide direction to staff, who, at the future meeting, will return with a Resolution formalizing any action the Council indicates it might like to consider.

FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact associated with having this discussion.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. 3.17 Naming of City Facilities Policy Final 8.7.12
Respectfully Submitted by:

Todd Trimble
Director of Parks and Recreation
Prepared By: Todd Trimble, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by:

H.5
Packet Pg. 179
1 City of Orinda
Administrative Regulations
Naming or Memorializing of City Facilities, Parks, Open Space, and Trails PURPOSE: To specify the City’s objectives and procedures in the naming of public facilities, parks, open space and trails.

POLICY: It is the policy of the City of Orinda to name public lands and facilities using labels reasonably connected, by the public, with the location of the amenity, historical significance, and/or natural feature.

1. Naming: Naming is a way to remember shared history, to identify local natural resources and to honor individuals who have contributed significantly to the City of Orinda.

1.1.It is also a useful way to help park users interpret parkland resources and to orient themselves while visiting city-owned facilities. Examples of landmarks or points of interest where names may be derived include:

1.1.1. Adjacent Street name

1.1.2. Prominent physical or geographic feature

1.1.3. Natural features such as plant and animal life

1.1.4. Archaeological resources

1.1.5. Primary Use Activity

1.1.6. Historically significant feature, events, name, use or individual(s)

2. Memorializing: Facilities, or portions, thereof may be dedicated in memory, or honor of, individuals who have contributed significantly to the City of Orinda and will be considered on a case-by-case basis for appropriate parks, open space, trails, and facilities.

3. Name Proposals: Proposals for the naming, re-naming or memorializing of City facilities or resources shall come from the City Council. The City Council, at its discretion, may refer proposed names to the Parks and Recreation Commission, or other appropriate advisory body, for its recommendation prior to taking action on a proposal.

4. Re-naming: The name used may be changed in the future, if desired, based on a vote of the City Council.

A.R. Number: 3.17
Adopted Date: 8/7/12
Resolution #: 44-12
Amended Date:

Page: 1 of 2
H.5.a
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: 3.17 Naming of City Facilities Policy Final 8.7.12 (2968 : Honoring Odie McCain) 2 5. Plaques and Markers: Plaques and markers, in conjunction with naming, will be appropriately designed and placed in a manner serving the best interests of the community.

5.1.The City will make every effort to preserve any dedication plaque or other dedicated object. If necessary, due to repair of surrounding areas, construction or redesign of a facility, the plaque or dedication object may be relocated. If the plaque or other dedication object cannot continue to be reasonably maintained or after a period of ten years, it may be removed by the City.

6. Rejection of Request: The City reserves the right to reject any request for memorializing a City facility or property.

PROCEDURE:

1. Individuals, groups or organizations that want the City to approve a specific name for a City facility or property or in some way memorialize a contribution shall make their request directly to the City Council via the public forum provided at a scheduled City Council meeting.

2. The City Council may at its own discretion initiate a proposal to name a City facility or property.

3. The City Council shall consider the request and direct the City Manager to either include on the Council agenda for consideration or forward the proposal to the Parks and Recreation Commission, or appropriate advisory body, for recommendation prior to Council action.

4. The City Council shall review and approve or deny all proposals for naming or memorializing City facilities, parks, open space, and trails.

5. Naming will be finalized by City Council Resolution.

H.5.a
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: 3.17 Naming of City Facilities Policy Final 8.7.12 (2968 : Honoring Odie McCain)