CITY COUNCIL MEETING -
AMENDED 4/7/23
AGENDA
7:00 PM - Tuesday, April 11, 2023
via Videoconference and In Person
Please Note: The City Council will meet in person as well as via Telephone/Video Conference Telephone: 1-669-444-9171 / Webinar ID:879 6426 1073
https://losaltosca-gov.zoom.us/j/87964261073?pwd=b1ltQlQ5Y3ZnSCs5OEowZU9zejlRUT09 Passcode: 118396
PLEASE NOTE: Councilmember Fligor will participate in the meeting via videoconference from the site listed below. The meeting agenda will be posted on the videoconference site, which is accessible to the public. Anyone wishing to address the Council from the videoconference site will be provided with an opportunity to do so.
Location:
3001 Northstar Drive, Room #105
Truckee, California 96161
TO PARTICIPATE IN-PERSON: Members of the public may also participate in person by being present at the Los Altos Council Chamber at Los Altos City Hall located at 1 N. San Antonio Rd, Los Altos, CA.
TO PARTICIPATE VIA VIDEO: Follow the link above. Members of the public will need to have a working microphone on their device and must have the latest version of ZOOM installed (available at https://zoom.us/download). To request to speak, please use the “Raise hand” feature located at the bottom of the screen.
TO PARTICPATE VIA TELEPHONE: Members of the public may also participate via telephone by calling the number listed above. To request to speak, press *9 on your telephone.
TO SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS: Prior to the meeting, comments on matters listed on the agenda may be emailed to [email protected]. Emails sent to this email address are sent to/received immediately by the City Council. Please include a subject line in the following format:
PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM ## - MEETING DATE
Correspondence submitted in hard copy/paper must be received by 2:00 PM on the day of the meeting to ensure distribution prior to the meeting. Correspondence received prior to the meeting will be included in the public record. .
Public testimony will be taken at the direction of the Mayor, and members of the public may only comment during times allotted for public comments.
1 4/11/2023 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AMENDED 4/7/23 AGENDA Page 2 of 4 AGENDA
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
ESTABLISH QUORUM
PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Members of the audience may bring to the Council's attention any item that is not on the agenda. Speakers are generally given two or three minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor. Please be advised that, by law, the City Council is unable to discuss or take action on issues presented during the Public Comment Period. According to State Law (also known as “The Brown Act”) items must first be noted on the agenda before any discussion or action.
SPECIAL ITEM
A. Holocaust Remembrance Day
B. Introduction and welcome of the new City Clerk, Melissa Thurman
CONSENT CALENDAR
These items will be considered by one motion unless any member of the Council or audience wishes to remove an item for discussion. Any item removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion will be handled at the discretion of the Mayor.
1. Minutes: Approve Minutes of the City Council Regular meeting of March 28, 2023. (A.
Rodriguez)
2. Santa Clara Valley Runoff Pollution Prevention Program: Approve Contract Amendment No. 4 with Santa Clara Valley Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP); find that the approval of the amendment is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15308 (E. McDannold)
3. Military Equipment Policy: Adopt Ordinance No. 2023-489 approving Los Altos Police Policy 709 pertaining to the funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment as mandated by Assembly Bill 481 (K. Krauss)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Single-use Foodware Accessories and Condiments Ordinance in Compliance with AB 1276:
Adopt the Single-use Foodware Accessories and Condiments Ordinance, in compliance with AB 1276, adding Chapter 6.45 (Single-use Foodware Accessories and Condiments) to Title 6 (Health and Safety) of the Los Altos Municipal Code by adopting by reference Chapter 5.2 (commencing 2 4/11/2023 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AMENDED 4/7/23 AGENDA Page 3 of 4 with section 42270) of Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code prohibiting a food facility from providing any single-use foodware accessory or standard condiment unless requested by consumer and authorizing City and County enforcement and penalties (T. Katbi)
DISCUSSION ITEMS
5. Prohibition on possession of firearms in sensitive places: Introduce and waive further reading of Ordinance No. 2023-xxx prohibiting the possession of firearms in sensitive places (J. Maginot)
6. Outdoor Dining Program: Extend the current COVID parklet program, adopt the City of Los Altos Resolution No. 2023-XX to amend the Los Altos Parklet Program, adopt the City of Los Altos Resolution No. 2023-XX to establish the Los Altos Sidewalk Dining Program, and adopt the City of Los Altos Resolution No. 2023-XX to amend the Los Altos Outdoor Display Program. (A. Carnesecca)
7. Los Altos Reach Codes Update: Introduce and Waive further reading of Ordinance No. 2023- XX to Amend Los Altos Municipal Code, Chapter 12.22 “Energy Code” and Chapter 12.26 “Green Building Code” (T. Katbi)
8. City Council and Commissions Teleconference Policy: Add Section 11.13 Teleconferencing to the Council Norms & Procedures, which will allow Council members to teleconference under certain circumstances in accordance with state law, amend the Commission Handbook section “Teleconferencing” to allow Commission members to teleconference under certain circumstances in accordance with state law, and direct staff to come back with an update on this policy in six months. (A. Carnesecca)
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS ONLY
9. Tentative Council Calendar
COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
(Council Norms: It will be the custom to have a recess at approximately 9:00 p.m. Prior to the recess, the Mayor shall announce whether any items will be carried over to the next meeting. The established hour after which no new items will be started is 11:00 p.m. Remaining items, however, may be considered by consensus of the Council.)
SPECIAL NOTICES TO THE PUBLIC
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Altos will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk 72 hours prior to the meeting at (650) 947-2610.
Agendas Staff Reports and some associated documents for City Council items may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.losaltosca.gov/citycouncil/online/index.html. 3 4/11/2023 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AMENDED 4/7/23 AGENDA Page 4 of 4 All public records relating to an open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, and that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body, will be available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk’s Office, City of Los Altos, located at One North San Antonio Road, Los Altos, California at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the legislative body.
If you wish to provide written materials, please provide the City Clerk with 10 copies of any document that you would like to submit to the City Council for the public record. 4 5
Agenda Item # A.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
7:00 PM - Tuesday, March 28, 2023
via Videoconference and In Person
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
At 7:06 p.m. Mayor Meadows called the meeting to order.
ESTABLISH QUORUM
PRESENT: Councilmembers Fligor, Lee Eng (via Zoom), Dailey, Vice Mayor Weinberg, Mayor Meadows
ABSENT: None
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54953, Council Member Lee Eng participated in the meeting via videoconference. The videoconference location was identified in the notice for this meeting.
Councilmember Lee Eng confirmed that she could hear the proceedings, attested to have posted the agenda properly at her location, and that the location was publicly accessible.
PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Arya Tatavarty, with Troop 60430 led the pledge.
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
There was no Closed Session.
CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
Staff removed Item 7 from the Consent Calendar and informed the Council that it would return at the next meeting.
Vice Mayor Weinberg requested to move Item 16 to the Consent Calendar. City Attorney Houston responded and it was not moved.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
The following members of the public spoke: Jon Baer, Joe Beninato, and Roberta Phillips.
SPECIAL ITEM
A. Women's History Month Proclamation
Mayor Meadows presented the proclamation to the Council. 6 Agenda Item # 1.
03/28/23 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 2 of 7
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes: Approve Minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting of February 28, 2023. (A.
Rodriguez)
2. Minutes: Approve Minutes of the City Council Retreat of February 21, 2023. (A. Rodriguez)
3. Receive and Accept: Treasurer’s Report – Month Ended December 31, 2022 (J. Du)
4. Receive and Accept: Quarterly Investment Portfolio Report – Quarter Ended December 31, 2022 (J. Du)
5. City Council Goals: Adopt a Resolution affirming the City Council Strategic Goals (J. Maginot)
6. Award Construction Contract for Sewer System Repair Program, Project WW01001: Award the construction contract for the Base Bid and the Additive Alternate No. 1 (Total Bid) for the Sewer System Repair Program Project WW-01001 to Casey Construction, Inc. as the lowest responsive bidder submitting a bid in the amount not-to-exceed $778,550 and approve the City Manager the authority up to 15% construction contingency if needed, in the amount not-toexceed $116,783 (T. Nguyen)
7. Santa Clara Valley Runoff Pollution Prevention Program: Approve Contract Amendment No. 4 with Santa Clara Valley Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP); find that the approval of the amendment is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15308 (E. McDannold) – Removed by STAFF and continued to the April 11, 2023 meeting
8. 2022 Housing Element Annual Progress Report: Adopt a resolution authorizing staff to submit the Housing Element Annual Progress Report to HCD (S. Williams)
9. SVCE Decarbonization Grant Program Agreement: Adopt Resolution 2023-___ authorizing the City Manager to 1) Accept the SVCE Decarbonization Grant Program Agreement for the design, procurement, and construction of the Energization Station Project (CF-XXX), 2) Appropriate the grant funds of $200,684 to the CIP Project Funds (CF-XXX), and 3) Transfer $8,500 from Sustainability Operating Budget (5330-5270) to the CIP Project Funds (CF-XXX) (E. McDannold)
10. 2023 Update of City Investment Policy: Adopt the revised Investment Policy for 2023 (J. Du)
11. Fiscal Year 2022 Audited Financial Statements and Compliance reports: Accept Fiscal Year 2022 Audited Financial Statements and Compliance reports (J. Du)
12. Hybrid Ford Police Interceptor Vehicles: Approve Purchase of two Marked Patrol Hybrid Ford Police Vehicles from Folsom Lake Ford for a total of $114,284.88 (K. Krauss) Councilmember Dailey pulled Item 12 from the Consent Calendar and Mayor Meadows placed the item after Item 15 for consideration. Vice Mayor Weinberg asked a clarifying question about Item 5 and Assistant City Manager Maginot responded.
There was no public comment.
7 Agenda Item # 1.
03/28/23 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 3 of 7
A motion by Vice Mayor Weinberg, seconded by Councilmember Dailey, to approve Items 1 though 6 and 8 through 11 from the Consent calendar was approved with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Fligor, Lee Eng, Dailey, Vice Mayor Weinberg, Mayor Meadows NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
13. Single-use Foodware Accessories and Condiments Ordinance in Compliance with AB 1276:
Introduce and waive further reading of a Single-use Foodware Accessories and Condiments Ordinance, in compliance with AB 1276, of the City Council of the City of Los Altos adding Chapter 6.45 (Single-use Foodware Accessories and Condiments) to Title 6 (Health and Safety) of the Los Altos Municipal Code adopting by reference Chapter 5.2 (commencing with section 42270) of Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code prohibiting a food facility from providing any single-use foodware accessory or standard condiment unless requested by consumer and authorizing City and County enforcement and penalties, and set a Public Hearing on April 11, 2023 for adoption of the Ordinance. (T. Katbi)
Sustainability Coordinator Tania Katbi presented the item to Council.
Councilmember Fligor asked clarifying questions and Sustainability Coordinator Katbi and Environmental Services and Utilities Director Freedman responded.
The following member of the public spoke: Carl Van Reis.
A motion by Vice Mayor Weinberg, seconded by Councilmember Fligor, to adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos adding Chapter 6.45 (Single-use Foodware Accessories and Condiments) to Title 6 (Health and Safety) of the Los Altos Municipal Code adopting by reference Chapter 5.2 (commencing with section 42270) of Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code prohibiting a food facility from providing any single-use foodware accessory or standard condiment unless requested by consumer and authorizing City and County enforcement and penalties, and set a Public Hearing on April 11, 2023 for the second reading and adoption was approved with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Fligor, Lee Eng, Dailey, Vice Mayor Weinberg, Mayor Meadows NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
14. Administrative Appeal: 389 and 425 1st Street
City Manager Engeland asked if any Councilmember had any ex parte communication or meeting with the appellant prior to this meeting with regards specifically to the item at hand to disclose that before the proceedings. Vice Mayor Weinberg and Councilmember Fligor did have prior substantive email exchanges with the appellant as well as a request for a meeting which they declined. No other members of the Council had prior communication.
City Attorney Houston introduced the item to Council and explained the appellate process. 8 Agenda Item # 1.
03/28/23 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 4 of 7
Mr. Jeff Warmoth and his Attorney Mr. Clark Morrison, the appellants, addressed the Council.
Vice Mayor Weinberg, Councilmember Fligor, and Mayor Meadows asked clarifying questions and Messrs. Warmoth and Morrison responded.
City Attorney Houston and City Engineer Chen presented to Council.
Councilmember Fligor and Vice Mayor Weinberg asked clarifying questions to staff and they responded.
The following member of the public spoke: Nancy.
Mr. Morrison addressed the Council in response to public comment and answered further questions from Council.
Council engaged in discussion.
A motion by Vice Mayor Weinberg, seconded by Mayor Meadows, to deny the appeal was approved with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Fligor, Lee Eng, Dailey, Vice Mayor Weinberg, Mayor Meadows NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
At 8:35 pm, Mayor Meadows called for a recess and reconvened the meeting at 8:46 pm.
15. AB 481 Military Equipment Use Annual Report: Review and renew Ordinance No. 2023-489 by introducing and waiving further reading of Ordinance No. 2023-489 approving Los Altos Police Policy 709 pertaining to the funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment as mandated by Assembly Bill 481 (K. Krauss)
Chief of Police Angela Averitt and Captain Katie Krauss presented to Council.
Councilmember Fligor asked clarifying questions and Captain Krauss responded.
The following members of the public spoke: Cindy Sidaris, Jacob Sterling Silver, Toni Moos, Jeanine Valadez, Roberta Phillips, and Tanya Maluf.
The Council engaged in discussion.
A motion by Councilmember Lee Eng, seconded by Vice Mayor Fligor, to renew the Ordinance No. 2023-489 by introducing and waiving further reading of Ordinance No. 2023-489 approving Los Altos Police Policy 709 pertaining to the funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment as mandated by Assembly Bill 481 and approve the acquisition of the replacement equipment items of military equipment listed in the annual report and also approve the acquisition and use of the new items of military equipment that are listed in the annual report. Councilmember Fligor asked for a friendly amendment to have language edited in a paragraph 709.3.1, which was accepted by Councilmember Lee Eng. The motion was approved with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Fligor, Lee Eng, Dailey, Vice Mayor Weinberg, Mayor Meadows NOES: None
9 Agenda Item # 1.
03/28/23 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 5 of 7
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
12. Hybrid Ford Police Interceptor Vehicles: Approve Purchase of two Marked Patrol Hybrid Ford Police Vehicles from Folsom Lake Ford for a total of $114,284.88 (K. Krauss) Police Chief Averiett presented the item to Council.
Councilmember Dailey, Vice Mayor Weinberg and Councilmember Lee Eng asked clarifying questions that Chief Averiett responded to.
There was no public comment.
The Council engaged in discussion.
A motion by Councilmember Lee Eng, seconded by Vice Mayor Meadows, to approve the purchase of two Marked Patrol Hybrid Ford Police Vehicles from Folsom Lake Ford for a total of $114,284.88 and secure an extended warranty if available. A friendly amendment by Mayor Meadows to remove language about extended warranty was accepted by Councilmember Lee Eng. The motion was approved with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Fligor, Lee Eng, Dailey, Vice Mayor Weinberg, Mayor Meadows NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
16. Adopt Housing Element Update Ordinance: Adopt an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos amending chapters 2.08, 12.44, 13.04, 14.76, and 14.78 of the Los Altos municipal code to implement certain provisions of program 3.H and 3.K of the sixth cycle Housing Element Update, this ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to section 15061(b)(3) of the state guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. (N. Zornes)
Community Development Director Nick Zornes presented the item to Council.
Council asked a clarifying questions and Director Zornes responded.
There was no public comment.
Council engaged in discussion.
A motion by Councilmember Dailey, seconded by Mayor Meadows, to adopt an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos amending chapters 2.08, 12.44, 13.04, 14.76, and 14.78 of the Los Altos municipal code to implement certain provisions of program 3.H and 3.K of the sixth cycle Housing Element Update, and finding this ordinance exempt from environmental review pursuant to section 15061(b)(3) of the state guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 was approved with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Lee Eng, Dailey, Vice Mayor Weinberg, Mayor Meadows NOES: Councilmember Fligor
10 Agenda Item # 1.
03/28/23 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 6 of 7
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
At 10:21 pm, Mayor Meadows called for a recess and reconvened the meeting at 10:29 pm.
17. Update on Return to In-Person City Council and Commission meetings: Receive an update on the return to in-person City Council and Commission meetings and provide direction if needed (J. Maginot)
Assistant City Manager Jon Maginot presented the item to Council.
Councilmember Lee Eng and Fligor asked clarifying questions and staff responded.
The following member of the public spoke: Joe Beninato.
Council engaged in discussion and City Manager Engeland commented.
A motion by Mayor Meadows, seconded by Councilmember Lee Eng, to have the same rules for remote meeting participation that apply to Council also apply to Commissions with an assessment in 6 months, have staff recommend possible restrictions around application, and that the City will not bear any costs to enable remote participation. Councilmember Dailey provided a friendly amendment to revise the changes in the Commission handbook which was accepted by Mayor Meadows. The motion was approved by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Fligor, Lee Eng, Vice Mayor Weinberg, Mayor Meadows NOES: Councilmember Dailey
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
18. SB43 Support Letter: Discuss and Provide Direction regarding the SB43 Letter of Support regarding Mental Health Reforms
Mayor Meadows introduced the item to the Council. Councilmember Fligor further explained the legislative bills for consideration.
Council engaged in discussion.
There was no public comment.
A motion by Councilmember Fligor, seconded by Vice Mayor Weinberg, to give the Mayor authority to sign the letter contained in the packet in support of SB 43/ SB363 was approved with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Fligor, Lee Eng, Dailey, Vice Mayor Weinberg, Mayor Meadows NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS ONLY
19. Tentative Council Calendar
11 Agenda Item # 1.
03/28/23 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 7 of 7
COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Lee Eng gave a report to the Council regarding her attendance of the National League of Cities Congressional City Conference.
Council reported out on events they have participated in recently.
Councilmember Fligor reported that she plans on attending the Cal Cities Leaders’ summit in April.
Councilmember Fligor requested an Emergency Operations Report and that Commission recommendations be part of Staff reports. City Manager Engeland responded that Emergency Operations Report was in the works and that Commission feedback will start coming forward in staff reports.
Councilmember Dailey requested a discussion of mitigation of power failures, which received support from Councilmember Lee Eng. Council will wait to discuss mitigation of power failures until after receiving a report from the City Manager on the recent power outages.
Councilmember Lee Eng asked for a report on the City’s Neighborhood Watch which will come back as an informational report. Councilmember Lee Eng also asked to support SB 423, which received a second from Councilmember Fligor to come back to Council.
Mayor Meadows asked for a Council Travel Policy, which received support from Councilmember Fligor and Vice Mayor Weinberg.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Meadows adjourned the meeting at 12:08 am.
_____________________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Angel Rodriguez, INTERIM CITY CLERK
12 Agenda Item # 1.
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Reviewed By:
City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JD
Meeting Date: April 11, 2023
Subject: Consider Approving Contract Amendment No. 4: Santa Clara Valley Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP); find that the approval of the amendment is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15308 Prepared by: Erin McDannold, Assistant Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Aida Fairman, Director of Environmental Services & Utilities Department Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachments:
1. Fourth Amendment to Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
A. Resolution No. 2023-XX
Initiated by:
SCVURPPP/City Staff
Previous Council Consideration:
November 22, 1999 – Original SCVURPPP Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) November 23, 2004 – First Amendment
December 21, 2005 – Second Amendment
October 25, 2016 – Third Amendment
November 15, 2022 – Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit: Overview of New Requirements Fiscal Impact:
None at this time.
The City’s proportionate share of the Program costs is 1.59%. Program costs are paid from the allocated Stormwater Operating Budget, which is funded by the General Fund. The Progress Assessment for the City of Los Altos for FY 22-23 was $82,568 (4310-5270), which was paid for from the adopted budget. The Progress Assessment for FY 23-24 will be $89,970. 13 Agenda Item # 2.
Subject: Contract Amendment No. 4: Santa Clara Valley Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
April 11, 2023 Page 2
Environmental Review:
The approval of the Fourth Amendment to the MOA is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Commonsense Exemption) and 15308 (Actions Taken by Regulatory Agencies for the Protection of the Environment), in that the action merely continues the City’s existing participation in a program that fosters compliance with state and federal law intended to protect water quality, the action will not involve construction activities or relaxation of standards allowing for environmental degradation, and none of the circumstances stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies.
Policy Questions for Council Consideration:
Not applicable
14 Agenda Item # 2.
Subject: Contract Amendment No. 4: Santa Clara Valley Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
April 11, 2023 Page 3
Summary:
The Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) assists the City of Los Altos and other agencies in Santa Clara County to negotiate and comply with a federal Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit that cities are required to have for stormwater that flows to creeks, streams, and, ultimately, San Francisco Bay.
The City of Los Altos and other agencies in Santa Clara County expect to use the Program to continue to represent their interests relative to Municipal Regional Permit (MRP 3.0), to help them effectuate certain aspects of compliance with MRP 3.0, and to negotiate the terms of a further renewed NPDES Permit when MRP 3.0 nears the end of its five-year term and any administrative extension provided.
All Program participants are required to obtain approval from the legislative authority for the MOA amendment extending the agreement through 2028. The current MOA will expire in July of 2023, if not extended.
Staff Recommendation:
Approve the Fourth Amendment to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program’s Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and direct the City Manager to execute the Amendment on behalf of the City
15 Agenda Item # 2.
Subject: Contract Amendment No. 4: Santa Clara Valley Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
April 11, 2023 Page 4
Purpose
Execute the Fourth Amendment to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program MOA.
Background
The Santa Clara Valley Urban Pollution Prevention and Urban Runoff Program (Program) was originally formed through a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with other Santa Clara Valleybased local governments in the late 1980s. This was a means to assist the City of Los Altos in negotiating and complying with a federal Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit that cities are required to have for stormwater that flows to creeks, streams, and, ultimately, theSan Francisco Bay. Bay Area municipalities were recently issued a new Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit in May 2022, which became effective July 1, 2022. This permit is shared by 76 permittees in the San Francisco Area.
This MRP 3.0 includes and expands on many of the previous requirements and contains new provisions. MRP 3.0 includes more stringent requirements on existing provisions for new development/redevelopment, trash load reduction, PCB, mercury and bacteria controls, and water quality monitoring and introduces new provisions on unsheltered homeless populations, cost reporting, and asset management. Outside those mentioned above, previously existing provisions also encountered minor changes. An overview of new MRP 3.0 requirements was shared with City Council on November 15, 2022. Thus far, the Program has been highly engaged in understanding these changes with local regulatory agencies and helping permittees adapt to new MRP 3.0 requirements.
The Program allows the City of Los Altos to undertake a coordinated approach and leverage resources with respect to our stormwater permit. This method has been highly effective in assisting the City to address our responsibilities, twice winning national awards issued by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Since its original formation, the participating local governments, including the City of Los Altos, have thrice previously authorized a continuation of the Program without changing its original terms.
Discussion/Analysis
Based on a recent vote of the Program’s Management Committee, in which the City participates, a fourth amendment of the MOA to extend the Program on its original terms was unanimously approved for referral to our governing body for execution. The extension will allow the Program to continue to operate and serve the participating agencies throughout the current Clean Water Act Permit’s term plus one additional fiscal year (providing Program assistance until at least the July of 2028 and addressing the Permit’s next re-issuance by the Regional Water Quality Control Board).
16 Agenda Item # 2.
Subject: Contract Amendment No. 4: Santa Clara Valley Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
April 11, 2023 Page 5
All Program participants are required to obtain approval from the legislative authority for the MOA amendment extending the agreement through July 2028. The current MOA will expire in July of 2023 if not extended.
The City of Los Altos and other agencies in Santa Clara County expect to utilize the Program to continue to represent their interests relative to Municipal Regional Permit (MRP 3.0), to help them effectuate certain aspects of compliance with MRP 3.0, and to negotiate the terms of a further renewed NPDES Permit when MRP 3.0 nears the end of its five-year term and any administrative extension provided.
Recommendation
Approve the Fourth Amendment to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program’s Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and direct the City Manager to execute the Amendment on behalf of the City
17 Agenda Item # 2.
1 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
PROVIDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN RUNOFF
POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM
THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN RUNOFF
POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM (the “Amendment”) is entered into by and between the SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, a local public agency of the State of California (“District”); CITY OF CAMPBELL, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF LOS ALTOS, a municipal corporation of the State of California; TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, a municipal corporation of the State of California; TOWN OF LOS GATOS, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF MILPITAS, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF MONTE SERENO, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF PALO ALTO, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF SAN JOSE, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF SANTA CLARA, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF SUNNYVALE, a municipal corporation of the State of California; and COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, a political subdivision of the State of California.
All of the above-mentioned entities are hereinafter collectively referred to as “Parties” or individually as “Party.”
RECITALS
A. The Parties previously entered into that certain Agreement Providing For Implementation of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (the “Agreement” or “MOA”) pursuant to which the Parties established certain terms and conditions relating to the implementation and oversight of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (the “Program”), including a cost sharing allocation, which was appended thereto as Exhibit A. Unless otherwise set forth herein, all terms shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement as amended. A copy of the Agreement inclusive of Exhibit A is attached hereto as Appendix 1. A copy of the Agreement inclusive of all of its previous amendments is available via the internet at https://scvurppp.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/10/MOA_2016_complete_package_DEC_2016.pdf); B. The Agreement originally provided for a five-year term, which, based on its execution, was set to conclude on or about March 10, 2005. However, on or about February 20, 2005, the Parties unanimously entered into a First Amendment to the Agreement, which extended the term of the Agreement by one additional year; 18 Agenda Item # 2.
2 C. The Parties thereafter unanimously entered into a Second Amendment to the Agreement, which extended the term of the amended Agreement by “one fiscal year beyond the termination date of the (then) next NPDES Permit issued to the Parties, including any administrative extension of the (then) next NPDES Permit’s term which occurred pursuant to the NPDES regulations.” The next NPDES permit applicable to the Parties (and others) was subsequently adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (“RWQCB SFBR”) on October 14, 2009 and was known as the Municipal Regional Permit (“MRP”) because it covered numerous public agencies in the San Francisco Bay Region in addition to the Parties. The MRP was then administratively extended until a new NPDES Permit applicable to the Parties (and the other public entities in the San Francisco Bay Region) was adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, on November 19, 2015 (“MRP 2.0”). MRP 2.0 became effective on January 1, 2016 and was originally scheduled to terminate on December 31, 2020; D. The Parties thereafter unanimously entered into a Third Amendment to the Agreement, which once again extended the term of the amended Agreement by “one fiscal year beyond the termination date of the next NPDES Permit issued to the Parties, including any administrative extension of the next NPDES Permit’s term which occurred pursuant to the NPDES regulations.” MRP 2.0 was then administratively extended, largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic, until a new NPDES Permit applicable to the Parties (and the other public entities in the San Francisco Bay Region) was adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, on May 11, 2022 (“MRP 3.0”). MRP 3.0 became effective on July 1, 2022 and is currently scheduled to terminate on June 30, 2027 unless administratively extended; E. The Parties expect to utilize the Program to continue to represent their interests relative to MRP 3.0 (including with respect to an administrative appeal of its adoption that the State Water Resources Control Board is considering to pursue on its own motion), to help them effectuate certain aspects of compliance with MRP 3.0, and, beyond that, in negotiating the terms of a further renewed NPDES Permit when MRP 3.0 nears the end of its anticipated five-year term and any administrative extension provided thereto;
F. The Parties also expect to continue to utilize the Program’s preferred approach of achieving consensus to resolve issues and reach decisions, and to rely on the Majority Vote mechanism set forth in Section 2.08 of the Agreement at the Management Committee level only when consensus-based resolutions appear or become elusive; G. The Parties now desire to update the Agreement as previously amended and further extend the term of the MOA as set forth below; H. Section 7.02 of the MOA provides that it may be amended by the unanimous written agreement of the Parties and that all Parties agree to bring any proposed amendments to their Council or Board, as applicable, within three (3) months following acceptance by the Management Committee; and
19 Agenda Item # 2.
3 I. The Program’s Management Committee accepted this Amendment for referral to the Parties’ Councils and/or Boards at its meeting on [January 19, 2023].
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO FURTHER AGREE AS
FOLLOWS:
1. Recognition of Current Permit. Recital F of the Agreement, as previously amended, is hereby further amended by the addition of the following subsections:
6. Order No. R2-2009-0074 (the Municipal Regional Permit, NPDES Permit CAS612008); adopted October 14, 2009 and amended by the RWQCB SFBR on November 28, 2011;
7. Order No. R2-2015-0049 (MRP 2.0, NPDES Permit CAS612008); adopted by the RWQCB SFBR on November 19, 2015;
8. Order No. R2-2022-0018 (MRP 3.0, NPDES Permit CAS612008); adopted by the RWQCB SFBR on May 11, 2022.
2. Extension of Term of Agreement. Sections 6.02 and 6.02.01 of the Agreement, as previously amended, are hereby replaced as follows:
This Agreement shall have a term extending one fiscal year beyond the date of termination of MRP 3.0; such termination date shall, however, be deemed to include any administrative extension of MRP 3.0 which occurs or arises pursuant to the NPDES regulations or any modification of the MRP 3.0
termination date that arises from an NPDES permitting action undertaken by the RWQCB SFBR or California State Water
Resources Control Board.
3. Superseding Effect. This Fourth Amendment of the Agreement shall supplement all prior amendments of the Agreement and supersede any conflicting provisions of the prior amendments of the Agreement.
[remainder of page intentionally blank]
20 Agenda Item # 2.
4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Fourth Amendment effective as of the last date indicated below or [April 19, 2023], whichever arises earlier.
Santa Clara Valley Water District: By: ____________________________________ Name: ____________________________________
Title: ____________________________________
Date: ____________________________________
County of Santa Clara: By: ____________________________________ Name: ____________________________________
Title: ____________________________________
Date: ____________________________________
City of ____________________: By: ____________________________________ Name: ____________________________________
Title: ____________________________________
Date: ____________________________________
21 Agenda Item # 2.
ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2023-__ Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS
DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE AND EXECUTE THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH
OTHER SANTA CLARA VALLEY MUNICIPALITIES TO ALLOW FOR
CONTINUATION OF THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN RUNOFF
POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) was originally formed in 1990 through the Memorandum of Agreement to aid Santa Clara Valley-based jurisdictions with stormwater permit compliance per the Municipal Regional Permit; and
WHEREAS, the SCVURPPP is invaluable in providing and pooling resources to meet permit requirements since its’ formation; and
WHEREAS, the existing Memorandum of Agreement has already been amended three times prior and SCVURPPP will cease to exist July 1, 2023 if not amended for a fourth time by April 19, 2023.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby authorizes the following:
1. That the City Manager is directed to execute the Fourth Ammendment to the Memorandum of Agreement; and
2. That the acceptance of the work under this MOA is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) for reasons stated in the staff report.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the 11th day of April, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Angel Rodriguez, INTERIM CITY CLERK
22 Agenda Item # 2.
Reviewed By:
City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JF
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: April 11, 2023
Subject AB 481 Ordinance No. 2023-489 Adoption
Prepared by: Katie Krauss, Police Captain
Reviewed by: Angela Averiett, Police Chief
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):
1. AB 481 Ordinance No. 2023-489
2. Military Equipment Policy 709
3. Military Equipment Inventory Policy 709.9
Initiated by:
Police Department, per requirements of Assembly Bill 481 Previous Council Consideration:
September 20, 2022
March 28, 2023
Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund.
Environmental Review:
This Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonable foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to environment, directly or indirectly).
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
1. Does the Council wish to adopt Ordinance No. 2023-489 approving Los Altos Police Policy 709 pertaining to the funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment as mandated by Assembly Bill 481?
23 Agenda Item # 3.
Subject: Title
Date Page 2
Summary:
California Assembly Bill 481 requires the Los Altos Police Department to report annually on the inventory, procurement, use and misuse of covered military equipment items. The Annual Report also includes a description of new military equipment the police department seeks City Council approval for acquisition and funding for. The AB 481 Annual Report was presented to Council on 3/28/23
Within a year of the initial approval, and at least annually thereafter, the City Council will review this ordinance and related resolutions. The City Council may, by resolution, make amendments, modifications or revisions to the military equipment use policy adopted by the Los Altos Police Department. The ordinance must be reviewed and renewed annually.
Ordinance 2023-489 was introduced to Council on 3/28/23 and Council waived further reading.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 2023-489 approving Los Altos Police Policy 709 pertaining to the funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment as mandated by Assembly Bill 481
Purpose
To adopt Ordinance No. 2023-489 approving Los Altos Police Policy 709 pertaining to the funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment as mandated by Assembly Bill 481.
Background
On September 30, 2021, Governor Newsom signed a series of eight (8) policing reform legislation aimed at increasing transparency of peace officer misconduct records and creates a system to decertify peace officers for serious misconduct, improving policing responsibility and accountability guidelines, raising eligibility standards, banning harmful restraint techniques, and creates a public forum for the funding, acquisition and use of military equipment. Assembly Bill 481 (AB 481) was authored by Assemblymember David Chiu (D-San Francisco) to address the funding, acquisition and use of military equipment.
California Government Section 7071 requires a law enforcement agency’s military equipment policy, which includes the type of equipment the department may acquire and use, to be approved by the governing body. “Military equipment” is not related to whether or not the 24 Agenda Item # 3.
Subject: Title
Date Page 3
equipment was acquired through military sources. The Los Altos Police Department does not possess any equipment specifically designed for military use, nor has the department acquired any equipment through a military surplus program, commonly known as the 1033 Program. Our “military equipment” is included in the attached policy under inventory, and includes items such as patrol rifles, several less lethal force options, and training flash bangs utilized as diversionary devices by our SWAT team.
As part of the approval process outlined in Assembly Bill 481, the proposed military equipment policy was made available on the department website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue (Government Code § 7071). The police department also hosted a community meeting to discuss AB 481 on May 12th, 2022. The Military Equipment Use Policy was presented to Council on September 20, 2022 and was approved with minor amendments. The Annual Report, a requirement of AB 481, was presented to citizens at a Town Hall meeting on February 8, 2023.
The Annual Report was presented to Council on 3/28/23. Per the requirements of AB 481, the ordinance (2023-489) was introduced on 3/28/23 and Council waived further reading. Ordinance No. 2023-489 needs to be adopted as an ordinance of the City of Los Altos.
Discussion/Analysis
California Assembly Bill 481, signed into law on September 30, 2021, requires police agencies to obtain City Council approval by the adoption of a military equipment use policy prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment as defined by the legislature. The bill requires an annual report to the governing board regarding the military equipment. If an agency wishes to acquire additional equipment that is defined as military equipment, they must receive Council approval. The policy/ordinance governing military equipment use must be reviewed and renewed annually.
Recommendation
Staff recommends Council adopt Ordinance No. 2023-489 approving Los Altos Police Policy 709 pertaining to the funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment as mandated by Assembly Bill 481.
25 Agenda Item # 3.
Ordinance No. 2023-489 Page 1
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-489
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 7.30, ENTITLED “MILITARY EQUIPMENT POLICY,” TO THE LOS ALTOS CITY CODE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ASSEMBLY BILL 481 WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 481 (“AB 481”) (creating Government Code, Section 7070, et seq.), relating to the use of military equipment by California law enforcement agencies; and
WHEREAS, AB 481 seeks to provide transparency, oversight, and an opportunity for meaningful public input on decisions regarding whether and how military equipment is funded, acquired, or used; and
WHEREAS, the Los Altos Police Department is in possession of certain items of equipment that qualify as “military equipment” under AB 481; and
WHEREAS, AB 481 requires that a law enforcement agency possessing and using such qualifying equipment prepare a publicly released, written military equipment use policy document covering the inventory, description, purpose, use, acquisition, maintenance, fiscal impacts, procedures, training, oversight, and complaint process applicable to the Los Altos Police Department’s use of such equipment; and
WHEREAS, the Policy and supporting information must be approved by the governing body by Ordinance and reviewed annually; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Los Altos, having received the information required under AB 481 regarding the Los Altos Police Department’s use of military equipment as defined in said law, deems it to be in the best interest of the City to approve the Military Equipment Policy as set forth herein.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 7 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Section
7.30.010 is hereby added to the Los Altos Municipal Code to read as follows:
“7.30.010. Military equipment policy.
A. The City Council has made the following determinations:
1. The military equipment inventoried and presented to the City Council is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
2. The proposed military equipment use policy (“Policy”) will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights and civil liberties (said Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by this reference).
26 Agenda Item # 3.
Ordinance No. 2023-489 Page 2
3. The equipment is reasonably cost-effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety (if any).
4. Prior military equipment use complied with the applicable equipment use policy (which included equipment now defined as military equipment) that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.
B. The Policy was considered by the City Council as an agenda item in an open session of regular meeting and noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, at which public comment was permitted.
C. The Policy shall be made publicly available on the Los Altos police department’s website for as long as the military equipment is available for use.
D. The Los Altos police department shall submit an annual military equipment report to the city council containing the information required in California Government Code, Section 7072, and the city council shall determine whether each type of military equipment identified in that report has complied with the standards for approval set forth in Paragraphs (a)(1)-(4) above.
E. The City Council shall review this Ordinance and vote on whether to renew it, on an annual basis at a regular meeting, in accordance with California Government Code Section 7071(e)(2).
F. The City Council approves the use of the Policy and finds that it satisfies the requirements of California Government Code Section 7070(d).”
SECTION 2. This Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonable foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to environment, directly or indirectly).
SECTION 3. CONSTITUTIONALITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. PUBLICATION. This Ordinance shall be published as provided in Government Code section 36933.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon the commencement of the thirty-first day following the adoption date.
27 Agenda Item # 3.
Ordinance No. 2023-489 Page 3
The foregoing Ordinance was duly and properly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Altos held on ____________, 2023 and was thereafter, at a regular meeting held on ___________, 2023 passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
Attest:
_______________________
Angel Rodriguez, INTERIM CITY CLERK
28 Agenda Item # 3.
Policy
709
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/04/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department Military Equipment - 1
Military Equipment
709.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the approval, acquisition, and reporting requirements of military equipment (Government Code § 7070; Government Code § 7071; Government Code § 7072). Assembly Bill 481 (AB 481), signed into law on September 30, 2021, requires law enforcement agencies to create a policy establishing guidelines and requirements for the funding, acquisition, and use of "military equipment" (Government Code § 7070, 7071, and 7072), including requirements to host informational meetings with the public, generate annual "military equipment" use reports, and seek annual approval from their respective governing bodies.
The purpose of this policy is to make sure that safeguards exist, including transparency, governing body oversight, and accountability measures, to ensure the funding, acquisition, and use of "military equipment" is consistent with the provisions set forth by the governing body and as outlined in AB 481. This policy will also provide the public with a transparent view of the "military equipment" utilized by the Los Altos Police Department. The military equipment use policy will safeguard the public's welfare, safety, civil rights and civil liberties. 709.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include (Government Code § 7070):
Governing body – The Los Altos City Council for the adoption of this ordinance and the approval of the annual report
POST - Peace Officer Standards and Training
SWAT - Special Weapons and Tactics
Military equipment – Per AB 481, military equipment includes but is not limited to the following:
(1) Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. (2) Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. However, police versions of standard consumer vehicles are specifically excluded from this subdivision. (3) High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), commonly referred to as Humvees, two and one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. However, unarmored all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and motorized dirt bikes are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(4) Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants and utilize a tracked system instead of wheels for forward motion.
(5) Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units.
(6) Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. 29 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/04/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department Military Equipment - 2
(7) Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. However, items designed to remove a lock, such as bolt cutters, or a handheld ram designed to be operated by one person, are specifically excluded from this subdivision. (8) Firearms of.50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotguns are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(9) Ammunition of.50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotgun ammunition is specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(10) Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than.50 caliber, including assault weapons as defined in Sections 30510 and 30515 of the Penal Code, with the exception of standard issue service weapons and ammunition of less than.50 caliber that are issued to officers, agents, or employees of a law enforcement agency or a state agency. (11) Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. (12) "Flashbang" grenades and explosive breaching tools, "tear gas," and "pepper balls," excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
(13) Taser Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and the Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD).
(14) The following projectile launch platforms and their associated munitions: 40mm projectile launchers, "bean bag," rubber bullet, and specialty impact munition (SIM) weapons. (15) Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.
(16) Not withstanding paragraphs (1) through (15), "military equipment" does not include general equipment not designated as prohibited or controlled by the federal Defense Logistics Agency. 709.2 POLICY
It is the policy of the Los Altos Police Department that members of the department comply with the provisions of Government Code § 7071 with respect to qualifying "military equipment". "Military equipment" should be used by members of the Department who have completed applicable training, including training required by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST). See the Military Equipment Inventory List (section 709.4) for associated "military equipment" training requirements.
"Military equipment", which has been approved for use by the governing body, shall be used in accordance with all other applicable department policies and laws. These policies and laws include, but are not limited to:
• Los Altos Police Department Policy 300 (Use of Force) • Los Altos Police Department Policy 308 (Control Devices and Techniques) • Los Altos Police Department Policy 312 (Firearms)
30 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/04/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department Military Equipment - 3
• Los Altos Police Department Policy 414 (Hostage and Barricade Incidents) • California Assembly Bill No. 48 (Use of Kinetic Energy Projectiles and Chemical Agents-Assemblies, Protests, and Demonstrations)
• California Penal Code Section 13652 (Use of Kinetic Energy Projectiles and Chemical Agents)
This policy expressly prohibits the use of "military equipment" on individuals or groups solely based on actual or perceived characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, economic status, age, cultural group, or disability. 709.3 APPROVAL
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the governing body by way of an ordinance adopting the military equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shallensure the proposed military equipment policy is submitted to the governing body and is available on the department website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue (Government Code § 7071).
The military equipment policy must be approved by the governing body before the Department engages in any of the following (Government Code § 7071):
(a) Requests military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a. (b) Seeks funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers.
(c) Acquires military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
(d) Collaborates with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the jurisdiction of this department. (e) Uses any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body.
(f) Solicits or responds to a proposal for, or enters into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of military equipment.
(g) Acquires military equipment through any means not provided above. 709.3.1 EXIGENCY- PROCUREMENT AND USE
Subject to this paragraph, nothing in this policy shall prohibit the procurement or use of controlled equipment when exigent circumstances exist. In rare circumstances, exigent circumstances may occur where the immediate procurement and use of controlled equipment may be necessary to preserve life, prevent physical harm to officers or other persons, prevent the destruction of relevant evidence, prevent the escape of the suspect, or maintain public safety. In the event such an event occurs, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee may authorize the procurement and 31 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/04/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department Military Equipment - 4
use of controlled equipment. Any exigent procurement and/or use of controlled equipment will be reported to the governing body, in writing, unless such information is confidential or privileged under local, state or federal law.
709.3.2 MAINTENANCE AND RESUPPLY OF CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT In the event a previously approved supply of controlled equipment falls below the approved quantity, the Department may replenish the supply, as needed, without first obtaining additional approval from the Governing Body.
709.4 COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Military equipment used by other law enforcement agencies that are providing mutual aid to this jurisdiction or otherwise engaged in law enforcement operations within this jurisdiction should comply with their respective military equipment policies in rendering mutual aid. 709.5 ANNUAL REPORT
Upon approval of a military equipment policy, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee should submit a military equipment report to the governing body for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use (Government Code § 7072).
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on the department website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072 for the preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment in department inventory. 709.6 POLICY COMPLIANCE AND SUBMITTING COMPLAINTS
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee will ensure that all Los Altos Police Department employees comply with this policy. Suspected violations of the provisions set forth in this policy, or in other laws or policies governing the use of "military equipment", should be handled in accordance with Los Altos Police Department Policy 340 (Standards of Conduct). Additionally, violations of the provisions set forth in this policy, or in other laws or policies governing the use of "military equipment", will be reported to the governing body via the annual Military Equipment Report.
Any member of the community can submit a complaint regarding the use of "military equipment" to any Los Altos Police Department employee or the Independent Intake Official. Complaints can be submitted in any form (e.g., in person, online, telephone, email, etc.). Once a complaint is received, it will be handled in accordance with Los Altos Police Department Policy 340 (Standards of Conduct) and LAPD Policy 1020 (Personnel Complaints). Formal complaints regarding alleged violations of this policy will be handled by an independent investigator.
Complaints may be made directly to the Independent Intake Official (IIO) Stephanie Atigh in one of the following ways:
32 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/04/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department Military Equipment - 5
Online Submission:
Complaint IIO WEBFORM (online)
By Email:
Fill out the appropriate Civilian Complaint Submission form (located online), save it to your computer and email as an attachment to [email protected] By Phone:
(831) 915-4643
Complaints may be made directly to the Los Altos Police Department in one of the following ways (for online options, please visit https://www.losaltosca.gov/police/page/how-are-we-doing-0):
In Person:
Los Altos Police Department
1 N. San Antonio Road, Los Altos, CA 94022
Online Submission:
Complaint PD WEBFORM
By Email:
Fill out the appropriate Civilian Complaint Submission form (online), save it to your computer and email as an attachment to [email protected] By Phone:
(650) 947-2770
709.7 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the Department should hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the Department should discuss the report and respond to public questions regarding the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.
709.8 MILITARY EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR
The Chief of Police should designate a member of this department to act as the military equipment coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include but are not limited to:
(a) Acting as liaison to the governing body for matters related to the requirements of this policy.
(b) Identifying department equipment that qualifies as military equipment in the current possession of the Department, or the equipment the Department intends to acquire that requires approval by the governing body.
(c) Conducting an inventory of all military equipment at least annually. 33 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/04/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department Military Equipment - 6
(d) Collaborating with any allied agency that may use military equipment within the jurisdiction of Los Altos Police Department (Government Code § 7071). (e) Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating the annual community engagement meeting to include:
1. Publicizing the details of the meeting.
2. Preparing for public questions regarding the department's funding, acquisition, and use of equipment.
(f) Preparing the annual military equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police and ensuring that the report is made available on the department website (Government Code § 7072).
(g) Establishing the procedure for a person to register a complaint or concern, or how that person may submit any questions about the use of a type of military equipment, and how the Department will respond in a timely manner.
709.9 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
See attachment: MILITARY_EQUIPMENT_INVENTORY_709.9.pdf
34 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/04/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department Attachments - 7
Attachments
35 Agenda Item # 3.
Attachment
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2023/04/05, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department MILITARY_EQUIPMENT_INVENTORY_709.9.pdf
- 8
MILITARY_EQUIPMENT_INVENTORY_709.9.pdf
MILITARY_EQUIPMENT_INVENTORY_709.9.pdf
36 Agenda Item # 3.
Section
709.9
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/09/23, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY - 1
709.9 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
The following constitutes a list and description of qualifying equipment for the Department:
1. 40 MM Launchers and Rounds: 40mm Launchers are utilized by department personnel as a less lethal tool to launch impact rounds. (a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. PENN ARMS GL-140-C, 40MM SINGLE SHOT LAUNCHER, cost:
$1,000, quantity: 3. The 40mm Single Launcher is a tactical single shot launcher that features a collapsible stock. It will fire standard 40mm less lethal ammunition, up to 6.0 inches in cartridge length. 40mm launchers are capable of firing a variety of munitions with a maximum effective range of one hundred twenty (120) feet.
ii. SAGE CONTROL ORDINANCES INC K041 STANDARD ENERGY
IMPACT BATON PROJECTILE, cost: $21.00, quantity: 14. A less lethal 40mm impact baton projectile fired from a single 40mm grenade launcher with a rifled barrel at 51-72 MPS (meters per second). The projectile provides accurate and effective performance when fired from the recommended firing distances of not less than 10 feet and no greater than 75 feet.
(b) Purpose: To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable.
(c) Authorized Use: Subject to subsection (g) below, situations for use of the less lethal weapon systems may include, but are not limited to the following:
i. The suspect is armed with a weapon and the tactical circumstances allow for the safe application of approved munitions.
ii. The suspect has made credible threats to harm him/herself or others. iii. The suspect is engaged in riotous behavior or is throwing rocks, bottles or other dangerous projectiles at people and/or officers.
iv. There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has already committed a crime of violence and is refusing to comply with lawful orders. v. Other situations not listed here may also be deemed authorized use cases under applicable penal code and case law, and shall reflect necessary, reasonable, and proportional use of less lethal weapon system. (d) Training: All personnel who are authorized to carry a control device must be properly trained and certified to carry the specific control device and are retrained or re-certified as necessary. Proficiency training shall be monitored and documented by a certified, control-device weapons or tactics instructor. (e) Lifespan:
i. Penn Arms GL-140-C- No lifespan indicated by manufacturer. Lifespan varies on operational usage and wear
ii. K041 Standard Energy Impact Batons-5 years
37 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/09/23, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY - 2
(f) Fiscal Impact: Annual maintenance is approximately $100 for each launcher. (g) Legal and Procedural Rules: Use of the 40mm launcher and 40mm baton rounds are subject to the requirements of Policy 300 (USE OF FORCE), 308 (CONTROL DEVICES AND TECHNIQUES), 308.9 (KINETIC ENERGY PROJECTILE GUIDELINES), and Policy 312 (FIREARMS). It is the policy of the Los Altos Police Department to utilize the 40mm only for official law enforcement purposes, in accordance with all requirements under State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
2. Less Lethal Shotgun and Rounds: Less Lethal Shotgun is used to deploy the less lethal 12-gauge Super-Sock Beanbag Round.
(a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. REMINGTON 870 LESS LETHAL SHOTGUN, cost: $950, quantity: 11.
The Remington 870 Less Lethal Shotgun is used to deploy the less lethal 12-gauge Super-Sock Beanbag Round up to a distance of 75 feet. The range of the weapon system helps to maintain space between officers and a suspect reducing the immediacy of the threat which is a principle of deescalation. The less lethal 12- gauge shotgun is distinguishable by an orange butt stock and fore grip.
ii. 12-GAUGE SUPER-SOCK BEANBAG ROUND 2581, cost: $6, quantity:
90. A less lethal 2.4-inch 12-gauge shotgun round firing a ballistic fiber bag filled with 40 grams of lead shot at a velocity of 270-290 feet per second (FPS). CTS (Combined Tactical Systems) Super-Sock rounds are discharged from a dedicated 12- gauge shotgun that is distinguishable by an orange butt stock and fore grip. This round provides accurate and effective performance when fired from the approved distance of not fewer than five (5) feet. The maximum effective range of this munition is up to 75 feet from the target. The Model 2581 Super-Sock is in its deployed state immediately upon exiting the barrel. It does not require a minimum range to "unfold" or "stabilize." The Super-Sock is an aerodynamic projectile.
However, accuracy is relative to the shotgun, barrel length, environmental conditions, and the operator. The Super-Sock is very accurate. However, effectiveness depends on many variables, such as distance, clothing, stature, and the point where the projectile impacts.
(b) Purpose: To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable.
(c) Authorized Use - Subject to subsection (g) below, situations for use of the less lethal weapon systems may include, but are not limited to the following:
i. The suspect is armed with a weapon and the tactical circumstances allow for the safe application of approved munitions.
ii. The suspect has made credible threats to harm him/herself or others. iii. The suspect is engaged in riotous behavior or is throwing rocks, bottles or other dangerous projectiles at people and/or officers.
38 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/09/23, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY - 3
iv. There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has already committed a crime of violence and is refusing to comply with lawful orders. v. Other situations not listed here may also be deemed authorized use cases under applicable penal code and case law, and shall reflect necessary, reasonable, and proportional use of less lethal weapon system. (d) Lifespan:
i. Remington 970 Less Lethal Shotgun-25 years
ii. Super Sock Round Model 2581: No listed expiration date (e) Training: All personnel who are authorized to carry a control device must be properly trained and certified to carry the specific control device and are retrained or re-certified as necessary. Proficiency training shall be monitored and documented by a certified, control-device weapons or tactics instructor. (f) Fiscal Impact: Annual maintenance is approximately $100 per shotgun. (g) Legal and Procedural Rules: Use of the less lethal shotgun and Super Sock rounds are subject to the requirements of Policy 300 (USE OF FORCE), 308 (CONTROL DEVICES AND TECHNIQUES), 308.9 (KINETIC ENERGY PROJECTILE GUIDELINES), and Policy 312 (FIREARMS). It is the policy of the Los Altos Police Department to utilize the less lethal shotgun only for official law enforcement purposes, in accordance with all requirements under State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
3. 5.56mm Semi-Automatic Rifles and Ammunition: The Colt AR-15/M4 5.56 mm/.223 semiautomatic rifles are used for both patrol and the SWAT Team. (a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. COLT AR RIFLES, cost: $1200, quantity: 27. These rifles, equipped and locked in each patrol car or police motorcycle, offer a higher degree of accuracy at a longer distance. The ammunition used in rifles are also more effective at penetrating body armor (as some suspects have worn during high-profile shooting events in the country). They are normally kept secured in patrol cars or in the Police station and are only deployed on specific incidents where officers believe guns or weapons are involved. ii. .223 CALIBER or 5.56MM RIFLE AMMUNITION, cost: $280 per case of 500 rounds, quantity: 10,800 rounds. This rifle ammunition used in conjunction with an AR-15 type rifle provides officers the ability to engage hostile suspects at distances generally greater than the effective distance of their handguns. Rifle ammunition fired from AR-15 rifles offer advantages over handguns, such as increased accuracy potential and the ability to defeat soft body armor but are not appropriate for every situation. (b) Purpose: To address a threat with more precision and/or greater distances than a handgun, if present and feasible.
(c) Authorized Use - Members may deploy the patrol rifle in any circumstance where the member can articulate a reasonable expectation that the rifle may 39 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/09/23, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY - 4
be needed. Subject to subsection (g) below), situations for use of theseweapon systems may include, but are not limited to the following:
i. Situations where the member reasonably anticipates an armed encounter. ii. When a member is faced with a situation that may require accurate and effective fire at long range.
iii. Situations where a member reasonably expects the need to meet or exceed a suspect's firepower.
iv. When a member reasonably believes that there may be a need to fire on a barricaded person or a person with a hostage.
v. When a member reasonably believes that a suspect may be wearing body armor.
vi. When authorized or requested by a supervisor.
vii. When needed to euthanize an animal.
viii. When an officer is training at an approved range or other approved facility ix. Other situations not listed here may also be deemed authorized use cases under applicable penal code and case law, and shall reflect necessary, reasonable, and proportional use of this weapon system. (d) Lifespan:
i. Colt ARRifles: Approximately 15-20 years
ii. 223 Caliber or 5.56mm rifle ammunition: No expiration (e) Training: Officers must successfully complete a 24-hour patrol rifle course as well as regular Department firearms training and qualifications as required by law and policy. Firearm Instructors attend a 40-hour POST-approved rifle instructor class, and SWAT personnel must attend an 80-hour basic SWAT Team course. (f) Fiscal Impact: Annual maintenance is approximately $100 per rifle. (g) Legal and Procedural Rules: Use of the patrol rifles and ammunition are subject to the requirements of Policy 300 (USE OF FORCE), Policy 312.3.2 (PATROL RIFLES), and Policy 312 (FIREARMS). It is the policy of the Los Altos Police Department to utilize rifles only for official law enforcement purposes, in accordance with all requirements under State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
4. .308 Caliber Remington 700 and Heckler & Koch HK-91 Sniper Rifles and Ammunition: The sniper rifles are capable of firing a.308 caliber bullet. This rifle may only be used by a SWAT Officer trained and certified to be a sniper (LAPD currently has two such officers) and may be deployed to assist the SWAT Team in a critical incident or emergency.
(a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost 40 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/09/23, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY - 5
i. .308 CALIBER REMINGTON 700 AND 700 LTR RIFLE, cost: $1,000, quantity: 2. Remington 700: No cost, surveyed, Remington 700LTR $1,000.
ii. .308 CALIBER HECKLER & KOCH HK-91 RIFLE, cost: No cost, surveyed, , quantity: 1.
iii. .308 AMMUNITION, cost: $1.50 per round, quantity: 3,040 rounds. These nickel-plated bonded soft-point 308/7.62 cartridges from Speer Gold-Dot are resistant to corrosion, capable of expansion from barrels as short as 10", and retain accuracy from a variety of barrels lengths. (b) Purpose: This rifle may only be used by a SWAT Officer trained and certified to be a sniper and may be deployed to assist the SWAT Team in a critical incident or emergency. The main use of this weapon system is for observation of an incident and to be able to accurately and immediately be able to stop a threat to life.
(c) Authorized Use: Subject to subsection (g) below, examples of situations for deploying the sniper rifle may include, but are not limited to the following:
i. where the Officer reasonably anticipates an armed encounter; ii. when the Officer is faced with a situation that may require accurate and effective fire at a long distance;
iii. where an Officer reasonably expects the need to meet or exceed the firearms and ammunition that a suspect is reported or believed to possess; iv. when an Officer reasonably believes that there may be a need to fire on a barricaded person or a person with a hostage;
v. when an Officer reasonably believes that a suspect may be wearing body armor.
vi. When an officer is training at an approved range or other approved facility vii. Other situations not listed here may also be deemed authorized use cases under applicable penal code and case law, and shall reflect necessary, reasonable, and proportional use of this weapon system. (d) Lifespan:
i. .308 Caliber Remington 700/700LTR: Approximately 15 years ii. .308 Caliber Heckler & Koch HK-91: Approximately 15 years iii. .308 Ammunition: No expiration
(e) Training: In addition to patrol rifle and standard SWAT operator training, SWAT snipers must successfully complete a California POST-certified sniper course as well as regular SWAT sniper training and qualifications as required by law and policy.
(f) Fiscal Impact: Annual maintenance is approximately $100 per Remington rifle.
The HK is not used.
41 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/09/23, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY - 6
(g) Legal and Procedural Rules: Use of the sniper rifles and ammunition are subject to the requirements of the SWAT Standard Operating Procedures for Mountain View/Los Altos, Policy 300 (USE OF FORCE), Policy 312.3.2 (PATROL RIFLES), Policy 312 (FIREARMS), and Policy 414 (HOSTAGE AND BARRICADE INCIDENTS). It is the policy of the Los Altos Police Department to utilize rifles only for official law enforcement purposes, in accordance with all requirements under State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
5. Benelli M3Super90 12 gauge shotgun and ammunition: This firearm is not currently used by the department and is stored in the armory. The Benelli M3 is a dual-mode (hybrid pump-action and semi-automatic) shotgun The ammunition for the shotgun is 00 Buck and slug rounds.
(a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. BENELLI M3SUPER90 12 GAUGE SHOTGUN, cost $500, quantity:
1. The Benelli M3 is a combination Pump-Action and Semi-Automatic Shotgun. The shotgun can be chambered for 12 GA shells with a 20 inch barrel.
ii. 00 BUCK AMMUNITION, cost: $1.80 per round, quantity: 600 rounds. A typical 12-gauge, 2 ¾-inch 00 Buckshot shell holds 8 pellets that are 0.33" in diameter. A 3-inch shell most often contains 12 of these same sized pellets.
iii. SLUG AMMUNITION, cost: $1.40 per round, quantity: 100. The Fostertype shotgun slug features exterior rifled grooves which contact the shotgun's bore to give it spin; and, the slug's hollow-point design initiates expansion to augment stopping power.
(b) Purpose: This shotgun is not currently utilized by the department. The only shotguns used by the Department are the less lethal shotguns. The ammunition is purchased solely for recruits in the police academy, where shotgun instruction occurs.
(c) Authorized Use: There is currently no authorized use for the shotgun in our policy.
(d) Lifespan:
i. Benelli M3Super90 12 gauge shotgun: Approximately 15 years ii. OO Buck Ammunition: No expiration
iii. Slug ammunition: No expiration
(e) Training: Officers receive training in shotgun use in the police academy, and have to pass firearm qualifications. There is no further training with the Benelli shotgun or ammunition.
(f) Fiscal Impact: None, the weapon is not utilized. When equipment is being used, yearly maintenance costs are estimated to be $100.
42 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/09/23, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY - 7
(g) Legal and Procedural Rules: Use of all firearms fall under the following policies:
Policy 300 (USE OF FORCE) and Policy 312 (FIREARMS). It is the policy of the Los Altos Police Department to utilize firearms only for official law enforcement purposes, in accordance with all requirements under State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
6. Remington 870 MCS 12 Gauge Breaching shotgun and breaching rounds: This firearm/ammunition is not currently used by the department and is stored in the SWAT armory.
(a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. REMINGTON 870 MCS 12 GAUGE BREACHING SHOTGUN, cost:
$1,400, quantity: 1. Extremely compact breaching model 12 gauge with a ten inch cylinder bore breaching barrel with parkerized finish, a Knoxx recoil reducing breacher pistol grip stock, and synthetic modular fore-end. ii. 12 GAUGE BREACHING ROUNDS, cost: $5.00 per round, quantity: 25 rounds. The 12-Gauge TKO Breaching Round is a 12-Gauge shell loaded with a compressed zinc slug, utilizing smokeless powder as a propellant.
The is a widely used method to breach door locks or hinges for entry during tactical operations.
(b) Purpose: The breaching shotgun is used to safely gain entry into a structure.
When properly deployed, the TKO breaching round is capable of defeating door lock mechanisms, door knobs, hinges, dead bolts, safety chains, and pad locks on both wooden or hollow core doors. Upon impact with the target, the zinc slug disintegrates in to a fine powder eliminating fragmentation. The Explosive Breaching Program, conducted in conjunction with the Mountain View Police Department, was established to provide the joint SWAT Team the ability to quickly create an opening in a wall or window to quickly enter a building for an emergency rescue of hostages. It is reserved for rescue operations only. (c) Authorized Use: Subject to subsection (g) below, this equipment would only be deployed during a SWAT incident, and its use would need specific authorization from the Incident Commander. The equipment may only be used by a "tactical breacher" on the SWAT team. We currently do not have any authorized users at the Department.
(d) Lifespan:
i. Remington 870 MCS 12 Gauge Breaching shotgun: Approximately 15 years
ii. 12-Gauge TKO Breaching Round: Approximately 5 years (e) Training: The training consists of an 80-hour course for a member of the SWAT Team specifically designated as the "breacher." At the conclusion of the course, the breacher must pass a test proctored by CAL/OSHA. The OSHA certification is valid for 5 years. Before the expiration of the certification, the breacher must retake and pass the test.
43 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/09/23, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY - 8
(f) Fiscal Impact: None, the weapon is not utilized. When equipment is being used, yearly maintenance costs are estimated to be $100.
(g) Legal and Procedural Rules: Use of the breaching shotgun and ammunition are subject to the requirements of the SWAT Standard Operating Procedures for Mountain View/Los Altos. Use is also under Policy 414 (HOSTAGE AND BARRICADE INCIDENTS). It is the policy of the LAPD to utilize diversion devices only for official law enforcement purposes and pursuant to State and Federal law regarding the use of force.
7. Kaiser Precision Vulcan II Munitions Pole: Telescoping tool utilized by SWAT personnel to safely deliver approved noise/diversionary devices. (a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. KAISER PRECISION VULCAN II MUNITIONS POLE, cost: $2,000, quantity: 1. The munitions pole is a multi-purpose breaching tool, constructed of lightweight aluminum square tubing used to deploy distraction devices and chemical munitions in order to gain entrance into a building, structure or even a vehicle.
(b) Purpose: The munitions pole is used to safely deploy diversionary devices, chemical munitions, or other objects (cell phones, cameras) during SWAT operations.
(c) Authorized Use: Subject to subsection (g) below, this equipment would be deployed during primarily during a SWAT incident, but could be utilized to gain entry into a residence during other high-risk operations on patrol. (d) Lifespan: Approximately 10 years
(e) Training: Kaiser Precision provided an instructional video for individual and team training.
(f) Fiscal Impact: None, does not require annual maintenance (g) Legal and Procedural Rules: Use of the munitions pole are subject to the requirements of the SWAT Standard Operating Procedures for Mountain View/Los Altos. Use is also under Policy 317 (HIGH RISK OPERATIONS PROTOCOL), Policy 322 (SEARCH AND SEIZURE), and Policy 414 (HOSTAGE AND BARRICADE INCIDENTS). It is the policy of the LAPD to utilize diversion devices only for official law enforcement purposes and pursuant to State and Federal law regarding the use of force.
8. CTS Flash-bang Training Kit: The training flash-bangs are built and weigh exactly the same as it's equivalent live Flash-Bang, but have no flash charge. (a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. CTS FLASH-BANG TRAINING KIT, cost: $964, Quantity 1 kit (comes with 70 reload Training Fuzes, 1 body), current fuze inventory is 25. The training bodies are painted with a bright blue coating, and can be used an unlimited number of times. The M201FB fuze for this system has 10 times the output of a normal M201 fuze and it is threaded with a left hand thread so it can not 44 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/09/23, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY - 9
be accidentally used in any other munitions. The training devices produce an output of about 120db.
(b) Purpose: Flash-bangs are used to distract and temporarily immobilize dangerous suspects by overwhelming their senses of vision and hearing. The distraction gives Officers time to seize a moment and create an opportunity to take control of high-risk or dangerous situations.
(c) Authorized Use: Subject to subsection (g) below, SWAT operators may utilize the training flash-bangs as a training tool to distract and temporarily immobilize dangerous suspects by overwhelming their senses of vision and hearing. Los Altos Police Department does not have any live flash-bangs in the inventory.
Our operators use live flash-bangs while on SWAT events or at training with Mountain View Police Department.
(d) Lifespan: 5 years
(e) Training: These are a training tool. SWAT operators must attend and pass an 80-hour SWAT training class. Flash-bang training is provided by an instructor who has completed an 8-hour noise flash diversionary device course. (f) Fiscal Impact: None, does not require annual maintenance (g) Legal and Procedural Rules: Use of the live flash-bangs are subject to the requirements of the SWAT Standard Operating Procedures for Mountain View/Los Altos. Use is also under Policy 317 (HIGH RISK OPERATIONS PROTOCOL), Policy 322 (SEARCH AND SEIZURE), and Policy 414 (HOSTAGE AND BARRICADE INCIDENTS). It is the policy of the LAPD to utilize diversion devices only for official law enforcement purposes and pursuant to State and Federal law regarding the use of force.
9. Specialty Impact Munition (SIM) weapons and ammunition: Simunition® is the pioneer and world leader in providing military, law enforcement and approved range members with the most realistic and non-lethal force-on-force, short range, simulation training system.
(a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. SIMUNITION GLOCK 17T, cost: $500 each, quantity: 8. The GLOCK Training Pistols were developed with the purpose of enabling realitybased tactical operations training using color marking or plastic projectile ammunition. When utilized in a pistol caliber barrel training platform (9mm), SIMs have an effective range of 25 feet.
ii. SIM CONVERTED BERETTA 92, cost: $500 each, quantity: 4. The Simunition® conversion kit, conversion bolt, bolt carrier assembly and safety-ring insert allow the FX® Marking Cartridges and the SecuriBlank® to be fired safely from the user's own service weapon. These easy-toinstall kits help preclude the inadvertent chambering of live ammunition and ensure the proper operation and cycling of the weapons. When utilized in a pistol caliber barrel training platform (9mm), SIMs have an effective range of 25 feet.
45 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/09/23, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY - 10
iii. HK MP5 CONVERSION KITS, cost: $500 each, quantity 2. The Simunition® conversion kit, conversion bolt, bolt carrier assembly and safety-ring insert allow the FX® Marking Cartridges and the SecuriBlank® to be fired safely from the user's own service weapon. These easy-toinstall kits help preclude the inadvertent chambering of live ammunition and ensure the proper operation and cycling of the weapons. When utilized with a training munition bolt carrier group in a 5.56mm rifle platform, SIMs have an effective range of approximately 27 yards.
iv. SIMUNITION COLT AR-15 CARBINE RIFLE UPPERS, cost: $1,000 each, quantity: 3. The Simunition® conversion kit, conversion bolt, bolt carrier assembly and safety-ring insert allow the FX® Marking Cartridges and the SecuriBlank® to be fired safely from the user's own service weapon.
These easy-to-install kits help preclude the inadvertent chambering of live ammunition and ensure the proper operation and cycling of the weapons.
When utilized with a training munition bolt carrier group in a 5.56mm rifle platform, SIMs have an effective range of approximately 27 yards. v. FX MARKING CARTRIDGES, cost: $350 for 500 rounds, quantity: 3,500 rounds. The reduced-energy, non-lethal cartridges leave a detergentbased, water-soluble color-marking compound. The visible impacts allow accurate assessment of simulated lethality. They feature tactical accuracy up to 25 feet (7.6 meters).
(b) Purpose: Enabling reality-based, force-on-force tactical operations training using color marking or plastic projectile ammunition.
(c) Authorized Use: Subject to subsection (g) below, simunition weapons and marking rounds are non-operational rounds and non-operational weapons systems. These munitions provide for realistic close quarters firearms training while allowing the shooter to visually assess shot placement and accuracy in force on force training scenarios. These items are used for training purposes for all sworn staff members.
(d) Lifespan:
i. Simunition Glock 17T: – 24-month limited warranty. No lifespan indicated by manufacturer. Lifespan varies on operational usage and wear. ii. Sim Converted Beretta: – 24-month limited warranty. No lifespan indicated by manufacturer. Lifespan varies on operational usage and wear. iii. HK MP5 Conversion Kits: – 24-month limited warranty. No lifespan indicated by manufacturer. Lifespan varies on operational usage and wear.
iv. Simunition Colt AR-15 Rifle Uppers: – 24-month limited warranty. No lifespan indicated by manufacturer. Lifespan varies on operational usage and wear.
v. FX Marking Cartridges: Shelf life five (5) years.
46 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/09/23, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY - 11
(e) Training: These are a training tool. Simunition Instructors attend an informative, three-day (24-hour) course designed to provide students with substantial handson experience with Simunition® FX® training ammunition technology, weapons conversion kits, and the Simunition® line of protective equipment. The course provides in-depth, hands-on instruction in scenario-based training program development and training methodology, and gives critical practical experience to students on the best use of Simunition® training products in a highly effective, realistic, extremely safe training program. Sworn staff members are given extensive firearms handling courses and weapons safety instruction to include the use of SIMs for training purposes.
(f) Fiscal Impact: Annual maintenance cost is approximately $500 for all of the simunition weapons to be inspected and repaired.
(g) Legal and Procedural Rules: Use of the Simunition firearms and marking rounds are subject to the requirements of Policy 300 (USE OF FORCE) and Policy 312 (FIREARMS) while training. It is the policy of the Los Altos Police Department to utilize Simunition equipment only for official law enforcement training purposes, in accordance with all requirements under State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
47 Agenda Item # 3.
Section
709.9
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/09/23, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY - 1
709.9 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
The following constitutes a list and description of qualifying equipment for the Department:
1. 40 MM Launchers and Rounds: 40mm Launchers are utilized by department personnel as a less lethal tool to launch impact rounds. (a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. PENN ARMS GL-140-C, 40MM SINGLE SHOT LAUNCHER, cost:
$1,000, quantity: 3. The 40mm Single Launcher is a tactical single shot launcher that features a collapsible stock. It will fire standard 40mm less lethal ammunition, up to 6.0 inches in cartridge length. 40mm launchers are capable of firing a variety of munitions with a maximum effective range of one hundred twenty (120) feet.
ii. SAGE CONTROL ORDINANCES INC K041 STANDARD ENERGY
IMPACT BATON PROJECTILE, cost: $21.00, quantity: 14. A less lethal 40mm impact baton projectile fired from a single 40mm grenade launcher with a rifled barrel at 51-72 MPS (meters per second). The projectile provides accurate and effective performance when fired from the recommended firing distances of not less than 10 feet and no greater than 75 feet.
(b) Purpose: To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable.
(c) Authorized Use: Subject to subsection (g) below, situations for use of the less lethal weapon systems may include, but are not limited to the following:
i. The suspect is armed with a weapon and the tactical circumstances allow for the safe application of approved munitions.
ii. The suspect has made credible threats to harm him/herself or others. iii. The suspect is engaged in riotous behavior or is throwing rocks, bottles or other dangerous projectiles at people and/or officers.
iv. There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has already committed a crime of violence and is refusing to comply with lawful orders. v. Other situations not listed here may also be deemed authorized use cases under applicable penal code and case law, and shall reflect necessary, reasonable, and proportional use of less lethal weapon system. (d) Training: All personnel who are authorized to carry a control device must be properly trained and certified to carry the specific control device and are retrained or re-certified as necessary. Proficiency training shall be monitored and documented by a certified, control-device weapons or tactics instructor. (e) Lifespan:
i. Penn Arms GL-140-C- No lifespan indicated by manufacturer. Lifespan varies on operational usage and wear
ii. K041 Standard Energy Impact Batons-5 years
48 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/09/23, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY - 2
(f) Fiscal Impact: Annual maintenance is approximately $100 for each launcher. (g) Legal and Procedural Rules: Use of the 40mm launcher and 40mm baton rounds are subject to the requirements of Policy 300 (USE OF FORCE), 308 (CONTROL DEVICES AND TECHNIQUES), 308.9 (KINETIC ENERGY PROJECTILE GUIDELINES), and Policy 312 (FIREARMS). It is the policy of the Los Altos Police Department to utilize the 40mm only for official law enforcement purposes, in accordance with all requirements under State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
2. Less Lethal Shotgun and Rounds: Less Lethal Shotgun is used to deploy the less lethal 12-gauge Super-Sock Beanbag Round.
(a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. REMINGTON 870 LESS LETHAL SHOTGUN, cost: $950, quantity: 11.
The Remington 870 Less Lethal Shotgun is used to deploy the less lethal 12-gauge Super-Sock Beanbag Round up to a distance of 75 feet. The range of the weapon system helps to maintain space between officers and a suspect reducing the immediacy of the threat which is a principle of deescalation. The less lethal 12- gauge shotgun is distinguishable by an orange butt stock and fore grip.
ii. 12-GAUGE SUPER-SOCK BEANBAG ROUND 2581, cost: $6, quantity:
90. A less lethal 2.4-inch 12-gauge shotgun round firing a ballistic fiber bag filled with 40 grams of lead shot at a velocity of 270-290 feet per second (FPS). CTS (Combined Tactical Systems) Super-Sock rounds are discharged from a dedicated 12- gauge shotgun that is distinguishable by an orange butt stock and fore grip. This round provides accurate and effective performance when fired from the approved distance of not fewer than five (5) feet. The maximum effective range of this munition is up to 75 feet from the target. The Model 2581 Super-Sock is in its deployed state immediately upon exiting the barrel. It does not require a minimum range to "unfold" or "stabilize." The Super-Sock is an aerodynamic projectile.
However, accuracy is relative to the shotgun, barrel length, environmental conditions, and the operator. The Super-Sock is very accurate. However, effectiveness depends on many variables, such as distance, clothing, stature, and the point where the projectile impacts.
(b) Purpose: To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable.
(c) Authorized Use - Subject to subsection (g) below, situations for use of the less lethal weapon systems may include, but are not limited to the following:
i. The suspect is armed with a weapon and the tactical circumstances allow for the safe application of approved munitions.
ii. The suspect has made credible threats to harm him/herself or others. iii. The suspect is engaged in riotous behavior or is throwing rocks, bottles or other dangerous projectiles at people and/or officers.
49 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/09/23, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY - 3
iv. There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has already committed a crime of violence and is refusing to comply with lawful orders. v. Other situations not listed here may also be deemed authorized use cases under applicable penal code and case law, and shall reflect necessary, reasonable, and proportional use of less lethal weapon system. (d) Lifespan:
i. Remington 970 Less Lethal Shotgun-25 years
ii. Super Sock Round Model 2581: No listed expiration date (e) Training: All personnel who are authorized to carry a control device must be properly trained and certified to carry the specific control device and are retrained or re-certified as necessary. Proficiency training shall be monitored and documented by a certified, control-device weapons or tactics instructor. (f) Fiscal Impact: Annual maintenance is approximately $100 per shotgun. (g) Legal and Procedural Rules: Use of the less lethal shotgun and Super Sock rounds are subject to the requirements of Policy 300 (USE OF FORCE), 308 (CONTROL DEVICES AND TECHNIQUES), 308.9 (KINETIC ENERGY PROJECTILE GUIDELINES), and Policy 312 (FIREARMS). It is the policy of the Los Altos Police Department to utilize the less lethal shotgun only for official law enforcement purposes, in accordance with all requirements under State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
3. 5.56mm Semi-Automatic Rifles and Ammunition: The Colt AR-15/M4 5.56 mm/.223 semiautomatic rifles are used for both patrol and the SWAT Team. (a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. COLT AR RIFLES, cost: $1200, quantity: 27. These rifles, equipped and locked in each patrol car or police motorcycle, offer a higher degree of accuracy at a longer distance. The ammunition used in rifles are also more effective at penetrating body armor (as some suspects have worn during high-profile shooting events in the country). They are normally kept secured in patrol cars or in the Police station and are only deployed on specific incidents where officers believe guns or weapons are involved. ii. .223 CALIBER or 5.56MM RIFLE AMMUNITION, cost: $280 per case of 500 rounds, quantity: 10,800 rounds. This rifle ammunition used in conjunction with an AR-15 type rifle provides officers the ability to engage hostile suspects at distances generally greater than the effective distance of their handguns. Rifle ammunition fired from AR-15 rifles offer advantages over handguns, such as increased accuracy potential and the ability to defeat soft body armor but are not appropriate for every situation. (b) Purpose: To address a threat with more precision and/or greater distances than a handgun, if present and feasible.
(c) Authorized Use - Members may deploy the patrol rifle in any circumstance where the member can articulate a reasonable expectation that the rifle may 50 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/09/23, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY - 4
be needed. Subject to subsection (g) below), situations for use of theseweapon systems may include, but are not limited to the following:
i. Situations where the member reasonably anticipates an armed encounter. ii. When a member is faced with a situation that may require accurate and effective fire at long range.
iii. Situations where a member reasonably expects the need to meet or exceed a suspect's firepower.
iv. When a member reasonably believes that there may be a need to fire on a barricaded person or a person with a hostage.
v. When a member reasonably believes that a suspect may be wearing body armor.
vi. When authorized or requested by a supervisor.
vii. When needed to euthanize an animal.
viii. When an officer is training at an approved range or other approved facility ix. Other situations not listed here may also be deemed authorized use cases under applicable penal code and case law, and shall reflect necessary, reasonable, and proportional use of this weapon system. (d) Lifespan:
i. Colt ARRifles: Approximately 15-20 years
ii. 223 Caliber or 5.56mm rifle ammunition: No expiration (e) Training: Officers must successfully complete a 24-hour patrol rifle course as well as regular Department firearms training and qualifications as required by law and policy. Firearm Instructors attend a 40-hour POST-approved rifle instructor class, and SWAT personnel must attend an 80-hour basic SWAT Team course. (f) Fiscal Impact: Annual maintenance is approximately $100 per rifle. (g) Legal and Procedural Rules: Use of the patrol rifles and ammunition are subject to the requirements of Policy 300 (USE OF FORCE), Policy 312.3.2 (PATROL RIFLES), and Policy 312 (FIREARMS). It is the policy of the Los Altos Police Department to utilize rifles only for official law enforcement purposes, in accordance with all requirements under State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
4. .308 Caliber Remington 700 and Heckler & Koch HK-91 Sniper Rifles and Ammunition: The sniper rifles are capable of firing a.308 caliber bullet. This rifle may only be used by a SWAT Officer trained and certified to be a sniper (LAPD currently has two such officers) and may be deployed to assist the SWAT Team in a critical incident or emergency.
(a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost 51 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/09/23, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY - 5
i. .308 CALIBER REMINGTON 700 AND 700 LTR RIFLE, cost: $1,000, quantity: 2. Remington 700: No cost, surveyed, Remington 700LTR $1,000.
ii. .308 CALIBER HECKLER & KOCH HK-91 RIFLE, cost: No cost, surveyed, , quantity: 1.
iii. .308 AMMUNITION, cost: $1.50 per round, quantity: 3,040 rounds. These nickel-plated bonded soft-point 308/7.62 cartridges from Speer Gold-Dot are resistant to corrosion, capable of expansion from barrels as short as 10", and retain accuracy from a variety of barrels lengths. (b) Purpose: This rifle may only be used by a SWAT Officer trained and certified to be a sniper and may be deployed to assist the SWAT Team in a critical incident or emergency. The main use of this weapon system is for observation of an incident and to be able to accurately and immediately be able to stop a threat to life.
(c) Authorized Use: Subject to subsection (g) below, examples of situations for deploying the sniper rifle may include, but are not limited to the following:
i. where the Officer reasonably anticipates an armed encounter; ii. when the Officer is faced with a situation that may require accurate and effective fire at a long distance;
iii. where an Officer reasonably expects the need to meet or exceed the firearms and ammunition that a suspect is reported or believed to possess; iv. when an Officer reasonably believes that there may be a need to fire on a barricaded person or a person with a hostage;
v. when an Officer reasonably believes that a suspect may be wearing body armor.
vi. When an officer is training at an approved range or other approved facility vii. Other situations not listed here may also be deemed authorized use cases under applicable penal code and case law, and shall reflect necessary, reasonable, and proportional use of this weapon system. (d) Lifespan:
i. .308 Caliber Remington 700/700LTR: Approximately 15 years ii. .308 Caliber Heckler & Koch HK-91: Approximately 15 years iii. .308 Ammunition: No expiration
(e) Training: In addition to patrol rifle and standard SWAT operator training, SWAT snipers must successfully complete a California POST-certified sniper course as well as regular SWAT sniper training and qualifications as required by law and policy.
(f) Fiscal Impact: Annual maintenance is approximately $100 per Remington rifle.
The HK is not used.
52 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/09/23, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY - 6
(g) Legal and Procedural Rules: Use of the sniper rifles and ammunition are subject to the requirements of the SWAT Standard Operating Procedures for Mountain View/Los Altos, Policy 300 (USE OF FORCE), Policy 312.3.2 (PATROL RIFLES), Policy 312 (FIREARMS), and Policy 414 (HOSTAGE AND BARRICADE INCIDENTS). It is the policy of the Los Altos Police Department to utilize rifles only for official law enforcement purposes, in accordance with all requirements under State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
5. Benelli M3Super90 12 gauge shotgun and ammunition: This firearm is not currently used by the department and is stored in the armory. The Benelli M3 is a dual-mode (hybrid pump-action and semi-automatic) shotgun The ammunition for the shotgun is 00 Buck and slug rounds.
(a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. BENELLI M3SUPER90 12 GAUGE SHOTGUN, cost $500, quantity:
1. The Benelli M3 is a combination Pump-Action and Semi-Automatic Shotgun. The shotgun can be chambered for 12 GA shells with a 20 inch barrel.
ii. 00 BUCK AMMUNITION, cost: $1.80 per round, quantity: 600 rounds. A typical 12-gauge, 2 ¾-inch 00 Buckshot shell holds 8 pellets that are 0.33" in diameter. A 3-inch shell most often contains 12 of these same sized pellets.
iii. SLUG AMMUNITION, cost: $1.40 per round, quantity: 100. The Fostertype shotgun slug features exterior rifled grooves which contact the shotgun's bore to give it spin; and, the slug's hollow-point design initiates expansion to augment stopping power.
(b) Purpose: This shotgun is not currently utilized by the department. The only shotguns used by the Department are the less lethal shotguns. The ammunition is purchased solely for recruits in the police academy, where shotgun instruction occurs.
(c) Authorized Use: There is currently no authorized use for the shotgun in our policy.
(d) Lifespan:
i. Benelli M3Super90 12 gauge shotgun: Approximately 15 years ii. OO Buck Ammunition: No expiration
iii. Slug ammunition: No expiration
(e) Training: Officers receive training in shotgun use in the police academy, and have to pass firearm qualifications. There is no further training with the Benelli shotgun or ammunition.
(f) Fiscal Impact: None, the weapon is not utilized. When equipment is being used, yearly maintenance costs are estimated to be $100.
53 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/09/23, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY - 7
(g) Legal and Procedural Rules: Use of all firearms fall under the following policies:
Policy 300 (USE OF FORCE) and Policy 312 (FIREARMS). It is the policy of the Los Altos Police Department to utilize firearms only for official law enforcement purposes, in accordance with all requirements under State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
6. Remington 870 MCS 12 Gauge Breaching shotgun and breaching rounds: This firearm/ammunition is not currently used by the department and is stored in the SWAT armory.
(a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. REMINGTON 870 MCS 12 GAUGE BREACHING SHOTGUN, cost:
$1,400, quantity: 1. Extremely compact breaching model 12 gauge with a ten inch cylinder bore breaching barrel with parkerized finish, a Knoxx recoil reducing breacher pistol grip stock, and synthetic modular fore-end. ii. 12 GAUGE BREACHING ROUNDS, cost: $5.00 per round, quantity: 25 rounds. The 12-Gauge TKO Breaching Round is a 12-Gauge shell loaded with a compressed zinc slug, utilizing smokeless powder as a propellant.
The is a widely used method to breach door locks or hinges for entry during tactical operations.
(b) Purpose: The breaching shotgun is used to safely gain entry into a structure.
When properly deployed, the TKO breaching round is capable of defeating door lock mechanisms, door knobs, hinges, dead bolts, safety chains, and pad locks on both wooden or hollow core doors. Upon impact with the target, the zinc slug disintegrates in to a fine powder eliminating fragmentation. The Explosive Breaching Program, conducted in conjunction with the Mountain View Police Department, was established to provide the joint SWAT Team the ability to quickly create an opening in a wall or window to quickly enter a building for an emergency rescue of hostages. It is reserved for rescue operations only. (c) Authorized Use: Subject to subsection (g) below, this equipment would only be deployed during a SWAT incident, and its use would need specific authorization from the Incident Commander. The equipment may only be used by a "tactical breacher" on the SWAT team. We currently do not have any authorized users at the Department.
(d) Lifespan:
i. Remington 870 MCS 12 Gauge Breaching shotgun: Approximately 15 years
ii. 12-Gauge TKO Breaching Round: Approximately 5 years (e) Training: The training consists of an 80-hour course for a member of the SWAT Team specifically designated as the "breacher." At the conclusion of the course, the breacher must pass a test proctored by CAL/OSHA. The OSHA certification is valid for 5 years. Before the expiration of the certification, the breacher must retake and pass the test.
54 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/09/23, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY - 8
(f) Fiscal Impact: None, the weapon is not utilized. When equipment is being used, yearly maintenance costs are estimated to be $100.
(g) Legal and Procedural Rules: Use of the breaching shotgun and ammunition are subject to the requirements of the SWAT Standard Operating Procedures for Mountain View/Los Altos. Use is also under Policy 414 (HOSTAGE AND BARRICADE INCIDENTS). It is the policy of the LAPD to utilize diversion devices only for official law enforcement purposes and pursuant to State and Federal law regarding the use of force.
7. Kaiser Precision Vulcan II Munitions Pole: Telescoping tool utilized by SWAT personnel to safely deliver approved noise/diversionary devices. (a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. KAISER PRECISION VULCAN II MUNITIONS POLE, cost: $2,000, quantity: 1. The munitions pole is a multi-purpose breaching tool, constructed of lightweight aluminum square tubing used to deploy distraction devices and chemical munitions in order to gain entrance into a building, structure or even a vehicle.
(b) Purpose: The munitions pole is used to safely deploy diversionary devices, chemical munitions, or other objects (cell phones, cameras) during SWAT operations.
(c) Authorized Use: Subject to subsection (g) below, this equipment would be deployed during primarily during a SWAT incident, but could be utilized to gain entry into a residence during other high-risk operations on patrol. (d) Lifespan: Approximately 10 years
(e) Training: Kaiser Precision provided an instructional video for individual and team training.
(f) Fiscal Impact: None, does not require annual maintenance (g) Legal and Procedural Rules: Use of the munitions pole are subject to the requirements of the SWAT Standard Operating Procedures for Mountain View/Los Altos. Use is also under Policy 317 (HIGH RISK OPERATIONS PROTOCOL), Policy 322 (SEARCH AND SEIZURE), and Policy 414 (HOSTAGE AND BARRICADE INCIDENTS). It is the policy of the LAPD to utilize diversion devices only for official law enforcement purposes and pursuant to State and Federal law regarding the use of force.
8. CTS Flash-bang Training Kit: The training flash-bangs are built and weigh exactly the same as it's equivalent live Flash-Bang, but have no flash charge. (a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. CTS FLASH-BANG TRAINING KIT, cost: $964, Quantity 1 kit (comes with 70 reload Training Fuzes, 1 body), current fuze inventory is 25. The training bodies are painted with a bright blue coating, and can be used an unlimited number of times. The M201FB fuze for this system has 10 times the output of a normal M201 fuze and it is threaded with a left hand thread so it can not 55 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/09/23, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY - 9
be accidentally used in any other munitions. The training devices produce an output of about 120db.
(b) Purpose: Flash-bangs are used to distract and temporarily immobilize dangerous suspects by overwhelming their senses of vision and hearing. The distraction gives Officers time to seize a moment and create an opportunity to take control of high-risk or dangerous situations.
(c) Authorized Use: Subject to subsection (g) below, SWAT operators may utilize the training flash-bangs as a training tool to distract and temporarily immobilize dangerous suspects by overwhelming their senses of vision and hearing. Los Altos Police Department does not have any live flash-bangs in the inventory.
Our operators use live flash-bangs while on SWAT events or at training with Mountain View Police Department.
(d) Lifespan: 5 years
(e) Training: These are a training tool. SWAT operators must attend and pass an 80-hour SWAT training class. Flash-bang training is provided by an instructor who has completed an 8-hour noise flash diversionary device course. (f) Fiscal Impact: None, does not require annual maintenance (g) Legal and Procedural Rules: Use of the live flash-bangs are subject to the requirements of the SWAT Standard Operating Procedures for Mountain View/Los Altos. Use is also under Policy 317 (HIGH RISK OPERATIONS PROTOCOL), Policy 322 (SEARCH AND SEIZURE), and Policy 414 (HOSTAGE AND BARRICADE INCIDENTS). It is the policy of the LAPD to utilize diversion devices only for official law enforcement purposes and pursuant to State and Federal law regarding the use of force.
9. Specialty Impact Munition (SIM) weapons and ammunition: Simunition® is the pioneer and world leader in providing military, law enforcement and approved range members with the most realistic and non-lethal force-on-force, short range, simulation training system.
(a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. SIMUNITION GLOCK 17T, cost: $500 each, quantity: 8. The GLOCK Training Pistols were developed with the purpose of enabling realitybased tactical operations training using color marking or plastic projectile ammunition. When utilized in a pistol caliber barrel training platform (9mm), SIMs have an effective range of 25 feet.
ii. SIM CONVERTED BERETTA 92, cost: $500 each, quantity: 4. The Simunition® conversion kit, conversion bolt, bolt carrier assembly and safety-ring insert allow the FX® Marking Cartridges and the SecuriBlank® to be fired safely from the user's own service weapon. These easy-toinstall kits help preclude the inadvertent chambering of live ammunition and ensure the proper operation and cycling of the weapons. When utilized in a pistol caliber barrel training platform (9mm), SIMs have an effective range of 25 feet.
56 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/09/23, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY - 10
iii. HK MP5 CONVERSION KITS, cost: $500 each, quantity 2. The Simunition® conversion kit, conversion bolt, bolt carrier assembly and safety-ring insert allow the FX® Marking Cartridges and the SecuriBlank® to be fired safely from the user's own service weapon. These easy-toinstall kits help preclude the inadvertent chambering of live ammunition and ensure the proper operation and cycling of the weapons. When utilized with a training munition bolt carrier group in a 5.56mm rifle platform, SIMs have an effective range of approximately 27 yards.
iv. SIMUNITION COLT AR-15 CARBINE RIFLE UPPERS, cost: $1,000 each, quantity: 3. The Simunition® conversion kit, conversion bolt, bolt carrier assembly and safety-ring insert allow the FX® Marking Cartridges and the SecuriBlank® to be fired safely from the user's own service weapon.
These easy-to-install kits help preclude the inadvertent chambering of live ammunition and ensure the proper operation and cycling of the weapons.
When utilized with a training munition bolt carrier group in a 5.56mm rifle platform, SIMs have an effective range of approximately 27 yards. v. FX MARKING CARTRIDGES, cost: $350 for 500 rounds, quantity: 3,500 rounds. The reduced-energy, non-lethal cartridges leave a detergentbased, water-soluble color-marking compound. The visible impacts allow accurate assessment of simulated lethality. They feature tactical accuracy up to 25 feet (7.6 meters).
(b) Purpose: Enabling reality-based, force-on-force tactical operations training using color marking or plastic projectile ammunition.
(c) Authorized Use: Subject to subsection (g) below, simunition weapons and marking rounds are non-operational rounds and non-operational weapons systems. These munitions provide for realistic close quarters firearms training while allowing the shooter to visually assess shot placement and accuracy in force on force training scenarios. These items are used for training purposes for all sworn staff members.
(d) Lifespan:
i. Simunition Glock 17T: – 24-month limited warranty. No lifespan indicated by manufacturer. Lifespan varies on operational usage and wear. ii. Sim Converted Beretta: – 24-month limited warranty. No lifespan indicated by manufacturer. Lifespan varies on operational usage and wear. iii. HK MP5 Conversion Kits: – 24-month limited warranty. No lifespan indicated by manufacturer. Lifespan varies on operational usage and wear.
iv. Simunition Colt AR-15 Rifle Uppers: – 24-month limited warranty. No lifespan indicated by manufacturer. Lifespan varies on operational usage and wear.
v. FX Marking Cartridges: Shelf life five (5) years.
57 Agenda Item # 3.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/09/23, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY - 11
(e) Training: These are a training tool. Simunition Instructors attend an informative, three-day (24-hour) course designed to provide students with substantial handson experience with Simunition® FX® training ammunition technology, weapons conversion kits, and the Simunition® line of protective equipment. The course provides in-depth, hands-on instruction in scenario-based training program development and training methodology, and gives critical practical experience to students on the best use of Simunition® training products in a highly effective, realistic, extremely safe training program. Sworn staff members are given extensive firearms handling courses and weapons safety instruction to include the use of SIMs for training purposes.
(f) Fiscal Impact: Annual maintenance cost is approximately $500 for all of the simunition weapons to be inspected and repaired.
(g) Legal and Procedural Rules: Use of the Simunition firearms and marking rounds are subject to the requirements of Policy 300 (USE OF FORCE) and Policy 312 (FIREARMS) while training. It is the policy of the Los Altos Police Department to utilize Simunition equipment only for official law enforcement training purposes, in accordance with all requirements under State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
58 Agenda Item # 3.
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
The following is public correspondence received by the City Clerk’s Office after the posting of the original agenda. Individual contact information has been redacted for privacy. This may not be a comprehensive collection of the public correspondence, but staff makes its best effort to include all correspondence received to date.
To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
59 Agenda Item # 3.
From: Jeanine Valadez
To: Public Comment
Cc: Angel Rodriguez; Kathryn Krauss; Angela Averiett; Gabriel Engeland Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM #3 4/11/2023
Date: Monday, April 10, 2023 1:53:14 PM
Honorable Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Councilmembers,
Please pull Item 3 MEUP from the consent calendar.
Thank you.
Jeanine Valadez
60 Agenda Item # 3.
From: Jeanine Valadez
To: Public Comment
Cc: Angel Rodriguez; Kathryn Krauss; Angela Averiett; Gabriel Engeland Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM #3 4/11/2023
Date: Monday, April 10, 2023 1:59:35 PM
Honorable Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Councilmembers,
I continue to have major concerns that our Policy 709 is not complaint with AB481, thus exposing our city to significant risk and liability should somethingg ever go awry, as is apt to happen.
Indep oversight: first: need to add the words "independent oversight" to the list of required content in the first section of the policy, "Purpose and Scope." There is no way the Chief, nor the City manager, who manages the Chief, nor the City Council, who manages the CM, are INDEPENDENT. This lack of explicit conformance violates the intent and letter of the law.
Make community engagement compliant with letter of AB481: the community engagement (townhall) is not for the Department to discuss, it is for the General Public to discuss. Solution: in section titled COmmunity Engagement, first sentence: Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the Department should [change to shall] hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the Department [replace Department with AB481 wording: General Public] should [change to shall] discuss the report and [add: ask questions to the Department, who will] respond to public questions regarding the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.
I disapprove of the paragraph on Exigency. And CM Fligor's addition does nothing to quell my concerns. Even if we agree to have the paragraph, there must be much more due diligence post-use for documenting, justifying and, to extent law allows, allow the public to weigh in on whether we as a community accepts the use of said ME in such cases after the fact. Other communities have specifically outlawed use of certain MEUp in this regard, such as water cannons, etc.
Finally, did you all notice the changed the order of sections again? Military Equipment Coordinator has been moved to the end in this version without letting the public know. I thought it had been dropped until I scanned the entire policy.
There is much room for discussion here.
Jeanine Valadez
61 Agenda Item # 3.
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
The following is public correspondence received by the City Clerk’s Office after the posting of the original agenda. Individual contact information has been redacted for privacy. This may not be a comprehensive collection of the public correspondence, but staff makes its best effort to include all correspondence received to date.
To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
62 Agenda Item # 3.
From: Cindy Sidaris
To: Public Comment
Cc: Cindy Sidaris
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 3 - 4/11/2023
Date: Monday, April 10, 2023 4:16:51 PM
April 10, 2023
To: Los Altos City Council
Fm: Cindy Sidaris, Los Altos Resident
RE: Item #3, Military Equipment Policy
I am concerned that our Policy 709 (dated 23/04/05) does not meet the requirements of AB481 properly and completely, which opens our city to risk and potential liability. My concerns
1.Chapter 12.8 of AB481, Section d.6 states, the policy shall include “the mechanisms to ensure compliance with the military equipment use policy, including which independent persons or entities have oversight authority…”. Our policy does not include mention of independent oversight.
2.The policy document (Section 709.7 is lacking – it uses the term “should” when the more definitive “shall” or “must” is correct:
“Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the Department should [change to ‘shall’ or ‘must’] hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the Department [should use AB481 wording: General Public] should [change to ‘shall’ or ‘must’] discuss the report and [add: ask questions to the Department, who will] respond to [add: all] public questions regarding the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.
3.Section 709.3 of the policy should reference Section 709.7, Community Engagement, to include announcing the availability of the DRAFT updated policy and the meeting to be held in no less than 30 days for the public to review the policy. The meeting with the governing body for approval of the updated policy must not occur before the public review meeting.
4.The latest Military Equipment Inventory, section, 709.9, posted in the City Council amended agenda on April 7th, is dated 22/09/23, and does not include the new and replacement military equipment purchases the City Council approved on March 28.
The policy document cannot be approved with the incorrect equipment inventory.
I apologize for submitting my comment after the Monday 2pm deadline. The amended agenda containing the updated policy was not posted to the City Council website until Friday, April
7. Sincerely,
Cindy Sidaris
63 Agenda Item # 3.
From: Los Altos Racial Equity
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM #3 04/10/2023
Date: Monday, April 10, 2023 10:35:13 PM
To Mayor, Vice-Mayor & Councilmembers,
I am requesting that Item #3 - Military Equipment Policy be pulled from the Consent Calendar.
There are discrepancies, missing items, and violations of procedure under AB 481 that have yet to be resolved. The new military equipment purchases which have been approved by City Council have not even been added in to the policy, so legally can not be purchased, acquired or used without being added in the policy for the public to review. Our lack of adherence to this procedure is disturbing and points to an "anything goes" attitude when it comes to oversight of the PD.
Renee Rashid
On behalf of Los Altos for Racial Equity
64 Agenda Item # 3.
From: Los Altos Racial Equity
To: Public Comment
Subject: AGENDA ITEM ITEM #3 04/10/2023
Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 11:55:12 AM
To Mayor, Vice-Mayor & Councilmembers,
LARE has serious concerns about the lack of transparency and adherence to procedure in compliance of AB 481 - Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition & Use.
1. AB 481 requires the City Council to approve the types, quantities, authorized uses and costs for any military equipment PRIOR TO requesting, buying, funding or using the military equipment.
City Council proceeded to approve purchases of military equipment requested by PD BEFORE THEY HAVE BEEN ADDED TO MEUP POLICY. This is in violation of state law.
2. AB 481 in 7070(d)(6) requires that the MEUP address: "The mechanisms to ensure compliance with the military equipment use policy, including which independent persons or entities have oversight authority, and, if applicable, what legally enforceable sanctions are put in place for violations of the policy." Our policy states that the Chief of Police has oversight authority, which is not an independent person or entity. This is also a violation of state law.
3. The wording in 709.7 has been arbitrarily changed and does not reflect the wording of AB 481, which should be:
Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing an annual military equipment report pursuant to this section, the law enforcement agency shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the general public may discuss and ask questions regarding the annual military equipment report and the law enforcement agency’s funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.
4. In addition, we do not believe there is any need for the addition of chemical grenades into our military equipment. MV SWAT does have them and they haven't been used for 20 years. 47% of our budget already goes to PD. We don't need to spend more money on things we are not going to use.
Renee Rashid,
On behalf of Los Altos for Racial Equity
65 Agenda Item # 3.
Reviewed By:
City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JD
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: April 11, 2023
Subject Adopt the Single-use Foodware Accessories and Condiments Ordinance, in compliance with AB 1276, adding Chapter 6.45 (Single-use Foodware Accessories and Condiments) to Title 6 (Health and Safety) of the Los Altos Municipal Code by adopting by reference Chapter 5.2 (commencing with section 42270) of Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code prohibiting a food facility from providing any single-use foodware accessory or standard condiment unless requested by consumer and authorizing City and County enforcement and penalties
Prepared by: Tania Katbi, Sustainability Coordinator
Reviewed by: Aida Fairman, Director – Environmental Services and Utilities Dept.
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment:
1. Draft Ordinance 2023-488
Initiated by:
City Staff
Previous Council Consideration:
March 28, 2023
Fiscal Impact:
AB 1276 imposes a state-mandated local program by creating a new infraction and imposing additional duties on local governing bodies. The City may incur costs for outreach, education, and enforcement of the law, as amended. By adopting an ordinance to enforce Chapter 5.2 (commencing with Section 42270) of Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code, the City will be authorized to collect fines allowed under the legislation. Fines begin after the second notice of violation and include a fine of $25 for each day in violation, but not to exceed an annual total of $300.
Except for any collected fines following the second notice of violation, there should be no fiscal impact to food facilities. There is a potential for cost savings to food facilities from not providing single-use foodware accessories or condiments to all customers. 66 Agenda Item # 4.
Subject: Adopt the Single-use Foodware Accessories and Condiments Ordinance, in compliance with AB 1276, adding Chapter 6.45 (Single-use Foodware Accessories and Condiments) to title 6 (Health and Safety) of the Los Altos Municipal Code by adopting by reference Chapter 5.2 (commencing with section 42270) of Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code prohibiting a food facility from providing any single-use foodware accessory or standard condiment unless requested by consumer and authorizing City and County enforcement and penalties April 11, 2023 Page 2
Environmental Review:
The adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for the Protection of the Environment) in that this Ordinance sets forth regulatory procedures for the protection of the environment including, more particularly, regulations prohibiting or limiting the use of foodware accessories and condiments that pose a substantial environmental threat for reasons set forth in this staff report. The adoption of this Ordinance does not involve construction activity or the relaxation of existing environmental standards, and none of the circumstances set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies.
Summary:
At the March 28, 2023, City Council meeting, staff introduced and waived a further reading of the Ordinance.
On October 5, 2021, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill (“AB”) 1276 (Carillo) into law to prohibit a food facility from providing any single-use foodware accessory or standard condiment, as defined, to a consumer unless requested by the consumer. AB 1276, which amends Chapter 5.2 (commencing with Section 42270) of Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code, requires a city, county, or city and county, to authorize an enforcement agency to enforce the new requirements. Santa Clara County does not have plans at this time to enforce AB 1276 requirements in cities within the County, except for mobile food facilities. In order to enforce the new law, staff recommend adopting the state law by reference to ensure that the language in the City’s Municipal Code remains consistent with the state law as it is currently written, and as it may be amended in the future. This approach will reduce the number of times that the City must revisit and readopt amended state law language.
There are additional procedural steps that the City must follow to adopt a state law by reference, as further described below.
AB 1276 Summary
AB 1276 is designed to reduce excess packaging and undesired condiments and utensils from being given to a customer when eating on premises or taking food to go. 67 Agenda Item # 4.
Subject: Adopt the Single-use Foodware Accessories and Condiments Ordinance, in compliance with AB 1276, adding Chapter 6.45 (Single-use Foodware Accessories and Condiments) to title 6 (Health and Safety) of the Los Altos Municipal Code by adopting by reference Chapter 5.2 (commencing with section 42270) of Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code prohibiting a food facility from providing any single-use foodware accessory or standard condiment unless requested by consumer and authorizing City and County enforcement and penalties April 11, 2023 Page 3
The law, as amended, is intended to give consumers more choices about single-use foodware accessories and condiments in order to reduce waste. The law prohibits single-use foodware accessories from being bundled or packaged in a way that prohibits the customer from taking only the item desired. It authorizes a food facility to ask a drive-through customer if the customer wants a singleuse foodware accessory in specified circumstances. The law requires a food facility using a third-party food delivery platform to list on its menu the availability of single-use foodware accessories and standard condiments and to only provide those items when requested.
The law excludes from these requirements correctional institutions, health care facilities, residential care facilities, and public and private school cafeterias.
The main provisions of AB 1276 are summarized below:
1. A food facility is required to only provide single-use accessories to consumers upon request;
2. A food facility is required to avoid bundling of single-use accessories or condiments;
3. A food facility is required to only offer those single-use items needed to eat or prevent spillage of the ready-to-eat food at a drive-through as well as in a public use airport.
4. A third-party food delivery platform shall provide consumers with the option to request single-use accessories for ready-to-eat food;
5. A food facility that uses a third-party platform shall customize their menu with a list of available single-use accessories or condiments. Only those items chosen by the consumer will be delivered. If no single-use accessories or condiments are requested none will be provided;
6. Unwrapped, single-use foodware accessories that are self-serve, standard condiments that are self-serve, and/or bulk dispensed condiments may still be used; and
7. The first and second violations of the provisions result in a notice of violation, and any subsequent violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of $25 for each day in violation, but not to exceed an annual total of $300.
Ordinance Adopting State Law by Reference
68 Agenda Item # 4.
Subject: Adopt the Single-use Foodware Accessories and Condiments Ordinance, in compliance with AB 1276, adding Chapter 6.45 (Single-use Foodware Accessories and Condiments) to title 6 (Health and Safety) of the Los Altos Municipal Code by adopting by reference Chapter 5.2 (commencing with section 42270) of Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code prohibiting a food facility from providing any single-use foodware accessory or standard condiment unless requested by consumer and authorizing City and County enforcement and penalties April 11, 2023 Page 4
In order to comply with AB 1276, the City must authorize an enforcement agency to enforce the provisions of this law. Staff propose that this be accomplished through adopting the entire state law (Attachment 1) by reference in the City’s Municipal Code. In order to adopt the state law by reference the City must follow the specific procedures required under Government Code Section 50022.1, et. seq.
Government Code Section 50022.4 requires any penalties to be set out in full. The proposed ordinance adopts the entire law by reference, authorizes the City and County to enforce the ordinance, and sets forth in full the penalties for violating the ordinance, establishing that the first and second violations of the provisions result in a notice of violation, and any subsequent violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of $25 for each day in violation, but not to exceed an annual total of $300.
Staff Recommendation:
Adopt Ordinance No. 2023-XX to add Chapter 6.45 (Single-use Foodware Accessories and Condiments) to Title 6 (Health and Safety) of the Los Altos Municipal Code. 69 Agenda Item # 4.
0 4880-1853-6283v1
JH\27916001
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS ADDING CHAPTER 6.45 (SINGLE-USE FOODWARE ACCESSORIES AND CONDIMENTS) TO TITLE 6 (HEALTH AND SAFETY) OF THE LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CHAPTER 5.2 (COMMENCING WITH SECTION 42270) OF PART 3 OF DIVISION 30 OF THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE PROHIBITING A FOOD FACILITY FROM
PROVIDING ANY SINGLE-USE FOODWARE ACCESSORY OR STANDARD
CONDIMENT UNLESS REQUESTED BY CONSUMER AND AUTHORIZING CITY
AND COUNTY ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES
WHEREAS, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (“AB”) 1276 into law on October 5, 2021, which prohibits a food facility or a third-party food delivery platform from providing singleuse food accessories, such as cutlery, straws and condiment packets, to a customer unless requested by the customer.
WHEREAS, prior to adoption of AB 1276, state law (AB 1884 (adopted 2018)) prohibited a fullservice restaurant from providing single-use plastic straws to customers unless requested by the customer. The state law required the plastic straw regulation to be enforced by the local health and environmental health officers and their agents.
WHEREAS, AB 1276 revised the state law by expanding the scope from full-service restaurants to food facilities, which generally includes all retail food operations; expanded the scope from single-use plastic straws to single-use foodware accessories, which includes utensils, condiments, and straws (but does not include napkins); and revised the enforcement obligation from the local health and environmental health officers (as applicable to the City of Los Altos, this would be the Santa Clara County health official) to whichever entity cities and counties deem appropriate.
WHEREAS, AB 1276 is designed to reduce excess packaging and undesired condiments and implements from being given to a customer when eating on premises or taking food to go, and prohibits single-use foodware accessories from being bundled or packaged in a way that prohibits the customer from taking only the item desired. AB 1276 does, however, authorize a food facility to ask a drive-through customer, if the customer wants a single-use foodware accessory in specified circumstances.
WHEREAS, a food facility using a third-party food delivery platform is required to list on its menu the availability of single-use foodware accessories and standard condiments and only provide those items when requested. The law excludes from these requirements correctional institutions, health care facilities, residential care facilities, and public and private school cafeterias.
WHEREAS, AB 1276 specifies that the first and second violations of the provisions result in a notice of violation, and any subsequent violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of $25 for each day in violation, but not to exceed an annual total of $300. 70 Agenda Item # 4.
1 4880-1853-6283v1
JH\27916001
WHEREAS, a city, county, or city and county, on or before June 1, 2022, is required to authorize an enforcement agency to enforce the requirements established under AB 1276.
WHEREAS, Santa Clara County Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission informed the City that they do not currently anticipate that they will be in a position to assume enforcement responsibilities for AB 1276 on behalf of cites in the county.
WHEREAS, in order to comply with the enforcement requirements of AB 1276, the City Council of the City of Los Altos now wishes to adopt an ordinance adding Chapter 6.45 (Single-use Foodware Accessories and Condiments) to Title 6 (Health and Safety) of the Los Altos Municipal Code adopting by reference of Chapter 5.2 (commencing with Section 42270) of Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code prohibiting a food facility from providing any single-use foodware accessory or standard condiment unless requested by consumer, and authorizing City and County enforcement.
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 50022.1, et. seq, sets forth the procedures by which a city may adopt a state law by reference.
WHEREAS, the City will comply with the procedures set forth in Government Code Section 50022.1, et. seq., including holding a public hearing at the second reading, following notice requirements under Government Code Section 6066, and making available the entire language of the state law to be adopted by reference.
WHEREAS, The adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for the Protection of the Environment) in that this Ordinance sets forth regulatory procedures for the protection of the environment including, more particularly, regulations prohibiting or limiting the use of foodware accessories and condiments that pose a substantial environmental threat for reasons set forth in this staff report. The adoption of this Ordinance does not involve construction activity or the relaxation of existing environmental standards, and none of the circumstances set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF CODE:
Los Altos Municipal Code, Title 6, entitled HEALTH AND SAFETY, is amended by adding a new Chapter 6.45, Single-use Foodware Accessories and Condiments to read as follows:
“Chapter 6.45 SINGLE-USE FOODWARE ACCESSORIES AND CONDIMENTS Section 6.45.010. Chapter 5.2 (commencing with Section 42270) of Part 3 of Division 30 of the California Public Resources Code is herein adopted by reference and shall prohibit a food facility from providing any single-use foodware accessory or standard condiment unless requested by consumer and authorizing City and County enforcement and penalties.
71 Agenda Item # 4.
2 4880-1853-6283v1
JH\27916001
Section 6.45.020 Enforcement.
A. The City Manager or the City Manager’s designee has primary responsibility for the enforcement of this chapter. The City Manager or the City Manager’s designee is authorized to promulgate regulations and to take any and all other actions reasonable and necessary to enforce this chapter, including, but not limited to, investigating violations, issuing fines, and entering the premises of any food facility during business hours. Other City staff may assist with this enforcement responsibility by entering the premises of a food facility as part of their regular inspection functions and reporting any alleged violations to the City Manager or the City Manager’s designee.
B. The County of Santa Clara and its agents are authorized to take any and all actions reasonable and necessary to enforce this chapter, including, but not limited to, investigating violations, issuing fines, and entering the premises of any food facility during business hours.
Section 6.45.030 Penalties.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 42272(b) as adopted by reference and incorporated herein, the first and second violations of Chapter 5.2 (commencing with Section 42270) of Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code shall result in a notice of violation, and any subsequent violation shall constitute an infraction punishable by a fine of twenty-five dollars ($25) for each day in violation, but not to exceed three hundred dollars ($300) annually.” SECTION 2. CONSTITUTIONALITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this code is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this code.
SECTION 3. PUBLICATION. This ordinance shall be published as provided in Government Code section 36933.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be effective upon the commencement of the thirty-first day following the adoption date.
The foregoing ordinance was duly and properly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Altos held on , 2023 and was thereafter, at a regular meeting held on , 2023 passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
72 Agenda Item # 4.
3 4880-1853-6283v1
JH\27916001
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SALLY MEADOWS, MAYOR
[XXXXX], CITY CLERK
73 Agenda Item # 4.
Reviewed By:
City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JD
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: April 11, 2023
Subject Ordinance No. 2023-xxx: Prohibition on possession of firearms in sensitive places
Prepared by: Jon Maginot, Assistant City Manager
Reviewed by: Jolie Houston, City Attorney
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):
1. Ordinance No. 2023-xxx
2. Santa Clara County Public Health Report - Cost of Gun Violence in Santa Clara County Initiated by:
City Council
Previous Council Consideration:
None
Fiscal Impact:
None
Environmental Review:
Not applicable
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
Does the Council wish to adopt an ordinance prohibiting the possession of firearms in sensitive places?
Summary:
There has been a rise in mass shootings throughout the Country, many of which occur in public spaces such as schools or government buildings
The US Supreme Court has determined that government agencies can place restrictions on the possession of firearms in sensitive areas
Surrounding cities have or will soon consider ordinances prohibiting possession of firearms in sensitive areas
74 Agenda Item # 5.
Subject: Ordinance No. 2023-xxx: Prohibition on possession of firearms in sensitive places April 11, 2023 Page 2
Staff Recommendation:
Introduce and waive further reading of Ordinance No. 2023-xxx prohibiting the possession of firearms in sensitive places
75 Agenda Item # 5.
Subject: Ordinance No. 2023-xxx: Prohibition on possession of firearms in sensitive places April 11, 2023 Page 3
Purpose
To consider an ordinance prohibiting the possession of a firearm in sensitive places Background
On July 12, 2022, the City Council requested a future agenda item to consider restricting firearms on public property. At this time, the carrying of a firearm with a valid permit is lawful in most public places within California. A 2022 report from the Santa Clara County Public Health Department outlines the public cost of gun violence within Santa Clara County (Attachment 2). In addition, there has been a rise in mass shootings throughout the country, including the 2021 VTA railyard shooting.
Discussion/Analysis
While the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution places limits on a government’s ability to regulate firearms, the United States Supreme Court has found that the Second Amendment does not prohibit all regulations. The Supreme Court has found three times that restrictions may be placed on carrying firearms in “sensitive places.” Several surrounding cities have implemented ordinances prohibiting the carrying of firearms in sensitive areas. City of Sunnyvale has prohibited firearms on government property, public transit and places of worship. City of Mountain View has prohibited firearms on City property and the City Council has requested consideration of an ordinance expanding the prohibition to include sensitive areas. On March 6, 2023, City of Palo Alto approved a prohibition of firearms in sensitive locations.
The proposed Ordinance (Attachment 1) would prohibit the possession of a firearm in any City building, City parks, polling places and schools.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Council introduce and waive further reading of Ordinance No. 2023-xxx prohibiting the possession of firearms in sensitive places 76 Agenda Item # 5.
Ordinance No. 2023-___ Page 1
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-___
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LOS ALTOS PROHIBITING THE POSSESSION OF FIREARMS
IN SENSITIVE PLACES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Los Altos finds there is a compelling interest in protecting the health and safety of the public; and
WHEREAS, the incidence of firearm-related fatalities and injuries has increased in recent years and the age-adjusted firearm death rate in Santa Clara County was 4.8 people per 100,00 in 2020, the highest rate in the past decade; and
WHEREAS, the State of California experienced 369 mass shootings (defined as an incident that kills or injures four or more people) between 2014 and January 2023, including incidents at the VTA railyard (May 26, 2021) and Gilroy Garlic Festival (July 28, 2019); and WHEREAS, while the United States Supreme Court has made clear that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution imposes some restrictions on states’ ability to regulate firearms it has recognized that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is not a “regulatory straightjacket.” N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2133. Indeed, the Second Amendment allows States to adopt a “‘variety’ of gun regulations.” N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n (2022), 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2162. And when it comes to restrictions on carrying firearms in public, the United States Supreme Court has recognized three times that states may restrict the carrying of firearms in “sensitive places.” N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2133; see also McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) 561 U.S. 742, 786; District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) 554 U.S. 570, 626; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Los Altos Municipal Code is hereby amended ay adding a new Chapter 7.30 entitled “Possession of Firearms in Sensitive Places” to read as follows:
7.30.010 Definitions
For the purposes of this chapter, unless otherwise apparent from the context, certain words and phrases used in this chapter are defined as follows:
A. “Firearm” means any gun, pistol, revolver, rifle or any device that is designed or modified to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion. “Firearm” does not include imitation 77 Agenda Item # 5.
Ordinance No. 2023-___ Page 2
firearms, BB guns, or air rifles as defined in Government Code Section 53071.5 or any successor legislation;
B. “Sensitive place” means any of the following places:
i. City property, meaning real property, including any buildings thereon, owned or leased by city, and in city’s possession. “City property” does not include any public right-of-way owned by the city, including any area across, along, on, over, upon, and within the dedicated public alleys, boulevards, courts, lanes, roads, sidewalks, streets, expressways, and ways within the city;
ii. Any polling place while voting is occurring;
iii. Any school. For the purposes of this section, “school” includes all institutions that provide preschool, elementary, secondary, post-secondary, technical, or trade or vocational education, and includes all athletic facilities, offices, cafeteria and eating establishments, health care facilities, research facilities, parking lots, and shared rooms and common areas of dormitories thereof. “School” does not include a private residence at which education is provided for children who are all related to one another by blood, marriage, or adoption.
7.30.020 Prohibition on carrying of firearms in sensitive places A. Except as otherwise provided by federal or state law, no person shall carry a firearm in any sensitive place unless they are subject to an exemption under Section 7.30.020. This prohibition applies to persons licensed to carry a concealed firearm.
7.30.030 Exemptions
A. This section shall not apply to:
i. A federal, state, or local law enforcement officer when such person is authorized to carry a concealed weapon or a loaded firearm under state law or under 18 U.S.C.
Section 926B or any successor legislation;
ii. An honorably retired officer or agent of a law enforcement agency, when authorized to carry a concealed or loaded weapon under state law or 18 U.S.C.
Section 926C;
iii. A security guard or messenger of a financial institution, a guard of a contract carrier operating an armored vehicle, a licensed private investigator, a patrol operator, an alarm company operator, or security guard, when such persons are authorized by applicable state or federal law to carry a firearm and when such persons are engaged in the exercise of their official duties;
iv. A person bringing or transporting an unloaded firearm onto city property to exchange, transfer, or relinquish it to law enforcement, in compliance with any city operated, approved, or sponsored program to purchase, exchange, or otherwise obtain voluntary relinquishment of firearms;
v. A person lawfully possessing an unloaded firearm in the locked trunk of, or inside a locked container in, a motor vehicle.
vi. A hunter with a valid hunting license when going to or returning from a legal hunting expedition; provided, however, that when transiting through any area where firearms are prohibited, any firearm is safely stored in a locked container or 78 Agenda Item # 5.
Ordinance No. 2023-___ Page 3
otherwise secured using a firearm safety device as defined by California Penal Code Section 16540 or any successor legislation.
7.30.040 Penalties
A. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable as set forth in Chapter 1.20 of the Los Altos Municipal Code.
SECTION 2. CONSTITUTIONALITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this code is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this code.
SECTION 3. PUBLICATION. This ordinance shall be published as provided in Government Code section 36933.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be effective upon the commencement of the thirty-first day following the adoption date.
The foregoing ordinance was duly and properly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Altos held on ____________, 2023 and was thereafter, at a regular meeting held on ___________, 2023 passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
Attest:
_______________________
Angel Rodriguez, INTERIM CITY CLERK
79 Agenda Item # 5.
Cost of Gun Violence
in Santa Clara County
In collaboration with
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation
Prevention Institute In collaboration with
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation
Prevention Institute
2022
80 Agenda Item # 5.
Acknowledgments
Santa Clara County
Board of Supervisors
Supervisor Mike Wasserman, District 1
Supervisor Cindy Chavez, District 2
Supervisor Otto Lee, District 3
Supervisor Susan Ellenberg, District 4
Supervisor Joe Simitian, District 5
County Executive
Jeffrey V. Smith, MD, JD
Deputy County Executive and
Director of Santa Clara Valley
Health & Hospital System
René G. Santiago MPH
County of Santa Clara
Public Health Department
Sara H. Cody, MD,
Health Officer and Public Health Director
Community Members
We are deeply grateful to all the community
members who contributed their time and
effort for participating in the Cost of Gun
Violence study.
County of Santa Clara Public Health
Department project team
Diana Davila, Lidia Doniz, Thao Hoang,
Rhonda McClinton-Brown, Marianna Moles,
Maritza Rodriguez, Mandeep Sidhu, Anandi
Sujeer, Yun (Annie) Wu
Community Organizations and
Resident Groups
Black Leadership Kitchen Cabinet, Brady
United, Cadillac-Winchester Neighborhood
Association, Carry the Vision, Catholic
Charities of Santa Clara County, CIVIC,
Community Solutions, Foxdale Neighborhood
Association, Justice4Josiah, Moms Demand
Action for Gun Sense in America, Next Door
Solutions to Domestic Violence, Scrubs
Addressing the Firearm Epidemic (SAFE), San
Ysidro Nueva Vida, Silicon Valley Alliance for
Gun Safety, SOMOS Mayfair, Valley Palms
Unidos, Youth Alliance
County and City Partner Agencies
City of Gilroy, City of Morgan Hill, City of
Mountain View, City of Santa Clara, City of
Sunnyvale, City of San José, County of Santa
Clara Behavioral Health Services, County of
Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office, County
of Santa Clara Office of Diversity, Equity, and
Belonging, County of Santa Clara Probation
Department, County of Santa Clara Office
of Reentry Services, County of Santa Clara
Office of Pretrial Services, First 5 Santa Clara
County Family Resource Centers, Gilroy Police
Department, Milpitas Police Department, Palo
Alto Police Department
Violence Prevention Experts
Amir Chapel, David Lee, Sarah Burd-Sharps,
Steve Wirtz, Becca Knox
Research Partners
Bruce A. Lawrence, Ted R. Miller,
David I. Swedler
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation
William Crary, Alissa Leung, Lisa Fujie Parks,
Zachary Tarro
Prevention Institute
Graphic Design
Studio Em Graphic Design 81
Agenda Item # 5.
County of Santa Clara
Public Health Department
Public Health Administration
976 Lenzen Avenue, 2nd Floor
San José, CA 95126
408.792.5040
Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Otto Lee, Susan Ellenberg, Joe Simitian County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith
August 12, 2022
To the Residents of Santa Clara County,
In October 2019, the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors requested an analysis of the public cost of gun violence from 2000 to 2020, launching a journey that led to this report. During that time, much has changed. COVID-19 swept through our country, accompanied by economic hardship and political upheaval at scales unseen in a generation. Gun violence, unfortunately, also rose precipitously during the pandemic. Nationwide, firearm deaths increased to a record level in 2020, the highest in the past 40 years. Here in our county, the age-adjusted firearm death rate was
4.8 per 100,000 people in 2020, the highest rate in the past decade. Several mass shootings took place in the U.S., including the 2021 VTA railyard shooting, the worst in the county’s history.
These grim statistics remind us that violence is a symptom, not a disease. The pandemic and the political environment have exacerbated the root causes of violence: poverty, lack of opportunities, social isolation, discrimination, and racism that serves as a breeding ground for fear, despair, desperation and hate that ultimately lead to acts of brutality. The solution to gun violence requires more than just legislative or criminal justice action; it requires a multi-sectoral, systemwide response that includes thoughtful and transformative partnerships with the communities most deeply affected.
Beyond the cost analysis, this report presents extensive and in-depth data on fatal and nonfatal injuries related to gun violence and possession. Reading this report may not be easy. Behind every statistic of death and injury are families who have lost loved ones and communities robbed of peace, safety, and opportunities to thrive. This report tells their story through data. At the same time, this project would not have been possible without the help of all those working to address gun violence at all levels through government, nonprofit, and grassroots efforts. This report is a tribute to their courage and self-sacrifice. Just as violence impacts us all, each one of us can play a role in creating a more peaceful future.
Sincerely,
Sara H. Cody, MD
Health Officer and Director
County of Santa Clara, Public Health Department
San José , CA
82 Agenda Item # 5.
The average
annual cost of
firearm violence
was 1.2B in
Santa Clara
County during
2016-20.
$1.2B
During 2017-21,
an average of
28,000 firearms
were purchased
annually in
Santa Clara
County.
28,000
More than half
of the total cost
were related to
firearm assault/
homicide
(53%, $727M)
and
37% ($517M)
for self-inflicted
injuries and
suicide.
>50%
The average
annual public
sector costs of
firearm violence
were $72.5M in
the county.
$72.5M
The total cost
increased nearly
$35M annually
from 2006 to
2020; a 54%
increase over
the 15-year
period.
$35M
Fire/EMS 0.3% ($200K)
Mental Health 0.4% ($300K)
Police
20.7% ($15M)
Medical 0.4% ($300k)
Jail
35.2% ($25.5M)
Parole/
Probation
34.1%
($24.7M)
Court/Attorney 8.9% ($6.5M)
Public Cost of Firearm Violence
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
Cost estimates (in millions)
Costs of Firearm Violence in Santa Clara County, 2006-2020 Purpose: Quantify the economic and societal costs associated with gun violence in Santa Clara County from 2000 to 2020 and inform policy options and strategies to advance violence prevention.
Executive Summary
Cost of Gun Violence Study
ii SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY 83 Agenda Item # 5.
Recommendations
Nearly 2 in 3
(65%) of the
non-fatal
firearm
injury-related
ED visits were
among adults
ages 18 to 34
years.
2 in 3
Six in 10 firearm
deaths were
suicide (60%)
and 34% were
homicide.
6 in 10
Annual count of
non-fatal
firearm
injury-related
emergency
department (ED)
visits doubled
during the past
decade,
increasing from
60 in 2011 to 156
in 2020.
2X
One in 3 (34%)
firearm deaths
were among
county residents
ages 18 to 34
years.
34%
Latinos had the
most non-fatal
firearm
injury-related
ED visits, while
African/African
Ancestry had
the highest rate.
RACE
Firearm death density
Higher density areas within the city of San José are hot spots for firearm violence and have higher rates of fatal and non-fatal firearm injuries.
Per-capita costs for firearm injuries were nearly double in San José ($977) compared to rest of the county ($523).
Count and age-adjusted rate of non-fatal firearm injury-related emergency department visits and firearm deaths by race/ethnicity among Santa Clara County residents, 2016-20 Count Rate
81 54
350
101
34.1 1.8
12.4 3.3
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 0
50 100
150
200
250
300
350
400
African/
African Ancestry
Asian/PI Latino White
Age-adjusted rate per 100,000 people
Number of visits
42 129
221
419
5.9 1
2.4 3
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
African/
African Ancestry
Asian Latino White
Age-adjusted rate per 100,000 people
Number of deaths
iii SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY 84 Agenda Item # 5.
Recommendations
Strengthen Policy, Advocacy, and Public Awareness
Strengthen Government and Community Level Coordination and Data Systems Increase Protective Factors that Advance Equity
Encourage the adoption
of gun safety policies and
practices to ensure gun safety
for gun owners and the broader
community.
Implement public awareness
and education campaigns on
gun violence prevention
to improve gun safety practices,
broaden public understanding
of gun safety laws, advance
public health prevention
strategies, and support
trauma-informed healing.
Adopt the use of Racial Equity
Impact Assessment tools to
evaluate the Countyʼs policy
position on guns and advocate
for more equitable gun violence
prevention policies at the county,
state, and federal levels.
Adopt and replicate
community-centered,
place-based approaches to gun
violence prevention in
neighborhoods facing
concentrated disadvantage
and/or concentration of risk
factors for gun violence.
Support excluded youth by
increasing partnerships
between cities, school
districts, and the County
to expand community-led social,
recreational, behavioral,
educational, and employment
opportunities.
Expand partnerships with
ethnic behavioral health
service providers to strengthen
community-based crisis
intervention, de-escalation, and
mobile mental health crisis care;
improve policies and protocols to
separate people in crisis from
access to firearms and reduce the
use of force during intervention.
Establish a gun safety data
workgroup to guide the
development of a data-to-action
dashboard.
1 2 3
4 5
7 6
iv SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY 85 Agenda Item # 5.
1 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Impact of Gun Violence at the National and State Level................................................................................ 2 Demographic Overview of Santa Clara County ............................................................................................... 3 Purpose of the Study................................................................................................................................................... 4 Methods Overview ................................................................................................................................................ 5 Data Sources Used in the Study ......................................................................................................................... 6 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Data Overview........................................................................................................................................................ 7 Estimated Costs for Firearm Injuries and Deaths............................................................................................ 8 Costs of Firearm Violence at City Level, Santa Clara County ........................................................................ 11 Recommendations....................................................................................................................................................... 13 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Appendices..................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Appendix A: Detailed Firearm Violence Data................................................................................................... 20 Firearms Availability in Santa Clara County.............................................................................. 20 Non-fatal Firearm Injury-related Emergency Department (ED) Visits.................................. 22 Non-fatal Firearm Injury-related Hospitalizations................................................................... 24 Non-fatal Firearm Injuries by Place of Residence .................................................................... 26 Firearm Deaths ............................................................................................................................... 28 Firearm Violence by Intent ........................................................................................................... 31 Appendix B: Methods........................................................................................................................................... 38 Appendix C: Limitations ...................................................................................................................................... 40 Appendix D: Firearm Violence Stakeholder Meetings.................................................................................... 41 Endnotes ......................................................................................................................................................................... 42 86 Agenda Item # 5.
2 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Introduction
Impact of Gun Violence at the
National and State Level
Gun violence is a public health crisis and has
become one of the leading causes of premature
deaths. It affects many communities and families
daily, whether through suicide, domestic violence,
community violence, or other forms.1 With a
comprehensive public health approach, gun
violence is preventable.2
Each day, nearly 124 people are killed by gunshot,
and more than 200 are injured nationwide.3
According to a recent Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) report, 45,222 people died
due to firearm injuries in 2020, the highest number
of deaths due to firearm injuries in the U.S. in a
year 4 Firearm injuries were among the five leading
causes of death for people ages 1-44 in the United
States.3
In California, there were 3,449 firearm-related
deaths in 2020.5 Statewide, the increase in the
firearm-related homicides contributed to increase
of homicides overall. The use of firearms also
became more prevalent in other crime categories
such as robbery and assault.6
Certain population subgroups are more impacted
by firearm injuries than others. Nearly 9 in 10
firearm injury deaths (86%) and non-fatal injuries
(87%) occurred among men. Firearm homicides
are more common among teens and young adults
(15 to 34 age group) while firearm suicides are
more common among White seniors (75 years and
older). People of color (African/African Ancestry7,
American Indian or Alaska Natives, and Latinos)
experience disproportionately higher rates of
firearm homicides. In addition, American Indian or
Alaska Natives and non-Hispanic Whites encounter
higher rates of firearm suicide.5
A firearm injury is a gunshot wound or
penetrating injury from a weapon that uses
a powder charge to fire a projectile such as
handguns, rifles, or shotguns.3
Firearm injury can be:
• Intentional self-harm (suicide)
• Intentional interpersonal violence
(homicide)
• Unintentional injury
• Legal intervention
• Undetermined intent.
Not all guns are considered firearms. For
example, BB guns and pellet guns are not
firearms. However, for the purposes of this
report, the term “gun” and “firearm” are
used interchangeably but represent data for
firearms only.
The magnitude and impacts of gun violence are
complex, making it difficult to fully understand
its true toll on society. In addition to the lives lost and economic impact of firearm violence, it also
affects human lives in ways that are not as easy to
measure, such as family members lost to shootings
or suicide, people who witness shootings, or
children who grow up in an environment of
pervasive gun use. Without investment over time
to support individual and community healing,
the trauma resulting from these incidents lasts
throughout the life course and even extends
across generations, with social and economic
consequences to neighborhoods, communities,
and society. This report is an attempt at capturing
the tangible and intangible costs of gun violence
on our society. It helps us look at not only the
economic values lost, but the potential we could
gain through more effective prevention.
87 Agenda Item # 5.
3 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Demographic Overview of Santa Clara County
With an estimated population of 1,936,259 in 2020,
Santa Clara County was the 6th largest county in
California, and the most populous county in the
Bay Area.8 According to the U.S. Census Bureau,
more than 1 in 4 county residents (22%) were
children under 18 years of age and 1 in 7 county
residents (14%) were seniors ages 65 years and
over. Santa Clara County was a minority-majority
county comprised of 25% Latino, 2% African/
African Ancestry, 0.2% American Indian and Alaska
Native, 37% Asian, 0.3% Native Hawaiian and
Other Pacific Islander and 31% non-Hispanic White
residents. Nearly 3% of the county population were
civilian veterans.9
Four in 10 county residents (40%) were foreignborn representing various world regions; amongst them 68% from Asia and 21% from Latin America.
More than half of county residents ages 5 years and
over (53%) speak a language other than English at
home. More than half of county residents ages 25
years and older (54%) have attained a bachelor’s
degree or higher education. Median household
income in the county was $130,890 during 2016-20.9
88 Agenda Item # 5.
4 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Purpose of the Study
In August 2019, the County of Santa Clara Board of
Supervisors directed the Public Health Department
to undertake a study on the public cost of firearm
violence.
The purpose of the Cost of Gun Violence Study is
to quantify the economic costs of firearm violence
in the county. In addition to the countywide data
summarization, data on select cities are included in
the report to provide local context.
This study provides the County Board of
Supervisors and other decision makers with a
public health framework for firearm violence
prevention and shares recommendations for a
comprehensive set of strategies with emphasis on
upstream and systemic violence prevention.
Public Health framework includes the following steps:
Adapted from CDC’s Public Health Approach to Violence Prevention (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/about/publichealthapproach.html)
1. Define and monitor the problem: Data
are presented to quantify firearm violence
prevalent in the county.
2. Identify risk and protective factors:
Institutional and systemic factors such as
poverty, lack of economic and educational
opportunities, racism and discrimination,
unsafe neighborhood environment, and
lack of support networks contribute to
inequitable outcomes, especially for people
of color. Firearm violence related racial/
ethnic disproportionalities are highlighted in
this report. Protective factors such as social
connectedness and community assets are
included in the recommendations.
3. Develop and evaluate prevention
strategies: Report recommendations propose
population-level upstream strategies, with an
equity focus to help those impacted the most
from firearm violence.
4. Implement and ensure adoption of
effective strategies: This step ensures
effective implementation of prevention
strategies at multiple levels; from individual
to neighborhood to community to
countywide.
89 Agenda Item # 5.
5 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Methods Overview
The County of Santa Clara Public Health
Department collaborated with the Pacific Institute
for Research and Evaluation (PIRE), and Prevention
Institute (PI) to undertake this study. This study
used a peer-reviewed framework for estimating the
cost of firearm violence developed by PIRE.10
Fatal and non-fatal firearm injuries included in
the report are based on county death, hospital,
emergency department, and police databases. The
firearm violence costs are derived using a mix of
county data sources where available, with cost per
event estimates derived from national data sources
and extrapolated to county data. The medical,
fire department, police, and criminal justice costs
are mostly calculated using county and state data
sources. The other major cost categories including
mental health, wage loss, quality of life loss, and
cost to employers are derived using national
estimates and studies published in peer-reviewed
journals.
A series of key informant and stakeholder meetings
were conducted to understand the community
and stakeholder concerns, perspectives on
root causes, and possible solutions and policy
recommendations to be included in further action
planning. These meetings were represented by
community members, resident groups, community
based organizations, criminal justice partners,
County Health System and department partners,
advocacy groups, subject matter experts, and city
agencies.
Rates are useful in assessing the disease or death
burden for a given population, compared with
another population, regardless of size. Crude and
age-specific death rates is calculated as the total
number of deaths during a specific time period
in the population category of interest, divided by
the at-risk population for that category. However,
crude rates are influenced by the underlying
age distribution of the population, which can
change over time and can be different in different
population subgroups and geographic areas.
Age-adjusting the rates ensures that differences
in deaths between one population subgroup
and another are not due to differences in their
age distribution. Age-adjusted death rate is a
weighted average of the age-specific death rates,
where the weights are the proportions of persons
in the corresponding age groups of a standard
population. (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention; https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/uscs/
technical_notes/stat_methods/rates.htm)
For more information about methods and
limitations, please see Appendix B and C
respectively.
90 Agenda Item # 5.
6 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Data Sources Used in the Study
Health and Hospital
• Death data
• Emergency department
data
• Hospitalization data
• EMS data
Criminal Justice
• Gun sales
• Firearm offenses
• Gun violence
restraining orders
• Firearm-related hearings
and sentencing
• Victim compensation
Mental Health
• Mental health services
provided in community
following mass shootings
• Staff hours, salaries, and
other staffing information
Population
Health Surveys
• Behavioral Risk Factor
Survey
• California Healthy Kids
Survey
• California Safety and
Wellbeing Survey
Indirect Costs
• Loss of wage estimates
• Loss of quality of life
estimates
Local Contextual Data
• National and State
comparison data
• Local demographic data
• Local trends data on gun
violence indicators
Cost assessment using a peer-reviewed framework applied to all these data domains 91 Agenda Item # 5.
7 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Results
Data Overview
Table 1. Firearm Violence, Santa Clara County, 2016-20
The table contains the summary counts, percent distribution and rates for non-fatal firearm injury-related emergency department visits and hospitalizations, and firearm deaths among Santa Clara County residents during 2016-20.
Non-fatal firearm injury-related
emergency department visits
Non-fatal firearm injuryrelated hospitalizations Firearm deaths 2016-20 Count Percent Rate Count Percent Rate Count Percent Rate Santa Clara County 610 - 6.8 479 - 5.3 394 -
Female 63 10% 1.5 32 7% 0.7 44 11% 1
Male 547 90% 11.9 447 93% 9.8 350 89% 7.9
African/African
Ancestry 81 13% 34.1 71 15% 30.5 21 5% 5.9
Asian* 54 9% 1.8 32 7% 1.1 59 15% 1
Latino 350 57% 12.4 266 56% 10.0 104 26% 2.4
White 101 17% 3.3 82 17% 2.9 209 53% 3
Less than 18 years 50 8% 11.6 32 7% 7.4
18 to 24 years 199 33% 125.9 135 28% 85.4 59 15% 7.3
25 to 34 years 197 32% 73.1 138 29% 51.2 75 19% 4.8
35 to 44 years 86 14% 30.9 77 16% 27.7
45 to 64 years 78 16% 17.4 102 26% 4.2
65 years and over 19 4% 9.6 94 24% 7.2
Sources : Santa Clara County Public Health Department,
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development
(OSHPD), Emergency Department Visits and Patient
Discharge Database, 2016-20, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics,
Multiple Cause of Death data, 2011-20
Notes: *Data are presented as Asian/Pacific Islanders
combined for emergency department visits/hospitalizations and Asians for deaths. Age-adjusted death rates by race/ ethnicity are for 10-year time period (2011 to 2020) while rest of the data in the table are for 5-year time period (2016 to 2020). Age-adjusted rates per 100,000 are presented
for county overall, gender and race/ethnicity. Age-specific rates per 100,000 are presented for age groups. Data (blank cells) are not presented when the number of emergency
department visits is 15 or fewer and when the number of deaths is 1 to 10. Whites refer to non-Hispanic Whites in this report.
92 Agenda Item # 5.
8 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Estimated Costs for Firearm Injuries and Deaths
Figure 1. Costs of firearm violence in Santa Clara County, 2006-2020 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
Cost estimates (in millions)
Source: Cost estimates are built based on local firearm-related data sources, local cost data and budget analyses, and published models of injury and crime costs (Zonfrillo et al. 2018, Miller et al. 2021, Hunt et al. 2019) In the U.S., firearm violence costs $280 billion in
an average year. This amount includes the lifetime
costs associated with firearm violence: immediate
medical treatment, long-term physical and mental
health care, lost wages, criminal justice costs and
quality of life lost estimates.11
From 2006 through 2020, the annual societal costs
of firearm violence in Santa Clara County increased
from $952 million to nearly $1.472 billion (costs in
2020-dollar amount). The average annual increase
of $35 million equates to a 54% increase over the
15-year period.12
93 Agenda Item # 5.
9 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Figure 2. Costs of firearm violence by sector type
Medical 1% ($8M)
Mental Health 0.1% ($1M)
Fire 0.02% ($0.3M)
Employer 0.1% ($2M)
Quality of Life
82% ($951M)
Criminal
Justice
6% ($72M)
Work
11% ($127M)
Source: Cost estimates are built based on local firearmrelated data sources, local cost data and budget analyses, and published models of injury and crime costs (Zonfrillo et al. 2018, Miller et al. 2021, Hunt et al. 2019)
During 2016-20, the average annual costs related
to firearm injuries and deaths were nearly $1.2
billion dollars in Santa Clara County. This total cost
estimate represented medical, criminal justice,
mental health, lost wages, quality of life, emergency
services, and employer-related costs. During 2016-
20, quality of life costs (82%, $951 million) accounted for the largest share of the cost estimates for firearm injuries and deaths in the county.
Components of Firearm Injury
and Crime Costs
Medical Care: The cost of all medical treatment
associated with firearm injuries including
emergency medical transport, acute care,
rehabilitation and physical therapy, followup care, long-term medical and institutional care, prescriptions, prosthetic devices, home
modifications, coroner services, and the costs of
health insurance claims processing.
Fire: Costs of emergency medical response by fire
departments.
Mental Health Care: The cost of behavioral health
care of those shot and their families and friends,
including treatment for grief, depression, anxiety,
and post-traumatic stress disorder. Costs of
treating suicidality that caused a firearm injury
are excluded.
Work related: Wages, benefits like health
insurance and leave, and household work (valued
at the price for hiring a person to accomplish the
same tasks) lost over the victim’s remaining life
span.
Quality of Life: The dollar value of the pain and
lost well-being that families experience due to
death and injury, exclusive of the work-related
costs. The study adopts a value prescribed by the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
based on what people pay for small reductions in
their risk of death and injury.
Employer related: Costs of workplace disruption
resulting from loss or absence of an employee.
This includes the cost of hiring and training new
employees, overtime required to accomplish work
of the injured employee, and the administrative
costs of processing personnel changes. To avoid
double counting work-related costs, this category
excludes sick leave.
Criminal Justice: Costs of police response and
investigation, victim services, district attorney,
public defender, jail, prison, probation, and
parole.
94 Agenda Item # 5.
10 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Figure 3. Costs of firearm violence by County
Departments
Fire/EMS 0.3% ($200K)
Mental Health 0.4% ($300K)
Police
20.7% ($15M)
Medical 0.4% ($300K)
Jail
35.2% ($25.5M)
Parole/
Probation
34.1% ($24.7M)
Court/
Attorney
8.9%
($6.5M)
Source: Cost estimates are built based on local firearmrelated data sources, local cost data and budget analyses, and published models of injury and crime costs (Zonfrillo et al. 2018, Miller et al. 2021, Hunt et al. 2019)
Costs of firearm violence can be divided between
public and private sectors. Public Cost is the cost
to the public sector, paid for by taxpayers (e.g.,
uninsured person admitted to ED); Private cost is
cost to the private sector (employers), and cost
borne by individuals. During 2016-20, the average
annual public sector costs of firearm violence were
$72.5 million in the county. The county-level public
sector cost estimate represented the following
sectors: jail at $25.5 million, probation/parole at
$24.7 million, medical at $300,000, police at $15
million, mental health at $300,000, court/attorney
fees at $6.5 million, and emergency services at
$200,000. At Federal and State level, the prison
costs added an additional $215 million per year
for incarceration related to firearm violence in the
county.
Figure 4. Costs of firearm violence by intent
Assault
53% ($727M)
Intentional
Self-Harm
37% ($517M)
Legal Intervention 4% ($55M)
Undetermined 2% ($24M)
Unintentional 4% ($54M)
Source: Cost estimates are built based on local firearmrelated data sources, local cost data and budget analyses, and published models of injury and crime costs (Zonfrillo et al. 2018, Miller et al. 2021, Hunt et al. 2019)
During 2016-20, more than half of the firearm
violence costs in the county were related to firearm
assaults/homicides (53%, $727 million). Costs due
to other types of firearm violence were: $517 million
for firearm self-inflicted injuries/suicide, $55 million for legal intervention-involved firearm injuries/
deaths (see pg 37 for more information), $54
million for unintentional firearm injuries/deaths,
and $24 million for undetermined firearm injuries/
deaths. Figure 4 includes the $215 million per year
in Federal and State prison costs, which are not
included in figure 2.
95 Agenda Item # 5.
11 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Table 2. Selected average annual costs of firearm violence by outcome, 2016-20 The table contains the annual cost estimates for medical and mental health, work, quality of life and total costs for firearm deaths, hospitalizations and emergency department visits among county residents during 2016-20. Data below excludes $287 million in criminal justice costs spread across these incidents and firearm crimes that did not result in death or hospital-treated injury. Also, state and federal prison costs are not included in the table below.
Firearm injury
outcome
Medical & mental
health Work Quality of life Subtotal
Fatal (firearm deaths) $1,748,886 $113,508,784 $873,877,606 $989,135,276 Non-fatal
hospitalizations $7,402,692 $13,225,170 $73,530,151 $94,158,013 Non-fatal emergency
department visits $325,068 $544,288 $3,919,709 $4,789,065 Total $9,476,646 $127,278,242 $951,327,466 $1,088,082,354 Source: Cost estimates are built based on local firearm-related data sources, local cost data and budget analyses, and published models of injury and crime costs (Zonfrillo et al. 2018, Miller et al. 2021, Hunt et al. 2019) During 2016-20, firearm deaths accounted for
most of the work-related costs (89%, $114 million)
and quality of life costs (92%, $874 million) while
non-fatal firearm injury-related hospitalizations
accounted for most of the medical and mental
health costs (78%, $7 million).
Costs of Firearm Violence at City
Level, Santa Clara County
There are 15 cities and towns in Santa Clara
County; with San José being the largest city with a
population of 1,013,240.13 Cost estimates are only
presented for San José in this report due to the
following reasons. First, smaller population and
relatively lower incidence of firearm violence in
other cities did not permit the sharing of data per
data deidentification guidelines. Also, margin of
error will be larger for costs estimated based on
small counts in other cities. Second, San José has
a disproportionately higher rate of gun violence
relative to its population, with several crime hot
spots within its borders, requiring greater attention
in data analysis.
County Public Health Department collaborated
with the City of San José for estimating the costs of
gun violence. On January 19, 2022, City of San José
and PIRE publicly released the Incidence and Cost
of Firearm Injuries in San Jose, CA report. The
data presented in the county report is an update to
the societal costs originally published in the abovementioned report. 96 Agenda Item # 5.
12 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY On average, 228 fatal and non-fatal firearm injuries
occurred annually among San José residents
during 2019-2020 time period. The average
included 64 firearm assaults, 29 intentional selfharm firearm injuries, and 135 unintentional or undetermined intent firearm injuries.
The lifetime costs of fatal and non-fatal firearm
injuries among San José residents averaged $995
million in 2019-20. Lost quality of life accounted
for most of these costs (68%). Criminal justice was
the second largest cost component (22%). Costs
were $643 million for assault and legal intervention
firearm injuries; $298 million for self-harm firearm
injuries; and $53 million for unintentional and
undetermined intent firearm injuries. The method
to estimate the costs of firearm violence is same for
the county and San José.
Per-capita costs for firearm injuries were $977 in
San José, nearly double the per-capita cost of $523
in rest of the county. The updated costs are higher
than those published in the January 2022 City
report. The difference in cost estimate is mostly
due to the change in the value per life lost of $11.2
million used by the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services in 202014 from a $5.8 million
value (in 2020 dollars) based on a 1990 systematic
review.15
For detailed information about firearms present
in the county, prevalence of firearm injuries and
death among county residents, and different types
of firearm injuries, please see Appendix A. Aligning
with the report’s primary purpose to provide
estimated costs of gun violence in the county, the
results section only has the brief data overview and
detailed costs of gun violence. Appendix A has the
comprehensive data for firearm violence impacting
the county residents.
97 Agenda Item # 5.
13 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Recommendations
In recent years, the county has grappled with
several alarming trends related to gun violence
that pose severe risks to our communities.
These trends include spike in gun ownership in
the general population and lack of safe storage
practices, proliferation of ghost guns and its
facilitation of criminal activities, ease of access
to firearms among prohibited and high-risk
persons, increase in firearm-related assaults and
crimes, more frequent use of guns among youth
population and in gang activities, rise in mental
health incidents and domestic violence disputes
involving a firearm.16 Interviews with community
leaders further revealed a climate of fear that
permeates people’s social relationships and
general outlook, deeply tied to broader societal
anxieties arising from the pandemic, the hostile
political environment, economic upheavals, and
other macro-level factors.
Figure 5. Socioecological Framework
Public Policy
national, state, local laws and regulations
Community
relationships between organizations
Organizational
organizations, social institutions
Interpersonal
families, friends, social networks
Individual
knowledge, attitude,
skills
Image courtesy of CDC.
As with most complex social issues, gun violence
is a preventable public health issue that is most
effectively remedied by addressing populationlevel risk factors like concentrated poverty and systemic racism. A strong consensus emerged
through the stakeholder meetings that calls for the
application of a public health approach centered
on racial equity and the root causes of violence.
While the Public Health framework guides the
implementation of strategies, a socioecological
framework aids in the development and
alignment of strategies for maximum impact. The
socioecological framework can provide a helpful
roadmap in advancing programmatic and policy
solutions in the arenas mentioned above. It also
helps guide policy makers to map out strategies
at multiple levels and across sectors that mutually
reinforce each other. This framework examines
contributors, drivers, and interventions that
comprehensively target the individual, community,
organization, and societal levels as summarized
in sectors that mutually reinforce each other.
This framework examines contributors, drivers,
and interventions that comprehensively target
the individual, community, organization, and
societal levels as summarized in the Public Health
Pathways to Preventing Violence framework
developed by Prevention Institute.
The highlighted recommendations provide
a promising path forward for reducing gun
violence and creating community safety. The
recommendations represent a strong desire
among stakeholders to strengthen a coordinated
violence prevention response among multiple
partners, including residents, communitybased organizations, county and city elected officials and county and city departments, and
advocacy groups. While this list is not exhaustive
of all possible actions, it underscores the critical
importance of targeting efforts that invest in and
98 Agenda Item # 5.
14 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY support individuals and communities at greatest
risk of experiencing gun violence. Moreover,
further research and advocacy are required to fully
understand the complexities of gun violence, its
historic role as a tool of power and domination,
and explore more aggressive gun control policies
beyond the local level.17 Implementation of these
recommendations requires strong commitment
and deeper collaboration among multiple crosssector and institutional partners, as well as financial investment.
Recommendations to
Strengthen Policy, Advocacy,
and Public Awareness
RECOMMENDATION 1
Encourage the adoption of gun safety
policies and practices to ensure gun safety
for gun owners and the broader community.
Increases in gun ownership and the presence of
unsafely stored guns in the home are associated
with increased firearm injuries and an increase in
the risk of suicide among adults and adolescents.
Additionally, unsecured guns in the home increases
the likelihood of gun theft.18 Advancing a culture of
gun safety requires establishing more robust and
evidence-based gun safety policies and practices.
One example of such policies is safer storage
ordinances requiring firearms to be stored with a
locking device or in a locked container, unloaded,
and separate from ammunition. Another example
is the adoption of policies that require gun owners
to report or more promptly report the loss or
theft of their firearm. Several local jurisdictions
have already implemented stronger gun safety
policies and lead the way for others to do the
same. Gun safety laws significantly reduce the risk
of intentional and unintentional firearm injuries,
particularly among children and youth.
“A major part of gun violence and safe storage
education is undoing the idea that putting a
gun in the closet or under the bed is “safe”. We
need to create a norm change so that safe gun
storage is as commonplace as wearing your
seatbelt.”
— Stakeholder Meeting, Gun Safety Advocate
RECOMMENDATION 2
Adopt the use of Racial Equity Impact
Assessment tools19 to evaluate its policy
position on guns and advocate for more
equitable gun violence prevention policies
at the city, county, state, and federal levels.
A Racial Equity Impact Assessment (REIA) is a
systematic examination of how different racial
groups can potentially be affected by a policy
decision or action. The REIA is used to identify
unintended or disproportionate negative
consequences that may fall upon historically
disadvantaged racial groups to mitigate harm
and increase equity: how do we ensure the
data analysis and decision points do not result
in further harm to communities of color? In the
context of gun violence, a REIA can be used to
reduce victimization and minimize arrests and
incarceration which disproportionately impacts
communities of color. Typical questions in a REIA
include: What types of racial disparities could
potentially result from the policy’s design and
implementation? Who are the specific communities
that the policy will impact?20 The use of REIA is
relatively new in the U.S, but adoption is on the
rise among counties and cities. The City of Seattle
has been using Racial Equity Analysis in its policy
development and budget planning since 2012.
Other regions, such as Iowa and Connecticut,
which have passed legislation requiring
examination of the racial impacts of all new
sentencing laws prior to passage.21
99 Agenda Item # 5.
15 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Intertwined with the legacy of systemic racial
discrimination in the United States, there
are continuing disparities in enforcing and
implementing firearm restrictions. Gun violence
prevention policy advocates have a renewed
awareness of the potential for racial bias in
developing and implementing gun violence
prevention policies. Gun violence prevention
researchers urgently recommend racial equity
impact assessments for all gun violence policies.22
“We must pursue permanent solutions that
uplift communities and youth rather than
temporary fixes. Talking about things is not
enough, allocation of resources and support is
key to making any impact.”
— Stakeholder Meeting, Community-based
organization staff
RECOMMENDATION 3
Develop and implement robust public
awareness and education campaigns to
improve gun safety practices, broaden
public understanding of gun safety laws
and effective public health prevention
strategies, and encourage trauma-informed
healing and support.
Communication strategies provide vital
information and influence individuals and
communities to be active participants in public
health action addressing gun violence. Public
awareness campaigns can effectively encourage
safer gun safety practices, dispel the stigma
associated with a mental health crisis, build
understanding of effective prevention strategies,
and promote healing and support by elevating
the voices of victims, families, and communities
impacted by gun violence.23 According to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there is
growing evidence for the use of targeted, culturally
tailored campaigns addressing such factors.
Communications and education campaigns are
most effective when they leverage and help build
understanding, relationships, shared vision, and
trust across sectors for the goal of reframing
violence as a preventable issue. This can be
accomplished through partnerships with CBOs,
schools, gun shop owners, and others.
Community education messages about gun
prevention policies, such as California’s Red Flag
Law and Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVRO),
also provide mechanisms to prevent gun harm
during a mental health crisis. This public education
may include messaging about warning signs and
how to activate life-saving tools through GVROs.
Integrating violence prevention and anti-bullying
curriculum in schools is another important
element. Interjurisdictional and intersectoral
coordination would yield tremendous progress on
this front.
Finally, educational campaigns must work to create
a paradigm shift around how guns are discussed,
perceived, and understood in society. Public
education must include tools to critically examine
the deep relationship guns have to colonialism,
power, patriarchy, and nationalism. It must also
examine the way guns, as both a physical and
symbolic weapon, has been continually used to
reinforce oppressive gender and racial hierarchies
and maintain power over Black, Indigenous and
people of color.
“[We] need a policy change from investing
in jails and punishment to invest in human
beings. Stop investment in criminal justice
system. Start with better education. Invest in
school structures. Investing upfront.”
— Stakeholder Meeting participant,
Black Leadership Kitchen Cabinet member
100
Agenda Item # 5.
16 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Recommendations to
Increase Protective Factors
that Advance Equity
RECOMMENDATION 4
Adopt and replicate community-centered,
place-based approaches to gun violence
prevention in neighborhoods facing
concentrated disadvantage/concentration
of risk factors for gun violence.
A history of racially discriminatory practices such
as redlining and other inequitable investments
has created communities of concentrated
disadvantage resulting in the high prevalence of
risk factors for gun violence. In these places, gun
violence can be prevented by strengthening the
economic health, built environment conditions,
social environment, and civic infrastructure of
neighborhoods and cities.
Effective placed-based programs currently exist
in Santa Clara County and can serve as models to
scale or replicate in neighborhoods experiencing
high rates of gun violence. An increasing body of
evidence for place-based strategies is prompting
the federal, state, and local jurisdictions to adopt
this approach.24 Community-centered, placebased approaches include resident engagement and leadership development activities to support
neighborhood action planning, culturally rooted,
community-based violence prevention and
intervention; community health worker programs;
resident-led healing and trauma-informed
neighborhood projects; and campaigns for
educational equity and affordable housing/antidisplacement. These strategies directly address the root causes impacting community health
and foster new community norms that serve as
protective factors against gun violence.20
Well-resourced communities can play a role by
acknowledging the institutional and systemic
structures that perpetuate inequalities and actively
partner with disadvantaged communities to fight
these injustices.
East San José Safe and Peaceful
Neighborhood Event
RECOMMENDATION 5
Expand partnerships with ethnic behavioral
health service providers to strengthen
community-based crisis intervention,
de-escalation, and mobile mental health
crisis care; improve policies and protocols
to separate people in crisis from access to
firearms and reduce the use of force during
intervention.
Community-based crisis interventions and mobile
teams offer targeted interventions and violence
interruptions to individuals and groups in need
wherever they are, including at home, work, or
elsewhere in the community. Mobile crisis units
already exist in various locations within county and
can be scaled up and enhanced. Several promising
101
Agenda Item # 5.
17 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY models in cities, such as South Bronx, New York
and Richmond, California, have shown evidence
of effectively reducing the incidence and harm
related to gun violence.25 This recommendation
strengthens and extends the county’s focus
on community-based crisis intervention and
mobile teams by expanding partnerships with
ethnic service providers. Multi-disciplinary
teams, including trained, licensed providers,
local community-based programs, and trusted
community members with lived experiences,
would work collectively to mediate conflict, deescalate situations, and provide mental health and healing support as part of the crisis continuum
of care, especially among communities of color
and within specific geographic areas most at risk
for gun violence. This strategy seeks to reduce
police officer-involved injuries, reduce arrests of
individuals with mental illness, minimize officers’
use of force, increase diversion of mentally ill
individuals from the criminal justice system, and
enhance their access to mental health and other
prevention services addressing social determinants
of health.
“Don’t sit there and wait for crisis. We need
to build capacity in the community around
conflict resolution, addressing the fear
people have of each other. We need to train
community members as peace makers and deescalators.”
— Stakeholder Meeting Participant,
Black Leadership Kitchen Cabinet Member
RECOMMENDATION 6
Support excluded youth by increasing
partnerships between cities, school
districts, and the County to expand
community-led social, recreational,
behavioral, educational, and employment
opportunities.
Many opportunities exist to support young people’s
flourishing. Yet, a segment of the county’s youth
have social, recreational, behavioral, educational,
and employment-related needs that remain unmet.
Due to structural inequalities, these young people
are more likely to suffer from poor mental and
behavioral health and have a higher risk for gun
violence perpetration and victimization. Too often,
these disadvantaged young people are met with
punitive responses rather than opportunities that
increase their positive experiences and strengthen
their community’s protective factors. Supportive
options should be explicitly designed with input
from this population to emphasize safe, stable,
and nurturing connections and environments, with
attention to cultural and community fit.
“How do we start to employ young people,
exposing them to opportunities, help them be
involved in leadership, and to learn empathy. If
we plant the seed, then families will catch on.
Whatever policy or program we create now will
expand 7 generations into the future.”
— Stakeholder Meeting Participant,
Community Based Organization staff
102
Agenda Item # 5.
18 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Recommendations to
Strengthen Government and
Community-Level Coordination
and Data Systems
RECOMMENDATION 7
Establish a gun safety data workgroup to
guide the development of a data-to-action
dashboard.
The complexity of multiple data systems involved
in tracking the actual cost of gun violence and a
lack of non-governmental contributions of data
as part of the entire data-to-action planning
process presents challenges in fully understanding
the impact of gun violence. Establishing a
collaborative, multisectoral data working group
is needed to develop a centralized data platform
to address these challenges and barriers. The
workgroup would be represented by county
departments, city agencies, community-based
organizations, advocacy groups, and resident
leaders involved in gun violence prevention
efforts. Governmental and non-governmental
agencies would be encouraged to make more data
available publicly in the spirit of transparency and
to support data-driven decision-making.26 This
type of information repository, such as data lake
or warehouse, would require data contributions
from all stakeholders, not just criminal justice and
hospital systems, in order to meet the magnitude
of this intractable issue. Data sharing agreements
would facilitate the inter-departmental sharing
of de-identified record-level and populationlevel data to allow for continuous analysis along the spectrum of gun violence, greater collective
understanding of the impact of gun violence, and
more robust and informed prevention action
planning among the collaborative.
103
Agenda Item # 5.
19 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Conclusion
For decades, gun violence research has been
restricted due to the Dickey Amendment, a
provision in the U.S. government’s annual
appropriations legislation that prohibits the use of
federal funds to advocate or promote gun control.
However, a 2018 decision from Congress to end
such restrictions offers new opportunities to
advance knowledge and policies in this area.27 An
economic analysis of the impact of gun violence
has been conducted on the national and state
level, but rarely within a local jurisdiction, for the
purpose of informing locally driven actions and
strategies. This report pioneered an innovative
approach to firearm research through multidisciplinary methodologies and inter-sectoral collaborations. It opened the door to an exciting
frontier of questions and learnings for years to
come.
Now, more than ever, there is need for an upstream
and comprehensive, public health approach for
addressing gun violence. In a difficult environment
for federal gun control legislation, this report offers a promising path forward by pointing towards
efforts that tackle root causes of violence, promote
resiliency, and build capacity in both government
systems and the community.
104
Agenda Item # 5.
20 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Appendices
Appendix A: Detailed Firearm Violence Data
Firearms Availability in Santa Clara County
Compared to other developed countries, the
U.S. has the most firearms present among
civilians along with the weakest firearm laws.28
The availability of firearms increased nationwide
in recent years.29 In the U.S., there was a record
number of firearm sales in 2020; millions of people,
including many first-time purchasers, bought
firearms.30 Nationally, the firearm sales in 2020
increased by 64% compared to 2019.31
When firearm sales increase, resulting in higher
availability of firearms, research shows total
suicides, firearm suicides, total homicides, firearm
homicides, and unintentional firearm injuries/
fatalities also increase.32
In 2021, nearly 550,000 firearms were purchased
and/or owned by Santa Clara County residents.
Based on the historical data from 2001 to 2015,
nearly half of the firearms purchased in the county
were handguns.33
Figure 6. Registered firearms in Santa Clara
County by type, 2017-2021
Handgun Long Gun
15,682
12,796
2017
28,478
13,091
14,077
2018
27,168
12,649
12,790
2019
25,439
17,615
14,179
2020
31,794
14,746
12,664
2021
27,410
Source: California Department of Justice
During 2017-21, an average of 28,000 firearms were
purchased annually in Santa Clara County. More
than half of these firearms (74,714, 53%) were
purchased in San José.32
Nationally, the average firearm-owning household
possessed 4.8 to 5.16 firearms.34 Based on the
national data, an estimated 17% to 18% of
households in the county own firearms (106,300
to 114,300 households). Similarly, an estimated
15% to 18% of households (49,000 to 57,500) own
firearms in San José.32
105
Agenda Item # 5.
21 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Table 3. Number, percent, and rate of newly purchased firearms, by jurisdiction, Santa Clara County, 2017-21
Community Count of firearms Percent of firearms
Rate of firearms per 100
residents
Campbell 4,684 3.3% 10.7
Cupertino 3,025 2.2% 5.0
Gilroy 8,601 6.1% 14.5
Los Altos 2,222 1.6% 7.0
Los Altos Hills 624 0.4% 7.4
Los Gatos 3,867 2.8% 11.5
Milpitas 4,978 3.5% 6.2
Monte Sereno 436 0.3% 12.5
Morgan Hill 7,786 5.5% 17.1
Mountain View 5,178 3.7% 6.3
Palo Alto 3,355 2.4% 4.9
San José 74,714 53.3% 7.4
Santa Clara 8,256 5.9% 6.5
Saratoga 2,688 1.9% 8.7
Sunnyvale 8,511 6.1% 5.5
Unincorporated 1,364 1.0% 1.5
Santa Clara County 140,289 100.0% 7.2
Source: California Department of Justice, Firearm sales background check system Table 3 summarizes the number of newly acquired
firearms in Santa Clara County by jurisdiction.
Higher proportion of firearms were purchased
in the cities of San José (53%), Gilroy (6.1%),
Sunnyvale (6.1%), Santa Clara (5.9%), and Morgan
Hill (5.5%). The firearm acquisition rate was
similar in San José (7.4 purchased firearm per
100 residents) and the county (7.2) during 2017-21.
Firearm acquisition rates were highest in the cities
of Morgan Hill (17.1), Gilroy (14.5), Monte Sereno
(12.5), Los Gatos (11.5) and Campbell (10.7).
Photo from May 22, 2022 Santa Clara county gun
buyback.
106
Agenda Item # 5.
22 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Non-fatal Firearm Injury-related Emergency Department (ED) Visits In Santa Clara County and nationwide, people more often survive than die from a firearm injury, unless it is intentionally self-inflicted. Most of the firearm injury-related emergency department visits were assault related and unintentional firearm injuries.35
Figure 7. Non-fatal firearm injury-related emergency department visits, Santa Clara County, 2011-2020 Visit Count Visit Rate
60 96 95 85 80 113 119 94 128 156
3.4 5.5 5.4
4.7 4.5
6.3 6.7
5.2 7.1
8.8 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 0
20 40
60 80
100
120
140
160
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Age-adjusted rate per 100,000 people
Number of visits
Source: Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), 2011-2020
Note: Data for 2011 to Q3 2015 are summarized using ICD-9-CM classification. Data for Q4 2015 to 2020 are summarized using ICD-10-CM classification. Any differences in data measures should be interpreted with caution, as these might be partially due to changes in the classification system.
The count of annual non-fatal firearm injury-related
emergency department visits more than doubled
during the past decade, increasing from 60 in 2011
to 156 in 2020. Similarly, age-adjusted rate of visits
increased from 3.4 per 100,000 people in 2011
to 8.8 in 2020. Nine in ten (90%) of the non-fatal
firearm injury-related emergency department visits
were among males.36
During 2016-20, unintentional/accidental firearm
injuries (77%) were the most common cause
of non-fatal firearm injury-related emergency
department visits.36
107
Agenda Item # 5.
23 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Figure 8. Count and age-adjusted rate of firearm injury related emergency department visits by race/ethnicity among Santa Clara County residents, 2016-20
Count Rate
81 54
350
101
34.1 1.8
12.4 3.3
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 0
50 100
150
200
250
300
350
400
African/African Ancestry Asian/PI Latino White
Age-adjusted rate per 100,000 people
Number of visits
During 2016-20, nearly 6 in 10 non-fatal firearm
injury-related emergency department visits
were among Latinos (57%) residing in the county
followed by Whites (17%), African/African Ancestry
(13%) and Asian/PIs (9%). The age-adjusted rate
of non-fatal firearm injury-related emergency
department visits was highest among African/
African Ancestry (34.1 per 100,000 people) followed
by Latinos (12.4), Whites (3.3) and Asian/PIs (1.8).36
Figure 9. Age-specific rate of non-fatal firearm
injury-related emergency department visits,
Santa Clara County, 2016-20
11.6 125.9
73.1 30.9
15.6 0
20 40
60 80
100
120
140
0-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-64 65+
Age-specific rate per 100,000 people
Source: Santa Clara County Public Health Department,
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development
(OSHPD), 2016-20
108
Agenda Item # 5.
24 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY A higher proportion of non-fatal firearm injuryrelated emergency department visits were among young adults. During 2016-20, nearly 2 in 3 (65%)
of the non-fatal firearm injury-related emergency
department visits were among adults ages 18- to
34 years.36
Non-fatal Firearm Injury-related
Hospitalizations
Hospitalizations due to firearm injury are an
important component for assessing the complete
scope of non-fatal firearm injuries. Hospitalized
firearm injuries tend to be more serious than those
treated in the emergency department, resulting
in longer and more complex medical care,37 with
medical costs for non-fatal firearm injuries per
case averaging $72,640 for hospitalizations versus
$2,371 for ED visits.
In Santa Clara County, the count of annual nonfatal firearm injury-related hospitalizations increased from 58 in 2011 to a peak of 118 in 2017
and then decreased to 79 in 2020. Similarly, the
age-adjusted rate of hospitalizations increased
from 3.2 per 100,000 people in 2011 to 6.5 in 2017
and then decreased to 4.5 in 2020. Most of the nonfatal firearm injury-related hospitalizations were assault related and unintentional firearm injuries.38
During 2011-15, firearm assault (66%) accounted
for two-thirds of the firearm injury-related
hospitalizations, followed by 23% due to
unintentional firearm injuries. However, in 2016-20,
more than 1 in 2 (56%) of the firearm injury-related
hospitalizations were due to unintentional firearm
injuries, followed by 1 in 3 (35%) due to firearm
assaults.39
Figure 10. Non-fatal firearm injury-related hospitalizations Count Rate
58 81 73 70 74 97 118 112 73 79
3.2 4.6
4.1 4.0 4.2
5.4 6.5
6.2 4.1
4.5 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 0
20 40
60 80
100
120
140
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Age-adjusted rate per 100,000 people
Number of hospitalizations
Source: Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), 2001-2020
Note: Data for 2001 to Q3 2015 are summarized using ICD-9-CM classification. Data for Q4 2015 to 2020 are summarized using ICD-10-CM classification. Any differences in data measures should be interpreted with caution, as these may be partially due to changes in the classification system.
109
Agenda Item # 5.
25 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Figure 11. Count and age-adjusted rate of non-fatal firearm injury-related hospitalizations by race/ ethnicity
Count Rate
71 32
266
82 30.5
1.1 10
2.9 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 0
50 100
150
200
250
300
African/African Ancestry Asian/PI Latino White
Age-adjusted rate per 100,000 people
Number of hospitalizations
Source: Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), 2016-20 During 2016-20, more than 9 in 10 (93%) firearm
injury-related hospitalizations were among males.
Latinos in the county accounted for more than
half (56%) of non-fatal firearm injury-related
hospitalizations, followed by Whites (17%), African/
African Ancestry (15%) and Asian/PIs (7%). The
age-adjusted rate of non-fatal firearm injury-related
hospitalizations was highest among African/African
Ancestry (30.5 per 100,000 people) followed by
Latinos (10.0), Whites (2.9) and Asian/PIs (1.1). The
racial/ethnic distribution was similar between the
non-fatal firearm injuries treated in the emergency
departments and hospitals.38
Figure 12. Age-specific rate of non-fatal firearm
injury-related hospitalizations
85.4 7.4
51.2 27.7
17.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 0-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-64 65+
9.6 Age-specific rate per 100,000 people
Source: Santa Clara County Public Health Department,
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development
(OSHPD), 2016-20
110
Agenda Item # 5.
26 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY A majority of non-fatal firearm injury-related
hospitalizations were among young adults.
During 2016-20, adults ages 18 to 34 accounted
for 57% of the non-fatal firearm injury-related
hospitalizations.38
Non-fatal Firearm Injuries by Place
of Residence
The place of residence and its socio-economic
status plays a vital role in health outcomes
of people living there. Areas with poor socioeconomic status like high poverty rate, lower education attainment, lower per-capita income,
higher unemployment rate, higher single parent
households, overcrowded households are risk
factors for firearm violence. These factors increase
the risk for higher rates of firearm injury-related
emergency department visits compared to areas
with better socio-economic status.40
Figures 13. Non-fatal firearm injuries treated in
medical facilities
Source: Santa Clara County Public Health Department,
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development
(OSHPD), 2011-20
Note: Data are masked when the number of events is 15
or fewer. Data are not presented for zip codes that cross county boundary. Age-adjusted rates per 100,000 people are mapped.
Data are combined for emergency visits and
hospitalizations related to non-fatal firearm injuries
and mapped by injured person’s zip code of
residence. Zip codes in the East San José region of
the county had the highest rate of non-fatal firearm
injuries treated in a medical facility during 2011-20.
The zip code with the highest count and rate of
non-fatal firearm injuries were 95116 (223 service
encounters with a rate of 39.4 per 100,000 people),
followed by 95122 (155, 24.4), 95111 (135, 21.6),
95127 (116, 17.9), and 95112 (77, 10.7).41
The following maps show the zip codes in the
county with relatively higher rate of poverty, lower
education attainment, higher rate of single parent
households with children under the age of 18, and
overcrowded households.42 These maps highlight
the zip codes with poor socio-economic status
in the county. The non-fatal firearm injuries map
(fig. 12) and the social conditions maps (fig. 13 to
fig. 16) have overlap in the East San José region
highlighting the interaction of poor socio-economic
factors and higher prevalence of non-fatal firearm
injuries.
111
Agenda Item # 5.
27 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Figures 14. People living below 200% Federal
Poverty Level
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016-20 American Community
Survey 5-year estimates, Table C17002
Note: Data are only presented for zip codes that are
completely within Santa Clara County.
Figures 15. Less than high school education
attainment
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016-20 American Community
Survey 5-year estimates, Table B15002
Note: Data are only presented for zip codes that are
completely within Santa Clara County.
Figures 16. Single parent families
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016-20 American Community
Survey 5-year estimates, Table B11004
Note: Data are only presented for zip codes that are
completely within Santa Clara County.
Figures 17. Overcrowded households
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016-20 American Community
Survey 5-year estimates, Table B25014
Note: Data are only presented for zip codes that are
completely within Santa Clara County.
112
Agenda Item # 5.
28 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Firearm Deaths
Nationwide, the number of firearm deaths increased to record level in 2020, the most in the past 40 years. Firearm suicides accounted for more than half (54%) of the firearm deaths, with firearm homicides accounted for 43% of the firearm deaths.43
Figures 18. Firearm deaths, Santa Clara County 2011-2020 Firearm Deaths Age-adjusted Rate
86 83 80 82 88 76 85 67 76 90
4.7 4.6
4.4 4.4
4.7 4
4.5 3.6
4 4.8
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 0
20 40
60 80
100
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Age-adjusted rate per 100,000 people
Number of deaths
Year of death
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Multiple Cause of Death data, 2011-2020 From 2001 to 2020, 1,494 county residents died
due to a firearm-related injury. The annual count
and rate of firearm deaths among county residents
remained relatively stable during the past decade.
The firearm deaths increased from 76 in 2019 to
90 in 2020, mirroring the nationwide trend. The
age-adjusted firearm death rate was 4.8 deaths per
100,000 people in 2020, the highest rate in the past
decade.44
During 2016-20, 9 in 10 (89%) firearm deaths were
among males. The age-adjusted firearm death rate
among males (7.9 deaths per 100,000) was 8 times
higher than females (1.0).44
113
Agenda Item # 5.
29 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Figures 19. Count and age-adjusted rate of firearm deaths by race/ethnicity, Santa Clara County, 2016-20 42 129
221
419
5.9 1
2.4 3
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
African/African Ancestry Asian Latino White
Age-adjusted rate per 100,000 people
Number of deaths
Count Rate
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Multiple Cause of Death data, 2016-20 Note: Data are not presented when the number of deaths is between 1 to 10.
During 2016-20, nearly 6 in 10 (57%, 209 deaths)
firearm deaths were among Whites residing in the
county followed by Latinos (28%, 104), Asians (16%,
59) and African/African Ancestry (6%, 21). The ageadjusted rate of firearm deaths was highest among African/African Ancestry (5.9 deaths per 100,000),
followed by Whites (3.0), Latinos (2.4) and Asians
(1.0).44
Figures 20. Age-specific rate of firearm death by
age group, Santa Clara County, 2016-20
7.3 4.8
4.0 4.2
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 0-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-64 65+
7.2 Age-specific rate per 100,000 people
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Multiple Cause of Death data, 2016-20
Note: Data are not presented when the number of deaths is between 1 to 10.
114
Agenda Item # 5.
30 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY A higher proportion of firearm deaths were among
adults ages 18 to 34. During 2016-20, 1 in 3 (34%,
134 deaths) firearm deaths was among county
residents ages 18 to 34, followed by 1 in 4 deaths
among 45-64 (26%, 102) and 65 and older (24%, 94)
age groups each. The age-specific firearm death
rate was highest among adults ages 18-24 years (7.3
per 100,000 people) and 65 and older (7.2).44
Figures 21. Firearm death density
Source: Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Vital Records Business Intelligence System (VRBIS), 2005-2020.
Data as of 7/12/2021.
Firearm deaths density map above shows
San José, Campbell, and Gilroy had relatively
higher density of firearm deaths among county
residents.45
Figures 22. Firearm death rate
Source: Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Vital Records Business Intelligence System (VRBIS), 2005-2020.
Data as of 7/1/2021
Note: Data are not presented when the death count is
between 1 to 20. Age-adjusted death rates per 100,000 are mapped.
The age-adjusted firearm death rate map above
shows zip codes located in San José and south
county region had higher firearm death rates
compared to other zip codes in the county.46
115
Agenda Item # 5.
31 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Firearm Violence by Intent
Firearm violence can be grouped based on the intent: intentional self-inflicted, intentional assault (interpersonal), unintentional or accidental, legal intervention and undetermined intent. Most of the nonfatal and fatal firearm injuries are either self-inflicted (suicide) or assault (homicide).47 Due to their high lethality48, firearms contributed to increases in suicide and homicide nationwide.49 Figure 23. Non-fatal firearm injury-related
emergency department visits by intent, Santa
Clara County residents, 2016-20
Assualt
18%
Unintentional
77%
Other
5%
Source: Santa Clara County Public Health Department,
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development
(OSHPD), 2016-20
During 2016-20, more than 3 in 4 non-fatal firearm
injury-related emergency department visits were
unintentional (77%, 469 visits), followed by 18%
(108) visits due to assault. Visits due to self-inflicted, legal intervention and undetermined intent
combined accounted for 5% (33 visits) of total nonfatal firearm injury-related emergency department visits among county residents.50
Figure 24. Non-fatal firearm injury-related
hospitalizations by intent, Santa Clara County,
2016-20
Assualt
35%
Unintentional
56%
Other
9%
Source: Santa Clara County Public Health Department,
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development
(OSHPD), 2016-20.
During 2011-15, firearm assault (66%) accounted
for two-thirds of the non-fatal firearm injuryrelated hospitalizations, followed by 23% due to unintentional firearm injuries. However, in
2016-20, more than 1 in 2 (56%) of the non-fatal
firearm injury-related hospitalizations were due to
unintentional firearm injuries, followed by 1 in 3
(35%) due to firearm assaults.51
116
Agenda Item # 5.
32 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Figure 25. Firearm deaths by intent, Santa Clara
County, 2016-20
Homicide
33%
Suicide
60%
Other
7%
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Multiple Cause of Death data, 2016-20
The most common cause for firearm deaths among
county residents was self-inflicted firearm injuries
(suicide). During 2016-20, 6 in 10 firearm deaths
among county residents were suicide (60%, 236
deaths) and 1 in 3 were assault/homicide (33%,
129). Firearm deaths due to legal intervention,
unintentional and undetermined intent combined
accounted for 7% (26 deaths) of total firearm
deaths among county residents.52
Intentional self-inflicted firearm injuries
Suicide is death caused by injuring oneself with the
intent to die. A suicide attempt is when someone
harms themselves with any intent to end their life,
but they do not die from their actions.53
During 2016-20, firearm self-inflicted injuries
represented less than 1% of total non-fatal selfinflicted injuries among county residents being treated in the emergency department.54
Data for non-fatal self-inflicted firearm injuryrelated emergency department visits and hospitalizations is not presented per data
deidentification guidelines. Data are not presented
when the number of events is 15 or fewer to
minimize risk of record identification.54
During 2016-20, 3 in 10 suicide deaths were firearm
suicides (31%, 236 firearm suicide deaths). The
number of firearm suicides increased in the county
from 214 in 2006-10 to 236 in 2016-20; similar to the
increase in total suicide deaths. The proportion of
suicides that involved a firearm (30%) stayed stable
during this time period.55
Intentional assault firearm injuries –
Interpersonal violence
Homicide is fatal injury inflicted by another person
with intent to injure or kill, by any means. Injuries
due to legal intervention and operations of war are
not included in homicide data.56
During 2016-20, firearm assault injuries represented
less than 1% of total non-fatal assault injuries
among county residents being treated in the
emergency department.57
During 2016-20, there were 108 non-fatal firearm
assault-related emergency department visits
among county residents. Latinos accounted for
more than half of these visits (54%) followed by
Whites (17%) and African/African Ancestry (16%).
The age-adjusted rate of non-fatal firearm assault
related emergency department visits was highest
among African/African Ancestry (8.8 visits per
100,000 people) followed by Latinos (2.0) and
Whites (0.8). Adults ages 18 to 34 years (67%)
accounted for 2 in 3 visits related to non-fatal
firearm assaults.57
117
Agenda Item # 5.
33 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Figure 26. Non-fatal firearm assault-related hospitalizations, Santa Clara County, 2011-2020 Count Rate
44 62 56 38 36 43 45 42 22
2.5 3.6
3.1 2.2
2.0 2.4 2.6
2.4 1.2
0 1
2 3
4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Age-adjusted rate per 100,000 people
Number of hospitalizations
Source: Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), 2011-2020 Note: Data are not presented when the number of hospitalizations is 15 or less.Data for 2011 to Q3 2015 are summarized using ICD-9-CM classification. Data for Q4 2015 to 2020 are summarized using ICD-10-CM classification. Any differences in data measures should be interpreted with caution, as these may be partially due to changes in the classification system.
During the past decade, the number of non-fatal
firearm assault-related hospitalizations ranged
from a high of 62 in 2012 to a low of 22 in 2019.
During 2016-20, there were 167 non-fatal firearm
assault-related hospitalizations among county
residents, with an age-adjusted rate of 1.9 per
100,000 people. Latinos accounted for nearly 6
in 10 (58%) of these hospitalizations followed
by Whites (16%) and African/African Ancestry
(13%). The age-adjusted rate of non-fatal firearm
assault-related hospitalizations was highest among
African/African Ancestry (9.1 per 100,000 people)
followed by Latinos (3.5) and Whites (0.9). Adults
ages 18 to 34 years (62%) accounted for more than
6 in 10 hospitalizations-related to non-fatal firearm
assaults.58
During 2016-20, more than half of the homicide
deaths among county residents were firearm
homicides (54%, 129 firearm homicide deaths).
The number of firearm homicides increased in
the county from 113 in 2006-10 to 129 in 2016-20;
similar to the increase in total homicide deaths.
During this time period, firearm homicides continue
to account for more than half of total homicide
deaths.59
118
Agenda Item # 5.
34 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Figure 27. Homicide density
Source: Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Vital Records Business Intelligence System (VRBIS), 2005-2020.
Data as of 7/1/2021
The homicide density map above shows San José,
Campbell, and Gilroy had relatively higher density
of homicide deaths among county residents.60
Figure 28. Homicide rate
Source: Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Vital Records Business Intelligence System (VRBIS), 2005-2020.
Data as of 7/1/2021
Note: Data are not presented when the death count is
between 1 to 20. Age-adjusted death rates per 100,000
people are mapped.
The age-adjusted homicide rate map in figure 28
shows zip codes located in the cities of San José
and Gilroy had higher rates compared to other zip
codes.60
Unintentional Firearm Injuries
Unintentional injuries are accidental injuries.
Unintentional firearm injuries include fatal or
nonfatal firearm injuries that happen while
someone is cleaning or playing with a firearm or
other incidents of an accidental firing without
evidence of intentional harm.61
Unintentional firearm injuries accounted for 3 in 4
(75%) of the total non-fatal firearm injury-related
emergency department visits among county
residents during 2016-20. The increase in total
non-fatal firearm injury-related emergency
department visits is mostly driven by the increase
in the unintentional firearm injuries which
increased five-fold from 2011 (n=22) to 2020 (113).62
119
Agenda Item # 5.
35 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Figure 29. Non-fatal unintentional firearm injury-related emergency department visits, Santa Clara County, 2011-2020
Firearm Visits Age-adjusted Rate
22 23 32 33 36 83 91 77 105 113
1.3 1.3
1.9 1.8
2.0 4.6
5.1 4.3
5.8 6.4
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Age-adjusted rate per 100,000 people
Number of visits
Source: Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), 2011-2020 Note: Data for 2011 to Q3 2015 are summarized using ICD-9-CM classification. Data for Q4 2015 to 2020 are summarized using ICD-10-CM classification. Any differences in data measures should be interpreted with caution, as these may be partially due to changes in the classification system.
During 2016-20, 9 in 10 non-fatal unintentional
firearm injury-related emergency department visits
were among males (90%, 423 visits) residing in
the county. Age-adjusted rate of these visits was 8
times higher among males (9.2 visits per 100,000)
than among females (1.1).62
During 2016-20, Latinos (58%, 274 visits) accounted
for more than half of the non-fatal unintentional
firearm injury-related emergency department
visits, followed by Whites (16%, 75), African/African
Ancestry (13%, 62) and Asian/PIs (9%, 41). African/
African Ancestry had the highest age-adjusted rate
(26.4 visits per 100,000) followed by Latinos (9.7),
Whites (2.4) and Asian/PIs (1.3).62
During 2016-20, 2 in 3 non-fatal unintentional
firearm injury-related emergency department visits
were among adults ages 18 to 34 (66%, 306 visits)
followed by adults ages 35 to 44 (15%, 70) and 45 to
64 (11%, 51).60
120
Agenda Item # 5.
36 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Figures 30. Non-fatal unintentional firearm injury-related hospitalizations, Santa Clara County, 2011-2020
Count Rate
23 30 49 57 63 45 53
1.3 1.7
2.7 3.1
3.5 2.6
3.0 0.0
0.5 1.0
1.5 2.0
2.5 3.0
3.5 4.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Age-adjusted rate per 100,000 people
Number of hospitalizations
Source: Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), 2011-2020 Note: Data are not presented when the number of hospitalizations is 15 or less. Data for 2011 to Q3 2015 are summarized using ICD-9-CM classification. Data for Q4 2015 to 2020 are summarized using ICD-10-CM classification. Any differences in data measures should be interpreted with caution, as these may be partially due to changes in the classification system.
The non-fatal unintentional firearm injury-related
hospitalizations increased from 23 hospitalizations
in 2014 to 53 in 2020. During 2016-20, more than 9
in 10 (94%) of these hospitalizations were among
males residing in the county. Age-adjusted rate
among males (5.5 hospitalizations per 100,000) was
14 times higher than among females (0.4).63
During 2016-20, Latinos (57%, 152 hospitalizations)
accounted for more than half of the non-fatal
unintentional firearm injury-related hospitalizations,
followed by Whites (16%, 44), African/African
Ancestry (16%, 43) and Asian/PIs (7%, 18). African/
African Ancestry had the highest age-adjusted
rate (19.1 hospitalizations per 100,000) followed
by Latinos (5.9), Whites (1.6) and Asian/PIs (0.6).
More than half (55%) of the non-fatal unintentional
firearm injury-related hospitalizations were among
adults ages 18 to 34 (55%, 148 hospitalizations).63
Data for unintentional firearm deaths are not
presented per data deidentification guidelines. Data
are not presented when the number of deaths is
between 1 to 10.
121
Agenda Item # 5.
37 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Legal Intervention-Involved Firearm Injuries
Legal intervention-involved firearm injuries
are those inflicted by the police or other law
enforcement agents acting in the line of duty. For
example, firearm injuries that occur while arresting
or attempting to arrest someone, maintaining
order, or ensuring safety.64
In California, between 2016 and 2021, 838 people
died due to legal intervention when an on-duty
police officer shot them.65 Most of the legal
intervention-involved firearm deaths were among
males (95%, 1051 deaths), Latinos (36%, 399) and
adults ages 18 to 44 (69%, 768). Nearly 1 in 2 (48%)
of the legal intervention-involved firearm deaths
were among young adults ages 18 to 34, followed
by people ages 35 to 44 (21%), 45 to 54 (12%), 55
to 64 (6%), 65 years and older and less than 18
years (2% each). Nearly 1 in 3 (36%) of the legal
intervention-involved firearm deaths were among
Latinos, followed by Whites (24%, 265 deaths),
African/ African Ancestry people (15%, 163) and
Asians (3%, 37). African/ African Ancestry people
had the highest rate of the legal interventioninvolved firearm deaths (7.6 deaths per 100,000 people); four times higher than Whites (1.8 per
100,000) and three times higher than Latinos (1.4
per 100,000).66
Based on the Fatal Force database, 22 legal
intervention-involved firearm deaths occurred
in the county during 2016-20; matching with the
death data from the County Vital Statistics data.
Among the county residents, there were 17 legal
intervention-involved firearm deaths during 2016-
20.66, 67, 68
Among the county residents, there were 41 legal
intervention-involved firearm deaths during the
past decade (2011-20). Most of these deaths were
among males (93%), adults ages 18 to 44 (76%) and
Latinos (44%) residing in the county.68
Data for legal intervention involved-firearm
injury-related emergency department visits and
hospitalizations are not presented in the report
per data deidentification guidelines. Data are not
presented when the number of events is 15 or
fewer.69
Firearm Injuries With Undetermined Intent
Firearm injuries with undetermined intent are
those where there is not enough information to
determine whether the injury was intentionally
self-inflicted, unintentional, the result of legal
intervention, or from an act of interpersonal
violence.70 During 2016-20, there were 16 non-fatal
firearm injury-related hospitalizations that were of
undetermined intent with an age-adjusted rate of
0.2 hospitalizations per 100,000 people residing in
the county.71
Data for firearm deaths and non-fatal firearm
injury-related emergency department visits with
undetermined intent are not presented per data
deidentification guidelines. Data are not presented
when the number of emergency department visits
is 15 or fewer and death data are not presented
when the count is between 1 to 10.
122
Agenda Item # 5.
38 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Appendix B: Methods
The societal cost assessment used a peer-reviewed
framework for costing firearm violence. The
framework was developed by PIRE more than
20 years ago and periodically updated.72 This
framework consists of an economic analysis of
direct out-of-pocket costs across the continuum
of public services, employer responses associated
with injury and death, and indirect cost data
following an event. Direct costs include police,
emergency response, hospital-related expenses,
healthcare claims, family mental health services,
court, criminal justice, and employer costs.
Indirect costs include victim loss of wages and
the estimated value of lost quality of life, typically
captured through established metrics and
benchmarks. Costs can also include the vast array
of prevention and intervention efforts in response
to firearm violence across different public sectors.
Original estimates are built from mortality data,
hospital data on charges for initial visits multiplied
by hospital-specific cost to charge ratios; a
published injury cost model (Zonfrillo et al., 2018)
that provided diagnosis-specific ratios of physician
and other professional payments to hospital costs
and of lifetime medical costs post-discharge to the
costs of the initial hospital visit, as well as work loss and quality of life loss; and a combination of county
data on police and criminal justice processing
combined with two national studies (Miller et al.
2021, Hunt et al. 2019), California State budget data,
and a California Sentencing Institute (2021) study of
cost per case.
PIRE developed the widely published injury cost
models and methods to estimate injury-related
costs, including firearm injuries and other causes
of injuries. This injury cost model is used for
estimating firearm injury-related costs for the
report. In summary, initial cost models cover
non-fatal firearm injuries admitted as inpatients or
treated in the emergency department (ED) without
hospital admission using the county’s statewide
Patient Discharge Database and Emergency
Department Visits Database. For hospitalized
patients, medical costs are based on hospital
charges that were multiplied by hospital-andyear-specific cost-to-charge ratios. This base cost was multiplied by factors for professional
fees associated with the admission, follow-up
admissions, and post-discharge medical costs.
Additional nursing home or inpatient rehabilitation
costs were added for discharges to those settings.
Since Kaiser hospitals do not record charges for
services, we substituted the mean cost for an
initial admission at similar hospitals by diagnosis.
For firearm injury-related emergency department
visits (treat and release), the initial admission
cost by diagnosis was computed based on the
Market Scan National Claims Database. Then the
initial cost estimate was multiplied by factors for
follow-up costs. The mean cost of transport by
ambulance was added to all inpatient admissions
and emergency department visits.
Work loss and quality of life cost methods include
patients’ injuries, age, and sex. The calculations
used average wages across the 2007-2018 business
cycle adjusted to Santa Clara County wage levels.
For suicides, the costs of mental health treatment
post-discharge were excluded because those
costs were costs of suicidality rather than of the
firearm injury. Injury costs for year 2015 and later
were difficult to calculate due to transition in the
diagnosis coding from Clinical Modification of the
9th revision of the International Classification of
Diseases (ICD9-CM) to the 10th revision (ICD10-
CM) starting October 1, 2015. Therefore, PIRE used
average costs per firearm injury by intent in 2014 for
later years rather than costing each event. Those
estimates are less precise than the costs calculated
for 2014 and earlier years.
Police, jail, victim services, and fire department
emergency medical service costs are specific
to Santa Clara County, while prison, parole, and
probation costs are California-specific. PIRE’s
crime cost model provided mental health care and
123
Agenda Item # 5.
39 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY criminal adjudication costs per firearm incident.
Employer costs per firearm incident by intent/
severity and the duration of sanctions are national
averages, with costs adjusted to prices in Santa
Clara County.
Cost estimation method for firearm deaths was
similar to the method used for non-fatal firearm
injuries. For fatalities, PIRE determined the medical
costs based on place of death, drawing average
inpatient and emergency department medical
costs for a firearm fatality from Health Care
Utilization Program (HCUP) National Inpatient
and Nationwide Emergency Department Sample
datasets. The indirect costs of fatalities were
computed for each victim in the county, taking
account of victim’s age and sex, then summed up
to get overall cost estimates.
Counts of firearms purchased and firearm
ownership in the county are estimates derived
based on the State of California background check
data and firearm sales data. State of California
background check data showed 363,725 firearms
were purchased/registered in Santa Clara County
between 2001 and 2015.73 Data procured from the
State data system indicated that another 140,289
handguns and long guns were purchased in the
county during 2017-2021. In 2017-2019, 3.5% of the
guns purchased statewide were purchased in the
county. Multiplying the 3.5% times firearm sales
statewide in 2016 suggests 44,666 firearms were
sold in the county in 2016. Annual numbers of
firearms sold were summed to yield the county’s
estimated firearm count over time.
Same method was used to estimate firearm
ownership in San José as used at the county level.
First, the 11% ownership rate was applied to the
2014 household count of 325,114 for San José, then
multiplied times 4.8 to 5.16 firearms per household
with firearms.74 This approach yielded a range of
164,856 to 177,298 firearms in San José in 2014.
Alternatively, published literature and research
shows that the number of firearms in a jurisdiction
tracks the number of suicide by firearm deaths in
the jurisdiction. This finding was used along with
the survey-based county counts (multiplied times
4.8 to 5.16) and the sales-based county counts
separately to yield two estimates. Using this
alternative method indicated that San José had
an estimated 154,530 to 166,274 firearms in 2015.
Across the 5 calculated counts, the mean number
of firearms in San Jose during 2014-15 was 165,830,
with a range from 154,530 to 177,298. Adding the
98,157 firearms purchased/registered in San José
during 2016-2021 to the 165,830 for 2014-2015
yielded the best estimate of 263,987 firearms in
San José, with a range from 252,700 to 275,500.
The number of estimated firearms was divided by
the number of households in San José to derive
estimated number of households with firearms in
San José.
124
Agenda Item # 5.
40 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Appendix C: Limitations
Change in classification coding: For both the
inpatient discharge and emergency department
datasets, the diagnosis coding changed from
ICD9-CM to ICD10-CM in 2015. These two coding
classification systems do not crossmatch which
makes it difficult to compare data across these
time periods and calculate costs for services
provided.
Data access and availability: County EMS data
were not available for 2007 and prior years so
the costs were estimated for these years. This
might result in underestimating the costs. Cost
estimation does not include non-fatal firearm
injuries that did not result in any hospital or
emergency room encounter, including untreated
injuries and injuries treated at physician’s offices or urgent care clinics. Data were not available for time
spent by law enforcement personnel responding
to firearm-related calls without physical injury
and were not included in the cost estimation. The
county lacked a dataset that indicated whether
arraignments for firearm-involved crimes led to a
conviction or what sanctions were imposed. The
modeled costs based on the sanctioning profile
from aggregated California statewide data has wide
uncertainty. Firearm buy-back programs have been
implemented in the county. The cost estimates
could not include the costs related to the buy-back
events and their administration. Behavioral Health
Services (BHS) data does not collect information
about mental health services provided in the
schools and communities after mass shootings.
The BHS data system is set up to track services
provided and not to track people which makes it
impossible to estimate countywide prevalence of
mental health needs and accessibility to services.
Data could not be accessed for the impact of
firearm violence in the education system: student
suspensions related to firearms, firearm related
incidents on campus, etc. Data were not available
to estimate the amount of law enforcement and
school staff time spent responding to firearm
violence and threats in schools.
For additional limitations related to the cost
methodology used for this study, please refer to
the technical paper Medical and Work Loss Cost
Estimation Methods for the WISQARS Cost of Injury
Module.
75 125
Agenda Item # 5.
41 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY Appendix D: Firearm Violence Stakeholder Meetings
Between February and July 2022, Prevention
Institute and the County Public Health Department
jointly conducted a series of stakeholder
meetings with communities most impacted by
gun violence, as well as with community-based
organizations and government agencies working
at the forefront of this issue. In total, around
124 individuals participated in 11 meetings.
Participants represented the following groups and
sectors: community members, resident groups,
community-based organizations, criminal justice
partners, County Health System and department
partners, advocacy groups, subject matter experts,
and city agencies. Participants also represented
members from African/African Ancestry and Latino
communities, youth, working adults, seniors, and
residents living in high impacted areas throughout
Santa Clara County.
The purpose of the stakeholder meetings was
to understand stakeholders’ concerns around
gun violence and their perspectives on its root
causes. Ideas around programmatic solutions and
policy recommendations were also solicited for
developing the recommendations in the report and
for future action planning. The following three main
questions were asked to all participants.
• Describe the forms of firearm violence you are
most concerned about.
• Describe what you identify as the root causes
and other factors that contribute to these forms
of firearm violence.
• What ideas do you have for policy, program, and
budget-related solutions? We are particularly
interested in solutions that advance racial
equity, gender, and economic equity.
126
Agenda Item # 5.
Endnotes
1 American Public Health Association, https://www.apha.org/ topics-and-issues/gun-violence
2 EFSGV, Public Health Approach to Gun Violence Prevention, https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/
public-health-approach-to-gun-violence-prevention/
3 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention, Firearm Violence Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/
violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html
4 Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-inthe-u-s/ 5 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s WISQARS Fatal Injury Reports, http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html 6 Public Policy Institute of California, 2021, https://www.ppic. org/blog/gun-deaths-drive-californias-largest-ever-rise-inhomicides/ 7 The term “African/African Ancestry” refers to all African people, whether they are recent African immigrants or have been in the U.S. for multiple generations. This terminology was chosen over more commonly used terms “Black” or “African American” to underscore the connectedness among all African people as well as the importance of unique cultural norms, beliefs, and practices among African people in the U.S., from the African continent and throughout the Diaspora.
8 U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census,
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
9 U.S. Census Bureau, 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-year estimates
10 Miller, T. R., & Cohen, M. A. (1997). Costs of gunshot and cut/stab wounds in the United States, with some Canadian comparisons.
Accident analysis and prevention, 29(3), 329–341. https://doi. org/10.1016/s0001-4575(97)00007-9.
11 The Economic Cost of Gun Violence. Accessed at https:// everytownresearch.org/report/the-economic-cost-of-gunviolence/ 12 TR Miller, MA Cohen, D Swedler, B Ali, D Hendrie. Incidence and Costs of Personal and Property Crimes in the United States, 2017, Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 12:1, 24-54, 2021.
M Zonfrillo, R Spicer, B Lawrence, TR Miller. Incidence and Costs of Injuries to Children and Adults in the United States, Injury Epidemiology, 5:1, article 37, 2018. Hunt PE, Saunders J, Kilmer B. Estimates of law enforcement costs by crime type for benefitcost analyses. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 10(1), 95-123, 2019.
R Grattet, B Martin. Probation in California, December 2015, https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/content/pubs/jtf/ JTF_ProbationJTF.pdf. California Sentencing Institute, http:// casi.cjcj.org/about.html#download
13 U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census, https://data. census.gov/cedsci/
14 Miller G, Florence C, Barnett SB, Peterson C, Lawrence B, Miller TR. Monetized Estimated Quality-adjusted Life Year (QALY) Losses for Non-fatal Injuries, Injury Prevention, online ahead of print, 2022.
15 Miller TR. The Plausible Range for the Value of Life: Red Herrings Among the Mackerel, Journal of Forensic Economics, 3:3, 75- 89, 1990. See also Miller TR, Cohen MA. Costs of Gunshot and Cut/Stab Wounds in the United States, with Some Canadian Comparisons, Accident Analysis & Prevention, 29:3, 329-341, 1997.
16 County of Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office meetings 17 Daniel W. Webster; Public Health Approaches to Reducing Community Gun Violence. Daedalus 2022; 151 (1): 38–48. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01886
18 Grossman DC, Mueller BA, Riedy C, et al. Gun Storage Practices and Risk of Youth Suicide and Unintentional Firearm Injuries.
JAMA. 2005;293(6):707–714. doi:10.1001/jama.293.6.707
19 Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, Racial Equity Impact Assessment Tool for Gun Violence Prevention, https:// efsgv.org/racialequity/
20 Racial Equity Framework for Gun Violence Prevention, The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, https://efsgv.org/wpcontent/uploads/EFSGV_REIA_Framework.pdf 21 Racial Equity Impact Assessment, Race Forward: The Center for Racial Justice Innovation, https://www.raceforward.org/sites/ default/files/RacialJusticeImpactAssessment_v5.pdf
22 Swanson, JW. The color of risk protection orders: gun violence, gun laws, and racial justice. Journal of Injury Epidemiology 23 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention, Preventing Multiple Forms of Violence: A Strategic Vision for Connecting the Dots, https://www.cdc.gov/
violenceprevention/pdf/Strategic_Vision.pdf
24 Hohl BC, Kondo MC, Kajeepeta S, MacDonald JM, Theall KP, Zimmerman MA, Branas CC. Creating Safe And Healthy
Neighborhoods With Place-Based Violence Interventions.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2019 Oct;38(10):1687-1694. doi: 10.1377/ hlthaff.2019.00707. PMID: 31589538; PMCID: PMC7336498.
25 Center for American Progress, Community-Based Violence Interruption Programs Can Reduce Gun Violence, https://www. americanprogress.org/article/community-based-violenceinterruption-programs-can-reduce-gun-violence/; Daniel W.
Webster; Public Health Approaches to Reducing Community Gun Violence. Daedalus 2022; 151 (1): 38–48. doi: https://doi. org/10.1162/daed_a_01886
42 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY 127 Agenda Item # 5.
43 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY 26 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention, Preventing Multiple Forms of Violence: A Strategic Vision for Connecting the Dots, https://www.cdc.gov/
violenceprevention/pdf/Strategic_Vision.pdf
27 Rostron A. The Dickey Amendment on Federal Funding for Research on Gun Violence: A Legal Dissection. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(7):865-867. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304450 28 Estimating Global Civilian Held Firearm Numbers, Small Arms Survey, https://www.smallarmssurvey.org/sites/default/files/ resources/SAS-BP-Civilian-Firearms-Numbers.pdf
29 Statistics, Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Accessed at https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-violencestatistics/ 30 A Year in Review: 2020 Gun Deaths in the U.S. report. The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions https:// publichealth.jhu.edu/sites/default/files/2022-05/2020-gundeaths-in-the-us-4-28-2022-b.pdf 31 Gun Violence and COVID-19 in 2020, A Year of Colliding Crises. Everytown Research and Policy. Accessed at https:// everytownresearch.org/report/gun-violence-and-covid-19- in-2020-a-year-of-colliding-crises/
32 Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Firearms and violence death in the United States. In: Webster DW, Vernick JS, eds. Reducing Gun Violence in America. Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 2013. Accessed at https://www.hsph.harvard. edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
33 California Department of Justice. This information comes from California’s data on mandatory gun registration at transfer.
The 2015 count was checked against data from the county’s 2013-2014 Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey which have different limitations.
34 Azrael D, Hepburn L, Hemenway D, Miller M. The Stock and Flow of US firearms: Results from the 2015 National Firearms Survey. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences. 2017;3(5):38–57.
35 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention, Firearm Violence Prevention. Accessed at https://www.cdc. gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html
36 Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD),
Emergency Department Visits Database, 2016-2020. Data are not presented when the number of events are 15 or fewer. 37 Rosanna Smart, Samuel Peterson, Terry L. Schell, Rose Kerber, and Andrew R. Morral, “Firearm Injury Hospitalizations in America,” RAND Corporation, April 27, 2021. https://www.rand. org/research/gun-policy/firearm-injury.html
38 Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), Patient Discharge Database, 2011-2020
39 Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), Patient Discharge Database, 2011-2020. Data for 2011 to Q3 2015 are summarized using ICD-9-CM classification. Data for Q4 2015 to 2020 are summarized using ICD-10-CM classification. Any differences in data measures should be interpreted with caution, as these may be partially due to changes in the classification system.
40 Van Dyke ME, Chen MS, Sheppard M, et al. County-Level Social Vulnerability and Emergency Department Visits for Firearm Injuries — 10 U.S. Jurisdictions, January 1, 2018–December 31, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022;71:873–877. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7127a1
41 Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), 2011- 2020. Note: Zip code with the second highest count of visits was 94303 (count=182) but was not mapped as rate could not be calculated due to denominator issue with zip code being shared by more than one county.
42 U.S. Census Bureau, 2016-20 American Community Survey 5-year estimates
43 Pew Research Center, What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.. Accessed at https://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-inthe-u-s/ 44 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Multiple Cause of Death data, 2001-2020 45 Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Vital Records Business Intelligence System (VRBIS), 2005-2020. Data as of 7/12/2021
46 Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Vital Records Business Intelligence System (VRBIS), 2005-2020. Data as of 7/12/2021
47 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention, Firearm Violence Prevention. Accessed at https://www.cdc. gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html
48 Lethality is defined as fatal firearm injuries out of total firearm injuries.
49 A Year in Review: 2020 Gun Deaths in the U.S. report. The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions https:// publichealth.jhu.edu/sites/default/files/2022-05/2020-gundeaths-in-the-us-4-28-2022-b.pdf 50 Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD),
Emergency Department Visits Database, 2016-2020
51 Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), Patient Discharge Database, 2011-2020. Data for 2011 to Q3 2015 are summarized using ICD-9-CM classification. Data for Q4 2015 to 2020 are summarized using ICD-10-CM classification. Any differences in data measures should be interpreted with caution, as these may be partially due to changes in the classification system.
128
Agenda Item # 5.
44 SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH | THE COST OF GUN VIOLENCE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY 52 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Multiple Cause of Death data, 2016-2020 53 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Suicide Prevention, Facts about Suicide. Accessed at https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/facts/ index.html
54 Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), 2016- 2020
55 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Multiple Cause of Death data, 2016-2020 56 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS™)Fatal Injury,
Accessed at https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal_help/ definitions_fatal.html
57 Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD),
Emergency Department Visits Database, 2016-2020
58 Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), Patient Discharge Database, 2011-2020.
59 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Multiple Cause of Death data, 2016-2020 60 Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Vital Records Business Intelligence System (VRBIS), 2005-2020. Data as of 7/12/2021
61 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Violence Prevention, Firearm Violence Prevention, Fast Facts: Firearm Violence Prevention.
Accessed at https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/
firearms/fastfact.html
62 Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD),
Emergency Department Visits Database, 2011-2020. Data for 2011 to Q3 2015 are summarized using ICD-9-CM classification.
Data for Q4 2015 to 2020 are summarized using ICD-10-CM classification. Any differences in data measures should be interpreted with caution, as these may be partially due to changes in the classification system.
63 Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), Patient Discharge Database, 2011-2020. Data for 2011 to Q3 2015 are summarized using ICD-9-CM classification. Data for Q4 2015 to 2020 are summarized using ICD-10-CM classification. Any differences in data measures should be interpreted with caution, as these may be partially due to changes in the classification system.
64 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Violence Prevention, Firearm Violence Prevention, Fast Facts: Firearm Violence Prevention.
Accessed at https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/ fastfact.html
65 Unlike most of this report, counts in this paragraph describe deaths that occurred in the State, not deaths of State residents.
We tabulated the counts from the Washington Post Fatal Force dataset. Since 2015, that source has verified details about and logged every fatal shooting by an on-duty police officer in the United States. Demographic data completeness for California is 99% for sex, 89% for age, and 79% for race.
66 The Washington Post, Fatal Force, fatal-police-shootingsdata.csv, https://github.com/washingtonpost/data-policeshootings, August 6, 2022 update. 67 Fatal Force data reported by place of occurrence (where person was shot/died). Vital statistics data are reported both by place of residence and place of occurrence.
68 Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Vital Records Business Intelligence System (VRBIS), 2011-2020. Data as of 7/12/2021
69 Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD),
2016-2020
70 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Violence Prevention, Firearm Violence Prevention, Fast Facts: Firearm Violence Prevention.
Accessed at https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/
firearms/fastfact.html
71 Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), 2011- 2020.
72 Miller TR, Cohen MA. Costs of gunshot and cut/stab wounds in the United States, with some Canadian comparisons. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 29(3):329-341, 1997. Follman M, Lurie J, Lee J, West J. The True Cost of Gun Violence in America: The data the NRA doesn’t want you to see. Mother Jones. 2015. 73 Santa Clara County Public Health. Guns in Santa Clara County.
April 2018. The State requires that all gun sales in California go through its system.
74 Azrael D, Hepburn L, Hemenway D, Miller M. The Stock and Flow of US firearms: Results from the 2015 National Firearms Survey. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences. 2017;3(5):38–57. The 5.16 average was computed by extending Table A1 in the article from 2013 to 2015, then multiplying the 4.8 average for 2015 from the survey by the 285-million-gun count from Table A1 (based on Federal gun excise tax data adjusted for some guns being decommissioned) divided by the 265 million survey count.
75 Lawrence, Bruce & Miller, Ted. (2014). Medical and Work Loss Cost Estimation Methods for the WISQARS Cost of Injury
Module. 10.13140/2.1.2130.1127
129
Agenda Item # 5.
130
Agenda Item # 5.
131
Agenda Item # 5.
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Reviewed By:
City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JD
Meeting Date: April 11, 2023
Subject: City of Los Altos Outdoor Dining Program
Prepared by: Anthony Carnesecca, Assistant to the City Manager Reviewed by: Jon Maginot, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):
1. City of Los Altos Parklet Program Guide
2. Resolution 2022-XX City of Los Altos Parklet Program
3. City of Los Altos Sidewalk Dining Program Guide
4. Resolution 2022-XX City of Los Altos Sidewalk Dining Program
5. City of Los Altos Outdoor Display Guide
6. Resolution 2022-XX City of Los Altos Outdoor Display Program Initiated by:
City staff
Previous Council Consideration:
November 19, 2019; August 28, 2020; November 30, 2021; & January 24, 2023 Fiscal Impact:
None.
Environmental Review:
Not applicable.
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
Does the City Council wish to approve the updated Los Altos Outdoor Dining Program? Does the City Council wish to approve the proposed fee structure for parking stalls and the Los Altos Outdoor Dining Program?
Summary:
This program will allow businesses the option of having outdoor dining in the public right-ofway.
Staff Recommendation:
Extend the current COVID parklet program through October 1, 2023 Adopt the City of Los Altos Resolution No. 2023-XX to amend the Los Altos Parklet Program 132
Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: City of Los Altos Outdoor Dining Program
April 11, 2023 Page 2
Adopt the City of Los Altos Resolution No. 2023-XX to establish the Los Altos Sidewalk Dining Program
Adopt the City of Los Altos Resolution No. 2023-XX to amend the Los Altos Outdoor Display Program
Purpose
The goals of the Los Altos Outdoor Dining Program are to increase the vibrancy and atmosphere of Downtown Los Altos, stimulate local economy through improved outdoor dining spaces in sidewalks and parklets, and encourage creative use of public spaces by activating sidewalks and adjacent areas.
Background
In June 2004, the Los Altos City Council approved a resolution establishing a downtown public sidewalk display permit program that “developed a set of sidewalk clearance guidelines and design criteria allowing for the placement of A-frame or similar signs, flowerpots, flower carts, statues, sculptures, or other similar decorative display items, and outdoor dining furniture on or over the public sidewalks in the downtown triangle area.” This allowed many businesses to display a-frames with store information on sidewalks and outdoor seating for restaurants.
In August 2018, the Los Altos City Council adopted the Downtown Vision. The vision provides the City of Los Altos with long-term improvements and short-term programs that will increase vibrancy in the downtown triangle. Outdoor dining was identified as an effective way to provide unique and positive dining opportunities for residents and visitors in Downtown Los Altos.
In November 2019, the Los Altos City Council unanimously approved the City of Los Altos Pilot Parklet Program. This pilot program was intended to allow restaurant owners to build parklets that would expand outdoor seating opportunities through Fall 2021 and would allow restaurants to have two full years with their parklets before a Council review of the program. These parklets were required to be built-out deck structures with design and construction specifications. This program limited the number of parklets on any given block downtown and prevented parklets from being installed across the street from one another.
In January 2020, City staff conducted preliminary meetings with numerous restaurants that were interested in a parklet installation. Many restaurants were interested, but some were hesitant to invest money on a parklet installation for a two-year period without a long-term timeline. No parklet applications were received from restaurants under the pilot program prior to the start of the COVID19 pandemic.
In summer 2020, the City began exploring potential options for restaurants to expand their outdoor dining space into the public right-of-way. Through many meetings with community stakeholders, the City decided to close sections of downtown streets for “Open Streets Los Altos” allowing restaurants to expand their outdoor seating area into the public right-of-way with approved permit application 133
Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: City of Los Altos Outdoor Dining Program
April 11, 2023 Page 3
and proof of liability insurance. This program closed Main Street and State Street for pedestrian-only traffic every Thursday morning through Sunday night from June 2020 through September 2020.
Open Streets Los Altos was successful in allowing restaurants to expand outdoor dining space as guidelines required tables to be ten feet apart from one another and keep diners six feet apart from one another at all times in compliance with social distancing guidelines provided by the County. Some neighboring businesses were frustrated with the sections of the block that did not have restaurants and large sections of the block were not fully utilized. Some other businesses were frustrated with loss of on-street parking spaces adjacent to storefronts. City staff met with restaurants, retailers, and personal service businesses who indicated that parklets may be a middle ground solution allowing restaurants to have outdoor dining space while re-opening the street to vehicular traffic and open additional parking spaces near storefronts.
As Open Streets Los Altos came to a close, the City implemented the COVID Parklet Program in Fall 2020. Through the COVID Parklet Program, businesses installed a protective barrier of wine barrels filled with 500 lbs. of water, sand or concrete along the perimeter of the parklet. These barrels have created a unique and uniform feel to the parklets that make them unique to Los Altos. However, as time as passed, the barrels have weathered and fallen into disrepair as they were not designed for outdoor use over long periods of time.
As winter set-in and restaurants wanted to add canopies and heaters, SCC Fire Department became involved in helping us develop Outdoor Dining Winterization Guidelines that assured temporary parklets would comply with the State and County fire codes.
In November 2021, the Los Altos City Council approved a Permanent Parklet Program to go into effect at the end of the local emergency health order. City staff has identified a number of improvements to the parklet program.
As of March 2023, the City has approved 20 parklet applications under the COVID Parklet Program.
These 20 approved parklets are located at various restaurants in downtown that have allowed outdoor dining opportunities even with restrictions on indoor dining.
On January 24, 2023, staff presented a draft outdoor dining program. City Council directed staff to meet with business owners within the community to identify their concerns and provide more information to City Council in order to make a better informed decision.
City staff presented to the Los Altos Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Committee on February 1, 2023, hosted a direct Q&A session with business owners on February 2, 2023, and presented to Los Altos Property Owners Downtown on February 8, 2023 for larger group feedback sessions.
134
Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: City of Los Altos Outdoor Dining Program
April 11, 2023 Page 4
In addition to these presentations, City staff, Chamber President & CEO Kim Mosley, and LAVA Executive Director Scott Hunter have met individually with businesses for a review of the guidelines in the context of their unique scenario and feedback. As of this meeting, almost every current parklet operator has met with at least one of these individuals to discuss the program and provide recommendations on the program moving forward.
City staff has updated the parklet program guidelines with feedback from restaurant owners and conversations with state agencies, such as California Alcohol Beverage Control, and local agencies, such as Santa Clara County Fire.
Discussion/Analysis
City staff has edited these programs incorporating feedback from business owners that will ensure this program is as successful as possible. All the edits that have been incorporated into the program guides have been highlighted to show where City staff has worked to meet business owners’ needs within the program.
Restaurants will have the option to submit for either a Parklet Program Application or Sidewalk Dining Application due to two major concerns.
The first concern is that restaurants will not be able to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility requirements for pedestrians and dining areas. It will be very difficult, and impossible in some cases, to provide a five-foot path of travel for pedestrians on the sidewalk. Furthermore, ADA regulations stipulate that all dining facilities must provide equal access to the same dining opportunities so individuals must be allowed to have the same dining experience with regards to size of seats at a dining table, alcohol consumption, etc. whether on sidewalk or in parklet.
The second concern is that restaurants will not be able to meet the California Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) standards that govern outdoor dining along the sidewalk while also having a parklet in place. When ABC provides an approval for the outdoor service and consumption of alcoholic beverages from a restaurant, they are provided a list of conditions in order to be allowed service. An ABC Licensing Representative indicated that they would “advise that the restaurant to put a barrier, such as stanchion or planter, so that the licensee will have control of alcohol on their licensed premises and to make sure patron will not have access to walk around at the public premises with an open container.” Our sidewalks are so narrow in many portions that it would be near impossible to provide a full dining area, barrier, and five-foot path of travel for pedestrians to allow full service.
City staff does not feel comfortable allowing businesses to operate on both the sidewalk and parklets.
Currently, the City of Palo Alto concurs with this assessment and do not allow businesses to operate on both the sidewalk and in a parklet.
135
Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: City of Los Altos Outdoor Dining Program
April 11, 2023 Page 5
Parklet Program
The City will allow current parklets to continue to operate under the COVID Parklet Program through October 1, 2023 when they will need to remove the temporary parklets. If businesses would like to receive an extension to build a parklet under the Parklet Program by the end of the calendar year, the applicant must submit a Letter of Intent to the City by October 1, 2023 with a timeline that includes targeted application submission and construction. The applicant will then have until December 31, 2023 to remove their COVID parklet and build their new parklet under the Parklet Program.
Businesses will always have the ability to apply for a parklet at any point in time with a completed application submittal.
Through the various parklet programs and continued outreach with the business community, staff have learned a great deal about what will encourage restaurants to build and sustain great outdoor dining in Los Altos.
The amended long-term parklet program incorporates lessons learned through crafting both programs, seeing parklets built out under the COVID Parklet Program, identifying some of the shortcomings in the programs that may be improved moving forward to maintain the aesthetics of parklets in downtown Los Altos, and through discussions with business owners.
Required adjustments to the Los Altos Parklet Program due to regulations include:
Require greater distance from centerline to ensure safer vehicular traffic for emergency vehicles.
Protected dining area with concrete barriers and metal railings instead of wine barrels for California ABC compliance.
Canopy structures are prohibited for Fire Code compliance.
Proposed adjustments to the Los Altos Parklet Program due to lessons learned include:
Require all parklets to include a wood platform structure that meets the sidewalk grade. Parklets limited to whichever is greater of either:
(1) All parking stalls within primary building frontage (2) Five angular (on Main) or three parallel (on State) parking stalls. Establish annual program fee.
Based upon conversations with business owners after the City Council study session, staff has adjusted the program with the following recommendations:
Increased the maximum number of parking spaces for parklets. Shortened distance from centerline on Main Street to 13 feet. Provided greater flexibility on top layer of platform structure. No longer require dining furniture to be brought into restaurant outside of business hours. 136
Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: City of Los Altos Outdoor Dining Program
April 11, 2023 Page 6
Allowing City staff to work with existing non-conforming decked parklet owners to identify long-term solutions for parklets.
Allowing propane heaters after conversations with County Fire. Altered the timeline for the end of the COVID Parklet Program to allow businesses more time to build their permanent parklets.
After reaching out to County Fire, their staff indicated that propane heaters could be permitted so long as the applicants meet all applicable code sections (CFC 605.5.2 – 605.5.2.3.4) from County Fire.
City staff will allow business owners to utilize propane heaters so long as they meet all the applicable Fire Code requirements, but staff will have the rights to revoke a business’ ability to utilize propane heaters if they do not meet those guidelines similar to all other aspects of the parklet program. The City of Palo Alto requires a HAZMAT permit to allow propane heaters within parklets, including several strict requirements and an additional annual permit fee.
Parklet Fee
City staff has explored fee structures and options for parklet programs. Options include charging a fee on square footage or per parking stall. Staff recommends establishing a square footage fee because there is no standard parking stall fee and some parklets will utilize angular parking stalls versus parallel parking stalls, which could create inequity in the fee structure. Neighboring cities that charge or plan to charge a square footage fee include Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Redwood City.
The average ground floor retail lease rate in Los Altos is roughly $46 per square foot. This rate is for built-out indoor spaces that fluctuate depending upon market conditions, quality of spaces, and individual agreements for tenant improvements.
Comparatively, here is the average cost for retail space for those cities which charge a square footage fee for their parklet program:
Palo Alto – $61 per square foot
Mountain View – $37 per square foot
Redwood City – $44 per square foot
As Los Altos’ average square footage cost for retail is similar to Mountain View and Redwood City, staff proposes to compare the Los Altos square footage cost with those two agencies, which is approximately $10 per square foot. Mountain View has not finalized this rate, but is currently conducting outreach on this rate within their community.
Staff believes this rate is high as it would be 20% of the average indoor lease rate for these unfinished parking stalls that will still require significant investment to initially build and maintain parklets. 137
Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: City of Los Altos Outdoor Dining Program
April 11, 2023 Page 7
Staff therefore further recommends discounting from that rate to $3 per square foot to incentivize businesses to utilize funds that would otherwise have been applied to the fee to maintain and beautify their parklets.
Staff also proposes to charge an initial application fee in addition to the annual license fee. Mountain View is proposing a similar fee structure. Redwood City also charges an initial application fee and annual license fee as well as an annual renewal fee. Palo Alto is still working on finalizing their fee structure.
Sidewalk Dining Program
Currently, sidewalk dining is permitted under the Outdoor Display Program. Applicants apply to place outdoor dining furniture and outdoor displays as part of the same program. This process is illogical in that sidewalk dining and any outdoor displays should be divided into two categories with separate requirements. Staff recommends City Council adopt the Sidewalk Dining Program as part of the overall Outdoor Dining Program.
The sidewalk dining program fee will be $250 for the initial application fee and $500 annually. This amount will cover a portion of the City’s cost to administer this program while also incentivizing businesses to invest in their sidewalk dining facilities.
Staff Recommendation:
Extend the current COVID parklet program through October 1, 2023 Adopt the City of Los Altos Resolution No. 2023-XX to amend the Los Altos Parklet Program Adopt the City of Los Altos Resolution No. 2023-XX to establish the Los Altos Sidewalk Dining Program
Adopt the City of Los Altos Resolution No. 2023-XX to amend the Los Altos Outdoor Display Program
Los Altos
(Proposed)
Palo Alto Mountain View
(Proposed)
Redwood City
Initial Application Fee $500 $2,250 $769 $2,226
Annual License Fee (per sq ft) $3/sq ft TBD $10/sq ft $10.16/sq ft 138
Agenda Item # 6.
City of Los Altos
Parklet Program Guide
April 2023
139
Agenda Item # 6.
Overview
This program guide describes the procedures existing and proposed downtown businesses must follow to be permitted for outdoor dining within the public right-of-way immediately adjacent to the establishment. Interested businesses must provide a complete submittal with all required documents and the initial application fee to the City of Los Altos for consideration.
Approved dining areas are executed by a City Removal & Maintenance Agreement that is reviewed annually for operational standards set forth within this Program Guide. Each approved dining area shall be automatically renewed each year unless otherwise determined during its annual review.
City staff will complete an annual inspection in addition to ongoing monitoring to verify and ensure aesthetics, cleanliness, and the approved precise seating layout of the dining area are maintained. Approved dining areas shall remain safe and compliant with all applicable accessibility standards including but not limited to the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Standards and Chapter 11B of the California Building Code, Los Altos Municipal Code, or other applicable laws.
Any inspections performed by the City are for its sole and exclusive benefit and for the benefit of the general public, and a business owner should not rely on the fact that the City has performed an inspection as evidence that the business’ dining area is safe or compliant with applicable accessibility standards including but not limited to the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Standards and Chapter 11B of the California Building Code, Los Altos Municipal Code, or other applicable laws.
Timeline
All businesses interested in the installation of a parklet under these guidelines will be required to submit a Letter of Intent to the City of Los Altos by October 1, 2023 if they would like to keep their COVID parklet through the end of the calendar year. Should the City not receive a Letter of Intent to build a permanent parklet, the business must remove their current COVID parklet by October 1, 2023. Thus, all COVID parklets will be removed by December 31, 2023 at the latest. Businesses will always be able to submit a new application for the parklet program outside of this application period.
140
Agenda Item # 6.
Parklet Design Specifications
Location
Shall be installed at businesses that provide table service with items delivered and/or carried away by an employee.
Shall utilize the length of their primary building frontage only or a maximum of four five angular parking spaces for Main Street or two three parallel parking spaces for State Street.
Shall receive written permission from both neighboring business owner and property owner to place parklet in front of neighboring business. Shall not interfere with line of sight for neighboring businesses. Shall maintain a minimum distance of 1513 feet from the centerline of Main Street and 11 feet from the centerline of State Street to the most outer edge of the parklets barriers or as determined by the Public Works Director for sight visibility and safety. Shall ensure access to utility panels, vaults, boxes, hatches, manholes, storm drains, and similar items.
Platform Structure
Shall have a top layer made of ipe hardwood decking similar to ipe or composite product similar to Trex.
Shall be made with wood frame custom fit to crown of road or leveling system to remain level across parklet.
Shall have impermeable layer under deck across entire square footage of platform to prevent any debris from falling below platform.
Shall have impermeable edging to prevent any entry points for critters. Shall be textured or treated with a non-skid coating on a regular basis. Shall be flush with the sidewalk without a horizontal or vertical separation greater than 1/2 inch. Vertical separations between 1/4 inch and 1/2 inch high shall be beveled with a slope not steeper than 1:4 (25%).
Shall not be bolted into the street or sidewalk.
Shall have a clear gutter space along the entire length of the proposed platform with a screen on both ends to allow free flow of water.
Shall meet all additional building requirements.
Barriers
Barriers will have two major components as seen in the example below:
o Gray rectangular concrete planter every eight linear feet that is 16 inches wide, 48 inches long, and 42 inches high.
o Brown 42-inch high railing that has a 2 inch x 3 inch tube steel frame with 5/8- inch metal rod infill.
141
Agenda Item # 6.
Planter must maintain fresh plants that may flow out from the barrier. Shall not have any display of art or any other information on barrier. Shall be constructed to enclose the entire perimeter of the parklet to ensure that patrons of each establishment only enter and exit from the adjacent sidewalk.
Accessibility
Shall provide access to and throughout the seating areas by meeting the minimum requirements for accessibility based on the Americans with Disabilities Act 2010 Accessibility Standards, the current California Building Code (CBC), Chapter 11B – Accessibility, as well as other applicable standards and guidelines. o A business owner is strongly encouraged to engage the services of a Certified Access Specialist. The City does not guarantee that a parklet designed in accordance with City standards will comply with applicable disability access laws.
Minimum 5% of all outdoor seating to be accessible and identify all the accessible tables with the International Symbol of Accessibility.
Shall provide the specific requirements for accessible routes leading to and through the parklets including clear width, slope, cross slope, vertical transitions, protruding object/headroom hazards, and openings along the circulation path.
Furniture
Shall be made of high-quality metal or wood material. Shall replace outdoor dining furniture on a regular basis. Businesses must bring all furniture, except for dining tables, inside their business outside of posted operating business hours.
Lighting
Shall be LED Bistro Lights rated for outdoor use in clear color only. Shall be installed in accordance with state and local electric code requirements and manufacturer’s instructions.
Shall be plugged directly into outlet.
Shall not be lower than 8 feet in height.
142
Agenda Item # 6.
Heating
Propane heat lamps are allowed as long as they meet the following requirements:
o Must be more than 5 feet away from the building or any shade structure, such as umbrella or shade sail
o Shall be equipped with a tilt switch that automatically shuts off if tilted more than 15 degrees
o Shall be permanently guarded so that there will be no incidental contact o Gas containers shall not be stored inside of buildings o Must meet all other requirements in CFC 605.5.2 - 605.5.2.3.4 Electric heat lamps are permitted on a case-by-case basis.
Tents & Canopies
Tents and canopies are prohibited.
Umbrellas
Umbrellas must be included in parklet layout.
Shall be secured with umbrella stand.
Shall have a headroom clearance of 80” minimum high.
All umbrellas shall be uniform in color for each parklet with no advertising or signage.
Other requirements
Existing non-conforming decked parklets can be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to identify how the platform structure can come into substantial compliance with the current program guidelines, but they shall be required to have the same uniform barrier and meet all additional requirements required by City staff.
Demonstrate that the parklet is regularly used by customers and maintained by the business owner.
Businesses shall include area in ABC license.
Abide by all other restrictions placed by the City of Los Altos not outlined in this guide. No private garbage cans, bus stations, or dish collectors may be located in dining areas.
Submittal Fee
Applicants must submit a one-time initial application fee of $500 to cover the costs of reviewing the initial application, construction, and approval of the parklets.
By every December 31st, in alignment with the business license and downtown parking permit deadlines, applicants will provide a signed copy of the application, signed permit agreement, updated liability insurance documents, and a check for the parklet fee.
The annual parklet renewal fee will be $3.00 per square foot. For example, the average parking stall is 9 feet by 18 feet for a square footage of 162 multiplied by the parking stall total would 143
Agenda Item # 6.
equal 648 square feet. If you multiply 648 square feet by the $3.00 per square foot fee, a business would pay an annual fee of $1,944 for a four parking stall parklet.
Submittal Requirements
Completed Los Altos Parklet Program Application
Signed City Removal & Maintenance Agreement
Precise layout plan for the proposed parklet, including the parking spaces proposed for parklet, precise floor plan of tables, description and schematic of barrier, lighting and power plan that includes details of the wiring and power source, and disability access plan1
Certificate of liability insurance
Please submit all the above required documents to the City of Los Altos for review through email to [email protected].
Every applicant is required to schedule an on-site meeting with a City staff representative prior to an application submission. If you have any questions regarding parklets, please contact the City of Los Altos at (650) 947-2620 or [email protected].
1 The City is not responsible for determining whether the disability access plan complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act or other applicable disability access laws. Every business owner that participates in the parklet program is strongly encouraged to engage the services of a Certified Access Specialist. 144
Agenda Item # 6.
Resolution No. 2023-XX Page 1
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS
ESTABLISHING A CITY OF LOS ALTOS PARKLET PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos adopted the Pilot Parklet Program, COVID Parklet Program, and Permanent Parklet Program at various points over the past three years by City Council action that will all be rescinded by December 31, 2023; and WHEREAS, these previous iterations of the parklet program have informed the development of this new parklet program; and
WHEREAS, outdoor dining in parklets adjacent to restaurants can be an asset to the downtown business district by providing an enhanced visitor experience; and WHEREAS, these parklets will adhere to the City Removal & Maintenance Agreement that ensures the aesthetics, cleanliness, and the approved precise seating layout of the parklet are maintained ; and
WHEREAS, these parklets will adhere to common design guidelines that will create a common aesthetic for parklet dining within Downtown Los Altos; and WHEREAS, applicants must re-apply annually for this program with their application, certification of insurance documents, and annual fee.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby adopts the policy attached hereto as City of Los Altos Parklet Program Guide.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the ___ day of ____, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Angel Rodriguez, INTERIM CITY CLERK
145
Agenda Item # 6.
City of Los Altos
Sidewalk Dining
Program Guide
April 2023
146
Agenda Item # 6.
Description
This program guide describes the procedures existing and proposed downtown businesses must follow to be permitted for outdoor dining within the public right-of-way immediately adjacent to the establishment. Interested businesses must provide a complete submittal with all required documents and the initial application fee to the City of Los Altos for consideration.
Approved dining areas are executed by a City Removal & Maintenance Agreement that is reviewed annually for operational standards set forth within this Program Guide. Each approved dining area shall be automatically renewed each year unless otherwise determined during its annual review.
City staff will complete an annual inspection in addition to ongoing monitoring to verify and ensure aesthetics, cleanliness, and the approved precise seating layout of the dining area are maintained. Approved dining areas shall remain safe and compliant with all applicable accessibility standards including but not limited to the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Standards and Chapter 11B of the California Building Code, Los Altos Municipal Code, or other applicable laws.
Any inspections performed by the City are for its sole and exclusive benefit and for the benefit of the general public, and a business owner should not rely on the fact that the City has performed an inspection as evidence that the business’ dining area is safe or compliant with applicable accessibility standards including but not limited to the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Standards and Chapter 11B of the California Building Code, Los Altos Municipal Code, or other applicable laws.
147
Agenda Item # 6.
Design Specifications
Location
Shall maintain at least a 5-foot wide minimum clearance along the sidewalk to provide an accessible route along the existing public right of way. This clearance must be marked with a clear delineation that must always remain open for pedestrians. Shall ensure that pedestrians have a safe route from parked vehicles to the sidewalk. Shall receive written permission from neighboring business owner to place sidewalk dining in front of neighboring business.
Accessibility
Shall provide access to and throughout the seating areas by meeting the minimum requirements for accessibility based on the Americans with Disabilities Act 2010 Accessibility Standards, the current California Building Code (CBC), Chapter 11B – Accessibility, as well as other applicable standards and guidelines. o A business owner is strongly encouraged to engage the services of a Certified Access Specialist. The City does not guarantee that a dining area designed in accordance with City standards will comply with applicable disability access laws.
Minimum 5% of all outdoor seating to be accessible and identify all the accessible tables with the International Symbol of Accessibility.
Shall provide the specific requirements for accessible routes leading to and through the dining areas including clear width, slope, cross slope, vertical transitions, protruding object/headroom hazards, and openings along the circulation path.
Furniture
Shall be made of high quality metal or wood material. Shall replace outdoor dining furniture on a regular basis. Businesses must bring all furniture, except for dining tables, inside their business outside of posted operating business hours.
Umbrellas
Secure umbrellas down with umbrella stand.
Must have a headroom clearance of 80” minimum high.
All umbrellas shall be uniform in color for each table with no advertising or signage.
Other requirements
Demonstrate that the dining area is regularly used by customers and maintained by the business owner.
Businesses must include area in ABC license if required. Abide by all other restrictions placed by the City of Los Altos not outlined in this guide. 148
Agenda Item # 6.
No private garbage cans, bus stations, or dish collectors may be located in dining areas.
Submittal Fee
Applicants must submit a one-time initial application fee of $250 to cover the costs of reviewing the initial application and approval of the sidewalk dining.
By every December 31st, in alignment with the business license and downtown parking permit deadlines, applicants will need to provide a new signed copy of the application, signed permit agreement, updated insurance documents, and a check for the Council-approved fee.
The annual sidewalk dining fee will be $500.
Submittal Requirements
Completed Los Altos Sidewalk Dining Program Application Signed City Removal & Maintenance Agreement
Layout plan for the proposed dining area project, including the precise floor plan of tables, description and schematic of barrier, and disability access plan1 Certificate of insurance
Please submit all the above required documents to the City of Los Altos for review through email to [email protected].
Every applicant is required to schedule an on-site meeting with a City staff representative prior to an application submission. If you have any questions regarding the dining areas or dining area application process, please contact the City of Los Altos Economic Development team at (650) 947-2620 or [email protected].
1 The City is not responsible for determining whether the disability access plan complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act or other applicable disability access laws. Every business owner that participates in the dining area program is strongly encouraged to engage the services of a Certified Access Specialist. 149
Agenda Item # 6.
Resolution No. 2023-XX Page 1
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS
ESTABLISHING A CITY OF LOS ALTOS SIDEWALK DINING GUIDE
WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos rescinds Resolution No. 04-15, which established a Downtown Public Sidewalk Display Program that allowed downtown businesses to place objects and outdoor dining furniture on the sidewalk; and WHEREAS, this previous resolution shall be broken into two different programs; and WHEREAS, outdoor dining along the sidewalk can be an asset to the downtown business district by providing an enhanced visitor experience; and WHEREAS, these outdoor furniture items shall be located only on a public sidewalk that allow five feet for pedestrian pathway; and
WHEREAS, applicants must re-apply annually for this program with their application, certification of insurance documents, and annual fee.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby adopts the policy attached hereto as City of Los Altos Sidewalk Dining Guide.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the ___ day of ____, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Angel Rodriguez, INTERIM CITY CLERK
150
Agenda Item # 6.
City of Los Altos
Outdoor Display Guide
January 2023
151
Agenda Item # 6.
The following needs to be submitted in order to process an outdoor display permit for the downtown triangle area only:
Completed application form
$100 annual fee (updated annually within the fee schedule) Dimensioned diagram or photograph of display object
Dimensioned diagram of proposed sidewalk location
Certificate of liability insurance
PURPOSE OF GUIDELINES
Signs and other display objects, which are appropriately designed and placed, can be an asset to the downtown business district. While these types ofdisplays may be more traditionally located on private property, the City Council has decided to allow limited use of the public sidewalk for this purpose. The intent is to allow signs and other display objects which are complementary to the appearance ofthe business district and are safe for pedestrians.
OUTDOOR DISPLAY PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
The Development Services Director may authorize the placement ofA-frame or similar signs, flowerpots, flower carts, statues, or othersimilar decorative display items on either private property or the public sidewalk in the downtown triangle area in accordance with the following:
1. A sidewalk display permit shall be obtained from the City of Los Altos. Such permitshall be issued only when in the opinion ofthe Development Services Director that the sign or other display object would not have an adverse affect on nearby public and private properties.
2. The applicant shall hold the City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers harmless from all damages, costs or expenses in law or equity that may at any time arise because of damage to property or personal injury received by reason of or in the course of displaying a sign or other display object in the public right-of-way.
3. The applicant shall obtain and maintain insurance against injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise. The City ofLos Altos and its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers shall be named as "insured" in the insurance policy.
Expiration or cancellation of insurance will automatically revoke the sidewalk permit.
4. Except as otherwise provided by these guidelines, the sign or other display object, including railing or other similar enclosures, shall be located only on a public sidewalk and directly in front ofthe applicant's business.
5. The sign or other display object must be appropriately designed, executed, and maintained so as to be complementary to the appearance and operation ofthe business district. Signs, including outdoor dining area railing or other similar enclosures, shall be wood or metal.
Plastic signs or furniture are not permitted. Signs or furniture that are not maintained appropriately will result in the revocation of the outdoor display permit. 152
Agenda Item # 6.
6. The sign or other display object shall utilize materials that are intended for outdoor use.
7. A-frame signs are subject to design review and are not permitted to simply advertise a business address, phone number, or list of products and prices.
8. A-frame signs are only permitted during listed business operating hours.
9. Noncompliance with the maintenance agreement will result in the revocation of the sidewalk display permit.
10. Guidelines for encroachments on public sidewalks:
a. Minimum horizontal clearance from curb: 2 feet
b. Minimum pedestrian pathway: 5 feet
c. Minimum height of object: 30 inches
d. Maximum height of object: 60 inches
e. Maximum sign area: 6 square feet
153
Agenda Item # 6.
Resolution No. 2023-XX Page 1
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS
ESTABLISHING A CITY OF LOS ALTOS OUTDOOR DISPLAY PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos rescinds Resolution No. 04-15, which established a Downtown Spublic Sidewalk Display Program that allowed downtown businesses to place objects and outdoor dining furniture on the sidewalk; and WHEREAS, this previous resolution shall be broken into two different programs; and WHEREAS, A-frame or similar signs, flowerpots, flower carts, statues, or other similar decorative display items, made of wood or metal, can be an asset to the downtown business district by providing an enhanced visitor experience; and WHEREAS, these items shall be located only on a public sidewalk that allow five feet for pedestrian pathway; and
WHEREAS, applicants must re-apply annually for this program with their application, certification of insurance documents, and annual fee.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby adopts the policy attached hereto as City of Los Altos Outdoor Display Guide.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the ___ day of ____, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Angel Rodriguez, INTERIM CITY CLERK
154
Agenda Item # 6.
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
The following is public correspondence received by the City Clerk’s Office after the posting of the original agenda. Individual contact information has been redacted for privacy. This may not be a comprehensive collection of the public correspondence, but staff makes its best effort to include all correspondence received to date.
To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
155
Agenda Item # 6.
From: Roberta Phillips
To: Public Comment; City Council
Subject: [External Sender]Outdoor Dining Item #6 Council Meeting April 11, 2023 Date: Saturday, April 8, 2023 11:40:57 AM
Dear Council Members
I read the report on the Outdoor Dining.program.
1. The price of $3 per square foot is very low. I spoke to several real estate brokers and this is nowhere close to the value of the land being utilized. Other cities recognize this, so why can't we? The report says that we might need to take money out of our General Fund to support this program. I object to our public funds being used to support private restaurants.When people lease or rent space from Los Altos at the Community Centers they are paying a lot more.
2. The report recommends allowing more parking spaces to be removed than the original plan. It says this change is based onfeedback from businesses. However there was no feedback from community members. The original plan was better for access to other businesses downtown, and allows for more ADA compliance.
3. The report recommends reducing the width from the centerline on Main Street from 15 feet to 13 feet, reducing the width of the street by 4 feet. This is dangerous and makes it difficult for emergency vehicles to have adequate space during emergencies. The turning radius at the corners would be made more difficult.
Council needs to find the right balance to support outdoor dining, while being fiscally responsible and equitable .
Sincerely
Roberta Phillips
650-941-6940
156
Agenda Item # 6.
From: Pat Marriot
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External Sender]PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM #6 APRIL 11, 2023 Date: Saturday, April 8, 2023 4:23:51 PM
Council Members:
My concerns and questions regarding the staff report:
1. page 1
Fiscal Impact:
None.
There’s no economic analysis of the program looking out several years from the start of the new program. There are 20 parklet applications as of March 2023. How many will there be once the permanent program is approved? If we have to subsidize any restaurants from the General Fund – or any other fund – how can we assume no fiscal impact?
2. page 4 “City staff has edited these programs incorporating feedback from business owners that will ensure this program is as successful as possible.” Did staff get feedback from nonrestaurant businesses as well as restaurants? Where can we see that feedback?
3. page 5
“Required adjustments to the Los Altos Parklet Program due to regulations include:
·Require greater distance from centerline to ensure safer vehicular traffic for emergency vehicles. “
“Based upon conversations with business owners after the City Council study session, staff has adjusted the program with the following recommendations:
·Shortened distance from centerline on Main Street to 13 feet. ???? What does the fire department have to say about this?
4. page 6 “Allowing City staff to work with existing non-conforming decked parklet owners to identify long-term solutions for parklets.” What does this mean? Will some non-conforming parklets be able to avoid the new standards?
5. page 7 “Staff therefore further recommends discounting from that rate to $3 per square foot to incentivize businesses to utilize funds that would otherwise have been applied to the fee to maintain and beautify their parklets.” Why are we afraid to charge so much less than any nearby cities? This is exactly why we need an economic analysis vs. saying there will be no fiscal impact! Residents have a right to know how much we might have to subsidize restaurants – in addition to giving up parking spaces and potentially hurting other businesses.
Pat Marriott
157
Agenda Item # 6.
158
Agenda Item # 6.
159
Agenda Item # 6.
From: Couture, Terri
To: Gabriel Engeland; Public Comment
Subject: city council meeting tonite Agenda item 6
Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 2:12:13 PM
Dear Mr Engeland and City council members
Has the fire department reviewed your recommendations? I see NOTHING in the packet that shows they have signed off.
I beg of you to delay this, until the fire and police department can review the plans to make sure this plan meets safety standards!
Thank you
Terri Couture
PS sorry for the lateness of this email, but with the full agenda not being posted until late on a holiday weekend, it was extremely difficult to read all the reports, do more research and comment in a timely manner.
Sent from Mail for Windows
*Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication. 160
Agenda Item # 6.
Subject: Introduce and Waive further reading of Ordinance No. 2023-XX to Amend Los Altos Municipal Code, Chapter 12.22 “Energy Code” and Chapter 12.26 “Green Building Code”
Prepared by: Tania Katbi, Sustainability Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nick Zornes, Director of Development Services Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachments:
1. Draft Ordinance 2023-XX
2. Local Cost Analysis
3. State Cost-Effectiveness Studies (3)
4. Peer Jurisdiction Research
Initiated by:
Environmental Commission
Previous Council Consideration:
September 6, 2022
Fiscal Impact:
Proposed code requirements may result in a minor increase in building permit revenues and an increase in construction costs for EV charging infrastructure requirements.
Environmental Review:
This Ordinance has been assessed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.) and is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3), which exempts from CEQA any project where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.
Adoption of the proposed Ordinance would not be an activity with potential to cause significant adverse effect on the environment because the changes made to the California Green Buildings Standards Code within are enacted to provide more protection to the environment, and therefore is exempt from CEQA. It is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, § 15308 City Manager
GE
Reviewed By:
City Attorney
JH
Finance Director
JD
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: April 11, 2023
161
Agenda Item # 7.
Subject:
Introduce and Waive further reading of Ordinance No. 2023-XX to Amend Los Altos Municipal Code, Chapter 12.22 “Energy Code” and Chapter 12.26 “Green Building Code”
April 11, 2023 Page 2
which exempts actions taken by regulatory agencies for the enhancement and protection of the environment. As such, the Ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA, and none of the circumstances set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies.
Summary:
Every three years, the State of California adopts new building standards that are organized in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, referred to as the California Building Standards Code (CBSC). On November 29th, 2022, the City adopted the 2022 CBSC with local amendments, which became effective on January 1, 2023. Cities can adopt local amendments also called Reach Codes, to building codes that have requirements that exceed minimum building code requirements. The proposed Reach Codes provide requirements that exceed the standards for the Energy Code and Green Building Standards Code.
On September 6, 2022, the Environmental Commission Reach Code Subcommittee went to City Council to present their Reach Code recommendations. Before adopting the proposed Reach Codes, City Council determined that further research was required by staff and provided additional direction on next steps. As suggested by staff and directed by City Council, the following has been completed:
1. Readoption of the existing Reach Codes that are not in conflict with the new 2022 California Building Codes.
2. Completion of a local cost effectiveness study (local cost analysis) based on recommendations of the Environmental Commission and determination of any fiscal impacts associated with code compliance.
3. Research on other peer and local agencies’ Reach Codes after the new State Codes took effect on 1/1/2023.
The local cost analysis, state cost-effectiveness studies, peer jurisdictions research, and the final Environmental Commission Reach Code policy recommendations are attached and summarized in this report.
Recommendation
The Environmental Commission recommends the City Council Introduce and Waive further reading of Ordinance No. 2023-XX to amend Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter 12.22 “Energy Code” and Chapter 12.26 “Green Building Code.”
Purpose
Amend Title 12 Buildings and Construction of Los Altos Municipal Code and adopt updated local amendments to the 2022 California Building Standards Code to align with City Council’s goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with buildings as written in the Climate Action and Adaption Plan (CAAP), improve indoor air quality and safety, and maintain consistency with other 162
Agenda Item # 7.
Subject:
Introduce and Waive further reading of Ordinance No. 2023-XX to Amend Los Altos Municipal Code, Chapter 12.22 “Energy Code” and Chapter 12.26 “Green Building Code”
April 11, 2023 Page 3
local and peer cities. The ordinances will put into effect requirements that mandate newly constructed buildings to be all-electric with exceptions and require installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure for new construction.
Background
On September 6, 2022, the Environmental Commission Reach Code Subcommittee presented the City Council with recommended Reach Codes to the 2022 California Building Standards Code. The recommendations consisted of:
1. All electric construction requirements for all new building types, with no exceptions;
2. All-electric construction requirements for substantial additions / modifications to existing buildings; and
3. Increased electric vehicle requirements for Single Family Residences, Multi-Family Residences, and other building types.
During the September 6, 2022, meeting, City Council directed staff to implement the following:
1. Staff recommends the completion of a cost effectiveness study (local cost analysis) based on the recommendations of the Environmental Commission on Reach Codes to determine or quantify any fiscal impacts associated with Code Compliance.
2. Staff recommends the City Council refer the recommended Codes to the California Energy Commission (CEC) for comment.
3. Staff recommends the City Council affirm or re-adopt the current Reach Codes to continue after 12/31/2022, should the CEC review or cost effectiveness study not be completed by this date. The State Codes will pre-empt local ordinances that are not adopted again after this date.
4. Staff recommends the City Council direct staff to review what other peer and local agencies have adopted with regards to Reach Codes after the new State Codes take effect on 1/1/2023.
At the February 13, 2023, Environmental Commission meeting, City staff presented their findings and changes to the Commission’s proposed Reach Codes. The Commission also discussed, refined, and accepted the policy recommendations that are presented within this Staff Report.
Discussion
California Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.7 and 18941.5 authorize cities to adopt the California Building Standards Code with modifications determined to be reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. As directed by the City Council, staff is providing additional amendments to the Los Altos Municipal Code based on the recommendations of the Environmental Commission, which were presented at the September 6, 2022, meeting. The local amendments included within the draft ordinance incorporates the Reach Code provisions that are not in conflict with the 2022 California Building Standards Code. 163
Agenda Item # 7.
Subject:
Introduce and Waive further reading of Ordinance No. 2023-XX to Amend Los Altos Municipal Code, Chapter 12.22 “Energy Code” and Chapter 12.26 “Green Building Code”
April 11, 2023 Page 4
The citizens and government of Los Altos have a long history of bold and forward-looking climate action. In addition, on March 8, 2022, City Council approved the City’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, in which the following action items were set forth:
2.2A: Adopt evolving Reach Codes and expand to include large additions/major remodels 1.4B: Actively promote EV adoption and require EV-only parking 1.5A: Increase the number of available Level 2 EV charging stations in workplace, commercial, and multifamily areas
1.5C: Expand the current Electric Vehicle charging and pre-wiring requirements in future Reach Code updates
Electrifying new residential and non-residential buildings and increasing electric vehicle charging infrastructure are important components of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and addressing the local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.
To align with the above, the Environmental Commission has proposed Reach Codes for the Energy Code and Green Building Standards Code.
Reach Code Recommendations
The recommended Reach Codes put forth by the Environmental Commission will require more restrictive building electrification and EV requirements based largely on the Bay Area Model Reach Code. During the review of the initial recommendations, staff considered the environmental benefits, alignment with CAAP Goals, alignment with Reach Codes in neighboring jurisdictions, EV short-term and long-term demand, feasibility of implementation and impacts on the permit review process.
The following tables are comparisons of the current Los Altos Reach Code, 2022 CA Building Standards Code, Bay Area Model Code, and proposed Environmental Commission recommendations:
Building Electrification Reach Codes
Building Type Current Los Altos
Reach Code
2022 CA
Building
Standards Code
Bay Area Model
Reach Code
Commission
Recommendation
Single-Family All-electric,
exceptions for
cooking and
fireplaces
Mixed-fuel All-electric,
no exceptions
All-electric,
no exceptions
Multi-Family All-electric, Mixed-fuel All-electric, All-electric, 164
Agenda Item # 7.
Subject:
Introduce and Waive further reading of Ordinance No. 2023-XX to Amend Los Altos Municipal Code, Chapter 12.22 “Energy Code” and Chapter 12.26 “Green Building Code”
April 11, 2023 Page 5
exceptions for
cooking and
fireplace
no exceptions no exceptions
NonResidentialAll-electric,
automatic
exception for forprofit restaurants.
Nonresidential buildings,
laboratories, public
buildings may apply
for an exception.
Mixed-fuel All-electric,
no exceptions
All-electric, nonresidential buildings,
for-profit
restaurants,
laboratories, public
buildings may apply
for an exception.
In addition to the recommendations in the table above, the Environmental Commission recommends:
Including a 50% requirement in the new construction definition for projects that include a substantial addition or alteration. If this 50% rule is triggered for an addition or alteration project, existing exterior gas infrastructure is not required to be electrified, Including a project valuation threshold of $250,000 that would trigger all-electric building requirements, and
Extension of gas infrastructure, including but not limited to gas infrastructure to support interior or exterior gas appliances, is not permitted.
Electric Vehicle Reach Codes
Building Type Current Los
Altos Reach
Code
2022 CA Building
Standards Code
Bay Area Model
Reach Code
Commission
Recommendation
Single-Family Level 2 EV
Ready space
(1) Level 2 EV
Ready for 2+
spaces
(1) EV Capable Level 2 EV
Ready space
(1) Level 1 EV
Ready
No Change
Multi-Family 25% Level 2 EV
Capable
75% Level 2 EV
Ready
< 20 units:
10% EV Capable
25% EV Ready
> 20 units:
10% EV Capable
25% EV Ready
5% EVCS
Option A:
15% Level 2 EVCS +
85% Level 2
EV Ready
(low power)
Option B:
40% Level 2 EVCS
60% Level 1
EV Ready
Option A:
15% Level 2 EVCS +
85% Low Power
Level 2 EV Ready
165
Agenda Item # 7.
Subject:
Introduce and Waive further reading of Ordinance No. 2023-XX to Amend Los Altos Municipal Code, Chapter 12.22 “Energy Code” and Chapter 12.26 “Green Building Code”
April 11, 2023 Page 6
Hotels and Motels 25% Level 2 EV
Capable
75% Level 2 EV
Ready
< 20 units:
10% EV Capable
25% EV Ready
> 20 units:
10% EV Capable
25% EV Ready
5% EVCS
5% Level 2
EVCS
25% Low Power
Level 2 EV
Ready
10% Level 2
EV Capable
10% Level 2
EVCS
30% Low
Power Level 2 EV
Ready
60% Level 2
EV Capable
Office &
Institutional
(> 10 spaces)
50% Level 2
EVCS
20% Level 1 EV
Ready
30% Level 2 EV
Capable
Based on total
number of parking
spaces (see CGBC
Table 5.106.5.3.1)
20% Level 2
EVCS
30% Level 2 EV
Capable
(> 10 spaces)
50% Level 2
EVCS
20% Level
2 Low Power EV
Ready
30% Level 2
EV Capable
Non-Residential (> 10 spaces)
6% Level 2
EVCS
5% at least Level
1 EV Ready
Based on total
number of parking
spaces (see CGBC
Table 5.106.5.3.1)
10% Level 2
EVCS
10% Level 2 EV
Capable
10% Level 2
EVCS
40% Level 2
Capable
In addition to the recommendations in the table above, the Environmental Commission recommends that for an existing building parking addition, alteration, or renovation, 10% of the total number of parking spaces added or altered shall be Level 2 EVCS. Additionally, any existing EV Capable spaces on the building property should be upgraded to a minimum of Level 2 EV Ready.
Findings:
Peer Jurisdiction Research: Staff collected data on fifteen local jurisdictions. Based on research, the Environmental Commission’s proposed modifications are consistent with those adopted by peer and local jurisdictions in the area as follows:
53% of jurisdictions include a 50% rule for additions or alterations, 73% of jurisdictions include 50% or 75% rules for additions or alterations, 60% of jurisdictions require all electric with no exceptions for Residential buildings, and 80% of jurisdictions require all electric with exceptions for Non-Residential buildings.
Local Cost Analysis: City staff worked with three independent contractors to provide estimated costs for the installation of electric appliances that could be triggered by the proposed 50% rule for additions or alterations. The analysis is based on a scenario project that adds or alters at least 50% of the existing structure in a 3,500 square foot home (average home size in Los Altos) and 166
Agenda Item # 7.
Subject:
Introduce and Waive further reading of Ordinance No. 2023-XX to Amend Los Altos Municipal Code, Chapter 12.22 “Energy Code” and Chapter 12.26 “Green Building Code”
April 11, 2023 Page 7
has the following gas appliances: furnace, water heater, stove/cooktop, dryer, indoor/outdoor fireplace, outdoor cooktop/grill, and pool/spa heater.
The installation costs provided in the attachment reflect the estimated costs received from all three contractors. Since estimates represent an ideal environment when contractors do not have excessive workloads, it is possible that the actual cost of installation could be 20-25% higher. In addition, hardware costs for the appliances show a range of prices for standard appliances and do not reflect potential available rebates.
Statewide Cost-Effectiveness Studies: Statewide Cost-Effectiveness Studies were conducted by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Southern California Edison and funded by the California utility customers under the support of the California Public Utilities Commission. Three studies were conducted that each used energy and cost-based approaches to evaluate the costeffectiveness of various energy measures for new construction of specific building types that exceed the minimum state requirements.
1. Single-family New Construction: The first study analyzes traditional detached single family and detached accessory dwelling unit (ADUs) building types and evaluates mixed fuel and all-electric package options in all sixteen California climate zones (CZs).
2. Multi-family New Construction: The second study analyzes low-rise and mid-rise multifamily building types and evaluates mixed fuel and all electric options in sixteen CZs.
3. Non-residential New Construction: The third study analyzes various scenarios for common non-residential new construction buildings under various measures (Medium Office, Medium Retail, Quick-Service Restaurant, and Small Hotel).
If the Reach Codes are to be adopted by City Council, staff will file the local amendments with California Energy Commission (CEC), including the SVCE cost-effectiveness studies, to demonstrate that the amendments to the code are financially responsible and do not represent an unreasonable burden to the residential and non-residential applicants.
Options:
1. Approve the Environmental Commission’s Reach Codes as presented above and move to Introduce and Waive further reading of the Ordinance.
2. Do not amend Title 12 Buildings and Construction Chapter 12.22 Energy Code and Chapter
12.26 Green Building Code of the Los Altos Municipal Code as proposed and keep existing Reach Codes.
3. Provide additional information and/or direction to staff on the proposed Reach Codes. 167
Agenda Item # 7.
Subject:
Introduce and Waive further reading of Ordinance No. 2023-XX to Amend Los Altos Municipal Code, Chapter 12.22 “Energy Code” and Chapter 12.26 “Green Building Code”
April 11, 2023 Page 8
Recommendation/Possible Action:
Introduce and Waive further reading of Ordinance No. 2023-XX to Amend Los Altos Municipal Code, Chapter 12.22 “Energy Code” and Chapter 12.26 “Green Building Code” 168
Agenda Item # 7.
Ordinance No. 2023-XX 1
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-XX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPEALING
CHAPTERS 12.22 AND 12.26 AND ADDING NEW CHAPTERS 12.22 AND 12.26
TO ADOPT LOCAL AMENDMENTS FURTHER IMPLEMENTING THE
CITY’S CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN (CAAP)
WHEREAS, The California Building Standards Commission has published the California Building Standards Code, 2022 edition, as provided in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, and these State mandated regulations went into effect January 1, 2023; and WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.7 and 18941.5 authorize cities to adopt the California Building Standards Code with modifications determined to be reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions; and WHEREAS, adoption of these updated versions of the California Code of Regulations, with local amendments as set forth in this ordinance, are necessary to enhance and safeguard public health, safety, general welfare and to provide safety to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations as required by the City’s unique climatic, geological and topographical conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Ordinance amendments set forth below have been reviewed and considered by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (“CEQA”), and the guidelines promulgated thereunder and, further, said Council finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that said amendments may have a significant effect on the environment and said amendments are therefore exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to the provisions of Section 15061(b)(3) of Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Title 12, Chapter 12.22, of the Municipal Code is hereby repealed.
SECTION 2. AMENDMENT OF CODE: A new Title 12, Chapter 12.22 of the Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows:
Chapter 12.22 ENERGY CODE
12.22.010 Adoption of the California Energy Code.
The 2022 California Energy Code, contained in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, published by the International Code Council, and each and all of its regulations and provisions was duly adopted by reference by Ordinance No. 2022-487. One copy is on file for use and examination by the public in the office of the building official. 169
Agenda Item # 7.
Ordinance No. 2023-XX 2
ATTACHMENT 1
12.22.020 Amendments for all-electric buildings.
City of Los Altos local amendments to the 2022 California Energy Code. Upon adoption of Ordinance 2022-487 and this Code in the event that there is any conflict between local amendments and the 2022 California Energy Code the most restrictive shall prevail.
A. Amend Section 100.1(b) of the Energy Code by adding the following definitions to read as follows:
ALL-ELECTRIC BUILDING. A building that contains no combustion equipment or plumbing for combustion equipment within the building or building property lines.
COMBUSTION EQUIPMENT. Any equipment or appliance used for space heating, water heating, cooking, clothes drying and/or lighting that uses fuel gas.
FUEL GAS. A gas that is natural, manufactured, liquefied petroleum, or a mixture of these.
NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDING. (Applicable to Chapter 12.22 Energy Code Section 12.22.020 Amendments) For the purposes of All-Electric Building requirements, "newly constructed buildings" shall include the buildings defined in Section 100.1 as well as the following:
1. Newly constructed additions or alterations where greater than fifty (50) percent of the sum total of the footings and foundation, roof-framing, or exterior walls are added, removed, replaced or relocated for purposes other than a repair or reinforcement as defined in California Existing Building Code Section 202 shall be considered “new construction”. If any of these criteria are met within a three (3) year period, measured from the date of permit issuance of past additions and/or alterations, the project shall be subject to the all-electric building requirements. The Building Official shall make the final determination regarding the application of this section.
Tenant improvements shall not be considered new construction. The final determination whether a project meets the definition of substantial reconstruction/alteration shall be made by the local enforcing agency.
2. VALUATION THRESHOLD. For the purpose of this chapter, additions and alterations projects with a valuation of over $250,000 shall be considered “new construction”. If this criteria is met within a three (3) year period, measured from the date of permit issuance of past additions and/or alterations, the project shall be subject to the all-electric building requirements.
PUBLIC BUILDING is a building used by the public for any purpose, such as municipal buildings and education.
SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY BUILDING is a building or area where research, experiments, and measurement in medical, life, and physical sciences are performed and/or stored requiring examination of fine details. The building may include workbenches, countertops, scientific instruments, and supporting offices. 170
Agenda Item # 7.
Ordinance No. 2023-XX 3
ATTACHMENT 1
B. Amend Section 100.0(e)2.A. of the Energy Code to read as follows:
2. Newly constructed buildings.
A. Sections 110.0 through 110.12 apply to all newly constructed buildings within the scope of Section 100.0(a). In addition, newly constructed buildings shall meet the requirements of Subsections B, C, D or E, as applicable and shall be an all-electric building as defined in Section 100.1(b).
Exception: Non-residential buildings, including non-residential buildings containing for-profit restaurants open to the public, Scientific Laboratory Buildings and Public Buildings, may apply to the Building Division of the Los Altos Development Services Department for an exception to install a non-electric fueled appliance or piece of equipment. The Building Division of the Los Altos Development Services Department shall grant an exception if they find the following conditions are met:
i. The applicant shows that there is a public or business-related need that cannot be reasonably met with an electric fueled appliance or piece of equipment.
ii. The applicant complies with the pre-wiring provisions to the non-electric appliance or piece of equipment as noted in this subsection.
The decision of the Building Division of the Los Altos Development Services Department shall be final unless the applicant appeals the decision to the City Manager or their designee within 14 days of the date of the decision. The City Manager's or their designee's decision on the appeal shall be final.
Wiring to accommodate future electric appliances or equipment. i. If a non-electric appliance or piece of equipment is allowed to be installed, the appliance or equipment location must also be electrically pre-wired for future electric appliance or equipment installation, including:
a. A dedicated circuit, phased appropriately, with a minimum amperage requirement for a comparable electric appliance with an electrical receptacle or junction box that is connected to the electric panel with conductors of adequate capacity, extending to within 3 feet of the appliance and accessible with no obstructions. Appropriately sized conduit may be installed in lieu of conductors; and
b. Both ends of the unused conductor or conduit shall be labeled with the words "For Future Electric appliance or equipment" and be electrically isolated; and
c. A reserved circuit breaker space shall be installed in the electrical panel adjacent to the circuit breaker for the branch circuit and labeled for each circuit, an example is as follows (i.e. "For Future Electric Range;"); and d. All electrical components, including conductors, receptacles, junction boxes, or blank covers, related to this section shall be installed in accordance with the California Electrical Code.
171
Agenda Item # 7.
Ordinance No. 2023-XX 4
ATTACHMENT 1
12.22.030 Prohibitions
Exterior Gas Infrastructure.
i. Existing fuel gas infrastructure shall not be extended to any appliance, system or device within the building or building property. Inactive fuel gas infrastructure shall not be activated or otherwise operated.
Prohibition on Conversion to Mixed-Fuel Buildings
i. No building that is required to be constructed as an All-Electric building, or that currently uses electricity as its sole fuel source for appliances, space conditioning systems, water heating systems, pool and spa systems, or any other building systems, shall be altered or modified to use any fuel source other than electricity for appliances, space conditioning systems, water heating systems, pool and spa systems, or any other building systems.
SECTION 3. AUTHORITY AND FINDINGS.
The following findings support that the above amendments and modifications are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions:
The City of Los Altos is located in Climate Zone 4 as established in the 2022 California Energy Code. Climate Zone 4 includes Santa Clara County, San Benito County, portions of Monterey County and San Luis Obispo. The City experiences an average of 19 inches of precipitation per year. In Los Altos, January is the rainiest month of the year while July is the driest month of the year. Temperatures average about 80 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer and about 40 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter. These climatic conditions along with the effects of climate change caused by Green House Gas (GHG) emissions generated from burning natural gas to heat buildings and emissions from Vehicle Miles Traveled results in an overall increase in global average temperature. Higher global temperatures are contributing to rising sea levels, record heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods.
The above local amendments to the 2022 California Energy Code are necessary to combat the ever-increasing harmful effects of global climate change. Implementation of the proposed code amendments will achieve decarbonization and provide an accelerated path to reduce GHG emissions. The proposed Ordinance containing these amendments would ensure that new buildings use cleaner sources of energy which helps meet the goal of cutting carbon emissions in half by 2030.
All-electric building design benefits the health, welfare, and resiliency of Los Altos and its residents.
SECTION 4. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Title 12, Chapter 12.26 of the Municipal Code is hereby repealed.
SECTION 5. AMENDMENT OF CODE: A new Title 12, Chapter 12.26 of the Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows:
172
Agenda Item # 7.
Ordinance No. 2023-XX 5
ATTACHMENT 1
Chapter 12.26 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
City of Los Altos local amendments to the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code.
Upon adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-487 and this Code in the event that there is any conflict between local amendments and the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code the most restrictive shall prevail.
Section 12.26.010 Adoption of the California Green Building Standards Code The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, contained in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11, published by the International Code Council, and each and all of its regulations and provisions was duly adopted by reference by Ordinance No. 2022-487.
One copy is on file for use and examination by the public in the office of the Building Official.
Section 12.26.020 Amendments, Additions or Deletions
The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code referred to in Section 12.26.010 is adopted, together with Chapters 1 Administration, 3 Green Building, 4 Residential Mandatory Measures, and 5 Nonresidential Mandatory Measures, of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, with the following amendments as follows:
Chapter 1 Section 102.4 Scope and Mandatory Compliance is hereby added to read as follows.
Section 102.4 Scope and Mandatory Compliance
A. This Code contains both mandatory and voluntary green building measures. Mandatory and voluntary measures are identified in the appropriate chapters contained in this Code.
Compliance measures and methods shall be by one of the following measures approved by the Building Official.
The means by which compliance measures are achieved shall be mandatory measures with appendix sections voluntarily applied, building division mandatory check list, whole house Build it Green GreenPoint check list, LEED, other recognized point systems, Title 24 Part 6 Energy Efficiency Standards, or equivalent approved methods. Green Building Compliance measures in addition to checklists shall be incorporated into the project drawings approved by the Building Official prior to building permit submittal.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner or responsible Registered Design Professional acting as the owner’s agent shall employ and/or retain a Qualified Green Building Professional to the satisfaction of the Building Official, and prior to final inspection shall submit verification that the project is in compliance with this code.
Chapter 3, Section 301.1.1 is amended to read as follows:
301.1.1 Additions and Alterations
[HCD] The mandatory provisions of Chapter 4 shall be applied 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/or within the 173
Agenda Item # 7.
Ordinance No. 2023-XX 6
ATTACHMENT 1
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 4.106.4.2.2 for application.
Add or amend Section 4.106.4 to read as follows:
4.106.4 Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging - Residential. Residential construction shall comply with Section 4.106.4.1 or 4.106.4.2, and 4.106.4.3, to facilitate future installation and use of EV chargers. Electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) shall be installed in accordance with the California Electrical Code, Article 625. For EVCS signs, refer to Caltrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive 13-01 (Zero Emission Vehicle Signs and Pavement Markings) or its successor(s). Calculation for spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number.
Exceptions:
1. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU) without additional parking facilities and without electrical panel upgrade or new panel installation. Detached ADUs, attached ADUs, and JADUs without additional parking but with electrical panel upgrades or new panels must have reserved breakers and electrical capacity according to the requirements of 4.106.4.1.
4.106.4.1 One- and Two-Family Dwellings and Townhouses with Dedicated OffStreet Parking Spaces.
4.106.4.1.1 New Construction. One parking space provided shall be a Level 2 EV Ready space. If a second parking space is provided, it shall be provided with a Level 2 EV Ready space. ALMS shall be permitted to reduce load when multiple vehicles are charging.
4.106.4.1.2. Existing Building. Parking additions or electrical panel upgrades must have reserved breaker spaces and electrical capacity according to the requirements of
4.106.4.1.1.
4.106.4.2 Multifamily Dwellings with Residential Parking Facilities. Requirements apply to parking spaces that are assigned or leased to individual dwelling units, as well as unassigned residential parking. Visitor or common area parking is not included.
4.106.4.2.1 New Construction. Fifteen percent (15%) of dwelling units with parking spaces shall be Level 2 EVCS. ALMS shall be permitted to reduce load when multiple vehicles are charging. Eighty-five percent (85%) of dwelling units with parking spaces shall be provided with a Low Power Level 2 EV Ready space. EV ready spaces and EVCS in multifamily developments shall comply with California Building Code, Chapter 11A, Section 1109A. EVCS shall comply with the accessibility provisions for EV chargers in the California Building Code, Chapter 11B. 174
Agenda Item # 7.
Ordinance No. 2023-XX 7
ATTACHMENT 1
Note: The total number of EV spaces should be one-hundred percent (100%) of dwelling units or one-hundred percent (100%) of residential parking spaces, whichever is less.
Exceptions:
1. When EV chargers (Level 2 EVSE) are installed in a number equal to or greater than the required number of EV Ready.
2. When EV chargers (Level 2 EVSE) are installed in a number less than the required number of EV Ready spaces, the number of EV Ready spaces required may be reduced by a number equal to the number of EV chargers installed.
4.106.4.2.2 Existing Buildings.
1. When new parking facilities are added, or electrical systems or lighting of existing parking facilities are added or altered and the work requires a building permit, ten percent (10%) of the total number of parking spaces added or altered shall be EVCS. Additionally, EV Capable spaces on the building property required by the locally adopted codes at the time of building permit shall be upgraded to a minimum of Level 2 EV Ready. Upgrades shall be required at currently designated vehicle parking spaces. Upgrades shall be required for remaining parking spaces after meeting the accessibility requirements of California Building Code Chapters 11A and 11B.
2. When new parking facilities are added and ALMS is installed, the ALMS system must be designed to deliver no less than 2.2 kVa (110/120 volt, 20-ampere).
4.106.4.3 Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS).
Electric vehicle charging stations required by Section 4.106.4.2 shall comply with Section 4.106.4.3.
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.
4.106.4.3.1 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 4.106.4.3.1and Section 4.106.4.3.2, Item 3. 175
Agenda Item # 7.
Ordinance No. 2023-XX 8
ATTACHMENT 1
4.106.4.3.2 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.
Exception: Where the City’s Municipal or Zoning Code permits parking space dimensions that are less than the minimum requirements stated in this section
4.106.4.3.2, and the compliance with which would be infeasible due to particular circumstances of a project, an exception may be granted while remaining in compliance with California Building Code Section Table 11B-228.3.2.1 and 11B812, as applicable.
4.106.4.4 Direct current fast charging stations. One DCFC may be substituted for up to five (5) EVCS to meet the requirements of 4.106.4.1 and 4.106.4.2. Where ALMS serves DCFC stations, the power demand from the DCFC shall be prioritized above Level 1 and Level 2 spaces.
Add or amend Section 5.106.3 to read as follows:
5.106.5.3 Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging - Nonresidential. Construction to provide electric vehicle infrastructure and facilitate electric vehicle charging shall comply with Section 5.106.5.3.1 and shall be provided in accordance with regulations in the California Building Code and the California Electrical Code. Accessible EVCS shall be provided in accordance with the California Building Code Chapter 11B Section 11B-228.3. For EVCS signs, refer to Caltrans Traffic Operations Policy Directive 13-01 (Zero Emission Vehicle Signs and Pavement Markings) or its successor(s). Calculation for spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number.
5.106.5.3.1 Office and Institutional Buildings
5.106.5.3.1.1 New Construction. (>10 spaces) Fifty percent (50%) of parking spaces provided shall be Level 2 EVCS. ALMS shall be permitted to reduce load when multiple vehicles are charging. Twenty percent (20%) Level 2 Low Power EV Ready, thirty percent (30%) Level 2 EV Capable.
5.106.5.3.1.2 Existing Buildings. When new parking facilities are added, or electrical systems or lighting of existing parking facilities are added or altered and the work requires a building permit, ten percent (10%) of the total number of parking spaces added or altered shall be EVCS with Level 2 EV Ready. Additionally, any existing EV Capable spaces on the building property required by the locally adopted codes at the time of building permit shall be upgraded to a minimum of Level 2 EV Ready. Upgrades shall be required at currently designated vehicle parking spaces. Upgrades shall be required for remaining 176
Agenda Item # 7.
Ordinance No. 2023-XX 9
ATTACHMENT 1
parking spaces after meeting the accessibility requirements of California Building Code Chapters 11A and 11B.
5.106.5.3.2 Hotel and Motel Occupancies
5.106.5.3.2.1 New Construction. Ten percent (10%) Level 2 EVCS. ALMS shall be permitted to reduce load when multiple vehicles are charging. Thirty percent (30%) Level 2 Low Power EV Ready, sixty percent (60%) Level 2 EV Capable.
5.106.5.3.3.2 Existing Buildings. When new parking facilities are added, or electrical systems or lighting of existing parking facilities are added or altered and the work requires a building permit, ten percent (10%) of the total number of parking spaces added or altered shall be EVCS with Level 2 EV Ready. Additionally, EV Capable spaces on the building property required by the locally adopted codes at the time of building permit shall be upgraded to a minimum of Level 2 EV Ready. Upgrades shall be required at currently designated vehicle parking spaces. Upgrades shall be required for remaining parking spaces after meeting the accessibility requirements of California Building Code Chapters 11A and 11B.
5.106.5.3.3 All Other Nonresidential Occupancies
5.106.5.3.3.1 New Construction. Ten percent (10%) of parking spaces provided shall be Level 2 EVCS. ALMS shall be permitted to reduce load when multiple vehicles are charging. Forty percent (40%) of parking spaces provided shall be Level 2 EV Capable.
5.106.5.3.3.2 Existing Buildings. When new parking facilities are added, or electrical systems or lighting of existing parking facilities are added or altered and the work requires a building permit, ten percent (10%) of the total number of parking spaces added or altered shall be EVCS with Level 2 EV Ready. Additionally, EV Capable spaces on the building property required by the locally adopted codes at the time of building permit shall be upgraded to a minimum of Level 2 EV Ready. Upgrades shall be required at currently designated vehicle parking spaces. Upgrades shall be required for remaining parking spaces after meeting the accessibility requirements of California Building Code Chapters 11A and 11B.
5.106.5.3.4 Direct current fast charging stations. One DCFC may be substituted for up to five (5) EVCS to meet the requirements of 5.106.5.3.1, 5.106.5.3.2, and 5.106.5.3.3.
Where ALMS serve DCFC stations, the power demand from the DCFC shall be prioritized above Level 1 and Level 2 spaces.
Section 12.26.030 Definitions
AUTOMATIC LOAD MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (ALMS). A control system which 177
Agenda Item # 7.
Ordinance No. 2023-XX 10
ATTACHMENT 1
allows multiple EV chargers or EV-Ready electric vehicle outlets to share a circuit or panel and automatically reduce power at each charger, providing the opportunity to reduce electrical infrastructure costs and/or provide demand response capability. ALMS systems must be designed to deliver at least 1.4kW to each EV Capable, EV Ready or EVCS space served by the ALMS. The connected amperage on-site shall not be lower than the required connected amperage per Part 11, 2019 California Green Building Code for the relevant building types.
BUILD IT GREEN. Build It Green is a California professional non-profit membership organization whose mission is to promote healthy, energy and resource-efficient buildings.
DIRECT CURRENT FAST CHARGING (DCFC). A parking space provided with electrical infrastructure that meets the following conditions:
i. A minimum of 48 kVa (480 volt, 100-ampere) capacity wiring. ii. Electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) located within three (3) feet of the parking space providing a minimum capacity of 80-ampere.
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION (EVCS). A parking space that includes installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) at an EV Ready space. An EVCS space may be used to satisfy EV Ready space requirements. EVSE shall be installed in accordance with the California Electrical Code, Article 625.
ELECTRIC VEHICLE SUPPLY EQUIPMENT (EVSE). The conductors, including the ungrounded, grounded and equipment grounding conductors and the electric vehicle connectors, attachment plugs, and all other fittings, devices, power outlets, or apparatus installed specifically for the purpose of transferring energy between the premises wiring and the electric vehicle.
GREEN POINT RATED. Rating system developed by Build It Green.
LEED. "Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design" program developed by the U.S.
Green Building Council. The U.S. Green Building Council is a National professional nonprofit membership organization whose mission is to promote buildings that are environmentally responsible.
LEED ACCREDITED PROFESSIONAL. A person or organization determined by the Building Official to be qualified to perform inspections and provide documentation to assure compliance with the U.S. Green Building Council LEED requirements.
LEVEL 2 EV CAPABLE. A parking space provided with electrical infrastructure that meets the following requirements:
i. Conduit that links a listed electrical panel with sufficient capacity to a junction box or receptacle located within three (3) feet of the parking space. ii. The conduit shall be designed to accommodate at least 8.3 kVa (208/240 volt, 40- ampere) per parking space. Conduit shall have a minimum nominal trade size of 1 inch inside diameter and may be sized for multiple circuits as allowed by the California Electrical Code. Conduit shall be installed at a minimum in spaces that will be inaccessible after construction, either trenched underground or where penetrations to walls, floors, or other partitions would otherwise be required for 178
Agenda Item # 7.
Ordinance No. 2023-XX 11
ATTACHMENT 1
future installation of branch circuits, and such additional elements deemed necessary by the Building Official. Construction documents shall indicate future completion of conduit from the panel to the parking space, via the installed inaccessible conduit.
iii. The electrical panel shall reserve a space for a 40-ampere overcurrent protective device space(s) for EV charging, labeled in the panel directory as “EV CAPABLE.”
iv. Electrical load calculations shall demonstrate that the electrical panel service capacity and electrical system, including any on-site distribution transformer(s), have sufficient capacity to simultaneously charge all EVs at all required EV spaces at a minimum of 40 amperes.
v. The parking space shall contain signage with at least a 12” font adjacent to the parking space indicating the space is EV Capable.
LEVEL 2 EV READY. A parking space that is served by a complete electric circuit with the following requirements:
i. A minimum of 8.3 kVa (208/240 volt, 40-ampere) capacity wiring. ii. A receptacle labeled “Electric Vehicle Outlet”, or electric vehicle supply equipment located within three (3) feet of the parking space. If EVSE is provided the minimum capacity of the EVSE shall be 30-ampere.
LOW POWER LEVEL 2 EV READY. A parking space that is served by a complete electric circuit with the following requirements:
i. A minimum of (208/240 Volt, 20-ampere) capacity wiring. ii. A receptacle labeled “Electric Vehicle Outlet”, or electric vehicle supply equipment located within three (3) feet of the parking space. If EVSE is provided the minimum capacity of the EVSE shall be 16-ampere.
iii. Conduit oversized to accommodate future Level 2 EV Ready (208/240 volt, 40- ampere) at each parking space.
QUALIFIED GREEN BUILDING PROFESSIONAL. A person trained through the USGBC as a "LEED AP" (accredited professional), or through Build It Green as a GreenPoint Rater, or other qualifications when acceptable to the Building Official. A certified green building professional, architect, designer, builder, or building inspector may be considered a qualified green building professional when determined appropriate by the Building Official.
SECTION 6. AUTHORITY AND FINDINGS.
The following findings support that the above amendments and modifications are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions:
The City of Los Altos is located in Climate Zone 4 as established in the 2019 California Energy Code. Climate Zone 4 includes Santa Clara County, San Benito County, portions of Monterey County and San Luis Obispo. The City experiences an average of 19 inches of precipitation per year. In Los Altos, January is the rainiest month of the year while July is the driest month of the year. Temperatures average about 80 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer and about 40 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter. These climatic conditions along 179
Agenda Item # 7.
Ordinance No. 2023-XX 12
ATTACHMENT 1
with the effects of climate change caused by Green House Gas (GHG) emissions generated from burning natural gas to heat buildings and emissions from Vehicle Miles Traveled results in an overall increase in global average temperature. Higher global temperatures are contributing to rising sea levels, record heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods.
The above local amendments to the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code are necessary to combat the ever-increasing harmful effects of global climate change. Implementation of the proposed code amendments will achieve decarbonization and provide an accelerated path to reduce GHG emissions. The proposed Ordinance containing these amendments would ensure that new buildings use cleaner sources of energy which helps meet the goal of cutting carbon emissions in half by 2030.
Increased Electric Vehicle Infrastructure integrated into building design benefits the health, welfare, and resiliency of Los Altos and its residents.
SECTION 7. CEQA. The City Council hereby finds and determines that this Ordinance has been assessed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res.
Code, § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.) and is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3), which exempts from CEQA any project where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.
Adoption of the proposed Ordinance would not be an activity with potential to cause significant adverse effect on the environment because the changes made to the California Green Buildings Standards Code within are enacted to provide more protection to the environment, and therefore is exempt from CEQA. It is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, § 15308 which exempts actions taken by regulatory agencies for the enhancement and protection of the environment. As such, the Ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA, and none of the circumstances set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies.
SECTION 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of this Ordinance with the California Building Standards Commission of the State of California.
SECTION 9. CONSTITUTIONALITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this code.
SECTION 10. PUBLICATION. This Ordinance shall be published as provided in Government Code section 36933.
SECTION 11. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon the commencement of the thirty-first day following the review and approval by the California Energy Commission.
180
Agenda Item # 7.
Ordinance No. 2023-XX 13
ATTACHMENT 1
The foregoing Ordinance was duly and properly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Altos held on ____________, 2023 and was thereafter, at a regular meeting held on ___________, 2023 passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
Attest:
___________________________
Angel Rodrigues, Interim CITY CLERK
181
Agenda Item # 7.
LOCAL COST ANALYSIS - SUMMARY
Scenario:Existing Appliance Replacement Appliance Estimated Equipment Cost Estimated Installation CostWater Heater (Existing Water Heater in Garage) Heat Pump Water Heater $1,700 - $2,000 $2,070 Heater/Furnace (Option 1) Central Heat Pump Space Heater (Option 1) $2,500 - $8,000 $4,630 (No existing ductwork or damaged ductwork) New Ductwork for Central Heat Pump Heater $13,670 Gas Wall Heater (Option 2) Ductless Mini-Split Heat Pump (Option 2) $700 - $1,500 $4,850Gas Clothes Dryer Heat Pump Clothes Dryer $1,000 - $1,400 $1,680Gas Stove Electric Stove/Induction Cooktop $550 - $3,000/$600 - $4,000 $1,680Gas Fireplace Electric Fireplace $600 - $4,000+ $1,880Outdoor Gas Fireplace Outdoor Electric Fireplace $600 - $3,500 $2,980Outdoor Gas Cooktop/Grill Outdoor Electric / Induction Cooktop $600 - $3,000 $2,980Pool/spa heater Electric pool/spa heater $750 - $1,500 $3,880Electrical Panel Upgrade (Assume 225amps, overhead lines) $5,550Electrical Panel Upgrade (Assume 225amps, underground lines) $7,670Cap/Remove Gas Infrastructure $8,750Install New Electric Infrastructure (Indoors) $21,330Install New Electric Infrastructure (Outdoors) $13,330Upgrade PG&E line to home $25,000A 3500 Square foot existing home, no addition proposed, interior alteration with 50% of the existing framing and/or foundation being replaced. Home currently has the following gas appliances: Furnace, water heater, stove/cooktop, dryer, fireplace, outdoor fireplace, outdoor cooktop/grill, pool/spa heater Appliance Replacement Costs (Estimated)
Infrastructure Costs (Estimated)
Outdoor AppliancesIndoor Appliances
182
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings Prepared by:
Avani Goyal, Farhad Farahmand
TRC Companies Inc.
Prepared for:
Jay Madden
Codes and Standards Program Southern California Edison
Last modified: 2022/11/16
Revision: 1.0
2022 Code :
Nonresidential New
Construction Reach Code
Cost-effectiveness Study
183
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings Legal Notice
This report was prepared by Southern California Edison Company and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.
Copyright 2022, Southern California Edison Company. All rights reserved, except that this document may be used, copied, and distributed without modification.
Neither SCE nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy, or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any privatelyowned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks, or copyrights.
Acronym List
AC – Air Conditioner
ASHRAE - American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air-Conditioning Engineers
B/C – Benefit-to-Cost Ratio
BOD – Basis of Design
BSC – Building Standards Commission
Btu – British thermal unit
CAV – Constant Air Volume
CBECC - California Building Energy Code Compliance
CBECS - Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey
CBSC - California Building Standards Commission
CEC - California Energy Commission
CPAU – City of Palo Alto Utilities
CZ – Climate Zone
DCKV – Demand-Controlled Kitchen Ventilation
DHW – Domestic Hot Water
DEER – Database for Energy Efficient Resources
DOE – U.S. Department of Energy
E3 – Energy and Environmental Economics
EUI – Energy Use Index
FDD – Fault Detection and Diagnostics
GHG - Greenhouse Gas
GPM – Gallons Per Minute
HVAC – Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IOU – Investor-Owned Utility
184
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings kWh – Kilowatt Hour
LADWP – Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
LBNL – Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
LPD – Lighting Power Density
NPV – Net Present Value
QSR – Quick-Service Restaurant
PNNL – Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
POU – Publicly Owned Utility
PTHP – Packaged Terminal Heat Pump
PG&E – Pacific Gas & Electric (utility)
PTAC – Packaged Terminal Air Conditioning
PV - Solar Photovoltaic
SCE – Southern California Edison (utility)
SCG – Southern California Gas (utility)
SDG&E – San Diego Gas & Electric (utility)
SHW – Service Hot Water
SMUD – Sacramento Municipal Utility District
SZ – Single Zone
TDV – Time Dependent Valuation
VAV – Variable Air Volume
TDV - Time Dependent Valuation
Title 24 – California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 TOU – Time of Use
185
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings Summary of Revisions
Date Description Reference (page or section)
11/16/2022 Original Release -
186
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary..........................................................................................................................................................1 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................3 2 Methodology and Assumptions...............................................................................................................................5
2.1 Cost-effectiveness ................................................................................................................................................................ 5
2.1.1 Benefits......................................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Costs............................................................................................................................................................................. 5
2.1.3 Metrics .......................................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.4 Utility Rates................................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Energy Simulations ............................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 2022 T24 Compliance Metrics .............................................................................................................................................. 7
2.4 GHG Emissions .................................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.5 Limitations and Further Considerations ................................................................................................................................ 8 3 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs ..........................................................................................................10
3.1 Prototype Characteristics.................................................................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Measure Definitions and Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 12
3.2.1 Fuel Substitution ......................................................................................................................................................... 12
3.2.2 Efficiency..................................................................................................................................................................... 21
3.2.3 Load Flexibility ............................................................................................................................................................ 28
3.2.4 Additional Solar PV and Battery Storage .................................................................................................................... 29
3.3 Measure Packages ............................................................................................................................................................. 30 4 Cost-Effectiveness Results ....................................................................................................................................32
4.1 Medium Office..................................................................................................................................................................... 33
4.2 Medium Retail..................................................................................................................................................................... 34
4.3 Quick-Service Restaurant (QSR)........................................................................................................................................ 35
4.4 Small Hotel.......................................................................................................................................................................... 36 5 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations ................................................................37
5.1 Medium Office..................................................................................................................................................................... 41
5.2 Medium Retail..................................................................................................................................................................... 42
5.3 Quick-Service Restaurant (QSR)........................................................................................................................................ 43
5.4 Small Hotel.......................................................................................................................................................................... 45 6 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................................47 7 References ...............................................................................................................................................................49 8 Appendices ..............................................................................................................................................................51
8.1 Map of California CZs ......................................................................................................................................................... 51
8.2 Utility Rate Schedules......................................................................................................................................................... 52
8.2.1 PG&E.......................................................................................................................................................................... 53
8.2.2 SCE............................................................................................................................................................................. 56
8.2.3 SCG ............................................................................................................................................................................ 59
8.2.4 SDG&E ....................................................................................................................................................................... 61
8.2.5 CPAU.......................................................................................................................................................................... 67
8.2.6 SMUD (Electric Only).................................................................................................................................................. 69
8.2.7 Escalation Rates ......................................................................................................................................................... 70 187
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings
8.3 HVAC and SHW System Cost Scalers ............................................................................................................................... 70
8.4 Mixed Fuel Baseline Figures............................................................................................................................................... 71
8.5 GHG Savings Summary...................................................................................................................................................... 75
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Utility Tariffs Used Based on CZ (October 2022).................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2. Baseline Prototype Characteristics ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Table 3. HVAC and Water Heating Characteristics Summary ............................................................................................................ 14 Table 4. Medium Office Average Mechanical System Costs .............................................................................................................. 15 Table 5. Medium Retail Average Mechanical System Costs............................................................................................................... 16 Table 6. Quick-Service Restaurant Average Mechanical System Costs - HS Package...................................................................... 16 Table 7. Small Hotel HVAC and Water Heating System Costs........................................................................................................... 18 Table 8. Quick-Service Restaurant Cooking Equipment Costs........................................................................................................... 18 Table 9. Small Hotel Clothes Dryer Costs........................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 10. Electrical Infrastructure Costs ............................................................................................................................................. 20 Table 11. Gas Infrastructure Costs by Component............................................................................................................................. 21 Table 12. Total Gas Infrastructure Cost Estimates by Building Type.................................................................................................. 21 Table 13. Efficiency Measures Applicability, Costs, and Sources....................................................................................................... 26 Table 14. Load Flexibility Measure Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 29 Table 15. Additional Solar PV Measure Summary.............................................................................................................................. 30 Table 16. Reach Code Pathway Considerations ................................................................................................................................ 39 Table 17. Cost-effectiveness and Compliance Summary – Medium Office ........................................................................................ 41 Table 18. Cost-effectiveness and Compliance Summary – Medium Retail......................................................................................... 42 Table 19. Cost-effectiveness and Compliance Summary – Quick-Service Restaurant (without cooking electrification)..................... 43 Table 20. Cost-effectiveness and Compliance Summary – Quick-Service Restaurant (with cooking electrification).......................... 44 Table 21. Cost-effectiveness and Compliance Summary – Small Hotel. ............................................................................................ 45 Table 22. Cost-effectiveness and Compliance Summary – Small Hotel (PTHP) ................................................................................ 46 Table 23. Utility Tariffs Analyzed Based on CZ – Detailed View......................................................................................................... 52 Table 24. Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions Above Inflation .......................................................................................... 70 Table 25. Materials and Labor Adjustment Factors by Climate Zone ................................................................................................. 70 Table 26. Contractor Markup Values .................................................................................................................................................. 71 Table 27. Mixed Fuel Baseline Model – Medium Office...................................................................................................................... 71 188
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings Table 28. All-electric Baseline Model – Medium Retail ....................................................................................................................... 72 Table 29. Mixed Fuel Baseline Model – Quick-Service Restaurant .................................................................................................... 73 Table 30. Mixed Fuel Baseline Model – Small Hotel........................................................................................................................... 74
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Medium Office Cost-Effectiveness Summary....................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 2. Medium Retail Cost-effectiveness Summary ....................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 3. QSR Cost-effectiveness Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 4. Small Hotel Cost-effectiveness Summary............................................................................................................................ 36 Figure 5. Map of California CZs .......................................................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 6. PG&E Electric Schedule - B-1 ............................................................................................................................................. 53 Figure 7. PG&E Electric Schedule - B-10 ........................................................................................................................................... 54 Figure 8. PG&E Gas Schedule – G-NR1 ............................................................................................................................................ 55 Figure 9. SCE Electric Schedule – TOU-GS-1.................................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 10. SCE Electric Schedule – TOU-GS-2.................................................................................................................................. 57 Figure 11. SCE Electric Schedule – TOU-GS-3.................................................................................................................................. 58 Figure 12. SCG Gas Schedule – G-10................................................................................................................................................ 59 Figure 13. SDG&E Electric Schedule – AL-TOU ................................................................................................................................ 61 Figure 14. SDG&E Electric Schedule - EECC .................................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 15. SDG&E Gas Schedule – GN-3 .......................................................................................................................................... 65 Figure 16. CPAU Electric Schedule – E-2........................................................................................................................................... 67 Figure 17. CPAU Gas Schedule – G-2 ............................................................................................................................................... 68 Figure 18. SMUD Electric Schedule – CITS-0/CITS-1........................................................................................................................ 69 Figure 19. Percentage GHG Savings – Medium Office ...................................................................................................................... 75 Figure 20. Percentage GHG Savings – Medium Retail....................................................................................................................... 75 Figure 21. Percentage GHG Savings – Quick Service Restaurant..................................................................................................... 76 Figure 22. Percentage GHG Savings – Small Hotel ........................................................................................................................... 76 189
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 1 Executive Summary
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Executive Summary
The California Codes and Standards (C&S) Reach Codes program provides technical support to local governments considering adopting a local ordinance, also known as a reach code, intended to support meeting local and/or statewide energy efficiency and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. The program facilitates the adoption and implementation of reach codes when requested by local jurisdictions by providing resources such as cost-effectiveness studies, model language, sample findings, and other supporting documentation.
The Reach Code Team (the Team) provides this report and accompanying Reach Code Results Workbook to present measures and measure packages that local jurisdictions can adopt to achieve energy savings and emissions reductions beyond what will be accomplished by enforcing the minimum state requirements according to the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6), effective January 1, 2023. This report documents a variety of above-code electrification, energy efficiency, load flexibility, and solar photovoltaic (PV) packages applied to a set of four nonresidential building prototypes: Medium Office, Standalone Retail, Quick-Service Restaurant, and Small Hotel.
The Team evaluated energy simulation results and code compliance using the CBECC v1.0 software version released in June 2022. Results may change with future software versions. Results across all prototypes indicate the efficiency measures included in the analysis, both On-Bill and TDV, are cost-effective across all climate zones when added to the prescriptive baseline prototype. In all cases all-electric packages are capable of achieving the greatest greenhouse gas emissions reductions as compared to mixed-fuel buildings.
These results, including the attached Reach Code Results Workbook, indicate that all-electric packages can achieve the greatest greenhouse gas emissions reductions as compared to mixed-fuel buildings. Results align with the decarbonization objectives set by California Energy Commission (Energy Commission), and several new construction new construction ordinances focusing on all-electric design. The results of this study by prototype are summarized below:
Medium Office: Due to the lack of a prescriptive compliance pathway and performance modeling approach in CBECC, all-electric space heating is simulated as electric-resistance variable-air-volume reheat. This system selection limits operational benefits, energy code compliance, and cost-effectiveness. All-electric packages are cost-effective with energy efficiency and load flexibility measures in many climate zones, but do not achieve code compliance across all three metrics—with efficiency TDV margin being the most challenging. Results will be updated in the first half of 2023 when central heat pump boilers can be simulated in CBECC. Jurisdictions may adopt reach codes that exempt building systems that do not have a prescriptive pathway in the energy code and cannot be modeled to comply using the performance approach. Efficiency packages over the mixedfuel baseline are cost-effective and compliant across all climate zones.
Medium Retail: All-electric is prescriptively required in most scenarios in Retail buildings. The Team identified cost-effective and code compliant packages with energy efficiency measures over an all-electric baseline in most climate zones. This study analyzed mixed-fuel retail buildings with large (>240 kBtuh) gas furnace packaged units replacing the smaller (<240 kBtuh) packaged heat pumps. The mixed-fuel building is neither cost-effective nor code compliant in most climate zones.
Quick-Service Restaurant: The Team identified cost-effective, nearly cost-effective, and code compliant packages in several climate zones for all-electric space conditioning and service water heating when including energy efficiency and solar PV measures. The Team could not identify cost-effective packages including allelectric commercial cooking equipment except for City of Palo Alto Utility (CPAU) territory. Also, when including energy efficiency measures, restaurants with all-electric cooking achieve compliance and are nearly On-Bill cost-effective in Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) territory as well. Jurisdictions may adopt AllElectric reach codes that exempt commercial cooking equipment or require energy efficiency for either mixedfuel and/or all-electric buildings, in many climate zones. 190
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 2 Executive Summary
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Small Hotel: All-electric packages are cost-effective and code-compliant in most climate zones. The remaining climate zones are very close to meeting the TDV Efficiency compliance criteria and may achieve compliance by re-evaluating nonresidential-area modeling using central heat pump boiler instead of electric resistance VAV systems. In addition to electrification packages that include single-zone packaged heat pumps, the Team analyzed an alternative scenario with packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs) that improved all-electric code minimum cost-effectiveness due to high first-cost savings, but PTHPs do not achieve TDV Efficiency compliance. Mixed-fuel plus energy efficiency is code compliant and cost-effective across all climate zones.
Jurisdictions may use these results for amending Part 6, Part 11, other parts of the California building code, or their municipal code as determined appropriate for the given jurisdiction. A cost-effectiveness study is required to amend Part 6 of the California building code or when adopting energy efficiency or energy conservation measures, including solar PV or batteries. The Energy Commission has previously concluded that all-electric requirements do not constitute an energy efficiency or energy conservation standard and are outside the scope of Public Resources Code section 25402.1(h)(2).1 Jurisdictions may adopt an All-Electric reach code when amending Part 11 or their municipal code.
Even reach code policies that only require electrification, and do not require energy efficiency or conservation, will benefit from findings in this study to inform potential economic impacts of a policy decision. This study documents the estimated costs, benefits, energy impacts and GHG emission reductions that may result from implementing an ordinance based on the results to help residents, local leadership, and other stakeholders make informed policy decisions.
Model ordinance language and other resources are posted on the C&S Reach Codes Program website at www.localenergycodes.com. Local jurisdictions that are considering adopting an ordinance are encouraged to contact the program for further technical support at [email protected] . 1 CEC Letter to South San Francisco 2021: https://bayareareachcodes.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/CEC-Letter-to-SSFSigned.pdf 191
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 3 Introduction
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 1 Introduction
This report documents cost-effective combinations of measures that exceed the minimum state requirements, the 2022 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (CEC 2022), effective January 1, 2023, for newly constructed nonresidential buildings. This report was developed in coordination with the California Statewide Investor-Owned Utilities (CA IOUs) Codes and Standards Program, key consultants, and engaged cities—collectively known as the Reach Code Team (or “the Team” for short). The objectives of this report are to inform discourse for local reach code adoption and, where applicable, support approval of local energy code amendments from the California Energy Commission (the Energy Commission).
The Reach Code Team performed cost-effectiveness analysis for the following scenarios above prescriptive 2022 Title 24 code requirements in all 16 California climate zones (CZs):
Fuel substitution with federal code-minimum efficiency appliances, compared to a prescriptive minimum design compliance pathway.
• For the retail building type, the prescriptive code minimum is all-electric. Fuel substitution packages revert to mixed-fuel appliances.
• For all other building types, the prescriptive code minimum is mixed-fuel. Fuel substitution packages switch to all-electric appliances.
Energy efficiency measures
Load flexibility measures
Solar PV and Battery
The Reach Code Team analyzed four prototypes—Medium Office, Medium Retail, Quick-Service Restaurant, and Small Hotel—to represent common nonresidential new construction buildings in the California. The selected building types align with the requests received from dozens of jurisdictions seeking to adopt reach codes. The results of this cost-effectiveness study could potentially be extrapolated to other building types that have similar properties such as occupancy pattern, HVAC design and layout. These results were attained using the first version of California Building Energy Compliance Calculator (CBECC) software that is approved by CEC for 2022 code compliance. There are a few gaps in functionalities and standard design assumptions in this software version, described in Section 2.5, the Reach Code team has been actively coordinating with the CBECC software team to inform future software updates.
Title 24 is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies: the Energy Commission and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances—or reach codes—that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards).
When adopting local energy efficiency or conservation ordinances, local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain formal approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable. Local jurisdictions do not require Energy Commission approval when adopting ordinances that do not require efficiency or conservation, such as only electrification-required ordinances.
The Department of Energy (DOE) sets minimum efficiency standards for equipment and appliances that are federally regulated under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, including heating, cooling, and water heating equipment (E-CFR 2020). Since state and local governments are prohibited from adopting higher minimum equipment efficiencies than the federal standards require, the focus of this study is to identify and evaluate cost-effective packages that do not include high efficiency heating, cooling, and water heating equipment. High efficiency appliances are often the easiest and most affordable measures to increase energy performance. While federal preemption limits 192
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 4 Introduction
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 reach code mandatory requirements for covered appliances, in practice, builders may install any package of compliant measures to achieve the performance requirements.
This study references the statewide reach code study performed in 2019 for newly constructed nonresidential buildings as a starting point for additional measure definitions. Importantly, the current 2022 cost-effectiveness report introduced a new restaurant building type and updated the modeling and cost assumptions. 193
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 5 Methodology and Assumptions
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 2 Methodology and Assumptions
The Reach Code Team analyzed four prototypes—Medium Office, Medium Retail, Quick-Service Restaurant, and Small Hotel—using the cost-effectiveness methodology detailed in this section below.
2.1 Cost-effectiveness
This section describes the approach to calculating cost-effectiveness including benefits, costs, metrics, and utility rate selection.
2.1.1 Benefits
This analysis used both On-Bill and time dependent valuation (TDV) of energy-based approaches to evaluate costeffectiveness. Both On-Bill and TDV require estimating and quantifying the energy savings and costs associated with energy measures. The primary difference between On-Bill and TDV is how energy is valued:
On-Bill: Customer-based lifecycle cost approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer On-Bill savings using electricity and natural gas utility rate schedules over a 15-year duration accounting for a three percent discount rate and energy cost inflation per Appendix 8.2. TDV: TDV was developed by the Energy Commission to reflect the time dependent value of energy, including long-term projected costs of energy such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs including projected costs for carbon emissions and grid transmission impacts. This metric values energy uses differently depending on the fuel source (gas, electricity, and propane), time of day, and season. Electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved) during off-peak periods. This refers to the “Total TDV” that includes all the energy end uses such as space-conditioning, mechanical ventilation, service water heating indoor lighting, photovoltaic (PV) and battery storage systems, and covered process loads.
2.1.2 Costs
The Reach Code Team assessed the incremental costs and savings of the energy packages over a 15 year lifecycle.
Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacements, and maintenance costs of the proposed measure relative to the 2022 Title 24 standards minimum requirements or standard industry practices. The Reach Code Team obtained baseline and measure costs from manufacturer distributors, contractors, literature review, and online sources such as RS Means.
For heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) and water heating baseline and measure costs, including gas and electrical infrastructure, the Reach Code Team contracted two different firms, one mechanical contractor (Western Allied Mechanical, based in Menlo Park) and one mechanical designer (P2S Engineering, based in Irvine) to provide cost data. The Reach Code Team developed a basis of design for all prototypes described in section 3.1 and worked with the mechanical contractor and designer to get cost estimates. The Reach Code Team determined HVAC design heating and cooling loads and capacities by climate zone from the energy models. For each HVAC system type, the Reach Code Team requested costs for the smallest capacity unit required and the largest capacity unit required and specified federal minimum equipment efficiency.
The mechanical contractor and mechanical designer collected equipment costs and labor assumptions from their vendors and manufacturers’ representatives, as well as through their own recent projects. The mechanical contractor and designer provided material and labor cost estimates for the entire HVAC and DHW systems, disaggregated by the HVAC and DHW equipment itself; refrigerant piping; structural; electrical supply; gas supply; controls; commissioning and startup; general conditions and overhead; design and engineering; permit, testing, and inspection; and a contractor profit or market factor. The mechanical contractor and designer provided costs for each of the system capacities, based on which the Reach Code Team developed a relationship between HVAC system capacity and cost to calculate the cost for each building in each climate zone. In most cases, the analysis uses the average of the costs provided by 194
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 6 Methodology and Assumptions
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 the contractor and the costs provided by the designer. In some limited cases where costs provided by one source were unlikely to be representative of the measure, costs from only the other source were used. The Reach Code Team added taxes, contractor markups, maintenance costs, and replacement costs where needed, and adjusted material and labor costs for each climate zone based on weighting factors from RS Means (presented in Appendix 8.3).
Actual project costs vary widely based on a range of real-building considerations. The costs that the Reach Code Team determined through contractors are likely costs for the given prototypes and are not representative of all projects.
2.1.3 Metrics
Cost-effectiveness is presented using net present value (NPV) and benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio metrics. NPV: Net savings (NPV benefits minus NPV costs). If the net savings of a measure or package is positive over a lifetime of 15 years, it is considered cost-effective. Negative net savings represent net costs to the consumer.
A measure that has negative energy cost benefits (energy cost increase) can still be cost-effective if the incremental costs to implement the measure (i.e., construction and maintenance cost savings) outweigh the negative energy cost impacts.
B/C Ratio: Ratio of the present value of all benefits to the present value of all costs over 15 years (NPV benefits divided by NPV costs). The criterion for cost-effectiveness is a B/C greater than 1.0. A value of one indicates the savings over the life of the measure are equivalent to the incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment.
Improving the energy performance of a building often requires an initial capital investment, though in some cases an energy measure may be cost neutral or have a lower cost. In most cases the benefit is represented by annual On-Bill utility or TDV savings and the cost by incremental first cost and replacement costs. In cases where both construction costs and energy-related savings are negative, the construction cost savings are treated as the benefit while the increased energy costs are the cost.
In cases where a measure or package is cost-effective immediately (i.e., shows positive upfront construction cost savings and lifetime energy cost savings), B/C ratio cost-effectiveness is represented by “>1”. Because of these situations, NPV savings are also reported, which, in these cases, are positive values.
2.1.4 Utility Rates
In coordination with the IOU and POU rate teams the Reach Code Team determined appropriate utility rates for each CZ and package as of October 2022. The utility tariffs, summarized in Table 1, were determined based on the annual load profile of each prototype and the corresponding package, the most prevalent rate in each utility territory, and information indicating that the rates were unlikely to be phased out during the code cycle.
A time-of-use (TOU) rate was applied to most cases, some POUs may not have TOU rates. In addition to energy consumption charges, there are kW demand charges for monthly peak loads. Utilities calculate the peak load by the highest kW of the 15-minute interval readings in the month. However, the energy modeling software produces results on hourly intervals; hence, the Team calculated the demand charges by multiplying the highest load of all hourly loads in a month with the corresponding demand charge per kW. The utility rates applicable to a prototype may vary by package and CZ especially between a mixed fuel and all-electric package if the monthly peak demand loads exceed the applicable threshold.
The Reach Code Team coordinated with utilities to select tariffs for each prototype given the annual energy demand profile of each specific prototype, climate zone, and measure package and the most prevalent rates in each utility territory. The Reach Code Team did not compare a variety of tariffs to determine their impact on cost-effectiveness.
Utility rate updates can affect cost-effectiveness results. For a more detailed breakdown of the rates selected, refer to Appendix 8.2.
195
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 7 Methodology and Assumptions
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 For packages with PV generation, the approved Net Energy Metering (NEM) 2.0 tariffs were applied along with minimum daily use billing and mandatory non-bypassable charges. For the PV cases, annual electric production was always less than the modeled annual electricity consumption; therefore, no credits for surplus generation were necessary.
The analysis assumes that utility rates escalate over time for commercial buildings, as described in Appendix 8.2.
Escalation rates above inflation for electricity beyond 2023 are assumed to be between 0.2% and 0.7%, before dropping to a steady 0.6% escalation per year in 2030. Natural gas is assumed to escalate at a relatively higher rate, peaking at 7.7% in 2024, then escalating more slowly to a rate of approximately 2% in the latter years of the analysis period.
Table 1. Utility Tariffs Used Based on CZ (October 2022) CZs Electric / Gas Utility Electricity Natural Gas
Investor-Owned Utilities
1-5,11-13,16 Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) B-1 / B-10 G-NR1 6, 8-10, 14,
15 Southern California Edison (SCE) / Southern
California Gas (SCG)
TOU-GS-1 / TOU-GS-2
/TOU-GS-3
G-10 (GN-10)
7, 10, 14 San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E)
AL-TOU + EECC (AL-TOU) GN-3
Publicly Owned Utilities
4 City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) E-2 G-2
12 Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD) CI-TOD 1 (CITS-0 /CITS-1) G-NR1
2.2 Energy Simulations
The Reach Code Team performed energy simulations using California’s Building Energy Code Compliance Software CBECC 2022.1.0 (1250) with ruleset version BEMCmpMgr 2022.1.0 (7361) (California Building Energy Code Compliance 2022).2 This is the first 2022 Title 24 code compliance software approved by Energy Commission for compliance of nonresidential buildings on June 8, 2022. The CBECC software combined the capabilities of CBECCCom and CBECC-Res software into one to model both nonresidential and multifamily building prototypes in one interface.
The Reach Code Team set up parametric simulations using Modelkit software to run thousands of measure packages for each prototype in all California’s CZs. Individual measures were simulated separately and combined into costeffective measure packages for each CZ. Where necessary, the Reach Code Team employed minor ruleset changes, such as load flexibility measures that alter thermostat setpoint schedules, to improve the cost-effectiveness of measure packages. While these measures produce operational savings, they may not be used to achieve code compliance without further software upgrades.
2.3 2022 T24 Compliance Metrics
2022 Title 24 Section 140.1 defines the energy budget of the building based on source energy and TDV energy for space-conditioning, indoor lighting, mechanical ventilation, photovoltaic (PV) and battery storage systems, and service 2 Prior to the CBECC software, the Reach Code Team used CBECC-Com 2022 and CBECC 2022.0.8 Beta to model nonresidential prototypes for the 2022 reach code analysis. The Reach Code Team noted the changes in results due to updates in functionalities and standard design assumptions.
196
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 8 Methodology and Assumptions
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 water heating and covered process loads. CEC has introduced two new compliance metrics in addition to Total Compliance TDV Margin for 2022 code cycle. A building needs to comply with all three compliance metrics below:
Efficiency TDV. Efficiency TDV accounts for all regulated end-uses but does not include the impacts of PV and battery storage.
Total TDV. Total TDV Compliance metric includes regulated end-uses accounting for PV and battery storage contributions.
Source Energy. Source energy is based on fuel used for power generation, assuming utilities meet all Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) goals and other obligations projected over 15-year lifecycle.
2.4 GHG Emissions
The analysis uses the GHG emissions estimates built into CBECC. The GHG emission multipliers were developed by Energy + Environmental Economics (E3) to support development of compliance metrics for use in the 2022 California energy code (E3 2021). There are 8,760 hourly multipliers accounting for time dependent energy use and carbon emissions based on source emissions, including RPS projections. For the 2022 code cycle, the multipliers incorporate GHG from methane and refrigerant leakage, which are two significant sources of GHG emissions (NORESCO 2020).
There are 32 strings of multipliers, with a different string for each California CZ and each fuel type (metric tons of CO2 per kWh for electricity and metric tons of CO2 per therm for natural gas).
2.5 Limitations and Further Considerations
The Team encountered some modeling limitations, outside of the Team’s control that should be noted while using these results to inform reach code policies,
CBECC Software:
• The Reach Code Team coordinated with the CBECC software development team on potential differences in our understanding of 2022 code requirements and its implementation in standard design such as battery controls. The version of 2022 CBECC software v1.0, described in Section 2.2, available to the Reach Code Team at the time of the analysis has limited functionalities and could not model heat pump hydronic system or other measures like drain water heat recovery. As the software evolves, some results may look different.
• The most likely all-electric replacement for a central gas boiler serving a variable air volume reheat system would be a central heat pump boiler; however, this system cannot be modeled in CBECC at the time of the writing of this report. The Reach Code Team is treating this analysis as temporary until a compliance pathway is established for a central heat pump boiler in the Energy Code and results can be updated accordingly.
• The team identified some apparent anomalies in software-reported compliance margins when they became available in June 2022. The Reach Code Team is in the midst of discussing outputs and ramifications with software development team specifically related to ventilation such as fan power and heat recovery, among other modeling methods. Results may change with future software versions. In the interim, the Reach Code Team manually calculated the compliance margins using the mixed fuel baseline model created in this study based on our best understanding. Prototype Building: The cost-effectiveness analysis is based on standard prototypical buildings, which may differ from actual buildings being constructed. Jurisdictions should keep this in mind while extrapolating to the buildings in their territory.
197
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 9 Methodology and Assumptions
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 System Cost Assumptions: The incremental electrification and additional measure costs are based on specific system selection and assumptions made by experienced professionals. These costs can vary based on contractor, system design and specifications, and regional variation.
The Team will re-evaluate packages with central heat pump boiler system in Medium Office and Small Hotel in early 2023. In addition to the packages assessed in the report, there are other future potential enhancements that can be considered for more cost-effective or compliant packages:
Adding more solar PV than already analyzed if the building has more roof space to accommodate. Adding battery at higher levels than prescriptively required in 2022 Title 24 with more advanced controls. Adding energy efficiency measures as software capability evolves such as drain water heat recovery. Applying federally pre-emptive (high) efficiency energy systems or appliances. 198
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 10 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 3 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
This section describes the prototype characteristics and the scope of analysis including measures and their corresponding costs. The Reach Code Team used versions of the following four DOE building prototypes to evaluate cost-effectiveness of measure packages in the occupancy types listed below:
Medium Office
Medium Retail
Quick-Service Restaurant (QSR)
Small Hotel
The Reach Code Team designed the baseline prototypes to be mixed fuel based on 2022 Title 24 Final Express Terms requirements. The Reach Code Team reviewed the 2022 T24 ACM HVAC system map to ensure alignment as applicable for most cases, differences if any are discussed in subsequent sections. The Team built new construction prototypes to have compliance margins as close to zero as possible to reflect a prescriptively compliant new construction building in each CZ. The code compliance is based on the first publicly available CBECC v1.0 compliance software as described in Section 2.2. Misalignments have been reported back to the software team for future software iterations, as described in Section 2.5.
3.1 Prototype Characteristics
The DOE provides building prototype models which, when modified to comply with 2022 Title 24 requirements, can be used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of efficiency measures (U.S. Department of Energy 2022 A). These prototypes have historically been used by the Energy Commission to assess potential code enhancements. The selection of four building types for this analysis is based on the priority suggested by a group of California cities. The cost-effectiveness results of this study could potentially be extrapolated to other building types that have similar properties such as occupancy pattern, HVAC design and layout.
Water heating includes both service hot water (SHW) for office and retail buildings and domestic hot water for hotel guest rooms. In this report, water heating or SHW is used to refer to both. The compliance software assumes a Standard Design, where HVAC and SHW systems are based on the system maps included in 2022 Nonresidential ACM Reference Manual. However, the Reach Code Team applied both 2022 Title 24 prescriptive requirements and 2022 ACM system map for baseline mixed fuel model, HVAC and SHW system characteristics as described below. Medium Office
• The HVAC design is a variable air volume (VAV) reheat system with two gas hot water boilers, three packaged rooftop units (one serving each floor), and VAV terminal units with hot water reheat coils. • The SHW design includes one 8.7 kW electric resistance hot water heater with a 5-gallon storage tank. Medium Retail
• For CZs 2 to 15, the 2022 Title 24 ACM System Map Standard Design informed the baseline model to have three packaged Single Zone Heat Pump (SZHP) systems for the smaller capacity (<240 kBtuh) thermal zones, in alignment with 2022 Title 24 prescriptive code requirements.3 The large (>240 kBtuh) core thermal zone has two smaller (<240 kBtuh) SZHPs with VAV fans instead of one large SZHP, since larger rooftop packaged heat pumps are not available in the market. The 2022 Title24 ACM Standard Design assumes a large SZHP for larger zones as well, however this deviation does not impact the results considerably.3
3 https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2022/2022-nonresidential-and-multifamily-alternative-calculation-method-reference 199
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 11 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 • For CZs 1 and 16, the baseline model assumed all-electric packaged single zone heat pumps similar to CZs 2-15. The assumption deviates from 2022 Title24 ACM System Map that suggests a single zone dual fuel heat pump. Presumably this will not impact results significantly because the dual fuel system will be in heat-pump mode most times.
• The SHW design includes one 8.7 kW electric resistance hot water heater with a 5-gallon storage tank. Quick-Service Restaurant
• HVAC includes two SZAC (VAV or constant volume, depending on capacity) with gas furnace, one for kitchen and another for dining area. An exhaust fan is applied for kitchens in all climates based on prescriptive requirements in 2022 Title 24 code.
• The SHW design includes a gas storage water heater with a 100-gallon storage tank. Small Hotel
• The nonresidential HVAC design is a VAV reheat system with two gas hot water boilers, four packaged rooftop units (one serving each floor), and VAV terminal units with hot water reheat coils. The SHW design includes a small electric resistance water heater with 30-gallon storage tank. • The guest room HVAC design includes one packaged SZAC unit with gas furnace serving each guest room. The water heating design includes a central gas water heater with a 250-gallon storage tank and recirculation pump, serving all guest rooms.
Table 2 summarizes the baseline mixed-fuel prototype characteristics, based on prescriptive 2022 Title 24 new construction requirements.
Table 2. Baseline Prototype Characteristics
Medium Office Medium Retail Quick-Service Restaurant Small Hotel Conditioned floor
area (ft2) 53,628 24,563 2,501
42,554
(77 guest rooms)
(Nonresidential area:
15,282 (36%))
Number of stories 3 1 1 4
Window-to-Wall
Area ratio 0.33 0.07 0.11 0.14
Window Ufactor/SHGC
U-factor:
CZ 1-8, 10, 16 – 0.36
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.34
SHGC:
CZ 1-8, 10, 16 – 0.25
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.22
U-factor:
CZ 1-8, 10, 16 – 0.36
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.34
SHGC:
CZ 1-8, 10, 16 – 0.25
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.22
U-factor:
CZ 1-8, 10, 16 – 0.36
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.34
SHGC:
CZ 1-8, 10, 16 – 0.25
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.22
Nonresidential:
U-factor:
CZ 1-8,10,16 – 0.36
CZ 9, 11-15 –0.34
SHGC:
CZ 1-8,10,16 – 0.25
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.22
Guest Rooms:
U-factor: 0.36
SHGC: 0.25
Solar PV size 123 kW – 204 kW
Depending on CZ
64 kW – 87 kW
Depending on CZ None 17 kW – 25 kWDepending on CZ
Battery Storage 217 kWh – 360 kWh
Depending on CZ
70 kWh – 94 kWh
Depending on CZ None 16 kWh – 24 kWhDepending on CZ
200
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 12 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Medium Office Medium Retail Quick-Service Restaurant Small Hotel HVAC System
VAV reheat system with
packaged rooftop units,
gas boilers, VAV terminal
units with hot water
reheat
CZ 1
Heat recovery for Core
Retail space only
< 65 kBtu/h: SZHP
> 65 kBtu/h and < 240
kBtu/h: SZHP VAV
> 240 kBtu/h: SZHP VAV
< 65 kBtu/h:
SZAC + gas furnace
> 65 kBtu/h:
SZAC VAV
Nonresidential and Laundry:
VAV reheat system with
packaged rooftop units, gas
boilers, VAV terminal units with
hot water reheat
Guest Rooms: SZAC with gas
furnaces
SHW System 5-gallon electric resistance
water heater
5-gallon electric resistance
water heater
100-gallon gas water
heater
Nonresidential: 30-gallon
electric resistance water heater
Laundry Room: 120-gal gas
storage water heater
Guest rooms: Central gas water
heater, 250 gallons storage,
recirculation loop
3.2 Measure Definitions and Costs
The measures evaluated in the analysis fall into four different categories:
Fuel Substitution
Heat pump or electric
space heating or gas
furnace
Heat pump or electric
water heaters
Electric cooking
Electric clothes dryer
Electrical panel capacity
Natural gas infrastructure
Energy Efficiency
Envelope
Mechanical equipment
(HVAC and SHW)
Lighting
Load Flexibility
Peak Load
shedding
Load shift
Additional solar PV
and/or battery
storage.
These measures are detailed further in this section.
3.2.1 Fuel Substitution
The Reach Code Team investigated the cost and performance impacts and associated infrastructure costs associated with changing the mixed-fuel baseline HVAC and water heating systems to all-electric equipment for all prototypes except Medium Retail where the baseline is already an all-electric design.
For Medium Office, Quick Service Restaurant and Small Hotel, the fuel substitution measure entails electrification including heat pump space heating, electric resistance re-heat coils, electric water heaters with storage tank, heat pump water heating, increasing electrical capacity, and eliminating natural gas connections that would have been present in mixed-fuel new construction.
201
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 13 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 For Medium Retail with all-electric baseline, the fuel substitution measure entails mixed-fuel space conditioning system including single zone packaged AC with gas furnace, dual fuel heat pump, adding gas infrastructure costs and eliminating any additional electric infrastructure.
3.2.1.1 HVAC and Water Heating
The 2022 T24 nonresidential standards analysis uses a mixed-fuel baseline for most of the Standard Design mechanical equipment, primarily gas for space heating, except for some heat pump scenarios in Retail prototype (see Table 2). Quick-Service Restaurant has a gas storage water heater in baseline, and heat pump water heater in allelectric scenario. The Small Hotel has a central gas water heating system serving the guest rooms and a separate gas storage water heater for laundry room. In the all-electric scenario, gas equipment serving HVAC and water heating end-uses is replaced with electric equipment. Full details of HVAC and water heating systems in baseline and proposed fuel substitution measure package are described in Table 3.
Regions of California covered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District have emissions restrictions imposed on mechanical equipment. The Reach Code Team investigated the potential cost implications of meeting these requirements for gas furnaces and boilers but found that costs are minimal for mechanical systems under 2,000,000 Btu/h, and therefore did not include them. All gas-fired mechanical systems in this study are under 2,000,000 Btu/h and are subject to only an initial permitting fee, while larger systems require additional permitting costs and annual renewals.
202
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 14 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Table 3. HVAC and Water Heating Characteristics Summary Medium Office Medium Retail Quick-Service
Restaurant
Small Hotel
HVAC
Baseline
Packaged DX +
VAV with hot
water reheat.
Central gas
boilers.
All zones and CZs: Single
zone packaged heat
pumps
Packaged SZAC +
gas furnace
Nonresidential: Packaged DX
+ VAV with hot water
reheat. Central gas boilers.
Guest Rooms: Packaged
SZAC +
gas furnaces
Proposed – Fuel
Substitution
Packaged DX +
VAV with electric
resistance reheat.
Core zone (>30 ton):
Packaged SZAC + VAV +
gas furnace
Other small zones: SZHP,
or dual fuel heat pump
for CZ 1 and 16
Single zone packaged
heat pumps
Nonresidential: Packaged DX
+ VAV with electric
resistance reheat
Guest Rooms: SZHPs
SHW
Baseline
Electric resistance
with storage
Electric resistance with
storage
Gas storage water
heater
Nonresidential: Electric
resistance storage
Guest Rooms: Central gas
storage with recirculation
Proposed – Fuel
Substitution
Unitary heat pump
water heater
Nonresidential: Electric
resistance storage
Guest Rooms: Central heat
pump water heater with
recirculation
The Reach Code Team received cost data for mechanical equipment from two experienced mechanical design firms including equipment and material, labor, subcontractors (for example, HVAC and SHW control systems), and contractor overhead.
3.2.1.1.1 Medium Office
For the Medium Office all-electric HVAC design, the Reach Code Team investigated several potential all-electric design options, including variable refrigerant flow, packaged heat pumps, and variable volume and temperature systems. The most likely all-electric replacement for a central gas boiler serving a variable air volume reheat system would be a central heat pump boiler; however, this system cannot be modeled in CBECC at the time of writing of this report. As such, Reach Code Team is treating this analysis as temporary until a compliance pathway is established for a central heat pump boiler in the Energy Code and results can be updated accordingly. This modeling capability is anticipated by Q1 2023 according to discussions with the CBECC software development team, and the costeffectiveness analysis should become available in the first half of 2023.
After seeking feedback from the design community and considering the software modeling constraints, the Reach Code Team determined that the most feasible all-electric HVAC system is a VAV system with an electric resistance reheat instead of hot water reheat coil. A parallel fan-powered box (PFPB) implementation of electric resistance reheat 203
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 15 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 would further improve efficiency due to reducing ventilation requirements, but an accurate implementation of PFPBs is not currently available in compliance software.
The actual gas consumption for the VAV hot water reheat baseline may be higher than the current simulation results due to a combination of boiler and hot water distribution losses. A recent research study shows that the total losses can account for as high as 80 percent of the boiler energy use.4 If these losses are considered savings for the electric resistance reheat (which has zero associated distribution loss), cost-effectiveness may be higher than presented.
The all-electric SHW system remains the same electric resistance water heater as the baseline and has no associated incremental costs. Cost data for Medium Office designs are presented in Table 4. The all-electric HVAC system presents cost savings compared to the hot water reheat system from elimination of the hot water boiler and associated hot water piping distribution. CZ10 and CZ15 all-electric design costs are slightly higher because they require larger size rooftop heat pumps than the other CZs.
Table 4. Medium Office Average Mechanical System Costs
Components (HVAC Only)
Baseline – Mixed Fuel Proposed – All-electric Incremental Cost Description
Packaged units, boilers,
hot water piping, VAV
boxes, ductwork, grilles
Packaged units, electric
resistance VAV boxes,
electric circuitry,
ductwork, grilles
VAV Boxes, electric
infrastructure
Material $491,630 $438,555 $(53,075)
Labor $173,816 $102,120 $(71,696)
Electric Infrastructure $0 $112,340 $112,340
Gas Infrastructure $17,895 $0 $(17,895)
Overhead & CZ adjustment ** $267,052 $250,114 $(16,938) TOTAL $950,393 $903,129 $(47,264)
** The overhead and CZ adjustment factors are presented in Section 8.3.
3.2.1.1.2 Medium Retail
The baseline HVAC system includes five packaged single zone heat pumps. Based on fan control requirements in Section 140.4(m), units with cooling capacity ≥ 65,000 Btu/h have variable air volume fans, while smaller units have constant volume fans. For the Medium Retail proposed fuel substitution scenario, the Reach Code Team assumed one large Single Zone Packaged ACs with gas furnaces to replace the two smaller packaged heat pumps in the large core thermal zone. The all-electric SHW system remains the same electric resistance water heater as the baseline and has no associated incremental costs. In addition, according to the prescriptive requirement in Section 140.4 (q), the air system of Core Retail Zone in CZ1 meets the requirement in Table 140.4 J, which should include exhaust air heat recovery. Cost data for Medium Retail designs are presented in Table 5. Costs for rooftop air-conditioning systems are very similar to rooftop heat pump systems.
4 Raftery, P., A. Geronazzo, H. Cheng, and G. Paliaga. 2018. Quantifying energy losses in hot water reheat systems. Energy and Buildings, 179: 183-199. November. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.09.020. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3qs8f8qx
204
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 16 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 For climate zones 2 to 15, the proposed fuel substitution HVAC design includes three SZHP units (VAV or constant volume, depending on capacity) based on prescriptive requirements and one large SZAC that is between 35-45 tons for the core zone.
For climate zones 1 and 16, the smaller capacity (<240 kBtuh) thermal zones may have either of dual-fuel SZHPs or SZACs, depending on capacity. The core zone with 35-to-45-ton cooling capacity is assumed to have one large SZAC.
CZ 1 also assumes an exhaust air heat recovery system for core zone based on prescriptive requirement in Title 24 Part 6 Section 140.4.
Table 5. Medium Retail Average Mechanical System Costs
Components (HVAC
Only)
Baseline – All-electric Proposed – Mixed Fuel Incremental Cost Description SZHPs
Single zone AC +
furnace, SZHP, or dual
fuel SZHP, depending
upon capacity and CZ
SZAC with gas furnace,
Added gas
infrastructure cost
HVAC – Material $189,160 $183,157 $(6,003)
HVAC – Labor $54,785 $52,886 $(1,899)
Electric Infrastructure $0 $0 -
Gas Infrastructure $0 $17,895 $17,895
Overhead & CZ
adjustment **
$94,600 $98,519 $3,919
TOTAL $338,546 $352,458 $13,912
** The overhead and CZ adjustment factors are presented in Section 8.3.
3.2.1.1.3 Quick-Service Restaurant
The baseline HVAC system includes two packaged single zone rooftop ACs with gas furnaces. Based on fan control requirements in Section 140.4(m), units with cooling capacity ≥ 65,000 Btu/h have variable air volume fans, while smaller units have constant volume fans. The SHW design includes one central gas storage water heater with 150 kBtu/h input capacity and a 100-gallon storage tank. For the QSR all-electric design, the Reach Code Team assumed packaged heat pumps and an A.O. Smith CHP-120 heat pump water heater with a 120-gallon storage tank. Cost data for the QSR designs are presented in Table 6, which shows the costs for full electrification of the HVAC and water heating equipment.
The Team has not included costs of electrifying the cooking equipment because of the negative impact on costeffectiveness, as demonstrated in a 2021 Restaurants cost-effectiveness study (TRC, P2S Engineers, and Western Allied Mechanical 2022). The HVAC and SHW electrification packages are referred to as the HS package to reflect allelectric HVAC and SHW.
Table 6. Quick-Service Restaurant Average Mechanical System Costs - HS Package Components
Baseline – Mixed Fuel Proposed – All-electric Incremental Cost Description Single zone AC + furnace, gas
storage water heater
SZHP, heat pump water
heater
HVAC +SHW
electrification
HVAC Material $50,065 $52,785 $2,719
HVAC Labor $6,748 $6,249 $(499)
SHW – Material $10,198 $13,720 $3,523
SHW – Labor $2,650 $2,529 $(121)
Electric Infrastructure $0 $12,960 $12,960
205
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 17 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Gas Infrastructure $17,895 $15,878 -$2,017
Overhead & CZ adjustment ** $41,633 $47,612 $5,979
TOTAL $150,838 $173,382 $22,544
** The overhead and CZ adjustment factors are presented in Section 8.3.
3.2.1.1.4 Small Hotel
The Small Hotel has two different baseline equipment systems, one for the nonresidential spaces and one for the guest rooms. The nonresidential HVAC system includes two gas hot water boilers, four packaged rooftop units, and twentyeight VAV terminal boxes with hot water reheat coil. The SHW design includes a small electric water heater with storage tank for nonresidential areas and gas storage water heater dedicated to laundry room. The guest rooms HVAC design includes one single-zone AC unit with gas furnace for each guest room, and the water heating design includes one central gas storage water heater with a recirculation pump for all guest rooms.
For the Small Hotel all-electric design, the Reach Code Team assumed the nonresidential HVAC system to be packaged heat pumps with electric resistance VAV terminal units, and the SHW system will remain a small electric resistance water heater. As described in Section 3.2.1.1.1 above, a central heat pump boiler may be the most commonly employed system type but was not evaluated in this study because of modeling limitations. For the guest room all-electric HVAC system, the Team assumed SZHPs and a central heat pump water heater serving all guest rooms. For the laundry room, all-electric HVAC system is same as other nonresidential areas and all-electric water heating is a split heat pump water heater. The central heat pump water heater includes a temperature maintenance loop with an electric resistance backup heater.
Cost data for Small Hotel designs are presented in Table 7. The all-electric design presents substantial cost savings because there is no hot water plant or piping distribution system serving the nonresidential spaces. The incremental cost savings are further enhanced considerably if packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs) are used instead of SZHPs in guest rooms compared to split DX/furnace systems with individual flues. 206
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 18 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Table 7. Small Hotel HVAC and Water Heating System Costs Components
Baseline – Mixed Fuel Proposed – All-electric Incremental Cost Description
Non-residential spaces: Packaged
units, boilers, hot water piping,
VAV boxes, ductwork, grilles, gas
water heater for laundry
Guest rooms: SZAC + furnace,
central gas water heater
Non-residential spaces:
Packaged units, electric
resistance VAV boxes, electric
circuitry, ductwork, grilles, heat
pump water heater for laundry
Guest rooms: SZHP, central
heat pump water heater
HVAC (NR and Guest Rooms)
Electrification
SHW (Laundry Room and
Guest Rooms)
HVAC - Material $802,004 $625,642 $(176,361)
HVAC - Labor $366,733 $282,394 $(84,339)
SHW - Material $55,829 $139,087 $83,258
SHW - Labor $11,780 $15,080 $3,300
Electric
Infrastructure
$- $119,625 $119,625
Gas Infrastructure $74,943 $- $(74,943)
Overhead & CZ
adjustment **
$518,741 $461,001 $(57,739)
TOTAL $1,830,029 $1,642,830 $(187,199)
TOTAL
HVAC (PTHP option) $1,830,029 $1,161,178 ($668,851)
** The overhead and CZ adjustment factors are presented in 8.3.
3.2.1.2 Commercial Cooking Equipment
For Quick-Service Restaurant prototype, the Reach Code Team evaluated electrification of commercial cooking equipment extensively in 2019 Restaurants Cost Effectiveness analysis and leveraged it for cost and other specifications for the this study. It assumes a Type I exhaust hood and shows high incremental cost affecting the costeffectiveness of this measure. Table 8 summarizes the quick-service restaurant cooking equipment costs for both mixed-fuel and all-electric scenarios.
Table 8. Quick-Service Restaurant Cooking Equipment Costs Components
Baseline – Mixed Fuel Proposed – All-electric (non
“HS” scenario) Incremental Cost
Description Gas based appliances Electric cooking appliance Cooking appliance electrification
Cooking equipment
cost
$21,649 $43,534 $21,886
TOTAL $21,649 $43,534 $21,886
This measure also adds electric infrastructure cost as detailed in Table 10 below.
3.2.1.3 Commercial Clothes Dryer
For the all-electric measure, the Reach Code Team assumed electric resistance clothes dryers for Small Hotel prototype. Commercial-scale heat pump clothes dryers take significantly longer time to dry compared to a conventional 207
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 19 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 gas or electric dryer and are not common in the United States On-Premise Laundry (OPL) market, where labor is relatively expensive and use of heat pump dryers implies hotels may need to require more than one shift to perform laundry duties. Most commercial clothes dryers are available in models that use either gas or electricity as the fuel source, so there is negligible incremental cost for electric resistance dryers. Table 9 summarizes the Small Hotel construction costs for both mixed-fuel and all-electric OPL scenarios.
Table 9. Small Hotel Clothes Dryer Costs
Components
Baseline – Mixed Fuel Proposed – All-electric Incremental Cost Description Gas clothes dryer Electric resistance clothes dryer -
Clothes Dryer cost $29,342 $29,342 $0
TOTAL $29,342 $29,342 $(0)
This measure also adds electric infrastructure cost as detailed in Table 10 below.
3.2.1.4 Infrastructure Impacts
3.2.1.4.1 Electrical infrastructure
Electric heating appliances and equipment often require a larger electrical connection than an equivalent gas appliance because of the higher voltage and amperage necessary to electrically generate heat. Thus, many buildings may require larger electrical capacity than a comparable building with natural gas appliances. This includes:
Electric resistance VAV space heating in the medium office and common area spaces of the small hotel. Heat pump water heating for the guest room spaces of the small hotel.
Table 10 details the cost impact of additional electrical panel sizing and wiring required for all-electric scenarios as compared to their corresponding mixed-fuel scenario The costs are based on estimates from one contractor. The Reach Code Team excluded costs associated with electrical service connection upgrades because these costs are very often rate-based and highly complex.
208
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 20 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Table 10. Electrical Infrastructure Costs
Mixed-Fuel Equipment All-electric Equipment Electrical Infrastructure Impact
Incremental
Cost
Medium
Office
Hot water reheat system
with gas boiler plant and
VAV boxes with hot water
reheat coils
VAV boxes with electric
resistance reheat coils
Upgraded transformers,
transformer feeders,
switchboards, and branch
circuits
$ 112,340
Medium
Retail
Mix of SZHPs and single zone
AC plus furnace serving all
zones
SZHPs serving all zones Electrical requirements are
driven by cooling capacity,
so no impact.
$0
Quick-Service
Restaurant
Gas water heater Heat pump water heater Upgraded switchboard, transformer feeder, and
branch circuits
$12,960
Gas Water heater, Gas
cooking
Heat pump water heater,
Electric cooking
Upgraded switchboard,
transformer feeder, and
branch circuits
$95,260
Small Hotel Guest rooms HVAC: Single
zone AC plus furnace
Non-residential spaces
HVAC: Hot water reheat
system with gas boiler plant
and VAV boxes with hot
water reheat coils.
Water heating: Gas water
heating serving both laundry
and guest rooms.
Process: Gas dryers.
Guest rooms HVAC: SZHPs
Non-residential spaces
HVAC: VAV boxes with
electric resistance reheat
coils.
Water heating: Heat pump
water heating serving both
laundry and guest rooms.
Process: Electric resistance
dryers.
Upgraded transformers,
transformer feeders,
switchboards, and branch
circuits
$119,625
3.2.1.4.2 Gas Piping
The Reach Code Team assumes that gas would not be supplied to the site in an all-electric new construction scenario.
Eliminating natural gas in new construction would save costs associated with connecting a service line from the street main to the building, piping distribution within the building, and monthly connection charges by the utility.
The Reach Code Team determined that for a new construction building with natural gas piping, there is a service line (branch connection) from the natural gas main to the building meter. Table 11 gives a summary of the gas infrastructure costs by component, assuming 1-inch corrugated stainless-steel tubing (CSST) material is used for the plumbing distribution. The Reach Code Team assumes that the gas meter costs vary depending on the gas load.
Based on typical space heating loads for all building types, the Reach Code Team categorized CZs 1 and 16 as ‘Highload CZs’ and CZs 2-15 as ‘Low-load CZs’. The Reach Code Team assumed an interior plumbing distribution length based on the expected layout. Table 12 gives the total gas infrastructure cost by building type. The costs are based on estimates from one contractor.
209
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 21 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Table 11. Gas Infrastructure Costs by Component
Component Details Cost
Meter, including Pressure
Regulator, and Earthquake Valve
Low load CZ (CZ 2-15) $11,056
High load CZ (CZ 1,16) $15,756
Gas lateral Cost per linear foot of 1" CSST $40
Connection charges Includes street cut and plan review $1,015 Interior plumbing distribution Cost per linear foot of 1" CSST $40 Table 12. Total Gas Infrastructure Cost Estimates by Building Type Total gas infrastructure cost
Building Prototype Interior plumbing distribution length (ft) Low load CZ High load CZ Medium Office 100 $17,307 $22,007
Medium Retail 100 $17,307 $22,007
Quick-Service Restaurant 100 $2,017*
Small Hotel 1,412 $70,243 $74,943
*The Quick-Service Restaurant package includes gas cooking appliances, which will require a gas lateral and meter. These costs represent only the interior plumbing distribution costs that would have served the HVAC and SHW systems.
3.2.2 Efficiency
The Reach Code Team started with a potential list of energy efficiency measures proposed for the 2025 Title 24 energy code update by the Statewide Building Codes Advocacy program (CASE Team)5, which initially included over 500 options. Other options originated in previous energy code cycles or were drawn from other codes or standards (examples: ASHRAE 90.1 and International Energy Conservation Code [IECC]), literature reviews, or expert recommendations. The Reach Code Team leveraged the CASE Team's assessment tools for the 2025 Cycle, focusing on measures prioritized by the CASE Team. The Reach Code Team filtered the list of potential measures based on building type (to remove measures that applied to building types not covered in this study), measure category (to remove end-uses and loads that are not relevant to the prototypes) and impacts to new construction. Based on this filtering, the Team was left with around 100 measures to consider. The Reach Code Team ranked this list of potential measures based on applicability to the prototypes in this study, ability to model in simulation software, demonstrated energy savings potential, and market readiness.
Please note that the measures requiring a ruleset update cannot currently be modeled for compliance purposes. The modeling method for each efficiency measure is defined in their respective measure descriptions in Section 3.2.2.1 and if the ruleset amendment was applied. Please refer to Section 2.5 for further details.
The subsections below describe the energy efficiency measures that the Team analyzed, including description, modeling approach, and specification.
3.2.2.1 Envelope
1. Cool Roof: Requires higher reflectance and emittance values for the Medium Office building only. This measure was not shown to produce substantial savings in the other prototypes. 5 https://title24stakeholders.com/
210
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 22 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Modeling: Modeled cool roof measure in efficiency measures package by updating Aged Solar Reflectance (ASR) and/or Thermal Emittance (TE) in CBECC software.
Specification: Increased ASR from 0.63 to 0.70 with a TE of 0.85 in CZs 4 and 6-15.
2. Efficient Vertical Fenestration: Requires lower U-factor and Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) for windows in select climate zones for three building types (Medium Office, Retail, and Small Hotel). The measure details and the climate zone selection are based on the proposition of 2022 NR CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team 2020 B).
Modeling: Modeled high performance windows in efficiency measures package by updating U-factor and SHGC inputs in CBECC software.
Specification: Reduced U-factor from 0.36 to 0.34 and SHGC from 0.25 to 0.22 in CZs 2, 6, 7 and 8 for Medium Office and Retail, Reduced U-factor from 0.36 to 0.34 and SHGC from 0.25 to 0.22 in all CZs for Small Hotel.
3. Vertical Fenestration as a Function of Orientation: Limit the amount of fenestration area as a function of orientation for the Medium Office. East-facing and west-facing windows are each limited to one-half of the average amount of north-facing and south-facing windows.
Modeling: Change z-coordinate input of windows in CBECC software for Medium Office to increase or decrease fenestration area for the Medium Office.
Specification: Decreased east-facing and west-facing fenestration area from 468 to 390 square feet.
Increased north-facing and south-facing fenestration area from 703 to 781 square feet.
3.2.2.2 Mechanical Equipment (SHW and HVAC)
4. Water Efficient Fixtures in Kitchen: Specifies commercial dishwashers that use 20% less water than ENERGY STAR® specifications. In addition, the dishwasher includes heat recovery function such that it only needs connection to cold water and reduces hot water demand and central SHW system capacity. For QSRs, which typically specify a three-compartment sink for dishwashing, this measure would replace or add a dishwasher to reduce total hot water load. The measure also adds 1.0 gallon per minute (GPM) faucet aerators to hand-washing sinks in the kitchen to reduce water usage. Title 20 requires kitchen sinks to have a flow rate of 1.8 GPM at most. The reduced hot water load from the water efficient fixtures above allows the heat pump water heater (HPWH) to operate without an electric resistance back-up.
Modeling: Reduced water usage in the ruleset based on calculations of expected water usage from literature review and fixture specifications. HPWH coefficient of performance (COP) is increased since there is no electric resistance back-up.
Specification: Decreased hot water usage by 26% in the software ruleset (13.4 gallons per person to 9.9 gallons per person) and increased HPWH COP from 3.1 to 4.2.
5. Ozone Washing Machines: Adds an ozone system to the large on-premises washing machines. The ozone laundry system generates ozone, which helps clean fabrics by chemically reacting with soils in cold water. This measure saves energy by reducing hot water usage and by reducing cycle time for laundry systems. Refer to DEER Deemed measure SWAP005-01 for more information (California Public Utilites Commission 2022).
Modeling: Reduced the total runtime of each cycle and hot water hourly usage per person (gallons per hour per person) for laundry area in software ruleset.
Specification: Reduced hot water usage by 85%, from 48.4 to 7.3 gal/hour-person based on the deemed measure data from the California electronic Technical Reference Manual (California Technical Forum 2022).
211
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 23 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16
6. Efficient Hot Water Distribution: Reduces domestic hot water (DHW) distribution system pipe heat losses in two ways. First, the Team used pipe sizing requirements in Appendix M of the California Plumbing Code instead of Appendix A. Appendix M reduces pipe diameters for the cold and hot water supply lines based on advancements made in water efficiency standards for plumbing fixtures found in hotel bathrooms. Second, the Team added more stringent pipe insulation thickness requirements for hotels to match that of single and multifamily dwellings using Title 24 Table 160.4-A Pipe Insulation Thickness Requirements for Multifamily DHW Systems instead of Table 120.3-A.
Modeling: The Team calculated the pipe heat loss savings for the Small Hotel prototype by following the modelling methodology applied to the low-rise loaded corridor multi-family building prototype in the 2022 CASE Multifamily Domestic Hot Water Distribution report (Statewide CASE Team 2020 A). The Team designed a riser distribution system for the Small Hotel prototype building using the baseline Appendix A and modern Appendix M pipe sizing tables. The pipe design and total pipe surface area of the supply and return lines for the Small Hotel closely matched the Low-Rise Loader Corridor Building prototype. The hotel insulated pipe heat loss for both Appendix A and M was approximated from the multifamily building heat loss modelling results for the 16 CZs and water heater energy savings calculated for the two sub-measures.
Specification: (a) Pipe diameter decreased from Appendix A requirements to Appendix M multifamily plumbing requirements (b) For pipe diameters at or above 1.5 inches, increase the insulation thickness from 1.5 to two inches thick for fluids operating in the 105-140⁰F temperature range. . The Team reduced the DHW energy consumption by 0.4 – 0.7% depending on CZ in a postprocessing of the model.
7. Demand Control Ventilation (DCV) and Transfer Air: The California Energy Code requires kitchen exhaust to have DCV if the exhaust rate is greater than 5,000 cfm. This measure expands this requirement and applies DCV regardless of the exhaust rate for the QSR. Additionally, the kitchen makeup air supply is decreased by requiring at least 15% of replacement air to come from the transfer air in the dining space that would otherwise be exhausted.
Modeling: Changed exhaust fan from constant speed fan to variable speed and reduce kitchen ventilation airflow rate for the QSR.
Specification: Changed Kitchen Exhaust Fan Control Method to Variable Flow Variable Speed Drive, reduced kitchen ventilation from 2,730 cfm to 2,293 cfm.
8. Guest Room Ventilation and Fan Power: Uses the 2021 IECC fan power limitation requirements for ventilation fans under 1/12 horsepower, and approximates the ASHRAE 90.1 Small Hotel guestroom control requirements , which require shutting off ventilation within five minutes of all occupants leaving the room and changing the cooling setpoint to at least 80⁰F and heating setpoint to at most 60⁰F.
Modeling: Since variable occupancy cannot be modeled in CBECC, the Reach Code Team revised the software ruleset ventilation schedule and setpoints from 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM—the time range where the CBECC software assumed occupancy to be less than half for all guestrooms.
Specification: Heating setpoint reduced from 68°F to 66°F, cooling setpoint increased from 78°F to 80°F PM, and ventilation shut off from 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Guestroom ventilation fans have fan efficacy of 0.263 W/cfm.
9. Variable speed Fans: Require variable speed fans at lower capacities than required by Title 24 Part 6 Section 140.4(m), currently at 65,000 Btu/hr. This measure is based on the 2022 Title 24 Part 6, Section 140.4(m), 212
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 24 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 where direct expansion units greater than 65,000 Btu/hr that control the capacity of the mechanical cooling directly shall have a minimum of two stages of mechanical cooling capacity and variable speed fan control.
Modeling: Reduced the cooling capacity threshold from 65,000 Btu/hr to 48,000 Btu/hr. Changed the supply fan control from constant speed to variable speed for zones that have cooling capacity > 48,000 Btu/hr and < 65,000 Btu/hr in the Medium Retail and QSR.
Specification: Changed the supply fan control from Constant Volume to Variable Speed Drive for the Front Retail and Point-of-Sale thermal zones in Medium Retail prototype and the Dining Zone in the QSR prototype.
3.2.2.3 Lighting
10. Interior lighting reduced lighting power density: Update lighting power densities (LPD, measured as Watts/ft2) requirements based on technology advances (e.g., optical efficiency, thermal management, and improved bandgap materials). Identify spaces with opportunities for more savings from lowered LPDs—not all spaces are subject to LPD reductions. Take into consideration IES recommended practices and biological effectiveness metrics (such as WELL) when developing the proposed LPD values (WELL 2022).
The 2022 Indoor Lighting CASE Study (Statewide CASE Team 2021 D) provided a survey of 2x2 troffer products available in the Design Lights Consortium Qualified Products List (DLC-QPL) and the efficacy level each measured. This study indicated that at the time of the report approximately 20% of available DLC-QPL products exceeded the performance level of the ‘Standard’ DLC-QPL listing by approximately 15%, meeting the ‘Premium’ listing criteria. The Title 24 2022 CASE Report uses the ‘Standard’ designation performance level as the design baseline for all the LPD calculations in the code. This document proposes using the ‘Premium’ designation performance as the basis of the LPD allowances.
A DOE study on solid-state light sources (LEDs) provides projections of efficacy improvement for LED light sources that are in the range of 2.5 to 3% per year, continuing for the next five or ten years (U.S. Department of Energy 2019 B). So, the products offered for sale by the luminaire manufacturers are improving as older products are discontinued and newer ones are introduced. Even in just three years, the overall performance of the products available can improve by 7 to 9%.
A recent Navigant LED pricing study shows a slightly negative cost to efficacy correlation, indicating that higher performing products may be slightly lower in cost (Navigant Consulting 2018). This is likely to be in part caused by the decreasing cost of the LED chips with each subsequent generation produced. There is likely to be no cost associated with employing higher performing LED luminaires.
Modeling: Reduce LPDs by approximately 13% in each space listed below under regulated lighting below Title 24 prescriptive requirements.
Specification: Medium Office
• All spaces: 0.52 W/ft2
Medium Retail
• Storage: 0.36 W/ft2
• Retail sales: 0.86 W/ft2
• Main entry lobby: 0.63 W/ft2
QSR
• Dining: 0.41 W/ft2
• Kitchen: 0.86 W/ft2
Small Hotel
213
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction Buildings 25 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Stairs: 0.54 W/ft2
Corridor: 0.36 W/ft2
Lounge: 0.50 W/ft2
The measures are summarized below by building type, including measure costs, in Table 13. 214
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 26 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Table 13. Efficiency Measures Applicability, Costs, and Sources Measure Applicability
• Included in packages with energy efficiency measures
- Not Applicable
Measure
Baseline T24
Requirement Proposed Measure
Med
Office
Med
Retail
QuickService
Restaurant
Small
Hotel:
Guest
Rooms
Small Hotel:
Nonresidential
Incremental
Cost Sources & Notes
Envelope
1. Cool Roof For low slope roofs:
ASR = 0.63
TE = 0.75
For low slope roofs:
ASR = 0.7
TE = 0.85 ● ─ ─ ─ ─ $0.04/ft2
Final Nonresidential High
Performance Envelope Case
Report (Statewide CASE Team
2020 B)
2. Efficient
Vertical
Fenestration
U-factor = 0.36
SHGC = 0.25
U-factor = 0.34
SHGC = 0.22 ● ● ─ ● ● $1.75/ft2
Final Nonresidential High
Performance Envelope Case
Report (Statewide CASE Team
2020 B)
3. Vertical
Fenestration
as a Function
of Orientation
40% window-to-wall
ratio in each
orientation per Title
24 Table 140.3-B.
Redistribute window
areas by orientation ● ─ ─ ─ ─ $0
No additional cost. This
measure is a design
consideration.
HVAC and SHW
4. Water
Efficient
Fixtures in
Kitchen
Kitchen faucet max
flow rate is 1.8 GPM
(Title 20)
Kitchen faucet flow
rate is 1 GPM
─ ─ ● ─ ─
High efficiency,
door-type, high
temperature
dishwasher:
$7,633/unit
Faucet aerator:
$8/unit
Combination of literature
review, online sources such as
Home Depot and
manufacturer websites
5.Ozone
Washing
Machine
Not required Reduced hot water
use ─ ─ ─ ─ ● $25,469/unit
DEER Deemed measure
SWAP005-01 (California
Public Utilites Commission
2022)
215
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 27 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Measure Applicability
• Included in packages with energy efficiency measures
- Not Applicable
Measure
Baseline T24
Requirement Proposed Measure
Med
Office
Med
Retail
QuickService
Restaurant
Small
Hotel:
Guest
Rooms
Small Hotel:
Nonresidential
Incremental
Cost Sources & Notes
6. Efficient Hot
Water
Distribution
Appendix A Pipe
Sizing with standard
pipe insulation
thickness 1.5’’
Appendix M pipe
sizing with 2” pipe
insulation thickness ─ ─ ─ ● ─ $5,819
Multifamily Domestic Hot
Water Final CASE Report
7. DCV &
Transfer Air
DCV required in
kitchen for exhaust
air rate > 5000 cfm
DCV for all exhaust
fans ─ ─ ● ─ ─ $8,500
Mechanical contractor cost
estimate
8. Guest Room
Ventilation,
Temperature
Setback, and
Fan Power
Guest rooms
required to have
occupancy sensing
zone controls, but
no ventilation fan
power requirement.
Updated fan power
and HVAC schedules
─ ─ ─ ● ─ $0
No cost increase, as guest
rooms already have controls.
9. Variable
Speed Fans
Variable speed
required if cooling
capacity is greater
than 65,000 Btu/h
Variable speed
control for smaller
capacity systems ─ ● ● ─ ─ $6,390/unit
Mechanical contractor cost
estimate
Lighting
10. Interior
Lighting
Reduced LPD
Per Area Category
Method, varies by
Primary Function
Area.
Top 20% of market
products ● ● ● ─ ● $0
Industry report on LED pricing
analysis shows that costs are
not correlated with efficacy.
(Navigant Consulting 2018)
216
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 28 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16
3.2.3 Load Flexibility
The Reach Code Team investigated a range of high-impact demand flexibility strategies potentially applicable to the four prototypes. The list of strategies is informed by DOE’s Grid-interactive Efficient Buildings efforts and the 2022 Nonresidential Grid Integration CASE report (U.S. Department of Energy 2021, Statewide CASE Team 2020). The Team selected the three measures based on their load flexibility potential, cost, compliance software modeling capabilities, savings potential and the ease of project implementation and field verification:
Please note that these measures require a ruleset update and cannot be modeled currently for compliance purposes.
11. Temperature Setback using Smart Thermostat: This measure leverages the existing mandatory requirement for HVAC zone thermostatic controls to pre-condition spaces prior to, and to shed demand during, peak period. This measure introduces a setback in temperature setpoint during peak period and incurs no additional cost because Occupant-Controlled Smart Thermostats (OCSTs) are already required for buildings similar to the Medium Office prototype.
Modeling: Instead of utilizing the demand responsive features, OCST would be used to change temperature setpoints and setpoint schedules. These changes were integrated by altering the setpoint schedules directly in the backend ruleset files of CBECC software.
Specification: In the base case, the Medium Office prototype HVAC equipment schedules dictate "on" hours (at desired temperature) from 6:00 AM through 12:00 AM on weekdays and 6:00 AM – 7:00 PM on Saturdays. All Sunday hours are "off." Cooling setpoints are 75°F during "on" and 85°F when "off" hours; heat setpoints are 70°F during "on" and 60°F during "off" hours. The Team modified this schedule such that the "on" setpoints are stepped back by 2°F from 4:00 PM through 12:00 AM on weekdays; and from 4:00 PM – 7:00 PM on Saturdays.
12. Demand Response Capable HPWH: The Reach Code Team modeled a measure intended to reduce the peak demand of the significant hot water loads in the QSR prototype. The measure increases costs due to adding a 100-gallon storage tank and plumbing hardware. The additional hot water storage enables preheating water ahead of demand by effectively increasing the HPWH’s thermal storage capacity. The extra plumbing hardware is needed to keep the stored hot water stratified to maintain efficient HPWH operations.
The Team did not directly address the issue of storage tank location but assumed floor plan design would be able to accommodate it.
Modeling: The measure uses the HPWH and additional storage tank capacity to produce and store hot water ahead of actual use during evening peak period. QSR hot water baseline schedule exhibits a low morning load (6:00 AM – 8:00 AM), moderate load near lunch time (11:00 AM), and a peak evening load (4:00 PM – 11:00 PM). These changes were made by changing the hot water load fraction in the ruleset.
Specification: Implements an early pre-heat that starts at 12:00 PM and finishes by 7:00 PM, avoiding the super peak hours of 7:00 PM – 9:00 PM.
13. Demand Response Lighting: This measure extends existing Title 24 mandatory requirements for demand responsive lighting by shedding demand during peak hours. There are no additional measure costs because demand responsive control capability is already required for nonresidential buildings with more than 4kW of total lighting load. This measure does not require additional commissioning.
Modeling: The baseline lighting schedule exhibits a plateau of 0.65 load fraction from 8:00 AM – 8:00 PM and trails off after 8:00 PM through the end of the day for weekdays. The Team altered the ruleset to reduce the load fraction during 4:00 PM – 9:00 PM.
Specification: The Team implemented a 10% setback during the 4-9pm peak hours. 217
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 29 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 The load flexibility measure applications to each prototype are summarized in Table 14.
Table 14. Load Flexibility Measure Summary
Measure
Med
Office
Med
Retail QSR Small Hotel Incremental Cost Other Notes
11. Smart
Thermostat ● - - - $0 Capability already required
12. Demand Control
HPWH - - ● - $5,400
An additional 100-gallon tank,
plumbing hardware, and related
labor hours
13. Demand
Response Lighting ● - - - $0 Capability already required None of the measures apply to the Medium Retail or Small Hotel prototypes. While the Small Hotel contains some office space and common areas, the Medium Office load flexibility measures were not applied to the Small Hotel spaces because of the potential for unpopular impacts, varying occupancy schedules, difficult field maintenance, and limited energy impacts. Team also explored the impact of load flexibility in all-electric clothes dryer scenario but did not see enough savings impact, hence the measure was not included in the package.
3.2.4 Additional Solar PV and Battery Storage
The Reach Code Team considered additional solar PV and battery storage measures that exceed the 2022 Title 24 prescriptive requirements to improve the cost-effectiveness of proposed scenarios. For Medium Office and Retail, the prescriptive solar PV sizes are large enough to occupy the entirety of the available roof space. Additional rooftop solar PV could not be considered for the two prototypes. For the Quick-Service Restaurant, solar PV is not prescriptively required since the prototype qualifies for the exception and the Reach Code Team considered adding solar PV to improve cost-effectiveness. For Small Hotel, the required PV size in the code-compliant models did not occupy the entire available roof space. Additional PV system capacity was considered as a measure to improve cost-effectiveness.
For the cost-effectiveness analysis, the Team evaluated additional solar PV for all-electric scenarios for the two building types, Quick Service Restaurant and Small Hotel. The additional PV size is calculated based on available roof space, assuming the maximum available space is 50% of total roof space and 15 Watt per square foot panel size.
Modeling: Updated PV capacity (kW) input in CBECC software.
Specification: Baseline requirement is 0 kW and 22-32.6 (depending on climate zone) kW for Quick-Service Restaurant and Small Hotel respectively. Proposed measure specification is 18.8 kW and 79.8 kW for Quick-Service Restaurant and Small Hotel respectively.
The costs for PV include first cost to purchase and install the system, inverter replacement costs, and annual maintenance costs. A summary of incremental costs and sources is given in Table 15 below. 218
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 30 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Table 15. Additional Solar PV Measure Summary
Measure
Med
Office
Med
Retail QSR
Small
Hotel
Incremental Cost Cost Source
Solar PV - - ● ●
First Cost: $3.20/W
Inverter replacement cost at 10-yr:
$0.15/W
Annual Maintenance Cost: $0.02/W
ITC Federal Incentive: 30%
National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) Q1 2016
(National Renewable Energy
Laboratory 2016)
E3 Rooftop Solar PV System
Report (Energy and
Environmental Economics,
Inc. 2017)
Upfront solar PV system costs are lowered because of the federal income tax credit (ITC)—approximately 30 percent based on the passage of Inflation Reduction Act. PV energy output is built into CBECC and is based on NREL’s PVWatts calculator, which includes long term performance degradation estimates.
A battery storage system is prescriptively required for three prototypes: Medium Office, Medium Retail, and Small Hotel. The current software, CBECC v1.0, applies the appropriate prescriptive battery size (kWh) and capacity (kW) in the standard design. However, the control assumed in standard design is “Basic Control”, which does not function for optimum battery use. The Team did not evaluate additional battery measures because the compliance software does not apply the “Time of Use” battery control method in standard design, which impacts the incremental energy costs and TDV benefits.
3.3 Measure Packages
The Reach Code Team compared a baseline Title 24 prescriptive package to mixed-fuel packages and two to four electrification packages depending on applicability of building type. Note that most QSR all-electric packages exclude kitchen electrification, while the Small Hotel all-electric package does include electric laundry cost and energy impacts. Mixed Fuel Code Minimum: Mixed-fuel prescriptive building per 2022 Title 24 requirements. Mixed Fuel + Efficiency Measures: Mixed-fuel prescriptive building per 2022 Title 24 requirements, including additional efficiency measures.
All-electric Code Minimum Efficiency: All-electric building to minimum Title 24 prescriptive standards and federal minimum efficiency standards. This package has the same PV size as mixed-fuel prescriptive baseline. All-electric Energy Efficiency: All-electric building with added energy efficiency measures related to HVAC, SHW, lighting or envelope.
All-electric Energy Efficiency + Load Flexibility: All-electric building with added energy efficiency and load flexibility measures.
All-electric Energy Efficiency + Solar PV: All-electric building with added energy efficiency and additional Solar PV. The added PV size is larger than prescriptive 2022 Title 24 code requirements and accounts for roof space availability.
For QSR, the Reach Code Team has analyzed two scenarios for all-electric packages, one with electric cooking and the one with gas cooking (the latter of which is referred to as the “HS” package to reflect all-electric HVAC and SHW).
The results section includes results for both scenarios since all-electric package with electric cooking appliance can be cost-effective in POU territories. This study did not evaluate pre-empted package with all-electric HVAC and SHW to 219
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 31 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 have higher efficiency than required by federal regulations, that will potentially enhance cost-effectiveness and/or compliance margins.
For Small Hotel, the Reach Code Team also analyzed an alternative scenario with PTHP instead of SZHP in all-electric scenario. It is denoted by the “PTHP” in parenthesis in package name. 220
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 32 Cost-Effectiveness Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 4 Cost-Effectiveness Results
Cost-effectiveness results are presented in this section and the attached workbook per prototype and measure packages described in Section 3. The TDV and On-Bill based cost-effectiveness results are presented in terms of B/C ratio and NPV.
In the following figures, the result Both (shown in green shading) indicates that the result is cost-effective on both OnBill and (Total) TDV basis. The result On-Bill or TDV (shown in yellow shading) indicates that the result is either costeffective on On-Bill or (Total) TDV basis, respectively. The result “ - “ (results with no shading) indicates that the result is not cost-effective on either an On-Bill basis or (Total) TDV basis.
Across all prototypes and climate zones, efficiency measures improve cost-effectiveness when added to the mixed-fuel baseline prototype and all-electric federal code minimum designs.
All-electric cost-effectiveness results by prototype can be summarized as:
Medium Office (Figure 1): All-electric space heating is predominantly achieved through electric resistance due to modeling limitations, which limits operational benefits. Efficiency measures yield some On-Bill costeffective all-electric packages in milder climate zones. Adding load flexibility measures increases the costeffectiveness to most climates.
Medium Retail (Figure 2): All-electric packages are cost-effective in all climate zones with added efficiency measures over all-electric baseline. Proposed mixed-fuel packages are cost-effective too with added efficiency measures in most climate zones primarily driven by cost-equivalency in the all-electric package compared to a mixed-fuel package.
Quick-Service Restaurant (Figure 3): All-electric package with and without cooking electrification is costeffective in CPAU and SMUD territories only, On-Bill. All-electric HVAC and SHW package with added efficiency measures is On-Bill cost-effective in CZs 1, 3-5 and 12. Adding efficiency and solar PV is On-Bill cost-effective in CZs 1-5, 11-13, and 16. While not depicted in Figure 3, the Results Workbook indicates that all-electric HVAC and SHW plus efficiency packages are nearly cost-effective (greater than -$350/month) in all climate zones using On-Bill Net Present Values.
Small Hotel (Figure 4): The all-electric hotel has tremendous cost savings compared to a mixed-fuel package, primarily due to the avoidance of gas infrastructure to each guest room. All-electric packages achieve TDV cost-effectiveness in all CZs except 16. On-Bill cost-effectiveness is limited to CZs 2-5, 12 and 15 with single zone ducted heat pumps, but nearly all CZs with a packaged terminal heat pump. 221
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 33 Cost-Effectiveness Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16
4.1 Medium Office
In the all-electric Medium Office building, the upfront cost savings associated with avoiding boiler and gas infrastructure supports cost-effective packages in several climate zones, particularly with additional efficiency and load flexibility measures. Adding energy efficiency measures over mixed fuel code minimum is On-Bill cost-effective in all climate zones. The all-electric code minimum efficiency package is cost-effective for CZs 4 (CPAU), 6-10, 12 (SMUD) and 15. Adding energy efficiency measures to the all-electric code minimum package extends On-Bill cost-effectiveness to CZ 3 as well. All-electric energy efficiency along with load flexibility measure package is On-Bill cost-effective in most climate zones except 1, 11 and 16.
Figure 1. Medium Office Cost-Effectiveness Summary
CZ1 CZ2 CZ3 CZ4 CZ5 CZ6 CZ7 CZ8 CZ9 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 Utility
Prototype Package
Both Both Both Both Both
Both Both Both Both Both
On-Bill ─ On-Bill ─ ─
On-Bill ─ On-Bill On-Bill ─
Both ─ Both ─ ─
Both ─ Both On-Bill ─
Both Both Both Both On-Bill
Both Both Both Both On-Bill
─
─
Medium Office
(MO)
Mixed Fuel + Efficiency
Measures
Both Both Both
All Electric Code
Minimum Efficiency
─ ─ Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
─
Climate Zone
PG&E PG&E PG&E
PG&E
CPAU
PG&E
─
SDG&E
SCE
SCE
PG&E
SMUD
PG&E
Both
PG&E
PG&E
SCG
SCE SDG&E PG&E SCE
SDG&E
SCE
Both
Both On-Bill
Both
Both
Both Both Both
─ ─
All-Electric Energy
Efficiency + Load
Flexibility
─ Both Both On-Bill Both Both
All Electric Energy
Efficiency
─ ─ Both ─ ─
Both
On-Bill Both
Both Both
Both Both
222
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 34 Cost-Effectiveness Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16
4.2 Medium Retail
2022 Title 24 code prescriptively requires heat pumps in most scenarios already. This report evaluates added energy efficiency measures over the baseline allelectric scenario and proposed mixed-fuel packages. The mixed-fuel code minimum is not cost-effective by itself in most climate zones. Adding energy efficiency measures to the mixed-fuel code minimum package is On-Bill and/or TDV cost-effective in most climate zones. Adding energy efficiency measures over prescriptive all-electric package is also cost-effective in most climate zones except CZ16 using TDV.
Figure 2. Medium Retail Cost-effectiveness Summary
223
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 35 Cost-Effectiveness Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16
4.3 Quick-Service Restaurant (QSR)
High incremental cost for HVAC and SHW electrification (“HS” package) makes restaurant electrification challenging. Because cooking electrification packages are very expensive – both upfront and operationally in IOU territories – the Team evaluated HS packages that do not consider cooking equipment electrification.
This affects cost-effectiveness as gas infrastructure cost savings do not materialize. Adding energy efficiency measures over mixed fuel code minimum is On-Bill cost-effective in all climate zones. All-electric HVAC and SHW “HS” package is On-Bill cost-effective in CZ4 (CPAU) and CZ12 (SMUD) territory only. Adding energy efficiency and load flexibility measures extends On-Bill cost-effectiveness to CZs 1, 3 and 5. All-electric HVAC and SHW “HS” package with energy efficiency and solar PV measure is On-Bill cost-effective in climate zones 1-5, 11-13 and 16. All-electric package including cooking electrification is On-Bill cost-effective in CZ 4 (CPAU) territory only. The Results Workbook indicates that all-electric HVAC and SHW plus efficiency packages are nearly cost-effective (greater than -$350/month) in all climate zones using On-Bill Net Present Values.
Figure 3. QSR Cost-effectiveness Summary
CZ1 CZ2 CZ3 CZ4 CZ5 CZ6 CZ7 CZ8 CZ9 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 Utility
Prototype Package
Both Both Both Both Both
Both Both Both Both Both
─ ─ ─ ─ ─
On-Bill ─ ─ On-Bill ─
─ On-Bill ─ ─ ─
On-Bill ─ ─ On-Bill ─
─ ─ ─ ─ ─
On-Bill ─ ─ On-Bill ─
On-Bill On-Bill ─ On-Bill ─
On-Bill On-Bill ─ On-Bill ─
─ ─ ─ ─ ─
On-Bill ─ ─ ─ ─
─ ─ ─ ─ ─
On-Bill ─ ─ ─ ─
─ ─ ─ ─
Quick-Service
Restaurant (QSR)
All Electric Energy
Efficiency
─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
On-Bill
On-Bill ─
─
─ ─
─
─
─ ─ ─
PG&E
SMUD
PG&E
SDG&E
SCE
SCE PG&E
─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
SCE PG&E
SDG&E
SCE
Both
─
Both
─ ─ ─
Both Both Both Both
Climate Zone
PG&E PG&E PG&E
PG&E
CPAU
PG&E
SCG
SCE SDG&E PG&E
Both
All Electric HS Energy
Efficiency + Solar PV
All Electric Code
Minimum Efficiency
On-Bill
─
On-Bill On-Bill
Both
─
─
─
Mixed Fuel + Efficiency
Measures
Both Both
All Electric HS Code
Minimum Efficiency
All-Electric HS Energy
Efficiency + Load
Flexibility
On-Bill ─
All Electric HS Energy
Efficiency
On-Bill ─
─
Both
─
─ ─
On-Bill ─ On-Bill
─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─
─ ─ ─ ─ On-Bill
─
224
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 36 Cost-Effectiveness Results
localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16
4.4 Small Hotel
The all-electric hotel has cost savings compared to a mixed-fuel package, primarily due to the avoidance of boilers and gas infrastructure to each guest room. The analysis assumes single zone ducted heat pump for all all-electric scenarios; however, the Team analyzed a Packaged Terminal Heat Pump (PTHP) scenario as well. PTHP shows higher incremental cost savings as compared to a baseline of mixed fuel single zone packaged system and hence are cost-effective in many climate zones.
Adding energy efficiency measures over mixed fuel code minimum is On-Bill cost-effective in all climate zones. All-electric code minimum packages with or without energy efficiency measure packages are TDV cost-effective in all climate zones except 16, and OnBill cost-effective in CZ4 (CPAU) and CZ12 (SMUD) due to relatively lower electricity costs. Additional solar PV over all-electric energy efficiency package extends On-Bill cost-effectiveness to CZs 2, 3, 4 (PG&E), 5 and 15. The alternative all-electric scenario with PTHP is cost-effective in all climates, On-Bill in most CZs except 7,10 and 14 SDG&E territories.
Figure 4. Small Hotel Cost-effectiveness Summary
225
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 37 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 5 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations This section combines the cost-effectiveness and 2022 Title 24 energy code compliance metric results — efficiency TDV, total TDV, and source energy, described in Section 2.3 — to highlight the viable reach code options for local jurisdictions. The Reach Code Team calculated metrics using both:
1. Software outputs using the ACM standard design and
2. Manually by subtraction against the baseline model because of software limitations that are beyond the Reach Code Team’s control.6
All Efficiency TDV margins presented in this section are the lower of the two approaches, Software output and Manual, to be conservative and inform the minimum compliance margins that can be met by a typical modeler. Full details of compliance margins and cost-effectiveness results are presented in the Final Results Workbook for reference.
Importantly, the workbook shows that for all prototypes, all-electric packages are capable of achieving greater greenhouse savings as compared to mixed-fuel buildings. Below is a summary of how compliance results as well as cost-effectiveness for each prototype and package could influence reach code options. The Reach Code Team outlines recommendations using the following framework, based on reach codes that were adopted across California under the 2019 building code cycle:
Mixed fuel buildings are allowed, with efficiency. Local amendments governing efficiency and conservation must be performed in the Title 24 Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and be approved by the Energy Commission.
• Energy Efficiency — Require energy efficiency for buildings regardless of fuel type. A jurisdiction can require different compliance thresholds for all-electric and/or mixed-fuel. The thresholds should be set considering how they may affect mixed-fuel or all-electric buildings. • Electric-Preferred — Allow mixed-fuel appliances but require a higher building performance via efficiency, total, or source compliance metric (for example, (Milpitas 2019), section 140.1).7 Applies only to mixed-fuel buildings.
Mixed fuel buildings are not allowed. Local amendments governing green building requirements may be performed in the Title 24 Part 11 Green Building Standards Code and must be filed with the Building Standards Commission. Alternatively, the local amendment may be performed in a municipal code chapter of their respective jurisdictions.
• All-Electric — Require certain all-electric only appliances, with exceptions (for example (Menlo Park 2019). Does not involve efficiency or conservation measures, and cost-effectiveness is a not a legal requirement.8 Local amendments may be performed through other building code sections, such as Part 11. See discussion on Exceptions below.
• All-Electric + Efficiency — Require certain all-electric appliances, but with a higher building performance via efficiency, total, or source compliance metric. Also requires amendment to Title 24 Part 6 and approval by the Energy Commission.
6 The difference between the two methods of calculating TDV margins occurs due to various software limitations. The Team had challenges modeling a baseline showing zero-percent (exactly compliant) compliance margin, and differing interpretations of 2022 Title 24 code regarding fan power, exhaust fan, heat recovery, battery control, and other aspects. Most scenarios show similar trends between software calculated compliance margin and the Team’s manual subtraction against baseline model, with a difference in magnitude. For example, if the Total TDV Compliance margin as shown by software directly is negative, it is typically negative per manual calculation as well. Nonetheless, modeling limitations introduce error into the calculations, which may affect results. Many scenarios have very low negative compliance margin and are very close to being zero. While this uncertainty in error may lead to imprecision in results, relative performance across packages can yield information helpful for decision-making. 7 Note Milpitas has since adopted an All-electric with Exceptions code for the 2022 code cycle. 8 See letter from CEC to South San Francisco for reference. 226
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 38 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Exceptions enable reach codes to broadly require electrification except for specific building systems. These systems may have uncertainty on energy code compliance, building industry electrification approaches, or other related impacts on economic development. During the 2019 code cycle, cities developed exemptions based on discussions with local stakeholders, resulting in a wide array of exemption types.9 For the four prototypes in this study, the Team has determined two exemptions that may be necessary for cities passing All-Electric reach codes. Building systems without a prescriptive compliance pathway in the energy code. This exemption considers that all-electric central space heating does not have a prescriptive pathway in Title 24, and central heat pump boilers cannot be currently modeled, which has impacted compliance results for the Medium Office and Small Hotel. This exemption has broad precedence and can apply to other large nonresidential buildings (e.g., (Berkeley 2019), section 12.80.040.A Exception 1). These exemptions typically state that the building is also not able to comply via the performance approach using commercially available technology. Commercial cooking. Cooking electrification does not considerably impact code compliance but is not nearly cost-effective against a mixed-fuel baseline. To account for this challenge, cities may wish to adopt reach codes that exempt commercial kitchen cooking appliances (e.g., (Menlo Park 2019) 100.0(e)2.A Exception 4). 9 See list of exemptions on Bay Area Reach Codes.
227
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 39 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Table 16. Reach Code Pathway Considerations
Prototype Compliance and Cost-Effectiveness Results Summary Energy Efficiency ElectricPreferred All-Electric All-Electric + Efficiency
Medium
Office
The Team could not identify any all-electric package that complies with all three compliance metrics, with the Efficiency TDV Compliance margin being the most challenging.
Future iterations of this study will re-evaluate the Medium Office with a central heat pump boiler, an anticipated compliance software capability in early 2023, instead of electric resistance VAVs.
To Be Determined.
Modeling constraints
impacted achievable
compliance margins
for all-electric
packages.
All CZs. Exempt building
systems without a
prescriptive
pathway in the
energy code.
To Be Determined.
Modeling constraints
impacted achievable
compliance margins
for all-electric
packages
Medium
Retail
The Team identified cost-effective and code compliant packages of all-electric + energy efficiency measures across most CZs.
Mixed-fuel + efficiency was cost-effective but not code compliant in most CZs.
CZs 7 and 9. CZs 7 and 9. CZs 2-15. 2022
T24 prescriptive
baseline
CZs 1-10, 12-14.
QuickService
Restaurant
The Mixed-fuel + efficiency package is cost-effective and compliant in many climate zones. Code compliance and cost-effectiveness results support reach code adoption for all-electric space conditioning and service water heating when adding efficiency and solar PV for CZs 1 and 3-7, others are likely to be compliant with future modeling input updates. Cost-effectiveness is achieved or nearly achieved (Net Present Value is greater than -$350/month) On-Bill in all CZs.
Cooking electrification does not impact code compliance but is not cost-effective against a mixed-fuel baseline except for CPAU territory.
CZs 1, 3-7. CZs 1-7, 13. CZs 1, 3-7. Exempt
commercial kitchen
appliances, except
CZ4 (CPAU).
Nearly all remaining
CZs have a nearly
cost-effective
and/or nearly
compliant pathway
for HVAC and SHW
only.
CZs 1, 3-7.
Small Hotel
Results support Electric-Preferred reach code for all CZs. The allelectric packages are near compliant and TDV cost-effective for most CZs when including energy efficiency measures and additional solar PV. They are likely to be compliant with future modeling iterations.
Future iterations of this study will re-evaluate the nonresidential areas of the hotel with a central heat pump boiler, as mentioned for the Medium Office, which can potentially improve code compliance.
To Be Determined.
Modeling constraints
impacted achievable
compliance margins
for all-electric
packages.
All CZs. Exempt building
systems without a
prescriptive
pathway in the
energy code.
To Be Determined.
Modeling constraints
impacted achievable
compliance margins
for all-electric
packages.
228
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 40 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 The combined result of cost-effectiveness and code compliance across all climate zones and packages are detailed in Section 5.1 through 5.4 below. The tables are formatted to show:
Cost-effectiveness results with color highlight:
• Green highlight — for scenarios that are cost-effective on both On-Bill and TDV metrics, may or may not be compliant.
• Yellow highlight — for scenarios that are cost-effective on either one of the On-Bill/TDV metrics, may or may not be compliant.
• Gray highlight — for scenarios that are not cost-effective on either metric, either compliant currently or likely to be compliant in future.
• White highlight — for scenarios that are not cost-effective on either metric and are not compliant. Compliance results with cell values:
• “EffTDV Margin” percentages — for scenarios that are compliant, across both Manual and CBECC software output, the reported value is the minimum of the two. • “-” for scenarios that do not comply across any one code compliance metric. “TBD” – for scenarios that are likely to be compliant with modeling updates or software versions in future, maybe compliant across either one of the Manual or CBECC software output approach or has a system type modeling limitation such as central heat pump boiler for Medium Office and Small Hotel. The package names in table results columns are as follows, as defined in Section 3.3:
Mixed fuel — Code Min: Mixed Fuel Code Minimum Efficiency Mixed fuel — EE: Mixed Fuel + Efficiency Measures
All-electric — Code Min: All-electric Code Minimum Efficiency All-electric — EE: All-electric Energy Efficiency
All-electric — EE + LF: All-electric Energy Efficiency and Load Flexibility All-electric — EE + PV: All-electric Energy Efficiency and Solar PV The QSR has two electrification scenarios, with and without cooking appliance electrification, which is denoted by “HS” prefix.
The Small Hotel has an extra package that evaluates a different HVAC type in the all-electric Code Minimum Efficiency package, a Packaged Terminal Heat Pump (PTHP) instead of a Single Zone Heat Pump. 229
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 41 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16
5.1 Medium Office
For Medium Office, the Reach Code Team analyzed EE measures over mixed fuel baseline model and three electrification packages: 1) Code Min, 2) EE and 3) EE + LF packages, results shown in Table 17.
The most likely all-electric replacement for a central gas boiler serving a VAV reheat system would be a central heat pump boiler; however, this system cannot be modeled in CBECC at the time of the writing of this report. As such, the Reach Code Team is treating this analysis as temporary until a compliance pathway is established for a central heat pump boiler in the Energy Code and results can be updated accordingly. This modeling capability is anticipated in early 2023 according to discussions with the CBECC software development team, and the cost-effectiveness analysis should become available in the first half of 2023. Heat pump systems are multiple times more efficient, but may also be multiple times more costly, than the electric resistance reheat systems currently analyzed. Results support reach code adoption for energy efficiency measures over mixed fuel baseline, also known as the “Electric-Preferred”. A compliance margin of 4–5% is achievable depending on the climate zone. No all-electric package complies with all three-compliance metrics, with the efficiency compliance TDV margin being the most challenging. The Reach Code Team explored other efficiency measures that reduce the efficiency compliance TDV margin, but not enough to make the TDV margin positive. The compliance values are labeled as “TBD” for all-electric packages, as they are likely to be compliant with future modeling and/or software updates. Some climate zones are compliant currently on either one of the Software output or Manual compliance approaches.
Table 17. Cost-effectiveness and Compliance Summary – Medium Office * These results will be re-evaluated with central heat pump boiler system instead of electric resistance VAV systems, which largely are unable to achieve energy code compliance.
Mixed Fuel
EE Code Min EE EE + LF
cz01 PG&E 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz02 PG&E 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz03 PG&E 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz03-2 PCE 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz04 PG&E 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz04-2 CPAU 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz05 PG&E 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz05-2 SCG 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz06 SCE 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz07 SDG&E 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz08 SCE 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz09 SCE 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz10 SDG&E 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz10-2 SCE 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz11 PG&E 3% TBD TBD TBD
cz12 PG&E 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz12-2 SMUD 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz13 PG&E 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz14 SDG&E 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz14-2 SCE 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz15 SCE 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz16 PG&E 4% TBD TBD TBD
CZ Utility All-electric
Cell Color
Cost effective on both TDV/On-Bill metrics
Cost effective on either TDV/On-Bill metrics
Compliant, not cost effective
Not compliant nor cost effective
Cell Value
X% EffTDV Compliance Margin percentages (Lowest common) Compliant on both Manual and Software output approaches TBD Likely to comply with future modeling updates or software versions, maybe compliant on either Manual or Software output approach - Not compliant on either approach
230
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 42 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16
5.2 Medium Retail
For Medium Retail, the Team analyzed EE measure package over an all-electric baseline model and two mixed fuel packages — Code Min and EE, with results in Table 18. Results support reach code adoption for energy efficiency measures over mixed fuel code minimum package, also known as “Electric-Preferred” or “Energy Efficiency” reach code pathways in climate zones 7 and 9. Results also support “All-Electric + Efficiency” reach code option, with compliance margins of 4-14% above the all-electric code minimum baseline in climate zones 1-10 and 12-14. For some scenarios in climate zone 6, 8, 11, 15 and 16, labeled as “TBD”, the package is cost-effective and likely to be compliant in future with modeling input and/or software version updates.
Table 18. Cost-effectiveness and Compliance Summary – Medium Retail
All-electric
Code Min EE EE
cz01 PG&E - - 6%
cz02 PG&E - - 4%
cz03 PG&E - - 12%
cz04 PG&E - - 11%
cz04-2 CPAU - - 11%
cz05 PG&E - - 12%
cz05-2 SCG - - 12%
cz06 SCE - TBD 9%
cz07 SDG&E - 12% 14%
cz08 SCE - TBD 8%
cz09 SCE - 11% 12%
cz10 SDG&E - - 5%
cz10-2 SCE - - 5%
cz11 PG&E - - TBD
cz12 PG&E - - 10%
cz12-2 SMUD - - 10%
cz13 PG&E - - 4%
cz14 SDG&E - - 7%
cz14-2 SCE - - 7%
cz15 SCE - - TBD
cz16 PG&E - - TBD
CZ Utility Mixed Fuel
Cell Color
Cost effective on both TDV/On-Bill metrics
Cost effective on either TDV/On-Bill metrics
Compliant, not cost effective
Not compliant nor cost effective
Cell Value
X% EffTDV Compliance Margin percentages (Lowest common) Compliant on both Manual and Software output approaches TBD Likely to comply with future modeling updates or software versions, maybe compliant on either Manual or Software output approach - Not compliant on either approach
231
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 43 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16
5.3 Quick-Service Restaurant (QSR)
The Team analyzed efficiency measures over a mixed fuel baseline and electrification packages, with and without cooking appliance electrification. For the “HS” scenario including HVAC and SHW electrification only, packages with EE, EE + LF and EE + PV were analyzed, with results in Table 19. Results support reach code adoption for energy efficiency measures over a mixed fuel baseline, also known as “Electric-Preferred” in climate zones 1 to 7 and 13, or “Energy Efficiency” in CZs 1 and 3 to 7. All-electric “HS” packages including energy efficiency measures or load flexibility are compliant in CZs 1 and 3 to 7 but cost-effective on at least one metric in CZs 1, 3, 4 (CPAU) and 12 (SMUD) territories only. All-electric “HS” HVAC and SHW option can be adopted in CZs 1 and 3-7, it is cost-effective on at least one metric and code compliant with additional efficiency measures and solar PV. Packages labeled as “TBD” may or may not be cost-effective but are likely to be compliant in the future with modeling input and/or software updates.
Table 19. Cost-effectiveness and Compliance Summary – Quick-Service Restaurant (without cooking electrification)
Mixed Fuel
EE Code Min EE EE + LF EE + PV
cz01 PG&E 16% - 6% 16% 6%
cz02 PG&E 6% - TBD TBD TBD
cz03 PG&E 18% - 8% 13% 8%
cz04 PG&E 16% - 5% 8% 5%
cz04-2 CPAU 16% - 5% 8% 5%
cz05 PG&E 18% - 8% 15% 8%
cz05-2 SCG 18% - 8% 15% 8%
cz06 SCE 16% - 3% 6% 3%
cz07 SDG&E 21% - 9% 13% 9%
cz08 SCE TBD - - - TBD
cz09 SCE TBD - TBD TBD TBD
cz10 SDG&E TBD - - - TBD
cz10-2 SCE TBD - - - TBD
cz11 PG&E TBD - TBD TBD TBD
cz12 PG&E TBD - TBD TBD TBD
cz12-2 SMUD TBD - TBD TBD TBD
cz13 PG&E 7% - TBD TBD TBD
cz14 SDG&E TBD - TBD TBD TBD
cz14-2 SCE TBD - TBD TBD TBD
cz15 SCE TBD - TBD TBD TBD
cz16 PG&E TBD - - TBD -
CZ Utility All-electric "HS" (HVAC+SHW)
Cell Color
Cost effective on both TDV/On-Bill metrics
Cost effective on either TDV/On-Bill metrics
Compliant, not cost effective
Not compliant nor cost effective
Cell Value
X% EffTDV Compliance Margin percentages (Lowest common) Compliant on both Manual and Software output approaches TBD Likely to comply with future modeling updates or software versions, maybe compliant on either Manual or Software output approach - Not compliant on either approach
232
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 44 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 The Reach Code Team analyzed a completely all-electric package including cooking appliances, results shown in Table 20, which show compliance in many climate zones with added efficiency and load flexibility. Remaining CZs are “TBD”, except climate zone 16, which comply on either one of the Manual or Software output approaches currently and are likely to show compliance with future modeling updates. However, the all-electric package is costeffective in CZ4 CPAU territory only and very close to being cost-effective in SMUD territory. Cooking electrification is expensive and challenging to show cost-effective.
Table 20. Cost-effectiveness and Compliance Summary – Quick-Service Restaurant (with cooking electrification)
Code Min EE EE + LF
cz01 PG&E - 6% 15%
cz02 PG&E - TBD 2%
cz03 PG&E - 10% 14%
cz04 PG&E - 8% 10%
cz04-2 CPAU - 8% 10%
cz05 PG&E - 10% 17%
cz05-2 SCG - 10% 17%
cz06 SCE - 6% 10%
cz07 SDG&E - 11% 14%
cz08 SCE - TBD TBD
cz09 SCE - TBD TBD
cz10 SDG&E - TBD TBD
cz10-2 SCE - TBD TBD
cz11 PG&E - TBD 0%
cz12 PG&E - TBD TBD
cz12-2 SMUD - TBD TBD
cz13 PG&E - TBD TBD
cz14 SDG&E - TBD TBD
cz14-2 SCE - TBD TBD
cz15 SCE - TBD 2%
cz16 PG&E - - -
CZ Utility All-electric
Cell Color
Cost effective on both TDV/On-Bill metrics
Cost effective on either TDV/On-Bill metrics
Compliant, not cost effective
Not compliant nor cost effective
Cell Value
X% EffTDV Compliance Margin percentages (Lowest common) Compliant on both Manual and Software output approaches TBD Likely to comply with future modeling updates or software versions, maybe compliant on either Manual or Software output approach - Not compliant on either approach
233
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 45 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16
5.4 Small Hotel
The Team analyzed EE package over mixed fuel baseline and three electrification packages - Code Min, EE, EE+PV, with results in Table 21.
Results support reach code adoption for energy efficiency measures over mixed fuel baseline, also known as “Electric-Preferred” reach code pathway with 2-5% compliance margin. All-electric packages with efficiency measures and/or solar PV in most CZs are cost-effective and likely to be compliant in future with modeling and/or software version updates. Some climate zones are compliant currently across either one of the Manual or Software output approaches. All all-electric scenarios are labeled as “TBD” because 36% of conditioned floor area is nonresidential space and has the same system type limitation as Medium Office (see Section 5.1). Hence, the Small Hotel will be reevaluated as well with a central heat pump boiler system instead of electric resistance VAV system in early 2023. The current results show compliance on either one of the Manual or Software output approaches in some climate zones with efficiency measures and solar PV, still labeled as “TBD” until the software inconsistencies are resolved.
Table 21. Cost-effectiveness and Compliance Summary – Small Hotel.
Mixed Fuel
EE Code Min EE EE + PV
cz01 PG&E 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz02 PG&E 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz03 PG&E 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz04 PG&E 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz04-2 CPAU 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz05 PG&E 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz05-2 SCG 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz06 SCE 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz07 SDG&E 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz08 SCE 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz09 SCE 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz10 SDG&E 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz10-2 SCE 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz11 PG&E 3% TBD TBD TBD
cz12 PG&E 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz12-2 SMUD 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz13 PG&E 3% TBD TBD TBD
cz14 SDG&E 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz14-2 SCE 4% TBD TBD TBD
cz15 SCE 5% TBD TBD TBD
cz16 PG&E 2% TBD TBD TBD
CZ Utility All-electric
Cell Color
Cost effective on both TDV/On-Bill metrics
Cost effective on either TDV/On-Bill metrics
Compliant, not cost effective
Not compliant nor cost effective
Cell Value
X% EffTDV Compliance Margin percentages (Lowest common) Compliant on both Manual and Software output approaches TBD Likely to comply with future modeling updates or software versions, maybe compliant on either Manual or Software output approach - Not compliant on either approach
234
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 46 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 The Team analyzed an additional scenario that proposes PTHP compared to the same SZAC mixed fuel baseline model, results shown in Table 22. Though PTHP is a much cheaper alternative than SZHP, it is not compliant by itself.
Table 22. Cost-effectiveness and Compliance Summary – Small Hotel (PTHP) All-electric
Code Min (PTHP)
cz01 PG&E -
cz02 PG&E -
cz03 PG&E -
cz04 PG&E -
cz04-2 CPAU -
cz05 PG&E -
cz05-2 SCG -
cz06 SCE -
cz07 SDG&E -
cz08 SCE -
cz09 SCE -
cz10 SDG&E -
cz10-2 SCE -
cz11 PG&E -
cz12 PG&E -
cz12-2 SMUD -
cz13 PG&E -
cz14 SDG&E -
cz14-2 SCE -
cz15 SCE -
cz16 PG&E -
CZ Utility
Cell Color
Cost effective on both TDV/On-Bill metrics
Cost effective on either TDV/On-Bill metrics
Compliant, not cost effective
Not compliant nor cost effective
Cell Value
X% EffTDV Compliance Margin percentages (Lowest common) Compliant on both Manual and Software output approaches TBD Likely to comply with future modeling updates or software versions, maybe compliant on either Manual or Software output approach - Not compliant on either approach
235
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 47 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 6 Conclusions
The Reach Code Team developed a variety of packages involving fuel substitution, energy efficiency, load flexibility, and solar PV, simulated them in building modeling software, and gathered costs to determine the cost-effectiveness of multiple scenarios. The Team coordinated with multiple utilities, cities, and building community experts to develop a set of assumptions considered reasonable in the current market. Changing assumptions, such as the period of analysis, measure selection, fuel costs, other costs, energy escalation rates, software or utility tariffs may change the results.
These results, including the attached Reach Code Results Workbook, indicate all-electric packages are capable of achieving the greatest GHG savings as compared to mixed-fuel buildings, see Appendix 8.5. Jurisdictions may adopt a variety of reach codes such as “Energy Efficiency”, “Electric-Preferred”, “All-Electric” or “All-Electric + Efficiency.” In summary:
The Reach Code Team has identified a cost-effective and code compliant energy efficiency measure package for most prototypes and climate zones analyzed, which supports an “Electric-Preferred” and/or “Energy Efficiency” reach code pathways for jurisdictions.
“All-Electric” reach codes are feasible for all building types and climate zones when Part 11 is modified, including some exceptions.
• All-electric HVAC consisting of packaged single zone systems, including rooftop units in the Medium Retail and Quick-Service Restaurant, and single zone heat pumps in the Small Hotel guest rooms, are widely shown to be cost-effective and energy code compliant, with exceptions in CZs 1 and 16. • All-electric SHW systems have a prescriptive pathway for all building types and have not been shown to be an impediment to cost-effectiveness or energy code compliance of all-electric packages in this study.
• All-electric laundry in the Small Hotel can be cost-effective with added energy efficiency and additional solar PV than required prescriptively by 2022 Title 24 code. • Medium Office all-electric packages are cost-effective with energy efficiency and load flexibility measures, but not code compliant due to the use of electric resistance VAV reheat systems. The Small Hotel faces a similar issue for its smaller nonresidential area HVAC systems in some climate zones.
This indicates that further efficiency measures would need to be added to achieve energy code compliance which may not be cost-effective. As described in Sections 5.1 and 5.4, modeling limitations impacted the code compliance results for the medium office and nonresidential portion of the small hotel. These prototypes will be re-evaluated using a more appropriate central heat pump boiler HVAC system, likely available in compliance software in early 2023. In the meantime, jurisdictions can choose to exempt building systems that do not have a prescriptive compliance pathway in the energy code. See Berkeley’s all-electric ordinance (Berkeley 2019) section 12.80.040.A Exception 1 for an example.
Commercial kitchen electrification is challenging to design cost-effectively currently. These results align with a previous study focusing on restaurants (Statewide IOU Team 2022). Jurisdictions may choose to exempt cooking appliances until cost-effectiveness factors improve. See Menlo Park's ordinance (Menlo Park 2019) 100.0(e)2.A Exception 4 for an example.
For the Medium Retail prototype in CZs 2 to 15, there is already a prescriptive pathway to comply with packaged single zone heat pumps in smaller (<240 kBtuh) thermal zones. This study supports an “All-Electric + Efficiency” reach code pathway for many climates. However, mixed-fuel scenarios with SZAC and gas furnaces for larger (>240 kBtuh) thermal zones are challenging to show cost-effectiveness and/or code compliance, except for climate zones 7 and 9, when including efficiency measures. 236
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 48 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Further discussion is required at the jurisdiction and community members to review results and determine appropriate reach code pathways. Please refer to the limitations of this study, described in Section 2.5, while using them to inform reach code policies. Of note:
The Team employed several CBECC ruleset modifications to support achieving cost-effective packages, especially load flexibility measures. Ruleset modifications cannot be used by the building industry for code compliance without supporting justification or alternate methods. Where jurisdictions want to encourage the adoption of Load Flexibility measures through modeling estimates, the Reach Code Team can support cities and building applicants by providing modeling approximations that may achieve similar energy and compliance total impacts, in coordination with the Energy Commission. For example, for the Demand Response Lighting measure, the Team may be able to share a TDV/ft2 impact of the measure in that climate zone or provide guidance to the building applicant’s energy consultant on appropriate modeling and documentation. Results are predominantly based on the code compliance metrics that are manually calculated based on the mixed fuel baseline model and not the standard design model assumed by the current software version. The Team also provided software reported compliance metrics in the workbook for reference. The Team is in communication with software development team to resolve differences in future iterations of this study and the software and improve code compliance reporting.
Even considering the limitations, this study has identified a set of reach code pathways for all climate zones, and jurisdictions have broad discretion on how to interpret the study’s findings. Jurisdictions can adopt reach codes requiring energy efficiency via a Title 24 Part 6 local amendment, or electrification via a Title 24 Part 11 (or municipal code) amendment, or both. Jurisdictions may choose to except particular building systems from certain reach codes pathways.
237
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 49 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 7 References
Berkeley. 2019. Local Energy Codes.
https://localenergycodes.com/download/398/local_government_adoption_ordinance/fieldList/Berkeley%20 2019%20All-Electric%20-%20Ordinance%207672.pdf.
California Building Energy Code Compliance. 2022. CBECC Title-24 Compliance Software. August 2. https://bees.noresco.com/software2022.html.
California Public Utilites Commission. 2022. "Workpaper and Disposition Archive." SWAP005. June 9. http://deeresources.net/workpapers.
California Technical Forum. 2022. THE CA ELECTRONIC TECHNICAL REFERENCE MANUAL (ETRM). June 9. http://www.caltf.org/etrm-overview.
E3. 2021. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=233260&DocumentContentId=65748 .
E-CFR. 2020. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgibin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt10.3.431&r=PART&ty=HTM L#se10.3.431_197. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgibin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt10.3.431&r=PART&ty=HTM L#se10.3.431_197.
Energy + Environmental Economics. 2019a. "Residential Building Electrification in California." April. Accessed 8 2, 2022. https://www.ethree.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/04/E3_Residential_Building_Electrification_in_California_April_2019.pdf.
Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. 2017. "2019 Update to the Title 24 Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards: Rooftop Solar PV System." September. Accessed 8 2, 2022. file:///C:/Users/mflores/Downloads/TN221366_20171002T104342_Rooftop_Solar_PV_Stystem_Report%20( 1).pdf.
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. 2020. Proving the Business Case for Building Analytics. October. http://smartenergy-analytics.org/assets/EMIS%20Report.pdf.
Menlo Park. 2019. Local Energy Codes.
https://localenergycodes.com/download/353/local_government_adoption_ordinance/fieldList/Menlo%20Pa rk%202019%20-%20Ordinance%201057.pdf.
Milpitas. 2019. Local Energy Codes.
https://localenergycodes.com/download/356/local_government_adoption_ordinance/fieldList/Milpitas%20L ocal%20Ordinance%20NO%2065%20148.pdf.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2016. "U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System Cost Benchmark: Q1 2016." NREL.gov.
September. Accessed 8 2, 2022. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66532.pdf.
Navigant Consulting. 2018. "California LED Pricing Analysis." January. https://www.calmac.org/publications/LED_Pricing_Analysis_Report_-_Revised_1.19.2018_Final.pdf.
NORESCO. 2020. "Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building Efficiency Standards." https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=233257&DocumentContentId=65743 .
San Diego Gas and Electric Company. 2012. "Commercial Kitchen Demand Ventilation Controls-Electric." June 15. https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sdge.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2F files%2FWPSDGENRCC0019%252520Rev%2525200%252520Demand%252520Ventilation%252520Controls_0. doc&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK.
Statewide CASE Team. 2020. August. https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/NR-GridIntegration_Final-CASE-Report_Statewide-CASE-Team.pdf. 238
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 50 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 —. 2011 C. "Fan Control and Integrated Economizers." September. https://title24stakeholders.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/01/2013_CASE-Report_Fan-Control-and-Integrated-Economizers.pdf. —. 2020 A. Multifamily Domestic Hot Water. September. https://title24stakeholders.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/09/2022_T24_Final-CASE-Report-MF-DHW-Dist.pdf. —. 2020 B. "Nonresidential High Performance Envelope." October. https://title24stakeholders.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/10/2020-T24-NR-HP-Envelope-Final-CASE-Report.pdf. —. 2021 D. "Nonresidential Indoor Lighting March." March. https://title24stakeholders.com/wpcontent/uploads/2021/03/2022-T24-Indoor-Lighting_Final-CASE-Report_Statewid-CASE-Team_wAddendum.pdf.
Statewide IOU Team. 2022. "2019 Restaurants Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Analysis." 2 18. file:///C:/Users/mflores/Downloads/2019%20Restaurants%20Cost-eff%20Report%20(10).pdf.
TRC, P2S Engineers, and Western Allied Mechanical. 2022. "2019 Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Analysis." February
22. https://localenergycodes.com/download/968/file_path/fieldList/2019%20Restaurants%20Costeff%20Report.pdf.
U.S. Department of Energy . 2021. "A National Roadmap for Grid-Interactive Efficient Buildings." May 17. https://gebroadmap.lbl.gov/A%20National%20Roadmap%20for%20GEBs%20-%20Final.pdf.
U.S. Department of Energy. 2019 B. U.S. Department of Energy. December. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2020/02/f72/2019_ssl-energy-savings-forecast.pdf. —. 2022 A. Prototype Building Models. June 9. https://www.energycodes.gov/prototype-building-models.
WELL. 2022. wellcertified.com. June 9. Accessed June 8, 2022. wellcertified.com. 239
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 51 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 8 Appendices
8.1 Map of California CZs
Climate Zone geographical boundaries are depicted in Figure 5 below. An interactive GIS location based map and zipcode based search directory is available at: Climate Zone tool, maps, and information supporting the California Energy Code
Figure 5. Map of California CZs
240
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 52 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16
8.2 Utility Rate Schedules
The Reach Codes Team used the IOU and POU rates depicted in to determine the On-Bill savings for each prototype.
Table 23. Utility Tariffs Analyzed Based on CZ – Detailed View CZs Utility
Electric Rate (Time of Use) Gas Rate
Medium
Office
Medium
Retail QSR Small Hotel All Prototypes
CZ01 PG&E B-10 B-1 B-1 B-1 or B-10 G-NR1
CZ02 PG&E B-10 B-1 or B-10 B-1 or B-10 B-1 or B-10 G-NR1 CZ03 PG&E B-10 B-1 B-1 B-1 or B-10 G-NR1
CZ04 PG&E B-10 B-1 or B-10 B-1 or B-10 B-1 or B-10 G-NR1 CZ04-2 CPAU E-2 E-2 E-2 E-2 G-2
CZ05 PG&E B-10 B-1 B-1 B-1 or B-10 G-NR1
CZ05-2 SCG B-10 B-1 B-1 B-1 or B-10 G-10 (GN-10)
CZ06 SCE TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 G-10 (GN-10) CZ07 SDG&E
ALTOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)
AL-TOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)
ALTOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)
AL-TOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)
GN-3
CZ08 SCE TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 G-10 (GN-10) CZ09 SCE TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 G-10 (GN-10) CZ10 SDG&E
ALTOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)
AL-TOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)
ALTOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)
AL-TOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)
G-10 (GN-10)
CZ10-2 SCE TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 GN-3
CZ11 PG&E B-10 B-10 B-1 or B-10 B-10 G-NR1
CZ12 PG&E B-10 B-1 or B-10 B-1 or B-10 B-10 G-NR1
CZ12-2 SMUD
CITS-1
(CI-TOD 1)
CITS-1
(CI-TOD 1)
CITS-1
(CI-TOD 1) CITS-1 G-NR1
CZ13 PG&E B-10 B-10 B-1 or B-10 B-10 G-NR1
CZ14 SDG&E
ALTOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)
AL-TOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)
ALTOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)
AL-TOU+EECC
(AL-TOU)
G-10 (GN-10)
CZ14-2 SCE TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2
TOU-GS-2 or TOUGS-3
GN-3
CZ15 SCE TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 TOU-GS-2 G-10 (GN-10) CZ16 PG&E B-10 B-1 or B-10 B-1 or B-10 B-1 or B-10 G-NR1 241
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 53 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16
8.2.1 PG&E
Figure 6. PG&E Electric Schedule - B-1
242
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 54 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Figure 7. PG&E Electric Schedule - B-10
243
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 55 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Figure 8. PG&E Gas Schedule – G-NR1
244
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 56 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16
8.2.2 SCE
Figure 9. SCE Electric Schedule – TOU-GS-1
245
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 57 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Figure 10. SCE Electric Schedule – TOU-GS-2
246
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 58 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Figure 11. SCE Electric Schedule – TOU-GS-3
247
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 59 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16
8.2.3 SCG
Figure 12. SCG Gas Schedule – G-10
248
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 60 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 249
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 61 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16
8.2.4 SDG&E
Figure 13. SDG&E Electric Schedule – AL-TOU
250
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 62 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 251
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 63 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 252
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 64 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Figure 14. SDG&E Electric Schedule - EECC
253
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 65 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Figure 15. SDG&E Gas Schedule – GN-3
254
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 66 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 255
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 67 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16
8.2.5 CPAU
Figure 16. CPAU Electric Schedule – E-2
256
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 68 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Figure 17. CPAU Gas Schedule – G-2
257
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 69 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16
8.2.6 SMUD (Electric Only)
Figure 18. SMUD Electric Schedule – CITS-0/CITS-1
258
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 70 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16
8.2.7 Escalation Rates
Utility rates are assumed to escalate over time, using assumptions from research conducted by Energy and Environmental Economics (E3) in Appendix 8.2. The 2019 study Residential Building Electrification in California (Energy + Environmental Economics 2019a) and escalation rates used in the development of the 2022 TDV multipliers Table 24 below demonstrate the escalation rates used for nonresidential buildings. As stated by E3 in the TDV report, this latter assumption “does not presuppose specific new investments, changes in load and gas throughput, or other measures associated with complying with California’s climate policy goals” (i.e., business-as-usual is assumed).
Table 24. Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions Above Inflation Source
Statewide Electric
Nonresidential Average
Rate (%/year, real)
Statewide Natural Gas
Nonresidential Core Rate
(%/year, real)
2023 E3 2019 2.0% 4.0%
2024 2022 TDV 0.7% 7.7%
2025 2022 TDV 0.5% 5.5%
2026 2022 TDV 0.7% 5.6%
2027 2022 TDV 0.2% 5.6%
2028 2022 TDV 0.6% 5.7%
2029 2022 TDV 0.7% 5.7%
2030 2022 TDV 0.6% 5.8%
2031 2022 TDV 0.6% 3.3%
2032 2022 TDV 0.6% 3.6%
2033 2022 TDV 0.6% 3.4%
2034 2022 TDV 0.6% 3.4%
2035 2022 TDV 0.6% 3.2%
2036 2022 TDV 0.6% 3.2%
2037 2022 TDV 0.6% 3.1%
8.3 HVAC and SHW System Cost Scalers
Table 25 shows the material and labor adjustment factors used to determine the costs.
Table 25. Materials and Labor Adjustment Factors by Climate Zone Materials Labor
CZ 01 0.963 0.994
CZ 02 0.963 1.387
CZ 03 1.001 1.291
CZ 04 0.998 1.298
CZ 05 0.964 0.997
CZ 06 0.960 0.997
CZ 07 0.999 0.985
CZ 08 0.998 0.996
CZ 09 0.964 0.996
CZ 10 0.998 0.996
CZ 11 1.002 0.990
CZ 12 1.000 1.000
259
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 71 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 CZ 13 1.000 0.990
CZ 14 0.964 0.980
CZ 15 0.963 0.996
CZ 16 0.967 0.990
Table 26 shows the contractor markup values used to determine the costs.
Table 26. Contractor Markup Values
Contractor 1 Contractor 2
General Conditions and Overhead 15% 20%
Design and Engineering 5% 10%
Permit, testing and inspection 5% 3%
Contractor Profit/Market Factor 10% 10%
8.4 Mixed Fuel Baseline Figures
Table 27. Mixed Fuel Baseline Model – Medium Office
Climate
zone Utility
Annual
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Annual
Natural Gas
Consumption
(therms)
Total
kTDV/ft2
Total TDV
Compliance
kTDV/ft2
Efficiency
TDV
Compliance
kTDV/ft2
GHG
Emissions
Total TDV
Compliance
Margin
Proposed
Elec
Utility
Cost
Proposed
Gas
Utility
tons/yr Cost
CZ01 PG&E 186,894 5,331 130 10 72 63 1 $67,234 $10,377
CZ02 PG&E 163,979 3,253 142 12 107 52 2 $67,798 $6,493
CZ03 PG&E 176,640 2,672 131 5 83 48 1 $67,999 $5,352
CZ04 PG&E 163,768 2,003 125 -2 107 46 1 $68,366 $4,093
CZ04-2 CPAU 163,768 2,003 125 -2 107 46 1 $30,988 $6,966 CZ05 PG&E 170,544 2,575 113 -8 76 46 1 $66,040 $5,156
CZ05-2 SCG 170,544 2,575 113 -8 76 46 1 $66,040 $4,242
CZ06 SCE 163,722 1,066 122 -7 76 39 0 $76,817 $1,980
CZ07 SDG&E 169,611 747 114 -9 76 38 0 $120,127 $1,150
CZ08 SCE 191,703 941 130 -2 76 41 1 $83,752 $1,763
CZ09 SCE 169,514 1,119 135 0 76 41 1 $82,274 $2,046
CZ10 SDG&E 185,682 1,445 141 10 76 45 2 $134,646 $2,113 CZ10-2 SCE 185,682 1,445 141 10 76 45 2 $86,338 $2,474
CZ11 PG&E 209,343 3,309 166 40 136 59 2 $81,001 $6,669
CZ12 PG&E 178,461 2,864 145 19 118 53 2 $72,381 $5,784
CZ12-2 SMUD 178,461 2,864 145 19 118 53 2 $26,576 $5,784 CZ13 PG&E 211,193 2,377 165 37 139 55 2 $81,491 $4,852
CZ14 SDG&E 156,689 3,058 147 13 139 52 3 $128,390 $4,337 CZ14-2 SCE 156,689 3,058 147 13 139 52 3 $83,690 $4,756 CZ15 SCE 209,720 662 161 32 139 47 2 $101,041 $1,311
CZ16 PG&E 177,562 5,799 127 9 94 67 4 $68,281 $11,409
260
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 72 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Table 28. All-electric Baseline Model – Medium Retail
Climate
zone Utility
Annual
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Annual
Natural Gas
Consumption
(therms)
Total
kTDV/ft2
Total TDV
Compliance
kTDV/ft2
Efficiency
TDV
Compliance
kTDV/ft2
GHG
Emissions
Total TDV
Compliance
Margin
Proposed
Elec
Utility
Cost
Proposed
Gas
Utility
tons/yr Cost
CZ01 PG&E 138,367 0 192 110 162 28 -8 $43,917 $0
CZ02 PG&E 131,521 0 211 125 198 28 -15 $50,499 $0
CZ03 PG&E 112,237 0 176 91 156 25 -1 $36,206 $0
CZ04 PG&E 122,256 0 197 111 193 27 -5 $47,522 $0
CZ04-2 CPAU 122,256 0 197 111 193 27 -5 $22,961 $0
CZ05 PG&E 108,753 0 159 76 146 24 -8 $35,179 $0
CZ05-2 SCG 108,753 0 159 76 146 24 -8 $35,179 $0
CZ06 SCE 111,442 0 175 89 146 24 -8 $42,572 $0
CZ07 SDG&E 109,079 0 172 87 146 23 0 $71,108 $0
CZ08 SCE 129,105 0 196 107 146 26 -10 $47,404 $0
CZ09 SCE 123,673 0 193 105 146 26 -3 $46,830 $0
CZ10 SDG&E 114,235 0 174 87 146 25 4 $77,903 $0
CZ10-2 SCE 114,235 0 174 87 146 25 4 $45,763 $0
CZ11 PG&E 144,411 0 229 144 218 30 -6 $54,592 $0
CZ12 PG&E 141,639 0 221 136 211 30 -4 $53,798 $0
CZ12-2 SMUD 141,639 0 221 136 211 30 -4 $21,079 $0
CZ13 PG&E 153,371 0 244 158 236 32 -15 $56,701 $0
CZ14 SDG&E 145,499 0 223 135 236 31 -8 $86,177 $0
CZ14-2 SCE 145,499 0 223 135 236 31 -8 $52,840 $0
CZ15 SCE 146,092 0 244 158 236 29 -24 $56,750 $0
CZ16 PG&E 157,944 0 224 144 214 34 -31 $57,190 $0
261
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 73 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Table 29. Mixed Fuel Baseline Model – Quick-Service Restaurant Climate
zone Utility
Annual
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Annual
Natural Gas
Consumption
(therms)
Total
kTDV/ft2
Total TDV
Compliance
kTDV/ft2
Efficiency
TDV
Compliance
kTDV/ft2
GHG
Emissions
Total TDV
Compliance
Margin
Proposed
Elec
Utility
Cost
Proposed
Gas
Utility
tons/yr Cost
CZ01 PG&E 63,187 12,237 1,974 820 820 80 5 $20,126 $23,401 CZ02 PG&E 66,343 11,170 1,989 839 839 74 20 $21,332 $21,422 CZ03 PG&E 67,877 10,605 1,922 769 769 71 1 $21,657 $20,336 CZ04 PG&E 77,615 10,277 2,062 910 910 71 -4 $24,931 $19,725 CZ04-2 CPAU 77,615 10,277 2,062 910 910 71 -4 $15,041 $30,442 CZ05 PG&E 69,442 10,655 1,898 744 744 71 -2 $22,105 $20,416 CZ05-2 SCG 69,442 10,655 1,898 744 744 71 -2 $22,105 $14,924 CZ06 SCE 78,813 9,600 1,934 778 744 67 -1 $19,698 $13,599 CZ07 SDG&E 76,653 9,425 1,898 739 744 66 18 $26,903 $13,116 CZ08 SCE 77,418 9,554 1,948 792 744 66 28 $20,356 $13,542 CZ09 SCE 77,625 9,687 1,993 837 744 67 7 $20,405 $13,709 CZ10 SDG&E 81,897 9,907 2,032 877 744 69 26 $31,166 $13,782 CZ10-2 SCE 81,897 9,907 2,032 877 744 69 26 $21,407 $13,986 CZ11 PG&E 85,725 10,748 2,259 1,109 1,109 75 -12 $27,885 $20,664 CZ12 PG&E 74,131 10,726 2,080 928 928 72 2 $24,000 $20,605 CZ12-2 SMUD 74,131 10,726 2,080 928 928 72 2 $11,272 $20,605 CZ13 PG&E 88,060 10,441 2,240 1,089 1,089 73 -2 $28,620 $20,070 CZ14 SDG&E 87,498 10,655 2,251 1,097 1,089 74 -31 $30,692 $14,728 CZ14-2 SCE 87,498 10,655 2,251 1,097 1,089 74 -31 $22,471 $14,925 CZ15 SCE 118,353 9,194 2,444 1,289 1,089 71 -13 $28,746 $13,090 CZ16 PG&E 75,373 12,242 2,143 983 983 82 2 $24,194 $23,494 262
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 74 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Table 30. Mixed Fuel Baseline Model – Small Hotel
Climate
zone Utility
Annual
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Annual
Natural Gas
Consumption
(therms)
Total
kTDV/ft2
Total TDV
Compliance
kTDV/ft2
Efficiency
TDV
Compliance
kTDV/ft2
GHG
Emissions
Total TDV
Compliance
Margin
Proposed
Elec
Utility
Cost
Proposed
Gas
Utility
tons/yr Cost
CZ01 PG&E 230,187 16,824 299 161 173 137 7 $72,520 $32,208 CZ02 PG&E 243,164 13,161 287 152 169 117 5 $77,188 $25,351 CZ03 PG&E 232,511 12,725 272 136 151 113 6 $73,496 $24,461 CZ04 PG&E 251,386 11,608 280 146 165 109 5 $80,034 $22,342 CZ04-2 CPAU 251,386 11,608 280 146 165 109 5 $48,175 $34,218 CZ05 PG&E 232,585 12,375 264 127 143 111 6 $73,479 $23,746 CZ05-2 SCG 232,585 12,375 264 127 143 111 6 $73,479 $17,084 CZ06 SCE 251,627 10,100 260 124 143 100 4 $53,976 $14,227 CZ07 SDG&E 250,625 9,977 257 120 143 100 3 $77,312 $13,878 CZ08 SCE 271,204 9,874 269 136 143 101 3 $60,488 $13,943 CZ09 SCE 265,607 10,246 273 140 143 103 4 $60,896 $14,411 CZ10 SDG&E 276,218 9,903 276 142 143 102 3 $91,917 $13,642 CZ10-2 SCE 276,218 9,903 276 142 143 102 3 $63,534 $13,980 CZ11 PG&E 285,482 12,457 315 179 197 118 4 $82,170 $24,172 CZ12 PG&E 263,561 11,890 293 158 176 112 2 $76,104 $23,029 CZ12-2 SMUD 263,561 11,890 293 158 176 112 2 $34,853 $23,029 CZ13 PG&E 293,124 11,309 310 175 193 113 1 $84,632 $21,924 CZ14 SDG&E 276,292 12,071 298 166 193 115 2 $89,492 $16,232 CZ14-2 SCE 276,292 12,071 298 166 193 115 2 $63,611 $16,703 CZ15 SCE 349,319 7,895 309 174 193 98 -4 $78,507 $11,458 CZ16 PG&E 228,611 17,363 310 170 195 142 9 $72,664 $33,471 263
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 75 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16
8.5 GHG Savings Summary
This section shows the percent GHG savings for each package. GHG multipliers in CBECC software have utility emissions multipliers assigned only to each of the California’s sixteen climate zones, does not vary by utility within each zone. Individual utility assumptions may vary widely. In the Medium Office, the GHG emissions increases in allelectric package because the proposed all-electric system is electric resistance VAV system instead of a more efficient heat pump boiler system.
Figure 19. Percentage GHG Savings – Medium Office
Figure 20. Percentage GHG Savings – Medium Retail
Mixed Fuel
EE Code Min EE EE + LF
cz01 0% 3% 4% 12%
cz02 1% 0% 1% 8%
cz03 1% 0% 1% 8%
cz04 2% -1% 1% 7%
cz05 1% 0% 2% 9%
cz06 2% 0% 2% 8%
cz07 3% 0% 3% 8%
cz08 3% 0% 2% 8%
cz09 2% -1% 2% 7%
cz10 2% -2% 0% 6%
cz11 1% -3% -1% 5%
cz12 1% -2% -1% 5%
cz13 2% -3% -1% 4%
cz14 2% -4% -2% 5%
cz15 3% -1% 2% 7%
cz16 1% 1% 2% 7%
CZ
All-electric
All-electric
EE Code Min EE
cz01 -4% -2% 9%
cz02 -21% -13% 10%
cz03 -18% -8% 11%
cz04 -14% -5% 10%
cz05 -15% -5% 12%
cz06 -7% 4% 13%
cz07 -5% 7% 14%
cz08 -7% 4% 12%
cz09 -8% 3% 13%
cz10 -12% -9% 3%
cz11 -23% -21% 2%
cz12 -19% -11% 9%
cz13 -17% -8% 10%
cz14 -15% -5% 10%
cz15 -3% 0% 3%
cz16 -34% -33% 2%
Mixed Fuel
CZ
264
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 76 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Figure 21. Percentage GHG Savings – Quick Service Restaurant Figure 22. Percentage GHG Savings – Small Hotel
Mixed Fuel
EE Code Min EE EE + LF EE + PV Code Min EE
cz01 10% 21% 26% 28% 27% 47% 52%
cz02 7% 16% 19% 21% 21% 45% 49%
cz03 8% 14% 20% 22% 22% 45% 51%
cz04 7% 12% 17% 19% 19% 43% 49%
cz05 8% 14% 20% 22% 22% 45% 51%
cz06 7% 9% 15% 16% 17% 43% 48%
cz07 6% 8% 14% 15% 16% 43% 48%
cz08 4% 9% 12% 13% 14% 43% 46%
cz09 5% 9% 12% 13% 15% 43% 46%
cz10 5% 10% 13% 14% 15% 42% 46%
cz11 6% 13% 17% 18% 18% 43% 46%
cz12 6% 14% 17% 18% 19% 44% 48%
cz13 6% 12% 15% 16% 17% 43% 46%
cz14 6% 13% 16% 17% 18% 42% 46%
cz15 4% 7% 9% 11% 12% 40% 42%
cz16 8% 18% 23% 24% 24% 44% 49%
All-electric "HS" (HVAC+SHW) CZAll-electric
Mixed Fuel All-electric
EE Code Min EE EE + PV Code Min (PTHP)
cz01 13% 47% 48% 50% 47%
cz02 11% 42% 44% 47% 43%
cz03 12% 43% 45% 48% 43%
cz04 11% 41% 44% 46% 42%
cz05 11% 43% 45% 48% 43%
cz06 10% 41% 43% 46% 41%
cz07 10% 41% 43% 47% 41%
cz08 10% 40% 42% 46% 40%
cz09 10% 40% 42% 46% 40%
cz10 11% 37% 39% 43% 37%
cz11 12% 39% 41% 43% 39%
cz12 12% 38% 41% 43% 39%
cz13 11% 37% 39% 42% 37%
cz14 12% 38% 40% 44% 38%
cz15 10% 33% 35% 40% 33%
cz16 13% 43% 46% 48% 45%
CZ
All-electric
265
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Nonresidential New Construction 77 Energy Code Compliance Results and Reach Code Considerations localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-11-16 Get In Touch
The adoption of reach codes can differentiate jurisdictions as efficiency leaders and help accelerate the adoption of new equipment, technologies, code compliance, and energy savings strategies.
As part of the Statewide Codes & Standards Program, the Reach Codes Subprogram is a resource available to any local jurisdiction located throughout the state of California.
Our experts develop robust toolkits as well as provide specific technical assistance to local jurisdictions (cities and counties) considering adopting energy reach codes. These include cost-effectiveness research and analysis, model ordinance language and other code development and implementation tools, and specific technical assistance throughout the code adoption process.
If you are interested in finding out more about local energy reach codes, the Reach Code Team stands ready to assist jurisdictions at any stage of a reach code project.
Visit LocalEnergyCodes.com to
access our resources and sign up
for newsletters
Contact [email protected]
for no-charge assistance from expert
Reach Code advisors
Follow us on Twitter
266
Agenda Item # 7.
Prepared by:
Frontier Energy, Inc
Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC
Prepared for:
Kelly Cunningham, Codes and Standards Program, Pacific Gas and Electric Last modified: 2022/09/12
Revision: 1.0
2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study:
Single Family New
Construction
267
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Legal Notice
This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.
Copyright 2022, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. All rights reserved, except that this document may be used, copied, and distributed without modification.
Neither PG&E nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any privatelyowned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks or copyrights.
Acronym List
2023 PV$ – Present value costs in 2023
ACH50 – Air Changes per Hour at 50 pascals pressure
differential
ACM – Alternative Calculation Method
ADU – Accessory Dwelling Unit
AFUE – Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency
B/C – Lifecycle Benefit-to-Cost Ratio
BEopt – Building Energy Optimization Tool
BSC – Building Standards Commission
CA IOUs – California Investor-Owned Utilities
CASE – Codes and Standards Enhancement
CBECC-Res – Computer program developed by the California Energy Commission for use in demonstrating
compliance with the California Residential Building
Energy Efficiency Standards
CFI – California Flexible Installation
CFM – Cubic Feet per Minute
CO2 – Carbon Dioxide
CPAU – City of Palo Alto Utilities
CPUC – California Public Utilities Commission
CZ – California Climate Zone
DHW – Domestic Hot Water
DOE – Department of Energy
DWHR – Drain Water Heat Recovery
EDR – Energy Design Rating
EER – Energy Efficiency Ratio
EF – Energy Factor 268
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction GHG – Greenhouse Gas
HERS Rater – Home Energy Rating System Rater
HPA – High Performance Attic
HPWH – Heat Pump Water Heater
HSPF – Heating Seasonal Performance Factor
HVAC – Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IECC – International Energy Conservation Code
IOU – Investor Owned Utility
kBtu – kilo-British thermal unit
kWh – Kilowatt Hour
LBNL – Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
LCC – Lifecycle Cost
LLAHU – Low Leakage Air Handler Unit
VLLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space MF – Multifamily
NEEA – Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
NEM – Net Energy Metering
NPV – Net Present Value
NREL – National Renewable Energy Laboratory
PG&E – Pacific Gas and Electric Company
POU – Publicly-Owned-Utilities
PV – Photovoltaic
SCE – Southern California Edison
SDG&E – San Diego Gas and Electric
SEER – Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio
SF – Single Family
SMUD – Sacramento Municipal Utility District
SoCalGas – Southern California Gas Company
TDV – Time Dependent Valuation
Therm – Unit for quantity of heat that equals 100,000 British thermal units Title 24 – Title 24, Part 6
TOU – Time-Of-Use
UEF – Uniform Energy Factor
ZNE – Zero-net Energy
269
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Summary of Revisions
Date Description Reference (page or section)
9/12/2022 Original Release N/A
270
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary..........................................................................................................................................................1 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................3 2 Methodology and Assumptions...............................................................................................................................4
2.1 Analysis for Reach Codes..................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.1 Modeling ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1.2 Cost-Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................................................ 4
2.1.3 Utility Rates................................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................................................. 6
2.3 Energy Design Rating........................................................................................................................................................... 7 3 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs............................................................................................................8
3.3 Measure Definitions and Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 10
3.3.1 Efficiency, Solar PV, and Batteries ............................................................................................................................. 10
3.3.2 All-Electric................................................................................................................................................................... 16
3.4 Measure Packages ............................................................................................................................................................. 22 4 Results......................................................................................................................................................................24
4.1 2022 Metrics and Compliance............................................................................................................................................. 24
4.2 All-Electric Code Minimum Results ..................................................................................................................................... 26
4.3 All-Electric Plus Efficiency, PV, and Battery Results........................................................................................................... 29
4.4 Mixed Fuel Results ............................................................................................................................................................. 31
4.5 CARE Rate Comparison..................................................................................................................................................... 34
4.6 Utility Infrastructure Cost Sensitivity.................................................................................................................................... 36
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Reductions.............................................................................................................................................. 38 5 Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................41 6 References ...............................................................................................................................................................44 7 Appendices ..............................................................................................................................................................46
7.1 Map of California Climate Zones......................................................................................................................................... 46
7.2 Utility Rate Schedules......................................................................................................................................................... 47
7.2.1 Pacific Gas & Electric.................................................................................................................................................. 47
7.2.2 Southern California Edison ......................................................................................................................................... 53
7.2.3 Southern California Gas.............................................................................................................................................. 57
7.2.4 San Diego Gas & Electric............................................................................................................................................ 60
7.2.5 City of Palo Alto Utilities.............................................................................................................................................. 65
7.2.6 Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (Electric Only)................................................................................................. 68
7.2.7 Fuel Escalation Assumptions...................................................................................................................................... 69
7.3 Summary of Measures by Package .................................................................................................................................... 70
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Utility Tariffs Used Based on Climate Zone ............................................................................................................................ 6 Table 2: Prototype Characteristics........................................................................................................................................................ 8 271
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Table 3: Base case Characteristics of the Prototypes .......................................................................................................................... 9 Table 4: Base Package PV Capacities (kW-DC) ................................................................................................................................ 10 Table 5: Incremental Cost Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................. 13 Table 6. Single Family IOU Natural Gas Main Distribution Line Extension Costs............................................................................... 17 Table 7. Residential IOU Gas Line Extension Appliance Allowances ................................................................................................. 17 Table 8. Single Family IOU Natural Gas Service Line Extension Costs ............................................................................................. 17 Table 9. Single Family IOU Other Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs................................................................................................... 17 Table 10. Single Family IOU Total Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs1 ................................................................................................ 18 Table 11. Single Family CPAU Total Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs .............................................................................................. 18 Table 12. ADU Utility Infrastructure Costs .......................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 13: Lifetime of Water Heating & Space Conditioning Equipment Measures ............................................................................. 19 Table 14. Single Family All-Electric Appliance Incremental Costs...................................................................................................... 21 Table 15. ADU All-Electric Appliance Incremental Costs.................................................................................................................... 22 Table 16. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Code Minimum............................................................................................ 27 Table 17. ADU Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Code Minimum.......................................................................................................... 28 Table 18. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Energy Efficiency + Additional PV + Battery ............................................... 29 Table 19. ADU Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Energy Efficiency + Additional PV + Battery ............................................................. 30 Table 20. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery............................................................................ 31 Table 21. ADU Cost-Effectiveness: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery ......................................................................................... 32 Table 22. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: Mixed Fuel Packages ................................................................................................... 33 Table 23. ADU Cost-Effectiveness: Mixed Fuel Packages ................................................................................................................. 34 Table 24. On-Bill Cost-Effectiveness with CARE Tariffs: All-Electric Code Minimum ......................................................................... 35 Table 25. On-Bill Cost-Effectiveness with CARE Tariffs: Mixed Fuel Efficiency+ PV+ Battery Package ............................................ 36 Table 26. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness Comparison with Range of Natural Gas Utility Infrastructure Costs: All-Electric Code Minimum ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 37 Table 27. Single Family Cost-Effectiveness On-Bill Impact of CPUC Proposed Design on Gas Line Extension Allowances: AllElectric Code Minimum....................................................................................................................................................................... 38 Table 28: Single Family Greenhouse Gas Reductions (metric tons) .................................................................................................. 39 Table 29 ADU Greenhouse Gas Savings (metric tons) ...................................................................................................................... 40 Table 30. Summary of All-Electric Efficiency EDR2 Margins and Cost-Effectiveness ........................................................................ 42 Table 31. Summary of Mixed Fuel Efficiency EDR2 Margins and Cost-Effectiveness........................................................................ 43 Table 32: PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone.......................................................................................................................... 48 Table 33: PG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)..................................................................................................................................... 48 272
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Table 34: PG&E Monthly CARE (GL-1) Gas Rate ($/therm)............................................................................................................... 48 Table 35: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ............................................................................................................................ 54 Table 36: SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ................................................................................................................... 58 Table 37: SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) .............................................................................................................................. 58 Table 38: SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ....................................................................................................................... 60 Table 39: SDG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm).................................................................................................................................. 60 Table 40: CPAU Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)..................................................................................................................................... 66 Table 41: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions................................................................................................................... 69 Table 42: Single Family Efficiency Package Measures ...................................................................................................................... 70 Table 43: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery Package Measures............................................................................ 71 Table 44: ADU Efficiency Package Measures .................................................................................................................................... 71 Table 45: Single Family All-Electric Code Compliant Efficiency Measures......................................................................................... 72 Table 46: ADU All-Electric Code Compliant Efficiency Measures....................................................................................................... 72
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Single Family All-Electric Home Compliance Impacts ......................................................................................................... 24 Figure 2: ADU All-Electric Home Compliance Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 3: Single Family Four Gas Appliance Home Compliance Impacts........................................................................................... 25 Figure 4. Map of California climate zones........................................................................................................................................... 46 273
Agenda Item # 7.
274
Agenda Item # 7.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Executive Summary
1 localenergycodes.com California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2022-09-12 Executive Summary
The California Codes and Standards (C&S) Reach Codes program provides technical support to local governments considering adopting a local ordinance (reach code) intended to support meeting local and/or statewide energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction goals. The program facilitates adoption and implementation of the code when requested by local jurisdictions by providing resources such as cost-effectiveness studies, model language, sample findings, and other supporting documentation.
This report documents cost-effectiveness analysis results for traditional new detached single family and detached accessory dwelling unit (ADUs) building types. It evaluates mixed fuel and all-electric package options in all sixteen California climate zones (CZs). Packages include combinations of efficiency measures, on-site renewable energy, and battery energy storage.
The following summarizes key results from the study:
• All-electric packages have lower GHG emissions than mixed-fuel packages in all cases, due to the clean power sources currently available from California’s power providers. • The Reach Codes Team found all-electric new construction to be feasible and cost effective based on TDV in all cases. In many cases all-electric code minimum construction results in an increase in utility costs and is not cost-effective On-Bill. Some exceptions include the SMUD and CPAU territories where lower electricity rates relative to natural gas rates result in lower overall utility bills. • The 2022 Title 24 Code’s new source energy metric combined with the heat pump baseline encourage allelectric construction, providing an incentive that allows for some amount of prescriptively required building efficiency to be traded off. This compliance benefit for all-electric homes highlights a unique opportunity for jurisdictions to incorporate efficiency into all-electric reach codes. Efficiency and electrification have symbiotic benefits and are both critical for decarbonization of buildings. As demand on the electric grid is increased through electrification, efficiency can reduce the negative impacts of additional electricity demand on the grid, reducing the need for increased generation and storage capacity, as well as the need to upgrade upstream transmission and distribution equipment. The Reach Codes Team recommends that jurisdictions adopting an all-electric reach code for single family buildings also include an efficiency requirement with EDR2 margins consistent with the all-electric code minimum package.
• The code compliance margins for the ADU all-electric code minimum package are lower than for the single family prototype and code compliance can be more challenging for smaller dwelling units. As a result, the Reach Codes Team does not recommend an additional efficiency requirement for all-electric ADU ordinances. • Electrification combined with increased PV capacity results in utility cost savings and was found to be On-Bill cost effective in all cases. These results were based on today’s net energy metering rules and do not account for future changes to utility agreements, which are expected to decrease the value of PV to the consumer. • For jurisdictions interested in a reach code that allows for mixed fuel buildings, the mixed fuel efficiency, PV, and battery package was found to be cost effective based on TDV in all cases. Cost effectiveness was marginal because of the high cost of the battery system. EDR2 margins ranged from 7 to 30 for the costeffective packages. • Applying the CARE rates has the overall impact to increase utility cost savings for an all-electric building compared to a code compliant mixed fuel building, improving On-Bill cost-effectiveness.