San Rafael City Council
May 20, 2024

AGENDA
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL - MONDAY, MAY 20, 2024
REGULAR MEETING AT 6:00 P.M.

San Rafael City Council Chambers
1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901
Watch Online:

Watch on Zoom Webinar: https://tinyurl.com/sr-city-council Watch on YouTube: www.youtube.com/cityofsanrafael
Listen by phone: (669) 444-9171
ID: 860-6190-5675
One Tap Mobile: +16694449171,,86061905675# US
This meeting will be held in-person. This meeting is being streamed to YouTube at www.youtube.com/cityofsanrafael.

How to participate in the meeting:
• You are welcome to come to the meeting and provide public comment in person. Each speaker will have 2-minutes to provide public comment per agenda item. • Submit your comments by email to [email protected] by 4:00 p.m. the day of the meeting.

If you experience technical difficulties during the meeting, please contact [email protected].

OPEN SESSION– THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM – 4:00 PM

1. Mayor Kate to announce Closed Session items.

CLOSED SESSION – THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM – 4:00 PM

2. Closed Session:
a. Conference with Labor Negotiators – Government Code Section 54957.6 Lead Negotiators: Timothy L. Davis and Allison B. Hernandez (Burke, Williams & Sorensen) Agency Designated Representatives: Cristine Alilovich, Paul Navazio, Marissa Sanchez, and Angela Robinson Piñon
Employee Organizations: San Rafael Police Mid-Management Association; Public Employee Union, Local 1; San Rafael Firefighters’ Association; San Rafael Police Association; SEIU Local 1021; Western Council of Engineers; San Rafael Fire Chief Officers’ Association; San Rafael Police Mid-Management Association; San Rafael Fire Chief Officers’ Association; San Rafael Mid-Management Employee Association; Unrepresented Executive Management b. Conference with Real Property Negotiators - Government Code § 54956.8 Properties: 1) San Rafael City Schools Corp Yard Site, approximately 1.1 acre of land (portion of APN 014-101-09), located at corner of Union Street and Mission Ave., San Rafael; 2) San Rafael City Schools Glenwood Site, approximately 16.87 acres of land (southern portion of APNs 185-020-02 and 185-020-04), located south of Glenwood Elementary School (25 W.

Castlewood Dr.) and northeast of Main Dr., San Rafael.

Agency Negotiators: Cristine Alilovich, City Manager; John Stefanski, Assistant City Manager; Micah Hinkle, Director of Community and Economic Development Negotiating Party: San Rafael City Schools District
Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment
2 CITY MANAGER AND COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
(including AB 1234 Reports on Meetings and Conferences Attended at City Expense)

3. City Manager and Councilmember Reports:

CONSENT CALENDAR:

The opportunity for public comment on consent calendar items will occur prior to the City Council’s vote on the Consent Calendar. The City Council may approve the entire consent calendar with one action. In the alternative, items on the Consent Calendar may be removed by any City Council or staff member, for separate discussion and vote.

4. Consent Calendar Items:
a. Approval of Minutes
Approve Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of May 6, 2024 (CC) Recommended Action - Approve minutes as submitted
b. Legal Services Agreement
Authorize the City Manager to Enter into the First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP for General Municipal Legal Services, In an Amount of $130,000, Increasing the Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of the Agreement to $300,000 (CA)
Recommended Action – Authorize the City Manager to enter into the first amendment to the professional services agreement with Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP for general municipal legal services, in an amount of $130,000, increasing the total not-to-exceed amount of the agreement to $300,000
c. City-Owned Property as Exempt Surplus Land, and Affordable Housing Development Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for City Property
Resolution Determining and Declaring the City-Owned Site Located at 519 4th Street (APN 014-123-06) to be Exempt Surplus Land Pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(A), and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Abode Housing Development (CED)
Recommended Action – Adopt Resolution
d. Authorized Agents for FEMA and CalOES Disaster and Grant Funds California Office of Emergency Services Resolution Designating Authorized Agents to Execute on Behalf of the City of San Rafael Agreements to Obtain Federal Financial Assistance for Existing and Future Grant Programs (FD)
Recommended Action – Adopt Resolution
e. Citywide Storm Drain Plan Project
Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers (S&W) to Develop San Rafael’s Citywide Storm Drain Plan, in the Amount Not to Exceed $331,303, and Appropriate Funds for the Agreement (PW)
Recommended Action – Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers to develop San Rafael’s Citywide Storm Drain Plan, in the amount not to exceed $331,303, and appropriate funds for the agreement
3 f. Southern Heights / Courtright / Pearce Retaining Walls Project Accept Completion of the Southern Heights/Courtright/Pearce Retaining Walls Project, City Project No. 11371, and Authorize the City Clerk to File the Notice of Completion (PW) Recommended Action – Accept completion of the Southern Heights/Courtright/Pearce Retaining Walls Project and authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion g. Proclamation Supporting Public Works Week 2024
Proclamation Supporting Public Works Week 2024 (PW)
Recommended Action – Receive and file

PUBLIC HEARINGS

5. Public Hearings:
a. Ordinance Amending Green Building Codes
An Ordinance of the San Rafael City Council Amending Title 12 (Building Regulations) of the San Rafael Municipal Code, By Amending the California Energy Code, the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code for Electric Vehicle Chargers, the 2022 California Mechanical Code, and the 2022 California Plumbing Code; Adding a New Chapter 12.360 with Administrative and Program Regulations on Model Reach Codes; and Adopting Findings of Fact Supporting the Amendments to the Codes (CED) Recommended Action – Waive further reading of the Ordinance and refer to it by title only, and introduce the Ordinance
b. Planning Commission Membership Composition
***Item Removed from the Agenda***

OTHER AGENDA ITEMS

6. Other Agenda Items:
a. City Council FY 2023-2025 Goals and Objectives Annual Update and Introduction of Infrastructure and Transportation Workplan
FY 2023-2025 Goals and Objectives Annual Update and Introduction of Infrastructure and Transportation Workplan (CM/PW)
Recommended Action – Receive the report
b. Successor Memorandum of Understanding with San Rafael Police Association (SRPA) Resolution Approving a Successor Memorandum of Understanding Pertaining to Compensation and Working Conditions for San Rafael Police Association (SRPA) (June 1, 2024 through June 30, 2027) (CM/HR)
Recommended Action – Adopt Resolution
c. Successor Memorandum of Understanding with San Rafael Firefighters’ Association (SRFA)
Resolution Approving a Successor Memorandum of Understanding Pertaining to Compensation and Working Conditions for San Rafael Firefighters’ Association (SRFA) (June 1, 2024 Through June 30, 2027) (CM/HR)
Recommended Action – Adopt Resolution
4 OPEN TIME FOR PUBLIC EXPRESSION
The public is welcome to address the City Council at this time on matters not on the agenda that are within its jurisdiction. Please be advised that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the City Council is not permitted to discuss or take action on any matter not on the agenda unless it determines that an emergency exists, or that there is a need to take immediate action which arose following posting of the agenda. Comments may be no longer than two minutes and should be respectful to the community.

SAN RAFAEL SUCCESSOR AGENCY:

1. Consent Calendar: - None.

ADJOURNMENT:

Any records relating to an agenda item, received by a majority or more of the Council less than 72 hours before the meeting, shall be available for inspection online and at City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, and placed with other agendarelated materials on the table in front of the Council Chamber prior to the meeting. Sign Language interpreters may be requested by calling (415) 485-3066 (voice), emailing [email protected] or using the California Telecommunications Relay Service by dialing “711”, at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request. To request Spanish language interpretation, please submit an online form at https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/request-for-interpretation/.

Minutes subject to approval at the May 20, 2024 meeting

MINUTES
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL - MONDAY, MAY 6, 2024
REGULAR MEETING AT 6:00 P.M.

San Rafael City Council Chambers
1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901
Watch Online:

Watch on Zoom Webinar: https://tinyurl.com/cc-2024-05-06 Watch on YouTube: www.youtube.com/cityofsanrafael
Listen by phone: (669) 444-9171
ID: 844-3204-9611#
One Tap Mobile: +16694449171,,84432049611# US
This meeting will be held in-person. This meeting is being streamed to YouTube at www.youtube.com/cityofsanrafael.

How to participate in the meeting:
• You are welcome to come to the meeting and provide public comment in person. Each speaker will have 2-minutes to provide public comment per agenda item. • Submit your comments by email to [email protected] by 4:00 p.m. the day of the meeting.

If you experience technical difficulties during the meeting, please contact [email protected].

Present: Councilmember Bushey
Mayor Pro Tem Hill
Councilmember Kertz
Councilmember Llorens Gulati

Absent: Mayor Kate
Also Present: City Manager Cristine Alilovich
City Attorney Rob Epstein
City Clerk Lindsay Lara
Mayor Pro Tem Hill called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. and invited City Clerk Lindsay Lara to call the roll. All members of the City Council were present, except for Mayor Kate.

Mayor Pro Tem Hill provided opening remarks which included gratitude to City staff and a land acknowledgment.

City Clerk Lindsay Lara informed the community that the in-person meeting would also be recorded and streamed live to YouTube and through Zoom. She noted the two-minute timer for public comment and closed captioning on Zoom.

OPEN SESSION

1. None.

CLOSED SESSION
2 2. Closed Session: - None.

CITY MANAGER AND COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS:
(including AB 1234 Reports on Meetings and Conferences Attended at City Expense)

3. City Manager and Councilmember Reports:

City Manager Cristine Alilovich announced:
• Public Service Recognition Week Proclamation
• Free Event - Drew Robinson: A Survivor’s Story of Mental Health, Hope and Recovery to be held May 9, College of Marin (Kentfield), 5 p.m.
• 2
nd Friday Art Walk, Downtown, 5-8 p.m.
• May Madness Car Show & Parade to be held Saturday May 11, Downtown, 12-6 p.m. • Taste of San Rafael - State of the City to be held Wednesday May 15, Rafael Theater, 4:30-7 p.m.
• Farmers Market to be held May 16 thru August 24, Downtown, 5:30-8:30 p.m.

City Attorney Rob Epstein
• How to request reasonable accommodations for attending City Council or Board, Commission and Committee meetings.

City Councilmember Reports:
• Councilmember Kertz reported on a SMART train visit, San Rafael Downtown Earth Day, the Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers (MCCMC) legislative committee, China Camp’s Earth Day and the Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority (MWPA).
• Councilmember Llorens Gulati reported on Earth Day in the Canal, the annual breakfast with Congressman Jared Huffman, a Spinnaker and Baypoint neighborhood meeting, a City Climate Action Plan (CCAP) quarterly committee meeting, a BayWAVE meeting, a MCE Executive Committee meeting and a San Rafael Safe Routes to Schools task force meeting.
• Councilmember Bushey reported on a San Rafael Sanitation District board meeting, a Marin Transit board meeting (representing MCCMC) and a meeting with Supervisor Sackett.
• Mayor Pro Tem Hill reported on the second annual Marin County Youth Town Hall.

Mayor Pro Tem Hill invited public comment; however, there was none.

CONSENT CALENDAR:

Mayor Pro Tem Hill invited public comment on the Consent Calendar items.

Speakers: Karen Strolia, San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, Eva Chrysanthe Councilmember Llorens Gulati moved and Councilmember Kertz seconded to approve the Consent Calendar.

4. Consent Calendar Items:
a. Approval of Minutes
Approve Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings of April 15, 2024 (CC) Approved minutes as submitted
3 b. Ordinance Regulating Camping on Public Property
Final Adoption of Ordinance 2035: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Rafael Amending Chapter 19.50 to the San Rafael Municipal Code, Entitled “Camping on Public Property” Regulating Camping on Public Property Within the City of San Rafael (CED)
Final Adoption of Ordinance No. 2035
c. Proclamations
Proclamations Supporting:
i. Older Americans Month
ii. Wildfire Preparedness Month
iii. Public Service Recognition Week,
iv. Asian American, Native Hawai’ian and Pacific Islander Heritage Month v. Jewish American Heritage Month
vi. Arab American Heritage Month
vii. National Police Week
Received and filed
d. First Responder Counseling Services Agreement Amendment Authorize the City Manager to Enter into the Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Public Safety Family Counseling Group, Inc. in the Amount Not to Exceed $30,000, For a Total Not to Exceed Amount Under the Agreement of $150,000 (HR)
Authorized the City Manager to enter into a Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Public Safety Family Counseling Group, Inc. for first responder counseling services, in an amount not to exceed $30,000, increasing the total not to exceed amount under the agreement to $150,000; and Authorized a supplemental budget appropriation with Employee Benefits Fund (Fund 604) in an amount not to exceed $30,000 e. Public Art Project Proposal to Paint Six (6) Public Utility Boxes Throughout San Rafael Approval of the San Rafael Leadership Institute Proposal to Paint Murals on Six (6) Public Utility Boxes Throughout San Rafael (LR)
Approved the San Rafael Leadership Institute proposal to paint murals on six (6) public utility boxes throughout San Rafael
f. City Quarterly Investment Report
Acceptance of City of San Rafael Quarterly Investment Report for the Quarter Ending March 31, 2024 (Fin)
Accepted report
g. Third Street Rehabilitation Project
Authorize the City Manager to Enter into the Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Coastland Civil Engineering for Construction Management and Inspection Services Associated with the Third Street Rehabilitation Project, in an Additional Amount of $21,280, Increasing the Total Not to Exceed Amount of the Agreement to $1,569,580 (PW)
Authorized the City Manager to enter into the second amendment to the professional services agreement with Coastland Civil Engineering for construction management and inspection services associated with the Third Street Rehabilitation Project, in an additional amount of $21,280, increasing the total not to exceed amount of the agreement to $1,569,580; and Authorized a 4 supplemental budget appropriation with Gas Tax Funds (#206) in an amount not to exceed $21,280
h. Miovision Traffic Camera Service Agreement
Authorize the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with Miovision Technologies Incorporated for Traffic Camera Services for Up to Four (4) Years with Up to a Five Percent (5%) Increase Per Fiscal Year of Service and Appropriate $88,018 to the General Fund for Year One of Service (PW)
Authorized the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Miovision Technologies Incorporated (“Miovision”) for traffic camera services for up to four (4) years with up to a five percent (5%) increase per fiscal year of service and appropriate $88,018 to the General Fund for year one of service
i. Second Street, Fourth Street and Miracle Mile Intersection Improvements Project Authorize the City Manager to Enter into the First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. for Additional Design Services Associated with the Second Street, Fourth Street and Miracle Mile Intersection Improvements Project, in an Additional Amount of $96,900, Increasing the Total Not to Exceed Amount of the Agreement to $228,482 (PW)
Authorized the City Manager to enter into the first amendment to the professional services agreement with CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group Inc. for additional design services associated with the Second Street, Fourth Street and Miracle Mile Intersection Improvements Project, in an additional amount of $96,000, increasing the total not to exceed amount of the agreement to $228,482; and Authorized a supplemental budget appropriation with Gas Tax Funds (#206) in an amount not to exceed $96,900
j. City of San Rafael Essential Facilities Construction Project: Fire Stations 54 And 55 Authorize the City Manager to Enter into the Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Loving Campos Associates Architects, Inc. for Extended Architectural, Waterproofing Consulting and Construction Administration Services Related to Phase 2 Essential Facilities Projects: Fire Stations 54 and 55, in an Additional Amount of $120,995, Increasing the Total Not to Exceed Amount of the Agreement to $451,741 (PW)
Authorized the City Manager to enter into the second amendment to the professional services agreement with Loving Campos Associates Architects, Inc. for extended architectural, waterproof consulting and construction administration services related to the Phase 2 Essential Facilities Projects: Fire Stations 54 and 55, in and additional amount of $120,995, increasing the total not to exceed amount of the agreement to $451,741; and Authorized a supplemental budget appropriation with Essential Facilities Capital Projects Fund (#420) in an amount not to exceed $120,995
AYES: Councilmembers: Bushey, Kertz, Llorens Gulati & Mayor Pro Tem Hill NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: Mayor Kate
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:

5. Special Presentations:

Mayor Pro Tem Hill invited public comment; however, there was none. a. Presentation of Proclamation Supporting Mental Health Awareness Month (CM) 5 City Manager Cristine Alilovich provided comments and introduced the item, Mayor Pro Tem Hill presented the Proclamation and Kara Connors of Marin County Behavioral Health & Recovery Services (BHRS) gave a presentation.

OTHER AGENDA ITEMS

6. Other Agenda Items:
a. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Resolution Recommending Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Project Funding for the Fiscal Year 2024-25 to the Marin County Board of Supervisors (CED) Mel Burnette, Homelessness and Housing Analyst presented the Staff Report with Molly Kron, Marin County Community Development Agency.

Staff responded to questions from the City Council.

Mayor Pro Tem Hill invited public comment.

Speakers: Carolyn Flannery, Make It Home, Name Withheld, Al Vetere, Damian, Jonathan Frieman
Staff responded to questions from the community.

Councilmembers provided comments.

At the request of the Council, City Attorney Rob Epstein provided comments regarding a possible motion such that the Council can accommodate a pro rata change in the resolution.

Molly Kron, Marin County Community Development Agency provided comments on past practice.

City Attorney Rob Epstein suggested that the motion be consistent with past practice regarding reallocation, if necessary.

Councilmember Kertz moved and Councilmember Bushey seconded to adopt a Resolution Recommending Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Project Funding for the Fiscal Year 2024-25 to the Marin County Board of Supervisors, consistent with past practice.

AYES: Councilmembers: Bushey, Kertz, Llorens Gulati & Mayor Pro Tem Hill NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: Mayor Kate
Resolution 15285 - Resolution Recommending Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Project Funding for the Fiscal Year 2024-25 to the Marin County Board of Supervisors, consistent with past practice.

OPEN TIME FOR PUBLIC EXPRESSION
• Name Withheld addressed the City Council regarding antisemitism and the attack at the Islamic Center of North Marin.
6 • Catherine Healy addressed the City Council regarding illegal anchor-outs in San Rafael turning basin on the Canal.
• Jerry McNulty, San Rafael Yacht Club, addressed the City Council regarding illegal anchorouts in San Rafael turning basin on the Canal. • Mia Burnt addressed the City Council regarding illegal anchor-outs in San Rafael turning basin on the Canal.
• Bob Mittelstaedt, E-Bike Access, addressed the City Council regarding personal attacks on a person’s heritage/religion and E-bike enforcement updates. • Marina Palma, 400 Canal St. Tenants Union, addressed the City Council regarding 400 Canal Street utilities and rent.
• Glendy, 400 Canal St. Tenants Union, addressed the City Council regarding 400 Canal Street utilities and rent.
• Name Withheld, 400 Canal St. Tenants Union, addressed the City Council regarding 400 Canal Street utilities and rent.
• Florida Morales, Voces del Canal addressed the City Council regarding 400 Canal Street utilities and rent.
• Gloria Calderon addressed the City Council regarding 400 Canal Street utilities and rent. • Efraim addressed the City Council regarding 400 Canal Street utilities and rent. • Maximo addressed the City Council regarding 400 Canal Street utilities and rent. • Name Withheld addressed the City Council regarding 400 Canal Street utilities and rent. • Name Withheld addressed the City Council regarding 400 Canal Street, accommodations and E-bikes.
• Sara Benitez addressed the City Council regarding 400 Canal Street utilities and rent. • Name Withheld addressed the City Council regarding 400 Canal Street utilities and rent. • Elvin Mazariegos addressed the City Council regarding 400 Canal Street utilities and rent. • Name Withheld addressed the City Council regarding 400 Canal Street utilities and rent. • Name Withheld addressed the City Council regarding 400 Canal Street utilities and rent. • Shinji S. addressed the City Council regarding 400 Canal Street and E-bikes in San Rafael.

SAN RAFAEL SUCCESSOR AGENCY:

Chair Pro Tem Hill invited public comment; however, there was none.

Member Bushey moved and Member Kertz seconded to approve the Consent Calendar.

1. Consent Calendar:
a. Successor Agency Quarterly Investment Report
Acceptance of Successor Agency Quarterly Investment Report for the Quarter Ending March 31, 2024 (Fin)
Accepted report
AYES: Councilmembers: Bushey, Kertz, Llorens Gulati & Chair Pro Tem Hill NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: Chair Kate
ADJOURNMENT:

Mayor Pro Tem Hill adjourned the meeting at 8:14 p.m.
7 ___________________________
LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS _____DAY OF____________, 2024
_____________________________________
KATE COLIN, Mayor
____________________________________________________________________________________

FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting:

Disposition:

Agenda Item No: 4.b
Meeting Date: May 20, 2024

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: City Attorney
Prepared by: Genevieve Coyle, Assistant City
Attorney
City Manager Approval: ______________
TOPIC: LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO

THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BURKE, WILLIAMS &

SORENSEN, LLP FOR GENERAL MUNICIPAL LEGAL SERVICES, IN AN AMOUNT OF $130,000, INCREASING THE TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF THE AGREEMENT TO $300,000
RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize the City Manager to enter into the first amendment to the professional services agreement with Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP for general municipal legal services, in an amount of $130,000, increasing the total not-to-exceed amount of the agreement to $300,000.

BACKGROUND:

The City Attorney’s office is staffed with a part-time elected City Attorney, a full-time Assistant City Attorney, and a full-time Legal Assistant. In order to provide necessary legal services to the City, the office engages attorneys with the law firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP (“BWS”) for as-needed services in general municipal law and subject-matter expertise in areas such as land use, zoning, housing, code enforcement, finance, real estate, public records requests, intellectual property, and telecommunications. In September 2023, the City entered into a professional services agreement (“PSA”) with BWS in an amount not-to-exceed $170,000 for legal services covering fiscal year FY 2023-24.

Payments are made at the firm’s standard public entity hourly rates. This PSA provides an average of over 40 hours of excess legal services per month, roughly equal to the services of a one-quarter-time staff attorney.

ANALYSIS:

This fiscal year, there has been a significant increase in demand for legal services from the City Attorney’s Office. This is due primarily to a marked increase in the volume and complexity of public records requests; matters concerning homelessness, code enforcement, and community development; and new City legislation, including the amended camping ordinance and the urgency ordinance for tenant displacement protections in the opportunity zone. With anticipated projects, there is a need for additional legal services to continue through the end of the fiscal year.

Staff recommends entering into a First Amendment to the PSA in an amount of $130,000 for excess legal services through FY 2023-24.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
FISCAL IMPACT:

Funds to cover the recommended amendment amount of $130,000 are available in the FY 2023-2024 general fund budget.

OPTIONS:

The City Council has the following options to consider on this matter:

1. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and enter into the professional services agreement.

2. Direct staff to return with more information.

3. Take no action.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Authorize the City Manager to enter into the first amendment to the professional services agreement with Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP for general municipal legal services, in an amount of $130,000, increasing the total not-to-exceed amount of the agreement to $300,000.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft First Amendment
1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH

BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP FOR

GENERAL MUNICIPAL LEGAL SERVICES
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT to the Professional Services Agreement by and between the CITY OF SAN RAFAEL (hereinafter “CITY”), and BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP (hereinafter “CONSULTANT”), is made and entered into as of the ______ day of ________________, 2024.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a Professional Services Agreement dated September 6, 2023 to perform as-needed legal services in general municipal law, including but not limited to subject-matter expertise in areas such as land use, zoning, housing, code enforcement, labor and employment, finance, real estate, Public Records Act, and telecommunications, for an amount not to exceed $170,000 (the “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the CITY and CONSULTANT wish to amend the Agreement to modify the total compensation payable to CONSULTANT so as to authorize CONSULTANT to provide additional legal services;

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

1. Article II of the Agreement, entitled “COMPENSATION” is hereby amended to include additional compensation payable to CONSULTANT, in a not-toexceed amount of $130,000, and to change the total not-to-exceed amount under the Agreement to $300,000.

2. Except as specifically amended herein, all of the other provisions, terms and obligations of the Agreement between the parties shall remain valid and shall be in full force.
2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment on the day, month, and year first above written.

CITY OF SAN RAFAEL:
_________________________________
CRISTINE ALILOVICH, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Office of the City Attorney
_________________________________
By: GENEVIEVE COYLE,
Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:

City Clerk
_________________________________
LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk
CONSULTANT:
__________________________________
By: ____________________________
Name: ____________________________
Title: ____________________________
[If CONSULTANT is a corporation, add
signature of second corporate officer]
__________________________________
By: ____________________________
Name: ____________________________
Title: ____________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting: _______________________
Disposition: ___________________________
Agenda Item No: 4.c
Meeting Date: May 20, 2024

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Prepared by: Micah Hinkle, Director,
Community and Economic Development
Chris Hess, Assistant Director
Community Development
Housing and Homelessness Programs
Stacey Laumann, Economic Development
Program Manager
City Manager Approval: _______
TOPIC: CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AS EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND, AND AFFORDABLE

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT FOR CITY

PROPERTY
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION DETERMINING AND DECLARING THE CITY-OWNED SITE LOCATED AT 519 4TH STREET (APN 014-123-06) TO BE EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54221(f)(1)(A), AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITH

ABODE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the resolution.

BACKGROUND:

On December 8, 2023, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the development of the cityowned property at 519 4th Street (Attachment 3). The property, APN 014-123-06, comprises 0.304 acres (13,278 square feet) and is located on the south side of 4th Street, between Irwin Street and Grand Avenue. The property was acquired by the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency in 1983. It is developed with an L-shaped commercial building and parking lot utilized by the City for police and fire department storage.

The State of California's Surplus Land Act (SLA) requires cities to identify surplus land and prioritize its use for affordable housing development. Following specific procedures outlined in the SLA, cities must offer this surplus land to affordable housing developers before considering selling or leasing it for other purposes.

Housing developments may be exempt from certain provisions of California's SLA if they meet specific criteria, such as having at least 25% of units designated for lower-income households. This exemption SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
facilitates the development of affordable housing on surplus land without additional procedural requirements. The City’s 519 4th Street property represents an opportunity to develop affordable housing on a City property via such an exemption under section 54221(f)(1)(A) of the SLA (Government Code sections 54220-54234). Under Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(A), surplus land that is transferred pursuant to Government Code Section 37364 for development as affordable housing qualifies as “exempt surplus land”. Government Code Section 37364 authorizes local agencies to sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of real property to provide housing affordable to persons and families of low- or moderate-income the developer commits to (i) utilize at least 80% of the land area of the site for development of housing; (ii) cause not less than 40% of the units to be developed to be affordable to households whose incomes are equal to, or less than, 60% of the area median income for Marin County, adjusted for family size (AMI); and (iii) cause at least half of the units described in clause (ii) to be affordable to households whose incomes are equal to, or less than, 50% of AMI.

ANALYSIS:

Request for Proposals (RFP) Process
The process outlined below was published with the RFP on December 8, 2023.

Timeline
Announcement December 8, 2023
Virtual Developer Workshop December 20, 2023, 3:00-4:00 PM Deadline for emailed questions for City response January 8, 2024; City responses by January 12, 2024
Responses Due January 24, 2024 by 5:00 PM
Evaluation January 25 - 31, 2024
Developer Team Interview(s) (if applicable) February 6 - 13, 2024 (February 9, 2024 actual) Authorization by the City Council March 2024
Three developer teams responded to the RFP. Each application was evaluated based on the development team’s stated project vision, target population, organizational experience and capacity, and financial proposal.

As a result of this process, staff recommend proceeding with Abode Housing Development (“Abode”) for exclusive negotiations.

The Abode project proposes 56 units total, with 53 one-bedrooms and 3 two-bedrooms. 50% of these (28 units) would be reserved for supportive housing for formerly homeless residents. 29 units would be restricted at 20-30% AMI, 14 units at 50% AMI, and 12 units at 60% AMI. Abode proposes to develop the project using Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, regional and state affordable housing bond dollars, and will provide property management and on-site social services. Given the affordability levels of the proposed project, the project would qualify for the SLA exemptions described in the background section of this staff report.

Staff recommends proceeding with Abode for the following reasons.

1. Abode’s proposal most directly addresses the City Council’s goal of ending homelessness, especially for the chronically homeless population staying in encampments, providing the largest number of deeply affordable units of permanent supportive housing.

2. Compared to the competing proposals for designated senior housing (aged 62+), Abode’s proposal more directly serves the population experiencing homelessness in San Rafael.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
Homelessness among older adults is a serious issue, and age is a prioritization factor for permanent supportive housing (PSH) units in the community. However, the greater number of PSH units in the Abode proposal, without an age restriction, maximizes the project’s benefit for addressing homelessness as it is experienced in San Rafael.

3. Abode’s proposal provides the necessary components of successful permanent supportive housing, including robust onsite case management services, thereby providing a greater likelihood of success in housing high-acuity and challenging residents. Although all three proposals called out the need for additional social services and operating subsidies, Abode shows the largest budget and staffing for clinical services (1.2 FTE onsite) in its proposal proforma.

As an affordable housing developer, Abode's mission is to end homelessness by assisting low-income, un-housed people, including those with special needs, to secure stable, supportive housing; and to be advocates for the removal of the causes of homelessness. Abode was founded in Alameda County in 1989 and has since expanded its impact throughout the Bay Area, serving more than 15,000 people each year in Alameda, Santa Clara, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, Napa, and Solano counties.

Next Steps
Staff recommends the City enter into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with Abode in substantially the form attached (Attachment 2), subject to minor conforming changes as approved by the City Attorney. The ENA provides a commitment between the City and Abode Housing Development to exclusively negotiate terms and conditions of a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) over a 12-month period split into two phases: a 6-month preliminary stage during which the parties will focus on term sheet negotiations, followed by a 6-month DDA stage during which the parties will, assuming they have reached agreement on a term sheet, negotiate and draft a comprehensive DDA consistent with the term sheet. The ENA allows for up to 120 days of administrative extensions of the negotiating period.

This arrangement allows for focused discussions on terms without external interference, ultimately aiming to streamline the negotiation process.

Staff would return to the City Council to seek approval of any proposed DDA, which would determine the land disposition, specifically if the property is leased or sold to the developer. The property value will be appraised as part of the due diligence process.

Adobe would be responsible for all project development and permitting processes and project financing.

The City can anticipate that the value of the property will leverage additional state and federal affordable housing development funds and leverage potentially greater long-term operating subsidy and social services commitments.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH:

Upon release of the RFP, staff posted the RFP on the City’s website and emailed it to organizations on two developer lists: Marin County Community Development Agency’s list of developer contacts (39 contacts), and a City staff-generated list (61 contacts). Staff presented and answered questions at the December 20th developer workshop and responded publicly to emailed questions on January 12th as described in the timetable above.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact to the City for predevelopment expenses related to the housing project are estimated to be approximately $70,000 in legal fees, title and transaction expenses, background documentation, and consultants.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
In FY 2023-24, $20,000 is available from Community and Economic Development Department’s budget and to support expenditures in the current fiscal year. An additional $50,000 in funding to support predevelopment expenses is incorporated in the FY 2024-25 budget.

OPTIONS:

The City Council has the following options to consider on this matter:

1. Adopt the resolution.

2. Direct staff to return with more information.

3. Take no action.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt the resolution (Attachment 1) determining that the property at 519 4th Street is exempt surplus land under the Surplus Land Act and authorizes the City Manager to enter into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with nonprofit housing developer Abode Housing Development, for the development of the property.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Exclusive Negotiating Agreement

3. Request for Proposals for the Development of New Affordable Housing, 519 4th Street 4873-5218-5190 v5
RESOLUTION ______

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL

DETERMINING AND DECLARING THE CITY-OWNED SITE LOCATED
AT 519 4TH STREET (APN 014-123-06) TO BE EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54221(f)(1)(A),

AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN

EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITH ABODE HOUSING

DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael (the “City”) is the owner of that certain real property within the City limits at 519 4th Street, consisting of approximately 0.304 acre, designated as APN 014-123-06 (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is located within the Downtown San Rafael Precise Plan Area and is currently improved with a commercial building used as storage for the City’s police and fire departments; and
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2023, the City issued a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) seeking a developer to develop an affordable housing project on at least eighty percent (80%) of the Property. The RFP was distributed to private developers as well as housing sponsors (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50074) that have notified the California Department of Housing and Community Development of their interest in surplus land; and
WHEREAS, City received three (3) proposals, one of which was submitted by Abode Housing Development, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (“Abode”); and
WHEREAS, Abode’s proposal contemplates development of the Property exclusively with affordable housing units, half of which will be affordable to households with incomes that do not exceed 60% of the area median income (“AMI”) and half of which will be available to persons experiencing homelessness or to very low income households (households with incomes less than 50% of AMI) (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed the proposals, interviewed the three (3) respondents, determined that Abode has demonstrated the highest level of skill, experience, and financial capacity and that Abode’s proposed Project would best advance City’s goals for development of the Property; and WHEREAS, the Surplus Land Act (Government Code Section 54220 et. seq.) (“Act”) requires local agencies, including charter cities, to follow certain procedures to dispose of “surplus land” or declare land to be “exempt surplus land” at a regular public meeting prior to disposition; and
4873-5218-5190 v5
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(A), surplus land that is transferred pursuant to Government Code Section 37364 for development as affordable housing qualifies as “exempt surplus land”; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 37364 authorizes local agencies to sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of real property to provide housing affordable to persons and families of low- or moderate-income provided that (i) at least 80% of the area of the property will be used for development of housing, and (ii) at least 40% of the housing units developed on the property will be affordable to households whose income is not greater than 60% of AMI (75% of the upper limit for “lower income households”), of which at least one-half will be affordable to households of very low-income (50% AMI); and
WHEREAS, City desires to enter into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement, in substantially the form included in the staff report accompanying this resolution (“ENA”) with Abode for the purpose of negotiating the terms of a proposed Disposition and Development Agreement (“DDA”) and affordable housing covenant (“Affordable Housing Covenant”) for the Property and the Project, conducting predevelopment site analysis and project scoping, and determining a preliminary site plan for the Project; and
WHEREAS, a DDA, if approved by the City Council and entered into by the parties, will require the Property to be developed and operated for residential uses consistent with the affordability requirements set forth in Government Code Section 37364.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Rafael that:

1. The City Council adopts the recitals set forth above as findings of fact.

2. The City Council has determined, and hereby affirms, that a DDA, if approved by the City Council and entered into by the parties, will require recordation of an Affordable Housing Covenant ensuring that the Property will be developed for and used to provide affordable housing, including housing affordable to persons and families of low- and very low-income in a manner consistent with the affordability requirements set forth in Government Code Section 37364, that this use is in the City’s and community’s best interests, and that development of the Property and the Project in accordance with requirements to be set forth in a DDA and an Affordable Housing Covenant will satisfy the requirements of Government Code Section 37364.

3. The City Council further makes the following findings, pursuant to Government Code Section 37364:
4873-5218-5190 v5
a. As will be more particularly set forth in the proposed DDA, (i) not less than 80% of the Property will be required to be developed for housing, and (ii) within the Project overall, at least 40% of any housing units developed on the Property will be affordable to households whose income is not greater than 60% AMI (75% of the upper limit for “lower income households”), of which at least one-half will be affordable to households of very low-income (50% AMI).
b. The proposed DDA will require recordation of a separate Affordable Housing Covenant with a term of not less than 55 years against the Property, to ensure the affordable residential units within the Project are restricted for occupancy at affordable rents by eligible households with household incomes consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 37364.

4. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby determines and declares the Property to be exempt surplus land under Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(A) as property proposed to be transferred pursuant to Government Code Section 37364. The City Council further hereby directs City staff to send a notification to HCD that the City Council has declared the Property exempt surplus land by this resolution.

5. The City hereby authorizes the City Manager to enter into an ENA with Abode in substantially the form attached to the staff report, subject to minor conforming changes as approved by the City Attorney.

I, LINDSAY LARA, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on Monday the 20th day of May 2024, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk
1 4884-1052-6128 v6

EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT
This Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (“Agreement”) dated for reference purposes as of ___________ 2024 (“Effective Date”), is entered into by and between the City of San Rafael, a municipal corporation (“City”), and Abode Housing Development, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (“Developer”). City and Developer are sometimes referred to individually herein as a “Party”, and collectively as the “Parties”.

R E C I T A L S:

A. City owns that certain real property designated as Assessor Parcel Number 014- 123-06 (“Property”) as depicted on the “Site Map” attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Property is improved with a commercial building currently used as storage for the City’s police and fire departments.

B. On December 8, 2023, the City issued a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) seeking a developer to develop an affordable housing project on at least eighty percent (80%) of the Property. The RFP was distributed to private developers as well as housing sponsors (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50074) that have notified the California Department of Housing and Community Development of their interest in surplus land.

C. City received three (3) proposals, including Developer’s which contemplates development of the Property as a residential development consisting entirely of affordable housing units, half of which will be affordable to households with incomes that do not exceed 60% of the area median income (“AMI”) and half of which will be available to persons experiencing homelessness or to very low income households, which are defined as households with incomes less than 50% of AMI (the “Project”).

D. On _____________, 2024, the City Council of City by Resolution No. ____, selected Developer as City’s preferred developer and directed the City Manager to enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with Developer.

E. City and Developer now desire to enter into this Agreement setting forth the terms under which City and Developer will diligently and in good faith endeavor to accomplish the following: (1) during a Preliminary Stage (defined below) of negotiations, for Developer to (i) conduct certain due diligence and site planning work, including environmental investigations, to determine whether the proposed Project is feasible from a financial, design and operational perspective, and (ii) attempt to agree upon a Term Sheet with City setting forth the key terms of a Disposition and Development Agreement (“DDA”) (defined below) with respect to the Property and proposed Project; and (2) if, and only if, the Parties memorialize their successful completion of the Preliminary Stage of the negotiations via a Preliminary Stage Feasibility Confirmation, the Parties will proceed to a DDA Stage of negotiations during which the Parties would negotiate and draft a comprehensive DDA setting forth the terms under which City would transfer the Property to Developer and Developer would develop the proposed Project on the Property and Developer and its successors and assigns, at its and their expense, would agree to operate the Project and rent the residential units therein to income eligible households at affordable rents in accordance with terms to be set forth in the DDA and a recorded Affordable Housing Covenant. 2 4884-1052-6128 v6

A G R E E M E N T
City and Developer agree as follows:

1. NEGOTIATION PERIOD.

1.1 Good Faith Negotiations. City and Developer, acknowledging that time is of the essence, agree for the Negotiation Period set forth in Section 1.2 below, to negotiate diligently and in good faith and endeavor to perform the tasks and due diligence necessary for successful completion of the Preliminary Stage, and if the Preliminary Stage conditions are satisfied, for the Parties to endeavor to complete the DDA Stage tasks which, if successfully concluded, would culminate in presentation of a comprehensive DDA to the City Council for its consideration and potential approval. City agrees, for the Negotiation Period, not to negotiate with, solicit offers or proposals regarding, or respond to inquiries from (other than to notify the inquiring party, person or entity that City is subject to an agreement to negotiate exclusively), any other person or entity regarding the conveyance of the Property and/or the development of the Property or any portion thereof. A DDA resulting from the negotiations hereunder shall become effective only if and after such DDA has been considered and approved by the City Council at a duly noticed public meeting called for such purpose. If a DDA is executed by City and Developer, the DDA shall thereafter govern the rights and obligations of the Parties.

1.2 Negotiation Period Stages and Duration.
a. The negotiations shall be conducted in two stages, the combined duration of which shall not exceed twelve (12) months, plus extensions, if any, as provided in subsection (b) below (“Negotiation Period”). The “Preliminary Stage” of the Negotiation Period shall commence on the Effective Date and expire six (6) months thereafter, subject to potential extension as provided in subsection (b) below, or on the date the Parties execute a Preliminary Stage Feasibility Confirmation (defined below) whichever is earlier. During the Preliminary Stage, the Parties shall work together in good faith to (i) enable Developer, at its expense, to assess whether the proposed Project is feasible from a technical, financial, and operational perspective, and develop a preliminary site plan for the Project; and (ii) negotiate a proposed DDA Term Sheet (defined below). If, on or before expiration of the Preliminary Stage, either Party determines in its sole and absolute discretion that the proposed Project is impractical or infeasible or otherwise does not meet its needs and objectives, or if either Party determines that the key terms of a DDA Term Sheet as proposed by the other Party are unacceptable to such Party, then the Party making such determination may terminate this Agreement by written notice to the other Party. If, however, on or before expiration of the Preliminary Stage each Party determines in its sole and absolute discretion that the proposed Project appears to be feasible and is likely to meet such Party’s needs and objectives and that the DDA Term Sheet is acceptable to such Party, then the Parties shall memorialize the achievement of such milestones in writing (“Preliminary Stage Feasibility Confirmation”) and, in such event, the Parties shall proceed to the DDA Stage (defined below) of the Negotiation Period. If the Parties have not executed a Preliminary Stage Feasibility Confirmation by the expiration of the Preliminary Stage (as it may be extended as provided for in subsection (b) below), then this Agreement shall terminate and neither Party shall have any further rights or obligations under this Agreement, except for those obligations which by their terms survive expiration or termination hereof. The “DDA Stage” of 3 4884-1052-6128 v6
the Negotiation Period shall commence, if at all, on the effective date of the Preliminary Stage Feasibility Confirmation and expire six (6) months thereafter, subject to potential extension as provided in subsection (b) below. During the DDA Stage, the Parties will endeavor to negotiate and draft a comprehensive DDA, including an Affordable Housing Covenant, and undertake the other DDA Stage tasks described in the Schedule of Performance attached hereto as Exhibit B. b. Extensions. The Preliminary Stage and/or DDA Stage of the Negotiation Period may each be extended from time to time if the City Manager determines in his or her sole discretion that the Parties have made substantial progress toward meeting the performance milestones identified in this Agreement and in the Schedule of Performance to merit such extension. However, the cumulative total of all such extensions granted by the City Manager shall not exceed one hundred and twenty (120) days.

2. Negotiation Period Tasks and Milestones

2.1 Preliminary Stage Tasks. During the Preliminary Stage of the Negotiation Period, Developer and City will undertake the tasks set forth in the Schedule of Performance attached hereto as Exhibit B, including endeavoring to negotiate and draft a mutually acceptable term sheet (“Term Sheet”) setting forth the key terms for inclusion in the proposed DDA. The Term Sheet will address, among other things, the following:
a. Transfer value of the Property and the existing improvements thereon based on an appraisal methodology agreeable to the Parties; b. Transfer method (e.g. ground lease or fee transfer); c. Details of the proposed Project land use and operational characteristics, generally consisting of affordable housing units, which may potentially include permanent supportive housing for persons experiencing homelessness; d. Details of the proposed Project structures, in plan and elevation, along with conceptual renderings;
e. Agreed-upon timelines for entitlements and documentation necessary for commencement of construction;
f. Conditions precedent for close of escrow, including identification of all land use approvals, building permits, and construction contracts with a general contractor that Developer will have to obtain;
g. Financing details, including any debt and equity financing that Developer may have to obtain, and appropriate evidence of debt and equity commitments that Developer will need to provide to City’s financial consultant prior to City’s consideration of a DDA for approval and prior to closing;
h. City remedies, including reverter rights, if Developer fails to timely commence or complete construction of the proposed Project by specified dates; 4 4884-1052-6128 v6
i. The terms of the affordable housing covenant to be recorded against the Property, including the City’s remedies if Developer or its successors or assigns fails to continuously operate and maintain the Project as affordable rental housing following initial construction thereof;
j. Outline of the City entitlement process to be administered and processed separately from the DDA, the costs of which will be borne exclusively by Developer; k. Developer’s review of a title report for the Property, to be obtained by Developer from a mutually agreeable title company, and resolution of any title objections; and l. Developer’s due diligence investigations of the Property.

2.2 DDA Stage. If the Parties proceed to the DDA Stage of the Negotiation Period, then City and Developer, in addition to undertaking the other DDA Stage tasks as set forth in the Schedule of Performance, will endeavor to negotiate and draft a mutually acceptable DDA, including ancillary agreements, to be considered for approval by the City Council prior to expiration of the Negotiation Period.

3. Costs Associated With the Negotiation Period Tasks. Developer shall be solely responsible for the costs associated with preparing site plans, drawings, plans, or other graphic materials; conducting project financial feasibility analysis; obtaining a title report; undertaking physical and environmental investigations of the Property and improvements thereon, including an updated Phase 1 report (and, if recommended by the Phase 1, a Phase 2 report or other subsurface soil and/or ground water investigations); any CEQA analysis required for the proposed Project; and any and all land use entitlement and permitting costs. Except as otherwise provided above, each Party shall be responsible for bearing its own internal costs associated with the Negotiation Period including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees and staffing costs.

4. Right of Entry and City Materials.

4.1 Right of Entry. City shall provide Developer reasonable access to all portions of the Property and improvements thereon for the purpose of obtaining data and making surveys and tests necessary to evaluate the development potential of the Property and otherwise to conduct the land use due diligence relating to the Project as contemplated hereunder, including, without limitation, the right to make borings to investigate the soils and environmental condition of the Property with the City’s prior approval and in exchange for appropriate Developer obligations to indemnify City and add City as an additional insured on Developer’s or Developer’s consultants insurance policies. Said right of access, and the associated insurance and indemnity requirements for invasive testing, shall be memorialized via an access agreement in a form reasonably acceptable to City.

4.2 City Materials. City will provide Developer the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment prepared by the ECA Group Environmental Consultants on August 23, 2023 and a title report for the Property and any other engineering, environmental reports and related data that Developer requests and that are in City’s possession, custody or control (collectively, “City Materials”). Any City Materials provided to Developer will be furnished without warranty of any kind and on the express condition that Developer will make its own independent verification 5 4884-1052-6128 v6
of the accuracy, reliability and completeness of such information as Developer deems appropriate, and that Developer will not rely on the City Materials.

5. DEVELOPER INVESTIGATIONS AND STUDIES. At no cost to City, Developer shall make available to City any reports prepared in connection with Developer’s investigation, testing, or studies of the Property, including (i) all environmental reports, appraisals, geotechnical reports, surveys, marketing reports, lot studies and improvement plans; (ii) design concepts and draft land use and infrastructure plans and any other permits and approvals for any other land use entitlements; and (iii) any other relevant information or documentation relative to entitlement, approval or development of the Project (“Third Party Materials”) by Developer or by any engineer, appraiser, or any other consultant retained by Developer or any of the Developer Parties as defined below (each, a “Consultant”). Once delivered to City, the Third Party Materials shall become the property of the City. At no cost to City, every report prepared by any Consultant performing an investigation or study of the Property shall name the City as an “intended user” or state that it was prepared for the City’s use.

Developer shall further include contractual language in all contracts with the Consultants producing such Third Party Materials by which those Consultants consent to future use of such Third Party Materials by City and its designees without payment by City or its designees. The provisions of this Section 5 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement and shall apply whether or not the Parties proceed to the DDA Stage or enter into a DDA.

6. ADDITIONAL DEVELOPER RESPONSIBILITIES

6.1 Full Disclosure. Developer shall provide to City (a) the names of its principals, officers and/or those with managerial authority, joint venturers, negotiators, development managers, consultants and directly-involved managerial employees (collectively, “Developer Parties”); and (b) all other material information concerning Developer reasonably requested by City. Any material change in the identity of the Developer Parties shall be subject to the approval of City, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.

6.2 Project Cost and Revenue Documentation. Upon request by City, Developer shall provide City or its designees with development and operating assumptions related to Project costs and revenues by category, including detailed information regarding extraordinary Project costs of individual Project components and full disclosure regarding the potential methods of financing to be used in the acquisition of the Property and development of the proposed Project. Developer acknowledges that detailed information regarding such development and operating assumptions will be necessary in order for City and its financial consultants to evaluate the financial terms of the proposed DDA.

6.3 Progress Reports. Developer shall keep City advised as to the status of all work to be undertaken by or on behalf of Developer as described in the Schedule of Performance. Within ten (10) days following City’s request, which may be made from time to time during the Negotiation Period, Developer shall submit to City a written progress report advising City on the status of all work being undertaken by or on behalf of Developer. 6 4884-1052-6128 v6

7. CITY’S RESPONSIBILITIES

7.1 City Assistance and Cooperation. City shall cooperate with Developer by providing full disclosure regarding City’s current actual knowledge of the existing condition of the Property or the improvements thereon. City shall share the City Materials with Developer.

8. GENERAL PROVISIONS

8.1 No Brokerage Fees. City shall not be liable for any real estate commission or brokerage fees which may arise from the proposed transfer of the Property or any portion thereof or interest therein. Developer represents and warrants to City that it has not engaged any broker, agent or finder in connection with the acquisition or development of the Property.

Developer further agrees to indemnify, defend and hold City harmless from any claim by any other broker, agent or finder retained by, or alleged to have been retained by, Developer.

Developer’s indemnity obligations under this Section 8.1 shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement.

8.2 Notices. Any approval, disapproval, demand or other notice which either Party may desire to give to the other Party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given by any commercially acceptable means, including personal delivery, or overnight courier, to the Party to whom the notice is directed at the address of the Party as set forth below, or at any other address as that Party may later designate by notice.

To City: City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue, Room 203
San Rafael, CA 94901
Attention: Cristine Alilovich, City Manager
With copies to: City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue, Room 203
San Rafael, CA 94901
Attention: Robert Epstein, City Attorney
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1650
Oakland, CA 94612-3520
Attention: Gerald J. Ramiza, Esq.

To Developer: _________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
With a copy to: _________________________
_________________________
7 4884-1052-6128 v6
_________________________
_________________________
Any notice shall be deemed received on the date of delivery if delivered by personal service, three (3) business days after mailing if sent by first class mail, and on the date of delivery or refused delivery as shown by the records of the overnight courier if sent via overnight courier.

8.3 Limitations of this Agreement. By its execution of this Agreement, City is not committing itself to or agreeing to undertake: (i) disposition of the Property to Developer; or (ii) any other acts or activities requiring the subsequent independent exercise of discretion by City or any agency or department thereof. This Agreement does not constitute a disposition of property by City. Execution of this Agreement by City is merely an agreement to enter into a period of exclusive negotiations according to the terms hereof, reserving final discretion and approval by City as to any DDA, including affordable housing covenant, and all proceedings and decisions in connection therewith. In addition, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to limit the application of CEQA to any DDA or the proposed Project or control the actions of City in meeting its CEQA obligations. In fulfilling its obligations under CEQA, City shall act independently, reserving full and complete discretion with respect to any such CEQA approvals without reference to this Agreement. City shall not be liable, in any respect, to Developer for its action or inaction in fulfilling its CEQA obligations. City will not consider the approval of any DDA or the proposed Project, unless and until it has fully reviewed and considered the environmental impacts in accordance with CEQA. City is not, and shall not be considered to be, obligated by this Agreement, or otherwise, to approve the proposed Project or any DDA, or any changes to the foregoing, or any other agreement. After CEQA review, City is not obligated, by this Agreement or otherwise, to adopt findings of overriding considerations for approval of or to take any other action in support of the proposed Project or any DDA or any changes to the foregoing, nor is City precluded from rejecting the DDA and/or proposed Project or from imposing mitigation measures as a condition of approval, which measures mitigate or avoid direct or indirect environmental effects of the proposed Project. If City rejects the DDA or proposed Project, this Agreement shall automatically terminate and, except for those obligations which by their terms survive termination hereof, neither Party shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder.

8.4 Integration. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the Parties relating to the matters set forth herein. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged in this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect.

8.5 Modifications. Any alteration, change or modification of or to this Agreement, in order to become effective, shall be made in writing and in each instance signed on behalf of each Party.

8.6 Severability. If any term, provision, condition or covenant of this Agreement or its application to any Party or circumstances shall be held, to any extent, invalid or 8 4884-1052-6128 v6
unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of the term, provision, condition or covenant to persons or circumstances other than those as to whom or which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected, and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.

8.7 No Assignment. The qualifications and identity of Developer are of particular concern to City. It is because of those unique qualifications and identity that City has entered into this Agreement with Developer. Accordingly, except as otherwise expressly provided below, Developer may not transfer or assign any or all of its rights or obligations under this Agreement except with the prior written consent of the City, which consent shall be granted or withheld in the City's sole absolute discretion, and any such attempted transfer or assignment without the prior written consent of City shall be void.

8.8 Successors and Assigns. Subject to the limitations on assignment set forth in Section 8.7 above, this Agreement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the Parties, their heirs, executors, personal representatives, nominees, successors and assigns.

8.9 Indemnity. Developer shall indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to City), protect and hold City, and its officers, employees, elected officials, agents and representatives, harmless from, all third-party claims, demands, damages, defense costs or liability of any kind or nature arising directly or indirectly from the implementation of this Agreement, including any Property investigation and/or acquisition activities under Section 4 above, including damages to property or injuries to persons, accidental death, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, whether such activities or performance thereof be by Developer or its employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors and whether such damage shall accrue or be discovered before or after expiration or termination of this Agreement. Developer’s indemnity obligations under this Section 8.9 shall not extend to claims, demands, damages, defense costs or liability for property damage, bodily injury or death, to the extent (i) occasioned by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City or its officers, employees, elected officials, agents or representatives; or (ii) related to the discovery or disturbance by Developer or its contractors, subcontractors or agents during due diligence of any pre-existing hazardous materials or hazardous substances on the Property. Developer’s obligations under this Section 8.9 shall survive the expiration or other termination of this Agreement.

8.10 Confidentiality. Any information provided by Developer to City, including financial statements, pro formas and other financial projections (whether in written, graphic, electronic or any other form), that is clearly marked as “CONFIDENTIAL / PROPRIETARY INFORMATION” (“Confidential Information”) shall be subject to the provisions of this Section 8.10. Subject to the terms of this Section, City shall use good faith diligent efforts to prevent disclosure of the Confidential Information to any third parties, except as may be required by the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6253 et seq.) or other applicable local, state or federal law (collectively, “Public Disclosure Laws”). Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, City may disclose Confidential Information to its officials, employees, agents, attorneys and advisors, but only to the extent necessary to carry out the purpose for which the Confidential Information was disclosed. 9 4884-1052-6128 v6
Developer acknowledges that City has not made any representations or warranties that any Confidential Information received from Developer will be exempt from disclosure under any Public Disclosure Laws. In the event the City’s legal counsel determines that the release of the Confidential Information is required by Public Disclosure Laws, or order of a court of competent jurisdiction, City shall notify Developer of City’s intention to release the Confidential Information. If the City Attorney, in his or her discretion, determines that only a portion of the requested Confidential Information is exempt from disclosure under the Public Disclosure Laws, City may redact, delete or otherwise segregate the Confidential Information that will not be released from the non-exempt portion to be released. Developer further acknowledges that in connection with City Council’s consideration of any DDA as contemplated by this Agreement, City will need to present a summary of Developer’s financial projections, including anticipated costs of development, anticipated project revenues, and returns on cost and investment.

If any litigation is filed seeking to make public any Confidential Information, City and Developer shall cooperate in defending the litigation, and Developer shall pay City’s reasonable out-of-pocket costs of defending such litigation and shall indemnify City against all costs and attorneys’ fees awarded to the plaintiff in any such litigation. Alternatively, Developer may elect to disclose the Confidential Information rather than defend the litigation. Developer’s obligations under this Section 8.10 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.

The restrictions set forth herein shall not apply to Confidential Information to the extent such Confidential Information: (a) is now, or hereafter becomes, through no act or failure to act on the part of City or its representatives, generally known or available; (b) is known by the City at the time of receiving such information as evidenced by City’s public records; (c) is hereafter furnished to City by a third party, as a matter of right and without restriction on disclosure; (d) is independently developed by City without any breach of this Agreement and without any use of or access to Developer’s Confidential Information as evidenced by City’s records; (e) is not clearly marked “CONFIDENTIAL/PROPRIETARY INFORMATION” as provided above (except where Developer notifies City in writing, prior to any disclosure of the Confidential Information, that omission of the “CONFIDENTIAL/PROPRIETARY INFORMATION” mark was inadvertent), or (f) is the subject of a written permission to disclose provided by Developer to City.

8.11 Waiver of Lis Pendens. It is expressly understood and agreed by the Parties that no lis pendens shall be filed against any portion of the Property with respect to this Agreement or any dispute or act arising from it. The provisions of this Section shall survive the expiration or other termination of this Agreement.

8.12 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts which, when signed by both parties, shall constitute a binding agreement.

8.13 Interpretation. As used in this Agreement, masculine, feminine or neuter gender and the singular or plural number shall each be deemed to include the others where and when the context so dictates. The word “including” shall be construed as if followed by the words “without limitation.” This Agreement shall be interpreted as though prepared jointly by both Parties. Titles and captions are for convenience of reference only and do not define, describe or limit the scope or the intent of this Agreement or any of its terms. 10 4884-1052-6128 v6

8.14 Authority. Developer and each person executing this Agreement on behalf of Developer does hereby covenant and warrant that (a) Developer is duly incorporated or otherwise established or formed and validly existing under the laws of its state of incorporation, establishment or formation, (b) Developer has and is duly qualified to do business in California, (c) Developer has full corporate, partnership, trust, association or other power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform all of Developer’s obligations hereunder, and (d) each person (and all of the persons if more than one signs) signing this Agreement on behalf of Developer is duly and validly authorized to do so. City and each person executing this Agreement on behalf of City does hereby covenant and warrant that (i) City is a municipal corporation duly established and validly existing under the laws of the State of California, (ii) City has full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform all of City’s obligations hereunder, and (iii) each person (and all of the persons if more than one signs) signing this Agreement on behalf of City is duly and validly authorized to do so.

8.15 Limitation of Remedies. In the event of an uncured default by either Party under this Agreement, the non-defaulting Party’s exclusive remedy is to terminate this Agreement. In no event shall either Party have the right, and each Party expressly waives the right, to seek monetary damages of any kind (including but not limited to actual damages, economic damages, consequential damages, or lost profits) in the event of a default by the other Party under this Agreement.

8.16 Governing Law. This Agreement, and the interpretation and enforcement thereof, shall be governed by the laws of the State of California without regard to conflicts of law principles.
[Signature Page Follows]
11 4884-1052-6128 v6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the dates set opposite their signatures. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date this Agreement is signed by City.

CITY:

DATED: __________________, 2024
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, a California
municipal corporation
By:

Cristine Alilovich, City Manager
ATTEST:

Lindsay Lara, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Robert Epstein, City Attorney
DEVELOPER:

DATED: __________________, 2024
ABODE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, a
California nonprofit public benefit corporation
By:

Name:

Title:
1 4884-1052-6128 v6

EXHIBIT A

SITE MAP
519 4th Street outlined in yellow.
1 4884-1052-6128 v6

EXHIBIT B

SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
Preliminary Stage
(6 months)

1. Within 30 days of
the Effective Date
Developer obtains a title report and retains a consultant qualified to perform a Phase I Assessment and (if necessary) a Phase II Assessment of the Property

2. Promptly
following
Effective Date
Developer and City commence negotiation and drafting of Term Sheet

3. Within 120 days
after the Effective
Date
Developer’s Consultants shall submit to City a Project description and planning/zoning analysis so that City may determine whether any CEQA exemption may apply to the proposed Project or, if applicable, undertake an Initial Study pursuant to CEQA to determine whether any CEQA documentation is needed for
consideration of approval of the Project

4. Prior to expiration
of Preliminary
Stage
Developer and City reach agreement on principal business terms of a proposed DDA as evidenced by a non-binding Term Sheet.

5. Prior to expiration
of Preliminary
Stage
Developer and City memorialize successful completion of all Preliminary Stage tasks by executing a Preliminary Stage Feasibility Confirmation or Agreement terminates as provided in Section 1.2.

DDA Stage*
(6 months)
*DDA Stage applicable only if Developer and City have memorialized successful completion of all Preliminary Stage tasks.

6. Within 30 days
following
commencement
of the DDA stage
Developer shall submit a financing plan, which shall include:
a) Development cost estimate and an updated operating budget b) Proposed resident income mix, including the location and type of permanent supportive housing for persons experiencing homelessness and any facilities associated therewith
c) Sources and uses
d) Application requirements and target dates
e) Site access or control documents required
f) Federal, state and local subsidies or funding
2 4884-1052-6128 v6

7. Within 30 days
following
commencement
of the DDA stage
Developer shall submit a proposed Project schedule, including deadlines for
a) Project approvals & entitlements
b) Proposed project funding
c) Building permitting
d) Construction
e) Occupancy

8. Within 30 days
following
commencement
of the DDA stage
City shall commission an appraisal of the Property based on mutually acceptable appraisal valuation instructions, with the costs of such appraisal paid by the City.

9. Prior to expiration
of DDA Stage
and, in any event,
prior to City
Council’s
consideration of a
DDA
Developer and City negotiate and draft a proposed DDA
Request for Proposals
For Development of New AffordableHousing
RFP ISSUED: 12/8/2023
RESPONSE DEADLINE: 1/24/2024 at 5:00 pm Pacific Time
Electronic submittals are required. The City of San Rafael will designate the time of receipt recorded by our email [email protected] as the official time of receipt. This clock will be used as the official time of receipt of all parts of electronic bid submittals.

All questions shouldbe addressed to:

Economic Development Department
City of San Rafael
1400 5th Ave
San Rafael,CA 94901 415.485.3134
[email protected]
The Cityof SanRafaeldoes not discriminateon thebasisof sex,race, color,religion, age, sexual orientation, disability, marital status, or national origin in employment or in its educational programsand activities. Auxiliary aidsandservicesareavailableuponrequest to individuals with disabilities. Alternative formats will be made available upon request.

City of San Rafael
Request for Development Proposals - 519 4th Street
Request for Proposals
For Development of New AffordableHousing
Introduction
The City of San Rafael (City) is soliciting proposals for the development of affordable housing on a cityowned property located at 519 4th Street. This site is in a prime location, within San Rafael’s vibrant and walkable downtown, two blocks from San Rafael’s Transit Center, and near multiple grocery stores and education facilities.

Project proposals should include the construction of permanently affordable housing serving one or more priority populations such as seniors, families, individuals, or people with special needs, including individuals and families formerly experiencing homelessness.

Vision & Goals for the RFP
San Rafael is known for its natural beauty, mild climate, and proximity to employment centers within the San Francisco Bay Area, offering scenic views, outdoor recreation, and urban amenities. It is also a hub of innovation and creativity, celebrating its multicultural heritage and community spirit with events and community assets such as the Marin County Fair, Dia De Los Muertos festivities, the Downtown San Rafel Arts District, and the Falkirk Cultural Center.

The City of San Rafael is committed to meeting the housing needs of all its residents, including those with lower incomes or special housing needs. Housing & Homelessness is one of the San Rafael City Council's four policy focus areas, including creating new housing and using a "Housing First" model.

Sites such as this on publicly-owned land present some of the best opportunities in the city for deeply affordable units.

Successful proposals will increase the stock of affordable homes in San Rafael within this Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) cycle (2023-2031). The project should elevate the street frontage of the property through high quality design, reflecting a downtown neighborhood scale and standards set forth for T4 Neighborhoods in the Downtown San Rafael Precise Plan.

City of San Rafael
Request for Development Proposals - 519 4th Street
The City of San Rafael is soliciting proposals from developers with this Request for Proposals (RFP). The City intends to use this competitive process to evaluate and select the best development vision and project at 519 4th Street that will benefit the City and its community members. The selected development partner will work in good faith with the City to enter into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with the City that is expected to result in a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA).

Selection Timeline
Announcement December 8, 2023
Virtual Developer Workshop December 20, 2023, 3:00-4:00 PM Deadline for emailed questions for City response January 8, 2024; City responses by January 12, 2024 Responses Due January 24, 2024 by 5:00 PM
Evaluation January 25 - 31, 2024
Developer Team Interview(s) (if applicable) February 6 - 13, 2024 Selection by theCityCouncil March 2024
This timeline is subject to change.

The City will hold a virtual developer workshop on December 20th from 3 to 4pm to review the RFP. Please email [email protected] for registration and with questions prior to the Workshop date.

Additional questions will be accepted through January 8 via email, with responses posted to the City’s website by January 12, 2024.

Responses to this RFP must be received by Wednesday 1/24/2024 at 5:00pm. Finalists may be invited to a Developer Team Interview, then recommended for selection to the San Rafael City Council.

Background
The subject property is located on a rectangular parcel addressed as 519 4th Street, Marin County APN 014-123-06, in San Rafael, California. The property parcel comprises 0.304 acres (13,278 square feet) on the south side of 4th Street, between Irwin Street to the west and Grand Avenue to the east. The subject property, acquired by the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency in 1983, is developed with an Lshaped commercial building and parking lot occupied by the City of San Rafael for police and fire department storage.

The property perimeters are defined by mixed-use commercial buildings to the south and west, a residential property to the east and Marin Shakespeare Company to the north. The subject property is located as shown on the Site Location Map below.

The property is subject to the Downtown San Rafael Precise Plan, with a zone designation of T4N 40/50.

This zone is defined as a walkable neighborhood environment of small-to-medium footprint, moderateintensity mixed-use buildings and housing choices, supporting and within short walking distance of neighborhood-serving retail and services. This zone provides a transition in scale between the Downtown and adjacent residential neighborhoods, with a height base of 40 feet up and up to 50 feet per the Regulating Plan.

City of San Rafael
Request for Development Proposals - 519 4th Street
This is an opportunity to develop on a city property via an exemption under section 54221(f)(1)(A) of the California Surplus Land Act (Government Code sections 54220-54234). To be eligible for potential selection, a respondent must commit to (i) utilize at least 80% of the land area of the site for development of housing; (ii) cause not less than 40% of the units to be developed to be affordable to households whose incomes are equal to, or less than, 60% of the area median income for Marin County, adjusted for family size (AMI); and (iii) cause at least half of the units described in clause (ii) to be affordable to households whose incomes are equal to, or less than, 50% of AMI.

The site is being evaluated along with other sites as a potential temporary shelter for people experiencing homelessness. If development timelines permit, the City may seek an interim use as a temporary shelter for unhoused residents.

Site Location Map – 519 4th Street, San Rafael, CA

City of San Rafael
Request for Development Proposals - 519 4th Street
Proposal Requirements
Successful proposals will include specific information regarding the developer’s vision for the site, experience with the development of this type, and sufficient information to demonstrate the financial viability of the proposal.

All submissions should be concise and relevant to the RFP, and include the following information and documents:

1. Project Proposal

1.1. Cover letter. Introduce the development team, outline the developer’s intent and project objectives. Clearly state the target population(s) to be served (e.g. seniors, families, individuals, or people with special needs, including individuals and families formerly experiencing homelessness).

1.2. Project overview and vision. All proposals should include a written description of the proposed development concept, including layout, size, key design elements and materials, scale of development (number and type of residential units and amount of area devoted open space), and information describing the proposed character and quality of the development. Applicants are encouraged to discuss how Green Building elements will be incorporated in the proposed project.

1.3. Site design concept & proposed construction type. Articulate the design concept through at least three visual examples of comparable project designs.

1.4. Affordability levels and a description of how the program meets City goals of long-term affordability. The developer must agree to enter into a deed restrictive covenant on the affordable housing units.

1.5. Accessibility features specific to the needs of the target population. For example, detail the number of units to be mobility accessible or adaptable.

1.6. Services plan. If the project profile includes permanent supportive housing or housing for people with special needs, respondents must include descriptions of any relevant design and operational or service components in the submittal. Include information on proposed service partnerships.

1.7. Projected project development timeline and milestones. A timetable should be provided, showing projected start-dates and completion-dates for developer due diligence and all major design and site planning activities, including use and design approvals, completion of construction drawings and building permits, property acquisition, and start and completion of construction. The developer is strongly encouraged to submit a planning application within 15 months of proposal selection.

1.8. Any other information that would help the selection team understand and evaluate the development proposal.

2. Developer Team Qualifications

2.1. A brief description of each entity in the Developer team and tax filing status, including any planned non-profit partnerships.

2.2. Qualifications and experience of entities involved in the project and roles of each entity, including company profiles and staff leads.

2.3. Information on staff working on the project, including experience with similar projects.

2.4. List of previous similar work including client, property location, number of units, and type of financing (Federal, State, and local).

City of San Rafael
Request for Development Proposals - 519 4th Street

2.5. Three client references for past development projects. References should include the following information:
• Client contact person's name, title, organization, physical and email address, telephone number, and the project(s) that were completed under the client’s direction. • Brief project description, including number of units and populations served.

3. Financials

3.1. Project pro-forma. The proposals must include a preliminary financing plan, an estimate of total project development costs, and a preliminary pro-forma analysis of gross and net income expected. The anticipated rental cost range for residential units, or sales price range, if applicable, should be included.

3.2. Operating budget projection. For rental projects, provide a 20-year operating budget.

3.3. Property acquisition offer. Proposals should contain the developer team's proposed purchase or ground lease structure and pricing for acquisition of the site from the City.

3.4. Disposition of the completed development. Proposals should indicate whether the developer intends to sell portions or all of the completed improvements or retain ownership. If the developer intends to retain ownership, please provide information on experience leasing and managing properties similar to the proposed development.

4. Financial Capacity of Developer
All respondents, regardless of their status as public or privately held companies must provide evidence of sufficient financial strength to undertake and successfully complete a project of the scale proposed, and certain disclosures including all of the following categories. Respondents may choose to provide some or all of their responses to these items as “Confidential Information” and submit them as provided at the end of this section.

4.1. Financial statements of the most recent calendar or fiscal year, for the development entity or for each of the principal parties (in the case of a company formed specifically for the project).

4.2. Letters from the developer's lenders attesting to the developer's capacity to undertake this project, including the available capacity of lines of credit.

4.3. List and explain any litigation or disputes that the development entity, or any named individual in the proposed project, is involved in that could result in a financial settlement having a materially adverse effect on the ability to execute this project.

4.4. List of all projects that the development entity is currently involved in, and highlight those that are located within the site's market area.

4.5. State whether the development entity, or any of the named individuals in the proposed project, ever filed for bankruptcy or had projects that have been foreclosed. If yes, please list the dates and circumstances.

Confidentiality
The City recognizes the sensitive nature of certain financial information requested in this section. Any financial information that the respondent wishes to be confidential should be submitted under separate cover with the response to this RFP, marked “Confidential” and submitted in hard copy, sent via overnight courier service with signature required to Gerald J. Ramiza, Partner; Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP; 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1650; Oakland, CA 94612-3520. During the RFP review process, the City may request to receive additional information regarding the pro forma in a Microsoft Excel table format to

City of San Rafael
Request for Development Proposals - 519 4th Street
facilitate review.

Scoring Criteria
City staff will utilize the following scoring criteria in making its recommendations to the City Council.

Scoring Summary
Written RFP

1. Project Proposal 40 possible points

2. Developer Team/Personnel 30 possible points

3. Financials 30 possible points
Oral Interview (selected written proposals)

4. Interview performance Rank choice scoring

Scoring Considerations
Respondents are to provide complete and detailed responses to all items in the Proposal Requirements section above. Submittals that are incomplete may be rejected as being non-responsive. The written submittals should be prepared in sequential order as outlined above. The City reserves the right to request clarification of any aspect of a submittal or request additional information that might be required to properly evaluate the submittal.

Unless the City establishes a different timeline, proposers will be required to provide responses to any request clarification within three (3) business days. Requests for clarification or additional information shall be made at the sole discretion of the City. The City’s retention of this right shall in no way diminish a respondent’s responsibility to submit a proposal that is current, clear, complete, and accurate.

Relevant Resources
The City of San Rafael has adopted a Downtown Precise Plan. Chapter 9 of that Plan contains a Form Based Code that provides information on context and development standards. The site is also governed by the City’s General Plan 2040.

A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, commissioned by the City, was competed on August 23, 2023 by The ECA Group Environmental Consultants and is available for review.

A Condition of Title report has been commissioned by the City and will be made available to respondents to the RFP.

The City of San Rafael intends to support project development at this site with technical assistance and will consider requests for funding within the City’s standard processes for available resources.

Any City funding for this and other potential affordable housing developments throughout the City will be awarded through a competitive process. The City’s affordable housing resources are outlined on the Community Development Department’s website: https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/funding-for-housingprojects/.

City of San Rafael
Request for Development Proposals - 519 4th Street
Questions
All questions should be directed to the contact listed below:

Economic Development Department
City of San Rafael
1400 5th Ave
San Rafael,CA 94901 415.485.3134
[email protected]
Disclaimers / Acceptance / Rejection of Submittals
The City reserves the right to suspend, amend or modify the provisions of this RFP; extend the submission deadline; reject all proposals; select a respondent who does not achieve the highest points score; and negotiate modifications of proposals, project terms and/or features. The final decision on selection of a preferred developer, if any, for the site will be made by the City Council.

While the dates and schedule stated in this RFP represent the City’s preferred timetable, it shall not be considered binding on the City. The submission of a response to this RFP shall not be binding upon the City nor construed as a contract with or a commitment by the City. The City reserves the right to make decisions as to which proposal, if any, it deems in the City’s best interest.

The City will not pay any costs incurred in the preparation of a response to this RFP. The respondent assumes the sole risk and responsibility for all expenses connected with the preparation of its response.

Minimum City Contracting Requirements
Any DDA or other similar agreement that the City enters into with a successful respondent will require the organization to maintain insurance coverage for the organization and its employees and for the property controlled by the City. The City of San Rafael will require each organization to carry the following minimum insurance:
• Commercial general liability insurance policy in the amount of $2,000,000 ($5,000,000 aggregate).

The City of San Rafael shall be named as an additional insured on the commercial general liability policy.
• Commercial automobile liability policy including non-owned and hired automobile, in the amount of $1,000,000 and Workers Compensation as required by state law. The City of San Rafael shall be named as an additional insured on the automobile liability policy. • All the above policies shall be payable on a per occurrence basis. • Contractors may also be required to carry errors & omissions, professional liability, and/or builders risk insurance.

____________________________________________________________________________________

FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting:

Disposition:

Agenda Item No: 4.d
Meeting Date: May 20, 2024

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Fire
Prepared by: Quinn Gardner, Deputy Director of
Emergency Management
City Manager Approval: ______________
TOPIC: AUTHORIZED AGENTS FOR FEMA AND CALOES DISASTER AND GRANT FUNDS SUBJECT: CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES RESOLUTION DESIGNATING

AUTHORIZED AGENTS TO EXECUTE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL

AGREEMENTS TO OBTAIN FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR EXISTING

AND FUTURE GRANT PROGRAMS
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the California Office of Emergency Services Resolution (Form OES-FPD-130) designating authorized agents to execute on behalf of the City of San Rafael agreements to obtain federal financial assistance for existing and future grant programs.

BACKGROUND:

On April 15, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution 14658 authorizing the Finance Director, Fire Chief, and Emergency Management Project Manager to execute all documents required to accept and obtain hazard mitigation and pre-disaster mitigation grant funding. This resolution was valid for three years.

On September 16, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 14724 adding the Director of Public Works to the designated applicants agents list on Cal OES Form 130. This resolution was valid for three years.

On June 21st, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15096, which established the Administrative Service Director, Fire Chief, Deputy Director of Emergency Management, Director of Public Works, and City Manager as authorized agents.

ANALYSIS:

CalOES and FEMA require the City Council to authorize, via resolution, a list of titles to serve as Authorized Agents in matters relating to disaster response, recovery, pre-disaster mitigation grants (PDM), hazard mitigation grants (HMPG), and planning. Authorized agents can act as signature authorities and validate and receive funds from CalOES and FEMA.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
The updated designations on the CalOES 130 form will address title changes of the authorized agent list and validate the signature authority for three years from the date of the resolution. The changes include reinstating the Finance Director and removing the Administrative Service Director and adding the Assistant City Manager(s) as authorized agents.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

OPTIONS:

The City Council has the following options to consider on this matter:

1. Adopt resolution.

2. Adopt resolution with modifications.

3. Do not adopt the resolution and provide direction to staff.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt the California Office of Emergency Services Resolution (Form OES-FPD-130) designating authorized agents to execute on behalf of the City of San Rafael agreements to obtain federal financial assistance for existing and future grant programs.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution (Form OES-FPD-130)

DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION FOR NON-STATE AGENCIES

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE OF THE
(Governing Body) (Name of Applicant)

THAT , OR
(Title of Authorized Agent)
, OR
(Title of Authorized Agent)
(Title of Authorized Agent)
is hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of the , (Name of Applicant)
a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, this application and to file it with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services for the purpose of obtaining federal financial assistance for any existing or future grant program, including, but not limited to any of the following:
- Federally declared Disaster (DR), Fire Mitigation Assistance Grant (FMAG), California State Only Disaster (CDAA), Immediate Services Program (ISP), Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC), Legislative Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (LPDM), under - Public Law 93-288 as amended by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, and/or state financial assistance under the California Disaster Assistance Act.
- Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA), under Section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.
- National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) 42 U.S. Code 7704 (b) ((2) (A) (ix) and 42 U.S. Code 7704 (b) (2) (B) National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, and also The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Div. F, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-141 - California Early Earthquake Warning (CEEW) under CA Gov Code – Gov, Title 2, Div. 1, Chapter 7, Article 5, Sections 8587.8, 8587.11, 8587.12 That the , a public entity established under the
(Name of Applicant)
laws of the State of California, hereby authorizes its agent(s) to provide to the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services for all matters pertaining to such state disaster assistance the assurances and agreements required.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES

DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION

NON-STATE AGENCIES
OES-FPD-130 (Rev. 10-2022)

RECOVERY DIRECTORATE

FINANCIAL PROCESSING DIVISION
Cal OES ID No: _____________
Rev. 10-2022 Page 1 of 4 OES-FPD-130
Please check the appropriate box below
This is a universal resolution and is effective for all open and future disasters/grants declared up to three (3) years following the date of approval.

This is a disaster/grant specific resolution and is effective for only disaster/grant number(s):

Passed and approved this __day of , 20
(Name and Title of Governing Body Representative)
(Name and Title of Governing Body Representative)
(Name and Title of Governing Body Representative)

CERTIFICATION
I, , duly appointed and of
(Name) (Title)
, do hereby certify that the above is a true and
(Name of Applicant)
correct copy of a resolution passed and approved by the (Governing Body)
of the on the day of , 20 .
(Name of Applicant)
(Signature) (Title)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES

DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION

NON-STATE AGENCIES
OES-FPD-130 (Rev. 10-2022)

RECOVERY DIRECTORATE

FINANCIAL PROCESSING DIVISION
Rev. 10-2022 Page 2 of 4 OES-FPD-130
Cal OES Form 130 Instructions
A Designation of Applicant’s Agent Resolution for Non-State Agencies is required of all Applicants to be eligible to receive funding. A new resolution must be submitted if a previously submitted resolution is older than three (3) years from the last date of approval, is invalid, or has not been submitted.

When completing the Cal OES Form 130, Applicants should fill in the blanks on pages 1 and 2. The blanks are to be filled in as follows:

Resolution Section:

Governing Body: This is the group responsible for appointing and approving the Authorized Agents.

Examples include: Board of Directors, City Council, Board of Supervisors, Board of Education, etc.

Name of Applicant: The public entity established under the laws of the State of California.

Examples include: School District, Office of Education, City, County or Non-profit agency that has applied for the grant, such as: City of San Diego, Sacramento County, Burbank Unified School District, Napa County Office of Education, University Southern California.

Authorized Agent: These are the individuals that are authorized by the Governing Body to engage with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services regarding grants for which they have applied.

There are two ways of completing this section:

1. Titles Only: The titles of the Authorized Agents should be entered here, not their names. This allows the document to remain valid if an Authorized Agent leaves the position and is replaced by another individual. If “Titles Only” is the chosen method, this document must be accompanied by either a cover letter naming the Authorized Agents by name and title, or the Cal OES AA Names document. The supporting document can be completed by any authorized person within the Agency (e.g., administrative assistant, the Authorized Agent, secretary to the Director). It does not require the Governing Body’s signature.

2. Names and Titles: If the Governing Body so chooses, the names and titles of the Authorized Agents would be listed. A new Cal OES Form 130 will be required if any of the Authorized Agents are replaced, leave the position listed on the document, or their title changes.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES

DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION

NON-STATE AGENCIES
OES-FPD-130 (Rev. 10-2022)

RECOVERY DIRECTORATE

FINANCIAL PROCESSING DIVISION
Rev. 10-2022 OES-FPD-130 Page 3 of 4
Checking Universal or Disaster-Specific Box: A Universal resolution is effective for all past disasters and for those declared up to three (3) years following the date of approval. Upon expiration it is no longer effective for new disasters, but it remains in effect for disasters declared prior to expiration. It remains effective until the disaster goes through closeout unless it is superseded by a newer resolution.

Governing Body Representative: These are the names and titles of the approving Board Members.

Examples include: Chairman of the Board, Director, Superintendent, etc. The names and titles cannot be one of the designated Authorized Agents. A minimum of three (3) approving board members must be listed. If less than three are present, meeting minutes must be attached in order to verify a quorum was met.

Certification Section:

Name and Title: This is the individual in attendance who recorded the creation and approval of this resolution.

Examples include: City Clerk, Secretary to the Board of Directors, County Clerk, etc. This person cannot be one of the designated Authorized Agents or Approving Board Member. If a person holds two positions (such as City Manager and Secretary to the Board) and the City Manager is to be listed as an Authorized Agent, then that person could sign the document as Secretary to the Board (not City Manager) to eliminate “Self-Certification.”

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES

DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION

NON-STATE AGENCIES
OES-FPD-130 (Rev. 10-2022)

RECOVERY DIRECTORATE

FINANCIAL PROCESSING DIVISION
Rev. 10-2022 Page 4 of 4 OES-FPD-130
____________________________________________________________________________________

FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting:

Disposition:

Agenda Item No: 4.e
Meeting Date: May 20, 2024

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Public Works
Prepared by: Joanna Kwok, Assistant Public
Works Director
April Miller, Public Works Director
City Manager Approval: ______________
TOPIC: CITYWIDE STORM DRAIN PLAN PROJECT
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH SCHAAF & WHEELER CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS (S&W) TO DEVELOP SAN RAFAEL’S CITYWIDE STORM DRAIN PLAN, IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $331,303, AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR THE AGREEMENT RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers to develop San Rafael’s Citywide Storm Drain Plan, in the amount not to exceed $331,303, and appropriate funds for the agreement.

BACKGROUND:

The City of San Rafael’s storm drain system undergoes routine maintenance and incremental repairs as part of the Annual Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) replacement program. Current maintenance activities and CMP replacements, which are identified during routine storm drain systems maintenance, are prioritized based on available resources, such as staff time and funding. Additionally, the storm drain system’s aging infrastructure and the need for additional capacity due to environmental changes require immediate attention. As such, City staff recommends developing a comprehensive storm drain systems plan summarizing the conditions and needs of the existing storm drain system and prioritizing recommended improvements and maintenance measures.

ANALYSIS:

The Citywide Storm Drain Plan (CSDP) will deliver a comprehensive storm drain systems plan based on a phased approach. The CDSP will determine system needs, associated costs, and priorities for consideration during the programming of future Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects. Phase one would consist of data collection and assessing the current condition of our storm drain system, as well as developing a maintenance and inspection plan to improve resilience against flooding events. Phase Two would include drafting the City’s drainage design standards. Phase Three consists of optional tasks that may be included in the project’s scope in the future, such as modeling to evaluate the performance of the drainage system and identifying locations of capacity deficiency. The CSDP will assist in coordinating storm drain improvements to avoid cutting into newly paved streets, updating condition SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
assessment, developing drainage models, CIP planning, financial & asset planning, and making considerations for sea level and groundwater rise.

The City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for this project on February 6, 2024, and received four proposals from qualified firms. All firms were evaluated by City staff based on criteria specified in the RFP, including, but not limited to, completeness of the proposal, relevant experience and success in similar projects, experience and quality of project team, understanding of the project scope of work, ability to meet deadlines and operate within budget, and references by former clients on similar projects. City staff found Schaaf and Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers (“S&W”) and their sub-consultants to be the most qualified consultant team for this project. S&W’s proposal was found to be complete and within industry standards.

The recommended professional services agreement with S&W will provide professional services associated with developing San Rafael’s Citywide Storm Drain Plan, including project management, field verification, inventory, and condition assessment of the City’s drainage system, development of stormwater projects to be included in the City’s Capital Improvement Program, and delivery of a draft and final storm drain CSDP report.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Citywide Storm Drain Plan is identified in the 2023-24 Capital Improvement Program. This agreement will be funded with an appropriation of $331,303 from available fund balance with the Stormwater Fund (205).

OPTIONS:

The City Council has the following options to consider on this matter:

1. Authorize the City Manager to enter into the agreement and budget appropriation as recommended.

2. Do not authorize the City Manager to enter into the agreement nor budget appropriation and provide further direction to staff.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers to develop San Rafael’s Citywide Storm Drain Plan, in the amount not to exceed $331,303, and appropriate funds for the contract.

ATTACHMENT:

1. Draft PSA with Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers to develop Citywide Storm Drain Plan
DRAFT
Rev. 08.22 1

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
AND

SCHAAF & WHEELER, CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS

FOR CITYWIDE STORM DRAIN PLAN SERVICES
This Agreement is made and entered into as of ________________________ (the “Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, a chartered California municipal corporation (hereinafter "CITY"), and SCHAAF & WHEELER, CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS, a California corporation (hereinafter "CONSULTANT"). CITY and CONSULTANT may be referred to individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties” or the “Parties to this Agreement.”

RECITALS
A. CITY desires to secure professional services more fully described in this Agreement, at Exhibit A, entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”; and B. CONSULTANT represents that it, and its subcontractors, if any, have the professional qualifications, expertise, and necessary licenses and desire to provide certain goods and/or required services of the quality and type which meet objectives and requirements of CITY; and
C. The Parties have specified herein the terms and conditions under which such services will be provided and paid for.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

1. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED.

Except as otherwise may be expressly specified in this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall furnish all technical and professional services, including labor, material, equipment, transportation, supervision and expertise (collectively referred to as “Services”) to satisfactorily complete the work required by CITY at its sole risk and expense. Services to be provided to CITY are more fully described in Exhibit A entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES.” CONSULTANT acknowledges that the execution of this Agreement by CITY is predicated upon representations made by CONSULTANT in that certain proposal, dated April 26, 2024 (“Proposal”) set forth in Exhibit A, which constitutes the basis for this Agreement.

2. COMPENSATION.

In consideration for CONSULTANT’s complete performance of Services, CITY shall pay CONSULTANT for all materials provided and services rendered by CONSULTANT for Phase DRAFT
v 08.22 2
1 and Phase 2, at the unit rates and rates per hour for labor, as set forth in Exhibit A, for a total amount not to exceed $331,303.

CONSULTANT will bill City on a monthly basis for Services provided by CONSULTANT during the preceding month, subject to verification by CITY. CITY will pay CONSULTANT within thirty (30) days of City’s receipt of invoice.

3. TERM OF AGREEMENT.

Unless otherwise set forth in this Agreement or unless this paragraph is subsequently modified by a written amendment to this Agreement, the term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date of this Agreement and terminate 30 months from Effective Date.

4. PROJECT COORDINATION.

A. CITY’S Project Manager. Joanna Kwok is hereby designated the PROJECT MANAGER for the CITY and said PROJECT MANAGER shall supervise all aspects of the progress and execution of this Agreement.

B. CONSULTANT’S Project Director. CONSULTANT shall assign a single PROJECT DIRECTOR to have overall responsibility for the progress and execution of this Agreement for CONSULTANT. Robin Lee is hereby designated as the PROJECT DIRECTOR for CONSULTANT. Should circumstances or conditions subsequent to the execution of this Agreement require a substitute PROJECT DIRECTOR, for any reason, the CONSULTANT shall notify the CITY within ten (10) business days of the substitution.

5. TERMINATION.

A. Discretionary. Either party may terminate this Agreement without cause upon thirty (30) days written notice mailed or personally delivered to the other party.

B. Cause. Either party may terminate this Agreement for cause upon fifteen (15) days written notice mailed or personally delivered to the other party, and the notified party's failure to cure or correct the cause of the termination, to the reasonable satisfaction of the party giving such notice, within such fifteen (15) day time period.

C. Effect of Termination. Upon receipt of notice of termination, neither party shall incur additional obligations under any provision of this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other.

D. Return of Documents. Upon termination, any and all CITY documents or materials provided to CONSULTANT and any and all of CONSULTANT's documents and materials prepared for or relating to the performance of its duties under this Agreement, shall be delivered to CITY as soon as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days after termination.

DRAFT
v 08.22 3

6. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS.

The written documents and materials prepared by the CONSULTANT in connection with the performance of its duties under this Agreement, shall be the sole property of CITY. CITY may use said property for any purpose, including projects not contemplated by this Agreement.

7. INSPECTION AND AUDIT.

Upon reasonable notice, CONSULTANT shall make available to CITY, or its agent, for inspection and audit, all documents and materials maintained by CONSULTANT in connection with its performance of its duties under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall fully cooperate with CITY or its agent in any such audit or inspection.

8. ASSIGNABILITY.

The parties agree that they shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of their respective obligations hereunder, without the prior written consent of the other party, and any attempt to so assign this Agreement or any rights, duties or obligations arising hereunder shall be void and of no effect.

9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.

During the term of this Agreement, and for any time period set forth in Exhibit B, CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain in full force and effect, at no cost to CITY insurance policies with respect to employees and vehicles assigned to the performance of Services under this Agreement with coverage amounts, required endorsements, certificates of insurance, and coverage verifications as defined in Exhibit B.

10. INDEMNIFICATION.

A. Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph B of this section, CONSULTANT shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, indemnify, release, defend with counsel approved by CITY, and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers (collectively, the “City Indemnitees”), from and against any claim, demand, suit, judgment, loss, liability or expense of any kind, including but not limited to attorney's fees, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation, (collectively “CLAIMS”), arising out of CONSULTANT’S performance of its obligations or conduct of its operations under this Agreement. The CONSULTANT's obligations apply regardless of whether or not a liability is caused or contributed to by the active or passive negligence of the City Indemnitees. However, to the extent that liability is caused by the active negligence or willful misconduct of the City Indemnitees, the CONSULTANT's indemnification obligation shall be reduced in proportion to the City Indemnitees’ share of liability for the active negligence or willful misconduct. In addition, the acceptance or approval of the CONSULTANT’s work or work product by the CITY or any of its directors, officers or employees shall not relieve or reduce the CONSULTANT’s indemnification obligations. In the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from CONSULTANT’S performance of or operations under this Agreement, DRAFT
v 08.22 4
CONSULTANT shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees or at CITY’S option reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred in defense of such claims.

B. Where the services to be provided by CONSULTANT under this Agreement are design professional services to be performed by a design professional as that term is defined under Civil Code Section 2782.8, then, to the extent permitted by law including without limitation, Civil Code sections 2782, 2782.6 and 2782.8, CONSULTANT shall indemnify and hold harmless the CITY and its officers, officials, and employees (collectively City Indemnitees) from and against damages, liabilities or costs (including incidental damages, Court costs, reasonable attorney’s fees as may be determined by the Court, litigation expenses and fees of expert witnesses incurred in connection therewith and costs of investigation) to the extent they are caused by the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, or any subconsultants, or subcontractor or anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, or anyone for whom they are legally liable (collectively Liabilities). Such obligation to hold harmless and indemnify any indemnity shall not apply to the extent that such Liabilities are caused in part by the negligence or willful misconduct of such City Indemnitee.

C. The defense and indemnification obligations of this Agreement are undertaken in addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations contained in this Agreement, and shall survive the termination or completion of this Agreement for the full period of time allowed by law.

11. NONDISCRIMINATION.

CONSULTANT shall not discriminate, in any way, against any person on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin or disability in connection with or related to the performance of its duties and obligations under this Agreement.

12. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS.

CONSULTANT shall observe and comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, codes and regulations, in the performance of its duties and obligations under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall perform all services under this Agreement in accordance with these laws, ordinances, codes and regulations. CONSULTANT shall release, defend, indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents and employees from any and all damages, liabilities, penalties, fines and all other consequences from any noncompliance or violation of any laws, ordinances, codes or regulations.

13. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES.

CITY and CONSULTANT do not intend, by any provision of this Agreement, to create in any third party, any benefit or right owed by one party, under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, to the other party.

DRAFT
v 08.22 5

14. NOTICES.

All notices and other communications required or permitted to be given under this Agreement, including any notice of change of address, shall be in writing and given by personal delivery, or deposited with the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, addressed to the parties intended to be notified. Notice shall be deemed given as of the date of personal delivery, or if mailed, upon the date of deposit with the United States Postal Service. Notice shall be given as follows:

To CITY’s Project Manager:

Joanna Kwok/ Assistant Public Works Director
111 Morphew Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
To CONSULTANT’s Project Director:

Robin Lee
4699 Old Ironsides Dr, Suite 3
Santa Clara, CA 95050

15. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.

For the purposes, and for the duration, of this Agreement, CONSULTANT, its officers, agents and employees shall act in the capacity of an Independent Contractor, and not as employees of the CITY. CONSULTANT and CITY expressly intend and agree that the status of CONSULTANT, its officers, agents and employees be that of an Independent Contractor and not that of an employee of CITY.

16. ENTIRE AGREEMENT -- AMENDMENTS.

A. The terms and conditions of this Agreement, all exhibits attached, and all documents expressly incorporated by reference, represent the entire Agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement.

B. This written Agreement shall supersede any and all prior agreements, oral or written, regarding the subject matter between the CONSULTANT and the CITY.

C. No other agreement, promise or statement, written or oral, relating to the subject matter of this Agreement, shall be valid or binding, except by way of a written amendment to this Agreement.

D. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall not be altered or modified except by a written amendment to this Agreement signed by the CONSULTANT and the CITY.

E. If any conflicts arise between the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and the terms and conditions of the attached exhibits or the documents expressly incorporated by reference, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall control.

17. SET-OFF AGAINST DEBTS.

CONSULTANT agrees that CITY may deduct from any payment due to CONSULTANT under this Agreement, any monies which CONSULTANT owes CITY under any ordinance, DRAFT
v 08.22 6
agreement, contract or resolution for any unpaid taxes, fees, licenses, assessments, unpaid checks or other amounts.

18. WAIVERS.

The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any term, covenant or condition of this Agreement, or of any ordinance, law or regulation, shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, ordinance, law or regulation, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or other term, covenant, condition, ordinance, law or regulation. The subsequent acceptance by either party of any fee, performance, or other consideration which may become due or owing under this Agreement, shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any term, condition, covenant of this Agreement or any applicable law, ordinance or regulation.

19. COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES.

The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement, or arising out of the performance of this Agreement, may recover its reasonable costs (including claims administration) and attorney's fees expended in connection with such action.

20. CITY BUSINESS LICENSE / OTHER TAXES.

CONSULTANT shall obtain and maintain during the duration of this Agreement, a CITY business license as required by the San Rafael Municipal Code, and CONSULTANT shall pay any and all state and federal taxes and any other applicable taxes. CITY shall not be required to pay for any work performed under this Agreement, until CONSULTANT has provided CITY with a completed Internal Revenue Service Form W-9 (Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification).

21. SURVIVAL OF TERMS.

Any terms of this Agreement that by their nature extend beyond the term (or termination) of this Agreement shall remain in effect until fulfilled and shall apply to both Parties’ respective successors and assigns.

22. APPLICABLE LAW.

The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement.

23. COUNTERPARTS AND ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE.

This Agreement may be executed by electronic signature and in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one document.

Counterpart signature pages may be delivered by telecopier, email or other means of electronic transmission.

DRAFT
v 08.22 7
[Signatures are on the following page.]
DRAFT
v 08.22 8
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day, month and year first above written.

CITY OF SAN RAFAEL:
_________________________________
CRISTINE ALILOVICH, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Office of the City Attorney
_________________________________
By: GENEVIEVE COYLE,
Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:

City Clerk
_________________________________
LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk
CONSULTANT:
__________________________________
By: ____________________________
Name: ____________________________
Title: ____________________________
[If CONSULTANT is a corporation, add
signature of second corporate officer]
__________________________________
By: ____________________________
Name: ____________________________
Title: ____________________________
DRAFT
Rev. 08.22 A-1

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Services to be performed for CITY by CONSULTANT under this Agreement are more fully described in CONSULTANT’s proposal, which is attached to this Exhibit A.

San Rafael SDMP Scope of Work – FINAL DRAFT
Schaaf & Wheeler 1
Scope of Work – PHASE 1
Task 1. Project Management
Project management is a critical task to ensure that the master plan is completed on time and within budget. Any issues will be brought up as they arise and summarized in bi-weekly meetings.

Task 1.1 – Kickoff Meeting
Kickoff meeting will be attended by two (2) Schaaf & Wheeler staff. It is recommended that kickoff for maintenance and operation be held separately. This meeting can be in person or held virtually.

Task 1.2 – Meeting with Maintenance Staff and Site Walk Two members of Schaaf & Wheeler will attend a half day site walk with maintenance staff to visit hot spot locations and nuisance drainage issue locations to get an understanding of where the priorities are within the stormwater infrastructure.

Task 1.3 - Monthly Progress Report
Monthly invoices will be submitted with excel budget tracking. Any issues, concerns, or delays will be brought up via email.

Task 1.4 – Bi-Weekly Status Calls
A re-occurring meeting will be held to ensure project remains on schedule and budget. These meetings will range from 30 minutes to one hour depending on the amount of ongoing work at the time. It is assumed that S&W is in attendance at these meetings, but not all the subconsultants. If required – subconsultants can be invited to specific meetings, but it is not intended that they are on every call.

Task 1.5 - Presentations
During Phase 1, two presentations will be made to City Council. The first will be to describe the upcoming work and anticipated outcomes. The second meeting will be to present the findings along with the financial implications of the condition improvement CIP and the operation and maintenance plan needs. Additional presentations for the Phase 2 work are scoped in the optional tasks.

Duration of the entire project is projected to be 30 months, broken down as follows:
▪ Phase 1: 18 months
▪ Phase 2: 3 months
▪ Phase 3: 12 months (concurrent with Phase 2)
Deliverables: Monthly invoices with tracking spreadsheet, bi-weekly meeting notes, 2 council presentations
Task 2. Data Inventory and Field Data Collection Plan
Identifying data gaps is a critical step to improving GIS data that will ultimately be the basis of hydraulic modeling efforts and tracking maintenance. While it appears that most of the linework and structures are mapped, it is not clear how many of the necessary attributes are recorded.

Schaaf & Wheeler will recommend the necessary data to collect in the field, such as diameter, material, depth, and type. This information will be drafted into a simple fieldwork plan. The plan will likely include the following:

San Rafael SDMP Scope of Work – FINAL DRAFT
Schaaf & Wheeler 2
Task 2.1 – Storm Drain Infrastructure Inventory
Schaaf & Wheeler will review the existing GIS data and develop statistics of what information is available in the GIS data and what data is missing (such as pipe diameter, structure depth, material type, etc.). Schaaf & Wheeler will work with maintenance and engineering staff to understand what areas of the City are in most need of updated GIS data.

Task 2.2 – Field Data Collection Plan
Based on Task 2.1, Schaaf & Wheeler will develop a field data collection plan that highlights what information to collect and provides Survey123 forms so that the City’s field crews can collect the information in the field. The field data collection plan will be used to guide where the topside investigations for condition assessment focus their fieldwork. The data collection fieldwork for modeling is under Phase 3, Task A. Part of this effort will be to identify areas of unknowns, and if readily available as-built information exists, update the GIS. This task is limited to three (3) days of an engineer updating the GIS information based on as-builts.

Deliverables: Draft and final field data collection plan and recommended Survey123 set up.

Updated GIS data based on 3 days of desktop work to update with readily available as-built information
Task 3. Condition Assessment
Condition assessment will be conducted in three parts – topside field investigations, CCTV, and pump station assessments. The scope assumes two (2) Schaaf & Wheeler employees in the field. If the City identifies an intern with time, only the hours of an engineer will be billed to the City.

We are recommending two weeks of topside field investigations, of which one day can be dedicated to the City’s green infrastructure. This will collect a subset of information from the City’s system.

Task 3.1 – Topside Condition Assessment and Field Verification Schaaf & Wheeler’s team will spend up to two weeks in the field collecting the following information in Survey123:
▪ Infrastructure damage (inlets, manholes, culverts, etc.) ▪ Debris or sediment in storm drainage infrastructure
▪ Measure inverts and pipe sizes
▪ Pipe material (CMP, RCP, etc.)
▪ Depth of structure
▪ Infrastructure not currently mapped
▪ Channel erosion, debris or sediment deposition, and vegetation ▪ Channel shape (bottom width, height, top width)
▪ Signs of water damage or high water
The remaining pipes requiring inspections will go into the maintenance plan recommendations.

It should be noted that this scoped will not be able to achieve inspections of the entire City’s system. Instead- a subset will be used to try and determine the financial needs to the entire system.

Task 3.2 – Identify and Develop Maps for CCTV Crews
Based on Task 3.1, Schaaf & Wheeler will develop field maps for the CCTV crews to collect additional data in areas that showed condition related issues. This effort will also focus on areas of CMP that are known to be issues and City highlighted areas of existing issues.

San Rafael SDMP Scope of Work – FINAL DRAFT
Schaaf & Wheeler 3
Task 3.3 – CCTV (2 weeks)
It is estimated that the CCTV crew will be able to collect between 10,000 to 15,000 linear feet of pipe over a two-week period. Cleaning is not included in this scope as more detail is needed in terms of the source of water and dumping practices that would be used. Instead, CCTV data will collect as much as possible and pipes that are impacted with heavy debris and sediments will be noted.

If the crews conduct routine maintenance prior to the wet season, we recommend trying to take advantage of cleaning that the City already has in place. These obstructed pipes can either be cleaned during this project for a separate fee, or be added into the SDMP as condition-related capital improvement projects. The percentage of pipes requiring further maintenance will be used to develop the City’s maintenance plan.

Task 3.4 – Pump Station Condition Assessment
Schaaf & Wheeler perform a pump station condition assessment on the City’s pump stations (11 of the 12 since San Quentin station is relatively new- no significant effort is anticipated at that station). The assessment will be based on existing available data, site visits, and discussions with City staff. The assessment and analysis will include:
▪ Data review
▪ Mechanical, electrical, and SCADA condition assessment:
▪ Pump station capacity assessment
▪ Evaluation of sea-level-rise impacts to determine if increased tidal elevations will require upgrades to the pump station to provide adequate capacity ▪ Safety, access, and code assessment
▪ Force main assessment (if accessible)
▪ Cost estimates
If pump station capacity improvements are needed to provide the desired level of service, Schaaf & Wheeler will utilize the hydraulic models in Phase 3 to evaluate the interaction between the pump stations and the gravity collection systems. Pump station capacity improvements will be modeled to help determine the optimal number and size of pumps, while keeping system performance and energy efficiency in mind. If detailed hydraulic modeling is not conducted, then high level HEC-HMS watershed models can be developed to determine the conservative flows to the pump stations without pipe attenuation.

Task 3.5 – Pump Station Condition Assessment Tech Memo Draft and Final Schaaf & Wheeler will put findings from Task 4.4 into technical memorandum that will support the Master Plan Report. Near-term and full rehabilitation costs will be included.

Deliverables: CCTV maps, GoPro inspection pictures, CCTV video inspections, draft and final pump station assessment report with recommended rehabilitation and associated costs Task 4. Development of Stormwater Projects for the City's Capital Improvement Plan for Condition Related Project
Once the condition assessment and maintenance plans are completed, Schaaf & Wheeler will develop a capital improvement plan for the Phase 1 SDMP. The projects will include condition, maintenance, and rehabilitation. Projects will be prioritized so that high-priority projects are completed within the first 5 years and moderate-priority projects are completed within 10 years.

San Rafael SDMP Scope of Work – FINAL DRAFT
Schaaf & Wheeler 4
Task 4.1 – Develop Condition Related Projects
A NASSCO-certified team member will spend one week reviewing the fieldwork pictures and CCTV videos to provide a rating (1 to 5). The assessed conditions will include:
▪ Signs of water damage or high water
▪ Infrastructure damage (inlets, manholes, culverts, etc.) ▪ Maintenance issues
▪ Invert measurements and pipe sizes
▪ Pipe material (CMP, RCP, etc.)
Task 4.2 – ROM for Projects
Range of magnitude project costs will be developed for those identified in Task 5.1. Projects, unit costs, and project costs will be detailed in an excel matrix.

Deliverables: Matrix detailing condition assessment of pipe segments with NASSCO rating and proposed rehabilitation or repair and ROM costs
Task 5. Development of Maintenance and Inspection Plan:

The overall goal of this task is to provide the City with a plan for inspecting and maintaining its storm drainage infrastructure, ensuring that it operates effectively and efficiently. To meet this goal, NCE will 1) review existing operations, 2) identify gaps in current operations, 3) provide programmatic recommendations for improved operational and maintenance practices, and 4) develop an annual work plan.

Task 5.1 – Obtain and Review Existing Maintenance Information NCE will review existing information readily available from the City (storm drain maintenance records, existing maintenance activities, system configuration, asset management system, and existing storm drain geodatabase) to identify the type, amount, location, condition, etc. of assets and level of ongoing maintenance and inspection activities.

Task 5.2 – Kickoff Meeting with Maintenance Lead
NCE will then facilitate a maintenance program kickoff meeting with key engineering, road operations, and other maintenance staff to discuss our review, and to confirm ongoing activities, resources, challenges, and gaps. The focus will be to determine what is working and not working with current activities, procedures, tools, and reporting, and to define a vision and goals specific to inspection and maintenance.

Task 5.3 – Field Meetings with Individual Crews
We anticipate needing to facilitate one (1) field meetings with field or maintenance staff to discuss procedures, equipment, and problem areas.

Task 5.4 – Inspection and Maintenance Criteria
Based on these meetings, NCE will define inspection and maintenance criteria that will guide future prioritization and be documented in the maintenance and inspection plan (Plan). The focus will be to create a rapid and repeatable process, based on sound criteria, that ensures the City identifies what assets need to be inspected and maintained and when those activities need to happen.

Task 5.5 – Draft Plan
NCE will prepare a Draft Plan for the City that will include programmatic recommendations, program vision and goals, inspection and maintenance selection criteria, annual work plan, San Rafael SDMP Scope of Work – FINAL DRAFT
Schaaf & Wheeler 5
tracking and reporting recommendations, and estimated costs for implementation. The Draft will be submitted to the City for review and comment.

Task 5.6 – Comment Review Meeting
The City will provide one consolidated set of comments to NCE for review prior to NCE facilitating a Draft Plan meeting.

Task 5.7 – Final Plan
Following the meeting, NCE will prepare the Final Plan for submittal to the City.

Task 5.8 – Project Management
NCE will coordinate with Schaaf & Wheeler and the City on invoices, deliverables, and schedule.

Deliverables: Draft and final maintenance and inspection plan Task 6. Report Drafting and Delivery
The Phase 1 SDMP will serve as a tool for the City to use in the future to maintain and repair the storm drain infrastructure. The Phase 3 SDMP will serve as a tool for the City to seek funding for larger capital improvement projects and plan for future capacity limitations due to increased precipitation and sea level rise due to climate change. Both reports will outline a program of improvement projects over the course of the next 10 years that are conceptually designed and have anticipated construction costs.

The Phase 3 Report is not scoped in detail as it will be based on optional tasks and the development of an H&H plan.

Task 6.1 – Phase 1 Draft Report
A Draft Master Plan will be developed for condition related capital improvements as well as ongoing maintenance needs. The plan will be based on the topside assessment, CCTV data, pump station assessment, and maintenance program. Costs will be included along with suggested annual spending and possible funding mechanisms. Financial analysis is included into the optional tasks and is best conducted once the capacity related projects from H&H are developed.

Task 6.2 – Review Meeting
We recommend a review meeting after draft reports are reviewed and consolidated comments compiled.

Task 6.3 – Final Phase 1 Report
After the review meeting, Schaaf & Wheeler will finalize the report for the City.

Deliverables: Draft and final SDMP Phase 1 Report
San Rafael SDMP Scope of Work – FINAL DRAFT
Schaaf & Wheeler 6
PHASE 2
Task 7. Drainage Design Standards
Because the County is currently developing a drainage manual, we are recommending that this task be part of the Phase 2 to allow the County to get to a Draft document. The drainage design standards will be used to guide the H&H effort that is also in Phase 3.

Task 7.1 – Review Draft County Drainage Manual
Schaaf & Wheeler will review the Draft County Drainage Manual and compare the guidance to the City’s existing standards, conditions of approval, and municipal code. It is understood that the City does not have specific drainage standards at this time as most of the development is infill.

Task 7.2 – Review Existing’s Drainage Standards
Schaaf & Wheeler will review relevant drainage codes such as MCSTOPPP, municipal code, and other local jurisdictions and propose recommended improvements and point out any inconsistencies with the County’ Drainage Manual.

Task 7.3 – Draft City Design Standard Document
Schaaf & Wheeler will draft a “user -friendly” guidance document for s developers to use to analyze and appropriately size drainage infrastructure. In addition, document will reference additional drainage requirements such as MCSTOPPP water quality treatment measures.

Guidance document will also reference areas that are susceptible to sea level rise (SLR) and provide references to relevant guidance documents such as San Francisco.

Task 7.4 – Final City Design Standard Document
A meeting will be held 2 weeks after submitting the Draft Drainage Standards to go over consolidated comments from the City. After the meeting, Schaaf & Wheeler will revise and finalize the guidance document.

Deliverables: Draft and final “user-friendly” stormwater design standards Task 7.5 – Presentations to the Development Community
Up to two (2) presentations will be given to educate the development community, city council, public works staff, and business associations of the new drainage standards and how they impact development.

Deliverables: Draft and final presentations
PHASE 3 – OPTIONAL TASKS
Task A. Field Data Collection
Two (2) Schaaf & Wheeler staff will spend up to two weeks in the field collecting missing GIS data that is important for the H&H modeling under Task B. Data will be collected in Survey123 and then updated by GIS analyst in the office.

Task B. Hydraulic/Hydrologic Modeling and Assessment – 1D Schaaf & Wheeler will prepare a simplified, one-dimensional model of the City system that include pipes 18 inches and greater. More detailed analysis in two-dimensional modeling efforts is included under Task C in the low-lying focus areas.

San Rafael SDMP Scope of Work – FINAL DRAFT
Schaaf & Wheeler 7
It should be noted that hydraulic modeling efforts will be focused on internal drainage and not focused on shoreline protection. Modeling efforts will assume that shoreline protection is improved in the future and focus on how internal runoff will be conveyed into the receiving bodies with higher tide elevations.

The following readily available data will be used to develop a comprehensive model for the City of San Rafeal:
▪ NOAA precipitation statistics – rainfall depths
▪ San Francisco Bay Tidal Datums and Extreme Tides Study – tide elevations ▪ Marin County LIDAR – topography
▪ National Land Cover Data Set – land cover and impervious area ▪ GIS measure down depth – invert elevations
▪ Pump records – pump curves
▪ City Zoning GIS layer – future land use conditions
Maintenance records and hot spots can be used to validate the model results. We recommend reviewing model results with maintenance staff to verify that model results are similar to what maintenance crews experience in heavy rainfall events.

Capacity limitations will be identified for the 10-year storm event with mean higher high (MHHW) tide elevation (unless the County manual suggests alternative design standard). Proposed improvements, such as increased pumping capacity, upsized conduits, and parallel pipe networks, will be among the CIPs identified to address the design storm deficiencies. Where feasible, green infrastructure options will be recommended, which can increase grant funding potential of projects. Future development and climate changes related to precipitation and rainfall will be run on the proposed CIP model to see if CIPs are resilient to midcentury predictions. The improvement projects will not be changed, yet noted in the concept that resilience should be designed into the project if it is shown to be needed.

Task C. Focus Studies (4 locations) 2D Modeling
Schaaf & Wheeler will develop up to four (4) focus studies for the neighborhoods that chronically flood or just known nuisance areas. These will serve as attachments to the overall SDMP. Each study will focus on climate change impacts specific to changing tidal elevations.

These focus studies will assume that some sort of channel/bank protection is installed (e.g. levee) to keep the tide out and the memos will report on interior drainage options to ensure that even with higher tides, the neighborhood can drain. These memos will focus on up to two (2) climate change scenarios for altering tidal boundary conditions and the assumption is that some form of pumping will be required to drain the low-lying areas. The fee is based on the assumption that a 1D model has already been developed under Task B. The City may decide to only do focus studies, in which case the budget will need increasing slightly to account for model development.

Task D. Develop Capacity Projects for Design Standard
Schaaf & Wheeler will base capacity related CIPs on the modeling results from Tasks B and C.

Conceptual cost estimates will be based on recent construction bids. The conceptual improvements will focus on reducing flood risks based on the 10-year level-of-service for the piped system and 25-year level of service for the pump stations.

San Rafael SDMP Scope of Work – FINAL DRAFT
Schaaf & Wheeler 8
Task E. Climate Change Modeling
Sea Level Rise and Climate Change will be assessed for mid-century (2050) and end-of-century (2100) to estimate potential impacts. Detailed precipitation modeling for climate change is not included in this scope but can be provided for an additional fee. Schaaf & Wheeler suggests using the Environmental Protection Agency Storm Water Management Models Climate Adjustment Tool model (EPA SWMM CAT). This is particularly important to understand if any proposed improvements should be upsized to accommodate future increases in precipitation.

We will work with the Town to develop two precipitation scenarios.

Task F. SDMP Report on Capacity Related Projects
This task assumes that at a minimum Task B and D has been completed to develop a report summarizing eh methodology and the recommended improvements to increase the conveyance capacity for the City’s storm drain system. If Task C is completed, the appendices will include focus study areas and recommendations.

Task G. Presentations to Community (4)
Schaaf & Wheeler will develop presentations to present to the community the recommended projects identified in the SDMP report from Task F.

Task H. Council Presentations
This is an as-needed task that if requested by Council, Schaaf & Wheeler can develop and present to City Council.

Task I. Training and Documentation on Hydraulic/Hydrologic Modeling and Database Software:

Schaaf & Wheeler has developed and conducted hydrologic and hydraulic modeling training for municipal staff. Before the City authorizes this task, it should be determined if the City is willing to pay for proprietary software. Some of the more complex modeling platforms such as ICM and MIKE+ require annual subscriptions that can be costly. While there are free software packages available such as SWMM, HEC-HMS, and HEC-RAS, they are not typically used in larger master planning efforts since they have limited features.

If training is requested, we would recommend the following training modules:
▪ Hydrology Model Development (rainfall and catchment parameters) ▪ Hydraulic Model Development (structures, pipes, catchments) ▪ Generating Reports, Updating Models, Creating Graphs and Graphics A user manual that is easy to follow and concise will be generated with screen captures to walk staff through the development and use of the model(s).

Task J. Financial Analysis and Funding Strategies:

NBS will take the lead on this optional task. It is recommended that this task is undertaken after the development of the Phase 2 capital improvement projects. NBS will approach this project as problem solvers and as an extension of City staff.

To start, we will ascertain the appropriate financing program or programs to match the City’s needs, whether a new revenue source or an increase to an existing revenue tool. In general, we will first look at the project needs, local parameters and constraints, and then we will review these options: Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts or other Special Taxes, and Property Related Fees. Once the appropriate financing district or program has been San Rafael SDMP Scope of Work – FINAL DRAFT
Schaaf & Wheeler 9
ascertained, including cost estimates and related budgets, NBS will prepare a feasibility analysis for creating a successful district or fee program to include various options, priority special benefits to be funded, possible benefit zones, term and district boundaries. We will provide a memo outlining the feasibility, and conduct a brief study session with staff, council and stakeholders as most appropriate.

Task K. Standard Operating Procedures
If standard operating procedures (SOP) have not been developed, NCE will work with City staff to develop SOPs that will guide future inspections and maintenance. The SOP will be a component of the Plan and provide clear and easy to follow guidance for how inspections and maintenance are to be performed, who is responsible for conducting them, and what tools or equipment are necessary. The SOP guidance will be in table format and is likely to include guidance for catch basins, inlets, manholes, closed conduit, culverts, open channels, pumps, and bioretention and trash capture devices.

Task L. CEQA Support
The Storm Drain Master Plan (SDMP) can be considered exempt from CEQA as a planning document if no funding is approved for projects as a part of the plan. CEQA Guidelines section 15262 provides a statutory exemption for projects involving only feasibility or planning studies. A study that provides for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved, adopted, or funded does not require the preparation of an EIR or Negative Declaration but does require consideration of environmental factors. This section does not apply to the adoption of a plan that will have a legally binding effect on later activities.

NCE will conduct a desktop review based environmental constraints analysis to inform the feasibility of SDMP recommendations. Once the SDMP elements are defined, NCE will determine if the plan or elements of the plan are subject to CEQA compliance, or whether the City could benefit from a proactive CEQA strategy that would programmatically approve the activities identified. Following the review NCE will prepare a brief recommendations letter noting if CEQA compliance is required for the SDMP or elements of the plan, and what the recommended level of CEQA documentation would be. A Draft letter will be prepared and submitted to the City for review and comment. Following review of comments, NCE will prepare a Final letter.

Principal Project
ManagerSenior Project ManagerSenior EngineerAssistant EngineerEngineering TraineeGIS Analyst $275.00 $250.00 $235.00 $195.00 $135.00 $175.00
Project Management 22 118 - 16 - - $38,670 - - - - $ 38,670

1.1 4 8 $3,100 $3,100

1.2 4 4 $2,100 $2,100

1.3 4 30 $8,600 $8,600

1.4 8 60 $17,200 $17,200

1.6 2 16 16 $7,670 $7,670
Field Verification and Inventory of Drainage System 2 12 24 24 - 60 $24,370 - - - - $ 24,370

2.1 4 8 20 $6,380 $6,380

2.2 2 8 16 24 40 $17,990 $17,990
Condition Assessment 28 8 74 168 80 48 $79,050 - - $ 32,500 $ 3,250 $ 114,800

3.1 8 80 80 24 $32,480 $32,480

3.2 2 4 4 16 $5,020 $5,020

3.3 2 16 8 $5,660 $32,500 $3,250 $41,410

3.4 20 30 60 $24,250 $24,250

3.5 8 4 16 24 $11,640 $11,640
Development of Stormwater Projects for CIP 4 6 14 60 - 40 $24,590 - - - - $ 24,590

4.1 2 4 8 40 40 $18,230 $18,230

4.2 2 2 6 20 $6,360 $6,360
Development of Maintenance and Inspection Plan - 10 8 8 - 8 $7,340 $ 51,148 - - $ 5,115 $ 63,603

5.1 2 4 8 $3,000 $5,990 $599 $9,589

5.2 2 $500 $880 $88 $1,468

5.3 $0 $4,000 $400 $4,400

5.4 $0 $8,720 $872 $9,592

5.5 2 4 8 $2,840 $19,440 $1,944 $24,224

5.6 2 $500 $880 $88 $1,468

5.7 2 $500 $8,310 $831 $9,641

5.8 $0 $2,928 $293 $3,221
Report Drafting and Delivery 6 16 28 60 - 16 $26,730 - - - - $ 26,730

6.1 2 8 16 40 16 $16,910 $16,910

6.2 2 4 4 $2,490 $2,490

6.3 2 4 8 20 $7,330 $7,330
62 170 148 336 80 172 $200,750 $51,148 $0 $32,500 $8,365 $ 292,763 Drainage Design Standards 12 32 96 24 - $38,540 - - - - $ 38,540

7.1 2 16 $4,260 $4,260

7.2 2 8 $2,380 $2,380

7.3 8 8 40 $13,600 $13,600

7.4 2 4 16 $5,310 $5,310

7.5 2 16 16 24 $12,990 $12,990
12 32 96 24 - $38,540 - - - - $ 38,540
217 432 874 686 240 108 $266,425 $39,910 $24,500 $0 $6,441 $ 337,276 A 80 80 24 $30,600 $30,600
B 16 40 100 240 16 $87,500 $0 $87,500
C 4 8 40 80 4 $28,800 $0 $28,800
D 4 8 20 40 $15,600 $0 $15,600
E 2 4 8 24 $8,110 $0 $8,110
F 6 16 36 80 24 $33,910 $0 $33,910
G Presentations to Community (4) 4 40 60 20 $26,300 $0 $26,300 H 1 8 8 2 $4,545 $4,545
I 8 24 40 20 $21,100 $0 $21,100
J 8 8 16 $7,960 $24,500 $2,450 $34,910
K 4 $1,000 $13,170 $1,317 $15,487
L 4 $1,000 $26,740 $2,674 $30,414
M 80 $10,800 $0 $10,800
N 80 $10,800 $0 $10,800
217 432 874 686 240 108 $266,425 $39,910 $24,500 $0 $6,441 $ 337,276 *Not accounted for in overall budget for Phase 3 as they are already accounted for in the task. $ 668,579
Phase 1 Draft Report
SDMP Report on Capacity Related Projects (requires Tasks A-D) TOTAL for Phases 1, 2, 3
CEQA Support
Presentations (2)
Climate Change Modeling (1 scenario)
Final Plan
Field Meetings with individual crews
Inspection & Maitenance Criteria
Draft Plan
Meeting with City
ROM for Projects
Extra Budget if City Uses Intern for Filedwork*
Extra Budget if City Uses Intern for Condition Assessment* Draft City Design Standards
Final City Design Standards
Presentations (2) to the Development Community
Storm Drain Infastructure Inventory
Field Data Collection Plan
Topside Condition Assessment and Field Verification (2 weeks) Identify and Develop Maps for CCTV Crews
CCTV (2 weeks)
Pump Station Condition Assessment (11 stations)
Pump Station Condition Assessment Tech Memo
Field Data Collection to Update GIS (2 weeks)
Review Meeting
Final Phase 1 Report
Task 3
Council Presentation
Project Management Coordination
Develop Condition Related Projects
Schaaf & Wheeler TotalO&M: NCE
Kickoff Meeting and Schedule Development
Meeting with Maintenance Staff and Site Walk
Monthly Progress Reports (30 months)
Task 1
Task 2
PHASE 1
Hourly Rates
San Rafeal Storm Drain Master Plan
Draft Fee Proposal
April 26, 2024
Obtain & Review Existing Maintenance Information
Kickoff Meeting with Maintenance Lead
Total
NBS
Standard Operating Procedures
Review City's existing drainage standards (MCSTOPPP, Muni code, etc) Develop Capacity Projects for Design Standard
Focus Studies (4 locations) 2D
Hydraulic/Hydrologic Modeling and Assessment in 1D
Training and Documentation on Hydraulic/Hydrologic Modeling and Database Software Financial Analysis and Funding Strategies
Total
Review Draft County Drainage Manual
Bi Weekly Meetings (30 months)
CCTV: Presidio Systems Inc.10% Markup
Total
Task 4
Task 5
Task 6
Optional Tasks - PHASE 2
Task 7
PHASE 2
PHASE 3 - OPTIONAL TASKS
Total
DRAFT
Rev. 08.22 B-1

EXHIBIT B

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
During the term of this Agreement, and for any time period set forth below, CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain in full force and effect, at no cost to CITY insurance policies with respect to employees and vehicles assigned to the performance of Services under this Agreement with coverage amounts, required endorsements, certificates of insurance, and coverage verifications as defined in this Exhibit B.

A. Scope of Coverage. During the term of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall maintain, at no expense to CITY, the following insurance policies:

1. Commercial general liability. A commercial general liability insurance policy in the minimum amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence/two million dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate, for death, bodily injury, personal injury, or property damage.

2. Automobile liability. An automobile liability (owned, non-owned, and hired vehicles) insurance policy in the minimum amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence.

3. Professional liability. If any licensed professional performs any of the services required to be performed under this Agreement, a professional liability insurance policy in the minimum amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence/two million dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate, to cover any claims arising out of the CONSULTANT's performance of services under this Agreement. Where CONSULTANT is a professional not required to have a professional license, CITY reserves the right to require CONSULTANT to provide professional liability insurance pursuant to this section.

4. Workers’ compensation. If it employs any person, CONSULTANT shall maintain workers’ compensation insurance, as required by the State of California, with statutory limits, and employer’s liability insurance with limits of no less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. CONSULTANT’s workers’ compensation insurance shall be specifically endorsed to waive any right of subrogation against CITY.

B. Other Insurance Requirements. The insurance coverage required of the CONSULTANT in subparagraph A of this section above shall also meet the following requirements:

1. Except for professional liability insurance or workers’ compensation insurance, the insurance policies shall be specifically endorsed to include the CITY, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers, as additional insureds (for both ongoing and completed operations) under the policies.

2. The additional insured coverage under CONSULTANT’s insurance policies shall be “primary and noncontributory” with respect to any insurance or coverage maintained by CITY and shall not call upon CITY'sinsurance or self-insurance coverage for any contribution. The “primary and noncontributory” coverage in CONSULTANT’S policies shall be at least as broad as DRAFT
v 08.22 B-2
ISO form CG20 01 04 13.

3. Except for professional liability insurance or workers’ compensation insurance, the insurance policies shall include, in their text or by endorsement, coverage for contractual liability and personal injury.

4. By execution of this Agreement, CONSULTANT hereby grants to CITY a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of CONSULTANT may acquire against CITY by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. CONSULTANT agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not CITY has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

5. If the insurance is written on a Claims Made Form, then, following termination of this Agreement, said insurance coverage shall survive for a period of not less than five years.

6. The insurance policies shall provide for a retroactive date of placement coinciding with the Effective Date of this Agreement.

7. The limits of insurance required in this Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and noncontributory basis for the benefit of CITY (if agreed to in a written contract or agreement) before CITY’S own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.

8. It shall be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits shall be available to CITY or any other additional insured party. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be: (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this Agreement; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured; whichever is greater. No representation is made that the minimum insurance requirements of this Agreement are sufficient to cover the obligations of the CONSULTANT under this Agreement.

9. CONSULTANT agrees to ensure that subcontractors, and any other party involved with the Services, who is brought onto or involved in the performance of the Services by CONSULTANT, provide the same minimum insurance coverage required of CONSULTANT, except as with respect to limits. CONSULTANT agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this Agreement. CONSUTLANT agrees that upon request by CITY, all agreements with, and insurance compliance documents provided by, such subcontractors and others engaged in the performance of Services will be submitted to CITY for review.

10. CONSULTANT agrees to be responsible for ensuring that no contract used by any party involved in any way with the Services reserves the right to charge CITY or CONSULTANT for the cost of additional insurance coverage required by this Agreement. Any DRAFT
v 08.22 B-3
such provisions are to be deleted with reference to CITY. It is not the intent of CITY to reimburse any third party for the cost of complying with these requirements. There shall be no recourse against CITY for payment of premiums or other amounts with respect thereto.

C. Deductibles and SIR’s. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions in CONSULTANT's insurance policies must be declared to and approved by the CITY and shall not reduce the limits of liability. Policies containing any self-insured retention (SIR) provision shall provide or be endorsed to provide that the SIR may be satisfied by either the named insured or CITY or other additional insured party. At CITY's option, the deductibles or self-insured retentions with respect to CITY shall be reduced or eliminated to CITY's satisfaction, or CONSULTANT shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claims administration, attorney’s fees and defense expenses.

D. Proof of Insurance. CONSULTANT shall provide to the PROJECT MANAGER all of the following: (1) Certificates of Insurance evidencing the insurance coverage required in this Agreement; (2) a copy of the policy declaration page and/or endorsement page listing all policy endorsements for the commercial general liability policy, and (3) excerpts of policy language or specific endorsements evidencing the other insurance requirements set forth in this Agreement.

CITY reserves the right to obtain a full certified copy of any insurance policy and endorsements from CONSULTANT. Failure to exercise this right shall not constitute a waiver of the right to exercise it later. The insurance shall be approved as to form and sufficiency by the CITY. ____________________________________________________________________________

FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting:

Disposition:

Agenda Item No: 4.f
Meeting Date: May 20, 2024

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Public Works
April Miller, Public Works Director
Prepared by: Theo Sanchez, Associate Civil Engineer City Manager Approval: __________ TOPIC: SOUTHERN HEIGHTS/COURTRIGHT/PEARCE RETAINING WALLS PROJECT SUBJECT: ACCEPT COMPLETION OF THE SOUTHERN HEIGHTS/COURTRIGHT/PEARCE RETAINING WALLS PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 11371, AND AUTHORIZE THE

CITY CLERK TO FILE THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION
RECOMMENDATION:

Accept completion of the Southern Heights/Courtright/Pearce Retaining Walls Project and authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion.

BACKGROUND:

This project consists of two retaining wall sites located approximately one-quarter of a mile apart on Southern Heights Boulevard. The first location is at the intersection of Southern Heights Boulevard and Courtright Road. The second location is near the intersection of Southern Heights Boulevard and Pearce Road.

On August 21st, 2023, the City Council awarded the construction contract to Valentine Corporation in the amount of $993,369 and approved a construction contingency of $156,631 for a total appropriation of $1,150,000. Construction began on October 16th, 2023, and was completed on April 5th, 2024.

ANALYSIS:

Under Civil Code Section 8182, the City records a Notice of Completion upon City acceptance of the improvements. This acceptance initiates a time period during which project subcontractors may file Stop Notices seeking payment from the City for the funds owed to the Contractor for the project work.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No fiscal impact is associated with this report.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Accept completion of the Southern Heights/Courtright/Pearce Retaining Walls Project and authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Notice of Completion
Southern Heights/Courtright/Pearce
Retaining Walls 2022 Form NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Project #11361 Page 1
Recording Requested By:

The City of San Rafael
When Recorded Mail To:

Lindsay Lara, City Clerk
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901

EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PER
GOVERNMENT CODE §27383
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE IS FOR RECORDER’S USE

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Civil Code §§ 8182, 8184, 9204, and 9208
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:

1. The undersigned is the agent of the owner of the Project described below.

2. Owner’s full name is the City of San Rafael (“City”)

3. City’s address is 1400 Fifth Ave, San Rafael, CA 94901

4. The nature of City’s interest in the Project is:
__ Fee Ownership __ Lessee X Other Public Right of Way Easement

5. Construction work on the Project performed on City’s behalf is generally described as follows: Installation of retaining walls and improvements of adjacent roadways and drainage.

6. The name of the original Contractor for the Project is: Valentine Corporation located at 111 Pelican Way, San Rafael CA 94901

7. The Project was accepted as complete on: April 5, 2024

8. The Project is located at: Southern Heights/Courtright and near Southern Heights/Pearce, San Rafael CA 94901
Verification: In signing this document, I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I have read this notice, and I know and understand the contents of this notice, and that the facts stated in this notice are true and correct. __________________________ ________________________________ Date and Place Signature
April Miller, Director of Public Works
Name and Title

EXEMPT FROM NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT REQUIREMENTS PER
Southern Heights/Courtright/Pearce
Retaining Walls 2022 Form NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Project #11361 Page 2
GOVERNMENT CODE § 27287 AND CIVIL CODE § 9208
City of San Rafael
Proclamation in Celebration of
NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK 2024
WHEREAS, Public works professionals play a crucial role in maintaining and improving essential infrastructure, facilities, and services for the functioning of our community. Their work ensures that San Rafael can provide essential services to residents while also promoting sustainability and resilience in the face of numerous challenges like natural disasters, climate change, and evolving community needs. Their dedicated efforts contribute directly to public health, quality of life, and overall well-being of the community members; and
WHEREAS, Public Works personnel are involved in the maintenance, planning, design, and construction of streets, transportation facilities, parks, storm drains, public buildings, and other structures and facilities essential for our residents as well as right-of-way management; and
WHEREAS, Public Works personnel are essential workers who continue to work hard every day to keep our community safe and functional and serve as crucial first responders in emergencies; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for community members, civic leaders, and children in the City of San Rafael to gain knowledge of and to maintain an ongoing interest in and understanding of the importance of public works and public works programs in their respective communities; and WHEREAS, the year 2024 marks the 64th annual National Public Works Week sponsored by the American Public Works Association; and
WHEREAS, the 2024 National Public Works theme is “Advancing Quality of Life for All,” expressing how public works professionals contribute to and enhance the quality of life in all the communities they proudly serve; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Rafael, Hereby Proclaims the week of May 19-25, 2024, as National Public Works Week; and furthermore calls upon all community members and civic organizations to acquaint themselves with the issues involved in providing our public works and to recognize the contributions which public works personnel make every day to protecting our health, safety, comfort, and quality of life.

Kate Colin
Mayor
____________________________________________________________________________________

FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting:

Disposition:

Agenda Item: 5.a
Meeting Date: May 20, 2024

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Community Development
Prepared by: Don Jeppson, AIA CBO
Chief Building Official
Cory Bytof
Sustainability Program Manager
City Manager Approval: ______________
TOPIC: ORDINANCE AMENDING GREEN BUILDING CODES
SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12 (BUILDING REGULATIONS) OF THE SAN

RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE, BY AMENDING THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, THE 2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGERS, THE 2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, AND THE 2022 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE; ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 12.360 WITH ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROGRAM REGULATIONS ON MODEL REACH CODES;

AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT SUPPORTING THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CODES.

RECOMMENDATION:

Waive further reading of the Ordinance, refer to it by title only and introduce the Ordinance.

BACKGROUND:

The State of California Code of Regulations Title 24 construction codes are updated and published on a three-year cycle. The California Building Standards Commission publishes the triennial codes, and State law mandates that these codes become effective throughout California 180 days after the publication date. The current cycle of State construction codes became effective on January 1, 2023. Local jurisdictions are permitted to further amend the published codes to address local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. On November 21, 2022, the City Council adopted the Title 24 State Building Code in its entirety with minor amendments.

Each three-year code cycle, the State also updates the Green Building section of the Title 24 codes and provides potential Green Building “reach” codes to local jurisdictions that go above the State code. These reach codes are encouraged to adopt more stringent local amendments to help drive greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions and inform future State code updates. Often, these more stringent reach codes include stronger energy and water efficiency requirements, among other things. On December 5, 2022, the City Council adopted local green building reach codes requiring enhanced electric vehicle charging requirements for new construction as well as requirements precluding the use of natural gas in new residential development and precluding natural gas line extensions and expansions in existing residential SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
properties, among other things. Due to the 9th Circuit decision in the California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley case, staff recommends repealing those portions of the code precluding the use of gas in new residential development and precluding gas line extensions and expansions in existing residential properties, among other things. The proposed ordinance reflects these changes.

The State develops “intervening codes” mid-way between the three-year code updates, which typically have minor adjustments to the codes for various reasons. Those intervening codes automatically go into effect halfway through the code cycle without any action required by local jurisdictions. However, on occasion, these intervening codes are more significant, as is the case this year. Staff recommends updating our local codes to reflect some of those changes since some of them affect the City’s electric vehicle reach code.

Finally, when the City Council adopted the last round of green building reach codes in 2022, staff was directed to analyze reach code options for existing buildings since the City is mostly built out and will need to address emissions from its existing building stock to meet Climate Action Plan goals. Staff has been researching and developing an existing building renovation reach code with the help of community members, including representatives from our Planning Commission and Design Review Board.

The proposed ordinance would amend Title 12 of the City’s local Building Standards codes to include these new reach codes and make minor adjustments to the new State requirements to accommodate the City’s existing electric vehicle charger requirements, which are in some cases more stringent than the State. These amendments would also remove the prior natural gas prohibitions in the City’s previous reach code since a legal challenge occurred in the interim that now precludes such a requirement. This challenge was to the City of Berkeley in which the 9th Circuit Court determined that Berkeley’s prohibition on the installation of new gas pipeline connections was preempted by federal law. By extension, this applies to all local jurisdictions, including San Rafael.

Attachment 1 is the complete ordinance being proposed. Below is a brief summary of each of these code areas to be amended:
2022 Green Building Standards Code for Electric Vehicle Chargers: The provisions of this code apply to the installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, including equipment, fixtures, and fittings, including receptacles, charging equipment, software, and load management.

New chapter 12.360 – Single Family Model Reach Code – FlexPath: The provisions of this new chapter of the code specify additional energy efficiency and renewable energy measures for additions, alterations, and remodels of Covered Single-Family Projects.

After the introduction of this ordinance and public hearing, the ordinance would return to the City Council for final adoption at the next regularly scheduled meeting on June 3, 2024. After final adoption, the ordinance with these code amendments would be effective as soon as approved by the California Energy Commission, sometime after July 1, 2024, and most likely before September 2024. Building permit applications filed with the City prior to the effective date would not be subject to these amendments, nor the gas line prohibitions in the previous reach code.

ANALYSIS:

The staff recommendation requires amendments to four sections of Title 12 of the San Rafael Municipal Code as described below.

California Mechanical Code and Plumbing Code Amendments.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
The purpose of the changes to the California Mechanical and Plumbing Codes is to remove from Title 12 previous amendments prohibiting gas on new construction and limiting gas expansion on existing singlefamily dwellings, thereby returning the codes to their base original language and requirements. This proposed ordinance adds language to Title 12, indicating that the City has no local amendments to the California Mechanical or Plumbing Codes. This method and format of indicating in Title 12 building codes that have not been amended specifically helps the community to identify clearly what has been amended or not amended by the City. This format and method have been used in the last two State code cycles and has been supported by the community.

California Green Building Code Amendments
The purpose of the changes to the California Green Building Standards Code Amendments is to incorporate new intervening code requirements for electric vehicle charging infrastructure into our local electric vehicle charging infrastructure reach codes. Since our local reach codes are more robust in some cases and we refer applicants to our local code this will make it easier to administer for both applicants and staff.

California Energy Code Amendments
The purpose of the changes to the California Energy Code is twofold. First, this amendment removes the City’s prior reach code amendment that disallows gas infrastructure in most new construction and additional gas infrastructure for existing single-family homes. The second purpose of these changes is to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the renovation of existing single-family homes, including town homes and duplexes, by requiring additional energy efficiency measures for projects over 500 square feet in size. The requirements would apply to larger projects that often trigger a variety of codes, including mechanical, electrical, and plumbing. These extend far beyond a typical bathroom or kitchen remodel and instead apply to things like additions and renovations of multiple rooms in a building. They would also apply to accessory dwelling units (ADUs) but not to junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) since ADUs are greater than 500 square feet.

Staff recommend a new approach, called the “Flex Path”, whereby project applicants will have the choice to select from a table of measures that reduce energy use in buildings. This can be found on page 5 of the ordinance labeled as Table 12.360A. To comply with this policy, an applicant will identify the required target score that applies to their home’s construction year at the top of the table. Then, they are free to install any combination of measures from the table that adds up to that required target score. These scores were developed with the assistance of two local architects and builders who have served on the Planning Commission and Design Review Board. The target scores were set to ensure that projects can meet the totals easily enough without having to choose electrical appliances while also ensuring significant energy savings and, in most cases, ongoing utility cost savings as well. These cost savings are demonstrated in Attachment 2, the California Codes and Standards Cost Effectiveness Study. The Codes and Standards team also developed a Frequently Asked Questions document, which can be found in Attachment 3.

The proposed new reach code for existing building renovations is similar to those adopted by the County of Marin and the Towns of Fairfax and San Anselmo, with some differences to better meet the needs of the City’s residents and building community. For example, San Rafael’s target scores are slightly lower than those of the County. Also, San Rafael maintains the State-recommended building vintages and different scores for each, while the County requires the same score regardless of a home’s vintage. In addition, to capture more projects, the City chose to reduce the square footage threshold from the 750 square feet the County is using to 500 square feet. All of these changes were carefully selected in consultation with community advisors and the State Codes and Standards Team and were reviewed by an ad hoc subcommittee consisting of Councilmembers Bushey and Llorens Gulati. More information on SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
the policy development, including discussions on co-benefits and social equity, can be found in Attachment 4.

The Community & Economic Development department approves between 40-60 of these types of projects annually. It is estimated that enacting these reach codes would reduce emissions from these buildings by between 10-22% compared to not complying with our reach code. This reach code is intended as a way to begin to address existing buildings in a moderate fashion with the ability to learn as it is applied and to be able to enhance the Flex Path with other interventions or increase the target scores as time goes on. As part of staff’s commitment to equity, flexibility, and accessibility, there are exceptions built in as well as ways to give credit for energy efficiency measures already completed by applicants in prior projects. For example, if an applicant installed a solar system in the past several years that meets the requirements of the table, they would get credit for that. In addition, this Flex Path is seen as a means to encourage applicants to consider all the ways they can achieve energy and emissions reductions, including through air sealing, renewable energy installations, and the switch to electrical systems when appropriate.

Additionally, the ordinance includes a “catch-all” exemption which ensures that any one gas appliance is not prohibited by the ordinance. If a proposed project effectively results in the preclusion of the use of an appliance covered by the EPCA, the building official may waive any requirements of the ordinance causing such effective prohibition.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

The City participated in a Steering Committee for a County of Marin-led “model reach code” development process, which resulted in the current reach code proposal. The Committee engaged and garnered feedback from individuals from a wide range of industries and organizations through surveys, interviews, focus groups, and meetings. They received feedback from city, town, and County staff; community-based organizations including environmental, affordable housing, senior/aging-in-place, and equity priority advocates; building community members including developers, architects, realtors, contractors, and Marin Builders Association; utilities including MCE and PG&E; and town and city commission, subcommittee, and City Council members. In addition, City staff have worked closely with the State Codes team and two local architects and builders in developing this proposal.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The proposed ordinance has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to 14 CCR Section 15061(b)(3) since it can be seen with certainty that the adoption of this Ordinance would not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15061(b)(3), ‘general rule’ provision). The Ordinance is also exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15307 and 15308 as an action by a regulatory agency taken to protect the environment and natural resources.

OPTIONS:

The City Council has the following options to consider on this matter:

1. Consider public comment/testimony and introduce the Ordinance for adoption as proposed.

2. Consider public comment/testimony and introduce the Ordinance with amendments as directed by the Council.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5

3. Do not introduce the Ordinance and provide alternative directions to staff.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Waive further reading of the ordinance, refer to it by title only and introduce the Ordinance.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ordinance

2. California Codes and Standards Cost Effectiveness Study

3. FAQs: Single Family FlexPath Reach Codes

4. Policy Snapshot: Building Reach Code Proposal for Existing Construction 1 ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AMENDING TITLE 12 (BUILDING

REGULATIONS) OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE, BY AMENDING THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, THE 2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGERS, THE 2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, AND THE 2022 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE; ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 12.360 WITH ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROGRAM REGULATIONS ON MODEL REACH CODES; AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT SUPPORTING THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CODES.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

DIVISION 1. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 12 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE.

Section 1. Repeal Ordinance No. 2022
Ordinance No. 2022 of the San Rafael City Council amending Chapters 12.235, 12.245, and

12.250 of Title 12 of the San Rafael Municipal Code is hereby repealed.

Section 2. Adoption of and Amendments to Construction Codes Chapters 12.220, 12.235, 12.245, and 12.250 of the San Rafael Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows:

CHAPTER 12.220 – CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE AMENDMENTS

12.220.010 General. For purpose of this Chapter:

Deleted language from the base code has been stricken through.

Replacement language to the base code has been underlined.

12.220.020 Amendments. The 2022 California Energy Code is amended or modified as follows:

Amend Section 150.0 to read as follows:

Single-family residential buildings shall comply with the applicable requirements of Sections 150(a) through 150.0(v); in addition, Covered Single Family Projects shall comply with the applicable requirements of Section 12.360 of the SRMC.

NOTE: The requirements of Sections 150.0(a) through 150.0(v) apply to newly constructed buildings. Sections 150.2(a) and 150.2(b) specify which requirements of Sections 150.0(a) through 150.0(v) also apply to additions or alterations, with the exception that Covered Single Family Projects shall also be required to comply with Section 12.360 of the SRMC.

CHAPTER 12.235 - CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE AMENDMENTS

12.235.010 General. For purpose of this Chapter:
2 Deleted language from the base code has been stricken through.

Replacement language to the base code has been underlined.

12.235.020 Amendments. The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code is amended or modified as follows:

Delete Section 4.106.4.1 and replace in its entirety to read as follows:

4.106.4.1 New One- And Two-Family Dwellings and Town-Houses. For each dwelling unit, install a 40 ampere 208/240 volt dedicated EV branch circuit, capable of supporting Level 2 EVSE, terminating with a receptacle or an EV charger in close proximity to the vehicle charging area.

Delete Subsection 4.106.4.1.1 in its entirety.

Subsection 4.106.4.2 [unchanged].

Amend Subsection 4.106.4.2.2 item 1(b) to read as follows (other subsections remains unchanged):
b. Multifamily parking facilities. Forty (40) Eighty-five (85) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with low power Level 2 EV charging receptacles. EV charging receptacles required by this section shall be located in at least one assigned parking space per dwelling unit where assigned parking is provided but need not exceed forty (40) eighty-five (85) percent of total number of assigned parking spaces provided on site.

Exception: Areas of parking facilities served by parking lifts, including but not limited to automated mechanical-access open parking garages as defined in the California Building Code; or parking facilities otherwise incapable of supporting electric vehicle charging.

Amend Subsection 4.106.4.2.2 item 2(b) to read as follows (other subsections remains unchanged):
b. Multifamily parking facilities. Ten (10) Fifteen (15) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with Level 2 EV chargers. At least fifty (50) percent of the required EV chargers shall be equipped with J1772 connectors. Where common use parking or unassigned parking is provided, EV chargers shall be located in common use or unassigned parking areas and shall be available for use by all residents or guests.

CHAPTER 12.245 - CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE AMENDMENTS

12.245.010 No amendments. The 2022 California Mechanical Code is not amended or modified.

CHAPTER 12.250 - CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE AMENDMENTS

12.250.010 No amendments. The 2022 California Plumbing Code is not amended or modified. 3 Section 3. Addition of new Chapter 12.360 with administrative and program regulations on Model Reach Code.

Chapter 12.360 of the San Rafael Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows:

CHAPTER 12.360 – SINGLE FAMILY MODEL REACH CODE - FLEXPATH

12.360.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to specify additional energy efficiency and renewable energy measures for additions, alterations and remodels of Covered Single Family Projects.

12.360.020 Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:

1. “Single Family Building” shall mean any of the following:
a. Residential building of Occupancy Group R-3 or under the California Residential Code with two or fewer dwellings.
b. A townhouse.
c. A building of Occupancy Group R-3.1, or
d. A building of Occupancy Group U when located on a residential site. e. JADUs or ADUs that are not part of multifamily.

2. “Covered Single Family Project” shall mean the addition, alteration, or remodel of a Single Family Building originally permitted for construction before 2011 that affects a floor area which exceeds 500 square feet of existing floor area and/or new floor area.

When any changes are made in the building, such as walls, columns, beams or girders, floor or ceiling joists and coverings (subfloor and drywall), roof rafters, roof diaphragms, foundations, piles or retaining walls or similar components, the floor area of all rooms affected by such changes shall be included in computing floor areas for purposes of applying this definition.

This definition does not apply to project scopes that are solely limited to any of the following: the replacement and upgrading of residential roof coverings, exterior wall finishes and/or floor finishes; alterations that add no more than 75 square feet of fenestration; alterations that add no more than 16 square feet of skylight area with a maximum U-factor of 0.55 and a maximum SHGC of 0.30; alterations that are limited to providing access for persons with disabilities; or voluntary state seismic retrofit program. A Covered Single Family Project shall not include a project that is considered to be a newly constructed building under the California Energy Code, Title 24, Part 6.

12.360.020 Scope. In addition to all requirements of the California Energy Code applicable to Single Family Building additions and alterations, the provision of this chapter shall apply to all Covered Single Family Projects.

12.360.020 Requirements. A Covered Single Family Project shall install a set of measures based on the building vintage from the Measure Menu in Table 12.360B, to achieve a total Measure Point Score that is equal to or greater than the Target Score in Table 12.360A. In addition, all mandatory measures listed in Table 12.360B shall be installed. Installed measures shall meet the specifications in Table 12.360C. 4 Building vintage is the year in which (1) a building permit for construction of the structure was submitted, as documented by building department records, or (2) a building permit was issued for an addition or alteration that satisfied the Performance Standards (California Energy Code, Title 24, Part 6, Section 150.1(b)) in effect at time of building permit issuance, whichever is later. Unless otherwise specified, the requirements shall apply to the entire dwelling unit, not just the additional or altered portion. Measures from the Measure Menu table that already exist in the home may be counted towards compliance with these requirements. Measures from the Measure Menu table that are to be installed to satisfy requirements under the California Energy Code, Title 24, Part 6, may not count towards compliance with these requirements. Where these requirements conflict with other California Energy Code requirements, the stricter requirements shall prevail.

Exceptions

1. If the applicant demonstrates that the Energy Budget of the building under the proposed project would be less than or equal to the Energy Budget of the building under the proposed project if it included any set of measures that would achieve compliance under this chapter 12.360. For purposes of this section “Energy Budget” shall have that meaning set forth in CBC section 100.1(b), as that section may be amended.

2. Mobile Homes, Manufactured Housing, or Factory-built Housing as defined in Division 13 of the California Health and Safety Code (commencing with Section 17000 of the Health and Safety Code).

3. Due to conditions specific to the project, if it is technically or economically infeasible to achieve compliance, the Building Official may reduce the Target Score and/or waive some or all of the mandatory requirements.

4. A measure that is necessary for compliance is prohibited because of a covenant or other deed restriction on the property, such as a homeowners association covenant.

5. The Building Official may reclassify the vintage of the building based on existing conditions.

6. An applicant who resides in the dwelling unit and qualifies as a low-income utility customer, or is the owner of the dwelling unit which is occupied by a dependent who qualifies as a low-income utility customer, may comply by either a) installing the duct sealing measure, the lighting measure and water heating package, or b) installing at least 1 kW of solar PV that meets the requirements of 2022 Title 24 Reference Appendix JA11. A low-income utility customer is anyone who is eligible for the California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) or Family Electric Rate Assistance Program (FERA) program. A Covered Single Family Project that consists solely of medically necessary improvements or solely of seismic safety improvements.

7. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed so as to prohibit any one appliance covered by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (42 U.S.C. 6292(a).) Should an applicant establish that this ordinance, as applied, prohibits a covered appliance in the applicant’s project, the Building Official shall waive that portion of the ordinance causing such prohibition.
5 Table 12.360A
Target Scores, Climate Zone 2
Building Vintage Pre-1978 1978-1991 1992-2010
Target Score 12 8 4
Table 12.360B
Measure Menu, Climate Zone 2
The measures in the Measure Menu shall conform to the specifications in Table 12.360C.

ID Measure
Building Vintage
Pre-1978 1978-1991 1992-2010
E1 Lighting Measures Mandatory
E2 Water Heating Package 1 1 1
E3 Air Sealing 2 2 1
E4 Attic Insulation (R-38) 6 2 1
E5 Duct Sealing 6 4 1
E6 New Ducts + Duct Sealing 9 6 2
E7 Windows 5 3 3
E8 Wall Insulation (R-13) 7 -- --
E10 Raised floor insulation (R-19)/(R-30) 8/10 8/9 --
FS1 Heat Pump Water Heater Replacing Gas 12 12 12
FS2 High Eff. Heat Pump Water Heater Replacing
Gas 14 14 14
FS3 Heat Pump Water Heater Replacing Electric 4 4 4
FS4 High Eff. Heat Pump Water Heater Replacing
Electric 6 6 6
FS5 Heat Pump Space Heater 23 18 15
FS6 High Eff. Heat Pump Space Heater 25 19 17
FS7 Dual Fuel Heat Pump Space Heater 20 15 14
FS8 Heat Pump Clothes Dryer 2 2 2
FS9 Induction Cooktop 1 1 1
PV Solar PV 16 15 13
6 Table 12.360C
Measure Specifications
ID Energy Measure Specification
Energy Measures
E1 Mandatory - Lighting Measures – Replace all interior and exterior screw-in incandescent, halogen, and compact fluorescent lamps with LED lamps. Install photocell controls on all exterior lighting luminaires.

E2 Water Heating Package: Insulate all accessible hot water pipes with pipe insulation a minimum of ¾ inch thick. This includes insulating the supply pipe leaving the water heater, piping to faucets underneath sinks, and accessible pipes in attic spaces or crawlspaces. Upgrade fittings in sinks and showers to meet current California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11) Section 4.303 water efficiency requirements.

Exception: Upgraded fixtures are not required if existing fixtures have rated or measured flow rates of no more than ten percent greater than 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11) Section 4.303 water efficiency requirements.

E3 Air Sealing: Seal all accessible cracks, holes, and gaps in the building envelope at walls, floors, and ceilings. Pay special attention to penetrations including plumbing, electrical, and mechanical vents, recessed can light luminaires, and windows. Weather-strip doors if not already present. Verification shall be conducted following a prescriptive checklist that outlines which building aspects need to be addressed by the permit applicant and verified by an inspector. Compliance can also be demonstrated with blower door testing conducted by a certified HERS Rater no more than three years prior to the permit application date that either: a) shows at least a 30 percent reduction from pre-retrofit conditions; or b) shows that the number of air changes per hour at 50 Pascals pressure difference (ACH50) does not exceed ten for Pre-1978 vintage buildings, seven for 1978 to 1991 vintage buildings and five for 1992-2010 vintage buildings. If combustion appliances are located within the pressure boundary of the building, conduct a combustion safety test by a professional certified by the Building Performance Institute in accordance with the ANSI/BPI-1200-S-2017 Standard Practice for Basic Analysis of Buildings, the Whole House Combustion Appliance Safety Test Procedure for the Comfortable Home Rebates Program 2020 or the California Community Services and Development Combustion Appliance Safety Testing Protocol.

E4 R-38 Attic Insulation: Attic insulation shall be installed to achieve a weighted assembly Ufactor of 0.025 or insulation installed at the ceiling level shall have a thermal resistance of R-38 or greater for the insulation alone. Recessed downlight luminaires in the ceiling shall be covered with insulation to the same depth as the rest of the ceiling. Luminaires not rated for insulation contact must be replaced or fitted with a fire-proof cover that allows for insulation to be installed directly over the cover.

Exception: In buildings where existing R-30 is present and existing recessed downlight luminaires are not rated for insulation contact, insulation is not required to be installed over the luminaires.

E5 Duct Sealing: Air seal all space conditioning ductwork to meet the requirements of the California Energy Code 150.2(b)1E. The duct system must be tested by a HERS Rater no more than three years prior to the Covered Single Family Project permit application date to verify the duct sealing and confirm that the requirements have been met. This measure may not be combined with the New Ducts and Duct Sealing measure in this Table.
7 Exception: Buildings without ductwork or where the ducts are in conditioned space.

E6 New Ducts, R-6 insulation + Duct Sealing: Replace existing space conditioning ductwork with new R-6 ducts that meet the requirements of 2022 Title 24 Section 150.0(m)11. This measure may not be combined with the Duct Sealing measure in this Table. To qualify, a preexisting measure must have been installed no more than three years before the Covered Single Family Project permit application date.

E7 Windows: Replace at least 50% of existing windows with high performance windows with an area-weighted average U-factor no greater than 0.30.

E8 R-13 Wall Insulation: Install wall insulation in all exterior walls to achieve a weighted Ufactor of 0.102 or install wall insulation in all exterior wall cavities that shall result in an installed thermal resistance of R-13 or greater for the insulation alone.

E9 Reserved for future use
E10 R-19 / R-30 Floor Insulation: Raised-floors shall be insulated such that the floor assembly has an assembly U-factor equal to or less than U-0.037 / U-0.034 or shall be insulated between wood framing with insulation having an R-value equal to or greater than R-19 / R30.

Fuel Substitution Measures
FS1 Heat Pump Water Heater (HPWH) Replacing Gas: Replace existing natural gas water heater with a heat pump water heater.

FS2 High Efficiency Heat Pump Water Heater (HPWH) Replacing Gas: Replace existing natural gas water heater with heat pump water heater with a Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) Tier 3 or higher rating.

FS3 Heat Pump Water Heater (HPWH) Replacing Electric: Replace existing electric resistance water heater with a heat pump water heater.

FS4 High Efficiency Heat Pump Water Heater (HPWH) Replacing Electric: Replace existing electric resistance water heater with heat pump water heater with a Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) Tier 3 or higher rating.

FS5 Heat Pump Space Heater: Replace all existing gas and electric resistance primary space heating systems with an electric-only heat pump system.

FS6 High Efficiency Heat Pump Space Heater: Replace all existing gas and electric resistance primary space heating systems with one of the following:

A. A ducted electric-only heat pump system with a SEER2 rating of 16.5 or greater, an EER2 rating of 12.48 or greater and an HSPF2 rating of 9.5 or greater; or B. A ductless mini-split heat pump system with a SEER2 rating of 14.3 or greater, an EER2 rating of 11.7 or greater and an HSPF2 rating of 7.5 or greater FS7 Dual Fuel Heat Pump Space Heater: Either
A. Replace all existing gas and electric resistance primary heating systems with a hybrid gas and electric heat pump system, or
B. Install an electric-heat pump system in tandem with a gas furnace and install controls to operate the heat pump to use the existing gas furnace for backup heat only.

FS8 Heat Pump Clothes Dryer: Replace existing electric resistance clothes dryer with heat pump dryer with no resistance element and cap gas line.

FS9 Induction Cooktop: Replace all existing gas and electric resistance stove tops with inductive stove top and cap the gas line.

Solar PV and Electric-Readiness Measures
PV Solar PV + Electric Ready Pre-Wire: Install a solar PV system that meets the requirements of California Energy Code Section 150.1(c)14. In addition, upgrade the 8 panelboard to meet the requirements of Item ER1 in this Table and install any one other measures from Item ER2.

DIVISION 2. FINDINGS.

The San Rafael City Council finds that the scientific evidence has established that natural gas combustion as well as leakage occurring during natural gas procurement, transportation, storage, and distribution produce significant greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming, climate change and sea level rise.

California Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.5, 17958.7, and 18941.5 require that findings be made in order to change or modify building standards found in the California Building Standards Code based on local climatic, geologic, or topographic conditions. Therefore, the San Rafael City Council hereby finds that these changes or modifications to the California Green Building Standards Code, the California Plumbing Code and the California Mechanical Code as adopted in Chapter 12.200 of the San Rafael Municipal Code are reasonably necessary because of the following local climatic, geological, and topographical conditions:

I. Climatic conditions:
a) Most of the annual rainfall in San Rafael occurs during the winter, it receives no measurable precipitation between May and October. During this time, temperatures average between 70 and 90 degrees. These conditions eliminate most of the moisture in the natural vegetation and heavily wooded hillsides. The area also suffers periodic droughts that can extend the dry periods to other months of the year. These conditions can be further exacerbated by occasional off-shore hot, dry, Santa-Ana winds; all of which contribute to an elevated fire hazard.

Further, global warming due to climate change is making these conditions worse, extending the dry period by a full month in the spring and summer and exacerbating drought conditions.
b) The seasonal climatic conditions during the late summer and fall create severe fire hazards to the public health and welfare in the City. The hot, dry weather can result in wildland fires on the brush covered slopes adjacent to the majority of neighborhoods west of highway 101.
c) Local amendments to the municipal code pursuant to this ordinance are reasonably necessary to achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions that reduces the risks of climate shocks such as wildfires and drought, which will then reduce risks of physical damage to critical infrastructure, property loss, and loss of life. In addition, reducing electricity demand and encouraging on-site renewable energy and emergency backup reduces fire potential and reduces health and safety impacts to residents during public safety power shut offs. d) Most of the annual rainfall in San Rafael occurs during the winter, and some portions of San Rafael are subject to tidal influences, thus there are times that flooding conditions occur in low-lying areas. Much of San Rafael from downtown to the Canal, along San Pedro Road and south to the Richmond San Rafael Bridge 9 are lower than high tide and susceptible to flooding and sea level rise caused by climate change. San Rafael is expected to experience one foot of additional sea level rise in the coming decades. Local amendments to the municipal code pursuant to this ordinance are reasonably necessary to achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions that reduces the risks of flooding due to sea level rise, which will then reduce risks of physical damage to critical infrastructure, property loss, and loss of life.

II. Geologic conditions:
a) San Rafael lies near several earthquake faults, including the very active San Andreas Fault, there are significant potential hazards such as road closures, fires, collapsed buildings, and isolation of residents requiring assistance. b) Many areas of the city, including some highly developed industrial and commercial areas, are located on bay alluvial soils which are subject to liquefaction in the event of an earthquake.
c) The City includes hillsides with narrow and winding access, which makes timely response by fire suppression and emergency response vehicles difficult. d) Local amendments to the municipal code are reasonably necessary to reduce natural gas use thereby reducing the potential for leaks as well as the potential for fires caused by leaks during seismic events.

III. Topographic conditions:
a) Much of San Rafael is located in hilly areas, and many of the residential areas are heavily landscaped, and many exist adjacent to hilly open space areas which are characterized by dry vegetation and have limited access. In addition, the steepness of grades located in the hills and canyons results in narrow and winding roads, and limited water supply, making timely access, rescue and firefighting activities by emergency providers difficult.
b) The major arterial route between San Francisco and Marin and Sonoma County areas, Highway 101, bisects the City of San Rafael; should that highway become impassable, alternative routes via surface streets in San Rafael may cause heavy traffic congestion, limiting emergency access.

More specifically, the above modified building standards are listed below with the corresponding climatic, geological, or topographical condition which necessitates the modification.

CEgC Section Numbers Climatic, geological and topographical condition 150.0. Ia, Ib, IIc, IIIa,
CalGreen Section Numbers

4.106.4.1. Ia, Ib, IIc, IIIa,

4.106.4.2.2 1(b) Ia, Ib, IIc, IIIa,

4.106.4.2.2. 2(b) Ia, Ib, IIc, IIIa,
Title 12 Municipal Code

12.360 Ia, Ib, IIc, IIIa,
10 DIVISION 3. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) This Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to 14 CCR Section 15061(b)(3), since it can be seen with certainty that the adoption of this Ordinance would not have potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs.

Section 15061(b)(3), ‘general rule’ provision). The Ordinance is also exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15307 and 15308 as an action by a regulatory agency taken to protect the environment and natural resources.

DIVISION 4. SEVERABILITY.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance.

The City Council of the City of San Rafael hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases shall be declared invalid.

DIVISION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE.

This Ordinance shall be published once, in full or in summary form, before its final passage, in a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of San Rafael and shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption, upon approval of the California Energy Commission or the date of the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) accepts the ordinance for filing, whichever is later. If published in summary form, the summary shall also be published within fifteen (15) days after the adoption, together with the names of those Council members voting for or against same, in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of San Rafael, County of Marin, State of California.

THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was first read and introduced at a regular meeting of the San Rafael City Council on the 20th day of May 2024, and was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the San Rafael City Council on the 3
rd day of June 2024 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
Kate Colin, Mayor
Attest:
_____________________________
LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk

Prepared by:

Alea German, Claudia Pingatore, Ada Shen, & Keith Saechao, Frontier Energy, Inc Misti Bruceri, Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC
Prepared for:

Kelly Cunningham, Codes and Standards Program, Pacific Gas and Electric Last modified: 2024/04/26
Revision: 1.2
Attachment 2
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
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
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
LSC – Long-term System Cost (2025 Title 24, Part 6 compliance metric) 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 (2022 Title 24, Part 6 compliance metric) 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
VLLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space ZNE – Zero-net Energy
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Summary of Revisions
Date Description Reference (page or section)
9/12/2022 Original Release (1.0) N/A
3/25/2024 Updated analysis (1.1) • New simulation results with latest CBECC-Res version (Section 2.1.1)
• Updated utility cost estimates using
recent utility tariff and net billing
tariff (Section 2.1.3)
• New measure costs for heat pumps,
batteries, and PV (Section 3.3)
• Revised packages (Section 3.4)
• Revised Results, Summary,
References, and Appendices
(Sections 4-7)
4/26/2024 Corrected errors (1.2) • Corrected incorrect results in Tables 16-19, 23, 26
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary..........................................................................................................................................................1 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................4 2 Methodology and Assumptions...............................................................................................................................5

2.1 Analysis for Reach Codes..................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1.1 Modeling ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1.2 Cost-effectiveness ........................................................................................................................................................ 5

2.1.3 Utility Rates................................................................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................................................. 8

2.3 Energy Design Rating........................................................................................................................................................... 8 3 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs............................................................................................................9

3.1 Prior Reach Code Research ................................................................................................................................................. 9

3.2 Prototype Characteristics...................................................................................................................................................... 9

3.3 Measure Definitions and Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 12

3.3.1 Efficiency, Solar PV, and Batteries ............................................................................................................................. 12

3.3.2 Electrification............................................................................................................................................................... 17

3.4 Measure Packages ............................................................................................................................................................. 22 4 Results......................................................................................................................................................................24

4.1 Compliance Results: All-Electric vs. Mixed Fuel Code Minimum ........................................................................................ 24

4.2 All-Electric Code Minimum Results ..................................................................................................................................... 26

4.3 All-Electric Efficiency, PV, and Battery Results................................................................................................................... 29

4.4 Mixed Fuel Results ............................................................................................................................................................. 31

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Reductions.............................................................................................................................................. 33

4.6 Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................. 35

4.6.1 CARE Rate Comparison ............................................................................................................................................. 36

4.6.2 Utility Infrastructure Cost Sensitivity............................................................................................................................ 38

4.6.3 Utility Rate Escalation................................................................................................................................................. 39 5 Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................42 6 References ...............................................................................................................................................................46 7 Appendices ..............................................................................................................................................................48

7.1 Map of California Climate Zones......................................................................................................................................... 48

7.2 Utility Rate Schedules......................................................................................................................................................... 49

7.2.1 Pacific Gas & Electric.................................................................................................................................................. 50

7.2.2 Southern California Edison ......................................................................................................................................... 57

7.2.3 Southern California Gas.............................................................................................................................................. 61

7.2.4 San Diego Gas & Electric............................................................................................................................................ 62

7.2.5 City of Palo Alto Utilities.............................................................................................................................................. 68

7.2.6 Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (Electric Only)................................................................................................. 70

7.2.7 Fuel Escalation Assumptions...................................................................................................................................... 72

7.3 Summary of Efficiency Measures........................................................................................................................................ 74

7.4 Summary of Applicable Prescriptive Base case Measures ................................................................................................. 76 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Utility Tariffs Used Based on Climate Zone ............................................................................................................................ 7 Table 2: Prototype Characteristics........................................................................................................................................................ 9 Table 3: Base case Characteristics of the Prototypes ........................................................................................................................ 11 Table 4: Base Package PV Capacities (kW-DC) ................................................................................................................................ 12 Table 5: Incremental Cost Assumptions: Efficiency, PV, and Battery Measures ................................................................................ 14 Table 6: Single Family IOU Total Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs.................................................................................................... 17 Table 7: Single Family CPAU Total Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs ................................................................................................ 18 Table 8: ADU Utility Infrastructure Total and Incremental Costs......................................................................................................... 18 Table 9: Effective Useful Lifetime (EUL) of Water Heating & Space Conditioning Equipment............................................................ 19 Table 10: Space Conditioning System Nominal Capacities ................................................................................................................ 20 Table 11: Space Conditioning System Incremental Costs (2023 PV$)............................................................................................... 20 Table 12: Heat Pump Water Heating System Incremental Costs (2023 PV$) .................................................................................... 21 Table 13: Single Family All-Electric Appliance Incremental Costs ...................................................................................................... 22 Table 14: Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Code Minimum............................................................................................ 27 Table 15: ADU Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Code Minimum.......................................................................................................... 28 Table 16: Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: Comparison of All-Electric Efficiency Only, PV, and Battery Packages ........................ 29 Table 17: ADU Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Energy Efficiency + Additional PV + Battery ............................................................. 30 Table 18: Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery............................................................................ 31 Table 19: ADU Cost-Effectiveness: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery ......................................................................................... 32 Table 20: Single Family Greenhouse Gas Reductions (metric tons) .................................................................................................. 33 Table 21: ADU Greenhouse Gas Reductions (metric tons) ................................................................................................................ 34 Table 22: On-Bill Cost-Effectiveness with CARE Tariffs: All-Electric Code Minimum ......................................................................... 36 Table 23: On-Bill Cost-Effectiveness with CARE Tariffs: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV+ Battery Package ........................................... 37 Table 24: Single Family Cost-Effectiveness Comparison with Range of Natural Gas Utility Infrastructure Costs: All-Electric Code Minimum........................................................................................................................................................................................ 38 Table 25: Cost-Effectiveness, 2025 LSC Basis: All-Electric Code Minimum ...................................................................................... 40 Table 26: Cost-Effectiveness, 2025 LSC Basis: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery ...................................................................... 41 Table 27: Summary of Single Family EDR1 Margins and Cost-Effectiveness .................................................................................... 44 Table 28: Summary of ADU EDR1 Margins and Cost-Effectiveness .................................................................................................. 45 Table 29: PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone.......................................................................................................................... 50 Table 30: PG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)..................................................................................................................................... 50 Table 31: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ............................................................................................................................ 57 Table 32: SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ................................................................................................................... 61 Table 33: SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) .............................................................................................................................. 61 Table 34: SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ....................................................................................................................... 62 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Table 35: SDG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm).................................................................................................................................. 62 Table 36: CPAU Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)..................................................................................................................................... 68 Table 37: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions, CPUC En Banc and 2022 TDV Basis ...................................................... 72 Table 38: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions, 2025 LSC Basis ....................................................................................... 73 Table 39: All-Electric Single Family Efficiency Measures, Various Packages..................................................................................... 74 Table 40: Mixed Fuel Single Family Measures, Efficiency + PV + Battery Package........................................................................... 75 Table 41: Efficiency Measures for All ADU Packages ........................................................................................................................ 75 Table 42 Prescriptive Envelope, PV, and Battery Measures by Climate Zone.................................................................................... 76 Table 43 Prescriptive HVAC Measures by Climate Zone ................................................................................................................... 77 Table 44 Prescriptive Water Heating Measures by Climate Zone....................................................................................................... 77

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........................................................................................................................................... 48

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Executive Summary
1 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 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 (GHG) 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.

This analysis used two different metrics to assess the cost-effectiveness of the proposed upgrades. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the incremental costs and energy savings associated with each energy efficiency measure over a 30-year analysis period. On-Bill cost-effectiveness is a customer-based lifecycle cost (LCC) approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer utility bill savings using today’s electricity and natural gas utility tariffs. Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) is the California Energy Commission’s LCC methodology, which is intended to capture the long-term projected cost of energy, including costs for providing energy during peak periods of demand, carbon emissions, grid transmission and distribution impacts. This is the methodology used by the Energy Commission in evaluating cost-effectiveness for efficiency measures in Title 24, Part 6.

The following are key takeaways and recommendations from the analysis.

Conclusions and Discussion:
• All-electric buildings have lower GHG emissions than mixed fuel buildings, due to the clean power sources currently available from California’s power providers as well as accounting for increased penetration of renewables in the future. Almost all the all-electric packages evaluated resulted in greater GHG emission savings than the mixed fuel packages, with the exception of the mixed fuel package with battery storage in climate zones with low heating loads.
• The Reach Codes Team found code-compliant all-electric new construction to be feasible and cost-effective based on TDV for single family homes in all cases except Climate Zone 16. • All-electric single family new construction was On-Bill cost-effective in all cases except Climate Zones 1, 3, 14, and 16.
• The all-electric ADU home was cost-effective based on TDV in all cases except in Climate Zones 3, 4, 13, and 14 where the higher cost of installing a ducted heat pump water heater (HPWH) instead of the prescriptively required gas tankless water heater exceed the resulting energy cost savings. In the other climate zones there were first cost savings for installing a heat pump space heater instead of a gas furnace, contributing to an overall TDV cost-effective result.
• Few cases were cost-effective On-Bill for the ADU.
• All-electric code minimum construction results in an increase in first year utility costs relative to a mixed fuel home, except for CPAU and SMUD where electricity rates are much lower than for the investor-owned utilities (IOUs). The addition of efficiency measures, market dominant HPWHs that meet the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance’s (NEEA’s) Advanced Water Heating Specification1, high efficiency heat pumps, increased solar photovoltaics (PV), and batteries all reduce utility costs, and a combination of these options was found to reduce annual utility costs relative to a mixed fuel home in all cases. 1 Refer to Section 0 for an explanation of HPWHs certified through NEEA’s Advanced Water Heating Specification, their market status, and how they compare to federal minimum efficiency standards.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Executive Summary
2 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 • Under the Net Biling Tariff (NBT)2, utility cost savings for increasing PV system size beyond code minimum are substantially less than what they were under prior net energy metering rules (NEM 2.0); however, savings are sufficient to be On-Bill cost-effective in all climate zones for the all-electric single family home. Coupling PV with battery systems increases utility cost savings as a result of improved on-site utilization of PV generation and fewer exports to the grid.
• Applying California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) rates in the IOU territories improves On-Bill costeffectiveness for all-electric buildings, as compared to the same case under standard rates, due to higher utility cost savings compared to a code compliant mixed fuel building also on a CARE rate. This is due to the CARE discount on electricity being higher than that on gas.
• If gas tariffs are assumed to increase substantially over time, in line with the escalation assumption from the 2025 LSC development, all-electric new construction was found to be On-Bill cost-effective in almost all scenarios over the 30-year analysis period. There is much uncertainty surrounding future tariff structures as well as escalation values. While it’s clear that gas rates are anticipated to increase, how much and how quickly is not known. Electricity tariff structures are expected to evolve over time, and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has an active proceeding to adopt an income-graduated fixed charge that benefits lowincome customers and supports electrification measures3. The CPUC will make a decision in mid-2024 and the new rates are expected to be in place later that year or in 2025. While the anticipated impact of this rate change is lower volumetric electricity rates, the rate design is not finalized. While lower volumetric electricity rates provide many benefits like incentivizing electrification, it also will make building efficiency measures harder to justify as cost-effective due to lower utility bill cost savings.

Recommendations:
• A reach code with a single performance target based on source energy (EDR1) can be structured to strongly encourage electrification. This approach requires equivalent performance for all buildings and allows mixed fuel buildings which minimizes the risk of violating federal preemption. Below are examples of how a reach code for single family homes could be set up based on the results summarized in Table 27. o A jurisdiction in Climate Zone 12 could set a performance target at an EDR1 margin of 11.5 (the EDR1 margin for the all-electric Code Minimum package). Any all-electric home meeting or exceeding the prescriptive requirements would comply, and a mixed fuel home would likely need to incorporate a combination of efficiency measures and a battery system to comply. o Similarly, a jurisdiction in Climate Zone 7 may consider setting a performance target of 2.8 EDR1 margin (also the EDR1 margin for the all-electric Code Minimum package). Any all-electric home meeting or exceeding the prescriptive requirements would comply, but a mixed fuel home would likely be able to comply with only a suite of above-code efficiency measures (no battery). Alternatively, a higher EDR1 margin target of 5 would incentivize more energy efficiency or additional PV for allelectric construction, and mixed fuel construction would likely need to incorporate a battery system to comply.
o A jurisdiction in Climate Zone 16 may want to set a performance target at an EDR1 margin of 20.5 (the EDR1 margin for the mixed fuel efficiency + PV + battery package). This would establish a target that a mixed fuel home could cost-effectively meet, likely only after incorporating a combination of efficiency measures and a battery system, and that an all-electric home could easily meet. • 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, still meeting minimum code compliance. 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 2 Refer to Section 2.1.3 for discussion on NBT and NEM
3 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/electric-costs/demand-response-dr/demand-flexibility-rulemaking Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Executive Summary
3 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 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 a reach code for single family buildings also include an efficiency requirement with EDR1 margins at minimum consistent with the all-electric code minimum package results in Table 27.
• The code compliance margins for the ADU all-electric code minimum package are lower than for the single family prototype; code compliance and cost-effectiveness can be more challenging for smaller dwelling units.

As a result, the Reach Codes Team does not recommend EDR1 targets above those reported for the allelectric Code Minimum package in Table 28.

This report presents measures or measure packages that local jurisdictions may consider adopting to achieve energy savings and emissions reductions beyond what will be accomplished by enforcing minimum state requirements, the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6), effective January 1, 2023.

Local jurisdictions may also adopt ordinances that amend different Parts of the California Building Standards Code or may elect to amend other state or municipal codes. The decision regarding which code to amend will determine the specific requirements that must be followed for an ordinance to be legally enforceable. For example, jurisdictions may amend Part 11 instead of Part 6 of the CA Building Code requiring review and approval by the Building Standards Commission (BSC) but not the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission). Reach codes that amend Part 6 of the CA Building Code and require energy performance beyond state code minimums must demonstrate the proposed changes are cost-effective and obtain approval from the Energy Commission. Although a cost-effectiveness study is only required to amend Part 6 of the CA Building Code, this study provides valuable context for jurisdictions pursuing other ordinance paths to understand the economic impacts of any policy decision. This study documents the estimated costs, benefits, energy impacts and greenhouse gas 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 LocalEnergyCodes.com. Local jurisdictions that are considering adopting an ordinance may contact the program for further technical support at [email protected]. In addition, jurisdictions in a CCA territory with rates or rate structures that are significantly different than IOU rates may email the program at [email protected] to request a custom analysis.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Introduction
4 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 1 Introduction
This report documents cost-effective combinations of measures that exceed the minimum state requirements, the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, effective January 1, 2023, for newly constructed single family 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 Codes Team.

The analysis considers 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).4 Packages include combinations of efficiency measures, on-site renewable energy, and battery energy storage.

This report documents the key results and conclusions from the Reach Codes Team analysis. A full dataset of all results can be downloaded from the Local Energy Codes Resources5 webpage. Results alongside policy options and the potential citywide impacts for specific jurisdictions can also be explored using the Cost-effectiveness Explorer at https://explorer.localenergycodes.com/.

The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (California Energy Commission, 2021a) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies: the California Energy Commission (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). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are costeffective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable.

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 efficiencies than the federal standards require — herein referred to as federal preemption — 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 reach code mandatory requirements for covered appliances, in practice, builders may install any package of compliant measures to achieve the performance requirements.

4 See Appendix 7.1 Map of California Climate Zones for a graphical depiction of climate zone locations. 5 https://localenergycodes.com/content/resources/?q=newly%20constructed%20buildings:%20efficiency%20and%20electrification Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Methodology and Assumptions
5 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 2 Methodology and Assumptions

2.1 Analysis for Reach Codes
This section describes the approach to calculating cost-effectiveness including benefits, costs, metrics, and utility rate selection.

2.1.1 Modeling
The Reach Codes Team performed energy simulations using software approved for 2022 Title 24 Code compliance analysis, CBECC-Res 2022.3.0.

The general approach applied in this analysis is to evaluate performance and determine cost-effectiveness of various energy efficiency upgrade measures, individually and as packages, in single family buildings. Using the 2022 baseline as the starting point, prospective measures and packages were identified and modeled in each of the prototypes to determine the projected energy use (therm and kWh) and compliance impacts. A large set of parametric runs were conducted to evaluate various options and develop packages of measures that met or exceeded minimum code performance. The analysis utilized a Python based parametric tool to automate and manage the generation of CBECCRes input files. This allowed for quick evaluation of various efficiency measures across multiple climate zones and prototypes and improved quality control. The batch process functionality of CBECC-Res was utilized to simulate large groups of input files at once.

2.1.2 Cost-effectiveness

2.1.2.1 Benefits
This analysis used two different metrics to assess cost-effectiveness of the proposed upgrades. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the incremental costs and energy savings associated with each energy efficiency measure. The main difference between the methodologies is the manner in which they value energy and thus the cost savings of reduced or avoided energy use:

Utility Bill Impacts (On-Bill): Customer-based lifecycle cost (LCC) approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer utility bill savings using today’s electricity and natural gas utility tariffs. Total savings are estimated over a 30-year duration and include discounting of future costs and energy cost inflation.

Time Dependent Valuation (TDV): Energy Commission LCC methodology, which is intended to capture the total value or cost of energy use over 30 years. This method accounts for long-term projected costs, such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand, and other societal costs, such as projected costs for carbon emissions as well as grid transmission and distribution impacts. This metric values energy use differently depending on the fuel source (natural gas, electricity, and propane), time of day, and season. For example, electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved) during off-peak periods due to the less inefficient energy generation sources providing peak electricity (Horii, Cutter, Kapur, Arent, & Conotyannis, 2014). This is the methodology used by the Energy Commission in evaluating cost-effectiveness for efficiency measures in Title 24, Part 6.

2.1.2.2 Costs
The Reach Codes Team assessed the incremental costs of the measures and packages over a 30-year lifecycle.

Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacement, and maintenance costs of the proposed measure relative to the 2022 Title 24 Standards minimum requirements or standard industry practices. Present value of replacement cost is included only for measures with lifetimes less than the 30-year evaluation period.

In calculating On-Bill cost-effectiveness, incremental first costs were assumed to be financed into a mortgage or loan with a 30-year loan term and four percent interest rate. Financing was not applied to future replacement or maintenance costs. In calculating TDV cost-effectiveness, incremental first costs were not assumed to be financed into a mortgage or loan.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Methodology and Assumptions
6 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26

2.1.2.3 Metrics
Cost-effectiveness is presented using net present value (NPV) and benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio metrics.

NPV Savings: The lifetime NPV savings is reported as a cost-effectiveness metric; Equation 1 demonstrates how this is calculated. If the net savings of a measure or package is positive, it is considered cost-effective. Negative savings represent net costs.

B/C Ratio: Ratio of the present value of all benefits to the present value of all costs over 30 years (present value of benefits divided by present value of costs). The criteria benchmark for cost-effectiveness is a B/C ratio greater than one. A value of one indicates the present value of the savings over the analysis period is equivalent to the present value of the lifetime incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment. The B/C ratio is calculated according to Equation 2.

Equation 1
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑙𝑙 𝑏𝑏 − 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑙𝑙 𝑐𝑐 Equation 2
𝐵𝐵 − − 𝐶𝐶 𝑅𝑅 = 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑙𝑙 𝑏𝑏
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑙𝑙 𝑐𝑐
Improving the efficiency of a project often requires an initial incremental investment. In most cases the benefit is represented by annual On-Bill utility or TDV savings, and the cost is represented by incremental first cost and replacement costs. However, some packages result in initial construction cost savings (negative incremental cost), and either energy cost savings (positive benefits), or increased energy costs (negative benefits). 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., upfront construction cost savings and lifetime energy cost savings), B/C ratio cost-effectiveness is represented by “>1”.

The lifetime costs or benefits are calculated according to Equation 3.

Equation 3
𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑙𝑙 𝑐𝑐 𝑜𝑜 𝑏𝑏 = �(𝐴𝐴 𝑐𝑐 𝑜𝑜 𝑏𝑏 )𝑡𝑡
(1 + )𝑡𝑡
𝑛𝑛
𝑡𝑡=0
Where: n = analysis term in years
• r = discount rate
The following summarizes the assumptions applied in this analysis to both methodologies. • Analysis term of 30 years
• Real discount rate of three percent
TDV is a normalized monetary format and there is a unique procedure for calculating the present value benefit of TDV energy savings. The present value of the energy cost savings in dollars is calculated by multiplying the TDV savings (reported by the CBECC-Res simulation software) by a NPV factor developed by the Energy Commission (see (Energy + Environmental Economics, 2020)). The 30-year residential NPV factor is $0.173/kTDV kBtu for the 2022 code cycle.

Equation 4
• 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑙𝑙 𝑏𝑏 = 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑒𝑒 ∗ 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Methodology and Assumptions
7 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26

2.1.3 Utility Rates
In coordination with the CA IOU rate team (comprised of representatives from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E)) and two Publicly-Owned-Utilities (POUs) (Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) and City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU)), the Reach Codes Team determined appropriate utility rates for each climate zone in order to calculate utility costs and determine On-Bill costeffectiveness for the proposed measures and packages. The utility tariffs, summarized in Table 1, were determined based on the most prevalent active rate in each territory. Utility rates were applied to each climate zone based on the predominant IOU serving the population of each zone, with a few climate zones evaluated multiple times under different utility scenarios. Climate Zones 10 and 14 were evaluated with both SCE/SoCalGas and SDG&E tariffs since each utility has customers within these climate zones. Climate Zone 5 is evaluated under both PG&E and SoCalGas natural gas rates. Two POU or municipal utility rates were also evaluated: SMUD in Climate Zone 12 and CPAU in Climate Zone 4.

Some community choice aggregations (CCAs) have utility rates that are very similar to IOU rates, often within $0.02 per kWh. For these CCA customers, total utility costs will be very similar to those calculated in this study and the results from this study will generally apply. The study results cannot be easily applied to CCAs with rates that do not closely track the IOU rates or municipal utilities outside of SMUD and CPAU.

First-year utility costs were calculated using hourly electricity and natural gas output from CBECC-Res and applying the utility tariffs summarized in Table 1. Annual costs were also estimated for IOU customers eligible for the CARE tariff discounts on both electricity and natural gas bills. Appendix 7.2 Utility Rate Schedules includes details of each utility tariff. For cases with onsite generation (i.e. solar photovoltaics (PV)), the approved Net Billing Tariff (NBT) was applied along with monthly service fees and hourly export compensation rates for 20246. In December 2022, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) issued a decision adopting NBT as a successor to prior net energy metering rules (NEM 2.0) that went into effect April of 2023.7 The ADU was assumed to have separate electric and gas meters from the main house.

Table 1: Utility Tariffs Used Based on Climate Zone
Climate
Zones
Electric / Gas
Utility Electricity Tariff Natural GasTariff
IOUs
1-5,11-13,16 PG&E / PG&E E-ELEC G1
5 PG&E / SoCalGas E-ELEC GR
6, 8-10, 14, 15 SCE / SoCalGas TOU-D-PRIME GR
7, 10, 14 SDG&E / SDG&E EV-TOU-5 (TOU-ELEC for ADU
cases without PV systems8) GR
POUs
4 CPAU / CPAU E-1 G1
12 SMUD / PG&E R-TOD G1
Utility rates are assumed to escalate over time according to the CPUC 2021 En Banc hearings on utility costs through 2030 (California Public Utilities Commission, 2021a). Escalation rates through the remainder of the 30-year evaluation period are based on the escalation rate assumptions within the 2022 TDV factors. A second set of escalation rates were also evaluated to demonstrate the impact that utility cost changes over time have on cost-effectiveness. This utility rate escalation sensitivity analysis, presented in Section 4.6.3, was based on those used within the 2025 Long6 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/net-energy-metering-nem/nemrevisit/nbtmodel--12142022.xlsb 7 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/nemrevisit 8 See Section 3.2 Prototype Characteristics for a description of ADU cases that don’t require solar PV prescriptively.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Methodology and Assumptions
8 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 term System Cost (LSC) factors (LSC replaces TDV in the 2025 code cycle) which assumed steep increases in gas rates in the latter half of the analysis period. See Appendix 7.2.7 Fuel Escalation Assumptions for details.

2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The analysis reports the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission estimates based on assumptions within CBECC-Res. There are 8,760 hourly multipliers accounting for time-dependent energy use and carbon based on source emissions, including renewable portfolio standard projections. There are two strings of multipliers—one for Northern California climate zones, and another for Southern California climate zones.9 GHG emissions are reported as average annual metric tons of CO2 equivalent over the 30-year measure analysis period.

2.3 Energy Design Rating
The 2019 Title 24 Code introduced California’s Energy Design Rating (EDR) as the primary metric to demonstrate compliance with the energy code for single family buildings. This EDR was based on the hourly TDV energy use from a building that is compliant with the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) as the Reference Building. The Reference Building has an EDR score of 100 while a zero-net energy (ZNE) home has an EDR score of zero. While the Reference Building is used to set the scale for the rating, the Proposed Design is still compared to the Standard Design based on the Title 24 prescriptive baseline assumptions to determine compliance. In the 2022 Title 24 Code a second new EDR metric was introduced based on hourly source energy. The two EDR metrics are described below:
• EDR1 is calculated based on source energy.
• EDR2 is calculated based on TDV energy.

EDR1 has only one component, “Total EDR1” which represents source energy use for the entire building. EDR2 is composed of two components for compliance purposes: the “Efficiency EDR2”, which represents the energy efficiency features of a home, and the PV/Flexibility EDR2, which includes the effects of PV and battery storage systems. “Total EDR2” combines all energy use of the building including both the Efficiency and PV/Flexibility impacts. While the Efficiency EDR2 does not include the full impact of a battery system, it can include a self-utilization credit for batteries if certain conditions are met.

For a new, single family building to comply with the 2022 Title 24 Code, three criteria must be met:

1. The Proposed Total EDR1 must be equal to or less than the Total EDR1 of the Standard Design, and

2. The Proposed Efficiency EDR2 must be equal to or less than the Efficiency EDR2 of the Standard Design, and

3. The Proposed Total EDR2 must be equal to or less than the Total EDR2 of the Standard Design.

This concept, consistent with California’s “loading order” which prioritizes energy efficiency ahead of renewable generation, requires projects to meet a minimum Efficiency EDR2 before PV is credited but allows for PV to be traded off with additional efficiency when meeting the Total EDR2. A project may improve building efficiency beyond the minimum required and subsequently reduce the PV generation capacity necessary to achieve the required Total EDR2.

However, it may not increase the size of the PV system and trade this off with a reduction of efficiency measures.

Results from this analysis are presented as EDR Margin, a reduction in the EDR score relative to the Standard Design.

EDR Margin is a better metric to use than absolute EDR in the context of a reach code because absolute values vary based on the home design and characteristics such as size and orientation. This approach aligns with how compliance is reported for the 2019 and 2022 Title 24 Code. The EDR Margin is calculated according to Equation 5.

Equation 5
𝐸𝐸 𝑀𝑀 = 𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆 𝐸𝐸 − 𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 𝐸𝐸
9 CBECC-Res multipliers are the same for CZs 1-5 and 11-13 (Northern California), while there is another set of multipliers for CZs 6-10 and 14-16 (Southern California).

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
9 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 3 Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
This section describes the prototypes and the scope of analysis drawing from previous research where necessary, including the 2019 low-rise residential single family reach code study (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2019).

3.1 Prior Reach Code Research
In 2019, the Reach Codes Team analyzed the cost-effectiveness of residential single family new construction projects for mixed fuel and all-electric packages (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2019). Using this analysis, several cities and counties in California adopted local energy code amendments encouraging or requiring that low-rise residential new construction be all-electric. As there were few changes to the single family requirements, this analysis for the 2022 code cycle leveraged the work completed for the 2019 reports. Initial efficiency packages were based on the final packages from the 2019 research and were revised to reflect measure specifications and costs based on new data.

3.2 Prototype Characteristics
The Energy Commission defines building prototypes which it uses to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of proposed changes to Title 24 requirements. For the 2022 code cycle the Energy Commission used two single family prototypes, both of which were used in this analysis. Additional details on the prototypes can be found in the Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) Approval Manual (California Energy Commission, 2018).

Additionally, a detached new construction ADU prototype was developed to reflect recent trends in California construction related to the high cost of housing (TRC, 2021). ADUs are additional dwelling units typically built on the property of an existing single-family parcel. ADUs are defined as new construction in the energy code when they are ground-up developments, do not convert an existing space to livable space, and are not attached to the primary dwelling. The evaluated prototype is not representative of an attached ADU constructed as an addition to an existing home.

The Reach Codes Team leveraged prior research to define the detached ADU baseline and measure packages. The house size and number of bedrooms were based on data from a survey conducted by UC Berkeley’s Center for Community Innovation (UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation, 2021). The survey found that the average square footage for new ADUs statewide is 615 square feet and that the majority (61 percent) of new ADUs have one bedroom.

Table 2 describes the basic characteristics of each prototype. The prototypes have equal geometry on all walls, windows and roof to be orientation neutral.

Table 2: Prototype Characteristics
Characteristic Single Family
One-Story
Single Family
Two-Story ADU
Conditioned Floor Area 2,100 ft2 2,700 ft2 625 ft2
Num. of Stories 1 2 1
Num. of Bedrooms 3 4 1
Window-to-Floor Area Ratio 20% 20% 19.2%
The Energy Commission’s protocol for the two single family prototypes is to weigh the simulated energy impacts by a factor that represents the distribution of single-story and two-story homes being built statewide. Consistent with this protocol, this study assumed 50 percent single-story and 50 percent two-story. Simulation results in this study are Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
10 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 characterized and presented according to this ratio, which is approximately equivalent to a 2,400-square foot (ft2) house.10 ADU results are presented separately.

The methodology used in the analyses for each of the prototypical building types begins with a design that precisely meets the minimum 2022 prescriptive requirements (zero compliance margin). Table 150.1-A in the 2022 Standards (California Energy Commission, 2021a) lists the prescriptive measures that determine the baseline design in each climate zone. Other features are consistent with the Standard Design in the ACM Reference Manual (California Energy Commission, 2022), and are designed to meet, but not exceed, the minimum requirements. See Appendix 7.4 for a list of prescriptive values relevant to the measures explored in this analysis.

Table 3 describes additional characteristics as they were applied to the base case, or baseline, energy model in this analysis. In a shift from the 2019 Standards, the 2022 Standards apply a prescriptive fuel source for space heating and water, where one is gas-fueled and one is a heat pump depending on climate zone. This establishes a prescriptive heat pump baseline. In most climate zones the prescriptive base case includes a heat pump water heater and a natural gas furnace for space heating. In Climate Zones 3, 4, 13, and 14 this is reversed, where the base case has a heat pump space heater and natural gas tankless water heater.

Table 4 summarizes the PV capacities for the base case packages. 10 2,400 ft2 = (50% x 2,100 ft2) + (50% x 2,700 ft2)
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
11 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Table 3: Base case Characteristics of the Prototypes
Characteristic Single Family ADU
Space
Heating/Cooling1,2
CZs 1-2,5-12,15-16: Natural gas furnace, split
AC 80 AFUE, 14.3 SEER2, 11.7 EER2
CZs 3-4,13-14: Split heat pump – 7.5 HSPF2,

14.3 SEER2, 11.7 EER2
Same as single family
Air Distribution Ductwork located in vented attic Same as single family Water Heater1,2
CZs 1-2,5-12,15-16: Heat pump water heater
(HPWH) UEF = 2.0 located in the garage
CZs 3-4,13-14: Natural gas tankless –
UEF = 0.81
Same equipment type as SF
except HPWH is located inside
the conditioned space with the
supply air ducted from outside
and exhaust air ducted to
outside.3
Hot Water
Distribution
Code minimum
CZs 1,16: Basic compact distribution credit Same as single family Cooking Natural Gas Same as single family
Clothes Drying Natural Gas Same as single family
PV System
Sized to offset 100% of electricity use for space
cooling, ventilation, lighting, appliance, & other
miscellaneous electric loads. Size differs by
climate zone ranging from 2.64 kW to 5.21 kW,
see Table 4.

PV is not required when the PV
system size required based on the
prescriptive calculations is less
than 1.8 kW, as is the case in
Climate Zones 1-9, 12, 14, and

16. In the other climate zones the
PV size ranges from 1.73 kW to

2.51 kW, see Table 4.
4 Foundation Slab-on-grade Same as single family
1 Equipment efficiencies are equal to minimum federal appliance efficiency standards. 2 AFUE = annual fuel utilization efficiency. SEER = seasonal energy efficiency ratio. EER = energy efficiency ratio.

HSPF = heating seasonal performance factor. UEF = uniform energy factor. 3 This version of CBECC-Res used in this analysis did not have the capability to directly model ducted HPWHs even though this configuration is called out as the Standard Design in the 2022 ACM (California Energy Commission, 2022). This was modeled by indicating that the tank is located within the conditioned space with the compressor unit located outside. 4 Exception 2 to Section 150.1(I)14 states that “no PV system is required when the minimum PV system size specified by section 150.1(c)14 is less than 1.8 kWdc.” In this analysis this exception is applied based on the sizes calculated per Equation150.1-C of Section 150.1(c)14. The performance software sizes the PV system based on the estimated energy use, which differs slightly from the prescriptive sizing. As a result, the baseline PV capacity from the performance software for Climate Zone 10 is less than 1.8 kWdc.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
12 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Table 4: Base Package PV Capacities (kW-DC)
Climate
Zone
Base Package
Single
Family ADU
CZ01 3.57 0
CZ02 3.03 0
CZ03 2.83 0
CZ04 2.91 0
CZ05 2.64 0
CZ06 2.65 0
CZ07 2.83 0
CZ08 3.11 0
CZ09 2.96 0
CZ10 3.17 1.73
CZ11 3.90 2.06
CZ12 3.14 0
CZ13 4.05 2.09
CZ14 3.15 0
CZ15 5.21 2.51
CZ16 2.93 0

3.3 Measure Definitions and Costs
Measures evaluated in this study fall into two categories: those associated with general efficiency — onsite generation (solar PV), and demand flexibility (batteries) — and those associated with building electrification. Furthermore, general efficiency measures are broken into those that are federally preempted and those that are not; see Section 1 for background information on preemption and Section 3.4 for details of measure packages evaluated in this study. The Reach Codes Team selected measures based on cost-effectiveness as well as decades of experience with residential architects, builders, and engineers along with general knowledge of the relative consumer acceptance of many measures.

The following sections describe the details and incremental cost assumptions for each of the measures. Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacement, and maintenance costs of the proposed measures relative to the base case.11 Replacement costs are applied for roofs, mechanical equipment, PV inverters and battery systems over the 30-year evaluation period. Maintenance costs are estimated for PV systems, but not any other measures.

Costs were estimated to reflect costs to the building owner. All costs are provided as present value in 2023 (2023 PV$).

The Reach Codes Team obtained measure costs from distributors, contractors, literature review, and online sources such as Home Depot and RS Means. Contractor markups are incorporated. These are the Reach Codes Team’s best estimates of average costs statewide. However, it's recognized that local costs may differ, and that inflation and supply chain issues may also impact costs.

3.3.1 Efficiency, Solar PV, and Batteries
The following are descriptions of each of the efficiency, PV, and battery measures evaluated under this analysis and applied in at least one of the packages presented in this report, including how they compare to the current prescriptive requirements. Throughout this report, “Efficiency” measures refer specifically to the following non-preempted 11 All first costs are assumed to be financed in a mortgage and interest costs due to financing are included in the incremental costs.

See Section 2.1.2 for details.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
13 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 measures. These measures are in addition to or in place of the relevant 2022 base case prototype characteristics outlined in Table 3, and their applicability to measure packages are summarized in Table 39 through Table 41. Table 5 summarizes the incremental cost assumptions for each of these measures.

Reduced Infiltration (ACH50): Reduce infiltration in single family homes from the default infiltration assumption of five (5) air changes per hour at 50 Pascals (ACH50) 12 by 40 percent to 3 ACH50. HERS rater field verification and diagnostic testing of building air leakage according to the procedures outlined in the 2022 Reference Appendices RA3.8 (California Energy Commission, 2021b).

Lower U-Factor Fenestration: Reduce window U-factor to 0.24. The prescriptive U-factor is 0.30 in all climate zones.

Higher SHGC Fenestration: Increase solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) to 0.50 in climate zones where heating loads dominate (1, 3, 5 and 16). The baseline SHGC applied in the Standard Design is 0.35 in these climate zones.

Cool Roof: Install a roofing product that’s rated by the Cool Roof Rating Council to have an aged solar reflectance (ASR) equal to or greater than 0.25. Steep-sloped roofs were assumed in all cases. The prescriptive ASR is 0.20 for Climate Zones 10 through 15.

Increased Ceiling Insulation: Increase ceiling level insulation in a vented attic to R-38, R-49, or R-60 insulation.

Slab Insulation: Install R-10 perimeter slab insulation at a depth of 16-inches. This measure doesn’t apply to Climate Zone 16 where slab insulation is required prescriptively.

Low Pressure Drop Ducts: Upgrade the duct distribution system to reduce external static pressure and meet a maximum fan efficacy of 0.35 Watts per cfm (compared to the prescriptively required 0.45 W/cfm). This may involve upsizing ductwork, reducing the total effective length of ducts, and/or selecting low pressure drop components such as filters. Fan watt draw must be verified by a HERS rater according to the procedures outlined in the 2022 Reference Appendices RA3.3 (California Energy Commission, 2021b). This applies to the single family prototype only.

Buried Radial Duct Design: Bury all ductwork in ceiling insulation by laying the ducts across the ceiling joists or inbetween ceiling joists directly on the ceiling drywall. Duct design is based on a radial design where individual ducts are run to each supply register. This allows for smaller diameter ducts, reducing duct losses and more easily meeting fully or deeply buried conditions.13 Duct burial and duct system design must be verified by a HERS rater according to the procedures outlined in the 2022 Reference Appendices RA3.1.4.1.5 and RA3.1.4.1.6 (California Energy Commission, 2021b). This applies to the single family prototype only.

Ductless Mini-Split Heat Pump: In the ADU prototype install a ductless mini-split heat pump with three indoor heads.

The system is evaluated as meeting the criteria for the variable capacity heat pump (VCHP) credit, introduced in the 2019 code cycle, which must be verified by a HERS rater according to the procedures outlined in the 2022 Reference Appendices RA3.4.4.3 (California Energy Commission, 2021b). This credit requires verification of refrigerant charge, that all equipment is entirely within conditioned space, that airflow is directly supplied to all habitable space, and that wall mounted thermostats serve any zones greater than 150 square feet. This measure is non-preempted because it does not require the installation of equipment with efficiencies above federal minimum requirements.

Compact Hot Water Distribution: Design the hot water distribution system to meet minimum requirements for the basic compact hot water distribution credit according to the procedures outlined in the 2022 Reference Appendices RA4.4.6 (California Energy Commission, 2021b). In many single family homes this may require moving the water heater from an exterior to an interior garage wall. CBECC-Res software assumes a 30% reduction in distribution losses for the basic credit. This is prescriptively required in Climate Zones 1 and 16 only.

Solar PV: Installation of on-site PV is required in the 2022 residential code unless an exception is met. The PV sizing methodology in each package was developed to offset annual building electricity use and avoid oversizing. In all cases, 12 Whole house leakage tested at a pressure difference of 50 Pascals between indoors and outdoors. 13 The duct systems in the Central Valley Research Homes Project Final Project Report are illustrative of this approach (Proctor, Wilcox, & Chitwood, 2018).

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
14 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 PV is evaluated in CBECC-Res according to the California Flexible Installation (CFI) 1 assumptions. To meet CFI eligibility, the requirements of 2022 Reference Appendices JA11.2.2 (California Energy Commission, 2021b) must be met.

The Reach Codes Team used two options within the CBECC-Res software for sizing the PV system. The first option, “Standard Design PV”, was applied in the base case simulations and packages where the PV system size was not changed from the minimum system size required14. For the PV packages, the second option, “Specify PV System Scaling”, was used. In these cases, a scaling of 100 was applied, indicating that the PV system be sized to offset 100% of the estimated electricity use of the Proposed Design case.

One exception to the PV requirement is when the minimum PV system size required is less than 1.8 kW. This exception applies to the ADU models in Climate Zones 1-9, 12, 14, and 16. For these cases no PV system is required by code and no PV system was modeled in the base case simulations.

Battery Energy Storage: A 10 kWh battery system was evaluated in CBECC-Res with control type set to “Basic” and with default efficiencies of 95% for both charging and discharging. 10kWh battery capacity is representative of systems installed in single family homes based on the Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) participant data. The “Basic” control option charges the battery system anytime PV generation is greater than the house load and discharges the battery whenever the house load exceeds PV generation. The battery does not discharge to the grid, maximizing onsite utilization of the PV system and in turn utility bill benefits under NBT. To qualify for the battery storage compliance credit the battery system must meet the requirements outlined in the 2022 Reference Appendices JA12 (California Energy Commission, 2021b). Batteries are not prescriptively required in any climate zone.

Table 5: Incremental Cost Assumptions: Efficiency, PV, and Battery Measures Measure
Performance
Level
Incremental
Cost
(2023 PV$)1
Source & Notes
Single
Family ADU
Reduced
Infiltration

3.0 vs 5.0
ACH50 $591 $362 $0.115/ft2 based on NREL’s BEopt cost database plus $250 HERS rater verification.

Window Ufactor 0.24 vs 0.30 $2,280 $285 $4.23/ft2 window area based on analysis conducted for the 2019 and 2022 Title 24 cycles (Statewide CASE Team, 2018).

Window
SHGC 0.50 vs 0.35 $0 $0
Based on feedback from Statewide CASE Team that higher SHGC does not necessarily have any incremental cost (Statewide CASE Team, 2017).

Cool Roof

0.25 vs 0.20
aged solar
reflectance
$219 $53
$0.07per ft2 of roof area first incremental cost for asphalt shingle product based on the 2022 Nonresidential High Performance Envelope CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020a). Total costs assume present value of replacement at year 20 and residual cost for remaining product life at end of 30-year analysis period. Higher reflectance values for lower cost are achievable for tile roof products
Attic
Insulation
R-49 vs R-30 $872 n/a
Based on costs from the 2022 Residential Additions & Alterations CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020b).

R-60 vs R-30 $1,420 n/a
R-60 vs R-38 $1,096 n/a
Slab Edge
Insulation R-10 vs R-0 $651 $449 $4 per linear foot of slab perimeter based on internet research. Assumes 16in depth. 14 The Standard Design PV system is sized to offset the electricity use of the building loads which are typically electric in a mixed fuel home, which includes all loads except space heating, water heating, clothes drying, and cooking.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
15 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Measure
Performance
Level
Incremental
Cost
(2023 PV$)1
Source & Notes
Single
Family ADU
Low
Pressure
Drop Ducts

0.35 vs 0.45
W/cfm $99 n/a
Costs assume one-hour labor for single family and half-hour for the ADU. Labor rate of $88 per hour is from 2022 RS Means for sheet metal workers and includes a weighted average City Cost Index for labor for California.

Buried
Ducts
Buried, radial
design $281 n/a
No cost for laying ducts on attic floor versus suspending, in some cases there will be cost savings. Neutral cost for radiant design versus trunk and branch design. A $250 HERS Rater verification fee is included.

Duct
Insulation R-8 vs R-6 $201 n/a Based on costs from the 2022 Residential Additions & Alterations CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020b).

Ductless
Mini-Split
Heat Pump
Ductless
system
meeting the
VCHP credit
vs. ducted
split heat
pump
n/a $1,571
Costs were developed based on data from E3’s 2019 report Residential Building Electrification in California (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019) and the 2022 All-Electric Multifamily CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020c).

Equipment costs are from the CASE Report for the 10-story multifamily prototype assuming similar sized equipment between the multifamily dwelling unit and the ADU. Thermostat, wiring, electrical, and ducting costs are from the E3 study. A $250 HERS Rater verification fee is also included. Where this measure is applied to the mixed fuel home with a gas furnace, this cost is in addition to the cost difference for a heat pump versus a gas furnace/split AC reported in Section 3.3.2.

Compact
Hot Water
Distribution
Basic credit –
homes with
gas tankless
$196 $0
For single family homes with a gas tankless water heater (mixed fuel homes in Climate Zones 3, 4, 13, 14) assumes adding 20-feet venting at $14.69 per linear foot to locate water heater on interior garage wall, less 20-feet savings for PEX and pipe insulation at $5.98 per linear foot. Costs obtained from online retailers. For single family homes with a HPWH there is an incremental cost savings from less pipe being required. For the ADU it is assumed the credit can be met without any changes to design and there is no cost impact.

Basic credit –
homes with
HPWH
-$134 $0
PV System
First Cost $3.11/
W
$3.11/
W
First costs are from LBNL’s Tracking the Sun 2022 (Barbose, Galen; Darghouth, Naim; O'Shaughnessy, Eric; Forrester, Sydney, 2022) and represent median costs in California in 2022 of $3.78/WDC for residential systems. The first cost was reduced by the solar energy Investment Tax Credit of 30%.2
Inverter replacement cost of $0.14/WDC present value includes replacements at year 11 at $0.15/WDC (nominal) and at year 21 at $0.12/WDC (nominal) per the 2019 PV CASE Report (California Energy Commission, 2017).

System maintenance costs of $0.31/WDC present value assume $0.02/WDC (nominal) annually per the 2019 PV CASE Report (California Energy Commission, 2017).

Inverter
replacement
$0.14/
W
$0.14/
W
Maintenance $0.31/
W
$0.31/
W
Replacement
cost
$648/
kWh
$648/
kWh
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
16 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Measure
Performance
Level
Incremental
Cost
(2023 PV$)1
Source & Notes
Single
Family ADU
Battery (10
kWh) First cost $782/kWh
$782/
kWh
First costs of $1,101/kWh are from SGIP residential participant cost data for single family projects between 2020 and 2023. The first cost is reduced by 30% due to the Investment Tax Credit2 and also by $0.15/Wh due to the base SGIP incentive3. The SGIP incentive is only accounted for in IOU territories and not for SMUD and CPAU analyses.

Replacement cost at years 10 and 20 was calculated based on the first cost reduced by 7% annually over the next 10 years for a future value cost of $533/kWh. The 7% reduction is based on SDG&E’s Behind-the-Meter Battery Market Study (E-Source companies, 2020). For projects constructed in 2024 or 2025, the first replacement at year 10 would occur in 2034 or 2035. This replacement cost includes an average Investment Tax Credit of 22% in 2034 and 0% in 20352.
1All first costs are assumed to be financed in a mortgage and interest costs due to financing are included in the incremental costs. See Section 2.1.2 for details. Interest costs were not included for calculating TDV costeffectiveness. 2As part of the Inflation Reduction Act in August 2022 the Section 25D Investment Tax Credit was extended and raised to 30% through 2032 with a step-down beginning in 2033. https://www.seia.org/sites/default/files/2022- 08/Inflation%20Reduction%20Act%20Summary%20PDF%20FINAL.pdf 3SGIP incentives vary by ‘steps’ which reflect utility-specific funding across program implementation years. See:
https://www.selfgenca.com/home/program_metrics/
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
17 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26

3.3.2 Electrification
This analysis compared a code compliant mixed fuel prototype, which uses natural gas for three appliances (cooking, clothes drying and either space heating or water heating), with a code compliant all-electric prototype. The associated costs included the relative costs between natural gas and electric appliances, differences between in-house electricity and natural gas infrastructure, and the associated infrastructure costs for providing natural gas to the building. To estimate costs the Reach Codes Team leveraged costs from the 2019 reach code cost-effectiveness studies for residential new construction (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2019) and detached accessory dwelling units (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2021b), 2022 RS Means, PG&E data, published utility schedules and rules, and online research.

3.3.2.1 Utility Infrastructure
This section addresses utility infrastructure costs during construction; appliance-specific infrastructure costs are addressed in Section 0. Table 6 presents total costs for natural gas infrastructure for a single family building within CA gas IOU territory, including distribution and service line extensions, meter installation, and plan review. These costs are applied as cost savings for an all-electric home when compared to a mixed fuel home. This is the component with the highest degree of variability for all-electric homes, as they are project-dependent and may be significantly impacted by such factors as utility territory, site characteristics, distance to the nearest natural gas main and main location, joint trenching, whether work is conducted by the utility or a private contractor, and number of dwelling units per development. All gas utilities participating in this study were solicited for cost information. The CA IOU costs for single family homes presented are based on cost data provided by PG&E.

Extension of service lines from a main distribution line to the home were provided separately for a new subdivision in an undeveloped area ($1,300) as well as an infill development ($6,750). The service extension is typically more costly in an infill scenario due to the disruption of existing roads, sidewalks, and other structures. For this analysis an average of the new subdivision and infill development costs was used, representing 80 percent of the new subdivision and 20 percent infill. In the case of distribution line extensions, the estimated cost is for new greenfield development.

For the single family analysis, based on the Reach Codes Team's conversations with the industry it is assumed that no upgrades to the electrical panel are required and that a 200 Amp panel is typically installed for both mixed fuel and allelectric homes.

Table 6: Single Family IOU Total Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs Item Cost
Distribution Line Extension $1,020
Service Line Extension $2,390
Meter $300
Plan Review Costs $850
Total $4,560
CPAU provides gas service to its customers and therefore separate costs were evaluated based on CPAU gas service connection fees.15 Table 7 presents the breakdown of gas infrastructure costs used in this analysis for CPAU. There is no main distribution line component since Palo Alto has little greenfield space remaining and most of the development is infill.
15 CPAU Schedule G-5 effective 09-01-2019: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/utilities/utilities-engineering/generalspecifications/gas-service-connection-fees.pdf Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
18 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Table 7: Single Family CPAU Total Natural Gas Infrastructure Costs Item Cost
Service Extension $5,892
Meter $1,012
Plan Review Costs $924
Total $7,828
Electricity infrastructure costs for single family homes were not estimated as part of this work as they are expected to be the same for both all-electric and mixed fuel construction. This will change in July 2024 based on the CPUC’s recent decision to eliminate electric line extension subsidies for new construction projects that use natural gas and/or propane.16 This will increase the utility infrastructure costs for mixed fuel homes, relative to all-electric homes, improving the cost-effectiveness of all-electric construction. The Reach Codes Team intends to quantify this impact in future studies.

Table 8 presents utility infrastructure costs for the detached ADU, both mixed fuel and all-electric designs. These costs are directly from the 2019 detached ADU reach code report (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2021b) and were obtained from stakeholder interviews and RS Means. For the ADU scenario it’s assumed that natural gas infrastructure already exists on the lot and is being extended to the location of the ADU typically at the back of the lot. There are incremental cost savings for an all-electric ADU from not extending the natural gas service; however, there is also a small incremental cost for upgrading the electric service to accommodate the additional electrical load. The Reach Codes Team found that a new detached ADU would require that the building owner upgrade the service connection to the lot in both the mixed fuel ADU design and the all-electric design. The most common size for this upgrade is to upsize the existing panel to 225A, which would not represent an incremental cost from the mixed fuel project to the all-electric project. Feeder wiring to the ADU and the ADU subpanel, on the other hand, will need to be slightly upgraded for the all-electric design.

Table 8: ADU Utility Infrastructure Total and Incremental Costs Mixed Fuel Measure Mixed Fuel
Total Cost All-Electric Measure All-Electric Total Cost All-Electric
Incremental Cost
Site natural gas service
extension $1,998 No site natural gas service $0 ($1,998) Site electrical service
connection upgrade 225A $3,500
Site electrical service
connection upgrade 225A $3,500 $0
100A feeder to ADU with
breaker $933
125A feeder to ADU with
breaker $1,206 $273
100A ADU subpanel $733 125A ADU subpanel $946 $213
Totals $7,164 $5,652 ($1,512)

3.3.2.2 Equipment
This section provides descriptions and costs of the equipment applied to electrify mixed fuel homes in the all-electric packages. The equipment meets but does not exceed federal efficiency requirements to avoid federal preemption concerns.
16 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/news-and-updates/all-news/cpuc-eliminates-last-remaining-utility-subsidies-for-new-construction-ofbuildings-using-gas-2023 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
19 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 For the water heating and space conditioning equipment analyzed, cost analyses incorporated the equipment’s effective useful lifetime (EUL), which are summarized in Table 9. The EUL for the heat pump, furnace, and air conditioner are based on the Database for Energy Efficient Resources (DEER) (California Public Utilities Commission, 2021b). Water heating equipment lifetimes are based on DOE’s recent water heater rulemaking (Department of Energy, 2022). Replacement costs are applied when equipment reaches its EUL within the 30-year evaluation period, and in such cases are included in the total lifetime costs. Residual value of the gas furnace and gas tankless at the end of the 30-year analysis period was accounted for to represent the remaining life of the equipment.

In this analysis, replacement costs assume a like-for-like replacement of equipment type and fuel (as listed in Table 9).

However, this may be precluded in the future due to efforts to prohibit the sale of gas equipment currently being considered or undertaken by air districts (ex. BAAQMD, SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (ex. zero NOx appliance rules).

Table 9: Effective Useful Lifetime (EUL) of Water Heating & Space Conditioning Equipment Measure EUL (Years)
Gas Furnace 20
Air Conditioner 15
Heat Pump 15
Gas Tankless Water Heater 20
Heat Pump Water Heater 15
Space Conditioning: This measure covers replacing a prescriptive air conditioner and gas furnace with a minimum efficiency heat pump in applicable climate zones (1, 2, 5 to 12, 15 and 16; see Table 3). Typical incremental costs for this equipment were based on contractor feedback and price variation by system capacity from the AC Wholesalers website and the RS Means cost database (RSMeans, 2022). Costs were applied based on the system capacity from heating and cooling load calculations in CBECC-Res as presented in Table 10. Air conditioner nominal capacity was calculated as the CBECC-Res cooling load, rounded up to the nearest half ton. Heat pump nominal capacity was calculated as the maximum of either the CBECC-Res heating or cooling load, rounded up to the nearest half ton. In both cases a minimum capacity of 1.5-ton was applied as this represents the typical smallest available split system heat pump equipment. Load calculations demonstrated that Climate Zones 2, 5 to 12, and 15 were cooling-dominated while Climate Zones 1 and 16 were heating-dominated. In the heating dominated climate zones the heat pump for the single family home needs to be upsized relative to an air conditioner that only provides cooling.

Replacement costs were estimated based on a contractor survey conducted by the Statewide Reach Codes Team in 2023 (Statewide Reach Codes Team, tbd), less any gas and electric infrastructure costs, and the equipment lifetimes listed in Table 9. Resultant incremental costs are presented in Table 11.

This measure, and thus the incremental cost, does not apply to climate zones where heat pump space conditioning is already prescriptively required (Climate Zones 3, 4, 13, and 14).

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
20 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Table 10: Space Conditioning System Nominal Capacities
Climate
Zone
Single Family ADU
Air Conditioner
Capacity (tons)
Heat Pump
Capacity (tons)
Air Conditioner
Capacity (tons)
Heat Pump
Capacity (tons)
1 1.5 2.5 1.5 1.5
2 3 3 1.5 1.5
3 - - - -
4 - - - -
5 3 3 1.5 1.5
6 3 3 1.5 1.5
7 3 3 1.5 1.5
8 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5
9 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5
10 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5
11 3 3 1.5 1.5
12 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5
13 - - - -
14 - - - -
15 4 4 1.5 1.5
16 2 3.5 1.5 1.5
Table 11: Space Conditioning System Incremental Costs (2023 PV$) Climate
Zone
Single Family ADU
First
Cost
Total Lifetime
Cost (Financed)
First
Cost
Total Lifetime
Cost (Financed)
1 $803 $2,705 ($2,120) ($1,717)
2 ($1,044) ($44) ($2,120) ($1,717)
3 - - - -
4 - - - -
5 ($1,044) ($44) ($2,120) ($1,717)
6 ($1,044) ($44) ($2,120) ($1,717)
7 ($1,044) ($44) ($2,120) ($1,717)
8 ($1,445) ($673) ($2,120) ($1,717)
9 ($1,445) ($673) ($2,120) ($1,717)
10 ($1,445) ($673) ($2,120) ($1,717)
11 ($1,044) ($44) ($2,120) ($1,717)
12 ($1,445) ($673) ($2,120) ($1,717)
13 - - - -
14 - - - -
15 ($1,032) $368 ($2,120) ($1,717)
16 $2,331 $5,123 ($2,120) ($1,717)
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
21 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Water Heater: This measure covers replacing a prescriptive gas tankless water heater with a minimum efficiency HPWH in applicable climate zones (3, 4, 13, and 14; see Table 3). Typical incremental costs were based on costs from prior reach code work and recent contractor feedback. Incremental first costs assume a 65-gal HPWH and incremental replacement costs account for equipment lifetimes listed in Table 9. Replacement costs assume no change in cost from the first cost estimates before accounting for inflation, less any gas and electric infrastructure costs. For the ADU analysis the water heater is evaluated within the conditioned space with the supply air ducted from the outside and exhaust air ducted to the outside. A mechanical contractor provided a cost estimate of $943 for ducting through the attic in an ADU where the water heater is in an interior room. This cost is included in the equipment and installation total for the ADU. Resultant incremental costs are presented in Table 12.

Table 12: Heat Pump Water Heating System Incremental Costs (2023 PV$) Item
ADU Single Family
First
Cost
Total Lifetime
Cost
(Financed)
First
Cost
Total Lifetime
Cost
(Financed)
Equipment & Installation $2,243 $3,930 $1,300 $2,267
Electric Service Upgrade $43 $48 $45 $51
In-House Gas Piping ($580) ($651) ($580) ($651)
Total $1,706 $3,327 $765 $1,666
For this electrification analysis, a HPWH that just meets the federal minimum efficiency standards17 of close to 2.0 Uniform Energy Factor (UEF) was evaluated in order to satisfy preemption requirements. However, the Reach Codes Team is not aware of any 2.0 UEF products that are available on the market. The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) established its own rating system for high efficiency HPWHs18 and maintains a database of qualified products.

The lowest UEF currently reported in the database is 2.73. In fact, of the four rating tiers offered by NEEA, those meeting Tier 3 or Tier 4 are the dominant products on the market today. According to NEEA all major HPWH manufacturers are represented in NEEA’s qualified product list19 and there are fewer than 10 integrated products certified as Tier 1 or Tier 2, all of which have UEFs greater than 3.0.20 NEEA Tier 3 water heaters were included in the high-efficiency measure packages (see Section 3.4).

Clothes Dryer and Range: After review of various sources, the Reach Codes Team concluded that the cost difference between gas and electric resistance equipment for clothes dryers and stoves is negligible and that the lifetimes of the two technologies are similar. Resultant incremental costs are presented in Table 13. Note that while induction stoves may be a more likely installation option in many homes, CBECC-Res does not currently differentiate between electric technologies for stoves and therefore they were not considered in this analysis. Relative to electric resistance, induction stoves use less energy and improve performance and user satisfaction, at an additional cost.

Electric Service Upgrade (appliance-specific): The 2022 Title 24 Code requires electric readiness for gas appliances; as a result, the incremental costs to provide electrical service for electric appliances are minimal. The incremental costs accounted for in this study — shown in Table 13 — are calculated as the cost to install 220V service for the electric appliances less the cost for the electric ready requirements and for installing 110V service for the 17 The Department of Energy establishes minimum energy conservation standards for consumer products, as directed in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. See https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-10/chapter-II/subchapter-D/part-430/subpart-C/section430.32. 18 Based on operational challenges experienced in the past, NEEA established rating test criteria to ensure newly installed HPWHs perform adequately, especially in colder climates. The NEEA rating requires products comply with ENERGY STAR and includes requirements regarding noise and prioritizing heat pump use over supplemental electric resistance heating. 19 https://neea.org/success-stories/heat-pump-water-heaters 20 As of 3/8/2024: https://neea.org/img/documents/residential-unitary-HPWH-qualified-products-list.pdf Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
22 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 comparable gas appliance. Incremental costs are applied for the space conditioner, water heater, and cooking range.

Based on builder surveys, it’s assumed that in a typical mixed fuel home both electric and gas service are provided to the dryer location and therefore no incremental costs for the dryer were applied. Costs assume 50A service for the range and 30A service for the space conditioner and water heater. Costs are assumed to be the same for the single family and ADU analyses.

In-House Natural Gas Infrastructure (from meter to appliances): Installation cost to run a natural gas line from the meter to the appliance location was estimated at $580 per appliance, as shown in Table 13. These costs were based on material costs from Home Depot and labor costs from 2022 RS Means. The material costs were about 1/3 higher in RS Means than Home Depot, so the Reach Codes Team used the lower costs from Home Depot. The Reach Codes Team conducted a pipe sizing analysis for the two single family and one ADU prototype homes to estimate the length and diameter of gas piping required assuming the home included a gas furnace, gas tankless water heater, gas range, and gas dryer. Total estimated costs were very similar for each of the three prototypes and an average cost per appliance of $580 was determined. Costs are assumed to be the same for the single family and ADU analyses.

Table 13: Single Family All-Electric Appliance Incremental Costs Item
ADU & Single Family
First
Cost
Total Lifetime Cost
(Financed)
Electric Resistance vs Gas Cooking
Equipment & Installation $0 $0
Electric Service Upgrade $100 $113
In-House Gas Piping ($580) ($651)
Total ($480) ($539)
Electric Resistance vs Gas Clothes Drying
Equipment & Installation $0 $0
Electric Service Upgrade $0 $0
In-House Gas Piping ($580) ($651)
Total ($580) ($651)

3.4 Measure Packages
The Reach Codes Team evaluated two packages for mixed fuel homes and five packages for all-electric homes for each prototype and climate zone, as described below.

1. All-Electric Code Minimum: This package applied the prescriptive requirements of the 2022 Title 24 Code and replaced gas equipment with minimum efficiency electric equipment.

2. Efficiency Only, all-electric: This package used only efficiency measures that don’t trigger federal preemption issues including envelope, water heating distribution, and duct distribution efficiency measures. For ADUs, this also included ductless variable capacity heat pumps (VCHPs). This package was evaluated for the all-electric homes only.

3. Efficiency + High Efficiency (Preempted) Equipment, all-electric and mixed fuel: This package builds off the Efficiency Only package, adding water heating and space conditioning equipment that is more efficient than federal standards. The Reach Codes Team considers this more reflective of how builders meet above code requirements in practice. This package was evaluated to compare compliance results against the other nonpreempted packages (see Table 27 and Table 28), however cost-effectiveness was not evaluated for this package since it cannot serve as the basis for adoption of a local ordinance. Specifically, it applied:
a. Water heating, all-electric: Heat pump water heaters with a NEEA Tier 3 rating (3.45 UEF). b. Water heating, mixed fuel: High efficiency (0.95 UEF) gas tankless.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Prototypes, Measure Packages, and Costs
23 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 c. Space conditioning, single family: High efficiency (16 SEER2/8 HSPF2) heat pumps. In mixed fuel packages, for climate zones with prescriptive gas heating, high efficiency (16 SEER2/95 AFUE) units were applied.

4. Efficiency + PV, all-electric: This package also builds on the Efficiency Only package, excluding preempted equipment. Instead, PV capacity was added to offset all of the estimated annual electricity use. This package was evaluated for the all-electric homes only.

5. Efficiency + PV + Battery, all-electric and mixed fuel: Using the Efficiency + PV package as a starting point for the all-electric analysis, a battery system was added. For mixed fuel homes the package of efficiency measures differed from the all-electric homes in some climate zones to arrive at a cost-effective solution.

To reiterate previous statements, the non-preempted measures used in all of the above packages (except for the AllElectric Code Minimum package) are referred to as “Efficiency measures”. As noted above, these measures may differ by prototype (single family vs. ADU) and by package. See Table 40 and Table 41 for the details of these measures.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Results
24 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 4 Results
Section 4.1 presents compliance results for all-electric versus mixed fuel code minimum packages to provide a broad overview of how these different approaches impact code compliance. Sections 4.2 to 4.5 present EDR results along with other savings data for packages of particular interest, as well as cost-effectiveness results for all packages.

Section 4.5 presents results for sensitivity analyses. All results reflect savings over a 30-year analysis period and are compared against the 2022 prescriptive baseline.

4.1 Compliance Results: All-Electric vs. Mixed Fuel Code Minimum The Reach Codes Team evaluated the compliance impacts of a prescriptive all-electric home as well as a traditional mixed fuel home with four gas appliances (space heating, water heating, cooking, clothes drying). Compliance is relative to the 2022 prescriptive base case home with three gas appliances which, by definition, has a compliance margin of zero in all climate zones. The impacts for the all-electric single family home and the ADU are presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively. The all-electric single family and ADU home prototypes are code compliant with both EDR1 (source energy) and efficiency EDR2 (TDV energy) in all climate zones, though the compliance margin is highly variable across climate zones. The four gas appliance single family home is presented in Figure 3. This case is not code compliant in any climate zone.

Figure 1: Single family all-electric home compliance impacts. 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 CZ01 CZ02 CZ03 CZ04 CZ05 CZ06 CZ07 CZ08 CZ09 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 EDR Margin
All-Electric Prescrip�ve
Source (EDR1) TDV (EDR2 Efficiency)
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction Results
25 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Figure 2: ADU all-electric home compliance impacts.

Figure 3: Single family four gas appliance home compliance impacts.

This analysis illustrates a couple of interesting points:

1. The 2022 compliance metrics are important drivers encouraging electrification. The compliance penalties associated with the four gas appliance home scenarios are significant and will require deep efficiency measures to overcome.

2. The 2022 Title 24 Code’s new source energy metric combined with the heat pump baseline encourage allelectric construction, providing a compliance benefit that allows for some amount of prescriptively required building efficiency to be traded off and still comply when using the performance method. 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
CZ01 CZ02 CZ03 CZ04 CZ05 CZ06 CZ07 CZ08 CZ09 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 EDR Margin
All-Electric Prescrip�ve
Source (EDR1) TDV (EDR2 Efficiency)
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0 2
CZ01 CZ02 CZ03 CZ04 CZ05 CZ06 CZ07 CZ08 CZ09 CZ10 CZ11 CZ12 CZ13 CZ14 CZ15 CZ16 EDR Margin
Mixed Fuel Prescrip�ve, 4 Gas Appliances
Source (EDR1) TDV (EDR2 Efficiency)
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 26 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26

4.2 All-Electric Code Minimum Results
Table 14 shows results for the single family all-electric Code Minimum measure package. Utility cost savings are negative, indicating an increase in utility costs for the all-electric building, everywhere except in CPAU and SMUD territories. In all cases the incremental cost is negative, which reflects cost savings for the all-electric building due to elimination of gas infrastructure costs. The package is cost-effective based on TDV in all cases but one (Climate Zone 16); it’s not cost-effective On-Bill in Climate Zones 1, 3, 14, and 16.

Table 15 shows the all-electric Code Minimum package results for the ADU. Utility savings and incremental costs reflect the same general trend as single family homes. Cost-effectiveness is less favorable than the single family application, with TDV cost-effectiveness not met in Climate Zones 3, 4, 13, and 14, and On-Bill cost-effectiveness met only in Climate Zones 4 in CPAU territory, 10 in SCE/SCG territory, 12 in SMUD/PG&E territory, 11 and 15. Costeffectiveness in Climate Zones 3, 4, 13, and 14 is worse than in the other climate zones due to the higher cost of converting from a gas tankless to a ducted HPWH (see Table 3) which isn’t offset enough by the energy savings. Cost savings due to elimination of gas infrastructure costs are also lower for the ADU relative to the single family home.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 27 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Table 14: Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Code Minimum 1 Though uncommon, incremental costs can be negative, reflecting initial construction cost savings. When paired with increased energy costs (negative benefits), the construction cost savings are treated as the ‘benefit’ while the increased energy costs are the ‘cost,’ which may yield positive cost effectiveness. See Section 2.1.2.3 for more information.

Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Total
EDR1
Margin
Efficiency
EDR2
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost Savings Incremental Cost1 On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$) First Year Lifecycle (2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 25.8 12.4 -4,308 398 ($431) ($3,873) ($4,816) ($3,605) 0.9 ($268) >1 $5,702 CZ02 PGE 14.0 8.3 -2,888 246 ($327) ($4,000) ($6,664) ($6,355) 1.6 $2,355 >1 $7,711 CZ03 PGE 9.1 7.7 -2,433 171 ($303) ($4,734) ($4,854) ($4,644) 0.98 ($90) 25.3 $3,887 CZ04 PGE 8.8 5.0 -2,232 163 ($251) ($3,665) ($4,854) ($4,644) 1.3 $979 >1 $4,494 CZ04 CPAU 8.8 5.0 -2,232 163 ($36) $2,123 ($8,122) ($8,314) >1 $10,437 >1 $7,762 CZ05 PGE 6.5 4.0 -1,960 133 ($292) ($4,981) ($6,664) ($6,355) 1.3 $1,373 6.1 $4,633 CZ05 PGE/SCG 6.5 4.0 -1,960 133 ($277) ($4,532) ($6,664) ($6,355) 1.4 $1,823 6.1 $4,633 CZ06 SCE/SCG 4.2 3.5 -1,432 84 ($231) ($4,015) ($6,664) ($6,355) 1.6 $2,339 4.7 $4,353 CZ07 SDGE 2.8 3.2 -1,293 69 ($266) ($5,731) ($6,664) ($6,355) 1.1 $624 4.2 $4,211 CZ08 SCE/SCG 2.1 1.1 -1,293 67 ($228) ($4,192) ($7,065) ($6,983) 1.7 $2,792 4.2 $4,674 CZ09 SCE 3.6 1.9 -1,453 84 ($237) ($4,153) ($7,065) ($6,983) 1.7 $2,831 5.5 $5,013 CZ10 SCE/SCG 4.8 2.3 -1,683 107 ($258) ($4,342) ($7,065) ($6,983) 1.6 $2,642 7.4 $5,287 CZ10 SDGE 4.8 2.3 -1,683 107 ($265) ($5,158) ($7,065) ($6,983) 1.4 $1,825 7.4 $5,287 CZ11 PGE 11.4 4.9 -2,712 226 ($306) ($3,803) ($6,664) ($6,355) 1.7 $2,552 >1 $7,153 CZ12 PGE 11.5 5.6 -2,554 212 ($294) ($3,773) ($7,065) ($6,983) 1.9 $3,210 >1 $7,504 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 11.5 5.6 -2,554 212 $79 $4,731 ($7,065) ($6,983) >1 $11,714 >1 $7,504 CZ13 PGE 8.3 3.2 -2,095 154 ($224) ($3,164) ($4,854) ($4,644) 1.5 $1,480 >1 $4,490 CZ14 SCE/SCG 8.8 3.3 -2,291 159 ($322) ($5,166) ($4,854) ($4,644) 0.9 ($522) >1 $4,105 CZ14 SDGE 8.8 3.3 -2,291 159 ($344) ($6,361) ($4,854) ($4,644) 0.7 ($1,717) >1 $4,105 CZ15 SCE/SCG 0.9 1.0 -1,167 53 ($217) ($4,152) ($6,652) ($5,942) 1.4 $1,791 3.0 $3,439 CZ16 PG&E 21.3 0.7 -4,729 403 ($548) ($6,581) ($3,289) ($1,187) 0.2 ($5,394) 0.4 ($1,339) Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 28 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Table 15: ADU Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Code Minimum 1 Though uncommon, incremental costs can be negative, reflecting initial construction cost savings. When paired with increased energy costs (negative benefits), the construction cost savings are treated as the ‘benefit’ while the increased energy costs are the ‘cost,’ which may yield positive cost effectiveness. See Section 2.1.2.3 for more information.

Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas
Utility
Total
EDR1
Margin
Efficiency
EDR2
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost Savings Incremental Cost1 On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$) First Year Lifecycle (2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 11.9 6.1 -1,641 114 ($353) ($6,682) ($4,692) ($4,605) 0.7 ($2,077) 3.9 $2,986 CZ02 PGE 5.7 3.4 -1,245 75 ($312) ($6,347) ($4,692) ($4,605) 0.7 ($1,742) 2.7 $2,515 CZ03 PGE 2.9 2.3 -1,672 123 ($377) ($7,138) ($863) $442 0.0 ($7,581) 0.0 ($1,489) CZ04 PGE 2.4 1.4 -1,612 118 ($366) ($6,964) ($863) $442 0.0 ($7,406) 0.0 ($801) CZ04 CPAU 2.4 1.4 -1,612 118 $25 $3,035 ($863) $442 6.9 $2,592 0.0 ($801) CZ05 PGE 1.8 0.8 -1,026 49 ($302) ($6,517) ($4,692) ($4,605) 0.7 ($1,912) 2.0 $2,021 CZ05 PGE/SCG 1.8 0.8 -1,026 49 ($257) ($5,178) ($4,692) ($4,605) 0.9 ($574) 2.0 $2,021 CZ06 SCE/SCG 0.5 0.2 -904 38 ($243) ($4,923) ($4,692) ($4,605) 0.9 ($318) 2.1 $2,135 CZ07 SDGE 0.1 0.1 -884 37 ($337) ($7,903) ($4,692) ($4,605) 0.6 ($3,298) 2.2 $2,205 CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.1 0.1 -878 36 ($241) ($4,894) ($4,692) ($4,605) 0.9 ($289) 2.3 $2,274 CZ09 SCE 0.4 0.1 -903 38 ($243) ($4,914) ($4,692) ($4,605) 0.9 ($310) 2.4 $2,321 CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.0 0.4 -952 43 ($189) ($3,629) ($4,692) ($4,605) 1.3 $976 2.8 $2,577 CZ10 SDGE 1.0 0.4 -952 43 ($249) ($5,689) ($4,692) ($4,605) 0.8 ($1,084) 2.8 $2,577 CZ11 PGE 4.6 2.1 -1,209 71 ($224) ($4,405) ($4,692) ($4,605) 1.0 $200 3.5 $2,870 CZ12 PGE 4.6 2.3 -1,183 69 ($306) ($6,315) ($4,692) ($4,605) 0.7 ($1,710) 3.0 $2,684 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 4.6 2.3 -1,183 69 ($65) ($808) ($4,692) ($4,605) 5.7 $3,797 3.0 $2,684 CZ13 PGE 3.1 1.3 -1,611 112 ($218) ($3,689) ($863) $442 0.0 ($4,131) 0.0 ($858) CZ14 SCE/SCG 3.5 1.2 -1,714 115 ($375) ($6,933) ($863) $442 0.0 ($7,375) 0.0 ($1,089) CZ14 SDGE 3.5 1.2 -1,714 115 ($483) ($10,348) ($863) $442 0.0 ($10,790) 0.0 ($1,089) CZ15 SCE/SCG 0.0 0.0 -864 36 ($172) ($3,359) ($4,692) ($4,605) 1.4 $1,246 2.6 $2,477 CZ16 PG&E 11.2 0.1 -1,781 122 ($379) ($7,167) ($4,692) ($4,605) 0.6 ($2,562) 2.1 $2,133 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 29 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26

4.3 All-Electric Efficiency, PV, and Battery Results
Table 16 and Table 17 compare cost-effectiveness results for the all-electric packages for the single family and ADU prototypes, respectively, with the exception of the all-electric Efficiency + High Efficiency (Preempted) Equipment package (cost-effectiveness was not evaluated for this package but see Table 27 and Table 28 for a comparison of compliance impacts). In almost all cases the packages are cost-effective based on TDV. On-Bill cost-effectiveness generally improves with the addition of efficiency measures, further improves with an upsized PV system, and improves even more once batteries are added. A summary of measures included in each package is provided in Appendix 7.3 Summary of Measures by Package. The efficiency measures added to the all-electric package to meet minimum code requirements are described in Table 39 and Table 41.

Table 16: Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: Comparison of All-Electric Efficiency Only, PV, and Battery Packages Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
All-Electric Code Minimum All-Electric Efficiency Only All-Electric-Efficiency + PV All-Electric Efficiency + PV + Battery
On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 0.93 ($268) >1 $5,702 >1 $2,945 >1 $8,168 0.9 ($1,313) 1.8 $9,817 1.0 $1,012 1.2 $4,391 CZ02 PGE 1.6 $2,355 >1 $7,711 8.9 $3,870 >1 $9,325 1.5 $2,242 4.2 $12,452 1.3 $4,962 1.5 $8,190 CZ03 PGE 0.98 ($90) 25.3 $3,887 1.1 $168 >1 $3,939 0.8 ($903) 2.8 $6,465 1.1 $2,114 1.1 $1,347 CZ04 PGE 1.3 $979 >1 $4,494 1.7 $1,054 >1 $4,849 1.1 $204 3.5 $7,893 1.2 $3,709 1.3 $4,506 CZ04 CPAU >1 $10,437 >1 $7,762 >1 $10,021 >1 $8,117 >1 $14,776 >1 $11,161 0.9 ($1,076) 1.5 $6,724 CZ05 PGE 1.3 $1,373 6.1 $4,633 1.6 $1,975 >1 $4,985 2.2 $1,457 8.5 $7,927 1.3 $5,551 1.2 $3,296 CZ05 PGE/SCG 1.4 $1,823 6.1 $4,633 1.9 $2,424 >1 $4,985 2.6 $1,907 8.5 $7,927 1.4 $6,001 1.2 $3,296 CZ06 SCE/SCG 1.6 $2,339 4.7 $4,353 1.6 $1,813 >1 $4,119 109.5 $2,638 152.4 $6,727 1.5 $7,153 1.2 $2,276 CZ07 SDGE 1.1 $624 4.2 $4,211 1.2 $839 8.3 $4,070 5.7 $469 >1 $6,079 2.0 $13,798 1.1 $1,186 CZ08 SCE/SCG 1.7 $2,792 4.2 $4,674 1.8 $2,574 17.7 $4,642 >1 $3,329 >1 $7,492 1.7 $8,899 1.2 $2,085 CZ09 SCE 1.7 $2,831 5.5 $5,013 1.9 $2,699 >1 $5,087 >1 $3,634 >1 $8,007 1.7 $9,151 1.3 $3,630 CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.6 $2,642 7.4 $5,287 2.0 $2,668 >1 $5,376 >1 $3,765 >1 $8,347 1.7 $10,088 1.3 $3,901 CZ10 SDGE 1.4 $1,825 7.4 $5,287 1.8 $2,438 >1 $5,376 >1 $2,539 >1 $8,347 2.4 $19,463 1.3 $3,901 CZ11 PGE 1.7 $2,552 >1 $7,153 >1 $4,159 >1 $8,524 1.8 $2,984 4.6 $11,310 1.4 $7,781 1.5 $8,757 CZ12 PGE 1.9 $3,210 >1 $7,504 4.6 $3,742 >1 $8,084 1.9 $2,561 5.5 $11,063 1.3 $6,021 1.5 $8,216 CZ12 SMUD/PGE >1 $11,714 >1 $7,504 >1 $10,665 >1 $8,084 5.8 $13,407 5.5 $11,063 0.9 ($1,237) 1.4 $7,166 CZ13 PGE 1.5 $1,480 >1 $4,490 >1 $2,876 >1 $5,773 1.7 $2,334 3.7 $8,341 1.4 $7,848 1.4 $7,005 CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($522) >1 $4,105 1.8 $811 >1 $5,461 1.6 $2,558 3.6 $9,965 1.6 $10,569 1.4 $6,204 CZ14 SDGE 0.7 ($1,717) >1 $4,105 1.5 $643 >1 $5,461 1.2 $922 3.6 $9,965 2.1 $20,099 1.4 $6,204 CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.4 $1,791 3.0 $3,439 8.0 $3,267 >1 $4,669 >1 $3,940 >1 $6,120 2.0 $13,576 0.99 ($80) CZ16 PG&E 0.2 ($5,394) 0.4 ($1,339) 0.2 ($1,946) 1.7 $1,894 0.8 ($3,199) 1.6 $6,711 1.0 $206 1.1 $1,690 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 30 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Table 17: ADU Cost-Effectiveness: All-Electric Energy Efficiency + Additional PV + Battery Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
All-Electric Code Minimum All-Electric Efficiency Only All-Electric Efficiency + PV All-Electric Efficiency + PV + Battery On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 0.7 ($2,077) 3.9 $2,986 0.6 ($1,727) >1 $2,900 1.2 $2,003 1.5 $5,010 0.997 ($79) 0.9 ($2,884) CZ02 PGE 0.7 ($1,742) 2.7 $2,515 0.5 ($2,541) >1 $1,945 1.4 $3,532 1.8 $6,360 1.1 $1,302 0.98 ($410) CZ03 PGE 0.0 ($7,581) 0.0 ($1,489) 0.0 ($8,981) 0.0 ($2,680) 0.8 ($2,489) 1.1 $1,436 0.8 ($4,949) 0.8 ($5,369) CZ04 PGE 0.0 ($7,406) 0.0 ($801) 0.0 ($8,705) 0.4 ($1,762) 0.9 ($1,480) 1.3 $3,589 0.9 ($3,501) 0.8 ($3,849) CZ04 CPAU 6.9 $2,592 0.0 ($801) 1.3 $944 0.4 ($1,762) 1.7 $8,498 1.3 $3,589 0.7 ($9,161) 0.8 ($4,899) CZ05 PGE 0.7 ($1,912) 2.0 $2,021 0.4 ($3,310) 1.4 $650 1.6 $4,015 1.9 $5,436 1.1 $2,498 0.9 ($1,611) CZ05 PGE/SCG 0.9 ($574) 2.0 $2,021 0.6 ($1,972) 1.4 $650 1.8 $5,353 1.9 $5,436 1.2 $3,836 0.9 ($1,611) CZ06 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($318) 2.1 $2,135 0.6 ($1,579) 2.1 $1,103 2.0 $5,866 2.2 $6,551 1.1 $2,799 0.95 ($852) CZ07 SDGE 0.6 ($3,298) 2.2 $2,205 0.4 ($4,255) 1.8 $941 1.8 $5,667 1.9 $5,493 1.5 $10,358 0.9 ($1,804) CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($289) 2.3 $2,274 0.6 ($1,432) 2.1 $1,179 2.0 $6,364 2.3 $7,936 1.2 $4,058 0.97 ($609) CZ09 SCE 0.9 ($310) 2.4 $2,321 0.6 ($1,494) 2.3 $1,280 2.0 $6,568 2.4 $7,709 1.2 $4,314 0.99 ($279) CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.3 $976 2.8 $2,577 0.96 ($106) 3.7 $1,593 2.2 $734 6.7 $3,496 0.9 ($860) 0.7 ($3,944) CZ10 SDGE 0.8 ($1,084) 2.8 $2,577 0.6 ($1,787) 3.7 $1,593 0.0 ($1,465) 6.7 $3,496 1.3 $5,079 0.7 ($3,944) CZ11 PGE 1.0 $200 3.5 $2,870 10.7 ($96) >1 $2,531 0.7 ($602) 3.2 $4,037 0.9 ($1,125) 0.9 ($1,893) CZ12 PGE 0.7 ($1,710) 3.0 $2,684 0.5 ($2,538) >1 $1,878 1.6 $4,644 1.9 $6,675 1.1 $2,970 1.0 $178 CZ12 SMUD/PGE 5.7 $3,797 3.0 $2,684 13 $1,980 >1 $1,878 1.7 $5,737 1.9 $6,675 0.6 ($9,432) 0.96 ($872) CZ13 PGE 0.0 ($4,131) 0.0 ($858) 0.0 ($4,502) 0.6 ($1,223) 0.3 ($4,759) 1.1 $305 0.8 ($4,729) 0.7 ($5,491) CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.0 ($7,375) 0.0 ($1,089) 0.0 ($7,929) 0.5 ($1,684) 1.1 $1,555 1.5 $5,935 1.0 $1,222 0.9 ($1,525) CZ14 SDGE 0.0 ($10,790) 0.0 ($1,089) 0.0 ($10,375) 0.5 ($1,684) 1.2 $2,956 1.5 $5,935 1.4 $10,678 0.9 ($1,525) CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.4 $1,246 2.6 $2,477 2.4 $1,243 >1 $2,342 >1 $1,729 >1 $3,560 1.2 $2,631 0.8 ($2,812) CZ16 PG&E 0.6 ($2,562) 2.1 $2,133 0.5 ($2,378) >1 $2,282 1.6 $5,433 2.0 $7,875 1.2 $3,618 1.0 $611 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 31 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26

4.4 Mixed Fuel Results
Table 18 and Table 19 show results for the mixed fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery package for Single Family and ADU prototypes, respectively. On a TDV basis, this package is cost-effective only in Climate Zone 1 for single family and in no cases for ADUs. However, this package is cost-effective On-Bill for the single family home in all climate zones except 4 in CPAU territory and 12 in SMUD/PG&E territory. On-Bill cost-effectiveness for the ADU home, on the other hand, is seen only in Climate Zones 2, 5, 7 through 9, 10 in SDG&E territory, 12 in PG&E territory, 14, and 16.

Table 18: Single Family Cost-Effectiveness: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Total
EDR1
Margin
Efficiency
EDR2
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 22.6 18.8 1,571 116 $1,084 $26,667 $11,160 $20,166 1.3 $6,501 1.0 $500 CZ02 PGE 14.1 7.4 1,257 34 $913 $21,353 $10,268 $18,868 1.1 $2,486 0.9 ($1,282) CZ03 PGE 12.8 4.3 858 7 $785 $18,003 $8,708 $16,900 1.1 $1,104 0.7 ($4,777) CZ04 PGE 13.2 4.3 790 6 $803 $18,394 $9,623 $17,938 1.0 $456 0.8 ($3,925) CZ04 CPAU 13.2 4.3 790 6 $123 $2,877 $10,673 $19,172 0.2 ($16,295) 0.7 ($4,975) CZ05 PGE 14.8 4.9 1,178 13 $905 $20,821 $9,441 $17,885 1.2 $2,936 0.8 ($3,468) CZ05 PGE/SCG 14.8 4.9 1,178 13 $900 $20,690 $9,441 $17,885 1.2 $2,805 0.8 ($3,468) CZ06 SCE/SCG 18.3 5.5 888 6 $864 $19,539 $9,266 $17,587 1.1 $1,951 0.8 ($3,941) CZ07 SDGE 18.7 4.8 832 4 $1,134 $27,505 $9,214 $17,537 1.6 $9,967 0.7 ($4,817) CZ08 SCE/SCG 17.1 3.0 777 2 $920 $20,754 $9,134 $17,410 1.2 $3,344 0.7 ($4,341) CZ09 SCE 16.2 3.1 833 3 $922 $20,804 $9,152 $17,435 1.2 $3,369 0.8 ($3,839) CZ10 SCE/SCG 14.4 2.7 846 2 $958 $21,608 $8,489 $16,733 1.3 $4,875 0.7 ($3,859) CZ10 SDGE 14.4 2.7 846 2 $1,288 $31,210 $8,489 $16,733 1.9 $14,477 0.7 ($3,859) CZ11 PGE 12.9 5.1 1,025 26 $1,031 $23,949 $9,828 $18,296 1.3 $5,653 0.94 ($1,066) CZ12 PGE 13.2 4.8 1,098 23 $923 $21,415 $10,065 $18,616 1.2 $2,800 0.93 ($1,194) CZ12 SMUD/PGE 13.2 4.8 1,098 23 $253 $6,133 $11,115 $19,850 0.3 ($13,717) 0.9 ($2,244) CZ13 PGE 12.3 4.2 1,006 5 $1,016 $23,250 $9,831 $18,236 1.3 $5,013 0.9 ($2,354) CZ14 SCE/SCG 13.4 5.4 1,514 6 $1,093 $24,697 $10,741 $19,342 1.3 $5,354 0.9 ($1,910) CZ14 SDGE 13.4 5.4 1,514 6 $1,421 $34,477 $10,741 $19,342 1.8 $15,135 0.9 ($1,910) CZ15 SCE/SCG 13.5 3.8 531 2 $1,140 $25,708 $8,586 $16,630 1.5 $9,078 0.6 ($5,490) CZ16 PG&E 20.4 14.2 1,228 114 $1,070 $26,218 $12,086 $20,964 1.3 $5,254 0.98 ($444) Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 32 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26

Table 19: ADU Cost-Effectiveness: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Total
EDR1
Margin
Efficiency
EDR2
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost
Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 18.5 7.7 3,666 20 $1,078 $24,880 $15,432 $25,919 0.96 ($1,040) 0.7 ($6,719) CZ02 PGE 16.6 3.5 3,472 11 $1,042 $23,928 $13,846 $23,790 1.0 $138 0.8 ($4,128) CZ03 PGE 11.8 1.2 2,679 0 $781 $17,816 $11,879 $21,215 0.8 ($3,399) 0.6 ($6,826) CZ04 PGE 13.3 1.6 2,799 0 $859 $19,588 $12,213 $21,598 0.9 ($2,011) 0.7 ($5,306) CZ04 CPAU 13.3 1.6 2,799 0 $391 $8,911 $13,263 $22,833 0.4 ($13,922) 0.7 ($6,356) CZ05 PGE 16.9 1.1 3,309 2 $1,031 $23,539 $12,668 $22,274 1.1 $1,265 0.8 ($4,765) CZ05 PGE/SCG 16.9 1.1 3,309 2 $1,031 $23,520 $12,668 $22,274 1.1 $1,246 0.8 ($4,765) CZ06 SCE/SCG 19.8 1.2 3,285 1 $953 $21,468 $12,496 $22,043 0.97 ($575) 0.8 ($3,877) CZ07 SDGE 20.3 1.2 3,278 0 $1,296 $31,370 $12,869 $22,545 1.4 $8,825 0.8 ($4,633) CZ08 SCE/SCG 20.4 0.5 3,505 0 $1,040 $23,434 $12,952 $22,678 1.0 $755 0.8 ($3,522) CZ09 SCE 19.6 0.5 3,497 0 $1,030 $23,213 $12,691 $22,327 1.0 $886 0.8 ($3,318) CZ10 SCE/SCG 19.0 0.6 729 0 $537 $12,107 $8,436 $16,606 0.7 ($4,499) 0.5 ($7,344) CZ10 SDGE 19.0 0.6 729 0 $813 $19,671 $8,436 $16,606 1.2 $3,065 0.5 ($7,344) CZ11 PGE 17.6 3.0 871 10 $663 $15,273 $9,218 $17,568 0.9 ($2,295) 0.7 ($5,528) CZ12 PGE 16.7 2.7 3,594 9 $1,112 $25,496 $13,764 $23,710 1.1 $1,786 0.8 ($3,321) CZ12 SMUD/PGE 16.7 2.7 3,594 9 $537 $12,380 $14,844 $24,944 0.5 ($12,564) 0.8 ($4,371) CZ13 PGE 14.5 2.2 273 0 $551 $12,569 $7,979 $15,904 0.8 ($3,335) 0.5 ($6,903) CZ14 SCE/SCG 14.5 3.2 3,499 0 $1,006 $22,671 $12,815 $22,325 1.0 $346 0.8 ($3,423) CZ14 SDGE 14.5 3.2 3,499 0 $1,351 $32,711 $12,815 $22,325 1.5 $10,386 0.8 ($3,423) CZ15 SCE/SCG 19.2 1.8 551 0 $683 $15,387 $8,478 $16,574 0.9 ($1,187) 0.5 ($7,021) CZ16 PG&E 18.3 6.3 3,680 24 $1,117 $25,838 $13,872 $23,801 1.1 $2,037 0.8 ($3,759) Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 33 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Reductions
Table 20 and Table 21 present greenhouse gas reductions for the single family and ADU prototypes, respectively. Savings represent average annual savings over the 30-year lifetime of the analysis. Greenhouse gas reductions are greatest for the all-electric Efficiency + PV + Battery package in all cases. For the single family homes, the all-electric Code Minimum case reduces greenhouse gas emissions as much or greater than the mixed fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery package in Climate Zones 1 through 4, 11 through 13, and 16—showcasing the benefit of all-electric construction over even the most ambitious of mixed fuel construction packages evaluated in this study. The trend differs for the ADU where the mixed fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery package results in more greenhouse gas savings than the all-electric Code Minimum in all climate zones except Climate Zones 3, 4, and 13. In most of the climate zones (1, 2, 5 through 12, 15, and 16) the allelectric ADU involves electrification of space heating, cooking, and clothes drying. The space heating loads for the ADU are very low, even in the colder climates, and as a result the greenhouse gas savings from efficiency measures, PV and battery are greater than just code minimum electrification. This is also the case for single family homes in Climate Zones 5 through 10, and 15 where space heating loads are low.

Table 20: Single Family Greenhouse Gas Reductions (metric tons) Climate
Zone
Single Family All-Electric Single Family Mixed Fuel
Code
Minimum
Efficiency
Only
Efficiency +
High
Efficiency
Equipment
Efficiency +
PV
Efficiency +
PV +
Battery
Efficiency +
High
Efficiency
Equipment
Efficiency +
PV +
Battery
CZ01 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.3 0.8 1.1
CZ02 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.6 0.5 0.7
CZ03 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.3 0.2 0.5
CZ04 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.3 0.2 0.5
CZ05 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.1 0.2 0.6
CZ06 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.5
CZ07 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.5
CZ08 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.5
CZ09 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.5
CZ10 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 1.0 0.1 0.5
CZ11 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.4 0.7
CZ12 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.4 0.4 0.6
CZ13 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.3 0.2 0.6
CZ14 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.4 0.2 0.6
CZ15 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.5
CZ16 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.3 1.0 1.1
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 34 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Table 21: ADU Greenhouse Gas Reductions (metric tons)
Climate
Zone
ADU All-Electric ADU Mixed Fuel
Code
Minimum
Efficiency
Only
Efficiency
+ High
Efficiency
Equipment
Efficiency
+ PV
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
Efficiency + High Efficiency
Equipment
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
CZ01 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.0 0.2 0.5
CZ02 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.5
CZ03 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.0 0.1 0.3
CZ04 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.1 0.4
CZ05 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.4
CZ06 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.4
CZ07 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.4
CZ08 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.5
CZ09 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.5
CZ10 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.4
CZ11 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.4
CZ12 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.5
CZ13 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.3
CZ14 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.1 0.1 0.5
CZ15 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.4
CZ16 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.2 0.6
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 35 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26

4.6 Sensitivity Analysis
In response to jurisdictional interest, several cases were evaluated under circumstances different than those presented above in order to assess their impact on cost-effectiveness. Altered circumstances include:

1. CARE versus standard tariffs. This comparison is presented for the all-electric Code Minimum and the mixed fuel Efficiency + PV+ Battery packages and shows the impact on On-Bill cost-effectiveness for income qualified utility customers.

2. Infill versus new subdivision single family developments. This comparison applied to the all-electric Code Minimum package demonstrates how costeffectiveness is impacted due to the magnitude of cost savings for all-electric construction from elimination of the natural gas infrastructure.

3. Utility rate escalation factors. The impact on On-Bill cost-effectiveness is presented for the all-electric Code Minimum package from varying the assumptions for escalation of electricity and natural gas utility rates over the 30-year analysis period.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 36 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26

4.6.1 CARE Rate Comparison
Table 22 and Table 23 present a comparison of On-Bill cost-effectiveness results for CARE tariffs relative to standard IOU tariffs for the all-electric Code Minimum package for the single family and ADU prototypes, respectively. Applying the CARE rates lowers both electric and gas utility bills for the consumer. In the case of the all-electric home, the net impact of CARE rates is improved cost-effectiveness relative to the standard tariffs. This is because the discount on electricity is greater than that for natural gas. The opposite trend occurs for the mixed fuel packages, where the lower CARE rates result in lower utility cost savings and subsequently lower benefit-to-cost ratios.

Table 22: On-Bill Cost-Effectiveness with CARE Tariffs: All-Electric Code Minimum Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Single Family ADU
Standard CARE Standard CARE
B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 0.9 ($268) >1 $3,886 0.7 ($2,077) 1.2 $696
CZ02 PGE 1.6 $2,355 5.1 $5,107 0.7 ($1,742) 1.1 $580
CZ03 PGE 1.0 ($90) 1.7 $1,968 0.0 ($7,581) 0.0 ($4,596) CZ04 PGE 1.3 $979 2.3 $2,619 0.0 ($7,406) 0.0 ($4,526)
CZ05 PGE 1.3 $1,373 2.2 $3,467 0.7 ($1,912) 1.1 $237
CZ05 PGE/SCG 1.4 $1,823 2.5 $3,841 0.9 ($574) 1.4 $1,321 CZ06 SCE/SCG 1.6 $2,339 2.3 $3,535 0.9 ($318) 1.4 $1,225 CZ07 SDGE 1.1 $624 2.1 $3,309 0.6 ($3,298) 0.9 ($627)
CZ08 SCE/SCG 1.7 $2,792 2.3 $3,945 0.9 ($289) 1.4 $1,231 CZ09 SCE 1.7 $2,831 2.4 $4,074 0.9 ($310) 1.4 $1,230
CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.6 $2,642 2.4 $4,083 1.3 $976 1.7 $1,923
CZ10 SDGE 1.4 $1,825 3.0 $4,642 0.8 ($1,084) 1.3 $1,114 CZ11 PGE 1.7 $2,552 5.0 $5,077 1.0 $200 1.6 $1,634
CZ12 PGE 1.9 $3,210 5.0 $5,587 0.7 ($1,710) 1.1 $545
CZ13 PGE 1.5 $1,480 2.7 $2,924 0.0 ($4,131) 0.0 ($2,754) CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($522) 1.3 $1,191 0.0 ($7,375) 0.0 ($4,754) CZ14 SDGE 0.7 ($1,717) 2.0 $2,295 0.0 ($10,790) 0.0 ($6,496) CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.4 $1,791 1.9 $2,831 1.4 $1,246 1.8 $2,031 CZ16 PG&E 0.2 ($5,394) 0.8 ($351) 0.6 ($2,562) 1.1 $453 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 37 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Table 23: On-Bill Cost-Effectiveness with CARE Tariffs: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV+ Battery Package Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Single Family ADU
Standard CARE Standard CARE
B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 1.3 $6,501 0.9 ($2,072) 0.96 ($1,040) 0.7 ($9,009) CZ02 PGE 1.1 $2,486 0.7 ($5,286) 1.0 $138 0.7 ($7,683)
CZ03 PGE 1.1 $1,104 0.6 ($5,980) 0.8 ($3,399) 0.6 ($9,288) CZ04 PGE 1.0 $456 0.6 ($6,790) 0.9 ($2,011) 0.6 ($8,586) CZ05 PGE 1.1 $2,285 0.7 ($4,995) 0.4 ($13,922) 0.7 ($6,642) CZ05 PGE/SCG 1.1 $2,154 0.7 ($5,100) 1.1 $1,246 0.7 ($6,657) CZ06 SCE/SCG 1.1 $1,951 0.7 ($5,232) 0.97 ($575) 0.7 ($5,976) CZ07 SDGE 1.6 $9,869 1.1 $1,601 1.4 $8,825 0.9 ($2,435) CZ08 SCE/SCG 1.2 $3,344 0.7 ($4,574) 1.0 $755 0.8 ($5,331) CZ09 SCE 1.2 $3,369 0.7 ($4,547) 1.0 $886 0.8 ($5,198)
CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.3 $4,546 0.8 ($3,354) 0.7 ($4,499) 0.5 ($8,010) CZ10 SDGE 1.8 $14,148 1.3 $4,789 1.2 $3,065 0.8 ($3,001) CZ11 PGE 1.4 $6,523 0.9 ($3,358) 0.9 ($2,295) 0.6 ($8,074) CZ12 PGE 1.2 $3,451 0.7 ($5,212) 1.1 $1,786 0.7 ($6,653) CZ13 PGE 1.3 $5,665 0.8 ($4,024) 0.8 ($3,335) 0.5 ($8,497) CZ14 SCE/SCG 1.3 $5,945 0.8 ($3,665) 1.0 $346 0.7 ($5,727) CZ14 SDGE 1.8 $15,726 1.2 $4,127 1.5 $10,386 0.9 ($1,393) CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.5 $9,078 0.9 ($877) 0.93 ($1,187) 0.6 ($6,708) CZ16 PG&E 1.3 $5,254 0.8 ($3,523) 1.1 $2,037 0.7 ($6,282) Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 38 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26

4.6.2 Utility Infrastructure Cost Sensitivity
Table 24 compares cost-effectiveness results for the natural gas service line extension cost scenarios that inform the average values presented in Table 8. The average cost scenario reflects the cost-effectiveness results for the single family all-electric Code Minimum package presented in Table 16. Relative to a new subdivision, gas infrastructure cost savings are higher for the infill development case, which translates to higher cost-effectiveness. This is shown by positive costeffectiveness in all metrics except one – On-Bill for Climate Zone 16 – for infill development. Compared to the average cost scenario, there are two cases – OnBill for Climate Zone 4 in PG&E territory and Climate Zone 7 – where the all-electric Code Minimum package is no longer cost-effective based on the new subdivision costs.

Table 24: Single Family Cost-Effectiveness Comparison with Range of Natural Gas Utility Infrastructure Costs:

All-Electric Code Minimum
Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Average New Subdivision Infill Development
On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE 0.9 ($268) >1 $5,702 0.6 ($1,492) >1 $4,612 2.2 $4,628 >1 $10,062 CZ02 PGE 1.6 $2,355 >1 $7,711 1.3 $1,131 >1 $6,621 2.8 $7,250 >1 $12,071 CZ03 PGE 0.98 ($90) 25.3 $3,887 0.7 ($1,314) 18.5 $2,797 2.0 $4,806 52.6 $8,247 CZ04 PGE 1.3 $979 >1 $4,494 0.9 ($245) >1 $3,404 2.6 $5,875 >1 $8,854 CZ04 CPAU >1 $10,437 >1 $7,762 >1 $10,437 >1 $7,762 >1 $10,437 >1 $7,762 CZ05 PGE 1.3 $1,373 6.1 $4,633 1.0 $149 4.9 $3,543 2.3 $6,269 11.0 $8,993 CZ05 PGE/SCG 1.4 $1,823 6.1 $4,633 1.1 $599 4.9 $3,543 2.5 $6,719 11.0 $8,993 CZ06 SCE/SCG 1.6 $2,339 4.7 $4,353 1.3 $1,115 3.8 $3,263 2.8 $7,235 8.4 $8,713 CZ07 SDGE 1.1 $624 4.2 $4,211 0.9 ($600) 3.4 $3,121 2.0 $5,519 7.5 $8,571 CZ08 SCE/SCG 1.7 $2,792 4.2 $4,674 1.4 $1,568 3.5 $3,584 2.8 $7,687 7.3 $9,034 CZ09 SCE 1.7 $2,831 5.5 $5,013 1.4 $1,607 4.6 $3,923 2.9 $7,726 9.5 $9,373 CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.6 $2,642 7.4 $5,287 1.3 $1,418 6.1 $4,197 2.7 $7,537 12.6 $9,647 CZ10 SDGE 1.4 $1,825 7.4 $5,287 1.1 $601 6.1 $4,197 2.3 $6,721 12.6 $9,647 CZ11 PGE 1.7 $2,552 >1 $7,153 1.3 $1,328 >1 $6,063 3.0 $7,448 >1 $11,513 CZ12 PGE 1.9 $3,210 >1 $7,504 1.5 $1,986 >1 $6,414 3.1 $8,106 >1 $11,864 CZ12 SMUD/PGE >1 $11,714 >1 $7,504 >1 $10,490 >1 $6,414 >1 $16,610 >1 $11,864 CZ13 PGE 1.5 $1,480 >1 $4,490 1.1 $256 >1 $3,400 3.0 $6,376 >1 $8,850 CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($522) >1 $4,105 0.7 ($1,746) >1 $3,015 1.8 $4,374 >1 $8,465 CZ14 SDGE 0.7 ($1,717) >1 $4,105 0.5 ($2,941) >1 $3,015 1.5 $3,179 >1 $8,465 CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.4 $1,791 3.0 $3,439 1.1 $567 2.4 $2,349 2.6 $6,687 5.6 $7,799 CZ16 PG&E 0.2 ($5,394) 0.4 ($1,339) 0.0 ($6,618) 0.0 ($2,429) 0.9 ($498) 2.4 $3,021 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 39 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26

4.6.3 Utility Rate Escalation
In this sensitivity analysis, an alternative set of annual utility escalation rates was applied to the gas and electricity savings in select measure packages to show the impact that utility cost changes over time have on cost-effectiveness. This set of rates, detailed in Section 7.2.7, reflects those used by the Energy Commission in their development of the LSC factors for the 2025 code cycle (LSC replaces TDV in the 2025 code cycle). The rates assume steep increases in gas rates starting in 2030. Increased gas rates range from 2% to 6.7% higher than annual rates used in the 2022 code cycle; electricity rates are only marginally (about 0.5%) higher each year.

On-Bill cost-effectiveness results are shown for in Table 25 for the all-electric Code Minimum scenario and Table 26 for the mixed fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery measure package. The alternative rates described above (“2025 LSC”) are shown alongside those reported elsewhere in this report (“CPUC / 2022 TDV”, described in Section 2.1.3) for comparison. In all cases, the 2025 LSC escalation rates improve cost-effectiveness. In some cases, this improvement is enough to change the result from not cost-effective to cost-effective, these cases are summarized below:
• All-Electric Code Minimum package
o Climate Zones 1, 3, 14, and 16 for the single family home o Climate Zones 1, 5 in PG&E/SCG territory, 6, 8, 9, 10 in SDG&E territory, and 16 for the ADU home • Mixed fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery package
o Climate Zones 1, 6, and 15 for the ADU home
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 40 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Table 25: On-Bill Cost-Effectiveness, 2025 LSC Basis: All-Electric Code Minimum Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Single Family ADU
CPUC / 2022 TDV 2025 LSC CPUC / 2022 TDV 2025 LSC
B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 0.9 ($268) >1 $13,867 0.7 ($2,077) 1.2 $833
CZ02 PGE 1.6 $2,355 >1 $10,458 0.7 ($1,742) 0.95 ($228) CZ03 PGE 0.98 ($90) >1 $4,883 0.0 ($7,581) 0.0 ($4,465) CZ04 PGE 1.3 $979 >1 $5,728 0.0 ($7,406) 0.0 ($4,466)
CZ04 CPAU >1 $10,437 >1 $17,647 6.9 $2,592 20.7 $8,704
CZ05 PGE 1.3 $1,373 5.3 $5,148 0.7 ($1,912) 0.8 ($1,386) CZ05 PGE/SCG 1.4 $1,823 13.5 $5,884 0.9 ($574) 1.2 $807 CZ06 SCE/SCG 1.6 $2,339 4.0 $4,751 0.9 ($318) 1.2 $630
CZ07 SDGE 1.1 $624 1.9 $3,008 0.6 ($3,298) 0.7 ($2,394) CZ08 SCE/SCG 1.7 $2,792 3.0 $4,650 0.9 ($289) 1.1 $591
CZ09 SCE 1.7 $2,831 4.0 $5,233 0.9 ($310) 1.2 $634
CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.6 $2,642 5.4 $5,700 1.3 $976 1.9 $2,147
CZ10 SDGE 1.4 $1,825 7.4 $6,038 0.8 ($1,084) 1.0 $102
CZ11 PGE 1.7 $2,552 >1 $9,997 1.0 $200 1.6 $1,669
CZ12 PGE 1.9 $3,210 >1 $10,077 0.7 ($1,710) 0.9 ($430)
CZ12 SMUD/PGE >1 $11,714 >1 $19,028 5.7 $3,797 >1 $5,367 CZ13 PGE 1.5 $1,480 >1 $5,987 0.0 ($4,131) 0.0 ($1,228) CZ14 SCE/SCG 0.9 ($522) 6.0 $3,876 0.0 ($7,375) 0.0 ($4,363) CZ14 SDGE 0.7 ($1,717) >1 $4,799 0.0 ($10,790) 0.0 ($6,285) CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.4 $1,791 2.2 $3,214 1.4 $1,246 1.9 $2,210 CZ16 PG&E 0.2 ($5,394) >1 $8,516 0.6 ($2,562) 1.2 $629
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 41 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Table 26: On-Bill Cost-Effectiveness, 2025 LSC Basis: Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
Single Family ADU
CPUC / 2022 TDV 2025 LSC CPUC / 2022 TDV 2025 LSC
B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE 1.3 $6,501 1.6 $12,598 0.96 ($1,040) 1.0 $993
CZ02 PGE 1.1 $2,486 1.3 $4,914 1.0 $138 1.1 $1,816
CZ03 PGE 1.1 $1,104 1.1 $2,287 0.8 ($3,399) 0.9 ($2,462) CZ04 PGE 1.0 $456 1.1 $1,645 0.9 ($2,011) 0.95 ($980)
CZ04 CPAU 0.2 ($16,295) 0.2 ($15,990) 0.4 ($13,922) 0.4 ($13,453) CZ05 PGE 1.1 $2,285 1.3 $4,506 1.1 $1,265 1.1 $2,574
CZ05 PGE/SCG 1.1 $2,154 1.2 $4,291 1.1 $1,246 1.1 $2,543 CZ06 SCE/SCG 1.1 $1,951 1.2 $3,420 0.97 ($575) 1.0 $847 CZ07 SDGE 1.6 $9,869 1.6 $9,930 1.4 $8,825 1.4 $8,570
CZ08 SCE/SCG 1.2 $3,344 1.3 $4,750 1.0 $755 1.1 $2,288
CZ09 SCE 1.2 $3,369 1.3 $4,812 1.0 $886 1.1 $2,407
CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.3 $4,546 1.4 $6,334 0.7 ($4,499) 0.8 ($3,703) CZ10 SDGE 1.8 $14,148 1.9 $14,289 1.2 $3,065 1.2 $2,904 CZ11 PGE 1.4 $6,523 1.4 $7,967 0.9 ($2,295) 0.94 ($1,126) CZ12 PGE 1.2 $3,451 1.3 $4,806 1.1 $1,786 1.1 $3,458
CZ12 SMUD/PGE 0.3 ($13,066) 0.4 ($12,515) 0.5 ($12,564) 0.5 ($11,582) CZ13 PGE 1.3 $5,665 1.4 $6,448 0.8 ($3,335) 0.8 ($2,674) CZ14 SCE/SCG 1.3 $5,945 1.4 $7,138 1.0 $346 1.1 $1,827
CZ14 SDGE 1.8 $15,726 1.8 $15,116 1.5 $10,386 1.5 $10,107 CZ15 SCE/SCG 1.5 $9,078 1.7 $10,819 0.9 ($1,187) 0.99 ($182) CZ16 PG&E 1.3 $5,254 1.5 $10,999 1.1 $2,037 1.2 $4,285
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 42 Summary
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 5 Summary
The purpose of this study was to examine and document the code compliance and cost-effectiveness impacts of improving performance among single family new construction – both standard sized homes and ADUs. To this end, the Reach Codes Team evaluated packages of energy efficiency measures as well as packages combining energy efficiency with solar PV generation and battery storage, simulated them in building modeling software, and gathered costs to determine the cost-effectiveness of multiple scenarios. The Reach Codes 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, cost assumptions, energy escalation rates, or utility tariffs are likely to change results.

Table 27 (single family) and Table 28 (ADU) summarize results for each prototype and depict the EDR1 compliance margins achieved for each climate zone and package. Because local reach codes must both exceed the energy code (i.e., have a positive compliance margin in the performance approach) and be cost-effective, the Reach Codes Team highlighted cells meeting these two requirements to help clarify the upper boundary for potential reach code policies.

All results presented in this study have a positive compliance margin. • Cells highlighted in green depict a positive compliance margin and cost-effective results using both On-Bill and TDV approaches.
• Cells highlighted in yellow depict a positive compliance and cost-effective results using either the On-Bill or TDV approach.
• Cells not highlighted depict a package that was not cost-effective using either the On-Bill or TDV approach. • Cells highlighted in grey depict the high efficiency equipment packages where cost-effectiveness was not evaluated.

The following are key takeaways and recommendations from the analysis.

Conclusions and Discussion:
• All-electric buildings have lower GHG emissions than mixed fuel buildings, due to the clean power sources currently available from California’s power providers as well as accounting for increased penetration of renewables in the future. Almost all the all-electric packages evaluated resulted in greater GHG emission savings than the mixed fuel packages, with the exception of the mixed fuel package with battery storage in climate zones with low heating loads. The Reach Codes Team found code-compliant, all-electric new construction to be feasible and cost-effective based on TDV for single family homes in all cases except Climate Zone 16.
• All-electric single family new construction was On-Bill cost-effective in all cases except Climate Zones 1, 3, 14, and 16.
• The all-electric ADU home was cost-effective based on TDV in all cases except in Climate Zones 3, 4, 13, and 14 where the higher cost of installing a ducted HPWH instead of the prescriptively required gas tankless water heater outweigh the resulting energy cost savings. In the other climate zones there were first cost savings for installing a heat pump space heater instead of gas furnace, contributing to an overall TDV cost-effective result. • Few cases were cost-effective On-Bill for the ADU.
• All-electric code minimum construction results in an increase in first year utility costs relative to a mixed fuel home, except for CPAU and SMUD where electricity rates are much lower than for the IOUs. The addition of efficiency measures, market dominant HPWHs that meet NEEA’s Advanced Water Heating Specification, high efficiency heat pumps, increased PV, and batteries all reduce utility costs, and a combination of these options was found to reduce annual utility costs relative to a mixed fuel home in all cases. • Under NBT, utility cost savings for increasing PV system size beyond code minimum are substantially less than under prior net energy metering rules (NEM 2.0); however, savings are sufficient to be On-Bill costeffective in all climate zones for the all-electric single family home. Coupling PV with battery systems increases utility cost savings as a result of improved on-site utilization of PV generation and fewer exports to the grid.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 43 Summary
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 • Applying CARE rates in the IOU territories increases improves On-Bill cost-effectiveness for all-electric buildings, as compared to the same case under standard rates, due to higher utility cost savings compared to a code compliant mixed fuel building also on a CARE rate, improving On-Bill cost-effectiveness. This is due to the CARE discount on electricity being higher than that on gas. • If gas tariffs are assumed to increase substantially over time, in-line with the escalation assumption from the 2025 LSC development, all-electric new construction was found to be On-Bill cost-effective in almost all scenarios over the 30-year analysis period. There is much uncertainty surrounding future tariff structures as well as escalation values. While it’s clear that gas rates will increase, how much and how quickly is not known.

Electricity tariff structures are expected to evolve over time, and the CPUC has an active proceeding to adopt an income-graduated fixed charge that benefits low-income customers and supports electrification measures.21 The CPUC will make a decision in mid-2024 and the new rates are expected to be in place later that year or in 2025. While the anticipated impact of this rate change is lower volumetric electricity rates, the rate design is not finalized. While lower volumetric electricity rates provide many benefits including incentivizing electrification, it also will make building efficiency measures harder to justify as cost-effective due to lower utility bill cost savings.

Recommendations:
• A reach code with a single performance target based on source energy (EDR1) can be structured to strongly encourage electrification. This approach requires equivalent performance for all buildings and allows mixed fuel buildings which minimizes the risk of violating federal preemption. Below are examples of how a reach code for single family homes could be setup based on the results summarized in Table 27. o A jurisdiction in Climate Zone 12 could set a performance target at an EDR1 margin of 11.5 (the EDR1 margin for the all-electric Code Minimum package). Any all-electric home meeting or exceeding the prescriptive requirements would comply, and a mixed fuel home would likely need to incorporate a combination of efficiency measures and a battery system to comply. o Similarly, a jurisdiction in Climate Zone 7 may consider setting a performance target of 2.8 EDR1 margin (also the EDR1 margin for the all-electric Code Minimum package). Any all-electric home meeting or exceeding the prescriptive requirements would comply, but a mixed fuel home would likely be able to comply with only a suite of above-code efficiency measures (no battery). Alternatively, a higher EDR1 margin target of 5 would incentivize more energy efficiency or additional PV for allelectric construction, and mixed fuel construction would likely need to incorporate a battery system to comply.
o A jurisdiction in Climate Zone 16 may want to set a performance target at an EDR1 margin of 20.5 (the EDR1 margin for the mixed fuel efficiency + PV + battery package). This would establish a target that a mixed fuel home could cost-effectively meet, likely only after incorporating a combination of efficiency measures and a battery system, and that an all-electric home could easily meet. • 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, still meeting minimum code compliance. 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 a reach code for single family buildings also include an efficiency requirement with EDR1 margins at minimum consistent with the all-electric code minimum package results in Table 27.
21 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/electric-costs/demand-response-dr/demand-flexibility-rulemaking Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 44 Summary
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 • The code compliance margins for the ADU all-electric code minimum package are lower than for the single family prototype; code compliance and cost-effectiveness can be more challenging for smaller dwelling units.

As a result, the Reach Codes Team does not recommend EDR1 targets above those reported for the allelectric Code Minimum package in Table 28.

Local jurisdictions may also adopt ordinances that amend different Parts of the California Building Standards Code or may elect to amend other state or municipal codes. The decision regarding which code to amend will determine the specific requirements that must be followed for an ordinance to be legally enforceable. For example, jurisdictions may amend Part 11 instead of Part 6 of the CA Building Code requiring review and approval by the BSC but not the Energy Commission. Reach codes that amend Part 6 of the CA Building Code and require energy performance beyond state code minimums must demonstrate the proposed changes are cost-effective and obtain approval from the Energy Commission.

This report documents the key results and conclusions from the Reach Codes Team analysis. A full dataset of all results can be downloaded at https://localenergycodes.com/content/resources. Results alongside policy options can also be explored using the Cost-effectiveness Explorer at https://explorer.localenergycodes.com/.

Table 27: Summary of Single Family EDR1 Margins and Cost-Effectiveness Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
All-Electric Mixed Fuel
Code
Minimum Efficiency
Efficiency +
High
Efficiency
Equipment
Efficiency
+ PV
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
Efficiency +
High
Efficiency
Equipment
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
CZ01 PGE 25.8 29.1 31.4 32.6 41.4 14.8 22.6
CZ02 PGE 14.0 16.3 18.0 18.9 28.3 9.1 14.1
CZ03 PGE 9.1 10.6 12.2 13.1 24.2 3.6 12.8
CZ04 PGE 8.8 10.4 11.9 12.8 24.6 3.8 13.2
CZ04 CPAU 8.8 10.4 11.9 12.8 24.6 3.8 13.2
CZ05 PGE 6.5 7.9 10.2 10.8 23.3 5.2 14.8
CZ05 PGE/SCG 6.5 7.9 10.2 10.8 23.3 5.2 14.8
CZ06 SCE/SCG 4.2 5.3 6.6 8.4 24.6 4.0 18.3
CZ07 SDGE 2.8 3.6 4.8 6.9 23.6 3.2 18.7
CZ08 SCE/SCG 2.1 2.9 4.2 5.6 21.3 2.7 17.1
CZ09 SCE/SCG 3.6 4.4 5.7 7.1 21.8 3.2 16.2
CZ10 SCE/SCG 4.8 5.8 7.2 8.5 21.9 3.9 14.4
CZ10 SDGE 4.8 5.8 7.2 8.5 21.9 3.9 14.4
CZ11 PGE 11.4 13.4 15.0 15.6 24.5 7.7 12.9
CZ12 PGE 11.5 13.3 14.8 15.5 25.2 7.2 13.2
CZ12 SMUD/PGE 11.5 13.3 14.8 15.5 25.2 7.2 13.2
CZ13 PGE 8.3 10.3 11.9 12.3 22.3 4.1 12.3
CZ14 SCE/SCG 8.8 11.5 13.2 14.3 24.7 4.6 13.4
CZ14 SDGE 8.8 11.5 13.2 14.3 24.7 4.6 13.4
CZ15 SCE/SCG 0.9 2.4 3.7 3.8 15.7 3.5 13.5
CZ16 PG&E 21.3 25.6 27.0 29.1 37.5 16.3 20.4
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 45 Summary
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Table 28: Summary of ADU EDR1 Margins and Cost-Effectiveness Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
All-Electric Mixed Fuel
Code
Minimum Efficiency
Efficiency +
High
Efficiency
Equipment
Efficiency
+ PV
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
Efficiency +
High
Efficiency
Equipment
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
CZ01 PGE 11.9 15.7 18.5 19.3 33.7 2.9 18.5
CZ02 PGE 5.7 7.9 9.7 10.8 25.6 -4.7 16.6
CZ03 PGE 2.9 4.0 5.9 7.1 23.2 4.0 11.8
CZ04 PGE 2.4 3.9 5.5 6.8 23.6 4.2 13.3
CZ04 CPAU 2.4 3.9 5.5 6.8 23.6 4.2 13.3
CZ05 PGE 1.8 2.9 4.8 6.4 24.0 -12.1 16.9
CZ05 PGE/SCG 1.8 2.9 4.8 6.4 24.0 -12.1 16.9
CZ06 SCE/SCG 0.5 1.3 2.6 5.0 25.7 -15.6 19.8
CZ07 SDGE 0.1 0.9 2.1 5.0 26.4 -16.5 20.3
CZ08 SCE/SCG 0.1 0.7 1.8 4.2 25.1 -15.3 20.4
CZ09 SCE 0.4 1.1 2.3 4.5 25.0 -14.4 19.6
CZ10 SCE/SCG 1.0 2.0 3.5 5.4 25.3 -11.9 19.0
CZ10 SDGE 1.0 2.0 3.5 5.4 25.3 -11.9 19.0
CZ11 PGE 4.6 7.0 8.6 9.6 25.1 -3.5 17.6
CZ12 PGE 4.6 6.6 8.3 9.3 24.5 -5.6 16.7
CZ12 SMUD/PGE 4.6 6.6 8.3 9.3 24.5 -5.6 16.7
CZ13 PGE 3.1 5.5 6.9 7.8 25.2 4.4 14.5
CZ14 SCE/SCG 3.5 6.3 8.0 9.6 26.9 5.1 14.5
CZ14 SDGE 3.5 6.3 8.0 9.6 26.9 5.1 14.5
CZ15 SCE/SCG 0.0 2.2 2.6 4.4 25.3 -9.3 19.2
CZ16 PG&E 11.2 14.7 15.7 18.3 33.7 2.9 18.3
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 46 References
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 6 References
Barbose, G., Darghouth, N., O'Shaughnessy, E., & Forrester, S. (2021, October). Tracking the Sun. Pricing and Design Trends for Distributed Photovoltaic Systems in the United States 2021 Edition. Retrieved from https://emp.lbl.gov/tracking-the-sun
Barbose, Galen; Darghouth, Naim; O'Shaughnessy, Eric; Forrester, Sydney. (2022). Tracking the Sun: Pricing and Design Trends for Distributed Photovoltaic Systems in the United States 2022 Edition. Retrieved from https://emp.lbl.gov/tracking-the-sun
California Energy Commission. (2017). Rooftop Solar PV System. Measure number: 2019-Res-PV-D Prepared by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=221366 California Energy Commission. (2018). 2019 Alternative Calculation Method Approval Manual for the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Retrieved from https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2018/2019-alternativecalculation-method-approval-manual-2019-building-energy California Energy Commission. (2021a). Express Terms for the Proposed Revisions to 2022 Title 24, Part 1 and Part 6.

Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/DocketLog.aspx?docketnumber=21-BSTD-01 California Energy Commission. (2021b). Final Express Terms for the Proposed Revisions to the 2022 Energy Code Reference Appendices. Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/DocketLog.aspx?docketnumber=21- BSTD-01
California Energy Commission. (2022, Feb). 2022 Single-Family Residential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual. Retrieved from https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2022/2022-single-family-residentialalternative-calculation-method-reference-manual California Public Utilities Commission. (2021a). Utility Costs and Affordability of the Grid of the Future: An Evaluation of Electric Costs, Rates, and Equity Issues Pursuant to P.U. Code Section 913.1. Retrieved from https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/office-of-governmental-affairsdivision/reports/2021/senate-bill-695-report-2021-and-en-banc-whitepaper_final_04302021.pdf California Public Utilities Commission. (2021b). Database for Energy-Efficient resources (DEER2021 Update). Retrieved April 13, 2021, from http://www.deeresources.com/index.php/deer-versions/deer2021 California Public Utilities Commission. (2022). Proposed Decision of Commissioner Rechtschaffen: PHASE III DECISION

ELIMINATING GAS LINE EXTENSION ALLOWANCES, TEN-YEAR REFUNDABLE PAYMENT OPTION, AND FIFTY PERCENT DISCOUNT PAYMENT OPTION UNDER GAS LINE EXTENSION RULES.

Department of Energy. (2022). Preliminary Analysis Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment. Retrieved from https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0019-0018 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. Retrieved from Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: 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. (2019). Residential Building Electrification in California. Retrieved from https://www.ethree.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/04/E3_Residential_Building_Electrification_in_California_April_2019.pdf Energy + Environmental Economics. (2020). Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building Efficiency Standards: 2022 Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) and Source Energy Metric Data Sources and Inputs.

E-Source companies. (2020). Behind-the-Meter Battery Market Study. Prepared for San Diego Gas & Electric.

Retrieved from https://www.etcc-ca.com/reports/behind-meter-battery-market-study?dl=1582149166 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 47 References
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Horii, B., Cutter, E., Kapur, N., Arent, J., & Conotyannis, D. (2014). Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

Proctor, J., Wilcox, B., & Chitwood, R. (2018). Central Valley Research Homes Project. California Energy Commission.

Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342135376_Central_Valley_Research_Homes_Project_-- _Final_CEC_Report
RSMeans. (2022). Cost data obtained from the 2022 RSMeans online database.

Statewide CASE Team. (2017). Residential High Performance Windows & Doors Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative 2019 California Energy Code. Retrieved from http://title24stakeholders.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/09/2019-T24-CASE-Report_Res-Windows-and-Doors_Final_September-2017.pdf Statewide CASE Team. (2018). Energy Savings Potential and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of High Efficiency Windows in California. Prepared by Frontier Energy. Retrieved from https://www.etcc-ca.com/reports/energy-savingspotential-and-cost-effectiveness-analysis-high-efficiency-windows-california Statewide CASE Team. (2020a). Nonresidential High Performance Envelope Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative 2022 California Energy Code. Prepared by Energy Solutions. Retrieved from https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2020-T24-NR-HP-Envelope-Final-CASEReport.pdf Statewide CASE Team. (2020b). Residential Energy Savings and Process Improvements for Additions and Alterations Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative 2022 California Energy Code. Prepared by Frontier Energy. Retrieved from https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/SF-Additions-andAlterations_Final_-CASE-Report_Statewide-CASE-Team.pdf Statewide CASE Team. (2020c). Multifamily All-Electric Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative 2022 California Energy Code. Prepared by TRC.

Statewide Reach Codes Team. (2019, August). 2019 Cost-effectiveness Study: Low-Rise Residential New Construction.

Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Prepared by Frontier Energy. Retrieved from https://localenergycodes.com/download/800/file_path/fieldList/2019%20Res%20NC%20Reach%20Codes Statewide Reach Codes Team. (2021a). Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Batteries in Single Family Homes. Prepared by Frontier Energy. Retrieved from
https://localenergycodes.com/download/930/file_path/fieldList/Single%20Family%20Battery%20Costeff%20Report.pdf Statewide Reach Codes Team. (2021b). 2020 Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units. Prepared by TRC. Retrieved from
https://localenergycodes.com/download/760/file_path/fieldList/2019%20New%20Detached%20ADUs%20Co st-effectiveness%20Report.pdf
Statewide Reach Codes Team. (tbd). 2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades.

Prepared by Frontier Energy. Not yet published.

TRC, P. E. (2021). 2020 Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units.

UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation. (2021). Implementing the Backyard Revolution: Perspectives of California’s ADU Owners.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 48 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 7 Appendices

7.1 Map of California Climate Zones
Climate zone geographical boundaries are depicted in Figure 4. The map in Figure 4 along with a zip-code search directory is available at: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html Figure 4: Map of California climate zones.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 49 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26

7.2 Utility Rate Schedules
The Reach Codes Team used the CA IOU and POU rate tariffs detailed below to determine the On-Bill savings for each package. The California Climate Credit was applied for both electricity and natural gas service for the IOUs using the 2023 credits shows below.22 The credits were applied to reduce the total calculated annual bill, including any fixed fees or minimum bill amounts.

Electricity rates reflect the most recently approved tariffs. Monthly gas rates were estimated based on recent gas rates (November 2023) and a curve to reflect how natural gas prices fluctuate with seasonal supply and demand. The seasonal curve was estimated from monthly residential tariffs between 2014 and 2023 (between 2017 and 2023 for CPAU). 12-month curves were created from monthly gas rates for each of the ten years (seven years for CPAU).

These annual curves were then averaged to arrive at an average normalized annual curve. This was conducted separately for baseline and excess energy rates. Costs used in this analysis were then derived by establishing the most recent baseline and excess rate from the latest tariff as a reference point (November 2023), and then using the normalized curve to estimate the cost for the remaining months relative to the reference point rate. 22 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/natural-gas/greenhouse-gas-cap-and-trade-program/california-climate-credit Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 50 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26

7.2.1 Pacific Gas & Electric
The following pages provide details on the PG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 29 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. A net surplus compensation rate of $0.07051/ kWh was applied to any net annual electricity generation based on a one-year average of the rates between December 2022 and November 2023.

Table 29: PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
Climate
Zone
Baseline
Territory
CZ01 V
CZ02 X
CZ03 T
CZ04 X
CZ05 T
CZ11 R
CZ12 S
CZ13 R
CZ16 Y
The PG&E monthly gas rate for G-1 in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis according to the rates shown in Table

30. These rates are based on applying a normalization curve to the November 2023 tariff based on ten years of historical gas data. Corresponding CARE rates reflect the 20 percent discount per the GL-1 tariff.

Table 30: PG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)
Month Total Charge
Baseline Excess
January $2.05 $2.43
February $2.08 $2.46
March $1.92 $2.31
April $1.80 $2.20
May $1.77 $2.18
June $1.78 $2.18
July $1.80 $2.20
August $1.85 $2.26
September $1.92 $2.33
October $1.99 $2.40
November $2.06 $2.46
December $2.05 $2.44
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 51 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 52 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 53 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 54 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 55 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 56 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 57 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26

7.2.2 Southern California Edison
The following pages provide details on the SCE electricity tariffs applied in this study. Table 31 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. A net surplus compensation rate of $ 0.06030/ kWh was applied to any net annual electricity generation based on a one-year average of the rates between December 2022 and November 2023.

Table 31: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
Climate
Zone
Baseline
Territory
CZ06 6
CZ08 8
CZ09 9
CZ10 10
CZ14 14
CZ15 15
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 58 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 59 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 60 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 61 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26

7.2.3 Southern California Gas
Following are the SoCalGas natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 32 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone.

Table 32: SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
Climate
Zone
Baseline
Territory
CZ05 2
CZ06 1
CZ08 1
CZ09 1
CZ10 1
CZ14 2
CZ15 1
The SoCalGas monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis according to the rates shown in Table 33.

These rates are based on applying a normalization curve to the November 2023 tariff based on ten years of historical gas data. Long-term historical natural gas rate data was only available for SoCalGas’ procurement charges.23 The baseline and excess transmission charges were found to be consistent over the course of a year and applied for the entire year based on 2023 rates. CARE rates reflect the 20 percent discount per the GR tariff.

Table 33: SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)
Month Procurement
Charge
Transportation Charge Total Charge
Baseline Excess Baseline Excess
January $0.72 $0.86 $1.31 $1.92 $2.36
February $0.50 $0.86 $1.31 $1.57 $2.02
March $0.44 $0.86 $1.31 $1.48 $1.93
April $0.39 $0.86 $1.31 $1.39 $1.84
May $0.41 $0.86 $1.31 $1.43 $1.87
June $0.46 $0.86 $1.31 $1.49 $1.93
July $0.47 $0.86 $1.31 $1.51 $1.96
August $0.51 $0.86 $1.31 $1.58 $2.03
September $0.46 $0.86 $1.31 $1.52 $1.96
October $0.45 $0.86 $1.31 $1.48 $1.92
November $0.48 $0.86 $1.31 $1.54 $1.99
December $0.57 $0.86 $1.31 $1.63 $2.08
23 The SoCalGas procurement and transmission charges were obtained from the following site: https://www.socalgas.com/for-yourbusiness/energy-market-services/gas-prices RES2023.xlsx (live.com) Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 62 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26

7.2.4 San Diego Gas & Electric
Following are the SDG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 34 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. A net surplus compensation rate of $0.04542/ kWh was applied to any net annual electricity generation based on a one-year average of the rates between December 2022 and November 2023.

Table 34: SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
Climate
Zone
Baseline
Territory
CZ07 Coastal
CZ10 Inland
CZ14 Mountain
The SDG&E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis according to the rates shown in Table

35. These rates are based on applying a normalization curve to the November 2023 tariff based on ten years of historical gas data. CARE rates reflect the 20 percent discount per the G-CARE tariff.

Table 35: SDG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)
Month Total Charge
Baseline Excess
January $2.34 $2.63
February $2.28 $2.57
March $2.21 $2.51
April $2.14 $2.45
May $2.18 $2.48
June $2.23 $2.55
July $2.26 $2.57
August $2.32 $2.62
September $2.26 $2.59
October $2.21 $2.55
November $2.24 $2.57
December $2.38 $2.70
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 63 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 64 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 65 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 66 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 67 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 68 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26

7.2.5 City of Palo Alto Utilities
Following are the CPAU electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. The CPAU monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis according to the rates shown in Table 36. These rates are based on applying a normalization curve to the October 2023 tariff based on seven years of historical gas data. The monthly service charge applied was $14.01 per month per the November 2023 G-1 tariff.

Table 36: CPAU Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)
Month G1
Volumetric
Total
Baseline
G1
Volumetric
Total
Excess
January $1.83532 $3.35639
February $1.38055 $2.59947
March $1.32506 $2.47695
April $1.29680 $2.44038
May $1.29511 $2.43804
June $1.32034 $2.45406
July $1.35688 $2.61519
August $1.40696 $2.67944
September $1.42130 $2.70301
October $1.42310 $2.48300
November $1.46286 $2.45547
December $1.62415 $2.62128
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 69 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 70 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26

7.2.6 Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (Electric Only) Following are the SMUD electricity tariffs applied in this study. The rates effective January 2023 were used.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 71 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 72 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26

7.2.7 Fuel Escalation Assumptions
The average annual escalation rates in Table 37 were used in this study. These are based on assumptions from the CPUC 2021 En Banc hearings on utility costs through 2030 (California Public Utilities Commission, 2021a). Escalation rates through the remainder of the 30-year evaluation period are based on the escalation rate assumptions within the 2022 TDV factors. No data was available to estimate electricity escalation rates for CPAU and SMUD, therefore electricity escalation rates for PG&E and statewide natural gas escalation rates were applied. Table 38 presents the average annual escalation rates used in the utility rate escalation sensitivity analysis shown in Section 4.6.3. Rates were applied for the same 30-year period and are based on the escalation rate assumptions within the 2025 LSC factors from 2027 through 2053.24 These rates were developed for electricity use statewide (not utility-specific) and assume steep increases in gas rates in the latter half of the analysis period. Data was not available for years 2024, 2025, and 2026 and so the CPUC En Banc assumptions were applied for those years using the average rate across the three IOUs for statewide electricity escalation.

Table 37: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions, CPUC En Banc and 2022 TDV Basis
24 https://www.energy.ca.gov/files/2025-energy-code-hourly-factors. Actual escalation factors were provided by consultants E3.

Year
Statewide Natural
Gas Residential
Average Rate
(%/year, real)
Electric Residential Average Rate
(%/year, real)

PG&E SCE SDG&E
2024 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8%
2025 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8%
2026 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8%
2027 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8%
2028 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8%
2029 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8%
2030 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8%
2031 2.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2032 2.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2033 2.1% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2034 1.9% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2035 1.9% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2036 1.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2037 1.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2038 1.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2039 2.1% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2040 1.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2041 2.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2042 2.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2043 2.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2044 2.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2045 2.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2046 1.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2047 1.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2048 1.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2049 1.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2050 1.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2051 1.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2052 1.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2053 1.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 73 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Table 38: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions, 2025 LSC Basis Year
Statewide Natural
Gas Residential
Average Rate
(%/year, real)
Statewide
Electricity
Residential
Average Rate
(%/year, real)
2024 4.6% 2.1%
2025 4.6% 2.1%
2026 4.6% 2.1%
2027 4.2% 0.6%
2028 3.2% 1.9%
2029 3.6% 1.6%
2030 6.6% 1.3%
2031 6.7% 1.0%
2032 7.7% 1.2%
2033 8.2% 1.1%
2034 8.2% 1.1%
2035 8.2% 0.9%
2036 8.2% 1.1%
2037 8.2% 1.1%
2038 8.2% 1.0%
2039 8.2% 1.1%
2040 8.2% 1.1%
2041 8.2% 1.1%
2042 8.2% 1.1%
2043 8.2% 1.1%
2044 8.2% 1.1%
2045 8.2% 1.1%
2046 8.2% 1.1%
2047 3.1% 1.1%
2048 -0.5% 1.1%
2049 -0.6% 1.1%
2050 -0.5% 1.1%
2051 -0.6% 1.1%
2052 -0.6% 1.1%
2053 -0.6% 1.1%
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 74 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26

7.3 Summary of Efficiency Measures
Table 39 provides the details of the efficiency (non-preempted) measures, by climate zone, included in the following all-electric packages for the single family prototype:
• Efficiency Only
• Efficiency + High Efficiency (Preempted) Equipment
• Efficiency + PV
• Efficiency + PV + Battery
The efficiency measures for the single family mixed fuel packages are presented in Table 40, and Table 41 presents the efficiency measures for all the ADU packages. In all tables, the lack of an “X” indicates that the prescriptive values for that climate zone were not changed. See Appendix 7.4 for a list of prescriptive values by climate zone. Efficiency measures are described in Section 3.3.1.

Table 39: All-Electric Single Family Efficiency Measures, Various Packages Climate
Zone
3 ACH50
R-10
Slab
Attic Ceiling
Insulation

0.25 Roof
Solar
Reflectance

0.24 U-Factor /

0.50 SHGC
Windows

0.35 W/cfm
Buried
Ducts
Basic Compact
Hot Water
Credit
1 X R-60 X
2 X R-60 X X X
3 R-60 X X X
4 X R-60 X X X
5 X1 R-49 X X X
6 R-60 X X X
7 R-49 X X
8 R-60 X X X
9 R-60 X X X
10 R-60 X X X X
11 X R-60 X X X X
12 X R-60 X X X X
13 X R-60 X X X X
14 X X R-60 X X X X
15 X R-60 X X X X
16 R-60 X X X 1 This measure in Climate Zone 5 was only evaluated for the Efficiency + PV + Battery package.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 75 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Table 40: Mixed Fuel Single Family Measures, Efficiency Only & Efficiency + PV + Battery Packages
Climate
Zone
3 ACH50
R-10
Slab
Attic:

EE Only
Attic:

EE + PV
+ Bat

0.25 Roof
Solar
Reflectance

0.24 UFactor / 0.50
SHGC
Windows

0.30 UFactor / 0.50
SHGC
Windows

0.35 W/cfm
Buried
Ducts
CDHW1:

EE Only
CDHW:

EE + PV
+ Bat
1 X R-60 vs R-38 X X
2 X R-60 vs R-38 R-49 X X X X
3 R-60 vs R-30 R-38 X EE Only X X
4 X R-60 vs R-38 R-49 X X X
5 R-60 vs R-38 R-49 X X X X
6 R-49 vs R-30 R-49 X X X X
7 R-49 vs R-30 R-49 X X X
8 R-60 vs R-30 R-49 X X X X
9 R-49 vs R-30 R-49 X X X X
10 R-60 vs R-38 X X X X X
11 X R-60 vs R-38 R-49 X X X X X
12 X R-60 vs R-38 R-49 X X X X X
13 X R-60 vs R-38 R-49 X X X X
14 X X R-60 vs R-38 R-49 X X X X
15 X R-60 vs R-38 R-49 X X X X X
16 R-60 vs R-38 R-49 X X X 1 CDHW stands for basic Compact Domestic Hot Water credit Table 41: Efficiency Measures for All ADU Packages
Climate
Zone
3 ACH50
R-10
Slab Attic1

0.25 Roof
Solar
Reflectance

0.24 U-Factor /

0.50 SHGC
Windows
Ductless
VCHP2
Basic
Compact Hot
Water Credit
3 1 X R-60 vs R-38 X
2 X R-60 vs R-38 X X
3 R-60 vs R-30 X X
4 X R-60 vs R-38 X X
5 R-60 vs R-38 X X
6 R-60 vs R-30 X X
7 R-60 vs R-30 X X
8 R-60 vs R-30 X X
9 R-60 vs R-30 X X
10 R-60 vs R-38 X X X
11 X R-60 vs R-38 X X X
12 X R-60 vs R-38 X X X
13 X R-60 vs R-38 X X X
14 X X R-60 vs R-38 X X X
15 X R-60 vs R-38 X X X
16 R-60 vs R-38 X X 1 This measure was added to all ADU packages except the Mixed Fuel Efficiency + High Efficiency Equipment package. 2 The ductless VCHP measure was only applied to the all-electric packages; the mixed fuel packages instead applied

0.35 W/cfm fans in Climate Zones 2, 4-6, and 8-15. 3 The compact hot water measure was only applied to the all-electric packages.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 76 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26

7.4 Summary of Applicable Prescriptive Base Case Measures This appendix lists the prescriptive values, by climate zone, of building components relevant to the measures included in this analysis. Table 42 outlines envelope, PV, and battery values; Table 43 outlines space conditioning values, and Table 44 outlines domestic water heating (DHW) values.

Table 42: Prescriptive Envelope, PV, and Battery Measures by Climate Zone CZ Air
Infiltration1 Foundation Wall
Insulation2
Attic
Insulation3
Roof Aged
Solar
Reflectivity
Window
U-Factor /
SHGC
PV4 Battery
1 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-38 0.1 0.30 / 0.35 code min. none 2 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-38 0.1 0.30 / 0.23 code min. none 3 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-30 0.1 0.30 / 0.35 code min. none 4 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-38 + R-19 0.1 0.30 / 0.23 code min. none 5 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-30 0.1 0.30 / 0.35 code min. none 6 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-15 + R-4 R-30 0.1 0.30 / 0.23 code min. none 7 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-15 + R-4 R-30 0.1 0.30 / 0.23 code min. none 8 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-38 + R-19 0.1 0.30 / 0.23 code min. none 9 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-38 + R-19 0.1 0.30 / 0.23 code min. none 10 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-38 + R-19 0.2 0.30 / 0.23 code min. none 11 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-38 + R-19 0.2 0.30 / 0.23 code min. none 12 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-38 + R-19 0.2 0.30 / 0.23 code min. none 13 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-38 + R-19 0.2 0.30 / 0.23 code min. none 14 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-38 + R-19 0.2 0.30 / 0.23 code min. none 15 5 ACH50 Uninsulated slab R-21 + R-5 R-38 + R-19 0.2 0.30 / 0.23 code min. none 16 5 ACH50 R-7, 16” slab
insulation R-21 + R-5 R-38 + R-19 0.1 0.30 / 0.35 code min. none 1 5 ACH50 is prescriptively required however verification is not required. 2 Cavity wall insulation + continuous rigid insulation. 3 Ceiling/attic insulation R-value. R-38 + R-19 reflect High Performance Attics (HPAs) as defined by Option B in Table 150.1-A. 4 Prescriptive PV capacities (kW-DC) by climate zone are summarized in Table 4.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 77 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 Table 43: Prescriptive HVAC Measures by Climate Zone
CZ Heating
Type AC Type HeatingEfficiency1
HVAC
Efficiency
(SEER2/EER2)
HVAC Fan
Efficacy
(W/cfm)
Ducts2
1 Gas Furnace AC 80% 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-8, 5%, in attic (not buried) 2 Gas Furnace AC 80% 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-8, 5%, in attic (not buried) 3 Heat pump Heat pump 7.5 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-6, 5%, in attic (not buried) 4 Heat pump Heat pump 7.5 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-8, 5%, in attic (not buried) 5 Gas Furnace AC 80% 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-6, 5%, in attic (not buried) 6 Gas Furnace AC 80% 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-6, 5%, in attic (not buried) 7 Gas Furnace AC 80% 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-6, 5%, in attic (not buried) 8 Gas Furnace AC 80% 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-8, 5%, in attic (not buried) 9 Gas Furnace AC 80% 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-8, 5%, in attic (not buried) 10 Gas Furnace AC 80% 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-8, 5%, in attic (not buried) 11 Gas Furnace AC 80% 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-8, 5%, in attic (not buried) 12 Gas Furnace AC 80% 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-8, 5%, in attic (not buried) 13 Heat pump Heat pump 7.5 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-8, 5%, in attic (not buried) 14 Heat pump Heat pump 7.5 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-8, 5%, in attic (not buried) 15 Gas Furnace AC 80% 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-8, 5%, in attic (not buried) 16 Gas Furnace AC 80% 14.3 / 11.7 0.45 R-8, 5%, in attic (not buried) 1 AFUE for gas furnaces, HSPF2 for heat pumps. 2 Duct insulation R-value, duct leakage, duct location.

Table 44: Prescriptive Water Heating Measures by Climate Zone CZ DHW Type
DHW Location DHW:

Basic
Compact
Distribution
Credit
Single
Family ADU
1 Heat pump Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside Yes 2 Heat pump Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 3 Gas tankless Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 4 Gas tankless Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 5 Heat pump Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 6 Heat pump Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 7 Heat pump Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 8 Heat pump Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 9 Heat pump Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 10 Heat pump Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 11 Heat pump Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 12 Heat pump Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 13 Gas tankless Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 14 Gas tankless Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 15 Heat pump Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside No 16 Heat pump Garage In conditioned space, ducted to/from outside Yes Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Single Family New Construction 78 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-26 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 Codes 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 LinkedIn
Please Note:

This template is intended for educational purposes only, without any express or implied warranty of any kind, including warranties of accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose. You agree that your use of the template is without any recourse whatsoever to PG&E, SCE, SDG&E, or their affiliates. The template is a draft, and anyone using this document should seek the advice of an attorney to develop appropriate ordinance language to meet its jurisdiction’s specific needs, as state and local laws may differ.

Please contact the Codes and Standards Reach Codes Team at [email protected] for additional information.

This program is funded by California utility customers and administered by Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E®), and Southern California Edison Company under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission and in support of the California Energy Commission. 1 2022 Single Family FlexPath Model Reach
Code for Existing Buildings
FAQs
May 2024
Q. What do the points represent?
A. The points in the Measure Menu table represent the relative site energy savings attributable to each measure. Thus, a measure with 4 points would provide twice as much savings as a measure with only 2 points.

The Target Score represents a user-defined (see below) percentage of the maximum cost-effective site energy savings, (the sum of points from all retrofit measures that have been found to be cost-effective). Thus, in the Cost-Effectiveness Explorer if the Target Score is set at 50% of the maximum score, the required measures would save about 50% as much energy as the energy savings attributable to installing all costeffective measures.

Q. How are the Target Score and Measure Points calculated? A. The Cost-Effectiveness Explorer calculates the Maximum Target Score and the points tables, which are available for export. The user (i.e., staff developing the policy) sets the required Target Score in the Cost Effectiveness Explorer.

Q. What is considered cost-effective?
A. Cost-effectiveness assumes that the bill payer will accrue a positive net-present-value from the measure. For the scope of this policy, the cost is assumed to be the full retrofit cost and is not contingent upon a project. Measures that are only cost-effective during replacements (e.g., appliances and cool roofs) are not part of the set of measures used to establish the cost-effective ceiling.

Q. Could points be based on GHG reductions?
A. Federal regulations1require that, among other things, local and state standards to be based on energy or its equivalent energy cost savings. Site energy savings are generally proportionate to GHG emissions reductions.

Q. Why are some measures mandatory?
A. Cost-effective measures with very low costs and small savings (i.e., lighting) are recommended to be mandatory to prevent cream skimming.

Electric readiness is presented as mandatory because there are no directly attributable energy savings and therefore it cannot be scored relative to the other measures.

Q. How can I tell how much compliance might cost?
A. The cost of compliance will vary based on a) the Target Score, b) the scope of project, c) the existing conditions of the home, d) measure selection, and e) market conditions. By 1 42 USCode Sec. 6297(f)(3)(F). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2022-title42/pdf/USCODE2022-title42-chap77-subchapIII-partA-sec6297.pdf 2 adjusting the Target Score in the Cost Effectiveness Explorer, the user alters the measure combinations that satisfy the requirements.

Typical initial measure costs, as reported in the cost-effectiveness study, are presented below. Costs may vary by climate zone. In addition to the information in the table, the Cost Effectiveness Explorer produces an estimate of the typical compliance costs for a range of Target Scores specific to each climate zone and vintage.

Typical Measure Costs – 2,400 Sq. Ft. Home ($)
Pre-1978 1978-1991 1992-2010
Lighting Measures 100 100 100
Water Heating Package 300 300 300
Air sealing 4,700 4,700 4,700
R-38 Attic insulation 6,800 2,600 2,600
R-49 Attic insulation 7,500 3,700 3,700
Duct sealing 2,600 2,600 2,600
New ducts, R-6 insulation + duct sealing 4,900 4,900 4,900 New ducts, R-8 insulation + duct sealing 6,400 6,400 6,400 Windows 11,900 11,900 11,900
Wall Insulation 3,000 na na
R-19 Raised Floor Insulation 3,700 3,700 3,700
R-30 Raised Floor Insulation 4,200 4,200 4,200
Cool roof .20 Solar Reflectance * 900 900 900
Cool roof .25 Solar Reflectance * 1,800 1,800 1,800
Radiant barrier under roof * 900 900 900
Heat pump water heater replacing gas * 4,400 4,400 4,400 High eff. heat pump water heater replacing gas * 5,200 5,200 5,200 Heat pump water heater replacing electric * 3,900 3,900 3,900 High eff. heat pump water heater replacing electric * 4,700 4,700 4,700 Heat pump space heater * 1,100 1,100 1,100
High eff. heat pump space heater * 4,100 4,100 4,100
Dual fuel heat pump space heater * 2,000 2,000 2,000
Heat Pump Clothes Dryer * 400 400 400
Induction Cooktop * 700 700 700
Solar PV (3kW) 9,700 9,700 9,700
* Incremental cost at time of replacement
Q. Why do some measures have points which exceed the Maximum Target Score? A. The points are based on site energy savings; they do not vary based on the Target Score.

Measures with values that exceed the Target Score save more energy than required.

Q. Can a jurisdiction alter the points and score?
A. Jurisdictions may (and should) alter the Target Score but may not change the measure points. Users will need documentation supporting the relative energy value of the measure(s) to alter the measure points.

Q. Can other measures be added to the list?
A. If there is documentation supporting site energy savings, additional measures may be added. Contact [email protected] to inquire about revisions.

Q. Why do some measures have no points for newer vintages? A. Certain measures (e.g., windows, wall insulation) were required at the time of construction in newer vintages and are therefore not eligible for points. 3 Q. How would this ordinance be implemented?
A. Specific implementation details will depend upon the triggers, stringency, and scope of each adopted ordinance. Projects that are required to comply with the ordinance would be required to install a combination of measures from the menu that meets or exceeds the Target Score. Permit applicants would submit a supplemental form documenting that the measures selected and installed meet or exceed the Target Score. Collateral materials have been developed to assist implementation. These materials include: an application checklist; air-sealing checklist; and an exceptions form.

Q. What if compliance would be very onerous because only a few measures are applicable or technically feasible in the home?
A. There is an exception that allows the Building Administrator to adjust the Target Score.

The exception form provides specific values for those measures that were used to set Target Score, which can be applied as credits. If those measures are deemed to be not applicable (e.g., ducts in a home with hydronic heating) or infeasible (e.g., PV with excessive shading), the Administrator may reduce the Target Score by the value of those measures.

Q. How do the vintages account for code cycles that became effective mid-year? A. Normally, codes become effective on January 1 of the year following the nominal code cycle. However, in some cycles the effective date was postponed to midyear. In these cases, the vintages are rounded down such that a home permitted anytime during that year is credited with the code effective in the latter half of the year. 1 Building Reach Code Proposal for Existing Construction Policy Snapshot
May 6, 2024
Reach Code Proposal
Every three years the Building codes are updated at the State level and at that time local jurisdictions are allowed and encouraged to adopt more stringent “reach codes” to help conserve resources and address climate goals. The City Council adopted a Green Building Reach Codes in November 2022 for new construction which went into effect January 2023. Included in the reach code were prohibitions on gas piping for most new construction, a prohibition on extending gas lines or meters for existing single-family homes, and an increase in electric vehicle charging infrastructure for multifamily buildings to reduce barriers to adoption of electric vehicles. A recent court decision against the City of Berkeley has rendered the gas prohibitions in the reach code null and void. However, the electric vehicle requirements have not been affected and remain in place.

A second part of the reach code process was to identify technical assistance and streamlining opportunities to remove barriers to electrification and more robust energy efficiency in construction.

Staff worked with two local residents who recently electrified their homes to develop an 8 Steps Guide to Electrification that has been well-received and promoted by the Marin Builders Association among others. In addition, staff has been working with partners around the County to develop an electrification roadmap for longer term transition to electric appliances in response to interest by residents to electrify. This roadmap, being developed by the County for use countywide, should be finalized sometime this fall.

Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) Measures addressed by this proposal

1. Green Building Reach Code (EE-C4)

2. Building and Appliance Electrification (RE-C3)

3. Energy Efficiency Programs (EE-C1)

Green Building Reach Codes have been estimated to contribute between 2.9 – 10.7% of the City’s total 2030 greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goal. In addition, reduction in energy use saves on energy bills and reduction of natural gas use in homes contributes to healthier living environments for tenants.

The Issue
Existing buildings make up a large portion of the City’s building stock and GHG emissions. These buildings will need to be retrofitted to significantly improve their energy efficiency, their appliances will need to be electrified, or on-site renewable energy such as solar panels will need to be installed to meet City emission reduction goals. Single family homes make up the majority of San Rafael’s existing housing stock and will be key in reducing emissions. Targeting emissions in existing buildings is 2 complex, as there is no one-size-fits-all policy option. Given this, the Flexible Compliance Path provides a way to target these emissions in a more equitable and cost-effective way for homeowners.

The Flex Path Proposal
Single-family remodel projects over 500 square feet will be required to comply with the Flexible Compliance Path, or “Flex Path,” which seeks to increase energy efficiency and encourage electrification in homes, while homeowners are already making significant changes to their homes, and without mandating specific requirements.

The Flex Path serves as a menu of energy saving measure options that homeowners can choose from that the State of California has verified for cost-effectiveness. Each measure has an associated point value based on site energy savings. The higher the energy savings from implementation, the higher the score for the measure. The first section of the menu is centered around envelope related efficiency measures such as insulation, windows, and duct sealing, the next section is heating, venting and air conditioning (HVAC) and water heating electrification measures, and the third section consists of solar measures.

Jurisdictions set a “target score” that projects are required to meet, using the points from implementing measures on the menu. The City has set a target score for each vintage of home in a way that does not force electrification and would be achievable through multiple combinations of other measures such as envelope improvements and solar. Each home can choose which measures work best for their home and budget.

Who will it apply to?
Single family remodel projects over 500 square feet, built before 2010.

How will it work?
When homeowners apply for permits, the Flex Path will be a part of their permit paperwork. The form will include the Flex Path Table showing measures, target scores, and points, as well as a detailed description of each measure.

Homeowners will fill in the Flex Path Table for their project. They will note the vintage of their home, which indicates which target score they need to achieve. Then, they will decide which measures they want to implement into their project to meet that target score. They will be able to refer to detailed descriptions of each measure and compare it to the home’s existing conditions. If any measures already exist in the home, the homeowner will provide documentation of these measures, to show compliance with those requirements as long as they meet the efficiency standards in each measure category. For example, if a homeowner installed solar several years ago and it meets the standards in that measure, they would receive the points toward their target score.

If the homeowner looks at the list of measures and there are none already existing in the home, or if the total of any existing measures do not add up to meet the target score, the homeowner would then 3 decide which measures to implement to reach the target score for their vintage. In some instances homeowners may also be eligible for exemption from some or all of the requirements based on factors such as infeasibility or cost burden, which are stipulated in the ordinance.

After implementing their choice of efficiency measures, the homeowner provides documentation of how they’ve met the target score and the completed Flex Path form to the City to show compliance.

Once they’ve shown compliance or exemption from the Flex Path requirement, homeowners and their contractors would continue with the rest of the building permit process.

What do we hope to expect?
It is estimated that 40-60 projects per year will be subject to this requirement. The Flex Path gives project applicants the option to choose energy efficient measures that make the most sense for their home. Though target scores were selected to be low enough not to require any electrification measures, most electrification measures have higher point totals and would allow applicants to comply more quickly than choosing some other measures. Staff will monitor progress and actual projects to gather data on what happens. After one or two years the City could decide to increase target scores to encourage more efficiency measures or change the thresholds for compliance to smaller projects.

How much will it cost and how will it be funded?
There will be no cost to the City, however estimated upfront costs for homeowners may range between $500-$4,000 depending on which measures a project chooses to implement. Most homeowners will see energy bill savings after implementation. Some homeowners may choose more expensive measures while others choose lower cost options, and there will be variety in energy bill impacts as well. The design of the Flex Path is to give homeowners more choices to do what is best for them.

Challenges and Opportunities
Rapid decarbonization will not always be easy to do in all cases. One of the main questions posed at the outset of this project was how to best meet our GHG reduction goals while also meeting our housing production and economic development goals, especially as it relates to cost. Exemptions and exceptions have been built into the proposal to accommodate those occasional cases where it would be infeasible or prohibitively costly to meet the code. In addition, credits are given to homes that have already done measures in the Flex Path.

Another question posed had to do with resiliency: How do electric appliances fare during a power outage, and can the electrical grid handle the increase in demand? Currently many gas appliances require electricity to operate, meaning in many cases space heating and hot water impacts will be felt by those in mixed-fuel homes as well. According to PG&E local power distribution has been hardened and the vast majority of San Rafael is not at threat of a Public Safety Power Shutoff event. Common power outages are lasting shorter amounts of time than just a few short years ago. California is investing billions of dollars in grid reliability and backup power to reduce these impacts even further.

Utilities believe the grid will not be compromised with the investments the State and utilities are making to ensure reliability.
4 Economy and Social Equity
For single family homes, duplexes, town homes and ADUs most energy measures are relatively inexpensive as part of the overall cost of renovation and show on-bill cost savings over time.

Electrification of appliances has less on-bill savings but are not required measures under the Flex Path.

Multifamily housing and commercial projects are not subject to the proposed regulation either. There are numerous incentives to help offset initial costs of installation for many measures through the Inflation Reduction Act, utility programs, the Bay Area Regional Energy Network, and the State of California
With projected increases in extreme heat events, building electrification can provide residents with highly efficient air conditioning at about ¼ the energy use of typical air conditioners. This is because heat pump space heaters can reverse the flow of air and provide cool air as well as heat, offering tenants air conditioning options that were previously out of reach.

Co-Benefits & Potential Unintended Consequences
Two potential unintended consequences of adopting a reach code are additional costs and confusion for contractors due to hard-to-understand code language and burdensome Building Division implementation. However, the City of San Rafael’s Building Division demonstrates collaboration and simplification and was consistently referenced as the easiest to work with in Marin during engagements with builders and the Marin Builders Association. Other potential unintended consequences may include the challenges of installing and using new technologies, added time and associated costs for permitting transformers for larger projects, and the ability to find contractors that can do the work. The City will continue to work with our regional partners to compile and promote all the technical assistance and incentives available to owners and contractors for ease of implementation in the coming year. Electrify Marin and Bay Area Regional Energy Network have been training contractors and providing incentives to build the capacity necessary to transition to an electric future and have seen a thousand-fold increase in qualified contractors since 2019.

Co-benefits include resident health and workforce development. Over 40 studies have documented the negative health effects of having natural gas (methane) in the home, including asthma, increased deaths and illness. Local workforce programs include MCE’s Workforce, Education and Training program in conjunction with Strategic Energy Innovations focused on building electrification and energy efficiency. More workforce programs are being funded and developed across the region and the City is actively exploring opportunities to enhance them for local residents through our Equitable Low Carbon Economy project and work with the California/Bay Area Jobs First initiative. 5 Sources & References

Climate Change Action Plan Measures
• San Rafael Climate Action Plan Energy Efficiency Measures • San Rafael Climate Action Plan Renewable Energy Measures • Marin Climate GHG Inventories
• City of San Rafael 8 Steps Guide to Electrification
• UCLA Report Residential Gas Appliances
• Health Impacts of Natural Gas Stanford Study
• Health Impacts of Natural Gas Meta Analysis
Reach Code Proposal
• Statewide Reach Codes Website
• Single Family Cost Effectiveness Study Updated for 2024 • Cost Effectiveness Explorer for San Rafael Measures
• Marin County Model Reach Code Development
• California Energy Commission Building Decarb and EV Resources Challenges and Opportunities
• Assessment of Impacts of Electrifying Residential Buildings in California • BUILD Program for Technical Assistance and Incentives Multifamily • CPUC Utility Costs and Affordability Evaluation
• Building Decarbonization Practice Guide
• PG&E Public Safety Power Shutoff Map
• MCE Electric Load Planning
Economy and Social Equity
• Low-Rise Residential Cost-Effectiveness Study
• Electrify Marin Rebate Program
• Inflation Reduction Act Fact Sheet
• Inflation Reduction Act Incentives Calculator
• California Eliminates Natural Gas Subsidies
Co-benefits & Potential Unintended Consequences
• Bay Area Regional Energy Network Resources for Public, Government, and Contractors • San Rafael Equitable Low Carbon Economy Project
• Heat Pumps and Heat Waves, Rocky Mountain Institute*
6 • California/Bay Area Jobs First initiative
• MCE Workforce Program
Engagement
• Model Reach Code Development Engagements
• Letter of Support from PG&E for Marin County Model Reach Code Item 5.b Planning Commission Membership
Composition
Item Removed from the Agenda
____________________________________________________________________________________

FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting: _______________________
Disposition: ___________________________
Agenda Item No: 6.a
Meeting Date: May 20, 2024

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: City Manager
Prepared by: John Stefanski,
Assistant City Manager
April Miller
Public Works Director
City Manager Approval: ______________
TOPIC: CITY COUNCIL FY 2023-2025 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ANNUAL UPDATE AND

INTRODUCTION OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORTATION WORKPLAN SUBJECT: FY 2023-2025 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ANNUAL UPDATE AND INTRODUCTION

OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORTATION WORKPLAN
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the report.

BACKGROUND:

The City Council regularly establishes goals and objectives that establish the City’s priorities and resource allocation for a period of time. The City created four policy focus areas to highlight overarching policy priorities, in addition to the five City service areas to highlight operational efforts that are of particular focus. The four key policy focus areas and five City service areas include:

Policy Focus Areas:
• Economic Growth: Building our economy to be stronger and more resilient. • Housing & Homelessness: Creating new housing, keeping people in their homes, and using a “Housing First” model.
• Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Belonging (DEIB): Working to create equitable outcomes for all while addressing systemic racial injustices.
• Sustainability, Climate Change & Disaster Preparedness: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions while mitigating and adapting to climate change.

City Service Areas:

A. Neighborhood and Economic Vitality: Create and preserve a healthy economy and sustain vibrant neighborhoods, Downtown, and other business areas.

B. Quality of Life: Serve and strengthen community relationships by providing literary, artistic, SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
recreational and cultural experiences for all residents and improving resident engagement and governmental transparency.

C. Public Safety: Prevent and respond to emergencies through essential facility improvements and community and organizational emergency readiness.

D. Public Assets: Improve and preserve public assets by sustaining effective levels of core infrastructure while reducing traffic congestion by expanding bicycle, pedestrian, and transit options.

E. Foundational Services: Sustain organizational viability and exemplary service through short and long-term financial success, organizational excellence and succession planning, and technology to improve efficiency and service levels.

Each policy focus area and City service area has a set of objectives that provide a basis for making resource allocation decisions during the budget process and serve as a focal point for assessing and coordinating the City’s short- and long-term strategic planning. The resources required to perform each objective and task are summarized in the time and intensity graphic within the FY 2023-2025 Goals and Objectives staff report presented to the City Council on May 15, 2023.

The City Council adopted the FY 2023-2025 City Council Goals and Objectives as a component of the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget on June 5, 2023.

ANALYSIS:

This report represents the midpoint update for the Fiscal year 2023-2025 Goals and Objectives. A comprehensive status update summary is provided in Attachment 1.

The following list of objectives highlights some of the major accomplishments for the past fiscal year.

More details on each one of these are available in Attachment 1. The letter and number of each is a reference to the numbering in the attachment.

Goal A: Neighborhood and Economic Vitality
A3 - Establish a By-Right Neighborhood Affordable Housing Overlay Zone to streamline the review and approval of affordable housing projects in high-density residential zoning districts.

Develop a comprehensive plan for the Priority Development Areas (PDA) in the North and Southeast San Rafael neighborhoods, addressing future development, mobility, sea level rise, and other community priorities.
• Progress is being made on creating a Specific Plan for Northgate and East San Rafael, with the City receiving ~$1.6 million in grant funds for community outreach and establishing Canal and Northgate Priority Development Areas. The East San Rafael Specific Plan project will start first, with a consultant selection RFP expected in Q2 2024. Additionally, staff will work with a consultant in Q4 2024 to evaluate the City's affordable housing policies and propose necessary updates to the City Council.

A8 - Assess feasibility and revise the City’s current residential parking permit program to address overcrowding of neighborhood parking in a cost-neutral and equitable manner. • The City released an RFP and, in February 2024, hired Dixon Unlimited to develop a residential parking permit program.

Goal B: Quality of Life
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
B2 - Enhance recreational opportunities and user experience at Pickleweed Park by adding new amenities, enhancing existing facilities, and installing all-weather turf on the field to provide a safe, sustainable, and inclusive community space.
• The City successfully secured $4.2M in grant funding from the National Park Service to complete this project. The project team is finalizing the required permits and construction documents, with construction anticipated to begin in the latter part of 2024 and be completed by June 2026.

Goal C: Public Safety
C-1 - Analyze the results and effectiveness of the Specialized Assistance for Everyone (SAFE) team three-year pilot and determine if/how it should be adjusted (e.g., hours of operation) to have the greatest impact on community members and develop funding feasibility to extend beyond the pilot program period of time.
• Since its inception, the SAFE Team has responded to 3,152 calls, diverting 113 individuals from emergency departments and 125 from jail. They have assisted in reducing PD response times to priority 1 incidents.

C2 - Improve service to the community by reducing emergency response times of priority 1 police calls to average of less than six minutes.
• In 2023 this objective was met; response times for priority one calls were reduced to five minutes from seven minutes.

C3 - Continue community conversations about how the police department can improve residents' feelings of safety in their neighborhoods and improve trust with the community. • The police department continues to hold community engagement events, including Coffee with a Cop, Community Academy, Camp Chance, and social media interactions. The Police Advisory and Accountability Committee (PAAC) was established to enhance public transparency and accountability and to involve the community in recommending improvements to police policies and practices. These efforts aim to strengthen community relations, hiring, and training best practices within the San Rafael Police Department.

Goal D: Public Assets
D4 - Coordinate with the TAM and the County of Marin in the analysis and implementation of Vision Zero, or equivalent, to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for pedestrians, cyclists, and all modes of traffic. • In April, the City Council adopted the 2024 Marin Countywide Local Road Safety Plan to support San Rafael's Vision Zero goals of eliminating traffic fatalities and promoting safe, equitable mobility by 2050. Staff will develop a Vision Zero Action Plan incorporating this safety plan in Fiscal Year 2024-25.

D7 - Develop an inventory of City assets, including buildings, infrastructure, parks, lighting, open space, and trees, and develop a strategic plan for asset management to identify and quantify unfunded liabilities and deferred maintenance costs. Engage community volunteers to support this effort.
• The City completed a LiDAR survey of City-owned assets and plans to gather additional inventory. Staff is finalizing the procurement of an Asset Management System (AMS) and preparing the LiDAR data to be integrated into the software. In fiscal year 2024-25, the focus will be on training, setting procedures, and developing maintenance near-term and longer-term goals.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
Goal E: Foundational Services
E1 - Develop a civic engagement strategy and re-establish the City’s Communications Team, including coordination and strategy around Citywide communications, website content strategy, and best practices.
• The City has reestablished the Communications Team and developed a website team to better coordinate outreach, engagement, and website development. The City is recruiting for a Civic Engagement Manager who will work on developing the strategic communications plan roadmap.

Additionally, the City is posting FAQs for high-priority projects and has re-established a monthly homelessness newsletter.

Goal E-7 - Analyze new revenue alternatives and opportunities for future needs, including aggressively seeking grant funding.
• The City continues to seek external funding opportunities to support urgent needs. Since the Goals and Objectives were approved by the City Council last June, the City has received just over $17M in grant funding, as summarized below:
o Transportation Grants: $2,365,000
o Sustainability & Emergency Management: $1,404,000
o Community & Economic Development: $2,265,429
o Library and Recreation: $4,838,502
o Homelessness: $5,999,242
o Fire: $415,000
Policy Focus Area #1: Economic Growth
EG1 - Implement initiatives from the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) that will reinvigorate commerce across the city, find innovative strategies to attract and retain businesses, attract high-tech and other emerging market users, and ensure that growth is not only sustainable but also equitable.
• The City will launch the Economic Development "GO" Program in Q2 of 2024, which will include marketing and branding materials associated with a Business Expansion Attraction Retention (BEAR) program. An EIFD consultant, Kosmont, has been conducting a feasibility analysis of forming an EIFD, and a feasibility report with recommendations would is anticipated in Q3 of 2024. The feasibility of the PBID formation will require an RFP for consulting services for feasibility analysis. The RFP release is anticipated in Q3 of 2024.

Policy Focus Area #2: Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Belonging (DEIB) DEIB3 - Continue inclusive resident engagement practices that find opportunities to partner with underserved community members to build capacity for meaningful civic engagement and lift up traditionally marginalized voices.
• The City continues to collaborate with community organizations to develop strategies for inclusive engagements, such as promoting the Police Accountability and Advisory Committee and the Canal Broadband Feasibility study. Staff supports multilingual public meetings and is formalizing these efforts through strategic communications and language access planning. The Police Advisory and Accountability Committee consistently offers Spanish interpretation and translates meeting materials into Spanish and Vietnamese.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5
DEIB5 - Increase police accountability and promote transparency with law enforcement and develop a community accountability advisory committee who will evaluate options such as, engaging an independent auditor and providing feedback on policing policies and practices. • The Police Advisory and Accountability Committee, established in December 2023, meets monthly to enhance transparency and community engagement in police operations. Further information is available here: https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/paac/.

DEIB7 - Implement strategies to increase the diversity of public safety recruitment to attract and hire qualified candidates from diverse backgrounds:
• In February 2024, the San Rafael Police Department developed a 2024-2026 Recruitment and Selection Plan to enhance diversity in its workforce. By May 2024, the City had recruited twenty new employees, with eight being female and twelve identifying as Hispanic, resulting in forty-two percent of the police department being non-white. The San Rafael Fire Department is also committed to diversity and has outlined strategies, including targeted recruitment, equitable hiring practices, professional development, and mentorship programs.

Policy Focus Area #3: Housing and Homelessness
HH2 - Partner with community stakeholders to develop policies to protect renters and low-income earners from increasing housing prices and uncertain economic conditions. Support maintaining and improving our housing base and reduce the likelihood of homelessness. • Staff are collaborating with the community to evaluate and develop Citywide tenant protection policies. Meanwhile, an urgency ordinance adopted on April 15, 2024, prohibits substantial rehabilitation as a just cause reason for eviction in the Opportunity Zone, requiring landlords to offer displaced tenants temporary relocation assistance or comparable units during repairs. In 2023 and 2024, the City allocated funds for affordable housing rehabilitation projects at Terra Linda Manor, Marin Villa Estates, Art Works Downtown, Marin Center for Independent Living, and Habitat Redwood Blvd.

HH3 - Continue evaluating Housing-Focused Shelter (Interim Housing), fortified with strong case management services to help transition unhoused community members into permanent supportive housing.
• Staff worked with the County of Marin on the Encampment Resolution Fund Round 3 grant applications, successfully securing approximately $6M in funding to support the development of new interim housing, expanded case management, and increased service provision for individuals experiencing homelessness, particularly in the Mahon Creek Area encampment.

Policy Focus Area #4: Sustainability, Climate Change, & Disaster Preparedness SCD1 - Develop a comprehensive adaptation plan that addresses the challenges and risks posed by wildfires, sea level rise, and other disasters to San Rafael and its residents using strategies and data from community partnerships and past planning efforts to provide a roadmap for disaster prevention and mitigation.
• Staff have contributed to the updated countywide Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, which includes actions related to sea level rise and other climate-related disasters. The Sustainability team is developing a sea level rise adaptation and resilience plan in conjunction with other grant-funded projects like the sea level rise feasibility study, which focuses specifically on the Canal neighborhood.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6
SCD2 - Build a more resilient community in the face of disasters, able to recover more quickly and effectively, including evacuation planning for residents in the event of emergencies. Increase disaster preparedness outreach so all residents, regardless of income, language, physical ability, digital access, or any limiting factor, have knowledge and resources to be prepared to respond to disasters.
• The City adopted the updated Emergency Operations Plan and developed an updated Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Handbook, and Storm Response Playbook. Staff continue to conduct and develop training for community members and City staff on topics relating to disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. Staff have increased Spanish language disaster preparedness outreach, including offering classes and printed material in Spanish and developing a peer-to-peer outreach program.

Challenges & Constraints
As shown in Attachment 1, the City has made significant progress toward achieving the City Council’s Goals and Objectives over the last fiscal year. However, there are several barriers and constraints that have significantly impacted the City’s operations. The City is a people powered organization, and the work of providing public services requires an adequate level of staffing. Unfortunately, like many other local government jurisdictions, the City has been facing higher than normal vacancy rates in every department. On average, the City has seen 10-20% of its budgeted positions be vacant due to retirements or employee attrition. The result of this directly impacts the City’s ability to make as much progress as we would like toward achieving our goals and objectives, as well as other projects and programs like the Capital Improvement Program.

Another challenge that has significantly impacted the City’s capacity is the extensive litigation and continuous legal scrutiny regarding the implementation of the camping on public property regulations.

The ongoing response and work to resolve the litigation and its impact on staff time is and continues to be significant. While the City is hopeful that the end to the litigation is near, it limits the City’s ability to focus its attention toward implementing solutions that will help support individuals on their path to housing.

Over this last year, the City has received an unprecedented number of large scale, labor intensive Public Records Act requests. These span from covering most facets of the City organization, ranging from major development projects to more arcane data requests. Responding to these requests is required by law and is subject to certain response timelines. In practice, this means that staff have to reprioritize other high priority initiatives, in order to focus on compiling the relevant materials in order to be responsive to the public records request.

The City has been able to ensure progress continues in spite of these challenges through deliberate and strategic cross-departmental collaboration efforts to match staffing needs with available staff resources from elsewhere in the organization.

Performance Measurement Program
The City launched a Performance Measurement program in 2023 with the goal of collecting, measuring, and analyzing data to track progress towards the Council’s strategic goals and objectives. This year, we have chosen targets for some strategic metrics and added metrics to the program, including operational metrics that help quantify the daily operational work of the City. This program is part of a wider effort to increase the availability of data tools that measure progress, understand operational capacity, and improve the effectiveness of City services.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7
Some key findings this year, shown in Attachment 3, include some positive shifts in our economic growth metrics. Foot traffic downtown by visitors in 2023 exceeded pre-pandemic levels for the first time. The retail vacancy rate declined slightly in 2023 to 2.6%. Other economic indicators were less positive; office vacancy rates have continued to increase since 2017, and industrial vacancy almost tripled in 2023.

Employee foot traffic downtown in 2023 was still 10% lower than 2019 levels. Taxable sales of businesses operating in San Rafael was slightly lower in 2023 than 2022.

We’ve continued to progress in our Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB), Sustainability, Climate Change, and Disaster Preparedness policy areas. The percentage of regular employees of color continued to increase, from 35.2% of the total regular workforce in 2022 to 37.8% in 2023. Our gender breakdown has stayed the same, with 40% of the regular workforce identifying as women. Greenhouse Gas emissions continued to decline in 2021 (our most up to date data). In our Housing and Homelessness policy area, 20 out of 34 chronically homeless case management clients in City-funded programs are now in permanent housing, 9 of whom were housed last year.

On the operational side of our work, in public safety, EMS incidents increased slightly in 2023 (and increased by 13% since 2019, while crime has declined in the last year across almost all serious offenses.

In Community Development, building permits issued by the City remained steady during the pandemic, although other permits declined. By 2023, the city issued 4,944 total permits, exceeding pre-pandemic levels by 21%. Code enforcement cases opened in 2023 are also nearing pre-pandemic levels after a sharp decline between 2020 and 2022. Department of Public Works has seen average monthly requests submitted to SeeClickFix increase since 2022; the Department is currently responding to an average of 225 service requests per month, in addition to the department’s regular maintenance operations.

Workplan Development to Track Progress Toward Goals & Objectives Earlier this year, the City Council received a presentation from Jacob Green and Associates regarding the development of strategic and operational workplans with the goal of building greater alignment between the broader community, City Council, and staff, in addition to showing more clearly and transparently, the priorities and sheer scale of work taking place in the City’s departments. In particular, these workplans aim to provide complete comparative context for the City Council when making resource allocation determinations regarding all of the City’s responsibilities, needs, and current financial condition.

Over the next year, the City intends to expand the development of these comprehensive work plans to cover the balance of the City Council’s Goals and Objectives, as well as other projects, programs, and services that are provided through the City’s individual departments. This process will also inform the development of the successor Goals and Objectives following Fiscal Year 2024-25.

Introduction of Draft Infrastructure and Transportation Workplan Over the past six months, the Public Works Department worked with Jacob Green and Associates to develop a comprehensive work plan for their department’s related City Council Goals and Objectives, Capital Improvement Program, other citywide plans, and ongoing public works operations and maintenance activities. This work plan identifies clear objectives, defines actionable tasks, outlines project phases, and establishes realistic timelines for the many programs, projects, and services the department works on. Attachment 2 provides background documentation on the draft projects and programs that are being used to develop the Infrastructure and Transportation Work Plan, which will be presented at the May 20th City Council meeting for feedback.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 8
One of the biggest challenges with achieving this work plan is staff capacity due to vacancies. Over the last couple of years, the Public Works engineering divisions have experienced several key vacancies that decrease the ability to complete all the projects listed in the annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

Due to staff retention and recruitment issues for engineers, staff is exploring alternatives to achieving the CIP and workplan. This includes the creation of an on-call list of consultants through a request for proposal process with different consulting expertise to assist in staff augmentation. The workplan being presented assumes the department is fully staffed or equivalent consultant staff augmentation by the beginning of FY 2024-25.

In addition to the workplan that lists key infrastructure and transportation projects and programs, the Public Works team with the support of staff augmentation also performs work on annual programs and business as usual tasks. A few examples of everyday tasks could include responding to the community, coordination meetings, SeeClickFix management, work planning, and responding to Public Records requests. The annual programs are comprised of a variety of activities, including routine operation and maintenance of city infrastructure, maintenance of fleet vehicles, implementation of smaller projects and small budget projects that need immediate attention, development of concept designs to support the pursuit of grant funding, and low to medium level planning efforts.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. The City’s annual budget is guided by the City Council’s Goals and Objectives. Some projects will be brought to the City Council on an individual basis to ensure proper fiscal analysis and approval as appropriate.

OPTIONS:

The City Council has the following options to consider on this matter:

1. Receive the report.

2. Take no action.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Receive the report.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. City Council 2023-2025 Goals and Objectives Progress Update

2. Infrastructure and Transportation Draft Workplan

3. Performance Measurement 2024 Update
Attachment 1: City Council 2023-2025 Goals & Objectives Progress Update