16.81 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 25 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 • Envelope and Duct Measures
Figure 10 through Figure 13 show the cost-effectiveness results of envelope and duct measures for the pre-1978 vintage including the following measures. The pre-1978 vintage is presented as representing the most favorable existing conditions for cost-effective upgrades. Newer homes with higher performing envelope may still benefit from these types of upgrade measures, but cost-effectiveness is reduced. Some measures, like R-13 wall insulation, aren’t applicable to newer homes which would have been constructed originally with insulated walls. • New R-6 ducts
• 10% duct leakage
• R-13 wall insulation
• R-49 attic insulation
Figure 10: R-6 Ducts Figure 11: 10% Duct Leakage
Figure 12: R-13 Wall Insulation Figure 13: R-49 Attic Insulation
16.82 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 26 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25
3.2 Climate Zone Case Studies
To better understand the details of the results, a few climate zones were selected to provide a more detailed presentation of cost-effectiveness results. Section 3.2.1 through 3.2.3 show the first-year incremental cost, first-year utility savings, and NPV for a variety of cases. Section 3.2.4 shows the sensitivity of the cost effectiveness results due to varying utility escalation rates, the impact of CARE rates, future equipment cost assumptions, and the need for electrical panel upgrades. The climate zones were selected to be representative of areas of significant reach code activity. Please refer to the Cost-Effectiveness Explorer (Statewide Reach Codes, 2023) or the source dataset for the full analysis.
3.2.1 HPSH Cost-Effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness of heat pump space heating measures for Climate Zones 12 and 16 is summarized in Table 11 and Table 12 below. In Climate Zone 12, HPSH measures are cost-effective based on LSC in all cases except the ductless MSHP cases and are cost-effective On-Bill with SMUD rates in all cases except the DFHP case with a new furnace and the ductless MSHP cases. These measures are cost-effective On-Bill with PGE for the DFHP with an existing furnace and ducted MSHP measures. Climate Zone 16 provides an example of HPSH cost-effectiveness in a cold climate where almost all HPSH measures are cost effective based on LSC but not cost-effective On-Bill.
Table 11. HPSH CZ 12 [1992-2010]
Measure
First
Incremental
Cost
2025 LSC
NPV
PGE SMUD
First-year
Utility
Savings
On-Bill
NPV
First-year
Utility
Savings
On-Bill
NPV
DFHP Existing Furnace $1,960 $7,093 ($19) $1,633 $247 $7,693 DFHP New Furnace $4,023 $3,915 ($34) ($3,134) $234 $2,979 HPSH (Std Efficiency) $1,172 $6,990 ($147) ($2,151) $246 $6,812 HPSH (High Efficiency) $4,149 $5,366 $13 ($3,368) $300 $3,160 Ducted MSHP $1,421 $9,136 $10 $378 $298 $6,951
Ductless MSHP (Std Efficiency) $13,336 ($9,175) $30 ($18,039) $276 ($12,428) Ductless MSHP (High Efficiency) $17,266 ($6,753) $409 ($15,853) $423 ($15,532) HPSH + PV $10,780 $5,289 $452 ($59) $885 $9,821
Table 12. HPSH CZ 16 [1992-2010]
Measure
First
Incremental
Cost
2025 LSC
NPV
PGE
First-year
Utility Savings On-Bill NPV
DFHP Existing Furnace $2,397 $7,289 ($116) ($1,891)
DFHP New Furnace $4,757 $2,457 ($133) ($6,322)
HPSH (Std Efficiency) $2,725 $11,142 ($480) ($8,532)
HPSH (High Efficiency) $5,701 $12,099 ($204) ($7,125)
Ducted MSHP $2,155 $16,554 ($221) ($2,853)
Ductless MSHP (Std Efficiency) $13,336 ($134) ($170) ($19,742) Ductless MSHP (High Efficiency) $17,266 $9,397 $539 ($10,031) HPSH + PV $12,333 $10,640 $316 ($1,949)
16.83 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 27 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25
3.2.2 HPWH Cost-Effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness of heat pump water heating measures for Climate Zones 12 and 16 is summarized in Table 13 and Table 14 below. This sensitivity study looks at a wider range of HPWH tank locations and whether or not the unit has ducting for supply and exhaust air. All the HPWH measures in Climate Zones 12 and 16 are cost effective based on LSC.
Table 13. HPWH CZ 12 [1992-2010]
Measure
First
Incremental
Cost
2025 LSC
NPV
PGE SMUD
First-Year
Utility
Savings
On-Bill
NPV
First-Year
Utility
Savings
On-Bill
NPV
240V Fed. Min. HPWH $4,332 $3,536 ($213) ($8,738) $191 $477 240V Market Std. NEEA
HPWH $5,193 $4,304 ($82) ($7,164) $230 ($56)
240V Market Std. NEEA
HPWH + DR $5,193 $5,536 ($21) ($5,773) $248 $362
120V Market Std. NEEA
HPWH $2,893 $9,730 ($2) ($1,651) $254 $4,203
240V Fed. Min. HPWH
(Exterior Closet) $4,751 $2,834 ($224) ($9,431) $186 ($78) 240V Fed. Min. HPWH
(Interior Closet) $4,413 $3,123 ($71) ($6,138) $188 ($235) 240V Fed. Min. HPWH
(Interior Closet, ducted) $5,492 $3,359 ($202) ($9,505) $205 ($231) 240V Fed. Min. HPWH + PV $13,940 $3,567 $577 ($2,300) $831 $3,486 Table 14. HPWH CZ 16 [1992-2010]
Measure
First
Incremental
Cost
2025 LSC
NPV
PGE
First-Year Utility
Savings On-Bill NPV
240V Fed. Min. HPWH $4,332 $4,186 ($250) ($9,307)
240V Market Std. NEEA HPWH $5,193 $4,088 ($160) ($8,652) 240V Market Std. NEEA HPWH + DR $5,193 $5,653 ($79) ($6,804 120V Market Std. NEEA HPWH $2,893 $10,646 ($13) ($1,602) 240V Fed. Min. HPWH (Exterior Closet) $4,751 $3,317 ($268) ($10,154) 240V Fed. Min. HPWH (Interior Closet) $4,413 $5,004 ($18) ($4,690) 240V Fed. Min. HPWH (Interior Closet,
ducted) $5,492 $4,857 ($202) ($9,174)
240V Fed. Min. HPWH + PV $13,940 $5,049 $620 ($1,043)
16.84 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 28 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25
3.2.3 Envelope & Duct Improvement Cost-Effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness of envelope and duct measures for Climate Zones 3, 10, and 12 is summarized in Table 15 through Table 17.
Table 15. Envelope and Duct Measures CZ 3 [Pre-1978]
Measure
First
Incremental
Cost
2025 LSC
NPV
PG&E
First-year Utility
Savings On-Bill NPV
R-6 Ducts $4,808 $2,851 $188 $463
R-8 Ducts $6,311 $1,747 $198 ($776)
10% Duct Sealing $2,590 $1,956 $104 $397
R-13 Wall Insulation $2,950 $3,476 $144 $1,221
R-38 Attic Insulation $6,762 ($1,567) $127 ($3,178)
R-49 Attic Insulation $7,446 ($1,768) $139 ($3,520)
R-30 Raised Floor Insulation $4,113 $9,008 $224 $2,975
Cool Roof (0.20 Ref) $893 ($2,419) ($18) ($1,811)
Table 16. Envelope and Duct Measures CZ 10 [Pre-1978]
Measure
First
Incremental
Cost
2025 LSC
NPV
SCE/SCG SDGE
First-year
Utility
Savings
On-Bill
NPV
Firstyear
Utility
Savings
On-Bill
NPV
R-6 Ducts $4,808 $7,463 $783 $13,168 $1,100 $22,155
R-8 Ducts $6,311 $6,326 $800 $12,076 $1,125 $21,268
10% Duct Sealing $2,590 $3,438 $370 $5,969 $518 $10,166 R-13 Wall Insulation $2,950 $1,795 $179 $1,476 $250 $3,494 R-38 Attic Insulation $6,762 $664 $416 $2,951 $582 $7,654 R-49 Attic Insulation $7,446 $796 $467 $3,435 $655 $8.756 R-30 Raised Floor Insulation $4,113 ($999) ($29) ($4,235) ($46) ($4,687) Cool Roof (0.20 Ref) $893 $428 $174 $2,647 $246 $4,656
Table 17. Envelope and Duct Measures CZ 12 [Pre-1978]
Measure
First
Incremental
Cost
2025 LSC
NPV
PG&E SMUD
First-year
Utility
Savings
On-Bill
NPV
Firstyear
Utility
Savings
On-Bill
NPV
R-6 Ducts $4,808 $11,609 $804 $14,727 $413 $5,816
R-8 Ducts $6,311 $10,722 $828 $13,849 $427 $4,711
10% Duct Sealing $2,590 $6,418 $397 $7,280 $222 $3,281
R-13 Wall Insulation $2,950 $5,774 $262 $4,054 $187 $2,342 R-38 Attic Insulation $6,762 $3,727 $499 $5,461 $261 $19 R-49 Attic Insulation $7,446 $4,092 $552 $6,063 $288 $33 R-30 Raised Floor Insulation $4,113 $5,245 $27 ($1,176) $156 $1,175 Cool Roof (0.20 Ref) $893 ($354) $154 $2,123 $44 ($386)
16.85 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 29 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25
3.2.4 Sensitivities
Table 18 shows the On-Bill NPV results of Climate Zone 12 with PG&E utility rates and the impacts of escalation rates, and CARE rates. The “Standard Results” in Table 18 assumes the escalation rates used in the analysis presented elsewhere in this report. Table 19 shows the impact of electrical panel upgrades. The “Standard Results” in Table 19 does not assume a panel upgrade is required.
Table 18. Sensitivity Analysis Results for On-Bill NPV Cost-Effectiveness in Climate Zone 12, PG&E Measure Vintage Standard
Results
2025 LSC
Escalation CARE
DFHP Existing Furnace 1992-2010 $1,063 $8,443 $1,884
DFHP New Furnace 1992-2010 ($6,770) $383 ($5,846)
HPSH (Std Efficiency) 1992-2010 ($2,151) $6,011 ($220)
HPSH (High Efficiency) 1992-2010 ($3,368) $4,987 ($2,721) Ducted MSHP 1992-2010 $378 $8,729 $1,057
Ductless MSHP (Std Efficiency) 1992-2010 ($18,039) ($10,732) ($17,623) Ductless MSHP (High Efficiency) 1992-2010 ($15,853) ($8,091) ($18,460) HPSH + PV 1992-2010 ($59) $8,822 ($1,255)
240V Fed. Min. HPWH 1992-2010 ($8,738) ($2,433) ($6,448) 240V Market Std. NEEA HPWH 1992-2010 ($7,164) ($694) ($5,918) 240V Market Std. NEEA HPWH + DR 1992-2010 ($5,773) $770 (5,014) 120V Market Std. NEEA HPWH 1992-2010 ($1,651) $4,930 (1,038) 240V Fed. Min. HPWH (Exterior Closet) 1992-2010 ($9,431) ($3,184) ($7,055) 240V Fed. Min. HPWH (Interior Closet) 1992-2010 ($6,138) ($1,000) ($5,098) 240V Fed. Min. HPWH (Interior Closet, ducted) 1992-2010 ($9,505) ($2,836) ($7,271) 240V Fed. Min. HPWH + PV 1992-2010 ($2,300) $4,952 ($4,858) R-6 Ducts Pre-1978 $14,727 $18,685 $8,592
R-8 Ducts Pre-1978 $13,849 $17,990 $7,532
10% Duct Sealing Pre-1978 $7,280 $9,752 $4,294
R-13 Wall Insulation Pre-1978 $4,054 $6,898 $2,196
R-38 Attic Insulation Pre-1978 $5,461 $8,126 $1,668
R-49 Attic Insulation Pre-1978 $6,063 $8,978 $1,864
R-30 Raised Floor Insulation Pre-1978 ($1,776) $2,468 ($1,602) Cool Roof (0.20 Ref) Pre-1978 $2,123 $1,848 $851
Table 19. Electric Panel Upgrade Sensitivity for CZ 12 [1992-2010] Measure Standard Results Electric Panel Upgrade
On-Bill NPV LSC NPV On-Bill NPV LSC NPV
HPSH (Std Efficiency) ($2,151) $6,990 ($4,931) $4,210
240V Fed. Min. HPWH ($8,738) $3,536 ($11,624) $756
16.86 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 30 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25
3.3 Gas Pathways for Heat Pump Replacements
Many jurisdictions are exploring policy options to accelerate the decarbonization of existing homes. A recent Ninth Circuit Court ruling in California Rest. Ass'n v. City of Berkeley20 invalidated Berkeley’s ordinance banning the installation of gas infrastructure in new construction. The ruling stated that the ordinance effectively banned covered products and was preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (“EPCA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6297(c). Given the possible impacts of that ruling, the Reach Codes Team analyzed policy options targeting equipment replacements that allow for the installation of either electric or gas-fueled equipment. These packages include gas equipment combined with additional efficiency measures resulting in options that are reasonably energy or LSC cost equivalent, to the extent feasible.
For space heating, the heat pump path is a DFHP (existing furnace).. The gas pathway is a new air conditioner with the following list of efficiency upgrades:
• 400 cfm/ton system airflow (HERS verified).
• 0.35 W/cfm fan efficacy (HERS verified).
• Refrigerant charge verification (HERS verified).
• R-8 ducts, 5% leakage (HERS verified).
• R-49 (from R-30) attic insulation.
• Air sealing of the ceiling from 7 to 6.5 ACH50.
The two pathways are presented in Figure 14 comparing total LSC energy use relative to the existing home for the 1992-2010 vintage. In most climate zones, the DFHP (existing furnace) path results in higher energy savings, in the milder climates the air conditioner path saves marginally more energy. A reach code that establishes requirements when an air conditioner is replaced or installed new, could allow for either a heat pump to be installed or an air conditioner as long as the performance measures listed above are met. Note that in this analysis a DFHP (existing furnace) was used; however, a reach code could require a different heat pump measure for the heat pump path. This approach aligns with the CEC’s proposal for the 2025 Title 24 code cycle for heat pump alterations in single family homes (California Energy Commission, 2023).
20 California Rest. Ass'n v. City of Berkeley, 65 F.4th 1045 (9th Cir. 2023) amended by 89 F.4th 1094 (9th Cir. 2024).
16.87 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 31 Results
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Figure 14. Heat pump space heater path compared to the air conditioner path.
For water heating, the federal minimum HPWH case was used to develop the package. The HPWH was compared to a new gas storage water heater with a 50% solar thermal backup system.
The two pathways are presented in Figure 15 comparing total LSC energy use relative to the existing home for the 1992-2010 vintage. In all climate zones, the heat pump path results in higher energy savings than the gas path. A reach code that establishes requirements when a water heater is replaced could allow for either a HPWH to be installed or a gas water heater in combination with a solar thermal system that meets the solar fraction requirements listed above.
Figure 15. Heat pump water path compared to gas with solar thermal.
16.88 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 32 Recommendations and Discussion
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 4 Recommendations and Discussion
This analysis evaluated the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of retrofit measures in California existing homes built before 2010. The Statewide Reach Codes Team used both On-Bill and LSC-based LCC approaches to evaluate costeffectiveness and quantify the energy cost savings associated with energy efficiency measures compared to the incremental costs associated with the measures.
Conclusions and Discussion:
1. Envelope measures. Improving envelope performance is very cost-effective in many older homes. In addition to reducing utility costs these measures provide many other benefits such as improving occupant comfort and satisfaction and increasing a home’s ability to maintain temperatures during extreme weather events and power outages. Below is a discussion of the results of specific measures. a. Adding attic insulation is cost effective based on both LSC and On-Bill in many climate zones in homes with no more than R-19 existing attic insulation levels. Increasing attic insulation from R-30 to R-49 was still found to be cost-effective based on at least one metric in the colder and hotter climates of Climate Zone 10 (SDG&E territory only) through 16.
b. Insulating existing uninsulated walls is very cost-effective based on both metrics everywhere except Climate Zones 6 and 7 (in Climate Zone 8 it’s only cost-effective based on LSC). c. Adding R-19 or R-30 floor insulation is cost-effective based on LSC in the older two vintages (Pre-1978 and 1978-1991) in all climate zones except Climate Zones 6-10. d. Replacing old single pane windows with new high-performance windows has a very high cost and is typically not done for energy savings alone. However, energy savings are substantial and justify costeffectiveness of this measure based on at least one metric in Climate Zones 4, 8 through 12 (PG&E territory only), and 13 through 16.
e. At time of roof replacement, a cool roof with an aged solar reflectance of 0.25 was found to be costeffective in Climate Zones 4, 6 through 12 (PG&E territory only), and 13 through 15. When the roof deck is replaced during a roof replacement, adding a radiant barrier is low cost and provides substantial cooling energy savings to be cost-effective in almost all climate zones and homes.
2. Duct measures: Many older homes have old, leaky duct systems that should be replaced when they reach the end of life, typically 20-30 years. In this case, installing new ducts was found to be cost-effective based on at least one metric (both in most cases) everywhere except mild Climate Zone 7 and Climate Zones 5 and 6 in the 1978-1991 vintage. If duct systems still have remaining life they should be sealed and tested to meet 10% leakage or lower; however, duct upgrades alone were only found to be cost-effective for newer homes in Climate Zones 10 (SDG&E territory only), 11, and 13 through 16. Duct upgrades may be able to be coupled with other measures to reduce the cost.
3. Heat pump space heating: HPSHs were found to be LSC cost-effective in many cases. The DFHP (existing furnace) was LSC cost-effective everywhere except Climate Zone 15. The HPSH was LSC cost-effective everywhere except Climate Zones 8 and 15.
a. Challenges to On-Bill cost-effectiveness include higher first costs and higher first-year utility costs due to higher electricity tariffs relative to gas tariffs. SMUD and CPAU are two exceptions where first year utility costs are lower for heat pumps than for gas equipment. Table 11 shows the impact of utility rates on cost-effectiveness of HPSH where the standard and high efficiency HPSH and the HPSH + PV measures are cost-effective under SMUD but not PG&E. Even with higher first year utility bills, there were some cases that still proved On-Bill cost-effective including the DFHP with an existing furnace in the central valley and northern coastal PG&E territories, the ducted MSHP in the central valley as well as Climate Zone 14 in SDG&E territory, and the HPSH + PV measure in CZ 3-5 (PGE), 7-11, and 12 (SMUD) – 15.
b. The ductless MSHPs, evaluated for homes with existing ductless systems, were only found to be costeffective based on either metric in Climate Zones 1 and 16. Ductless MSHPs have a high incremental cost because it is a more sophisticated system than the base model of a wall furnace with a window AC unit. However, the ductless MSHP would provide greater comfort benefits if properly installed to
16.89 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 33 Recommendations and Discussion
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 directly condition all habitable spaces (as is required under the VCHP compliance credit as evaluated in this study) which may be an incentive for a homeowner to upgrade their system. c. Higher efficiency equipment lowered utility costs in all cases and improved cost-effectiveness in many cases, particularly with a ducted MSHP.
4. Heat pump water heating: All the HPWH measures were LSC cost-effective in all climate zones. Most measures were not On-Bill cost-effective with the exception of the HPWH + PV which was cost-effective OnBill in CPAU, SMUD, and SDG&E territories in addition to Climate Zones 11, 13, 14, and 15. The HPWH measures share many of the same challenges as the HPSH measures to achieving cost-effectiveness including high first costs and utility rates and assumptions. Table 13 shows the impact of utility rates on costeffectiveness where some HPWH measures are cost-effective under SMUD utility rates but are not costeffective anywhere under PG&E rates in Climate Zone 12. a. Various HPWH locations were also explored, however there are some factors outside of costeffectiveness that should also be considered. i. HPWHs in the conditioned space can provide benefits such as free cooling during the summer, reduced tank losses, and shorter pipe lengths, and in some cases show improved cost-effectiveness over garage located HPWHs. However, there are various design considerations such as noise, comfort concerns, and condensate removal. Ducting the inlet and exhaust air resolves comfort concerns but adds costs and complexity. Split heat pump water heaters address these concerns, but currently there are limited products on the market and there is a cost premium relative to the packaged products. ii. Since HPWHs extract heat from the air and transfer it to water in the storage tank, they must have adequate ventilation to operate properly. Otherwise, the space cools down over time, impacting the HPWH operating efficiency. This is not a problem with garage installations but needs to be considered for water heaters located in interior or exterior closets. For the 2025 Title 24 code the CEC is proposing that all HPWH installations meet mandatory ventilation requirements (California Energy Commission, 2023).
5. The contractor surveys revealed overall higher heat pump costs than what has been found in previous analyses. This could be due to incentive availability raising demand for heat pumps and thereby increasing the price. This price increase may be temporary and may come down once the market stabilizes. There are also new initiatives to obtain current costs including the TECH Clean California program21 that publishes heat pump data and costs; however, at the time of this analysis, the TECH data did not contain incremental costs because it only had the heat pump costs but not the gas base case costs.
6. Table 18 shows how CARE rates and escalation rate assumptions will impact cost-effectiveness. a. Applying CARE rates in the IOU territories has the overall impact to increase utility cost savings for an all-electric building compared to a code compliant mixed fuel building, improving On-Bill costeffectiveness. This is due to the CARE discount on electricity being higher than that on gas. The reverse occurs with efficiency measures where lower utility rates reduce savings and subsequently reduce cost-effectiveness.
b. If gas tariffs are assumed to increase substantially over time, in-line with the escalation assumption from the 2025 LSC development, cost-effectiveness substantially improves for the heat pump measures over the 30-year analysis period and many cases become cost-effective that were not found to be cost-effective under the CPUC / 2022 TDV escalation scenario. 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. Future 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 for all customers.22 The CPUC will decide in mid-2024 and the new rates are expected to be in place later that year or in 2025. 21 TECH Public Reporting Home Page (techcleanca.com)
22 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/electric-costs/demand-response-dr/demandflexibility-rulemaking
16.90 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 34 Recommendations and Discussion
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 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, it also will make building efficiency measures harder to justify as cost-effective due to lower utility bill cost savings.
7. Under NBT, utility cost savings for PV 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 except Climate Zones 1 through 3 and 5 through 6.
a. Combining a heat pump with PV allows the additional electricity required by the heat pump to be offset by the PV system while also increasing on-site utilization of PV generation rather than exporting the electricity back to the grid at a low rate.
b. While not evaluated in this study, coupling PV with battery systems can be very advantageous under NBT increasing utility cost savings because of improved on-site utilization of PV generation and fewer exports to the grid.
Recommendations:
1. There are various approaches for jurisdictions who are interested in reach codes for existing buildings. Some potential approaches are listed below along with key considerations. a. Prescriptive measures: Non-preempted measures that are found to be cost-effective may be prescriptively required in a reach code. One example of this type or ordinance is a cool roof requirement at time of roof replacement. Another example is requiring specific cost-effective measures for larger remodels, such as high-performance windows when new windows are installed or duct sealing and testing where ducts are in unconditioned space. b. Replacement equipment: This flavor of reach code sets certain requirements at time of equipment replacement. This study evaluated space heating and water heating equipment. Where a heat pump measure was found to be cost-effective based on either LSC or On-Bill, this may serve as the basis of a reach code given the following considerations.
i. Where reach codes reduce energy usage and are not just fuel switching, cost-effectiveness calculations are required and must be based on equipment that does not exceed the federal minimum efficiency requirements.
ii. Where reach codes are established using cost-effectiveness based on LSC, utility bill impacts and the owner’s first cost should also be reviewed and considered. iii. A gas path should also be prescriptively allowed to safely satisfy federal preemption requirements considering the CRA v. Berkeley case.23 Additional requirements may apply to the gas path, as described in Section 3.3, as long as the paths are reasonably energy or cost equivalent.
c. “Flexible Path”, minimum energy savings target: This flexible approach establishes a target for required energy savings based on a measure or a set of measures that were found to be cost-effective based on either LSC or On-Bill. A points menu compares various potential upgrades ranging from efficiency, PV, and fuel substitution measures, based on site or source energy savings. The applicant must select upgrades that individually or in combination meet the minimum energy savings target. The measures used to set the target should be non-preempted measures.
2. Equipment replacement ordinances should consider appropriate exceptions for scenarios where it will be challenging to meet the requirements, such as location of the HPWH, total project cost limitations, or the need for service panel upgrades that wouldn’t have been required as part of the proposed scope of work in absence of the reach code.
3. Consider extending relevant proposals made by the CEC for the 2025 Title 24 code (California Energy Commission, 2023) in ordinances that apply under the 2022 Title 24 code, such as the following:
a. Mandatory ventilation requirements for HPWH installations (Section 110.3(c)7). 23 https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/2024-01/CRA-v-Berkeley-Ninth-Circuit-Opinion-Jan2024.pdf
16.91 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 35 Recommendations and Discussion
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 b. Requirement for HERS verified refrigerant charge verification for heat pumps in all climate zones (Table 150.1-A24).
4. When evaluating reach code strategies, the Reach Codes Team recommends that jurisdictions consider combined benefits of energy efficiency alongside electrification. 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.
5. Education and training can play a critical role in ensuring that heat pumps are installed, commissioned, and controlled properly to mitigate grid impacts and maximize occupant satisfaction. Below are select recommended strategies.
a. The Quality Residential HVAC Services Program25 is an incentive program to train California contractors in providing quality installation and maintenance while advancing energy-efficient technologies in the residential HVAC industry. Jurisdictions can market this to local contractors to increase the penetration of contractors skilled in heat pump design and installation. b. Educate residents and contractors of available incentives, tax credits, and financing opportunities. c. Educate contractors on code requirements. Energy Code Ace provides free tools, trainings, and resource to help Californians comply with the energy code. Contractors can access interactive compliance forms, fact sheets, and live and recorded trainings, among other things, on the website:
https://energycodeace.com/. Jurisdictions can reach out to Energy Code Ace directly to discuss offerings.
6. Health and safety
a. Combustion Appliance Safety and Indoor Air Quality: Implementation of some of the recommended measures will affect the pressure balance of the home which can subsequently impact the safe operation of existing combustion appliances as well as indoor air quality. Buildings with older gas appliances can present serious health and safety problems which may not be addressed in a remodel if the appliances are not being replaced. It is recommended that the building department require inspection and testing of all combustion appliances located within the pressure boundary of the building after completion of retrofit work that involves air sealing or insulation measures. b. Jurisdictions may consider requiring mechanical ventilation in homes where air sealing has been conducted. In older buildings, outdoor air is typically introduced through leaks in the building envelope.
After air sealing a building, it may be necessary to forcefully bring in fresh outdoor air using supply and/or exhaust fans to minimize potential issues associated with indoor air quality. 24 This requirement does not show up in the Express Terms for alterations in Section 150.2(b)1F, but the Statewide Reach Codes Team expects that it will be added to the next release of the proposed code language in the 45-day language as it aligns with the proposal made by the Codes and Standards Enhancement Team (Statewide CASE Team, 2023). 25 https://qualityhvac.frontierenergy.com/
16.92 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 36 References
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 5 References
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. (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. (2022b). 2022 Reference Appendices for the 202 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.
CEC-400-2022-010-AP. Retrieved from https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/CEC-400- 2022-010-AP.pdf
California Energy Commission. (2022c, Feb). 2022 Single-Family Residential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual. CEC-400-2022-008-CMF-REV. Retrieved from https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2022/2022- single-family-residential-alternative-calculation-method-reference-manual California Energy Commission. (2023). 2025 Energy code Hourly Factors. Retrieved from https://www.energy.ca.gov/files/2025-energy-code-hourly-factors California Energy Commission. (2023). Draft 2025 Energy Code Express Terms. Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=252915&DocumentContentId=88051 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 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 Department of Energy. (2023). Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Room Air Conditioners. Retrieved from https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0059-0053 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
Statewide CASE Team. (2023). Residential HVAC Performance. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative 2025 California Energy Code. Prepared by Frontier Energy. Retrieved from https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Revised_2025_T24_Final-CASE-Report-RESHVAC-Performance.pdf Statewide Reach Codes. (2023). Cost Effectiveness Explorer. Retrieved from Cost Effectiveness Explorer:
https://explorer.localenergycodes.com/
Statewide Reach Codes Team. (2021). 2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Residential Buidling Upgrades. Retrieved from https://localenergycodes.com/content/resources
16.93 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 37 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 6 Appendices
6.1 Map of California Climate Zones
Climate zone geographical boundaries are depicted in Figure 16. The map in Figure 16 along with a zip-code search directory is available at: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html Figure 16. Map of California climate zones.
16.94 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 38 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25
6.2 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.26 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. 26 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/natural-gas/greenhouse-gas-cap-and-trade-program/californiaclimate-credit
16.95 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 39 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25
6.2.1 Pacific Gas & Electric
The following pages provide details on the PG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 20 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 20. 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 in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis according to the rates shown in Table 21.
These rates are based on applying a normalization curve to the November 2023 tariff based on ten years of historical gas data. Corresponding CARE rates reflect the 20 percent discount per the GL-1 tariff.
Table 21. PG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/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
16.96 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 40 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards 16.97 | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 41 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards 16.98 | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 42 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards 16.99 | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 43 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards 16.100 | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 44 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards 16.101 | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 45 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards 16.102 | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 46 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards 16.103 | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 47 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25
6.2.2 Southern California Edison
The following pages provide details on the SCE electricity tariffs applied in this study. Table 22 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 22: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
Climate
Zone
Baseline
Territory
CZ06 6
CZ08 8
CZ09 9
CZ10 10
CZ14 14
CZ15 15
16.104
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 48 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards 16.105 | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 49 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards 16.106 | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 50 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards 16.107 | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 51 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25
6.2.3 Southern California Gas
Following are the SoCalGas natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 23 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone.
Table 23. 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 $/therm was applied on a monthly basis according to the rates shown in Table 24.
These rates are based on applying a normalization curve to the November 2023 tariff based on ten years of historical gas data. Long-term historical natural gas rate data was only available for SoCalGas’ procurement charges.27 The baseline and excess transmission charges were found to be consistent over the course of a year and applied for the entire year based on 2023 rates. CARE rates reflect the 20 percent discount per the GR tariff.
Table 24. SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/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
27 The SoCalGas procurement and transmission charges were obtained from the following site:
https://www.socalgas.com/for-your-business/energy-market-services/gas-prices RES2023.xlsx (live.com)
16.108
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 52 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards 16.109 | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 53 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25
6.2.4 San Diego Gas & Electric
Following are the SDG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 25 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 25. SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone
Climate
Zone
Baseline
Territory
CZ07 Coastal
CZ10 Inland
CZ14 Mountain
The SDG&E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis according to the rates shown in Table
26. These rates are based on applying a normalization curve to the November 2023 tariff based on ten years of historical gas data. CARE rates reflect the 20 percent discount per the G-CARE tariff.
Table 26. SDG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/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
16.110
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 54 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards 16.111 | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 55 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards 16.112 | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 56 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards 16.113 | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 57 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards 16.114 | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 58 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards 16.115 | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 59 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards 16.116 | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 60 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards 16.117 | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 61 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards 16.118 | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 62 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards 16.119 | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 63 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25
6.2.5 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 27. 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 $14.01 per month per the November 2023 G-1 tariff.
Table 27. CPAU Monthly Gas Rate ($/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
16.120
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 64 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards 16.121 | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 65 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25
6.2.6 Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (Electric Only) Following are the SMUD electricity tariffs applied in this study. The rates effective January 2023 were used.
16.122
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 66 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards 16.123 | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 67 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25
6.2.7 Fuel Escalation Assumptions
The average annual escalation rates in Table 28 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 29 presents the average annual escalation rates used in the utility rate escalation sensitivity analysis shown in Section 3.2.4. 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 2053.28 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 the 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 28: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions, CPUC En Banc and 2022 TDV Basis
28https://www.energy.ca.gov/files/2025-energy-code-hourly-factors. Actual escalation factors were provided by consultants E3.
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%
16.124
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 68 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Table 29: 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%
16.125
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 69 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 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
16.126
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 70 Appendices
California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25
16.127
Application of the 2022
Studies to the 2025
Energy Code:
Existing Single Family
Building Upgrades
Prepared by:
Frontier Energy, Inc
Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC
Prepared for:
Kelly Cunningham, Codes and
Standards Program, Pacific Gas
and Electric
Revision: 1.0
Last modified: 2025/08/15
16.128
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 1 2025/08/15
Table 1 Summary of Revisions
Date Description Reference (page or section)
8/15/2025 Original Release N/A
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 2025, 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.
16.129
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 2 2025/08/15
Acronym List
B/C – Lifecycle Benefit-to-Cost
Ratio
CASE – Codes and Standards
Enhancement
CFL – Compact Fluorescent
Lamps
CPAU – City of Palo Alto Utilities
CPUC – California Public Utilities
Commission
CZ – California Climate Zone
kWh – Kilowatt Hour
NPV – Net Present Value
PG&E – Pacific Gas and Electric
Company
PV – Photovoltaic
SCE – Southern California
Edison
SDG&E – San Diego Gas and
Electric
SMUD – Sacramento Municipal
Utility District
SoCalGas – Southern California
Gas Company
Therm – Unit for quantity of heat
that equals 100,000 British
thermal units
16.130
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 1 2025/08/15
Table of Contents
1 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 2 2 Air Sealing at the Ceiling............................................................................................. 4 3 Lighting Measures .....................................................................................................10 4 Water Heating Package..............................................................................................14 5 PV................................................................................................................................15 6 References .................................................................................................................22 List of Tables
Table 1 Summary of Revisions............................................................................................. 1 Table 2. [Pre-1978] Air Sealing at the Ceiling (Std)............................................................... 4 Table 3. [1978-1991] Air Sealing at the Ceiling (Std) ............................................................ 5 Table 4. [1992-2010] Air Sealing at the Ceiling (Std) ............................................................ 6 Table 5. [Pre-1978] Air Sealing at the Ceiling (CARE) .......................................................... 7 Table 6. [1978-1991] Air Sealing at the Ceiling (CARE)........................................................ 8 Table 7. [1991-2010] Air Sealing at the Ceiling (CARE)........................................................ 9 Table 8. [All Vintages] LED Lamp vs. CFL...........................................................................11 Table 9. [All Vintages] Exterior Photosensor........................................................................12 Table 10. [All Vintages] LED and Photosensor ....................................................................13 Table 11. [All Vintages] Water Heating Package..................................................................14 Table 12. [Pre-1978] 3 kW PV without Solar Tax Credit (Std) ..............................................16 Table 13. [1978-1991] 3 kW PV without Solar Tax Credit (Std)...........................................17 Table 14. [1992-2010] 3 kW PV without Solar Tax Credit (Std)............................................18 Table 15. [Pre-1978] 3 kW PV without Solar Tax Credit (CARE)..........................................19 Table 16. [1978-1991] 3 kW PV without Solar Tax Credit (CARE) .......................................20 Table 17. [1992-2010] 3 kW PV without Solar Tax Credit (CARE) .......................................21 List of Figures
No table of figures entries found.
16.131
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 2 2025/08/15
1 Summary
The California Codes and Standards (C&S) Reach Codes program provides technical support to local governments considering adopting a local ordinance (reach code) intended to support meeting local and/or statewide energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction goals. The program facilitates adoption and implementation of the code when requested by local jurisdictions by providing resources such as cost-effectiveness studies, model language, sample findings, and other supporting documentation.
In April 2024, the Statewide Reach Codes Team published the 2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades. This study focuses on existing single family buildings identifying cost-effective measures and measure package upgrades in all 16 California climate zones. The study was conducted to complement Part 6 of the California Building Code (the Energy Code) for the 2022 code cycle, effective January 1, 2023. In the 2019 code cycle the 2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Residential Building Upgrades study included outdoor lighting and a water heater package that was discontinued in the 2022 study but has been brought back in this memo by request from jurisdictions. The studies document the estimated costs, benefits, energy impacts and greenhouse gas emission reductions that may result from implementing an ordinance to help local leadership, residents, and other stakeholders make informed policy decisions.
The Statewide Reach Codes Team reviewed the cost-effectiveness study for impacts of code changes implemented in the 2025 Energy Code. Measures that are now required by code may alter the results presented in the 2022 study. Below is a summary of the changes to the additions and alterations for residential buildings sections of the 2025 Energy Code. • Mandatory wall insulation R-value has been increased from R-13 to R-15. [Section 150.2(a) of the Energy Code]
• Prescriptive window U-factor has decreased from 0.30 to 0.27 in Climate Zones 1-5, 11-14, and 16. [Section 150.2(b)1B of the Energy Code]
The wall insulation measure has been re-evaluated with R-15 instead of R-13. There is generally a slight increase in utility cost savings as expected with the increase in efficiency.
However, there is not a substantial impact on the cost-effectiveness results.
For the prescriptive window U-factor, the original study modeled U-0.28 in all climate zones.
This updated memo drops the U-factor from 0.28 to 0.27 in all climate zones. The SHGC is maintained at 0.23 for climate zone 2, 4, and 6-15 and 0.35 for CZ 1, 3, 5, 16. There is minimal impact on the cost-effectiveness results due to this update. However, there are two instances in the 1978-1991 vintage where cost-effectiveness flips from cost-effective to not cost-effective. Climate zone 4 in PGE territory utilizing standard rates and the modest gas escalation is no longer cost-effective on-bill by the smallest margin. Climate zone 10 in SDGE territory utilizing CARE rates and the modest gas escalation has also become no longer cost-effective on-bill.
16.132
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 3 2025/08/15
The 2022 study included a whole building air sealing measure defined as a 30% reduction in air leakage. A new measure – air sealing of the ceiling floor, representing a 14% reduction in air leakage – is added in this memo. Further details and cost-effectiveness results are provided in Section 2.
Lighting measures were previously presented in the 2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Residential Building Upgrades study but were not analyzed in the 2022 study.
Updated cost-effectiveness analysis for this measure is presented in Section 3.
The water heating package measure was previously presented in 2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Residential Building Upgrades study. Updated costeffectiveness analysis for this measure is presented in Section 4.
The 3 kW PV measure from the 2022 study is revised here with an updated costeffectiveness analysis that accounts for the elimination of the Federal Solar tax credit December 31, 2025. Additional details and analysis are provided in Section 5.
The 2022 report, 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].
16.133
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 4 2025/08/15
2 Air Sealing at the Ceiling
Unlike full air sealing, which has previously been presented, air sealing of the ceiling floor may be an attractive measure for an attic remodel project. The whole building air sealing measure estimated a 30% reduction in air leakage, while air sealing at the ceiling measure results in a 14% reduction in air leakage.
Table 2 through Table 7 present the cost-effectiveness results for the air sealing at the ceiling plane measure. The estimated incremental cost for air sealing at the ceiling plane is $1,963 which is from the 2022 Residential Additions and Alterations CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020).
Table 2. [Pre-1978] Air Sealing at the Ceiling (Std)
Climate
Zone
Electric/ Gas
Utility
First
Incremental
Cost
First-year
Utility
Savings
Lifecycle NPV Savings
2025
LSC NPV
On-Bill NPV
Modest Gas
Escalation
On-Bill NPV
High Gas
Escalation
CZ01 PGE $1,963 $33 ($465) ($997) ($432)
CZ02 PGE $1,963 $18 ($1,114) ($1,433) ($1,118)
CZ03 PGE $1,963 $17 ($1,180) ($1,463) ($1,171)
CZ04 PGE $1,963 $25 ($1,081) ($1,290) ($979)
CZ04 CPAU $1,963 $21 ($1,081) ($1,379) ($1,069)
CZ05 PGE $1,963 $16 ($1,230) ($1,500) ($1,235)
CZ05 PGE/SCG $1,963 $14 ($1,230) ($1,555) ($1,325)
CZ06 SCE/SCG $1,963 ($2) ($1,797) ($1,987) ($1,937)
CZ07 SDGE $1,963 ($3) ($1,813) ($2,008) ($1,934)
CZ08 SCE/SCG $1,963 $7 ($1,680) ($1,775) ($1,703)
CZ09 SCE/SCG $1,963 $10 ($1,597) ($1,693) ($1,592)
CZ10 SCE/SCG $1,963 $17 ($1,497) ($1,540) ($1,420)
CZ10 SDGE $1,963 $23 ($1,497) ($1,366) ($1,237)
CZ11 PGE $1,963 $32 ($1,014) ($1,120) ($816)
CZ12 PGE $1,963 $22 ($1,147) ($1,348) ($1,064)
CZ12 SMUD/PGE $1,963 $17 ($1,147) ($1,468) ($1,190)
CZ13 PGE $1,963 $31 ($1,114) ($1,162) ($918)
CZ14 SCE/SCG $1,963 $32 ($897) ($1,130) ($832)
CZ14 SDGE $1,963 $42 ($897) ($845) ($519)
CZ15 SCE/SCG $1,963 $40 ($1,297) ($1,041) ($946)
CZ16 PGE $1,963 $30 ($581) ($1,071) ($551)
16.134
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 5 2025/08/15
Table 3. [1978-1991] Air Sealing at the Ceiling (Std)
Climate
Zone
Electric/ Gas
Utility
First
Incremental
Cost
First-year
Utility
Savings
Lifecycle NPV Savings
2025
LSC NPV
On-Bill NPV
Modest Gas
Escalation
On-Bill NPV
High Gas
Escalation
CZ01 PGE $1,963 $23 ($931) ($1,292) ($903)
CZ02 PGE $1,963 $13 ($1,364) ($1,570) ($1,341)
CZ03 PGE $1,963 $10 ($1,480) ($1,668) ($1,496)
CZ04 PGE $1,963 $16 ($1,330) ($1,522) ($1,292)
CZ04 CPAU $1,963 $13 ($1,330) ($1,575) ($1,356)
CZ05 PGE $1,963 $11 ($1,447) ($1,649) ($1,466)
CZ05 PGE/SCG $1,963 $10 ($1,447) ($1,684) ($1,522)
CZ06 SCE/SCG $1,963 ($1) ($1,830) ($1,967) ($1,934)
CZ07 SDGE $1,963 ($4) ($1,896) ($2,040) ($1,991)
CZ08 SCE/SCG $1,963 $4 ($1,797) ($1,860) ($1,813)
CZ09 SCE/SCG $1,963 $5 ($1,747) ($1,823) ($1,764)
CZ10 SCE/SCG $1,963 $10 ($1,663) ($1,722) ($1,652)
CZ10 SDGE $1,963 $14 ($1,663) ($1,603) ($1,517)
CZ11 PGE $1,963 $25 ($1,264) ($1,320) ($1,096)
CZ12 PGE $1,963 $16 ($1,380) ($1,520) ($1,314)
CZ12 SMUD/PGE $1,963 $12 ($1,380) ($1,604) ($1,402)
CZ13 PGE $1,963 $23 ($1,364) ($1,373) ($1,199)
CZ14 SCE/SCG $1,963 $22 ($1,230) ($1,397) ($1,182)
CZ14 SDGE $1,963 $28 ($1,230) ($1,212) ($974)
CZ15 SCE/SCG $1,963 $32 ($1,463) ($1,225) ($1,154)
CZ16 PGE $1,963 $21 ($1,014) ($1,357) ($1,001)
16.135
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 6 2025/08/15
Table 4. [1992-2010] Air Sealing at the Ceiling (Std)
Climate
Zone
Electric/ Gas
Utility
First
Incremental
Cost
First-year
Utility
Savings
Lifecycle NPV Savings
2025
LSC NPV
On-Bill NPV
Modest Gas
Escalation
On-Bill NPV
High Gas
Escalation
CZ01 PGE $1,963 $14 ($1,314) ($1,550) ($1,309)
CZ02 PGE $1,963 $9 ($1,530) ($1,687) ($1,529)
CZ03 PGE $1,963 $7 ($1,613) ($1,744) ($1,618)
CZ04 PGE $1,963 $11 ($1,530) ($1,653) ($1,501)
CZ04 CPAU $1,963 $9 ($1,530) ($1,701) ($1,557)
CZ05 PGE $1,963 $7 ($1,613) ($1,759) ($1,637)
CZ05 PGE/SCG $1,963 $6 ($1,613) ($1,788) ($1,686)
CZ06 SCE/SCG $1,963 $1 ($1,863) ($1,936) ($1,911)
CZ07 SDGE $1,963 $0 ($1,896) ($1,944) ($1,911)
CZ08 SCE/SCG $1,963 $3 ($1,830) ($1,885) ($1,851)
CZ09 SCE/SCG $1,963 $3 ($1,780) ($1,892) ($1,853)
CZ10 SCE/SCG $1,963 $6 ($1,763) ($1,814) ($1,767)
CZ10 SDGE $1,963 $8 ($1,763) ($1,741) ($1,681)
CZ11 PGE $1,963 $14 ($1,530) ($1,581) ($1,437)
CZ12 PGE $1,963 $10 ($1,580) ($1,693) ($1,560)
CZ12 SMUD/PGE $1,963 $8 ($1,580) ($1,737) ($1,606)
CZ13 PGE $1,963 $12 ($1,580) ($1,643) ($1,531)
CZ14 SCE/SCG $1,963 $12 ($1,530) ($1,639) ($1,503)
CZ14 SDGE $1,963 $16 ($1,530) ($1,537) ($1,382)
CZ15 SCE/SCG $1,963 $17 ($1,680) ($1,572) ($1,532)
CZ16 PGE $1,963 $14 ($1,314) ($1,556) ($1,314)
16.136
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 7 2025/08/15
Table 5. [Pre-1978] Air Sealing at the Ceiling (CARE)
Climate
Zone
Electric/ Gas
Utility
First
Incremental
Cost
First-year
Utility
Savings
Lifecycle NPV Savings
2025
LSC NPV
On-Bill NPV
Modest Gas
Escalation
On-Bill NPV
High Gas
Escalation
CZ01 PGE $1,963 $26 ($465) ($1,212) ($766)
CZ02 PGE $1,963 $14 ($1,114) ($1,550) ($1,302)
CZ03 PGE $1,963 $13 ($1,180) ($1,574) ($1,343)
CZ04 PGE $1,963 $18 ($1,081) ($1,459) ($1,216)
CZ04 CPAU $1,963 $0 ($1,081) ($1,963) ($1,963)
CZ05 PGE $1,963 $12 ($1,230) ($1,604) ($1,395)
CZ05 PGE/SCG $1,963 $11 ($1,230) ($1,648) ($1,467)
CZ06 SCE/SCG $1,963 ($1) ($1,797) ($1,969) ($1,928)
CZ07 SDGE $1,963 ($1) ($1,813) ($1,976) ($1,918)
CZ08 SCE/SCG $1,963 $5 ($1,680) ($1,824) ($1,768)
CZ09 SCE/SCG $1,963 $8 ($1,597) ($1,764) ($1,686)
CZ10 SCE/SCG $1,963 $12 ($1,497) ($1,659) ($1,566)
CZ10 SDGE $1,963 $16 ($1,497) ($1,546) ($1,443)
CZ11 PGE $1,963 $23 ($1,014) ($1,353) ($1,116)
CZ12 PGE $1,963 $17 ($1,147) ($1,503) ($1,279)
CZ12 SMUD/PGE $1,963 $11 ($1,147) ($1,623) ($1,406)
CZ13 PGE $1,963 $22 ($1,114) ($1,394) ($1,205)
CZ14 SCE/SCG $1,963 $23 ($897) ($1,352) ($1,120)
CZ14 SDGE $1,963 $30 ($897) ($1,163) ($905)
CZ15 SCE/SCG $1,963 $27 ($1,297) ($1,334) ($1,266)
CZ16 PGE $1,963 $24 ($581) ($1,270) ($859)
16.137
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 8 2025/08/15
Table 6. [1978-1991] Air Sealing at the Ceiling (CARE)
Climate
Zone
Electric/ Gas
Utility
First
Incremental
Cost
First-year
Utility
Savings
Lifecycle NPV Savings
2025
LSC NPV
On-Bill NPV
Modest Gas
Escalation
On-Bill NPV
High Gas
Escalation
CZ01 PGE $1,963 $18 ($931) ($1,442) ($1,135)
CZ02 PGE $1,963 $10 ($1,364) ($1,658) ($1,477)
CZ03 PGE $1,963 $8 ($1,480) ($1,734) ($1,598)
CZ04 PGE $1,963 $12 ($1,330) ($1,627) ($1,446)
CZ04 CPAU $1,963 $0 ($1,330) ($1,963) ($1,963)
CZ05 PGE $1,963 $8 ($1,447) ($1,719) ($1,575)
CZ05 PGE/SCG $1,963 $7 ($1,447) ($1,746) ($1,619)
CZ06 SCE/SCG $1,963 ($0) ($1,830) ($1,959) ($1,933)
CZ07 SDGE $1,963 ($2) ($1,896) ($2,003) ($1,964)
CZ08 SCE/SCG $1,963 $3 ($1,797) ($1,886) ($1,848)
CZ09 SCE/SCG $1,963 $4 ($1,747) ($1,859) ($1,813)
CZ10 SCE/SCG $1,963 $7 ($1,663) ($1,790) ($1,736)
CZ10 SDGE $1,963 $10 ($1,663) ($1,710) ($1,641)
CZ11 PGE $1,963 $18 ($1,264) ($1,500) ($1,325)
CZ12 PGE $1,963 $12 ($1,380) ($1,631) ($1,469)
CZ12 SMUD/PGE $1,963 $8 ($1,380) ($1,716) ($1,558)
CZ13 PGE $1,963 $16 ($1,364) ($1,545) ($1,411)
CZ14 SCE/SCG $1,963 $16 ($1,230) ($1,545) ($1,378)
CZ14 SDGE $1,963 $20 ($1,230) ($1,422) ($1,233)
CZ15 SCE/SCG $1,963 $22 ($1,463) ($1,460) ($1,410)
CZ16 PGE $1,963 $16 ($1,014) ($1,491) ($1,211)
16.138
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 9 2025/08/15
Table 7. [1991-2010] Air Sealing at the Ceiling (CARE)
Climate
Zone
Electric/ Gas
Utility
First
Incremental
Cost
First-year
Utility
Savings
Lifecycle NPV Savings
2025
LSC NPV
On-Bill NPV
Modest Gas
Escalation
On-Bill NPV
High Gas
Escalation
CZ01 PGE $1,963 $11 ($1,314) ($1,642) ($1,452)
CZ02 PGE $1,963 $7 ($1,530) ($1,749) ($1,625)
CZ03 PGE $1,963 $6 ($1,613) ($1,793) ($1,693)
CZ04 PGE $1,963 $8 ($1,530) ($1,729) ($1,609)
CZ04 CPAU $1,963 $0 ($1,530) ($1,963) ($1,963)
CZ05 PGE $1,963 $5 ($1,613) ($1,804) ($1,708)
CZ05 PGE/SCG $1,963 $5 ($1,613) ($1,827) ($1,747)
CZ06 SCE/SCG $1,963 $1 ($1,863) ($1,940) ($1,920)
CZ07 SDGE $1,963 $0 ($1,896) ($1,944) ($1,918)
CZ08 SCE/SCG $1,963 $2 ($1,830) ($1,905) ($1,879)
CZ09 SCE/SCG $1,963 $2 ($1,780) ($1,908) ($1,878)
CZ10 SCE/SCG $1,963 $4 ($1,763) ($1,855) ($1,819)
CZ10 SDGE $1,963 $6 ($1,763) ($1,805) ($1,758)
CZ11 PGE $1,963 $10 ($1,530) ($1,685) ($1,572)
CZ12 PGE $1,963 $7 ($1,580) ($1,759) ($1,654)
CZ12 SMUD/PGE $1,963 $5 ($1,580) ($1,802) ($1,700)
CZ13 PGE $1,963 $9 ($1,580) ($1,732) ($1,644)
CZ14 SCE/SCG $1,963 $9 ($1,530) ($1,722) ($1,615)
CZ14 SDGE $1,963 $11 ($1,530) ($1,652) ($1,529)
CZ15 SCE/SCG $1,963 $12 ($1,680) ($1,696) ($1,667)
CZ16 PGE $1,963 $11 ($1,314) ($1,645) ($1,454)
16.139
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 10 2025/08/15
3 Lighting Measures
LED lighting and exterior lighting control measures were previously evaluated in the 2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Residential Building Upgrades study.
These measures are not included in the 2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades study, but have been re-evaluated and included in this memo.
The updated analysis follows the same methodology as the 2019 study, but with updated costs for equipment and updated utility rates.
The three measures evaluated are LED lighting, exterior photosensor, and LED lighting plus photosensor. Table 8 through Table 10 show the results for the different lighting measures evaluated. Each measure is explained in more detail below.
LED Lighting: Replace screw-in (A-based for lamps) incandescent lamps and compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) with light-emitting diode (LED) A-lamps. This analysis was conducted external to the energy model and evaluated replacement of a 13 W CFL lamp with an 9.6 W LED lamp operating 620 hours annually. Annual hour estimates were based on whole building average hours of operation from a 2010 lighting study by KEMA (KEMA, 2010). Lifetime assumptions were 10,000 hours for CFLs and 25,000 hours for LED lamps.
For incremental cost calculations it was assumed CFLs have a lifetime of 15 years, are installed five years prior to the retrofit, and would need to be replaced at year ten and 25.
Exterior Lighting Controls/Photosensor: Evaluation of exterior lighting controls was completed on a per-luminaire basis external to the energy model and assumes a screw-in photosensor control is installed in outdoor lighting luminaires. Energy savings of 12.1 kWh per year was applied based on analysis done by the Consortium for Energy Efficiency, assuming LED lamps, 2.6 hours per day of operation, and that photosensor controls reduce operating hours on average 20 percent each day (CEE, 2014). Energy savings will be higher for incandescent or CFL luminaires.
Exterior Lighting Controls/Photosensor+LED: An additional evaluation was completed for exterior lighting controls on a per-luminaire basis external to the energy model and assumes a screw-in photosensor control is installed in outdoor lighting luminaires and incandescent lamps CFLs are replaced with light-emitting diode (LED) A-lamps. Energy savings of 14.3 kWh per year was applied based on the sum of the LED lighting and Exterior Lighting Controls with Photosensor kWh energy savings.
For the measures including a LED, a cost of $3.49 for LED dimmable A19 lamp 60 W equivalent is used. A cost of $1.74 is used for an equivalent CFL product which was used to estimate total replacement costs at years 10 and 25. Costs are based on a single LED lamp replacement. For the photosensor, an incremental cost of $12.62, based on a screw-in photosensor control, was obtained from an on-line product search of available products. A five-year lifetime for this type of control was assumed.
16.140
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 11 2025/08/15
Table 8. [All Vintages] LED Lamp vs. CFL
Climate
Zone
Electric/ Gas
Utility
Measure
Cost
Electricity
Savings
First Year
Utility
Cost
Savings
Customer On-Bill
Modest Gas Escalation
Customer On-Bill
High Gas Escalation
B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE $1.75 2.2 $0.77 10.05 $15.82 10.58 $16.74
CZ02 PGE $1.75 2.2 $0.86 11.26 $17.94 11.85 $18.98
CZ03 PGE $1.75 2.2 $0.78 10.14 $15.99 10.68 $16.92
CZ04 PGE $1.75 2.2 $0.80 10.39 $16.42 10.94 $17.38
CZ04 CPAU $1.75 2.2 $0.41 5.32 $7.56 5.60 $8.05
CZ05 PGE $1.75 2.2 $0.78 10.14 $15.99 10.67 $16.92
CZ05 PGE/SCG $1.75 2.2 $0.78 10.14 $15.99 10.67 $16.92
CZ06 SCE/SCG $1.75 2.2 $0.66 8.44 $13.01 8.99 $13.97
CZ07 SDGE $1.75 2.2 $0.95 13.15 $21.24 13.03 $21.04
CZ08 SCE/SCG $1.75 2.2 $0.74 9.51 $14.89 10.14 $15.98
CZ09 SCE/SCG $1.75 2.2 $0.71 9.17 $14.29 9.77 $15.33
CZ10 SCE/SCG $1.75 2.2 $0.73 9.38 $14.65 9.99 $15.72
CZ10 SDGE $1.75 2.2 $1.07 14.86 $24.24 14.74 $24.02
CZ11 PGE $1.75 2.2 $0.85 11.05 $17.57 11.63 $18.59
CZ12 PGE $1.75 2.2 $0.79 10.32 $16.29 10.86 $17.24
CZ12 SMUD/PGE $1.75 2.2 $0.47 6.08 $8.88 6.40 $9.44
CZ13 PGE $1.75 2.2 $0.86 11.27 $17.96 11.86 $19.00
CZ14 SCE/SCG $1.75 2.2 $0.74 9.58 $15.00 10.21 $16.10
CZ14 SDGE $1.75 2.2 $1.06 14.68 $23.93 14.56 $23.71
CZ15 SCE/SCG $1.75 2.2 $0.78 10.01 $15.75 10.66 $16.90
CZ16 PGE $1.75 2.2 $0.77 9.98 $15.71 10.51 $16.62
16.141
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 12 2025/08/15
Table 9. [All Vintages] Exterior Photosensor
Climate
Zone
Electric/ Gas
Utility
Measure
Cost
Electricity
Savings
First Year
Utility
Cost
Savings
Customer On-Bill
Modest Gas Escalation
Customer On-Bill
High Gas Escalation
B/C Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE $54.03 12.1 $4.16 1.75 $40.75 1.85 $45.74
CZ02 PGE $54.03 12.1 $4.16 1.75 $40.75 1.85 $45.74
CZ03 PGE $54.03 12.1 $4.16 1.75 $40.75 1.85 $45.74
CZ04 PGE $54.03 12.1 $4.16 1.75 $40.75 1.85 $45.74
CZ04 CPAU $54.03 12.1 $2.12 0.89 ($5.69) 0.94 ($3.15)
CZ05 PGE $54.03 12.1 $4.16 1.75 $40.75 1.85 $45.74
CZ05 PGE/SCG $54.03 12.1 $4.16 1.75 $40.75 1.85 $45.74
CZ06 SCE/SCG $54.03 12.1 $3.48 1.45 $24.36 1.55 $29.48
CZ07 SDGE $54.03 12.1 $5.07 2.27 $68.58 2.25 $67.53
CZ08 SCE/SCG $54.03 12.1 $3.48 1.45 $24.36 1.55 $29.48
CZ09 SCE/SCG $54.03 12.1 $3.48 1.45 $24.36 1.55 $29.48
CZ10 SCE/SCG $54.03 12.1 $3.48 1.45 $24.36 1.55 $29.48
CZ10 SDGE $54.03 12.1 $5.07 2.27 $68.58 2.25 $67.53
CZ11 PGE $54.03 12.1 $4.16 1.75 $40.75 1.85 $45.74
CZ12 PGE $54.03 12.1 $4.16 1.75 $40.75 1.85 $45.74
CZ12 SMUD/PGE $54.03 12.1 $1.46 0.62 ($20.73) 0.65 ($18.98) CZ13 PGE $54.03 12.1 $4.16 1.75 $40.75 1.85 $45.74
CZ14 SCE/SCG $54.03 12.1 $3.48 1.45 $24.36 1.55 $29.48
CZ14 SDGE $54.03 12.1 $5.07 2.27 $68.58 2.25 $67.53
CZ15 SCE/SCG $54.03 12.1 $3.48 1.45 $24.36 1.55 $29.48
CZ16 PGE $54.03 12.1 $4.16 1.75 $40.75 1.85 $45.74
16.142
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 13 2025/08/15
Table 10. [All Vintages] LED and Photosensor
Climate
Zone
Electric/ Gas
Utility
Measure
Cost
Electricity
Savings
First Year
Utility Cost
Savings
Customer On-Bill
Modest Gas Escalation
Customer On-Bill High
Gas Escalation
B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE $55.77 14.3 $4.93 2.01 $56.57 2.12 $62.48
CZ02 PGE $55.77 14.3 $5.02 2.05 $58.70 2.16 $64.72
CZ03 PGE $55.77 14.3 $4.94 2.02 $56.74 2.12 $62.66
CZ04 PGE $55.77 14.3 $4.95 2.03 $57.17 2.13 $63.12
CZ04 CPAU $55.77 14.3 $2.53 1.03 $1.87 1.09 $4.90
CZ05 PGE $55.77 14.3 $4.94 2.02 $56.74 2.12 $62.66
CZ05 PGE/SCG $55.77 14.3 $4.94 2.02 $56.74 2.12 $62.66
CZ06 SCE/SCG $55.77 14.3 $4.13 1.67 $37.37 1.78 $43.45
CZ07 SDGE $55.77 14.3 $6.02 2.61 $89.82 2.59 $88.57
CZ08 SCE/SCG $55.77 14.3 $4.22 1.70 $39.25 1.82 $45.46
CZ09 SCE/SCG $55.77 14.3 $4.19 1.69 $38.65 1.80 $44.82
CZ10 SCE/SCG $55.77 14.3 $4.21 1.70 $39.01 1.81 $45.20
CZ10 SDGE $55.77 14.3 $6.14 2.66 $92.82 2.64 $91.55
CZ11 PGE $55.77 14.3 $5.00 2.05 $58.33 2.15 $64.33
CZ12 PGE $55.77 14.3 $4.95 2.02 $57.05 2.13 $62.98
CZ12 SMUD/PGE $55.77 14.3 $1.93 0.79 ($11.85) 0.83 ($9.54) CZ13 PGE $55.77 14.3 $5.02 2.05 $58.71 2.16 $64.73
CZ14 SCE/SCG $55.77 14.3 $4.22 1.71 $39.37 1.82 $45.58
CZ14 SDGE $55.77 14.3 $6.13 2.66 $92.51 2.64 $91.24
CZ15 SCE/SCG $55.77 14.3 $4.26 1.72 $40.12 1.83 $46.38
CZ16 PGE $55.77 14.3 $4.92 2.01 $56.46 2.12 $62.36
16.143
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 14 2025/08/15
4 Water Heating Package
This package includes the following:
• R-6 water heater blanket
• R-3 hot water pipe insulation
• Low flow fixtures: two low flow showerheads and three sink aerators.
This analysis assumes the homeowner installs these measures themselves and therefore no labor costs. Costs are based on Home Depot prices from August of 2025. The water heater package is evaluated over a 15-year analysis period and assumes the modest gas escalation rate.
Table 11. [All Vintages] Water Heating Package
Climate
Zone
Electric/ Gas
Utility
Measure
Cost
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Customer On-Bill
First Year Utility
Cost Savings B/C Ratio NPV
CZ01 PGE $125.68 14.69 $31.11 3.96 $371.76
CZ02 PGE $125.68 15.60 $35.20 4.48 $437.15
CZ03 PGE $125.68 15.70 $31.43 4.00 $376.88
CZ04 PGE $125.68 16.05 $32.62 4.15 $395.78
CZ04 CPAU $125.68 16.05 $31.99 4.07 $385.77
CZ05 PGE $125.68 15.83 $31.37 3.99 $375.88
CZ05 PGE/SCG $125.68 15.83 $28.29 3.60 $326.59
CZ06 SCE/SCG $125.68 16.67 $29.18 3.71 $340.84
CZ07 SDGE $125.68 16.75 $37.25 4.74 $469.81
CZ08 SCE/SCG $125.68 16.78 $29.36 3.74 $343.80
CZ09 SCE/SCG $125.68 16.66 $29.27 3.72 $342.34
CZ10 SCE/SCG $125.68 16.58 $28.99 3.69 $337.73
CZ10 SDGE $125.68 16.58 $37.77 4.80 $478.19
CZ11 PGE $125.68 15.87 $32.96 4.19 $401.32
CZ12 PGE $125.68 15.90 $32.85 4.18 $399.47
CZ12 SMUD/PGE $125.68 15.90 $32.85 4.18 $399.47
CZ13 PGE $125.68 16.32 $33.00 4.20 $401.93
CZ14 SCE/SCG $125.68 16.11 $29.79 3.79 $350.57
CZ14 SDGE $125.68 16.11 $39.23 4.99 $501.49
CZ15 SCE/SCG $125.68 17.40 $30.16 3.84 $356.50
CZ16 PGE $125.68 15.14 $31.75 4.04 $381.87
16.144
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 15 2025/08/15
5 PV
The results for 3 kW PV have been updated from the 2022 study to remove the federal solar tax credit from the cost-effectiveness calculations. The removal of the solar tax credit has a substantial impact on many climate zones across all vintages and will impact the FlexPath.
The following describes the impacts and changes to cost-effectiveness from the 2022 study.
These observations are utilizing standard rates. Previously, with the solar tax credit, the 3 kW PV measure in the pre-1978 vintage was on-bill cost effective in all climate zones using both the modest and high gas escalation rates. However, with the credit removed, Climate Zones 1-3, 5, 6, and 12 are no longer cost effective on-bill for both the modest and high gas escalations.
Previously for the 1978-1991 vintage the only cases that were not on-bill cost effective were climate zones 2 and 6 utilizing the modest gas escalation. Now, with the credit removed, many more climate zones are no longer cost effective. Using the modest gas escalation, climate zones 1-3, 5, 6, 12, and 16 are not cost effective on-bill. Using the high gas escalation, climate zones 1-3, 5, 6, and 12 (SMUD) are not cost effective on-bill.
Previously for the 1992-2010 vintage the following cases were not cost effective on-bill:
climate zones 1-3, 5, and 6 utilizing the modest gas escalation and climate zone 6 using the high gas escalation. With the credit removed an increased number of climate zones are no longer cost effective. Using the modest gas escalation, climate zones 1-3, 4 (PGE) 5-9, 10 (SCE/SCG),12, and 16 are not cost effective on-bill. Using the high gas escalation, climate zones 1-3, 4 (PGE), 5-7, 9, 12, and 16 are not cost effective on-bill.
The cost-effectiveness results are presented in Table 12 through Table 1717.
16.145
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 16 2025/08/15
Table 12. [Pre-1978] 3 kW PV without Solar Tax Credit (Std) Climate
Zone
Electric/ Gas
Utility
First
Incremental
Cost
On-Bill Savings
On-Bill B/C
Modest Gas
Escalation
On-Bill NPV
Modest Gas
Escalation
On-Bill B/C
High Gas
Escalation
On-Bill NPV
High Gas
Escalation
CZ01 PGE $13,726 0.80 ($3,074) 0.85 ($2,410)
CZ02 PGE $13,726 0.80 ($3,072) 0.85 ($2,409)
CZ03 PGE $13,726 0.77 ($3,567) 0.81 ($2,930)
CZ04 PGE $13,726 1.11 $1,652 1.16 $2,564
CZ04 CPAU $13,726 1.38 $5,983 1.45 $7,123
CZ05 PGE $13,726 0.78 ($3,431) 0.82 ($2,786)
CZ05 PGE/SCG $13,726 0.78 ($3,431) 0.82 ($2,786)
CZ06 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.87 ($2,118) 0.92 ($1,231)
CZ07 SDGE $13,726 1.31 $4,886 1.30 $4,711
CZ08 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.30 $4,655 1.38 $5,984
CZ09 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.18 $2,821 1.26 $4,030
CZ10 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.29 $4,622 1.38 $5,948
CZ10 SDGE $13,726 1.99 $15,550 1.97 $15,284
CZ11 PGE $13,726 1.55 $8,684 1.64 $9,967
CZ12 PGE $13,726 1.07 $1,117 1.13 $2,002
CZ12 SMUD/PGE $13,726 0.93 ($1,109) 0.98 ($342)
CZ13 PGE $13,726 1.80 $12,597 1.90 $14,085
CZ14 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.58 $9,098 1.68 $10,717
CZ14 SDGE $13,726 2.15 $17,983 2.13 $17,695
CZ15 SCE/SCG $13,726 2.24 $19,477 2.39 $21,774
CZ16 PGE $13,726 1.04 $579 1.09 $1,435
16.146
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 17 2025/08/15
Table 13. [1978-1991] 3 kW PV without Solar Tax Credit (Std) Climate
Zone
Electric/ Gas
Utility
First
Incremental
Cost
On-Bill Savings
On-Bill B/C
Modest Gas
Escalation
On-Bill NPV
Modest Gas
Escalation
On-Bill B/C
High Gas
Escalation
On-Bill NPV
High Gas
Escalation
CZ01 PGE $13,726 0.77 ($3,570) 0.81 ($2,932)
CZ02 PGE $13,726 0.71 ($4,549) 0.75 ($3,963)
CZ03 PGE $13,726 0.74 ($4,106) 0.78 ($3,497)
CZ04 PGE $13,726 1.00 $7 1.05 $833
CZ04 CPAU $13,726 1.35 $5,517 1.42 $6,633
CZ05 PGE $13,726 0.75 ($3,985) 0.79 ($3,369)
CZ05 PGE/SCG $13,726 0.75 ($3,985) 0.79 ($3,369)
CZ06 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.73 ($4,249) 0.78 ($3,501)
CZ07 SDGE $13,726 1.17 $2,623 1.16 $2,466
CZ08 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.20 $3,086 1.27 $4,313
CZ09 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.09 $1,487 1.17 $2,609
CZ10 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.18 $2,884 1.26 $4,097
CZ10 SDGE $13,726 1.85 $13,356 1.84 $13,108
CZ11 PGE $13,726 1.41 $6,420 1.48 $7,583
CZ12 PGE $13,726 0.97 ($512) 1.02 $287
CZ12 SMUD/PGE $13,726 0.93 ($1,109) 0.98 ($342)
CZ13 PGE $13,726 1.63 $9,953 1.72 $11,302
CZ14 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.42 $6,655 1.52 $8,115
CZ14 SDGE $13,726 2.00 $15,653 1.98 $15,386
CZ15 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.94 $14,686 2.06 $16,670
CZ16 PGE $13,726 0.95 ($737) 1.00 $49
16.147
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 18 2025/08/15
Table 1414. [1992-2010] 3 kW PV without Solar Tax Credit (Std) Climate
Zone
Electric/ Gas
Utility
First
Incremental
Cost
On-Bill Savings
On-Bill B/C
Modest Gas
Escalation
On-Bill NPV
Modest Gas
Escalation
On-Bill B/C
High Gas
Escalation
On-Bill NPV
High Gas
Escalation
CZ01 PGE $13,726 0.71 ($4,475) 0.75 ($3,885)
CZ02 PGE $13,726 0.73 ($4,198) 0.77 ($3,593)
CZ03 PGE $13,726 0.72 ($4,411) 0.76 ($3,817)
CZ04 PGE $13,726 0.80 ($3,121) 0.84 ($2,459)
CZ04 CPAU $13,726 1.16 $2,477 1.22 $3,433
CZ05 PGE $13,726 0.73 ($4,299) 0.76 ($3,700)
CZ05 PGE/SCG $13,726 0.73 ($4,299) 0.76 ($3,700)
CZ06 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.61 ($6,143) 0.65 ($5,520)
CZ07 SDGE $13,726 0.94 ($931) 0.93 ($1,057)
CZ08 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.98 ($242) 1.05 $767
CZ09 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.88 ($1,890) 0.94 ($988)
CZ10 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.96 ($676) 1.02 $305
CZ10 SDGE $13,726 1.51 $8,054 1.50 $7,852
CZ11 PGE $13,726 1.10 $1,569 1.16 $2,477
CZ12 PGE $13,726 0.80 ($3,169) 0.84 ($2,510)
CZ12 SMUD/PGE $13,726 0.93 ($1,109) 0.98 ($342)
CZ13 PGE $13,726 1.27 $4,170 1.33 $5,215
CZ14 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.15 $2,295 1.22 $3,470
CZ14 SDGE $13,726 1.66 $10,386 1.65 $10,164
CZ15 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.37 $5,788 1.46 $7,191
CZ16 PGE $13,726 0.81 ($3,006) 0.85 ($2,338)
16.148
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 19 2025/08/15
Table 1515. [Pre-1978] 3 kW PV without Solar Tax Credit (CARE) Climate
Zone
Electric/ Gas
Utility
First
Incremental
Cost
On-Bill Savings
On-Bill B/C
Modest Gas
Escalation
On-Bill NPV
Modest Gas
Escalation
On-Bill B/C
High Gas
Escalation
On-Bill NPV
High Gas
Escalation
CZ01 PGE $13,726 0.62 ($6,030) 0.65 ($5,522)
CZ02 PGE $13,726 0.64 ($5,707) 0.67 ($5,182)
CZ03 PGE $13,726 0.60 ($6,344) 0.63 ($5,853)
CZ04 PGE $13,726 0.83 ($2,725) 0.87 ($2,042)
CZ05 PGE $13,726 0.60 ($6,266) 0.63 ($5,771)
CZ05 PGE/SCG $13,726 0.60 ($6,266) 0.63 ($5,771)
CZ06 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.71 ($4,578) 0.75 ($3,852)
CZ07 SDGE $13,726 0.71 ($4,508) 0.71 ($4,604)
CZ08 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.97 ($483) 1.03 $510
CZ09 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.90 ($1,530) 0.96 ($605)
CZ10 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.97 ($465) 1.03 $530
CZ10 SDGE $13,726 1.19 $3,032 1.18 $2,872
CZ11 PGE $13,726 1.07 $1,150 1.13 $2,036
CZ12 PGE $13,726 0.79 ($3,324) 0.83 ($2,673)
CZ13 PGE $13,726 1.23 $3,587 1.29 $4,601
CZ14 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.17 $2,662 1.25 $3,861
CZ14 SDGE $13,726 1.28 $4,436 1.27 $4,264
CZ15 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.57 $8,962 1.67 $10,572
CZ16 PGE $13,726 0.79 ($3,342) 0.83 ($2,692)
16.149
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 20 2025/08/15
Table 1616. [1978-1991] 3 kW PV without Solar Tax Credit (CARE) Climate
Zone
Electric/ Gas
Utility
First
Incremental
Cost
On-Bill Savings
On-Bill B/C
Modest Gas
Escalation
On-Bill NPV
Modest Gas
Escalation
On-Bill B/C
High Gas
Escalation
On-Bill NPV
High Gas
Escalation
CZ01 PGE $13,726 0.60 ($6,343) 0.63 ($5,851)
CZ02 PGE $13,726 0.56 ($6,845) 0.59 ($6,380)
CZ03 PGE $13,726 0.57 ($6,757) 0.60 ($6,287)
CZ04 PGE $13,726 0.76 ($3,715) 0.80 ($3,085)
CZ05 PGE $13,726 0.57 ($6,686) 0.60 ($6,213)
CZ05 PGE/SCG $13,726 0.57 ($6,686) 0.60 ($6,213)
CZ06 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.61 ($6,195) 0.64 ($5,575)
CZ07 SDGE $13,726 0.62 ($6,004) 0.61 ($6,087)
CZ08 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.91 ($1,483) 0.96 ($555)
CZ09 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.85 ($2,368) 0.90 ($1,497)
CZ10 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.90 ($1,597) 0.96 ($676)
CZ10 SDGE $13,726 1.10 $1,560 1.09 $1,413
CZ11 PGE $13,726 0.98 ($295) 1.03 $515
CZ12 PGE $13,726 0.72 ($4,320) 0.76 ($3,722)
CZ13 PGE $13,726 1.12 $1,893 1.18 $2,818
CZ14 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.07 $1,051 1.14 $2,144
CZ14 SDGE $13,726 1.18 $2,878 1.17 $2,719
CZ15 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.37 $5,735 1.45 $7,135
CZ16 PGE $13,726 0.74 ($4,126) 0.78 ($3,517)
16.150
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 21 2025/08/15
Table 1717. [1992-2010] 3 kW PV without Solar Tax Credit (CARE) Climate
Zone
Electric/ Gas
Utility
First
Incremental
Cost
On-Bill Savings
On-Bill B/C
Modest Gas
Escalation
On-Bill NPV
Modest Gas
Escalation
On-Bill B/C
High Gas
Escalation
On-Bill NPV
High Gas
Escalation
CZ01 PGE $13,726 0.56 ($6,963) 0.59 ($6,504)
CZ02 PGE $13,726 0.26 ($11,640) 0.20 ($12,611)
CZ03 PGE $13,726 0.55 ($6,997) 0.58 ($6,540)
CZ04 PGE $13,726 0.62 ($5,900) 0.66 ($5,385)
CZ05 PGE $13,726 0.56 ($6,932) 0.59 ($6,471)
CZ05 PGE/SCG $13,726 0.56 ($6,932) 0.59 ($6,471)
CZ06 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.51 ($7,652) 0.55 ($7,127)
CZ07 SDGE $13,726 0.48 ($8,115) 0.48 ($8,180)
CZ08 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.78 ($3,430) 0.83 ($2,629)
CZ09 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.72 ($4,462) 0.76 ($3,728)
CZ10 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.76 ($3,748) 0.81 ($2,968)
CZ10 SDGE $13,726 0.86 ($2,225) 0.85 ($2,340)
CZ11 PGE $13,726 0.79 ($3,259) 0.83 ($2,605)
CZ12 PGE $13,726 0.63 ($5,876) 0.66 ($5,359)
CZ13 PGE $13,726 0.89 ($1,678) 0.94 ($941)
CZ14 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.89 ($1,676) 0.95 ($761)
CZ14 SDGE $13,726 0.95 ($838) 0.94 ($964)
CZ15 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.99 ($142) 1.06 $873
CZ16 PGE $13,726 0.63 ($5,850) 0.66 ($5,333)
16.151
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 22 2025/08/15
6 References
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. (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. (2023). 2025 Energy code Hourly Factors. Retrieved from https://www.energy.ca.gov/files/2025-energy-code-hourly-factors California Energy Commission. (2023). Draft 2025 Energy Code Express Terms. Retrieved from
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=252915&DocumentContentId=88 051
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/cpucwebsite/divisions/office-of-governmental-affairs-division/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 E-CFR. (2020). https://www.ecfr.gov/cgibin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt1
0.3.431&r=PART&ty=HTML#se10.3.431_197. Retrieved from Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgibin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt1
0.3.431&r=PART&ty=HTML#se10.3.431_197
Statewide CASE Team. (2020). Residential Energy Savings and Process Improvements for Additions and Alterations.
Statewide CASE Team. (2023). Multifamily Domestic Hot Water. Retrieved from https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2025_T24_CASEReport-_MF-DHW-Final-1.pdf Statewide CASE Team. (2023). Residential HVAC PErformance. Retrieved from https://title24stakeholders.com/wpcontent/uploads/2023/11/Revised_2025_T24_Final-CASE-Report-RES-HVACPerformance.pdf
16.152
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 23 2025/08/15
Statewide Reach Codes Team. (2021). 2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Residential Buidling Upgrades. Retrieved from
https://localenergycodes.com/content/resources
16.153
2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 24 2025/08/15
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
Explore
The Cost-Effectiveness
Explorer is a free resource to
help California local
governments and
stakeholders develop energy
policies for buildings.
Follow
us on Linkedin
Revision: 1.0
Last modified: 2025/08/15
16.154
City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 08/04/2025
AGENDA OF: 08/26/2025
DEPARTMENT: City Council
SUBJECT: Transit Proximate Developments: Transportation and Parking Challenges (CN)
LOCATION: Citywide
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to:
1) Direct City staff to conduct a review of potential policy options to mitigate parking issues associated with transit-proximate developments. Staff should evaluate feasibility, potential costs, and the impact of each option on both residents and developers; 2) Direct City staff to engage with the Transportation and Public Works Commission, Downtown Commission, and Planning Commission to solicit feedback on related transportation and parking policy;
3) Direct City staff to return to City Council within six months with an assessment of potential solutions, including recommendations for specific actions, funding sources, and any necessary policy changes; and
4) Include mitigation of mobility and parking impacts on the City’s State Legislative Platform agenda.
BACKGROUND: State‑level policies aimed at promoting sustainable, transit‑oriented development have significantly reduced or eliminated minimum parking requirements for many new projects located near major transit stops and high‑quality transit corridors. In addition, residential and mixed‑use projects that use the State Density Bonus may waive parking requirements regardless of their proximity to transit. These policies are intended to spur housing growth, lower the cost of infill development, encourage transit use, and reduce car dependence.
However, these state directives have also created new challenges for cities. While developers are no longer required to build parking, there are typically no corresponding measures to reduce car ownership among new residents. As a result, some neighborhoods experience increased competition for on‑street parking and concerns about spillover impacts from nearby projects.
Local governments are left to manage these unintended consequences while still advancing housing and sustainability goals. The City is actively exploring tools such as residential permit
17.1 programs, demand‑based curb management, and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies—like transit pass subsidies, bike‑share access, and car‑share incentives—to better balance new development with the parking and mobility needs of surrounding neighborhoods.
These efforts align with the City’s Health in All Policies (HiaP) framework, which integrates health, equity, and sustainability into decision‑making and recognizes that housing, transportation, and economic policies all shape community well‑being.
DISCUSSION: Through the review of multiple development projects where parking is not required, common challenges have been identified.
Challenges of State Parking Exemptions Near Transit
Lack of Accountability: State requirements exempt developers from parking provisions in order to reduce housing costs, support transit use, reduce traffic congestion, and respond to climate action goals. However, developers can exempt themselves with concessions and waivers from local requirements for bus passes or improved multi-modal infrastructure and there is no guarantee new residents won’t need parking outside of what’s provided by the development. This could have unintended consequences for overall community mobility and neighborhood impacts.
Neighborhood Parking Strain: The lack of parking in new developments located near transit hubs could increase the demand for on-street parking in surrounding neighborhoods. Concerns have been raised that existing residents could face difficulties finding street parking spaces, possibly leading to frustration and congestion. Considerations for Seniors and Residents with Mobility Limitations: While state policies aim to reduce car dependency, it is important to recognize that not all residents can easily shift to alternative modes of transportation. Seniors and individuals with mobility limitations often continue to rely on personal vehicles, even when living near highquality transit. Any future policy recommendations should ensure that these residents maintain equitable access to transportation and parking and are not disproportionately impacted by reduced parking availability in new developments. Limited Local Control: These policies limit the City’s ability to regulate private parking and public mobility needs and fail to account for the specific parking demands of the neighborhood and surrounding areas.
Local Policies: Housing affordability and climate adaptation are major goals for the City and parking is an element which impacts both. Existing City policies support reducing off-street parking requirements close to transit, but caution sensitivity to low-income neighborhoods (Climate Action Plan T3.4).
Approaches to Mitigate Development’s Transportation Impacts In light of these challenges, it is recommended that City Council direct staff to explore a range of policy options to mitigate the impact of these state requirements. Staff should return to Council with a detailed report on potential strategies, which may include:
1. Development Impact Fees: The City’s current development impact fee for Transportation is called the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) and is focused on funding enhancements to manage traffic congestion that were identified in the 2030 General Plan, e.g., level-of-service at intersections. The City would like to develop a new methodology
17.2 for the traffic impact fee, to focus improvements on multiple transportation modes, but needs funding to complete the required “nexus” study to establish a new program. The City will apply for a Caltrans Planning Grant in Fall 2025 or could consider using existing traffic impact fee funds to complete the work. This effort would take 1-2 years to complete but would align the fees with goals for alternative transportation.
2. Transportation Objective Standards: City policies currently include objective standards that incentivize alternative transportation. There are currently requirements for developments to widen sidewalks, provide bike facilities, complete traffic studies and provide bike parking, among other items. The city annually updates its objective standards based on changes to state law, feedback from developers, and new community priorities. The Council could consider adopting new objective design standards that incentivize alternative transportation and reduce impacts to adjacent neighborhoods such as:
a. Include facilities from the Active Transportation Plan in objective standards for implementation as part of future developments.
b. Include facilities from the adopted Traffic Calming Guidelines and create thresholds for implementation by developers.
c. Update the Local Traffic Analysis standards to evaluate typical community concerns and set new thresholds to increase review of projects accordingly. d. Integrate the Local Traffic Analysis and a modified Development Impact Fee to ensure consistency.
e. Develop “Plan Lines” that illustrate the adopted objective standards so the community can better understand the enhancements that are required by development.
f. Review development standards to unbundle the cost of parking and rent to encourage less vehicles at new developments.
3. City Parking Program: The City has a citywide permit parking program (SCMC 10.41) with existing program areas generally downtown, in the beach area, and near University of California Santa Cruz. As the City is seeing increased interest in larger developments along transit corridors, including Mission Street, Ocean Street, Water Street, and Soquel Avenue, there has been an increase in adjacent neighborhoods pursuing the creation of new permit parking program areas. The program requires that neighborhoods petition the City to join a parking program, which is labor‑intensive for both residents and staff. The process typically takes 3–6 months to complete. As development patterns have changed and the permit programs have grown, there is opportunity to refine how the program is administered to meet current needs. City staff should review the current challenges and offer suggestions for improvement such as:
a. Updating traffic study guidelines with local parking counts to determine if neighborhood parking may be impacted. If impacts are identified during entitlements, initiate a streamlined process when building permits are issued. b. Streamlining and facilitating the application process in high‑development areas after building permits for developments are issued.
c. Reviewing how multi‑family developments should be treated in the neighborhood parking permit program.
d. Reviewing the cost recovery with development, enforcement, and permits.
17.3 e. Considering policies that limit or prohibit new tenants in certain high‑density developments from obtaining NPP permits to reduce spillover parking impacts on adjacent neighborhoods.
The shift in state-level policies regarding parking requirements for transit-adjacent developments, while aligned with our climate, transit and housing goals, may create challenges for local communities, particularly in terms of neighborhood parking availability. By directing staff to explore policy options that address these impacts, the City can ensure a balanced approach to development—one that promotes sustainability and transit-oriented growth while also meeting the practical parking needs of residents. The strategies outlined above provide a starting point for discussions, and staff is asked to return to Council with detailed recommendations and implementation options.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: This is not a project under CEQA.
HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): The proposed Council action on addressing parking challenges in transit-proximate developments aligns with the three pillars of Health in All Policies— public health, sustainability, and equity. Public health is prioritized by encouraging alternative transportation options, such as ride-sharing programs and bike storage, which reduce reliance on personal vehicles, lower air pollution, and promote physical activity. Sustainability is addressed through policies that incentivize transit-oriented growth, reduce car dependence, and explore solutions like shared parking and developer contributions to public parking infrastructure, which can reduce the environmental impact of excessive parking requirements.
Equity is central to the proposal’s focus on ensuring that the parking needs of both new and existing residents are met, particularly in under-served neighborhoods. By considering community engagement and offering incentives for inclusive, creative solutions, all residents, regardless of socio-economic status, can benefit from transit-oriented development while minimizing the negative impacts of parking scarcity.
FISCAL IMPACT:
1. The recommendation in this report impacts the General Fund: No
2. This recommendation requires a budget adjustment: No
3. The recommendation creates an on-going expenditure commitment: No FISCAL IMPACT DESCRIPTION: No impact.
Submitted By:
Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson
Vice Mayor, District 3
Submitted By:
Susie O'Hara
Councilmember, District 5
Submitted By:
Gabriela Trigueiro
Councilmember, District 1
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
17.4 Brittany Inclan
From: Ricky Longinotti <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2025 11:47 AM
To: City Council; Ricky Longinotti
Subject: item 17 Transportation & Parking Challenges
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I appreciate Council members Kalantari-Johnson, O'Hara, and Trigueiro for bringing forth this initiative.
The Campaign for Sustainable Transportation supports:
1. Reform of the Traffic Impact Fee
We support the initiative to conduct a nexus study that would create the basis for a Transportation Impact Fee to fund bus passes for residents; emergency ride service vouchers; credit for B Cycle rental; and active transportation street improvements. We also encourage the City to cancel those projects mandated by the existing General Plan and funded by the Traffic Impact Fee that called for changes to intersections that often result in more hazardous conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians. We applaud Santa Cruz for joining cities like Mountain View and San Francisco where the Transportation Impact Fee is an important funding source for transit and active transportation.
2. We support the proposed Transportation Objective Standards. Studies have demonstrated that a mandate for developers to unbundle the cost of a parking place from the cost of unit rental/purchase results in lower rates of vehicle ownership AND lower housing costs for people who opt out of purchasing a parking space.
3. We support the proposed streamlining of neighborhood parking permit programs. -Rick Longinotti, Chair
Campaign for Sustainable Transportation
17.5 Brittany Inclan
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2025 11:35 AM
To: City Council
Subject: 8/26/25 meeting; item #17 Transportation & Parking Challenges Dear Councilmembers:
Two strategies to add to “Approaches to MiƟgate Development’s TransportaƟon Impacts” are: (1) shared parking to maximize exisƟng space uƟlizaƟon and (2) proacƟve removal of on-street parking detrimental to mobility needs.
1. Shared Parking: The trend towards reducing parking requirements for new development was partly the result of studies showing an overabundance of urban pavement dedicated to parking, resulƟng in less available land for building and creaƟng environmentally detrimental and unaƩracƟve heat islands. Thus, you could direct staff to explore incenƟve programs that can overcome such barriers as insurance, policing, and maintenance to allow residents of and visitors to new parking-lite developments to park in nearby underuƟlized parking lots.
2. ProacƟve On-street Parking Removal: This approach would complement the approach to derive new objecƟve transportaƟon standards. The primary purpose of streets is to facilitate vehicle movement, not vehicle storage. There are various planned and potenƟal mobility enhancements that could be installed if on-street parking were to be removed, such as new, widened, or buffered bike lanes; new traffic or turn lanes; and exclusive bus or shuƩle lanes.
There are locaƟons where on-street parking is underuƟlized, especially in transiƟonal spots where exisƟng businesses are mostly gone and new development has been planned, such as along parts of Water, Ocean and Front Streets. A developer may eye such spaces to serve new uses and thus have less incenƟve to provide equivalent parking in the new project. Even if new objecƟve standards were to indicate that such parking was slated to be replaced, the developer may be able to successfully pursue a waiver or otherwise convince the decision-makers to retain the parking. Given that aƩempts to remove parking can be controversial, iniƟaƟon at a Ɵme of low uƟlizaƟon between current adjacent land uses being abandoned and new uses being built should be poliƟcally easier to accomplish.
Overall, thanks for moving to address parking issues associated with loosening parking requirements without providing adequate alternaƟves. I hope that my suggesƟons help you to arrive at some posiƟve soluƟons.
Rick Hyman
17.6 Brittany Inclan
From: Cynthia Mathews <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2025 2:34 PM
To: City Council
Subject: !!Comments on Item 17: Transit and Parking Challenges To All Councilmembers
I was pleased to see the agenda report (#17) calling for a deeper, fresh look at the impact of parking pressures throughout the city. Overall, especially along corridors and encompassing major business or civic areas, the pressures are real and call for realistic actions.
The glaring omission is consideration of growing parking challenges for local businesses, workers and visitors. For decades. — from postearthquake recovery through economic downturns and growing density — the city’s planning documents and goals have explicitly called for a thriving economy, yet this element is absent in the staff report. It should be added to the recommended action.
Having served on Vision Santa Cruz, the Chamber Community Affairs Committee, the Visit Santa Cruz County board, and now the Downtown Commission, I’m well aware of how dependent our City economy and cultural life are on visitors, AND how much the large new projects city-wide impact adjacent neighborhoods. Especially as major new affordable housing projects and related ground-floor commercial uses are coming online, the issue of capacity needs to be confronted, in addition to the long list of alternative transportation options.
I would specifically change language additions to the recommended actions”
1. … Staff should evaluate feasibility, potential costs, and the impact of each option on both residents and developers, business, workers and visitors.
2. Direct City staff to engage with the Transportation and Public Works Commission, Downtown Commission, Planning Commission, Downtown Management Corporation, Visit Santa Cruz County and Downtown Association to solicit feedback on related transportation and parking policy;
The body of the agenda report, although not a part of the official action, would benefit from the following:
• Including reference to parking challenges on business districts, workers and visitors, as well as neighborhoods and residents. • Referencing economic development and vitality as city policy goals. • Considering impact of parking/car restrictions on working families as well as on seniors and people with mobility issues. • Include consideration of increasing parking capacity in heavily impacted areas. (This was essential in post-earthquake recovery downtown, and on the Eastside corridor.)
I hope you consider these suggestions in the spirit they’re offered. Thank you for putting this issue before the council for consideration.
Cynthia Mathews
17.7 City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 08/18/2025
AGENDA OF: 08/26/2025
DEPARTMENT: City Manager/Public Works/Economic Development and Housing SUBJECT: Update on Actions to Support Seabright and Harbor Businesses Affected by the Murray Street Bridge Project (CM/PW/ED)
LOCATION: District 2, Citywide
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to receive information and provide direction to staff on the following actions:
1) Receive information on the feasibility to implement a temporary pedestrian and bicycle path on the Harbor Rail Bridge
2) Authorize the Director of Public Works to temporarily modify parking meters on lower Seabright Avenue to include free 2-hour parking and direct staff to return to Council with a proposed Municipal Code update to establish emergency authority; 3) Receive information on one lane, two-way traffic;
4) Receive information on expanded transit alternatives; 5) Direct staff to work with the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District to enhance transit service to Seabright and the Harbor;
6) Direct staff to work with the Harbor District to support extended operations for Harbor water taxi service;
7) Receive information on Saturday Work and Project Schedule Constraints; 8) Install additional signage encouraging visitors to shop and dine at Seabright and Harbor businesses at prominent high traffic locations;
9) Receive information related to the Harbor and Seabright business survey conducted in August and consider additional recommendations related to survey responses; 10) Implement a series of marketing efforts and promotional events as outlined in the staff report;
18.1 11) Provide low interest guaranteed loans for Seabright and Harbor businesses and explore potential lower interest rates and City-funded principal and/or interest-only payments for the first year;
12) Provide Individualized free business consulting and web development through GetVirtual; and
13) Extend the outdoor dining permit for Seabright and Harbor businesses.
BACKGROUND: On August 12, 2025, City Council directed staff to investigate a number of actions intended to support Harbor and Seabright businesses along with the general public, all of whom are affected by the detours and partial and full road closures associated with the Murray Street Bridge Seismic Retrofit project.
Those actions included:
• Work with the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) to explore the feasibility of utilizing the Harbor Rail Bridge on a temporary basis for a pedestrian and cyclist pathway and return within the next two Council meetings for further direction;
• Explore free or reduced-cost parking in the Seabright area to support local businesses impacted by the construction;
• Design and install new signage in prominent locations announcing to the community and visitors that Seabright and Harbor businesses are open during construction; • Implement a series of city-wide marketing efforts and promotional events that extend and expand on initial outreach and business support efforts in the area; and • Approve the CEQA determination contained in the August 12, 2025 agenda report, including the application of categorical exemptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (existing facilities) and Section 15304 (minor alterations to land), which relate to the Council direction regarding signage installation.
• Direct staff to report back to Council by 9/9/2025 for further options of support regarding the following items:
Santa Cruzer electric Shuttle options
Santa Cruz METRO options
Financing options with City guarantees
Outdoor dining extension
Point person for weekly communications
Traffic control to allow two-way traffic on the one-way lane Any extensions of time to allow a shorter timeline
Saturday construction work
• Reach out to Harbor District regarding weekday water taxi service for transportation. • Direct staff to return to Council within 90 days with a recommended formal policy establishing requirements and best practices for business notification, outreach, and support during planned or emergency street, utility, or infrastructure closures. The policy should address advance notice timelines, outreach methods, coordination of access, and potential mitigation measures to support affected businesses.
18.2 Immediately after the August 12th council meeting, staff across the City Managers, Public Works, and Economic Development and Housing departments began coordination and response efforts to advance Council’s directive. A status of each item is provided below and will be elaborated upon during the staff presentation for this item.
Finally, the estimated bridge closure dates are provided for reference. • Full Closure #1: June 2025 thru January 2026
• Open One Lane: February 2026 to May 2026
• Full Closure # 2: June 2026 thru August 2026
• Open One Lane: September 2026
• Several other small closures 5 days or less planned dates TBD DISCUSSION:
RTC Coordination on temporary path over rail bridge
Staff engaged with RTC staff to explore the feasibility of utilizing the harbor rail bridge as a pedestrian and bicycle detour. Several concepts were considered including a wooden boardwalk on top of the rails and ties and decomposed granite between the rails. For safety, ADA compliance, and bicycle access, an 8-foot-wide trail constructed from compacted base rock on top of the rail line was selected as the best option to explore. The cost estimate was in the range of $1.7M for the 3,000-foot-long trail. RTC staff was generally supportive of the concept, however Progressive Rail, the rail operator, submitted a formal letter on August 18th (attached) stating the rail bridge remains part of an active rail line. They outline a number of conditions and requirements making it more challenging to implement a potential temporary path on an accelerated timeline. .
Another key challenge relates to the seismic deficiency of the Harbor Rail Bridge. In May 2024 the City received a report from the RTC identifying the need to retrofit the bridge for the Rail Trail Segment 9 project. The project team is currently performing additional seismic analysis to determine improvements needed for a 20-year design life that meets the requirements of the project funding. The analysis is anticipated to be complete in early fall and would be used to determine risk associated with compacted base rock on top of the rail concept which adds weight to the existing structure. Liability risk of the Harbor Bridge would most likely be assumed by the City with any temporary path.
Other key challenges to implementing a temporary path include securing funding, and verification of CEQA/NEPA coverage and other relevant environmental and Coastal permits.
Currently there is $4.5M in construction contingency for the Murray Street Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project. Issuing a large change order for a temporary path this early inthe project could result in there not being sufficient funding to complete the project without the use of General Funds. Gas Tax is the local match for the project but is overprescribed due to the West Cliff restoration work. It is unknown at this time whether the temporary path change order would be reimbursable by the Federal Highway Administration.
In light of these considerations and Progressive Rail’s position, staff recommends that the City and RTC do not proceed with using the harbor rail bridge and rail line as a pedestrian and bicycle detour. However, should Council decide to move forward with implementing a temporary path, the next step would include developing engineered plans and determining regulatory compliance.
Plans would then be submitted to Progressive Rail and RTC for approval..
18.3 Free or Reduced Parking in Seabright Business Area There are 13 variable meters in the Seabright Business area with parking regulations in effect from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM daily. Meter fees begin at a cost of 50 cents per hour, increasing up to $2.00 per hour. On average the area’s meters generate roughly $1,900.00 annually. Metered parking is used to increase turnover of the parking stalls to ensure visitors can find a parking space when they arrive. The parking rates are set in SCMC Chapter 10.52 and require a public hearing to modify.
Parking staff would recommend keeping the variable rate on these meters during construction and providing the first two hours free. A timed restriction should be maintained to ensure vehicles do not park for extended periods including overnight parking, which would reduce the amount of available parking in the area for patrons of area businesses.
Staff recommends amending the Municipal Code to authorize the Public Works Director to adjust the meter rates up or down 100% of the current rate for a period of time not to exceed 100 consecutive days and no more than 4 times within a calendar year to ensure that the City can be responsive to the needs of the community for the Murray Street Bridge projects and future construction projects.
• Schedule: Immediately implement two hours of free parking on Seabright. 1-3 Months for Municipal Code Update in consultation with the City Attorney. • Cost: Incidental staff time and parking revenue reductions. • Recommendation: Implement two-hours of free parking at the meters on Seabright.
One Lane, Two Way Traffic on Roadway Bridge
During partial bridge closures, traffic is presently directed eastbound at all times. This configuration was selected over other alternatives to maximize safety, minimize traffic impacts and avoid confusion. The eastbound direction experiences more average daily trips and afternoon peak period trips. Staff have previously evaluated a signalized one lane alternative. Key findings of that analysis were:
1) A traffic signal with one lane would impact emergency response time-most calls for service require rapid response in the eastbound direction. If cars are permitted to travel west, emergency personnel would have to wait for those cars to clear the bridge. 2) Traffic: During the weekday, both the midday and afternoon peak period eastbound traffic would experience an average additional delay of 6 minutes waiting at the signal for westbound traffic.
3) Urban Application: This form of traffic control is typically used in rural locations where there are lower vehicular volumes and minimal cyclists. Cyclists require additional time to traverse the single lane which would further delay motorists. 4) Traffic Safety: It is important to provide simple, predictable, and consistent traffic control schemes through construction work zones to improve safety. The City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan identified that 25% of collisions happen at nighttime and 20% of collisions involve aggressive driving (non-compliance with signals, laws, etc.). Providing a temporary signal may create an unnecessary risk of traffic collision compared to the simpler one-way traffic scheme.
18.4 • Schedule: A one lane 2-way option could be implemented in February 2026 when the bridge partially reopens; however, it would only be in effect several months, a second full closure is scheduled June to August 2026
• Cost: $10,000-$15,000 per month for equipment rental/daily reconfiguration • Recommendation: Continue with current plan to reopen dedicated eastbound lane next year.
Expand Transit Alternatives Between Seabright and Harbor Council expressed interest in exploring opportunities for public transit access to lower Seabright and the Harbor area. There are multiple methods to provide additional transit service to this area:
1. Operate on the Rail: In 2021, Coast Futura demonstrated passenger service on the rail line using a TIG/M vehicle. This demonstration traveled between the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk and just shy of the Capitola Trestle and used a vehicle with onboard propulsion. A similar effort could be undertaken on the existing railroad facility for the duration of Murray Street Bridge Construction.
Traveling at 10MPH it would take approximately 5 min to travel from Seabright to 7th, meaning a shuttle service could operate every 10 minutes. While service could operate only between Seabright and 7th, staff recommends considering an extended reach, potentially mimicking the Coast Futura demonstration and operating between Jade Street Park and Depot Park.
The demonstration costs are assumed to be at least equal to an electric shuttle but are likely higher. The Council could direct City Staff to work with SCCRTC to start another train demonstration and fund it with external funds. Train service would preclude conversion of the rail line to a temporary bike and pedestrian trail system. This option would be operationally complex and potentially involve construction of temporary station platforms.
• Schedule: At least 6 months to 1 year to implement depending on route and funding • Cost: $65,000 to $120,000 per month
• Recommendation: No action on train, prioritize exploration of other options (described below) to establish potential ridership levels and business case.
2. Santa Cruz METRO: With the closure of the Murray Street Bridge, Santa Cruz METRO re-routed the Route 3A to no longer serve lower Seabright, instead serving Broadway to Soquel via Seabright. Staff has requested METRO model the costs of a new route to serve lower Seabright during the period of bridge construction. METRO staff anticipates having a response within one month. METRO is in the midst of a service expansion that is placing large demands on existing staffing levels and vehicle availability.
In order to run efficient transit service and minimize travel time impacts for transit, staff recommends considering parking removal on both sides of Seabright Avenue between Hanover Street and Soquel Avenue and on eastbound Soquel Avenue between Seabright Avenue and Darwin Street… Staff proposes using the existing parking lanes for a PM peak transit and bike lane from 3-7 pm. Outside those hours the lanes could be used for parking and bike lanes. Businesses are being surveyed to determine support for the
18.5 parking lane removal during the peak PM transit window. Staff recommends working with the County to implement a similar treatment on 7th Avenue to encourage transit ridership and speed up travel times. Those improvements encourage transit and reduce the financial cost to METRO.
• Schedule: 2-3 months or less to implement
• Cost: $50,000-$150,000 to modify parking, METRO to resume service • Recommendation: Confirm METRO capacity to resume service, confirm business support to utilize parking lanes during PM peak transit window, return with item for consideration to remove parking and implement transit lanes if service is available.
3. Santa Cruzer Shuttle Service: The City Economic Development Department contracts with Transdev to operate the Santa Cruzer, a zero-emission shuttle van that operates during the summer between downtown and the beach area. The Santa Cruzer could be utilized for a shuttle loop between the Harbor area and Seabright neighborhood. Under the assumptions of daily operations with service available 12 hours per day, the approximate monthly cost to operate this service is $65,000 for free rides. • Schedule: 1 month or less to implement, assuming operator availability. • Cost: $65,000 per month—would require general fund support to implement immediately.
• Recommendation: No action on Santa Cruzer Service- Focus on expanding Metro Service
4. Harbor Water Taxi: Harbor water taxi service normally runs from Memorial Day to Labor Day Thursday, Saturday and Sunday, serving several drop off points in the harbor.
In response to the Murray Street project, service was expanded on a trial basis on Fridays to 3-8 pm. Port District staff report strong ridership and interest in the service. The Port District has indicated willingness to partner with the City to continue operating the water taxi into October, assuming interest and ridership remains high. Staff recommends that the City allocate funds to support ongoing water taxi service until the end of October. • Schedule: Continue water taxi service
• Cost: $500/day of operation ($6,000-$8,000/month for 3-4 days/week operation) • Recommendation: City to partner with Santa Cruz Port District to fund and continue service through September, and potentially into October.
Saturday work and Permit Time Extensions
Scheduling on the Murray Street Bridge Project is complex and controlled by a number of variables including permit constraints on in-water work, sequencing requirements to build from the water upwards, and various utility relocations. Fortunately, the first round of utility work was completed in July and enabled the City’s contractor to rapidly mobilize and begin critical path work in the water. To maximize project success, the City provided for the contractor to work 6 days per week. Saturday work is not typical and can often be disruptive to adjacent homes and recreational users. While Saturday work is allowed, it is not mandated, and the contractor has the discretion to work Saturdays as needed to maintain their overall project schedule. Also Saturday work carries a 50% labor premium ($2,000 to $10,000 per day), Sundays are paid double time, so weekend work typically only occurs when necessary to maintain the project schedule. As of the beginning of August, Shimmick Construction, the City’s contractor, had worked 13
18.6 Saturdays, including almost all of the Saturdays available to them since the beginning of the inwater work season which started in June. Staff will continue to monitor the contractor’s schedule to ensure efficient use of all working days. At this point directing the contractor to work all Saturdays would create a “hurry up and wait situation” and would not result in the project finishing sooner, as there is still a second season of in-water work in summer 2026 to complete.
A major schedule constraint for the project relates to restrictions on in-water work activities. The project team was able to work with regulators to negotiate a two-week early start this season, and will likely obtain time extensions to continue working past the permit mandated midOctober deadline. Finally, staff is committed to working creatively with the contractor in every way possible to complete the project on or ahead of schedule. Presently the project contractor is authorized to work on Saturdays and will do so to maintain schedule.
Point Person for Project Communications
• Rebecca Unitt, Economic Development Manager will serve as business liaison on behalf of the City and respond to business requests and inquiries related to business support programs and assistance.
• Ashley Hussey, Community Relations Specialist, will serve as overall project communication lead and will coordinate communications and project related construction inquiries between the public and City Staff.
Design and install new signage in prominent locations
Staff have identified eight locations to add business promotional signage and are additionally gathering feedback from businesses on the potential production of yard signs that can be distributed throughout the Seabright and Harbor neighborhoods with messaging to support shopping and dining at Seabright and Harbor businesses during the construction period.
Signage will take two weeks to produce and will be installed as soon as it is printed. Yard signs will take a week to produce and will be distributed to businesses and available for pick-up or drop-off for residents as soon as they are produced. Cost of additional signage currently being finalized but range from $5,000-10,000.
Implement a series of city-wide marketing efforts and promotional events that extend and expand on initial outreach and business support efforts in the area.
EDH Staff is surveying the businesses to identify their priorities and preferences for promotional efforts and City-sponsored promotional events. With business feedback staff will determine priorities and budget available to provide additional promotional efforts. Staff has also extended the advertising campaigns in Lookout Local and will renew radio ads on both KAZU and KSQD to, at a minimum, run through the end of the year. Costs for continued radio ads through the end of the calendar year will be approximately $4,000-6,000. Additional marketing efforts including paid promotional ads and special events estimated at an additional $10,000-$30,000, depending on number and size of events.
Additional Recommended Options of Support:
1) Financing options with City guarantees - Small Business Loans. City staff are currently surveying businesses to gauge interest in low-interest loans, similar to the successful program the City instituted during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in collaboration with Santa Cruz Community Credit Union. Depending on
18.7 interest, the City can develop a new program through Grow America, the City’s current small business loan financing partner. Details on loan financing will be finalized once business interest is determined. While terms and options are still being reviewed, guaranteed low-interest loans up to $25,000 could be provided at around a 4-5% interest rate and have a payment term of 4-6 years in length. These loans could be guaranteed through the City. Larger loans up to $50,000 at a 4-5% interest rate could also be provided, depending on interest, with a portion of the loan guaranteed by the City. Additional financing options are being explored with Grow America, including the potential for the City to cover principal and/or interest-only payments for the first year of the loan. Discussions with Grow America on ongoing and staff recommend moving forward with loan support if there is business interest. 2) Free Business Consulting and Web Development through Get Virtual The City has partnered with Get Virtual to work directly with interested Seabright and Harbor businesses. Get Virtual is a UCSC program that analyzes the social impact and digital presence of a business and can help develop social media and ecommerce platforms uniquely designed to meet the needs and goals of the business.
Value to a participating business is between $5,000 and $15,000. 3) Outdoor Dining Extension
The current temporary permits were extended by ordinance through July 1, 2026.
Staff supports an extension of these permits through July 1, 2029 through an amendment of that ordinance to provide businesses with additional time to prepare for permitting after the bridge reopens in 2028. To move forward permanently, businesses only need to submit an application for a building permit to approve their outdoor dining areas on private property and get a simple over-the-counter review for outdoor spaces that are 300 square feet or less. Staff and Council will need to consider whether extensions should be granted only to Seabright businesses or to all businesses currently operating under temporary permits. There are currently twentyone businesses operating under temporary outdoor dining permits, with five of those businesses located in the Seabright area.
The outdoor dining spaces cannot be “grandfathered in” because these temporary permits were issued through an executive order and under emergency regulations that allowed for some temporary exceptions from building, zoning, fire, and public works regulations.
Direct staff to return to Council within 90 days with a recommended formal policy establishing requirements and best practices for business notification, outreach, and support during planned or emergency street, utility, or infrastructure closures. The policy should address advance notice timelines, outreach methods, coordination of access, and potential mitigation measures to support affected businesses.
Staff will prepare the policy for consideration by the City Council during the first City Council meeting November.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: The recommendations and actions contained above related to the temporary trail are covered by the
18.8 Murray Street Bridge Project and Rail Trail 8/9 Environmental Impact Reports. The remaining actions are not a project under CEQA.
HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES (HiAP): The proposed actions will support businesses in the Seabright and Harbor area and provide greater pedestrian and bicycle access to the Seabright area through improved alternative transportation connections. This potential new pathway will benefit the health and wellbeing of the entire community which supports positive outcomes of the social determinants of health. A temporary pedestrian and bicycle pathway will further reduce emission and pollution impacts, while improving visitor health and the vitality of the local economy.
FISCAL IMPACT:
1. The recommendation in this report impacts the General Fund: Yes
2. This recommendation requires a budget adjustment: No
3. The recommendation creates an on-going expenditure commitment: No FISCAL IMPACT DESCRIPTION: The proposed actions will impact the City’s General Fund; however; it is possible that the expenditures will result in increased visitation to the Seabright and Harbor which will provide additional sales tax to the General Fund that could offset the signage, promotional and marketing efforts which will be funded through the Economic Development and Housing Department’s FY26 approved budget.
Costs for extending the Harbor Taxi could be covered by the Public Works FY 26 approved budget. Costs for signage, marketing and some promotional support can be covered through the approved FY 26 Economic Development and Housing budget. Costs for promotional events and/or expanded Santa Cruzer shuttle service would require a future budget adjustment. Staff will return at a later time should significant support exist for a low interest loan program tailored for Seabright and Harbor businesses if the demand exceeds available funding. The City cost share for a temporary pedestrian and bicycle pathway, should the City Council determine to move forward, could be addressed through a future budget adjustment to the Murray Street Bridge Project capital project c409321.
Prepared By:
Kevin Crossley
City Engineer
Matt Starkey
Transportation Manager
Rebecca Unit
Economic Development
Manager
Submitted By:
Nathan Nguyen
P.E. Director of Public Works
Bonnie Lipscomb
Deputy City Manager
Approved By:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. LETTER FROM PROGRESS RAIL TO SCCRTC DATED 8.18.25.PDF
18.9 PROGRESSIVE RAIL
INCORPORATED
21778 Highview Avenue
Lakeville, MN 55044
Sarah Christensen
Executive Director
Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission
1101 Pacific Ave. Suite 250
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
August 18, 2025
Dear Ms. Christensen,
This letter is in response to the recent request for temporary pedestrian and bicycle access to the railroad bridge at Santa Cruz Harbor during the ongoing construction of the Murray Street Bridge. We understand and appreciate the community's desire for increased connectivity during this time.
As you know, the rail bridge remains part of an active rail line and was not designed for pedestrian or bicycle use. As such, allowing pedestrian or bicycle traffic on the bridge would pose significant safety risks to those using the bridge, and would expose Progressive Rail to potential legal risks.
After careful consideration and consultation with our legal team, we have determined that, in order for us to meaningfully evaluate your request, we require the submission of detailed engineering and safety plans that address Progressive Rail's concerns and demonstrate how the proposed use could be implemented without compromising the safety of the public or the integrity of the rail infrastructure. Progressive Rail also requests a detailed report covering all regulatory requirements. Only with such documentation can we properly assess the feasibility of the request and associated risks.
We appreciate your understanding and look forward to receiving the requested plans for Progressive Rail's fwiher consideration of the request.
Sincerely,
Andrea Dobbelmann
CEO
Progressive Rail, Inc.
18.10 Brittany Inclan
From: Jack Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 4:36 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro; Regional Transportation Commission; Sarah Christensen; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Gerry Jensen; [email protected]; Kimberly De Serpa; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Manu Koenig; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Steve Clark; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Please Support Seabright Businesses During Murray Street Bridge Closure - Rescind the decision to not open the unused rail bridge
Dear SCCRTC Board Members, Santa Cruz City Council, Progressive Rail and Roaring Camp Representation,
I am writing to express my deep disappointment that the SCCRTC has declined to move forward with temporary pedestrian and bicycle access on the Murray Street rail bridge.
Local businesses in Seabright are struggling due to the extended closure of the Murray Street bridge.
What should be a time of recovery and resilience has instead become a period of uncertainty and economic harm, and the SCCRTC’s decision not to act leaves our community without meaningful relief.
While Progressive Rail and Roaring Camp may have freight interests that they do not utilize in this area and have not for nearly a decade, the SCCRTC ultimately owns the rail corridor and has both the authority and the responsibility to ensure that the corridor serves the public interest. It is difficult to understand why these organizations are not working with the community and that authority of the SCCRTC is not being used at this critical moment.
Opening the unused rail bridge to pedestrians and cyclists (just temporarily during construction) would be a practical, cost-effective measure that strengthens neighborhood access, supports local businesses, and demonstrates that the SCCRTC, Roaring Camp and Progressive Rail is committed to the well-being of the community it serves.
I respectfully urge you to reconsider your position and work with the City, Seabright businesses, and residents to put this simple, temporary solution in place. Our community needs your leadership.
Thank you for your attention and your service to Santa Cruz County and let's not lose any more businesses in our community.
Sincerely,
Jack Brown
Aptos, CA
18.11 Brittany Inclan
From: Renate Kupke <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 4:42 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Murray Street Rail Bridge Closure
To all concerned,
I am extremely disappointed to hear that the opening of the Murray St Rail Bridge for pedestrians and bicycles will not move forward because of objections by Roaring Camp and Progressive Rail.
I’m a Live Oak resident who once enjoyed crossing the bridge to access Aldos, La Posta and Linda’s. I’ve not returned to these businesses since the full closure because even pedestrian access around the harbor has been limited. I’ve been trying to increase my support of businesses on the east side of the harbor as I know they are struggling.
I am also a bicycle commuter to the west side for work. The closure of the Murray St. Bridge has added significant mileage to my commute (although thank goodness I’m on a bicycle when I see the traffic trying to merge onto Soquel from Frederick St.). I was very much looking forward to using the temporary access during the bridge closure to again shorten my commute and allow a more pleasant ride along the coast.
It’s a shame that our local Roaring Camp, a business that in the past I have encouraged family and friends to support, cannot consider the whole Santa Cruz community in their decision making in this matter. The situation has started to change my opinion about a once beloved local business. I am also disappointed in the RTC for allowing the rail companies to dictate the use of a line that our tax dollars have purchased. And to the city of Santa Cruz - 3 years? really?
Thank you for your time,
Renate Kupke
629 Jami Ln
Santa Cruz, CA
18.12 Brittany Inclan
From: Paul Rangell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 5:40 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Open Rail Bridge
To whom it may concern on Santa Cruz City Council, County Supervisors, RTC administrators, and Roaring Camp owners:
I am a long-term Santa Cruz resident, having lived in this fine city for fifty-three years. I am a home owner and a tax payer and a retired teacher.
I am astonished that you have not gotten on board for allowing pedestrian and bicycle riders to use the existing rail bridge adjacent to the Murray St Bridge. It is such a simple improvement to what is becoming a dire situation in our community. We need easy public access to lower Seabright to support the businesses that are vital to our economic and social health. Not that this will be a solution to this major delay and problem of the automobile bridge. It is really a GESTURE of SUPPORT. How is this a problem for you to undertake if you want our community to survive and prosper? I think it should be an easy vote for you to cast and almost at no cost to make the existing rail line safe and smooth for bikes and walkers.
It is a COMMON SENSE decision with no negative outcomes.
If the bridge actually is under repairs and construction for seismic retrofit until 2028, our Seabright neighbors will suffer the worst of it. Not only will those lower Seabright business face hardship, but the entire Soquel Ave, Water St, and Broadway Ave corridors will be the site of massive traffic boondoggles, as they are on nearly every weekday. If you have not witnessed this first hand, I request that you try to head east on ANY of these streets between 4pm and 6pm on a workday. You will see for yourself the frustration of commuters.
Please address this alarming situation and open the rail bridge. It is NOT A FIX. It is a GESTURE. We need the cooperation and support of our elected officials.
Sincerely,
Paul Rangell
Seabright neighborhood
18.13 Brittany Inclan
From: sandy katz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 7:32 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Murray St. Bridge
We are so disappointed to get the email regarding the decision to NOT allow the rail bridge to be used during the modification of the main bridge. We urge ALL of you to revisit this and fix this problem.
Please do not cave to two small groups that do not want the trail to succeed as a bike and pedestrian pathway.
Jeff and Sandy Anderson
Live Oak
18.14 Brittany Inclan
From: Suzanne Helfman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 8:45 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Murray Street Pedestrian Bridge
Seabright businesses desperately need your help. Please do what you can to keep them from going under by allowing temporary use of the pedestrian bridge to Seabright for walkers and bicyclists while the main bridge is being rebuilt.
It is in the community interest that we support local businesses.
Thank you,
Suzanne Helfman, Retired educator, Patron of Seabright businesses
18.15 Brittany Inclan
From: Suzanne Helfman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 8:47 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Murray Street Pedestrian Bridge
Seabright businesses desperately need your help. Please do what you can to keep them from going under by allowing temporary use of the pedestrian bridge to Seabright for walkers and bicyclists while the main bridge is being rebuilt.
It is in the community interest that we support local businesses.
Thank you,
Suzanne Helfman, Retired educator, Patron of Seabright businesses
18.16 Brittany Inclan
From: Amy Harrington <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 10:17 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro Subject: Murray street bridge
I am so disappointed with my city that you are not listening to us, and not doing something for the businesses in the Seabright and harbor area. We need a walkway. The railroad is just sitting there. We could easily have a pedestrian walkway and a place for bicycles to ride. The city constantly is asking for money for all different things and we have constantly been giving you money and we have been constantly not able to have any opinions on any of the things you are doing. When we do, we are ignored Don’t even think that progressives are going to tax themselves in a city that is not listening to them. I hope you will reconsider this-matter. Where is my representative and why are we not heard?
Amy Harrington resident for 50 years in the city.
Sent from my iPhone
18.17 Brittany Inclan
From: Gayle Ortiz <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 7:52 AM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro Subject: Murray St. foot bridge
Please find a way forward for this project. Our community is relying on you! Gayle Ortiz
18.18 Brittany Inclan
From: Ivo Obregon <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 8:38 AM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Murray street bridge opening
Dear sirs,
I writing to express my deep frustration on the reluctance of the three parties involved to not open a pedestrian and cycle route using the rail corridor over the harbor. It is a vital link for our personal and business community which essentially has been disrupted for the next three years. Please do all you can do to partially allow access over the rail corridor.
Thank you,
Ivo Obregon
Santa Cruz resident
Sent from my iPhone
18.19 Brittany Inclan
From: GD Fans <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 8:50 AM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro Subject: Murray St
Folks
I heard a disturbing rumor today: that the city has already decided to shut down consideration of a temporary pedestrian use of the Murray St. rail bridge. It is the city’s responsibility to aggressively pursue this option in the face of the RTC’s continuing promotion of rail at all costs. It won’t be the RTC that champions this common sense solution, so it MUST be the city. You will need A LOT of documented, publicized, and sound reasons for torpedoing this idea, because the blame game will be coming your say when the trail of failed businesses arrives, so let’s hear what they are, loudly and publicly, NOW!
Thanks for your attention
Bill Van Bloom
18.20 Brittany Inclan
From: PATRICE BOYLE <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 10:28 AM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Murray Street RTC Bridge
Hello,
Please do everything in your power - as soon as possible - to expeditiously move forward the work to make the Murray Street RTC bridge safe and usable by pedestrians and bicyclists.
The estimated cost to ready the bridge for usage and decommission appears to be an inflated number.
Let’s get a real handle on the cost.
Please write back to me and let me know how this cost estimate was arrived at and what we can do to minimize it.
In the meantime, please move forward with getting the bridge ready to open. Thank you for taking action to help 27 Seabright and Harbor businesses struggling businesses struggling under the weight of this closure.
Thanks, Enda Brennan
18.21 Brittany Inclan
From: Denise Leonberger-Celli <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 10:48 AM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Pedestrian trail
Please hear the pleas of owners of businesses and the bicycle commuters and pedestrians as they need to access their lives. Perhaps a little more planning on how not to ruin more lives. Help this community now. Thank you Sent from my iPhone
18.22 Brittany Inclan
From: Marna Taylor <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 12:15 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Urgent - need to open Murray Bridge RR crossing now! The recent decision by the RTC to not open this crossing is unacceptable. The businesses and community in this area WILL NOT SURVIVE without a solution to the lack of foot and bike traffic they are experiencing. What good will it do to have this bridge fixed in 3 years if this entire vibrant section of SC is dead? Something must be done now to address this, and you are all in a position to do that. You are responsible for what happens here, and we will all continue to push and prod until a workable solution is found.
Please take time to work with the fabulous businesses and residences in this area to save this neighborhood.
Thank you
Marna Taylor
Sent from my iPhone
18.23 Brittany Inclan
From: Melanie Coon <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 1:41 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Open the rail trail
Hello,
My heart aches for all the businesses in lower Seabright who have suffered huge losses when the Murray Street Bridge closed. Opening the rail trail would give some access to foot and bike traffickers so that they could support the businesses.
Surely the city of Santa Cruz is losing revenue from these businesses. That is unconscionable. The city needs to do all it can to increase revenue not lose it.
The other issue is the effect on the owners and workers. Seabright Social Club has already announced plans to close. It’s just a matter of time before others cannot sustain themselves without customers and sales.
Please do something to help! Open the rail trail so that people have a more convenient way to access lower Seabright.
Thank you,
Melanie Coon
18.24 Brittany Inclan
From: Nadene Thorne <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 2:52 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro; Regional Transportation Commission; Sarah Christensen; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Gerry Jensen; [email protected]; Kimberly De Serpa; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Manu Koenig; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Steve Clark; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Open the Murray Street Bridge for Bike and Foot Traffic! The longer this additional access point is postponed, the greater the damage to our Seabright businesses.
There's no reason to allow Progressive Rail, which has no active nusiness in the county, or Roaring Camp, which also has no active business off of their excursion service to shilly-shally while our local businesses suffer - due, I might add, entirely to the lack of foresight on the part of the city in planning this extensive repair.
Your job is to support our local concerns! Please resolve this bridge access as equickly as possible! Every day counts for these kinds of businesses.
Nadene Thorne
Averitt Street
Santa Cruz
18.25 Brittany Inclan
From: Ginny Aragon <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2025 9:45 AM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro Subject: The Murray Bridge closure
Hello everyone -
I’ve just learned that the hoped for pedestrian/bicycle temporary access across the Murray Street Bridge is now not going to happen. I’m not sure why. I expected more from my City and I am very disappointed. I live in the Seabright neighborhood and support these businesses and it is heartbreaking to see them dwindle with such a lack of support. And here was this one idea. A small one for sure; not a miracle but something and now that too has come to nothing. What will it take to get some action, support or coordination for both sides of the Harbor. I recognize that there are a lot of moving parts and it is a complicated issue but this is a time for some dynamic creativity. And action now! Please reconsider this small step of the pedestrian/bicycle crossing as well as other measures to help the business community stay afloat.
Regards,
Ginny Aragon
Seabright
18.26 Brittany Inclan
From: Martha Legare <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2025 7:47 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro Subject: Support for the Murray Street Temporary rail bridge for pedestrians and cyclists Dear City Council Members,
I wrote the following letter to the people whom I think are on the RTC. How else can I support this temporary access being accomplished?
Dear RTC Members,
I am confused. It is my understanding that as a whole, you "own the rail corridor,” but have decided not to allow the City of Santa Cruz to try and stop the damage that the Murray Street Bridge closure is doing to the local businesses. One business has closed and several are down 20% in daily revenues because of the closure. I am sure that all the businesses and the vast majority of pedestrians and cyclists would love to have temporary access on the rail bridge to connect our community.
I just can’t imagine why you wouldn’t support something that is good for both citizens and business owners and doesn’t hurt anyone. I believe, as stewards of the property, this is relatively simple and inexpensive process of temporarily creating a walk and bike way that is safe and would be in your best interest. Is that not accurate?
Saturday evening on my way to dinner at La Posta, I saw a bicyclist head down the pathway next to the rail at dusk. I know that’s both illegal and unsafe. Can you please explain why you aren’t supporting a safe way to help local businesses and the citizens in the neighborhood? How could we help you change your minds? What would you need?
I look forward to your response….
Martha
Thanks for your support in this matter.
Sincerely,
Martha Legare
mobile: 404.815.7766
120 Tree Frog Lane
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
18.27 Brittany Inclan
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 12:57 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro Subject: Murray Street Bridge
Hello –
I am very concerned with damage being done to local businesses during the bridge construction. Please move forward with temporary pedestrian and bicycle access on the Murray Street rail bridge. This measure could at least help these businesses to stay afloat during this long period construction.
Thank you –
Karen Haralson
18.28 Brittany Inclan
From: Jeffrey Werner <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2025 5:47 PM
To: Renee Golder; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Fred Keeley; Sonja Brunner; Susie O'Hara; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro; Susan Lasko; City Council Cc: Jeffrey Werner
Subject: Re: Bike and pedestrian access to the Murray Street Railroad bridge City Council,
Please tell City Staff to go back and come up with a plan for the pedestrian and bike access on the Murray St railroad bridge.
Sure there are problems with providing access but the cost of not doing it is much greater.
I think the City council should direct the staff to pave or DG the bridge by the end of September and let the chips fall where they may.
This is an emergency for the Seabright area. There are always reasons NOT to do something.
Regards,
Jeffrey Werner
831-247-0247
[email protected]
Cayuga Jazz Band
On Aug 11, 2025, at 5:05 PM, Jeffrey Werner <[email protected]> wrote:
City Council
Thanks so much for moving forward with a plan to allow pedestrian and bike access to the Murray St railroad bridge.
18.29 This will be a big improvement for us Seabright residents and to hopefully provide some small help to local businesses.
I have to ask - why wasn’t this thought about during the planning for the bridge closure? Jeffrey Werner
831-247-0247
[email protected]
Cayuga Jazz Band
<attachment.png>
18.30 Brittany Inclan
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2025 5:49 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Open the rail bridge!
All who care,
Please listen to the reasonable request to open the rail bridge for people to at least walk to their favorite places on each side of the harbor. It seems a small ask when considering how Santa Cruz county residents are completely cut off in that area and how the small businesses are being affected. Just in the few months of closure the businesses are suffering! Is any small business going to still be around after the years of this closure? This lack of planning and support for these businesses and the people in the county is quite shocking. A very sad , disappointing state of affairs!
Sincerely,
Carol Libby
Sent from my iPhone
18.31 Brittany Inclan
From: Warwick Boulton <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2025 7:58 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro Subject: Murray St Bridge
Open the bridge to pedestrian and bicycle traffic please.
Warwick Boulton
18.32 Brittany Inclan
From: davina baker <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2025 8:10 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: No Murray Street bridge
You people---all of you, are responsible for a crisis for the businesses along Seabright and a traffic nightmare. You don't get to go on proposing half measures that mean nothing and do nothing for the health of those businesses--- formerly, thriving businesses---that are now teetering on the brink of collapse or already in it, and for the people who need to get from one side of town to the other and now face catastrophic traffic jams. All thanks to your very poor planning and callous disregard for the communities you're supposed to be serving.
Shame on you. On all of you. FIX THIS.
Sincerely,
Davina Baker
Community member
18.33 Brittany Inclan
From: Susan Cook <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2025 8:29 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Murray Street Brtidge
Please open the bridge to bikes and pedestrians asap. I agree that the whole bridge situation is a mess, and this is a SMALL consolation at best!!
Susan Cook
18.34 Brittany Inclan
From: John Supan <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2025 7:42 AM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: NEEDED NOW: Support for businesses impacted by the Murray Street Bridge closure Please! Local businesses are at risk and an emergency exists that requires expedited and thorough measures to protect them. This is not the time for half measures and protracted contemplation for what our community leaders might consider. Local businesses don’t have the luxury of waiting that you do. Act now and accept your responsibility for immediate action to resolve the situation! Respectfully,
John Supan
Zip code 95062
650 888 8112
18.35 Brittany Inclan
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2025 9:43 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: Harbor crossing
Bonnie Bush, CMC
City Clerk
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center St., Room 8, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Phone: 831-420-5035
Email:[email protected] Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com Begin forwarded message:
From: Susan Swisher <[email protected]>
Date: August 24, 2025 at 8:40:32 AM PDT
To: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Subject: Harbor crossing
****CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.**** Even though it might be more convenient for my many hikes to and around the harbor, I am inclined to avoid construction sites. Let construction continue and I, for one, am good with not opening up bridge walkway.
Susan
Downtown home owner
18.36 Brittany Inclan
From: J S <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2025 10:25 AM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Open the Santa Cruz Harbor Rail Corridor Now Dear Councilmembers, Closing the rail corridor to cyclists and pedestrians is hurting our community. Families and commuters are forced into dangerous detours on busy streets, while local harbor businesses lo...
Dear Councilmembers,
Closing the rail corridor to cyclists and pedestrians is hurting our community. Families and commuters are forced into dangerous detours on busy streets, while local harbor businesses lose customers simply because people cannot reach them safely or conveniently.
This is not just an inconvenience—it’s unsafe and it’s damaging local livelihoods. The corridor is a public asset, and it should serve the public.
I urge you to act immediately to open the Santa Cruz Harbor rail corridor to cyclists and pedestrians.
Every day of delay means more risk, more lost business, and more frustration for the very residents you represent.
Sincerely,
Joseph Skinner
Santa Cruz Resident
18.37 Brittany Inclan
From: SANDY FINCH <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2025 10:40 AM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Rail trial
I just don’t understand, you all seem so closed minded and have no foresight into the needs of our community. Not only would this stretch be more assessable for business and folks who work/live on either side but it would make the roads safer for those who travel on bike that are now forced onto busier roads with anergy drivers as this closer has made there commute a half hour longer now.
For once it would be nice for those of us who live here to make a difference in our own lives and outcomes.
Sincerely, a concerned local
18.38 Brittany Inclan
From: Carola Barton <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2025 12:10 PM
To: John Supan; City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; leonorfabian72 @gmail.com; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Businesses affected by Murray Street Bridge construction We are in danger of losing the businesses impacted by the Murray Street Bridge closure - please do whatever you can to protect them, and do so with urgency.
With appreciation for your assistance,
Carola Barton
18.39 Brittany Inclan
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2025 4:27 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: Rail bridge open to walking
Bonnie Bush, CMC
City Clerk
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center St., Room 8, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Phone: 831-420-5035
Email:[email protected] Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com Begin forwarded message:
From: ross murphy <[email protected]>
Date: August 24, 2025 at 3:48:23 PM PDT
To: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Subject: Rail bridge open to walking
****CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.**** We can’t close a bridge for three years and close access that we’ve all been using for years and destroy businesses that need the people coming by to do business. Add some safety precautions and open the bridge.
Ross
18.40 Brittany Inclan
From: Trician Comings <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2025 4:48 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Temporary Rail Shuttle - Live Oak to Seabright Dear City Council,
Wow! What a fantastic solution to the Murray Street Bridge project dilemma! I think the option of the Coast Futura light rail shuttle is the BEST idea yet.
It would cost far less than covering the tracks and then uncovering them.
The rail connection works in all weather conditions is accessible to all people--not just walkers and cyclists.
Since the TIG/M light rail demonstration, so many people were sorry to have missed the opportunity to ride it.
For sure, a rail shuttle would be a HUGE draw to the struggling businesses in both the Harbor and Seabright areas.
Please direct staff to explore the opportunity of implementing temporary rail service between Seventh ad Seabright Avenues.
It is our rail line; let’s use it to support our community!
Thank you!
Trician Comings
18.41 Brittany Inclan
From: nancy kaneg <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2025 6:00 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro Subject: Open the rail bridge
To whom will listen,
The planning for the bridge was several years in the making. It is shocking that a plan was not put in place for foot and bicycle traffic to pass over the rail bridge that is not in use. I live in the area and find it very inconvenient to get to two of my favorite neighborhood restaurants. I feel terrible for the businesses in the area that most likely will not survive this short-sighted plan. There are already so many businesses that have closed. This town needs businesses.
Please help the people that you represent. I am asking that you fight harder to get that rail bridge available for pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
Thank you,
Nancy Kaneg
Sent from my iPhone
18.42 Brittany Inclan
From: Madeline Horn <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2025 6:01 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Murray street bridge
Greetings,
I am a lifelong resident of Santa Cruz’s east side. I write to you to encourage pedestrian and bike access to the Murray Street bridge while it’s under construction. I am heartbroken to hear that local businesses are struggling because of the construction. On a more personal level, I believe easy direct access for walking and biking is necessary! We feel cut off from downtown. The traffic situation on Soquel is horrendous.
Respectfully,
Madeline Horn
18.43 Brittany Inclan
From: Russell Weisz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2025 6:05 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Gabriela Trigueiro; Sonja Brunner; Scott Newsome; Susie O'Hara; Renee Golder
Subject: Murray St Bridge construction (agenda item 18) Dear Councilmembers,
We support bringing back the Coast Futura. We do NOT support covering the tracks. We agree with the following:
Murray St will reopen to bikes and pedestrians as well as one way car traffic in 6 months, February 2026. Meanwhile cyclists like us are using the Arana Gulch bike path to cross the harbor. Another bike path isn’t the priority need right now. Implementing a rail shuttle between Seabright and Seventh Avenue will serve many, many more people than another bike path. It will provide improved access for all people, including elderly and disabled.
Renewal of the Coast Futura would not only provide a direct connection between Live Oak and Seabright, but would be an attraction in and of itself, helping to draw people to these business districts.
Running rail shuttle service between 7th and Seabright Avenues would not require any crossings. With improved crossings, rail service could run further and be of significantly more use.
Please direct staff to further explore re-instituting the rail service at least between Seabright and Seventh Avenue for the duration of the Murray Street Bridge project.
thank you,
Russell Weisz, Judith Carey
319 Laguna St. Santa Cruz CA 95060
18.44 Brittany Inclan
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2025 7:33 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: The Absurdity of not allowing not to allow pedestrians and bicycles to use the Murray Street rail bridge
Bonnie Bush, CMC
City Clerk
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center St., Room 8, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Phone: 831-420-5035
Email:[email protected] Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com Begin forwarded message:
From: Joe Christy <[email protected]>
Date: August 24, 2025 at 7:10:02 PM PDT
To: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Subject: The Absurdity of not allowing not to allow pedestrians and bicycles to use the Murray Street rail bridge
****CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.**** Dear Bonnie Bush
As someone who has recently purchased a home in
Seabright after being evacuated three times for wildfires from our home in Bonny Doon, I am writing to you today
to object in the strongest possible way to the City Staff recommendation not to allow pedestrians and bicycles to use the Murray Street rail bridge while the Murray Street Bridge itself is undergoing its interminable repair. The Murray Street bridge is supposed to be part of the long dreamt of rail-trail which is supposed to allow trains, bicycles, and pedestrians to share a route across the
County. Obviously a single track can never be
18.45 commercially viable for commercial rail traffic since there are no sidings to allow trains to pass one another. What sense is there in not allowing bicycles and pedestrians not to use some small remaining part of the dream, especially when the businesses on the East side of the bridge are
being pushed into bankruptcy. People don't go out to
restaurants at night by buses which only run during the day. I've known Hans & Heidi Havermeyer for nearly 25
years, since they first started their business selling seafood in the Downtown Farmer's Market and their business is
suffering too.
The "preferred alternative" is not cheap either. The City Council should not thumb its nose at those bicyclists and pedestrians who so long supported the promise of a railtrail.
Respecfully,
--
Joe Christy => [email protected] => 831/515-8389
It’s alright, Ma, it’s life, and life only
18.46 Brittany Inclan
From: Dianne <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2025 9:10 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Sonja Brunner; Susie O'Hara; Renee Golder; Gabriela Trigueiro; Scott Newsome
Subject: Murray Street rail bridge
Hello Mayor and Councilmembers,
Please use the existing rail bridge for Coast Futura as a rail shuttle between Seabright and 7th Avenues during construction of the new bridge across the harbor.
I rode on the small Coast Futura (TigM) ultra light-rail vehicle about three years ago during a short demonstration event for the public. It was wonderful....hundreds of people were delighted! Anyone can easily board, including children, the elderly and people with limited abilities.
I urge you to preserve our rail corridor! It should be used for future passenger rail transit down the coast and beyond for commuters, tourists, diners and shoppers, as well as evacuations in fire emergencies.
Thank you for supporting the Coast Futura shuttle now and rail transit for future generations.
Dianne Dryer
Santa Cruz
18.47 Brittany Inclan
From: Lori Chavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2025 10:05 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Susie O'Hara; Sonja Brunner; Shebreh KalantariJohnson; Scott Newsome; Gabriela Trigueiro; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: East Side Businesses and Temporary Pedestrian/Bicycle Access Dear people,
It is so disheartening to learn that this temporary access has been denied. As Eastside residents who are committed to supporting our local businesses for over 50 years we are very concerned about the viability of our Eastside business community. Also, as a 30 year member of the non-profit Outrigger Santa Cruz paddling club, not having access to the harbor via the Murray Bridge has been a challenge for many.
I urge you to do what you can to ensure temporary access to the pedestrian and bicycle access across Murray Bridge.
Thank you,
Lori Chavez
18.48 Brittany Inclan
From: Neil Waldhauer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2025 9:21 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Trolley over Yacht Harbor bridge
I'm excited to hear that the City Council is considering running trolley service over the Yacht Harbor bridge. I favor such an operation. It would be fun for me to use while in the area.
Longer term, it would be nice to have that trolley run from Natural Bridges all the way to Jade St in Capitola.
Thanks for reading.
Neil
--
Neil Waldhauer
130 Serra Ct.
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
18.49 Brittany Inclan
From: Bonnie Bush
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2025 11:11 AM
To: City Council
Subject: FW: Construction proposal to open Murray St rail bridge Attachments: Proposed Temporary Trail - Seabright to 7 - 082325 - rev B.pdf Bonnie Bush, CMC
City Clerk - City of Santa Cruz
809 Center St., Room 8, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Phone: 831-420-5035
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.cityofsantacruz.com
Public Records Requests may be submitted online via the Public Records Request form, by email, or by hard copy form available at the City Clerk’s Office located at 809 Center Street, Room 8, Santa Cruz, CA 95060.
Please note: Public Record Act Requests submitted via email, fax, USPS, or dropoff after 5:00 p.m. on a business day, Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays will be processed as received on the next open business day. The 10-day response period begins when the request is received.
From: Matt Huffaker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2025 11:06 AM
To: Bonnie Bush <[email protected]>
Cc: Tony Condotti <[email protected]>; Cassie Bronson <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Construction proposal to open Murray St rail bridge From: Bud Colligan <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 2:29 PM
To: Matt Huffaker <[email protected]>
Cc: Fred Keeley <[email protected]>; Sarah Christensen <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Construction proposal to open Murray St rail bridge ****CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.****
Hi Matt,
18.50 The link you sent does not work, but I found the staff report via the website. The staff report is disappointing and sounds like bureaucratic prose to avoid doing much that will actually help the Harbor and Seabright businesses. It also sounds like it was written by people who have never worked in a business, had suppliers and employees, or had to meet a payroll. The businesses and community need something better.
Regarding the cost question, without seeing the work of your staff and holding it up to real scrutiny, the attached proposal offers to do the work within 10 weeks at $350,000, about five times less than what the city staff says. There is clearly something amiss. What happened to the sense of urgency? Or declaring an emergency to suspend some of the normal "business as usual"? The need to get scores of approvals from other agencies underscores why little gets done in the county or in California. Governor Gavin Newsom can suspend certain CCC and CEQA regulations to help people rebuild their homes after the southern California fires; Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania can rebuild I-95 in 12 days, but the City of Santa Cruz can't put some DG and railings on a bridge on a temporary basis?
Regarding Progressive Rail, it's unfortunate the City and RTC are ready to go to battle with mobile home owners or individual property owners with less perceived power, but a one page letter from Progressive, ghost written by Roaring Camp, can scare the pants off the City Attorney. Really? Roaring Camp has moved, on average, about $6,400 of freight per month in 2023 and 2024 on the Santa Cruz Branch Line (source: RTC). Yes, you read that right--$6,400 per month! Do you think this is a viable business operating a train, employing an engineer, trackman and other personnel dealing with freight customers, and paying for fuel, insurance, etc.? And that this business is going to be a formidable legal adversary? Why is the City
18.51 of Santa Cruz afraid to implement a direction that the City Council and the RTC approved unanimously? It appears to be a major head fake intended to pretend to be serious in solving the problem.
The City's response is underwhelming and shows a stark lack of creativity and urgency. If the City would like to engage with a proposal to do the work to open the rail bridge to bikes and pedestrians, and gather the gumption to have a stiff spine in dealing with Progressive Rail/Roaring Camp, I'm sure something can be figured out.
Sincerely,
Bud
On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 11:59 AM Matt Huffaker <[email protected]> wrote:
Morning, Bud
I didn’t see an attachment come through. Do you find forwarding it?
If you haven’t done so already, the City’s staff report on this item does a good job summarizing the complexity of the temporary path. I know it’s not what folks want to hear, but it’s the regulatory and practical reality we’re operating in. Our engineering team is one of the best I’ve ever worked with. I’m confident in their in their review and conclusions.
Here’s a link to the staff report:
https://ecm.cityofsantacruz.com/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Documents/ViewDocument/Summary%20She et%20for%20-
%20Update%20on%20Actions%20to%20Support%20Seabright%20and%20Harbor%20Busine.pdf?me etingId=2534&documentType=Agenda&itemId=49172&publishId=80224&isSection=false
Thanks,
18.52 Matt
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
City of Santa Cruz | City Manager's Office
809 Center Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Direct: 831-420-5010
Email: [email protected]
Web: cityofsantacruz.com
From: Bud Colligan <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2025 10:42 AM
To: Fred Keeley <[email protected]>; Matt Huffaker <[email protected]> Cc: Sarah Christensen <[email protected]>
Subject: Construction proposal to open Murray St rail bridge
****CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.****
Attached is a construction proposal to open the Murray St rail bridge to bikes and pedestrians from Seabright to 7th Ave. I’m forwarding this proposal from professional colleagues; I have no financial interest in it nor any interest in what contractors are ultimately selected for this project. I am submitting it as a sample approach to pursuing the objective unanimously approved by the RTC and Santa Cruz City Council.
18.53 As you can see, the objective can be accomplished at significantly less than numbers mentioned by the city. The cost to replace rails and ties in three years to a condition better than what currently exists may or may not occur based on actions by the RTC over that timeframe.
My hope is that this overview proposal will spur creative problem solving in this emergency situation for Seabright and Harbor businesses.
Best regards,
Bud
<Proposed Temporary Trail - Seabright to 7 - 082325 - rev B.pdf>
18.54 August 22, 2025
PROPOSED TEMPORARY TRAIL FROM SEABRIGHT AVE TO 7TH AVE
Trail Construction:
Proposal to construct a 10-foot-wide “Stone Dust” trail on the existing railroad bed from Seabright Ave to 7th Ave in Santa Cruz County. The trail will be ADA compliant and completed within 10 weeks from initial start of project. The scope of work for construction of trail will include:
• Removal and storage (on-site) of metal rails
• Removal and recycle/disposal of railroad ties
• Development of Storm Water Management Plan
• Environmental/Safety site management
• Installation of safety guard rail on Harbor Railroad Trestle • Grading and surface prep for Trail Surface Aggregate (TSA) materials • Spread TSA materials for 10-foot-wide trail
• Compact TSA materials according to material specs
• Project clean-up and closeout
Item Description Cost
Equipment/Trucking $115,500
Materials $69,375
Labor $120,000
Reports/Insurance $20,000
Disposal $15,000
Subtotal $339,875
Contingency (5%) $16,994
Total $356,869
Railroad Restoration (in 2028):
Proposal to restore rails and ties to original configuration from Seabright Ave to 7th Ave in Santa Cruz County. The scope of work for restoration of rails and ties will include:
• Removal of TSA materials
• Addition of rock ballast
• Installation of new railroad ties
• Installation of original metal rails onto ties
• Removal of safety guard rail on Harbor Railroad Trestle • Project clean-up and closeout
Trail Construction Cost
Equipment/Trucking $49,500
Materials $168,750
Labor $81,000
Reports/Insurance $20,000
Disposal $2,500
Subtotal $321,750
Contingency (5%) $16,088
Total $337,838
18.55 August 22, 2025
Contractor list:
Aptos Landscape Supply (5035 Freedom Blvd., Aptos, Ca 95003) will provide materials for construction of the trail and manage all recyclable railroad ties.
Trail Surface Aggregate:
18.56 August 22, 2025
Contractor List:
Iron Horse Preservation Society (5245 Vista Blvd, Sparks Nevada) will provide project oversight, equipment, and personnel resources to construct trail from Seabright Ave to 7th Ave in Santa Cruz County.
Stone Dust spreader used to form 10 ft
wide crushed granite trail
Nordco Superclaw used to pull spikes
allowing the rails to be removed from ties
Past Trail Projects:
18.57 August 22, 2025
Contractor List:
Remediation Risk Management (RRM) 2560 Soquel Ave, Ste 202, Santa Cruz, CA 95062 will provide a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) that will define how project materials and waste will be stored at the project, provide specific guidance on mitigation practices to control rainwater runoff, ensure appropriate drainage plans to control runoff and ensure safeguards to environment during project.
Buena Vista Landfill (1231 Buena Vista Dr. Watsonville, CA 95076) will serve as facility handling disposal of old railroad ties that are not recyclable.
KMRD Partners (2600 Kelly Rd Ste 120, Warrington, PA 18976) will provide insurance that has mutual-Indemnification clause covering Contractors, Progressive Rail and Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission during the timeframe of the project.
18.58 Brittany Inclan
From: Jerome Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2025 11:50 AM
To: City Council; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Murray Street Rail Bridge affect on businesses It is unfortunate that you have failed to respond quickly to help the businesses in the Seabright area with such flimsy excuses. They need help now.
There is nothing much I can do about this now except to continue to support those businesses myself.
However, you have changed my former positive attitude to negative to the entire "Rail" part of the "Coastal Rail Trail" and will vote accordingly in the future whenever the subject comes up in an election. Your cold unsympathetic reaction has completely turned me off the companies supporting rail.
Jerome E. Garcia
3100 North Rodeo Gulch Road
Soquel, CA 95073
18.59 Brittany Inclan
From: Jan McGirk <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2025 11:56 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Murray Bridge project & rail tracks
Dear council
I urge you to keep local residents and workers for harbor businesses in mind while addressing the inconveniences of the Murray Bridge project for at least the next 6 months. Living on Portola Drive, with close family on 9th Avenue, we are impacted several times a day if we need to go into town. Traffic jams are increasing. Another bike path is not urgent, since the Arana Gulch bikepath works well and free ferry rides are available for bicyclists . What would be more helpful is a rail shuttle service between 7th & Seabright on the existing tracks. This would gratly improve access for the elderly, disabled & stroller-pushers. It would not require any crossings that disrupt traffic. Renewal of the Coast Futura would not only provide a direct connection between Live Oak and Seabright, but the modern shuttle ride would attract new customers to businesses that have been hit financially by the detours. We need those tracks! Sincerely,
J. McGirk
2130 Portola Dr, Santa Cruz CA 95062
18.60 Brittany Inclan
From: Susie Stelle <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2025 12:32 PM
To: Fred Keeley; City Council
Subject: Murray St. Bridge and Arana Gulch Path
Dear Mayor Fred Keeley and City Council Members,
Thank you for working to support our community during the Murray Street Bridge closure. I want to urge you to look at rail service as part of the solution.
Right now, cyclists have the Arana Gulch path, and by February 2026 Murray Street will reopen to bikes, pedestrians, and one-way car traffic. Another bike path is not the urgent need.
What is needed is a way to serve everyone—seniors, people with disabilities, families, workers, and visitors. A rail shuttle between Seabright and Seventh Avenue would do exactly that. It would help struggling businesses by drawing people into the Harbor, Seabright, and Live Oak neighborhoods, and the Coast Futura ultra light rail train could even be an attraction in its own right.
This segment requires no crossings, meaning it could start quickly, and with improved crossings could extend further.
Please direct staff to explore reinstating rail service between Seabright and Seventh Avenue for the duration of the bridge project. It’s practical, inclusive, and would make a real difference for residents and businesses.
Thank you,
Susie Stelle
4755 Topaz St.
Capitola, Ca. 95010
18.61 Brittany Inclan
From: david van brink <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2025 1:35 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; [email protected]
Subject: Murray St Bridge -- Probably "No Way" for pedestrians! Dear Esteemed City Council --
Please take this bullet list in the warmest possible way! The timeline for designing, administrating, and building a pedestrian override to the existing rail bridge is unlikely to make it useful
The notion that a few additional bridge-walkers will save Patrice Boyle's business seems suspect.
Her motives seem suspect. ($5K to Greenway Measure D.)
Progressive's reply asking for clarification and context before saying "yes" is COMPLETELY REASONABLE. Any of us would ask the same before loaning out our driveway. It seems inappropriate to accuse them of obstruction.
Supervisor Cummings' representative Schiffrin on the RTC wisely suggested perhaps leveraging this "emergency" in a more productive direction of expediting our already-planned and funded trail segments there.
Lastly -- this infrastructure is already known to be usable for light rail purposes like coast futura.
Perhaps there's time- and value-engineering to improve on staff's estimate on that direction. In any case, pedestrian access is opening relatively quickly. I get it, I do, it seems like "emergency" and "forever" right now. But that will pass. <breathe>
Warmly -- David Van Brink / Santa Cruz
________
david van brink / [email protected] / 831.332.6077
18.62 Brittany Inclan
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2025 1:45 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Rail use while Murray Bridge is under construction re. Rail use while Murray Bridge is under renovation.
Good day Mayor and City Council members.
I strongly support FORT’s thoughtful proposal to move folks without cars into the yacht harbor while the Murray Bridge is under a too lengthy construction process. As is Council policy to support a trail AND rail their proposal assures the rail moves forward. It also allows the public to see what a possible rail project could look, feel, and sound like. It could also become an attraction and destination for people to frequent businesses along the way.
Thank you time and thoughtful consideration.
Ron Pomerantz
Sent from my Magic phone
18.63 Brittany Inclan
From: Sally Arnold <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2025 3:23 PM
To: Scott Newsome; Renee Golder; Fred Keeley; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Gabriela Trigueiro; Sonja Brunner; City Council; Susie O'Hara
Subject: revive the Coast Futura ultra-light-rail shuttle! Dear Mayor and City Councilors,
I commend your efforts to help the harbor area businesses on each side of the Murray St Bridge construction. These businesses have been barely hanging on ever since the COVID lockdown and this is like the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
The staff have presented you with an array of options many of which could provide some real relief to the businesses and the local residents.
One of those options, though will not really be useful: covering up the tracks on the rail bridge to make a temporary path. I get why at first blush this seemed like a good idea, but take minute to think about it. Covering the tracks would cost about $1.7 million, present engineering challenges as well as safety and liability issues. And how many people will it really serve? Only the people who live within about a half mile of the bridge would make that walk. Cyclists are already using the Arana gulch path to cross the harbor. Murray St will reopen to bikes and pedestrians as well as one way car traffic in 6 months, at which point this expensive path becomes redundant. This proposed path plan doesn’t really add much to the system
The option of reviving the Coast Futura ultra-light-rail shuttle, on the other hand, really does bring something new to the situation. A rail shuttle between Seabright and Seventh Avenue will serve many, many more people than another bike path. Unlike a path, it will provide improved access for all people, including elderly and disabled in all kinds of weather. Plus, a shuttle would be an attraction in and of itself, helping to draw people to these business districts. With improved crossings, or an on-board flagger, the shuttle could run further and be of significantly more use. Imagine service running from Capitola to the Westside. Now you have transformed your traffic problem into a traffic improvement.
I urge you to direct staff to further explore re-instituting the rail service, at least between Seabright and Seventh Avenue, for the duration of the Murray Street Bridge project.
Thank you,
Sally Arnold
Westide Resident
18.64 Brittany Inclan
From: Matt Farrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2025 3:31 PM
To: City Council
Subject: FORT Comments on Item 18. Murray Street Brdige Business Support Attachments: 08252025 Comment Letter on Item 18 MurrayStBridge.docx Mayor and Councilmembers,
The attached letter outlines Friends of the Rail and Trail's comments on Item 18. We appreciate city staff's creative efforts to address this issue.
Matt Farrell
Chair
Santa Cruz County Friends of the Rail and Trail
18.65 P.O. Box 1652, Capitola, CA 95010 • [email protected] Fiscally sponsored by Social Good Fund (EIN) TAX ID: 46-1323531 Aug 25, 2025
TO: Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Council
FROM: Santa Cruz County Friends of the Rail and Trail (FORT) SUBJECT: August 26 Meeting Agenda Item 18. Seabright and Business Support and the Murray Street Bridge
Friends of the Rail and Trail supports the city’s efforts to help suffering businesses in the Seabright and Harbor neighborhoods. We support the implementation of economic assistance programs, which the city also implemented for businesses during COVID; increased signage and marketing efforts; and parking meter enforcement changes.
We also strongly support the return of rail service which city staff has presented as an option.
Implementing a rail shuttle between Seabright and Seventh Avenue will serve more people than a temporary bike path. It will be an all weather option and more accessible to the disabled and the elderly. Friends of the Rail & Trail is serious about supporting the harbor area businesses. We would be happy to assist in making this option a reality. As we did several years ago, we would cover the cost of transporting a TIG/m ultra light rail vehicle to Santa Cruz County for use as a shuttle over the harbor.
This short route would not require any road crossings, but if the council chose a longer route, from Capitola to Boardwalk, or even the westside, it would serve more people and do even more to help the harbor area businesses.
The 2021 Coast Futura project demonstrated that this option would be very popular and would be an attraction for both Live Oak and city residents as well as visitors. Given the $1.7 million cost for the temporary base rock path between Seabright and Seventh Avenue and that option’s liability issues, we urge Council to direct staff to further explore the rail shuttle option.
Matt Farrell
Board Chair
Santa Cruz County Friends of the Rail and Trail
18.66 Brittany Inclan
From: Paula Bradley <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2025 3:40 PM
To: City Council; Fred Keeley; Susie O'Hara; Scott Newsome; Sonja Brunner; Gabriela Trigueiro; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Renee Golder
Subject: City Council Item #18 Update to support Seabright & Harbor Business affected by the Murray Street bridge closure
Please support the use of the rail right of way for public transportation including a rail shuttle from 7th Avenue to Seabright to access businesses impacted by the Murray Street Bridge closure.
The Coast Futura demo train a few years ago demonstrated that the existing tracks can be used for zero emission rail transportation. Not everyone such as the elderly and disabled, can ride a bike or walk on a trail. We have an opportunity to utilize the rail during this urgent situation, please pursue this option and don't spend money on a project such as covering the railroad tracks that has to be removed later. The rail use would allow more people to patronize impacted businesses than a trail only. I ride through this area frequently but due to the congestion resulting from the bridge closure I like many people, do not drive to the area. As a cyclist I can easily access the harbor area businesses using the Arana Gulch detour.
Thank you
Paula Bradley (she/her)
P. O. Box 1146 Capitola CA 95010
18.67 Brittany Inclan
From: Tina Andreatta <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2025 4:03 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Fred Keeley; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Gabriela Trigueiro; Sonja Brunner; Scott Newsome; Susie O'Hara; Renee Golder
Subject: Helping Seabright and Harbor businesses impacted by the Murray Street Bridge construction project.
Dear Mayor Fred Keeley and Santa Cruz City Council Members, I want to thank the City for its efforts to support local businesses and residents during the Murray Street Bridge closure. The impacts of this disruption are serious, and it’s important we pursue solutions that provide the greatest benefit to the most people.
The option that deserves immediate attention is reinstating rail service between Seabright and Seventh Avenue. This would serve far more people than another bike path at this time. Cyclists already have a safe, functional route through the Arana Gulch path, and Murray Street itself will reopen to bikes, pedestrians, and one-way car traffic in just six months, by February 2026.
By contrast, a rail shuttle would provide real mobility for everyone—families, seniors, people with mobility issues, commuters, and tourists. This is a solution that doesn’t just replace one path with another, but actually expands access. It’s a lifeline for those who can’t bike, and a relief for local businesses that need steady foot traffic.
Renewal of the — light rail demonstration train isn’t just practical—it’s an attraction in its own right. It would create a direct connection between the Harbor and Seabright, two business districts hit hard by the bridge closure. Bringing people in through a rail shuttle means more customers, more vitality, and more recovery for the community.
Importantly, the stretch of track between Seabright and Seventh Avenue requires no crossings. Service could start here right away, and with improved crossings, extend further to meet even more of the community’s needs.
I urge the Council to direct staff to seriously explore re-instituting rail service, at least between Seabright and Seventh Avenue, for the duration of the Murray Street Bridge project. This would be a practical, inclusive, and forward-looking solution to a pressing problem.
Thank you for considering this option that helps residents, businesses, and the city as a whole. Thank you for protecting our tracks and promoting rail service as a solution.
Sincerely,
Tina Andreatta
18.68 Aptos, CA 95003
18.69 Brittany Inclan
From: Iwalani Faulkner <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2025 4:58 PM
To: Bonnie Bush; City Council
Subject: Murray Street Bridge Item #18 for Aug 26, 2025 Attachments: 2025-08-25_EquityTransit_MurrayStBridge_Traffic Plan_Item18.pdf Dear Honorable City Council Members:
Please find attached our letter regarding Item#18 for tomorrow's agenda. --
Best regards,
Lani Faulkner, Director
Equity Transit - Tránsito de Equidad
www.EquityTransit.org
831-278-1007
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
18.70 1840 41st Ave, Ste 102, #227
Capitola, CA 95010
831-278-1007
August 25, 2025
Santa Cruz City Council Members
809 Center Street, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Update on Actions to Support Seabright and Harbor Businesses Affected by the Murray Street Bridge Project (CM/PW/ED) Item 18
Dear Honorable City Council Members and Santa Cruz City Staff, Equity Transit is concerned about the challenges that businesses in the Seabright area near Murray Street face with the current bridge closure. Given the significant number of people who make their way to these businesses near the intersection of Seabright and Murray Street, it is important to work to improve access. The PRIMARY mode that people use to cross the Murray Street Bridge, to and from the east to west sides of the bridge, is via AUTOMOBILE. A significantly smaller percentage of the traffic is by FOOT. The primary route of access by BIKE to the Seabright area from the East side is through Arana Gulch, which is the currently the safest route of passage for cyclists given extremely narrow bike lanes and an epidemic of aggressive driving on our surface streets. There are currently a few safe routes for cyclists to quickly cross over the harbor. Investing in a temporary trail will not address the deficit in business due to the decrease in vehicular traffic!
We appreciate that a number of different solutions have been proposed, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. In the interest of time, we propose that a rail shuttle would be the fastest service which would best replace the reduced automobile and pedestrian access. An added bonus is that a rail shuttle could also be made accessible to bikes. • Temporary gravel foot/bike path: A temporary gravel trail is an expensive choice at $1.7M for a 3,000-foot trail which would not provide an ADA compliant and would not address the greatest challenge, providing people who primarily use motor vehicles to cross over the Harbor. The gravel materials would also need to be disposed of after the temporary use, which could present unforeseen environmental concerns. The PROCESS of trying to seek approval of such a temporary trail would likely be FAR Lengthier than the process of replacing the Murray St. Bridge as it might likely require adverse abandonment and railbanking which is unlikely to be approved by the Surface Transportation Board.
• Rail Shuttle: The rail line is currently approved for use of a rail shuttle and could provide pedestrians and people who drive a way to get across the Harbor more directly from 7th Ave to Seabright. This would require an update in the crossings at
18.71 1840 41st Ave, Ste 102, #227
Capitola, CA 95010
831-278-1007
least at 7th Street and Seabright which might be expensive, but would be useful into the future, and therefore would not be a wasted investment. We understand that one or more organizations have offered to pay for the transport of the Tig/M vehicle to Santa Cruz, and therefore the costs borne by the City would include the cost to run the service. We think this choice has an added advantage in reducing the extreme increase in driving and providing people with an opportunity to experience the benefits of a viable alternate to driving. The costs of running a rail shuttle are comparable to running the Santa Cruzer Shuttle 12 hours a day for free. • Santa Cruzer Shuttle: The Cost of this shuttle option is comparable to the rail shuttle option but the transport time will be LONGER than the direct access via a rail shuttle.
• Harbor Taxi: This option may be less feasible for wheel chair users and those with other mobility issues and may not be reasonable for inclement weather.
As we consider these options, we hope that your leadership will also consider the reliance this community has on automobiles. This lack of robust public transit and reliance on motor vehicles has a direct negative impact on our environment, promoting climate change, and also excludes 20-30% of the community from access to resources and community activities. We encourage the City Council to consider the rail shuttle, Metro, and harbor shuttles as the best way to provide community access. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lani Faulkner, Director
18.72 Murray Street Bridge
Project Update
Santa Cruz City Council
August 26, 2025
18.73 Outline
• Project Schedule Overview and
Update
• Temporary Trail Alternatives
• Transit Alternatives
• Business Support and
Promotions
18.74 Schedule Inputs
• In-Water Seasonal Restrictions
• Project Sequencing
• Force Main Relocation
During Summer 2026
• Traffic Lane Maintenance
• Environmental Work Stoppages
• Dock and Utility Relocation
18.75 Project Schedule
• Closure 1: 6/25 thru 1/26
• Closure 2: 6/26 thru 9/26
• 4 more closures 1-5 days each
18.76 Project Funding
Source 2026 Budget: //www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/103946/638878292105370000 • Total Cost of $70M
• Local Match 11%/Gas Tax
• No General Fund Support
• Federalized Project
• Pay Davis Bacon Wages
• Procurement Standards
• Dis Adv. Business Participation
• Subject to review /audit
• Caltrans/FHWA have stated a
temp trail is ineligible for state or
federal funding
18.77 Temporary Trail Alternatives
Trail Length Informed By:
• Accessible/Safe Connection Points
• Bridge’s Work-Zone
• Assumption Tracks Were “Out of Service” Seabright Ave N
3000 ft trail
18.78 Pedestrian Path Intermediate Trail Decking Trail Interim Trail Usability
RR Tracks Maintain Covered Covered Removed
Cost to Install $650,000 $900,000 - Unpaved
$1,200,000 – Paved $6,200,000 $7,400,000
Cost to Remove $230,000 $550,000 $2,000,000 Negotiate Keeping Temporary Trail Alternatives
18.79 Next Steps/Risks
Identify Design/Construction Funding
RTC Block Grant (RSTPX)
General Fund
Gas Tax
Complete Environmental Clearances & Permits
Complete Seismic Analysis
• Expected in December
Complete Design
Negotiate with RTC/Progressive Rail
Temporary Trail Alternatives
Intermediate Trail
18.80 Parking Alternatives
Recommendation:
• Free 2-hour Parking in
Lower Seabright
ALL DAY
18.81 Transit Alternatives
Transit Option Cost/Month Feasibility Recommendation
Train $65,000-$130,000 ? No Action
Bus Unknown + Capital
Improvements
? Investigate
Shuttle $65,000 No Action
Harbor Taxi $7,000 Fund 2 Extra Months
18.82 One Lane, Two-Way Traffic
Eastbound Only (RECOMMENDED)
• Fastest emergency response to Harbor
• Improves Traffic on Soquel Seabright Ave
N
Two-Way, One Lane
• Challenges with Cyclists
• Complex Traffic Control Reduces Safety
• $10-15k per month
18.83 Community & Business Outreach
• City Council project review and approvals.
• TPWC meetings.
• Press releases.
• Project webpage (est. March 2022)
• Project newsletter (~600 subscribers).
• CM Newsletter updates.
• Community meeting.
• Social media posts.
• Local media interviews.
• County communication coordination.
• Business outreach meeting.
• Business walks to distribute project info.
• Meetings and emails for event planning
and feedback on promos.
• ED collaboration with PW and other
partners to address requests.
• In person outreach as needed.
• Project feedback survey(s).
Outreach Prior to Project Start and During Construction
18.84 Business Promotions & Marketing
Ongoing Promotions
• Radio Ads – KAZU & KSQD
• Lookout Local – Promoted
Content & Digital Ads
• Social Media Posts/Ads
• Email Newsletters
• Partner Promotions (Visit Santa
Cruz, Event Santa Cruz, Santa
Cruz Chamber, Think Local First,
etc.)
Additional/Proposed Promotions
• Advertising in Regional
Publications
• Additional Radio Advertising
• Event Programming
• Get Virtual – Business Consulting
• Individualized Business
Assistance
18.85 Banners/Promotional Signage at High Traffic
Areas and along Detour Route
18.86 Construction Impacts Business Loan Program
• Proposal for City guaranteed lowinterest loans up to $50,000. City underwrites and covers basic fees.
• Additional financing options are being
developed with Grow America,
including the potential for the City to
cover principal and/or interest-only
payments for the first year of the
loan.
• Staff is exploring loan forgiveness
options for up to $20k of loan amount
upon verification of financial impact
and severity of impact.
• Loan Program available in September.
Options Guarantee Term Interest Full/Partial
Forgiveness*
Loans Up to
$25,000
City
Guarantee
4-6
years
4-5% Up to
$20,000
Loans Up to
$50,000
City
Guarantee
for a portion
Business
Guarantee
4-6
years
4-5% Up to
$20,000
*Based on sales tax data verification of financial impact
18.87 Proposed Grant Program
• Staff is exploring a grant program as an alternative to the loan program for up to $20k upon verification of
financial impact and severity of impact.
• Eligibility based on a comparison of the sales tax
data from the impacted period to the same period in
the previous uninterrupted year.
• Program is based on similar grants offered in San
Francisco (capped at $10,000) and Los Angeles
(capped at $20,000).
• Timing of grants is based on availability of sales tax data and documentation of revenue loss.
• Staff exploring alternative options
for documentation including signed attestation of
revenue loss.
• Funding source for grant program TBD.
18.88 Get Virtual – Business Resource
• Get Virtual is a UCSC program that analyzes
the social impact and digital presence of a
business and can help develop social media
and e-commerce platforms uniquely
designed to meet the needs and goals of
the business.
• The City has partnered with Get Virtual to
work directly with interested Seabright and
Harbor businesses.
• Specific services include digital tools,
marketing strategies and marketing
automation
• Value to a participating business is between
$5,000 and $15,000.
18.89 Temporary Outdoor Dining Extension
• Temporary permits were extended by ordinance
through July 1, 2026.
• Staff supports an extension of these permits
through July 1, 2029, through an amendment of
the temporary permit ordinance to provide
businesses with additional time to prepare for
permitting after the bridge reopens in 2028.
• Staff requests direction from Council on whether
extensions should be granted only to Seabright
businesses or to all businesses currently
operating under temporary permits.
• There are currently 21 businesses operating under
temporary outdoor dining permits, with 5 of those
businesses located in the Seabright area.
18.90 Business Survey Results
24 Businesses Contacted – 12 Responses
Transportation & Business Resources
• 83% support extending the Water Taxi.
• 83% support creation of new METRO bus route to serve lower Seabright. • 75% oppose removing parking during peak travel times for the bus route. • 58% requested Get Virtual services.
Marketing and Promotions
• 58% support yard signs with supportive messaging.
• 75% support extending Lookout Local and radio ads.
• 67% support advertising in additional outlets.
• 83% support special events in Seabright on public and private property.
18.91 Event Programming
83% of businesses surveyed support events in Seabright
• Businesses ranked the event ideas proposed in the survey as follows:
• Staff proposes two options for event funding:
• RFP to solicit event proposals and award event funding to producers. • Create a sponsorship program offering up to $2500 for proposed events in the area that meet specific criteria.
18.92 Project Communications
Project Communication Point of Contacts
• Rebecca Unitt, Economic Development Manager, serves
as the business liaison on behalf of the City and respond to business requests and inquiries related to business
support programs and assistance.
• Ashley Hussey, Community Relations Specialist, serves as the project communication lead and coordinates
communications and project-related construction
inquiries between the public, media, and City staff.
18.93 Project Updates
The City of Santa Cruz provides regular updates
about the Murray Street Bridge Seismic Retrofit
and Barrier Replacement Project.
Stay Informed
• Visit cityofsantacruz.com/msb to stay informed
and sign up to receive email updates.
• Follow the City of Santa Cruz Public Works
on Facebook and Instagram to stay connected to
project news.
18.94