BACKGROUND INFORMATION
~ Please Note ~
The following property and historical information identified below must be provided in order for your application to be determined complete by the City Planning Division.
You may provide information on additional sheets of paper.
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Description of site or structure, note any major alterations & dates of alterations:
Statement of architectural significance:
Statement of historic importance:
NOTES TO
APPLICANT
For more information
on designation
procedures, refer to
SMMC Section 9.56.
Please see Attachment A.
Please see Attachment B.
N/A
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Person(s) of historic importance:
Local State National
Statement of other significance:
FOR STRUCTURES ONLY:
Date of construction: Factual Estimated
Source:
Architect/Designer/Engineer:
Contractor/ Other builder:
Architectural Style:
Historic Use of Structure(s):
Present Use of Structure(s):
Is/Are structure(s) on original site: Yes No Unknown
Is/Are structure(s) threatened with destruction: Yes No Unknown If yes, state reason:
N/A
None.
Documents and publications that relate directly to proposed improvement (bibliography):
Please see Attachment C.
1961 X
Los Angeles County Tax Assessor
Samuel Reisbord
Mid-Century Modern
Multi-family residence
Multi-family residence
X
X
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
APPLICATOIN REQUIREMENTS
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS – all items must be provided
Completed Application.
Payment of Fee, if applicable.
Payment of Fee is WAIVED for Non-Profit Organizations. Documentation demonstrating Tax-Exempt Status must be included with this application and at the time of filing to be eligible for a Landmark/Structure of Merit Designation Application fee waiver.
Staff will confirm non-profit organization status prior to deeming this application complete.
Eight (8) sets of labeled Color Photographs of the building elevations or improvement on 8½" x 11" paper (Color photocopies are acceptable).
Any information you feel would be of assistance in reviewing the application, such as original plans, old photos, or other historical information.
For structures only: if applicant is requesting approval of modifications, please submit all materials requested for a Certificate of Appropriateness Application.
I hereby certify that the information contained in this application is correct to the best of my knowledge. ____________________________________________________
Applicant’s Name (PRINT)
_________________________________________________________ Applicant’s Signature Date
X
X
X
X
H. Joseph Soleiman
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment A – Description
ATTACHMENT A - DESCRIPTION
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment A – Description
Description
The Imperial Apartments at 305 San Vicente Boulevard is a multi-family apartment building originally constructed by then owner Joseph L. Lyons in 1961 as a four-story, wood-frame building with 36-units on the upper three floors over ground floor parking.1 The Imperial Apartments building was designed in the Mid-Century Modern style by architect Samuel Reisbord.
The building takes up the majority of its rectangular parcel. It has a rectangular plan organized around a central court and a network of exterior, elevated walkways. The building is oriented southeast towards San Vicente Street. It is set back from the sidewalk by an in-ground pool west of the main entrance constructed in 19622 and surface parking to the east, where there is also a Mid-Century Modern sign that reads, “IMPERIAL APARTMENTS,” designed and constructed by Local Neon in 1962.3 The pool is protected from the street by a curved wall made of square concrete blocks. In the center of the front setback there are two trees planted within one tree well. The building has a narrow setback from the adjacent buildings on each side and abuts a rear alley on the northwest.
The building has a flat roof clad in rolled roofing. On the primary elevation, the eaves extend out over balconies but are flush with the exterior wall otherwise. The extended eaves have wide fascia boards clad in smooth stucco. The fascia boards at each balcony are connected by thinner boards, creating an open gap between the thinner fascia boards and the exterior wall. The result is the appearance of a light, continuous, notched band along the façade’s roofline. On the other elevations, the roof eaves overhang the exterior walls and feature simple, flat fascias.
The exterior of the building is clad in smooth stucco. The primary elevation is divided vertically into two parts. The first story is asymmetrical and its design expresses its functions of providing vehicular and pedestrian access. The three upper stories are symmetrical and express their functions as apartment units.
The first story is divided into three parts horizontally. At its center is a wide, rectangular opening for vehicular access to the ground floor parking garage. The primary pedestrian entrance is to the west. It is recessed beneath the upper stories and faces east, perpendicular to the street. The door is aluminum and glass. Flooring at the entrance is terrazzo. The exterior wall to the east of the pedestrian door is clad with white and gold ceramic tiles. The exterior wall to the west of the pedestrian door is floor-to-ceiling glass with aluminum frames. Two round columns clad in small, square, white ceramic tiles with gold tiles scattered throughout, separate the glass walls from the pool area to the south and support the overhanging upper stories. East of the central vehicular entrance the exterior wall features are tall, narrow, rectangular openings that provide light and air into the ground floor garage.
Fenestration on the upper three floors is organized into four bays. The inner two bays have sliding aluminum windows above planter boxes adjacent to wide balconies accessed by large sliding aluminum doors. The balconies have simple metal railings. The upper balconies shelter the balconies below. The outer two bays consist of smaller corner balconies on each floor, also with aluminum, sliding sash doors. The front wall plane of all balconies on the primary elevation extends below its corresponding floor level creating a notched appearance similar to the roof fascia. 1 City of Santa Monica Building Department, Building Permit No. B29952, June 16, 1961. 2 Building Permit No. B30967, January 22, 1962.
3 Building Permit No. B31470, April 20, 1962.
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment A – Description
The east elevation is asymmetrical. On the north end of the first story are three, recessed metal doors for storage/utility spaces, including a trash enclosure, and a stairwell to the upper floors. The doors are accessible via a concrete walkway from the rear alley. Fenestration on the first floor consist of short, fixed windows with textured wire glass protected by metal security bars. On the upper floors there are recessed balconies within rectangular openings with slightly projecting concrete slab floors and simple metal railings. They each have sliding aluminum doors and are flanked by a number of aluminum sliding-sash windows. Small louvered metal vents are along the floorplates of each floor. The west elevation is similar to the east elevation with punched window and balcony openings.
The rear of the building overlooks a narrow alley. The elevation is a simplified version of the primary elevation. The first story is recessed beneath the upper floors, supported by round concrete columns. At the center of the first story is a rectangular opening to the ground floor parking. The opening has an accordion-style metal gate. The driveway has a gradual slope that descends into the garage, flanked by low concrete walls. The vehicular opening is flanked by two bays of parking on each side, at grade with the alley, such that they overlook the ground-floor parking within the first story of the building. This opening is partially enclosed by metal security bars on the west. The east side is partitioned off from the garage by concrete walls. Fenestration on the upper floors is similar to that of the primary elevation and organized into four similar bays. The openings are almost exactly the same with the addition of a narrow opening at the center of the second story that leads to the interior courtyard. A balcony extends the full length of the interior two bays on the second story. Like that of the primary elevation, the interior two bays have aluminum sliding sash windows flanked by wide, recessed balconies with sliding sash doors. There are no built-in planters on this elevation. Within the balconies, each side wall has short jalousie windows. The end bays consist of narrow balconies with sliding sash doors flush with the exterior wall plane.
The apartments are all arranged around a large, rectangular interior courtyard on the second floor. The courtyard is accessed by a stairwell leading from the recessed main entrance. The exterior walls within the courtyard are clad with a lightly textured stucco. The floor is concrete with bands of terrazzo tile that extend the width of the courtyard, framing the paired apartment entrances on the second story. The courtyard has an open floorplan, interrupted by large, geometric, poured in place concrete planters. Shelter is provided by walkways that connect the apartments on the upper two floors. Narrow walkways extend the full length of the courtyard from the south to north. These walkways are lined with low walls clad in stucco with metal caps. Two wider walkways extend the width of the courtyard and are flanked by floating planters that are elevated from the concrete slab floor of the walkway by two metal poles, creating a “floating” effect. The top of the planters have been sealed off by metal and wood covers. On the fourth floor, only the wide walkways that extend the width of the courtyard are covered by a flat roof; the narrow walkways that span the length of the courtyard remain unsheltered. The doors to the apartment units are wood slab doors. Fenestration within the courtyard consist of groupings of large, floor to ceiling jalousie windows. Lighting consists of recessed can lighting within the exterior courtyard.
Alterations
The Imperial Apartments building is in overall good condition and is remarkably intact. Other than ongoing maintenance, such as re-roofing, re-painting, and replacing the structural beams of courtyard walkways, there have been no major alterations to the building’s exterior. The plexiglas panel on the freestanding sign was present at the time of the site visit, but due to obvious damage, it has since been removed. See Attachment E for copies of building permits.
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment B, Architectural Significance ATTACHMENT B – STATEMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment B, Architectural Significance
Statement of Architectural Significance
The Imperial Apartments building is eligible for designation as a Santa Monica City Landmark under Criterion 5 as a significant and representative example of the work of notable architect, Samuel Reisbord.
Samuel Reisbord4 (1904-1985) was born in Kiev, Russia to Jewish parents Wolf and Bessie. They immigrated to the United States in 1905 and resided in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. According to the 1910 United States Federal Census, his father was a proprietor in the iron railings industry.5 By 1920, Sam and his family, which now consisted of three sisters and brothers, resided in a home they owned on Ludlow Street in Philadelphia.6 He attended the University of Pennsylvania and graduated in 1929 with his Bachelor’s degree in Architecture. Upon graduating, Reisbord worked in local Pennsylvania offices. In 1931, he married Philadelphia native and journalist, Jeanette Markowitz.7 In 1932, Reisbord and Jeanette moved to the Soviet Union where he spent the next seven years. Reisbord began working with Albert Kahn who at the time was consulting architect to the State Industrial Design Trust in Moscow and designed buildings and assisted in the creation of the Moscow subway. Jeannette worked for the Moscow bureau of the New York Times and the Russian Fur Trading Board. They were ordered out of Russia at the beginning of World War II and Riesbord, Jeanette and their two sons escaped via the Trans-Siberian railroad to Japan and landed in Hawaii in 1940.8 In 1940, Reisbord and his family resided in Honolulu where he worked as an architect at U.S. Military bases Hickam Field and Pearl Harbor.9 Between 1943 and 1944, Reisbord was an architect for the Canol Project, a sub-Arctic pipeline and refinery project for Bechtel, Price, Callahan and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and Alaska.10 By 1944, shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, he and his family moved to Los Angeles, where he would remain until his death in 1985.
From 1944 to 1946, Reisbord worked as a designer for Los Angeles-based master architect Paul R.
Williams.11 In 1946, Reisbord became principal of his own firm and also appears to have worked as an associate at the firm Eisenshtat and Lipman in the early 1950s.12 In the late 1950s, he partnered with architect Fred Posner on many projects. He then joined forces with Jerrold M. Caris in 1965 and formed Reisbord & Caris, a partnership that lasted until 1969 when he established his own firm, Sam Reisbord & Associates. Reisbord was an AIA member from 1947 until his death. 4 Various spellings of the last name, Reisbord, have been recorded throughout the years, including: Reisburd, Reisborg, Relsbord and Reisdorf. 5 Ancestry.com, 1910 United States Federal Census, accessed March 30, 2020, https://search.ancestry.com/cgibin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1910USCenIndex&h=124075793. 6 Ancestry.com, 1920 United States Federal Census, accessed March 30, 2020, https://search.ancestry.com/cgibin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1920usfedcen&h=52270078. 7 Ancestry.com, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Marriage Index, 1885-1951, No. 598018, accessed online March 30, 2020, https://search.ancestry.com/cgibin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=2536&h=767749&tid=&pid=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=DXt835&_phstart=successSource. 8 Legacy.com, “Obituary: Jeneatte Reisbord,” Los Angeles Times, September 12, 2001, accessed online March 30, 2020, https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/latimes/obituary.aspx?n=jeannette-reisbord&pid=92744. 9 Ancestry.com, 1940 United States Federal Census, accessed March 30, 2020, https://search.ancestry.com/cgibin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1940usfedcen&h=78995286. 10 Online Archive of California, “Biographical/Historical Note,” Finding Aid for the Samuel Reisbord papers, 1923-circa 1976 0000168, accessed March 10, 2019, https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8fj2g2h/entire_text/; Samuel Reisbord papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara. 11 Online Archive of California.
12 “Community Center Has Preview: West Side Jewish Installation to Be Dedicated April 26,” Los Angeles Tomes, April 14, 1954, A1.
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment B, Architectural Significance
Reisbord had a prolific career as an architect. His association with more well-known master architects, such as Albert Kahn, Paul Williams, and Sidney Eisenshtat, speaks volumes of his talent, though his work stands alone. Reisbord’s many projects included single-family residences, public buildings, such as hospitals and schools, and commercial buildings, as well as community centers; however, the bulk of his work was multi-family apartment buildings, specifically Mid-Century Modern and courtyard apartments, for which he is best known.
Over the course of his prolific career Reisbord’s list of notable projects include: the Beverly Carlton Apartments in partnership with Alvin Lustig, now the Avalon Hotel (9400 W Olympic Blvd, Beverly Hills, 1948); Hollywood-Los Feliz Jewish Community Center (1110 Bates Avenue, Los Angeles, 1951); Westside Jewish Community Center as associate at Eisenshtat and Lipman (5870 W Olympic Blvd, Los Angeles, 1953); 16-unit Modern-style apartments at 2046 14th Street (Santa Monica, 1954)13; the Wilshire Twilighter Hotel, now Dunes Inn14 (4300 Wilshire Blvd, 1958); and Plush Horse Inn Hotel (1700 S Pacific Coast Hwy, Redondo Beach, 1960).
Other examples of his Mid-Century Modern Apartments include: Holt Villas15 (432 S. Holt Avenue, Los Angeles, 1954); Jewell Gardens Apartments, now Westwood Chateau (456 Landfair Avenue, Los Angeles, 1955); Carlton Park Apartments (5916 Carlton Way, Los Angeles, 1956); and 823-25 Fairview Avenue Apartments in partnership with Fred Posner16 (Arcadia, 1958).
While the above works are all extant, many of Reisbord’s projects have been demolished over time, particularly those apartments and commercial buildings located in the Hollywood area of Los Angeles. Some examples include: 8567 Beverly Blvd; 1676 N Orchid Avenue; 712 N Santa Anita Avenue, Arcadia; Sunset Center Hollywood (no address found); Warner Victory Center (no address found); Mark-Stephens office building (8467 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles).
The Imperial Apartments is a highly intact and significant example of notable architect Samuel Reisbord’s work in Santa Monica. It was constructed toward the middle part of Reisbord’s lengthy and prolific career. He practiced until at least 1969. The building is also one of only two known apartment buildings of his extant in Santa Monica.
The Imperial Apartments exemplify Reisbord’s use of the Mid-Century Modern style as applied to the multi-story apartment housing type. The building’s simple but striking geometric forms create a dynamic composition on both the exterior facade and interior courtyard. The courtyard in particular demonstrates his affinity for combining bold, geometric forms and simple details that when viewed together create a surprisingly intricately designed space and interesting composition of solid and void. The courtyard walkways are also strategically arranged to provide efficient circulation and shelter within the otherwise open courtyard space, all while achieving an elegant design of intersecting volumes and planes. The Imperial Apartments is, therefore, a representative work of notable architect Sam Reisbord and eligible for designation as a Santa Monica Landmark under Criterion 5.
13 2046 14th St. was identified as an “architecturally significant multi-family residence in Sunset Park,” in the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Update and Historic Context Statement; Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Update and Historic Context Statement, (Santa Monica, CA: City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department, March 2018), 134. 14 The Wilshire Twilighter Hotel was picked up by SurveyLA as “an excellent example of Mid-Century Modern commercial architecture in the Wilshire area.”; HistoricPlacesLA.org, “Dunes Inn,” accessed April 4, 2020, http://www.historicplacesla.org/reports/a8665101-9fd9-4037-9e2e-bca175c29c54; “Completion of $1 Million Hotel Set for April,” Los Angeles Times, Mar 9, 1958, G13. 15 “$150,000 Unit,” Los Angeles Times, June 20, 1954, E8. 16 “Near Completion,” Los Angeles Times, November 9, 1958, F15.
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment B, Architectural Significance
Character-Defining Features
• Rectangular plan
• Flat roof
• Extended eaves and fascia on primary elevation
• Smooth stucco exterior finish
• Symmetrical fenestration pattern of upper stories on primary elevation • Asymmetrical ground floor on primary elevation
• Punched window and balcony openings
• Aluminum frame windows and doors
• Balconies with planes extended below the corresponding floor on the primary elevation • Wide, rectangular opening for vehicular access to the ground floor parking garage • Tall, narrow openings at ground floor of the garage
• Pedestrian entrance on primary elevation
• Terrazzo floor
• White and gold ceramic tiles
• Floor-to-ceiling glass with aluminum frames
• Round columns
• Pool and curved wall made of square concrete blocks
• Mid-Century Modern “IMPERIAL APARTMENTS” freestanding sign frame • Central court and network of exterior, elevated walkways o Wood slab apartment unit doors
o Jalousie windows
o Floating planters along walkways
o Geometric concrete planters
o Concrete and Terrazzo floors
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment C, Bibliography ATTACHMENT C – BIBLIOGRAPHY
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment C, Bibliography
Bibliography
Ancestry.com. 1910 United States Federal Census. Accessed March 30, 2020. https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1910USCenIndex&h=124075793.
Ancestry.com. 1920 United States Federal Census. Accessed March 30, 2020. https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1920usfedcen&h=52270078.
Ancestry.com, 1940 United States Federal Census, accessed March 30, 2020, https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1940usfedcen&h=78995286.
Ancestry.com. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Marriage Index, 1885-1951, No. 598018. Accessed Online March 30, 2020. https://search.ancestry.com/cgibin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=2536&h=767749&tid=&pid=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=DXt835&_phsta rt=successSource.
Architectural Resources Group, Inc. San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District Assessment, Santa Monica, CA 90402. Santa Monica, CA: City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department, October 20, 2015.
Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Update and Historic Context Statement. Santa Monica, CA: City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department, March 2018.
City of Santa Monica Building Department. Building Permits. Various Dates.
HistoricPlacesLA.org. “Dunes Inn.” Accessed April 4, 2020. http://www.historicplacesla.org/reports/a8665101-9fd9-4037-9e2e-bca175c29c54.
Legacy.com. “Obituary: Jeneatte Reisbord,” Los Angeles Times. September 12, 2001. Accessed Online March 30, 2020.
https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/latimes/obituary.aspx?n=jeannettereisbord&pid=92744.
Lopez, Matt. “City OK’s List of Master Architects.” Beverly Hills Courier, June 5, 2012. Accessed Online. March 27, 2020. https://bhcourier.com/2012/07/05/city-oks-list-master-architects/.
Los Angeles Conservancy. “Sam Reisbord and Associates” Accessed March 10, 2020. https://www.laconservancy.org/architects/sam-reisbord-and-associates.
Online Archive of California. “Biographical/Historical Note.” Finding Aid for the Samuel Reisbord papers, 1923-circa 1976 0000168. Accessed March 10, 2019. https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8fj2g2h/entire_text/. “Samuel Reisbord papers.” Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara.
The AIA Historical Directory of American Architects, s.v. “Reisbord, Sam(uel).” Accessed April 1, 2020.
https://aiahistoricaldirectory.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/AHDAA/pages/35319887/ahd10369
55. 9.A.c
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment D, Photographs
ATTACHMENT D – PHOTOGRAPHS
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment D, Photographs
Figure 1: Imperial Apartments, south elevation. View looking north. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
Figure 2: Imperial Apartments, south elevation. View looking northwest. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment D, Photographs
Figure 3: Imperial Apartments, east elevation. View looking northwest. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
Figure 4: Imperial Apartments, east elevation. View looking southwest. March 2020. GPA Consulting
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment D, Photographs
Figure 5: Imperial Apartments, north elevation. View looking southwest. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
Figure 6: Imperial Apartments, west elevation. View looking southeast. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment D, Photographs
Figure 7: Imperial Apartments, interior courtyard, 2nd floor. View looking north. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment D, Photographs
Figure 8: Imperial Apartments, interior courtyard, 2nd floor. View looking north. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment D, Photographs
Figure 9: Imperial Apartments, interior courtyard, 3rd floor. View looking south. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment D, Photographs
Figure 10: Imperial Apartments, interior courtyard, 4th floor. View looking south. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
Figure 11: Imperial Apartments, sign detail, front yard. View looking east. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Landmark Designation Application – 305 San Vicente Blvd. Attachment E, Building Permits
ATTACHMENT E – BUILDING PERMITS
(Includes only building permits that pertain to physical building alterations— excluding mechanical, electrical and plumbing permits)
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 mins))
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 mins))
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 mins))
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 mins))
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: 20ENT-
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: 20ENT-
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: 20ENT-
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: 20ENT-
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 19BLD-0223
03/07/19
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 19BLD-0223
03/07/19
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 19BLD-0223
03/07/19
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 19BLD-0223
03/07/19
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 19BLD-0223
03/07/19
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 19BLD-0223
03/07/19
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: 20ENT-0119 (305 San Vicente Blvd) LM Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for City of
Santa Monica
Planning and Community Development Department
City Planning Division
(310) 458-8341
APPEAL FORM
(Please Type or Print all Information)
Application Number Filed: _____________
By: _____________
APPELLANT NAME: _________________________________________________ APPELLANT ADDRESS: ______________________________________________ CONTACT PERSON: __________________________ Phone: _______________ (all correspondence will be mailed to this address)
Address:_____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ PROJECT CASE NUMBER(S) : ______________________________________ PROJECT ADDRESS: ________________________________________________ APPLICANT: ____________________________________________________ ORIGINAL HEARING DATE: _________________________________________ ACTION BEING APPEALED: _________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 20ENT-0247 - Appeal of of the decision to deny Landmark Designation 20ENT-0119 Appeal Filed 10/22/2020
$540.57 Appeal Fee paid
on 10/22/2020
9.A.d
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: 20ENT-0247 (305 San Vicente Blvd) APP Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for Please state the specific reason(s) for the appeal (use separate sheet if necessary):
Is the appeal related to the discretionary action and findings issued for the proposed project? ___ Yes ___ No If yes, explain:
____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Is the appeal related to the conditions of approval? ___ Yes ___ No If yes, which conditions and why:
____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Is the appeal related to design issues? ___ Yes ___ No If yes, explain:
__________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Is the appeal related to compatibility issues such as building height, massing, pedestrian orientation, etc.? ___ Yes ___ No If yes, explain:
____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Is the appeal related to non-compliance with the Santa Monica Municipal Code? ___ Yes ___ No If yes, which Code section(s) does the project not comply with and why:
____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Is the appeal related to environmental impacts associated with the project? ___ Yes ___ No If yes, explain:
____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Is the appeal related to other issues? ___ Yes ___ No If yes, explain:
__________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ APPELLANT SIGNATURE: ________________________________________________ NOTE: A hearing date on the appeal will not be scheduled until sufficient information regarding the basis for the appeal has been received to enable City Planning Division staff to prepare the required analysis for the staff report.
9.A.d
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: 20ENT-0247 (305 San Vicente Blvd) APP Application (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for P.O. Box 542
Long Beach, CA
562.500.9451
[email protected]
1 Ostashay & Associates
consulting
Memorandum
To: Stephanie Reich, City of Santa Monica Date: 10/05/2020 From: Jan Ostashay, Principal OAC
Re: PEER REVIEW ASSESSMENT: 305 San Vicente Boulevard – Designation Application (Landmark)
Overview
At the request of the City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department, City Planning Division, Ostashay & Associates Consulting (OAC) conducted a peer review of the City Landmark designation application assessment prepared by GPA Consulting1 for the property located at 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica. The following information is provided to you for your information and use.
This peer review addresses the adequacy of the GPA prepared landmark application for the subject property. Our review in performing the peer review included an assessment of the designation application and conclusionary findings; site visit of the property; and additional data collection and research of building permits, Sanborn fire insurance maps, historic aerial photographs, prior survey assessments of the site and area, and the collection and review of other primary and secondary sources. A review for accuracy, clarity and understanding, and validity of the information provided in the application narrative was also conducted as part of the peer review.
Introduction
Generally, peer reviews of historic resources assessment reports are conducted to reassure lead agencies requesting the assessments that the identification and evaluation efforts performed are adequate, that the eligibility determinations made are logical and well supported, and that the document will, if necessary, facilitate environmental compliance under the provisions of CEQA.
Review of historic resources documents for quality control is an essential part of the environmental planning process.
As a primer, historic resources fall within the jurisdiction of several levels of government. Federal laws provide the framework for the identification, evaluation, designation, and in certain instances, protection of historic resources. States and local jurisdictions play active roles in the identification, recordation, landmarking, and protection of such resources within their communities. 1 Audrey von Ahrens, GPA Consulting. “City of Santa Monica – City Planning Division, Designation Application (Landmark), 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90402,” submittal date April 27, 2020.
9.A.e
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: SM_305 San Vicente Bl_OAC Peer Review Memo 1_OCT2020 (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark PEER REVIEW ASSESSMENT: 305 San Vicente Boulevard – Designation Application (Landmark) 2 The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, promulgated standardized practices and guidelines for identifying, evaluating, and documenting historic properties (Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines [Preservation Planning, Identification, and Evaluation]). The State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) and most local government agencies in California, particularly those agencies qualified as Certified Local Governments (CLGs),recognize these practices and guidelines and recommend their use in order to maintain objectivity and consistency in the preparation of historic preservation documents and survey assessments.
Peer Review Assessment
OAC has peer reviewed the GPA prepared landmark application related to the property located at 305 San Vicente Boulevard for overall adequacy and the property’s potential local landmark eligibility.
General comments on the application and assessment findings are as follows:
Designation Application (Landmark)
The City designation application completed for the subject property is in support of formally listing the building a Santa Monica Landmark. The submitted application narrative provides responses to the specific statement questions listed in the “Background Information” section of the application in the form of “attachments.” Hence, this application is not a full historic landmark assessment report and should not be considered or reviewed as such. Nonetheless, the responses provided in the application should be well-researched, factual and accurate, and based on relatable contextual themes to justly support consideration of the property as an eligible Santa Monica Landmark. The following peer review comments align with the narrative responses given to the specific statement questions listed in the “Background Information” section of the submitted application form. • Description of site or structure, note any major alterations and dates of alterations The response to this statement is presented as Attachment A of the GPA application. In reviewing Attachment A, the provided descriptive narrative of the structure is adequate though there are some references and statements that need further clarifying and elaboration. For ease of understanding the narrative and as standardized practice it is highly recommended that the labeling of the building’s elevations use true directional compass points - north, south, east, and west and identify its primary and secondary elevations. Identifying the building’s side, front, and rear elevations (besides identifying them only by direction or primary) would also help to further discern the property on its parcel.
The discussion regarding prior alterations made to the property is limited and defers the reader to the building permits provided in the application as Attachment E. As part of the description narrative there should be a discussion that clearly identifies and explains what changes have been made to the building and where. Such a narrative provides a continuum of its evolutionary building history. The cosmetic and structural damage sustained from the 1994 Northridge earthquake, for instance, should be addressed and explained as part of the architectural and integrity narrative. Reference that the building is in overall good condition is also not clarified or differentiated in terms of integrity or physical condition. This aspect of the property’s history is not currently provided in the description narrative and should be further expanded and explained.
In general, it is recommended that the description narrative, particularly the alteration history, be reviewed and verified; thoroughly researched; clarified and corrected, as necessary; and further expanded and explained as part of the narrative for this portion of the application.
9.A.e
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: SM_305 San Vicente Bl_OAC Peer Review Memo 1_OCT2020 (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark PEER REVIEW ASSESSMENT: 305 San Vicente Boulevard – Designation Application (Landmark) 3 • Statement of architectural significance
The response to the “statement of architectural significance” is presented as Attachment B in the application. In reviewing Attachment B, the narrative provides biographical information on architect Samuel Reisbord, a summary of his known work in Southern California, and concludes that the subject property is eligible for City landmark listing under Criterion 5, as a representative work of notable architect Sam Reisbord (SMMC 9.56.100(A)(5).
However, upon reviewing the application’s statement of architectural significance, there is question as to identifying Samuel Reisbord as a notable architect within the city. The claim that Reisbord had a prolific career is also questionable as the supporting primary and secondary sources collected as part of the peer review process indicates instead that he had a very diverse and long career that stretched around the globe. His professional portfolio locally included the design of at least seven (7) known apartment buildings in Santa Monica that spanned three decades (1950s, 1960s, 1970s). 2 However,
the landmark application states that the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property is one of only two known apartment buildings in Santa Monica designed by Reisbord. His early Modern work outside the local community from the late 1940s with designer Alvin Lustig was noted in Arts & Architecture magazine and Architectural Forum, but none of his later work appears to have been recognized in any professional publications or given any type of notable award by his peers. Typically, to be identified as a notable or “master” figure in a field (architect, builder, designer, engineer, landscape architect, craftsman artist, etc.), the person is generally recognized because of his or her consummate skill whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality. Depending on the sphere of geographic influence a notable person may be recognized locally for their quality of design and skill or on a broader scale at the state or national levels (think Frank Lloyd Wright). At this time, there is no analysis or discussion as to how Reisbord, whose office was located in Los Angeles, was accomplished in his field and made contributions to architecture or the architectural heritage of the local community or elsewhere. There is also no comparative evaluation of the seven known local resources designed by Reisbord to determine if they should be considered significant or representative works by the architect. In any case, because of insufficient evidence, lack of thorough research, and erroneously cited information provided in the landmark application as well as from counter-evidence discovered during the peer review process, the architect Samuel Reisbord does not appear to qualify as a notable designer or architect. In addition, there is currently no conclusive information to claim that the subject property should be considered a significant or representative work in amongst itself. Therefore, the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property does not appear to satisfy the City’s Landmark Criterion 5 for being a significant or representative example of the work of a notable builder, designer, or architect. As the property does not qualify for Santa Monica Landmark recognition, the identification of character-defining features itemized in the application becomes irrelevant.
• Statement of historic importance
The statement of historic importance field is identified as not applicable (N/A) in the landmark application. Therefore, a peer review of this section of the application was not conducted. 2 Samuel Reisbord Papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara.
9.A.e
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: SM_305 San Vicente Bl_OAC Peer Review Memo 1_OCT2020 (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark PEER REVIEW ASSESSMENT: 305 San Vicente Boulevard – Designation Application (Landmark) 4 • Person(s) of historic importance
The person(s) of historic importance statement field is noted as not applicable (N/A) in the landmark application. Therefore, a peer review of this section of the application was not conducted. • Statement of other significance
The statement of other significance field was identified as not applicable (N/A) in the landmark application. Therefore, a peer review of this section of the application was not conducted. • Bibliography
The bibliography information is presented as Attachment C in the application. The citation of references and supporting documents included in the GPA prepared landmark application is limited, though not unexpected based on the limited contextual history provided in the application narrative.
The application also includes photographs of the subject property (Attachment D) and all of the property’s building permits (Attachment E).
Interestingly, the application does not include any supporting historical references, newspaper or magazine articles, historical photographs, or other relevant primary and secondary sources to further support the historical narrative and fully justify the significance finding of the property under Santa Monica Landmark Criterion 5 (a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect).
Conclusion
In reviewing the GPA prepared landmark application the material presented lacks sufficient evidence and clear persuasive arguments to currently support the landmark designation of the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property. Because of inadequate evidence, lack of thorough research, and erroneously cited information provided in the landmark application as well as from counter-evidence discovered during the peer review process, the architect Samuel Reisbord does not appear to qualify as a notable designer or architect under the City’s historic preservation ordinance (SMMC 9.56 Landmarks and Historic Districts) and the subject property does not appear to be a significant or representative example of work completed by a notable architect or designer. Therefore, the property does not satisfy Santa Monica Landmark Criterion 5 (SMMC 9.56.100(A) for which it is currently under consideration.
9.A.e
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: SM_305 San Vicente Bl_OAC Peer Review Memo 1_OCT2020 (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark PEER REVIEW ASSESSMENT: 305 San Vicente Boulevard – Designation Application (Landmark) 5 ATTACHMENT A:
“City of Santa Monica – City Planning Division, Designation Application (Landmark) 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90402
(prepared by GPA Consulting, submitted date April 27, 2020) [UNDER SEPARATE COVER]
9.A.e
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: SM_305 San Vicente Bl_OAC Peer Review Memo 1_OCT2020 (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark 1 FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION
OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA IN THE MATTER OF
THE DESIGNATION OF A LANDMARK
DENIAL OF A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 20ENT-0119 LOCATED AT 305 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD
AS A CITY LANDMARK
SECTION I. On April 27, 2020, the property owner, H. Joseph Soleiman representing Mid Century SV LP, filed a nomination for the multi-family residential building located on the subject property for the property to be considered for designation as a City Landmark.
The Landmarks Commission, having held a Public Hearing on October 12, 2020 hereby finds that the subject building located at 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not meet one or more the of the criteria for designation as a City Landmark as enumerated in SMMC
9.56.100 based on the following findings:
Landmark Designation Criteria:
(1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City.
The subject property is a multi-family building in the Mid-Century Modern style of relatively simple design and construction. While there may be some interesting aspects and details of this particular structure, the buildings of this style, type and construction are ubiquitous in multifamily neighborhoods in Santa Monica and throughout the Southern California region. Further, the property is a non-contributor to the San Vicente Courtyard Apartment Historic District as it is outside its period of significance and therefore does not exemplify the architectural history of the City as does the contributing properties or the District as a whole. Therefore, the property does not appear to exemplify the cultural, social, economic, political or early architectural development history of this particular area of the North of Montana neighborhood.
(2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.
The subject building at 305 San Vicente Boulevard is a modest example of the MidCentury Modern style as expressed in a multi-family residential structure that is simple in its overall design and includes common features style and era. The building does not possess particular noteworthy concepts of design, or of aesthetic or artistic interest or value. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to satisfy this criterion.
(3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history.
No evidence was provided to suggest that any of the prior owners or occupants of the 6-B
9.A.f
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: STOA 20ENT-0119 305 San Vicente LMC Denial (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 2 property were persons of significance or made significant contributions to important events in local, state, or national history. Accordingly, the subject property does not appear to satisfy this criterion.
(4) It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.
The subject building is a typical example of a Mid-Century Modern design expressed in a multi-family structure. Additionally, the building is not a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail, or historical type, and it does not embody distinguishing characteristics valuable to study. Therefore, the subject residence does not appear to satisfy this criterion.
(5) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect.
The subject building is a typical example of a Mid-Century Modern design expressed in a multi-family structure. Additionally, the building is not a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail, or historical type, and it does not embody distinguishing characteristics valuable to study. Therefore, the subject residence does not appear to satisfy this criterion.
(6) It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.
The subject building is a non-contributor to the San Vicente Courtyard Apartment Historic District, sitting in the middle of the block at 305 San Vicente Boulevard. It does not have a unique location or singular physical characteristic and is not an established or familiar visual feature of the neighborhood. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to satisfy this criterion.
SECTION II. I hereby certify that the above Findings and Determination accurately reflect the final determination of the Landmarks Commission of the City of Santa Monica on October 12, 2020 as determined by the following vote:
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Green, Sloan, Summers, Chair Pro Tem Rosenbaum, Chair Genser
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
NAYES: None
Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the
9.A.f
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: STOA 20ENT-0119 305 San Vicente LMC Denial (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 3 decision. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the Landmark and Historic District Ordinance of the City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter
9.56, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1.16.010.
Respectfully Submitted
January 11, 2021
Roger Genser, Chairperson
Attest:
Stephanie Reich,
Landmarks Commission Secretary
9.A.f
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: STOA 20ENT-0119 305 San Vicente LMC Denial (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 Landmark Assessment Report in Support of Appeal
Date: December 30, 2020
For: Santa Monica City Council
Subject: 305 San Vicente Boulevard
From: Audrey von Ahrens, Architectural Historian II
__________________________________________________________________________________________ Executive Summary
The property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard, historically known as The Imperial Apartments, is a multi-family apartment building originally constructed in 1961 by then owners Joseph A. and Leo N. Lyons and designed in the Mid-Century Modern style by architect Samuel Reisbord. GPA Consulting (GPA) submitted a Santa Monica Landmark Application for the property on April 27, 2020 on behalf of the property owner. The application was presented to the Landmarks Commission during a public hearing on October 12, 2020 (Landmark Designation application 20ENT-0119). The Commission voted to reject the application. The property owner believes that the application did not receive a thorough and adequate review by either staff or the Commission due to procedural issues caused by changes to the Landmark review process under the COVID19 emergency ordinance. GPA has been retained by the property owner to prepare this report in support of their appeal of the determination made by the Landmarks Commission based on the merits described herein.
Figure 1: 305 San Vicente Blvd, view looking north. GPA, March 2020.
This Landmark Assessment Report evaluates and formally supports the property’s eligibility as a City of Santa Monica Landmark. GPA evaluated the property under the six Santa Monica Landmark criteria and assessed its physical integrity. As a result of this analysis, GPA concludes that the property is significant under Criteria 1, 2, 4 and 5, and retains sufficient physical integrity to convey this significance; therefore, it appears to be eligible for designation as a Santa Monica Landmark.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 2 Introduction
The purpose of this report is to support the appeal of the determination of the Landmarks Commission during a public hearing on October 12, 2020 (Landmark Designation application 20ENT-0119) to reject the item with the application. The appeal is based on the following merits:
• Due to changes in funding, the initial Landmark Application, submitted on April 27, 2020, was subjected to a peer review only, rather than a full, independent Landmark Assessment Report by one of the City’s on-call consultants. The peer review erroneously concluded that the application, which in fact meets all the requirements on the official Landmark application form, should meet the requirements of a full Landmark Assessment Report, typically prepared by one of the City’s consultants once an application is received. In other words, the application filed was held to a new, different standard than has ever been required of such an application. Neither the property owner nor GPA (representing the property owner) were notified of this change and the application was determined to be incomplete and insufficient, despite meeting all of the application requirements. GPA was given no opportunity to revise the application to meet the new requirements before it was presented to the Commission. If GPA had been informed of the change in procedure, we could have provided any additional information requested in support of the application.
• Public comments, including multiple letters of support for the application, and concerns over the lack of transparency in the processing of this application, were not read during the hearing for consideration. It is worth noting that GPA did not solicit any of the comments in support of the application, nor those expressing concern of the apparent change in requirements for Landmark applications. The comments represent the independent, unbiased concerns of the authors (see Attachment F). • Many inaccurate statements are made in the peer review prepared by Jan Oshtashay of Oshtashay & Associates and the Staff Report. These statements are listed and refuted below:
o “…upon reviewing the application’s statement of architectural significance, there is question as to identifying Samuel Reisbord as a notable architect within the city… At this time, there is no analysis or discussion as to how Reisbord, whose office was located in Los Angeles, was accomplished in his field and made contributions to architecture or the architectural heritage of the local community or elsewhere”1 The Santa Monica Landmarks Ordinance does not require that the significance of an architect relates to their work only in Santa Monica or that their office must have been located in Santa Monica, as implied in the peer review report and by staff.
Such a requirement would eliminate designating works by any notable, master architect not headquartered in Santa Monica. Criterion 5 states “It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer 1 Jan Oshtashay, “Peer Review Assessment: 305 San Vicente Boulevard – Designation Application (Landmark),” Memorandum to Stephanie Reich, City of Santa Monica, October 5, 2020, 3.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 3 or architect.”2 GPA has provided sufficient evidence to support that Reisbord was a notable architect with projects located in Santa Monica, as well as around the world. Given the range and scope of his career, the number of widely recognized master architects with whom he worked, and the quality of his body of work, he should be considered notable under this criterion.
o “Interestingly, the application does not include any supporting historical references, newspaper or magazine articles, historical photographs, or other relevant primary and secondary sources to further support the historical narrative and fully justify the significance finding of the property under Santa Monica Landmark Criterion 5 (a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect).”3 At the time that the application was submitted, GPA had not found any historical photographs to include. However, multiple supporting historical references, including relevant primary and secondary sources, were in fact used and cited appropriately in the application, including US Federal Census Documents, City Directories, various newspaper articles, City of Santa Monica Building Permits, and the AIA Historical Directory of American Architects. It is the peer review, not the original application, that neglected to include any citations or references.
Furthermore, when adequately and professionally citing reference documents, it is not standard professional practice to include copies of everything. The references are the documentation. Regardless, had GPA be alerted of the change in requirements for Landmark applications and given the opportunity to revise the application to meet the streamlined requirements by which it was reviewed, this additional information could have been provided prior to the Commission hearing. o “The subject property has not been identified on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI). Further, the property is included in the San Vicente Courtyard Apartment Historic District as a non-contributor as it was built outside the period of significance.”4
As stated below under the Previous Evaluation section of this report, the San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District Assessment prepared by Architectural Resources Group (ARG) in 2015 identified 305 San Vicente Boulevard and evaluated it as a potential contributor to the San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District. It was ultimately determined ineligible for lack of character-defining features associated with the specific courtyard apartment typology within the potential Historic District and for being constructed outside of the period of significance. 5 However, the report also states that “…the period of 2 SMMC 9.56 Landmarks and Historic Districts, SMMC 9.56.100(A). 3 Oshtashay, 4. 4 “305 San Vicente Boulevard, 20ENT-0119,” Memorandum Prepared by the Community Development Department, City of Santa Monica Planning Division to The Honorable Landmarks Commission, October 12, 2020, 2. 5 Architectural Resources Group, Inc., San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District Assessment, Santa Monica, CA 90402 (Santa Monica, CA: City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department, October 20, 2015),
25. 9.A.g
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 4 significance was not extended to include these later examples, although they may merit further study in the future.”6 The property was not eliminated from the Historic District due to perceived total lack of potential significance. After further study prepared by GPA and included in this report, it has been determined that 305 San Vicente Boulevard is eligible under Criterion 1 for being individually significant for its association with this later period of multi-family development in the San Vicente neighborhood and under Criterion 4 as an important example of the evolution of courtyard housing in Santa Monica (see Evaluation for Local Landmark Designation section).
Furthermore, according to direct correspondence with the survey lead, the area was not re-surveyed as part of the most recent survey efforts conducted by ARG and Historic Resources Group (HRG) in 2018. Thus, 305 San Vicente was not reconsidered for identification or eligibility in the Historic Resources Inventory Update (2018 HRI Update). This fact was not considered in the Staff Report, Peer Review, or by the Landmarks Commission. Note that it is entirely within the scope of best professional practice in historic preservation not to re-survey parts of a city that have been surveyed within the past five years and/or are already designated as historic districts. Thus, it was totally reasonable and logical that the San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District was not re-surveyed in 2018, only three years after the 2015 survey report.
This report responds to perceived issues raised in the peer review and Staff Report and presents the merits on which the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard is eligible for designation as a Santa Monica Landmark.
The property is located on San Vicente Boulevard between Ocean Avenue and 4th Street in the City of Santa Monica (see Figure 2). Originally part of the Palisades tract, this neighborhood is described as the San Vicente Corridor in the 2018 HRI Update. The property comprises one legal parcel, identified as Los Angeles County Assessor’s Parcel No. (APN) 4293-002-015 and consists of a multi-family apartment building originally constructed in 1961. It was designed in the Mid-Century Modern style by architect Samuel Reisbord as a three-story apartment building over semisubterranean, ground floor parking.
Audrey von Ahrens was responsible for the preparation of this report. She fulfills the qualifications of a historic preservation professional outlined in Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part
61. Her résumé is included as Attachment A.
6 Architectural Resources Group, Inc., 24-25.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 5 Figure 2: Location of property.
Methodology
In preparing this report, GPA performed the following tasks:
1. Conducted a field inspection of the property to ascertain the general condition and physical integrity of the residence thereon. Digital photographs of the exterior of the property were taken during this field inspection.
2. Researched the history of the property. Sources referenced included building permit records, city directories, newspaper archives, genealogical databases (ancestry.com), historic maps and aerial photographs, as well as the original architectural drawing set inherited by the property owner.
3. Reviewed the San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District Assessment prepared by ARG in 2015, the 2010 Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update (2010 HRI Update) prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes, and the 2018 HRI Update prepared by ARG and HRG to identify and extract the appropriate contexts for the evaluation, including the development of the Palisades Tract, specifically the San Vicente Corridor, as well as the Courtyard Apartment property type and Mid-Century Modern style. Additional specific contextual information relating to the property was compiled, including a discussion on the historic precedent of blending multi-family residential property types and the work of Samuel Reisbord.
4. Reviewed and analyzed ordinances, statutes, regulations, bulletins, and technical materials relating to federal, state, and local historic preservation designations, and
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 6 assessment processes and programs to evaluate the property for significance as a Santa Monica Landmark.
5. Reviewed the City Staff Report and Oshtashay & Associates Peer Review of the original, standard-format Landmark application completed for the initial Landmarks Commission hearing held on October 12, 2020.
Previous Evaluations
305 San Vicente Boulevard was identified in the San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District Assessment prepared by ARG in 2015. It was evaluated as a potential contributor to the San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District and ultimately determined ineligible for lack of character-defining features associated with the specific courtyard apartment typology within the potential Historic District and for being constructed outside of the period of significance.7 According to direct correspondence with the survey lead, the area was not re-surveyed as part of the most recent survey efforts conducted by ARG and HRG in 2018. Thus, 305 San Vicente was not reconsidered for identification or eligibility as an individual Landmark in the 2018 HRI Update.
Historic Context
The following contexts were identified as relevant for the evaluation of the property: San Vicente Corridor (1937-1982), Multi-Family Residential Development (1899-1977), Courtyard Apartments, and the Work of Samuel Reisbord. Except for the Work of Samuel Reisbord historic context, the indented paragraphs below are excerpted from the 2018 HRI Update prepared by ARG and HRG and adapted to make relevant connections to the subject property. The Work of Samuel Reisbord was written specifically for this assessment report.
San Vicente Corridor (1937-1982)8
The San Vicente corridor was originally part of the Palisades Tract and comprises the north and south sides of San Vicente Boulevard from 7th Street on the east to Ocean Avenue on the west. The street was originally the site of many large homes built in the first three decades of the 20th century. Early multi-family examples include an eight-unit Mission Revival apartment building (1923, demolished) at 528 San Vicente, and a Streamline Moderne apartment building (1937) at 212 San Vicente Boulevard. During and after World War II when housing was scarce, some property owners began renting rooms and effectively transformed their single-family residences into apartment houses. Still other large homes were razed and replaced with purpose-built apartment houses. By 1954, only 10 of the early 20th century single-family residences were still standing on San Vicente between Ocean Avenue and 7th Street.
Over time, a cluster of courtyard apartments was constructed along the corridor in various period styles including Streamline Moderne, Mid-century Modern [such as 305 San Vicente Boulevard], and Minimal Traditional. The configurations include variations on L-shaped, U7 Architectural Resources Group, Inc., 25. 8 Except as noted in [], this section is excerpted from Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Update and Historic Context Statement, (Santa Monica, CA: City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department, March 2018), 132-133.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 7 shaped, I-shaped, C-shaped and donut-shaped plans [like 305 San Vicente]. Pools are common in the buildings constructed after 1954, [like that of 305 San Vicente Boulevard].
The buildings on San Vicente feature consistent setbacks and almost always have landscaped front yards or forecourts. Concrete sidewalks and grassy parkways, holdovers from the old Palisades Tract development, contribute to the luxurious feeling of the area.
Vehicular access is limited to rear alleys, another remnant feature of the early subdivision.
Original owners of these buildings ranged from individuals to development companies, [such as Lyons Construction Company, owned by Santa Monica-based developers Joseph A. and Leo N. Lyons who constructed 305 San Vicente Boulevard as well as 621 San Vicente Boulevard].
The majority of the garden apartments along San Vicente were constructed between 1948 and 1969. Many were architect-designed, including 614 San Vicente Boulevard (1947, Edith Northman), [621 San Vicente Boulevard (1960, Kenneth N. Lind), and the subject property 305 San Vicente Boulevard (1961, Samuel Reisbord)]. The San Center Apartments (1947, Carl Maston) at 229 San Vicente Boulevard were published in Progressive Architecture, May 1950, as an exemplar of Section 608 housing.
Multi-Family Residential Development (1899-1977)9
…During the 1950s, economics became the driving force in multi-family residential construction in Santa Monica. Contributing factors to the Santa Monica apartment phenomenon included a national climate of economic incentives that encouraged the construction of multi-family housing. In describing the “apartment boom” of the 1950s and early 1960s, Babcock and Bosselman wrote, “In the present economic and legal climate, incentives are available not only to the landowner, but to the developer, the investor and the lender.”10 Between 1941 and 1950, the federal government created “Section 608” which “provided Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insurance for as much as 90% of mortgages on rental housing projects.”11 The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 “permitted owners to charge off high percentages of the original cost of a new building during the early years of the building’s life,” thereby encouraging new construction. In the early 1960s, the federal government eased existing restrictions limiting investment in multi-family housing lending among savings and loans.
These incentives had a profound effect on the pattern of urban infill development in Santa Monica. Civic leaders encouraged these changes. The 1953 Santa Monica Community Book states, “In many areas, old residences must be torn down to make way for hotels and apartments, for Santa Monica cannot expand horizontally.”12 But the effects received mixed reviews. As City Zoning Administrator Leslie S. Storrs writes, 9 Except as noted in [], this section is excerpted from Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, 111- 113.
10 Richard F. Babcock and Fred P. Bosselman, “Suburban Zoning and the Apartment Boom,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 111, No. 8, June 1963, 1052. 11 “Housing: The Loan Scandals,” Time, April 26, 1954. 12 Col. Carl F. White, ed. The Community Book (Santa Monica, California: A.H. Cawston, 1953), 52.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 8 Builders rushed to erect ‘608’ apartments…Unfortunately buildings designed to conform to the requirements of this section were very much alike. Typically, they were two stories in height, of frame and stucco construction, covered more than 72% of the total lot area and barely met the hopelessly inadequate requirements of the then-effective zoning ordinance in the matter off-street parking.13 [The above description of “typical,” less than desirable buildings designed during this period does not apply to 305 San Vicente Boulevard which is taller in height, includes large off-street parking areas, and incorporates a higher level of architectural design that is more sophisticated than it is typical.] In the 1967-68 fiscal year, the City Building Department issued 1,388 permits for multi-family residential buildings and only 10 permits for single-family residences.
In sum, these factors contributed to the large quantity of vernacular modern apartment houses constructed in Santa Monica around mid-century and were contributors to the pervasiveness of the “dingbat” or “stucco box” typology within the city. [Unlike many of the buildings constructed during the period, the term “vernacular” does not accurately describe the subject building at 305 San Vicente, which incorporates a much higher level of design in the Mid-Century Modern style.] James Black and Thurman Grant, contributing authors to Dingbat 2.0: The Iconic Los Angeles Apartment as Projection of a Metropolis, laud Santa Monica as one of only three Los Angeles area neighborhoods that offer “Quintessential examples of the environments created by dingbats throughout Los Angles in the 1950s and 1960s.”14 Relative to other cities with a proliferation of dingbat apartments, Santa Monica is noted for its number of “hunchbat” or “dumbat” types that maximize their buildable volume. The alleyways of the township plat design also provide rear-parking access to these apartments. [Although the stucco box property type began to replace the earlier courtyard apartment type at the end of the 1950s into the 1960s, 305 San Vicente Boulevard is undoubtedly a courtyard in plan, but designed following the same economic principles that led to the proliferations of the stucco box by incorporating an ample amount of parking and filling its lot to maximize rentable space. The design of 305 San Vicente retains a large central courtyard, which, rather than landscaped open space, is entirely built on top of the ground floor parking garage. In the absence of a central greenspace which often incorporated concrete walkways and other hardscaping typical of the courtyard property type, the architect designed large planters to incorporate greenery, between which the negative spaces created define the circulation within the otherwise open courtyard.]
Yet, the same factors also contributed to the building of many well-designed, mid-scale modern apartment complexes in the city [the subject building at 305 San Vicente Boulevard designed by notable architect Samuel Reisbord being one of them]. Incentives also likely contributed to the development of several high-rise apartment buildings. Project 13 Less Storrs, Santa Monica: Portrait of a City (Santa Monica, CA: Santa Monica Centennial Committee, 1975), 41. 14 James Black and Thurman Grant, Dingbat 2.0: The Iconic Los Angeles Apartment as Projection of a Metropolis, (Los Angeles, CA: DoppelHouse Press, 2016), 143.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 9 by project, the city granted zoning variances to accommodate these large new developments.
The surge in demand for multi-family residential development during the 1960s and 1970s was also driven by former suburban homeowners who were now empty nesters looking for a more leisure-oriented lifestyle and less maintenance. Many new communities were actively marketed as “adults only.” Eschewing their picket fences and lawn mowers for tennis courts, gyms and other recreational amenities buyers flocked to Santa Monica. The completion of the Santa Monica Freeway extension in 1966 only made the city more desirable, as it could now effectively serve as a commuter suburb to Los Angeles… …Multi-family residential development was so essential to the Santa Monica identity that a political movement emerged to preserve it. During the 1970s, the Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights (SMRR) organization was formed to preserve affordable housing in the city and a rent control ordinance was passed at the close of the decade.
By the early 1970s, the transformation of Santa Monica to a multi-family residential community was complete. 80 percent of Santa Monica’s dwelling units (excluding condominiums) were multiple-unit dwellings. Santa Monica was known to be a community with many elderly renters. A 50-square block survey of rental units in in the city found that 80 percent of the apartment buildings had no children as residents.
In the mid-1970s, when the statewide trend toward condominium conversion reached Santa Monica, the city responded with a moratorium on conversion projects, instead requiring that condo developers generate new construction projects. Typically, these were low-rise buildings, often split-level townhomes.
Courtyard Apartments15
The courtyard apartment is a multiple-family residential property that is two stores in height and oriented around a central common area, such as a landscaped courtyard. A courtyard apartment is significant for its association with residential development in Santa Monica as one of the region’s dominant multiple-family residential building types.
Character-defining features include:
• Simple rectangular massing
• Two stories in height
• O-, E-, or U-shaped plan; may be composed of two L-shaped buildings • Orientation around a common outdoor area, typically a landscaped courtyard; may include a fountain or other feature
• Detached garage(s) at the rear, or integrated carport along the side or rear 15 Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, 120.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 10 Mid-Century Modern16
Mid-century Modern is a term used to describe the post-World War II iteration of the International Style in both residential and commercial design. The International Style was characterized by geometric forms, smooth wall surfaces, and an absence of exterior decoration. Mid-century Modern represents the adaptation of these elements to the local climate and topography, as well as to the postwar need for efficiently-built, moderatelypriced homes. In Southern California, this often meant the use of wood post-and-beam construction. Mid-century Modernism is often characterized by a clear expression of structure and materials, large expanses of glass, and open interior plans.
The roots of the style can be traced to early Modernists like Richard Neutra and Rudolph Schindler, whose local work inspired “second generation” Modern architects like Gregory Ain, Craig Ellwood, Harwell Hamilton Harris, Pierre Koenig, Raphael Soriano, and many more. These post-war architects developed an indigenous Modernism that was born from the International Style but matured into a fundamentally regional style, fostered in part by Art and Architecture magazine’s pivotal Case Study Program (1945-1966). The style gained popularity because its use of standardized, prefabricated materials permitted quick and economical construction. It became the predominant architectural style in the postwar years and is represented in almost every property type, from single-family residences to commercial buildings to gas stations.
Character-defining features include:
• One or two-story configuration
• Horizontal massing (for small-scale buildings)
• Simple geometric forms
• Expressed post-and-beam construction, in wood or steel • Flat roof or low-pitched gable roof with wide overhanging eaves and cantilevered canopies
• Unadorned wall surfaces
• Wood, plaster, brick or stone used as exterior wall panels or accent materials • Flush-mounted metal frame fixed windows and sliding doors, and clerestory windows
• Exterior staircases, decks, patios and balconies
• Little or no exterior decorative detailing
• Expressionistic/Organic subtype: sculptural forms and geometric shapes, including butterfly, A-frame, folded plate or barrel vault roofs
The Work of Samuel Reisbord
Samuel Reisbord17 (1904-1985) was born in Kiev, Russia to Jewish parents Wolf and Bessie. They immigrated to the United States in 1905 and resided in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. According to 16 Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, 366. 17 Various spellings of the last name, Reisbord, have been documented as follows: Reisboard, Relsbord, Reisburd, Reisborg, and Reisdorf.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 11 the 1910 United States Federal Census, his father was a proprietor in the iron railings industry.18 By 1920, Sam and his family, which now consisted of three sisters and brothers, resided in a home they owned on Ludlow Street in Philadelphia.19 He attended the University of Pennsylvania and graduated in 1929 with his Bachelor’s degree in Architecture. Upon graduating, Reisbord worked in local Pennsylvania offices. In 1931, he married Philadelphia native and journalist, Jeanette Markowitz.20 In 1932, Reisbord and Jeanette moved to the Soviet Union where they spent the next seven years.21
During his time in the Soviet Union, Reisbord worked with widely recognized master architect Albert Kahn who, at the time was consulting architect to the State Industrial Design Trust in Moscow and designed buildings and assisted in the creation of the Moscow subway. Ordered out of the USSR at the beginning of World War II, Riesbord, Jeanette and their two sons escaped to Japan via the Trans-Siberian railroad and landed in Hawaii in 1940.22 Reisbord and his family resided in Honolulu where he worked as an architect at U.S. Military bases Hickam Field and Pearl Harbor.23 From 1942 to 1943, Reisbord was he was chief architect at the firm Bechtel, Price, Callahan and worked on the Canol Project, a sub-Arctic pipeline and refinery project for and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and Alaska.24 By 1944, shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the family moved to Los Angeles where he built his career.
Throughout his architectural career in the Los Angeles area, Reisbord worked under and eventually alongside some of the most widely recognized architects in the area at the time. From 1944 to 1946, Reisbord was a designer for Los Angeles-based architect Paul R. Williams.25 From 1946 to 1965 he worked freelance on his own as Sam Reisbord.26 During this time, he completed his own work and also collaborated with many well-known architects, working with each on multiple projects. The architects with whom he collaborated include Alvin Lustig, Eisenshtat and Lipman27 and Fred Posner. In 1965, he joined forces with Jerrold M. Caris and together they formed the architectural firm Reisbord & Caris; a partnership that lasted until 1969 when Reisbord established his own firm, Sam Reisbord & Associates.28
18 Ancestry.com, 1910 United States Federal Census, accessed March 30, 2020, https://search.ancestry.com/cgibin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1910USCenIndex&h=124075793. 19 Ancestry.com, 1920 United States Federal Census, accessed March 30, 2020, https://search.ancestry.com/cgibin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1920usfedcen&h=52270078. 20 Ancestry.com, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Marriage Index, 1885-1951, No. 598018, accessed online March 30, 2020, https://search.ancestry.com/cgibin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=2536&h=767749&tid=&pid=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=DXt835&_phstart=successSource. 21 Jeannette worked for the Moscow bureau of the New York Times and the Russian Fur Trading Board. 22 Legacy.com, “Obituary: Jeneatte Reisbord,” Los Angeles Times, September 12, 2001, accessed online March 30, 2020, https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/latimes/obituary.aspx?n=jeannette-reisbord&pid=92744. 23 Ancestry.com, 1940 United States Federal Census, accessed March 30, 2020, https://search.ancestry.com/cgibin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1940usfedcen&h=78995286. 24 Online Archive of California, “Biographical/Historical Note,” Finding Aid for the Samuel Reisbord papers, 1923-circa 1976 0000168, accessed March 10, 2019, https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8fj2g2h/entire_text/; Samuel Reisbord papers, Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara. 25 Online Archive of California. 26 The AIA Historical Directory of American Architects, s.v., “Reisbord, Sam(uel),” accessed April 1, 2020. https://aiahistoricaldirectory.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/AHDAA/pages/35319887/ahd1036955. 27 “Community Center Has Preview: West Side Jewish Installation to Be Dedicated April 26,” Los Angeles Tomes, April 14, 1954, A1.
28 The AIA Historical Directory of American Architects. https://aiahistoricaldirectory.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/AHDAA/pages/35319887/ahd1036955.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 12 Reisbord was an AIA member from 1947 until his death and had a prolific career as an architect.
Reisbord’s many projects included single-family residences, public buildings, such as hospitals and schools, and commercial buildings as well as community centers; however, the bulk of his work was multi-family apartment buildings, specifically Mid-Century Modern courtyard and stucco box apartments, for which he is best known.
Some of his notable projects include: the Beverly Carlton Apartments in partnership with Alvin Lustig, now the Avalon Hotel (9400 W. Olympic Boulvard, Beverly Hills, 1948); Hollywood-Los Feliz Jewish Community Center (1110 Bates Avenue, Los Angeles, 1951); Westside Jewish Community Center in association with Eisenshtat and Lipman (5870 W. Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, 1953); 16-unit Modern-style apartments at 2046 14th Street (Santa Monica, 1954)29; the Wilshire Twilighter Hotel, now Dunes Inn30 (4300 Wilshire Boulevard, 1958); and the Plush Horse Inn Hotel (1700 S.
Pacific Coast Highway., Redondo Beach, 1960).
Other examples, specifically of his multi-family housing work include: Holt Villas (432 S. Holt Avenue, Los Angeles, 1954)31; Jewell Gardens Apartments, now Westwood Chateau, (456 Landfair Avenue, Los Angeles, 1955); Carlton Park Apartments (5916 Carlton Way, Los Angeles, 1956); and 823-25 Fairview Avenue Apartments in partnership with Fred Posner32 (Arcadia, 1958).
Reisbord remained in Los Angeles until his death in 1985.
Property Description
Architectural Description
Historically known as the Imperial Apartments, 305 San Vicente Boulevard is a multi-family residential building, originally constructed in 1961 and designed in the Mid-Century Modern style.33 The wood-frame building has three upper stories consisting of 36-unit residential units constructed over semi-subterranean parking on the ground floor.34
The building fills the majority of its rectangular parcel. It is oriented toward the south, facing San Vicente Boulevard with a shallow setback comprised of an in-ground pool on the west and surface parking on the east (see Figure 3). The pool is protected from the street by a curved wall made of square concrete blocks. A paved asphalt driveway provides access from San Vicente.
Adjacent the driveway entrance is a freestanding sign that reads, “IMPERIAL APARTMENTS.” In the center of the front setback is a tree well with two large trees. The east and west property lines abut adjacent properties. The building has a narrow setback on each side, landscaped with trees and compacted earth. The rear (north) elevation abuts an unnamed alley. 29 2046 14th St. was identified as an “architecturally significant multi-family residence in Sunset Park,” in the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Update and Historic Context Statement: Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, 134.
30 The Wilshire Twilighter Hotel was picked up by SurveyLA as “an excellent example of Mid-Century Modern commercial architecture in the Wilshire area.”; HistoricPlacesLA.org, “Dunes Inn,” accessed April 4, 2020, http://www.historicplacesla.org/reports/a8665101-9fd9-4037-9e2e-bca175c29c54; “Completion of $1 Million Hotel Set for April,” Los Angeles Times, Mar 9, 1958, G13. 31 “$150,000 Unit,” Los Angeles Times, June 20, 1954, E8. 32 “Near Completion,” Los Angeles Times, November 9, 1958, F15. 33 City of Santa Monica Building Department, Building Permit No. B29952, June 16, 1961. 34 Ibid.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 13 Figure 3: Primary (south) elevation, view looking
north. GPA 2020.
Figure 4: South elevation, view looking north. GPA
2020.
The building is rectangular in plan and organized around a rectangular court. It has a flat roof clad in rolled asphalt. On the primary (south) elevation, the eaves extend out over balconies but are flush with the exterior wall otherwise. The extended eaves have wide fascia boards clad in smooth stucco. The fascia boards at each balcony are connected by thinner boards, creating an open gap between the thinner fascia boards and the exterior wall. The result is the appearance of a light, continuous, notched band along the façade’s roofline (see Figure 4). On the other elevations, the roof eaves overhang the exterior walls and feature simple, flat fascias.
The exterior of the building is clad in smooth stucco. The primary elevation is divided vertically into two parts. The ground floor is asymmetrical and designed to express its function of providing both vehicular and pedestrian access. The three upper stories are symmetrical and express their functions as apartment units.
Figure 5: Pedestrian entrance to lobby. GPA 2020. Figure 6: View of pool from Lobby interior. GPA 2020.
The ground floor is divided into three parts horizontally. At center is a wide, rectangular opening for vehicular access to the semi-subterranean, ground floor parking garage. On the west end is the primary pedestrian entrance. It is recessed beneath the upper stories and faces east, perpendicular to the street (see Figure 5). The door is aluminum and glass. Flooring at the entrance is terrazzo. The exterior wall to the east of the pedestrian door is clad with white and gold ceramic tiles. The exterior wall to the west of the pedestrian door is floor-to-ceiling glass with aluminum frames (see Figure 6). Two round columns clad in small, square, white ceramic tiles with gold tiles scattered throughout, separate the glass walls from the pool area to the south and support the
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 14 overhanging upper stories. East of the central vehicular entrance the exterior wall features tall, narrow, rectangular openings that provide light and air into the ground floor garage.
Fenestration on the upper three floors is organized into four bays (see Figure 3). The inner two bays have sliding aluminum windows above planter boxes adjacent to wide balconies accessed by large sliding aluminum doors. The balconies have simple metal railings. The upper balconies shelter the balconies below. The outer two bays consist of smaller corner balconies on each floor, also with aluminum, sliding sash doors. The front wall plane of each balcony on the primary elevation extends below its corresponding floor level creating a notched appearance similar to the roof fascia.
The east elevation is asymmetrical. On the north end of the first story are three recessed metal doors for storage/utility spaces, including a trash enclosure, and a stairwell to the upper floors. The doors are accessible via a concrete walkway from the rear alley (see Figure 7). Fenestration on the ground floor consists of short, fixed windows with textured wire glass protected by metal security bars. On the upper floors there are recessed balconies within rectangular openings with slightly projecting concrete slab floors and simple metal railings (see Figure 8). They each have sliding aluminum doors and are flanked by a number of aluminum sliding-sash windows. Small louvered metal vents are along the floorplates of each floor. The west elevation is similar to the east elevation with flush window and balcony openings (see Figure 8).
Figure 7: East elevation, view looking southwest from
rear alley. GPA 2020.
Figure 8: Detail of balconies on east elevation (left)
and west elevation (right). GPA 2020.
The rear of the building overlooks a narrow
alley. The elevation is a simplified version of the
primary elevation. The ground floor is recessed
beneath the upper floors, supported by round
concrete columns. At the center of the first
story is a rectangular opening to the ground
floor parking. The opening has an accordionstyle metal gate. The driveway has a gradual slope that descends into the garage, flanked
by low concrete walls. The vehicular opening is
flanked by two bays of parking on each side,
at grade with the alley, such that they overlook
the ground-floor parking within the first story of
Figure 9: Rear (north) elevation, view looking
southwest. GPA 2020.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 15 the building. This opening is partially enclosed by metal security bars on the west. The east side is partitioned off from the garage by concrete walls.
Fenestration on the upper floors is similar to that of the primary elevation and organized into four similar bays. The openings are almost exactly the same with the addition of a narrow opening at the center of the second story that leads to the interior courtyard. A balcony extends the full length of the interior two bays on the second story. Like that of the primary elevation, the interior two bays have aluminum sliding sash windows flanked by wide, recessed balconies with sliding sash doors. There are no built-in planters on this elevation. Within the balconies, each side wall has short jalousie windows. The end bays consist of narrow balconies with sliding sash doors flush with the exterior wall plane.
The apartments are all arranged around a large, dramatic interior court. The central court is rectangular in plan with a network of exterior, elevated walkways that provide circulation across the upper floors. The courtyard is accessed by a stairwell leading from the recessed main entrance. The exterior walls within the courtyard are clad with a lightly textured stucco. The floor is concrete with bands of terrazzo tile that extend the width of the courtyard, framing the paired apartment entrances on the first level (see Figure 10). The courtyard has an open floorplan, interrupted by large, geometric, poured in place concrete planters. Shelter is provided by walkways that connect the apartments on the upper two floors (see Figure 11).
Figure 10: Interior courtyard, first story, view looking north. GPA 2020.
Figure 11: Interior courtyard, upper floors, view
looking south). GPA 2020.
The narrow walkways extend the full length of the courtyard from south to north. These walkways are lined with low walls clad in stucco with metal caps. Two wider walkways extend the width of the courtyard and are flanked by floating planters that are elevated from the concrete slab floor of the walkway by two metal poles, creating a “floating” effect. The tops of the planters have been sealed off by metal and wood covers. On the top floor, only the wide walkways that extend the width of the courtyard are covered by a flat roof; the narrow walkways that span the length of the courtyard remain unsheltered. The doors to the apartment units are wood slab doors.
Fenestration within the courtyard consists of groupings of large, flush jalousie windows. Lighting within the exterior courtyard consists of recessed can lighting.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 16 Construction History
The multi-family apartment building was
originally constructed in 1961. The original
building permit lists the original owners as
Joseph Lyons, the architect as “Sam
Relsbord,” and the contractor as the owner.35
The permit indicates the wood frame and
plaster building would be three stories above
a basement garage.36 According to the
permit, the building was to include 36 units
and 40 legal parking spaces with an
additional 25 in tandem, at a value at
$456,000.37 A building permit for the
installation of a sprinkler system in the garage
was issued later in 1961.38
The in-ground “semi-public swim pool”
designed by George C. Thomson was constructed in 1962 by contractor Gordon & Le Tourneau.39 Also in 1962, the ceilings were replastered and the existing freestanding sign adjacent the driveway entrance along San Vicente Boulevard that reads, “IMPERIAL APARTMENTS” was added.40 The illuminated sign was designed and constructed by Local Neon.41 No other building permits were filed between 1962 and 1993. In 1994, shear walls were added and plaster cracks were repaired and repainted following the Northridge earthquake.42 In 2001, the courtyard walkways were repaired and structural beams were replaced.43 The building was reroofed with mopped capsheet roll roofing in 2011 and the pool area drains were replaced in 2019.44
In addition to those documented in building permit records, it appears that some alterations occurred to the building façade. According to a rendering of the building included in the Los Angeles Times in 1962 (see Figure 12), the wide geometric fascia board that detaches from the elevation was repeated across each floor. Although the fascia board remains at the parapet level, they have been removed from the lower floors. The rendering also includes a depiction of what appears to be either a penthouse, roof deck, or central tower. However, this feature is not evident in historic aerial photographs and is thus assumed to be inaccurate. Although it may have been planned, it appears that it was never constructed. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 Building Permit No. B30316, August 30, 1961. 39 Building Permit No. B30967, January 22, 1962. 40 Building Permit No. B31139, August 26, 1962. Building Permit No. B31470, April 20, 1962. 41 Ibid. 42 Building Permit No. EQR0577, March 17, 1994. 43 Building Permit No. B67316, March 26, 2001. 44 Building Permit No. 11STP1553, August 5, 2011. Building Permit No. 19BLD-0223, January 22, 2019.
Figure 12: Rendering of The Imperial in newspaper
ad. Los Angeles Times, December 9, 1962, WS20.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 17 Other than removal of the plexiglas panel on the freestanding sign, which was removed in 2020 due to obvious damage, no other alterations to the building exterior were observed during GPA’s site visit on March 31, 2020. See Attachment G for copies of building permits pertaining to exterior work.
Ownership and Tenant History
The original property owner was Joseph A. Lyons. The Lyons family45 retained ownership of the property throughout the majority of the building’s history until 2001. By 2011, the property was owned by RST & Associates.46 According to a building permit from 2019, the property was owned by Bearded Nest, LLC.47 it was purchased by the current property owner, Mid Century SV LP, in 2019.
Little information was found regarding the tenant history of the property. Few records were available at the time of this report.48 The latest available Santa Monica City Directory is from 1960, a year before construction of the subject building was complete. However, California Voting Registration documents from 1962 indicate that there were at least 25 residents that year. They include Mrs. Elizabeth Fihe, a widow who appears to have resided at the property until at least 1971; writer Joseph Gaer who lived at the property with his wife, Fay, in 1962; Lawrence C. Heiser who resided at the property with his wife, Ruth C. while he was a student at USC; and insurance agent Eric C. Wilson and his wife Esther, who also resided at the property in 1962. No information beyond the names of the other tenants was found. However, residents of the property appear to have generally been middle class and consisted of retirees, widows, and married couples. See Attachment C for the full list of known tenants in 1962.
Evaluation for Local Landmark Designation
Per §9.56.100(A) of the Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance (adopted in 1976 and later amended in 1987, 1991, and most recently 2015), a property merits consideration as a Landmark if it satisfies one or more of six statutory criteria. The following discussion considers the significance of 305 San Vicente Boulevard under each criterion.
Criterion 1: It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history.
The multi-family residence at 305 San Vicente Boulevard was constructed in 1961. The 1950s and 1960s constituted a major building boom in Santa Monica, particularly for multi-family residential infill development. By the 1940s, Santa Monica was mostly built-out. Housing needs for the workingclass during World War II were met by subdividing existing single-family homes. However, this did not solve the need for housing into the postwar period when demand continued to rise and exceed supply. In response, provisions were made to allow for, and encourage, demolition of the earlier single-family housing stock and infill with multi-family residential buildings. Combined with 45 By 1994, the property was owned by Eugenia Lyons, who retained ownership until at least 2001. Building Permit No.
EQR0577, March 17, 1994 and B67316, March 26, 2001. 46 Building Permit No. 11STP1553, August 5, 2011. 47 Building Permit No. 19BLD-0223, January 22, 2019. 48 Due to restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, research was largely limited to sources available online.
Repositories, such as public libraries, and city and country records offices, were not accessible to the public during time this report was written.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 18 larger economic incentives at the federal level and support by local City officials, the built landscape of Santa Monica transformed as a huge number of multi-family buildings were approved through zoning variances. This transition in development occurred along San Vicente Boulevard beginning in the late 1940s with almost all single-family residences west of 7th Street replaced with multi-family residences by the end of the 1970s. This transition, which occurred over a drawn-out period, spanning four decades, consisted of two distinct trends in multi-family housing development that have often been grouped into one. The first is 1940s and 1950s multi-family family infill development of courtyard apartment housing types, and the second is 1960s and 1970s multi-family infill development of stucco box and larger apartment housing types, often replacing those constructed in the two decades prior.
Most of the buildings along the adjacent blocks of San Vicente Boulevard were constructed during the earlier part of this trend, in the 1940s and 1950s. They are variations of the courtyard apartment property type, popular from the late 1930s to the late 1950s, are two or three stories in height, have L-, U-, I-, C- or O-shaped plans, exterior landscaped courtyards, and rear detached garages or rear/side soft-story parking. These were constructed prior to the new zoning ordinance in 1959 when the City permitted the construction of “skyscraper apartments on large parcels of land,” and “garden-type apartments” on smaller parcels in the Palisades Tract.49 Prior to this zoning change, through the 1950s, a contentious battle ensued between homeowners who opposed multi-family residential development in their neighborhoods, and developers who looked to profit from higher density construction.50 The courtyard housing type, rooted in the bungalow court multi-family housing type from the 1920s, was more amenable to infill development just like its predecessor.
The second phase of multi-family infill development began in the 1960s:
With the late 1960s and 1970s came a shift away from the courtyard apartment as a popular multifamily housing type. Courtyards were viewed as a waste of potentially inhabitable, rentable space as demands for maximizing lot capacity increased. Building plans became rectangular in shape, and outdoor courtyards were replaced with interior entrance corridors and light wells. The location of parking changed as well. Whereas earlier courtyard apartments had rear detached garages or rear soft story parking, apartments in the 1960s often had integrated parking structures at the first floor of the building, and 1970s apartments typically featured subterranean parking structures.51 Unlike those of the 1940s and 1950s, these infill apartment buildings were unapologetic in size and scale. They were designed to fill their lot to maximize rents and accommodate parking. 305 San Vicente Boulevard is an interesting architectural specimen, having been constructed in the midst of this transition from courtyard apartments to the economic-driven stucco box. Many of the archetypal courtyard buildings that were constructed during the first phase of multi-housing development along San Vicente are now part of the San Vicente Courtyard Apartment Historic District. Although the subject property is located within the District boundaries, it was not included as a contributor due to its 1961 construction date being outside of the determined period of 49 Architectural Resources Group, Inc., 15. 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid.,17.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 19 significance for the District, which was determined to be 1936 to 1956, as explained in the following excerpt from the 2015 San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District Assessment Report, The period of significance for the proposed San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District begins in 1937, with the construction of the earliest extant courtyard apartment in the Study Area, and ends in 1956, with the erection of the district’s last courtyard apartment. Buildings constructed after 1956 signify a shift from the courtyard apartment property type to higher density apartment houses and condominiums. In order to maximize lot capacity, open plans around shared courtyards were generally replaced with rectangular plans and small, interior light wells in these later multi-family properties.
Although a small number of later apartment and condominium complexes in the Study Area feature courtyards, in general these later complexes do not embody the mid-20th century courtyard apartment property type as they lack the essential character-defining features of the type, including access to the courtyard from the street, dwelling units facing the courtyard, exterior corridors, and rear parking. Therefore, the period of significance was not extended to include these later examples, although they may merit further study in the future.52
While it is true that 305 San Vicente does not embody the archetypical mid-20th century courtyard apartment property type, and therefore would not meet the eligibility requirements determined for evaluating contributors to the District, it is individually significant for its association with the ongoing multi-family residential development trend along the San Vicente corridor and in the City of Santa Monica. In 1956, the property was one of few remaining single-family residential properties that had been converted to multi-family with apartments constructed on the rear (see Figure 13). The replacement of these buildings with the subject late courtyard apartment in 1961 continued the transformation of San Vicente Boulevard into the 1960s and contributes to the uninterrupted front setback that characterizes the courtyard apartment buildings that now dominated the street.
Figure 13: 1956 historic aerial, showing subject
property outlined in yellow. UCSB.
Figure 14: 1962 historic aerial, showing subject
building outlined in yellow. UCSB.
52 Ibid., 24-25.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 20 While it was determined not to fit into the definition of a mid-1920s courtyard apartment and ineligible as a contributor to the San Vicente Courtyard Apartment Historic District, it also does not fit into the category described in the quote above about the later multi-family properties that eliminated the shared courtyard in favor of small, interior light wells. Rather, the subject building is a late, unique example of the courtyard apartment development trend and is significant as an example of a transitional property type constructed on the heels of a change in the City’s zoning ordinance in 1959, when zoning began to resemble what it is today. After which, multi-family development was dominated by vernacular modern stucco box apartment buildings, including dingbats.
The property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard is an important component of multi-family residential environment in Santa Monica that adds to the historic narrative of its neighborhood. It also symbolizes the larger citywide trend of increased density achieved through zoning changes. It is therefore eligible under Criterion 1 for exemplifying an important aspect of this period in the neighborhood’s architectural history.
Criterion 2: It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.
The residence at 305 San Vicente Boulevard is a 1960s courtyard apartment building which features a uniquely designed interior courtyard. The large central courtyard, rather than landscaped open space, is entirely built on top of the ground floor parking garage. The design allows for the incorporation of an ample amount of parking at the ground level but ample light and communal space around which the apartments are oriented on the upper floors.
In the absence of a central greenspace which
often incorporated concrete walkways and
other hardscaping typical of the 1920s-1950s
courtyard property type, the architect
designed large, trapezoidal planters made of
board-formed concrete to incorporate
greenery; between which the negative spaces
define the circulation within the otherwise
open courtyard.
The design of the courtyard combines sharp,
geometric forms and simple details that when
viewed together create a surprisingly
intricately designed space and interesting
composition of solid and void. The courtyard has elevated walkways that are aesthetically designed to achieve a specific function. They are strategically arranged to provide efficient circulation and shelter within the otherwise open courtyard space, but also create aesthetic interest with the intersecting volumes and planes of the long, elevated walkways appearing to float across the upper floors of the courtyard. No other example of this courtyard design in multifamily housing from the period was found through researching properties in Santa Monica, or the Los Angeles area as a whole.
Figure 15: Courtyard, first floor (left) and upper floors (right). Owners personal photographs.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 21 Figure 16: Courtyard, upper floor walkway. Glenn
Darby, resident, 2020.
Figure 17: Courtyard, upper floor walkways. GPA
2020.
As such, the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard, with its unique and dynamic interior courtyard design, has aesthetic interest and value and is significant under Criterion 2.
Criterion 3: It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or national history.
The building at 305 San Vicente Street was designed to attract the upper middle class, as was typical of the property type and other apartment buildings in the area. Little information was found regarding the names of residents of the property over time. Due to this lack of information, the property does not appear to be eligible under Criterion 3 based on its tenant history.
The long-time owner of the property was Joseph A. Lyons and Lyons Construction Company, owned by himself and his brother, Leo. The brothers were born in 1908 and 1911 in Orosi, California to parents Sultana (1881-1976), a Turkish immigrant,53 and Krakor Arslanian, an Armenian immigrant. 54 The family owned a fruit farm in Orosi, California where they resided until at least 1920.55
After the death of Krakor, the brothers, their widowed mother, and sister, Katherine ArslanianBosnian, moved to Los Angeles by 1927. Joseph attended Los Angeles High School, where he was a member of the Boys’ House and Grounds Committee.56 The family resided at 2319 Ridgley Drive.
By 1930, they moved to a house at 2323 Ridgley Drive during which time Joseph, the oldest son, was employed as an auto mechanic at a garage. 57 Research indicates that the Arslanian brothers changed their name in the 1930s. According to the 1934 California Register of Voters, Leo was the first to adopt the name Lyons, while Joseph and their mother were registered under the 53 Ancestry.com, 1910 United States Federal Census, accessed November 7, 2020, https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/7884/images/31111_4327313-01438. 54 The name Arslanian, is also written in some sources as “Urslanian.” 55 Ancestry.com, 1920 United States Federal Census, accessed November 7, 2020, https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/6061/images/4294423-00077. 56 Ancestry.com, "U.S., School Yearbooks, 1880-2012"; School Name: Los Angeles High School, accessed November 7, 2020, https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/1265/images/ybk_blueandw0036. 57 Ancestry.com, 1930 United States Federal Census, accessed November 7, 2020, https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/6224/images/4532469_00207.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 22 name Arslanian.58 By 1938, both brothers had adopted the name Lyons, by which time they owned and operated their own automobile repair shop. Lyons Brothers was located at 975 Venice Boulevard.59 According to the 1938 Los Angeles City Directory, Leo lived at 2323 ½ Ridgley Avenue with his wife, Florence.60 They were divorced by 1940, during which time the Lyons brothers shared the home with their widowed mother.61
Joseph enlisted in the Army in 1943. By 1962, Joseph married Jeanne Lyons.62 They had one daughter, Linda Lyons.63 The couple were members of Artisans Auxiliary of the Assistance League of Southern California with Jeanne as President.6465
No evidence indicating exactly when the brothers started their construction company was found.
However, one of their first projects appears to have been a seven-unit apartment building at 1357 Beverly Glen Boulevard in Los Angeles, constructed in 1953 “by and for Lyons Construction Co.”66 The two-story apartment building was designed in the Mid-Century Modern style by architect Sanford Kent.67 In 1959-1960, they constructed 621 San Vicente Boulevard, also along the San Vicente Corridor, east of the subject property. It was also designed in the Mid-Century Modern style but by master architect Kenneth Nels Lind. In 1961, the company constructed the subject building at 305 San Vicente Boulevard. In 1962, a 32-unit elevator apartment building at 13535 Victory Boulevard in Van Nuys was constructed by Lyons Construction Co. and designed by Vincent R. Bonfanti, AIA.68
While Joseph A. Lyons and Leo N. Lyons appear to have had a successful career as developers investing in property throughout Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and the San Fernando Valley, there is no evidence to suggest that either brother were significant figures in history, nor that they were particularly influential in the history of multi-family residential development. Rather, their investment in properties as a small investment and development firm was merely part of an ongoing trend in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore, 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not appear to be significant under Criterion 3 for association with the original developers and long-term owners, Joseph A. Lyons or the Lyons Construction Company.
Research also did not reveal any evidence of association with a historic event. Therefore, 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not appear to be significant under Criterion 3. 58 Ancestry.com, California, Voter Registrations, 1900-1968, accessed November 7, 2020, https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/61066/images/losangelesco0473. 59 Los Angeles City Directory, 1938. 60 Ibid. 61 Ancestry.com, 1940 United States Federal Census, accessed November 7, 2020, https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/2442/images/m-t0627-00411-00184. 62 Christy Fox, “What's in Name? Patents and Compounded Goofs” Los Angeles Times, June 5, 1960, I6. 63 “Ticktocker Tea Slated Saturday,” Los Angeles Times, February 11, 1965, ws11. 64 “Preview of Art Will Be Seen In Bay City”, Los Angeles Times, November 15, 1962, I10. 65 “League Artisans Slate Costume Ball,” Los Angeles Times, April 13, 1960, A7. 66 “New Apartment Building Readied,” Los Angeles Times, October 11, 1953, E10. 67 Ibid. 68 “Construction Date on New Apartments,” Los Angeles Times, November 4, 1962, M23.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 23 Criterion 4: It embodies the distinguishing characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.
305 San Vicente Boulevard embodies the distinguishing characteristics of the Mid-Century Modern style and is a unique and excellent example of the style as applied to the late courtyard apartment property type.
Courtyard apartments initially evolved from the bungalow court and reached the height of their development in the 1920s. The earliest forms were one or two buildings, typically two stories in height, oriented around a central common area.69 By the 1920s, a number of architects and builders who specialized in the building type defined the typical form and character of courtyard apartment complexes as explained by Stephanos Polyzoides, Roger Sherwood, and James Tice, authors of Courtyard Housing in Los Angeles:
“The ideal image of the suburban landscape (coupled with early building regulations safeguarding against earthquakes) kept the courts to a two-story limit. Within these limits, courts had no need to advance or radically depart from common building technologies of the period from 1910 to 1930.”70
As a result, significant departures from the original building type were not seen until later decades, when increased density requirements forced the intensification of building within the court envelope.71
The Courtyard Apartments context included in the 2018 HRI Update lists character-defining features of the property type that are specific to the most prolific period of development in the 1920s, as described above (see Historic Context section, Courtyard Apartments on page 10).
However, the typology of the courtyard apartment experienced various iterations over the decades in which it proliferated, from the 1910s to the end of the 1960s. As such, the characterdefining features identified in the 2018 HRI Update do not fully capture those of the building at 305 San Vicente Boulevard, which was constructed toward the later end of the property type’s period of development. In absence of the specific context relating to later courtyard apartments in the Santa Monica Citywide Historic Context Statement, the following is an excerpt from the Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement (LACHCS): 72 …In the postwar period, land values typically dictated higher densities, with buildings sometimes reaching three stories in height [like 305 San Vicente] instead of just two, and frequently developed on two or more residential lots. Buildings still exhibited the typical O, U, or E-shaped plans – or paired L-shaped plans – oriented around a central common 69 Historic Resources Group, “Residential Development and Suburbanization, Multi-Family Residential Development, Courtyard Apartments, 1910-1969,” Los Angeles Citywide Context Statement (City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources: December 2018), 54. 70 Stephanos Polyzoides, Roger Sherwood, James Tice, and Julius Shulman, Courtyard Housing in Los Angeles: A Typological Analysis (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1992), 100. 71 Historic Resources Group, 55. 72 Except as noted in [], this section is excerpted from Historic Resources Group, 58-59.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 24 space. However, these spaces now frequently featured concrete patios and swimming pools.
While the better examples of these postwar courtyard complexes employed architects, such as Edward Fickett [and Samuel Reisbord, architect of 305 San Vicente], most were builder designed. Buildings typically displayed modest interpretations of popular styles at the time, including most commonly Mid-Century Modern and the Traditional/California Ranch style. However, some builders embraced more exotic or fanciful motifs in an effort to persuade prospective renters away for its more prosaic neighbors” (Merry Ovnick, Los Angeles: The End of the Rainbow, 284)…
…Examples of 1950s and 1960s courtyard apartments can be found throughout the areas of Los Angeles [and Santa Monica] that were built up during the postwar period…[and like 305 San Vicente,]…tend to be concentrated along automobile corridors and adjacent to freeways.
Courtyard apartments began to taper out by the 1960s due to development pressures and new zoning ordinances that allowed for the proliferations of higher density multi-family developments.
The LACHCS also includes a list of character-defining features of the 1950s-1960s Courtyard Apartment73, listed below:
• O-, U- or E-shaped plan on a double residential lot; may be composed of two L-shaped buildings
• May have interior or exterior access corridors
• Building is oriented around a common area, a primary feature of the design (typically a landscaped courtyard, paved patio or swimming pool)
• Detached garage(s) at the rear, or integrated carport along the side or rear • May also be significant as a good example of an architectural style from its period and/or the work of a significant architect of building
• Associated architectural styles may include, and not be limited to: Mid-Century Modern, California Ranch, Tiki/Polynesian
305 San Vicente Boulevard incorporates all of the above character-defining features of the 1950s1960s Courtyard Apartment property type.
As stated earlier, although the stucco box property type began to replace the earlier courtyard apartment type at the end of the 1950s into the 1960s, 305 San Vicente Boulevard is undoubtedly a courtyard in plan, but designed following the same economic principles that lead to the proliferation of the stucco box. In doing so, the subject property incorporates an ample amount of parking and fills its lot to maximize rentable space but also retains ample light and communal space around which the apartments are oriented. The integration of these principles is elegantly exemplified in the resulting design of 305 San Vicente Boulevard. The building retains a large central courtyard, which, rather than landscaped open space, is entirely built on top of the ground floor parking garage. In the absence of a central greenspace which often incorporated concrete walkways and other hardscaping typical of the 1920s-1950s courtyard property type, 73 Ibid., 67.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 25 the architect designed large planters to incorporate greenery; between which the negative spaces created define the circulation within the otherwise open courtyard. The stacked, open, elevated walkways provide a modern, higher density interpretation of the concrete walkways typical of earlier, one- and two-story courtyard apartments. To accommodate the ground floor parking garage and maximize the space of the central courtyard, the pool is located within the front setback, a location more typical of the stucco box.
Few properties were identified as examples of the Mid-Century Modern style as applied to the 1950s-1960s courtyard property type. Properties identified as appearing eligible as Landmarks include 827 6th Street (1941/1951); 822 Cedar Street (1952); 1621 Centinela Avenue (1953); 633 Ocean Avenue (1953); 130 Alta Avenue (1955); and 2700 Neilson Way (1965). 2238 28th Street (1950) was also identified but determined not retain sufficient integrity to be eligible as a Landmark.
Of the few 1950s-1960s courtyard apartments included in the 2018 HRI Update, none are like 305 San Vicente Boulevard in terms of type or style. They are primarily examples of U- and E-shaped courtyard apartments, one to two stories in height. Thus, 305 San Vicente Boulevard is a unique and excellent example of a 1960s Mid-Century Modern O-shaped courtyard apartment in Santa Monica and an important variation of the historical type which adapted to rising development pressure and new allowances made through zoning changes and therefore valuable to the study of architecture.
305 San Vicente exhibits many of the character-defining features of the Mid-Century Modern style in its horizontal massing, asymmetrical façade, flat roof, concrete and terrazzo flooring, flushmounted metal framed windows, mixed exterior materials including stucco, concrete and ceramic tiles and expanses of unadorned wall surfaces. The building also features many geometric details such as the curved property walls and pool, round columns juxtaposed with square ceramic tile cladding, and rhythmic geometric fascia and balconies that create depth to the otherwise flat façade. The geometric forms are also utilized in the central courtyard where trapezoidal planters break up the rectangular space of the first floor beneath long, elevated rectangular walkways that are accented with floating planters atop round posts where the deliberate expression of construction is evident.
For all of the reasons above, 305 San Vicente Boulevard is eligible under Criterion 4.
Criterion 5: It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect.
305 San Vicente Boulevard is a highly intact and significant example of the work of notable architect Samuel Reisbord. He practiced until at least 1969 and it was constructed toward the middle part of Reisbord’s lengthy and prolific career. The building is also one of only two known apartment buildings of his extant in Santa Monica. The other, 2046 14th Street, is from the first half of the 1950s and quite different in both scale and aesthetics. It represents a different period of the architect’s work.
Samuel Reisbord had a fascinating and somewhat tumultuous life that ultimately brought him to Southern California where he chose to lay down roots and begin what can only be described as
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 26 a prolific and accomplished career. His work was directly influenced and constantly intertwined with the careers of some of the most well-known and leading modern architects of the period.
His association and partnerships with Albert Kahn, Paul Williams, Alvin Lustig, Sidney Eisenshtat, and Fred Posner speak volumes of his talent, though his work stands alone. Reisbord’s many projects included single-family residences, public buildings, such as hospitals and schools, and commercial buildings as well as community centers; however, the bulk of his work was multi-family apartment buildings, specifically Mid-Century Modern courtyard and stucco box apartments, for which he is best known.
Samuel Reisbord’s historical career as an architect has been overlooked in recent years. His work has been overshadowed by those that he worked alongside; whose names are more well-known.
However, it is worth noting that in many of these collaborative projects, his name was listed first (see Attachment E). Moreover, other examples of his work have been recognized as historical resources (see Figure 18 - Figure 21). 2046 14th Street, Santa Monica (1954) is a 16-unit Modern-style apartment constructed for Irma C. Hall and was identified in the 2018 HRI update as an “Architecturally significant multi-family residence in Sunset Park.”74 The Wilshire Twilighter Hotel, now Dunes Inn, at 4300 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles (1958) was identified by SurveyLA as an “excellent example of Mid-Century Modern commercial architecture in the Wilshire area.”75 The Westside Jewish Community Center at 5870 W. Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles (1953) was designed by Resibord in collaboration with notable local firm Eisenshtat and Lipman and identified by SurveyLA as an “excellent example of Mid-Century Modern institutional architecture in the Wilshire area.”76
The Hollywood-Los Feliz Jewish Community Center, now the Silverlake Independent Jewish Community Center (SIJCC), at 1110 Bates Avenue, Los Angeles (1951), was also identified by SurveyLA for representing the post-war growth of the Jewish community after World War II as veterans and others moved West with their families and institutions such as JCCs were constructed in response to provide social and recreational activities to people of all ages.77 Although not identified for its architectural merit, the building is one of at least two major JCCs that Reisbord is known to have designed (the other being the aforementioned Westside Jewish Community Center, in collaboration with Eisenshtat and Lipman). Having fled Germany at the onset of WWII, it is not surprising that Reisbord was an active member of the Jewish community in the Los Angeles region.
74 Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, 134. 75 Architectural Resources Group, Inc., “Historic Resources Survey Report: Wilshire Community Plan Area, Appendix A:
Individual Resources” (City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources, January 23, 2015), 219. 76 Ibid., 168. 77 “The Hollywood-Los Feliz Jewish Community Center represents the post-war growth of the community after World War II as veterans and others moved West with their families. By 1948, the Jewish population of Los Angeles was a quarter of a million. Institutions such as JCCs were constructed in response and provided social and recreational activities to people of all ages.” GPA Consulting, Inc. “Historic Resources Survey Report: Silver Lake-Echo Park-Elysian Valley Community Plan Area, Appendix A: Individual Resources” (City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources, May 2014), 5.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 27 Figure 18: 2046 14th St., Santa Monica (1953).
Google.
Figure 19: 4300 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles (1958).
SurveyLA.
Figure 20: 1110 Bates Ave., Los Angeles (1951).
Google.
Figure 21: 5870 W. Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles
(1953). Google.
As further evidence of his noteworthy status, Reisbord has been named in a number of scholarly publications for his multi-family residential designs during the period, such as by noted architectural critic and historian John Chase.78 Furthermore, Reisbord’s papers are archived as part of the renowned Architecture and Design Collection at the University of California, Santa Barbara.79 An exhibition of his work was shown at the University Art Museum in 2003 and “showcased a selection of his low scale commercial and residential designs including apartments, hotels, and motels that helped to transform the face of everyday life in Los Angeles following World War II.”80
His body of work, relationship and numerous collaborations with esteemed architects, and recognition of his work in scholarly publications and historical resource surveys as significant 78 John Chase, Glitter Stucco & Dumpster Diving: Reflections on Building Production in the Vernacular City (New York, NY:
Verso, 2000), 5. 79 Online Archive of California. 80 Nancy Dustin Wall Moure, Historical Collections Council Newsletters January 1999-May 2006 and Miscellaneous Articles, (Laguna Beach, CA: Dustin Publications, 2006), Google Books e-Book, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Historical_Collections_Council_Newslette/p41IAQAAIAAJ?hl=en. Emphasis added.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 28 examples of the Mid-Century Modern style demonstrate that Samuel Reisbord is indeed a notable architect in history.
305 San Vicente Boulevard is a particularly excellent extant example of the work of Reisbord. His best buildings often featured simple massings with bold, geometric forms that create energetic compositions which incorporate expanses of glass juxtaposed with unadorned wall planes that emit a feeling of both lightness and heaviness. In 305 San Vicente, this quality is achieved through his use of geometric balconies, a partially detached fascia, and the elevated walkways with floating planters.
305 San Vicente Boulevard exemplifies Reisbord’s use of the Mid-Century Modern style as applied to the late courtyard apartment property type. The building’s simple but striking geometric forms create a dynamic composition on both the exterior façade and interior courtyard. The courtyard in particular demonstrates his affinity for combining strong geometric forms and simple details that when viewed together create a surprisingly intricately designed space and interesting composition of solid and void. The courtyard walkways are also strategically arranged to provide efficient circulation and shelter within the otherwise open courtyard space, all while achieving an elegant design of intersecting volumes and planes.
Furthermore, many similar examples of Reisbord’s work from the late 1950s have been demolished over time, particularly those apartments and commercial buildings located in the Hollywood area of Los Angeles. They include Mark-Stephens office building at 8467 Beverly Boulevard (1956) [see Figure 22]; 1767 N. Orchard Avenue (1958, Samuel Reisbord and Fred Posner) [see Figure 23]; and 8833 Sunset Boulevard (1958) [see Figure 24]. As a result, properties reflecting the late 1950s/early 1960s period of his work in the Los Angeles region are becoming increasingly rare.
Figure 22: 8467 Beverly Blvd. (demolished). LA Times.
Figure 23: 1767 N. Orchard Ave., Los Angeles
(demolished). LA Times.
Figure 24: 8833 Sunset Blvd. (demolished). LA Times.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 29 For all of the reasons outlined above, Samuel Reisbord is a notable architect and 305 San Vicente Boulevard is an increasingly rare and excellent example of his work on multi-family, Mid-Century Modern buildings in the early 1960s. It is eligible for designation as a Santa Monica Landmark under Criterion 5.
Criterion 6: It has a unique location, a singular visual characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City.
The property is located on San Vicente Boulevard and is surrounded by buildings of similar scale, including many designed in Mid-Century Modern styles as applied to the courtyard apartment property type. As such, the location of the subject property is not in itself unique. While architecturally significant, the building does not have a visual characteristic that is singular within the City. The interior courtyard, while aesthetically unique, is most certainly part of the overall composition of the building and property and is best understood under Criterion 2. Lastly, the subject property is not a familiar visual feature of the City. Therefore, 305 San Vicente Boulevard does not appear to be significant under Criterion 6.
Significance Summary
305 San Vicente Drive appears to be significant under Santa Monica Landmark Criteria 1, 2, 4 and
5. The property’s period of significance is 1961, the year of construction.
Integrity Analysis
It is standard practice to assess a property’s integrity as part of a historic evaluation. Integrity is a property’s ability to convey its historic significance through its physical features. National Register Bulletin #15 defines seven aspects of integrity: Location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. In order to convey significance, a property must retain some combination of these aspects of integrity from its period of significance. The aspects of integrity that are essential vary depending on the significance of the resource.
Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.
The property retains integrity of location as there is no evidence to suggest the property has been moved since it was constructed in 1961.
Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of the property.
The property retains integrity of design. Existing characteristics of the building, including its simple geometric forms with horizontal massing, rectangular plan with central courtyard and long, elevated walkways, flat roof and exterior pool with round, patterned concrete block wall, semisubterranean ground-floor parking, unadorned wall surfaces, flush-mounted metal frame fixed windows, exterior balconies, and extensive use of smooth concrete and stucco reflect its original aesthetic, style, and function. Some elements of the original façade design, specifically the repeated geometric bands on the lower levels that were identical to the wide geometric fascia board that detaches from the elevation at the parapet level, have been removed. However, because the fascia remains in full at the top and in part at lower levels, the integrity of design
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 30 remains evident and although diminished, it could be restored based on physical evidence, rather than speculation. Sufficient integrity of design remains to convey the building’s significance under Criteria 1, 2, 4, and 5.
Setting: The physical environment of a historic property.
The integrity of setting is intact. Surrounding buildings are multi-family infill development dating from the 1940s through 1970s and are generally the same as when the building was initially constructed.
Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
The property retains integrity of materials. The key exterior materials are present, including metal windows, stucco and smooth concrete exterior, patterned concrete block wall, terrazzo and concrete flooring, board-formed concrete planters, wood slab apartment unit doors, and white and gold ceramic tiles.
Workmanship: The physical evidence or the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
The property retains integrity of workmanship which is conveyed through its concrete, masonry, and stucco construction, along with the stylistic details of the attached and detached geometric concrete fascia, original round columns with gold and white ceramic tiles, concrete and terrazzo flooring, elevated skywalks with floating planters, and trapezoidal board-formed concrete planters.
Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.
The property retains integrity of feeling, as the combination of its intact location, design, setting, materials, and workmanship evoke the sense of a 1960s Mid-Century Modern multi-family residence.
Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
The integrity of association is intact, as the property retains sufficient physical integrity to convey its significance under Criterion 1, 2, 4, and 5.
Integrity Summary
The building is remarkably intact. The only major alteration to the physical design is the removal of geometric bands on the façade. However, the original fascia remains intact and portions of the same feature are extant on the lower levels, which together are sufficient evidence to convey the original design. Other minor alterations pertaining to the maintenance and preservation of the building include re-roofing and replacement of structural beams within the elevated walkways of the courtyard, presumably necessitated by earthquake damage.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 31 Character-Defining Features
Character-defining features are the architectural components that contribute to a building’s sense of time and place. Character-defining features can generally be grouped into three categories: the overall visual character of a building, the exterior materials and craftsmanship, and the interior spaces, features, and finishes. The relative importance of character-defining features depends on the level of craftsmanship, visibility, and integrity. In addition, some character-defining features are more important than others in conveying the significance of the building. The character-defining features identified below are considered the most important elements contributing to the significance of the property, and generally include features that date from the period of significance, directly relate to the original use, type, and style, display craftsmanship, are highly visible, and retain integrity.
The list of character-defining features for 305 San Vicente Boulevard are restricted to the exterior only, as the City’s ordinance does not include the interiors of private residences.
Overall Visual Character
• Three-story height
• Simple boxy massing with minimal ornamentation
• Rectangular plan
• Flat roof
• Expanses of uninterrupted wall planes
• Extended eaves and fascia on primary elevation
• Symmetrical fenestration pattern of upper stories on primary elevation • Flush window and balcony openings
• Asymmetrical ground floor on primary elevation
• Pedestrian entrance on primary elevation
• Wide, rectangular opening for vehicular access to the ground floor parking garage • Tall, narrow openings at ground floor of the garage
• Expanse of floor-to-ceiling glass enclosing entrance lobby • Round columns
• Swimming pool enclosed by curved concrete wall
• Mid-Century Modern “IMPERIAL APARTMENTS” freestanding sign frame • Central court and network of exterior, elevated walkways • Geometric planter boxes in central court
Exterior Materials and Craftsmanship
• Smooth stucco exterior finish
• Aluminum frame windows and doors
• Balconies with planes extended below the corresponding floor on the primary elevation • White and gold ceramic tile wall cladding within pedestrian entrance and lobby on primary elevation
• White and gold ceramic tile clad round columns
• Floor-to-ceiling glass with aluminum frames at lobby
• Concrete wall made of square concrete blocks enclosing swimming pool • Wood slab apartment unit doors
• Jalousie windows
• Floating planters along walkways in central courtyard
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 32 • Board-formed concrete planters in central courtyard
• Concrete and Terrazzo floors
Conclusions
The property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard is significant as an example of Mid-Century Modern architecture as applied to the late courtyard apartment type in the San Vicente Corridor neighborhood and represents multi-family housing development trends in Santa Monica as a whole. It is also significant for the possession of aesthetic values conveyed through the unique and dynamic central courtyard design that has not been seen elsewhere in Santa Monica from the period. Furthermore, it is significant for representing the evolution of the courtyard apartment property type and as an excellent example of a 1960s courtyard apartment, as well as an increasingly rare and excellent example of the work of notable architect Samuel Reisbord. It retains integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and therefore has sufficient physical integrity to convey its historical significance. As such, the building appears to be eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark under Criteria 1, 2, 4, and 5.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 33 Sources
Ancestry.com. 1910 United States Federal Census. Accessed March 30, 2020. https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1910USCenIndex&h=124075793.
Ancestry.com. 1920 United States Federal Census. Accessed November 7, 2020. https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/6061/images/4294423-00077.
Ancestry.com. 1920 United States Federal Census. Accessed March 30, 2020. https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1920usfedcen&h=52270078.
Ancestry.com. 1930 United States Federal Census. Accessed November 7, 2020. https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/6224/images/4532469_00207.
Ancestry.com. 1940 United States Federal Census. Accessed March 30, 2020. https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&db=1940usfedcen&h=78995286.
Ancestry.com. California, Voter Registrations, 1900-1968. Accessed November 7, 2020. https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/61066/images/losangelesco0473.
Ancestry.com. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Marriage Index, 1885-1951, No. 598018. Accessed online March 30, 2020. https://search.ancestry.com/cgibin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=2536&h=767749&tid=&pid=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=DXt835&_phs tart=successSource.
Ancestry.com. "U.S., School Yearbooks, 1880-2012; School Name: Los Angeles High School.” Accessed November 7, 2020.
https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/1265/images/ybk_blueandw0036.
Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group. City of Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Survey Report. Santa Monica: City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development, August 9, 2019.
Architectural Resources Group, Inc. “Historic Resources Survey Report: Wilshire Community Plan Area, Appendix A: Individual Resources.” City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources, January 23, 2015.
Architectural Resources Group, Inc. San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District Assessment, Santa Monica, CA 90402. Santa Monica, CA: City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department, October 20, 2015.
Babcock, Richard F. and Fred P. Bosselman. “Suburban Zoning and the Apartment Boom.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 111, No. 8. June 1963.
Banham, Reyner. Los Angeles: The Architecture of Four Ecologies. New York: Penguin Books, 1971.
Black, James and Thurman Grant. Editors. Dingbat 2.0: The Iconic Los Angeles Apartment as Projection of a Metropolis. Los Angeles, CA: DoppelHouse Press, 2016.
City of Santa Monica Landmarks Ordinance. Various sections as cited.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 34 Chase, John. Glitter Stucco & Dumpster Diving: Reflections on Building Production in the Vernacular City. New York: Verso, 2000.
City Directory. Los Angeles, California. Various Dates.
City of Santa Monica Building Department. Building Permits. Various Dates.
GPA Consulting, Inc. “Historic Resources Survey Report: Silver Lake-Echo Park-Elysian Valley Community Plan Area, Appendix A: Individual Resources.” City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources, May 2014.
HistoricPlacesLA.org. “Dunes Inn.” Accessed April 4, 2020. http://www.historicplacesla.org/reports/a8665101-9fd9-4037-9e2e-bca175c29c54.
Historic Resources Group. “Residential Development and Suburbanization, Multi-Family Residential Development, Courtyard Apartments, 1910-1969.” Los Angeles Citywide Context Statement. City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources: December 2018. “Housing: The Loan Scandals.” Time. April 26, 1954.
Legacy.com. “Obituary: Jeneatte Reisbord.” Los Angeles Times, September 12, 2001. Accessed online March 30, 2020.
https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/latimes/obituary.aspx?n=jeannettereisbord&pid=92744.
Los Angeles Conservancy. “Sam Reisbord and Associates” Accessed March 10, 2020. https://www.laconservancy.org/architects/sam-reisbord-and-associates.
Los Angeles Times. Various Dates.
Moure, Nancy Dustin Wall. Historical Collections Council Newsletters January 1999-May 2006 and Miscellaneous Articles. Laguna Beach, CA: Dustin Publications, 2006. Google Books eBook. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Historical_Collections_Council_Newslette/p41IA QAAIAAJ?hl=en.
Online Archive of California. “Biographical/Historical Note,” Finding Aid for the Samuel Reisbord papers, 1923-circa 1976 0000168. Accessed March 10, 2019. https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8fj2g2h/entire_text/ “Samuel Reisbord Papers.” Architecture and Design Collection. Art, Design & Architecture Museum; University of California, Santa Barbara.
Oshtashay, Jan. “PEER REVIEW ASSESSMENT: 305 San Vicente Boulevard – Designation Application (Landmark).” Memorandum to Stephanie Reich, City of Santa Monica.
October 5, 2020.
Ovnick, Merry. Los Angeles: The End of the Rainbow. Los Angeles: Balcony Press, 1994.
Polyzoides, Stephanos and Roger Sherwood, James Tice, and Julius Shulman. Courtyard Housing in Los Angeles: A Typological Analysis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1992.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 35 Storrs, Less. Santa Monica: Portrait of a City (Santa Monica, CA: Santa Monica Centennial Committee, 1975).
Street Address Directories, Los Angeles. Various Dates.
The AIA Historical Directory of American Architects, s.v. “Reisbord, Samuel.” Accessed April 1, 2020.
https://aiahistoricaldirectory.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/AHDAA/pages/35319887/ahd1036 955.
White, Col. Carl F. Editor. The Community Book. Santa Monica, CA: A.H. Cawston. 1953.
Attachments
Attachment A: Résumé
Attachment B: Current Photographs
Attachment C: Tenant History
Attachment D: Sanborn Maps
Attachment E: Example Work of Samuel Reisbord
Attachment F: Building Permits
Attachment G: Public Comments
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment A ATTACHMENT A – RÉSUMÉ
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment A
AUDREY VON AHRENS
Audrey von Ahrens is an Architectural Historian II at GPA. She has been involved in the field of historic preservation since 2013. Audrey graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a Master of Science in Historic Preservation and City Planning where she focused on preservation planning and community economic development. She has since worked in private historic preservation consulting in California. Audrey joined GPA in 2017 and her experience has included the preparation of environmental compliance documents in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; historic context statements; Secretary of the Interior’s Standards analysis; large-scale historic resources surveys; and evaluations of eligibility for a wide variety of projects and property types throughout Southern California.
Audrey is also experienced in coordinating with property owners and local governments in the preparation and review of Mills Act Property Contract applications and the inspection and reporting of properties applying for or with existing contracts.
Educational Background: Selected Projects:
• M.S., Historic Preservation, University of
Pennsylvania, 2016
• Master of City Planning, University of
Pennsylvania, 2016
• B.A., Architectural Studies, University of
Pittsburgh, 2013
• B.A., Urban Studies, University of Pittsburgh,
2013
▪ 91/605, Los Angeles County, Section 106 Historical
Resource Evaluation Report, 2017
▪ 328 N. Oakhurst Drive, Beverly Hills, CEQA Historical Resource Evaluation Report, 2019
▪ 933 S. Gramercy Place, Los Angeles, CEQA Phase 1
Historical Resource Evaluation Report, 2020
▪ 1360 Vine Street, Los Angeles, CEQA Historical
Resource Technical Report, 2020
▪ 1400 Vine Street, Los Angeles, CEQA Historical
Resource Technical Report, 2020
▪ 2550 Peralta Boulevard, Fremont, CEQA Preliminary
Historical Resource Evaluation Memorandum, 2018
▪ 4080 Lafayette Place, Culver City, CEQA Historical
Resource Evaluation Report, 2019
▪ 4900-20 Eagle Rock Boulevard, Los Angeles, Phase 1
Historical Resource Evaluation Report, 2020
▪ 11343-45 W. Ventura Boulevard, Los Angeles, CEQA
Phase 1 Historical Resource Evaluation Report, 2020
▪ CF Braun & Company Plant, Alhambra, CEQA
Historical Resource Technical Report, 2019
▪ Golden Avenue Bridge Replacement, Section 106
Historical Resources Evaluation Report, 2017
▪ High Speed Rail, Burbank to Los Angeles Project
Section, CEQA/NEPA Historical Resource Technical
Report, 2017-2018
▪ Nakase Brothers Wholesale Nursery, Lake Forest,
CEQA Historical Resource Evaluation Report, 2019
▪ Sunset & Western, Los Angeles, CEQA Historical
Resource Technical Report, 2017
▪ Vermont Corridor, Los Angeles, CEQA Historical
Resource Technical Report, 2017
▪ Westlake 619, Los Angeles, CEQA Historical Resource
Technical Report, 2018
Professional Experience:
• GPA Consulting, Architectural Historian II,
2017-Present
• Heritage Consulting, Inc., Intern,
2015-2016
• Pittsburgh History & Landmarks
Foundation, Intern, 2013
• City of Pittsburgh Planning Department,
Intern, 2012
Qualifications:
• Meets the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications Standards for
history and architectural history pursuant
to the Code of Federal Regulations, 36
CFR Part 61, Appendix A.
• National Preservation Institute, Section
106: An Introduction
Professional Activities:
• Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood
Council Planning and Land Use
Committee, Public Seat, 2018-Present
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment B ATTACHMENT B – CURRENT PHOTOGRAPHS
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment B Photo 1: Imperial Apartments, south elevation. View looking north. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
Photo 2: Imperial Apartments, south elevation. View looking northwest. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment B Photo 3: Imperial Apartments, east elevation. View looking northwest. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
Photo 4: Imperial Apartments, east elevation. View looking southwest. March 2020. GPA Consulting
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment B Photo 5: Imperial Apartments, north elevation. View looking southwest. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment B Photo 6: Imperial Apartments, west elevation. View looking southeast.
March 2020. GPA Consulting.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment B Photo 7: Imperial Apartments, interior courtyard, first floor. View looking north. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment B Photo 8: Imperial Apartments, interior courtyard, first floor. View looking north.
March 2020. GPA Consulting.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment B Photo 9: Imperial Apartments, interior courtyard, upper floors. View looking south. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment B Photo 10: Imperial Apartments, sign detail, front yard. View looking east. March 2020. GPA Consulting.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment C ATTACHMENT C – TENANT HISTORY AND NEWSPAPER ADS
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment C 1962 Newspaper Ads. Los Angeles Times, various dates.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment C 1962 California Voter Registration. Ancestry.com.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment D ATTACHMENT D – SANBORN MAPS
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment D 1950 Sanborn Map, showing subject property outlined in red. LAPL.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment E ATTACHMENT E – EXAMPLE WORK OF SAMUEL REISBORD
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment E The Beverly-Landau Apartments designed by Samuel Reisbord and Alvin Lustig. Los Angeles Times, January 23, 1949, E1.
The Barbara-Terry apartments designed by Samuel Reisbord. Los Angeles Times, January 27, 1954, E4.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment E
305 S. Rexford Drive apartment building designed by Samuel Resibord. Los Angeles Times, August 22, 1954, E4.
Riverside Medical Building designed by Samuel Reisbord. Los Angeles Times, April 10, 1955, E11.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment E Mark-Stephens office building designed by Samuel Reisbord. Los Angeles Times, April 19, 1956, F12.
Apartment Building Project designed by Samuel Reisbord and Fred Posner & Associated. Los Angeles Times, December 15, 1957, F9.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment E Orchid Apartments designed by Samuel Reisbord and Fred Posner Associates. Los Angeles Times, August 24, 1958, F8.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment E 8833 Sunset Boulevard designed by Samuel Reisbord. Los Angeles Times, May 11, 1958, F1. 823-25 Fairview Avenue designed by Samuel Reisbord and Fred Posner. Los Angeles Times, November 9, 1958, F15.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment F ATTACHMENT F – PUBLIC COMMENTS
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of From: glenn darby
To: Planning Commission Comments
Subject: YES to Landmark for 305 San Vicente Blvd.--please! Date: Saturday, October 10, 2020 4:02:42 PM
EXTERNAL
Hello,
First, I hope you are all well and keeping
safe.
As a long time resident at 305 San Vicente
Blvd., I am thrilled the building is up
for the honor
of a City Landmark.
We feel our building is very unique in
it's mid century architecture--especially
the open air
indoor hallways(even more important with
the pandemic).
I don't believe there is another building
like it in the city or probably the
county.
And, something special most people miss is
the sign out front--partially destroyed,
that reads: "Imperial Apartments."
That in itself is worthy of protection--
and possibly refurbishment.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Thank you for considering a place we've
called home for over the past 26 years as
a City Landmark.
Warm Regards~
Glenn Darby
305 San Vicente Blvd. Resident
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 mins))
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 mins)) From: Ruthann Lehrer
To: Roger Genser; Barry Rosenbaum; Dolly Sloan; Amy Beth Green; Jodi Summers; Kenneth Breisch; Richard Brand; Planning Commission Comments
Cc: Stephanie Reich
Subject: Item 10C on 10/12/20 Landmarks Commission agenda Date: Monday, October 12, 2020 9:34:03 AM
EXTERNAL
October 12, 2020
Item 10C, 305 San Vicente Boulevard Landmark Designation Application Chair Genser and Commissioners,
Our landmarks ordinance does not require that significance for an architect must relate to their work in Santa Monica, as implied in the peer review report and by staff. Criteria 5 states “It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect.” Considering the range and scope of Reisbord’s career, his entire body of work may well be considered notable under this criterion.
The peer review doesn’t consider the architectural design itself as potentially meeting either criteria 2 or 4, one or both of which may be applicable. The applicant’s consultant provides a brief but compelling architectural description, but applies the analysis only to criteria 5:
The Imperial Apartments exemplify Reisbord’s use of the Mid-Century Modern style as applied to the multi-story apartment housing type. The building’s simple but striking geometric forms create a dynamic composition on both the exterior facade and interior courtyard. The courtyard in particular demonstrates his affinity for combining bold, geometric forms and simple details that when viewed together create a surprisingly intricately designed space and interesting composition of solid and void. The courtyard walkways are also strategically arranged to provide efficient circulation and shelter within the otherwise open courtyard space, all while achieving an elegant design of intersecting volumes and planes. The Imperial Apartments is, therefore, a representative work of notable architect Sam Reisbord and eligible for designation as a Santa Monica Landmark under Criterion 5.
The building is a later design phase of courtyard housing than the contributors to the San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District, but that fact may be worthy of analysis as indicative of the evolution of courtyard housing in Santa Monica.
I hope that the Commission will continue this matter to a future public hearing and allow the applicant an opportunity to return with a strengthened application. The applicant could be advised to present their own findings under the landmarks criteria for designation.
Sincerely,
Ruthann Lehrer
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of From: Carol Lemlein
To: Roger Genser; Barry Rosenbaum; Amy Beth Green; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kenneth Breisch; Richard Brand; Planning Commission Comments
Cc: Stephanie Reich
Subject: Re: Items 10B, 10C, and 10D on Landmarks Commission Agenda, 10/12/20 Date: Monday, October 12, 2020 10:21:26 AM
EXTERNAL
Dear Landmarks Commission,
This letter addresses concerns raised by the three landmark designation applications, Items 10A, 10B and 10C. It was gratifying to see in these three designation applications on tonight’s agenda that staff has streamlined the application process to make it more tenable for reduced staff capacity and more affordable for applicants.
My colleague Ruthann Lehrer, long the Architectural Historian on this Commission, has sent you specific recommendations regarding aspects of the properties which have been overlooked, which we believe to be at least partially the result of the process issues described below.
The approach staff has taken is dependent on a revised landmark designation application, which we don’t have. As we can see by the results presented tonight, use of the current application for the streamlined process may not result in submissions with enough factual information upon which to make a determination. For this new process to be effective, the new application should address the criteria specifically and stress the need for documentation. Historically, the city’s landmark designation application has been focused on providing a platform for any person, not only professionals, to present what they believe makes a property worthy of designation. Now we are requiring presentation of thoroughly researched facts that support designation. It’s a whole new ballgame.
When the application form is revised to include a statement of findings according to the criteria for designation, the consultant’s review of the materials should not be only a peer review of the research methodology, it should also be a peer review of the conclusions. Where the peer report finds deficiencies in the research or conclusions, the report can be presented to the applicant in order for them to correct the deficiencies before it is placed on the Commission agenda.
In the applications before you tonight, the applicants hired professional historic preservation consultants who are fully capable of presenting the kind of information, and drawing the necessary conclusions as suggested were lacking in the city consult’s peer review. It would appear that they were not aware that that was the information called for in the application stage.
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of We suggest that the commission continue all three applications, to allow the applicant to present the complete information they would have presented if it had been clear in the application it was required.
Sincerely,
Carol Lemlein
Santa Monica Conservancy Advocacy Committee
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Assessment Report – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA Attachment G ATTACHMENT G – BUILDING PERMIT RECORD
(Includes only building permits that pertain to physical building alterations—excluding mechanical, electrical and plumbing permits)
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: GPA
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: GPA
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: GPA
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: GPA
19BLD-0223
03/07/19
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of 19BLD-0223
03/07/19
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of 19BLD-0223
03/07/19
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of 19BLD-0223
03/07/19
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of 19BLD-0223
03/07/19
9.A.g
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: GPA Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Blvd 2020-12-29-reduced (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of P.O. Box 542
Long Beach, CA
562.500.9451
[email protected]
1 Ostashay & Associates
consulting
Memorandum
To: Stephanie Reich, City of Santa Monica Date: 12/31/2021 From: Jan Ostashay, Principal OAC
Re: Peer Review: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard Overview
This memorandum (memo) has been prepared at the request of the City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department, City Planning Division (the City). The purpose of the memo is to provide a professional peer review of the updated Landmark assessment report entitled Landmark Assessment Report in Support of Appeal dated December 30 2020, that was prepared by GPA Consulting for the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property.
On April 27, 2020, the applicant, H. Joseph Soleiman with Mid Century SV LP, submitted a Landmark Designation Application for the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property prepared by GPA Consulting on behalf of the property owner. At the request of the City, a peer review of the landmark application was prepared by Jan Ostashay of OAC (dated October 5, 2020), who found the application’s assessment of the property lacking sufficient evidence and compelling arguments to support the proposed landmark designation. The City’s Landmarks Commission reviewed the landmark application, peer review assessment, staff report, and public comments during a public hearing on October 12, 2020 (Landmark Designation Application 20ENT-0119). Upon deliberation, the Commission motioned to deny the application based on the information provided in the staff report and the peer review. The motion was unanimously approved by the commissioners of the Landmarks Commission.
An appeal of the denial made by the Landmarks Commission was filed on October 22, 2020, and an updated landmark assessment report was prepared by GPA Consulting in response to the Commission’s motion made at their October 2020 hearing. The updated landmark assessment report has been peer reviewed by OAC and OAC’s findings are discussed herein this memo. In summary, OAC agrees with GPA’s evaluation findings that the property does not satisfy City of Santa Monica Landmark criteria 3 (association important personages) and 6 (it has a unique location, singular visual characteristic or is an established familiar visual feature). As for findings of significance under Landmark criteria 1, 2, 4, and 5, OAC does not concur with GPA’s findings that the property satisfies these four Landmark criteria for historical associations, artistic and aesthetic qualities, and architecture merit. It is OAC’s professional opinion that the subject property does not satisfy any of the necessary Landmark criteria and, therefore, is ineligible for recognition as a City Landmark.
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard 2 Methodology
To complete this peer review memo, Ms. Ostashay completed the following tasks:
• Reviewed the initial Landmark Designation Application material (May 27, 2020) and also reviewed the updated Landmark Assessment Report for the subject property dated December 30, 2020 prepared by GPA Consulting. Also reviewed the associated Appeal Form filed with the City dated October 22, 2020.
• Reviewed the City’s Landmark Designation Criteria, Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance, 2018 Historic Context Statement (HCS), 2018 Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) Update, San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District Assessment (2015), San Vicente Apartments Courtyard Housing Study (2009), and other prior city-sponsored historic resources surveys and survey updates. OAC also reviewed other related survey material prepared in association with SurveyLA, which was a City of Los Angeles sponsored project. • Reviewed the staff report, public comment, and minutes of the Landmark Commission hearing of October 12, 2020, at which the subject property was reviewed and considered by the Commission for Landmark designation. Also listened to the audio transcript of the Landmarks Commission hearing of October 12, 2020 via the City’s website. • Conducted additional research on the history of the subject property; its original owner/builder and architect; physical alterations; and past owners and occupants. In addition, reviewed archival material associated with the subject property and architect on file with the Architecture and Design Collection, Design & Architecture Museum at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB). The UCSB repository maintains the Samuel Reisbord papers, which includes architectural drawings, information on projects he worked on, and associated personal ephemeral material. The extent of the research conducted by OAC was limited to what was necessary to assess the validity of the evaluation findings presented in the updated assessment report.
• Reviewed relevant published National Park Service (NPS) guidance on evaluating the significance of potential historic properties. These bulletins and guidelines help to provide understanding and clarity in the application of the significance criteria for evaluation, development of appropriate historic contexts, and assessing historical integrity to those properties under consideration for potential landmark eligibility. The use of these publications is standard professional industry practice, and helps to disseminate the essential information gathered to make a sound and justifiable evaluation of historical significance. • Also searched the National Register of Historic Places online database, the City’s online sources, and OAC’s in-house library for any properties evaluated or designated for similar reasons as those outlined in the application and assessment report, i.e. association with multi-family residential development, architecture and aesthetics, master architect, etc. • Analyzed the assessment findings and researched presented in the application’s updated landmark assessment report for validity, clarity, and conformance with the basic professional principles and best practices for evaluating the significance of potential historic properties. • Summarized the results of all of the tasks listed above within this memo.
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard 3 Landmark Designation Application and AssessmentReport The original Landmark Designation Application, dated April 27, 2020, for the apartment building located at 305 San Vicente Boulevard consisted of a Landmark designation application form along with supporting attachments (attachment “A” describing the property, attachment “B” providing a statement of architectural significance and the identification of character-defining features, attachment “C” the bibliography, attachment “D” photographs of the property, and attachment “E” building permit history). This is the document the Landmarks Commission reviewed and considered at their hearing October 12, 2020, for which they deliberated and denied the landmark application.
An updated Landmark assessment report, dated December 30, 2020, was prepared as a response to the Commission’s findings to deny designation of the subject property as a City Landmark and which the appeal is supported. The updated Landmark assessment report includes an executive summary, introduction, methodology statement on the tasks performed, identification of prior evaluations of the subject property, development of a historic context with associated themes presented, a property description narrative (architectural description, construction history, ownership and tenant history), application of City Landmark criteria and evaluation for local landmark designation, analysis of historical integrity, identification of character-defining features, a conclusionary statement, and bibliography. The assessment report also includes several supporting attachments (resume of evaluator, current photographs, tenant history and newspaper advertisements, Sanborn Maps, earlier newspaper accounts of architect Samuel Reisbord’s work (1940s-1950s), public comments in support of the property’s landmarking, and building permit history.
Peer Review Assessment
OAC has peer reviewed the updated landmark assessment report prepared by GPA related to the property located at 305 San Vicente Boulevard for overall adequacy and the property’s potential local Landmark eligibility. The peer review analysis by OAC of the property’s potential historic significance, evaluation of historical integrity, and assessment findings for historical designation under the established City Landmark criteria is presented as follows.
Construction History, Alterations, Integrity Assessment The subject property is a large multi-family residential building designed with a rectangular shaped plan that is centered around a series of small interior courtyards. The three-story structure was completed in 1961 and was finalized for occupancy by the City in the summer of 1962. It was built with a semi-subterranean garage accessed at ground floor level with 36 units on the upper floors. An in-ground swimming pool was also added in 1962 and is offset at the southwest corner of the parcel within the front setback behind a curving brick wall. Because of its design and elevated placement on the lot, many of the building features, such as the entry lobby area and staircase, multi-level interior open courtyards, internal open-air bridging corridors (walkways), fenestration, integrated planters, and front entries to the apartment units are not visible from the public rights-of-way. The building complex was designed by architect Samuel Reisbord and built by Los Angeles-based Lyons Construction Company for then owners Joseph and Leo Lyons (who owned and operated Lyons Construction).
The apartment building, called “The Imperial,” exhibits the typical features of the ubiquitous podium style Stucco Box apartment typology, a popular building form of the late 1950s, 1960s, and early
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard 4 1970s. The architectural style of the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property is perhaps best characterized as “Vernacular” Mid-Century Modern, a low style that takes some characteristics of the “classic” MidCentury Modern idiom and popularizes and dilutes them. The smooth stucco surfaces, clean rectilinear volumes, aluminum frame flush set windows, slider balcony doors, floor-to-ceiling glazing, integrated parking, flat roof with light wells, and the insular stark aspect of the elevated interior courtyard featurestypifies this style. The building’s only readily visible detailing, outside of the original moniker sign that reads “Imperial Apartments” in period scripted font, occurs on the front façade with a series of solids to voids that include extended balconies, plain stucco wall surfaces, engaged stucco planter boxes set below windows, and the flat roof overhang with wide geometric fascia board trim at the upper eave line. An original key design element of the building along its primary façade featured rows of long, wide geometric fascia boards set as decorative trim at every floor level that spanned the entire front of the building and horizontally connected the balconies and engaged plastered planter boxes in a linear rhythm. This notable design feature; however, is no longer extant on the building, but for the single remaining fascia board trim at the front eave. The loss of this key stylistic feature has greatly impacted the architect’s original Mid-Century Modern design intent.
In reviewing the original rendering for the building obtained from the Architecture and Design Collection, Design & Architecture Museum at the UCSB campus as well as the extant fascia board at the front eave line, this unusual architectural feature added some stylistic distinction to the building’s overall design composition and gave some street presence to a rather mundane, typical façade. In reading the permit history on file with the City, this series of decorative fascia trim boards were most likely damaged and removed following the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Immediately after the earthquake the City’s emergency response teams began conducting building inspections throughout the community. The building and subterranean parking area of the 305 San Vicente Boulevard apartment building were inspected by the City for structural soundness on January 19, 1994. Notes on the “Rapid Evaluation Safety Assessment Forms” completed by the City’s structural engineer stated the building had severe racking of walls with obvious severe damage and distress. The property was then “yellow” tagged for limited entry. On February 1, 1994, the building was re-inspected with field notes that stated the anchor bolts on the building had bent and displaced the south (front) wall. The “ornamental wall face at front of building” was also noted as having cracked sufficiently enough to expose additional anchor bolts (this is probably when the “ornamental face” aka geometric fascia boards were removed). The assessment report also notes that the front balcony slabs had displaced, but posed no immediate hazard. Among other details, the inspector further noted that the west (side) wall had moved three (3) inches and that the anchor bolts were cracked and had cracked the concrete walls in some places. Upon concluding the second inspection, the building was issued a “green tag” and in the coming months was stabilized and repaired, as required.
Unfortunately, the extensive seismic repairs made to those areas of the building visible from the public rights-of-way visually and physically impacted the original Mid-Century Modern stylistic design intent as envisioned by its architect Samuel Reisbord. The front elevation at grade level is now dominated by an offset paved area for parking, the driveway leading into the parking garage, and the nondescript solid curving brick wall that encloses the swimming pool from the street. The side and rear elevations of the structure still have planar, unornamented wall surfaces that are punctuated by flush set aluminum sliders and recessed balconies with simple metal rails (there are also integrated carports at the rear elevation accessed from the alley). In consideration of the prior alterations made to the exterior of the building, its original appearance, and its current lack of street presence, the architecture of the structure does not necessarily appear inventive, unique, or well-articulated. It is also OAC’s professional opinion that the property’s historical integrity of design, material,
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard 5 workmanship, and feeling has also been affected. Therefore, OAC does not concur with the findings made in the updated GPA landmark assessment report that the property retains all seven qualities of integrity.
Historic integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance and is defined as the “authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property’s…historic period.”1 A property eligible for local designation must satisfy the applicable significance criteria and should retain enough of its historic character and original appearance to be recognizable as a historical resource. The seven qualities or aspects of historical integrity are defined as follows:
• Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.
• Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.
• Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. • Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. • Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
• Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.
• Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
Landmark Findings
Historic preservation in Santa Monica is governed by Chapter 9.56 (Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance) of the City of Santa Monica Municipal Code. The Ordinance includes criteria and procedures for designating City of Santa Monica Landmarks, Structures of Merit, and Historic Districts.
Landmarks may include structures, natural features, or any type of improvement to a property that is found to have particular architectural or historical significance to the City.
Pursuant to Section 9.56.100(A) of the Ordinance, a property merits consideration as a City Landmark if it satisfies one or more of the following six criteria:
1. It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history of the City.
2. It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. 1 National Register Bulletin No 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places, 1995).
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard 6 3. It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or national history.
4. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail, or historical style valuable to such a study.
5. It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect.
6. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City.
The peer review of the updated landmark assessment report findings for City of Santa Monica Landmark eligibility is as follows:
Criterion 1: It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history of the City.
The updated GPA Landmark assessment report concludes that the subject property is significant under Criterion 1 for symbolizing the larger citywide trend of increased density and the early results of the change in the City’s zoning ordinance in 1959, which allowed for the area to resemble what it is today. GPA also found the property to be significant as a unique example of the courtyard apartment development trend and as an example of a transitional property type built following the changes in the City’s 1959 zoning ordinance. The GPA assessment furthers argues that the subject property represents an important aspect of this period in the neighborhood’s architectural history.
The eligibility standards of the Santa Monica Citywide Historic Context Statement indicate that multifamily residential properties eligible under Criterion 1 may be significant as the site of an important event in history; for exemplifying an important trend, pattern, or type of multi-family residential development; or as an early rare, or excellent example of a multi-family residential property type.2 The altered apartment building at 305 San Vicente Boulevard, completed in 1961, is one of numerous multi-family residential properties constructed in the postwar period to meet the demand for housing. The design rational for these ubiquitous postwar multi-family buildings was to provide inexpensive housing using mass-produced building materials. The subject property was part of a trend that was occurring at the time, not only in Santa Monica, but elsewhere throughout Southern California and beyond. The subject property itself was not the impetus for this trend nor was it a seminal representative of large-scale, multi-family postwar development. As such, the building is not an early, rare, or excellent example of its type or of multi-family residential development within the City. It, along with many others in the community, represents a continued and popular residential development pattern in the post-World War II period within the City. Although the construction of the property is associated with City’s postwar development period, it cannot be said that this single building alone exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests a pivotal multi-family residential development pattern of history in the City. Further, the apartment building has undergone notable modifications to 2 Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, City of Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Survey Report (Santa Monica: City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development, August 9, 2019).
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard 7 its primary (front, south) thereby impacting its historical integrity of design, workmanship, material, and feeling. Therefore, it does not accurately sufficiently convey its original design intent to fully and accurately exemplify, symbolize, or manifest elements of the economic, social, or architectural history of the City.
It is OAC’s professional opinion that the subject property does not appear to satisfy the tenets of Criterion 1. Therefore, OAC does not concur with the findings made in the updated GPA Landmark assessment report that the property appears significant under Criterion 1.
Criterion 2: It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.
The updated GPA Landmark assessment report concludes that the subject property is significant under Criterion 2 for its “uniquely designed interior courtyard.” The interior courtyard space is lit by a number of light wells that pierce the center portion of the flat roof of the building. Within the courtyard is a network of open-air bridging corridors (walkways) as well as large integrated trapezoidal shaped concrete planters. GPA argues that this internal feature of the building, which is not visible from any public right-of-way, has aesthetic interest and value and, therefore, qualifies under Landmark Criterion 2. The GPA report also states that there are no other examples of this courtyard design in multi-family housing from the period found in Santa Monica or the Los Angeles area.
According to the guidance from the NPS, “a property is eligible for its high artistic value if it so fully articulates a particular concept of design that it expresses an aesthetic ideal. A property is not eligible; however, it if does not express aesthetic ideals or design concepts more fully than other properties of its type.”3 It is OAC’s professional opinion that the subject property does not possess sufficient aesthetic interest or value to render it eligible under Criterion 2. Because of the elevated design of the apartment building and the internal configuration of the courtyard area above street level it is further removed from the public realm and not visible from San Vicente Boulevard or the rear alley. Further, the courtyard space does not necessarily epitomize any type of uncommon or unique design as to consider having any notable aesthetic or artistic value to the community.
The statement made by GPA claiming there are no other examples of its type in Santa Monica or the Los Angeles area is unsupported as no evidence that substantiates this claim was provided in the report as a footnote or reference. As the podium style Stucco Box apartment building typology from the early 1960s was designed and built in many communities throughout Southern California it is possible that other internal courtyards with elevated open corridors and integrated planters exist.
Several publications, including Glitter Stucco & Dumpster Diving by John Chase; By-Right, By-Design by Liz Falletta; and Dingbat 2.0 edited by Thurman Grant and Joshua G. Stein all note the proliferation and ubiquity of these formulaic apartment buildings many of which share common design features, and were designed by architects of note, including Sam Reisbord, Jack Chernoff, Herman Fidler, John Day, A. J. Arnay, and Max Starkman. As for the overall building itself, it lacks any appropriate aesthetic or artistic interest and value necessary for designation under Criterion 2. Therefore, OAC does not concur with the findings made in the updated GPA Landmark assessment report that the property appears significant under Criterion 2.
3 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, Washington, DC: National Park Service, 1997.
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard 8 Criterion 3: It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or national history.
OAC concurs with GPA’s finding that the subject property does not satisfy Landmark Criterion 3.
Criterion 4: It embodies the distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.
Because of its common exterior design attributes and the loss of original decorative trim features on the front of the structure, the 305 San Vicente Boulevard building appears ineligible for designation under Landmark Criterion 4. It was built during the postwar period, when quick and cost-effective construction was valued to meet the unprecedented demand for housing at that time. As such, the materials and methods used are common to postwar buildings in Santa Monica and throughout the region. The subject property, like many others of this type and period, would not individually be valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or craftsmanship nor would it be considered a rare or unique example of an architectural design, detail, or historical type. From a stylistic perspective, the exterior of the building does not necessarily epitomize any type of uncommon or unique design. From the public right-of-way, it appears to be a typical example of its respective style and is constructed of commonly used materials.
According to the registration requirements in the 2018 citywide historic context statement, properties eligible for their architectural style “may be significant as an excellent or rare example of an architectural style, property type, or designed landscape.” The document emphasizes that “due to the quality of architecture in Santa Monica, there is a high threshold for properties that are eligible under this context. Eligible examples exhibit high quality of design and distinctive features.”4 As mentioned, the subject property exhibits the typical features of the ubiquitous and rather common podium style Stucco Box apartment typology, a popular building form of the late 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s. The architectural style of the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property is perhaps best characterized as “Vernacular” Mid-Century Modern, a low style that takes some characteristics of the “classic” Mid-Century Modern idiom and popularizes and dilutes them. In consideration of the building’s ordinary and ubiquitous appearance, alterations made to the front of the building, and its current lack of street presence, the architecture of the structure does not necessarily appear inventive, unique, or well-articulated. In addition, many of its extant design features, such as the entry lobby and staircase, open courtyards, open-air bridging corridors (walkways), integrated planters, fenestration, and front entries to the apartment units, are integrated internally within the core of the structure and are not visible from the public right-of-way. As the interior courtyard features (along with many other aspects of the building) are not visible from San Vicente Boulevard or the rear alley they do not have the capacity to elicit any positive (or negative) value or response when experienced by the general public.
It is OAC’s professional opinion that the apartment building is neither a unique or rare example of its type and design and as such is not considered valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or architecture. There are many other similar extant examples of this typology and style 4 Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group.
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard 9 elsewhere in the City, including along San Vicente Boulevard. Therefore, OAC does not concur with GPA’s finding that the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property satisfies the intent of Landmark Criterion 4.
Criterion 5: It is significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect.
The architect of record for the 305 San Vicente Boulevard apartment building as listed on the original permit is Samuel Reisbord (1904-1985). This property is also included in the archives of the Samuel Reisbord Papers, a collection of his architectural work and associated ephemeral material held at UCSB. Samuel Reisbord he is recognized for his prolific work in designing a multitude of apartment buildings throughout the Los Angeles region and as a notable practitioner of Mid-Century Modern architecture. His designs covered a broad range of projects and included office buildings, schools, tract homes, private residences, public housing, motels and hotels, and community centers, as well as apartment buildings. Reisbord had a very diverse and long career that stretched around the world and allowed him to work with some of the masters in architecture, including Albert Kahn and Paul R.
Williams(as well as designer Alvin Lustig).
His professional portfolio locally included the design of at least seven known apartment buildings in the Santa Monica area that spanned three decades (1950s, 1960s, 1970s).5 The subject property is one of those extant examples; however, it does not represent a significant or prominent portion of his career as an architect. With the removal of the original Mid-Century Modern style geometric fascia board trim that was once set horizontally at each floor level of the primary (front) elevation and with the lack of visibility into the building’s interior courtyard area the structure visually and physically “reads” (from the public right-of-way) as a rather typical, undistinguished apartment building with limited, if any, street presence. The property, though designed by Reisbord, is not a significant or prominent example of his work, nor is it a truly intact representative example of his work associated with his prolific career designing striking Modern style multi-family apartment buildings. It is; therefore, OAC’s professional opinion that the subject property does not satisfy Landmark Criterion 5.
As such, OAC does not concur with GPA’s finding that the subject property satisfies Landmark Criterion 5.
Criterion 6: It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.
OAC concurs with the GPA finding that the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property is ineligible for landmark listing under Landmark Criterion 6.
Conclusion
OAC has completed a professional peer review of the updated Landmark assessment report, dated December 30, 2020, which was prepared by GPA Consulting for the 305 San Vicente Boulevard property. The peer review was conducted by OAC to ensure that the current identification and evaluation efforts of the subject property for historical significance are adequate and that the findings of the GPA assessment report are sound and well justified. 5 Samuel Reisbord Papers, Architecture and Design Collection – Art, Design & Architecture Museum, University of California, Santa Barbara. Known work in Santa Monica designed by Samuel Reisbord includes 2046 14th Street (1954), 2201 Pico Boulevard (1962, demo), 901 10th Street (1970), 824 4th Street (1971), 914 4th Street (1972), 937 3 rd Street (1970), 305 San Vicente Boulevard (1961).
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard 10 As summary, OAC agrees with GPA’s evaluation findings that the property does not satisfy Landmark criteria 3 (association important personages) and 6 (it has a unique location, singular visual characteristic or is an established familiar visual feature). As for findings of significance under Landmark criteria 1, 2, 4, and 5, OAC does not concur with GPA’s findings that the property satisfies these four Landmark criteria for historical associations, artistic and aesthetic qualities, and architecture merit for the reasons discussed in the above paragraphs. The property lacks integrity as well as sufficient historical and architectural significance. Based on review of documentary evidence, site analysis, identification of historic contexts, consideration of integrity, and evaluation against local eligibility criteria, OAC concludes the property at 305 San Vicente Boulevard is not individually eligible for listing as a City of Santa Monica Landmark.
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard 11 ATTACHMENT A:
Supporting Ephemeral Material
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark “Imperial Apartments” original rendering by Samuel Reisbord, AIA, 1960c (UCSB) Classified Advertisement, Los Angeles Times, 12-09-1962
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Front (south) façade view, looking northwest, nd (MLS)
Swimming pool area behind brick wall in front of building (southwest corner of parcel), nd (MLS)
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Aerial view – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, looking northwest, 2020c (Bing Map) Aerial view – 305 San Vicente Boulevard, looking northeast, 2020c (Bing Map)
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Aerial view
–San Vicente Boulevard, 1968(UCSB)
Aerial view–San Vicente Boulevard(crop), 1968 (UCSB)
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark PEER REVIEW: Updated Landmark Assessment Report - 305 San Vicente Boulevard 16 ATTACHMENT B:
Landmark Assessment Report in Support of Appeal
(updated Landmark assessment report)
305 San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90402
December 30, 2020
(Prepared by GPA Consulting, Los Angeles, CA)
[UNDER SEPARATE COVER]
9.A.h
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: SM_San Vicente Bl 305_OAC Peer Review_2021-12f.doc (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 1
MINUTES
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
LANDMARKS COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
VIA TELECONFERENCE PURSUANT TO
EXECUTIVE ORDER N-29-20 ISSUED BY
GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM
MONDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2020
MEETING BEGINS AT 7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION:
Chair Genser called the meeting to order at 7:26 PM
1. ROLL CALL
Present:
Richard Brand
Kenneth Breisch
Roger Genser, Chair
Amy Green
Barry Rosenbaum, Chair Pro Tempore
Dolores Sloan
Jodi Summers
Also Present:
Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED, AP, Design and Historic Preservation Planner Heidi von Tongeln, Deputy City Attorney
Wendy Radwan, Staff Assistant III
1-A. Oath of Office for New Commissioner Jodi Summers
Oath of Office for Reappointment of Commissioner Richard Brand 7:27 PM
Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED AP, Design and Historic Preservation Planner and Liaison to the Landmarks Commission, administered the oath of office to Commissioners Summers and Brand.
9.A.i
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 2
2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
7:30 PM
Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum nominated Chair Genser for a second term as Chairperson.
A voice vote was held and the nomination was approved unanimously.
Commissioner Breisch nominated Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum for a second term as Chair Pro Tempore.
A voice vote was held and the nomination was approved unanimously.
3. REPORT FROM STAFF:
7:33 PM
Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED AP, Design and Historic Preservation Planner and Liaison to the Landmarks Commission provided the report from staff including upcoming items for Landmarks Commission review, information that an appeal on the designation of 1626 California as a Structure of Merit had been received, and noted that the ARB will be discussing additional streamlining in November, and she also stated that the November meeting of the Landmarks Commission will be cancelled with the next meeting to be determined.
Commissioners asked about liaison and subcommittee assignments. Deputy City Attorney Heidi von Tongeln identified that the subcommittees may be able to meet but asked the Commissioners work with staff as the Emergency Order limits items that can be discussed at the meetings.
4. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS:
7:38 PM
Nothing to report.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
• August 24,2020
7:41 PM
Commissioners offered minor corrections. Commissioner Green made a motion to approve with corrections. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum seconded the motion.
A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote:
9.A.i
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 3 AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Sloan, Summers
ABSENT: None
6. APPROVAL OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:
6-A. Landmark/Structure of Merit Designation Application 20ENT-0022, 1626 California Avenue: approval of the residential property as a Structure of Merit. 7:43 PM
Commissioners offered corrections. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum made a motion to approve. Chair Genser seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Sloan, Summers
ABSENT: None
6-B. Structure of Merit Designation Application 20ENT-0015, 124 Hart Avenue:
approval of the residential property as a Structure of Merit. 7:51 PM
Commissioner Breisch offered a minor correction and made a motion to approve as corrected. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Sloan, Summers
ABSENT: None
6-C. Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness 20ENT-0199 for a proposed project located at 1413 Michigan Avenue consisting of a 4-story, 100% affordable housing project with 57 units, 1 manager unit, ground floor amenities, 12 parking spaces, and the rehabilitation of a one-story landmark structure (Santa Monica Nikkei Hall). 7:52 PM
Commissioner Brand made a motion to approve as submitted. Commissioner Green seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote:
9.A.i
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 4 AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Sloan, Summers
ABSENT: None
7. PUBLIC INPUT: (On items not on agenda and within the jurisdiction of the Commission)
None.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR:
None.
9. OLD BUSINESS:
None.
10. NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS:
10-A. Certificate of Appropriateness 20ENT-0160, 401 Ocean Avenue, consideration of an amendment to Certificate of Appropriateness 18ENT-0142 which included the rehabilitation, and restoration of the existing residence known as the Henry Weyse/Charles Morris House, a designated City Landmark, a new fourstory residential building and associated landscape improvements. Proposed is the inclusion of a new/ additional second entry door on the Landmark structure at the recessed porch facing Ocean Avenue, and a new/ additional fence at the corner of the property, including the west and north frontages. 7:53 PM
Commissioners provided ex parte communication disclosures:
All Commissioners visited the site. Commissioners Brand, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan, Summers, and Chair Genser met with the applicant team.
Ms. Reich presented the staff report.
Commissioners had questions:
The following members of the applicant team presented to the Commission:
David Kaplan (architect) and Ken Kutcher (attorney representing HLKK). Mr.
Kaplan presented the additional front door and fence in detail, clarifying the varied height of the fence, as well as the color and size of the vertical pickets.
9.A.i
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 5 Wendy Radwan, Staff Assistant, read public correspondence from Nina Fresco & Ruth Shari into the record.
Commission discussion included the following points: Commissioner Sloan noted that the corner appears slightly rounded and suggested the fence configuration reflect that geometry as a consideration. Commissioners noted that the fence should be a dark bronze color rather than black.
Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum made a motion that the project complies with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for purposes of the CEQA analysis.
Commissioner Breisch seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan, Summers NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Commissioner Rosenbaum made a motion to approve and offered specific language for the STOA. Commissioner Brand seconded the motion with a condition that the color of the fence be bronze.
A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan, Summers NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
10-B. Landmark Designation Application 20ENT-0130 for the property located at 818 Grant Street to determine whether the multi-family residential building in whole or in part, should be designated as a City Landmark and, if so designated, whether an associated Landmark Parcel should be defined and described in order to preserve, maintain, protect, or safeguard the Landmark. The Landmarks Commission will consider the application based on whether the application, research and public testimony presented demonstrates that the building meets one or more of the required criteria for Landmark designation pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.100(A).
9:00 PM
Commissioners provided ex parte communication disclosures:
All Commissioners visited the site except for Commissioners Brand and Breisch.
Ms. Reich presented the Staff Report.
9.A.i
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 6 The following members of the applicant team presented to the Commission:
Audrey von Ahrens and Laura O’Neill from GPA Consulting in support of the property as a City Landmark. Ms. Von Ahrens clarified that the windows have been replaced in the original openings, although a couple of original existing windows remain. Ms. O’Neill stated that since the property was included in the HRI and there is a historic context statement that is relatively recent (adopted September 2018) that research can be relied upon for the designation.
Ms. Radwan read a comment from Nina Fresco that included history of the property and included images and DPR sheets that Ms. Radwan shared on her screen.
Ms. Reich noted that while the information on the application exceeded requirements, this application has been treated differently than applications prior to the budget crisis brought on by the pandemic, in that there was a peer review of the application provided rather than a full assessment by the City’s consultant.
She also noted that going forward, the process will be different, as there will be a full assessment provided.
Commissioner Discussion
Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum asked for the City Attorney’s perspective on Ms.
O’Neill’s burden of proof arguments she made based on the fact that the property was on the HRI. Ms. Von Tongeln stated that has not been the position of the City or the Commission in the past. Mr. Rosenbaum stated that there is not sufficient information included in the application or presentation and suggested the item be continued rather than denied. Chair Genser stated his agreement.
Commissioner Sloan made a motion to continue the item and requested more information be provided by the applicant team. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan, Summers NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
10-C. Landmark Designation application 20ENT-0119 for the property located at 305 San Vicente Boulevard to determine whether the multi-family residential building in whole or in part, should be designated as a City Landmark and, if so designated, whether an associated Landmark Parcel should be defined and described in order to preserve, maintain, protect, or safeguard the Landmark. The Landmarks Commission will consider the application based on whether the application, research, and public testimony presented demonstrates that the building meets
9.A.i
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 7 one or more of the required criteria for Landmark designation pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.100(A).
9:43 PM
Commissioners provided ex parte communication disclosures:
All Commissioners visited the property.
Stephanie Reich presented the staff report.
Audrey von Ahrens and Laura O’Neil from GPA Consulting representing the applicant team. Ms. Von Ahrens provided a presentation for the applicant team, emphasizing that the property meets the criteria for designation based on its association with architect Samuel Reisbord, detailing his accomplishments as an architect and details of the building including the interior courtyard.
Ms. Radwan read a public comment in opposition to the designation.
Daniel Negari, property owner, identified his intention to preserve and restore the property. He stated, in rebuttal to the public comment, that there is tremendous pride of ownership. Joseph Soleiman, property owner, stated that they do not intend to put the property up for sale.
Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum stated that one or both of criteria 2 or 4 could be included in a designation and asked the consultant. Ms. O’Neill stated that while those criteria are not excluded, they were not the focus of the study that was provided as part of the application.
Commissioner Breisch stated that while Samuel Reisbord had an interesting career this is not a significant representation of his work and can be associated with other similar apartment buildings of that era. While he stated that it may not be a badly designed building it doesn’t rise to the level of a landmark.
The Commission agreed that property doesn’t stand out as having anything remarkable that would make it be cited.
Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum stated that he may have been leaning to requesting additional information, but after the discussion is in support of the staff recommendation.
Chair Genser stated that the building and architect should be significant to be the criteria for designation.
Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum made a motion to deny based on the staff report and the peer review comments. Commissioner Brand seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote:
9.A.i
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 8 AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan, Summers NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
10-D. Landmark Designation application 20ENT-0120 for the property located at 621 San Vicente Boulevard to determine whether the multi-family residential building in whole or in part, should be designated as a City Landmark and, if so designated, whether an associated Landmark Parcel should be defined and described in order to preserve, maintain, protect, or safeguard the Landmark. The Landmarks Commission will consider the application based on whether the application, research and public testimony presented demonstrates that the building meets one or more of the required criteria for Landmark designation pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.100(A).
10:21 PM
Commissioners provided ex parte communication disclosures:
All Commissioners visited the site.
Ms. Reich presented the Staff Report.
Audrey von Ahrens and Laura O’Neil from GPA Consulting representing the applicant team. Ms. Von Ahrens emphasized that the property exemplifies Kenneth N. Lind’s architecture and style. Ms. O’Neill stated that there may be sufficient detail for the building to warrant designation under criteria 4.
Commissioner Sloan asked about the metal ornamentation or sculpture on the façade. The property owner stated that he understood that the original owner commissioned the artwork.
Commissioner Brand made a motion to deny the application based on the staff report & peer review. Commissioner Summers seconded the motion.
AYES: Brand, Summers
NAYS: Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
The motion failed to pass.
Commissioner Genser made a motion to continue to request additional information on the property and the sculpture with investigation into criteria 2 and 4.
Commissioner Sloan seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote:
9.A.i
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 9 AYES: Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan,
NAYS: Brand
ABSTAIN: Summers
ABSENT: None
11:00 PM
Chair Genser made a motion for the meeting to proceed past 11pm. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved by a voice vote.
11. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
11-A. Selection of a representative to the City Council meeting on October 13, 2020 regarding Appeal of Certificate of Appropriateness 19ENT-0050 at 909 Montana Avenue.
11:01 PM
Chair Genser requested a volunteer, but none were available.
12. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Public and Commission discussion and comment is permitted.)
None.
13. NEXT MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA:
Special Meeting of the Landmarks Commission: 7:00 PM Monday, December 14, 2020 Via Teleconference Pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 Issued by Governor Gavin Newsom.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Brand adjourned the meeting at 11:06 PM on Monday, October 12, 2020.
9.A.i
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: 10-12-2020 LC Minutes (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 1 AGENDA
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
LANDMARKS COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
VIA TELECONFERENCE PURSUANT TO
EXECUTIVE ORDER N-29-20 ISSUED BY
GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM
MONDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2020
MEETING BEGINS AT 7:00 PM
TELECONFERENCE*: https://primetime.bluejeans.com/a2m/live-event/dtdrqust DIAL-IN NUMBER: 1 (415) 466-7000 (US), PIN 2222352 #
*Chrome Browser Recommended
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: A Regular Meeting of the Landmarks Commission has been called for Monday at 7PM, October 12. In an effort to reduce the risk of spreading Coronavirus (COVID-19), the members of the Landmarks Commission and City staff will participate via teleconference. Participants may also join via the teleconference link above.
Those wishing to give public comment must make the request via email to [email protected]. Please note the agenda item in your comments.
Comments received later than noon the day of the meeting will be read aloud at the meeting (with time limitations) and must be received prior to the Commission’s consideration of the item.
CALL TO ORDER OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION
1. ROLL CALL
1-A. Oath of Office for New Commissioner Jodi Summers
Oath of Office for Reappointment of Commissioner Richard Brand
2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
3. REPORT FROM STAFF:
9.A.j
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Landmarks Commission Agenda October 12 2020 (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 2 Information concerning future Landmarks Commission Agendas. Update on recent Architectural Review Board, Planning Commission, and City Council actions, including development projects, planning policy studies, ordinances, appeals and update of project status and related landmarks matters.
4. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS:
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
August 24,2020
6. APPROVAL OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:
6-A. Landmark/Structure of Merit Designation Application 20ENT-0022, 1626 California Avenue: approval of the residential property as a Structure of Merit. 6-B. Structure of Merit Designation Application 20ENT-0015, 124 Hart Avenue:
approval of the residential property as a Structure of Merit. 6-C. Approval of Certificate of Appropriateness 20ENT-0199 for a proposed project located at 1413 Michigan Avenue consisting of a 4-story, 100% affordable housing project with 57 units, 1 manager unit, ground floor amenities, 12 parking spaces, and the rehabilitation of a one-story landmark structure (Santa Monica Nikkei Hall).
7. PUBLIC INPUT: (On items not on agenda and within the jurisdiction of the Commission)
8. CONSENT CALENDAR:
None
9. OLD BUSINESS:
None
10. NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS:
10-A. Certificate of Appropriateness 20ENT-0160, 401 Ocean Avenue, consideration of an amendment to Certificate of Appropriateness 18ENT-0142 which included the rehabilitation, and restoration of the existing residence known as the Henry Weyse/Charles Morris House, a designated City Landmark, a new four-story residential building and associated landscape improvements. Proposed is the inclusion of a new/ additional second entry door on the Landmark structure at the recessed porch facing Ocean Avenue, and a new/ additional fence at the corner of the property, including the west and north frontages.
9.A.j
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Landmarks Commission Agenda October 12 2020 (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 3 Staff Report
A. Public Notice
B. Applicant’s Materials
C. Statement of Official Action for 401 Ocean Avenue (STOA 17ENT-0077) D. Certificate of Appropriateness 18ENT-0142 (Staff Report) E. Project Drawings dated June 11, 2018 18ENT-0142
10-B. Landmark Designation Application 20ENT-0130 for the property located at 818 Grant Street to determine whether the multi-family residential building in whole or in part, should be designated as a City Landmark and, if so designated, whether an associated Landmark Parcel should be defined and described in order to preserve, maintain, protect, or safeguard the Landmark. The Landmarks Commission will consider the application based on whether the application, research and public testimony presented demonstrates that the building meets one or more of the required criteria for Landmark designation pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.100(A).
Staff Report
A. Public Notice
B. Applicant’s Materials
C. Peer Review Assessment, OAC, October 2020
10-C. Landmark Designation application 20ENT-0119 for the property located at 305 San Vicente Boulevard to determine whether the multi-family residential building in whole or in part, should be designated as a City Landmark and, if so designated, whether an associated Landmark Parcel should be defined and described in order to preserve, maintain, protect, or safeguard the Landmark. The Landmarks Commission will consider the application based on whether the application, research, and public testimony presented demonstrates that the building meets one or more of the required criteria for Landmark designation pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.100(A).
Staff Report
A. Public Notice
B. Applicant’s Materials
C. Peer Review Assessment, OAC, October 2020
10-D. Landmark Designation application 20ENT-0120 for the property located at 621 San Vicente Boulevard to determine whether the multi-family residential building in whole or in part, should be designated as a City Landmark and, if so designated, whether an associated Landmark Parcel should be defined and described in order to preserve, maintain, protect, or safeguard the Landmark. The Landmarks Commission will consider the application based on whether the application, research and public testimony presented demonstrates that the building meets one
9.A.j
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Landmarks Commission Agenda October 12 2020 (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 4 or more of the required criteria for Landmark designation pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.100(A).
Staff Report
A. Public Notice
B. Applicant’s Materials
C. Peer Review Assessment, OAC, October 2020
11. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
11-A. Selection of a representative to the City Council meeting on October 13, 2020 regarding Appeal of Certificate of Appropriateness 19ENT-0050 at 909 Montana Avenue.
12. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Public and Commission discussion and comment is permitted.)
NEXT MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Regular Meeting of the Landmarks Commission: 7:00 PM Monday, December 14, 2020 Via Teleconference Pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 Issued by Governor Gavin Newsom
13. ADJOURNMENT
CITY LANDMARKS COMMISSION
Richard Brand, Commission Licensed Architect
Kenneth Breisch, Commission Architectural Historian
Roger Genser, Commission Local Historian, Chairperson
Amy Green, Commissioner
Barry Rosenbaum, Commissioner, Chair Pro Tempore
Dolores Sloan, Commissioner
Jodi Summers, Commission Real Estate Licensee
Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED, AP, Design & Historic Preservation Planner Heidi von Tongeln, Deputy City Attorney
Regina Szilak, Associate Planner
Wendy Radwan, Staff Assistant
Melissa Zak, Staff Assistant
STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR THAT PROMOTE CIVILITY AT ALL PUBLIC MEETINGS:
• Treat everyone courteously;
• Listen to others respectfully;
9.A.j
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Landmarks Commission Agenda October 12 2020 (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 5 • Exercise self-control;
• Give open-minded consideration to all viewpoints;
• Focus on the issues and avoid personalizing debate;
• Embrace respectful disagreement and dissent as democratic rights, inherent components of an inclusive public process, and tools for forging sound decisions.
AGENDA POLICIES:
REQUESTS TO SPEAK During teleconference meetings, members of the public may email their comments to [email protected]. Comments will be read into the record by the Commission secretary on behalf of the public, with a reading time limit in accordance with Commission rules. All requests to address the Commission on public hearing items must be submitted prior to the Commission's consideration of the item.
CONSENT CALENDAR items will be acted upon by the Commission at one time without discussion unless a Commission requests discussion on an item. If such a request is made, the item will be heard after the balance of the Consent Calendar has been voted upon.
PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES on each public hearing item include presentation of a staff report; Commission question of staff; a five minute presentation by the project applicant or application proponent, if any, or property owner; Commission questions of the applicant or application proponent or property owner; three minutes each for each member of the public wishing to speak to the item; three minutes for project applicant or applicant proponent or property owner rebuttal; Commission deliberations and decision.
Professionals appearing before the Commission should clearly identify their status, such as “attorney,” paralegal,” “architect,” “designer,” or “landscape architect.” Instances of misrepresentation of professional status may be referred to the City Attorney for possible prosecution.
LETTERS OR WRITTEN MATERIALS for agenda items may be submitted to Commission staff prior to or at the meeting; written materials submitted at least eight days in advance of the meeting will be included in the Commission’s meeting packet. Materials submitted after the deadline may be difficult to adequately review.
ACTION BY THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION on most matters occurs with the affirmative votes of at least four Commissioners.
APPEALS of certain actions of the Commission may be heard by the City Council. For specific information on appeals, please contact the Commission staff.
Please note that the Landmarks Commission Agenda is subject to change up to 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. We encourage you to check the agenda 72 hours prior to the meeting.
9.A.j
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Landmarks Commission Agenda October 12 2020 (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for City of Santa Monica October 12, 2020 Landmarks Commission Meeting Agenda Page 6 For more information regarding the Landmarks Commission Agenda, please contact Stephanie Reich at [email protected]
9.A.j
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Landmarks Commission Agenda October 12 2020 (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 1 Vernice Hankins
From: Glenn D. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 3:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: 20ENT-0247 Appeal of City Landmark
EXTERNAL
Hello Council Members,
Our family has been a happy Santa Monica resident for over 28 years here at 305 San Vicente Blvd. And, because it is rent‐controlled we've been able to stay here and proudly support the local economy all those years‐‐and yes, we most certainly vote! Question(s) for you. What does or why would the owner of our building want it to be a City Landmark? Since it is currently for sale, after they purchased it about three years ago, is there some sort of business decision that they will benefit from? And finally, what does or doesn't a City Landmark mean for us renters?
Note: We've been asking for certain repairs(stove, dishwasher and floors) for over a year and still haven't received them. Will this designation help us get those repairs for our unit? Thank you so much for your time. We love Santa monica and will stay here for another 28 years.
Warmest Regards,
Glenn
Item 9.A
09/27/22
1 of 1 Item 9.A
09/27/22
9.A.k
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Written Comment (5153 : Appeal of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Designation for 305 San Vicente Blvd (60 mins)) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022
Agenda Item: 10.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.097 to expand to other locations beyond Main Street and Downtown
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.
Executive Summary
At its meeting on September 13, 2022, the City Council introduced for first reading an Ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.097 to: (1) eliminate its location restrictions and expand enforcement to other areas of the City, including the City’s major transit corridors; and (2) clarify the definition of entrance. The ordinance is now presented to the City Council for adoption.
Prepared By: Bradley Michaud, Legal Operations Coordinator Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. ORD-ord-2nd-4.08.097 Expanded Locations
10.A
Packet Pg. 587
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER ____ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.08.097 TO EXPAND TO
OTHER LOCATIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WHEREAS, on October 22, 2002, City Council enacted Municipal Code Section
4.08.097 to prohibit sitting or lying within the Downtown and Main Street areas due, in part, to growing concerns in those locations by local business owners; and WHEREAS, within the last year, City Council and local business owners in other areas of the City, especially in the City’s transit corridors, have expressed growing concerns with the number of individuals who have been sitting or lying in the doorways of buildings in other areas of the City during the late night and early morning hours; and WHEREAS, during these hours, businesses are closed and, in most cases, no one is present on the premises to protect the property; and WHEREAS, persons working in businesses must remove individuals who are blocking ingress and egress to their buildings in the morning when they come to work; and
WHEREAS, persons sitting or lying in doorways overnight also often leave behind food and trash which block access to the buildings and also attract pests to these locations; and
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-4.08.097 Expanded Locations (5377 : SIt/Lie Expanded Locations - Second Reading) WHEREAS, the doorways may give the illusion of shelter and security, but they are often poorly lit, have obstructed sight lines, are not safe places to sit, lie, or sleep, and are otherwise not suitable for human habitation because, among other things, there are no available restrooms or other sanitary facilities; and WHEREAS, City Council now wishes to expand the prohibition for sitting and lying in doorways to the City’s transit corridors to address these concerns; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments also seek to clarify the definition of “entrance” for ease of enforcement;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.08.097 Prohibition against sitting or lying in downtown and the Main Street areas doorways at night, is hereby amended to read as follows:
4.08.097 Prohibition against sitting or lying in doorways at night. (a) No person shall sit or lie down in any entrance to a building in the Downtown, Main Street, Broadway, Colorado Avenue, Lincoln Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica Boulevard, and Wilshire Boulevard areas between the hours of eleven p.m. and seven a.m. if that entrance is posted with a sign prohibiting such conduct.
(b) As used in this Section, the following items shall have the following meanings:
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-4.08.097 Expanded Locations (5377 : SIt/Lie Expanded Locations - Second Reading) (1) “Downtown” means the area bounded by and including the west side of Ocean Avenue, the north side of Wilshire Boulevard, the east side of Lincoln Boulevard, and the south side of Pico Boulevard.
(2) “Main Street area” means the area bounded by and including the west side of Neilsen Way, the north side of Pico Boulevard, the east side of Main Street from Pico Boulevard to Strand Street, the north side of Strand Street to Second Street, the east side of Second Street and the City’s southern border. (3) “Broadway” means the area bounded by the west side of Ocean Avenue and the City’s eastern border.
(4) “Colorado Avenue” means the area bounded by the west side of Ocean Avenue and the City’s eastern border.
(5) “Lincoln Boulevard” means the area bounded by the north side of Wilshire Blvd. and the City’s southern border.
(6) “Pico Boulevard” means the area bounded by the west side of Ocean Avenue and the City’s eastern border.
(7) “Santa Monica Boulevard” means the area bounded by the west side of Ocean Avenue and the City’s eastern border.
(8) “Wilshire Boulevard” means the area bounded by the west side of Ocean Avenue to the City’s eastern border.
(9) “Building” means any building, other than a building used for solely residential purposes, located in the areas specified in sections (b)(1)-(b)(8).
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-4.08.097 Expanded Locations (5377 : SIt/Lie Expanded Locations - Second Reading) (10) “Entrance” means the entire area between the outer edge of any entrance to a building and any exterior door and includes entry ways, doorways, vestibules, alcoves, and areas located under cantilevers.
(c) Any person violating the provisions of this Section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor which shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars per violation, or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. (d) The prohibition contained in this Section shall not apply to any person sitting or lying down in any entrance to a building due to a medical emergency.
SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-4.08.097 Expanded Locations (5377 : SIt/Lie Expanded Locations - Second Reading) newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: ORD-ord-2nd-4.08.097 Expanded Locations (5377 : SIt/Lie Expanded Locations - Second Reading) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022
Agenda Item: 10.B
1 of 2
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Douglas Sloan, City Attorney, City Attorney's Office, Administration Subject: Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Approving the Military Equipment Use Policy
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.
Executive Summary
At its meeting on April 26, 2022, the City Council introduced for first reading an ordinance approving the Santa Monica Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 481. City Council directed staff to bring the policy to the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission (“PSROC”) for its review prior to it returning to City Council for second reading. On July 14, 2022, the PSROC reviewed the policy, did not propose any changes, and made the recommendation that the City Council move forward with the ordinance and the corresponding proposed Military Equipment Use Policy as written. The PSROC recommendation is attached hereto as Attachment C. The ordinance is now presented to City Council for adoption.
10.B
Packet Pg. 593
2 of 2
Prepared By: Bradley Michaud, Legal Operations Coordinator Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. A-PD-ord-2d-Equipment Use
B. B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment
C. C-Commission Report AB481
10.B
Packet Pg. 594
1 City Council Meeting September 27, 2022 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER ____ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
APPROVING A MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY IN COMPLIANCE WITH ASSEMBLY BILL 481
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill (AB) 481, codified in California Government Code sections 7070 et seq., relating to the use of military equipment by California law enforcement agencies; and
WHEREAS, AB 481 seeks to provide transparency, oversight, and an opportunity for meaningful public input on decisions regarding whether and how military equipment is funded, acquired, or used; and
WHEREAS, AB 481 requires that a law enforcement agency possessing and using such qualifying equipment prepare a publicly released, written, military equipment use policy document covering the inventory, description, purpose, use, acquisition, maintenance, fiscal impacts, procedures, training, oversight, and complaint process, applicable to the law enforcement agency’s use of such equipment; and WHEREAS, AB 481 requires that the military equipment use policy be approved by the governing body by ordinance and reviewed annually; and WHEREAS, AB 481 provides that in order for a law enforcement agency to continue to use any military equipment acquired prior to January 1 2021, the governing body must commence the approval process of a military equipment use policy prior to
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: A-PD-ord-2d-Equipment Use (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 2 May 1, 2022 and approve such a policy within 180 days of its submission to the governing body; and
WHEREAS, the Santa Monica Police Department is in possession of certain items of equipment that qualify as “military equipment” as defined by AB 481; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 7071(b) requires that the Santa Monica Police Department post to its website the Military Equipment Use Policy that it plans to propose to the City Council, at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the policy; and
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2022, the Santa Monica Police Department posted its draft Military Equipment Use Policy to its public website, thereby complying with the 30- day posting requirement prior to a public hearing before City Council on April 26, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Monica, having received the information required under AB 481 regarding the Santa Monica Police Department’s use of military equipment as defined by that law, deems it to be in the best interest of the City to approve the Military Equipment Policy as set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Ordinance, the following terms have the following meanings.
(A) “Governing body” means the means the elected body that oversees the Police Department, which, here, is City Council of the City of Santa Monica.
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: A-PD-ord-2d-Equipment Use (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 3 (B) “Military equipment” has the same meaning as that term is defined by Government Code section 7070(c) and includes all of the following:
(1) Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. (2) Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. However, police versions of standard consumer vehicles are specifically excluded from this subdivision. (3) High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), commonly referred to as Humvees, two and one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. However, unarmored all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and motorized dirt bikes are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(4) Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants and utilize a tracked system instead of wheels for forward motion.
(5) Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. (6) Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. (7) Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. However, items designed to remove a lock, such as bolt cutters, or a handheld ram designed to be operated by one person, are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: A-PD-ord-2d-Equipment Use (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 4 (8) Firearms of .50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotguns are specifically excluded from this subdivision. (9) Ammunition of .50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotgun ammunition is specifically excluded from this subdivision. (10) Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including assault weapons as defined in Sections 30510 and 30515 of the Penal Code, with the exception of standard issue service weapons and ammunition of less than .50 caliber that are issued to officers, agents, or employees of a law enforcement agency or a state agency.
(11) Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles.
(12) “Flashbang” grenades and explosive breaching tools, “tear gas,” and “pepper balls,” excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
(13) Taser Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and the Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD).
(14) The following projectile launch platforms and their associated munitions: 40mm projectile launchers, “bean bag,” rubber bullet, and specialty impact munition (SIM) weapons.
(15) Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: A-PD-ord-2d-Equipment Use (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 5 (16) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (15), “military equipment” does not include general equipment not designated as prohibited or controlled by the federal Defense Logistics Agency.
(C) “Military equipment use policy” means a publicly released, written document governing the use of military equipment by a law enforcement agency or a state agency that addresses, at a minimum, all of the following:
(1) A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment.
(2) The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment.
(3) The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment.
(4) The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use. (5) The training, including any course required by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, that must be completed before any officer, agent, or employee of the law enforcement agency or the state agency is allowed to use each specific type of military equipment to ensure the full protection of the public’s
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: A-PD-ord-2d-Equipment Use (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 6 welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties and full adherence to the military equipment use policy.
(6) The mechanisms to ensure compliance with the military equipment use policy, including which independent persons or entities have oversight authority, and, if applicable, what legally enforceable sanctions are put in place for violations of the policy. (7) For a law enforcement agency, the procedures by which members of the public may register complaints or concerns or submit questions about the use of each specific type of military equipment, and how the law enforcement agency will ensure that each complaint, concern, or question receives a response in a timely manner.
(D) “Police Department” means any division, section, bureau, employee, volunteer or contractor of the Santa Monica Police Department. (E) “Policy 707” means the Police Department’s Policy 707 Military Equipment, attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
(F) “Type” means each item that shares the same manufacturer model number.
SECTION 2. DETERMINATIONS; FINDINGS
(A) Policy 707 satisfies the requirements of a military equipment use policy, as defined in Section 1(C) above and Government Code section 7070(d).
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: A-PD-ord-2d-Equipment Use (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 7 (B) Having considered Policy 707 and the information provided to the City Council at the public hearing, the City Council makes the following determinations required by Government Code 7071(d)(1):
(1) The military equipment inventoried and presented to City Council through Policy 707 is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
(2) Policy 707 will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.
(3) The military equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
(4) Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.
SECTION 3. APPROVAL; REVIEW
(A) The City Council approves Policy 707.
(B) Policy 707 shall remain publicly available on the Police Department’s website for as long as the military equipment is available for use.
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: A-PD-ord-2d-Equipment Use (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 8 (C) The City Council shall review this Ordinance, and vote on whether to renew it, on an annual basis at a regular meeting, in accordance with Government Code section 7071.
SECTION 4. ANNUAL REPORTS ON THE USE OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT (A) The Police Department shall submit a military equipment report to the City Council on an annual basis, containing the information required by and in accordance with Government Code Section 7072.
(B) The Police Department shall make each annual military equipment report required by this section available to the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission and publicly available on its internet website for as long as the military equipment is available for use.
(C) Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing an annual military equipment report pursuant to this section, the Police Department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the general public may discuss and ask questions regarding the annual military equipment report and the Police Department’s funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment. (D) The City Council shall determine, based on the annual military equipment report submitted pursuant to this section, whether each type of military equipment identified in that report has complied with the standards for approval set forth in Section 2(B) above and Government Code section 7071(d). If the City Council determines that a type of military equipment identified in the annual military equipment report has not complied with the
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: A-PD-ord-2d-Equipment Use (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 9 standards for approval set forth in Section 2(B) above and Government Code section 7071(d), the City Council shall either disapprove a renewal of the authorization for that type of military equipment or require modifications to Policy 707 in a manner that will resolve the lack of compliance.
SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 6. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Douglas Sloan, City Attorney
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: A-PD-ord-2d-Equipment Use (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) Santa Monica Police Department
Santa Monica Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Santa Monica Police Department
Santa Monica Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
707.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the approval, acquisition, and reporting requirements of “military equipment,” as that term is defined in Government Code section 7070.
This policy is provided to fulfill the obligations in Assembly Bill No. 481 (2021). (Government Code § 7070; Government Code § 7071; Government Code § 7072). These obligations include but are not limited to seeking approval on specific items deemed to be military equipment and requirements related to compliance, annual reporting, cataloging, and complaints regarding such items.
707.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include (Government Code § 7070):
Governing body – The City Council.
Military equipment – Includes but is not limited to the following:
• Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. • Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. • High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two-and-one-half-tontrucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. • Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants. • Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. • Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. • Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram.
• Firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition.
• Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code § 30515, with the exception of standard-issue firearms.
• Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. • Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools. • Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
• TASER® Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long-range acoustic Policy
707
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) Santa Monica Police Department
Santa Monica Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
devices (LRADs).
• Kinetic energy weapons and munitions.
• Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.
707.2 POLICY
It is the policy of the Santa Monica Police Department that members of this Department comply with the provisions of Government Code § 7071 with respect to military equipment. 707.3 MILITARY EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR
The Chief of Police shall designate a member of this Department to act as the military equipment coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include but are not limited to:
(a) Acting as liaison to the governing body for matters related to the requirements of this policy.
(b) Identifying Department equipment that qualifies as military equipment in the current possession of the Department, or the equipment the Department intends to acquire that requires approval by the governing body.
(c) Conducting an inventory of all military equipment at least annually. (d) Collaborating with any allied agency that may use military equipment within the jurisdiction of Santa Monica Police Department (Government Code § 7071). (e) Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating the annual community engagement meeting to include:
1. Publicizing the details of the meeting.
2. Preparing for public questions regarding the Department’s funding, acquisition, and use of equipment.
(f) Preparing the annual military equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police and ensuring that the report is made available on the Department website (Government Code § 7072).
(g) Responding to inquiries from members of the public on the status of any complaint, question, or concern submitted pursuant to Section 707.10 of this Policy and establishing procedures to ensure that the Department responds to such complaints, questions, or concerns in a timely manner.
707.4 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Attachment A contains the list of qualifying military equipment for the Department as well as each equipment’s description, purpose and authorized use, fiscal impact, and any required training prior to its use.
707.4.1 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY REPLENISHMENT
When stocks of military equipment have reached low levels, been exhausted, or deemed unrepairable, the Department may replenish these items to maintain essential availability for the Department’s needs and public safety. Replenishing of military equipment shall not exceed the prior amount approved by the governing body. If replenishment of military equipment occurs, the Department shall document any items replenished in the annual military equipment report. The
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) Santa Monica Police Department
Santa Monica Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Department shall go through the approval process for obtaining military equipment and obtain authorization from the governing body if it wishes to exceed the prior amount of military equipment approved by the governing body.
707.5 APPROVAL
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the governing body by way of an ordinance adopting this military equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed military equipment policy is submitted to the governing body and is available on the Department website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue (Government Code § 7071). The military equipment policy must be approved by the governing body prior to engaging in any of the following (Government Code § 7071):
(a) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a. (b) Seeking funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers.
(c) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
(d) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the jurisdiction of this Department. (e) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body.
(f) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of military equipment.
(g) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided above. 707.6 COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Mutual aid and training with other law enforcement agencies is often necessary to ensure public safety. The Santa Monica Police Department may collaborate with another law enforcement agency in the deployment, use, or training of military equipment listed in this policy. All borrowed military equipment from other law enforcement agencies shall be used in accordance with departmental policy, applicable laws, and only by individuals with proper training. Unless an exigent circumstance exists, as described below, military equipment should not be used by members of the Santa Monica Police Department if that equipment has not been approved for use in accordance with this policy.
707.7 USE IN EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES
In exigent circumstances and with the approval of the Chief of Police or their designee, the Department may acquire, borrow and/or use military equipment that is not included in this policy.
If the Department acquires, borrows, and/or uses military equipment in exigent circumstances, in accordance with this section, it must take all of the following actions:
(a) Provide written notice of that acquisition or use to the governing body within 30 days
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) Santa Monica Police Department
Santa Monica Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
following the commencement of such exigent circumstance, unless such information is confidential or privileged under local, state or federal law. (b) If it is anticipated that the use will continue beyond the exigent circumstance, submit a proposed amended policy to the governing body within 90 days following the borrowing, acquisition and/or use, and receive approval, as applicable, from the governing body. (c) Include the military equipment in the Department’s next annual military equipment report. 707.8 ANNUAL REPORT
Upon approval of a military equipment policy, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall submit a military equipment report to the governing body for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use (Government Code § 7072).
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should also make each annual military equipment report available to the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission and publicly available on the Department website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072 for the preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment in Department inventory. 707.9 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the Department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the Department should discuss the report and respond to public questions regarding the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.
707.10 PUBLIC COMPLAINTS, CONCERNS, AND QUESTIONS
The application and use of military equipment may cause questions or concerns for members of the public. It is vitally important that these questions regarding the application and use of military equipment are addressed.
The Santa Monica Police Department is committed to full and fair investigation of complaints. As such, the Department has sound internal procedures for thorough and impartial investigations of complaints made by a member of the public. Resolving complaints in a fair, impartial, and expeditious manner will ensure the consistent high level of integrity and efficiency maintained by the Department. All instances of noncompliance will be reported to the governing body via the annual military equipment report.
Any member of the public can submit a question, concern, or complaint regarding military use equipment to any member of the Department and in any form (e.g. in person, telephone, email, etc.). If a complaint is received, it shall be routed to the Internal Affairs Unit.
Santa Monica Police Department
Internal Affairs Unit
333 Olympic Drive
Santa Monica, CA. 90401
(310) 458-8495
https://www.santamonica.gov/departments/police
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 1 ATTACHMENT A:
SANTA MONICA POLICE DEPARTMENT
MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY LIST1
Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles:
1. DJI Matrice 300 RTK
a. Quantity
2 b. Capabilities
Fly, hover, broadcast video, record video, photography, FLIR c. Expected Lifespan
Approximately 4 years
d. Manufacturer Description
“The Matrice 300 RTK is DJI’s latest commercial drone platform that takes inspiration from modern aviation systems. Offering up to 55 minutes of flight time, advanced AI capabilities, 6 Directional Sensing & Positioning and more, the M300 RTK sets a whole new standard by combining intelligence with highperformance and unrivaled reliability.” (https://www.dji.com/matrice-300) e. Purpose
Provide aerial support for law enforcement operations
f. Authorized Use
Only assigned operators who have completed the required training shall be permitted to operate the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). g. Fiscal Impact:
a. Initial Cost
$14,599 each
b. Annual Maintenance Cost
Approximately $1,500 each
h. Training
All Department UAS operators are licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration for UAS operation. In addition, each operator must qualify at quarterly training.
i. Legal and Procedural Rules
Use is established under FAA Regulation 14 CFR Part 107, Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA), and the Santa Monica Police Department UAS policy. It 1 The manufacturer descriptions in this Attachment include citations to publicly accessible website sources. The website source citations utilized herein are for military equipment descriptive purposes only and are not an endorsement by the City of Santa Monica or the Santa Monica Police Department of a particular product or vendor.
In addition, the inventory of certain items of consumable military equipment (e.g. ammunition, diversionary devices, chemical agents, etc.) can fluctuate throughout the year. This can be due to operational usage, training usage, operational wear, or manufacturer recommended replacement guidelines. While the Department strives to provide accuracy in its inventory reporting as prescribed by law, this Attachment reflects approximations of certain consumable items of military equipment at the time of the policy’s publication.
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 2 is the policy of the SMPD to utilize UAS only for official law enforcement purposes, and in a manner that respects the reasonable expectation of privacy, pursuant to state and federal law.
2. DJI Matrice 210
a. Quantity
1 b. Capabilities
Fly, hover, broadcast video, record video, photography, FLIR c. Expected Lifespan
Approximately 4 years (Device no longer in production)
d. Manufacturer Description
“M200 Series includes a robust FlightAutonomy system with a total of 7 sensors. Its Forward Vision System is capable of detecting obstacles up to 30 meters ahead, while the upward facing infrared sensors can sense obstacles within a 5-meter range. A downward facing vision positioning system enables precision hovering and landing.
The main difference between the M200 Series and the rest of the Matrice line of drones is its closed-shell body, which brings added portability, ease-of-use and ruggedness. Additionally, the M210 models can easily accommodate multiple payload configurations, something not previously seen on any drone.” (https://www.dji.com/matrice-200-series/info#faq)
e. Purpose
Provide aerial support for law enforcement operations
f. Authorized Use
Only assigned operators who have completed the required training shall be permitted to operate the UAS.
g. Fiscal Impact:
a. Initial Cost
$15,000
b. Annual Maintenance Cost
$400
h. Training
All Department UAS operators are licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration for UAS operation. In addition, each operator must qualify at quarterly training.
i. Legal and Procedural Rules
Use is established under FAA Regulation 14 CFR Part 107, Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA), and the Santa Monica Police Department UAS policy. It is the policy of the SMPD to utilize UAS only for official law enforcement purposes, and in a manner that respects the reasonable expectation of privacy, pursuant to state and federal law.
3. DJI Phantom 4 Pro
a. Quantity
1 b. Capabilities
Fly, hover, broadcast video, record video, photography, FLIR c. Expected Lifespan
Approximately 4 years
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 3 d. Manufacturer Description
“The Phantom 4 Pro redefines the iconic Phantom series, bringing imaging and intelligence to new heights. Its uprated camera shoots 4K/60fps at a bitrate of 100Mbps and stills up to 20-megapixels, creating dramatically better images. The FlightAutonomy system adds dual rear vision sensors and two Time of Flight range imaging cameras for a total of 5 directions of obstacle sensing with a range of up to 30m in all directions. The upgraded Lightbridge HD video transmission system offers an extended maximum transmission range of 4.3mi (7km) and also enables you to switch between 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz. It can also be used with an optional integrated monitor for even more reliable transmission. Operators are also further empowered with a new suite of ActiveTrack and TapFly functions.
The aircraft’s Intelligent Flight Battery also have increased capacity by 520mAh to enable an extended flight time of 30 minutes.” (https://www.dji.com/phantom-4- pro/info)
e. Purpose
Provide aerial support for law enforcement operations
f. Authorized Use
Only assigned operators who have completed the required training shall be permitted to operate the UAS.
g. Fiscal Impact:
a. Initial Cost
$2,000
b. Annual Maintenance Cost
Approximately $500
h. Training
All Department UAS operators are licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration for UAS operation. In addition, each operator must qualify at quarterly training.
i. Legal and Procedural Rules
Use is established under FAA Regulation 14 CFR Part 107, Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA), and the Santa Monica Police Department UAS policy. It is the policy of the SMPD to utilize UAS only for official law enforcement purposes, and in a manner that respects the reasonable expectation of privacy, pursuant to state and federal law.
4. DJI Mavic 2 Enterprise
a. Quantity
1 b. Capabilities
Fly, hover, broadcast video, record video, photography, FLIR c. Expected Lifespan
Approximately 4 years
d. Manufacturer Description
“Designed to empower a new generation of workers, the Mavic 2 Enterprise is the ultimate expression of a tool that delivers beyond expectation to meet current workplace challenges and future demands.” (https://www.dji.com/mavic-2- enterprise?site=brandsite&from=nav)
e. Purpose
Provide aerial support for law enforcement operations
f. Authorized Use
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 4 Only assigned operators who have completed the required training shall be permitted to operate the UAS.
g. Fiscal Impact:
a. Initial Cost
$2,995
b. Annual Maintenance Cost
Approximately $500
h. Training
All Department UAS operators are licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration for UAS operation. In addition, each operator must qualify at quarterly training.
i. Legal and Procedural Rules
Use is established under FAA Regulation 14 CFR Part 107, Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA), and the Santa Monica Police Department UAS policy. It is the policy of the SMPD to utilize UAS only for official law enforcement purposes, and in a manner that respects the reasonable expectation of privacy, pursuant to state and federal law.
5. Transcend Vantage Robot
a. Quantity
1 b. Capabilities
The robot design allows for two-way communication, remote viewing, and remotely deploy gas or smoke in a target area to promote de-escalation or a tactical advantage for approaching operators. It also has a payload/tow capability which can drag a skid-type stretcher for a citizen/officer rescue or transport up to a 100-pound payload. The robot’s design allows it to ascend and descend stairs, climb walls to look over obstacles, or hang over ledges to look over those obstacles.
c. Expected Lifespan
5 years. Dependent on operational usage and wear.
d. Manufacturer Description
“Transcend’s Vantage robot is the world’s only double-patented automatic stair and obstacle climbing robot for First Responders. It’s the only option for First Responders that want their robot to just figure it out on the first attempt to climb stairs, clothes and junk without the burden of tedious manual controls associated with flippers and other limb systems. This means the Vantage can be used without prior training to enter a house or building to see, hear and learn what’s happening before sending officers inside.” (https://www.transcendrobotics.com) e. Purpose
Provide support for law enforcement operations
f. Authorized Use
The robot is to be used exclusively by the SWAT unit.
g. Fiscal Impact:
a. Initial Cost
$12,421.31
b. Annual Maintenance Cost
As needed dependent on use and wear.
h. Training
Although there is no official training required, department personnel that operate the device regularly train with the SWAT Unit.
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 5 i. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the SMPD to utilize the robot for official law enforcement purposes, and in a manner that respects the reasonable expectation of privacy, pursuant to state and federal law.
6. Transcend Mini Vantage Robot2
a. Quantity
1 b. Capabilities
The robot design allows for two-way communication, remote viewing to promote de-escalation or a tactical advantage for approaching operators. The robot’s design allows it to ascend and descend stairs and climb over obstacles. c. Expected Lifespan
5 years. Dependent on operational usage and wear.
d. Manufacturer Description
“Transcend’s Mini Vantage robot is the world’s only double-patented automatic obstacle climbing robot for First Responders.
It’s the only option for First Responders that want their robot to “just figure it out” on the first attempt run over clothes and junk without the burden of tedious manual controls or worrying about getting stopped by a shoe.
This means the Mini Vantage can be used without prior training to enter a house or building to see and learn what’s happening before sending officers inside.
This robot is perfect for SWAT operators and patrol officers that need to see what’s around the next two walls before physically going there.
The Mini Vantage robot comes fully loaded.”
(https://www.transcendrobotics.com/transcendproduct/mini-vantage/) e. Purpose
Provide support for law enforcement operations
f. Authorized Use
The robot is to be used exclusively by the SWAT unit.
g. Fiscal Impact:
a. Initial Cost
No charge.
b. Annual Maintenance Cost
As needed dependent on use and wear.
h. Training
Although there is no official training required, department personnel that operate the device regularly train with the SWAT Unit.
i. Legal and Procedural Rules
2 The Mini Vantage was given to the Santa Monica Police Department by Transcend in 2021. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, delays were caused in the manufacturing/shipment of the device. The Santa Monica Police Department is still awaiting shipment of the device.
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 6 It is the policy of the SMPD to utilize the robot for official law enforcement purposes, and in a manner that respects the reasonable expectation of privacy, pursuant to state and federal law.
7. RoboteX Avatar Robot
a. Quantity
2 b. Capabilities
The robot design allows for two-way audio and remote viewing in a target area to promote de-escalation or a tactical advantage for approaching operators. The robot’s design allows it to navigate various terrain including stairs, sand, clothing and grass.
c. Expected Lifespan
5 years. Dependent on operational usage and wear.
d. Manufacturer Description
®
“The AVATAR enhances the capabilities of SWAT and tactical response teams by allowing them to quickly and safely inspect dangerous situations, there is no longer a need to send personnel in before you’ve had a chance to assess the ® situation. The AVATAR saves lives by keeping first responders out of harm’s way, and it does so at a fraction of the price of other robots. The ®
AVATAR Robots are regarded by tactical teams as a standard operational tool, like a firearm, vehicle, or piece of body armor. Departments across the United ® ®
States and internationally are using the AVATAR Robots. With the AVATAR ’s market beating affordability and ease-of-use, so can you.” (https://robotex.com/products/avatar-tactical-robot/)
e. Purpose
Provide support for law enforcement operations.
f. Authorized Use
The robot is to be used exclusively by the SWAT unit.
g. Fiscal Impact:
a. Initial Cost
$32,400 – Paid for by Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) Grant b. Annual Maintenance Cost
As needed dependent on use and wear.
h. Training
Although there is no official training required, department personnel that operate the device train with the SWAT Unit on a bi-weekly basis. i. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the SMPD to utilize the robot for official law enforcement purposes, and in a manner that respects the reasonable expectation of privacy, pursuant to state and federal law.
Armored Personnel Carriers
1. 2017 Ford F550 - Lenco Bearcat
a. Quantity
1 b. Capabilities
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 7 The BearCat is a large mobile armored vehicle used to conduct rescues, transport personnel and equipment, and provide security to the public. c. Expected Lifespan
10 years. Dependent on operational usage and wear.
d. Manufacturer Description
“The Lenco BearCat G2 is the standard tactical armored vehicle for special operations units within the US Law Enforcement community. Since the early 2000s, agencies such as LAPD, LASD SEB, NYPD ESU, Boston PD and hundreds of Federal, State and Local Law Enforcement agencies have made the BearCat G2 part of their standard operating procedure. The G2 has excellent onroad driving characteristics and maneuverability in tight urban settings. The large floor plan seats 10 – 12 fully equipped officers with a long list of tactical features only found on the Lenco BearCat line of armored SWAT vehicles for Police and Government. ” (https://www.lencoarmor.com/model/bearcat-g2-policegovernment/) e. Purpose
Provides armored vehicle response to critical incidents and support for various law enforcement operations.
f. Authorized Use
The use of armored vehicles shall only be authorized by a watch commander or SWAT commander, based on the specific circumstances of a given critical incident. Armored vehicles shall be used only by officers trained in their deployment and in a manner consistent with Department policy and training. g. Fiscal Impact:
a. Initial Cost
$289,224
b. Annual Maintenance Cost
Approximately $3,000
h. Training
In-house department training on proper operation.
i. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the SMPD to utilize the Lenco Bearcat for official law enforcement purposes.
Command and Control Vehicles
1. 2016 Freightliner M2 – Custom Design by LDV Custom Specialty Vehicles a. Quantity
1 b. Capabilities
This vehicle can be utilized for a variety of law enforcement needs to include managing a critical incident or special event, conducting DUI Checkpoints and community outreach events, a mobile sub-station for Officers to complete reports, and recently a backup dispatch center when power to the Public Safety Facility had to be turned off for building maintenance. c. Expected Lifespan
10+ years. Dependent on operational usage and wear.
d. Manufacturer Description
“Santa Monica Police Department chose a Freightliner M2 conventional cab chassis with three slide out rooms as the platform for their mobile command unit.
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 8 It features a 350HP engine and Allison 3000 EVS automatic transmission with PTO provision. The police department chose to incorporate three flat-floor slideout rooms to increase the interior space of their mobile command center.
A large conference room is located in the front with seating for six or more with a Smart overlay that can be easily cordoned off. The access door to the unit is in front of the galley which is home to an electronics racking and cafe style check station. The mobile command center's rear features four large communication workstations. Solid surface countertops have been installed for added durability.
The exterior of the vehicle features a weatherproof exterior workstation with A heavy-duty non-locking telescoping pneumatic mast is located on the rear of the vehicle with camera system. HVAC is handled by three low-profile air conditioners and three wall-mount electric heaters. A heavy-duty fully automatic one-touch leveling system ensures the vehicle sits level while at a scene. To provide coverage to those working outside at the exterior workstation or accessing storage compartments, an electric lateral arm awning has been installed.” https://www.ldvusa.com/truck/santa-monica-police-department-mobilecommand-unit/ e. Purpose
To be used based in the specific circumstances of a given critical incident, large event, natural disaster, or community events.
f. Authorized Use
As directed by a supervisor or other command post operator. g. Fiscal Impact:
a. Initial Cost
$623,485
b. Annual Maintenance Cost
Approximately $15,000
h. Training
California Class B Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) to operate which all candidates must apply for through the Department of Motor Vehicles prior to being scheduled for training. Upon completion of the application, written test, and required medical exam, candidates are assigned to complete a driver training program with certified CDL Instructors at the Big Blue Bus facility. After completing their CDL instruction for a Class B CDL, Air Brakes, and Passenger endorsement, candidates are scheduled to complete their driving test with certified DMV Examiners operating a Big Blue Bus. Upon successful completion on the Big Blue Bus, Licensees then complete a vehicle specific driver’s training and certification on the Mobile Command Post Vehicle as well as the deployment and operation of the onboard equipment. Refresher training on operational equipment is completed with Operators at least once a year or as needed and Operators must complete periodic test drives or deployments to maintain their active status on the Cadre. In addition to training and certification, Operators are mandated as CDL holders to submit to random drug screening tests which are generated by Human Resources on a quarterly basis.
i. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the Santa Monica Police Department to use the Mobile Command Post (MCP) vehicle only for official law enforcement purposes, and in accordance with California law regarding the operation of motor vehicles.
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 9 Breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature
1. Remington 870 Pump Action Shotgun with Royal Arms Breaching Barrel a. Quantity
4 b. Capabilities
This weapon allows for breachers to safely utilize shotgun breaching rounds in order to defeat deadbolts, locks, and hinges.
c. Expected Lifespan
No manufacture listed lifespan. Dependent on operation usage and wear. d. Manufacturer Description
“The Royal Arms Breaching Stand off Device is purposely made to solve the need of Law Enforcement and Military to Breach Door with the ultimate speed and precision.The Breacher has large aggressive teeth in the muzzle end to bite into the door and grab hard.
The Breacher CNC machined by Royal Arms from Solid Bar Stock 4140 Chromoly Steel using state of the art manufacturing techniques. We then heat treat and give it a super durable Black Nitride finish. The result is a superior product with enhanced technical capabilities. Which in turn offers Law Enforcement, Military, and discerning individuals the ultimate tactical advantage in the field for all operators and at a reasonable price. Make this you First or Last Breacher you will ever own.” (https://royalarms.com/shop/royal-arms-breachingbarrel-door-breacher/) e. Purpose
Used by the SWAT Unit to defeat locks, deadbolts, and hinges. f. Authorized Use
Breaching shotguns are to be used exclusively by trained members of the SWAT Unit.
g. Fiscal Impact:
a. Initial Cost
$500
b. Annual Maintenance Cost
Dependent on usage and wear.
h. Training
40 hour Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) certified breaching class in order to properly use the specialized weapon/ammunition. i. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the SMPD to utilize the breaching ammunition for official law enforcement purposes and in compliance with California Penal Code 1531.
2. Royal Arms 12 gauge breaching rounds
a. Quantity
100
b. Capabilities
Used to defeat locks, deadbolts, and hinges
c. Expected Lifespan
No manufacture listed lifespan. Dependent on operational usage. d. Manufacturer Description
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 10 Ammunition is frangible and will break into a powder form upon impact with a solid object. It is designed to be fired point blank against solid objects. https://royalarms.com/product-category/breachingammo/
e. Purpose
Used by the SWAT Unit to defeat locks, deadbolts, and hinges. f. Authorized Use
Breaching ammunition are to be used exclusively by trained members of the SWAT Unit
g. Fiscal Impact:
a. Initial Cost
$50 for 5 rounds
b. Annual Maintenance Cost
As needed to replenish rounds used for incidents and training. h. Training
40 hour POST certified breaching class in order to properly use the specialized weapon/ammunition.
i. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the SMPD to utilize the breaching ammunition for official law enforcement purposes and in compliance with California Penal Code 1531.
Flashbangs, Chemical Agents, Chemical Agent Delivery Devices, and Pepper Ball Launchers
1. Combined Tactical Systems (CTS) 7290 Flash-Bang
a. Quantity
75 b. Capabilities
A non-bursting, non-fragmenting multi-bang device that produces a thunderous bang with an intense bright light. Ideal for distracting dangerous suspects during assaults, hostage rescue, room entry or other high-risk arrest situations. c. Expected Lifespan
5-year shelf-life
d. Manufacturer Description
“7290 -The CTS 7290 is the standard for diversionary flash-bang devices. The 7290 produces an 175db and 6-8 million candela of light output. The patented design of the 7290, incorporates a porting system that eliminates movement of the body at detonation even if the top or bottom of the device should be in contact with a hard surface. In addition, internal adjustments have greatly reduced smoke output. Flash Bangs are used by special tactical units during hostage rescue and high-risk warrants. It is an ATF-controlled Class-C explosive device that emits a bright light and thunderous noise to distract potentially dangerous individuals.” https://www.combinedsystems.com/product/7290-flashbang-steel-body-priced-individually-must-order-in-quantities-of-12/ e. Purpose
A distraction device is ideal for distracting dangerous suspects during assaults, hostage rescue, room entry or other high-risk arrest situations. To produce atmospheric over-pressure and brilliant white light and, as a result, can cause short-term (6-8 seconds) physiological/psychological sensory deprivation to give officers a tactical advantage.
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 11 f. Authorized Use
Flashbang devices are to be used only by the SWAT Unit. g. Fiscal Impact:
a. Initial Cost
$52 each
b. Annual Maintenance Cost
As needed to replenish rounds used for incidents and training. h. Training
80 hour POST approved SWAT school.
i. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the Santa Monica Police Department to utilize flashbangs only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to department policy, state and federal law.
2. Combined Tactical Systems (CTS) 7290M Mini-Bang3
a. Quantity
100
b. Capabilities
A non-bursting, non-fragmenting multi-bang device that produces a thunderous bang with an intense bright light. Ideal for distracting dangerous suspects during assaults, hostage rescue, room entry or other high-risk arrest situations. c. Expected Lifespan
5-year shelf-life
d. Manufacturer Description
“7290M – The CTS 7290M Mini Flash-Bang is the newest generation in the evolution of the Flash-Bang. Our Model 7290M Flash-Bang exhibits all of the same attributes of it’s larger counterpart but in a smaller and lighter package.
Weighing in at just 15 ounces the new 7290M is approximately 30% lighter than the 7290 but still has the same 175db output of the 7290 and produces 6-8 million candela of light. The patented design of the 7290M, incorporates a porting system that eliminates movement of the body at detonation even if the top or bottom of the device should be in contact with a hard surface. In addition, internal adjustments have greatly reduced smoke output.” https://www.combinedsystems.com/product/7290m-mini-bang-steel-body-pricedindividually-must-order-in-quantities-of-12/ e. Purpose
A distraction device is ideal for distracting dangerous suspects during assaults, hostage rescue, room entry or other high-risk arrest situations. To produce atmospheric over-pressure and brilliant white light and, as a result, can cause short-term (6-8 seconds) physiological/psychological sensory deprivation to give officers a tactical advantage.
f. Authorized Use
Flashbang devices are to be used only by the SWAT Unit. g. Fiscal Impact:
a. Initial Cost
$38 each
b. Annual Maintenance Cost
3 The CTS 7290M Mini-Bang devices were purchased by the Santa Monica Police Department in December 2021. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the shipment of the devices was delayed and are currently not in the Santa Monica Police Department’s possession.
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 12 As needed to replenish rounds used for incidents and training. h. Training
80 hour POST approved SWAT school.
i. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the Santa Monica Police Department to utilize flashbangs only for official law enforcement purposes, and pursuant to department policy, state and federal law.
3. Combined Tactical Systems (CTS) 9230 CS Sting-Ball Grenade a. Quantity
150
b. Capabilities
Designed to emit loud noise, bright light, and rubber projectiles. c. Expected Lifespan
5-year shelf-life
d. Manufacturer Description
“9230 – The 9230 CS Jet-Lite Rubber Ball Grenade is one of the smaller diameter burning grenades that discharges a high volume of chemical agents through multiple emission ports. Specifically for outdoor use and should not be deployed from rooftops, in crawl spaces or indoors due to fire producing capability. Can be hand thrown or launched.”
https://www.combinedsystems.com/product/9230-cs-jet-lite-rubber-ball-grenadepyro/ e. Purpose
Sting-Ball grenade can be used in high-risk tactical operations when confronting potentially armed, knowingly armed, or violent suspects. They can also be used during high-risk warrants, hostage rescue incidents, and in limited instances during mobile field force incidents to provide an added degree of officer safety when being confronted by violent and/or armed subjects. f. Authorized Use
Sting-Ball grenades are primarily used by the SWAT Unit and Mobile Field Force (MFF) but can also be used by department trained and qualified members at the direction of a supervisor.
g. Fiscal Impact:
a. Initial Cost
$51 each
b. Annual Maintenance Cost
As needed to replenish rounds used for incidents and training. h. Training
POST approved training on legal and practical application including but not limited to crowd management, intervention, and control. i. Legal and Procedural Rules
Sting-Ball grenades shall only be used for official law enforcement purposes pursuant to department policy and state and federal law, including, but not limited to use of force and First Amendment assemblies.
4. Sage HTM66/3PCS CS and Smoke (hand-toss munitions)
a. Quantity
48 b. Capabilities
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 13 Designed for to safely resolve critical situations such as violent civil unrest and high-risk tactical operations. Can be hand-thrown.
c. Expected Lifespan
5-year shelf-life
d. Manufacturer Description
“The SAGE 66MM Tri-Canister is a separating continuous discharge pyrotechnic munition available in white screening smoke or in CS irritant smoke. It consists of three separate canisters pressed together with internal separating charges. Upon deployment the canisters separate and land roughly 25 feet apart allowing for a greater area of coverage. This munition can be hand thrown or launched from a fired delivery system. Average burn times range between 20-30 seconds.” http://www.sageinternationalltd.com/SCOI/HTM66-3P.html
e. Purpose
To safely resolve critical situations such as violent civil unrest and high-risk tactical operations.
f. Authorized Use
Sage CS and Smoke canisters are primarily used by the SWAT Unit and Mobile Field Force Unit (MFF), but can also be used by trained and qualified department members at the direction of a supervisor.
g. Fiscal Impact:
a. Initial Cost
$25-$50 each
b. Annual Maintenance Cost
As needed to replenish rounds used for incidents and training. h. Training
POST approved training on legal and practical application including but not limited to crowd management, intervention, and control. i. Legal and Procedural Rules
Sage CS and smoke shall only be used for official law enforcement purposes pursuant to department policy and state and federal law, including, but not limited to, use of force and First Amendment assemblies.
5. Defense Technology Chemical Agent (CS) canisters
Han-Ball, Triple Chaser, Spede-Heat, Riot Control, Pocket Tactical, Instantaneous Blast, Tri-Chamber
a. Quantity
32 b. Capabilities
Designed for to safely resolve critical situations such as violent civil unrest and high-risk tactical operations. Can be hand-thrown.
c. Expected Lifespan
5-year shelf-life
d. Manufacturer Description
The Han-Ball™ CS Grenade is an outdoor use grenade expelling its payload in approximately 15-20 seconds. The rubber ball round has an over all size of 4.8 in. tall, including the fuze head, and 3.1 in. diameter. This launchable grenade holds approximately 1.6 oz. of active agent which is expelled through three ports around the equator of the ball. Due the intense heat generated by this grenade, it should not be used inside a building or near flammable
material.https://www.defense-technology.com/product/han-ball-grenade-cs/
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 14 The Triple-Chaser® CS consists of three separate canisters pressed together with separating charges between each. When deployed, the canisters separate and land approximately 20 feet apart allowing increased area coverage in a short period of time. This grenade can be hand thrown or launched from a fired delivery system. The grenade is 6.5 in. by 2.7 in. and holds an approximately 3.2 oz. of active agent payload. It has an approximate burn time of 20-30 seconds. https://www.defense-technology.com/product/triple-chaser-separating-canistercs/ The Spede-Heat™ CS Grenade is a high volume, continuous burn it expels its payload in approximately 20-40 seconds. The payload is discharged through four gas ports on top of the canister, three on the side and one on the bottom. This launchable grenade is 6.12 in. by 2.62 in. and holds approximately 2.9 oz. of active agent. https://www.defense-technology.com/product/spede-heatcontinuous-discharge-chemical-grenade-cs/ The Riot Control CS Grenade is designed specifically for outdoor use in crowd control situations with a high volume continuous burn that expels its payload in approximately 20-40 seconds through four gas ports located on the top of the canister. This grenade can be used to conceal tactical movement or to route a crowd. The volume of smoke and agent is vast and obtrusive. This launchable grenade is 6.0 in. by 2.35 in. and holds approximately 2.7 oz. of active agent. https://www.defense-technology.com/product/riot-control-continuous-dischargegrenade-cs/ The Pocket Tactical CS Grenade is small, and lightweight. The 0.9 oz. of active agent will burn approximately 20-40 seconds. At 4.75 in. by 1.4 inches in size, it easily fits in most tactical pouches. This is a launchable grenade; however it is normally used as a signaling or covering device. Though this device is slightly over four inches in length, it produces a smoke cloud so fast it appears to be an enveloping screen produced by a full size tactical grenade. https://www.defensetechnology.com/product/pocket-tactical-grenade-cs/ The Instantaneous Blast CS Grenade is designed for indoor or outdoor use; this grenade’s powder is expelled upon initiation of a small internal detonator that has sufficient force to split the canister at six machined groves on the outside surface. this device is well suited for affecting numerous subjects grouped within a contained portion of a prison yard or area, using wind to the advantage. This 6.12 in. by 2.62 in. grenade will deliver approximately 1.5 oz. of active agent. https://www.defense-technology.com/product/instantaneous-blast-cs-grenade/ The design of the Tri-Chamber Flameless CS Grenade allows the contents to burn within an internal can and disperse the agent safely with reduced risk of fire.
The grenade is designed primarily for indoor tactical situations to detect and/or dislodge a barricaded subject. This grenade will deliver approximately .70 oz. of agent during its 20-25 seconds burn time. The Tri-Chamber Flameless Grenade can be used in crowd control as well as tactical deployment situations by Law Enforcement and Corrections, but was designed with the barricade situation in mind. Its applications in tactical situations are primarily to detect and/or dislodge barricaded subjects. The purpose of the Tri-Chamber Flameless Grenade is to
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 15 minimize the risks to all parties through pain compliance, temporary discomfort, and/or incapacitation of potentially violent or dangerous subjects. The TriChamber Flameless Grenade provides the option of delivering a pyrotechnic chemical device indoors, maximizing the chemicals’ effectiveness via heat and vaporization, while minimizing or negating the chance of fire to the structure. The Tri-Chamber Flameless Grenade is NOT to be launched utilizing a launching cup. https://www.defense-technology.com/product/flameless-tri-chamber-csgrenade/ e. Purpose
To safely resolve critical situations such as violent civil unrest and high-risk tactical operations.
f. Authorized Use
Defense Technology CS canisters are primarily used by the SWAT Unit and Mobile Field Force Unit (MFF), but can also be used by trained and qualified department members at the direction of a supervisor.
g. Fiscal Impact:
a. Initial Cost
$25-$50 each
b. Annual Maintenance Cost
As needed to replenish rounds used for incidents and training. h. Training
POST approved training on legal and practical application including but not limited to crowd management, intervention, and control. i. Legal and Procedural Rules
Defense Technology CS canisters shall only be used for official law enforcement purposes pursuant to department policy and state and federal law, including, but not limited to, use of force and First Amendment assemblies.
6. PepperBall VKS, FTC, TAC-700 Launchers and PepperBall Projectiles a. Quantity
7 VKS
2 FTC
5 TAC-700 (No longer in production or serviceable)
2000 rounds of PepperBall projectiles
b. Capabilities
Pepper ball launchers give officers the ability to address an armed and/or violent suspect(s) with a non-lethal munition that delivers both chemical agent and kinetic energy impact. This combination can be extremely effective in gaining compliance or reducing threat potential with an armed and/or violent suspect(s).
Due to its design, pepper balls can be delivered from a larger standoff distance allowing for an added degree of officer safety. Its high round capability and accuracy allow for its use in a wide variety of operational environments. c. Expected Lifespan
PepperBall launcher - No manufacture listed lifespan. Dependent on operational usage and wear.
PepperBall projectiles – Shelf life of 3 years.
d. Manufacturer Description
“PepperBall launchers are designed for minimum time between launches and quick reload speed, so whether in a crowd control scenario, tactical or even Mobile Field Force situation, the PepperBall system offers flexibility, safety and security, all within one platform. Launchers range from a compact lightweight
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 16 hand-held style that fits on a standard duty belt to a longer barreled shouldermounted launcher with greater range and projectile capacity. Each launcher is air powered, with either carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen, or compressed air powering the launch of projectiles. PepperBall launchers are not classified as firearms.” “The heart of the PepperBall system is the patented PepperBall projectile, a hard plastic frangible sphere that is designed to burst upon impact. The gold standard in the industry, PepperBall projectiles are more accurate, more consistent and disperse a larger cloud than competitive offerings. Over a dozen types of projectiles are available with multiple payload options, PAVA concentrations and manufacturing processes.” https://pepperball.com/
e. Purpose
De-escalation tool to safely resolve critical situations and not likely to inflict serious injury.
f. Authorized Use
PepperBall launchers and PepperBall projectiles are to only be used by department trained personnel at the direction of a supervisor g. Fiscal Impact:
a. Initial Cost
VKS - $1,300 each
FTC - $600 each
TAC-700 - $250 each
PepperBall projectiles - $360 for every 90 rounds
b. Annual Maintenance Cost
Based on usage and wear, and as needed to replenish rounds used for incidents and training.
h. Training
POST approved training on legal and practical application including but not limited to crowd management, intervention, and control. i. Legal and Procedural Rules
PepperBall launchers and projectiles shall only be used for official law enforcement purposes pursuant to department policy and state and federal law, including, but not limited to, use of force and First Amendment assemblies.
Projectile Launch Platforms and their associated munitions
1. AMTEC Single Tube 40mm NATO Launcher
a. Quantity
4 b. Capabilities
40mm launchers can deliver 40mm munitions in the form of chemical agents, sponge baton rounds, or combined use sponge baton OC chemical agent rounds.
c. Expected Lifespan
Lifespan varies on operational usage and wear.
d. Manufacturer Description
Produced by Lewis Machine & Tool, the 37LMTS and 40LMTS are the lightest weight single shot tactical launchers produced. The launchers feature an expandable Gen2 Stock and an adjustable Integrated Front Grip (IFG) with light rail, for added mission adaptability, and an improvement on previous models.
Both systems also feature an ambidextrous Lateral Sling Mount (LSM), allowing
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 17 for a single or two point sling attachment. The Picatinny rail mounting systems accept a wide variety of enhanced optics/sighting systems. The 40LMTS will fire standard less-lethal ammunition up to 4.8 inches in cartridge length, and most low and medium velocity 40mm ammunition.
e. Purpose
Designed to safely resolve critical situations such as violent civil unrest and highrisk tactical operations. De-escalation tool not likely to inflict serious injury. f. Authorized Use
AMTECT 40mm launchers are primarily used by the SWAT Unit and Mobile Field Force Unit (MFF), but can also be used by trained and qualified department members at the direction of a supervisor.
g. Fiscal Impact:
i. Initial Cost
$900 each
ii. Annual Maintenance Cost
As needed based on operation usage and wear
h. Training
POST approved training on legal and practical application including but not limited to crowd management, intervention, and control. Continual annual department training.
i. Legal and Procedural Rules
AMTEC 40mm launchers shall only be used for official law enforcement purposes pursuant to department policy and state and federal law, including, but not limited to, use of force and First Amendment assemblies.
2. Sage Deuce 37mm and 40mm NATO Launcher
a. Quantity
37 (30 – 37mm and 7 – 40mm)
*It should be noted that 5 of the 40mm launchers are awaiting shipment to the Santa Monica Police Department. These 5 devices were purchased prior to January 1, 2022.
b. Capabilities
37mm/40mm launchers can deliver 37mm/40mm munitions in the form of chemical agents, sponge baton rounds, or combined use sponge baton OC chemical agent rounds.
c. Expected Lifespan
Lifespan varies on operational usage and wear.
d. Manufacturer Description
None - http://www.sageinternationalltd.com/SCOI/DeuceSTD40.html e. Purpose
Designed to safely resolve critical situations such as violent civil unrest and highrisk tactical operations. De-escalation tool not likely to inflict serious injury. f. Authorized Use
Sage 37mm and 40mm can be used by trained and qualified department members at the direction of a supervisor.
g. Fiscal Impact:
i. Initial Cost
$1,600 each
ii. Annual Maintenance Cost
As needed based on operation usage and wear
h. Training
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 18 POST approved training on legal and practical application including but not limited to crowd management, intervention, and control. i. Legal and Procedural Rules
Sage 37mm/40mm launchers shall only be used for official law enforcement purposes pursuant to department policy and state and federal law, including, but not limited to, use of force and First Amendment assemblies.
3. Sage KO1 Impact Baton
a. Quantity
500
b. Capabilities
37mm/40mm munitions used in conjunction with 37mm/40mm launchers may be deployed to impact subjects demonstrating assaultive behavior or life-threatening behavior. 37/40mm munitions used in conjunction with 37/40mm launchers may also be used to control an actively resistive subject reasonably believed to possess or have immediate access to a deadly weapon.
c. Expected Lifespan
10+ year shelf life
d. Manufacturer Description
“The KO1 is a direct fire modular impact baton round that is designed to be used in situations where kinetic energy is preferred for the incapacitation of hostile and/or non-compliant individuals. Available in either standard energy or lessenergy variations. The KO1 is reloadable and is available with smokeless or black powder blended propelling charges to provide law enforcement with affordable realistic training capabilities.”
http://www.sageinternationalltd.com/SCOI/ammunition.html e. Purpose
Designed to safely resolve critical situations such as violent civil unrest and highrisk tactical operations. De-escalation tool not likely to inflict serious injury. f. Authorized Use
Sage KO1 can be used by trained and qualified department members at the direction of a supervisor.
g. Fiscal Impact:
i. Initial Cost
$25-$50 each
ii. Annual Maintenance Cost
As needed to replenish rounds used for incidents and training. j. Training
POST approved training on legal and practical application including but not limited to crowd management, intervention, and control. k. Legal and Procedural Rules
Sage KO1 shall only be used for official law enforcement purposes pursuant to department policy and state and federal law, including, but not limited to, use of force and First Amendment assemblies.
4. Sage KO2 CS Smoke
a. Quantity
60 b. Capabilities
37mm/40mm munitions used in conjunction with 37mm/40mm launchers may be deployed to impact subjects demonstrating assaultive behavior or life-threatening
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 19 behavior. 37/40mm munitions used in conjunction with 37/40mm launchers may also be used to control an actively resistive subject reasonably believed to possess or have immediate access to a deadly weapon
c. Expected Lifespan
10+ year shelf life
d. Manufacturer Description
“The K02 is a pyrotechnic irritant smoke munition primarily used for crowd management situations. It is designed to be used to deny specific outdoor area occupation and to relocate or move unruly crowds. In a single source configuration the KO2 is offered in short and long range variations. A mid-range variation is available only in the three-piece configuration. Also available in practice smoke. Average burn times range between 20-30 seconds.” http://www.sageinternationalltd.com/SCOI/ammunition.html e. Purpose
Designed to safely resolve critical situations such as violent civil unrest and highrisk tactical operations. De-escalation tool not likely to inflict serious injury. f. Authorized Use
Sage KO2 are primarily used by the SWAT Unit and Mobile Field Force Unit (MFF), but can also be used by trained and qualified department members at the direction of a supervisor.
g. Fiscal Impact:
i. Initial Cost
$25-$50 each
ii. Annual Maintenance Cost
As needed to replenish rounds used for incidents and training. h. Training
POST approved training on legal and practical application including but not limited to crowd management, intervention, and control. i. Legal and Procedural Rules
Sage KO2 shall only be used for official law enforcement purposes pursuant to department policy and state and federal law, including, but not limited to, use of force and First Amendment assemblies.
5. Sage K03 Crush Nose Baton
a. Quantity
41 b. Capabilities
37mm/40mm munitions used in conjunction with 37mm/40mm launchers may be deployed to impact subjects demonstrating assaultive behavior or life-threatening behavior. 37/40mm munitions used in conjunction with 37/40mm launchers may also be used to control an actively resistive subject reasonably believed to possess or have immediate access to a deadly weapon
c. Expected Lifespan
10+ year shelf life
d. Manufacturer Description
“The KO3 is a direct fire crush nose chemical impact baton round that is designed to be used in situations where a combination of kinetic energy and chemical agents is preferred for the incapacitation of hostile and/or noncompliant individuals.
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 20 Upon impact the KO3 projectile imparts blunt trauma and additionally releases a micro-pulverized CS or OC powder payload as the baton nose is crushed.” http://www.sageinternationalltd.com/SCOI/ammunition.html e. Purpose
Designed to safely resolve critical situations such as violent civil unrest and highrisk tactical operations. De-escalation tool not likely to inflict serious injury. f. Authorized Use
Sage KO3 are primarily used by the SWAT Unit and Mobile Field Force Unit (MFF), but can also be used by trained and qualified department members at the direction of a supervisor.
g. Fiscal Impact:
i. Initial Cost
$25-$50 each
ii. Annual Maintenance Cost
As needed to replenish rounds used for incidents and training. h. Training
POST approved training on legal and practical application including but not limited to crowd management, intervention, and control. i. Legal and Procedural Rules
Sage KO3 shall only be used for official law enforcement purposes pursuant to department policy and state and federal law, including, but not limited to, use of force and First Amendment assemblies.
6. Sage K04 Screening Smoke
a. Quantity
112
b. Capabilities
37mm/40mm munitions used in conjunction with 37mm/40mm launchers may be deployed to impact subjects demonstrating assaultive behavior or life-threatening behavior. 37/40mm munitions used in conjunction with 37/40mm launchers may also be used to control an actively resistive subject reasonably believed to possess or have immediate access to a deadly weapon
c. Expected Lifespan
10+ year shelf life
d. Manufacturer Description
“The KO4 is a pyrotechnic colored screening smoke munition primarily used for crowd management situations. It is designed to be used for screening operations or for color signaling and marking.
Offered in a short, mid, and long range variations, the KO4 allows the operator the ability to accurately place screening smoke at varying distances. Additionally the KO4 is available in a variety of colors to provide better screening capabilities during operations. Average burn times range between 20-30 seconds.” http://www.sageinternationalltd.com/SCOI/ammunition.html e. Purpose
Designed to safely resolve critical situations such as violent civil unrest and highrisk tactical operations. De-escalation tool not likely to inflict serious injury. f. Authorized Use
Sage KO4 are primarily used by the SWAT Unit and Mobile Field Force Unit (MFF), but can also be used by trained and qualified department members at the direction of a supervisor.
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 21 g. Fiscal Impact:
i. Initial Cost
$25-$50 each
ii. Annual Maintenance Cost
As needed to replenish rounds used for incidents and training. h. Training
POST approved training on legal and practical application including but not limited to crowd management, intervention, and control. i. Legal and Procedural Rules
Sage KO4 shall only be used for official law enforcement purposes pursuant to department policy and state and federal law, including, but not limited to use of force and First Amendment assemblies.
7. Sage K06 Muzzle Blast
a. Quantity
500
b. Capabilities
37mm/40mm munitions used in conjunction with 37mm/40mm launchers may be deployed to impact subjects demonstrating assaultive behavior or life-threatening behavior. 37/40mm munitions used in conjunction with 37/40mm launchers may also be used to control an actively resistive subject reasonably believed to possess or have immediate access to a deadly weapon
c. Expected Lifespan
10+ year shelf life
d. Manufacturer Description
“The KO6 is a non-pyrotechnic chemical muzzle blast munition primarily used for tactical crowd management or close quarter situations. It is designed to deny entry into sensitive areas or relocate and disperse unruly groups or hostile intruders by delivering a cloud of chemical laden powder immediately upon firing.
The KO6 is offered in CS, OC, or practice powder variations. As a nonpyrotechnic munition the KO6 can be utilized both indoors and outdoors as a chemical compliance device.”
http://www.sageinternationalltd.com/SCOI/ammunition.html e. Purpose
Designed to safely resolve critical situations such as violent civil unrest and highrisk tactical operations. De-escalation tool not likely to inflict serious injury. f. Authorized Use
Sage KO6 are primarily used by the SWAT Unit and Mobile Field Force Unit (MFF), but can also be used by trained and qualified department members at the direction of a supervisor.
g. Fiscal Impact:
i. Initial Cost
$25-$50 each
ii. Annual Maintenance Cost
As needed to replenish rounds used for incidents and training. l. Training
POST approved training on legal and practical application including but not limited to crowd management, intervention, and control. m. Legal and Procedural Rules
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 22 Sage KO6 shall only be used for official law enforcement purposes pursuant to department policy and state and federal law, including, but not limited to, use of force and First Amendment assemblies.
8. Sage K07 Multi-Area Impact
a. Quantity
1,500
b. Capabilities
37mm/40mm munitions used in conjunction with 37mm/40mm launchers may be deployed to impact subjects demonstrating assaultive behavior or life-threatening behavior. 37/40mm munitions used in conjunction with 37/40mm launchers may also be used to control an actively resistive subject reasonably believed to possess or have immediate access to a deadly weapon
c. Expected Lifespan
10+ year shelf life
d. Manufacturer Description
“The KO7 is a multi-area impact munition that is designed to be used in situations where kinetic energy is preferred for the dispersal of hostile and/or non-compliant crowds.
Available with either .60caliber or .32 caliber synthetic balls or multiple batons, the KO7 is designed to be used to dissuade intruders at medium distances from entering sensitive areas or to relocate or disperse unruly groups by skip firing or deploying the munition in extremely low trajectories towards the general target area.” http://www.sageinternationalltd.com/SCOI/ammunition.html e. Purpose
Designed to safely resolve critical situations such as violent civil unrest and highrisk tactical operations. De-escalation tool not likely to inflict serious injury. f. Authorized Use
Sage KO7 are primarily used by the SWAT Unit and Mobile Field Force Unit (MFF), but can also be used by trained and qualified department members at the direction of a supervisor.
g. Fiscal Impact:
i. Initial Cost
$25-$50 each
ii. Annual Maintenance Cost
As needed to replenish rounds used for incidents and training. h. Training
POST approved training on legal and practical application including but not limited to crowd management, intervention, and control. i. Legal and Procedural Rules
Sage KO7 shall only be used for official law enforcement purposes pursuant to department policy and state and federal law, including, but not limited to, use of force and First Amendment assemblies.
9. Sage K08 Soft-Tip Impact Baton
a. Quantity
500
b. Capabilities
37mm/40mm munitions used in conjunction with 37mm/40mm launchers may be deployed to impact subjects demonstrating assaultive behavior or life-threatening
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 23 behavior. 37/40mm munitions used in conjunction with 37/40mm launchers may also be used to control an actively resistive subject reasonably believed to possess or have immediate access to a deadly weapon
c. Expected Lifespan
10+ year shelf life
d. Manufacturer Description
“The KO8 is a direct fire super soft tip impact baton round that is designed to be used in situations where kinetic energy is preferred for the incapacitation of hostile and/or non-compliant individuals.
Available in either standard energy or less-energy variations. The KO8 is manufactured with smokeless or black powder blended propelling charges to provide the most accuracy, stabilization and easy clean up.” http://www.sageinternationalltd.com/SCOI/ammunition.html e. Purpose
Designed to safely resolve critical situations such as violent civil unrest and highrisk tactical operations. De-escalation tool not likely to inflict serious injury. f. Authorized Use
Sage KO8 are primarily used by the SWAT Unit and Mobile Field Force Unit (MFF), but can also be used by trained and qualified department members at the direction of a supervisor.
g. Fiscal Impact:
i. Initial Cost
$25-$50
ii. Annual Maintenance Cost
As needed to replenish rounds used for incidents and training. h. Training
POST approved training on legal and practical application including but not limited to crowd management, intervention, and control. i. Legal and Procedural Rules
Sage KO8 shall only be used for official law enforcement purposes pursuant to department policy and state and federal law, including, but not limited to, use of force and First Amendment assemblies.
10. Sage KO42 CS Smoke
a. Quantity
220
b. Capabilities
37mm/40mm munitions used in conjunction with 37mm/40mm launchers may be deployed to impact subjects demonstrating assaultive behavior or life-threatening behavior. 37/40mm munitions used in conjunction with 37/40mm launchers may also be used to control an actively resistive subject reasonably believed to possess or have immediate access to a deadly weapon
c. Expected Lifespan
10+ year shelf life
d. Manufacturer Description
“The KO42 is a pyrotechnic irritant smoke munition primarily used for crowd management situations. It is designed to be used to deny specific outdoor area occupation and to relocate or move unruly crowds.
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 24 In a single source configuration the KO42 is offered in short and long range variations. A mid-range variation is available only in the three-piece configuration.
Also available in practice smoke. Average burn times range between 20-30 seconds.” http://www.sageinternationalltd.com/SCOI/ammunition.html e. Purpose
Designed to safely resolve critical situations such as violent civil unrest and highrisk tactical operations. De-escalation tool not likely to inflict serious injury. f. Authorized Use
Sage KO42 are primarily used by the SWAT Unit and Mobile Field Force Unit (MFF), but can also be used by trained and qualified department members at the direction of a supervisor.
g. Fiscal Impact:
i. Initial Cost
$25-$50
ii. Annual Maintenance Cost
As needed to replenish rounds used for incidents and training. h. Training
POST approved training on legal and practical application including but not limited to crowd management, intervention, and control. i. Legal and Procedural Rules
Sage KO42 shall only be used for official law enforcement purposes pursuant to department policy and state and federal law, including, but not limited to, use of force and First Amendment assemblies.
11. Sage KO47 Multi-Area Impact
a. Quantity
225
b. Capabilities
37mm/40mm munitions used in conjunction with 37mm/40mm launchers may be deployed to impact subjects demonstrating assaultive behavior or life-threatening behavior. 37/40mm munitions used in conjunction with 37/40mm launchers may also be used to control an actively resistive subject reasonably believed to possess or have immediate access to a deadly weapon
c. Expected Lifespan
10+ year shelf life
d. Manufacturer Description
“The KO47 is a multi-projectile area impact munition that is designed to be used in situations where kinetic energy is preferred for the dispersal of hostile and/or non-compliant crowds.
Available with either .60 caliber or .32 caliber hard synthetic balls or multiple batons, the KO47 is designed to be used to dissuade intruders at medium distances from entering sensitive areas or to relocate or disperse unruly groups by skip firing or deploying the munition in extremely low trajectories towards the general target area.” http://www.sageinternationalltd.com/SCOI/ammunition.html e. Purpose
Designed to safely resolve critical situations such as violent civil unrest and highrisk tactical operations. De-escalation tool not likely to inflict serious injury. f. Authorized Use
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 25 Sage KO47 are primarily used by the SWAT Unit and Mobile Field Force Unit (MFF), but can also be used by trained and qualified department members at the direction of a supervisor.
g. Fiscal Impact:
i. Initial Cost
$25-$50
ii. Annual Maintenance Cost
As needed to replenish rounds used for incidents and training. h. Training
POST approved training on legal and practical application including but not limited to crowd management, intervention, and control. i. Legal and Procedural Rules
Sage KO47 shall only be used for official law enforcement purposes pursuant to department policy and state and federal law, including, but not limited to, use of force and First Amendment assemblies.
12. Sage KO48 Soft-Tip Impact Baton
a. Quantity
225
b. Capabilities
37mm/40mm munitions used in conjunction with 37mm/40mm launchers may be deployed to impact subjects demonstrating assaultive behavior or life-threatening behavior. 37/40mm munitions used in conjunction with 37/40mm launchers may also be used to control an actively resistive subject reasonably believed to possess or have immediate access to a deadly weapon
c. Expected Lifespan
10+ year shelf life
d. Manufacturer Description
“The KO48 cartridge fires a highly accurate direct fire soft tip impact baton projectile that is designed to be used in situations where kinetic energy is preferred for the incapacitation of hostile and/or non-compliant individuals.
Available in standard, mid-range and less-energy variations. The KO48 is manufactured with smokeless propelling charges to provide the most accurate, stabilization and easy clean up.”
http://www.sageinternationalltd.com/SCOI/ammunition.html e. Purpose
Designed to safely resolve critical situations such as violent civil unrest and highrisk tactical operations. De-escalation tool not likely to inflict serious injury. f. Authorized Use
Sage KO48 are primarily used by the SWAT Unit and Mobile Field Force Unit (MFF), but can also be used by trained and qualified department members at the direction of a supervisor.
g. Fiscal Impact:
i. Initial Cost
$25-$50
ii. Annual Maintenance Cost
As needed to replenish rounds used for incidents and training. h. Training
POST approved training on legal and practical application including but not limited to crowd management, intervention, and control.
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 26 i. Legal and Procedural Rules
Sage KO48 shall only be used for official law enforcement purposes pursuant to department policy and state and federal law, including, but not limited to, use of force and First Amendment assemblies.
13. Sage BP5 Barricade Penetrating
a. Quantity
208
b. Capabilities
The Sage BP5 Barricade Penetrating round is capable of penetrating barriers to release a powdered chemical agent, such as OC (Oleoresin Capsicum) or CS (2- chlorobenzylidene malononitrile), in the immediate area. The chemical agent is used as a less-lethal tool by acting as an irritant to the subject(s) that are exposed to it. The effect of the chemical agent typically subsides rather quickly once the subject(s) remove themselves from the area where the chemical agent has been deployed.
c. Expected Lifespan
10+ year shelf life
d. Manufacturer Description
“The BP5 is a non-pyrotechnic barricade penetrating munition capable of delivering micro-pulverized chemical agents through barricades from a rifled 37mm launcher. The BP5 achieves superior accuracy and penetration through a combination of barrel rifling and projectile design.
The projectile is made of frangible plastic and is filled with a micro-pulverized powdered chemical agent. The BP5 is designed to penetrate windows, doors, and other barriers. The micro-pulverized powder payload is released upon impact.” http://www.sageinternationalltd.com/SCOI/ammunition.html e. Purpose
Designed to safely resolve critical situations such as violent civil unrest and highrisk tactical operations. De-escalation tool not likely to inflict serious injury. f. Authorized Use
Sage BP5 are to be used only by the SWAT Unit.
g. Fiscal Impact:
i. Initial Cost
$25-$50
ii. Annual Maintenance Cost
As needed to replenish rounds used for incidents and training. h. Training
POST approved training on legal and practical application including but not limited to crowd management, intervention, and control. i. Legal and Procedural Rules
Sage BP5 shall only be used for official law enforcement purposes pursuant to department policy and state and federal law, including, but not limited to, use of force and First Amendment assemblies.
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 27 Night Vision Equipment
1. Night Vision Goggles - AN/PVS-21 and AN/PVS-7C
a. Quantity
AN/PVS-21 – 5
AN/PVS-7C – 5
b. Capabilities
Night vision goggles (NVG) is an optoelectronic device that allows images to be produced in low levels of light approaching total darkness. The use of this equipment allows a tactical advantage for officers especially when operating in low light or dark environments.
c. Expected Lifespan
Devices are provided to the Santa Monica Police Department from the U.S. Navy on a re-occurring one year lease.
d. Manufacturer Description
Unknown
e. Purpose
The majority of SWAT tactical operations occur at night or are conducted in low light environments. Having NVG’s allows for SWAT Officers to have a tactical advantage and an added degree of officer safety when operating in those conditions. The use of NVG’s is extremely advantageous during high-risk operations, hostage rescue, active shooter, and tactical operations in a wide range of environments.
f. Authorized Use
NVG’s are authorized for use by the SWAT Unit
g. Fiscal Impact:
a. Initial Cost
$3,000 yearly lease from the U.S. Navy
b. Annual Maintenance Cost
None – Covered by lease agreement
h. Training
SWAT Officers maintain proficiency by continual training and annual weapons qualifications with NVG’s.
i. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the Santa Monica Police Department to utilize NVG’s for official law enforcement purposes and in accordance with state and federal law.
2. Thermal Weapon Sight - AN/PAS-13D (V) 3
a. Quantity
2 b. Capabilities
Thermal sights on weapons see heat. This has advantages in complete darkness, or in the presence of obscurants like dust, smoke, etc. because they can still pick out humans and vehicles. Using deep infrared viewers also avoids “blooms” or whiteouts if someone flashes a bright light source like a flashlight at the operator of the device. Can be mounted on a weapon or used hand-held. c. Expected Lifespan
Devices are on loan to the Santa Monica Police Department from the U.S.
Military through the Federal Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). d. Manufacturer Description
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) 28 Unknown
e. Purpose
The majority of SWAT tactical operations occur at night or are conducted in low light environments. Having thermal sights allows for SWAT Officers to have a tactical advantage and an added degree of officer safety when operating in those conditions. The use of thermal sights is extremely advantageous during high-risk operations, hostage rescue, active shooter, and tactical operations in a wide range of environments.
f. Authorized Use
Thermal weapon sights are authorized for use by the SWAT Unit g. Fiscal Impact:
a. Initial Cost
No cost - On loan
b. Annual Maintenance Cost
None – Covered by loan agreement
h. Training
SWAT Officers maintain proficiency by continual training and annual weapons qualifications with thermal weapon sights.
i. Legal and Procedural Rules
It is the policy of the Santa Monica Police Department to utilize thermal weapon sights for official law enforcement purposes and in accordance with state and federal law.
10.B.b
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: B-SMPD Policy 707 Military Equipment (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) City of Santa Monica
Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission
Report to City Council regarding:
Review of DRAFT Ordinance Approving Military Equipment
Use Policy and PROPOSED Santa Monica Police Policy [707] in Compliance with Assembly Bill 481
July 14, 2022
10.B.c
Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: C-Commission Report AB481 (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) July 14, 2022
1 INTRODUCTION
Through City Staff, City Council directed the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission (PSROC) to review, discuss, and provide input regarding the proposed DRAFT ordinance and corresponding police policy governing certain police equipment.
At the May 12, 2022 PSROC meeting, the Commission received a presentation by Captain Candice Cobarrubias and Lieutenant Bob D’Andrea, of the Santa Monica Police Department, and Ms. Kirsten Galler, a representative of the City Attorney’s Office. The Presentation covered the following:
History of AB481
Requirements of AB481
Development of DRAFT Ordinance and Policy
Reporting Requirements by the Police Department
Commissioners at the meeting asked several questions regarding specific equipment falling under the definition of “Military Equipment”. Questions involved the police robots, air drones, the BearCat Armored Rescue Vehicle, and the tear gas launchers (to name just a few). This was presented as a discussion Item only and no action was taken.
At the June 9 Commission meeting, the Commission again discussed the proposed DRAFT ordinance and corresponding police policy governing “Military Equipment”. After more discussion, it was decided that the Commission would be best served if members had additional time to review the documents. A decision was made to postpone action and have the Use of Force Committee and the Protest and Crowd Management Systems Committee conduct a joint subcommittee meeting, allowing both Commission members and the community to review and follow up with questions and/or concerns.
JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING JUNE 22, 2022
Commissioners present for the June 22, 2022, joint subcommittee meeting of the Use of Force Committee and the Protest and Crowd Management Systems Committee were:
Chair Devermont, Vice Chair Centeno, Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Palazzolo, Commissioner McLaughlin-Basseri, Commissioner Raman, and Commissioner Scott.
Representatives of the Santa Monica Police Department attended the meeting and again made themselves available for questions. The public was also allowed to ask questions and provide commentary.
Some Commission members voiced concern about the use and cost of the Armored Rescue Vehicle made by Lenco Inc. The “BearCat” is a tactical rescue vehicle built on a Ford F550 truck chassis specifically designed for law enforcement/public safety use.
Concerns were voiced by the public and some members of the Commission that the BearCat was a weaponized military offensive weapon. It was made clear that the BearCat was NOT equipped with any weapons; rather, it is designed for officer safety, whether used in rescue operations, tactical transport operations, or crowd control situations.
Questions were asked regarding whether there is a viable and equal alternative to the
10.B.c
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: C-Commission Report AB481 (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) July 14, 2022
2 BearCat Rescue Vehicle. (See chart below for more information on the BearCat.) Other questions concerned the use of the BearCat by other law enforcement agencies and the Santa Monica Police Department’s responsibilities in Mutual Aid agreements to the region. Prior to the meeting, a request was made to the Inspector General’s office regarding the following:
How does Santa Monica's policy compare to other departments - nationally (i.e., are there different policies that achieve the same purpose or better results)? Are less militarized alternatives being used that achieve the same purpose, or is there better equipment?
PRESENTATION BY INSPECTOR GENERAL
While the Inspector General (IG) was unable to attend the joint meeting, a representative of the office, Ms. Teresa Magulo, was present. Questions were asked of the IG regarding the Assembly Bill Mandate. It was reported by the IG’s office that the ordinance and policy presented by the City Council and the Santa Monica Police Department (SMPD) are consistent with other cities and police agencies in California.
FURTHER DISCUSSION AND FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS
Following discussion, the Police Department and the IG’s office were asked if they could provide further information on the following: (The responses are in BOLD) Provide a list of Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) that have overtly chosen to not purchase the BearCat
o [IG office is] aware of no LEAs that have overtly chosen not to purchase the BearCat, but perhaps the closest scenario was what occurred in Davis, [California]. In 2019, the Davis Police Chief requested that Council approve his request to purchase an Armored Rescue Vehicle (ARV), a Ford Transit Van (360 HD Eco Boos V6).
Council unanimously approved its purchase. In 2014, the Davis City Council rejected a request by the police department to accept a MineResistant Ambush Protected Vehicle (MRAPV). From that list of LEAs not using the BearCat, provide a list of alternative militarized vehicles
o Other than the Davis ARV and the MRAPV noted above, [the IG’s office is] not aware of other alternative militarized vehicles that have been purchased in lieu of the BearCat.
o Regarding elected bodies that have declined to purchase armored vehicles, [the IG’s office] conducted an Internet search which revealed that in 2022, according to media reports, Johnson County Iowa’s Board of Supervisors rejected a request from the Sheriff to purchase a BearCat to replace the MRAPV currently in operation. As a result of that rejection, the Sheriff decided to continue to use the MRAPV.
10.B.c
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: C-Commission Report AB481 (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) July 14, 2022
3 o The Internet search further revealed that, according to media reports in 2019, Oakland’s Police Commission rejected a request by the Chief to purchase a second BearCat, but the department planned to continue to deploy the BearCat that it had already purchased and had been using for several years.
o The Internet search further revealed that in 2012, the Cities of Berkeley and Albany, and the administration of UC Berkeley, rejected a request by the three police chiefs to obtain a BearCat through a federal grant. Provide three examples of specific incidences where the BearCat was used successfully to justify its use.
o SMPD
o 2022 January. 1800 12th street. Shots fired barricaded suspect, BearCat allowed for negotiating time, [safely deployed police personnel in close] proximity to location, evacuation of residents, and staging of equipment close to the location. Suspect surrendered without incident
o 2022 March. 2200 4th Street. Domestic violence hostage standoff then barricaded suspect. Provided officer safety in evacuation, stand-off, and negotiation scenarios. Successful resolution.
o Other Agencies:
o 2018 Mudslides Santa Barbara County
More examples were provided by the Santa Monica Police Department and can be provided on request.
Specific complaints regarding the new policy for use of militarized vehicles and weaponized vehicles
o As of this date, we have [not] received [any] complaints regarding the new policy for use of military equipment or militarized vehicles. The Department does not have any weaponized vehicles in its inventory. We have also [not] received [any] complaints where the BearCat was used in contradiction to the policy.
o While no complaints were received by SMPD, the PSROC had two witnesses who alleged that weaponry was used inappropriately toward them. This is a voiced concern of the PSROC.
BEARCAT ARMORED VEHICLE ALTERNATIVES
As noted above, there have been law enforcement agencies that have attempted to purchase a BearCat but were not successful in receiving the federal grant. Another department was unsuccessful in purchasing a second BearCat but continues to deploy the BearCat they currently have as part of their officer safety equipment inventory.
10.B.c
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: C-Commission Report AB481 (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) July 14, 2022
4 Finally, a questioner asked whether there is an alternative vehicle (specifically the Chevy Suburban) that could be outfitted to serve the same purpose as the BearCat Rescue Vehicle. Below is that comparison, as provided by the Santa Monica Police Department.
BEARCAT RESCUE VEHICLE CHEVROLET SUBURBAN
Seating 12(2+10) plus 12 on running
boards for a total of 24 officers deployed
2+2+2 total of 6 officers. Running boards
would allow for 6 additional officers.
Would need 3-4 vehicles to accommodate
current staffing ($852,000 to $1,136,000)
Limited armor warranty (24 Months)
Interior room for 2 tactical medics to treat
patient. (Possibly 2 patients depending on
other equipment or officers.
No space for tactical medics to rescue
and/or provide medical first aid on patient.
Elevated chassis to clear debris and other
obstacles
Limited ground clearance to roll over curbs
Able to deploy on beach sand with
equipment for emergencies
Limited capability to respond onto beach
sand areas with full tactical load.
Cost $289,000 / Vehicle Cost $284,000 / Vehicle
SUMMARY AND FINDINGS
Presentations were completed by the Santa Monica Police Department with assistance from the City Attorney’s Office. Additional information was requested and received from the Inspector General’s Office regarding similar and like “categorized military equipment” being used by other law enforcement agencies. Many questions and concerns were raised, and responses were provided by the Police Department and the Inspector General’s Office. A joint subcommittee public meeting took place and much deliberation and discussion followed. Some commissioners voiced concerns regarding specific items within the current inventory of equipment listed in the DRAFT ordinance.
However, it has been determined that the equipment listed is needed for the SAFE and immediate response of police personnel and resources, and there is not a currently viable alternative to the listed equipment sufficient to meet the officer safety and emergency needs of an effective law enforcement agency, specifically the Santa Monica Police Department. Further, it is determined that the listed equipment is needed to protect the lives of Santa Monica residents, the City’s many visitors, and the police officers who respond to deadly or dangerous circumstances and various unexpected situations and emergencies.
10.B.c
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: C-Commission Report AB481 (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) July 14, 2022
5 RECOMMENDATION
It is the recommendation of this Commission that the City Council move forward with the DRAFT ordinance and the corresponding PROPOSED police policy regarding AB481, which governs police equipment categorized as “Military Equipment”, as written.
10.B.c
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: C-Commission Report AB481 (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) July 14, 2022
6 10.B.c
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: C-Commission Report AB481 (5385 : Equipment Use Policy AB481 - Second Reading) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022
Agenda Item: 10.C
1 of 16
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director, Public Works, Office of Sustainability & the Environment
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance amending the Santa Monica Municipal Code and adopting Local Amendments to the 2022 California Green Building Code and adoption of a Resolution that provides findings of local climatic, geological, and topographical conditions as required by the Health and Safety Code
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt the attached resolution that provides findings of local climatic, geological, topographical, and environmental conditions as required to adopt Santa Monica local amendments to the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code;
2. Introduce for first reading the attached ordinance that amends the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) by adding chapter 8.38 entitled, Zero Emission Building Code and amend Santa Monica Municipal Code section 8.08.040 to allow the Building and Fire Life Safety Commission to hear appeals related to the Zero Emission Building Code;
3. Introduce for first reading the attached ordinance that adopts local amendments to the 2022 California Green Buildings Standards Code to support increased access to electric vehicle charging; and
4. Direct the City Manager to file the adopted resolution and ordinance amending the Green Building Standards Code with the California Building Standards Commission following the second reading of the ordinance at least 30 days before the effective date of the Codes.
Summary
As a leader in sustainability, the City continues to implement strategies that support its goals for a clean, safe, healthy, and sustainable community. As adopted by the City Council, the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (Attachment A) recommends adopting carbon neutral construction codes for new residential, commercial, and
10.C
Packet Pg. 643
2 of 16
multi-family properties. These codes would increase energy efficiency, prohibit gas infrastructure in new buildings, and consequently reduce carbon emissions. Throughout the State, there is growing momentum among policymakers and green building stakeholders establishing building electrification as the most viable path to zero-emission buildings.
New construction buildings offer a major opportunity to mitigate future emissions given the long-term nature of a building as an asset. By “building it right” from the start, the City has an opportunity to drastically reduce future carbon emissions and “lock in” zero emissions throughout the life cycle of these buildings. To date, 58 California cities and counties have adopted code enhancements that require or encourage all-electric buildings, establishing a statewide trend toward building electrification. In line with this trend, staff proposes a two-part process:
1. Amend the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) by adding chapter 8.38 entitled, “Zero Emission Building Code”. As the City’s electricity supply has transitioned to mostly renewable energy sources, all-electric buildings and equipment would emit near-zero carbon dioxide emissions. The Code would prohibit gas infrastructure in newly constructed buildings for which a building permit for construction is issued on or after January 1, 2023, unless a complete building permit application is submitted on or before December 31, 2022. Exemption provisions are included for accessory dwelling units, certain laboratory equipment and medical uses, and cooking appliances in commercial kitchens.
2. Amend the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) to increase the quantity of electric vehicle charging infrastructure required in newly constructed buildings. This amendment would build upon the community’s adopted goal of reducing carbon emissions from the transportation sector, which accounts for nearly 65% of greenhouse gas emissions. Adopting the local amendment would increase EV ready parking spaces to 60% for multi-residential, add 20% EV ready spaces for office parking facilities, and double the number of spaces equipped with EV chargers in other non-residential properties.
10.C
Packet Pg. 644
3 of 16
Staff will continue to conduct extensive outreach to the building community to prepare stakeholders for the ordinance’s effective date of January 1, 2023.
Background
Limiting global warming to under 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels is imperative for avoiding the disastrous and irreparable effects of climate change. To meet this goal, action must be taken at all levels of government to significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Recognizing the importance of municipal action towards reducing the community’s impact on climate change, in 2019 City Council adopted a goal of reducing communitywide carbon emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality (zero carbon dioxide emissions) by 2050 or sooner. These ambitious but achievable goals initiated a range of interdepartmental City projects and programs designed to reduce the environmental impact of emissions from transportation, construction and landfill waste generation, and energy infrastructure (mostly from building emissions). In fact, 32% of emissions in Santa Monica are estimated to come from buildings, largely due to burning methane gas, commonly referred to as “natural gas,” for space and water heating demands.
To achieve carbon neutrality, net increases in carbon emissions from new construction and development must be mitigated by efficient design, construction, and use of on-site and grid-supplied renewable energy. While many new buildings are utilizing zero emissions electricity sources from rooftop solar and Clean Power Alliance, the largest source of remaining emissions in buildings is methane gas.
At the local level, the City of Santa Monica is engaged in numerous efforts to reduce citywide GHG emissions. These include:
• Participation in the Clean Power Alliance, which offers 100% renewable and carbon-free electricity to customers,
10.C
Packet Pg. 645
4 of 16
• An Electrify Santa Monica rebate program to incentivize residents and small businesses to install EV charging stations and convert methane gas appliances to efficient electric alternatives, and
• Numerous energy efficiency-related projects and public EV infrastructure projects at municipal sites. Energy savings from four parking structure lighting retrofits in 2021 yielded a 44% average reduction in annual energy usage at those sites.
At the State level, public policy is trending toward all new construction in California to incorporate solar PV panels into both residential and non-residential buildings:
• January 1, 2022, the California Energy Code started requiring solar photovoltaic (PV) systems on all new low-rise residential buildings. • January 1, 2023, the California Energy Code will expand the renewable energy requirements with solar PV and battery storage systems on all new multi-family and non-residential buildings.
In May 2019, the Clean Power Alliance (CPA), the City’s Community Choice Energy entity, began procuring 100% renewable electricity for the community, accelerating the pace of renewable energy adoption locally and nearly eliminating emissions related to electricity. This, coupled with advances in appliance technologies, make a transition to an all-electric building not only viable but in most cases cost effective, particularly for new construction. All-electric buildings powered by a combination of on-site solar and 100% Green Power from the Clean Power Alliance are effectively zero emission buildings.
The City’s current Energy Reach Code, (Attachment B), which is effective from January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2022, is known as an all-electric preferred code. It is a steppingstone toward eventually requiring all-electric buildings. This code has two pathways for compliance:
1. Mixed-fuel design. This pathway allows the use of both electric and methane in new construction but requires a higher level of energy efficiency to incentivize the design of all-electric buildings.
10.C
Packet Pg. 646
5 of 16
2. All-electric design. All-electric buildings are not subject to higher levels of energy efficiency and may be built to the State’s standard design requirements.
City staff estimates that 30-40% of the new buildings permitted after 2020 are allelectric. With an estimated 60-70% of new buildings still including gas end-uses, it is clear that the next step is to require all-electric new construction. Given the State requirement for the City to build approximately 8,900 new housing units over the next 7 years, addressing carbon emissions from buildings represents a significant opportunity.
The City of Santa Monica was one of the first cities in the State to implement an electric-preferred reach code. Since then, dozens of cities in California have passed more aggressive policies that ban gas infrastructure in new construction, including the municipalities of Berkeley, San Francisco, Ojai, and Santa Barbara.
Energy Resilience and Reliability
Questions surrounding grid reliability and resiliency are common as more buildings and vehicles electrify. Investor-owned utilities regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission, including Southern California Edison (SCE), are committed and required to meet this growing demand. To prepare for the increasing loads, SCE has deployed utility-scale energy storage projects to enhance storage capacity, introduced demand response programs that reward customers for using energy at off-peak times, and is accelerating the development and deployment of critical grid technologies.
Advancements in electric technologies such as battery energy storage and demand management, as well as evolving market factors are creating new pathways to energy reliability and resilience. Additionally, new, modern buildings include technologies that allow for maximizing energy load flexibility. For example, using heat pump water heaters as thermal storage can help match the timing of electricity demand to the generation of renewable energy, as well as reduce the severity of the late-afternoon demand ramp as solar output rapidly decreases.
Some industry stakeholders contend that mixed-fuel buildings offer greater resilience in the face of an electric outage, but this is misleading since most gas appliances today
10.C
Packet Pg. 647
6 of 16
operate with an electric ignition. While gas cooking stoves could be operated during an electricity outage, the inability to use electric-powered ventilation hoods would negatively impact indoor air quality. It is also important to note that gas lines and leaks pose a significant danger during fires and earthquakes and typically take longer to repair compared to electrical outages.
The proposed Zero Emission Building ordinance (Attachment C) would advance the City’s emission reduction goals, by building upon the new 2022 State Energy Code, which encourages electric heat pumps and establishes electric-ready requirements for new homes. To develop the proposed ordinance, City staff evaluated pro-forma feasibility and cost-effectiveness studies (Attachment D), legal analysis, and model municipal code language from other cities.
EV Charger Reach Code
Based on the 2020 Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory, 62% of the City’s GHG emissions come from the transportation sector. The best way to reduce these emissions is to reduce trips from vehicles altogether by shifting to public or active transportation.
For trips that must be made by cars, the shift from gas-powered vehicles to electric is a critical component of reducing GHG emissions and harmful pollution. The most common barrier to switching to an EV, especially for residents of multi-family buildings, is the lack of access to reliable charging at the home or workplace. Requiring EV charging infrastructure in new buildings is the best way to support the transition to EVs and is significantly less expensive than future retrofits to add EV charging.
In November 2017, City Council adopted the EV Action Plan (Attachment E), which includes strategies to remove barriers to EV adoption. This includes adopting building code updates that require greater levels of EV charging infrastructure in new buildings than required by the existing state code.
The 2022 California Green Building Code (CALGreen) includes increased EV charging requirements compared to previous code cycles, but it does not go far enough to
10.C
Packet Pg. 648
7 of 16
significantly improve access to EV charging given the pace of transition needed to meet state goals and meaningfully address the climate crisis. The state aims to have 5 million zero emission vehicles on the road by 2030 and estimates that there is currently a gap of 972,000 chargers needed to support this goal. Further, by 2035, all new cars and passenger trucks sold in California must be ZEVs per Executive Order N-79-20. Most of the buildings built in or after 2023 will continue to exist in 2035, and these EVs will need a place to charge.
The City has more than 150 public chargers and is actively expanding the public charging network, but will not be able to support the level of charging needed without significant increases in residential and non-residential projects. In February 2020, Council adopted an EV Charger Reach Code (Attachment F) to go beyond the 2019 CALGreen requirements. The new proposed requirements (Attachment G) are intended to provide higher levels of convenient EV charging access, with a focus on multifamily residents, based on feedback from the community, Commission meetings, and stakeholder workshops.
Reach Code Pathway
The State Building Standards Commission adopts amendments to the California Building Standards Codes (CBSC) every three years. Provided that required findings are made, the State allows cities to amend the CBSC to make them more restrictive.
In order for local amendments to be accepted by the State Building Standards Commission and enforceable at the local level, every local building standard amendment must provide a greater level of safety, accessibility, or environmental conservation and be deemed locally beneficial based on geological, topographical, and/or climatic conditions.
Reach codes are most commonly applied to new construction, as cost savings are often greatest at the time a building is first constructed. Jurisdictions may also include exemptions to reach codes based on the needs of specific sectors.
10.C
Packet Pg. 649
8 of 16
Reach Codes commonly fall into the following categories:
• Energy efficiency–focused;
• Incentivizing all-electric construction; or
• Requiring all-electric systems in new buildings.
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
05/28/19 (Attachment A) Adopted the Climate Action & Adaptation Plan 09/24/19 (Attachment B) Ordinance adopting the 2019 California Energy Code and Local Amendments
11/14/17 (Attachment E) Adopted the EV Action Plan
02/25/20 (Attachment F) Ordinance adopting the 2020 EV Charger Reach Code Discussion
Pathways for Building Decarbonization
Decarbonizing buildings will require a multipronged approach, with different strategies applied to existing buildings and new construction. It is important to consider that buildings are long-term assets with energy infrastructure designed for equipment that is meant to last for decades. Therefore, each new building is an opportunity for investment in an emissions-free future. Advances in electric appliances, such as electric heat pumps and other electrical equipment are yielding much higher overall efficiencies than their natural gas counterparts, allowing for significant emissions reductions in buildings.
Existing buildings are less cost-effective to convert to all-electric systems. This is primarily due to the fact that most existing buildings already have natural gas infrastructure in place, negating any savings achieved by avoiding the cost of installing the infrastructure in the first place. Additionally, appliances in existing buildings typically reach their end of life at different times, eliminating the cost advantage of dual-purpose systems, such as heat pumps that provide both heating and cooling.
10.C
Packet Pg. 650
9 of 16
In order to address the existing building sector, the City will need to rely heavily on energy efficiency measures to leverage or create programs that help Santa Monica building owners transition to all-electric systems. Such programs include utility incentive programs, energy efficiency financing mechanisms, and other innovative programs that encourage the transition through finance, regulatory assistance, and education.
To date, 46 California jurisdictions have adopted new construction policies that require all-electric buildings, including Berkeley, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Ojai, and Santa Barbara. Similar legislation has passed in New York City, Seattle, Quebec, and entire countries, including Germany, France, the UK, Denmark, Austria, Ireland, and the Netherlands. In May 2022, the Los Angeles City Council voted to develop an ordinance and implementation plan to ban most gas appliances in new construction by January 1, 2023.
Natural Gas Infrastructure Prohibition Pathway (for New Construction) Eleven of the California cities have chosen to require all-electric new construction projects with no gas appliances or gas plumbing by amending the zoning, health and safety, or other municipal codes. This option differs from amendments to the State Energy Code, in that it does not amend any of the California Building Standards Codes (CBSC); rather, it codifies a local prohibition of new gas infrastructure. Because the restriction applies only to the installation of gas infrastructure after the point of delivery to the property (i.e., after the meter installation), it does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CBSC.
Based on the above features of the natural gas prohibition pathway, Staff recommends City Council approve the ZEB Ordinance as an amendment to the Santa Monica Municipal Code. This approach is the predominant method that other California cities have chosen to require all-electric new buildings.
Cost Effectiveness Analysis
The Statewide Utilities’ Codes and Standards Team completed cost-effectiveness studies in August 2019. These cost-effectiveness studies examined options for all10.C Packet Pg. 651
10 of 16
electric and mixed-fuel new construction for single-family residential, multi-family residential, retail, office, and hotel use.
The studies revealed that all-electric buildings are generally cheaper to build due to the elimination of gas piping systems to and throughout the building(s) and reduced mechanical ventilation requirements. These lower initial costs generally make allelectric construction more cost-effective on a life-cycle basis. This is particularly true for low-rise residential buildings, where it is also often more cost effective for the owner to exceed code requirements by improving efficiency and adding additional solar PV panels. In fact, if one invests the savings from the gas infrastructure in PV capacity to offset the electricity load, an all-electric building is often cost-effective for the owner and the community from day one. The solar-powered building is less expensive to build and cheaper to operate.
Additionally, with the adoption of the 2022 code cycle, the state of California requires solar generation on all new buildings. This on-site generation enhances the costeffectiveness of the all-electric new construction approach.
Unlike amendments to the Energy Code, a cost-effectiveness study is not required for amendments to Title 24, Part 11, of the California Building Standards Code (CALGreen), though many studies have shown the cost savings of installing EV charging infrastructure during the new construction process compared to retrofitting in the future.
Ordinance Development
Upon receiving the draft 2022 California Building Standards Codes for review, Office of Sustainability and the Environment staff participated in the California Codes and Standards Reach Codes Program, which is a collaboration between utilities, energy engineers, design professionals, stakeholders in the building industry, and staff from other local jurisdictions throughout the State. The program provided technical support to local governments considering local ordinances to support meeting local and/or statewide energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals. The program provided
10.C
Packet Pg. 652
11 of 16
resources such as cost-effectiveness studies, model language, sample findings, and other supporting documentation.
Staff hosted three virtual stakeholder workshops to review the cost-effectiveness studies developed by the program, explore reach code concepts, and present model code language. The workshop participants included architects, energy modelers, designers, builders, developers, and other local stakeholders. Staff also utilized code language from the approximately 58 leading California jurisdictions that have adopted codes that encourage or require all-electric buildings.
City of Santa Monica’s Proposed Zero Emission Building Code Summary (Buildings) Natural Gas Infrastructure is prohibited in Newly Constructed Buildings for which a building permit for construction is issued after January 1, 2023, unless a complete building permit application is submitted on or before December 31, 2022.
Exemptions are minimal and include the following:
• Accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units that are attached to an existing primary residential unit that has existing gas infrastructure.
• Equipment for laboratory equipment or clean rooms designed for scientific or medical uses.
• Cooking appliances in commercial restaurant kitchens or institutional cooking facilities. Further, commercial kitchens in restaurants and institutional cooking facilities with fuel gas infrastructure must also have sufficient electric capacity, wiring, and conduit to facilitate future full building electrification.
Proposed CALGreen Amendments (EV Charger Reach Code)
The proposed ordinance provides local amendments to Title 24 Part 11, the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) in both the residential and non-residential code sections. Cities have the option to adopt increased voluntary requirements proposed in CALGreen that are known as Tier 1 and Tier 2, or they can adopt their own.
Including higher EV charging capacity and electrical infrastructure in new buildings is
10.C
Packet Pg. 653
12 of 16
significantly less expensive than retrofitting and saves time by eliminating the need to obtain permits when a resident already has a receptacle in their parking space. The recommended amendments to the 2022 CALGreen code are as follows:
Residential – CALGreen Section 4.106.4.2 – New multifamily dwellings, hotels and motels, and new residential parking facilities:
• Apply the 5% EV Charger requirement to all projects (not just those with 20+ units)
o All projects must install EV chargers in 5% of the parking spaces. • Increase the Low Power L2 EV Ready requirement from 25% to 60%. o 60% of the parking spaces must be EV Ready with a receptacle capable of providing a minimum of 20-amperes to an EV charger.
• Require a minimum of 1 EV capable space for small multifamily projects that do not trigger the 10% EV Capable requirements.
o The 2022 CALGreen code requires that 10% of the total number of parking spaces be EV Capable. Staff recommends keeping this requirement in addition to the recommended amendments above. • Note: No more than one receptacle is required per dwelling unit when more than one parking space is provided by a single unit. There are no recommended changes to the existing EV Capable requirement for one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses in the 2022 CALGreen code.
Table 1. Proposed multifamily and motel EV charging requirements
10.C
Packet Pg. 654
13 of 16
Non-residential – CALGreen Section 5.105.5.3
• Adopt CALGreen Tier 1
o Tier 1 doubles the number of EV chargers required compared to the mandatory requirement (see Table 2 below).
o Note: The number of EV chargers counts toward the required number of EV capable spaces.
• Add a requirement for office facilities: 20% of the parking spaces must be served by Low Power Level 2 EV Ready receptacles.
o There is an excess of clean power (primarily solar) on the electrical grid during the daytime hours, which is why utilities incentivize the use of power during off-peak times. Encouraging charging at workplaces helps offset power demands at night to help balance the grid.
Table 2. Comparison of CALGreen Non-residential Requirements for EV Charging – Mandatory vs. Tier 1
EV CAPABLE EV CHARGERS
Parking
Spaces
Mandatory Tier 1 Mandatory Tier 1
0-9 0 2 0 0
10-25 4 5 0 2
26-50 8 11 2 4
51-75 13 19 3 5
76-100 17 26 4 9
101-150 25 38 6 13
151-200 35 53 9 18
201 and over
20% of total
parking
spaces
30% of
total
parking
spaces
25% of EV
capable
spaces
33% of EV
capable
spaces
Table 3. Proposed Non-residential EV Charging Requirements
10.C
Packet Pg. 655
14 of 16
Notes: Low Power L2 EV Ready applies to office facilities only. The EV Charger and EV Capable percentages are based on averages of each parking count row shown in Table
2. The percentages take into account the fact that the number of EV chargers installed counts toward the required number of EV capable spaces.
Public Outreach
The ZEB Code was posted publicly on the City of Santa Monica’s website on May 9, 2022. City Staff also posted about the ZEB Code on social media as well as through newsletters. Public workshops on the ZEB Code and EV Charger Reach Code were held online to discuss each of the proposed local amendments on June 8, June 16, July 6, and July 7, 2022. Approximately 100 stakeholders attended the workshops. Staff also presented the proposed codes to the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment, the EV Subcommittee, the Planning Commission, and the Building and Fire-Life Safety Commission. All public comments submitted to the Commission meetings were in support of the proposed code changes.
On July 20, 2022, the Planning Commission unanimously approved recommending that the Council adopt the proposed amendments to the SMMC and local amendments to the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code.
On August 15, 2022, the Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment unanimously approved a motion to recommend that the Council adopt the
10.C
Packet Pg. 656
15 of 16
proposed local amendments to the SMMC and 2022 California Green Building Standards Code.
On August 17, 2022, the Building and Fire-Life Safety Commission remained neutral on the proposed amendments to the SMMC and local amendments to the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code.
Next Steps
The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, together with local amendments and required findings to support those local amendments, are presented for Council adoption. The resolution (Attachment H) sets forth findings regarding local climatic, geological, topographical, and environmental conditions that are required to support the adoption of the local code amendments.
The proposed amendments must be submitted to the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) following Council’s second reading by October 30, 2022 in order to be effective when the 2022 CALGreen takes effect on January 1, 2023.
Therefore, staff recommends that Council pass both resolutions and approve the ZEB ordinance and EV Charger Reach Code ordinance amending the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code.
Public notification of the effective date of the building code would be published on the City’s website, and informational notices would be available at the City Hall Permit Counter. All local amendments approved by the City Council would also be published on the City’s website in advance of the effective date of the code amendments. Staff will engage local industry associations and professionals to ensure awareness of and compliance with the new requirements.
The new code will help to streamline the plan check review process by removing one of the compliance pathways (for mixed-fuel buildings).
10.C
Packet Pg. 657
16 of 16
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There are no immediate financial impacts or budget actions necessary as a result of the recommended action. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future.
Prepared By: Ariana Vito, Sustainability Analyst
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (Web Link)
B. 2019 Energy Code Ordinance
C. PW-ORD-Zero Emissions Building Ordinance-092722
D. Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies
E. EV Action Plan (Web Link)
F. 2020 EV Charger Reach Code Ordinance
G. PW-ORD-EV Reach Code-092722
H. PW-RESO-EV Reach Code Findings-092722
I. Written Comment
10.C
Packet Pg. 658
1 City Council Meeting: September 24, 2019 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER 2617 (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
AMENDING ARTICLE VIII OF THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADOPTING THE 2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE AND 2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN
BUILDING STANDARDS CODE AND THE SANTA MONICA LOCAL AMENDMENTS
TO SUCH CODES TO REQUIRE HIGHER ENERGY PERFORMANCE FOR NEWLY
CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS
WHEREAS, the California State Building Standards Commission approved and published the 2019 edition of the California Building Standards Code on July 1, 2019, and such code will be effective 180 days thereafter, which is January 1, 2020; and WHEREAS, the 2019 California Building Standards Code includes the 2019 California Energy Code and the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code; and WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.7 and 18941.5 provide that the City may make changes or modifications to the building standards contained in the California Building Standards Code based upon express findings that such changes or modifications are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions; and
WHEREAS, Section 101.7.1 of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code provides that for the purposes of local amendments to the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, local climatic, topographical, or geological conditions include local environmental conditions as established by the City; and DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 2 WHEREAS, the Council has adopted a resolution making express findings, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Sections 17958.5, 17958.7, and 18941.5, that the local amendments to the 2019 California Energy Code and 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, topographic, and environmental conditions; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the City’s Climate Action & Adaptation Plan, the local amendments to the 2019 California Energy Code and 2019 California Green Building Standards Code establish requirements to increase energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy, including in particular solar energy, which will reduce demands for local energy and resources, reduce regional pollution, and promote a lower contribution to greenhouse gases; and
WHEREAS, cost effectiveness studies prepared by the California Statewide Investor Owned Utilities Codes and Standards Program in conjunction with consultants and cities (collectively known as the “Reach Code Team”), demonstrate that the local amendments are cost-effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by the 2019 California Energy Code; and WHEREAS, local amendments to the 2019 California Energy Code and 2019 California Green Building Standards Code were the subject of three public stakeholder workshops conducted on April 24, May 16, and June 11, 2019, at which attendees included architects, energy modelers, designers, builders, developers, and residents; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 2019, the City’s Building and Fire Life Safety Commission met and unanimously determined to recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution making necessary local findings and adopt local amendments to the 2019 DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 3 California Building Standards Code, including the 2019 California Energy Code and 2019 California Green Building Standards Code; and
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2019, the City’s Task Force on the Environment met and unanimously recommended that the City Council approve this ordinance adopting local findings and local amendments to the 2019 California Energy Code and 2019 California Green Building Standards Code; and
WHEREAS, once adopted by the City Council, the local amendments to the 2019 California Energy Code and 2019 California Green Building Standards Code will, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)(2) and Section 10-106 of the 2019 California Administrative Code (Title 24, Part 1), be submitted to the California Energy Commission for approval, following which approval the local amendments will be returned to the City Council for final adoption.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Purpose
It is the purpose and intent of this Ordinance to adopt the 2019 California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6) and the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11), along with local modifications and changes that provide local, cost-effective standards for new residential, non-residential, and hotel and motel buildings that exceed the minimum standards of the 2019 California Energy Code and 2019 California Green Building Standards Code to achieve energy savings, reduce local pollution, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 4 SECTION 2. Chapter 8.36 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Chapter 8.36 Energy Code
8.36.010 Adoption.
That certain document entitled “2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards— Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings” which adopts Part 6 of Title 24 and Part 1, Chapter 10 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, as published by the California Building Standards Commission and the California Energy Commission, is hereby adopted as the Energy Code of the City of Santa Monica.
8.36.012 Local Amendments
Notwithstanding any provisions of the 2019 California Energy Code, 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, or other codes adopted by any Chapter in Article VIII of the Municipal Code to the contrary, the local amendments to the Energy Code set forth in this Chapter shall apply.
8.36.015 Additional Definitions
In addition to definitions set forth in Section 100.1(b) of the 2019 California Energy Code, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) All-Electric Building or All-Electric Design. A building or building design that uses a permanent supply of electricity as the source of energy for space heating, water heating (including pools and spas), cooking appliances, and clothes drying appliances, and has no natural gas or propane plumbing installed in the building.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 5 (b) Certified Energy Analyst. A person who is certified by the California Association of Building Energy Consultants (CABEC) as a Certified Energy Analyst (CEA) and is in good standing with CABEC as of the date of submission of a Certificate of Compliance as required under Section 10-103 of the 2019 California Energy Code. A CEA in good standing is listed in the CABEC CEA Roster as “Active-Current.” (c) Mixed-Fuel Building or Mixed-Fuel Design. A building or building design that uses natural gas or propane as fuel for space heating, water heating (including pools and spas), cooking appliances or clothes drying appliances, or is plumbed for such equipment.
8.36.020 Energy Efficiency and Solar Photovoltaic Requirements – Low-rise Residential Buildings
(a) All-Electric Buildings. All new all-electric low-rise residential buildings shall be designed to code established by the 2019 California Energy Code. (b) Mixed-Fuel Buildings. All new mixed-fuel low-rise residential buildings shall meet all requirements for mixed-fuel designs as specified for CalGreen Tier 1 under the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11, Appendix A4 Residential Voluntary Measures Division A4.203 –Performance Approach for Newly Constructed Buildings.
(c) Solar Photovoltaic Requirement. All new low-rise residential buildings shall have a photovoltaic (PV) system meeting the minimum qualification requirements as specified in Joint Appendix JA11 to the 2019 California Energy Code, with annual electrical output equal to or greater than the dwelling’s annual electrical usage as determined by Equation 150.1-C of the 2019 California Energy Code, using the CFA and DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 6 Dwelling Adjustment Factors for Climate Zone 6 from Table 150.1-C of the 2019 California Energy Code, as follows:
EQUATION 150.1-C ANNUAL PHOTOVOLTAIC ELECTRICAL OUTPUT:
kWPV = (CFA x 0.594)/1000 +(Ndwell x 1.23)
WHERE:
kWPV = kWdc size of the PV system
CFA = Conditioned floor area
Ndwell = Number of dwelling units
(d) Certified Energy Analyst Requirement. For all new low-rise residential buildings, the Certificate of Compliance described in Section 10-103 of the 2019 California Energy Code shall be prepared and signed by a Certified Energy Analyst (CEA) as the Documentation Author.
8.36.030 Energy Efficiency and Solar Photovoltaic Requirements – High-rise Residential, Non-residential, and Hotels and Motels Buildings (a) All-Electric Buildings. All new all-electric high-rise residential, nonresidential, and hotel and motel buildings shall be designed to code established by the 2019 California Energy Code.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 7 (b) Mixed-Fuel Buildings.
(i) All new mixed-fuel non-residential buildings shall be designed to use ten percent less energy than the allowed energy budget established by the 2019 California Energy Code.
(ii) All new mixed-fuel high-rise residential and hotel and motel buildings shall be designed to use five percent less energy than the allowed energy budget established by the 2019 California Energy Code.
(c) Solar Photovoltaic Requirement. The minimum solar photovoltaic system required for all new high-rise residential, non-residential, and hotel and motel buildings is 2 watts per square foot of the building footprint.
(d) Certified Energy Analyst Requirement. For all new high-rise residential, non-residential, and hotel and motel buildings, the Certificate of Compliance described in Section 10-103 of the 2019 California Energy Code shall be prepared and signed by a Certified Energy Analyst as the Documentation Author.
(e) Exemptions. The Building Official may, at their discretion, waive or reduce the requirements set forth in this Section 8.36.030 for buildings that are uninhabitable and consist solely of unconditioned space.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 8 SECTION 3. Chapter 8.106 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Chapter 8.106 GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
8.106.010 Adoption.
That certain document entitled “California Green Building Standards Code, 2019 Edition,” as published by the California Building Standards Commission, is hereby adopted as the Green Building Standards Code of the City of Santa Monica.
8.106.020 Local Amendments to the California Green Building Standards Code.
Notwithstanding any provisions of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, 2019 California Energy Code, or other codes adopted by any Chapter in Article VIII of the Municipal Code to the contrary, the following local amendments shall apply.
8.106.050 Additional Definitions.
In addition to definitions set forth in Section 202 of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) Major Addition. The addition to any building of either (1) an additional story or (2) additional floor area equal to or greater than fifty percent of the building’s existing floor area prior to the addition.
(b) Sustainability. Consideration of present development and construction impacts on the community, the economy, and the environment without compromising the needs of the future.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 9 (c) Unshaded Area. Area(s) where light emittance from the sun is unobstructed by fixed objects during the majority of daylight hours between March 21st and September 21st.
8.106.053 Green Building.
Section 301.1.1 of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code is amended to read as follows:
301.1.1 Additions and Alterations. With the exception of Sections 4.201.4 and 4.201.5, which apply only to major additions to one-, two-, and multifamily dwellings (three stories or less), the mandatory provisions of Chapter 4 shall be applied to additions or alterations of existing residential buildings.
The requirements shall apply only to and/or within the specific area of the addition or alteration.
8.106.055 Residential Solar and Pool Heating Requirements.
Section 4.201 of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code is amended to read as follows:
4.201.3 Pool Heating.
(a) For new pool construction, if the pool is to be heated, an electric heat pump water heater or a solar thermal system shall be used for such heating.
4.201.4 Solar Photovoltaic Installation Requirements for Major Additions to One- and Two-Family Dwellings.
(a) All major additions to one- and two-family dwellings are required to install a solar electric photovoltaic (PV) system. The PV system installed DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 10 must have a minimum total wattage 1.5 times the square footage of the addition. (1.5 watts per square foot);
(b) The requirements of this Section shall be waived or reduced, by the minimum extent necessary, where: (i) production of electric energy from solar panels is technically infeasible due to lack of available and feasible unshaded areas; (ii) the PV system size required is less than 1,200 watts DC; or (iii) the dwelling has an existing functioning grid-tied PV system meeting the electrical utility’s interconnection requirements. (c) The requirements of this Section shall take priority if there is a conflict between compliance with Section 4.201.3 through use of a solar thermal system and compliance with this Section.
4.201.5 Solar Photovoltaic Installation Requirements for Major Additions to Multi-Family Dwellings (3 stories or less). (a) All major additions to multi-family dwellings are required to install a solar electric photovoltaic (PV) system. The required installation of the PV system shall be implemented by installing a solar PV system with a minimum total wattage 2.0 times the square footage of the footprint of the addition (2.0 watts per square foot).
(b) The requirements of this Section shall be waived or reduced, by the minimum extent necessary, where: (i) production of electric energy from solar panels is technically infeasible due to lack of available and feasible unshaded areas; (ii) the PV system size required is less than 1,200 DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 11 watts DC; or (iii) the dwelling has an existing functioning grid-tied PV system meeting the electrical utility’s interconnection requirements. (c) The requirements of this Section shall take priority if there is a conflict between compliance with Section 4.201.3 through use of a solar thermal system and compliance with this Section.
8.106.070 Flashing Details.
Section 4.407.1 of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code is amended to read as follows:
4.407.1 Flashing Details. Provide flashing details on the building plans which comply with accepted industry standards or manufacturer’s instructions. Details are shown on the house plans at all of the following locations:
1. Around windows and doors.
2. Roof valleys.
3. Deck connections to the structure.
4. Roof-to-wall intersections.
5. Chimneys to roof intersections.
6. Drip caps above windows and doors with architectural projections.
7. Other locations as identified by the Building Officer.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 12 8.106.080 Non-Residential, High-Rise Residential, Hotels and Motels Solar and Pool Heating Requirements.
Section 5.201 of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code is amended to read as follows:
5.201.3 Pool Heating – Non-Residential, High-Rise Residential, and Hotels and Motels Buildings.
(a) For new pool construction, if the pool is to be heated, an electric heat pump water heater or a solar thermal system shall be used for such heating.
5.201.4 Solar Photovoltaic Installation Requirements for Major Additions to Non-Residential, High-Rise Residential, and Hotels and Motels Buildings.
(a) All major additions to non-residential, high-rise residential, and hotel and motel buildings are required to install a solar electric photovoltaic (PV) system. The PV system installed must have a minimum total wattage
2.0 times the square footage of the footprint of the addition (2.0 watts per square foot).
(b) The requirements of this Section shall be waived or reduced, by the minimum extent necessary, where: (i) production of electric energy from solar panels is technically infeasible due to lack of available and feasible unshaded areas; (ii) the PV system size required is less than 1,200 watts DC; or (iii) the dwelling has an existing functioning grid-tied PV system meeting the electrical utility’s interconnection requirements.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 13 (c) The requirements of this Section shall take priority if there is a conflict between compliance with Section 5.201.3 through use of a solar thermal system and compliance with this Section.
8.106.100 Electric Vehicle Charging.
Electric vehicle charging for new residential and hotel and motel buildings is governed by Sections 4.106.4 through 4.106.4.3.6 of the Green Building Standards Code.
Electric vehicle charging for new non-residential buildings is governed by Sections
5.106.5.3 through 5.106.5.3.5 of the Green Building Standards Code.
SECTION 4. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 6. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of the Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 14 newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective January 1, 2020. Building permit applications submitted on or after the effective date of this Ordinance shall be required to comply with the requirements set forth herein.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
LANE DILG
City Attorney
DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) Approved and adopted this 24th day of September, 2019.
_____________________________
Gleam Davis, Mayor
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss.
City of Santa Monica )
I, Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2617 (CCS) had its introduction on September 10, 2019, and was adopted at the Santa Monica City Council meeting held on September 24, 2019, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Morena, McKeown, Himmelrich, Winterer, Jara, Mayor Pro Tem O’Day, Mayor Davis
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
_____________________________________ _________________ Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk Date
A summary of Ordinance No. 2617 (CCS) was duly published pursuant to California Government Code Section 40806.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 352E5EE6-B0C0-469F-9B42-5FC615EC1025 10/3/2019
10.C.b
Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: 2019 Energy Code Ordinance (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Amendments) 1 City Council Meeting: September 27, 2022 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER_______ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 8.38 ENTITLED, “ZERO EMISSION BUILDING CODE” AND AMEND SECTION 8.08.040(a) TO ALLOW
THE BUILDING AND FIRE LIFE SAFETY COMMISSION TO HEAR APPEALS RELATED TO THE ZERO EMISSION BUILDING CODE.
WHEREAS, Scientific evidence has established that natural gas combustion, procurement and transportation produce significant greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming and climate change; and
WHEREAS, This Chapter is also reasonably necessary because of health and safety concerns as City residents suffer from asthma and other health conditions associated with poor indoor and outdoor air quality exacerbated by the combustion of natural gas; and
WHEREAS, As a coastal city, Santa Monica is vulnerable to sea level rise. Human activities releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere cause increases in worldwide average temperature, which contribute to melting of glaciers and thermal expansion of ocean water, resulting in rising sea levels; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the City’s Climate Action & Adaptation Plan, this chapter establishes requirements for carbon-neutral construction codes, which will reduce demands for local energy and resources, reduce regional pollution, and promote a lower contribution to greenhouse gases; and
10.C.c
Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: PW-ORD-Zero Emissions Building Ordinance-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2 WHEREAS, using electric heating and cooling infrastructure in new buildings fueled by less greenhouse gas intensive electricity is linked to significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions and is cost competitive because of the cost savings associated with all-electric designs that avoid new gas infrastructure; and WHEREAS, All-electric building design benefits the health, welfare, and resiliency of Santa Monica and its residents; and
WHEREAS, The most cost-effective time to integrate electrical infrastructure is in the design phase of a building project because building systems and spaces can be designed to optimize the performance of electrical systems and the project can take full advantage of avoided costs and space requirements from the elimination of natural gas piping and venting for combustion air safety; and
WHEREAS, It is the intent of the City Council to eliminate natural gas emissions in new buildings where all electric infrastructure can be most practicably integrated, thereby reducing the environmental and health hazards produced by the consumption and transportation of natural gas; and
WHEREAS, cost effectiveness studies prepared by the California Statewide Investor-Owned Utilities Codes and Standards Program in conjunction with consultants and cities (collectively known as the “Reach Code Team”), demonstrate that all-electric homes are cost-effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by the 2022 California Energy Code; and
WHEREAS, the content and details of this ordinance were the subject of 4 public stakeholder workshops conducted on June 8, June 16, July 6, and July 7, 2022, at which
10.C.c
Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: PW-ORD-Zero Emissions Building Ordinance-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 3 attendees included architects, energy modelers, designers, builders, developers, and residents; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 8.38 is hereby added to read as follows:
Chapter 8.38 Zero Emission Building Code
8.38.010 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided by paragraph (b), below, the requirements of this Chapter shall apply to all Newly Constructed Buildings as provided in Section 8.38.030 for which a building permit for construction is issued on or after January 1, 2023. (b) The requirements of this Chapter shall not apply to:
(1) Newly Constructed Buildings for which a complete building permit application is submitted on or before December 31, 2022;
(2) Junior Accessory Dwelling Units;
(3) Accessory Dwelling Units that are attached to an existing primary residential unit that has natural gas infrastructure;
(4) City-Designated Historic Resources demolished in the course of rehabilitation, if compliance with the requirements of this Chapter would require removal of more original finishes or features than proposed in the scope of the rehabilitation; and
(5) The use of portable propane appliances for outdoor cooking and heating.
10.C.c
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: PW-ORD-Zero Emissions Building Ordinance-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 4 (c) This Chapter neither amends the California Energy Code as adopted by Section
8.38.010 of this Code, nor requires the use or installation of any specific appliance or system as a condition of approval.
8.38.020 Definitions.
For purposes of this Chapter, the following words or phrases shall have the following meanings:
(a) “Accessory Dwelling Unit” means an accessory dwelling unit as defined in Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.52.020.0095.
(b) “Applicant” means any person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, or any other entity or combination of entities, or state or local government agency applying for a permit for a newly constructed building. (c) “Energy Code” means the most current version of the California Energy Code published by the California Building Standards Commission as adopted by reference pursuant to Chapter 8.36 and any local amendments thereto. (d) “City-Designated Historic Resource” means a city-designated historic resource as defined by Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.52.020.0500. (e) “Greenhouse gas emissions” means gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. (f) “Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit” means a junior accessory dwelling unit as defined in Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.52.020.1155.
(g) “Mechanical Code” means the California Mechanical Code published by the California Building Standards Commission as adopted by reference to Chapter
22.04 and any local amendments thereto.
10.C.c
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: PW-ORD-Zero Emissions Building Ordinance-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 5 (h) “Natural gas” has the same meaning as "Fuel Gas" as defined in the Plumbing Code and in the Mechanical Code.
(i) “Fuel Gas infrastructure” means natural gas or fuel gas piping, other than service pipe, in or in connection with a building or within the property lines of a parcel, extending from the point of delivery at the gas meter as specified in the Plumbing Code or in the Mechanical Code.
(j) “Newly-constructed building” means a new structure that has never before been used or occupied for any purpose or removal and replacement of an existing structure, or repair, alteration, modification, addition to, or rehabilitation of an existing structure, where a demolition will occur, as defined Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.25.030 (A.1) or (A.2).
(k) “Permitting authority” means the Building Official or a city employee exercising authority delegated by the Building Official.
(l) “Plumbing Code” means the California Plumbing Code published by the California Building Standards Commission as adopted by reference to Chapter 8.32 and any local amendments thereto.
8.38.030 Prohibited Fuel Gas Infrastructure in Newly Constructed Buildings. (a) Fuel Gas Infrastructure is prohibited in Newly Constructed Buildings. (b) Notwithstanding Subsection (a), the Permitting Authority may authorize Fuel Gas Infrastructure in a Newly Constructed Building if the Applicant establishes that it is not physically feasible to construct the building without Fuel Gas Infrastructure. For purposes of this exception, it is physically feasible to construct the building without Fuel Gas Infrastructure if an all-electric prescriptive compliance approach is
10.C.c
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: PW-ORD-Zero Emissions Building Ordinance-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 6 available for the building under the Energy Code or the building is able to achieve the performance compliance standards under the Energy Code using commercially available technology and an approved calculation method. (c) When Fuel Gas Infrastructure is permitted for a Newly Constructed Building pursuant to subsection (b), it may be extended to any system, device, or appliance within a building for which an equivalent all-electric system or design is not available. Further, Newly Constructed Buildings with Fuel Gas Infrastructure must also have sufficient electric capacity, wiring, and conduit to facilitate future full building electrification.
(d) The requirements of this Section shall be deemed objective planning standards under Government Code Section 65913.4 and objective development standards under Government Code Section 65589.5.
(e) Authorization of Fuel Gas Infrastructure in a Newly Constructed Building may occur on a case-by cases basis by the Permitting Authority where compliance is not feasible based on the utility being unable to supply adequate power.
8.38.040 Public Interest Exemption.
(a) Notwithstanding the requirements of Section 8.38.030(a), minimally necessary and specifically tailored Natural Gas Infrastructure may be allowed in a Newly Constructed Building if the Permitting Authority finds that the use of specifically tailored Fuel Gas Infrastructure serves the public interest. In determining whether the construction of Natural Gas Infrastructure is in the public interest, the Permitting Authority may consider:
10.C.c
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: PW-ORD-Zero Emissions Building Ordinance-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 7 (1) The availability of alternative technologies or systems that do not use natural gas; and
(2) Any other impacts that the decision to allow Fuel Gas Infrastructure may have on the health, safety, or welfare of the public.
(b) If the installation of Fuel Gas Infrastructure is granted under a public interest exemption, the Newly Constructed Buildings shall nonetheless be required at the minimum to have sufficient electric capacity, wiring and conduit to facilitate future full building electrification.
(c) For purposes of this Section, provision of Fuel Gas Infrastructure for cooking appliances in commercial kitchens in restaurants and institutional cooking facilities shall be deemed to be in the public interest provided that the infrastructure is limited to the capacity necessary to operate the appliances as designed. Further, commercial kitchens in restaurants and institutional cooking facilities with Fuel Gas Infrastructure must also have sufficient electric capacity, wiring, and conduit to facilitate future full building electrification.
(d) For purposes of this Section, provision of Fuel Gas Infrastructure for medical uses, laboratory equipment or clean-rooms in buildings designed for scientific or medical uses shall be deemed to be in the public interest provided that the infrastructure is limited to the capacity necessary for designated medical, laboratory or clean-room areas.
8.38.050 Appeal of Permitting Authority Decisions.
10.C.c
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: PW-ORD-Zero Emissions Building Ordinance-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 8 Decisions of the Permitting Authority under this Chapter may be appealed to the Building and Fire Life Safety Commission under this section, pursuant to the provisions of Santa Monica Municipal Code 8.08.040.
8.38.060 Periodic Review of Ordinance.
Public Works shall review the requirements of this Ordinance every 36 months for ongoing consistency with the California Energy Code and the Energy Commission’s triennial code adoption cycle and make a report and recommendation to the City Manager.
SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 8.08.040(a) is hereby amended as follows:
8.08.040 Board of Appeal.
(a) General. Pursuant to this Chapter, Section 1002 of the Santa Monica City Charter, the California Building Standards Code, the Building and Fire Life Safety Commission is hereby created as the Board of Appeal. The Building and Fire Life Safety Commission shall also serve as the appellate body for appeals of the determinations of the permitting authority under Chapter 8.38.
Members of the Commission shall be appointed by the City Council to serve a term of four years unless removed for cause. No Commission member shall hold any paid office with the City.
The Commission shall adopt reasonable rules and regulations for conducting investigations and business and shall render all decisions and findings in writing to the responsible official and appellants. Said Commission may also recommend to the appointing authority such new legislation as is consistent therewith.
10.C.c
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: PW-ORD-Zero Emissions Building Ordinance-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 9 The Building Officer and/or Fire Marshal or designee shall be an ex-officio member of the Commission and shall act as secretary.
SECTION 3. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of the Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. Following its adoption, this Ordinance shall be submitted to the California Building Standards Commission for filing. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days after submission to the California Building Standards Commission. Building permit applications submitted on or after the effective date of this Ordinance shall be required to comply with the requirements set forth herein.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
10.C.c
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: PW-ORD-Zero Emissions Building Ordinance-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 10 ________________________
DOUG SLOAN
City Attorney
10.C.c
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: PW-ORD-Zero Emissions Building Ordinance-092722 (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Santa Monica's Energy Reach Code
Promoting Healthy, Safe, and Cost-Effective Homes & Buildings 2019 Reach Code
Cost-Effectiveness Studies
Study (Page 2)
Non-Residential Study (Page 1 )
Low-Rise Residential Additions Solar PV Study (Page
)
Pool Heating Study (Page )
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code Margin?
Title 24, Parts 6 and 11
Local Energy Efficiency Ordinances
2019 Cost-effectiveness Study:
Low-Rise Residential New Construction
Prepared for:
Kelly Cunningham
Codes and Standards Program
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Prepared by:
Frontier Energy, Inc.
Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC
Last Modified: July 17, 2019
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code
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 2019, 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 privately-owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks or copyrights.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study Contents
Acronyms....................................................................................................................................................................5 1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................1 2 Methodology and Assumptions..........................................................................................................................1
2.1 Building Prototypes....................................................................................................................................1
2.2 Measure Analysis........................................................................................................................................3
2.2.1 Federal Preemption............................................................................................................................4
2.2.2 Energy Design Rating..........................................................................................................................4
2.2.3 Energy Efficiency Measures ...............................................................................................................5
2.3 Package Development................................................................................................................................8
2.3.1 Solar Photovoltaics (PV) .....................................................................................................................8
2.3.2 Energy Storage (Batteries)..................................................................................................................8
2.4 Incremental Costs.......................................................................................................................................9
2.5 Cost-effectiveness....................................................................................................................................13
2.5.1 On-Bill Customer Lifecycle Cost........................................................................................................13
2.5.2 TDV Lifecycle Cost.............................................................................................................................15
2.6 Electrification Evaluation..........................................................................................................................15
2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.......................................................................................................................18 3 Results ..............................................................................................................................................................18
3.1 PV and Battery System Sizing ...................................................................................................................19
3.2 Single Family Results ................................................................................................................................21
3.2.1 GHG Emission Reductions ................................................................................................................26
3.3 Multifamily Results...................................................................................................................................26
3.3.1 GHG Emission Reductions ................................................................................................................32
3.4 Electrification Results...............................................................................................................................32
3.4.1 Single Family.....................................................................................................................................33
3.4.2 Multifamily .......................................................................................................................................33 4 Conclusions & Summary...................................................................................................................................41 5 References........................................................................................................................................................44 Appendix A California Climate Zone Map..............................................................................................................46 Appendix B Utility Tariff Details.............................................................................................................................47 Appendix C Single Family Detailed Results............................................................................................................57 Appendix D Single Family Measure Summary.......................................................................................................61 Appendix E Multifamily Detailed Results ..............................................................................................................68 Appendix F Multifamily Measure Summary ..........................................................................................................72 Appendix G Results by Climate Zone.....................................................................................................................79
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study Table 1: Prototype Characteristics.............................................................................................................................2 Table 2: Characteristics of the Mixed Fuel vs All-Electric Prototype..........................................................................3 Table 3: Lifetime of Water Heating & Space Conditioning Equipment Measures .....................................................9 Table 4: Incremental Cost Assumptions.................................................................................................................. 10 Table 5: IOU Utility Tariffs Applied Based on Climate Zone .................................................................................... 14 Table 6: Incremental Costs All-Electric Compared to a Mixed Fuel Home........................................................... 16 Table 7: PV & Battery Sizing Details by Package Type............................................................................................. 20 Table 8: Single Family Package Lifetime Incremental Costs.................................................................................... 22 Table 9: Single Family Package Cost-Effectiveness Results for the Mixed Fuel Case 1,2.......................................... 23 Table 10: Single Family Package Cost-Effectiveness Results for the All-Electric Case1,2......................................... 24 Table 11: Multifamily Package Incremental Costs per Apartment ......................................................................... 28 Table 12: Multifamily Package Cost-Effectiveness Results for the Mixed Fuel Case1,2........................................... 29 Table 13: Multifamily Package Cost-effectiveness Results for the All-Electric Case1,2............................................ 30 Table 14: Single Family Electrification Results ....................................................................................................... 34 Table 15: Comparison of Single Family On-Bill Cost Effectiveness Results with Additional PV ............................. 36 Table 16: Multifamily Electrification Results.......................................................................................................... 38 Table 17: Comparison of Multifamily On-Bill Cost Effectiveness Results with Additional PV................................ 39 Table 18: Summary of Single Family Target EDR Margins....................................................................................... 43 Table 19: Summary of Multifamily Target EDR Margins......................................................................................... 43 Table 20: PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone .............................................................................................. 48 Table 21: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone.................................................................................................. 51 Table 22: SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone......................................................................................... 53 Table 23: SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ............................................................................................ 54 Table 24: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions........................................................................................ 56 Table 25: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results................................................ 57 Table 26: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results.......................... 58 Table 27: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results ................................................ 59 Table 28: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency & PV-PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results..................... 60 Table 29: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary ............................. 61 Table 30: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary.................. 62 Table 31: Single Family Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary ..................................... 63 Table 32: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary .............................. 64 Table 33: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary .................. 65 Table 34: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency & PV Package Measure Summary ................................................... 66 Table 35: Single Family All-Electric Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary...................................... 67 Table 36: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results .................................................. 68 Table 37: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results............................ 69 Table 38: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency Package Cost-Effectiveness Results................................................... 70 Table 39: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency & PV-PV/Battery Package Cost-Effectiveness Results....................... 71 Table 40: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary................................ 72 Table 41: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary .................... 73 Table 42: Multifamily Mixed Fuel Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary ....................................... 74 Table 43: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency Non-Preempted Package Measure Summary................................. 75 Table 44: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency Equipment, Preempted Package Measure Summary ..................... 76 Table 45: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency & PV Package Measure Summary...................................................... 77 Table 46: Multifamily All-Electric Efficiency & PV/Battery Package Measure Summary ........................................ 78 Table 47: Single Family Climate Zone 1 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 80 Table 48: Multifamily Climate Zone 1 Results Summary......................................................................................... 81
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study Table 49: Single Family Climate Zone 2 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 82 Table 50: Multifamily Climate Zone 2 Results Summary......................................................................................... 83 Table 51: Single Family Climate Zone 3 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 84 Table 52: Multifamily Climate Zone 3 Results Summary......................................................................................... 85 Table 53: Single Family Climate Zone 4 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 86 Table 54: Multifamily Climate Zone 4 Results Summary......................................................................................... 87 Table 55: Single Family Climate Zone 5 PG&E Results Summary ............................................................................ 88 Table 56: Multifamily Climate Zone 5 PG&E Results Summary............................................................................... 89 Table 57: Single Family Climate Zone 5 PG&E/SoCalGas Results Summary............................................................ 90 Table 58: Multifamily Climate Zone 5 PG&E/SoCalGas Results Summary .............................................................. 91 Table 59: Single Family Climate Zone 6 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 92 Table 60: Multifamily Climate Zone 6 Results Summary......................................................................................... 93 Table 61: Single Family Climate Zone 7 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 94 Table 62: Multifamily Climate Zone 7 Results Summary......................................................................................... 95 Table 63: Single Family Climate Zone 8 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 96 Table 64: Multifamily Climate Zone 8 Results Summary......................................................................................... 97 Table 65: Single Family Climate Zone 9 Results Summary ...................................................................................... 98 Table 66: Multifamily Climate Zone 9 Results Summary......................................................................................... 99 Table 67: Single Family Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary........................................................... 100 Table 68: Multifamily Climate Zone 10 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary ............................................................. 101 Table 69: Single Family Climate Zone 10 SDGE Results Summary......................................................................... 102 Table 70: Multifamily Climate Zone 10 SDGE Results Summary ........................................................................... 103 Table 71: Single Family Climate Zone 11 Results Summary .................................................................................. 104 Table 72: Multifamily Climate Zone 11 Results Summary..................................................................................... 105 Table 73: Single Family Climate Zone 12 Results Summary .................................................................................. 106 Table 74: Multifamily Climate Zone 12 Results Summary..................................................................................... 107 Table 75: Single Family Climate Zone 13 Results Summary .................................................................................. 108 Table 76: Multifamily Climate Zone 13 Results Summary..................................................................................... 109 Table 77: Single Family Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary ........................................................... 110 Table 78: Multifamily Climate Zone 14 SCE/SoCalGas Results Summary ............................................................. 111 Table 79: Single Family Climate Zone 14 SDGE Results Summary......................................................................... 112 Table 80: Multifamily Climate Zone 14 SDGE Results Summary ........................................................................... 113 Table 81: Single Family Climate Zone 15 Results Summary .................................................................................. 114 Table 82: Multifamily Climate Zone 15 Results Summary..................................................................................... 115 Table 83: Single Family Climate Zone 16 Results Summary .................................................................................. 116 Table 84: Multifamily Climate Zone 16 Results Summary..................................................................................... 117 Figure 1: Graphical description of EDR scores (courtesy of Energy Code Ace)..........................................................5 Figure 2: B/C ratio comparison for PV and battery sizing ....................................................................................... 20 Figure 3: Single family Total EDR comparison......................................................................................................... 25 Figure 4: Single family EDR Margin comparison (based on Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency packages and the Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV+Battery packages) .......................................... 25 Figure 5: Single family greenhouse gas emissions comparison............................................................................... 26 Figure 6: Multifamily Total EDR comparison........................................................................................................... 31 Figure 7: Multifamily EDR Margin comparison (based on Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency packages and the Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV+Battery packages) .......................................... 31 Figure 8: Multifamily greenhouse gas emissions comparison ................................................................................ 32
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study Figure 9: B/C ratio results for a single family all-electric code compliant home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home........................................................................................................................................................................ 36 Figure 10: B/C ratio results for the single family Efficiency & PV all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home ...................................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 11: B/C ratio results for the single family neutral cost package all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home ...................................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 12: B/C ratio results for a multifamily all-electric code compliant home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home ...................................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 13: B/C ratio results for the multifamily Efficiency & PV all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home ...................................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 14: B/C ratio results for the multifamily neutral cost package all-electric home versus a mixed fuel code compliant home ...................................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 15: Map of California Climate Zones (courtesy of the California Energy Commission) ............................... 46
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study Acronyms
2020 PV$ Present value costs in 2020
ACH50 Air Changes per Hour at 50 pascals pressure differential ACM Alternative Calculation Method
AFUE Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency
B/C Lifecycle Benefit-to-Cost Ratio
BEopt Building Energy Optimization Tool
BSC Building Standards Commission
CAHP California Advanced Homes Program
CBECC-Res Computer program developed by the California Energy Commission for use in demonstrating compliance with the California Residential Building Energy Efficiency Standards CFI California Flexible Installation
CFM Cubic Feet per Minute
CMFNH California Multifamily New Homes
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CPC California Plumbing Code
CZ California Climate Zone
DHW Domestic Hot Water
DOE Department of Energy
DWHR Drain Water Heat Recovery
EDR Energy Design Rating
EER Energy Efficiency Ratio
EF Energy Factor
GHG Greenhouse Gas
HERS Rater Home Energy Rating System Rater
HPA High Performance Attic
HPWH Heat Pump Water Heater
HSPF Heating Seasonal Performance Factor
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
IECC International Energy Conservation Code
IOU Investor Owned Utility
kBtu kilo-British thermal unit
kWh Kilowatt Hour
LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study LCC Lifecycle Cost
LLAHU Low Leakage Air Handler Unit
VLLDCS Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space
MF Multifamily
NAECA National Appliance Energy Conservation Act
NEEA Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
NEM Net Energy Metering
NPV Net Present Value
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PV Photovoltaic
SCE Southern California Edison
SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric
SEER Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio
SF Single Family
CASE Codes and Standards Enhancement
TDV Time Dependent Valuation
Therm Unit for quantity of heat that equals 100,000 British thermal units Title 24 Title 24, Part 6
TOU Time-Of-Use
UEF Uniform Energy Factor
ZNE Zero-net Energy
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 1 2019-07-17
1 Introduction
The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (Energy Commission, 2018b) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies, the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances, or reach codes, that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable.
This report documents cost-effective combinations of measures that exceed the minimum state requirements, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, effective January 1, 2020, for new single family and low-rise (oneto three-story) multifamily residential construction. The analysis includes evaluation of both mixed fuel and allelectric homes, documenting that the performance requirements can be met by either type of building design.
Compliance package options and cost-effectiveness analysis in all sixteen California climate zones (CZs) are presented (see Appendix A California Climate Zone Map for a graphical depiction of Climate Zone locations).
All proposed package options include a combination of efficiency measures and on-site renewable energy. 2 Met
This analysis uses two different metrics to assess cost-effectiveness. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the incremental costs and energy savings associated with energy efficiency measures. The main difference between the methodologies is the manner in which they value energy and thus the cost savings of reduced or avoided energy use.
Utility Bill Impacts (On-Bill): Customer-based Lifecycle Cost (LCC) approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer on-bill savings using electricity and natural gas utility rate schedules over a 30-year duration accounting for discount rate and energy cost inflation.
Time Dependent Valuation (TDV): Energy Commission LCC methodology, which is intended to capture the societal of energy use including long-term projected costs such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs such as projected costs for carbon emissions, as well as grid transmission and distribution impacts. This metric values energy use differently depending on the fuel source (gas, electricity, and propane), time of day, and season.
Electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved) during off-peak periods (Horii et al., 2014). This is the methodology used by the Energy Commission in evaluating cost-effectiveness for efficiency measures in Title 24, Part 6.
2.1 The Energy Commission defines building prototypes which it uses to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of proposed changes to Title 24 requirements. At the time that this report was written, there are two single family prototypes and one low-rise multifamily prototype. All three are used in this analysis in development of the above-code packages. Table 1 describes the basic characteristics of each prototype. Additional details on the prototypes can be found in the Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) Approval Manual (Energy Commission, 2018a). The prototypes have equal geometry on all walls, windows and roof to be orientation neutral.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 2 2019-07-17
1 Characteristic Single Family
One-Story
Single Family
Two-Story Multifamily
Conditioned Floor Area 2,100 ft2 2,700 ft2
6,960 ft2:
(4) 780 ft2 &
(4) 960 ft2 units
Num. of Stories 1 2 2
Num. of Bedrooms 3 3
(4) 1-bed &
(4) 2-bed units
Window-to-Floor Area Ratio 20% 20% 15%
Source: 2019 Alternative Calculation Method Approval Manual (California Energy Commission, 2018a).
The Energy Commission protocol for single family prototypes is to weight the simulated energy impacts by a factor that represents the distribution of single-story and two-story homes being built statewide, assuming 45 percent single-story and 55 percent two-story. Simulation results in this study are characterized according to this ratio, which is approximately equivalent to a 2,430-square foot (ft2) house. 1 The methodology used in the analyses for each of the prototypical building types begins with a design that precisely meets the minimum 2019 prescriptive requirements (zero compliance margin). Table 150.1-A in the 2019 Standards (Energy Commission, 2018b) lists the prescriptive measures that determine the baseline design in each climate zone. Other features are consistent with the Standard Design in the ACM Reference Manual (Energy Commission, 2019), and are designed to meet, but not exceed, the minimum requirements. Each prototype building has the following features:
Slab-on-grade foundation.
Vented attic.
High performance attic in climate zones where prescriptively required (CZ 4, 8-16) with insulation installed at the ceiling and below the roof deck per Option B. (Refer to Table 150.1-A in the 2019 Standards.)
Ductwork located in the attic for single family and within conditioned space for multifamily.
Both mixed fuel and all-electric prototypes are evaluated in this study. While in past code cycles an all-electric home was compared to a home with gas for certain end-uses, the 2019 code includes separate prescriptive and performance paths for mixed-fuel and all-electric homes. The fuel specific characteristics of the mixed fuel and all-electric prototypes are defined according to the 2019 ACM Reference Manual and described in Table 2. 2 1 2,430 ft2 = (45% x 2,100 ft2
) + (55% x 2,700 ft2)
2 Standards Section 150.1(c)8.A.iv.a specifies that compact hot water distribution design and a drain water heat recovery system or extra PV capacity are required when a heat pump water heater is installed prescriptively. The efficiency of the distribution and the drain water heat recovery systems as well as the location of the water heater applied in this analysis are based on the Standard Design assumptions in CBECC-Res which result in a zero-compliance margin for the 2019 basecase model.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 3 2019-07-17
2 of the -
Characteristic Mixed Fuel All-Electric
Space Heating/Cooling1 Gas furnace 80 AFUE
Split A/C 14 SEER, 11.7 EER
Split heat pump 8.2 HSPF,
14 SEER, 11.7 EER
Water Heater1,2, 3, 4 Gas tankless UEF = 0.81
50gal HPWH UEF = 2.0
SF: located in the garage
MF CZ 2,4,6-16: located in living space
MF CZ 1,3,5: located in exterior closet
Hot Water Distribution Code minimum. All hot water
lines insulated
Basic compact distribution credit,
(CZ 6-8,15)
Expanded compact distribution credit,
compactness factor = 0.6
(CZ 1-5,9-14,16)
Drain Water Heat
Recovery
Efficiency
None
CZ 1: unequal flow to shower = 42%
CZ 16: equal flow to shower & water
heater = 65%
None in other CZs
Cooking Gas Electric
Clothes Drying Gas Electric
1Equipment efficiencies are equal to minimum federal appliance efficiency standards. 2The multifamily prototype is evaluated with individual water heaters. HPWHs located in the living space do not have ducting for either inlet or exhaust air; CBECC-Res does not have the capability to model ducted HPWHs.
3UEF = uniform energy factor. HPWH = heat pump water heater. SF = single family. MF = multifamily.
4CBECC-Res applies a 50gal water heater when specifying a storage water heater. Hot water draws differ between the prototypes based on number of bedrooms.
2.2 Measure Analysis
The California Building Energy Code Compliance simulation tool, CBECC-RES 2019.1.0, was used to evaluate energy impacts using the 2019 Title 24 prescriptive standards as the benchmark, and the 2019 TDV values. TDV is the energy metric used by the Energy Commission since the 2005 Title 24 energy code to evaluate compliance with the Title 24 standards.
Using the 2019 baseline as the starting point, prospective energy efficiency measures were identified and modeled in each of the prototypes to determine the projected energy (Therm and kWh) and compliance impacts. A large set of parametric runs were conducted to evaluate various options and develop packages of measures that exceed minimum code performance. The analysis utilizes a parametric tool based on Micropas3to automate and manage the generation of CBECC-Res input files. This allows for quick evaluation of various efficiency measures across multiple climate zones and prototypes and improves quality control. The batch process functionality of CBECC-Res is utilized to simulate large groups of input files at once. Annual utility costs were calculated using hourly data output from CBECC-Res and electricity and natural gas tariffs for each of the investor owned utilities (IOUs).
3 Developed by Ken Nittler of Enercomp, Inc.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 4 2019-07-17
The Reach Codes Team selected packages and measures based on cost-effectiveness as well as decades of experience with residential architects, builders, and engineers along with general knowledge of the relative acceptance of many measures.
2.2.1 The Department of Energy (DOE) sets minimum efficiency standards for equipment and appliances that are federally regulated under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA), including heating, cooling, and water heating equipment. Since state and local governments are prohibited from adopting policies that mandate higher minimum efficiencies than the federal standards require, the focus of this study is to identify and evaluate cost-effective packages that do not include high efficiency equipment. While this study is limited by federal preemption, in practice builders may use any package of compliant measures to achieve the performance goals, including high efficiency appliances. Often, these measures are the simplest and most affordable measures to increase energy performance.
2.2.2 Ener
The 2019 Title 24 code introduces nergy Design Rating (EDR) as the primary metric to demonstrate compliance with the energy code. EDR is still based on TDV but it uses a building that is compliant with the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) as the reference building. The reference building has an EDR score of 100 while a zero-net energy (ZNE) home has an EDR score of zero (Energy Commission, 2018d). See Figure 1 for a graphical representation of this. While the Reference Building is used to determine the rating, the Proposed Design is still compared to the Standard Design based on the prescriptive baseline assumptions to determine compliance.
The EDR is calculated by CBECC-Res and has two components:
1. which represents the building s energy use without solar generation.4
2. Total represents the final energy use of the building based on the combined impact of efficiency measures, PV generation and demand flexibility.
For a building to comply, two criteria are required:
(1) the proposed Efficiency EDR must be equal to or less than the Efficiency EDR of the Standard Design, and (2) the proposed Total EDR must be equal to or less than the Total EDR of the Standard Design.
Single family prototypes used in this analysis that are minimally compliant with the 2019 Title 24 code achieve a Total EDR between 20 and 35 in most climates.
This concept, consistent with loading o which prioritizes energy efficiency ahead of renewable generation, requires projects meet a minimum Efficiency EDR before PV is credited but allows for PV to be traded off with additional efficiency when meeting the Total EDR. A project may improve on building efficiency beyond the minimum required and subsequently reduce the PV generation capacity required to achieve the required Total EDR but may not increase the size of the PV system and trade this off with a reduction of efficiency measures. Figure 1 graphically summarizes how both Efficiency EDR and PV / demand flexibility EDR are used to calculate the Total EDR used in the 2019 code and in this analysis. 4 While there is no compliance credit for solar PV as there is under the 2016 Standards, the credit for installing electric storage battery systems that meet minimum qualifications can be applied to the Efficiency EDR.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 5 2019-07-17
1 (courtesy of Energy Code Ace5)
Results from this analysis are presented as EDR Margin, a reduction in the EDR score relative to the Standard Design. EDR Margin is a better metric to use than absolute EDR in the context of a reach code because absolute values vary, based on the home design and characteristics such as size and orientation. This approach aligns with how compliance is determined for the 2019 Title 24 code, as well as utility incentive programs, such as the California Advanced Homes Program (CAHP) & California Multifamily New Homes (CMFNH), which require minimum performance criteria based on an EDR Margin for low-rise residential projects. The EDR Margin is calculated according to Equation 1 for the two efficiency packages and Equation 2 for the Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV/Battery packages (see Section 2.3).
1 2
2.2.3 Following are descriptions of each of the efficiency measures evaluated under this analysis. Because not all of the measures described below were found to be cost-effective and cost-effectiveness varied by climate zone, not all measures are included in all packages and some of the measures listed are not included in any final package. For a list of measures included in each efficiency package by climate zone, see Appendix D Single Family Measure Summary and Appendix F Multifamily Measure Summary.
Reduced Infiltration (ACH50): Reduce infiltration in single family homes from the default infiltration assumption of five (5) air changes per hour at 50 Pascals (ACH50)6 by 40 to 60 percent to either 3 ACH50 or 2 ACH50. HERS 5 https://energycodeace.com/
6 Whole house leakage tested at a pressure difference of 50 Pascals between indoors and outdoors.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 6 2019-07-17
rater field verification and diagnostic testing of building air leakage according to the procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.8 (Energy Commission, 2018c). This measure was not applied to multifamily homes because CBECC-Res does not allow reduced infiltration credit for multifamily buildings.
Improved Fenestration: Reduce window U-factor to 0.24. The prescriptive U-factor is 0.30 in all climates. In climate zones 1, 3, 5, and 16 where heating loads dominate, an increase in solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) from the default assumption of 0.35 to 0.50 was evaluated in addition to the reduction in U-factor.
Cool Roof
reflectance (ASR) equal to or greater than 0.25. Steep-sloped roofs were assumed in all cases. Title 24 specifies a prescriptive ASR of 0.20 for Climate Zones 10 through 15 and assumes 0.10 in other climate zones.
Exterior Wall Insulation: Decrease wall U-factor in 2x6 walls to 0.043 from the prescriptive requirement of 0.048 by increasing exterior insulation from one-inch R-5 to 1-1/2 inch R-7.5. This was evaluated for single family buildings only in all climate zones except 6 and 7 where the prescriptive requirement is higher (U-factor of
0.065) and improving beyond the prescriptive value has little impact.
High Performance Attics (HPA): HPA with R-38 ceiling insulation and R-30 insulation under the roof deck. In climates where HPA is already required prescriptively this measure requires an incremental increase in roof insulation from R-19 or R-13 to R-30. In climates where HPA is not currently required (Climate Zones 1 through 3, and 5 through 7), this measure adds roof insulation to an uninsulated roof as well as increasing ceiling insulation from R-30 to R-38 in Climate Zones 3, 5, 6 and 7.
Slab Insulation: Install R-10 perimeter slab insulation at a depth of 16-inches. For climate zone 16, where slab insulation is required, prescriptively this measure increases that insulation from R-7 to R-10.
Duct Location (Ducts in Conditioned Space): Move the ductwork and equipment from the attic to inside the conditioned space in one of the three following ways.
1. Locate ductwork in conditioned space. The air handler may remain in the attic provided that 12 linear feet or less of duct is located outside the conditioned space including the air handler and plenum. Meet the requirements of 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.1.4.1.2. (Energy Commission, 2018c)
2. All ductwork and equipment located entirely in conditioned space meeting the requirements of 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.1.4.1.3. (Energy Commission, 2018c)
3. All ductwork and equipment located entirely in conditioned space with ducts tested to have less than or equal to 25 cfm leakage to outside. Meet the requirements of Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space (VLLDCS) in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.1.4.3.8. (Energy Commission, 2018c) Option 1 and 2 above apply to single family only since the basecase for multifamily assumes ducts are within conditioned space. Option 3 applies to both single family and multifamily cases.
Reduced Distribution System (Duct) Leakage: Reduce duct leakage from 5% to 2% and install a low leakage air handler unit (LLAHU). This is only applicable to single family homes since the basecase for multifamily assumes ducts are within conditioned space and additional duct leakage credit is not available.
Low Pressure Drop Ducts: Upgrade the duct distribution system to reduce external static pressure and meet a maximum fan efficacy of 0.35 Watts per cfm for gas furnaces and 0.45 Watts per cfm for heat pumps operating at full speed. This may involve upsizing ductwork, reducing the total effective length of ducts, and/or selecting low pressure drop components such as filters. Fan watt draw must be verified by a HERS rater according to the procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.3 (Energy Commission, 2018c). New federal regulations that went into effect July 3, 2019 require higher fan efficiency for gas furnaces than for heat pumps and air handlers, which is why the recommended specification is different for mixed fuel and all-electric homes.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 7 2019-07-17
HERS Verification of Hot Water Pipe Insulation: The California Plumbing Code (CPC) requires pipe insulation on all hot water lines. This measure provides credit for HERS rater verification of pipe insulation requirements according to the procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.6.3. (Energy Commission, 2018c) Compact Hot Water Distribution: Two credits for compact hot water distribution were evaluated.
1. Basic Credit: Design the hot water distribution system to meet minimum requirements for the basic compact hot water distribution credit according to the procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA4.4.6 (Energy Commission, 2018c). In many single family homes this may require moving the water heater from an exterior to an interior garage wall. Multifamily homes with individual water heaters are expected to easily meet this credit with little or no alteration to plumbing design. CBECC-Res software assumes a 30% reduction in distribution losses for the basic credit.
2. Expanded Credit: Design the hot water distribution system to meet minimum requirements for the expanded compact hot water distribution credit according to the procedures outlined in the 2019 Reference Appendices RA3.6.5 (Energy Commission, 2018c). In addition to requiring HERS verification that the minimum requirements for the basic compact distribution credit are met, this credit also imposes limitations on pipe location, maximum pipe diameter, and recirculation system controls allowed.
Drain Water Heat Recovery (DWHR): For multifamily buildings add DWHR that serves the showers in an unequal flow configuration (pre-heated water is piped directly to the shower) with 50% efficiency. This upgrade assumes all apartments are served by a DWHR with one unit serving each apartment individually. For a slab-on-grade building this requires a horizontal unit for the first-floor apartments.
Federally Preempted Measures:
The following additional measures were evaluated. Because these measures require upgrading appliances that are federally regulated to high efficiency models, they cannot be used to show cost-effectiveness in a local ordinance. The measures and packages are presented here to show that there are several options for builders to meet the performance targets. Heating and cooling capacities are autosized by CBECC-Res in all cases.
High Efficiency Furnace: For the mixed-fuel prototypes, upgrade natural gas furnace to one of two condensing furnace options with an efficiency of 92% or 96% AFUE.
High Efficiency Air Conditioner: For the mixed-fuel prototypes, upgrade the air conditioner to either single-stage SEER 16 / EER 13 or two-stage SEER 18 / EER 14 equipment.
High Efficiency Heat Pump: For the all-electric prototypes, upgrade the heat pump to either single-stage SEER 16 / EER 13 / HSPF 9 or two-stage SEER 18 / EER 14 / HSPF 10 equipment.
High Efficiency Tankless Water Heater: For the mixed-fuel prototype, upgrade tankless water heater to a condensing unit with a rated Uniform Energy Factor (UEF) of 0.96.
High Efficiency Heat Pump Water Heater (HPWH): For the all-electric prototypes, upgrade the federal minimum heat pump water heater to a HPWH that meets the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) 7 Tier 3 rating.
The evaluated NEEA water heater is an 80gal unit and is applied to all three building prototypes. Using the same 7 Based on operational challenges experienced in the past, NEEA established rating test criteria to ensure newly installed HPWHs perform adequately, especially in colder climates. The NEEA rating requires an Energy Factor equal to the ENERGY STAR performance level and includes requirements regarding noise and prioritizing heat pump use over supplemental electric resistance heating.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 8 2019-07-17
water heater provides consistency in performance across all the equipment upgrade cases, even though hot water draws differ across the prototypes.
2.3 Three to four packages were evaluated for each prototype and climate zone, as described below. 1) Efficiency Non-Preempted: This package uses only efficiency preemption issues including envelope, and water heating and duct distribution efficiency measures. 2) Efficiency Equipment, Preempted: This package shows an alternative design that applies HVAC and water heating equipment that are more efficient than federal standards. The Reach Code Team considers this more reflective of how builders meet above code requirements in practice. 3) Efficiency & PV: Using the Efficiency Non-Preempted Package as a starting point8, PV capacity is added to offset most of the estimated electricity use. This only applies to the all-electric case, since for the mixed fuel cases, 100% of the projected electricity use is already being offset as required by 2019 Title 24, Part 6.
4) Efficiency & PV/Battery: Using the Efficiency & PV Package as a starting point, PV capacity is added as well as a battery system.
2.3.1 (PV)
Installation of on-site PV is required in the 2019 residential code. The PV sizing methodology in each package was developed to offset annual building electricity use and avoid oversizing which would violate net energy metering (NEM) rules.
9 In all cases, PV is evaluated in CBECC-Res according to the California Flexible Installation (CFI) assumptions.
The Reach Code Team used two options within the CBECC-Res software for sizing the PV system, described below. Analysis was conducted to determine the most appropriate sizing method for each package which is described in the results.
Standard Design PV the same PV capacity as is required for the Standard Design case10 Specify PV System Scaling a PV system sized to offset a specified percentage of the estimated electricity use of the Proposed Design case
2.3.2 ies)
A battery system was evaluated in CBECC- Time of Use with default efficiencies of 95% for both charging and discharging. Time of Use option assumes batteries are charged anytime PV generation is greater than the house load but controls when the battery storage system discharges.
During the summer months (July September) the battery begins to discharge at the beginning of the peak period at a maximum rate until fully discharged. During discharge the battery first serves the house load but will 8 In cases where there was no cost-effective Efficiency Non-Preempted Package, the most cost-effective efficiency measures for that climate zone were also included in the Efficiency & PV Package in order to provide a combination of both efficiency and PV beyond code minimum. 9 NEM rules apply to the IOU territories only.
10 The Standard Design PV system is sized to offset the electricity use of the building loads which are typically electric in a mixed fuel home, which includes all loads except space heating, water heating, clothes drying, and cooking.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 9 2019-07-17
discharge to the electric grid if there is excess energy available. During other months the battery discharges whenever the PV system does not cover the entire house load and does not discharge to the electric grid. This control option is considered to be most reflective of the current products on the market. This control option hour in CBECC-Res which differs by climate zone (either a 6pm or 7pm start). The Self Utilization Credit was taken when the battery system was modeled.
2.4 Table 4 below summarizes the incremental cost assumptions for measures evaluated in this study. Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacement, and maintenance costs of the proposed measures relative to the base case.
11 Replacement costs are applied to HVAC and DHW equipment, PV inverters, and battery systems over the 30-year evaluation period. There is no assumed maintenance on the envelope, HVAC, or DHW measures since there should not be any additional maintenance cost for a more efficient version of the same system type as the baseline. Costs were estimated to reflect costs to the building owner. When costs were obtained from a builder overhead and profit, a markup of ten percent was added. All costs are provided as present value in 2020 (2020 PV$). Costs due to variations in furnace, air conditioner, and heat pump capacity by climate zone were not accounted for in the analysis.
Equipment lifetimes applied in this analysis for the water heating and space conditioning measures are summarized in Table 3.
3 Measure Lifetime
Gas Furnace 20
Air Conditioner 20
Heat Pump 15
Gas Tankless Water Heater 20
Heat Pump Water Heater 15
Source: City of Palo Alto 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code Costeffectiveness Analysis Draft (TRC, 2018) which is based on the Database of Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER).
12 11 Interest costs due to financing are not included in the incremental costs presented in the Table 4 but are accounted for in the lifetime cost analysis. All first costs are assumed to be financed in a mortgage, see Section
2.5 for details.
12 http://www.deeresources.com
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019
E
n
erg
y
Efficie
n
cy
Ordin
a
n
ce
Cost-effective
n
ess
Stu
d
y
10 2019-07-17
4 M
e
a
sure
Perform
a
n
ce
Lev
el
In
cre
m
e
ntal Co
st (2020
PV
$)
So
urce
&
N
ote
s
Sin
gle Fa
mily
M
ultifa
mily
(Per D
wellin
g
U
nit)
N
o
n-Pre
e
m
pte
d
M
e
a
sure
s
Re
d
u
ce
d
Infiltratio
n
3.0 vs
5.0 A
CH
50 $
391 n/a
2 for 3
A
CH
50 &
$0.207/ft
2 for 2
A
CH
50) + $100
HERS
rater verificatio
n. 2.0
vs
5.0 A
CH
50 $
613
n/a
Win
d
ow
Ufa
ctor
0.24 vs
0.30 $
2,261 $
607
$
4.23/ft
2 win
d
ow
are
a
b
a
se
d
o
n
a
n
alysis
co
n
d
u
cte
d for th
e
2019
a
n
d
2022
Title
24 cycle
s
(Statewid
e
CA
SE T
e
a
m, 2018).
Win
d
ow
SH
G
C
0.50 vs
0.35 $0
$0
D
ata fro
m
CA
SE Re
p
ort alo
n
g
with
dire
ct fe
e
d
b
a
ck fro
m
Statewid
e
CA
SE T
e
a
m th
at hig
h
er
SH
G
C
d
o
e
s
n
ot n
e
ce
ssarily
h
a
ve
a
n
y in
cre
m
e
ntal co
st (Statewid
e
CA
SE T
e
a
m, 2017
d). A
p
plie
s
to
CZ 1,3,5,16.
Co
ol Ro
of -
A
ge
d
Solar
Refle
cta
n
ce
0.25 vs
0.20 $
237
$
58 Co
sts
b
a
se
d
o
n
2016
Co
st-effe
ctive
n
e
ss
Stu
d
y for Co
ol Ro
ofs re
a
ch
co
d
e
a
n
alysis for 0.28
solar
refle
cta
n
ce
pro
d
u
ct. (Statewid
e
Re
a
ch
Co
d
e
s
T
e
a
m, 2017
b). 0.20
vs
0.10 $0
$0
Exterior WallIn
sulatio
n
R-7.5
vs
R-5
$
818
n/a
Ba
se
d
o
n in
cre
a
sin
g - -7.5 in
a
2x
6 wall (Statewid
e
CA
SE
T
e
a
m, 2017
c). A
p
plie
s to
sin
gle fa
mily
o
nly in
all clim
ate
s
e
xce
pt CZ 6, 7.
U
n
d
er-D
e
ck
Ro
of
In
sulatio
n
(H
PA)
R-13
vs
R-0
$1,338
$
334
Co
sts for R-13 ($0.64/ft
2 ), R-19 ($0.7
8/ft
2 ) a
n
d
R-30 ($1.61/ft
2 ) b
a
se
d
o
n
d
ata
pre
se
nte
d in th
e
2019
H
PA
CA
SE Re
p
ort (Statewid
e
CA
SE T
e
a
m, 2017
b) alo
n
g
with
d
ata
colle
cte
d
dire
ctly fro
m
b
uild
ers
d
urin
g th
e
2019
CA
SE pro
ce
ss. T
h
e
R-30
co
sts in
clu
d
e
a
d
ditio
n
al la
b
or co
sts for
ca
blin
g. Co
sts for R-38 fro
m .
R-19
vs
R-13
$
282
$
7 0
R-30
vs
R-19
$1,831 $
457
R-38
vs
R-30
$
585
$146
Attic Flo
or
In
sulatio
n
R-38
vs
R-30
$
584
$146
: $
0.34/ft
2 ceilin
g
are
a
Sla
b Ed
ge
In
sulatio
n
R-10
vs
R-0
$
553
$121 $
4/lin
e
ar fo
ot of sla
b
p
erim
eter b
a
se
d
o
n intern
et re
se
arch. A
ssu
m
e
s 16in
d
e
pth.
R-10
vs
R-7
$157
$
21 BEo
pt cost d
ata
b
a
se. T
his
a
p
plie
s to
CZ 16
o
nly
wh
ere
R-7
sla
b
e
d
ge in
sulatio
n is re
q
uire
d
pre
scriptively. A
ssu
m
e
s 16in
d
e
pth.
D
u
ct Lo
catio
n
<12 fe
et in
attic
$
358
n/a
Co
sts
b
a
se
d
o
n
a
2015 re
p
ort o
n th
e Evalu
atio
n
of D
u
cts in
Co
n
ditio
n
e
d
Sp
a
ce for N
ew
California
H
o
m
e
s (D
a
vis En
ergy
Gro
u
p, 2015). HERS
verificatio
n
co
st of $100 for th
e
V
erifie
d
Low Le
aka
ge
D
u
cts in
Co
n
ditio
n
e
d
Sp
a
ce
cre
dit.
D
u
cts in
Co
n
ditio
n
e
d
Sp
a
ce
$
658
n/a
V
erifie
d Low
Le
aka
ge
D
u
cts in
Co
n
ditio
n
e
d
Sp
a
ce
$
7 68
$110
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019
E
n
erg
y
Efficie
n
cy
Ordin
a
n
ce
Cost-effective
n
ess
Stu
d
y
11 2019-07-17
4 M
e
a
sure
Perform
a
n
ce
Lev
el
In
cre
m
e
ntal Co
st (2020
PV
$)
So
urce
&
N
ote
s
Sin
gle Fa
mily
M
ultifa
mily
(Per D
wellin
g
U
nit)
Distrib
utio
n
Syste
m
Le
aka
ge
2%
vs
5%
$
96 n/a
1-h
o
ur la
b
or. La
b
or rate
of $
96 p
er h
o
ur is fro
m
2019
RS
M
e
a
n
s for sh
e
et m
etal workers
a
n
d
in
clu
d
e
s
a
n
a
vera
ge
City
Co
st In
d
e
x for la
b
or for California
citie
s
& 10% for o
verh
e
a
d
a
n
d
profit. A
p
plie
s to
sin
gle fa
mily
o
nly
sin
ce
d
u
cts
are
a
ssu
m
e
d to
b
e in
co
n
ditio
n
e
d
sp
a
ce for
m
ultifa
mily
Low Le
aka
ge
Air
H
a
n
dler
$0
n/a
N
e
gligible
co
st b
a
se
d
o
n review
of a
vaila
ble
pro
d
u
cts. T
h
ere
are
m
ore th
a
n
6,000 En
ergy
Co
m
missio
n
certifie
d
u
nits
a
n
d th
e list in
clu
d
e
s
m
a
n
y furn
a
ce
a
n
d
h
e
at p
u
m
p
air h
a
n
dler
pro
d
u
ct lin
e
s fro
m th
e
m
ajor m
a
n
ufa
cturers, in
clu
din
g
minim
u
m
efficie
n
cy, low
co
st pro
d
u
ct
lin
e
s.
Low
Pre
ssure
Dro
p
D
u
cts
(Fa
n
W/cfm)
0.35 vs
0.45 $
96 $
48 Co
sts
a
ssu
m
e
o
n
e-h
o
ur la
b
or for sin
gle fa
mily
a
n
d
h
alf-h
o
ur p
er m
ultifa
mily
a
p
artm
e
nt. La
b
or
rate
of $
96 p
er h
o
ur is fro
m
2019
RSM
e
a
n
s for sh
e
et m
etal workers
a
n
d in
clu
d
e
s
a
n
a
vera
ge
City
Co
st In
d
e
x for la
b
or for California
citie
s. 0.45
vs
0.58 $
96 $
48 H
ot Water
Pip
e In
sulatio
n
HERS
verifie
d
$110
$
83 Co
st for HERS
verificatio
n
o
nly, b
a
se
d
o
n fe
e
d
b
a
ck fro
m
HERS raters. $100
p
er sin
gle fa
mily
h
o
m
e
a
n
d
$
7 5
p
er m
ultifa
mily
u
nit b
efore
m
arku
p.
Co
m
p
a
ct H
ot
WaterDistrib
utio
n
Ba
sic
cre
dit $150
$0
For sin
gle fa
mily
a
d
d
20-fe
et ve
ntin
g
at $12/ft to lo
cate
water h
e
ater o
n interior gara
ge
wall,
le
ss
20-fe
et sa
vin
gs for le
ss
PEX
a
n
d
pip
e in
sulatio
n
at $
4.88/ft. Co
sts fro
m
o
nlin
e retailers.
M
a
n
y
m
ultifa
mily
b
uildin
gs
are
e
x
p
e
cte
d to
m
e
et this
cre
dit with
o
ut a
n
y
ch
a
n
ge
s to
distrib
utio
n
d
e
sig
n.
Ex
p
a
n
d
e
d
cre
dit n/a
$
83 Co
st for HERS
verificatio
n
o
nly. $
7 5
p
er m
ultifa
mily
u
nit b
efore
m
arku
p. T
his
wa
s
o
nly
evalu
ate
d for m
ultifa
mily
b
uildin
gs.
Drain
Water
H
e
at Re
co
very
50%
efficie
n
cy
n/a
$
690
Co
st fro
m th
e
2019
D
W
H
R
CA
SE Re
p
ort a
ssu
min
g
a
2-in
ch
D
W
H
R
u
nit. T
h
e
CA
SE Re
p
ort
m
ultifa
mily
co
sts
were
b
a
se
d
o
n
o
n
e
u
nit servin
g
4 d
wellin
g
u
nits
with
a
ce
ntral water h
e
ater.
Sin
ce in
divid
u
al water h
e
aters
serve
e
a
ch
d
wellin
g
u
nit in this
a
n
alysis, th
e
Re
a
ch
Co
d
e
T
e
a
m
u
se
d
sin
gle fa
mily
co
sts fro
m th
e
CA
SE Re
p
ort. Co
sts in th
e
CA
SE Re
p
ort were
b
a
se
d
o
n
a
46.1%
efficie
nt u
nit, a
D
W
H
R
d
evice th
at m
e
ets th
e
50%
efficie
n
cy
a
ssu
m
e
d in this
a
n
alysis
m
a
y
co
st a little
m
ore. (Statewid
e
CA
SE T
e
a
m, 2017
a).
F
e
d
erally
Pre-e
m
pte
d
M
e
a
sure
s
Furn
a
ce
AFUE
92%
vs
80%
$139
$139
Eq
uip
m
e
nt costs fro
m
o
nlin
e retailers for 40-kBtu/h
u
nit. Co
st sa
vin
g for 6-fe
et of v
e
ntin
g
at
$
26/fo
ot d
u
e to lower co
st ve
ntin
g re
q
uire
m
e
nts for co
n
d
e
n
sin
g (PV
C) vs
n
o
n-co
n
d
e
n
sin
g
(stainle
ss) furn
a
ce
s. Re
pla
ce
m
e
nt at ye
ar 20
a
ssu
m
e
s
a
50% re
d
u
ctio
n in first co
st. V
alu
e
at
ye
ar 30
b
a
se
d
o
n re
m
ainin
g
u
seful life is in
clu
d
e
d.
96%
vs
80%
$
244
$
244
AirCo
n
ditio
n
er
SEER/EER
16/13
vs 14/11.7
$111 $111
Co
sts fro
m
o
nlin
e retailers for 2-to
n
u
nit. Re
pla
ce
m
e
nt at ye
ar 20
a
ssu
m
e
s
a
50% re
d
u
ctio
n in
first co
st. V
alu
e
at ye
ar 30
b
a
se
d
o
n re
m
ainin
g
u
seful life is in
clu
d
e
d. 18/14
vs 14/11.7
$1,148
$1,148
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 12 2019-07-17
4 Measure
Performance
Level
Incremental Cost (2020 PV$)
Source & Notes Single Family
Multifamily
(Per Dwelling
Unit)
Heat PumpSEER/EER/HSPF
16/13/9 vs
14/11.7/8.2 $411 $411 Costs from online retailers for 2-ton unit. Replacement at year 15 assumes a 50% reduction in first cost. 18/14/10 vs
14/11.7/8.2 $1,511 $1,511
TanklessWater HeaterEnergy Factor
0.96 vs 0.81 $203 $203
Equipment costs from online retailers for 40-kBtu/h unit. Cost saving for 6-feet of venting at$26/foot due to lower cost venting requirements for condensing (PVC) vs non-condensing(stainless) furnaces. Replacement at year 15 assumes a 50% reduction in first cost.
HPWH NEEA Tier 3 vs 2.0 EF $294 $294 Equipment costs from online retailers. Replacement at year 15 assumes a 50% reduction in first cost.PV + BatteryPV System System size varies $3.72/W-DC $3.17/W-DC First costs are from LBNL Tracking the Sun 2018 costs (Barbose et al., 2018) and representcosts for the first half of 2018 of $3.50/W-DC for residential system and $2.90/W-DC for non- residential system 500 kW-DC. These costs were reduced by 16% for the solar investment taxcredit, which is the average credit over years 2020-2022.Inverter replacement cost of $0.14/W-DC present value includes replacements at year 11 at$0.15/W-DC (nominal) and at year 21 at $0.12/W-DC (nominal) per the 2019 PV CASE Report(California Energy Commission, 2017).System maintenance costs of $0.31/W-DC present value assume $0.02/W-DC (nominal)annually per the 2019 PV CASE Report (California Energy Commission, 2017).10% overhead and profit added to all costs Battery
System size
varies by building
type
$656/kWh $656/kWh
$633/kWh first cost based on the PV Plus Battery Study report (Statewide Reach Codes Team,2018) as the average cost of the three systems that were analyzed. This cost was reduced by16% for the solar investment tax credit, which is the average credit over years 2020-2022.Replacement cost at year 15 of $100/kWh based on target price reductions (Penn, 2018).
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 13 2019-07-17
2.5 Cost-effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness was evaluated for all sixteen climate zones and is presented based on both TDV energy, using methodology, and an On-Bill approach using residential customer utility rates.
Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the value of the energy impact associated with energy efficiency measures over the life of the measures (30 years) as compared to the prescriptive Title 24 requirements.
Results are presented as a lifecycle benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio, a net present value (NPV) metric which represents the cost-effectiveness of a measure over a 30-year lifetime taking into account discounting of future savings and costs and financing of incremental first costs. A value of one indicates the NPV of the savings over the life of the measure is equivalent to the NPV of the lifetime incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment. The B/C ratio is calculated according to Equation 3. 3 In most cases the benefit is represented by annual utility savings or TDV savings and the cost by incremental first cost and replacement costs. However, in some cases a measure may have incremental cost savings but with increased energy related costs. In this case, the benefit is the lower first cost and the cost is the increase in utility bills. The lifetime costs or benefits are calculated according to Equation 4.
E 4
Where:
n = analysis term
r = discount rate
The following summarizes the assumptions applied in this analysis to both methodologies.
Analysis term of 30-years
Real discount rate of 3 percent
Inflation rate of 2 percent
First incremental costs are financed into a 30-year mortgage Mortgage interest rate of 4.5 percent
Average tax rate of 20 percent (to account for tax savings due to loan interest deductions)
2.5.1 On- Cost
Residential utility rates were used to calculate utility costs for all cases and determine On-Bill customer costeffectiveness for the proposed packages. The Reach Codes Team obtained the recommended utility rates from each IOU based on the assumption that the reach codes go into effect January of 2020. Annual utility costs were calculated using hourly electricity and gas output from CBECC-Res and applying the utility tariffs summarized in Table 5. Appendix B Utility Tariff Details includes the utility rate schedules used for this study. The applicable residential time-of-use (TOU) rate was applied to all cases.13 Annual electricity production in excess of annual electricity consumption is credited to the utility account at the applicable wholesale rate based on the approved 13 Under NEM rulings by the CPUC (D-16-01-144, 1/28/16), all new PV customers shall be in an approved TOU rate structure. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=3800
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 14 2019-07-17
NEM2 tariffs for that utility. Minimum daily use billing and mandatory non-bypassable charges have been applied. Future change to the NEM tariffs are likely; however, there is a lot of uncertainty about what those changes will be and if they will become effective during the 2019 code cycle (2020-2022).
The net surplus compensation rates for each utility are as follows:
14 PG&E: $0.0287 / kWh
SCE: $0.0301 / kWh
SDG&E: $0.0355 / kWh
Utility rates were applied to each climate zone based on the predominant IOU serving the population of each zone according to Two SCE tariff options were evaluated: TOU-D-4-9 and TOU-D-PRIME. The TOU-D-PRIME rate is only available to customers with heat pumps for either space or water heating, a battery storage system, or an electric vehicle and therefore was only evaluated for the all-electric cases and the Efficiency & PV/Battery packages. The rate which resulted in the lowest annual cost to the customer was used for this analysis, which was TOU-D-4-9 in all cases with the exception of the single family all-electric cases in Climate Zone 14.
Table 5. Climate Zones 10 and 14 are evaluated with both SCE/SoCalGas and SDG&E tariffs since each utility has customers within these climate zones. Climate Zone 5 is evaluated under both PG&E and SoCalGas natural gas rates.
Two SCE tariff options were evaluated: TOU-D-4-9 and TOU-D-PRIME. The TOU-D-PRIME rate is only available to customers with heat pumps for either space or water heating, a battery storage system, or an electric vehicle and therefore was only evaluated for the all-electric cases and the Efficiency & PV/Battery packages. The rate which resulted in the lowest annual cost to the customer was used for this analysis, which was TOU-D-4-9 in all cases with the exception of the single family all-electric cases in Climate Zone 14. 5 B
Climate Zones Electric / Gas
Utility
Electricity
(Time-of-use)
Natural
Gas
1-5, 11-13, 16 PG&E E-TOU, Option B G1
5 PG&E / SoCalGas E-TOU, Option B GR
6, 8-10, 14, 15 SCE / SoCal Gas TOU-D-4-9 or
TOU-D-PRIME GR
7, 10, 14 SDG&E TOU-DR1 GR
Source: Utility websites, See Appendix B Utility Tariff Details for details on the tariffs applied.
Utility rates are assumed to escalate over time, using assumptions from research conducted by Energy and Environmental Economics (E3) in the 2019 study Residential Building Electrification in California study (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019). Escalation of natural gas rates between 2019 and 2022 is based on the currently filed General Rate Cases (GRCs) for PG&E, SoCalGas and SDG&E. From 2023 through 2025, gas rates are assumed to escalate at 4% per year above inflation, which reflects historical rate increases between 2013 and 2018. Escalation of electricity rates from 2019 through 2025 is assumed to be 2% per year above inflation, based on electric utility estimates. After 2025, escalation rates for both natural gas and electric rates are assumed to drop to a more conservative 1% escalation per year above inflation for long-term rate trajectories beginning in 2026 through 2050. See Appendix B Utility Tariff Details for additional details. 14 Net surplus compensation rates based on 1-year average February 2018 January 2019.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 15 2019-07-17
2.5.2 TDV Lifec
Cost-effectiveness was also assessed using the Energy C TDV LCC methodology. TDV is a normalized monetary format developed and used by the Energy Commission for comparing electricity and natural gas savings, and it considers the cost of electricity and natural gas consumed during different times of the day and year. The 2019 TDV values are based on long term discounted costs of 30 years for all residential measures. The CBECC-Res simulation software outputs are in terms of TDV kBTUs. The present value of the energy cost savings in dollars is calculated by multiplying the TDV kBTU savings by a net present value (NPV) factor, also developed by the Energy Commission. The NPV factor is $0.173/TDV kBtu for residential buildings.
Like the customer B/C ratio, a TDV B/C ratio value of one indicates the savings over the life of the measure are equivalent to the incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment. The ratio is calculated according to Equation 5. 5 2.6 Electrification Evaluation
In addition to evaluating upgrades to mixed fuel and all-electric buildings independently that do not result in fuel switching, the Reach Code Team also analyzed the impact on construction costs, utility costs, and TDV when a builder specifies and installs electric appliances instead of the gas appliances typically found in a mixed fuel building. This analysis compared the code compliant mixed fuel prototype, which uses gas for space heating, water heating, cooking, and clothes drying, with the code compliant all-electric prototype. It also compared the all-electric Efficiency & PV Package with the code compliance mixed fuel prototype. In these cases, the relative costs between natural gas and electric appliances, differences between in-house electricity and gas infrastructure and the associated infrastructure costs for providing gas to the building were also included.
A variety of sources were reviewed when determining incremental costs. The sources are listed below.
SMUD All-Electric Homes Electrification Case Study (EPRI, 2016) City of Palo Alto 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost-effectiveness Analysis (TRC, 2018) Building Electrification Market Assessment (E3, 2019)
Decarbonization of Heating Energy Use in California Buildings (Hopkins et al., 2018) Analysis of the Role of Gas for a Low-Carbon California Future (Navigant, 2008) Rulemaking No. 15-03-010 An Order Instituting Rulemaking to Identify Disadvantaged Communities in the San Joaquin Valley and Analyze Economically Feasible Options to Increase Access to Affordable Energy in Those Disadvantages Communities (California Public Utilities Commission, 2016) 2010-2012 WO017 Ex Ante Measure Cost Study: Final Report (Itron, 2014) Natural gas infrastructure costs provided by utility staff through the Reach Code subprogram Costs obtained from builders, contractors and developers Incremental costs are presented in Table 6. Values in parentheses represent a lower cost or cost reduction in the electric option relative to mixed fuel. The costs from the available sources varied widely, making it difficult to develop narrow cost estimates for each component. For certain components data is provided with a low to high range as well as what were determined to be typical costs and ultimately applied in this analysis. Two sets of typical costs are presented, one which is applied in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology and another applied in the TDV methodology. Details of these differences are explained in the discussion of site gas infrastructure costs in the following pages.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 16 2019-07-17
6 s All-Electric F
Home
Measure Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) Incremental Cost (2020 PV$) Multifamily1
Single Family (Per Dwelling Unit) 1
Low High Typical
(On-Bill)
Typical
(TDV)
Low High Typical
(On-Bill)
Typical
(TDV)
Heat Pump vs Gas Furnace/Split AC ($2,770) $620 ($221)
Same as Single Family
Heat Pump Water Heater vs Gas
Tankless ($1,120) $1,120 $0
Electric vs Gas Clothes Dryer2($428) $820 $0
Electric vs Gas Cooking2 $0 $1,800 $0
Electric Service Upgrade $200 $800 $600 $150 $600 $600
In-House Gas Infrastructure ($1,670) ($550) ($800) ($600) ($150) ($600) Site Gas Infrastructure ($25,000) ($900) ($5,750) ($11,836) ($16,250) ($310) ($3,140) ($6,463) Total First Cost ($30,788) $3,710 ($6,171) ($12,257) ($20,918) $4,500 ($3,361) ($6,684) Present Value of Equipment Replacement Cost $1,266 $1,266 Lifetime Cost Including Replacement & Financing of First Cost ($5,349) ($11,872) ($2,337) ($5,899)
1 Low and high costs represent the potential range of costs and typical represents the costs used in this analysis and determined to be most representative of the conditions described in this report. Two sets of typical costs are presented, one which is applied in the On-Bill cost effectiveness methodology and another applied in the TDV methodology. 2Typical costs assume electric resistance technology. The high range represents higher end induction cooktops and heat pump clothes dryers. Lower cost induction cooktops are available.
Typical incremental costs for switching from a mixed fuel design to an all-electric design are based on the following assumptions:
Appliances: The Reach Code Team determined that the typical first installed cost for electric appliances is very similar to that for natural gas appliances. This was based on information provided by HVAC contractors, plumbers and builders as well as a review of other studies. After review of various sources, the Reach Code Team concluded that the cost difference between gas and electric resistance options for clothes dryers and stoves is negligible and that the lifetimes of the two technologies are also similar.
HVAC: Typical HVAC incremental costs were based on the City of Palo Alto 2019 Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost-effectiveness Analysis (TRC, 2018) which assumes approximately $200 first cost savings for the heat pump relative to the gas furnace and air conditioner. Table 6 also includes the present value of the incremental replacement costs for the heat pump based on a 15-year lifetime and a 20-year lifetime for the gas furnace in the mixed fuel home.
DHW: Typical costs for the water heating system were based on equivalent installed first costs for the HPWH and tankless gas water heater. This accounts for slightly higher equipment cost but lower installation labor due to the elimination of the gas flue. Incremental replacement costs for the HPWH are based on a 15-year lifetime and a 20-year lifetime for the tankless water heater.
For multifamily, less data was available and therefore a range of low and high costs is not provided. The typical first cost for multifamily similarly is expected to be close to the same for the mixed fuel and allelectric designs. However, there are additional considerations with multifamily such as greater complexity for venting of natural gas appliances as well as for locating the HPWH within the conditioned space (all climates except Climate Zones 1, 3, and 5, see Table 2) that may impact the total costs.
Electric service upgrade: The study assumes an incremental cost to run 220V service to each appliance of $200 per appliance for single family homes and $150 per appliance per multifamily apartment based on cost estimates from builders and contractors. The Reach Code Team reviewed production builder utility plans for
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 17 2019-07-17
mixed-fuel homes and consulted with contractors to estimate which electricity and/or natural gas services are usually provided to the dryer and oven. Typical practice varied, with some builders providing both gas and electric service to both appliances, others providing both services to only one of the appliances, and some only providing gas. For this study, the Reach Code Team determined that for single family homes the typical cost is best qualified by the practice of providing 220V service and gas to either the dryer and the oven and only gas service to the other.
mixed fuel home.
It is assumed that no upgrades to the electrical panel are required and that a 200 Amp panel is typically installed for both mixed fuel and all-electric new construction homes. There are no incremental electrical site infrastructure requirements.
In-house gas infrastructure (from meter to appliances): Installation cost to run a gas line from the meter to the appliance location is $200 per appliance for single family and $150 per appliance per multifamily apartment based on cost estimates from builders and contractors. The cost estimate includes providing gas to the water heater, furnace, dryer and cooktop.
Site gas infrastructure: The cost-effective analysis components with the highest degree of variability are the costs for on-site gas infrastructure. These costs can be project dependent and may be significantly impacted by such factors as utility territory, site characteristics, distance to the nearest gas main and main location, joint trenching, whether work is conducted by the utility or a private contractor, and number of dwelling units per development. All gas utilities participating in this study were solicited for cost information. The typical infrastructure costs for single family homes presented in Table 6 are based on cost data provided by PG&E and reflect those for a new subdivision in an undeveloped area requiring the installation of natural gas infrastructure, including a main line. Infrastructure costs for infill development can also be highly variable and may be higher than in an undeveloped area. The additional costs associated with disruption of existing roads, sidewalks, and other structures can be significant. Total typical costs in Table 6 assume $10,000 for extension of a gas main, $1,686 for a service lateral, and $150 for the meter.
Utility Gas Main Extensions rules15 specify that the developer has the option to only pay 50% of the total cost for a main extension after subtraction of allowances for installation of gas appliances. This 50% refund and the appliance allowance deductions are accounted for in the site gas infrastructure costs under the On-Bill costeffectiveness methodology. The net costs to the utility after partial reimbursement from the developer are included in utility ratebase and recovered via rates to all customers. The total cost of $5,750 presented in Table 6 reflects a 50% refund on the $10,000 extension and appliance deductions of $1,086 for a furnace, water heater, cooktop, and dryer. Under the On-Bill methodology this analysis assumes this developer option will remain available through 2022 and that the cost savings are passed along to the customer.
The 50% refund and appliance deductions were not applied to the site gas infrastructure costs under the TDV cost-effectiveness methodology based on input received from the Energy Commission and agreement from the Reach Code technical advisory team that the approach is appropriate. TDV cost savings impacts extend beyond the customer and account for societal impacts of energy use. Accounting for the full cost of the infrastructure upgrades was determined to be justified when evaluating under the TDV methodology. 15 PG&E Rule 15: https://www.pge.com/tariffs/tm2/pdf/GAS_RULES_15.pdf SoCalGas Rule 20: https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/tariffs/tm2/pdf/20.pdf SDG&E Rule 15: http://regarchive.sdge.com/tm2/pdf/GAS_GAS-RULES_GRULE15.pdf
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 18 2019-07-17
Less information was available for the costs associated with gas infrastructure for low-rise multifamily development. The typical cost in Table 6 for the On-Bill methodology Title 24 Energy Reach Code Cost-effectiveness Analysis (TRC, 2018). These costs, provided by the City of Palo Alto, are approximately $25,100 for an 8-unit new construction building and reflect connection to an existing main for infill development. Specific costs include plan review, connection charges, meter and manifold, plumbing distribution, and street cut fees. While these costs are specifically based on infill development and from one municipal utility, the estimates are less than those provided by PG&E reflecting the average cost differences charged to the developer between single family and multifamily in an undeveloped area (after accounting for deductions per the Gas Main Extensions rule). To convert costs charged to the developer to account for the full infrastructure upgrade cost (costs applied in the TDV methodology analysis), a factor of
2.0616 was calculated based on the single family analysis. This same factor was applied to the multifamily cost of $3,140 to arrive at $6,463 (see Table 6).
2.7 Equivalent CO2 emission savings were calculated based on outputs from the CBECC-Res simulation software.
Electricity emissions vary by region and by hour of the year. CBECC-Res applies two distinct hourly profiles, one for Climate Zones 1 through 5 and 11 through 13 and another for Climate Zones 6 through 10 and 14 through
16. For natural gas a fixed factor of 0.005307 metric tons/therm is used. To compare the mixed fuel and allelectric cases side-by-side, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are presented as CO2-equivalent emissions per square foot of conditioned floor area.
3 Results
The primary objective of the evaluation is to identify cost-effective, non-preempted performance targets for both single family and low-rise multifamily prototypes, under both mixed fuel and all-electric cases, to support the design of local ordinances requiring new low-rise residential buildings to exceed the minimum state requirements. The packages presented are representative examples of designs and measures that can be used to meet the requirements. In practice, a builder can use any combination of non-preempted or preempted compliant measures to meet the requirements.
This analysis covered all sixteen climate zones and evaluated two efficiency packages, including a nonpreempted package and a preempted package that includes upgrades to federally regulated equipment, an Efficiency & PV Package for the all-electric scenario only, and an Efficiency & PV/Battery Package. For the efficiency-only packages, measures were refined to ensure that the non-preempted package was cost-effective based on one of the two metrics applied in this study, TDV or On-Bill. The preempted equipment package, which the Reach Code Team considers to be a package of upgrades most reflective of what builders commonly apply to exceed code requirements, was designed to be cost-effective based on the On-Bill cost-effectiveness approach.
Results are presented as EDR Margin instead of compliance margin. EDR is the metric used to determine code compliance in the 2019 cycle. Target EDR Margin is based on taking the calculated EDR Margin for the case and rounding down to the next half of a whole number. Target EDR Margin for the Efficiency Package are defined based on the lower of the EDR Margin of the non-preempted package and the equipment, preempted package.
For example, if for a particular case the cost-effective non-preempted package has an EDR Margin of 3 and the preempted package an EDR Margin of 4, the Target EDR Margin is set at 3. 16 This factor includes the elimination of the 50% refund for the main extension and adding back in the appliance allowance deductions.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 19 2019-07-17
For a package to qualify, a minimum EDR Margin of 0.5 was required. This is to say that a package that only achieved an EDR Margin of 0.4, for example, was not considered. An EDR Margin less than 0.5 generally corresponds to a compliance margin lower than 5% and was considered too small to ensure repeatable results.
In certain cases, the Reach Code Team did not identify a cost-effective package that achieved the minimum EDR Margin of 0.5.
Although some of the efficiency measures evaluated were not cost-effective and were eliminated, the following measures are included in at least one package:
Reduced infiltration
Improved fenestration
Improved cool roofs
High performance attics
Slab insulation
Reduced duct leakage
Verified low leakage ducts in conditioned space
Low pressure-drop distribution system
Compact hot water distribution system, basic and expanded High efficiency furnace, air conditioner & heat pump (preempted) High efficiency tankless water heater & heat pump water heater (preempted)
3.1 The approach to determining the size of the PV and battery systems varied based on each package and the source fuel. Table 7 describes the PV and battery sizing approaches applied to each of the four packages. For the Efficiency Non-preempted and Efficiency Equipment, Preempted packages a different method was applied to each the two fuel scenarios. In all mixed fuel cases, the PV was sized to offset 100% of the estimated electrical load and any electricity savings from efficiency measures were traded off with a smaller PV system. Not downsizing the PV system after adding efficiency measures runs the risk of producing more electricity than is consumed, reducing cost-effectiveness and violating NEM rules. While the impact of this in most cases is minor, analysis confirmed that cost-effectiveness improved when reducing the system size to offset 100% of the electricity usage as opposed to keeping the PV system the same size as the Standard Design.
In the all-electric Efficiency cases, the PV system size was left to match the Standard Design (Std Design PV), and the inclusion of energy efficiency measures was not traded off with a reduced capacity PV system. Because the PV system is sized to meet the electricity load of a mixed fuel home, it is cost-effective to keep the PV system the same size and offset a greater percentage of the electrical load.
For the Efficiency & PV case on the all-electric home, the Reach Code Team evaluated PV system sizing to offset 100%, 90% and 80% of the total calculated electricity use. Of these three, sizing to 90% proved to be the most cost-effective based on customer utility bills. This is a result of the impact of the annual minimum bill which is around $120 across all the utilities. The sweet spot is a PV system that reduces electricity bills just enough to match the annual minimum bill; increasing the PV size beyond this adds first cost but does not result in utility bill savings.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 20 2019-07-17
7 Package Mixed Fuel All-Electric
Efficiency (Envelope & Equipment) PV Scaled @ 100% electricity Std Design PV Efficiency & PV n/a PV Scaled @ 90%
Efficiency & PV/Battery
PV Scaled @ 100% electricity
5kWh / SF home
2.75kWh/ MF apt
PV Scaled @ 100%
5kWh / SF home
2.75kWh/ MF apt
A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the appropriate battery and PV capacity for the Efficiency & PV/Battery Packages using the 1-story 2,100 square foot prototype in Climate Zone 12. Results are shown in Figure 2. The current version of CBECC-Res requires a minimum battery size of 5 kWh to qualify for the selfutilization credit. CBECC-Res allows for PV icity load when battery storage systems are installed; however, the Reach Code Team considered this high, potentially problematic from a grid perspective, and likely not acceptable to the utilities or customers. The Reach Code Team compared cost-effectiveness of 5kWh and 7.5kWh battery systems as well as of PV systems sized to offset 90%, 100%, or 120% of the estimated electrical load.
Results show that from an on-bill perspective a smaller battery size is more cost-effective. The sensitivity analysis also showed that increasing the PV capacity from 90% to 120% of the electricity use reduced costeffectiveness. From the TDV perspective there was little difference in results across all the scenarios, with the larger battery size being marginally more cost-effective. Based on these results, the Reach Code Team applied to the Efficiency & PV/Battery Package a 5kWh battery system for single family homes with PV sized to offset 100% of the electricity load. Even though PV scaled to 90% was the most cost-effective, sizing was increased to 100% to evaluate greater generation beyond the Efficiency & PV Package and to achieve zero net electricity. These results also show that in isolation, the inclusion of a battery system reduces cost-effectiveness compared to the same size PV system without batteries.
For multifamily buildings the battery capacity was scaled to reflect the average ratio of battery size to PV system capacity (kWh/kW) for the single family Efficiency & PV Package. This resulted in a 22kWh battery for the multifamily building, or 2.75kWh per apartment.
2 10.C.d
Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 21 2019-07-17
3.2 Table 8 through Table 10 contain cost effectiveness findings for the single family packages. Table 8 summarizes the package costs for all of the mixed fuel and all-electric efficiency, PV and battery packages. The mixed fuel results are evaluated and presented relative to a mixed fuel code compliant basecase while the all-electric results are relative to an all-electric code compliant basecase.
Table 9 and Table 10 present the B/C ratios for all the single family packages according to both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies for the mixed fuel and the all-electric cases, respectively. Results are cost-effective based on TDV for all cases except for Climate Zone 7 where no cost-effective combination of non-preempted efficiency measures was found that met the minimum 0.5 EDR Margin threshold. Cases where the B/C ratio is indicated as >1 refer to instances where there are incremental cost savings in addition to annual utility bill savings. In these cases, there is no cost associated with the upgrade and benefits are realized immediately.
Figure 3 presents a comparison of Total EDRs for single family buildings and Figure 4 presents the EDR Margin results. Each graph compares the mixed fuel and all-electric cases as well as the various packages. The EDR Margin for the Efficiency Package for most climates is between 1.0 and 5.5 for mixed fuel cases and slightly higher, between 1.5 and 6.5, for the all-electric design. No cost-effective mixed fuel or all-electric nonpreempted Efficiency package was found Climate Zone 7.
For the mixed fuel case, the Efficiency & PV/Battery Package increased the EDR Margin to values between 7.0 and 10.5. Because of the limitations on oversizing PV systems to offset natural gas use it is not feasible to achieve higher EDR Margins by increasing PV system capacity.
For the all-electric case, the Efficiency & PV Package resulted in EDR Margins of 11.0 to 19.0 for most climates; adding a battery system increased the EDR Margin by an additional 7 to 13 points. Climate zones 1 and 16, which have high heating loads, have much higher EDR Margins for the Efficiency & PV package (26.5-31.0). The Standard Design PV, which is what is applied in the all-electric Efficiency Package, is not sized to offset any of the heating load. When the PV system is sized to offset 90% of the total electricity use, the increase is substantial as a result. In contrast, in Climate Zone 15 the Standard Design PV system is already sized to cover the cooling electricity load, which represents 40% of whole building electricity use. Therefore, increasing the PV size to offset 90% of the electric load in this climate only results in adding approximately 120 Watts of PV capacity and subsequently a negligible impact on the EDR.
Additional results details can be found in Appendix C Single Family Detailed Results with summaries of measures included in each of the packages in Appendix D Single Family Measure Summary. A summary of results by climate zone is presented in Appendix G Results by Climate Zone.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 22 2019-07-17
8 Lifetime Costs
Climate
Zone
Mixed Fuel All-Electric
Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Efficiency & PV/Battery Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery CZ01 +$1,355 +$1,280 +$5,311 +$7,642 +$2,108 +$18,192 +$24,770CZ02 +$1,504 +$724 +$5,393 +$3,943 +$2,108 +$12,106 +$18,132CZ03 +$1,552 +$1,448 +$5,438 +$1,519 +$2,108 +$8,517 +$14,380CZ04 +$1,556 +$758 +$5,434 +$1,519 +$2,108 +$8,786 +$14,664CZ05 +$1,571 +$772 +$5,433 +$1,519 +$2,108 +$8,307 +$14,047CZ06 +$1,003 +$581 +$4,889 +$926 +$846 +$6,341 +$12,036CZ07 n/a +$606 +$4,028 n/a +$846 +$4,436 +$9,936CZ08 +$581 +$586 +$4,466 +$926 +$412 +$5,373 +$11,016CZ09 +$912 +$574 +$4,785 +$1,180 +$846 +$5,778 +$11,454CZ10 +$1,648 +$593 +$5,522 +$1,773 +$949 +$6,405 +$12,129CZ11 +$3,143 +$1,222 +$7,026 +$3,735 +$2,108 +$10,827 +$17,077CZ12 +$1,679 +$654 +$5,568 +$3,735 +$2,108 +$11,520 +$17,586CZ13 +$3,060 +$611 +$6,954 +$4,154 +$2,108 +$10,532 +$16,806CZ14 +$1,662 +$799 +$5,526 +$4,154 +$2,108 +$10,459 +$16,394CZ15 +$2,179 -($936) +$6,043 +$4,612 +$2,108 +$5,085 +$11,382CZ16 +$3,542 +$2,441 +$7,399 +$5,731 +$2,108 +$16,582 +$22,838
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 23 2019-07-17
9 - 1,2
CZ Utility
Efficiency Efficiency & PV/Battery
Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Target
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
Target
Total
EDR
Margin
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Total
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
01 PG&E 5.3 3.4 2.8 6.9 4.9 4.1 5.0 10.6 0.9 1.6 10.502 PG&E 3.3 1.6 1.7 3.3 3.8 3.6 3.0 10.1 0.5 1.6 10.003 PG&E 3.0 1.3 1.3 4.1 1.9 2.0 2.5 10.0 0.4 1.4 10.004 PG&E 2.5 0.9 1.2 2.7 2.4 2.7 2.5 10.1 0.3 1.5 10.005 PG&E 2.7 1.1 1.2 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.5 9.4 0.4 1.3 9.005 PG&E/SoCalGas 2.7 0.9 1.2 2.6 2.0 2.5 2.5 9.4 0.3 1.3 9.006 SCE/SoCalGas 2.0 0.7 1.2 2.0 1.6 2.0 1.5 9.8 0.8 1.3 9.507 SDG&E 0.0 - - 1.5 1.5 1.4 0.0 9.2 0.1 1.3 9.008 SCE/SoCalGas 1.3 0.6 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.8 1.0 8.4 0.9 1.3 8.009 SCE/SoCalGas 2.6 0.7 2.0 2.9 1.8 3.7 2.5 8.8 1.0 1.5 8.510 SCE/SoCalGas 3.2 0.6 1.3 3.2 2.0 3.8 3.0 9.6 1.0 1.5 9.510 SDG&E 3.2 0.8 1.3 3.2 2.6 3.8 3.0 9.6 0.6 1.5 9.511 PG&E 4.3 0.8 1.2 5.1 2.5 3.7 4.0 9.2 0.4 1.5 9.012 PG&E 3.5 1.2 1.8 3.4 3.3 4.6 3.0 9.6 0.4 1.7 9.513 PG&E 4.6 0.8 1.3 5.8 5.3 8.4 4.5 9.7 0.4 1.6 9.514 SCE/SoCalGas 5.0 1.6 2.5 5.8 4.0 6.1 4.5 9.0 1.3 1.7 9.014 SDG&E 5.0 1.9 2.5 5.8 4.9 6.1 4.5 9.0 1.2 1.7 9.015 SCE/SoCalGas 4.8 1.0 1.6 5.0 >1 >1 4.5 7.1 1.1 1.5 7.016 PG&E 5.4 1.6 1.5 6.2 2.2 2.2 5.0 10.5 0.9 1.4 10.5 12Information about the measures included for each climate zone are described in Appendix D Single Family Measure Summary.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 24 2019-07-17
10 -E All- Case1,2
CZ Utility
Efficiency Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery
Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Target
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
Target
Total
EDR
Margin
Target
Total
EDR
Margin
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Total
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Total
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
01 PG&E 15.2 1.8 1.7 6.9 2.9 2.7 6.5 31.4 1.8 1.5 31.0 41.2 1.4 1.4 41.002 PG&E 4.9 1.2 1.1 5.1 2.3 2.1 4.5 19.4 1.8 1.4 19.0 30.1 1.4 1.4 30.003 PG&E 4.7 2.6 2.4 4.4 1.8 1.6 4.0 18.5 2.2 1.7 18.0 29.3 1.5 1.6 29.004 PG&E 3.4 1.9 1.8 3.9 1.5 1.5 3.0 17.2 2.1 1.6 17.0 28.6 1.5 1.6 28.505 PG&E 4.4 2.6 2.3 4.4 1.9 1.7 4.0 18.2 2.3 1.8 18.0 28.7 1.6 1.6 28.505 PG&E/SoCalGas 4.4 2.6 2.3 4.4 1.9 1.7 4.0 18.2 2.3 1.8 18.0 28.7 1.6 1.6 28.506 SCE/SoCalGas 2.0 1.3 1.4 2.9 2.2 2.3 2.0 14.3 1.2 1.5 14.0 26.1 1.2 1.4 26.007 SDG&E 0.0 - - 2.2 1.6 1.7 0.0 11.3 1.9 1.5 11.0 24.2 1.3 1.5 24.008 SCE/SoCalGas 1.6 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.8 3.0 1.5 10.9 1.0 1.5 10.5 21.6 1.1 1.4 21.509 SCE/SoCalGas 2.78 0.8 2.0 3.3 2.1 3.2 2.5 11.5 1.1 1.6 11.5 21.3 1.1 1.5 21.010 SCE/SoCalGas 3.1 0.9 1.5 3.4 2.3 3.2 3.0 11.1 1.1 1.5 11.0 21.2 1.1 1.5 21.010 SDG&E 3.1 1.1 1.5 3.4 2.6 3.2 3.0 11.1 1.7 1.5 11.0 21.2 1.4 1.5 21.011 PG&E 4.6 1.2 1.5 5.9 3.0 3.3 4.5 14.2 1.8 1.6 14.0 23.2 1.5 1.6 23.012 PG&E 3.8 0.8 1.1 5.1 2.0 2.5 3.5 15.7 1.7 1.4 15.5 25.4 1.3 1.5 25.013 PG&E 5.1 1.1 1.4 6.0 2.9 3.3 5.0 13.4 1.7 1.5 13.0 22.5 1.4 1.5 22.014 SCE/SoCalGas 5.6 1.0 1.5 6.0 2.3 3.1 5.5 15.5 1.2 1.6 15.5 23.9 1.3 1.6 23.514 SDG&E 5.6 1.3 1.5 6.0 2.9 3.1 5.5 15.5 1.8 1.6 15.5 23.9 1.7 1.6 23.515 SCE/SoCalGas 5.6 1.1 1.6 7.3 3.3 4.5 5.5 6.2 1.1 1.6 6.0 13.5 1.2 1.5 13.016 PG&E 9.7 1.7 1.7 4.9 2.4 2.3 4.5 27.0 2.1 1.6 26.5 35.4 1.7 1.5 35.0 1 savings and annual utility bill savings.2Information about the measures included for each climate zone are described in Appendix D Single Family Measure Summary
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 201
9 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
25 2019-07-17
3 Total
4 comparison
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 26 2019-07-17
3.2.1 Figure 5 compares annual GHG emissions for both mixed fuel and all-electric single family 2019 code compliant cases with Efficiency, Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV/Battery packages. GHG emissions vary by climate but are consistently higher in mixed fuel cases than all-electric. Standard Design mixed fuel emissions range from 1.3 (CZ 7) to 3.3 (CZ 16) lbs CO2e/square foot of floor area, where all-electric Standard Design emissions range from
0.7 to 1.7 lbs CO2e/ ft2. Adding efficiency, PV and batteries to the mixed fuel code compliant prototype reduces GHG emissions by 20% on average to between 1.0 and 1.8 lbs CO2e/ft2, with the exception of Climate Zones 1 and 16. Adding efficiency, PV and batteries to the all-electric code compliant prototype reduces annual GHG emissions by 65% on average to 0.8 lbs CO2e/ft2 or less. None of the cases completely eliminate GHG emissions.
Because of the time value of emissions calculation for electricity in CBECC-Res, there is always some amount of GHG impacts with using electricity from the grid.
5 emissions comparison
3.3 Table 11 through Table 13 contain cost effectiveness findings for the multifamily packages. Table 11 summarizes the package costs for all the mixed fuel and all-electric efficiency, PV and battery packages.
Table 12 and Table 13 present the B/C ratios for all the packages according to both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies for the mixed fuel and the all-electric cases, respectively. All the packages are cost-effective based on TDV except Climate Zone 3 for the all-electric cases where no cost-effective combination of nonpreempted efficiency measures was found that met the minimum 0.5 EDR Margin threshold. Cases where the B/C ratio is indicated as >1 are incremental cost savings in addition to annual utility bill savings. In these cases, there is no cost associated with this upgrade and benefits are realized immediately.
It is generally more challenging to achieve equivalent savings targets cost-effectively for the multifamily cases than for the single family cases. With less exterior surface area per floor area the impact of envelope measures
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 27 2019-07-17
is diminished in multifamily buildings. Ducts are already assumed to be within conditioned space and therefore only one of the duct measures found to be cost-effective in single family homes can be applied.
Figure 6 presents a comparison of Total EDRs for the multifamily cases and Figure 7 presents the EDR Margin results. Each graph compares the mixed fuel and all-electric cases as well as the various packages. Cost-effective efficiency packages were found for all mixed fuel cases. The Target EDR Margins for the mixed fuel Efficiency Package are 0.5 for Climate Zones 3, 5 and 7, between 1.0 and 2.5 for Climate Zones 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 through 12 and 16, and between 3.0 and 4.0 in Climate Zones 13 through 15. For the all-electric case, no cost-effective nonpreempted efficiency packages were found in Climate Zone 3. The Target EDR Margins are between 0.5 and 2.5 for Climate Zones 2, 4 through 10 and 12, and between 3.0 and 4.0 in Climate Zones 1, 11, and 13 through 16.
For the mixed fuel case, the Efficiency & PV/Battery Package results in an EDR Margin of between 8.5 and 11.5 across all climate zones. Most of these packages were not found to be cost-effective based on utility bill savings alone, but they all are cost-effective based on TDV energy savings. For the all-electric case, the Efficiency & PV Package resulted in EDR Margins of 10.5 to 17.5 for most climates; adding a battery system increased the EDR Margin by an additional 10 to 15 points. Climate zones 1 and 16, which have high heating loads, have much higher EDR Margins for the Efficiency & PV package (19.5-22.5). The Standard Design PV, which is what is applied in the Efficiency Package, is not sized to offset any of the heating load. When the PV system is sized to offset 90% of the total electricity use, the increase is substantial as a result. In Climate Zone 15 the Standard Design PV system is already sized to cover the cooling electricity load, which represents 30% of whole building electricity use. Therefore, increasing the PV size to offset 90% of the electric load in this climate only results in adding approximately 240 Watts of PV capacity per apartment and subsequently a much smaller impact on the EDR than in other climate zones. Because of the limitations on oversizing PV systems to offset natural gas use it is not feasible to achieve comparable EDR Margins for the mixed fuel case as in the all-electric case.
Additional results details can be found in Appendix E Multifamily Detailed Results with summaries of measures included in each of the packages in Appendix F Multifamily Measure Summary. A summary of results by climate zone is presented in Appendix G Results by Climate Zone.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 28 2019-07-17
11 Multif
Climate
Zone
Mixed Fuel All-Electric
Non- Preempted Equipment - Preempted Efficiency & PV/Battery Non- Preempted Equipment - Preempted Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery CZ01 +$960 +$507 +$3,094 +$949 +$795 +$5,538 +$8,919CZ02 +$309 +$497 +$2,413 +$361 +$795 +$3,711 +$6,833CZ03 +$175 +$403 +$2,279 n/a +$795 +$3,272 +$6,344CZ04 +$329 +$351 +$2,429 +$361 +$795 +$3,158 +$6,201CZ05 +$180 +$358 +$2,273 +$247 +$795 +$3,293 +$6,314CZ06 +$190 +$213 +$2,294 +$231 +$361 +$2,580 +$5,590CZ07 +$90 +$366 +$2,188 +$202 +$361 +$2,261 +$5,203CZ08 +$250 +$213 +$2,353 +$231 +$361 +$2,240 +$5,249CZ09 +$136 +$274 +$2,234 +$231 +$361 +$2,232 +$5,236CZ10 +$278 +$250 +$2,376 +$361 +$361 +$2,371 +$5,395CZ11 +$850 +$317 +$2,950 +$1,011 +$795 +$3,601 +$6,759CZ12 +$291 +$434 +$2,394 +$1,011 +$795 +$3,835 +$6,943CZ13 +$831 +$290 +$2,936 +$1,011 +$795 +$3,462 +$6,650CZ14 +$874 +$347 +$2,957 +$1,011 +$795 +$3,356 +$6,380CZ15 +$510 -($157) +$2,604 +$1,011 +$1,954 +$1,826 +$5,020CZ16 +$937 +$453 +$3,028 +$843 +$795 +$4,423 +$7,533
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 29 2019-07-17
12 Multif -E 1,2
CZ Utility
Efficiency Efficiency & PV/Battery
Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted Target
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
Target
Total
EDR
Margin
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Total
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
01 PG&E 3.4 1.1 1.2 2.3 1.3 1.4 2.0 11.5 0.4 1.2 11.502 PG&E 1.8 1.0 1.7 2.3 1.1 1.5 1.5 10.9 0.2 1.6 10.503 PG&E 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.6 1.1 1.2 0.5 10.3 0.1 1.4 10.004 PG&E 1.3 0.8 1.2 1.9 1.1 1.7 1.0 11.2 0.2 1.6 11.005 PG&E 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.2 1.3 0.5 9.9 0.2 1.4 9.505 PG&E/SoCalGas 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.5 1.1 1.3 0.5 9.9 0.1 1.4 9.506 SCE/SoCalGas 1.3 0.6 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.0 10.7 0.6 1.4 10.507 SDG&E 0.9 0.7 2.2 2.0 1.1 1.4 0.5 11.0 0.0 1.4 11.008 SCE/SoCalGas 1.5 0.7 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.0 9.9 0.7 1.3 9.509 SCE/SoCalGas 1.8 1.5 3.3 2.8 1.7 2.9 1.5 9.7 0.9 1.5 9.510 SCE/SoCalGas 1.7 0.8 1.7 2.9 2.0 3.3 1.5 10.4 1.0 1.6 10.010 SDG&E 1.7 1.1 1.7 2.9 2.6 3.3 1.5 10.4 0.2 1.6 10.011 PG&E 2.9 0.7 1.2 3.2 1.8 3.3 2.5 10.5 0.4 1.6 10.512 PG&E 1.9 1.1 2.2 2.8 1.2 2.2 1.5 10.3 0.3 1.7 10.013 PG&E 3.1 0.6 1.3 3.4 2.0 3.8 3.0 10.7 0.4 1.6 10.514 SCE/SoCalGas 3.1 0.7 1.2 3.3 2.0 3.0 3.0 9.6 1.1 1.4 9.514 SDG&E 3.1 0.9 1.2 3.3 2.5 3.0 3.0 9.6 0.5 1.4 9.515 SCE/SoCalGas 4.2 1.4 2.3 4.4 >1 >1 4.0 8.8 1.3 1.7 8.516 PG&E 2.4 1.1 1.2 2.9 1.8 2.1 2.0 9.9 0.5 1.3 9.5 12Information about the measures included for each climate zone are described in Appendix F Multifamily Measure Summary.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 30 2019-07-17
13 - - 1,2
CZ Utility
Efficiency Efficiency & PV Efficiency & PV/Battery
Non-Preempted Equipment - Preempted
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Target
Efficiency
EDR
Margin
Total
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Target
Total
EDR
Margin
Total
EDR
Margin
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Target
Total
EDR
Margin
01 PG&E 3.6 1.6 1.4 3.3 2.4 2.3 3.0 22.5 2.0 1.5 22.5 34.5 1.3 1.4 34.502 PG&E 1.9 1.7 2.1 3.2 1.6 1.6 1.5 17.5 2.4 1.8 17.5 30.9 1.4 1.7 30.503 PG&E 0.0 - - 2.7 1.7 1.6 0.0 16.1 2.4 1.7 16.0 29.5 1.3 1.6 29.504 PG&E 1.4 1.4 1.5 2.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 15.0 2.4 1.8 15.0 28.9 1.3 1.8 28.505 PG&E 0.6 1.1 0.9 3.6 2.1 2.0 0.5 17.1 2.5 1.8 17.0 30.3 1.4 1.7 30.005 PG&E/SoCalGas 0.6 1.1 0.9 3.6 2.1 2.0 0.5 17.1 2.5 1.8 17.0 30.3 1.4 1.7 30.006 SCE/SoCalGas 1.0 0.7 1.3 2.2 1.6 1.9 1.0 13.8 1.2 1.7 13.5 27.5 1.2 1.6 27.507 SDG&E 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.9 1.6 1.7 0.5 12.8 2.1 1.8 12.5 27.1 1.2 1.6 27.008 SCE/SoCalGas 1.2 0.9 1.7 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.0 11.6 1.3 1.8 11.5 24.2 1.2 1.6 24.009 SCE/SoCalGas 1.6 1.3 2.7 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 11.3 1.3 1.9 11.0 23.3 1.3 1.7 23.010 SCE/SoCalGas 1.8 1.2 2.0 1.8 1.7 2.0 1.5 10.8 1.3 1.8 10.5 23.3 1.3 1.7 23.010 SDG&E 1.8 1.5 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.5 10.8 2.1 1.8 10.5 23.3 1.4 1.7 23.011 PG&E 3.5 1.4 1.6 3.9 2.0 2.3 3.5 13.4 2.2 1.8 13.0 25.3 1.4 1.8 25.012 PG&E 2.6 0.9 1.1 2.9 1.6 1.6 2.5 14.4 2.1 1.6 14.0 26.6 1.3 1.7 26.513 PG&E 3.3 1.3 1.6 3.8 2.0 2.3 3.0 12.2 2.1 1.7 12.0 23.9 1.4 1.7 23.514 SCE/SoCalGas 3.7 1.2 1.6 3.8 1.6 2.2 3.5 14.0 1.4 1.9 14.0 24.8 1.4 1.8 24.514 SDG&E 3.7 1.5 1.6 3.8 2.0 2.2 3.5 14.0 2.2 1.9 14.0 24.8 1.7 1.8 24.515 SCE/SoCalGas 4.4 1.5 2.3 6.4 1.2 1.7 4.0 7.1 1.4 2.1 7.0 16.9 1.3 1.8 16.516 PG&E 4.1 2.1 2.1 3.2 1.6 1.7 3.0 19.6 2.6 1.9 19.5 29.9 1.6 1.7 29.5 1 tility bill savings.2Information about the measures included for each climate zone are described in Appendix F Multifamily Measure Summary.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 201
9 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
31 2019-07-17
6 Total
7 comparison
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 32 2019-07-17
3.3.1 Figure 8 compares annual GHG emissions for both mixed fuel and all-electric multifamily 2019 code compliant cases with Efficiency, Efficiency & PV and Efficiency & PV/Battery packages. GHG emissions vary by climate but are consistently higher in mixed fuel cases than all-electric. Standard design mixed fuel emissions range from 2.0 to 3.0 lbs CO2e/square foot of floor area, where all-electric standard design emissions range from 1.2 to 1.7 lbs CO2e/ ft2. Adding PV, batteries and efficiency to the mixed fuel code compliant prototype reduces annual GHG emissions by 17% on average to between 1.7 and 2.2 lbs CO2e/ft2, except Climate Zone 16. Adding PV, batteries and efficiency to the all-electric code compliant prototype reduces annual GHG emissions by 64% on average to
0.6 lbs CO2e/ft2 or less with the exception of Climate Zones 14, 15 and 16. As in the single family case, none of the cases completely eliminate GHG emissions because of the time value of emissions calculation for electricity in CBECC-Res.
8 3.4 Electrification Results
Cost-effectiveness results comparing mixed fuel and all-electric cases are summarized below. The tables show average annual utility bill impacts and lifetime utility bill impacts, which account for fuel escalation for electricity and natural gas (see Section 2.5), lifetime equipment cost savings, and both On-Bill and TDV cost-effectiveness (B/C ratio). Positive utility bill values indicate lower utility costs for the all-electric home relative to the mixed fuel case while negative values in red and parenthesis indicate higher utility costs for the all-electric case.
Lifetime equipment cost savings include savings due to eliminating natural gas infrastructure and replacement costs for appliances based on equipment life. Positive values for the lifetime equipment cost savings indicate lower installed costs for the all-electric and negative values indicate higher costs. B/C ratios 1.0 or greater indicate positive costwas incremental cost savings in addition to annual utility bill savings. In these cases, there is no cost associated with this upgrade and benefits are realized immediately.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 33 2019-07-17
Three scenarios were evaluated:
1. 2019 Code Compliant: Compares a 2019 code compliant all-electric home with a 2019 code compliant mixed fuel home.
2. Efficiency & PV Package: Compares an all-electric home with efficiency and PV sized to 90% of the annual electricity use to a 2019 code compliant mixed fuel home. The first cost savings in the code compliant all-electric house is invested in above code efficiency and PV reflective of the Efficiency & PV packages described above.
3. Neutral Cost Package: Compares an all-electric home with PV beyond code minimum with a 2019 code compliant mixed fuel home. The PV system for the all-electric case is sized to result in a zero lifetime incremental cost relative to a mixed fuel home.
3.4.1 Table 14, Table 15, Figure 9, Figure 10, and Figure 11 present results of cost-effectiveness analysis for electrification of single family buildings, according to both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies. Based on typical cost assumptions arrived at for this analysis, the lifetime equipment costs for the single family code compliant all-electric option are approximately $5,350 less than the mixed fuel code compliant option. Cost savings are entirely due to the elimination of gas infrastructure, which was assumed to be a savings of $5,750. When evaluating cost-effectiveness based on TDV, the Utility Gas Main Extensions rules 50% refund and appliance allowance deduction are not applied and therefore the cost savings are twice as much.
Under the Efficiency & PV Package and the On-Bill analysis, the incremental cost of the efficiency and PV is typically more than the cost savings seen in the code compliant case, which results in a net cost increase in most climate zones for the all-electric case. In climates with small heating loads (7 and 15) there continues to be an incremental cost savings for the all-electric home. With the TDV analysis, there is still an incremental cost savings in all climates except 1 and 16 for single family.
Utility impacts differ by climate zone and utility, but utility costs for the code compliant all-electric option are typically higher than for the compliant mixed fuel design. There are utility cost savings across all climates zones and building types for the all-electric Efficiency & PV Package, resulting in a more cost-effective option.
The all-electric code compliant option is cost-effective based on the On-Bill approach for single family homes in Climate Zones 6 through 9, 10 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and 15. The code compliant option is cost-effective based on the TDV methodology in all climate zones except 1 and 16. If the same costs used for the On-Bill approach are also used for the TDV approach (incorporating the Utility Gas Main Extensions rules 50% refund and appliance allowance deduction), the all-electric code compliant option is cost-effective in Climate Zones 6 through 10. The Efficiency & PV all-electric option is cost-effective in all climate zones based on both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies. In many cases it is cost-effective immediately with lower equipment and utility costs.
The last set of results in Table 14 shows the neutral cost case where the cost savings for the all-electric code compliant home is invested in a larger PV system, resulting in a lifetime incremental cost of zero based on the On-Bill approach. This package results in utility cost savings in all cases except Climate Zones 1, 14 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and 16. For these three cases the Reach Code Team evaluated how much additional PV would be required to result in a cost-effective package. These results are presented in Table 15 and show that an additional 1.6kW in Climate Zone 1 results in a B/C ratio of 1.1. For Climate Zone 14 and 16 adding 0.25kW and
1.2kW, respectively, results in a B/C ratio of 1.2. Neutral cost cases are cost-effective based on the TDV methodology in all climate zones except 16.
3.4.2 Multifamily
Multifamily results are found in Table 16, Table 17, Figure 12, Figure 13, and Figure 14. Lifetime costs for the multifamily code compliant all-electric option are approximately $2,300 less than the mixed fuel code compliant option, entirely due to the elimination of gas infrastructure. When evaluating cost-effectiveness based on TDV,
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 34 2019-07-17
the Utility Gas Main Extensions rules 50% refund and appliance allowance deduction are not applied and therefore the cost savings are approximately 2.5 times higher.
With the Efficiency & PV Package and the On-Bill analysis, due to the added cost of the efficiency and PV there is a net cost increase for the all-electric case in all climate zones for except 7, 8, 9, and 15. With the TDV analysis, there is still an incremental cost savings in all climates. Like the single family results, utility costs are typically higher for the code compliant all-electric option but lower than the code compliant mixed fuel option with the Efficiency & PV Package.
The all-electric code compliant option is cost-effective based on the On-Bill approach for multifamily in Climate Zones 6 through 9, 10 and 14 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and 15. Based on the TDV methodology, the code compliant option for multifamily is cost-effective for all climate zones. If the same costs used for the On-Bill approach are also used for the TDV approach (incorporating the Utility Gas Main Extensions rules 50% refund and appliance allowance deduction), the all-electric code compliant option is cost-effective in Climate Zones 8 and 9. Like the single family cases, the Efficiency & PV all-electric option is cost-effective in all climate zones based on both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies.
The last set of results in Table 16 show the neutral cost case where the cost savings for the all-electric code compliant home is invested in a larger PV system, resulting in a lifetime incremental cost of zero based on the On-Bill approach. This package results in utility cost savings in all cases except Climate Zone 1. For this case the Reach Code Team evaluated how much additional PV would be required to result in a cost-effective package.
These results are presented in Table 17 and show that an additional 0.3kW per apartment results in a B/C ratio of 1.1. Neutral cost cases are cost-effective based on the TDV methodology in all climate zones except 16. 14 On-Bill Cost-effectiveness1 TDV Cost-effectiveness
CZ Utility
Average Annual Utility Bill
Savings
Lifetime NPV Lifetime NPV
Electricity
Natural
Gas
Net
Utility
Savings
Utility Bill
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio2
TDV Cost
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
TDV
B/C
Ratio
2019 Code Compliant Home
01 PG&E -($1,194) +$712 -($482) -($14,464) +$5,349 0.4 -($13,081) +$11,872 0.9 02 PG&E -($825) +$486 -($340) -($10,194) +$5,349 0.5 -($7,456) +$11,872 1.6 03 PG&E -($717) +$391 -($326) -($9,779) +$5,349 0.5 -($7,766) +$11,872 1.5 04 PG&E -($710) +$387 -($322) -($9,671) +$5,349 0.6 -($7,447) +$11,872 1.6 05 PG&E -($738) +$367 -($371) -($11,128) +$5,349 0.5 -($8,969) +$11,872 1.3 05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($738) +$370 -($368) -($11,034) +$5,349 0.5 -($8,969) +$11,872 1.3 06 SCE/SoCalGas -($439) +$289 -($149) -($4,476) +$5,349 1.2 -($4,826) +$11,872 2.5 07 SDG&E -($414) +$243 -($171) -($5,134) +$5,349 1.0 -($4,678) +$11,872 2.5 08 SCE/SoCalGas -($347) +$249 -($97) -($2,921) +$5,349 1.8 -($3,971) +$11,872 3.0 09 SCE/SoCalGas -($377) +$271 -($107) -($3,199) +$5,349 1.7 -($4,089) +$11,872 2.9 10 SCE/SoCalGas -($403) +$280 -($123) -($3,684) +$5,349 1.5 -($4,458) +$11,872 2.7 10 SDG&E -($496) +$297 -($198) -($5,950) +$5,349 0.9 -($4,458) +$11,872 2.7 11 PG&E -($810) +$447 -($364) -($10,917) +$5,349 0.5 -($7,024) +$11,872 1.7 12 PG&E -($740) +$456 -($284) -($8,533) +$5,349 0.6 -($6,281) +$11,872 1.9 13 PG&E -($742) +$413 -($329) -($9,870) +$5,349 0.5 -($6,480) +$11,872 1.8 14 SCE/SoCalGas -($661) +$413 -($248) -($7,454) +$5,349 0.7 -($7,126) +$11,872 1.7 14 SDG&E -($765) +$469 -($296) -($8,868) +$5,349 0.6 -($7,126) +$11,872 1.7 15 SCE/SoCalGas -($297) +$194 -($103) -($3,090) +$5,349 1.7 -($5,364) +$11,872 2.2 16 PG&E -($1,287) +$712 -($575) -($17,250) +$5,349 0.3 -($17,391) +$11,872 0.7
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 35 2019-07-17
On-Bill Cost-effectiveness1 TDV Cost-effectiveness
CZ Utility
Average Annual Utility Bill
Savings
Lifetime NPV Lifetime NPV
Electricity
Natural
Gas
Net
Utility
Savings
Utility Bill
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio2
TDV Cost
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Efficiency & PV Package
01 PG&E -($99) +$712 +$613 +$18,398 -($12,844) 1.4 +$13,364 -($6,321) 2.1 02 PG&E -($89) +$486 +$397 +$11,910 -($6,758) 1.8 +$9,307 -($234) 39.7 03 PG&E -($87) +$391 +$304 +$9,119 -($3,169) 2.9 +$6,516 +$3,355 >1 04 PG&E -($85) +$387 +$302 +$9,074 -($3,438) 2.6 +$6,804 +$3,086 >1 05 PG&E -($98) +$367 +$268 +$8,054 -($2,959) 2.7 +$5,625 +$3,564 >1 05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($98) +$370 +$272 +$8,148 -($2,959) 2.8 +$5,625 +$3,564 >1 06 SCE/SoCalGas -($188) +$289 +$102 +$3,049 -($992) 3.1 +$4,585 +$5,531 >1 07 SDG&E -($137) +$243 +$106 +$3,174 +$912 >1 +$2,176 +$7,436 >1 08 SCE/SoCalGas -($160) +$249 +$89 +$2,664 -($25) 107.9 +$3,965 +$6,499 >1 09 SCE/SoCalGas -($169) +$271 +$102 +$3,067 -($429) 7.1 +$5,368 +$6,094 >1 10 SCE/SoCalGas -($173) +$280 +$107 +$3,216 -($1,057) 3.0 +$5,165 +$5,466 >1 10 SDG&E -($137) +$297 +$160 +$4,805 -($1,057) 4.5 +$5,165 +$5,466 >1 11 PG&E -($147) +$447 +$300 +$8,988 -($5,478) 1.6 +$9,776 +$1,045 >1 12 PG&E -($92) +$456 +$364 +$10,918 -($6,172) 1.8 +$9,913 +$352 >1 13 PG&E -($144) +$413 +$269 +$8,077 -($5,184) 1.6 +$8,960 +$1,339 >1 14 SCE/SoCalGas -($241) +$413 +$172 +$5,164 -($5,111) 1.0 +$9,850 +$1,412 >1 14 SDG&E -($139) +$469 +$330 +$9,910 -($5,111) 1.9 +$9,850 +$1,412 >1 15 SCE/SoCalGas -($107) +$194 +$87 +$2,603 +$264 >1 +$2,598 +$6,787 >1 16 PG&E -($130) +$712 +$582 +$17,457 -($11,234) 1.6 +$9,536 -($4,710) 2.0 Neutral Cost Package
01 PG&E -($869) +$712 -($157) -($4,704) +$0 0 -($6,033) +$6,549 1.1 02 PG&E -($445) +$486 +$40 +$1,213 +$0 >1 +$868 +$6,505 >1 03 PG&E -($335) +$391 +$56 +$1,671 +$0 >1 +$483 +$6,520 >1 04 PG&E -($321) +$387 +$66 +$1,984 +$0 >1 +$1,062 +$6,521 >1 05 PG&E -($335) +$367 +$31 +$938 +$0 >1 -($163) +$6,519 40.1 05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($335) +$370 +$34 +$1,031 +$0 >1 -($163) +$6,519 40.1 06 SCE/SoCalGas -($227) +$289 +$63 +$1,886 +$0 >1 +$3,258 +$6,499 >1 07 SDG&E -($72) +$243 +$171 +$5,132 +$0 >1 +$3,741 +$6,519 >1 08 SCE/SoCalGas -($144) +$249 +$105 +$3,162 +$0 >1 +$4,252 +$6,515 >1 09 SCE/SoCalGas -($170) +$271 +$100 +$3,014 +$0 >1 +$4,271 +$6,513 >1 10 SCE/SoCalGas -($199) +$280 +$81 +$2,440 +$0 >1 +$3,629 +$6,494 >1 10 SDG&E -($155) +$297 +$143 +$4,287 +$0 >1 +$3,629 +$6,494 >1 11 PG&E -($426) +$447 +$21 +$630 +$0 >1 +$1,623 +$6,504 >1 12 PG&E -($362) +$456 +$94 +$2,828 +$0 >1 +$2,196 +$6,525 >1 13 PG&E -($370) +$413 +$43 +$1,280 +$0 >1 +$1,677 +$6,509 >1 14 SCE/SoCalGas -($416) +$413 -($4) -($107) +$0 0 +$2,198 +$6,520 >1 14 SDG&E -($391) +$469 +$79 +$2,356 +$0 >1 +$2,198 +$6,520 >1 15 SCE/SoCalGas -($98) +$194 +$97 +$2,900 +$0 >1 +$2,456 +$6,483 >1 16 PG&E -($878) +$712 -($166) -($4,969) +$0 0 -($8,805) +$6,529 0.7 1Red values in parentheses indicate an increase in utility bill costs or an incremental first cost for the all-electric home. 2 indicates cases where there are both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 36 2019-07-17
15 OnPV
CZ Utility
Neutral Cost Min. Cost Effectiveness
PV
Capacity
(kW)
Utility Bill
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
PV Capacity
(kW)
Utility Bill
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio
01 PG&E 4.7 -($4,704) +$0 0 6.3 +$6,898 -($6,372) 1.1
14 SCE/SoCalGas 4.5 -($107) +$0 0 4.8 +$1,238 -($1,000) 1.2 16 PG&E 4.1 -($4,969) +$0 0 5.3 +$5,883 -($4,753) 1.2
9 all10.C.d
Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 201
9 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
37 2019-07-17
10-
11-
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 38 2019-07-17
16 ( Unit)
On-Bill Cost-effectiveness1 TDV Cost-effectiveness
CZ Utility
Average Annual Utility Bill
Savings
Lifetime NPV Lifetime NPV
Electricity
Natural
Gas
Net
Utility
Savings
Utility Bill
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio2
TDV Cost
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
TDV
B/C
Ratio
2019 Code Compliant Home
01 PG&E -($396) +$193 -($203) -($6,079) +$2,337 0.4 -($5,838) +$5,899 1.0 02 PG&E -($310) +$162 -($148) -($4,450) +$2,337 0.5 -($4,144) +$5,899 1.4 03 PG&E -($277) +$142 -($135) -($4,041) +$2,337 0.6 -($4,035) +$5,899 1.5 04 PG&E -($264) +$144 -($120) -($3,595) +$2,337 0.6 -($3,329) +$5,899 1.8 05 PG&E -($297) +$140 -($157) -($4,703) +$2,337 0.5 -($4,604) +$5,899 1.3 05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($297) +$178 -($119) -($3,573) +$2,337 0.7 -($4,604) +$5,899 1.3 06 SCE/SoCalGas -($191) +$161 -($30) -($902) +$2,337 2.6 -($2,477) +$5,899 2.4 07 SDG&E -($206) +$136 -($70) -($2,094) +$2,337 1.1 -($2,390) +$5,899 2.5 08 SCE/SoCalGas -($169) +$157 -($12) -($349) +$2,337 6.7 -($2,211) +$5,899 2.7 09 SCE/SoCalGas -($177) +$159 -($18) -($533) +$2,337 4.4 -($2,315) +$5,899 2.5 10 SCE/SoCalGas -($183) +$159 -($23) -($697) +$2,337 3.4 -($2,495) +$5,899 2.4 10 SDG&E -($245) +$139 -($106) -($3,192) +$2,337 0.7 -($2,495) +$5,899 2.4 11 PG&E -($291) +$153 -($138) -($4,149) +$2,337 0.6 -($4,420) +$5,899 1.3 12 PG&E -($277) +$155 -($122) -($3,665) +$2,337 0.6 -($3,557) +$5,899 1.7 13 PG&E -($270) +$146 -($124) -($3,707) +$2,337 0.6 -($3,821) +$5,899 1.5 14 SCE/SoCalGas -($255) +$187 -($69) -($2,062) +$2,337 1.1 -($3,976) +$5,899 1.5 14 SDG&E -($328) +$175 -($154) -($4,607) +$2,337 0.5 -($3,976) +$5,899 1.5 15 SCE/SoCalGas -($154) +$142 -($12) -($367) +$2,337 6.4 -($2,509) +$5,899 2.4 16 PG&E -($404) +$224 -($180) -($5,411) +$2,337 0.4 -($5,719) +$5,899 1.0 Efficiency & PV Package
01 PG&E -($19) +$193 +$174 +$5,230 -($3,202) 1.6 +$2,467 +$361 >1 02 PG&E -($10) +$162 +$152 +$4,549 -($1,375) 3.3 +$2,605 +$2,187 >1 03 PG&E -($12) +$142 +$130 +$3,910 -($936) 4.2 +$1,632 +$2,626 >1 04 PG&E -($8) +$144 +$136 +$4,080 -($822) 5.0 +$2,381 +$2,740 >1 05 PG&E -($19) +$140 +$121 +$3,635 -($956) 3.8 +$1,403 +$2,606 >1 05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($19) +$178 +$159 +$4,765 -($956) 5.0 +$1,403 +$2,606 >1 06 SCE/SoCalGas -($84) +$161 +$77 +$2,309 -($243) 9.5 +$1,940 +$3,319 >1 07 SDG&E -($49) +$136 +$87 +$2,611 +$75 >1 +$1,583 +$3,638 >1 08 SCE/SoCalGas -($74) +$157 +$83 +$2,480 +$96 >1 +$1,772 +$3,658 >1 09 SCE/SoCalGas -($76) +$159 +$82 +$2,469 +$104 >1 +$1,939 +$3,667 >1 10 SCE/SoCalGas -($79) +$159 +$80 +$2,411 -($34) 70.9 +$1,737 +$3,528 >1 10 SDG&E -($77) +$139 +$61 +$1,842 -($34) 54.2 +$1,737 +$3,528 >1 11 PG&E -($25) +$153 +$128 +$3,834 -($1,264) 3.0 +$2,080 +$2,298 >1 12 PG&E -($11) +$155 +$144 +$4,316 -($1,498) 2.9 +$2,759 +$2,064 >1 13 PG&E -($26) +$146 +$121 +$3,625 -($1,125) 3.2 +$2,083 +$2,437 >1 14 SCE/SoCalGas -($99) +$187 +$87 +$2,616 -($1,019) 2.6 +$2,422 +$2,543 >1 14 SDG&E -($86) +$175 +$88 +$2,647 -($1,019) 2.6 +$2,422 +$2,543 >1 15 SCE/SoCalGas -($67) +$142 +$75 +$2,247 +$511 >1 +$1,276 +$4,073 >1 16 PG&E -($24) +$224 +$200 +$5,992 -($2,087) 2.9 +$2,629 +$1,476 >1
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 39 2019-07-17
On-Bill Cost-effectiveness1 TDV Cost-effectiveness
CZ Utility
Average Annual Utility Bill
Savings
Lifetime NPV Lifetime NPV
Electricity
Natural
Gas
Net
Utility
Savings
Utility Bill
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
On-Bill
B/C
Ratio2
TDV Cost
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
TDV
B/C
Ratio
Neutral Cost Package
01 PG&E -($228) +$193 -($35) -($1,057) +$0 0 -($2,267) +$3,564 1.6 02 PG&E -($115) +$162 +$47 +$1,399 +$0 >1 +$59 +$3,563 >1 03 PG&E -($81) +$142 +$61 +$1,843 +$0 >1 +$138 +$3,562 >1 04 PG&E -($64) +$144 +$80 +$2,402 +$0 >1 +$983 +$3,563 >1 05 PG&E -($90) +$140 +$50 +$1,490 +$0 >1 -($152) +$3,564 23.4 05 PG&E/SoCalGas -($90) +$178 +$87 +$2,620 +$0 >1 -($152) +$3,564 23.4 06 SCE/SoCalGas -($90) +$161 +$71 +$2,144 +$0 >1 +$1,612 +$3,562 >1 07 SDG&E -($32) +$136 +$105 +$3,135 +$0 >1 +$1,886 +$3,560 >1 08 SCE/SoCalGas -($67) +$157 +$90 +$2,705 +$0 >1 +$1,955 +$3,564 >1 09 SCE/SoCalGas -($71) +$159 +$87 +$2,623 +$0 >1 +$1,924 +$3,561 >1 10 SCE/SoCalGas -($78) +$159 +$81 +$2,431 +$0 >1 +$1,588 +$3,561 >1 10 SDG&E -($71) +$139 +$68 +$2,033 +$0 >1 +$1,588 +$3,561 >1 11 PG&E -($93) +$153 +$59 +$1,783 +$0 >1 -($48) +$3,562 74.0 12 PG&E -($82) +$155 +$73 +$2,184 +$0 >1 +$739 +$3,564 >1 13 PG&E -($79) +$146 +$68 +$2,034 +$0 >1 +$310 +$3,560 >1 14 SCE/SoCalGas -($141) +$187 +$45 +$1,359 +$0 >1 +$747 +$3,562 >1 14 SDG&E -($137) +$175 +$38 +$1,131 +$0 >1 +$747 +$3,562 >1 15 SCE/SoCalGas -($50) +$142 +$92 +$2,771 +$0 >1 +$1,738 +$3,560 >1 16 PG&E -($194) +$224 +$30 +$900 +$0 >1 -($1,382) +$3,564 2.6 1Red values in parentheses indicate an increase in utility bill costs or an incremental first cost for the all-electric home. 2 indicates cases where there are both first cost savings and annual utility bill savings. 17 OnUnit)
CZ Utility
Neutral Cost Min. Cost Effectiveness
PV
Capacity
(kW)
Utility Bill
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
On-Bill
B/C Ratio
PV
Capacity
(kW)
Utility Bill
Savings
Equipment
Cost
Savings
On-Bill
B/C Ratio
01 PG&E 2.7 -($1,057) +$0 0 3.0 +$1,198 -($1,052) 1.1
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 201
9 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study
40 2019-07-17
12 multi-
13-
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 41 2019-07-17
14 -
4 Conclusion Summary
This report evaluated the feasibility and cost-effective specifications through the application of efficiency measures, PV, and electric battery storage in all 16 California climate zones. The analysis found cost-effective packages across the state for both single family and low-rise multifamily buildings.
For the building types and climate zones where cost-effective packages were identified, the results of this analysis can be used by local jurisdictions to support the adoption of reach codes. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated according to two metrics: On-Bill customer lifecycle benefit-to-cost and TDV lifecycle benefit-to-cost.
While all the above code targets presented are based on packages that are cost-effective under at least one of these metrics, they are not all cost-effective under both metrics. Generally, the test for being cost-effective under the TDV methodology is less challenging than under the On-Bill methodology. Therefore, all packages presented are cost-effective based on TDV, and may or may not be cost-effective based on the On-Bill method.
It is up to each jurisdiction to determine what metric is most appropriate for their application. A summary of results by climate zone are presented in Appendix G Results by Climate Zone.
Above code targets are presented as Target EDR Margin, which have been defined for each scenario where a cost-effective package was identified.
requirements. Jurisdictions may adopt less stringent requirements. For the Efficiency Package the Target EDR Margin was defined based on the lower EDR Margin of the Efficiency Non-Preempted Package and the Efficiency Equipment, Preempted Package. For example, if the cost-effective Non-Preempted package has an EDR Margin of 3 and the Preempted package an EDR Margin of 4, the Target EDR Margin is set at 3.
The average incremental cost for the single family Efficiency packages is ~$1,750. The Efficiency & PV Package average incremental cost is $9,180 and for the Efficiency & PV/Battery Package it is approximately $5,600 for the
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 42 2019-07-17
mixed fuel cases and $15,100 for the all-electric cases. The incremental costs for each multifamily apartment are approximately 30-40% lower. See Table 8 and Table 11 for a summary of package costs by case.
Table 18 and Table 19 summarize the maximum Target EDR Margins determined to be cost effective for each package for single family and multifamily, respectively. Cases indicate where no cost-effective package was identified under either On-Bill or TDV methodology.
This analysis also looked at the GHG emissions impacts of the various packages. An all-electric design reduces GHG emissions 40-50% in most cases relative to a comparable mixed fuel design.
There is significant interest throughout California on electrification of new buildings. The Reach Code Team assembled data on the cost differences between a code compliant mixed fuel building and a code compliant allelectric building. Based on lifetime equipment cost savings (the difference in first cost for equipment and infrastructure combined with incremental replacement costs) of $5,349 for an all-electric single family home this analysis found that from a customer on-bill perspective, the all-electric code compliant option is cost-effective in Climates Zones 6 through 9, 10 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and 15, and cost-effective in all climate zones except 1 and 16 based on TDV. For multifamily buildings, based on a cost savings of $2,337 per apartment, the code compliant option is cost-effective in Climates Zones 6 through 9, 10 & 14 (SCE/SoCalGas territory only), and 15, and cost-effective based on TDV.
Adding efficiency and PV to the code compliant all-electric buildings increases the cost-effectiveness in all climate zones. The Efficiency & PV Package is cost-effective when compared to a mixed fuel code compliant building in all climate zones for both single family and multifamily buildings based on both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies. The Efficiency & PV package adds PV to offset 90% of the electricity use of the home. While this results in higher installed costs, the reduced lifetime utility costs are larger ($0 to $6,000 lifetime incremental equipment costs in many climates for single family homes and an associated $4,500 to $13,500 lifetime utility cost savings across the same cases), resulting in positive B/C ratios for all cases.
The Reach Code Team also evaluated a neutral cost electrification scenario where the cost savings for the allelectric code compliant home is invested in a larger PV system, resulting in a lifetime incremental cost of zero based on the On-Bill approach. This package results in utility cost savings and positive on-bill B/C ratio in all cases except Climate Zones 1 and 16 for single family, and Climate Zone 1 for low-rise multifamily. Increasing the PV sizes in those climates by approximately 30% resulted in positive on-bill B/C ratios, while still not resulting in oversizing of PV systems.
Other studies have shown that cost-effectiveness of electrification increases with high efficiency space conditioning and water heating equipment in the all-electric home. This was not directly evaluated in this analysis but based on the favorable cost-effectiveness results of the Equipment, Preempted package for the individual mixed fuel and allanalysis would result in increased cost-effectiveness.
The Reach Code Team found there can be substantial variability in first costs, particularly related to natural gas infrastructure. Costs are project-dependent and will be impacted by such factors as site characteristics, distance to the nearest gas main, joint trenching, whether work is conducted by the utility or a private contractor, and number of homes per development among other things. While the best cost data available to the Reach Code Team was applied in this analysis, individual projects may experience different costs, either higher or lower than the estimates presented here.
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 43 2019-07-17
18 Margins
Clim
ate
Z
o
n
e
Mixed Fuel All-Electric
Efficiency
Efficiency &
PV/Battery Efficiency Efficiency & PV
Efficiency &
PV/Battery
01 5.0 10.5 6.5 31.0 41.0
02 3.0 10.0 4.5 19.0 30.0
03 2.5 10.0 4.0 18.0 29.0
04 2.5 10.0 3.0 17.0 28.5
05 2.5 9.0 4.0 18.0 28.5
06 1.5 9.5 2.0 14.0 26.0
07 n/a 9.0 n/a 11.0 24.0
08 1.0 8.0 1.5 10.5 21.5
09 2.5 8.5 2.5 11.5 21.0
10 3.0 9.5 3.0 11.0 21.0
11 4.0 9.0 4.5 14.0 23.0
12 3.0 9.5 3.5 15.5 25.0
13 4.5 9.5 5.0 13.0 22.0
14 4.5 9.0 5.5 15.5 23.5
15 4.5 7.0 5.5 6.0 13.0
16 5.0 10.5 4.5 26.5 35.0
19 Margins
Clim
ate
Z
o
n
e
Mixed Fuel All-Electric
Efficiency
Efficiency &
PV/Battery Efficiency Efficiency & PV
Efficiency &
PV/Battery
01 2.0 11.5 3.0 22.5 34.5
02 1.5 10.5 1.5 17.5 30.5
03 0.5 10.0 n/a 16.0 29.5
04 1.0 11.0 1.0 15.0 28.5
05 0.5 9.5 0.5 17.0 30.0
06 1.0 10.5 1.0 13.5 27.5
07 0.5 11.0 0.5 12.5 27.0
08 1.0 9.5 1.0 11.5 24.0
09 1.5 9.5 1.5 11.0 23.0
10 1.5 10.0 1.5 10.5 23.0
11 2.5 10.5 3.5 13.0 25.0
12 1.5 10.0 2.5 14.0 26.5
13 3.0 10.5 3.0 12.0 23.5
14 3.0 9.5 3.5 14.0 24.5
15 4.0 8.5 4.0 7.0 16.5
16 2.0 9.5 3.0 19.5 29.5
10.C.d
Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: Zero Emission Building Cost Effectiveness Studies [Revision 1] (5268 : Zero Emission Building Code and EV Charger Reach Code 2019 Energy Efficiency Ordinance Cost-effectiveness Study 44 2019-07-17
5 References
California Energy Commission. 2017. Rooftop Solar PV System. Measure number: 2019-Res-PV-D Prepared by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=221366 California Energy Commission. 2018a. 2019 Alternative Calculation Method Approval Manual. CEC-400-2018- 023-CMF. December 2018. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC400-2018-023/CEC-400-2018-023-CMF.pdf California Energy Commission. 2018b. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. CEC-400-2018-020-CMF. December 2018. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-020/CEC-400-2018-020-CMF.pdf California Energy Commission. 2018c. 2019 Reference Appendices. CEC-400-2018-021-CMF. December 2018.
California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-021/CEC-400-2018- 021-CMF.pdf
California Energy Commission. 2018d. 2019 Residential Compliance Manual. CEC-400-2018-017-CMF. December 2018. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-017/CEC-400- 2018-017-CMF.pdf
California Energy Commission. 2019. 2019 Residential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual. CEC400-2019-005-CMF. May 2019. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2019publications/CEC-400-2019-005/CEC-400-2019-005-CMF.pdf California Public Utilities Commission. 2016. Rulemaking No. 15-03-010 An Order Instituting Rulemaking to Identify Disadvantaged Communities in the San Joaquin Valley and Analyze Economically Feasible Options to Increase Access to Affordable Energy in Those Disadvantages Communities. Proposed Decision of Commissioner Guzman Aceves. April 07, 2017. http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M183/K389/183389022.PDF Davis Energy Group. 2015. Evaluation of Ducts in Conditioned Space for New California Homes. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. March 2015. https://www.etcc-ca.com/reports/evaluation-ducts-conditionedspace-new-california-homes Energy & Environmental Economics. 2019. Residential Building Electrification in California. April 2019. https://www.ethree.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/04/E3_Residential_Building_Electrification_in_California_April_2019.pdf EPRI. 2016. SMUD All-Electric Homes Electrification Case Study: Summary for the Three-Prong Test Discussion.