Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-09-08 City Council Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Monday, September 08, 2025 Council Chambers & Hybrid 5:30 PM Amended Agenda Amended agenda items appear below in RED (Time Estimates Updated) Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference or in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/362027238 ) Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS General Public Comment for items not on the agenda will be accepted in person for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. General public comment will be heard for 30 minutes. Additional public comments, if any, will be heard at the end of the agenda. Public comments for agendized items will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. Requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation or as determined by the Chair. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to city.council@PaloAlto.gov and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to city.clerk@PaloAlto.gov at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. TIME ESTIMATES Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. 1 September 08, 2025 Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas. CALL TO ORDER AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS PUBLIC COMMENT (5:30 - 6:00 PM) Members of the public may speak in-person ONLY to any item NOT on the agenda. 1-3 minutes depending on number of speakers. Public Comment is limited to 30 minutes. Additional public comments, if any, will be heard at the end of the agenda. COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS (6:00 - 6:15 PM) Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). STUDY SESSION (6:15 - 7:15 PM) 1.414 California Avenue [25PLN-00140]. Request for Council Prescreening to Rezone the Subject Property from Community Commercial (2) (CC[2]) to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning and to Allow Construction of a Mixed-Use Building with 37 Units in a Six-Story Structure on a 16,231-Square-Foot (0.37 Acre) Site. CEQA Status: Not a Project. Item Removed Off Agenda (Rescheduled for September 15, 2025 City Council Meeting) 2.San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Update on Reach 2 Flood Control Project CONSENT CALENDAR (7:15 - 7:20 PM) Items will be voted in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 3.Approval of Minutes from August 11 and August 18, 2025 Meetings 4.Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Fiscal Year 2026 Municipal Fee Schedule to Reflect Council-Directed Changes to Existing Fees and Add a New Subsidized Fee for Stand-Alone Residential Gas, Water and Space Heating Equipment Permits. CEQA Status: Not a Project 5.Approval of Construction Contract No. C26195620 with Public Restroom Company in the Amount Not-to-Exceed $412,940 and Authorization for the City Manager or Their Designee to Negotiate and Execute Change Orders Up to a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $41,294 to Provide and Install a Modular Restroom Building at Mitchell Park for the Park Restroom Installation Capital Improvement Program Project (PG-19000); CEQA status – exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 2 September 08, 2025 Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas. 6.Approve Amendment #1 of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the California Alternate Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority (CAEATFA), to Extend the Term of the Agreement from Two Years to Five Years, to Continue to Enable the Residents of Palo Alto to Participate in the GoGreen Home Energy Financing Program. Supplemental Report added 7.Authorization to Execute Amendment to Legal Services Contract S26195198 with Colantuono Highsmith & Whatley PC to Increase Amount by $205,000 for Total Not-to- Exceed Amount of $255,000; CEQA Status – Not a Project. 8.Adoption of an Emergency Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapters 16.04 (California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 & 2), 16.05 (California Mechanical Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 4), and 16.14 (California Green Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11) to Make Non-Substantive Changes Addressing Comments from the California Building Standards Commission. CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15308. 9.Approval of the Purchasing Card Audit and Extension Deadline for Two FY2024 Audit Project Task Orders and Amendment of the FY2024 and FY2025 Task Order Budgets to Realign the Authorized Budgets with a Net Zero Impact, as Recommended by the Policy & Services Committee; CEQA – Not a Project 10.Approve Purchase Order S26195255 with Dasher Technologies, Utilizing a State of California Blanket Purchase Agreement, to Procure Rubrik Data Backup and Security Solution for a 3-Year Term for a Not-To-Exceed Amount of $106,933; CEQA Status - Not a Project. 11.Approval of Professional Service Contract Number C26195633 with H.T. Harvey & Associates in an Amount Not to Exceed $195,004 for Services to Manage a Wetland Remedial Mitigation Plan for a Period of 2 Years. CEQA Status – Categorically Exempt. 12.FIRST READ: Adopt an Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 10.56 (Special Speed Zones) to Update Speed Limit Studies for 22 Streets and Decrease the Speed Limit for a Portion of Deer Creek Road; and Approve the 2024 Traffic Survey; CEQA status – categorically exempt. 13.FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 16.64 (Development Fee and In-Lieu Payment Administration) of Title 16 (Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Reflect Changes in Law. CEQA Status – Exempt under CEQA  3 September 08, 2025 Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas. Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). 14.SECOND READING: Ordinance Adopting the 2025 Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map Issued by the State Fire Marshal (FIRST READING: August 11, 2025 PASSED 6-0-1, Lythcott- Haims Absent) 15.SECOND READING: Ordinance Adding Use of Council Chambers Fees to the FY 2026 Municipal Fee Schedule (FIRST READING: August 11, 2025 PASSED 6-0-1, Lythcott-Haims absent) 16.SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.21 (Architectural Review Board) and Chapter 2.25 (Parks and Recreation Commission) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Procedures for Electing a Chair and Vice Chair (FIRST READING: August 11, 2025, PASSED 6-0-1, Lythcott-Haims Absent) 17.SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Restating Procedures for Expedited Permitting Processing for Electric Vehicle Charging Systems (FIRST READING: August 11, 2025 PASSED 6-0-1, Lythcott-Haims Absent) CITY MANAGER COMMENTS (7:20 - 7:35 PM)   BREAK (15 MINUTES) ACTION ITEMS (Item 18: 7:50 - 9:05 PM, Item 19: 9:05 - 10:20 PM) Include: Report of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Report of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 18.Discuss the FY 2026 budget amendments to reduce General Fund appropriations by approximately $6.2 million as Recommended by the Finance Committee and Approve the FY 2026 Budget Amendments in Various Funds. CEQA Status - Not a Project. 19.Adoption of an Emergency Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 16.04 to Add Local Administrative Amendments Related to Certificates of Occupancy and Definitions to the 2022 California Building Code, and an Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments Thereto. CEQA Status – Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) and 15308. ADJOURNMENT  4 September 08, 2025 Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas. INFORMATION REPORTS Information reports are provided for informational purposes only to the Council and the public but are not listed for action or discussion during this meeting’s agenda.   A.Community Engagement Plan for Rail Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road Crossings B.Fiscal Year 2025 Significant Gifts and Donations to the City of Palo Alto OTHER INFORMATION Standing Committee Meetings this week         Council Appointed Officers Committee September 9, 2025 Policy & Services Committee September 9, 2025 City Schools Liaison Committee September 11, 2025 Public Comment Letters Schedule of Meetings   AMENDED AGENDA ITEMS   1.414 California Avenue [25PLN-00140]. Request for Council Prescreening to Rezone the Subject Property from Community Commercial (2) (CC[2]) to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning and to Allow Construction of a Mixed-Use Building with 37 Units in a Six-Story Structure on a 16,231-Square-Foot (0.37 Acre) Site. CEQA Status: Not a Project. Item Removed Off Agenda (Rescheduled for September 15, 2025 City Council Meeting) 6.Approve Amendment #1 of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the California Alternate Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority (CAEATFA), to Extend the Term of the Agreement from Two Years to Five Years, to Continue to Enable the Residents of Palo Alto to Participate in the GoGreen Home Energy Financing Program. Supplemental Report added    5 September 08, 2025 Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas. PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1.Written public comments may be submitted by email to city.council@PaloAlto.gov. 2.For in person public comments please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. 3.Spoken public comments for agendized items using a computer or smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. ◦You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. Or download the Zoom application onto your smart phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter in the Meeting ID below. ◦You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. ◦When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. ◦When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 4.Spoken public comments for agendized items using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 362-027-238 Phone: 1-669-900-6833 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@PaloAlto.gov. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.    6 September 08, 2025 Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas.   California Government Code §84308, commonly referred to as the "Levine Act," prohibits an elected official of a local government agency from participating in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use if the official received a campaign contribution exceeding $500 from a party or participant, including their agents, to the proceeding within the last 12 months. A “license, permit, or other entitlement for use” includes most land use and planning approvals and the approval of contracts that are not subject to lowest responsible bid procedures and have a value over $50,000. A “party” is a person who files an application for, or is the subject of, a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use. A “participant” is a person who actively supports or opposes a particular decision in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use, and has a financial interest in the decision. The Levine Act incorporates the definition of “financial interest” in the Political Reform Act, which encompasses interests in business entities, real property, sources of income, sources of gifts, and personal finances that may be affected by the Council’s actions. If you qualify as a “party” or “participant” to a proceeding, and you have made a campaign contribution to a Council Member exceeding $500 made within the last 12 months, you must disclose the campaign contribution before making your comments.  7 September 08, 2025 Materials submitted after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at www.paloalto.gov/agendas. City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: STUDY SESSION Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: September 8, 2025 Report #:2506-4838 TITLE 414 California Avenue [25PLN-00140]. Request for Council Prescreening to Rezone the Subject Property from Community Commercial (2) (CC[2]) to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning and to Allow Construction of a Mixed-Use Building with 37 Units in a Six-Story Structure on a 16,231-Square-Foot (0.37 Acre) Site. CEQA Status: Not a Project. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council conduct a prescreening and provide informal comments regarding the applicant’s request to rezone 414 California Avenue from Community Commercial (2) (CC(2)) to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PHZ).1 Comments provided during the prescreening process are not binding on the City nor the applicant. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This prescreening is a request by the applicant to rezone the subject property, which is currently zoned Community Commercial (CC[2]) to “Planned Home Zoning (PHZ).” The project site is 16,230 square feet, and most recently was occupied by Bank of the West. The existing building is currently vacant. The proposed project includes restaurant/retail space, and 37 housing units. The project also proposes encroachments and modifications within the public right-of-way on California Avenue and Mimosa Lane. In accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.79.030(A), a prescreening review is required for legislative changes, including rezoning, prior to submittal of a formal application. Prescreenings are intended to solicit early feedback on proposed projects and, like all study sessions, cannot result in any formal action. Since this proposal may return to the City Council as a formal application, Councilmembers should refrain from forming firm opinions supporting or opposing the project. 1 Referred to in this report as "Planned Home Zoning" to emphasize the focus on housing as the benefit to the community. PAMC Section 18.38, which outlines the requirement and process for Planned Community (PC) Zoning, remains the underlying code supporting application of this policy. Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 8 of 690  Following this prescreening, the applicant may choose to file a formal application to amend the BACKGROUND Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 9 of 690  Surrounding Uses 3. That staff report includes a map of the potential/proposed improvements to the California Avenue right-of-way, including in front of 414 California Avenue. California Avenue and adjacent streets are also used for the Farmer’s Market every Sunday morning, as well as community events such as 3rdThursday. 4 Council approved the resolutions associated with outdoor dining and permit fees enabling activation to continue in its current state. Council also provided direction to staff to revise the outdoor activation program guidelines seeking revisions for outdoor parklet like structures and bike lane adjustments. ANALYSIS Height: 83 feet in height where up to 37 feet is allowed (60 feet under HIP); 3 Retail Committee Staff Report, May 21, 2025, Item 1: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=17618 4 City Council Staff Report, June 17, 2025, Item 17: https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=17567 Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 10 of 690  Floor Area: A 5.13:1 FAR where a maximum of 2.0 total FAR is allowed (0.6 residential FAR allowed)(2.6:1 FAR allowed under HIP); Open Space: 1,612 square feet of useable open space is proposed, all of which is private and available to five of the units, where 150 square feet of usable open space per unit is required. See additional discussion below. Parking: 88 parking spaces are proposed where 169 spaces are required (161 required under HIP). This site is eligible to use AB 2097 to reduce parking to 0 with a TDM plan. Roof overhangs encroach into the public right of way on California Avenue and Mimosa Lane. Portions of the upper floors, where the elevators and stairways are located, do not meet the 10 foot required rear setback for residential uses. No street-side setback is proposed on Mimosa Lane, where five feet is required; The project also deviates from several Objective Design Standards in PAMC Chapter 18.24, such as: Stepback (PAMC 18.24.050(b)(1)): The building massing as proposed is not stepped back where it is more than 20 feet taller the average height of an adjacent building. This step back would start within two vertical feet of the height of the adjacent building. The step back would be a minimum depth of six feet along both the façade on the primary building frontage and the facing façade of the adjacent building, and the step shall occur for a minimum of 70% of each façade length. Façade Modulation (PAMC 18.24.050(b)(3)): Additional information would be needed to analyze the façade modulation. The side and rear facades lack upper floor modulation. Base/Middle/Top (PAMC 18.24.060(c)(1): Although the design has a strong base and middle, the top is less defined. The fenestration variation is also limited on the upper floors. Planned Community/PHZ projects are not required to comply with Chapter 18.24 of the code. However, it is analyzed for the purposes of understanding how the design could be improved to be more consistent with the standard project requirements. Under the CC(2) zoning a project could also opt to be evaluated in accordance with the context-based design criteria in-lieu of the objective design standards under 18.24. Usable Open Space The proposed plans include balconies at all upper levels, wrapping most of the façade, however these four foot wide balconies do not count as useable open space as they do not meet the minimum depth requirement of six feet. Additionally, five roof decks are proposed. In the CC(2) zoning district, roof decks are only allowed if they are for common open space, and these are private open space (PAMC 18.40.240 [c]). Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 11 of 690  Refuse Pick Up The project currently proposes a shared refuse room for residential and commercial uses, which is not allowed by the Code. Additonally the refuse room is not sufficiently sized to accommodate the project’s needs and would need to be redesigned. Staff would expect the trash room to be designed in a manner that allows the bins to be pulled directly from the trash room and would not support staging of the bins within public right-of-way. The closure of Mimosa Lane would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Amend Map T-5 and a Resolution to Close this public street to vehicular traffic, similar to the efforts lead by the City for the closure of portions of California Avenue and Ramona Street. This proposal would need to be evaluated as staff understands it could have impacts on deliveries to neighboring properties and activation of the public space for events such as 3rd Thursday and the farmers' market or other civic events. The project also includes canopies that extend into the public right-of-way on California Avenue and along Mimosa Lane. There are several existing buildings along California Avenue that have existing minor canopy encroachments. Staff has generally allowed existing legal noncomplying buildings to maintain their canopies when modifying the facade, with approval of a permanent encroachment permit, but has not generally allowed new permanent encroachments. The project is not within 150 feet of residential uses or residential zones. Therefore, the PC Special Requirements (PAMC 18.38.150) do not apply. Housing Incentive Program or State Density Bonus Law Alternatives As an alternative to the PHZ process the applicant could consider a State Density Bonus Law project and may request waivers and concessions from certain standards in accordance with State Density Bonus Law requirements. However, because the CC(2) zone does not regulate maximum density, a density bonus is calculated based on allowable FAR and proposed average unit size. The highest number of units achievable under State Density Bonus Law is 16 units. The Housing Incentive Program provides an additional path but would be insufficient for the proposed building heights, floor area and other standards. Multi-Modal Access & Parking 414 California is approximately 0.3 miles from the California Avenue CalTrain Station, providing potential for future residents to walk or bike to CalTrain. It is also approximately 120 feet from the nearest Valley Transit Authority (VTA) bus stop, served by lines 22 and Rapid 522. This project has not yet been analyzed for consistency with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan and other transportation policies such as Council’s Local Transportation Impact Analysis Policy adopted on June 15, 2019 (CMR 11256). This analysis would be conducted as a part of any formal application and reviewed by the Office of Transportation. Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 12 of 690  However, staff notes that the plans proposed modifications to California Avenue and Mimosa Lane do not align with what is currently planned for street improvements in this area proposed by the City, as recommended for approval by the Retail Committee. Parking POLICY IMPLICATIONS Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 13 of 690  subject project, a builder’s remedy application is being processed for 17-, 11-, and 7-story buildings at 156 California Avenue. While the City has broad discretion to evaluate PHZ applications due to their legislative nature, the lack of a coordinated planning policy that considers proximity to the rail station, the California Avenue street closure, parcel sizes, street access, and broader urban design and placemaking objectives may result in a less cohesive neighborhood character. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Item 1 Item 1 Staff Report        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 14 of 690  Bank of_the West Country Sun 32.0' 35.2' 71.1' 26.7' 50.9' 125.0' ' 107.7' 40.0' 11.6' 46 .1' 75.0' 40.0'22.2' 90.0' 271.6' 239.4' 90.0 48.0' 127.0' 50.2' 127.0' 50.2' 125.0' 20.0' 125.0' 20.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 46.0' 125.0' 46.0' 125.0' 37.0' 125.0' 37.0' 125.0' 65.5' 125.0' 65.5' 93.0' 61.0' 26.7' 71.1' 35.2' 40.0' 58.6' 40.0' 58.6' 22.7' 7.2' 27.7'2.0' 62.0' 25.6' 90.0' 22.7' 90.0' 40.9' 90.0' .3' 35.0' 53.4' 35.0' .3' 90.0' 43.8' 125.0' 44.0' 92.8' ' 62.0' 2.0' 27.7' 92.8' 18.0' 50.0'.' 100.0' 14.1' 237.8' 00.0' 75.0' 84.4' 75.0' 79.0' 21.0' 79.0' 21.0' 21.0' 110.0' 20.2' 14.1' 100.0' 30.3' 95.0'125.0'125.0' 51.0' 125.0' 51.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 42.0' 125.0' 42.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 195.0' 110.0' 125.0' 130.2' 115.0' 14.1' 120.3' 115.0' 50.0' 125.0' 40.0' 14.1' 125.0' 32.5' 125.0' 32.5' 49.5' 49.5' 49.5' 49.5' 49.5' 86.5' 86.5'86.5' 79.0' 70.5' 70.5' 29.5' 29.5'29.5' 46.3' 71.7' 440 454 415 425-431 437- 441 381- 395 403- 409 433-447 330- 350 366- 370 406-410 2 405-409 451453 448450 460 456 2450 421 475477 465 463 461 459 480 450 435 433 447 445 24312415 2438415417 421 360 364 392 413 414 440 444 442 VEN UE AS LD LANE NEW M AYF CA LIFORN IA AVENUE CALIFORNIA AVENUE PERAL MIMOSA LANE MBRIDGE AVENUE JACA RANDA LANE Lot C-8 Lot C- Parking This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site Current Features 0' 48' Attachment A Location Map 414 California Ave. CITY OF PALO ALTO INCO R P O R ATED CALIFORNIA P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f APRIL 1 6 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto ekallas, 2025-08-22 14:45:33 Attachment A. Location Map (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 1 Attachment A - Location Map        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 15 of 690  ATTACHMENT B 414 California Ave, 25PLN-00140 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC(2) DISTRICT) AND CHAPTER 18.14 (HOUSING INCENTIVES) Mixed Use and Residential Development Standards Regulation Required Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth No Requirement 16,230.95 sf. Minimum Front Yard 0' - 10' to create an 8' - 12' effective sidewalk width 0 ft. ground floor 10 ft. upper floor, except at elevator/stairs Rear Yard (New Mayfield Lane)10' for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion 0 ft. ground floor 10 ft. upper floor, except at elevator/stairs Interior Side Yard No Requirement 2 ft. 6.5 in. on ground floor 1 ft. 1.75 in. on upper floors Street Side Yard (Mimosa Lane)5 feet 0 ft. ground floor 10 ft. upper floor, except at elevator/stairs Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts Not applicable, no abutting residential districts/PCs Not applicable Build-to-lines (7) 50% of frontage built to setback on California Avenue; 33% of side street built to setback on Mimosa Lane Complies Max. Site Coverage 100% (16,230.95 sf)99% (16,068 sf) Max. Building Height (CC(2))37 feet (4)78 feet 6 inches to parapet 83 feet to top of roof deck access Max. Building Height (HIP)60 feet (4)See above Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (CC(2)) 0.6:1 residential (9,738.6 sf) 2.0:1 non-residential (32,460 sf) Not to exceed 2.0:1 (32,460 sf) total 4.17: 1 Residential (67,667.43 sf) 0.96:1 Non-residential (15,550.72 sf) 5.13: 1 (83,218.15 sf) total Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (HIP) 2.6 residential or residential with mixed-use on the ground floor (42,198.6 sf) See above Max. Residential Density No Maximum Complies Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM- 40 or PC Zone None Not applicable Usable Open Space (Private and/or Common)150 sf per unit 1,612 sf of useable open space = 43 sf per unit, however only 5 of the units have access to these spaces. Item 1 Attachment B - Zoning Comparison Table        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 16 of 690  Minimum Mixed Use Ground Floor Commercial FAR 0.25:1 (4,057.7 sf) Retail Preservation applies Approximately 15,063 sf proposed (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall not intrude into the daylight plane. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) Type Required Existing Proposed Special Requirements This project is located within a half mile of the California Ave. CalTrain Station. AB 2097 applies. 0 parking spaces required. 74 parking stalls proposed, TDM plan will be required. Vehicle Parking per PAMC 18.52 per land use 1 per studio/1 bed 2 per 2+ bed (53 spaces) For ground floor uses: 1 space for each 60 gross sq. ft. of public service area, plus 1 space for each 200 gross sq. ft. for all other areas. Seating area is approximately 3,254 sf (54.23 spaces) Rest of ground floor is approximately 12,296 sf (61.48 spaces) 169 spaces required 14 spaces paid into the parking district. 20 spaces provided onsite. 74 parking stalls proposed plus 14 district spaces 88 spaces total. Vehicle Parking per PAMC 18.14 (HIP) plus PAMC 18.52 for non-residential land uses. 1 per studio/1 bed 1.5 per 2+ bed (45 spaces) For ground floor uses: 1 space for each 60 gross sq. ft. of public service area, plus 1 space for each 200 See above See above Item 1 Attachment B - Zoning Comparison Table        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 17 of 690  gross sq. ft. for all other areas. Seating area is approximately 3,254 sf (54.23 spaces) Rest of ground floor is approximately 12,296 sf (61.48 spaces) 161 spaces required Bicycle Parking 1 LT space per unit (37) 1 ST space per 10 units (4) 12 spaces for the ground floor uses (5 LT, 7 ST) None provided, potential bike parking area shown on both garage levels. Loading Space 1 loading spaces for less than 100,000 sf No loading space required for residential projects with fewer than 50 units. 1 off-street space Item 1 Attachment B - Zoning Comparison Table        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 11  Packet Pg. 18 of 690  SPF:architects 8609 Washington Blvd. Culver City, CA | www.spfa.com WRITTEN PROJECT DESCRIPTION - 414 CALIFORNIA AVENUE, PALO ALTO Project Summary: The proposed development at 414 California Avenue is a new six-story mixed-use building that includes approximately 10,000 square feet of ground floor restaurant and market uses, 14 affordable and market-rate apartments, and 23 for- sale residential condominiums. Two levels of subterranean parking provide 74 total spaces. The overall building height is 75’-0” to the top of the roof structure and 78’-6” to the top of parapet—intentionally designed to remain below the 75’ occupiable floor threshold that would classify the building as a high-rise. Located within the California Avenue Commercial District and surrounded by existing commercial and multi-family buildings, the project is consistent with the City’s ongoing effort to densify infill sites near transit and services. There are no single-family homes in the immediate vicinity, and the scale and intensity of the proposed development are well- suited to the surrounding context. While the proposed commercial uses and square footage are permitted by code, the project seeks rezoning to allow an increase in residential floor area (beyond the current 0.6:1 RFA limit) and overall height. We believe these modifications support the City’s broader planning goals and regional housing objectives. Design Concept & Site Relationship: The design approach takes inspiration from the cultural and material heritage of the region—most notably the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe, the area's Indigenous inhabitants. The façade expresses this influence through a refined architectural screen system that references traditional basket weaving and ceremonial regalia. This “Golden Weave” exterior system functions not only as an expressive visual motif, but also as an environmental filter, offering solar shading and layered transparency across the upper residential levels. Ground floor uses activate both California Avenue and Mimosa Lane with a curated mix of restaurants, butcher, bakery, and market-style retail. These uses are complemented by upgraded public realm improvements, including widened sidewalks, planters, and seating areas, designed to reinforce the project’s “Gateway to California Avenue” concept. An enhanced pedestrian experience is prioritized, while vehicular access is located at the rear of the property via New Mayfield Lane. The massing is stepped to respect zoning code and urban adjacencies: • The building steps back at residential floors to provide a consistent 10-foot setback above the podium, complying with city standards. • Balconies protrude 4’-0” into the residential setback. • Stairs are exposed and articulated to break up the building volume and provide light, and air into the center of the building. • Private rooftop terraces are set back for individual and neighborhood privacy. Preliminary Review Focus: We respectfully request Council and ARB to provide feedback in the following areas: • Density: Is the proposed increase in Residential Floor Area and density in alignment with the future growth and evolution of California Avenue? • Massing & Height: Does the project appropriately scale to its commercial surroundings? We are under the high-rise classification and believe this six-story massing is a reasonable for the site. • Public Realm Interface: Does the project contribute positively to the pedestrian experience at California Avenue and Mimosa Lane? • Zoning Compatibility: Given the absence of single-family residences in the area and the site's location in an active commercial zone, we believe the increased density and height are well justified. Does the Board agree with this position? • Cultural Heritage: The design draws from the heritage of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe and other Indigenous communities of the region. We welcome feedback on how this is reflected in the architecture and are exploring ways to deepen the connection. A dedicated zone on the California Avenue façade is envisioned for a permanent artwork honoring Indigenous history, and the landscape strategy may be refined to further acknowledge the site's cultural significance. Item 1 Attachment C - Applicant's Project Description        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 12  Packet Pg. 19 of 690  If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at 650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Council members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “414 California” and click the address link 3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/414-California-Ave Item 1 Attachment D - Link to Project Plans        Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 13  Packet Pg. 20 of 690  City Council Staff Report Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: City Clerk Meeting Date: September 8, 2025 Report #:2508-5066 TITLE Approval of Minutes from August 11 and August 18, 2025 Meetings RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review and approve the minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: August 11, 2025 Draft Action Minutes Attachment B: August 18, 2025 Draft Action Minutes APPROVED BY: Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk Item 3 Item 3 Staff Report        Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 21 of 690  CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 4 Regular Meeting August 11, 2025 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 5:30 P.M. Present In Person: Burt, Lauing, Lu, Reckdahl, Stone, Veenker Present Remotely: Absent: Lythcott-Haims Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Public Comment Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Study Session 1. 4256 El Camino Real [25PLN-00095]. Request for Council Prescreening to Rezone the Subject Property from Commercial Services to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning and to Allow Construction of a Multi-Family Apartment Complex with 120 Units in a Six-Story Structure on a 25,950-Square-Foot (0.6 Acre) Site. CEQA Status: Not a Project. NO ACTION 2. 332 Forest Avenue [25PLN-00130]. Request for Council Prescreening to Rezone the Subject Property from Multifamily Residential (RM-40) to Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) and to Allow Construction of a New Multi-Family Apartment Complex with 82 units in an Eight-Story Structure on a 25,000 Square Foot (0.57 Acre) Site. CEQA Status: Not a Project. NO ACTION Item 3 Attachment A - August 11, 2025 Draft Action Minutes        Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 22 of 690  DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 4 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 08/11/2025 Consent Calendar Councilmember Lu Recused from Agenda Item Number 7 and 13. Vice Mayor Veenker Recused from Agenda Item Number 13. MOTION: Vice Mayor Veenker moved, seconded by Mayor Lauing to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-15. MOTION PASSED ITEMS 3-6, 8-12, 14-15: 6-0-1, Lythcott-Haims Absent MOTION PASSED ITEM 7: 5-0-1-1, Lythcott-Haims Absent, Lu Recused MOTION PASSED ITEM 13: 4-0-1-2, Lythcott-Haims Absent, Lu, Veenker Recused 3. Approval of Minutes from June 9, June 16, and June 17, 2025 Meetings 4. Ordinance Adopting the 2025 Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map Issued by the State Fire Marshal 5. Adoption of Memorandums of Agreement with the Palo Alto Police Officers’ Association (PAPOA) and the Palo Alto Police Managers Association (PMA) for Terms Ending June 30, 2028, and Corresponding Salary Schedules; CEQA Status – Not a Project 6. Adoption of a Resolution Establishing Fiscal Year 2026 Property Tax Levy for General Obligation Bonds (Measure N Libraries) 7. Adopt a Resolution to Modify Evergreen Park-Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking Program Employee Permit Allotment and Zone Revisions and Create New Two-Hour Parking Areas Adjacent to El Camino Real; CEQA Status: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15301. 8. Adopt a Council Chambers Use Policy as recommended by the Policy and Services Committee and Adopt an Ordinance Adding Use of Council Chambers Fees to the FY 2026 Municipal Fee Schedule; CEQA status: Not a project 9. Approval of Five (5) On-Call Consulting Contracts to Provide Long Term Planning Policy Development support for the Planning and Development Services over a Five-Year Term, as needed: 1) Aaron Welch Planning, 2) Ascent Environmental, Inc. 3) Lexington Planning LLC, 4) PlaceWorks, Inc., 5) Raimi & Associates Inc. in an amount not to exceed $2,000,000; CEQA Status: Not a Project. 10. Approval of Increase of Construction Contingency for Contract No. C24189237 with SAK Construction, LCC in the amount of $1,800,000, Funded by the Wastewater Treatment Enterprise Fund for the Joint Intercepting Sewer Rehabilitation (Phase 1) Project (WQ 24000), and Approval of a Budget Amendment in the Wastewater Treatment Fund; Item 3 Attachment A - August 11, 2025 Draft Action Minutes        Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 23 of 690  DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 4 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 08/11/2025 CEQA Status - Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Repairs to Existing Facilities) 11. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C22182051 with EPI-USE Labs LLC to Increase the Compensation by $939,675 for the City’s AWS Cloud and SAP Basis Support Services and Extending the Term by 12 months to December 31, 2026; CEQA status - exempt under 15061(b)(3). 12. Approval of Amendment #1 to Contract C23184669A With LifeMoves to Extend the Contract by Two Years Through July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2027 in the Amount of $512,377 for a Total Contract Value Not To Exceed $972,377 for the Provision of Homeless Outreach Service; and Amend the FY 2026 Budget in the General Fund and the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Grant Fund; CEQA Status – Not A Project. 13. QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3150 El Camino Real [24PLN-00231]: Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map to Merge Five Parcels Together to Create One 111,030-Square-Foot Parcel to Facilitate Construction of 368 New Residential Rental Units. CEQA Status: Streamlined CEQA Review in Accordance with Section 15183. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). 14. FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance to align chair and vice chair selection language for the Parks and Recreation Commission (Palo Alto Municipal Code Ch. 2.25) and the Architectural Review Board (Palo Alto Municipal Code Ch. 2.21) with the City’s other Boards, Commissions, and Committees (BCCs); and Adoption of a Resolution doing the same for the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee – CEQA Status: Not a Project 15. FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Adding PAMC Chapter 16.15 to Restate Procedures for Expedited Permitting of Electric Vehicle Charging Systems to Comply with State Law. CEQA Status: Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). City Manager Comments Ed Shikada, City Manager Action Items 16. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Objections for Weed Abatement Assessments; and Adoption of Resolution Confirming the Weed Abatement Report and Ordering Abatement Costs to be a Special Assessment on the Properties Specified in the Report; CEQA status - categorically exempt. Item 3 Attachment A - August 11, 2025 Draft Action Minutes        Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 24 of 690  DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 4 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 08/11/2025 MOTION: Councilmember Reckdahl moved, seconded by Councilmember Stone to adopt a resolution confirming the report and ordering abatement costs to be a special assessment on the properties specified in the report (Attachment A). MOTION PASSED: 6-0-1, Lythcott-Haims Absent 17. Approval of Resolutions Amending the Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement Between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County and the Updated Tier 2 Drought Response Implementation Plan; CEQA Status: Not a Project and Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15307, 15308 MOTION: Councilmember Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Lu to approve two resolutions: 1. Amending the Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County (Attachment A) and; 2. Approve the updated Tier 2 Drought Response Implementation Plan (Attachment B). MOTION PASSED: 6-0-1, Lythcott-Haims Absent Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:02 P.M. ATTEST: APPROVED: ____________________ ____________________ City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Action minutes are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 2.04.160(a) and (b). Summary minutes (sense) are prepared in accordance with PAMC Section 2.04.160(c). Beginning in January 2018, in accordance with Ordinance No. 5423, the City Council found action minutes and the video/audio recordings of Council proceedings to be the official records of both Council and committee proceedings. These recordings are available on the City’s website. Item 3 Attachment A - August 11, 2025 Draft Action Minutes        Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 25 of 690  CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 4 Regular Meeting August 18, 2025 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 5:30 P.M. Present In Person: Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, Stone, Veenker Lythcott-Haims arrived at 5:34 P.M. Present Remotely: Absent: Special Orders of the Day 1. Remarks from Congressman Sam Liccardo, United States Representative of California’s 16th Congressional District NO ACTION 2. Proclamation Honoring Young Tran for his Service to the City of Palo Alto NO ACTION 3. Celebrating the Palo Alto Tsuchiura Marathon Runner NO ACTION Closed Session 4. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY--ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Authority: Gov Code 54956.9(d)(4), initiation of litigation. Number of matters: one. AA1. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-POTENTIAL LITIGATION Subject: Potential litigation regarding 156 North California Avenue, as set forth in letter(s) Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2); One case, as Defendant. Item 3 Attachment B - August 18, 2025 Draft Action Minutes        Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 26 of 690  DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 4 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 08/18/2025 MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Council went into Closed Session at 6:25 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 9:05 P.M. Mayor Lauing announced no reportable action. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Public Comment Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Study Session 5. Productivity of Council Meetings for Second Half of 2025 NO ACTION Consent Calendar MOTION: Councilmember Lu moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Veenker to approve Agenda Item Numbers 6, 8-15 (Agenda Item Number 7 Removed Off Agenda). MOTION PASSED ITEMS 6, 8-15: 7-0 6. Staff and the Climate Action and Sustainability Committee Recommendation to Accept the E-Mobility Strategic Roadmap; CEQA Status - Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, Projects Consistent with an Existing General or Comprehensive Plan do not Require Additional CEQA Review Item 3 Attachment B - August 18, 2025 Draft Action Minutes        Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 27 of 690  DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 4 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 08/18/2025 7. Approval of Retail Committee Recommendations for Streetscape Improvements and Outdoor Activation Standards for Pedestrian Only Ramona Street; CEQA Status - categorically exempt. Agenda Item Number 7 Removed Off Agenda 8. Approval to Dedicate a Seat at Lucie Stern Community Theatre to Eugenie Watson; CEQA status – not a project. 9. Approval of Contract No. C26195197 with Santa Clara County Fire Safe Council for on- call services related to fuel reduction maintenance for wildfire hazard mitigation and public education, for a five-year term and not-to-exceed amount of $2,500,000. CEQA status: Exempt (CEQA Guidelines Section 15304) 10. Approval of General Service Contract No. C26194766 with Securitas Technology Corporation, Utilizing Sourcewell Cooperative Agreement No. 121024-SCS, to Procure Fire Alarm Systems Monitoring, Inspection, Testing, Repair, and Related Services for a Period of Four Years in the Not-To-Exceed Amount of $404,646; CEQA Status – Not a Project 11. Approval of Purchase Order C26195602 with Carahsoft Technology Corporation to Procure DocuSign eSignature Software for a One-Year Term Not-To-Exceed Amount of $145,180; CEQA status - Not a project 12. Approval of Professional Service Contract C26194516 with Interweave Production Group with Not-To-Exceed Amount of $280,170, for a Term of Three Years, CEQA Status – Not a Project. 13. Approval of Six (6) On-Call Consulting Contracts to Provide Specialized Technical Expertise for the Planning and Development Services Department over a Five-Year Term, as needed: 1) David J. Powers & Associates, Inc., 2) Economic and Planning Systems, Inc., 3) Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., 4) Page and Turnbull Inc., 5) Rincon Consultants, Inc., 6) Strategic Economics, in the Amount not to exceed $2,000,000 ; CEQA Status: Not a Project. 14. Approval to Extend the Lease Between 285 Hamilton LLC, and the City of Palo Alto for the Premises Located at 285 Hamilton Avenue (Development Center) for 36 months, at a Starting Base Rent of $49,420.45 per Month and Increasing 3 Percent Annually; CEQA Status – Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) 15. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of Resolution Correcting Clerical Errors in Three Electric Rate Schedules: E-16 (Unmetered Electric Service), E-EEC-1 (Export Electricity Compensation), and E-NSE-1 (Net Surplus Electricity Compensation); CEQA Status: Not a project under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378(b)(4) and (5) and Exempt Under Section 15273(a). Item 3 Attachment B - August 18, 2025 Draft Action Minutes        Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 28 of 690  DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 4 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 08/18/2025 City Manager Comments Ed Shikada, City Manager Action Items 16. Approval of a Director’s Interpretation Pursuant to PAMC Section 18.01.025 Concluding That Noncomplying Residential Gross Floor Area may not be Relocated Within a Structure; Denial of the Associated Appeal; Direction to Prepare a Future Code Amendment for Administrative De Minimis Exceptions to the Zoning Code; CEQA: Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) Agenda Item Number 16 not heard and deferred to September 15, 2025 City Council Meeting. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 P.M. ATTEST: APPROVED: ____________________ ____________________ City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Action minutes are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 2.04.160(a) and (b). Summary minutes (sense) are prepared in accordance with PAMC Section 2.04.160(c). Beginning in January 2018, in accordance with Ordinance No. 5423, the City Council found action minutes and the video/audio recordings of Council proceedings to be the official records of both Council and committee proceedings. These recordings are available on the City’s website. Item 3 Attachment B - August 18, 2025 Draft Action Minutes        Item 3: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 29 of 690  City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: Administrative Services Meeting Date: September 8, 2025 Report #:2507-4952 TITLE Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Fiscal Year 2026 Municipal Fee Schedule to Reflect Council-Directed Changes to Existing Fees and Add a New Subsidized Fee for Stand-Alone Residential Gas, Water and Space Heating Equipment Permits. CEQA Status: Not a Project RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2026 Municipal Fee Schedule to reflect Council-Directed changes to various existing fees and add a new subsidized fee for stand-alone residential gas water and space heating equipment permits. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Council adopted the FY 2026 Municipal Fee Schedule on June 16, 2025. The proposed ordinance will amend the FY 2026 Municipal Fee Schedule by reducing certain fee amounts and removing certain outdated fees. The proposed amendment would also establish a subsidized permit fee for the installation of stand-alone residential gas powered, water and space heating equipment. The fee amount is lower than full cost recovery to encourage installers of residential water and space heating equipment to obtain permits, thereby helping ensure these appliances are installed in a safe and code-compliant manner. This subsidy will be funded by the General Fund, staff reviewed alternative funding options such as the Gas Cap and Trade and Gas Public Benefits Funds and concluded that these funding sources were ineligible for that purpose. BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto’s FY 2026 Municipal Fee Schedule was developed through a series of staff reports presented to Council between March and June 2025. These reports implemented recommendations from cost-of-service studies, corrected prior assumptions, and codified updates through ordinance adoption. Key reports included the Planning and Development Services cost of services study1, citywide cost of services study2, fee updates for departments 1 Finance Committee, March 4, 2025; Agenda Item #2, 2501-4019, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx? id=64766&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto 2 Finance Committee, April 29, 2025: Agenda Item #2, 2503-4351, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=64780&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto Item 4 Item 4 Staff Report Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 30 of 690  not included in the prior two studies5, corrections of assumptions and updated language6, additional staff recommended technical adjustments7, and final adoption via ordinance8. The FY 2026 Municipal Fee Schedule adopted by the Council on the June 16 report included an incorrect version of a fee study report prepared in connection with the proposed fee and omitted technical adjustments approved by the Finance Committee on May 20. This report and the proposed ordinance address those issues. In addition, the proposed ordinance establishes a fee for stand alone residential gas water and space equipment permits based on the Finance Committee’s recommendation and Council direction to set the fee for these permits below "full cost recovery” level to encourage compliance and enhance community safety. Staff was asked to explore options for how such a subsidy might be structured and funded. At its April 29, 2025 meeting the Finance Committee also recommended that Council direct staff to implement targeted subsidies for building permit fees for appliance electrification. The City has adjusted its electrification programs to provide permit subsidies of $328 to $638 for residential space and water heating, which will be adjusted as permit fees change in the future. ANALYSIS The Municipal Fee Schedule is updated annually through a series of Council actions supported by cost-of-service studies, policy guidance, and department-submitted adjustments. Fees not explicitly revised in a staff report are subject to the Council-approved General Rate Increase. This approach generally provides efficiency, however a subsequent review of the FY 2026 schedule identified several discrepancies where the final document may not have fully reflected Council direction or a given department's recommendations. The proposed ordinance amends the FY 2026 Municipal Fee Schedule consistent with Council’s direction and departments’ recommendations. Specifically, these changes would: Reduce various copying and printing fees Reduce certain pet/animal services fees Modify the art studio facility rental fee structure to a per square foot per month basis Specify the rental registry fee for non-exempt unit Establish a subsidized permit fee for stand-alone residential gas powered water and space heating equipment Eliminate certain fees for Fire Department services 5 Finance Committee, May 7, 2025; Agenda Item #4; 2504-4591, https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/administrative-services/city-budgets/fy- 2026-city-budget/proposed/may-7/finance-committee-5.25-supp-report-fy-2026-proposed- municipal-fee-schedule.pdf 6 Finance Committee, May 20, 2025; Agenda Item #2 Supplemental Report, 2505-4644, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=64805&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto 7 Finance Committee, May 20, 2025; Agenda Item #2, 2503-4243,https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=64805&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto 8 Finance Committee, June 16, 2025; Agenda Item #23, 2503-4250, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspxid=83462&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto Item 4 Item 4 Staff Report Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 31 of 690  Exhibit A of the proposed ordinance sets forth the specific adjustments to the FY 2026 Municipal Fee Schedule. Attachment B includes the final report by Matrix and technical adjustments approved by Council on May 20, 2025, that were not incorporated into the final adopted fee schedule. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Item 4 Item 4 Staff Report        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 32 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 1 141_20250818_ts24 Ordinance No. ___ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Fiscal Year 2026 Municipal Fee Schedule to Amend and Remove Various Fees The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. On June 16, 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5658, which adopted the City’s budget for fiscal year 2026 (FY26). Ordinance 5658 included the FY26 Municipal Fee Schedule. B. The City Council now desires to amend the FY26 Municipal Fee Schedule through this Ordinance to adjust the fee amounts for specific fees and remove some fees. SECTION 2. The Council of the City of Palo Alto amends the Fiscal Year 2026 Municipal Fee Schedule by adjusting certain fee amounts, removing certain fees, and establishing a new fee for permits for residential gas water and space heating equipment as set forth in Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. The fees amended in this Ordinance are not taxes, as defined by Article XIII C of the California Constitution, because one or more exceptions enumerated in subdivision (e) of Section 1 of Article XIII C apply, and the fee amounts are no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity. SECTION 4. The Council finds that this ordinance is not a “project” under CEQA because amending the Municipal Fee Schedule is a government funding mechanisms or fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4). // // // // // Item 4 Attachment A - Ordinance Amending the FY26 Municipal Fee Schedule and List of Fee Changes 2        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 33 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 2 141_20250818_ts24 SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective upon adoption as an amendment to the City’s FY26 budget. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services Item 4 Attachment A - Ordinance Amending the FY26 Municipal Fee Schedule and List of Fee Changes 2        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 34 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 3 141_20250818_ts24 Exhibit A (see following page) Item 4 Attachment A - Ordinance Amending the FY26 Municipal Fee Schedule and List of Fee Changes 2        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 35 of 690  List of Fee Changes Exhibit A  Department   Service ‐ Fee Title   FY 2026 Adopted   FY 2026 Update Note Administrative Services Documents and Photocopies ‐ Black & White ‐ All Sizes Single: $0.16/page; Double‐Sided: $0.32/page Single: $0.15/page; Double‐Sided: $0.30/page Placeholder rate maintained to avoid interim  overcharging Administrative Services Documents and Photocopies ‐ Color (1‐100) 8.5" x 11" Single: $0.43/page; Double‐Sided: $0.86/page   Single: $0.40/page; Double‐Sided: $0.80/page Placeholder rate maintained to avoid interim  overcharging Administrative Services Documents and Photocopies ‐ Color (1‐100) 8.5" x 14"  Single  Single: $0.75/page; Double‐Sided: $1.50/page   Single: $0.70/page; Double‐Sided: $1.40/page Placeholder rate maintained to avoid interim  overcharging Administrative Services Documents and Photocopies ‐  ‐ Color Ink Jet Plot ‐ 18"  x 24" Single: $0.85/page; Double‐Sided $1.70/page   Single: $0.80/page; Double‐Sided $1.60/page Placeholder rate maintained to avoid interim  overcharging General Citywide Plans, Standards & Large Format Printing ‐ Color Ink Jet  Plot ‐ 18" x 24" $3.20 per page   $3.00 per page Placeholder rate maintained to avoid interim  overcharging General Citywide Plans, Standards & Large Format Printing ‐ Color Ink Jet  Plot ‐ 24" x 36" $6.40 per page Color Ink Jet Plot ‐ 36" x 48" $12.80 per page   $6.00 per page Color Ink Jet Plot ‐ 36" x 48" $12.00 per page Placeholder rate maintained to avoid interim  overcharging General Citywide Plans, Standards & Large Format Printing ‐ Color Ink Jet  Plot ‐ 36" x 48" $12.80 per page   $12.00 per page Placeholder rate maintained to avoid interim  overcharging General Citywide Plans, Standards & Large Format Printing ‐ Small  Format B&W Prints  8.5"x11" $0.16 and 11"x17" $0.27   8.5"x11" $0.15 and 11"x17" $0.25 Placeholder rate maintained to avoid interim  overcharging General Citywide Plans, Standards & Large Format Printing ‐ Small  Format Color Prints  8.5" x 11" $0.43 and 11" x 17" $0.86   8.5" x 11" $0.40 and 11" x 17" $0.80 Placeholder rate maintained to avoid interim  overcharging General Citywide Plans, Standards & Large Format Printing ‐ Standard  Color/Mono 8.5" x 11" and 11" x 17" $1.28 each   $1.20 each Placeholder rate maintained to avoid interim  overcharging General Citywide Plans, Standards & Large Format Printing ‐ Standard  Drawings & Specifications  $19.20 each   $18.00 each Placeholder rate maintained to avoid interim  overcharging Community Services Adoptions ‐ Dogs (6 months ‐ 5 years) Resident: $175.00 per pet Non‐Resident: $205.00 per pet   Resident: $175.00 per pet Non‐Resident: $175.00 per pet Vendor sets pricing Community Services Adoptions ‐ Dogs (under 6 months) Resident: $300.00 per pet Non‐Resident: $350.00 per pet   Resident: $300.00 Non‐Resident: $300.00 Vendor sets pricing Community Services Animal Services ‐ Routine Deworming (roundworms  and hookworms) $75.00 per pet   $10.00 per pet Vendor sets pricing Community Services Facilities Rental ‐ Art Studio Short Term  Resident: $114.00 per week Non‐Resident: $131.00 per week   Resident: $1.14 per sq ft per month Non‐Resident: $1.27 per sq ft per month  Room sizes vary; fees are based on the square footage  of the assigned room. Planning & Development  Services Rental Registry  Exempt: $0 per unit Non‐Exempt: $0 per unit   Exempt: $0 per unit Non‐Exempt: $35.00 per unit FY 2026 exemption approved; non‐exempt fee omitted Planning & Development  Services Residential Gas Water and Space Heating Equipment - Stand Alone  N/A $328.00  per permit Unsubsidized cost: $633 - $806 Fire Compliance ‐ Alarm Registration Fee ‐ New  $56.00 per incident  Removed Sunsetting; intended for deletion based on discussions,  but never formally removed Fire Compliance ‐ Alarm Registration Fee ‐ Renewal  $42.00 per incident   Removed Sunsetting; intended for deletion based on discussions,  but never formally removed Fire Compliance ‐ Alarm Registration Fee ‐ Late Fee  $20.00 per incident  Removed Sunsetting; intended for deletion based on discussions,  but never formally removed Fire Compliance ‐ Alarm Registration Reinstatement  $20.00 per incident   Removed Sunsetting; intended for deletion based on discussions,  but never formally removed Fire Compliance ‐ Returned Check Fee  $25.00 per incident   Removed Sunsetting; intended for deletion based on discussions,  but never formally removed Fire Fire Department Training (Full Day)$167.00 per class  Removed Not used in over decade; intended for deletion but  never formally removed Fire Fire Department Training (Half Day or Less)$83.00 per class  Removed Not used in over decade; intended for deletion but  never formally removed Item 4Attachment A - OrdinanceAmending the FY26Municipal Fee Schedule andList of Fee Changes 2       Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 36 of 690  Item No. 4 Page 1 of 1 Finance Committee Supplemental Report From: Lauren Lai, Administrative Services Director Meeting Date: May 20, 2025 Item Number: 2 Report #:2505-4644 TITLE Supplemental Report - Recommendation to the City Council to Approve the Citywide Cost of Services Study and Proposed Municipal Fee Adjustments BACKGROUND This is informational only and Committee action is not required. On April 29, 20251, staff presented Item 2 to the Finance Committee. An error was identified in Attachment B: Citywide Cost of Services Study Report, on pages 29 and 40, which incorrectly referenced the City of Thousand Oaks. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Citywide Cost of Services Study Report – Corrected APPROVED BY: Lauren Lai, Administrative Services Director 1 Finance Committee, April 29, 2025; Agenda Item #2; SR#2503-4351, https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=64780&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto Item 2 Item 2 Supplemental Report Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 6 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20 Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 8 Packet Pg. 37 of 690  PALO ALTO, CA COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY – MUNICIPAL FEES MAY 202 5 Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 7 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 38 of 690  MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 LEGAL FOUNDATIONS AND POLICY 3 USER FEE STUDY METHODOLOGY 6 RESULTS OVERVIEW 8 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 9 COMMUNITY SERVICES 11 FIRE EMS 17 POLICE 24 POLICE – ANIMAL CONTROL 28 PUBLIC WORKS 31 REAL ESTATE AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 34 REVENUE COLLECTION 36 COST RECOVERY CONSIDERATIONS 37 TABLE OF CONTENTS Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 8 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 39 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 1 The report, which follows, presents the results of the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study conducted by Matrix Consulting Group for the City of Palo Alto, California. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW The purpose of this study is to evaluate and determine the full cost (direct and indirect) of providing a variety of city services. Matrix Consulting Group analyzed the cost-of-service relationships that exist between fees for service activities in the following departments: City Clerk, Revenue, Real Estate, Public Works, EMS, and Community Services. The results of this study provide a tool for understanding current service levels and the cost for those services. GENERAL PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY The methodology employed by Matrix Consulting Group is a widely accepted “bottom up” approach to cost analysis, where time spent per unit of fee activity is determined for each position within a Department or Program. Once time spent for a fee activity is determined, all applicable City costs are then considered in the calculation of the “full” cost of providing each service. The following table provides an overview of types of costs applied in establishing the “full” cost of services provided by the City: TABLE 1: OVERVIEW OF COST COMPONENTS Cost Component Description Direct Fiscal Year 2025 Budgeted salaries, benefits, and allowable expenditures. Indirect Program, departmental, clerical, and Citywide support. Together, the cost components in the table above comprise the calculation of the total “full” cost of providing a service, regardless of whether a fee for that service is charged. The work accomplished by Matrix Consulting Group in the analysis of the proposed fees for service involved the following steps: • Department / Program Staff Interviews: The project team interviewed department / program staff regarding their needs for clarification to the structure of existing fee items or for addition of new fee items. • Data Collection: Data was collected for each permit / service, including time estimates. In addition, all budgeted costs and staffing levels for Fiscal Year 2025 were entered into Matrix Consulting Group’s analytical software model. • Cost Analysis: The full cost of providing each service included in the analysis was established. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 9 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 11  Packet Pg. 40 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 2 • Review and Approval of Results with City Staff: Department management has reviewed and approved these documented results. A more detailed description of user fee methodology and legal and policy considerations are provided in subsequent chapters of this report. SUMMARY OF RESULTS Overall, this study found that the City is under-recovering for most of its administrative, EMS, Public Works, and Recreation services. Each of these service areas serve a different population and constituency and should be reviewed individually to determine how and where fees should be set. CONSIDERATIONS FOR COST RECOVERY POLICY AND UPDATES Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the City use the information contained in this report to review current Cost Recovery Policies, including mechanisms for the annual update of fees for service. ADOPT A FORMAL COST RECOVERY POLICY The Government Finance Officers Association’s (GFOA) best practices for Establishing Government Charges and Fees states that governmental entities should adopt formal policies regarding charges and fees which include the jurisdiction’s intention to recover the full cost or partial costs of providing services, sets forth circumstances under which the jurisdiction might set a charge for fee at less than or more than 100% of full cost, and outlines the considerations that might influence the jurisdiction’s pricing decision. Whenever a cost recovery policy is established at less than 100% of the full cost of providing services, a known gap in funding is recognized and may then potentially be recovered through other revenue sources. Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the City continue to review, update, and apply its formalized cost recovery policies to each service area included in this Study. ADOPT AN ANNUAL FEE UPDATE / INCREASE MECHANISM The purpose of a comprehensive update is to completely revisit the analytical structure, service level estimates and assumptions, and to account for any major shifts in cost components or organizational structures that have occurred since the City’s previous analysis. GFOA best practices for Establishing Government Charges and Fees states that governmental entities should review, and update charges and fees periodically based on factors such as the impact of inflation, other cost increases, adequacy of cost recovery, use of services, and the competitiveness of current rates to avoid large infrequent fee increases. Therefore, it is recommended the City establish a practice of conducting comprehensive analyses every five to seven years to captures any changes to organizational structure, processes, code amendments, as well as any new service areas. In between comprehensive updates, the City should continue its practice of updating fees annually based on internal cost factors Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 10 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 12  Packet Pg. 41 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 3 This section of the report is intended to provide an overview of the legal rules and regulations that govern what is considered a fee for service, how those fees can be calculated, general principles, philosophies, and general policy considerations for setting fees for service. LEGAL FRAMEWORK A “user fee” is a charge for service provided by a governmental agency to a public citizen or group. California has several Government Codes and Propositions that regulate fees for service, with the purpose of ensuring that fees are reasonable and justified. The most prominent and relevant of these includes: • Proposition 26: Passed in 2010, specifically outlined the difference between a fee and a tax and dictates that fees must be directly related to a service and cannot exceed the reasonable cost of that service. • Government Code § 50076: clarifies that fees for service costs are not special taxes and do not need voter approval. • Government Code § 65104: gives local governments the authority to charge planning and zoning fees to recover processing costs. When determining fees for service it is important to ensure there is a direct benefit – the service is provided directly to the payer, and that it is cost based, and does not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service. EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE While Proposition 26 defines what constitutes a user fee, and how those fees can be determined, it also provides a key exception for fees charged for facility or property rentals. This exception outlines that fees for use of government property (e.g., renting public buildings, parks, or event spaces) are voluntary transactions. Therefore, governments can charge market-based rental fees for these services. GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND PHILOSOPHIES REGARDING USER FEES Local governments are providers of many types of general services to their communities. While all services provided by local government are beneficial to constituents, some services can be classified as globally beneficial to all citizens, while others provide more of a direct benefit to a specific group or individual. The following table provides examples of services provided by local government within a continuum of the degree of community benefit received: LEGAL FOUNDATIONS AND POLICY Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 11 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 13  Packet Pg. 42 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 4 TABLE 2: SERVICES IN RELATION TO BENEFIT RECEIVED Funding for local government is obtained from a myriad of revenue sources such as taxes, fines, grants, special charges, user fees, etc. In recent years, alternative tax revenues, which typically offset subsidies for services provided to the community, have become increasingly limited. These limitations have caused increased attention on user fee activities as a revenue source that can offset costs otherwise subsidized (usually) by the general fund. In Table 3, services in the “global benefit” section tend to be funded primarily through voter-approved tax revenues. In the middle of the table, one typically finds a mixture of taxes, user fees, and other funding sources. Finally, in the “individual / group benefit” section of the table lie the services provided by local government that are typically funded almost entirely by user fee revenue. The following are two central concepts regarding the establishment of user fees: v Fees should be assessed according to the degree of individual or private benefit gained from services. For example, the processing and approval of a land use or building permit will generally result in monetary gain to the applicant, whereas Police services and Fire Suppression are examples of services that are essential to the safety of the community at large. v A profit-making objective should not be included in the assessment of user fees. In fact, California laws require that the charges for service be in direct proportion to the costs associated with providing those services. Once a charge for service is assessed at a level higher than the actual cost of providing a service, the term “user fee” no longer applies. The charge then becomes a tax subject to voter approval. Therefore, it is commonly accepted that user fees are established at a level that will recover up to, and not more than, the cost of providing a particular service. GENERAL POLICY CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING USER FEES Undoubtedly, there are programs, circumstances, and services that justify a subsidy from a tax-based or alternative revenue source. However, it is essential that jurisdictions prioritize the use of revenue sources for the provision of services based on the continuum of benefit received. "Global" Community Benefit •Police •Park Maintenance •Fire Suppression "Global" Benefit and an Individual or Gorup Benefit •Recreation / Community Services •Fire Prevention Individual or Group Benefit •Building Permits •Planning and Zoning Approval •Engineering Development Review Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 12 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 14  Packet Pg. 43 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 5 Within the services that are typically funded by user fees, the Matrix Consulting Group recognizes several reasons why City staff or the Council may not advocate the full cost recovery of services. The following factors are key policy considerations in setting fees at less than 100 percent of cost recovery: • Limitations posed by an external agency. The State or an outside agency will occasionally set a maximum, minimum, or limit on the jurisdiction’s ability to charge a fee. Examples includes time spent copying and retrieving public documents and / or transportation permits. • Encouragement of desired behaviors. Keeping fees for certain services below full cost recovery may provide better compliance from the community. For example, if the cost of a permit for changing a water heater in residential home is higher than the cost of the water heater itself, many citizens will avoid pulling the permit. • Benefit received by user of the service and the community at large is mutual. Many services that directly benefit a group or individual equally benefit the community. Examples include Planning Design Review, historical dedications, and certain types of special events. The Matrix Consulting Group recognizes the need for policies that intentionally subsidize certain activities. The primary goals of a User Fee Study are to provide a fair and equitable basis for determining the costs of providing services and ensure that the City complies with State law. SUMMARY OF LEGAL RESTRICTIONS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Once the full cost of providing services is known, the next step is to determine the “rate” or “price” for services at a level which is up to, and not more than, the full cost amount. The Council is responsible for this decision, which often becomes a question of balancing service levels and funding sources. The placement of a service or activity within the continuum of benefit received may require extensive discussion and at times fall into a “grey area.” However, with the resulting cost of services information from a User Fee Study, the Council can be assured that the adopted fee for service is reasonable, fair, and legal. The City will need to review all fees for service in this analysis. Where subsidies are identified, they City should increase the fees to reduce the deficit; where over-recoveries are identified, the fee must be reduced to comply with the law. Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 13 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 15  Packet Pg. 44 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 6 The Matrix Consulting Group utilizes a cost allocation methodology commonly known and accepted as the “bottom-up” approach to establishing User Fees. The term means that several cost components are calculated for each fee or service. These components then build upon each other to comprise the total cost for providing the service. The following chart describes the components of a full cost calculation: The general steps utilized by the project team to determine allocations of cost components to a particular fee or service are: • Calculate fully burdened hourly rates by position, including direct and indirect costs; • Develop time estimates for the average time spent to deliver each service included in the study; and • Distribute the appropriate amount of the other cost components to each fee or service based on the staff time allocation basis or another reasonable basis. The results of these allocations provide detailed documentation for the reasonable determination of the actual cost of providing each service. One of the key study assumptions utilized in the “bottom up” approach is the use of time estimate averages for the provision of each fee-related service. Utilization of time estimates is a reasonable and defensible approach, especially given that experienced staff members who understand service levels and processes unique to the City developed these estimates. The project team worked closely with City staff in developing time estimates with the following criteria: • Estimates are representative of average times for providing services. Extremely difficult or abnormally simple projects are not factored in the analysis. • Estimates reflect the time associated with the position or positions that typically perform a service. • Estimates are reviewed by the project team for “reasonableness” against their experience with other agencies. • Estimates were not based on time in motion studies, as they are not practical for the scope of services and time frame for this project. DIRECT (Salaries, Benefits, Productive Hours) INDIRECT (Departmental Admin, Services & Supplies, Citywide Overhead etc.) Total Cost USER FEE STUDY METHODOLOGY Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 14 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 16  Packet Pg. 45 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 7 • Estimates match the current or proposed staffing levels to ensure there is no over-allocation of staff resources to fee and non-fee related activities. The Matrix Consulting Group agrees that while the use of time estimates is not perfect, it is the best alternative available for setting a standard level of service on which to base a jurisdiction’s fees for service and meets the requirements of California law. The alternative to time estimating is actual time tracking, often referred to billing on a “time and materials” basis. Except in the case of anomalous or very large and complex projects, the Matrix Consulting Group believes this approach to not be cost effective or reasonable for the following reasons: • Accuracy in time tracking is compromised by the additional administrative burden required to track, bill, and collect for services in this manner. • Additional costs are associated with administrative staff’s billing, refunding, and monitoring deposit accounts. • Customers often prefer to know the fees for services in advance of applying for permits or participating in programs. • Departments can better predict revenue streams and staff needs using standardized time estimates and anticipated permit volumes. Situations arise where the size and complexity of a given project warrants time tracking and billing on a “time and materials” basis. The Matrix Consulting Group has recommended taking a deposit and charging Actual Costs for such fees as appropriate and itemized within the current fee schedule. Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 15 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 17  Packet Pg. 46 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 8 The motivation behind a cost of services (User Fee) analysis is for the City Council and Departmental staff to maintain services at a level that is both accepted and effective for the community and to maintain control over the policy and management of these services. It should be noted that the results presented in this report are not a precise measurement. In general, a cost-of-service analysis takes a “snapshot in time,” where a fiscal year of financial and operational information is utilized. Changes to the structure of fee names, along with the use of time estimates, allow only for a reasonable projection of subsidies and revenue. Consequently, the Council and Department staff should rely conservatively upon these estimates to gauge the impact of implementation going forward. Discussion of results in the following chapters is intended as a summary of extensive and voluminous cost allocation documentation produced during the Study. Each chapter will include detailed cost calculation results for each major permit category including the following: • Modifications: discussions regarding any proposed revisions to the current fee schedule, including elimination or addition of fees. • “Per Unit” Results: comparison of the full cost of providing each unit of service to the current fee for each unit of service (where applicable). • Annualized Results: utilizing volume of activity estimates annual subsidies and revenue impacts were projected where appropriate. The full analytical results were provided to City staff under separate cover from this summary report. RESULTS OVERVIEW Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 11  Packet Pg. 16 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 18  Packet Pg. 47 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 9 The Office of the City Clerk serves as a municipal recordkeeper, with duties that include processing ordinances and resolutions, preparing Council agendas and minutes, and managing municipal elections. This Office also acts as the City’s repository for records and process records requests. The fees examined within this study relate to appeals, documents & photocopies, domestic partner registries, and subscriptions. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by the Office of the City Clerk. FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS In discussions with City Clerk staff, the following modifications to the current fee schedule were proposed: • Eliminated Fees: the ‘Certification Fee’ was removed from the schedule as this service is no longer provided by Clerk staff. • New Fees: fees for ‘Black and White’, ‘Color’, and ‘Digital Copy’ services were added to the fee schedule to collect additional revenues for these services. The modifications noted above ensure that the proposed fee schedule better reflets the services being provided by City Clerk staff. DETAILED RESULTS The Office of the City Clerk collects fees for appeals, document and photocopy services, domestic partner registries, and subscription related services. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs, and Departmental and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered. TABLE 3: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – CITY CLERK Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost Difference Appeals Appeal Costs Exceeding Appeals Filing Fee Deposit Refer To Planning and Development Services Appeals and Request for Hearing before City Council or Planning & Transportation Commission Each Refer To Planning and Development Services Documents & Photocopies Fair Political Practices Commission Photocopies1 Per Page $0.10 $0.10 $0 Black & White2 Per Page $0.10 $0.10 $0 Color2 Per Page $0.25 $0.25 $0 Digital Copy3 Each Actual Cost 1 The total cost associated has been set according to CA Govt Code § 81008(a). 2 The total cost associated has been set according to GOV § 7922.530. 3 The total cost associated has been set according to GOV § 6253.9(a). OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 12  Packet Pg. 17 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 19  Packet Pg. 48 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 10 Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost Difference Domestic Partner Registry Domestic Partners Registration Fee Each $38 $78 ($40) Subscriptions Candidate Filing Fee4 Each $25 $25 $0 Both Appeal fees refer to the Planning and Development Services section of the municipal fee schedule, as depending on the type of application being appealed, these amounts can vary. All Document and Photocopy fees, as well as Subscription fees have been set to align with state codes. The ‘Domestic Partners Registration Fee’ shows a current subsidy of $40. ANNUAL RESULTS Due to the nature of City Clerk fees, most of which are set by the state, no annual results were calculated. 4 The total cost associated has been set according to ELEC § 10228 Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 13  Packet Pg. 18 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 20  Packet Pg. 49 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 11 The Community Services Department (CSD) provides a variety of recreational opportunities, including parks, hiking trails, fitness facilities, pools, and a municipal golf course. It also offers engaging programs for all ages, from educational classes to art exhibits and the Palo Alto Jr. Museum and Zoo. The focus of this analysis was the programmatic cost recovery associated with the following divisions: Arts and Sciences, Open Space, Parks and Golf, and Recreation and Cubberley. The following sections outline the cost recovery associated with the Community Services department as a whole, as well as each division. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT COST RECOVERY The typical cost recovery for parks and recreational service is between 20% and 50%. This range reflects the belief that these services primarily benefit the community at large and therefore should be subsidized through taxpayers. As part of this analysis, the project team calculated the cost recovery for the Community Services Department based on its direct costs of operations and accounting for any indirect costs (Departmental / Divisional administration and Citywide overhead). Direct cost recovery compares budgeted costs against generated revenues. To determine direct departmental cost recovery, the project team compared FY24 budgeted revenues to FY25 budgeted costs. The following table shows by program: Revenue, Budget, the associated difference, and cost recovery percentage. TABLE 4: CSD DEPARTMENTAL COST RECOVERY – DIRECT COSTS Division FY24 Rev FY25 Exp5 Cost Recovery CSD Arts and Sciences $4,673,381 $10,105,808 46% CSD Open Space, Parks and Golf $6,174,447 $16,169,915 38% CSD Recreation and Cubberley $5,853,093 $7,916,070 74% Total $16,700,920 $34,191,793 49% The Department is at a 49% cost recovery level on a direct cost basis. This direct cost recovery is on the higher end of the typical cost recovery (20-50%). The range of cost recovery levels between programs is typical for parks and recreation fees. For example, the optional nature of fees related to recreation services usually equates to those fees being set closer to cost recovery. On the other hand, services provided in relation to youth or senior services tend to be subsidized to account for the community benefit. Total cost recovery looks at direct program costs, departmental / divisional administration, and citywide overhead and compares those costs against generated revenues. For programmatic services to be provided, recreation management and administration staff support is needed. Furthermore, support 5 The FY25 Budget does not include CSD Administration, as those costs are considered part of the overhead. COMMUNITY SERVICES Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 14  Packet Pg. 19 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 21  Packet Pg. 50 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 12 services are also needed from other City departments, including Finance, Human Resources, City Attorney, Facility, Maintenance, and so forth. The following table shows by division the indirect costs: TABLE 5: CSD DEPARTMENTAL COST RECOVERY – INDIRECT COSTS INCLUDED Division Depart. OH6 Citywide OH Total Indirect Cost CSD Arts and Sciences $818,588 $1,876,689 $2,695,277 CSD Open Space, Parks and Golf $1,309,790 $1,684,736 $2,994,526 CSD Recreation and Cubberley $641,215 $1,297,111 $1,938,326 Total $2,769,593 $4,858,536 $7,628,129 The project team accounted for roughly $8 million in indirect overhead costs. The table below compares FY24 Revenue to FY25 Total Direct and Indirect Costs (Full Cost), highlighting the difference and associated cost recovery percentage. TABLE 6: CSD DEPARTMENTAL COST RECOVERY – FULL COSTS Division FY24 Rev FY25 Full Cost Cost Recovery CSD Arts and Sciences $4,673,381 $12,801,084 37% CSD Open Space, Parks and Golf $6,174,447 $19,164,441 32% CSD Recreation and Cubberley $5,853,093 $9,854,396 59% Total $16,700,920 $41,819,922 40% Based on the analysis, the Department has a Full Cost recovery level of 40%, which is still within the typical range of 20-50% for parks and recreation services. Of the total direct and indirect expenditures, approximately 81% are direct expenditures, 12% is Citywide overhead, and 7% is Administrative costs. ARTS & SCIENCES COST RECOVERY The Arts & Sciences Division offers a variety of visual and performing arts programs for youth and adults. Additionally, it oversees the daily operations of the Art Center, Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ), Children’s Theatre, Community Theatre, Cubberley Theatre, the Public Art Program, and the Cubberley Artist Studios Program. The following table shows by cost center: Revenue, Budget, the associated difference, and cost recovery percentage. TABLE 7: ARTS & SCIENCES COST RECOVERY – DIRECT COSTS Division FY24 Rev FY25 Exp7 Cost Recovery Visual Arts, Classes, Exhibitions $1,458,479 $2,912,659 50% Community Theater $198,608 $526,696 38% Junior Museum & Zoo $2,226,536 $3,770,337 59% Children's Theater $784,891 $2,329,639 34% Total $4,668,515 $9,539,331 49% 6 This represents the FY25 budgeted expenditures for the CSD Community Services Administration division only as the remaining divisions (i.e. Animal Shelter, Human Services Administration, Child Care Services, etc.) are not overhead to all of CSD. 7 The FY25 Budget does not include Arts & Culture Administration, as these costs are considered part of the overhead. Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 15  Packet Pg. 20 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 22  Packet Pg. 51 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 13 The Arts & Sciences division is at a 49% cost recovery level on a direct cost basis. This direct cost recovery is within the typical cost recovery (20-50%). The next table shows associated indirect costs included: TABLE 8: ARTS & SCIENCES COST RECOVERY – INDIRECT COSTS INCLUDED Division Depart. OH8 Citywide OH Total Indirect Cost Visual Arts, Classes, Exhibitions $299,056 $220,601 $519,657 Community Theater $54,078 $3,705 $57,783 Junior Museum & Zoo $387,117 $587,606 $974,723 Children's Theater $239,194 $394,237 $633,431 Total $979,446 $1,206,149 $2,185,595 The project team accounted for roughly $2 million in indirect overhead costs. The table below compares FY24 Revenue to FY25 Total Direct and Indirect Costs (Full Cost), highlighting the difference and associated cost recovery percentage. TABLE 9: ARTS & SCIENCES COST RECOVERY – FULL COSTS Division FY24 Rev FY25 Full Cost Cost Recovery Visual Arts, Classes, Exhibitions $1,458,479 $3,432,316 42% Community Theater $198,608 $584,479 34% Junior Museum & Zoo $2,226,536 $4,745,060 47% Children's Theater $784,891 $2,963,071 26% Total $4,668,515 $11,724,926 40% Based on the analysis, the Arts & Sciences division has a full cost recovery level of 40%. Of the total direct and indirect expenditures, approximately 82% are direct expenditures, 10% is Citywide overhead, and 8% is Administrative costs. The full cost in Table 9, which equals roughly $11.7 million, varies from the full cost in Table 6, which equals $12.8 million, due to the exclusion of direct and indirect costs in relation to program cost centers9 which do not generate revenue. These exclusions ensure the division’s full cost recovery rate is not artificially reduced. In addition to the overall cost recovery range typically seen in relation to parks and recreation fees, there are typical cost recovery target ranges based upon the Matrix Consulting Group's experience conducting recreation fee studies. On the low end, classes and programs tend to have a 30% to 50% cost recovery as the intention is to balance cost recovery without inhibiting attendance or producing barriers to entry. The Division’s classes and programs are on the higher end of this cost recovery range, which makes sense as the classes / programs offered are unique (ceramics, science, etc) and this drives the desirability. Facility rentals tend to be on the higher end at 50% to 80% cost recovery as rentals are primarily for individual 8 This represents the proportionate split of the FY25 budgeted expenditures for both the CSD Administration and Arts & Culture Administration division across all Arts & Science specific cost centers. 9 Cost centers excluded include the following: 80020210, 80020310, 80020410, 80020414, & 80020710. Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 16  Packet Pg. 21 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 23  Packet Pg. 52 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 14 benefit and the community has the option to use the City’s facilities or other facilities based on their needs. The Divisions facility cost recoveries are lower than this cost recovery range. OPEN SPACE, PARKS & GOLF COST RECOVERY The Open Space, Parks, and Golf Division is responsible for the upkeep and operations of the City’s parkland and open spaces. Additionally, it maintains a full-service golf complex. The following table shows by cost center: Revenue, Budget, the associated difference, and cost recovery percentage. TABLE 10: OPEN SPACE, PARKS & GOLF COST RECOVERY – DIRECT COSTS Division FY24 Rev FY25 Exp10 Cost Recovery Parks $318,377 $3,263,358 10% Facilities $777,232 $8,877,486 9% Golf $5,078,837 $3,639,805 140% Total $6,174,447 $15,780,648 39% The Open Space, Parks & Golf Division is at a 39% cost recovery level on a direct cost basis. This direct cost recovery is within the typical cost recovery (20-50%). The next table shows by the indirect costs included: TABLE 11: OPEN SPACE, PARKS & GOLF COST RECOVERY – INDIRECT COSTS INCLUDED Division Depart. OH11 Citywide OH Total Indirect Cost Parks $362,910 $370,383 $733,293 Facilities $987,243 $1,129,580 $2,116,823 Golf $404,773 $128,904 $533,677 Total $1,754,926 $1,628,867 $3,383,793 The project team accounted for roughly $3 million in indirect overhead costs. The table below compares FY24 Revenue to FY25 Total Direct and Indirect Costs (Full Cost), highlighting the difference and associated cost recovery percentage. TABLE 12: OPEN SPACE, PARKS & GOLF COST RECOVERY – FULL COSTS Division FY24 Rev FY25 Full Cost Cost Recovery Parks $318,377 $3,996,651 8% Facilities $777,232 $10,994,309 7% Golf $5,078,837 $4,173,482 122% Total $6,174,447 $19,164,441 32% 10 The FY25 Budget does not include Open Space & Science Administration, as these costs are considered part of the overhead. 11 This represents the proportionate split of the FY25 budgeted expenditures for both the CSD Administration and Open Space & Science Administration division across all Open Space & Science specific cost centers. Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 17  Packet Pg. 22 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 24  Packet Pg. 53 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 15 Based on the analysis, the Open Space, Parks & Golf division has a full cost recovery level of 2%. Of the total direct and indirect expenditures, approximately 83% are direct expenditures, 8% is Citywide overhead, and 9% is Administrative costs. Typically, maintenance cost centers are support and do not generate high levels of revenue, this is reflected in the low-cost recovery. At 124%, the Golf program generates a high amount of revenue. This excess in cost recovery is typical for specialized services. RECREATION & CUBBERLEY COST RECOVERY The Recreation and Cubberley Division is responsible for various youth and adult programming, including sports, camps, aquatics, special events, and much more. Additionally, it oversees the operations of three community centers, a teen center, the MakeX studio, and, through a public-private partnership, the Rinconada Pool. The following table shows by cost center: Revenue, Budget, the associated difference, and cost recovery percentage. TABLE 13: RECREATIONS & CUBBERLEY COST RECOVERY – DIRECT COSTS Division FY24 Rev FY25 Exp12 Cost Recovery Adult Classes & Programs $264,978 $448,565 59% Aquatics $9,717 $71,698 14% Youth Classes & Programs $1,712,792 $2,431,945 70% Recreation Facilities $2,449,245 $3,526,093 69% Parks, Fields, & Courts $1,411,534 $712,006 198% Special Events $640 $259,405 0% Total $5,848,906 $7,449,712 79% The Recreation & Cubberley division is at a 79% cost recovery level on a direct cost basis. This direct cost recovery is higher than the typical cost recovery (20-50%). The next table shows by the indirect costs included: TABLE 14: RECREATIONS & CUBBERLEY COST RECOVERY – INDIRECT COSTS INCLUDED Division Depart. OH13 Citywide OH Total Indirect Cost Adult Classes & Programs $67,290 $57,340 $124,630 Aquatics $10,755 $17,794 $28,549 Youth Classes & Programs $364,818 $129,396 $494,214 Recreation Facilities $528,952 $718,160 $1,247,112 Parks, Fields, & Courts $106,809 $281,959 $388,768 Special Events $38,914 $32,982 $71,896 Total $1,117,538 $1,237,631 $2,355,169 12 The FY25 Budget does not include Recreation & Cubberley Administration, as these costs are considered part of the overhead. 13 This represents the proportionate split of the FY25 budgeted expenditures for both the CSD Administration and Recreation & Cubberley Administration division across all Recreation & Cubberley specific cost centers. Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 18  Packet Pg. 23 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 25  Packet Pg. 54 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 16 The project team accounted for roughly $2 million in indirect overhead costs. The table below compares FY24 Revenue to FY25 Total Direct and Indirect Costs (Full Cost), highlighting the difference and associated cost recovery percentage. TABLE 15: RECREATIONS & CUBBERLEY COST RECOVERY – FULL COSTS Division FY24 Rev FY25 Full Cost Cost Recovery Adult Classes & Programs $264,978 $573,195 46% Aquatics $9,717 $100,247 10% Youth Classes & Programs $1,712,792 $2,926,160 59% Recreation Facilities $2,449,245 $4,773,206 51% Parks, Fields, & Courts $1,411,534 $1,100,773 128% Special Events $640 $331,301 0% Total $5,848,906 $9,804,881 60% Based on the analysis, the Recreation & Cubberley division has a full cost recovery level of 60%. Of the total direct and indirect expenditures, approximately 76% are direct expenditures, 13% is Citywide overhead, and 11% is Administrative costs. The full cost in Table 15, which equals roughly $9.80 million, varies from the full cost in Table 6, which equals $9.85 million, due to the exclusion of direct and indirect costs in relation to program cost centers14 which do not generate revenue. These exclusions ensure the division’s full cost recovery rate is not artificially reduced. In addition to the overall cost recovery range typically seen in relation to parks and recreation fees, there are typical cost recovery target ranges based upon Matrix Consulting Group's experience conducting recreation fee studies. Typically, classes and programs have a 30% to 50% cost recovery. The Division’s youth and adult programming are on the higher end of the cost recovery range. At 130%, the parks, fields, and court rentals generate additional revenues above cost. This excess in cost recovery is typical for rentals partially due to their optional nature, as the community can choose to use the City’s amenities, and in part due to the individual benefit of rentals. SUMMARY Overall, the Community Services Department is within the typical cost recovery range, and while classes / programs are within range, rentals and specialized services are higher in cost recovery. The department should utilize the target cost recovery ranges as a guideline to setting rates. Within these larger program categories, there can be different cost recovery targets for sub-programs or subsections. For example, within Recreation, there would be different cost recovery goals for adult vs. youth services. 14 Cost centers excluded include the following: 80080311 & 80080312. Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 19  Packet Pg. 24 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 26  Packet Pg. 55 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 17 The City provides comprehensive in-house ambulance and emergency medical services, which includes staffing its fire engines with Firefighter / Paramedics for Advanced Life Safety (ALS) and Basic Life Safety (BLS) calls, as well as several ambulances. The following subsections discuss the current EMS related cost per transport, the full cost calculated for the different types of services (i.e., ALS, BLS, etc.), mileage charge, oxygen use, as well as the annual revenue impacts. EMS SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK EMS fees have traditionally been considered under the umbrella of user fees or fees for service. As such, these fees are subject to the same legal rules and regulations as other user fees, i.e., the fee cannot exceed the cost to provide the service. However, EMS fees are unique from other fees for service as the fee payer dictates the rate they will pay, which is often less than the current fee charged for the service. For example, traditionally, if the fee for a water heater permit is $150, any individual who pulls a water heater permit must pay $150. However, in the case of EMS fees, if the fee for transport is $150, depending upon your insurance provider, the City may get paid $0, $50, $100, or the full $150. Therefore, the two types of fees are not equal. While the City has historically set its EMS fees at full cost, it has run into the traditional conundrum of not being able to achieve full cost recovery, as the fee charged is not the fee rate paid. The focus of this analysis is to provide the City with defensible, full cost fees. Depending on the City’s payor mix, the City will not be able to recover the full cost of EMS services, however, it will be in full compliance with the law. EMS COST PER TRANSPORT CALCULATION To calculate the full cost associated with EMS fees, the project team evaluated the City’s direct and indirect costs associated with these activities. The City has the following types of expenses that are EMS-related: • EMS Program: this program houses the direct costs associated with EMS staff, supplies, and contract services, such as billing. • Indirect Costs: These costs reflect departmental overhead associated with the Fire Chief and other support personnel, as well as Citywide overhead associated with Finance, Human Resources, etc. • EMS Staffed Firefighters: The City has recently increased its staffing associated with EMS services to include additional firefighter paramedics to increase the number of transports they can provide. The following table shows the total FY25 budgeted EMS costs based on these expenses: FIRE EMS Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 20  Packet Pg. 25 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 27  Packet Pg. 56 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 18 TABLE 16: TOTAL EMS-RELATED COSTS Expense Type FY25 Budget Direct EMS Expenses $5,910,989 Citywide and Departmental Overhead $896,281 EMS Staffed Firefighters $7,214,994 Total EMS Related Expenses $13,602,558 The total Fire EMS related costs are roughly $13.6 million. To determine the total cost per transport the project took the $13.6 million in EMS costs and divided it by the average total number of transports conducted by the Department over the past three fiscal years, as shown in the following table: TABLE 17: TOTAL EMS COST PER TRANSPORT Expense Type FY25 Budget Direct EMS Expenses $3,602,558 Total # of Transports 3,840 Total Cost Per Transport $3,543 Based upon EMS direct and indirect costs of $13.6 million and approximately 3,800 annual transports, the City’s cost per transport is approximately $3,543. ALS AND BLS COST CALCULATION While $3,543 is the overall cost per transport, this is converted into two types of fees – Advanced Life Support (ALS) and Basic Life Support (BLS). The typical methodology for converting eh overall cost per transport to these two service areas is based upon a factor that can be applied to each depending upon the level of effort. This factor is based upon discussions with staff, ensuring that the overall split of services totals the overall revenue to be recovered. The following table shows the calculation of the cost for each service area based on the cost per transport, the effort factor, and the resulting full cost per unit. TABLE 18: COST CALCULATION PER UNIT – ALS AND BLS Category Cost Per Transport Effort Factor Cost Per Unit ALS $3,543 1.1 $3,897 BLS $3,543 0.9 $3,188 As the table indicates, the total cost calculated is $3,897 for an ALS transport and $3,188 for a BLS transport. The following table compares the City’s current fee, to the full cost calculated: TABLE 19: TRANSPORT FEES – COST PER UNIT COMPARISON Category Current Fee Full Cost Difference ALS Transport Base Rate $2,966 $3,897 ($931) BLS Transport Base Rate $2,556 $3,188 ($632) The City is under-recovering for both its transportation categories, with the ALS subsidy at $931 and the BLS subsidy at $632. Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 21  Packet Pg. 26 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 28  Packet Pg. 57 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 19 MILEAGE CALCULATION Along with the ability to bill for transportation and treatment-related activities, the City can also bill for the mileage that is incurred from the transportation scene to the hospital. The mileage charge is typically meant to account for maintenance, fuel, and replacement costs. In FY25 the EMS program budgeted $419,706 for vehicle equipment maintenance, fuel, and replacement costs. To determine the cost per mile, the project team divided the $419,700 by the average number of miles billed for transport-related activities. The following table shows the resulting cost per mile: TABLE 20: COST PER MILE CALCULATION Category Amount Total EMS Mileage Cost $419,706 Avg Mileage Billed 13,268 Total Cost Per Mile $31.63 The total cost per mile was calculated at $31.63. The following table compares the current fee per mile to the full cost per mile: TABLE 21: MILEAGE– COST PER UNIT COMPARISON Category Current Fee Full Cost Difference Mileage $35 $32 $3 Based on the cost calculated, the City is over-recovering by approximately $3 per mile. It is important to note that even though the City shows an over-recovery, due to its payor mix it does not actually receive $35 per mile. The actual reimbursement amount depends on the payor mix of the agency. OXYGEN CALCULATION As with the mileage charge, the City also bills for oxygen usage. The cost for oxygen usage was calculated based on the rental and re-filling costs for oxygen and the number of tanks. The following table shows the cost per tank calculation: TABLE 22: COST PER TANK CALCULATION Category Amount Oxygen Cost $7,075 Total # of Oxygen Tanks 15 Cost Per Tank $472 The cost per tank through this study was calculated at $472. However, each trip or use of oxygen does not take up a full tank. The project team calculated the number of trips it takes to utilize a full oxygen tank. This trip calculation was done based on the average number of transports, the average number of oxygen uses, and the percentage of time the tank is refilled / checked. The following table shows the number of trips calculated per oxygen tank utilization: Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 22  Packet Pg. 27 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 29  Packet Pg. 58 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 20 TABLE 23: # OF TRIPS PER OXYGEN TANK CALCULATION Category Amount Total # of Transports 3,840 Total # of Oxygen Uses 1,152 # of Trips per Oxygen Tank 3.33 % of Time Tank is Refilled / Check 50% # of Trips per Oxygen Tank – Utilized 1.67 Even though, on average, it takes a little over three trips before the oxygen tank would need to be refilled, based upon discussion with staff, the City does not wait until the oxygen tank is fully depleted before refilling it. As such, the tank is refilled or checked about every one and a half trips. The following table takes the total cost per tank and then divides it by the number of trips per oxygen tank utilization to determine the cost per oxygen use: TABLE 24: COST PER OXYGEN USE Category Amount Cost Per Tank $472 # of Trips per Oxygen Tank – Utilized 1.67 Cost Per Oxygen Use $283 The total cost per oxygen use calculated is $283. The following table compares the City’s current fee to the total cost calculated and the resulting difference: TABLE 25: OXYGEN – COST PER UNIT COMPARISON Category Current Fee Full Cost Difference Oxygen Use $179 $283 ($104) The City is under-recovering by approximately $100 per oxygen use, recovering approximately 63% of its costs. COMPLIANCE FEES The City currently assess an hourly fee for engine company inspections. This fee is only assessed when the engine company is required to perform a second reinspection. The following table compares the City’s current fee to the total cost calculated and the resulting difference: TABLE 26: EMS – COMPLIANCE FEES Category Current Fee Full Cost Difference Engine Company Second Reinspection $279 $994 ($715) The City’s current fee is under-recovering by approximately $700. While the large difference can be attributed to increased costs associated with Engine services, the more likely reason for the large disparity is due to the current fee not being set at full cost recovery. Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 23  Packet Pg. 28 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 30  Packet Pg. 59 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 21 FIRST RESPONDER FEE While discussing current EMS services with City staff, it was noted that the current ALS and BLS fees only account for EMS specific costs, but do not cover the costs associated with engine incident responses. Therefore, it was proposed that a First Responder Fee be established to provide the City with a mechanism to recover these costs. Based on a thirty (30) minute call out, the full cost calculated for the First Responder Fee would be $497. ANNUAL REVENUE IMPACTS As noted at the beginning of this chapter, EMS services differ from other fee-related services, as the user is billed after services are provided, typically with bills going through insurance companies first. Depending on the user’s insurance, the City may only receive a fraction of the amount billed. Therefore, based on the make-up of the users of EMS services, the revenue the City receives is dramatically lower than what is billed. The following subsections outline the City’s current payer mix and annual cost recovery. PAYOR MIX Those who use EMS transport services typically fall into one of five (5) categories: Medicaid, Medicare, Private Insurance, Worker’s Comp, or Other. The following table outlines the payor mix for EMS services in as well as the average recovery for Fiscal Year 2024. TABLE 27: EMS SERVICE PAYOR MIX Payor Type FY24 % of Payors Average Recovery Medicaid 15% 43% Medicare 53% 26% Private Insurance 26% 86% Worker’s Comp 1% 34% Other 5% 5% For Medicaid and Medicare services, the insurance provider sets a standard amount it will reimburse for various EMS services – regardless of the fees billed by the service provider. The amount the City receives from Private Insurance, Worker’s Comp, and Other users depends on the medical plan of the individual. As shown in the table above, the majority of the City’s users are on Medicare which has an average recovery rate of 26%, while the highest recovery rate (86%) belongs to those with Private Insurance, who comprise roughly 25% of the total users. ANNUAL REVENUE RECOVERY – CURRENT FEE There are two types of annual revenue recoveries that can be calculated for EMS services: 1. Potential Revenue vs. Total Cost: this compares assumed revenue generation based on 100% collection of fees billed compared to the full cost of providing the service. Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 24  Packet Pg. 29 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 31  Packet Pg. 60 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 22 2. Annual Revenue Collected vs. Annual Cost: this shows the amount collected compared to the annual cost associated with those activities. Based upon the current fee charged by the Fire Department for EMS-related activities and the projected annual cost, the project team calculated that the department would have had a $5.2 million deficit or recovered approximately 69% of its costs. The following table shows by fee category the annual amount billed, the annual cost, and the surplus / deficit: TABLE 28: EMS ANNUAL COST RECOVERY – BILLED VS TOTAL COST Category Potential Revenue Total Cost Difference Transport Mileage $464,380 $419,698 $44,682 BLS $3,023,748 $3,771,849 ($748,101) ALS $7,880,662 $10,354,075 ($2,473,413) First Responder Fee $1,908,170 ($1,908,170) Oxygen $206,208 $326,016 ($119,808) Total $11,574,998 $16,779,808 ($5,204,810) Of the $5.2 million, the biggest impact relates to ALS related transports, while nearly $2 million is related to First Responder services which aren’t currently being assessed. However, as noted above, what the City bills is not what the City recovers. Therefore, the following table compares the revenue collected by the City to the City’s total cost of providing services, and the associated difference: TABLE 29: EMS ANNUAL COST RECOVERY – RECOVERED VS TOTAL COST Category Recovered Revenue Total Cost Difference Transport Mileage $207,757 $419,698 ($211,941) BLS $1,192,728 $3,771,849 ($2,579,121) ALS $3,283,567 $10,354,075 ($7,070,508) First Responder Fee $0 $1,908,170 ($1,908,170) Oxygen $53,614 $326,016 ($272,402) Total $4,737,667 $16,779,808 ($12,042,141) While the City billed for nearly $11.6 million in transport related services, it only received roughly $4.7 million in offsetting revenue. When comparing the $4.7 million to their total annual costs, their deficit is approximately $12 million, resulting in a cost recovery rate of only 28%. ANNUAL REVENUE RECOVERY – TOTAL COST Should the City increase their fees to reflect the full cost of providing EMS services, including implementation of the First Responder fee, they would see an increase in annual revenue. The following compares current collected revenue to projected revenue collections based on a full cost fee and estimates a potential revenue increase. Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 25  Packet Pg. 30 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 32  Packet Pg. 61 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 23 TABLE 30: EMS ANNUAL COST RECOVERY – POTENTIAL REVENUE Category Recovered Revenue Revenue at Full Cost Fee Potential Revenue Increase Transport Mileage $207,757 $191,897 ($15,860) BLS $1,192,728 $1,351,895 $159,166 ALS $3,283,567 $3,813,738 $530,171 First Responder Fee $0 $374,400 $374,400 Oxygen $53,614 $84,764 $31,150 TOTAL $4,737,667 $5,816,694 $1,079,027 Should the City adopt EMS transport fees at the full cost shown in this report, based on the average annual workload it could generate approximately $5.8 million in revenue, which would represent an increase of roughly $1 million. Projected revenue associated with the First Responder Fee assumes 75% recovery from only Private Payors. However, given that the First Responder fee is new, and the ability for the City to recover these billed services is unknown, we would conservatively project the City’s potential revenue increase at only $700,000. Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 26  Packet Pg. 31 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 33  Packet Pg. 62 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 24 The Palo Alto Police Department is responsible for providing emergency and non-emergency public safety services to the citizens of Palo Alto. As part of this duty, the department administers fees for background checks, vehicle impoundments, and variety of permits for specific businesses, such as taxicabs and firearms dealers. Officers also assist with Special Events and administer related fees accordingly. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by the Police Department. FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS In discussions with Police Department staff, the following modifications to the current fee schedule were proposed: • Eliminated Fees: The following fees were eliminated as they represent services no longer offered by the Police Department: – Adult Entertainment – Closing-out Sale – Adult Entertainment – Closing-out Sale Renewal (Two Maximum) – Background Check – New – Department of Justice Fingerprint and Rolling Fee – FBI Fingerprint Fee – Noise Exception Permit – Parenting Project Materials – Parenting Project Program – Valet Parking – Sign & Curb Markings • New Fees: Police Department staff proposed the addition of the following fees to the fee schedule, as they represent either services already offered and not codified or new services the City would like to offer: – Civil Subpoena Appearance Fee – Towed Stored Vehicle Fee • Expanded Fees: Staff proposed expanding the ‘Taxicab – Driver’ fee to include two categories (‘New’ and ‘Renewal’) to better account for a difference in processing time. • Modified Fees: The ‘Subpoena Fee’ was clarified to read ‘Subpoena Fee for Documents,’ and the ‘Special Event / Film Permit’ fee was modified to read ‘Film / Photography Permit.’ The modifications noted above ensure that the proposed fee schedule better reflets the services being provided by Police Department staff. POLICE Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 27  Packet Pg. 32 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 34  Packet Pg. 63 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 25 DETAILED RESULTS The Police Department collects fees for high-risk business regulation, vehicle impoundments, special events, and miscellaneous administrative tasks. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental, Divisional, and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered. TABLE 31: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – POLICE Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost Difference Background Check OPM/DOD Background Check Per Application $5 $112 ($107) Impoundment Fees - Vehicle Vehicle Impoundment Fee Each $158 $162 ($4) Vehicle Repossession Receipt15 Each $15 $15 $0 Towed Stored Vehicle Fee Each New $162 Personnel Rates Emergency Response Fee Per Incident Actual Cost Special Fees Clearance Letter Each $35 $131 ($96) Digital Media Reproduction Fee Each $65 $281 ($216) Location Crime Statistics Fee Each $86 $359 ($273) Offsite Document Retrieval Per Item Actual Cost Report Copy Fee16 Each $15 $15 $0 Research Fee Per Hour $160 $245 ($85) Subpoena Fee For Documents17 Per Hour $24 $24 $0 Civil Subpoena Appearance Fee18 Per Person Per Day $275 $275 $0 Firearms Dealer Firearms Dealer Master Permit - New Per Year $3,564 $3,637 ($73) Firearms Dealer Master Permit - Renewal Per Year $644 $970 ($326) Miscellaneous Helicopter Landing Fee Per Occurrence $79 $81 ($2) One Day Liquor Permit Fee: For Profit Rate Per Permit $65 $76 ($11) Non-Profit Rate Per Permit $49 $76 ($27) Secondhand Dealers DOJ Per Application $300 $300 $0 New Per Application $481 $242 $239 Renewal Per Application $120 $121 ($1) Taxicab Master License: New Per Year $3,589 $7,274 ($3,685) Renewal Per Year $1,609 $2,425 ($816) Driver: New Per Year $65 $242 ($177) 15 Ca. Gov. Code § 26751 16 EVI § 1563(b)(6) 17 EVI § 1563(b)(1) 18 GOV § 68097.2 (b) Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 28  Packet Pg. 33 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 35  Packet Pg. 64 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 26 Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost Difference Renewal Per Year $65 $81 ($16) Vehicle Inspection for Each Vehicle Per Year $92 $81 $11 Replacement or Transfer Fee Each $80 $40 $40 Valet Parking Permit Application Per Application $863 $970 ($107) Permit Application Renewal (Annual) Per Year $130 $242 ($112) Short-Term Application Fee Per Application $406 $229 $177 Special Events Personnel Rates for events where 100% of the proceeds go to a Profit Organization: Community Services Officer Per Hour $111 $215 ($104) Police Agent Per Hour $245 $272 ($27) Police Officer Per Hour $206 $244 ($38) Police Reserve Per Hour $88 $58 $30 Police Sergeant Per Hour $272 $291 ($19) Personnel Rates for events where 80% of the proceeds go directly to Non-Profit Organizations: Community Services Officer Per Hour $92 $215 ($123) Police Agent Per Hour $212 $272 ($60) Police Officer Per Hour $171 $244 ($73) Police Reserve Per Hour $72 $58 $14 Police Sergeant Per Hour $232 $291 ($59) Personnel Rates for events where 80% or more of the proceeds go directly to Non-Profit Organizations or events declared as co-sponsored by the City of Palo Alto: Community Services Officer Per Hour $87 $215 ($128) Police Agent Per Hour $185 $272 ($87) Police Officer Per Hour $160 $244 ($84) Police Reserve Per Hour $65 $58 $7 Police Sergeant Per Hour $205 $291 ($86) Special Fees: Special Event Permit 201 - 400 Attendees Per Permit $334 $582 ($248) 401 – 600 Attendees Per Permit $359 $2,036 ($1,677) Each Add’l 200 Attendees Each $53 $291 ($238) Film / Photography Permit: Large Commercial Filming Per Permit $306 $582 ($276) Low-Impact Filming Permit (Cast & Crew 35 or less) Per Permit $306 $291 $15 Student Filming / Photography Per Permit $306 $291 $15 Photography Permit Per Permit $306 $145 $161 Temporary Street Closure Each Refer to PW Fee Schedule The Police Department’s fees show a mix of under- and over-recoveries but generally under-recover. The largest undercharge is for a New Taxicab Master License at about $3,700. The smallest deficit is for the ‘Secondhand Dealers – Renewal’ fee at just $1. Of the fees that show over-recoveries, the largest overcharge is for a ‘Short-Term Application Fee’ for Valet Parking at around $175, and the smallest is the ‘Vehicle Inspection for Each Vehicle’ fee for taxicab drivers at approximately $10. Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 29  Packet Pg. 34 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 36  Packet Pg. 65 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 27 ANNUAL RESULTS Because of the limited workload information available for Police, no annual results were calculated. Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 30  Packet Pg. 35 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 37  Packet Pg. 66 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 28 The Animal Control Division of the Palo Alto Police Department oversees enforcement of animal-related ordinances, responds to issues involving animals in the City, and provides permits and licensing for pets and livestock and related events. The fees examined in this study related to animal permits, disposal, animal impoundments, pet licenses, and pet quarantines. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by the Animal Control Division. FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS In discussions with Animal Control staff, the following modifications to the current fee schedule were proposed: • Eliminated Fees: The following fees were eliminated as they represent services no longer offered by Animal Control: – Disposal – Dogs, Cats, Rabbits (up to 20lbs) – Disposal – Dogs (up to 75lbs) – Disposal – Dogs (76lbs and over) – Disposal – Each Additional Animal – Disposal – Large Animals (up to 150lbs) – Disposal – Small Animals and Birds – Riding Academy – Special Impoundment Fee – Dog • New Fees: Police Department staff proposed the addition of the following fees to the fee schedule, as they represent either services already offered and not codified or new services the City would like to offer: – Pet Licenses – Senion Citizen / Veteran – Rabies Exemption – Service Dog Tag • Modified Fees: The names of the following fees were modified to provide greater clarity: – Animal Permits – Dangerous Animal Permit – Animal Permits – Livestock / Apiary – Animal Permits – Pet Show – Animal Permits – Traveling Menagerie or Petting Zoo POLICE – ANIMAL CONTROL Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 31  Packet Pg. 36 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 38  Packet Pg. 67 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 29 – Disposal – Service Fee – Pet Licenses – Spayed or Neutered (Altered) – Pet Licenses – Unaltered The modifications noted above ensure that the proposed fee schedule better reflets the services being provided by Animal Control. DETAILED RESULTS Animal Control collects fees for animal-related permitting, impoundment, pet licenses, and miscellaneous other services. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs, and Departmental, Divisional, and Citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered. TABLE 32: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – ANIMAL CONTROL Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost Difference Animal Permits Boarding Per Permit $219 $384 ($165) Breeding Permit - Cat, Dog, or Bird Per Permit $133 $384 ($251) Kennel, Birds, or Animals Per Permit $219 $384 ($165) Livery Stable, Boarding Stable Per Permit $219 $384 ($165) Livestock / Apiary Per Permit $80 $220 ($140) Pet Shop/Groomer Per Permit $219 $384 ($165) Pet Show Per Permit $80 $327 ($247) Pony Ride, Pony Ring Per Permit $219 $327 ($108) Traveling Menagerie or Petting Zoo Per Permit $219 $327 ($108) Dangerous Animal Permit Per Permit $432 $384 $48 Disposal Service Fee Each $60 $107 ($47) Impoundment Fees Impoundment Fees - Cat: First Offense Per Occurrence $36 $213 ($177) Second Offense Per Occurrence $54 $213 ($159) Third and Subsequent Offenses Per Occurrence $74 $213 ($139) Impoundment Fees - Dog - Licensed: First Offense Per Occurrence $36 $213 ($177) Second Offense Per Occurrence $54 $213 ($159) Third Offense Per Occurrence $72 $213 ($141) Fourth Offense Per Occurrence $135 $213 ($78) Fifth to Tenth Offense Per Occurrence $181 $213 ($32) Eleventh and Subsequent Offenses Per Occurrence $203 $213 ($10) Impoundment Fees - Dog - Unlicensed: First Offense Per Occurrence $61 $213 ($152) Second Offense Per Occurrence $93 $213 ($120) Third Offense Per Occurrence $115 $213 ($98) Fourth Offense Per Occurrence $154 $213 ($59) Fifth to Tenth Offense Per Occurrence $209 $213 ($4) Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 32  Packet Pg. 37 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 39  Packet Pg. 68 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 30 Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost Difference Eleventh and Subsequent Offenses Per Occurrence $246 $213 $33 Impoundment Fees - General: Other Animals (Small) - Bird, Rabbit, Reptile, etc. Per Occurrence $31 $213 ($182) Other Animals (Large) - Horse, Cow, Pig, Goat, etc. Per Occurrence $123 $213 ($90) State Mandated Fees19 First Offense Per Occurrence $35 $35 $0 Second Offense Per Occurrence $50 $50 $0 Third and Subsequent Offenses Per Occurrence $100 $100 $0 Pet Licenses 12 Months Unaltered Per Dog $45 $52 ($7) Spayed or Neutered (Altered) Per Dog $22 $52 ($30) Senior Citizen / Veteran Per Dog New $52 24 Months Unaltered Per Dog $67 $71 ($4) Spayed or Neutered (Altered) Per Dog $33 $71 ($38) Senior Citizen / Veteran Per Dog New $71 36 Months Unaltered Per Dog $90 $90 $0 Spayed or Neutered (Altered) Per Dog $45 $90 ($45) Senior Citizen / Veteran Per Dog New $90 Service Dog Tag Per Dog New $52 Rabies Exemption Per Dog New $38 Replacement License Tags (Dogs) Each $5 $33 ($28) Special Fees Animal Control Officer Per Hour $91 $213 ($122) Quarantine Home Inspection Fee Each $46 $427 ($381) Animal Control’s fees generally under-recover the associated costs. The fee that shows the largest under-recovery is the ‘Quarantine Home Inspection Fee’ at around $400, followed by the fee for a ‘Breeding Permit – Cat, Dog, or Bird’ ($250). The fee with the smallest undercharge is the ‘Impoundment Fees – Dog – Unlicensed – Fifth to Tenth Offense’ at about $5. Only two fees show an over-recovery (‘Dangerous Animal Permit’ and ‘Impoundment Fees – Dog – Unlicensed – Eleventh and Subsequent Offenses’), both of which can be considered penalties. ANNUAL RESULTS Because of the limited workload information available for Animal Control, no annual results were calculated. 19 CA Food & Agri Code § 30804.7 Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 33  Packet Pg. 38 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 40  Packet Pg. 69 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 31 The Public Works department aims to ensure the City’s infrastructure is well-maintained, promote the protection of the City’s urban forest, and protect quality of life through the prevention of pollution, and promotion of environmental policies and regulations. Though the Department provides a variety of services that span multiple funds, the focus of this analysis was on Operations, Storm Drain, and Wastewater services. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by the Animal Control Division. FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS In discussions with Public Works staff, some minor modifications to each division’s fee structures were proposed. These modifications are outlined in the following points: • Operations: Staff determined that the addition of two fees: Disposal and Use of Equipment would help better outline the services provided. Conversely, Overtime & Holiday rates associated with Electric Vehicle Charger Connections and Charging, as well as Newsrack Impoundment were removed as those services are no longer needed or provided. • Storm Drain: Staff determined that the Storm Drain Inspection Fee should be renamed to better reflect the service being provided to: Stormwater Treatment Feature Operations and Maintenance Inspection. Additionally, the Base fee was lowered from four (4) hours to three (3) hours. • Wastewater Treatment: Staff determined that the Exceptional Waste – (High Volume) and Exceptional Waste (Low Volume) categories under Industrial Waste Discharge should be consolidated into a singular fee. Similarly, the Full (Categorical) and Full (Non-Categorical) were also consolidated into a singular fee, along with the Septic Tank & Portable Toilet Waste Disposal fees which were consolidated into a single per gallon Discharge fee The modifications outlined above strengthen the schedules associated with each division, and ensure that the services provided are clearly identified, and accurately reflect the time associated with each service. DETAILED RESULTS The Public Works divisions included in this analysis collect a variety of fees for services. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental, Divisional, and Citywide overhead. The following subsections outline the detailed per unit results for Operations, Storm Drain, and Wastewater. OPERATIONS Operations staff provide services relating to Maintenance and Repair, Map / Plan Review, and Tree Removals. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered. PUBLIC WORKS Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 34  Packet Pg. 39 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 41  Packet Pg. 70 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 32 TABLE 33: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost Difference Maintenance & Repair Regular Time: Construction & Repair Per Hour $184 $185 ($1) Electric Vehicle Charger Connection Per Connection $0.00 to $2.00 Electric Vehicle Charger Connection Overstay Per Hour $0.00 to $5.00 Electric Vehicle Charging Per Kilowatt Hour $0.24 Newsrack Impoundment Fee First Day Base $208 Each Subsequent Day Each Subsequent Day $3 Supervision Per Hour $187 $228 ($41) Sweeping Services Per Hour $151 $179 ($28) Traffic Control/Graffiti Services Per Hour $138 $163 ($25) Traffic Property Damage Per Hour $138 $163 ($25) Tree Services Per Hour $161 $172 ($11) Overtime & Holiday: Construction & Repair Per Hour $272 $222 $50 Supervision Per Hour $282 $276 $6 Sweeping Services Per Hour $227 $213 $14 Traffic Control/Graffiti Services Per Hour $208 $194 $14 Traffic Property Damage Per Hour $208 $194 $14 Tree Services Per Hour $226 $208 $18 Disposal Each Actual Cost Use of Equipment Each Actual Cost Map/Plan Review Fees Home Improvement Exception - Trees Per Application $487 $575 ($88) IR Review - Trees Per Application $759 $575 $184 Tree Removal Protected Tree Removal Per Removal $499 $460 $39 Record Management Fee Per File $32 $174 ($142) Tree Removal Per Inch of Damage Plus Planting Installation $153 The majority of the services provided by Operations are charged hourly, with some of those services showing under-recoveries, and others show over-recoveries. Fees associated with Electric Vehicle Charger Connections and charging were not evaluated through this analysis as they are not a time-based service. Newsrack impoundments and Tree Removals also weren’t reviewed as these are penalties. Overall, Operations fees are generally recovering their costs on a per unit basis, and inline with typical cost recovery levels of between 80% and 100%. STORM DRAIN Storm Drain staff provide services relating to flood variance, flood zone determination, and temporary elevation benchmarks. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered. Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 35  Packet Pg. 40 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 42  Packet Pg. 71 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 33 TABLE 34: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – PUBLIC WORKS STORM DRAIN Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost Difference Flood Variance Fee Each City Cost plus 15% Flood Zone Determination Letter Per Letter $147 $419 ($272) Stormwater Treatment Feature Operations and Maintenance Inspection: Up to 3 Hours Base $59920 $540 $60 Per Hour Thereafter Per Hour Thereafter $123 $187 ($64) Temporary Elevation Benchmarks Per Benchmark $500 $505 ($5) The Flood Zone Determination Letter shows a subsidy of approximately $272, while the the base rate for a Stormwater Treatment Feature Operations and Maintenance Inspection shows an overage of $60. With the exception of the Flood Zone Determination Letter, the fees charged for Storm Drain services are within the typical cost recovery range of 80% - 100%. WASTEWATER TREATMENT Wastewater Treatment staff provide services relating to Industrial Waste Discharge, and Recycled Water. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered. TABLE 35: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – PUBLIC WORKS WASTEWATER Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost Difference Industrial Waste Discharge Fees: Automotive Per Year $699 $1,523 ($824) Basic Per Year $4,120 $5,735 ($1,615) Best Management Practices (BMP) Per Year $1,541 $2,856 ($1,315) Exceptional Waste Per Permit Modified $3,473 N/A Full Per Year Modified $6,898 N/A Groundwater Per Year $1,576 $1,614 ($38) Industrial Waste Discharge Fees - Liquid Waste Disposal Fee: Septic Tank & Portable Toilet Waste Disposal Permit Processing Each $105 $542 ($437) Discharge Fee Per Gallon $0.1021 $0.77 ($0.67) Recycled Water Fees: Recycled Water Permit Processing Per Permit $52 $452 ($400) All fees charged by Wastewater staff show an under-recovery, the largest being for Basic Industrial Waste Discharge at $1,615. Overall, fees associated with Wastewater services are below the typical cost recovery level of 80% - 100%. 20 The current fee has been modified to provide a true three-hour comparison. 21 The current fee has been modified to provide a true per gallon comparison. Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 36  Packet Pg. 41 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 43  Packet Pg. 72 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 34 ANNUAL RESULTS Workload statistics at a level sufficient to evaluate annual revenue impacts were not available, therefore no annual results were calculated. Real Estate and Property Management is a division within the Administrative Services Department. This Division is responsible for the management of City-owned properties, including the acquisition, leasing, and sale of property. The fees examined within this study relate to Conveyance and Easement Vacation services. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by the Real Estate and Property Management division. FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS In discussions with Real Estate and Property Management staff it was determined that no modifications to the current fee structure were needed. DETAILED RESULTS The Real Estate and Property Management division collects fees associated with easement vacations, property transfer tax exemptions, and other conveyances. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered. TABLE 36: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – REAL ESTATE AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost Difference Conveyance Commercial/Non-Residential/Residential - Long Term (More than 12 months) Each $1,750 $4,613 ($2,863) Consent to Assignment, Amendment, Extension or Hypothecation of a lease or sublease where the City is lessor Each $780 $1,648 ($868) Easement Document Preparation and Processing (Commercial & Residential) Each $1,700 $1,648 $52 License/Grant Deed Preparation Each $1,930 $4,613 ($2,683) Property Transfer Tax Exemption Fee Each $245 $577 ($332) Public Notice Mailing/Posting/Advertising (Commercial & Residential) Deposit $116 $116 $0 Telecommunication Application Processing Fee Each $3,426 Easement Vacation General Each $4,892 Summary Each $2,083 $3,295 ($1,212) All but one of the fees charged by Real Estate and Property Management staff show an under-recovery. The largest subsidy relates to ‘Commerial / Non-Residential / Residential – Long Term (More than 12 months) Conveyance’ at $2,863, while the least subsidized fee is for a ‘Property Transfer Tax Examption REAL ESTATE AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 37  Packet Pg. 42 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 44  Packet Pg. 73 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 35 Conveyance’ at $13. ‘Easement Document Preparation and Processing (Commercial & Residential) Conveyance’ shows an over-collection of $52, and should be reduce in order to comply with current fee regulations. It should be noted that time estiamtes were not provided by staff for services relating to ‘Telecommunication Application Processing Conveyance’ and ‘General Easement Vacation’, therefore, not total cost was calculated. ANNUAL RESULTS Given the minimal workload associated with the real estate and property management, no annual results were calculated. Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 38  Packet Pg. 43 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 45  Packet Pg. 74 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 36 Revenue Collection is a division within the Administrative Services Department. This Division is responsible for the collection of general city revenues associated with utility billing, parking permits, TOT payments, and other miscellaneous receivables. The fees examined within this study relate to Documents and Photocopies, Parking, and Miscellaneous services. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications and detailed per unit results for the fee-related services provided by the Revenue Collection division. FEE SCHEDULE MODIFICATIONS In discussions with Revenue Collection staff, it was determined that Documents & Photocopies fees relating to ‘Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR)’, ‘Budget Book’, and ‘Municipal Fee Schedule’ would be eliminated. These fees are being removed as the associated materials can now be found on the City’s website, no longer requiring staff time for processing. DETAILED RESULTS The Revenue Collection division collects fees associated with certified mailings, duplicate receipts, returned checks, and parking permit investigations. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered. TABLE 37: TOTAL COST PER UNIT RESULTS – REVENUE COLLECTION Fee Name Unit Current Fee Total Cost Difference Documents & Photocopies Mailing (Certified) Each $4 $23 ($18) Miscellaneous Duplicate Receipt Each $9 $36 ($27) Returned Payment Charge (California Civil Code Section 1719)22 Each $25 $25 Parking Permit Investigation (non-refundable) Each $23 $36 ($13) Recreational Vehicle/Oversized Vehicle Per Application $22 $90 ($68) Of the services reviewed through this study all under-recover for the full cost of providing the service. The largest subsidy relates to ‘Recreation Vehicle / Oversized Vehicle’ at $68, while the smallest subsidy relates to ‘Permit Investigation (non-refundable)’ at $13. ANNUAL RESULTS Given the minimal workload associated with the reviewed services, no annual results were calculated. 22 The total cost associated has been set according to CIV § 1719(a). REVENUE COLLECTION Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 39  Packet Pg. 44 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 46  Packet Pg. 75 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 37 The following sections provide guidance regarding how and where to increase fees, determine annual update factors, and develop cost recovery policies and procedures. FEE ADJUSTMENTS This study has documented and outlined on a fee-by-fee basis where the City is under- and over- collecting for its fee-related services. City and Department management will now need to review the study results and adjust fees per Departmental and City philosophies and policies. The following dot points outline the major options the City has in adjusting its fees: • Over-Collection: Upon review of the fees that were shown to be over-collecting for costs of services provided, the City should reduce the current fee to be in line with the full cost of providing the service. • Full Cost Recovery: For fees that show an under-collection for costs of services provided, the City may decide to increase the fee to full cost recovery immediately. • Phased Increase: For fees with significantly low cost recovery levels, or which would have a significant impact on the community, the City could choose to increase fees gradually over a set period of time. The City will need to review the results of the fee study and associated cost recovery levels and determine how best to adjust fees. While decisions regarding fees that currently show an over-recovery are straightforward, the following subsections provide further detail on why and how the City should consider either implementing Full Cost Recovery or a Phased Increase approach to adjusting its fees. FULL COST RECOVERY Based on the permit or review type, the City may wish to increase the fee to cover the full cost of providing services. Certain permits may be close to cost recovery already, and an increase to full cost may not be significant. Other permits may have a more significant increase associated with full cost recovery. Increasing fees associated with permits and services that are already close to full cost recovery can potentially bring a Department’s overall cost recovery level higher. Often, these minimal increases can provide necessary revenue to counterbalance fees that cannot be increased. The City should consider increasing fees for permits for which services are rarely engaged to full cost recovery. These services often require specific expertise and can involve more complex research and review due to their infrequent nature. As such, setting these fees at full cost recovery will ensure that when the permit or review is requested, the City is recovering the full cost of its services. COST RECOVERY CONSIDERATIONS Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 40  Packet Pg. 45 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 47  Packet Pg. 76 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 38 PHASED INCREASES Depending on current cost recovery levels, some current fees may need to be increased significantly to comply with established or proposed cost recovery policies. Due to the type of permit or review or the amount by which a fee needs to be increased, it may be best for the City to use a phased approach to reaching its cost recovery goals. As an example, you may have a current fee of $200 with a full cost of $1,000, representing 20% cost recovery. If the current policy is 80% cost recovery, the current fee would need to increase by $600, bringing the fee to $800, to comply. Assuming this service is something the City provides quite often and affects various members of the community, an instant increase of $600 may not be feasible. Therefore, the City could take a phased approach, whereby it increases the fee annually over a set period until cost recovery is achieved. Raising fees over a set period not only allows the City to monitor and control the impact to applicants but also ensure that applicants have time to adjust to significant increases. Continuing with the example above, the City could increase the fee by $150 per year for the next four years, spreading out the increase. Depending on the desired overall increase and the impact to applicants, the City could choose to vary the number of years by which it chooses to increase fees. However, the project team recommends that the City not phase increases for periods greater than five years, as that is the maximum window after which a comprehensive fee assessment should be completed. ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS Conducting a comprehensive analysis of fee-related services and costs annually would be quite cumbersome and costly. The general recommendation is that a comprehensive fee analysis should be conducted every three to five years. This allows jurisdictions to ensure they account for organizational changes, such as staffing levels and merit increases, and process efficiencies, code or rule changes, or technology improvements. Currently, Palo Alto updates their fees annually based on internal cost factors. Developing annual update mechanisms allows jurisdictions to maintain current levels of cost recovery, while accounting for increases in staffing or expenditures related to permit services. The two most common types of update mechanisms are Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) factors. The following points provide further detail on each of these mechanisms: • COLA / Personnel Cost Factor: Jurisdictions often provide their staff with annual salary adjustments to account for increases in local cost of living. These increases are not tied to merit or seniority but rather meant to offset rising costs associated with housing, gas, and other livability factors. Sometimes these factors vary depending on the bargaining group of a specific employee. Generally, these factors are around two or three percent annually. • CPI / ECI Factor: A common method of increasing fees or cost is to look at regional cost indicators, such as the Consumer Price Index or Employment Cost Index. These factors are calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, are put out at various intervals within a year, and are specific to states and regions. Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 41  Packet Pg. 46 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 48  Packet Pg. 77 of 690  PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL FEE STUDY REPORT MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 39 The City of Palo Alto should review its current options internally (COLA) as well as externally (CPI / ECI) to determine which option better reflects the goals of the Departments and the City. If choosing a CPI / ECI factor, the City should outline which CPI / ECI should be used, including specific region and adoption date. If choosing an internal factor, the City should be sure to specify which factor if multiple exist. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES This study has identified areas where the City is under-collecting the costs associated with providing services. This known funding gap is therefore being subsidized by other City revenue sources. Cost recovery policies and procedures ensure that current and future decision makers understand how and why fees were determined and set, as well as provide a road map for ensuring consistency when moving forward. The following subsections outline typical cost recovery levels and discuss the benefits of reviewing target cost recovery goals and procedures to achieve increased cost recovery. TYPICAL COST RECOVERY The Matrix Consulting Group has extensive experience in analyzing local government operations across the United States and has calculated typical cost recovery ranges. The following table outlines typical cost recovery ranges by major service area. TABLE 38: TYPICAL COST RECOVERY RANGES BY MAJOR SERVICE AREA Service Areas Typical Cost Recovery Ranges Administration 40-70% Public Works 80-100% Parks & Recreation 20-50% Information presented in the table above is based on the Matrix Consulting Group’s experience in analyzing local governments’ operations across the United States and within California and reflects typical cost recovery ranges observed by local adopting authorities. COST RECOVERY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES The City currently has formal cost recovery policies that outline recovery goals based on services and community impacts. The City should review the results of this study in conjunction with adopted policies regarding cost recovery and make adjusts to meet current fiscal needs. Item 2 Attachment A - Citywide Cost of Services Study Report - Corrected        Item 2: Staff Report Pg. 42  Packet Pg. 47 of 68  Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 49  Packet Pg. 78 of 690  ƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ ĚĚŝƟŽŶĂů^ƚĂīZĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚdĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ A-1 /ŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƚŽƚŚĞƚĞŶƚĂƟǀĞĂĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚďLJƚŚĞ&ŝŶĂŶĐĞŽŵŵŝƩĞĞ͕ƐƚĂīƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐ ĂĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌƐĞǀĞƌĂůŝƚĞŵƐƌĞƋƵŝƌŝŶŐƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůĐŽƌƌĞĐƟŽŶƐƚŽĂůŝŐŶƚŚĞďƵĚŐĞƚǁŝƚŚĂŶƟĐŝƉĂƚĞĚĂĐƟǀŝƚLJ ůĞǀĞůƐĂŶĚĐŚĂŶŐĞƐƚŚĂƚŽĐĐƵƌƌĞĚĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞůĞĂƐĞŽĨƚŚĞ&zϮϬϮ6 ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚďƵĚŐĞƚ ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐ. ĂƉŝƚĂůWƌŽũĞĐƚƐ -ZĞĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƟŽŶƐĂŶĚdĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐƚŽĂƉŝƚĂůWƌŽũĞĐƚƐ ƐĂŶĂŶŶƵĂůĂĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƟǀĞďƵĚŐĞƚƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͕^ƚĂīŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJǁŽƌŬŝŶŐŽŶĐĂƉŝƚĂů ƌĞĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƟŽŶƐƚŽƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐŚŝŌŝŶŐƵŶƐƉĞŶƚĨƵŶĚƐŝŶĐĂƉŝƚĂůƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐĨƌŽŵ&zϮϬϮ5 ƚŽ&z ϮϬϮ6 ŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽĂĚǀĂŶĐĞƚŚĞƌĞƐƉĞĐƟǀĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ͘dŚĞƐĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚƌĞĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƟŽŶƐǁŝůůďĞ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚĂƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚĂĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐƚŽƚŚĞ&zϮϬϮ6 ĂƉŝƚĂůƵĚŐĞƚĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞŽƵŶĐŝů ĚŽƉƟŽŶƐƚĂīƌĞƉŽƌƚŽŶ:ƵŶĞϭ6͘/ŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƚŽƚŚĞƌĞĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƟŽŶƐ͕ƐĞǀĞƌĂůƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂů ĂĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐŵĂLJďĞŶĞĞĚĞĚƚŽƐŽŵĞĐĂƉŝƚĂůƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐďĂƐĞĚŽŶĂĐƟŽŶƐ ƚŚĂƚŚĂƉƉĞŶĂƚƚŚĞĞŶĚŽĨ &zϮϬϮ5͘dŚĞƐĞƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůĂĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ͕ŝĨĂŶLJ͕ǁŝůůĂůƐŽďĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚĂƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚĂĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ ƚŽƚŚĞ&zϮϬϮ6 ĂƉŝƚĂůƵĚŐĞƚĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞŽƵŶĐŝůĚŽƉƟŽŶƐƚĂīƌĞƉŽƌƚŽŶ:ƵŶĞϭ6. DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů&ĞĞĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ -KŶƉƌŝůϮϵƚŚ ŽŵŵŝƩĞĞƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚĂŶĚĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚŵƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůĨĞĞƵƉĚĂƚĞƐďĂƐĞĚƵƉŽŶƚŚĞDĂƚƌŝdž ĐŝƚLJǁŝĚĞĐŽƐƚŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƚƵĚLJǁŝƚŚĚŝƌĞĐƟŽŶĨŽƌƐŽŵĞ^ƚĂīĐůĂƌŝĮĐĂƟŽŶƐ͘ dŚĞƐĞĚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚĨĞĞƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚ&ŝƌĞ͕WƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬƐ͕WŽůŝĐĞ͕ŶŝŵĂůŽŶƚƌŽů͕WƵďůŝĐtŽƌŬƐ͕ŝƚLJůĞƌŬĂŶĚĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƟǀĞ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͘ ĂƐĞĚƵƉŽŶƚŚĞ^ƚĂīƵƉĚĂƚĞƐďĞůŽǁ͕ŽŵŵŝƩĞĞŵĂLJĐŽŶƟŶƵĞŝƚ͛Ɛ ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƚŽƚŚĞŽƵŶĐŝůĨŽƌĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůŽĨĨĞĞƵƉĚĂƚĞƐŽŶ:ƵŶĞϭϲƚŚ. o ŽŵĞƐƟĐƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐƌĞŐŝƐƚƌĂƟŽŶ–ŚŽǁĚŽĞƐƚŚŝƐĂůŝŐŶǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ^ƚĂƚĞƌĞŐŝƐƚƌĂƟŽŶĂŶĚĨĞĞƐ͘ ƒ^ƚĂīƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐĐŽŶƟŶƵŝŶŐƚŽŽīĞƌƚŽƚŚŝƐƐĞƌǀŝĐĞĂƚƚŚĞŝƚLJĂŶĚĂůŝŐŶŝŶŐǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞ^ƚĂƚĞ͛ƐĨĞĞŽĨΨϯϯ. tŚŝůĞƚŚĞ^ƚĂƚĞŚĂƐƚǁŽĨĞĞƐ;ŝ͘Ğ͘ΨϯϯďLJŵĂŝůĂŶĚΨϭϱŝŶ- ƉĞƌƐŽŶͿ͕^ƚĂīƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐƐƚƌĞĂŵůŝŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŚĂǀŝŶŐŽŶĞĨĞĞŽĨΨϯϯ͘ o ^&ĞĞƐ–ƐĞǀĞƌĂůĨĞĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƵƉĚĂƚĞŽĨĐŽƐƚƌĞĐŽǀĞƌLJƉŽůŝĐLJ ĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƟŽŶ͘dŚŽƐĞǁŝůůďĞƵƉĚĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛ƐĨĞĞƐŽŌǁĂƌĞĂĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐůLJ͕ĂŶĚůŝƐƚĞĚ ďĞůŽǁ͗ ƒDĂŝůŝŶŐ͗DĞĚŝƵŵĐŽƐƚƌĞĐŽǀĞƌLJ ƒƵƉůŝĐĂƚĞZĞĐĞŝƉƚƐ͗DĞĚŝƵŵĐŽƐƚƌĞĐŽǀĞƌLJ o ZĞĂůƐƚĂƚĞ-ŽŶǀĞLJĂŶĐĞ–ŽŵŵŝƩĞĞĚŝƌĞĐƚĞĚĨƵůůĐŽƐƚƌĞĐŽǀĞƌLJ ĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚ ĨĞĞŝƐƵƉĚĂƚĞĚĂĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐůLJ͗ Item 1 Attachment A - Additional Staff Recommended Technical Adjustments Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 13 Packet Pg. 60 of 68 Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 50  Packet Pg. 79 of 690  ƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ ĚĚŝƟŽŶĂů^ƚĂīZĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚdĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ A-Ϯ o ZĞŵŽǀĞƚǁŽƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐƚŽƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨdŚŽƵƐĂŶĚKĂŬƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞDĂƚƌŝdžƌĞƉŽƌƚ͘dŚŝƐŝƐ ĚŽŶĞĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞǀŝƐĞĚƌĞƉŽƌƚŝƐƉŽƐƚĞĚĂŶĚĂůƐŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĂƐĂƐƵƉƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂůƚŽ ŽŵŵŝƩĞĞDĂLJϮϬƚŚ ĂŐĞŶĚĂ͘ o WŽůŝĐĞ^ƉĞĐŝĂůǀĞŶƚƐ&ĞĞƐ–ƵƉĚĂƚĞƟƚůĞƚŽƉƌŽƉĞƌůLJƌĞŇĞĐƚĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞŶŽŶ-ƉƌŽĮƚ ĂŶĚĐŽ-ƐƉŽŶƐŽƌƐŚŝƉ͘&ĞĞƟƚůĞƐĂƌĞƵƉĚĂƚĞƐĂƐĨŽůůŽǁƐ͗ ƒWĞƌƐŽŶŶĞůZĂƚĞƐĨŽƌ^ƉĞĐŝĂůǀĞŶƚƐ ƒWĞƌƐŽŶŶĞůZĂƚĞƐĨŽƌ^ƉĞĐŝĂůǀĞŶƚƐďLJEŽŶ-WƌŽĮƚKƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƟŽŶƐ ƒWĞƌƐŽŶŶĞůZĂƚĞƐĨŽƌ^ƉĞĐŝĂůǀĞŶƚƐŽ-^ƉŽŶƐŽƌĞĚďLJƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨWĂůŽůƚŽ o ŶŝŵĂůĐŽŶƚƌŽůŝŵƉŽƵŶĚŵĞŶƚĨĞĞƐ--ƌĞǀŝĞǁĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůůLJĨŽƌϱŽƌŵŽƌĞŝŶĐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘^ƚĂī ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐƚŚĞƐĞĨĞĞƐ ƚŽƌĞŇĞĐƚƌĂƚĞƐŚŝŐŚĞƌƚŚĂŶĐŽƐƚƐĨŽƌϱŽƌŵŽƌĞŝŶĐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͗ o &ůŽŽĚnjŽŶĞĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƟŽŶůĞƩĞƌƐĨĞĞƐ–ƌĞǀŝĞǁƚŚĞĐŽƐƚ͘^ƚĂīƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚĂŶĚĐŽŶĮƌŵƐƚŚĞ ĐŽƐƚƐĂƌĞƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĞĚďLJƐƚĂīƟŵĞŝŶĐƵƌƌĞĚĨŽƌƌĞǀŝĞǁĂŶĚĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶǁŝƚŚƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŽƌŽĨ ŇŽŽĚnjŽŶĞĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƟŽŶůĞƩĞƌƐǁŚŝĐŚŽŌĞŶĞŶƚĂŝůƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐ͕&DnjŽŶĞĐŽŶĮƌŵĂƟŽŶ ĂŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐƐǁŝƚŚƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŽƌ͘ o dĂdžŝĨĞĞ-ŶĞǁůŝĐĞŶƐĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶ–ƌĞǀŝĞǁƚŚĞĐŽƐƚĞƐƟŵĂƚĞ͘^ƚĂīƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚ ƚŚĞ ĞƐƟŵĂƚĞĚƐƚĂīƟŵĞ ĂŶĚĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚƚŚĂƚ^ƚĂīĐŽƵůĚĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĂƚĂdžŝƉĞƌŵŝƚŶĞǁ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶǁŝƚŚŝŶϮϬŚŽƵƌƐŝŶƐƚĞĂĚŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŝŽƌϯϬŚŽƵƌĞƐƟŵĂƚĞ͕ĂŶĚƌĞĐĂůĐƵůĂƚĞĚƚŚĞ Item 1 Attachment A - Additional Staff Recommended Technical Adjustments Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 14 Packet Pg. 61 of 68 Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 51  Packet Pg. 80 of 690  ƩĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ ĚĚŝƟŽŶĂů^ƚĂīZĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚdĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ A-ϯ ĐŽƐƚĞƐƟŵĂƚĞƚŽΨϰ͕ϴϰϵ. ^ƚĂīƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐĨƵůůĐŽƐƚƌĞĐŽǀĞƌLJĂŶĚƐĞƫŶŐƚŚĞĨĞĞĂƚ Ψϰ͕ϴϰϵ͘ o ŽŵŵŝƩĞĞǁŝƐŚĞƐƚŽĐƌĞĂƚĞĂŶĞǁϭϬϬйĂƚĞŐŽƌLJǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛ƐŽƐƚZĞĐŽǀĞƌLJPŽůŝĐLJ. dŚŝƐǁŝůůďĞĂĚĚĞĚƚŽ&ŝŶĂŶĐĞŽŵŵŝƩĞĞĂƐĂƌĞĨĞƌƌĂůƚŽŽƵŶĐŝůĂŶĚŵĂLJďĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚ ŝŶϮϬϮϱǁŽƌŬƉůĂŶ͘ Item 1 Attachment A - Additional Staff Recommended Technical Adjustments Item 1: Staff Report Pg. 15 Packet Pg. 62 of 68 Item 4 Attachment B - Corrected Matrix Report & Technical Adjustments from May 20        Item 4: Staff Report Pg. 52  Packet Pg. 81 of 690  City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: Public Works Meeting Date: September 8, 2025 Report #:2507-4968 TITLE Approval of Construction Contract No. C26195620 with Public Restroom Company in the Amount Not-to-Exceed $412,940 and Authorization for the City Manager or Their Designee to Negotiate and Execute Change Orders Up to a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $41,294 to Provide and Install a Modular Restroom Building at Mitchell Park for the Park Restroom Installation Capital Improvement Program Project (PG-19000); CEQA status – exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or their designee to execute Contract No. C26195620 with Public Restroom Company in an amount not-to-exceed $412,940 for purchase and installation of a modular restroom building at Mitchell Park for the Park Restroom Installation Capital Improvement Program Project (PG-19000); and 2. Authorize the City Manager or their designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Public Restroom Company for related, additional but unforeseen work that may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $41,294. BACKGROUND Mitchell Park, a 21.4-acre community park, offers a variety of recreational activities for the community including recreational fields, a recently expanded dog park, picnic areas, playgrounds, multiple sports courts, and walking and biking trails. In 2015, the Magical Bridge Playground, an all-inclusive play space was added to the park near the tennis and pickleball courts, attracting a high volume of users daily. There are currently three public restroom buildings within the park including a two-stall restroom that mainly serves the south side of the park where the dog park, Magical Bridge Playground, two smaller playgrounds, athletic fields, a couple of picnic areas, and tennis and pickleball courts are located. Due to the heavy usage of Item 5 Item 5 Staff Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 82 of 690  the existing restroom, temporary portable restrooms funded by Friends of the Palo Alto Parks have been placed near the sports courts. To accommodate increased demand, this project proposes replacing the existing two-stall restroom with a four-stall modular restroom building at the same location. ANALYSIS Item 5 Item 5 Staff Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 83 of 690  Staff recommends the approval of Contract No. C261956201 with Public Restroom Company for the purchase of the modular restroom building for Mitchell Park, which includes the cost of building fabrication, design, installation, all required state inspections and approvals, and bonds. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPROVED BY: 1 Public Restroom Company Contract for the Mitchell Park Modular Restroom Project C26195620; https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/public-works/engineering-services/c26195620-mitchell-park- restroom-contract-final.pdf Item 5 Item 5 Staff Report        Item 5: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 84 of 690  City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: Utilities Meeting Date: September 8, 2025 Report #:2507-4921 TITLE Approve Amendment #1 of the Memorandum of Agreement with the California Alternate Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority, to Extend the Term of the Agreement from Two Years to Five Years, to Continue to Enable the Residents of Palo Alto to Participate in the GoGreen Home Energy Financing Program RECOMMENDATION Approve Amendment #1 of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the California Alternate Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority (CAEATFA), to Extend the Term of the Agreement from Two Years to Five Years, to Continue to Enable the Residents of Palo Alto to Participate in the GoGreen Home Energy Financing Program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To meet Palo Alto’s ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals, residents will need to implement energy efficiency and electrification projects at their homes. These projects may need thousands of dollars in capital expenditure. The GoGreen Home Program is a long-standing State-run1 financing program with participating financing companies (PFCs) to provide consumer financing for these types of projects at competitive rates2. Since Palo Alto is not served by any investor-owned energy utilities, a separate agreement with the State was required to enable participation of Palo Alto residents. In September 2023, the Council approved a $300,000 agreement with CAEATFA for a two-year term (Staff Report: 2212- 04753). This program was intended to support single-family electrification, with the 1 Description of GoGreen Financing Program: https://gogreenfinancing.com/residential 2 Current interest rates range from 4% to 9.75% depending on the term of the loan and the credit rating of the borrower. In January 2025, the average interest rate for the 415 loans processed statewide was 6.48%, with an average term of 139 months2. There has been one participant from Palo Alto in the Program to date. 3 September 2023 Staff Report: https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx? id=82216&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto Item 6 Item 6 Staff Report Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 1 Packet Pg. 85 of 690  understanding that it would be most helpful for space heating rather than water heating projects. As expected, the first loan for this program came after incentives for space heating electrification were launched in January 2025. The one loan, for a space heating project, was issued in May 2025 for $25,000 at an interest of 3.98% for a 30 month (2.5 years) term. As more space heating projects are completed more loans are expected. BACKGROUND 7. The loans fund the following Eligible Energy Efficiency Measures: appliances (including electrified appliances such as heat pumps), building envelope, demand response, HVAC, lighting, pool products, water heating. The Program also funds Solar PV, Battery Energy Storage and EV charger installation projects8. 7 Financing Companies Serving Santa Clara County: https://www.gogreenfinancing.com/energy-efficiency-home- loans-california/finance-options/?_counties_filter=santa-clara%2Call&zip_code=94301 8 Energy Efficiency Measures: https://www.gogreenfinancing.com/wp- content/uploads/2025/04/reel_eeemsList.pdf Item 6 Item 6 Staff Report        Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 86 of 690  • Up to 30% of loan amount can be used toward non-energy improvements (e.g. home remodels, drought tolerant landscaping) • No prepayment penalties • Currently no closing costs or origination fees (may change in the future) • No contractor fees (lenders often charge contractors thousands of dollars to finance projects) • Below-market interest rates and extended payback periods (due to credit enhancement provided to lender) ANALYSIS Staff recommend that the City continues enabling the GoGreen Program for Palo Alto residents to finance higher-cost electrification projects. The program requires little staff time to implement, and the administrative cost is low. The City’s electrification program in 2023-24 period was focused on heat pump water heaters, a lower cost (thousands of dollars) compared to the high cost (tens of thousands of dollars) of whole home electrification projects the City started promoting in 2025. Staff anticipate the financing needs for these higher cost projects will increase in the coming years. Cost of Participating in the Program and Funding Needs The MOA in place is funded for up to $300,000 ($140,000 for administrative cost and $160,000 for LLR funding). During the past two years, the Palo Alto program incurred an administrative expense of $4,757 to start the program. The City is responsible for variable administrative costs for each loan processed. No ongoing administrative expense is incurred in the absence of a loan. Additionally, $50,000 is being held by CAEATFA to fund the Loan Loss Reserve (LLR), which enables Palo Alto residents to receive lower interest rates. The contract provides for a monthly fee to cover administrative expenses, but such a fee has not been charged to date. Staff recommends continuing funding program costs from revenues gained from the auction of allowances allocated the City as part of its participation in the State’s Cap and Trade program. As part of the program, City has to contribute ~8% (based on the statewide program experience) of the underlying loan amounts to the loan loss reserve (LLR)11. A large part of this LLR would be returned to the City if the loan portfolio does not suffer large delinquencies. Statewide, the loss rate since program inception in 2016 is 1.42%, or 153 loans out of 10,755 loans enrolled have defaulted. Statewide, the $168 million loan portfolio has lossed incurred to date of $1.42 million. Statewide the LLR currently has a balance of $16 million, most of it funded by the IOUs12, but will also be funded by the City as Palo Altans continue to enroll in the program. Currently approved 11 A loan loss reserve is a fund that lenders set aside to cover potential losses from borrowers who default on their loans. The LLR for this program is funded at 5% of the underlying loan (for borrowers with a credit score > 700) and at 15% (for borrowers with credit score <700). The $25,000 loan processed required a 5% LLR funding, or $1,250. 12 GoGreen Program Performance Report: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/caeatfa/cheef/monthlyreel/2025/01.pdf Item 6 Item 6 Staff Report        Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 87 of 690  $160,000 in LLR funding will support $2 million in loans by Palo Altans. This amount is expected to support around 100 loans, assuming loan sizes in Palo Alto match the statewide average (about $19,900 per loan). Item 6 Item 6 Staff Report        Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 88 of 690  FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT rd meeting. Staff will be providing the Council a Supplemental Memo on UAC’s action and discussion before September 8th when Council will be voting on this recommendation. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW POLICY IMPLICATIONS Item 6 Item 6 Staff Report        Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 89 of 690  ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Item 6 Item 6 Staff Report        Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 90 of 690  CAEATFA R08-23 Amendment 1 AMENDMENT NO. 1 Recitals IT IS AGREED as follows: AMENDMENTS TO THE AGREEMENT City’s funding of administrative and credit enhancement cost under the MOA would remain unchanged at an amount not to exceed $300,000, according to Section 3 of the Agreement. GENERAL PROVISIONS Item 6 Attachment A - Amendment #1 of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between CAEATFA and Palo Alto        Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 91 of 690  CAEATFA R08-23 Amendment 1 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURES City of Palo Alto By: ____________________________________________ Printed Name: Ed Shikada Title: City Manager By: ____________________________________________ Printed Name: Madeleine Salah Title: City Attorney or Designee California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority By: ____________________________________________ Printed Name: Christina Sarron Title: Executive Director Item 6 Attachment A - Amendment #1 of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between CAEATFA and Palo Alto        Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 92 of 690  City Council Staff Report From: City Attorney Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: City Attorney Meeting Date: September 8, 2025 Report #:2508-5041 TITLE Authorization to Execute Amendment to Legal Services Contract S26195198 with Colantuono Highsmith & Whatley PC to Increase Amount by $205,000 for Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $255,000; CEQA Status – Not a Project. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Attorney or designee to amend the contract for litigation defense services with the law firm of Colantuono Highsmith & Whatley PC (Contract S26195198) to increase the contract amount by $205,000 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $255,000. BACKGROUND In May 2025, the City entered into a three-year agreement (S26195198) in the amount of $50,000 with Colantuono Highsmith & Whatley PC for litigation defense services in the case of Downtown Vibrancy v. City of Palo Alto, et al., Santa Clara County Case No. 25CV464012. Staff now seeks authority to increase the contract amount by $205,000 which will bring the new not to exceed amount to $255,000. Litigation defense is continuing in this matter. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT Funding for this amendment does not require additional budgetary authority as it can be accommodated within existing funding allocated to the City Attorney’s Office as part of the FY 2026 Adopted Operating Budget. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The City Attorney’s Office works closely with the City Manager and department personnel on litigation matters. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Amendment of a legal services contract is not a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (See CEQA Guidelines 15378(b)(5), administrative activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment). APPROVED BY: Molly Stump, City Attorney Item 7 Item 7 Staff Report        Item 7: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 93 of 690  City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: September 8, 2025 Report #:2508-5048 TITLE Adoption of an Emergency Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapters 16.04 (California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 & 2), 16.05 (California Mechanical Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 4), and 16.14 (California Green Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11) to Make Non-Substantive Changes Addressing Comments from the California Building Standards Commission. CEQA Status: Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15308. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Adopt, by a four-fifths majority, the attached emergency ordinance amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapters 16.04, 16.05, and 16.14, which implement the 2022 California Building Code, California Mechanical Code and California Green Building Standards Code and local amendments, and updating associated findings. BACKGROUND Every three years, a new version of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC, or Title 24) is published. Local jurisdictions may enforce the model code as published or, subject to certain requirements, adopt local amendments. State law requires that ordinances amending the statewide codes be filed with and approved by the California Building Standards Commission (BSC), which reviews the amendments for compliance with state law. During the 2022 building code adoption cycle, the City Council adopted Ordinances 5564, 5565, and 5626, adopting the California Building Code, California Mechanical Code, and California Green Building Standards Code, respectively, including local amendments. After staff filed ordinances 5564, 5565, and 5626 with the BSC, the BSC identified several minor deficiencies in those ordinances. Namely, the BSC requested that the City adopt additional findings to support several of the amendments and move some amendments to the Green Item 8 Item 8 Staff Report        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 94 of 690  Building Standards Code from the “definitions” section to the main text of the code. The attached ordinance would cure those deficiencies without making substantive changes to the City’s adopted requirements. ANALYSIS 1. California Building Code – Section 105.2, Work Exempt from Permit (Building, Item #2: Fences and Materials) This provision exempts work affecting certain fences and walls from permit requirements based on height and materials. The City adopted an amendment that exempted a smaller subset of these walls from permit requirements than the base codes did. The City characterized this as an administrative amendment, but the BSC requested the City adopt a local climatic, geological, or topographical finding to justify the amendment. Due to local seismic risk and soil conditions, improperly designed masonry or concrete walls can cause significant hazards in earthquakes, including injury to pedestrians and property damage. Item 8 Item 8 Staff Report        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 95 of 690  Proposal: Leave the City’s local amendment in place and make the necessary finding that it is justified by local topographical and geological conditions. 2. California Mechanical Code – Appendix G (Sizing of Venting Systems and Outdoor Combustion and Ventilation Opening Design) Appendix G provides example calculations for outdoor air ventilation rates in various applications. The City adopted this appendix as an administrative amendment, but the BSC requested the City adopt a local climatic, geological, or topographical finding to justify the amendment. Upon review, staff determined that adoption is unnecessary because the main body of the CMC already provides adequate requirements and calculation methods. Proposal: Exclude Appendix G from adoption in the ordinance. 3. California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) BSC requested that certain amended definitions be removed from the definitions section and codified within the substantive provisions of the code, justified by local climatic, geological, or topographical findings. Proposal: Staff made the following revisions: Removed definitions for “CALGreen Mandatory,” “Tier 1,” “Tier 2,” “Tier 1 & 2 Prerequisite Measures,” and “CALGreen Tier 1 & 2 Elective Measures” and replace them in a later section of the code, justified by climatic and environmental findings. Removed substantive code provisions from the definition of “Substantial Remodel” and replaced them later in the code, justified by climatic and environmental findings. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Item 8 Item 8 Staff Report        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 96 of 690  enables compliance with AB 130 and preserves the City’s ability to maintain these local amendments through the next code cycle. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Item 8 Item 8 Staff Report        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 97 of 690  NOT YET ADOPTED 1 0290177_20250825_ms29 Ordinance No. ____ Emergency Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 16.04 (California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 & 2), 16.05 (California Mechanical Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 4), and 16.14 (California Green Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Make Non-Substantive Changes Addressing Comments from the California Building Standards Commission The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. A. Every three years, a new version of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC, or Title 24) is published. Local jurisdictions may enforce the model code as published or, subject to certain requirements, adopt local amendments. State law requires that ordinances amending the statewide codes be filed with and approved by the California Building Standards Commission (BSC). B. During the 2022 building code adoption cycle, the City Council adopted Ordinances 5564, 5565, and 5626, adopting the California Building Code, California Mechanical Code, and California Green Building Standards Code, respectively, including local amendments. C. After staff filed ordinances 5564, 5565, and 5626 with the BSC, the BSC identified minor deficiencies in those ordinances. Namely, the BSC requested that the City adopt additional findings to support several of the amendments and move some amendments to the Green Building Standards Code from the “definitions” section to the body text of the code. D. The purpose of this ordinance is to cure the deficiencies identified by the BSC without changing what the City’s adopted codes require. E. The City’s local amendments are more restrictive building standards than those provided in the California Building Standards Code. F. The changes shown in this ordinance are relative to the existing provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) as adopted by Ordinances 5564, 5565, and 5626. G. Recent legislation, Assembly Bill (AB) 130 (2025), limits local jurisdictions’ authority to amend the California Building Standards Code beginning October 1, 2025, and ending June 1, 2031. The Council desires to make these amendments effective before the AB 130 moratorium begins. H. The Council declares that this emergency ordinance, which is effective immediately, is necessary as an emergency measure to preserve the public peace, health, or safety by ensuring that the City may enforce all of its local amendments Item 8 Attachment A - Ordinance making non-substantive changes to the California Building Code, California Mechanical Code and CALGreen        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 98 of 690  NOT YET ADOPTED 2 0290177_20250825_ms29 to the California Building Code, the California Mechanical Code, and the California Green Building Standards Code during the AB 130 moratorium. I. California Health and Safety Code sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 requires that the City, in order to make changes or modifications in the requirements contained in the California Building Standards Code on the basis of local conditions, make express finding that such modifications or changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. J. The required findings are attached to this ordinance as Exhibit A. SECTION 2. The City Council finds that the local amendments to California Building Code Section 105.2 codified at PAMC 16.04.110 by Ordinance No. 5564, to the extent they are not administrative amendments, are justified by local geological and topographical conditions. The full findings related to local geological and topographical conditions are attached to this ordinance as Exhibit A. SECTION 3. Section 16.05.050 Appendices of Chapter 16.05 (California Mechanical Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 4) of Title 16 (Building Standards) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (deletion in strikethrough): 16.05.050 Section 102.8 Appendices. The following Appendix Chapters of the California Mechanical Code, 2022 Edition, are adopted and hereby incorporated in this Chapter by reference and made a part hereof the same as if fully set forth herein: A. Appendix B – Procedures to be followed to place gas equipment in operation B. Appendix C – Installation and testing of oil (liquid) fuel-fired equipment C. Appendix G – Sizing of venting systems and outdoor combustion and ventilation opening design SECTION 4. Section 16.14.070 (Section 202 Definitions) of Chapter 16.14 (California Green Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (deletions struck-through): 16.14.070 Section 202 Definitions. SECTION 202 of Chapter 2 of the California Green Building Standards Code is amended to include the following definitions: ALL‐ELECTRIC BUILDING / SITE. A building or parcel of land whose sole source of energy is electricity and contains no combustion equipment or plumbing for combustion equipment. CPAU. City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. CALGREEN MANDATORY. Mandatory measures are triggered for projects outlined in Item 8 Attachment A - Ordinance making non-substantive changes to the California Building Code, California Mechanical Code and CALGreen        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 99 of 690  NOT YET ADOPTED 3 0290177_20250825_ms29 Section 301.1 Scope of this code, as amended. Projects that only trigger Mandatory measures are not required to fulfill Tier 1 or Tier 2 measures in Appendix A4 and A5. CALGREEN TIER 1. To achieve Tier 1 status, a project must comply with measures identified in Appendix A4, Section A4.601.4 for residential projects and Appendix A5, Section A5.601.2 for nonresidential projects. Projects subject to Tier 1 must fulfill all mandatory measures, all Tier 1 prerequisite measures and a defined number of Tier 1 elective measures. CALGREEN TIER 2. To achieve Tier 2 status, a project must comply with requirements identified in Appendix A4, Section A4.601.5 for residential projects and Appendix A5, Section A5.601.3 for nonresidential projects. Projects subject to Tier 2 must fulfill all mandatory measures, all Tier 2 prerequisite measures and a defined number of Tier 2 elective measures. CALGREEN TIER 1 AND TIER 2 PREREQUISITE MEASURES. Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 must fulfill all prerequisites as described within Appendix A4, Division A4.6 for residential projects and Appendix A5, Division A5.6 for nonresidential projects. CALGREEN TIER 1 AND TIER 2 ELECTIVE MEASURES. Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 must fulfill a defined number of electives as described within Appendix A4, Division A4.6 for residential projects and Appendix A5, Division A5.6 for nonresidential projects. CALGREEN INSPECTOR is a person certified as a CALGreen Inspector/Plans Examiner through the International Code Council (ICC), demonstrating knowledge and application of Green Building concepts during plan review and inspection. For projects that require a CALGreen Inspector/Plans Examiner verification, the Inspector must be contracted directly with the owner and may not be a contractor or employee of the design or construction firm. CERTIFIED ENERGY ANALYST is a person registered as a Certified Energy Analyst with the California Association of Building Energy Consultants as of the date of submission of a Certificate of Compliance as required under section 10-103 of Building Energy Efficiency Standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE. The California Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. SALVAGE. Salvage means the controlled removal of items and material from a building, construction, or demolition site for the purpose of on- or off-site reuse, or storage for later reuse. Examples include air conditioning and heating systems, columns, balustrades, fountains, gazebos, molding, mantels, pavers, planters, quoins, stair treads, trim, wall caps, bath tubs, bricks, cabinetry, carpet, doors, ceiling fans, lighting fixtures, electrical panel boxes, fencing, fireplaces, flooring materials of wood, marble, stone or tile, furnaces, plate glass, wall mirrors, door knobs, door brackets, door hinges, marble, iron work, metal balconies, structural steel, plumbing fixtures, refrigerators, rock, roofing materials, siding materials, sinks, stairs, stone, stoves, toilets, windows, wood fencing, Item 8 Attachment A - Ordinance making non-substantive changes to the California Building Code, California Mechanical Code and CALGreen        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 100 of 690  NOT YET ADOPTED 4 0290177_20250825_ms29 lumber and plywood. SUBSTANTIAL REMODEL (or “50‐50‐50” RULE). Any project that affects the removal or replacement of 50% or more linear length of the existing exterior walls of the building, 50% or more linear length of the existing exterior wall where the plate height is raised, or 50% or more of the existing roof framing area is removed or replaced, over a 3-year period is considered a substantial remodel. (Refer to Section 301.1.2) Any permit(s) applied for will trigger a review of a 3-year history of the project. This review will result in determining if a substantial remodel has occurred. The Chief Building Official or designee shall make the final determination regarding the application if a conflict occurs. SQUARE FOOTAGE. For application of green building requirements, “square footage” refers to all new or altered square footage, including basement areas (7 feet or greater in height), as calculated based on outer boundary of proposed construction area, including exterior walls. SECTION 5. Section 16.14.080 (SECTION 301 - Voluntary Tiers Added) of Chapter 16.14 (California Green Building Standards, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (additions underlined): 16.14.080 SECTION 301 ‐ Voluntary Tiers Added. SECTION 301 of Chapter 3 of the California Green Building Standards Code is amended to read: SECTION 301 GENERAL 301.1 Scope. Buildings shall be designed to include the green building measures specified as mandatory in the application checklists contained in this code and any applicable local amendments. In addition, the City requires the use of Voluntary Tiers, as provided in Appendices A4 and A5, for certain residential and nonresidential new construction, additions, and alterations. Projects that only trigger Mandatory measures are not required to fulfill Tier 1 or Tier 2 measures in Appendix A4 and A5. To achieve Tier 1 status, a project must comply with measures identified in Appendix A4, Division A4.6, Section A4.601.4 for residential projects and Appendix A5, Division A5.6, Section A5.601.2 for nonresidential projects. Projects subject to Tier 1 must fulfill all mandatory measures, all Tier 1 prerequisite measures and a defined number of Tier 1 elective measures. To achieve Tier 2 status, a project must comply with requirements identified in Item 8 Attachment A - Ordinance making non-substantive changes to the California Building Code, California Mechanical Code and CALGreen        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 101 of 690  NOT YET ADOPTED 5 0290177_20250825_ms29 Appendix A4, Division A4.6, Section A4.601.5 for residential projects and Appendix A5, Division A5.6, Section A5.601.3 for nonresidential projects. Projects subject to Tier 2 must fulfill all mandatory measures, all Tier 2 prerequisite measures and a defined number of Tier 2 elective measures. 301.1.1 Residential additions and alterations. [HCD] The Mandatory provisions of Chapter 4 shall be applied to additions and/or alterations of existing residential buildings where the addition and/or alteration increases the building's conditioned area, volume, or size. The requirements shall apply only to and/or within the specific area of the addition or alteration. Tier 1 adopted (Residential). All residential building additions and/or alterations exceeding 1000 square feet must meet CALGreen Mandatory plus the Tier 1 measures, as amended by this Chapter and as applicable to the scope of work. For Tier 1 projects, the area of alterations will include any construction or renovation to an existing structure other than repair or addition. Alterations include raising the plate height, historic restoration, changes or rearrangements of the structural parts or elements, and changes or rearrangement of bearing walls and full height partitions. Normal maintenance, reroofing, painting or wall papering, floor finishes, replacement- in-kind of mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems, or replacing or adding new kitchen counter and similar furniture, plumbing fixture to the building are excluded for the purposes of establishing scope of Tier 1 projects. The area of alteration should be limited to the footprint of element(s) being altered. This does not exclude mandatory CALGreen measures. The sum of the footprint of the elements being altered with respect to Tier 1, shall be calculated using the following methodology: 1. Raising the plate height: The calculation with respect to raising of the plate height will be based on the area of the footprint in which the plate height is being increased. Plate height means the vertical distance measured from the top of the finished floor to the top of the plates. 2. Historic restoration: The calculation with respect to historic restoration will be based on the area of work covered in the California Historical Building Code (Title 24, Part 8). 3. Structural parts or elements: The calculation with respect to changes or rearrangements of the structural parts or elements will be based on the sum of the individual footprints of each structural change or rearrangement. The footprint shall be calculated based on the proposed design and inclusive of any demolished structural parts or elements. 4. Bearing walls and full height partition: The calculation with respect to changes or rearrangement of walls and full height partitions will be based on the footprint of any demolished wall or full height partition and any new Item 8 Attachment A - Ordinance making non-substantive changes to the California Building Code, California Mechanical Code and CALGreen        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 102 of 690  NOT YET ADOPTED 6 0290177_20250825_ms29 wall or new full height partition. Exception: Attached and detached Accessory Dwelling Units, ADU conversions of existing structures shall meet the California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory measures only. 301.1.2 Substantial Remodel (50‐50‐50 rule). Any project that affects the removal or replacement of 50% or more linear length of the existing exterior walls of the building, 50% or more linear length of the existing exterior wall where the plate height is raised, or 50% or more of the existing roof framing area is removed or replaced, over a 3-year period is considered a substantial remodel. Any permit(s) applied for will trigger a review of a 3-year history of the project. This review will result in determining if a substantial remodel has occurred. The Chief Building Official or designee shall make the final determination regarding the application if a conflict occurs. […] SECTION 6. The Council adopts the findings for local amendments to the 2022 editions of the California Building Code, the California Mechanical Code, and the California Green Building Standards Code, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 7. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 8. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the amendments herein adopted will have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15308, because the amendments herein adopted is an action taken by the City to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment. // // // // Item 8 Attachment A - Ordinance making non-substantive changes to the California Building Code, California Mechanical Code and CALGreen        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 103 of 690  NOT YET ADOPTED 7 0290177_20250825_ms29 SECTION 9. Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.270, this ordinance shall be effective immediately upon adoption if passed by a vote of four-fifths of the council members present. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: City Attorney or Designee City Manager Director of Planning and Development Services Director of Administrative Services Item 8 Attachment A - Ordinance making non-substantive changes to the California Building Code, California Mechanical Code and CALGreen        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 11  Packet Pg. 104 of 690  NOT YET ADOPTED 8 0290177_20250825_ms29 Exhibit A FINDINGS FOR LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, TITLE 24, PART 2, VOLUMES 1 AND 2; CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, TITLE 24, PART 4; AND CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, TITLE 24, PART 11 Section 17958 of the California Health and Safety Code provides that the City may make changes to the provisions of the California Building Standards Code. Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code require that for each proposed local change to those provisions of the California Building Standards Code which regulate buildings used for human habitation, the City Council must make findings supporting its determination that each such local change is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Local building regulations having the effect of amending the uniform codes, which were adopted by the City prior to November 23, 1970, were unaffected by the regulations of Sections 17958, 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code. Therefore, amendments to the uniform codes which were adopted by the City Council prior to November 23, 1970 and have been carried through from year to year without significant change, need no required findings. Also, amendments to provisions not regulating buildings used for human habitation do not require findings. Code: California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2 Chapter(s), Section(s), Table(s), Appendices Title Added Amended Deleted Justification (See key below) Ch 1, Div. II, Part 2, Section 105.2 Work Exempt from Permit   A, G, T Ch 1, Div. II, Part 2, Section 105.2,Building Item 2 Wood fences not over 7 feet (2134 mm) high or concrete or masonry wall not over 4 feet (1219 mm) …   A, G, T Ch 1, Div. II, Part 2, Section 105.2, Building Item 3 Retaining walls that are not over 4 feet (1219 mm) …   A, G, T Item 8 Attachment A - Ordinance making non-substantive changes to the California Building Code, California Mechanical Code and CALGreen        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 12  Packet Pg. 105 of 690  NOT YET ADOPTED 9 0290177_20250825_ms29 Code: California Mechanical Code, Title 24, Part 4 Chapter(s), Sections(s), Appendices Title Added Amended Replaced Justification (See key below) Ch. 1, Div. II, Section 102.8 Appendices  A Appx. B Procedures to be followed to place gas equipment in operation  A Appx. C Installation and testing of oil (liquid) fuel- fired equipment  A Code: California Green Building Standard Code, Title 24, Part 11 Chapter(s), Sections(s), Appendices Title Add Deleted Amended Justification (See key below) 202 Definitions   A 301.1 Scope C, E 301.1.1 Residential additions and alterations C, E 301.1.2 Substantial Remodel  C, E Key to Justification for Amendments to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations A This is an administrative amendment to clarify and establish civil and administrative procedures, regulations, or rules to enforce and administer the activities by the Palo Alto Building Inspection Department. These administrative amendments do not need to meet HSC 18941.5/17958/13869 per HSC 18909(c). C This amendment is justified on the basis of a local climatic condition. The seasonal climatic conditions during the late summer and fall create severe fire hazards to the public health and welfare in the City. The hot, dry weather frequently results in wild land fires on the brush covered slopes west of Interstate 280. The aforementioned conditions combined with the geological characteristics of the hills within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Building Standards Code is required. Natural gas combustion and gas appliances emit a wide range of air pollutants, such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx, including nitrogen dioxide (NO2)), particulate matter (PM), and formaldehyde, which according to a UCLA Study, have been linked to various acute and chronic health effects, and additionally exceed levels set by national and California-based ambient air quality standards. The burning of fossil fuels used in the generation of electric power and heating of buildings contributes to climate change, which could result in rises in sea level, including in San Francisco Bay, that could put at risk Palo Alto homes and businesses, public facilities, and Highway 101 (Bayshore Item 8 Attachment A - Ordinance making non-substantive changes to the California Building Code, California Mechanical Code and CALGreen        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 13  Packet Pg. 106 of 690  NOT YET ADOPTED 10 0290177_20250825_ms29 Freeway), particularly the mapped Flood Hazard areas of the City. Energy efficiency is a key component in reducing GHG emissions, and construction of more energy efficient buildings can help Palo Alto reduce its share of the GHG emissions that contribute to climate change. All-electric new buildings benefit the health, safety, and welfare, of Palo Alto and its residents. Requiring all-electric construction, without gas infrastructure will reduce the amount of greenhouse gas produced in Palo Alto and will contribute to reducing the impact of climate change and the associated risks. Due to decrease in annual rain fall, Palo Alto experiences the effect of drought and water saving more than some other communities in California. Embodied carbon of concrete is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and this amendment includes a requirement to use low-carbon concrete. Providing additional capacity for electric vehicle use reduces use of gasoline which is a major contributor to climate change. E Green building enhances the public health and welfare by promoting the environmental and economic health of the City through the design, construction, maintenance, operation and deconstruction of buildings and sites by incorporating green practices into all development. The green provisions in this Chapter are designed to achieve the following goals: (a) Increase energy efficiency in buildings; (b) Reduce the use of natural gas in buildings which improves indoor environmental quality and health; (c) Reduce the use of natural gas which will reduce the natural gas infrastructure and fire risk over time; (d) Reduce the embodied carbon of concrete which reduces greenhouse gas emissions; (e) Increase water and resource conservation; (f) Reduce waste generated by construction and demolition projects; (g) Provide durable buildings that are efficient and economical to own and operate; (h) Promote the health and productivity of residents, workers, and visitors to the city; (i) Recognize and conserve the energy embodied in existing buildings; (j) Increase capacity for use of electric vehicles which reduces greenhouse gas emissions and improves air quality; (k) Encourage alternative transportation; and (l) Reduce disturbance of natural ecosystems. G This amendment is justified on the basis of a local geological condition. The City of Palo Alto is subject to earthquake hazard caused by its proximity to San Andreas fault. This fault runs from Hollister, through the Santa Cruz Mountains, epicenter of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, then on up the San Francisco Peninsula, then offshore at Daly City near Item 8 Attachment A - Ordinance making non-substantive changes to the California Building Code, California Mechanical Code and CALGreen        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 14  Packet Pg. 107 of 690  NOT YET ADOPTED 11 0290177_20250825_ms29 Mussel Rock. This is the approximate location of the epicenter of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The other fault is Hayward Fault. This fault is about 74 mi long, situated mainly along the western base of the hills on the east side of San Francisco Bay. Both of these faults are considered major Northern California earthquake faults which may experience rupture at any time. Thus, because the City is within a seismic area which includes these earthquake faults, the modifications and changes cited herein are designed to better limit property damage as a result of seismic activity and to establish criteria for repair of damaged properties following a local emergency. Reduction or eliminating of natural gas infrastructure over time will reduce maintenance costs and fire risk in difficult geological conditions. T The City of Palo Alto topography includes hillsides with narrow and winding access, which makes timely response by fire suppression vehicles difficult. Palo Alto is contiguous with the San Francisco Bay, resulting in a natural receptor for storm and waste water run-off. Also, the City of Palo Alto is located in an area that is potentially susceptible to liquefaction during a major earthquake. The surface condition consists mostly of stiff to dense sandy clay, which is highly plastic and expansive in nature. The aforementioned conditions within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Building Standards Code is warranted. In addition, the reduction or elimination of natural gas infrastructure reduces the likelihood of fire or environmental damage should they become disrupted due to challenging topographic conditions during construction or repair. Item 8 Attachment A - Ordinance making non-substantive changes to the California Building Code, California Mechanical Code and CALGreen        Item 8: Staff Report Pg. 15  Packet Pg. 108 of 690  8 0 3 4 City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: City Auditor Meeting Date: September 8, 2025 Report #:2508-5095 TITLE Approval of the Purchasing Card Audit and Extension Deadline for Two FY2024 Audit Project Task Orders and Amendment of the FY2024 and FY2025 Task Order Budgets to Realign the Authorized Budgets with a Net Zero Impact, as Recommended by the Policy & Services Committee; CEQA – Not a Project RECOMMENDATION The Policy & Services Committee recommends City Council approve the results of the Purchasing Card Audit Report and approve the extension of two task orders from the FY2024 Audit Plan that are in reporting, as well as, amending FY24 and FY25 task order budgets for three audits to better align budgets to the tasks with a net zero financial impact. BACKGROUND Baker Tilly Advisory, in its capacity serving as the Office of the City Auditor (OCA), performed a citywide risk assessment that evaluated a wide range of risk areas, including strategic, financial, operational, compliance, technological, and reputational risks. The purpose of the assessment was to identify and prioritize risks to develop the annual audit plan. During the FY23 risk assessment, the OCA identified purchasing card processes as a potential area of risk and was originally included in the FY24 Audit Plan but was deferred to prioritize other audit projects. The audit was reintroduced and included as part the FY25 Audit Plan. ANALYSIS The Policy & Services Committee approved the results of the Purchasing Card Audit and a request to extend and amend task orders for FY24 and FY25 projects. Purchasing Card Audit Report The objective of the Purchasing Card (P-Card) Audit was to: Determine whether P-Cards are used appropriately in compliance with the City’s policies and pertinent laws and regulations. Item 9 Item 9 Staff Report        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 109 of 690  8 0 3 4 Evaluate the administration of the P-Card Program for adequate internal controls to safeguard the City from fraud, waste, and abuse. The City’s P-Card Program is intended to streamline and simplify the Purchasing and Accounts Payable (AP) functions by eliminating steps for low dollar purchases below $10,000. The Program is administered by the Administrative Services Department (ASD), but P-cards are used by all City departments. The P-Card is a tool that can reduce transaction costs, facilitate timely acquisition of materials and supplies, automate data flow for accounting purposes and offer flexible controls to help ensure proper usage. OCA assessed P-Card transactions from FY2023 through the first 6 months of FY2025, interviewed key program administrative staff and users, analyzed policies, procedures and internal controls governing the program, and assessed the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the program’s oversight functions, as well as the program itself. Audit findings and recommendations focused on the following areas for improvement: While the City’s P-Card Program demonstrates strong internal controls and sampled purchases are in line with procurement policies, user compliance with program policies and procedures could be improved. Some P-Card Program oversight and administrative functions are not consistently completed and documented. Also, more efficient review processes could save staff time. OCA made an additional observation that the City may be able to increase operational efficiencies and save staff time by increasing P-Card spending limits which have not been updated since 2016. As this observation is outside of ASD’s direct control it is not a finding since it would most likely require amending the municipal code to increase the maximum threshold at which designated employees are authorized to make purchases to $15,000 from $10,0001. During the discussion at the Policy & Services Committee, it was noted that a section of the report regarding the amount of cost-splitting that occurred during a one-month testing period was unclear. A subsequent review of this section by the audit team found that some words had been mistakenly deleted during final report edits. This section, on page 16, has been revised to reflect that while approximately 4% of the sample transactions tested by ASD for the month of December 2024 showed cost-splitting, this represents less than 1% of the total transactions for that month. Since ASD’s testing methodology includes all of the transactions most likely to include cost-splitting, it is likely that for this month, less than 1% of the total transactions involved cost splitting. While this is a small percentage, cost splitting still represents a policy violation. 1 Municipal Code Section 2.30.230 Designated Employee Purchases of $10,000 or Less https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-61903 Item 9 Item 9 Staff Report        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 110 of 690  8 0 3 4 The attached report (Attachment A) summarizes OCA’s analysis, audit findings, and recommendations. FY2024 Task 4.25: Emergency Preparedness (Wildfire) FY2024 Task 4.28: Dispatch Center Assessment FY 2025 Task 4.34: Follow-Up Audit Activities - decrease budget by $14,500 FY 2024 Task 4.25: Emergency Preparedness (Wildfire) - increase by $1,500 FY 2024 Task 4.28: Dispatch Center Assessment - increase by $13,000 FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Item 9 Item 9 Staff Report        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 111 of 690  + July 29, 2025 City of Palo Alto Office of the City Auditor Purchasing Card Program Audit Item 9 Attachment A - Purchasing Card Program Audit        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 112 of 690  Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and Baker Tilly US, LLP, trading as Baker Tilly, operate under an alternative practice structure and are members of the global network of Baker Tilly International Ltd., the members of which are separate and independent legal entities. Baker Tilly US, LLP is a licensed CPA firm that provides assurance services to its clients. Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and its subsidiary entities provide tax and consulting services to their clients and are not licensed CPA firms. Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 1 Purpose of the Audit ........................................................................................................................... 1 Report Highlights ................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Detailed Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 6 Audit Results ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Appendix A: ....................................................................................................................................... 22 Item 9 Attachment A - Purchasing Card Program Audit        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 113 of 690  Executive Summary Purpose of the Audit Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP (Baker Tilly), in its capacity serving as the Office of the City Auditor (OCA) for the City of Palo Alto (the City), conducted a Purchasing Card (P-Card) Program Audit based on approved Task Order 4.29 as part of the City’s FY25 Audit Plan. The objective of this audit was to: • Determine whether P-Cards are used appropriately in compliance with the City’s policies and pertinent laws and regulations. • Evaluate the administration of the P-Card Program for adequate internal controls to safeguard the City from fraud, waste, and abuse. Report Highlights (Page 9) Overall, the City's P-Card program demonstrates strong internal controls and adherence to procurement policies, however, user compliance with policy requirements could be improved. The OCA confirmed that all P-Card expenses analyzed complied with the "General Guidance for Use" section of the P-Card Guidebook (Guidebook), ensuring purchases were not personal and directly supported City operations. However, OCA noted that some P-Card purchases were not documented as required by City policy and could not confirm timeliness of approver review in the system due to system reporting limitations. The OCA noted that while the City does have a Guidebook and training videos, the City does not have an established, ongoing training program for P-Card users. However, prior to 2020 and staffing reductions due to the COVID pandemic, staff stated that in-person trainings were held monthly. Administrative staff and department leaders agree that regular, recurring formal training is important and will help improve compliance with program requirements and are currently working to formalize training. Key Recommendations To further strengthen compliance with P-Card program guidelines, we recommend that management enhance cardholder and approver training on specific documentation requirements. We also recommend exploring system enhancements for approval timestamps by collaborating with the City’s P-Card system vendor, to explore adding timestamp functionality to the system for approver actions and automating system notifications of non-compliance to users. Item 9 Attachment A - Purchasing Card Program Audit        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 114 of 690  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Management should consider the merits of implementing clearly defined, tiered consequences for P-Card policy non-adherence vs. the cost of implementing such measures. Finding 2: (Page 14) Some P-Card Program oversight and administrative functions are not consistently completed and documented; more efficient review processes could save staff time. The OCA noted three areas for improvement in program oversight and administration: the post-audit process, tracking and documenting P-Card misuse, and documenting approved exceptions to P-Card spending limits. The OCA noted that the post-audit process is not always completed due to staffing shortages, and the process can be overly time-consuming. In addition, Accounts Payable's (AP) post-audit of P-Card transactions focuses on all software/hardware purchases and transactions over $1,000. Approximately 88% of transactions are not reviewed which may limit the effectiveness of the post-audit activity to identify areas of concern. A statistically significant sampling process, encompassing all transaction sizes, may provide a more accurate and complete picture of compliance while also taking less staff time. AP notifies relevant departments and P-Card administrators of discrepancies like missing documentation or policy violations, with common infractions including purchase splitting and unauthorized acquisitions. However, the current manual tracking system for P-Card misuse is inconsistent and incomplete, lacking specific dates, categorized infraction types, and documented resolutions, which hinders effective policy enforcement and the identification of misuse trends. Finally, the City's process for documenting P-Card spending limit increases, which relies on a "P-Card Credit Limit Request Form," lacks formal documentation for different types of exceptions to purchase limits and the OCA found some instances where evidence of approvals could not be located. Key Recommendations To strengthen the P-Card internal control environment and potentially realize cost savings through a more efficient post-audit process, we recommend that AP consider adopting a multi-faceted strategy centered on consistent operations and statistically valid sampling. This means shifting from the current review methods to a statistically random sampling methodology, with the precise sample size calculated monthly to ensure findings accurately represent all transactions. We recommend that the P-Card Administrator ensure all instances of misuse are formally and comprehensively tracked including the type of infraction, infraction date, and resulting resolution. We recommend formalizing and standardizing the P-Card limit exception process. Item 9 Attachment A - Purchasing Card Program Audit        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 115 of 690  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY rationale and approver concurrence. Additional Observation: (Page 18) Program to assess its effectiveness and efficiency in aiding departmental staff to procure items. We identified potential cost savings the City could achieve by raising the P-Card transaction limits versus continuing to use purchase orders to procure items with certain dollar thresholds. The City's current procurement procedures, particularly for lower-value transactions exceeding the micro-purchase threshold, create significant administrative burdens and consume substantial staff time due to council approval and solicitation requirements. This inefficiency is exacerbated by an unchanged P-Card limit since 2016, despite inflation. Raising the P-Card limit, potentially aligning with the anticipated federal micro-purchase threshold increase to $15,000, could save hundreds of staff hours currently spent processing purchase orders within the $10,000 to $15,000 range. Such a change could potentially streamline operations, reduce incentives for purchase splitting, and prevent delays in acquiring essential goods and services, reallocating resources to more strategic initiatives. Item 9 Attachment A - Purchasing Card Program Audit        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 116 of 690  Introduction Determine whether P-Cards are used appropriately in compliance with the City’s policies, pertinent laws, regulations and evaluate the administration of the P- Card Program for adequate internal controls to safeguard the City from fraud, waste, and abuse. Background and AP functions by eliminating steps for low dollar purchases below $10,000. The P-Card is a tool that reduces transaction costs, facilitates timely acquisition of materials and supplies, automates data flow for accounting purposes and offers flexible controls to help ensure proper usage. Managed by a designated Agency Program Administrator in the Purchasing Department, the program provides designated employees with City-issued credit cards to facilitate timely and cost- effective purchases, reducing the administrative burden associated with traditional purchase orders. Each cardholder is assigned a monthly credit limit of $15,000 and is required to follow established purchasing policies and procedures, including documentation, reconciliation, and supervisory approval of transactions. The program aims to improve operational efficiency while maintaining strong internal controls to ensure responsible spending of public funds. The P-Card program is governed by the City’s Procurement Card Guidebook. This document outlines roles and responsibilities, allowable and restricted purchases, and monitoring requirements. Regular oversight and audits are key to ensuring the program’s integrity and alignment with the City’s financial and Scope assessed P-Card transaction approvals and internal controls for managing the P- Methodology • Interviewed the appropriate individuals to gain an understanding of the organizational structure, processes, and controls related to the P-Card Program. • Analyzed policies and procedures as well as legislative and regulatory requirements to identify criteria to evaluate control design and effectiveness. • Judgmentally selected a sample of P-Card users, transactions, and misuse log from FY2023, FY2024, and the first half of FY2025 to determine if P-Card use is in compliance with pertinent laws and Item 9 Attachment A - Purchasing Card Program Audit        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 117 of 690  INTRODUCTION 1 Government auditing standards require an external peer review at least once every three (3) years. The last peer review of the Palo Alto Office of the City Auditor was conducted in 2017. The Palo Alto City Council approved a contract with Baker Tilly U.S, LLP for internal audit services for October 2020 through June 2022 with an extension through June 2025. City Council appointed Kate Murdock, Audit Manager in Baker Tilly’s Risk Advisory practice, as City Auditor in May 2024. As a result of transitions in the Audit Office and peer review delays due to the COVID pandemic, an external peer review is targeted for 2025. It should be noted that Baker Tilly’s most recent firmwide peer review was completed in November 2024 with a rating of “Pass”. The scope of that peer review includes projects completed under government auditing standards. audited and reviewed by the Administrative Services Department (ASD). • Completed audit report of findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on the supporting evidence gathered. Compliance Statement This audit activity was conducted from January 2025 to June 2025 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, except for the requirement of an external peer review 1. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings, observations, and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings, observations, and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Organizational Strengths During this audit activity, we observed a strong spirit of collaboration and a clear dedication to continuous improvement among the ASD leadership – particularly within the P-Card Program and AP teams. Their efforts reflect a shared commitment to providing the City with accurate, reliable information to support informed decision-making. The OCA appreciates the support of the ASD in conducting this audit activity. Thank you! Item 9 Attachment A - Purchasing Card Program Audit        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 118 of 690  Detailed Analysis Program Management Criteria and City Code The City’s Procurement Card Guidebook, version 15, updated November 2024, governs the Program and serves as a comprehensive resource for the City's P-Card users. The P-Card itself is a MasterCard issued by JPMorgan/Chase, designed to streamline purchasing and AP by eliminating steps and reducing transaction costs for purchases $10,000 and under. The program operates under guiding principles of transparency, accountability, integrity, consistency, efficiency, and manageability, and is intended to complement existing procurement processes rather than bypass them. The Guidebook outlines processes for using P-Cards, details permissible and prohibited purchases, and specifies the record-keeping and reconciliation requirements for each billing cycle. It emphasizes that cardholders are committing City funds and are responsible for all charges made to their card, with misuse potentially leading to disciplinary action. The Guidebook also defines the responsibilities of various participants in the P-Card Program, including Cardholders, Account Group Managers, Approvers/Level Managers, AP staff, the Agency Program Administrator (APA), and the system vendor. It details card limits, such as a $10,000 maximum for a single purchase, no more than 10 daily transactions, and a $15,000 maximum in a 30-day cycle, which can be temporarily increased via departmental request and approval from the APA. Palo Alto Municipal Code The current P-Card purchasing authority and maximum for single purchases is based on established purchasing limits detailed in Palo Alto’s Municipal Code. “Chapter 2.30 Contracts and Purchasing Procedures” of the Palo Alto Municipal Code states the following: 2.30.230 Designated employee purchases of $10,000.00 or less. Employees authorized, in writing, by their department heads may award and sign contracts for the purchase of goods and the procurement of general services, where the contract price does not exceed $10,000.00 and the contract term does not exceed one year. All purchases and procurements shall be made in accordance with the contracting procedures and requirements contained in this chapter and in the purchasing manual. The written authorizations of department heads shall be kept on file by the Procurement Officer. 2.30.240 Designated employees’ use of petty cash, P-card or other credit card. Employees designated in writing by their department heads, including by completed P-card authorization request form, may make purchases by using petty cash or make payments by using a city P-card or other credit card. All purchases shall be made in accordance with the contracting procedures and requirements contained in this chapter and in the purchasing manual. The written authorizations of department heads shall be kept on file by the Procurement Officer. Item 9 Attachment A - Purchasing Card Program Audit        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 11  Packet Pg. 119 of 690  Program Environment The OCA conducted a comprehensive analysis of P-Card transaction data spanning from July 1, 2022, to December 31, 2024, alongside cardholder data from July 1, 2023, to January 29, 2025. Our analysis identified a total of 42 unique departmental divisions participating in the P-Card Program. The transaction amount totaled $9,033,155.92 in FY2023, $9,515,758.87 in FY2024, and $ 4,604,414.13 in the first half of FY2025 revealing a total transaction amount of $23,153,328.92 across 44,705 purchase line items. Over the two-and-a-half-year period the OCA examined, the departments with the highest P-Card usage in terms of transaction amount were PWD Public Services – FAC, which led with $3,927,234.77, followed by PWD Env. Services - WQCP ($2,201,246.41) and IT ($1,636,975.63). Table 1: Top 10 Departments by Transaction Amount Department Total Amount PWD Public Services - FAC $3,927,234.77 PWD Env. Services - WQCP $2,201,246.41 IT $1,636,975.63 CSD Open Space, Parks, & Golf $1,323,946.17 Utilities Electric Operations $1,295,651.97 Police Department $1,190,825.79 Utilities WGW $1,134,320.06 PWD Public Services $1,061,659.67 Fire Administration $979,260.20 CSD JMZ & Interpretive $797,260.14 Note: Dataset 07/01/2022 - 12/31/24 Regarding the number of transactions, PWD Public Services - FAC was the most active with 5,659 purchase line items, with Utilities WGW closely behind at 5,022. CSD JMZ & Interpretive (3,350 line items), Police Department (2,764 purchase line items), and CSD Recreation (2,299 line items) also demonstrated high transaction volumes. Table 2: Top 10 Departments by Number of Transactions Department Number of Purchase Line Items PWD Public Services - FAC 5,658 Utilities WGW 5,022 CSD JMZ & Interpretive 3,350 Police Department 2,764 CSD Recreation 2,299 PWD Env. Services - WQCP 2,275 Utilities Electric Operations 1,969 CSD Open Space, Parks, & Golf 1,898 CSD Children's & Community Theatre 1592 IT 1559 Note: Dataset 07/01/2022 - 12/31/24 Item 9 Attachment A - Purchasing Card Program Audit        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 12  Packet Pg. 120 of 690  The OCA’s analysis of cardholders’ data revealed there were 254 current active cardholders across 42 unique departmental divisions as of the end of January 2025. The Police Department had the most cardholders (34), followed by Fire Administration (20) and PWD Env. Services - WQCP (16). Table 3: Top 10 Departments by Current Active Cardholders Department Number of Active Cardholders Police Department 34 Fire Administration 20 PWD Env. Services - WQCP 16 PWD Public Services - FAC 15 CSD Open Space, Parks, & Golf 12 CSD JMZ & Interpretive 10 CSD Recreation 10 PWD Env. Services - WP 10 Utilities Electric Operations 10 Utilities WGW 10 Note: Data as of 1/29/25 Currently, AP conducts comprehensive post-audits of P-Card transactions to ensure adherence to established P-Card guidelines, focusing on those valued at $1,000 or more. To better understand the coverage of post-audit review, the OCA performed a distribution analysis across all transactions in the scope period. After removing all $0.00 and negative dollar amount transactions from the data set which represented returns or voided transactions, the purchase line item population for the distribution analysis went from 44,705 line items to 43,588. The distribution analysis shows that 77.66% (33,852 line items) were less than $500.00 and 9.92% (4,325 line items) were between $500.00 and $999.99, indicating that most transactions from the scope period would not be subject to comprehensive post-audits. Table 4: Purchase Line Item Distribution by Dollar Amount Distribution Subgroup Number of Purchase Line Items Percentage of Purchase Line Items $0-499.99 33,851 77.66% $500-999.99 4,325 9.92% $1,000-4,999.99 4,520 10.37% $5,000-9,999.99 881 2.02% $10,000+ 10 0.02% Note: Dataset 07/01/2022 - 12/31/24 Item 9 Attachment A - Purchasing Card Program Audit        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 13  Packet Pg. 121 of 690  Audit Results Overall, the City's P- Card Program demonstrates strong internal controls and adherence to procurement policies, however, user compliance with policy requirements could be improved. The City’s P-Card program, utilizing a MasterCard credit card issued by JPMorgan/Chase, serves as a streamlined procurement and payment tool. The purpose of the program is to reduce transaction costs, facilitate the timely acquisition of materials and supplies, and automate data flow for enhanced accounting efficiency, all while providing flexible controls to ensure proper usage. Designed as an alternative to traditional methods such as petty cash, check requests, and low-dollar purchase orders, the P-Card Program is intended to complement, not bypass, established procurement and payment procedures. Program requirements include adherence to spending limits and policy guidelines, diligent record-keeping and reconciliation, thorough review and approval, and consistent program administration and oversight. There are several key roles involved in the P-Card process: • Cardholder • Approver • AP • Agency Program Administrator (APA) • JPMorgan/Chase The City has a Procurement Card Guidebook that establishes the purpose, policies, procedures, and responsibilities for cardholders and approvers. This policy requires that: • Cardholders upload receipts to SmartData daily and/or weekly. • Cardholders assign their purchases, on a daily or weekly basis, to the correct cost centers/GL accounts, • Approvers review and authorize cardholder purchases, ensuring compliance and correct accounting by the 5th of every month. The OCA tested a sample of 39 transactions made between July 7, 2022, and December 31, 2024, for adherence to the City’s Guidebook. The OCA selected a representative sample of transactions. Cardholder purchases consistently align with the Guidebook, demonstrating that expenditures are directly supportive of City operations and are not personal in nature. The OCA examined expense descriptions and receipts to ensure purchases were not personal in nature and directly support City operations, in compliance with allowable card uses cited in the Item 9 Attachment A - Purchasing Card Program Audit        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 14  Packet Pg. 122 of 690  2 City of Palo Alto, Procurement Card Guidebook: Travel upgrades and business travel meals are not allowed. The card cannot be used for certain event-related food (e.g., retirement parties, holiday events), alcoholic beverages, or consultant meals. Prohibited items also extend to bottled drinking water, pesticides (with limited exceptions), foam foodware, and specific antibacterial soaps. Furthermore, using the P-Card for purchases with existing City contracts, gift cards for employees, safety shoes for certain staff, or Amazon Prime memberships is not permitted. Small appliances for employee-only spaces are generally restricted without an Assistant City Manager's approval. IT software and hardware purchases are allowed but require approval before purchase. cash advances, and unauthorized travel/entertainment expenses. Specific restrictions include the purchase of safety products (i.e. glasses, hard-hats, earplugs, insect repellent), personal items, fuel for personal vehicles, and payments to the City itself.2 It is important to note that the ultimate determination of whether purchases are authorized, appropriate, and correctly allocated rests with cardholders and designated approvers, and department leadership. Some P-Card purchases were not documented as required by City policy. Based on our P-Card transaction testing, we found strong internal controls and compliance with P-Card policies with respect to documenting purchases. For all transactions tested, the OCA noted that receipts were uploaded documenting transactions and GL cost centers were assigned for each purchase. However, some required documentation was missing. Out of 39 transactions reviewed, 35 were fully compliant, demonstrating that most purchases were properly documented, assigned to general ledger cost centers, and reviewed by designated approvers. This reflects positively on the overall management of the P-Card Program. However, there were three transactions (10%) that did not have the Guidebook-specified documentation required. The Guidebook states food purchases must have a separate sheet of paper uploaded, along with the receipt, which specifies the business purpose of the meal and a list of participants. OCA found two instances where a separate sheet of paper detailing the business purpose and list of participants was not provided, however, most of this information was provided in the vendor p-card system. The Guidebook states when making IT software or hardware purchases, an email must be sent to the City’s Help Desk stating the specific request to purchase the IT related item. If IT Management approves (via email) the purchase, the P-card user is required to attach a copy of the approving email along with the Item 9 Attachment A - Purchasing Card Program Audit        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 15  Packet Pg. 123 of 690  processing. OCA found two instances of IT purchases that where the email documenting IT Management approval was not provided. However, AP staff noted that approvals documented in the JP Morgan Chase were performed by IT Management. The City may want to revisit the Guidebook and determine if the existing requirements are still relevant or if less labor-intensive documentation is sufficient, such as leaving comments in JP Morgan Chase as opposed to submitting separate paperwork. These exceptions, while few, pose a risk of non-compliance with policies and make it difficult for reviewers to timely confirm purchases. Such policies are in place to prevent any potential fraud, waste and abuse, which was not found. These exceptions also highlight the need for continued training to ensure users understand the importance of documentation and adherence to policy. All tested P-Card transactions showed system-generated evidence of approver review, however, the timeliness of review could not be verified. Per the Guidebook, in addition to reviewing a cardholder’s transactions, ensuring the cardholder has uploaded sales receipts and any supporting documentation for each purchase, and that each transaction has a cost center account assignment, approvers must also ensure all cardholder transactions are approved in the system by the 5th of the month. For all transactions tested, the OCA noted that every transaction had system-generated evidence of review by an approver confirming required review. However, the system does not provide timestamps, making it impossible to verify whether approvals occurred within the required timeframe. Program administration staff stated that they have to routinely send reminders to p-card approvers when approvals have not been submitted timely. This, in turn, creates process delays with monthly review responsibilities potentially resulting in lost time and may limit staff time for other Accounts Payable activities. The City does not have an established, ongoing training program for P-Card Program users. The Guidebook states that the APA is responsible for facilitating training for the P-Card Program. When a department submits an application for a new cardholder, the potential cardholder is required to complete mandatory training. Once training is completed, the cardholder can self-register for a system login. As part of the new account process, the City also requires each user to sign the P-Card Cardholder User Agreement via the system. Item 9 Attachment A - Purchasing Card Program Audit        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 16  Packet Pg. 124 of 690  Program administration stated that while users are provided with the Guidebook and have to sign a user agreement via the vendor system website in order to initiate use of their card, they frequently have to explain the program parameters to users suggesting that actual review of the Guidebook may be limited. While the City has training materials and user agreements in place, evidence that activities were completed could not be provided by the APA or the system vendor. The Guidebook also notes that training may be required because of improper or flagrant violation of P-Card authorized use, loss of receipts, or failure to complete monthly transaction processing by designated deadlines. This mandatory refresher course would involve both the cardholder and the approving official. However, program administrators indicated this training does not typically happen. While all program stakeholders, including cardholders, approvers, and AP, can access a step-by-step guide and training video on the Purchasing Resource Library to assist with uploading receipts, cost center coding, reviewing, and approving P-Card transactions, it is not clear how often this resource is accessed. Administrative staff stated the need for regular, recurring training to eliminate confusion and to reduce time spent responding to individual inquiries. P-Card Program leaders of departments with high P-Card utilization corroborated this need, expressing a desire to develop a formal, recurring training program. In addition, our analysis of AP’s monthly reconciliation process and the APA’s P-Card misuse tracker showed instances of non-compliance with the P-Card policy. According to the APA, apart from the initial training provided when a card is issued, some ad hoc departmental training, and the recently created training videos, there is no structured training program for P- Card users. The APA stated that this lack of training has led to frequent policy-related questions and potential misuse of cards. The primary source of guidance for program stakeholders is the lengthy Guidebook, which administrators said does not appear to be read thoroughly. A lack of adequate P-Card training may result in incomplete receipt uploading, incorrect cost center coding, and hinder the effective review and approval of transactions. This can lead to operational inefficiencies, increased errors, and heightened financial and compliance risks for the City. Departmental personnel also reported concerns regarding recurring instances of inadequate purchase review, budget overruns, and the use of P-Cards as a matter of convenience rather than adhering to established procurement channels. While staff expressed a desire for a regular, formalized P-Card training program to mitigate these issues, staff also said that since there are no consequences for violating the policy, there is little to deter repeat offences. This absence of corrective measures could impact effective policy enforcement and compliance. Item 9 Attachment A - Purchasing Card Program Audit        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 17  Packet Pg. 125 of 690  The APA did note that in the past, some limited training sessions have been conducted for new employees, but a more comprehensive approach is needed. There are plans to develop computer-based training modules to educate employees on P-Card policies and procedures. Additionally, annual refresher courses are planned to ensure ongoing compliance and to keep users updated on any policy changes. These planned initiatives aim to improve user understanding and reduce instances of misuse, which are currently a concern due to the lack of formal repercussions for policy violations. Recommendation Strengthen Compliance: Card program guidelines, we recommend that management enhance cardholder and approver training on specific documentation requirements which may include providing targeted training and quick reference guides or checklists. In addition, management may want to consider a form(s) for documenting purchases such as food, fuel reimbursement, and IT purchases to simplify documentation procedures for users and approvers. However, management will need to determine if this will create efficiencies and enhance compliance or add unneeded steps. We also recommend exploring system enhancements for approval timestamps by collaborating with City’s P-Card system vendor, to explore adding timestamp functionality to the system for approver actions and automating system notifications of non-compliance to users. Finally, management should consider the merits of implementing clearly defined consequences for non-adherence against the time and resources necessary to do so. Such a system could range from written warnings and remedial training for minor first offenses to temporary suspension of cardholder or approval privileges for repeat issues, and potentially permanent expulsion from the P-Card Program. If the City were to adopt a system of disciplinary action for non-adherence, management would need to formalize this tiered policy in the Guidebook, communicate it clearly to all approvers, apply consequences consistently, and document all violations in collaboration with Human Resources. Training: We recommend that the City continue working to establish and implement a formal, structured, and ongoing P-Card training program for all stakeholders, including cardholders, approvers, and AP personnel. This program should continue to mandate initial training for all new P- Card applicants, requiring completion of the JP Morgan-administered training as outlined in the Guidebook, and ensure that all completed training is documented and tracked. A comprehensive curriculum should be developed, expanding beyond current guides to explicitly Item 9 Attachment A - Purchasing Card Program Audit        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 18  Packet Pg. 126 of 690  increase procedures, consequences for misuse, and detailed documentation. Finally, regular, periodic refresher training for all active P-Card users and approving officials should be required to ensure ongoing compliance and policy awareness. Management Response Concurrence: Agree Target Date: November 2025 Action Plan: ASD will resume in person and hybrid training while continuing to pursue technology-based training solutions such as automated classes, videos, and tests. This will include disseminating reference guides and checklists. The in-person training will focus on allowable transactions, non- permissible transactions, approval process, required supporting documents for transactions, and due dates. The training will be required for all new P-Card holders and approvers. Technology solutions will be explored for refresher trainings. ASD will evaluate adding a form for documenting purchases such as food, fuel reimbursement, and IT purchases. This evaluation will determine if the form creates efficiencies or adds unneeded steps. If the former, then a form will be added to the process. Adding timestamp information will be explored with the P-Card system vendor along with notifications to users for non- compliance. ASD will implement a system of consequences for non- compliance. Such a system might include an escalation of consequences after a certain number of infractions. The ultimate consequence would be removing P-Cards from users. This will include mandatory training for repeat infractions. Additional resources will be provided to those with infractions to ensure their understanding of the rules. Item 9 Attachment A - Purchasing Card Program Audit        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 19  Packet Pg. 127 of 690  Finding 2: Some P-Card Program oversight and administrative functions are not consistently completed and documented; more efficient review processes could save staff time. the P-Card Program. AP staff is responsible for ensuring that cardholder activity is documented, supported, and authorized, and verifying that cardholders and approvers adhere to program policies. To maintain compliance with P-Card policies and procedures, AP staff conducts post-audits and actively monitors P-Card activity. The APA holds comprehensive authority and responsibility for the P- Card Program's operation, including closely monitoring it and acting as the primary liaison between the City and JPMorgan/Chase. The APA is also responsible for managing procurement card administration, including card activation, issuance, assisting in developing citywide policies and procedures, overseeing program activity, and maintaining and tracking credit limits for cardholders’ authorized limits. We found that AP's mandated monthly post-audits may be hampered by staffing shortages and high transaction volume, which undermines the effectiveness of these reviews. Additionally, current methods for tracking and documenting P-Card misuse are inconsistent, hindering management's ability to identify patterns and enforce policy effectively. Furthermore, our analysis revealed a lack of adequate documentation for approved exceptions to P-Card spending limits. This indicates a need for more formal and transparent procedures in this area. Overall, these findings highlight opportunities to enhance the P-Card Program's controls and administrative efficiency. The post audit process is not always completed due to staffing shortages and is overly time-consuming. More efficient review processes could save staff time. AP is responsible for conducting comprehensive post-audits of P-Card transactions to ensure adherence to established P-Card guidelines. Their current review protocol mandates a monthly examination of all P-Card transactions valued at $1,000 or more, as well as all software and hardware acquisitions. Additionally, AP performs ad-hoc spot checks on transactions that may indicate potential cost-splitting or appear unusual. Through interviews with AP and ASD leadership, the OCA learned that timely review is often a challenge for staff due to staffing capacity and the volume of transactions eligible for review. The OCA selected three months from the scope period and requested the post audit reviews conducted to assess the process. AP was able to provide evidence for 2 of the 3 selected months, stating that review for the third month was not completed due to staffing shortages. This indicates that while the post-audit review process is established, it is not always completed which may compromise the purpose of the review. Item 9 Attachment A - Purchasing Card Program Audit        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 20  Packet Pg. 128 of 690  The OCA also performed a deeper analysis of the most recent month within the scope period, December 2024. During that post audit review, AP reviewed 203 of the 1,310 purchase line items made. This represented approximately 15% of the total number of purchases made that month and 73% of the total dollar amount. Of the 203 transactions, 164 (approximately 12% of the total number) exceeded the $1,000 threshold for required review. The post audit review documentation indicated that 61 transactions, approximately 30 percent of those reviewed, required additional follow-up with cardholders, approvers, or department leadership. Of those 61, 10 transactions were identified as cost-splitting violations. While this represents approximately 4% of the testing sample, it is less than 1% of the total transactions for the time period. As ASD looked at all transactions over $1,000 and cost-splitting is most commonly used to get around the $10,000 purchase limit, it is likely that they captured the majority of (if not all) cost-splitting transactions for the time period. While 1% may seem like a relatively small percentage, these transactions still represent a policy violation. According to AP staff, post audit can take anywhere from 3 minutes to an hour per transaction, depending on the level of review needed. This highlights the labor-intensive nature of the process. This time commitment, especially when coupled with staffing shortages, directly contributes to the inability to achieve comprehensive review coverage directly impacts control effectiveness and efficiency. Further, the high follow-up rate, combined with the limited review coverage, could mean there are issues present within the unreviewed 88% of transactions and a new approach to post audit review may be needed. It is often assumed that only large-value transactions present a significant risk of misuse or error. However, this assumption may be misleading. In practice, individuals may be more inclined to commit smaller, seemingly insignificant infractions, under the perception that such transactions are less likely to be selected for review and therefore less likely to be detected. This is another instance where staff could incorporate the use of Excel data analytics tools to identify spending trends over time that may require further investigation. For instance, PivotTables and COUNTIF functions can be effectively utilized to quantify transaction volumes per employee or per vendor. A high frequency of small-value transactions by a single employee, or a notable volume of transactions consistently falling just below the $1,000 review threshold, could indicate a need for more in-depth scrutiny. (See Appendix A) A statistically significant sampling, encompassing all transaction sizes, may provide a more accurate and complete picture of compliance. While formal internal guidance for transaction sampling may not be established, our analysis suggests that a comprehensive approach to sampling would involve examining all transactions, rather than a select subset. This would promote a more complete and robust review. For example, if AP were to conduct a random sample and Item 9 Attachment A - Purchasing Card Program Audit        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 21  Packet Pg. 129 of 690  the 1,310 purchase line item population, this confidence level would require a testing sample of 90. In addition, there are other data analytic procedures AP may be able to administer to identify trends and issues such as split transactions. There is potential for use of these analytics to further save staff time and increase the rigor or AP’s review. (See Appendix A) The current process for tracking and documenting P-Card misuse is inadequate and lacks comprehensive and consistent record-keeping. Upon identifying discrepancies such as missing documentation or policy violations, AP initiates communication with the relevant department and formally notifies Purchasing and the AP Administrator, who are responsible for overseeing instances of P-Card misuse. Common infractions include purchase splitting and the acquisition of unauthorized appliances. The current tracking process for these issues is manual, relying on a log. The OCA assessed the P-Card Misuse tracker to identify recurring themes and evaluate the resolution process. Our analysis revealed that instances of misuse are not consistently or comprehensively documented. While the tracker dates back to 2022, the tracking system frequently lacks specific dates for when misuse occurred and does not categorize the types of infractions, such as cost splitting or unauthorized purchases. Additionally, the types of program misuse (e.g., cost splitting, professional services, safety equipment) are not categorized, hindering clear tracking of infraction types. Furthermore, the outcomes of investigations and their resolutions are not formally documented within the tracker. The existing P-Card misuse tracking process has several significant limitations. Since all instances of misuse are not formally and completely documented, management could be left with an incomplete understanding of policy violations. Without the outcomes of investigations and their resolutions being consistently recorded, it may hinder management’s ability to identify common themes in P- Card misuse, effectively analyze the resolution process, and pinpoint trends related to specific departments or staff. This may in turn undermine effective policy enforcement and the deterrence of repeat offenses. There is a lack of adequate documentation to evidence approved exceptions to P-Card spending limitations. Currently, the City utilizes the “P-Card Credit Limit Request Form” to document the request, review, and approval of card spending limitation increases. In order to gain an understanding of processes for approved exceptions to card spending limitations, the OCA examined three transactions that exceeded the $10,000 card limit. The sample documentation provided for these transactions did not Item 9 Attachment A - Purchasing Card Program Audit        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 22  Packet Pg. 130 of 690  cardholder’s approver to the P-Card administrator documenting the approver’s concurrence with the exception rationale and/or justification, as required by the Guidebook. The APA provided support for one of these transactions showing that an exception to exceed the single purchase limit was granted, however the approval lacked formal documentation. No documentation was readily available for the other two selected transactions. It should also be noted that while the "P-Card Program Credit Limit Request Form" includes a comments section that could detail other types of card limit exceptions (single purchase transaction limits, number of daily transactions limits, daily spending limits), the language of the form only explicitly documents the request and approval of exceptions to the monthly spending limit of $15,000. Recommendation Post Audit: enhance compliance assurance, and mitigate associated risks, we recommend that AP should implement a multi-faceted approach focusing on operational consistency and statistically valid sampling. AP should transition from the current review approach and volume to a statistically random sampling methodology, implementing a sampling strategy designed to achieve a desired confidence level, thereby providing a high degree of assurance that the sample findings are representative of the entire population. The precise sample size should be dynamically calculated each month based on the actual transaction volume. Misuse Tracking: The OCA recommends that the P-Card Administrator ensure all instances of misuse are formally and comprehensively tracked including a categorization of infraction types, infraction dates, and the resolution of each instance of misuse. By maintaining a complete misuse tracker, the P-Card Administrator will be better equipped to identify repeat offenders and allow make informed decisions regarding appropriate repercussions, such as mandatory training or, if warranted, the suspension or revocation of P- Card user access. In cases where repeat offenses are observed within a specific department, management should consider implementing department-wide training to reinforce awareness of City policies and procedures. Oversight of Card Limit Exceptions: We recommend formalizing and standardizing the P-Card limit exception process. The existing "P- Card Program Credit Limit Request Form" should be revised to explicitly include fields for requesting and documenting approval for all types of card limit exceptions, not just monthly spending limits. The revised form, or an equally formal documented process, should be Item 9 Attachment A - Purchasing Card Program Audit        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 23  Packet Pg. 131 of 690  evidence of the approver’s agreement. The APA and other relevant stakeholders must consistently follow this formalized process to document and retain all limit exception approvals. Management Response Concurrence: Agree Target Date: November 2025 Action Plan: Post Audit AP will implement a new, multi-faceted review criteria to capture a more statistically random sampling of P-card transactions. Misuse Tracking ASD will add to the current misuse tracker to include infraction types, infraction dates, and resolution. This information will be used to focus additional training where repeat offenses are identified. Oversight of Card Limit Exceptions ASD will standardize the P-Card limit exception process with a revised form that includes fields for requesting and documenting. The form will include a section for the rationale for the increase. It should be noted that P-Card exception increases are currently very limited and only 10 out of 254 cards are in place currently. These exceptions have been documented on the existing form. The existing form will be evaluated for use as a single form with all exceptions or possibly a separate form for single limit exceptions approvals will be created based on what incorporates best into workflow. Additional Observation: The City may be able to increase operational efficiencies and save staff time by increasing P-Card spending limits The City's current procurement procedures impose a significant administrative burden, especially for lower-value transactions exceeding the micro-purchase threshold. Requirements for council approval and solicitation for each purchase order consume considerable staff time, driving up processing costs and diverting resources from more strategic procurement initiatives. This highlights an opportunity to streamline these processes. By optimizing procedures for these transactions, the City can achieve substantial efficiency gains and reallocate valuable staff resources to essential responsibilities. According to ASD management, the current procedure for obtaining approvals and completing solicitations for each purchase order (PO) requires, on average, approximately 10 hours of staff time. This represents a significant investment of staff and managements’ time. The City’s P-Card limit has not been increased since 2016. Since Item 9 Attachment A - Purchasing Card Program Audit        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 24  Packet Pg. 132 of 690  the City were to raise the purchasing limit, there could be substantial time saved in preparing POs. The OCA performed an analysis of recent fiscal years and found that in FY2023, the City processed 59 POs ranging from $10,000 to $12,000. At an estimated 10 hours per PO of staff time, raising the threshold to $12,000 and reducing the number of POs by 49 would save an estimated 490 hours of staff time. An additional 29 POs between $12,000 and $15,000 were processed which if eliminated could save an estimated 290 hours. FY 2024 projections showed 45 POs in the $10,000 to $12,000 range, equating to 450 hours, and 49 POs in the $12,000 to $15,000 range, totaling 490 hours. The overall increase in the number of POs at these dollar thresholds year over year is also an indicator that more goods that used to be procured through a simple P-Card transaction may be shifting to the PO process due to inflation. These figures highlight a recurring and considerable investment of time in the procurement process for these specific PO value ranges. By reviewing and potentially streamlining the approval and solicitation procedures for these categories of purchases, the City could realize substantial cumulative time savings, allowing staff to reallocate their efforts to other critical municipal functions. Concurrently, a prevalent issue associated with lower limits is the incentive for cardholders to split legitimate purchases into multiple, smaller transactions to circumvent established single transaction limits. This behavior undermines internal controls and complicates effective monitoring and reconciliation. Furthermore, essential goods and services exceeding the lower limits may experience procurement delays as employees await approvals through more formal channels, potentially impacting mission-critical activities or operational responsiveness. The OCA reviewed a proposed amendment to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) concerning the inflation adjustment of acquisition-related thresholds. This amendment indicates that the micro-purchase threshold, as defined in FAR 2.101, is projected to increase from $10,000 to $15,000. Given the anticipated increase of the federal micro-purchase limit to $15,000 in October 2025, the City should also evaluate its current P-Card purchase limit and consider adjusting it to align with this inflationary change. Consideration: With consideration given to the official increase of the federal micro-purchase limit to $15,000 in October 2025, the City should consider increasing the single purchase card limit from $10,000 to $15,000 and the monthly purchase power from $15,000 to $20,000. Increasing these card limits may enable the City to realize significant time savings. Based on historical data, this change could save the City approximately 1,000 to 12,000 staff Item 9 Attachment A - Purchasing Card Program Audit        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 25  Packet Pg. 133 of 690  within the $10,000-$15,000 range. Further, increased card limits may also potentially discourage cost splitting and reduce administrative processing. Item 9 Attachment A - Purchasing Card Program Audit        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 26  Packet Pg. 134 of 690  Appendix A: Basic Excel Analytics for P-Card Transaction Review The following basic analytics can be performed in Excel by the AP team to enhance oversight of P-Card transactions. These techniques rely on standard Excel functions and features such as Pivot Tables, Conditional Formatting, and built-in formulas: • Transaction Volume and Spend by Cardholder Use Pivot Tables to group transactions by cardholder and calculate the total number of transactions and total spend. This helps identify high-use individuals and potential misuse. • Vendor Spend Analysis Group transactions by vendor using a Pivot Table to determine total spend per vendor. This can help evaluate vendor concentration and opportunities for negotiated pricing or consolidated purchasing. • Weekend and Holiday Transactions Use the WEEKDAY() function to identify transactions occurring on weekends. Flag transactions that fall on known holidays for further review. • Duplicate Transactions Check Use COUNTIFS() or Conditional Formatting to flag potential duplicates based on identical transaction dates, amounts, vendors, and cardholders. • Split Purchases Sort by cardholder, vendor, and date to identify multiple transactions that may have been used to circumvent single-transaction thresholds. • Threshold Breach Detection Apply Conditional Formatting to highlight transactions exceeding predefined dollar thresholds (e.g., $2,500), which may require additional documentation or approval. • Inactive or Terminated Cardholder Usage Use VLOOKUP() or XLOOKUP() to compare cardholder names against a current employee roster and identify activity associated with terminated employees. • High-Risk Keyword Search Use the SEARCH() function to flag keywords in the transaction description that may indicate unallowable purchases (e.g., “gift card,” “alcohol,” “Amazon,” “electronics,” etc.). • Self-Approval Detection Compare cardholder and approver names using an IF() statement to detect instances where cardholders may be approving their own transactions. • Trend Analysis Over Time Use Pivot Tables and line charts to analyze monthly or quarterly spend trends. This can help detect unusual spikes or seasonal patterns in card usage. Item 9 Attachment A - Purchasing Card Program Audit        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 27  Packet Pg. 135 of 690  PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER TASK ORDER FY24-4.25 Emergency Preparedness Consultant shall perform the Services detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referencedFY24 in Item 8 below are incorporated into this Task Order by this reference. The Consultant shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described below. CONTRACT NO. C21179340A OR PURCHASE ORDER REQUISITION NO. (AS APPLICABLE) 1A. 1B. MASTER AGREEMENT NO. (MAY BE SAME AS CONTRACT / P.O. NO. ABOVE): C21179340A TASK O RDER NO.: FY23-4.25 2.CONSULTANT NAME: Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP 3.PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: March 1, 2024 COMPLETION: December 31, 2024 4 TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $73,110 $75,110.00 Increased by $2,000.00 BALANCE REMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT TBD 5. BUDGET CODE_______________ COST CENTER________________ COST ELEMENT______________ WBS/CIP__________ PHASE__________ 6. CITY PROJECT MANAGER’S NAME & DEPARTMENT: Lydia Kou, Chair of the City Council’s Policy and Services Committee 7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES (Attachment A) MUST INCLUDE: SERVICES AND DELIVERABLES TO BE PROVIDED SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE MAXIMUM COMPENSATION AMOUNT AND RATE SCHEDULE (as applicable) REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, if any (with “not to exceed” amount) 8. ATTACHMENTS: A: Task Order Scope of Services B (if any): N/A I hereby authorize the performance of the work described in this Task Order. APPROVED: CITY OF PALO ALTO BY:____________________________________ Name __________________________________ Title____________________ Date ___________________________________ I hereby acknowledge receipt and acceptance of this Task Order and warrant that I have authority to sign on behalf of Consultant. APPROVED: COMPANY NAME: ______________________ BY:____________________________________ Name __________________________________ Title___________________________________ Date ___________________________________ Docusign Envelope ID: E008AC75-7AE6-49DD-B29E-91EE8C83AC25 Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP 12/23/2024Manager/ City Auditor Kate Murdock 12/25/2024 Council Member Council Member Lydia Kou Item 9 Attachment B - Budget Extension and Amendment for FY24 and FY25 Task Orders        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 28  Packet Pg. 136 of 690  Attachment A DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES Introduction Attachment A, the Description of Scope of Services, contains the following four (4) elements: Services and Deliverables To Be Provided Schedule of Performance Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule (As Applicable) Reimbursable Expenses, if any (With “Not To Exceed” Amount) Services & Deliverables Baker Tilly’s approach to conducting an internal audit of Emergency Preparedness involves three (3) primary steps: Step 1: Audit Planning Step 2: Control Review and Testing Step 3: Reporting Step 1 – Audit Planning This step consists of the tasks performed to adequately plan the work necessary to address the overall audit objective and to solidify mutual understanding of the audit scope, objectives, audit process, and timing between stakeholders and auditors. Tasks include: Gather information to understand the environment under review o Understand the organizational structure and objectives o Review the City code, regulations, and other standards and expectations o Review prior audit results, as applicable o Review additional documentation and conduct interviews as necessary Assess the audit risk Write an audit planning memo and audit program o Refine audit objectives and scope o Identify the audit procedures to be performed and the evidence to be obtained and examined Announce the initiation of the audit and conduct kick-off meeting with key stakeholders o Discuss audit objectives, scope, audit process, timing, resources, and expectations o Discuss documentation and interview requests for the audit Docusign Envelope ID: E008AC75-7AE6-49DD-B29E-91EE8C83AC25 Item 9 Attachment B - Budget Extension and Amendment for FY24 and FY25 Task Orders        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 29  Packet Pg. 137 of 690  Step 2 – Control Review and Testing This step involves executing the procedures in the audit program to gather information, interview individuals, and analyze the data and information to obtain sufficient evidence to address the audit objectives. The preliminary audit objective is to determine whether the City is working to prevent wildfire and adequately prepared to respond to wildfire as part of the City’s emergency management plan. Procedures include, but not limited to: Interview the appropriate individuals in all relevant departments to gain an understanding of the organizational structure, processes, and controls related to wildfire prevention and response as well as the City’s overall emergency preparedness. Review policies and procedures as well as the legislative and regulatory requirements to identify the criteria to be used for evaluation of control design and effectiveness. Review the existing emergency management plan and other related documents such as prevention activities, training and exercises, equipment, and service contracts. Compare the process and controls against the best practices. Step 3 – Reporting In Step 3, the project team will perform tasks necessary to finalize audit working papers, prepare and review a draft report with the stakeholders, and submit a final audit report. Tasks include: Develop findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on the supporting evidence gathered Validate findings with the appropriate individuals and discuss the root cause of the identified findings Complete supervisory review of working papers and a draft audit report Distribute a draft audit report and conduct a closing meeting with key stakeholders o Discuss the audit results, finings, conclusions, and recommendations o Discuss management responses Obtain written management responses and finalize a report Review report with members of City Council and/or the appropriate Council Committee Deliverables: The following deliverable will be prepared as part of this engagement: Audit Report Schedule of Performance Anticipated Start Date: March 1, 2024 Anticipated End Date: December 31, 2024 Docusign Envelope ID: E008AC75-7AE6-49DD-B29E-91EE8C83AC25 Item 9 Attachment B - Budget Extension and Amendment for FY24 and FY25 Task Orders        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 30  Packet Pg. 138 of 690  Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule The not-to-exceed maximum, inclusive of reimbursable expenses (as summarized below) for this Task is $73,110. The not-to-exceed budget is based on an estimate of 385 total project hours, of which 25 are estimated to be completed by the City Auditor. Reimbursable Expenses We plan to complete all work remote including all interviews and documentation review. However, during the planning and fieldwork phases of this audit, the City and Baker Tilly may mutually determine it will be beneficial to perform a portion of the work on-site. Given this possibility, Baker Tilly could incur reimbursable expenses for this Task. The not-to-exceed maximum for reimbursable expenses for this Task is $6,500. The following summarizes anticipated reimbursable expenses: Round-trip Airfare – $2,000 (1 round trip flights x 2 auditors) Ground Transportation (car rental or Uber/taxi) - $800 Hotel accommodation - $3,000 (2 rooms x 4 nights) Food and incidentals – $700 Docusign Envelope ID: E008AC75-7AE6-49DD-B29E-91EE8C83AC25 Item 9 Attachment B - Budget Extension and Amendment for FY24 and FY25 Task Orders        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 31  Packet Pg. 139 of 690  PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER TASK ORDER FY24-4.28 Dispatch Center Program Consultant shall perform the Services detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 below are incorporated into this Task Order by this reference. The Consultant shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described below. CONTRACT NO. C21179340A OR PURCHASE ORDER REQUISITION NO. (AS APPLICABLE) 1A. MASTER AGREEMENT NO. (MAY BE SAME AS CONTRACT / P.O. NO. ABOVE): C21179340 1B. TASK O RDER NO.: FY24-4.28 2.CONSULTANT NAME: Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP 3.PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: August 15, 2024 COMPLETION: February 28, 2025 4.TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $76,540 $79,040 Increased by $2,500.00 BALANCE REMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT TBD 5.BUDGET CODE_______________ COST CENTER________________ COST ELEMENT______________ WBS/CIP__________ PHASE__________ 6.CITY DEPARTMENT PROJECT MANAGER’S NAME & Lydia Kou, Chair of the City Council’s Policy and Services Committee 7.DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES (Attachment A) MUST INCLUDE: SERVICES AND DELIVERABLES TO BE PROVIDED SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE MAXIMUM COMPENSATION AMOUNT AND RATE SCHEDULE (as applicable) 8.ATTACHMENT REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, if a Task Order Scope any of Service “not to exceed” (with amount) B (if any): N/A 9. I hereby authorize the performance of the work described in this Task Order. APPROVED: CITY OF PALO ALTO BY:____________________________________ Name __________________________________ Title______________________ Date __________________________ I hereby acknowledge receipt and acceptance of this Task Order and warrant that I have authority to sign on behalf of Consultant. APPROVED: COMPANY NAME: Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP BY:____________________________________ Name __________________________________ Title___________________________________ Date _ _________________________ Docusign Envelope ID: E008AC75-7AE6-49DD-B29E-91EE8C83AC25 Kate Murdock Manager/ City Auditor 12/23/2024 Council Member 12/25/2024 Council Member Lydia Kou Item 9 Attachment B - Budget Extension and Amendment for FY24 and FY25 Task Orders        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 32  Packet Pg. 140 of 690  Attachment A DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES Introduction Attachment A, the Description of Scope of Services, contains the following four (4) elements: Services and Deliverables To Be Provided Schedule of Performance Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule (As Applicable) Reimbursable Expenses, if any (With “Not To Exceed” Amount) Services & Deliverables Baker Tilly’s approach to conducting an assessment of the Dispatch Center Program involves three (3) primary steps: Step 1: Assessment Planning Step 2: Control Review and Testing Step 3: Reporting Step 1 – Assessment Planning This step consists of the tasks performed to adequately plan the work necessary to address the overall assessment objective and to solidify mutual understanding of the project scope, objectives, process, and timing between stakeholders and auditors. Tasks include: Gather information to understand the environment under assessment o Understand the organizational structure and objectives o Review the City code, regulations, and other standards and expectations o Review prior audit and/or assessment results, as applicable o Review additional documentation and conduct interviews as necessary Write an assessment program o Refine objectives and scope o Identify the assessment procedures to be performed and the evidence to be obtained and examined Announce initiation of the assessment and conduct kick-off meeting with key stakeholders o Discuss objectives, scope, assessment process, timing, resources, and expectations o Discuss documentation and interview requests for the assessment Step 2 – Control Review and Testing This step involves executing the procedures in the assessment program to gather information, interview individuals, and analyze the data and information to obtain sufficient evidence to address the audit objectives. The preliminary assessment objective is to: (1) Determine whether the City’s Dispatch Center Program is operating efficiently and effectively to meet community needs. Procedures include, but are not limited to: Interview the appropriate individuals to gain an understanding of the organizational structure, processes, and controls related to the Dispatch Center Program. Review policies and procedures as well as the legislative and regulatory requirements to identify the criteria to be used for evaluation of control program effectiveness. Review overall Dispatch Center Program performance, including selecting a sample of Dispatch Center Calls to test for efficiency and effectiveness of response and triage for services. Compare the performance, process, and controls against the best practices. Docusign Envelope ID: E008AC75-7AE6-49DD-B29E-91EE8C83AC25 Item 9 Attachment B - Budget Extension and Amendment for FY24 and FY25 Task Orders        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 33  Packet Pg. 141 of 690  22 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER TASK ORDER FY25-4.34 Follow-Up Audit Activities Consultant shall perform the Services detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 below are incorporated into this Task Order by this reference. The Consultant shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described below. CONTRACT NO. C21179340A OR PURCHASE ORDER REQUISITION NO. (AS APPLICABLE) 1A. MASTER AGREEMENT NO. (MAY BE SAME AS CONTRACT / P.O. NO. ABOVE): C21179340A 1B. TASK ORDER NO.: FY25-4.34 2. CONSULTANT NAME: Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP 3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: January 1, 2025 COMPLETION: June 30, 2025 4. TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $59,390 BALANCE REMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT/CONTRACT TBD 5. BUDGET CODE_______________ COST CENTER________________ COST ELEMENT______________ WBS/CIP__________ PHASE__________ 6. CITY PROJECT MANAGER’S NAME & DEPARTMENT: Lydia Kou, Chair of the City Council’s Policy and Services Committee 7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES (Attachment A) MUST INCLUDE: SERVICES AND DELIVERABLES TO BE PROVIDED SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE MAXIMUM COMPENSATION AMOUNT AND RATE SCHEDULE (as applicable) REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, if any (with “not to exceed” amount) 8. ATTACHMENTS: A: Task Order Scope of Services B (if any): N/A Docusign Envelope ID: F60E09CC-400F-404E-8132-93318BE5ADE6 Kate Murdock Manager/ City Auditor 12/23/2024 Council Member 12/25/2024 Council Member Lydia Kou Item 9 Attachment B - Budget Extension and Amendment for FY24 and FY25 Task Orders        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 34  Packet Pg. 142 of 690  23 Attachment A DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES Introduction Attachment A, the Description of Scope of Services, contains the following four (4) elements: Services and Deliverables To Be Provided Schedule of Performance Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule (As Applicable) Reimbursable Expenses, if any (With “Not To Exceed” Amount) Services & Deliverables Baker Tilly will provide the following services in conducting Follow-Up Audit Activities:: Track and monitor progress on all audit recommendations Obtain sufficient evidence to support conclusions regarding the status of audit recommendations Annually report on the status of recommendations Deliverables: The following deliverables will be prepared as part of this engagement: Annual Status of Audit Recommendations Report Policy & Services Committee Report Presentation Schedule of Performance Anticipated Start Date: January 1, 2025 Anticipated End Date: June 30, 2025 Maximum Compensation Amount and Rate Schedule The not-to-exceed maximum, inclusive of reimbursable expenses (as summarized below) for this Task is $59,390. The not-to-exceed budget is based on an estimate of 500 total project hours, of which a minimum of 40 are estimated to be completed by the City Auditor. Docusign Envelope ID: F60E09CC-400F-404E-8132-93318BE5ADE6 Item 9 Attachment B - Budget Extension and Amendment for FY24 and FY25 Task Orders        Item 9: Staff Report Pg. 35  Packet Pg. 143 of 690  City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: IT Department Meeting Date: September 8, 2025 Report #:2508-5073 TITLE Approve Purchase Order S26195255 with Dasher Technologies, Utilizing a State of California Blanket Purchase Agreement, to Procure Rubrik Data Backup and Security Solution for a 3-Year Term for a Not-To-Exceed Amount of $106,933; CEQA Status - Not a Project. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager or their designee to execute Purchase Order (PO) S26195255 with Dasher Technologies, under California DGS Participating Addendum 7-17-70-40-05 to Utah NASPO ValuePoint Master Agreement Number AR2472, to Procure a Rubrik data backup and security solution for a 3-Year Term, with a total not-to-exceed amount of $106,933 (Attachment A). BACKGROUND In 2008, the City Managers of Los Altos, Mountain View, and Palo Alto agreed to a broad initiative of sharing public safety technology to conserve resources, improve response times, increase resiliency and redundancy of critical systems, and enhance interoperable communications among first responders. This initiative introduced the “virtual consolidation” concept, creating a framework to share public safety technology and communication systems. In 2012, the Tri-Cities Consortium was formally established1, and the cities collaborated to cost- share communications systems, jointly procuring a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and Records Management System (RMS) through Intergraph Corporation, implemented in 2013. In 2020, the Consortium purchased Sun Ridge’s Police Records Management System (RMS)2, 1 City Council, February 21, 2012; Agenda Item #6, SR#1829 https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/from-archive/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager- reports-cmrs/2012/id-1829.pdf 2 City Council, November 30, 2020; Agenda Item #9, SR#11763 https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports- cmrs/year-archive/2020-2/id-11763.pdf?t=62330.29 Item 10 Item 10 Staff Report        Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 144 of 690  which included a CAD license to enable collection of state-mandated Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) data under AB 953, using Sun Ridge’s call-for-service module. ANALYSIS 5. The CAD system is a mission-critical platform for 9-1-1 call-taking, emergency response coordination, and daily public safety operations. To protect this critical system, the City is expanding its existing enterprise data protection standard, Rubrik, to the Police Department. Rubrik technology is already deployed at City Hall to safeguard servers and Microsoft 365 data; extending it to the CAD environment will enable seamless integration with the City’s disaster recovery infrastructure, allowing mutual replication and rapid restoration of CAD data between the two sites. 6. Palo Alto Municipal Code allows an exemption from competitive solicitation when purchasing cooperatively with other public agencies using substantially similar procurement methods. This configuration provides hybrid on-site and cloud-based backup capabilities, enabling the Police Department to recover CAD and other mission-critical data quickly and securely in the event of hardware failure, natural disaster, or cybersecurity incidents such as ransomware. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT 5 City Council, November 12, 2024; Agenda Item #6, SR#2409-3524 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=15608 6 NASPO ValuePoint California Participating Addendum: https:/static.carahsoft.com/concrete/files/5015/6173/2070/California.pdf Item 10 Item 10 Staff Report        Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 145 of 690  terms of the MOU. The total cost for Rubrik is $105,112, with each city responsible for $35,038. Reimbursements will be processed per agency and are fully covered by the existing appropriations already included in the adopted Capital Budget. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Item 10 Item 10 Staff Report        Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 146 of 690  QUOTE NO. QUO-DSH027856 Staff Report No. 2507-5019. ATTN: Angela Armstrong This City of Palo Alto (City) Purchase Order agreement (PO) is entered into by and between City and Dasher Technologies, Inc., an authorized reseller to Rubrik Inc., pursuant to State of California Participating Addendum No. 7-17-70-40-05 with Rubrik, Inc., for the purchase of bundled solution covering hardware, cloud software licensing, support and services associated products and services as detailed in this PO. In entering into this PO, Dasher Technologies, Inc. represents and warrants that it is an authorized reseller for Rubrik Inc. This PO by reference incorporates the following contract documents in full into this PO by reference as though fully set forth herein: 1. State of California Participating Addendum #7-17-70-40-05 2. State of California Participating Addendum #7-17-70-40-05 -Amendment No.1 - Amendment No. 4. 3. City of Palo Alto Purchase Order Terms and Conditions. 0010 Rubrik r6404 Appliance 19,958 USD 1.00 19,957.81 City PM: Sneh.Kukreja@paloalto.gov Vendor Address DASHER TECHNOLOGIES INC A CONVERGE COMPANY PO BOX 103090 PASADENA CA 91189-3090 Tel: 408-722-2875 Bill To: City of Palo Alto Account Payable P.O.Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Ship To: Information Technology Services City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave., 2nd Floor Palo Alto CA 94301 Item Material/Description Quantity UM Net Price Net Amount ______________________________________ Chief Procurement Officer THIS P.O. IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS STATED BELOW AND ON THE LAST PAGE SPECIFICATIONS - Any specification and /or drawings referred to and/or attached hereto are expressly made a part of this Purchase Order. DELIVERY - Please notify the City promptly if delivery cannot be made on or before the date specified. If partial shipment is authorized, so indicate on all documents. Complete packing lists must accompany each shipment. INVOICE - A separate invoice is required for each order. Send to address indicated above. City of Palo Alto Purchasing and Contract Administration P.O.Box 10250 Palo Alto CA 94303 Tel:(650)329-2271 Fax:(650)329-2468 Service Order P.O. NUMBER MUST APPEAR ON ALL INVOICES, PACKAGES, SHIPPING PAPERS AND CORRESPONDENCE PERTAINING TO THIS ORDER PO Number S26195255 Date 08/04/2025 Vendor No.107224 Payment Terms Payable immediately FOB Point Services Only Ship via See Info Below Term 09/08/2025 - 09/07/2028 Buyer/Phone Saira Cardoza / 650-329-2327 Email Saira.Cardoza@CityofPaloAlto.org DELIVERIES ACCEPTED ONLY BETWEEN 7:00 AM & 3:00 PM UNLESS OTHER ARRANGEMENTS ARE INDICATED HEREIN Page 1 of 2 Item 10 Attachment A - Rubrik, PO S26195255        Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 147 of 690  Qty 1 Product RHA-6404S-01 Decrtiption r6404s Appliance, 4-node, 48TB raw HDD, 1.6TB SSD, SFP+ NIC 0020 Rubrik Security Cloud 70,643 USD 1.00 70,642.80 Qty 1080 Product RS-BT-FE-RSCG-PE-PP Description Rubrik Security Cloud - Government, Foundation Edition, per usable BETB, Premium Support, PrePay 0030 Support - 3 Year 8,711 USD 1.00 8,710.56 Qty 36 Product RS-HW-SVC-PE-S2 Description Support for R6000S-2 hardware, 1 Year Support, Premium Support 0040 Rubrik Professional Services 5,000 USD 1.00 5,000.00 Qty 1 Product RA-PS-INST-RMOT Description "Rubrik Professional Services, Remote Installation and Configuration of up to 8 briks per site, must be used within 6 months of purchase, prepay 0050 Shipping 800 USD 1.00 800.00 Freight Charge ------------------------- Sub-Total 105,111.17 Sales Tax 1,821.15 Vendor Address DASHER TECHNOLOGIES INC A CONVERGE COMPANY PO BOX 103090 PASADENA CA 91189-3090 Tel: 408-722-2875 Bill To: City of Palo Alto Account Payable P.O.Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Ship To: Information Technology Services City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave., 2nd Floor Palo Alto CA 94301 Item Material/Description Quantity UM Net Price Net Amount ______________________________________ Chief Procurement Officer Total 106,932.32 THIS P.O. IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS STATED BELOW AND ON THE LAST PAGE SPECIFICATIONS - Any specification and /or drawings referred to and/or attached hereto are expressly made a part of this Purchase Order. DELIVERY - Please notify the City promptly if delivery cannot be made on or before the date specified. If partial shipment is authorized, so indicate on all documents. Complete packing lists must accompany each shipment. INVOICE - A separate invoice is required for each order. Send to address indicated above. City of Palo Alto Purchasing and Contract Administration P.O.Box 10250 Palo Alto CA 94303 Tel:(650)329-2271 Fax:(650)329-2468 Service Order P.O. NUMBER MUST APPEAR ON ALL INVOICES, PACKAGES, SHIPPING PAPERS AND CORRESPONDENCE PERTAINING TO THIS ORDER PO Number S26195255 Date 08/04/2025 Vendor No.107224 Payment Terms Payable immediately FOB Point Services Only Ship via See Info Below Term 09/08/2025 - 09/07/2028 Buyer/Phone Saira Cardoza / 650-329-2327 Email Saira.Cardoza@CityofPaloAlto.org DELIVERIES ACCEPTED ONLY BETWEEN 7:00 AM & 3:00 PM UNLESS OTHER ARRANGEMENTS ARE INDICATED HEREIN Page 2 of 2 Item 10 Attachment A - Rubrik, PO S26195255        Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 148 of 690  CITY OF PALO ALTO SVS Rev. 04/14/2021 PURCHASE ORDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS Page 1 of 3 AGREEMENT. THIS AGREEMENT CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWING AGREEMENT DOCUMENTS: (i) THE CITY'S P.O., (ii) THESE P.O. TERMS AND CONDITIONS, AND (iii) ANY EXHIBITS REFERENCED IN AND ATTACHED TO THE CITY'S P.O. IN THE EVENT OF AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN OR AMONG THE PROVISIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT, THE AGREEMENT DOCUMENTS SHALL HAVE THE ORDER OF PRECEDENCE AS SET FORTH IN THE PRECEDING SENTENCE. GOVERNING LAW. THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WITHOUT REGARD TO CONFLICT OF LAW PROVISIONS. VENUE FOR ANY DISPUTE SHALL BE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. THE PARTIES SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. THE PARTIES UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT IN PERFORMING THIS AGREEMENT, CONTRACTOR AND ANY PERSON EMPLOYED OR CONTRACTED WITH BY CONTRACTOR TO FURNISH LABOR AND/OR MATERIALS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, SHALL ACT AS AND BE AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND NOT AN AGENT OR EMPLOYEE OF CITY. IN ACCEPTING THISAGREEMENT, CONTRACTOR AFFIRMS THAT NO ONE WHO HAS OR WILL HAVE ANY FINANCIAL INTEREST UNDER THIS AGREEMENT IS AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF CITY. INSURANCE. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO PROVIDE THE INSURANCE SPECIFIED IN THE "INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS" FORM ISSUED HEREWITH. IN THE EVENT CONTRACTOR IS UNABLE TO SECURE A POLICY ENDORSEMENT NAMING THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER ANY COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY OR COMPREHENSIVE AUTOMOBILE POLICY OR POLICIES, CONTRACTOR SHALL AT A MINIMUM, AND ONLY WITH THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CITY'S RISK MANAGER OR DESIGNEE, CAUSE EACH SUCH INSURANCE POLICY OBTAINED BY IT TO CONTAIN AN ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING THAT THE INSURER WAIVES ALL RIGHT OF RECOVERY BY WAY OF SUBROGATION AGAINST CITY, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES IN CONNECTION WITH ANY DAMAGE, CLAIM, LIABILITY PERSONAL INJURY, OR WRONGFUL DEATH COVERED BY ANY SUCH POLICY. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THIRTY (30) DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO CITY BEFORE ANY CANCELLATION OR CHANGE IN THE REQUIRED COVERAGE, SCOPE OR AMOUNT OF ANY SUCH POLICY/POLICIES/ENDORSEMENT(S). CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE CERTIFICATES OF SUCH POLICIES OR OTHER EVIDENCE OF COVERAGE SATISFACTORY TO CITY'S RISK MANAGER, TO CITY AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS AGREEMENT, AND ON RENEWAL OF THE POLICY, OR POLICIES, NOT LATER THAN TWENTY (20) DAYS BEFORE EXPIRATION OF THE TERMS OF ANY SUCH POLICY. TERMINATION. THIS AGREEMENT MAY BE TERMINATED BY CITY UPON TEN (10) DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR. MONIES THEN OWING BASED UPON WORK SATISFACTORILY ACCOMPLISHED SHALL BE PAID TO CONTRACTOR. CHANGES. THIS AGREEMENT SHALL NOT BE ASSIGNED OR TRANSFERRED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE CITY. NO CHANGES OR VARIATIONS TO THIS AGREEMENT OF ANY KIND ARE AUTHORIZED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE CITY'S PURCHASING MANAGER. AUDITS. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO PERMIT CITY TO AUDIT, AT ANY REASONABLE TIME DURING THE TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT AND FOR THREE (3) YEARS THEREAFTER, CONTRACTOR'S RECORDS PERTAINING TO MATTERS COVERED BY THIS AGREEMENT. CONTRACTOR FURTHER AGREES TO MAINTAIN SUCH RECORDS FOR AT LEAST THREE (3) YEARS AFTER THE TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT. NO IMPLIED WAIVER. NO PAYMENT, PARTIAL PAYMENT, ACCEPTANCE, OR PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE BY CITY SHALL OPERATE AS A WAIVER ON THE PART OF CITY OF ANY OF ITS RIGHTS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT. CITY'S PROPERTY. TITLE TO CITY'S PROPERTY FURNISHED TO CONTRACTOR SHALL REMAIN IN THE CITY. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT ALTER OR USE PROPERTY FOR ANY PURPOSE, OTHER THAN THAT SPECIFIED BY CITY, OR FOR ANY OTHER PARTY WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF CITY. CONTRACTOR SHALL STORE PROTECT, PRESERVE, REPAIR AND MAINTAIN SUCH PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOUND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE, AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. NON-DISCRIMINATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISCRIMINATE IN EMPLOYMENT OF ANY PERSON BASED ON RACE, SKIN COLOR, GENDER, GENDER IDENTITY, AGE, RELIGION, DISABILITY, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, PREGNANCY, GENETIC INFORMATION OR CONDITION, HOUSING STATUS, MARITAL OR FAMILIAL STATUS, WEIGHT OR HEIGHT OF SUCH PERSON. WARRANTY. CONTRACTOR EXPRESSLY WARRANTS THAT ALL MATERIALS AND SERVICES COVERED BY THIS AGREEMENT SHALL CONFORM TO THE SPECIFICATIONS, REQUIREMENTS, INSTRUCTIONS, OR OTHER DESCRIPTIONS UPON WHICH THIS AGREEMENT IS BASED, SHALL BE FIT AND SUFFICIENT FOR THE PURPOSE INTENDED, OF GOOD MATERIAL AND WORKMANSHIP AND FREE FROM DEFECT AND THAT MATERIALS AND SERVICE OF CONTRACTOR'S DESIGN WILL BE FREE FROM DEFECT IN DESIGN, INSPECTION, TEST, ACCEPTANCE, PAYMENT OR USE OF THE GOODS FURNISHED HEREUNDER SHALL NOT AFFECT THE CONTRACTOR#S OBLIGATION UNDER THIS WARRANTY, AND SUCH WARRANTIES SHALL SURVIVE INSPECTION, TEST ACCEPTANCE AND USE. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO REPLACE, RESTORE, OR CORRECT DEFECTS OF ANY MATERIALS OR SERVICES NOT CONFORMING TO THE FOREGOING WARRANTY PROMPTLY, WITHOUT EXPENSE TO CITY, WHEN NOTIFIED OF SUCH NONCONFORMITY BY CITY. IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE BY CONTRACTOR TO CORRECT DEFECTS IN OR REPLACE NONCONFORMING GOOD OR SERVICES PROMPTLY. CITY, AFTER REASONABLE NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR, MAY MAKE SUCH CORRECTIONS OR REPLACE SUCH MATERIALS OR SERVICES AND CHARGE CONTRACTOR FOR THE COST INCURRED BY THE CITY THEREBY. WORKERS' COMPENSATION. CONTRACTOR, BY ACCEPTING THIS AGREEMENT, CERTIFIES THAT IT IS AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE WHICH REQUIRE EVERY EMPLOYER TO BE INSURED AGAINST LIABILITY FOR WORKERS# COMPENSATION OR TO UNDERTAKE SELF-INSURANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT CODE, AND CERTIFIES THAT IT WILL COMPLY WITH SUCH PROVISIONS BEFORE COMMENCING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK OF THIS AGREEMENT. PRICE TERMS. (a) EXTRA CHARGES, INVOICES AND PAYMENT. NO EXTRA CHARGES OF ANY KIND WILL BE ALLOWED UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AGREED TO IN WRITING BY CITY.; ALL STATE AND FEDERAL EXCISE, SALES, AND USE TAXES SHALL BE STATED SEPARATELY ON THE INVOICES. (b) TRANSPORTATION CHARGES. ANY TRANSPORTATION CHARGES WITH RESPECT TO WHICH CONTRACTOR IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE REIMBURSEMENT SHALL BE ADDED TO CONTRACTOR'S' INVOICE AS A SEPARATE ITEM, WITH THE RECEIPTED FREIGHT BILL ATTACHED THERETO. (c) CONTRACTOR WARRANTS THAT THE PRICES FOR MATERIALS OR SERVICES SOLD TO CITY UNDER THIS AGREEMENT ARE NOT LESS FAVORABLE THAN THOSE CURRENTLY EXTENDED TO ANY OTHER CUSTOMERS OF THE SAME OR LIKE ARTICLES OR SERVICES IN EQUAL OR LESS QUANTITIES. IN EVENT CONTRACTOR REDUCES ITS PRICE FOR SUCH MATERIALS OR SERVICES DURING THE TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT, CONTRACTOR AGREES TO REDUCE THE PRICES OR RATES HEREOF CORRESPONDINGLY. SCHEDULES OR DELIVERY. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE OF THIS AGREEMENT. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO COMPLY WITH THE SPECIFIC SCHEDULE PROVIDED BY THE CITY OR AGREED UPON HEREIN WITHOUT DELAY AND WITHOUT ANTICIPATING CITY'S REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR ALSO AGREES NOT TO MAKE MATERIAL COMMITMENTS OR SCHEDULING ARRANGEMENTS IN EXCESS OF THE REQUIRED AMOUNT OR IN ADVANCE OF THE TIME NECESSARY TO MEET THE SCHEDULE(S) OF THIS AGREEMENT, IF ANY. PALO ALTO MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE. CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 4.62 (CITYWIDE MINIMUM WAGE), AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. IN PARTICULAR, FOR ANY EMPLOYEE OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO THE STATE MINIMUM WAGE, WHO PERFORMS Item 10 Attachment A - Rubrik, PO S26195255        Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 149 of 690  CITY OF PALO ALTO SVS Rev. 04/14/2021 PURCHASE ORDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS Page 2 of 3 AT LEAST TWO (2) HOURS OF WORK IN A CALENDAR WEEK WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY, CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY SUCH EMPLOYEES NO LESS THAN THE MINIMUM WAGE SET FORTH IN PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.62.030 FOR EACH HOUR WORKED WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY. IN ADDITION, CONTRACTOR SHALL POST NOTICES REGARDING THE PALO ALTO MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.62.060. TRANSPORTATION, PACKAGING & LABELING. ALL MATERIALS OR SERVICES ARE TO BE PROVIDED (a) F.O.B. PALO ALTO UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED; (b) WITH A PACKING LIST ENCLOSED IN CARTONS, WHICH INDICATE THE AGREEMENT NUMBER, EXACT QUANTITY AND DESCRIPTIONS, CONCERNING ANY MATERIAL SHIPMENTS; (c) AND COMPLY WITH CURRENT PACKAGING AND LABELING REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED BY D.O.T. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING REQUIREMENTS. Contractor agrees to comply with the City#s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Requirements. (1) Hazardous Waste: Contractor shall take-back all spent or otherwise discarded hazardous products sold to the City by the Contractor if the spent or discarded products are classified as hazardous or universal wastes by State or Federal regulations. Contractor shall provide convenient collection and recycling services (or disposal services if recycling technology is unavailable) for all universal wastes, which originate from the Vendor. Hazardous waste manifests or bills of lading must be provided to City staff upon request. Recycling and reuse of hazardous wastes must occur within the United States. Universal waste lists and information are available www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/UniversalWaste/. A hazardous waste list is available at http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LEA/Training/wasteclass/yep.htm. Additional information can be obtained by contacting the City of Palo Alto Hazardous Waste Department at (650) 496-6980. (2) Zero Waste and Pollution Prevention: Per Palo Alto City Council policy, the City is targeting to achieve Zero Waste by 2021. The City must also meet Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements requiring no visible impact from litter via stormdrains by 2022. To that end the vendor, manufacturer and or contractor must individually or collaboratively comply with the waste reduction, reuse and recycling requirements of the City#s Zero Waste and Pollution Prevention Programs. Seller acknowledges and agrees that if Seller fails to fully and satisfactorily comply with these requirements, the City will suffer, as a result of Seller#s failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and impracticable to ascertain. Therefore, the Seller agrees that in addition to all other damages to which the City may be entitled, in the event Seller fails to comply with the below requirements Seller shall pay City as liquidated damages the amounts specified below. The liquidated damage amount is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City will suffer as a result of such non-compliance. Sellers shall adhere to the standard that all printed materials provided to the City that are generated from a personal computer and printer including, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials shall be double-sided, printed on a minimum of 30% post-consumer content paper or greater unless otherwise approved by the City#s Environmental Services Division (650) 329-2117. Materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% post-consumer material or greater and printed with vegetable-based inks. Liquidated damages of $30 per document will be assessed by City for failure to adhere to this requirement; All paper packaging must be Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certified. All primary, secondary and shipping (tertiary) packaging be minimized to the maximum extent feasible while protecting the product being shipped. All primary, secondary and shipping packaging shall be recyclable in the City#s recycling program. A complete list of items accepted for recycling are found at www.zerowastepaloalto.org or by calling (650) 496-5910. If any portion is received that does not meet this requirement, liquidated damages of $235 or a minimum of $50 if the combined product and shipping cost is $235 or less will be assessed by City for failure to adhere to this requirement. Expanded foam plastics (e.g., foam or cushion blocks, trays, packing #peanuts#), such as but not limited to polystyrene (aka StyrofoamTM), polypropylene, or polyurethane shall not be used as primary, secondary or tertiary/shipping packaging with the following exceptions: o Primary packaging made from these materials may be used if the vendor, manufacturer, contractor individually or collaboratively does one of the following: o takes the material back at the City's convenience and at no cost to the City, or o pays the City of Palo Alto's disposal costs via payment of liquidated damages of $235, or a minimum of $50 if the combined product and shipping cost is $235 or less. o Bioplastics that meet ASTM D6400 standards for compostability may be accepted with approval from the City's Environmental Services Division subject to local municipal compost facility requirements. o If approved by the City's Environmental Services Division, a packaging requirement may be waived if no other viable packaging alternative exists. (3) Energy and Water Efficiency: Contractor shall provide products with an ENERGY STAR, Water Sense or State of California standard rating, whichever is more efficient, when ratings exist for those products. A life cycle cost analysis shall be provided to the City upon request and shall at minimum include: first cost, operating costs, maintenance costs, and disposal costs. Contacts for additional information about City of Palo Alto Hazardous Waste, Zero Waste and Utilities programs: Hazardous Waste Program (Public Works) (650) 496-6980 Zero Waste Program (Public Works) (650) 496-5910 Watershed Protection (650) 329-2117 Energy Efficiency (650) 496-2244 (4) Liquidated Damages: Contractor agrees that failure to comply with the City's Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Requirements will result in Liquidated Damages, according to the table marked Liquidated Damages on page 3 of these P.O. Terms and Conditions. Item 10 Attachment A - Rubrik, PO S26195255        Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 150 of 690  Event of Non-Performance Recycled Paper Use Failure to use 50% recycled content paper Recyclable Packaging Materials Failure of Contractor to Use secondary and shipping packaging that is recyclable in the City's recycling program. Expanded Foam Plastics Unapproved use of expanded foam plastics for secondary or shipping packaging Pallet Use Failure of Contractor to take-back and reuse pallets, recycling only broken pallets, at no additional cost to the City. Acceptable Performance Level (Allowed events per Fiscal Year) 1 1 0 1 Liquidated Damage Amount $30 per each document $235 or a minimum of $50 if the combined product and shipping cost is $250 or less will be incurred if this is not adhered to. $235 or a minimum of $50 if the combined product and shipping cost is $235 or less $262 or a minimum of $50 if the combined product and shipping cost is $2 or less CITY OF PALO ALTO SVS Rev. 04/14/2021 PURCHASE ORDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS NONCOMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING REQUIREMENTS, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES: The following table lists the events that constitute breaches of the Agreement's standard of performance warranting the imposition of liquidated damages; the acceptable performance level, and the amount of liquidated damages for failure to meet the contractually required standards of performance. Page 3 of 3 Item 10 Attachment A - Rubrik, PO S26195255        Item 10: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 151 of 690  City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: Community Services Meeting Date: September 8, 2025 Report #:2507-5013 TITLE Approval of Professional Service Contract Number C26195633 with H.T. Harvey & Associates in an Amount Not to Exceed $195,004 for Services to Manage a Wetland Remedial Mitigation Plan for a Period of 2 Years. CEQA Status – Categorically Exempt. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager or their designee to execute Professional Service Contract Number C26195633 with H.T. Harvey for Services to Manage a Wetland Remedial Management Plan for a Period of 2 Years, for an Amount Not to Exceed $195,004, including $177,276 for basic services and $17,728 for additional services. BACKGROUND The Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course was reconstructed and re-opened as the Baylands Golf Links in 2018. The course redesign impacted existing wetlands on course and required a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (MMP) of the onsite wetlands as a condition of regulatory permitting for the construction project. The mitigation required 0.2 acres of wetlands to be enhanced, and 4.0 acres be expanded (constructed wetland creation) which were completed and exceeded as part of the course’s reconstruction. The course re-design constructed a greater amount of wetland acreage than required resulting in a total of 8.48 acres of wetlands. Full compliance with regulatory requirements includes a five-year monitoring and reporting period of wetland habitat conditions, which was not completed. Staff have been consulting with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board to achieve full compliance with permit requirements. Progress has been made with the submittal of a current conditions report by H.T. Harvey & Associates (2024), and wetland delineation by H.T. Harvey & Associates (2025) with a goal of beginning monitoring in 2026. The wetland delineation process identified areas requiring remedial ecological restoration which need to be implemented starting late Summer and Fall 2025 in order to start the monitoring period in 2026. A Wetland Remedial Mitigation Plan (WRMP) is proposed to be implemented as part of Item 11 Item 11 Staff Report        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 152 of 690  the City’s efforts towards permit compliance. The WRMP is intended to augment and improve existing wetland habitat prior to annual monitoring to meet the success criteria outlined in the MMP as required in regulatory permits. ANALYSIS FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT Item 11 Item 11 Staff Report        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 153 of 690  Funding for this contract is available in the Fiscal Year 2026 Adopted Capital Budget in the Golf Reconfiguration Project (PG-13003) once combined with reappropriation of funds from Fiscal Year 2025. Reappropriations are anticipated to be brought forward for City Council consideration in October 2025. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Item 11 Item 11 Staff Report        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 154 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 1 of 30 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C26195633 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND TRIPLE HS, INC. dba H.T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES This Agreement for Professional Services (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of the 8th day of September, 2025 (the “Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and TRIPLE HS, INC. dba H.T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES , a California corporation, located at 720 University Ave. Suite 200, Los Gatos, CA 95032 (“CONSULTANT”). The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement and are fully incorporated herein by this reference: RECITALS A. CITY intends to provide wetland remedial mitigation (the “Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide ecological services to the City of Palo Alto (City) for the Palo Alto Golf Course Reconfiguration Project’s (project) in connection with the Project (the “Services”, as detailed more fully in Exhibit A). B. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if any, possess the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY, in reliance on these representations, desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit A, entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows: SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in Exhibit A in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. Optional On-Call Provision (This provision only applies if checked and only applies to on-call agreements.) CITY may elect to, but is not required to, authorize on-call Services up to the maximum compensation amount set forth in Section 4 (Not to Exceed Compensation). CONSULTANT shall provide on-call Services only by advanced, written authorization from CITY as detailed in this Section. On-call Services, if any, shall be authorized by CITY, as needed, with a Task Order assigned and approved by CITY’s Project Manager, as identified in Section 13 (Project Management). Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit A-1 entitled “PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER”. Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 155 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 2 of 30 Each Task Order shall contain a specific scope of services, schedule of performance and maximum compensation amount, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Compensation for on-call Services shall be specified by CITY in the Task Order, based on whichever is lowest: the compensation structure set forth in Exhibit C, the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit C-1, or a negotiated lump sum. To accept a Task Order, CONSULTANT shall sign the Task Order and return it to CITY’s Project Manager within the time specified by the Project Manager, and upon authorization by CITY (defined as counter-signature by the CITY Project Manager), the fully executed Task Order shall become part of this Agreement. The cumulative total compensation due to CONSULTANT for all Task Orders issued under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of compensation set forth in Section 4. CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for on-call Services performed under an authorized Task Order and only up to the maximum compensation amount set forth in Section 4. Performance of and payment for any on-call Services are subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the effective date of this agreement through June 30, 2027, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 (Termination) of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit B, entitled “SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE”. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services shall be based on the compensation structure detailed in Exhibit C, entitled “COMPENSATION,” including any reimbursable expenses specified therein, and the maximum total compensation shall not exceed One Hundred Ninety Five Thousand Four Dollars ($195,004). The hourly schedule of rates, if applicable, is set out in Exhibit C-1, entitled “SCHEDULE OF RATES.” Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum compensation set forth in this Section 4 shall be at no cost to the CITY. Optional Additional Services Provision (This provision applies only if checked and a not-to-exceed compensation amount for Additional Services is allocated below under this Section 4.) In addition to the not-to-exceed compensation specified above, CITY has set aside the not- to-exceed compensation amount of Dollars ($ ) for the performance of Additional Services (as defined below). The total compensation for performance of the Services, Additional Services and any reimbursable expenses specified in Exhibit C, shall not exceed Dollars ($ ), as detailed in Exhibit C. Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 156 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 3 of 30 “Additional Services” means any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described at Exhibit A. CITY may elect to, but is not required to, authorize Additional Services up to the maximum amount of compensation set forth for Additional Services in this Section 4. CONSULTANT shall provide Additional Services only by advanced, written authorization from CITY as detailed in this Section. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized by CITY with a Task Order assigned and authorized by CITY’s Project Manager, as identified in Section 13 (Project Management). Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit A-1, entitled “PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER”. Each Task Order shall contain a specific scope of services, schedule of performance and maximum compensation amount, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Compensation for Additional Services shall be specified by CITY in the Task Order, based on whichever is lowest: the compensation structure set forth in Exhibit C, the hourly rates set forth in Exhibit C-1, or a negotiated lump sum. To accept a Task Order, CONSULTANT shall sign the Task Order and return it to CITY’s Project Manager within the time specified by the Project Manager, and upon authorization by CITY (defined as counter-signature by the CITY Project Manager), the fully executed Task Order shall become part of this Agreement. The cumulative total compensation to CONSULTANT for all Task Orders authorized under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of compensation set forth for Additional Services in this Section 4. CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for Additional Services performed under an authorized Task Order and only up to the maximum amount of compensation set forth for Additional Services in this Section 4. Performance of and payment for any Additional Services are subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the Services performed and the applicable charges (including, if applicable, an identification of personnel who performed the Services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon Exhibit C or, as applicable, CONSULTANT’s schedule of rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s invoices shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to CITY’s Project Manager at the address specified in Section 13 (Project Management) below. CITY will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt of an acceptable invoice. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subcontractors, if any, possess the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subcontractors, if any, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All Services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this Agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 157 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 4 of 30 SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement, as amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT is solely responsible for costs, including, but not limited to, increases in the cost of Services, arising from or caused by CONSULTANT’s errors and omissions, including, but not limited to, the costs of corrections such errors and omissions, any change order markup costs, or costs arising from delay caused by the errors and omissions or unreasonable delay in correcting the errors and omissions. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds the CITY’s stated construction budget by ten percent (10%) or more, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to CITY for aligning the Project design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CONSULTANT acknowledges and agrees that CONSULTANT and any agent or employee of CONSULTANT will act as and shall be deemed at all times to be an independent contractor and shall be wholly responsible for the manner in which CONSULTANT performs the Services requested by CITY under this Agreement. CONSULTANT and any agent or employee of CONSULTANT will not have employee status with CITY, nor be entitled to participate in any plans, arrangements, or distributions by CITY pertaining to or in connection with any retirement, health or other benefits that CITY may offer its employees. CONSULTANT will be responsible for all obligations and payments, whether imposed by federal, state or local law, including, but not limited to, FICA, income tax withholdings, workers’ compensation, unemployment compensation, insurance, and other similar responsibilities related to CONSULTANT’s performance of the Services, or any agent or employee of CONSULTANT providing same. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as creating an employment or agency relationship between CITY and CONSULTANT or any agent or employee of CONSULTANT. Any terms in this Agreement referring to direction from CITY shall be construed as providing for direction as to policy and the result of CONSULTANT’s provision of the Services only, and not as to the means by which such a result is obtained. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written approval of the City Manager. Any purported assignment made without the prior written approval of the City Manager will be void and without effect. Subject to the foregoing, the covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assignees of the parties. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 158 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 5 of 30 Option A: No Subcontractor: CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the Services to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the City Manager or designee. In the event CONSULTANT does subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible for all acts and omissions of subcontractors. Option B: Subcontracts Authorized: Notwithstanding Section 11 (Assignment) above, CITY agrees that subcontractors may be used to complete the Services. The subcontractors authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: Confluence Restoration, Inc. 721 Seaside Street Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (831)621-8084 CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subcontractors and for any compensation due to subcontractors. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation of subcontractors. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of subcontractors. CONSULTANT shall change or add subcontractors only with the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Gavin Archibald, (408) 458-3252, as the CONSULTANT’s Project Manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day performance of the Services. If circumstances cause the substitution of the CONSULTANT’s Project Manager or any other of CONSULTANT’s key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute Project Manager and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s Project Manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove CONSULTANT personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Services or a threat to the safety of persons or property. CITY’s Project Manager is Do Lam, Community Services Department, Open Space, Parks and Golf Division, 3201 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA, 94303, Email: lam.do@paloalto.gov Telephone: (650) 496-6997. CITY’s Project Manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. CITY may designate an alternate Project Manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. All work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, studies, sketches, photographs, plans, reports, specifications, computations, models, recordings, data, documents, and other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement, in any form or media, shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work product pursuant to this Agreement are vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT hereby waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its subcontractors, if any, shall make any of such work product available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 159 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 6 of 30 suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the Scope of Services. CONSULTANT may retain copies of all work product for Consultant’s internal record keeping pursuant to the terms in this Section. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT agrees to permit CITY and its authorized representatives to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for four (4) years from the date of final payment, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement, including without limitation records demonstrating compliance with the requirements of Section 10 (Independent Contractor). CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain accurate books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for at least four (4) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement or the completion of any audit hereunder, whichever is later. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorney’s fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from a Claim arising from the active negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party that is not contributed to by any act of, or by any omission to perform a duty imposed by law or agreement by, CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s Services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. No waiver of a condition or nonperformance of an obligation under this Agreement is effective unless it is in writing in accordance with Section 29.4 of this Agreement. No delay or failure to require performance of any provision of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of that provision as to that or any other instance. Any waiver granted shall apply solely to the specific instance expressly stated. No single or partial exercise of any right or remedy will preclude any other or further exercise of any right or remedy. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit D, entitled “INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS”. CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 160 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 7 of 30 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days’ prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Chief Procurement Officer during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT’s liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT fails to perform any of its material obligations under this Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided under this Agreement or at law, the City Manager may terminate this Agreement sooner upon written notice of termination. Upon receipt of any notice of suspension or termination, CONSULTANT will discontinue its performance of the Services on the effective date in the notice of suspension or termination. 19.2. In event of suspension or termination, CONSULTANT will deliver to the City Manager on or before the effective date in the notice of suspension or termination, any and all work product, as detailed in Section 14 (Ownership of Materials), whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in the performance of this Agreement. Such work product is the property of CITY, as detailed in Section 14 (Ownership of Materials). 19.3. In event of suspension or termination, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered and work products delivered to CITY in accordance with the Scope of Services up to the effective date in the notice of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 161 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 8 of 30 obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s Services provided in material conformity with this Agreement as such determination is made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 17, 19.2, 19.3, 19.4, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30. 19.4. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement, unless made in accordance with Section 17 (Waivers). SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the Project Manager at the address of CONSULTANT recited on the first page of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide written notice to CITY of any change of address. SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subcontractors or other persons or parties having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California, as amended from time to time. CONSULTANT agrees to notify CITY if any conflict arises. 21.3. If the CONSULTANT meets the definition of a “Consultant” as defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT will file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended from time to time. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION; COMPLIANCE WITH ADA. Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 11  Packet Pg. 162 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 9 of 30 22.1. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.30.510, as amended from time to time, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person due to that person’s race, skin color, gender, gender identity, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, pregnancy, genetic information or condition, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. 22.2. CONSULTANT understands and agrees that pursuant to the Americans Disabilities Act (“ADA”), programs, services and other activities provided by a public entity to the public, whether directly or through a contractor or subcontractor, are required to be accessible to the disabled public. CONSULTANT will provide the Services specified in this Agreement in a manner that complies with the ADA and any other applicable federal, state and local disability rights laws and regulations, as amended from time to time. CONSULTANT will not discriminate against persons with disabilities in the provision of services, benefits or activities provided under this Agreement. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY’s Purchasing Department, hereby incorporated by reference and as amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include, first, minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste; and, third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONSULTANT shall comply with the following Zero Waste requirements: (a) All printed materials provided by CONSULTANT to CITY generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by CITY’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable-based inks. (b) Goods purchased by CONSULTANT on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in accordance with CITY’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Department’s office. (c) Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, at no additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONSULTANT shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. COMPLIANCE WITH PALO ALTO MINIMUM WAGE ORDINANCE. CONSULTANT shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as amended from time to time. In particular, for any employee otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who performs at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the City, CONSULTANT shall pay such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 4.62.030 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In addition, Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 12  Packet Pg. 163 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 10 of 30 CONSULTANT shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 4.62.060. SECTION 25. NON-APPROPRIATION. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as amended from time to time. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This Section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 26. PREVAILING WAGES AND DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS. 26.1. This Project is subject to prevailing wages and related requirements as a “public works” under California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and related regulations. CONSULTANT is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in California Labor Code Section 1773.1 and Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations Section 16000 et seq., as amended from time to time. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773, the CITY has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the State of California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Copies of these rates may be obtained at the CITY’s Purchasing Department office. The general prevailing wage rates are also available at the DIR, Division of Labor Statistics and Research, web site (see e.g. http://www.dir.ca.gov/DLSR/PWD/index.htm) as amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall post a copy of the general prevailing wage rates at all Project job sites and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 of the California Labor Code (Labor Code Section 1720 et seq.), including but not limited to Sections 1725.5, 1771, 1771.1, 1771.4, 1773.2, 1774, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, 1813 and 1815, and all applicable implementing regulations, including but not limited to Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations Section 16000 et seq. (8 CCR Section 16000 et seq.), as amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with the requirements of Exhibit E, entitled “DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS”, for any contract for public works construction, alteration, demolition, repair or maintenance, including but not limited to the obligations to register with, and furnish certified payroll records directly to, DIR. SECTION 27. CLAIMS PROCEDURE FOR “9204 PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS”. For purposes of this Section 27, a “9204 Public Works Project” means the erection, construction, alteration, repair, or improvement of any public structure, building, road, or other public improvement of any kind. (Cal. Pub. Cont. Code § 9204.) Per California Public Contract Code Section 9204, for Public Works Projects, certain claims procedures shall apply, as set forth in Exhibit F, entitled “Claims for Public Contract Code Section 9204 Public Works Projects”. This Project is a 9204 Public Works Project and is required to comply with the claims procedures set forth in Exhibit F, entitled “Claims for Public Contract Code Section 9204 Public Works Projects”. Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 13  Packet Pg. 164 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 11 of 30 SECTION 28. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. 28.1. In the performance of this Agreement, CONSULTANT may have access to CITY’s Confidential Information (defined below). CONSULTANT will hold Confidential Information in strict confidence, not disclose it to any third party, and will use it only for the performance of its obligations to CITY under this Agreement and for no other purpose. CONSULTANT will maintain reasonable and appropriate administrative, technical and physical safeguards to ensure the security, confidentiality and integrity of the Confidential Information. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CONSULTANT may disclose Confidential Information to its employees, agents and subcontractors, if any, to the extent they have a need to know in order to perform CONSULTANT’s obligations to CITY under this Agreement and for no other purpose, provided that the CONSULTANT informs them of, and requires them to follow, the confidentiality and security obligations of this Agreement. 28.2. “Confidential Information” means all data, information (including without limitation “Personal Information” about a California resident as defined in Civil Code Section 1798 et seq., as amended from time to time) and materials, in any form or media, tangible or intangible, provided or otherwise made available to CONSULTANT by CITY, directly or indirectly, pursuant to this Agreement. Confidential Information excludes information that CONSULTANT can show by appropriate documentation: (i) was publicly known at the time it was provided or has subsequently become publicly known other than by a breach of this Agreement; (ii) was rightfully in CONSULTANT’s possession free of any obligation of confidence prior to receipt of Confidential Information; (iii) is rightfully obtained by CONSULTANT from a third party without breach of any confidentiality obligation; (iv) is independently developed by employees of CONSULTANT without any use of or access to the Confidential Information; or (v) CONSULTANT has written consent to disclose signed by an authorized representative of CITY. 28.3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CONSULTANT may disclose Confidential Information to the extent required by order of a court of competent jurisdiction or governmental body, provided that CONSULTANT will notify CITY in writing of such order immediately upon receipt and prior to any such disclosure (unless CONSULTANT is prohibited by law from doing so), to give CITY an opportunity to oppose or otherwise respond to such order. 28.4. CONSULTANT will notify City promptly upon learning of any breach in the security of its systems or unauthorized disclosure of, or access to, Confidential Information in its possession or control, and if such Confidential Information consists of Personal Information, CONSULTANT will provide information to CITY sufficient to meet the notice requirements of Civil Code Section 1798 et seq., as applicable, as amended from time to time. 28.5. Prior to or upon termination or expiration of this Agreement, CONSULTANT will honor any request from the CITY to return or securely destroy all copies of Confidential Information. All Confidential Information is and will remain the property of the CITY and nothing contained in this Agreement grants or confers any rights to such Confidential Information on CONSULTANT. 28.6. If selected in Section 30 (Exhibits), this Agreement is also subject to the Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 14  Packet Pg. 165 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 12 of 30 terms and conditions of the Information Privacy Policy and Cybersecurity Terms and Conditions. SECTION 29. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 29.1. This Agreement will be governed by California law, without regard to its conflict of law provisions. 29.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 29.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 29.4. This Agreement, including all exhibits, constitutes the entire and integrated agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement, and supersedes all prior agreements, negotiations, representations, statements and undertakings, either oral or written. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the authorized representatives of the parties and approved as required under Palo Alto Municipal Code, as amended from time to time. 29.5. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement will remain in full force and effect. 29.6. In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the exhibits hereto (per Section 30) or CONSULTANT’s proposal (if any), the Agreement shall control. In the event of a conflict between the exhibits hereto and CONSULTANT’s proposal (if any), the exhibits shall control. 29.7. The provisions of all checked boxes in this Agreement shall apply to this Agreement; the provisions of any unchecked boxes shall not apply to this Agreement. 29.8. All section headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience and reference only and are not intended to define or limit the scope of any provision of this Agreement. 29.9. This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which, when executed by the authorized representatives of the parties, shall together constitute a single binding agreement. SECTION 30. EXHIBITS. Each of the following exhibits, if the check box for such exhibit is selected below, is hereby attached and incorporated into this Agreement by reference as though fully set forth herein: EXHIBIT A: SCOPE OF SERVICES Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 15  Packet Pg. 166 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 13 of 30 EXHIBIT B: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT C: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT C-1: SCHEDULE OF RATES EXHIBIT D: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS EXHIBIT E: DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS EXHIBIT F: CLAIMS FOR PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 9204 PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS THIS AGREEMENT IS NOT COMPLETE UNLESS ALL SELECTED EXHIBITS ARE ATTACHED. Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 16  Packet Pg. 167 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 14 of 30 CONTRACT No. C26195633 SIGNATURE PAGE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ City Attorney or designee TRIPLE HS dba H.T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Officer 1 By: ________________________________ Name: ______________________________ Title: _______________________________ Officer 2 By: ________________________________ Name: ______________________________ Title: _______________________________ Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Max Busnardo Principal Restoration Ecologist CEO Karin Hunsicker Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 17  Packet Pg. 168 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 15 of 30 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES CONSULTANT shall provide the Services detailed in this Exhibit A, entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, CONSULTANT’s duties and services described in this Scope of Services shall not include preparing or assisting CITY with any portion of CITY’s preparation of a request for proposals, request for qualifications, or any other solicitation regarding a subsequent or additional contract with CITY. CITY shall at all times retain responsibility for public contracting, including with respect to any subsequent phase of this project. CONSULTANT’s participation in the planning, discussions, or drawing of project plans or specifications shall be limited to conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications. CONSULTANT shall cooperate with CITY to ensure that all bidders for a subsequent contract on any subsequent phase of this project have access to the same information, including all conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications prepared by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Scope of Services. CONSULTANT to provide ecological services to the City of Palo Alto (City) for the Palo Alto Golf Course Reconfiguration Project’s (project) wetland habitat mitigation areas consisting of 8.48 acres. 1. Services are to include refinement, implementation, and management of a Wetland Remedial Mitigation Plan (WRMP). 2. The plan is based on recommendations from an ecological current condition report and a wetland delineation report. 3. The plan is for the purpose of managing the wetland mitigation sites towards achieving the success criteria in the project’s Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) permit and associated wetland Mitigation and Monitoring plan (MMP). 4. The RWQCB permit was issued for a reconfiguration project that the City’s municipal golf course. CONSULTANT to implement the Wetland Remedial Mitigation Plan (WRMP) through project management, oversight and supervision of a subcontracted habitat restoration landscape contractor, and documentation. 1. CONSULTANT will provide restoration work includes invasive plant removal, informal trail removal, seeding, planting, straw mulching, and maintenance of select identified restoration areas. 2. CONSULTANT to subcontract with restoration contractor as well as train and direct work of subcontractor. 3. CONSULTANT to source for and inform City of plants and seeds available for City to purchase. 4. CONSULTANT to provide City with vendors, species, quantity, and pricing for plants and seed for the City to purchase. 5. CONSULTANT to also provide support, assist with coordination of communications, and attend meetings with the RWQCB. Implementation of the WRMP is to start late summer/early fall 2025 and continue throughout 2026. Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 18  Packet Pg. 169 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 16 of 30 1. CONSULTANT will include a qualified restoration contractor (Confluence Restoration Inc (Confluence); see attachment for scope) to construct the recommended actions in the WRMP. 2. CONSULTANT assumes that the City will purchase nursery container plants and seed and provide the recommended fencing and hydrology modifications. 3. CONSULTANT will cover the cost of coordination with the City and RWQCB to implement actions in the WRMP. These tasks are detailed below. CONSULTANT to provide, perform, and/or manage restoration subcontractor to complete the following tasks: Task 1. Project Management, Coordination, and Meetings (2025-2026) A. CONSULTANT will provide project coordination with the City and support communications with RWQCB through meetings and preparation of written communications on an as-needed basis. B. CONSULTANT will support the City’s completion of a deed restriction over the mitigation wetlands; this support includes comparison of the area previously surveyed for this purpose by the City to the 8.48 acre mitigation wetlands identified in the wetland delineated report. Task 2. Wetland Remedial Mitigation Plan A. CONSULTANT will refine the WRMP for submission to RWQCB. The purpose of the WRMP is to: 1) finalize the City’s revised mitigation requirement per RWQCB permit condition 33, 2) articulate actions the City’s will take to progress towards meeting the native wetland cover goals in the project’s MMP, and 3) document the City’s plan to begin the 5-year monitoring period for the mitigation wetlands in 2026. B. CONSULTANT will propose revised monitoring methods for the City to implement during the 5-year monitoring period in the WRMP. Deliverables. Admin Draft, Draft, and Final WRMP Task 3. Mitigation Support in 2025 A. CONSULTANT will coordinate, train, and guide restoration subcontractor to implement the following actions in the WRMP in 2025: 1) Invasive Plant Removal of 0.05 acres. 2) Seed and apply weed free rice straw of 0.05 acres. 3) Informal Trail Removal 0.16 acres of informal trails through wetlands by removing fill, decompacting soil, seeding, and applying straw cover. B. CONSULTANT will plan and document: 1) CONSULTANT will coordinate a nursery plant order and seed mix for the City to purchase for seeding and planting in fall 2025. The plant order will Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 19  Packet Pg. 170 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 17 of 30 be based on species availability since there is insufficient time to contact grow plants for installation in 2025. C. Methodology: Two different methods will be implemented to convert 0.3 acres of wetlands dominated by non-native/invasive grasses/forbs to native plant communities: Seeding and straw mulch application and container planting and straw mulch application (below). To identify areas for the planting/seeding, CONSULTANT’S restoration ecologists will carry out a site visit to measure topsoil salinity in the field and send up to 4 topsoil samples for horticultural analysis. Based on the results, CONSULTANT will flag/delineate patches of non- native/invasive grasses/forbs where deemed replacing with native plants will have the greatest benefit towards achieving the native plant cover criteria and where soil conditions will support revegetation. D. Following revegetation in 2025, CONSULTANT will prepare a 1-2 page memorandum with a figure documenting the completed remedial actions for the City’s record. E. CONSULTANT will provide Seeding and Straw Mulch Application: Revegetate up to 0.2 acres by seeding. Manually remove broadleaf weeds and string trim non- native grasses, scarify the soil, seed the soil, and cover the seeded area with straw 1-2 inches thick, then water down the straw. F. CONSULTANT will provide Container Planting and Straw Mulch Application: Up to 0.1 acres will be revegetated by planting container plants (up to approximately 470 container plants). In areas identified and flagged by CONTRACTOR, manually remove broadleaf weeds and string trim non-native grasses, cover with weed free straw mulch 4-6 inches thick, plant native container plants on 3 ft centers, and water in plants. Provide two follow up irrigation events to support plant establishment. G. CONSULTANT will remove informal trails: Decompact approximately 0.16 of informal trails, remove fill soils to natural wetland grade, seed area, and cover with straw mulch. Deliverables. Quote for seeds to support City’s purchase order with seed supplier, quote for plant materials to support City’s purchase of plant materials, memorandum documenting completed remedial actions. Task 4. Mitigation Support in 2026 A. CONSULTANT will coordinate, train, and guide restoration subcontractors to implement the following actions in the WRMP in 2026: B. CONSULTANT will provide Invasive Plant Removal. Flag locations of invasive plants and manually remove up to 0.03 acres. Following invasive plant removal, bare areas will be seeded with the native seed mix in the WRMP and straw applied to revegetate impacts. If needed to control invasive plants, provide a state certified weed control advisor’s recommendation for herbicide treatment and apply herbicide to control invasive plants for up to 0.01 acres. Certified weed control advisor’s recommendations are to be cross referenced and comply with the City’s Integrated Pest Management Policy (IPM). C. CONSULTANT will provide Planning and Documentation. Carry out a site visit to qualitatively assess the results of seeding and container planting in the spring of Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 20  Packet Pg. 171 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 18 of 30 2026. Based on the lessons learned regarding the most effective method, coordinate a nursery plant order (contract grow) and seed mix for the City to purchase. To ensure enough budget is allocated for this, we have assumed that all 0.3 acres will be planted with container plants which is more expensive to implement than seeding. Prior to laying out plant patches, CONSULTANT’S restoration ecologists will carry out a site visit to measure soil salinity in the field and send up to 4 soil samples for horticultural analysis. Based on the results, flag patches of non- native/invasive grasses/forbs where deemed replacing with native plants will have the greatest benefit towards achieving the native plant cover criteria and where soil conditions will support revegetation for seeding and planting in 2026. Flag 0.3 acres in the fall of 2026 for some combination of seeding and planting. Following revegetation in 2026, prepare a 1-2 page memorandum with a figure documenting the completed remedial actions. Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 21  Packet Pg. 172 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 19 of 30 EXHIBIT B SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the Project Managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed (“NTP”) from the CITY. Milestones Number of Days/Weeks (as specified below) 1. Project Management, Coordination, and Meetings 94 weeks, through June 30, 2027 2. Wetland Remedial Mitigation Plan 4 weeks 3. Mitigation Support 2025 16 weeks 4. Mitigation Support 2026 52 weeks 5. Contingency and as-needed ecology consulting 94 weeks, through June 30, 2027 Optional Schedule of Performance Provision for On-Call or Additional Services Agreements. (This provision only applies if checked and only applies to on-call agreements per Section 1 or agreements with Additional Services per Section 4.) The schedule of performance shall be as provided in the approved Task Order, as detailed in Section 1 (Scope of Services) in the case of on-call Services, or as detailed in Section 4 in the case of Additional Services, provided in all cases that the schedule of performance shall fall within the term as provided in Section 2 (Term) of this Agreement. Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 22  Packet Pg. 173 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 20 of 30 EXHIBIT C COMPENSATION CITY agrees to compensate CONSULTANT for Services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below, provided that the total compensation for the Services, including any specified reimbursable expenses, and the total compensation for Additional Services (if any, per Section 4 of the Agreement) do not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, any specified reimbursable expenses, and Additional Services (if any, per Section 4), within this/these amount(s). Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth in this Agreement shall be at no cost to the CITY. BUDGET SCHEDULE TASK NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT 177,276 Total for Services and Contingency $195,004 Maximum Total Compensation $195,004 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES CONSULTANT’S ordinary business expenses, such as administrative, overhead, administrative support time/overtime, information systems, software and hardware, photocopying, telecommunications (telephone, internet), in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses, are included within the scope of payment for Services and are not reimbursable expenses hereunder. Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 23  Packet Pg. 174 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 21 of 30 Reimbursable expenses, if any are specified as reimbursable under this section, will be reimbursed at actual cost. The expenses (by type, e.g. travel) for which CONSULTANT will be reimbursed are: NONE up to the not-to-exceed amount of: $0.00. A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay Area, including transportation and meals, if specified as reimbursable, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses. B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges, if specified as reimbursable, will be reimbursed at actual cost. All requests for reimbursement of expenses, if any are specified as reimbursable under this section, shall be accompanied by appropriate backup documentation and information. Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 24  Packet Pg. 175 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 22 of 30 EXHIBIT C-1 SCHEDULE OF RATES CONSULTANT’s schedule of rates is as follows: Professional Fees Fees Effective January 1, 2025 Personnel Classification Hourly Billing Rate Principal $ 355–400 Senior Associate Ecologist $ 325 Associate Ecologist $ 296 Senior Ecologist 2 $ 265 Senior Ecologist 1 $ 233 Ecologist 2 $ 204 Ecologist 1 $ 178 Field Biologist 2 $ 152 Field Biologist 1 $ 127 Senior GIS Analyst $ 233 GIS Analyst $ 178 Technical Editor $ 155 Senior Technical Support $ 152 Technical Support $ 127 Clerical Support $ 100 Deposition and Testimony Two times standard rate Subcontractual Consultants Cost plus 10% Direct Expenses Cost plus 10% Transportation Current IRS Federal Standard Mileage Rate (70¢ / mile as of January 2025) Travel (Cost plus 10%) ~ $284/day (based on federal per diem rate) Field Equipment Operation Variable GIS Computer Graphics $10/hr surcharge Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 25  Packet Pg. 176 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 23 of 30 Billing rates are subject to annual increases and will be adjusted at the beginning Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 26  Packet Pg. 177 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 24 of 30 EXHIBIT D INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONSULTANTS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AS SPECIFIED HEREIN. REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONSULTANT, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONSULTANT COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONSULTANT’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. II. THE CONSULTANT MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE AT THE FOLLOWING EMAIL: PurchasingSupport@PaloAlto.Gov III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO ADDITIONAL INSUREDS: A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 27  Packet Pg. 178 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 25 of 30 B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE AND OTHER RELATED NOTICES ARE REQUIRED TO BE FILED WITH THE CITY OF PALO ALTO SENT TO THE FOLLOWING EMAIL: Purchasingsupport@PaloAlto.Gov Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 28  Packet Pg. 179 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 26 of 30 EXHIBIT E DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS This Exhibit shall apply only to a contract for public works construction, alteration, demolition, repair or maintenance work, CITY will not accept a bid proposal from or enter into this Agreement with CONSULTANT without proof that CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) to perform public work, subject to limited exceptions. City requires CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors, if any, to comply with all applicable requirements of the California Labor Code including but not limited to Labor Code Sections 1720 through 1861, and all applicable related regulations, including but not limited to Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations Section 16000 et seq., as amended from time to time. This Exhibit E applies in addition to the provisions of Section 26 (Prevailing Wages and DIR Registration for Public Works Contracts) of the Agreement. CITY provides notice to CONSULTANT of the requirements of California Labor Code Section 1771.1(a), which reads: “A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.” This Project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. All contractors must be registered with DIR per Labor Code Section 1725.5 in order to submit a bid. All subcontractors must also be registered with DIR. No contractor or subcontractor may be awarded a contract for public work on a public works project unless registered with DIR. Additional information regarding public works and prevailing wage requirements is available on the DIR web site (see e.g. http://www.dir.ca.gov) as amended from time to time. CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors that CONSULTANT is required to post all job site notices prescribed by law or regulation. CONSULTANT shall furnish certified payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner (DIR) in accordance with Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations Section 16461 (8 CCR Section 16461). CITY requires CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of Labor Code Section 1776, including but not limited to: Keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by, Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 29  Packet Pg. 180 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 27 of 30 respectively, CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors, in connection with the Project. The payroll records shall be verified as true and correct and shall be certified and made available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors, respectively. At the request of CITY, acting by its Project Manager, CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors shall make the certified payroll records available for inspection or furnished upon request to the CITY Project Manager within ten (10) days of receipt of CITY’s request. CITY requests CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors to submit the certified payroll records to CITY’s Project Manager at the end of each week during the Project. If the certified payroll records are not provided as required within the 10-day period, then CONSULTANT and its listed subcontractors shall be subject to a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker, and CITY shall withhold the sum total of penalties from the progress payment(s) then due and payable to CONSULTANT. Inform CITY’s Project Manager of the location of CONSULTANT’s and its listed subcontractors’ payroll records (street address, city and county) at the commencement of the Project, and also provide notice to CITY’s Project Manager within five (5) business days of any change of location of those payroll records. Eight (8) hours labor constitutes a legal day’s work. CONSULTANT shall forfeit as a penalty to CITY, $25.00 for each worker employed in the execution of the Agreement by CONSULTANT or any subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than eight (8) hours in any one calendar day or forty (40) hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of the Labor Code, and in particular, Sections 1810 through 1815 thereof, except that work performed by employees of CONSULTANT or any subcontractor in excess of eight (8) hours per day, or forty (40) hours during any one week, shall be permitted upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day, or forty (40) hours per week, at not less than one and one-half (1&1/2) times the basic rate of pay, as provided in Section 1815. CONSULTANT shall secure the payment of workers’ compensation to its employees as provided in Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700 (Labor Code 1861). CONSULTANT shall sign and file with the CITY a statutorily prescribed statement acknowledging its obligation to secure the payment of workers’ compensation to its employees before beginning work (Labor Code 1861). CONSULTANT shall post job site notices per regulation (Labor Code 1771.4(a)(2)). CONSULTANT shall comply with the statutory requirements regarding employment of apprentices including without limitation Labor Code Section 1777.5. The statutory provisions will be enforced for penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages and for failure to comply with wage and hour laws. Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 30  Packet Pg. 181 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 28 of 30 Exhibit F Claims for Public Contract Code Section 9204 Public Works Projects The provisions of this Exhibit are provided in compliance with Public Contract Code Section 9204; they provide the exclusive procedures for any claims pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 9204 related to the Services performed under this Agreement. 1. Claim Definition. “Claim” means a separate demand by the Contractor sent by registered mail or certified mail with return receipt requested, for one or more of the following: (A) A time extension, including, without limitation, for relief from damages or penalties for delay assessed by the City. (B) Payment by the City of money or damages arising from the Services performed by, or on behalf of, the Contractor pursuant to the Agreement and payment for which is not otherwise expressly provided or to which the Contractor is not otherwise entitled. (C) Payment of an amount that is disputed by the City. 2. Claim Process. (A) Timing. Any Claim must be submitted to City in compliance with the requirements of this Exhibit no later than fourteen (14) days following the event or occurrence giving rise to the Claim. This time requirement is mandatory; failure to submit a Claim within fourteen (14) days will result in its being deemed waived. (B) Submission. The Claim must be submitted to City in writing, clearly identified as a “Claim” submitted pursuant to this Exhibit, and must include reasonable documentation substantiating the Claim. The Claim must clearly identify and describe the dispute, including relevant references to applicable portions of the Agreement, and a chronology of relevant events. Any Claim for additional payment must include a complete, itemized breakdown of all labor, materials, taxes, insurance, and subcontract, or other costs. Substantiating documentation such as payroll records, receipts, invoices, or the like, must be submitted in support of each claimed cost. Any Claim for an extension of time or delay costs must be substantiated with schedule analysis and narrative depicting and explaining claimed time impacts. (C) Review. Upon receipt of a Claim in compliance with this Exhibit, the City shall conduct a reasonable review of the Claim and, within a period not to exceed 45 days from receipt, shall provide the Contractor a written statement identifying what portion of the Claim is disputed and what portion is undisputed. Upon receipt of a Claim, the City and Contractor may, by mutual agreement, extend the time period provided in this paragraph 2. (D) If City Council Approval Required. If the City needs approval from the City Council to provide the Contractor a written statement identifying the disputed portion and the undisputed portion of the Claim, and the City Council does not meet within the 45 days or within the mutually agreed to extension of time following receipt of a Claim sent by registered mail or certified mail, return receipt requested, the City shall have up to three days following the next duly publicly noticed meeting of the City Council after the 45-day period, or extension, expires to provide the Contractor a written statement identifying the disputed portion and the undisputed portion. Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 31  Packet Pg. 182 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 29 of 30 (E) Payment. Any payment due on an undisputed portion of the Claim shall be processed and made within 60 days after the City issues its written statement. If the City fails to issue a written statement, paragraph 3, below, shall apply. 3. Disputed Claims (A) Meet and Confer. If the Contractor disputes the City's written response, or if the City fails to respond to a Claim submitted pursuant to this Exhibit within the time prescribed, the Contractor may demand in writing an informal conference to meet and confer for settlement of the issues in dispute. Upon receipt of a demand in writing sent by registered mail or certified mail, return receipt requested, the City shall schedule a meet and confer conference within 30 days for settlement of the dispute. Within 10 business days following the conclusion of the meet and confer conference, if the Claim or any portion of the Claim remains in dispute, the City shall provide the Contractor a written statement identifying the portion of the Claim that remains in dispute and the portion that is undisputed. Any payment due on an undisputed portion of the Claim shall be processed and made within 60 days after the City issues its written statement. (B) Mediation. Any remaining disputed portion of the Claim, as identified by the Contractor in writing, shall be submitted to nonbinding mediation, with the City and the Contractor sharing the associated costs equally. The City and Contractor shall mutually agree to a mediator within 10 business days after the disputed portion of the Claim has been identified in writing by the Contractor. If the parties cannot agree upon a mediator, each party shall select a mediator and those mediators shall select a qualified neutral third party to mediate the disputed portion of the Claim. Each party shall bear the fees and costs charged by its respective mediator in connection with the selection of the neutral mediator. If mediation is unsuccessful, the parts of the Claim remaining in dispute shall be subject to any other remedies authorized by the Agreement and laws. (i) For purposes of this paragraph 3.B, mediation includes any nonbinding process, including, but not limited to, neutral evaluation or a dispute review board, in which an independent third party or board assists the parties in dispute resolution through negotiation or by issuance of an evaluation. Any mediation utilized shall conform to the timeframes in this section. (ii) Unless otherwise agreed to by the City and the Contractor in writing, the mediation conducted pursuant to this section shall excuse any further obligation, if any, under Public Contract Code Section 20104.4 to mediate after litigation has been commenced. 4. City’s Failure to Respond. Failure by the City to respond to a Claim from the Contractor within the time periods described in this Exhibit or to otherwise meet the time requirements of this Exhibit shall result in the Claim being deemed rejected in its entirety. A Claim that is denied by reason of the City's failure to have responded to a Claim, or its failure to otherwise meet the time requirements of this Exhibit, shall not constitute an adverse finding with regard to the merits of the Claim or the responsibility or qualifications of the Contractor. 5. Interest. Amounts not paid in a timely manner as required by this section shall bear interest at seven (7) percent per annum. 6. Approved Subcontractor Claims. If an approved subcontractor or a lower tier subcontractor lacks legal standing to assert a Claim against the City because privity of contract does not exist, the Contractor may present to the City a Claim on behalf of a subcontractor or lower tier subcontractor. A subcontractor may request in writing, either on his or her own behalf or on behalf of a lower tier Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 32  Packet Pg. 183 of 690  Professional Services Rev. Oct 16,2024 Page 30 of 30 subcontractor, that the Contractor present a Claim for work which was performed by the subcontractor or by a lower tier subcontractor on behalf of the subcontractor. The subcontractor requesting that the Claim be presented to the City shall furnish reasonable documentation to support the Claim. Within 45 days of receipt of this written request, the Contractor shall notify the subcontractor in writing as to whether the Contractor presented the claim to the City and, if the Contractor did not present the claim, provide the subcontractor with a statement of the reasons for not having done so. 7. Waiver of Provisions. A waiver of the rights granted by Public Contract Code Section 9204 is void and contrary to public policy, provided, however, that (1) upon receipt of a Claim, the parties may mutually agree to waive, in writing, mediation and proceed directly to the commencement of a civil action or binding arbitration, as applicable; and (2) the City may prescribe reasonable change order, claim, and dispute resolution procedures and requirements in addition to the provisions of Public Contract Code Section 9204, so long as the contractual provisions do not conflict with or otherwise impair the timeframes and procedures set forth in this section. Docusign Envelope ID: 91DE445A-57A6-4001-86D6-7F42197CBBCD Item 11 Attachment A - Contract with H.T. Harvey & Associates; C26195633        Item 11: Staff Report Pg. 33  Packet Pg. 184 of 690  City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: Transportation Meeting Date: September 8, 2025 Report #:2506-4873 TITLE FIRST READ: Adopt an Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 10.56 (Special Speed Zones) to Update Speed Limit Studies for 22 Streets and Decrease the Speed Limit for a Portion of Deer Creek Road; and Approve the 2024 Traffic Survey; CEQA status – categorically exempt. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Approve the 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey (Attachment A), and 2. Adopt an ordinance re-establishing posted speed limits for 22 streets pursuant to the California Vehicle Code and decreasing the posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour (mph) to 35 mph for Deer Creek Road from Palo Alto city limits to Arastradero Road (Attachment B). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results and recommendations of the engineering and traffic survey that was conducted in 2023 for 23 street segments (Attachment A). This updated survey was intended to serve as the basis for the establishment and enforcement of speed limits for certain street segments within the City of Palo Alto. These enforceable speed limits incorporate the provisions of recent laws, Assembly Bill (AB) 43 and AB 1938. Based on the results of the survey, existing posted speed limits on 22 street segments continue to be justified by the engineering and speed survey, and these street segments are therefore eligible for enforcement by use of radar. Additionally, the survey results justify a 5-mph reduction in the posted speed limit from 40 mph to 35 mph along Deer Creek Road from Page Mill Road to Arastradero Road. Item 12 Item 12 Staff Report        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 185 of 690  BACKGROUND ANALYSIS The radar speed survey data was compiled and analyzed to determine the 50th percentile speed, the 85th percentile speed, the average speed, the speed range, the 10-mph pace speed, and the percent of vehicles observed within the 10-mph pace. Average daily traffic (ADT) counts for all study segments were also collected using tube counts along the segments. Item 12 Item 12 Staff Report        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 186 of 690  Based on the results of the survey, posted speed limits on 22 street segments continue to be justified by the engineering and speed survey, and are therefore eligible for enforcement by use of radar. Additionally, survey results recommend a 5-mph reduction in the posted speed limit from 40 mph to 35 mph along Deer Creek Road from Page Mill Road to Arastradero Road. Item 12 Item 12 Staff Report        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 187 of 690  Posted Speed Limit (mph) No.Street From To Roadway Type 85th %ile Speed Existing Recommended 1 Alma St.El Camino Real University Ave. Arterial 32 25 25 2 Charleston Rd.Fabian Way S City Limit Residential Arterial 39 35 35 3 Embarcadero Rd. El Camino Real Alma St. Overpass Residential Arterial 35 25 25 4 Fabian Way Charleston Rd. W. Bayshore Rd. Collector 42 30 30 5 Hanover St.Page Mill Rd.Hillview Ave.Collector 33 30 30 6 Hillview Ave.Hanover St.Foothill Exp.Collector 32 30 30 7 Middlefield Rd. University Ave. Embarcadero Rd. Residential Arterial 33 25 25 8 San Antonio Rd. Alma St.Middlefield Rd. Arterial 44 35 35 9 San Antonio Rd. Middlefield Rd. Charleston Rd. Arterial 39 35 35 10 W. Bayshore Rd. Loma Verde Ave. Fabian Way Collector 45 35 35 11 Charleston Rd.El Camino Real Alma St.Residential Arterial 36 25 25 12 Charleston Rd.Alma St.Middlefield Rd. Residential Arterial 35 25 25 13 Charleston Rd.Middlefield Rd. Fabian Way Residential Arterial 37 25 25 14 Deer Creek Rd.Page Mill Rd.Arastradero Rd. Collector 38 40 35 15 El Camino Way Los Robles Ave. Maybell Ave.Collector 28 25 25 16 Hansen Way El Camino Real Page Mill Exp.Collector 35 30 30 17 Louis Rd.Oregon Exp.Loma Verde Rd. Collector 30 25 25 18 Louis Rd.Loma Verde Ave. Charleston Rd. Collector 25 25 25 19 N. California Ave. Embarcadero Rd. Middlefield Rd. Collector 29 25 25 20 Park Blvd.California Ave. Lambert Ave.Collector 29 25 25 Item 12 Item 12 Staff Report        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 188 of 690  Table 1: 2024 City of Palo Alto Engineering & Traffic Survey Segments NEXT STEPS Street From To 21 Quarry Rd.El Camino Real Campus Dr.Collector 33 25 25 22 Middlefield Rd. University Ave. N City Limit Residential Arterial 32 25 25 23 Porter Dr.Page Mill Rd.Hillview Ave.Collector 31 25 25 Item 12 Item 12 Staff Report        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 189 of 690  FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT Fiscal Year 2026 Adopted Capital Budget. No additional funds are needed. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Item 12 Item 12 Staff Report        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 190 of 690  June X, 2023 2024 Engineering & Traffic Survey City of Palo Alto, CA Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 191 of 690  Engineering and Traffic Survey February 3, 2025 City of Palo Alto, California Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 192 of 690  i This Citywide Engineering and Traffic Survey for City of Palo Alto has been prepared under the direction of a licensed Traffic Engineer. The licensed Traffic contained therein, and has judged the qualifications of any technical specialists providing engineering data, which recommendations, conclusions and decisions are based. These surveys conform to Sections recommend speed limits appropriate to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Prepared By: ____________________________ Nayan Amin, TE President, TJKM 4305 Hacienda Drive, Suite 550 Pleasanton, CA 94588-2798 Tel: 925.463.0611 Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 193 of 690  ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Relevant California Vehicle Code Sections ................................................................................................................. 7 2.0 Data Collection and Analysis ................................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Radar Speed Surveys and Analysis ..............................................................................................................................11 2.2 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes ..........................................................................................................................12 2.3 Field Observations ..............................................................................................................................................................13 2.4 Traffic Collision Data ..........................................................................................................................................................19 3.0 Speed Limit Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 26 TABLES Table 1: Survey Segments ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Table 2: Safety Corridor Definition Requirements ................................................................................................................... 9 Table 3: Land Uses and Facilities that Generate High Concentrations of Bicyclists and/or Pedestrians ........... 9 Table 4: Procedure of Rounding and Speed Limit Reductions on Local Agency Roadways ............................... 10 Table 5: Speed Survey Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 14 Table 6: Average Daily Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................................................... 16 Table 7: Collision History Summary (Jan. 2019 – Dec. 2021) ............................................................................................ 20 Table 8: Collision History Comparison with Statewide Averages ................................................................................... 23 Table 9: Recommended Speed Limits Summary .................................................................................................................. 29 Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 194 of 690  iii FIGURES Figure 1: Types of Speed Limits ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2: Survey Locations ................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 3: Existing Speed Limits........................................................................................................................................................ 6 Figure 4: Average Daily Traffic Volumes................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 5: Collision Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................ 25 Figure 6: Illustration of Procedure of Rounding and Speed Limit Reductions on Local Agency Roadways . 28 Figure 7: Recommended Speed Limit Changes .................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 8: Recommended Speed Limits ..................................................................................................................................... 32 APPENDICES Appendix A: Recommended Speed Limit Certifications and Supporting Data (Speed Survey Collection Forms and Average Daily Traffic Volumes) Appendix B: Collision Data Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 11  Packet Pg. 195 of 690  1 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this survey is to evaluate the posted speed limits for 23 segments within the City of Palo Alto and recommend speed limit changes, if any, in accordance with the State of California regulations and guidelines. California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 40802 requires that Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) for speed limits should be conducted at least once every seven or 14 years based on established criteria. State and local agencies re-evaluate non-statutory speed limits on their street segments that have undergone a significant change in roadway characteristics or surrounding land uses since the speed limits were last reviewed. The California State Legislature sets in place the regulations for California speed limits and the CVC places these regulations into language used primarily for enforcement purposes. Various jurisdictions have responsibility for roadways throughout California, including the responsibility to set speed limits on these roadways according to the standards and procedures established by Caltrans. The guidelines from the California Manual for Setting Speed Limits published by Caltrans (Rev. February, 2020) are used in this study. These guidelines help in establishing speed limits that are uniform throughout the state and avoid influence from political pressure or emotional perceptions. Speed limits are established primarily for protecting the public from the behavior of reckless, unreliable, or dangerous drivers. Speed limits are generally established at or near the 85th percentile speed. The 85th percentile speed, also referred to as the critical speed, is defined as the speed at or below which 85 percent of traffic is moving in free flow conditions. Speed limits established on this basis conform to the consensus of those who drive on the roadways as to what speed is reasonable and safe under normal driving conditions. Figure 1 illustrates the various speed limit signs for different zones and roadways. Figure 1: Types of Speed Limits Many factors influence drivers and their perception of the safe speed at which to operate a vehicle. These factors should be considered as a whole because it is not practical to consider each individually. The design and physical characteristics of the roadway place limitations on the safe operating speed of vehicles. These characteristics include, but are not limited to: • Roadway geometrics, shoulder condition, grade, alignment, and sight distance; Source: FHWA Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 12  Packet Pg. 196 of 690  2 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F • Roadside development, zoning, and environment; • Parking practices; • Bicycle and pedestrian activity; • Driveway density; • Signalized or stop-controlled intersections; and • Rural, residential or developed areas. The study follows the goals and visions set in the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The City of Palo Alto aims to guide the City's transportation system and address issues related to safety, mobility and access. Some of the goals outlined in the Transportation Circulation Element include: • Maintaining an efficient roadway network for all users. • Protecting streets and adopted school commute corridors that contribute to neighborhood character and provide a range of local transportation options. • Providing a safe environment for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists on Palo Alto streets. The recommendations made in this study comply with the vision and goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan. This report presents the results of the E&TS conducted during September 2023 for 23 street segments throughout the City of Palo Alto, and incorporates input from radar speed surveys, average daily traffic counts, segment collision analyses, and analyses of roadway characteristics. The 23 survey segments included in the study are listed in Table 1, are shown in Figure 2, and are categorized below by roadway types: • Five segments are designated as ‘Residential Arterials’ • 13 segments are designated as ‘Local/Collectors’ • Five segments are designated as ‘Arterials’ The existing speed limits for the survey segments are illustrated in Figure 3. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 13  Packet Pg. 197 of 690  3 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F Table 1: Survey Segments No. Street Survey Limits Roadway Classification Roadway Type No. of Lanes Width (feet) Length (miles) Speed Limit 1 Alma St. Arterial Undivided 2 50 0.48 25 2 Arterial Undivided 4 64 0.33 35 3 Arterial Undivided 4 64 0.24 25 4 Fabian Way Local/Collector Undivided 4 60 0.57 30 5 Hanover St. Local/Collector Undivided 2 40 0.75 30 6 Hillview Ave. Local/Collector Undivided 2 40 0.37 30 7 Undivided 40 0.96 25 8 Arterial Divided 4 70 0.61 35 9 Arterial Divided 4 76 0.40 35 10 Local/Collector Undivided 2 32 0.58 35 11 Undivided 4 54 0.40 25 12 Divided 56 0.58 25 13 Divided 2 56 0.36 25 14 Local/Collector Undivided 2 46 0.70 40 15 Local/Collector Undivided 2 40 0.35 25 16 Hansen Way Local/Collector Undivided 2 40 0.57 30 17 Louis Rd. Local/Collector Undivided 2 36 0.82 25 18 Louis Rd. Local/Collector Undivided 2 36 1.06 25 19 Local/Collector Undivided 2 32 0.78 25 20 Park Blvd. Local/Collector Undivided 2 36 0.58 25 21 Quarry Rd. Local/Collector Divided 4 70 0.74 25 22 Undivided 2 40 0.38 25 Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 14  Packet Pg. 198 of 690  4 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F No. Street Survey Limits Roadway Classification Roadway Type No. of Lanes Width (feet) Length (miles) Speed Limit 23 Porter Dr. Local/Collector Undivided 2 40 0.41 25 Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 15  Packet Pg. 199 of 690  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MIDD L E F I E L D R O A D EL C A M I N O R E A L LOU I S R O A D HY 1 0 1 S O U T H ALM A S T R E E T WAV E R L E Y S T R E E T HY 1 0 1 N O R T H PAG E M I L L R O A D LI N C O L N A V E N U E ORE G O N E X P R E S S W A Y UNI V E R S I T Y A V E N U E PAR K B O U L E V A R D MIRA N D A A V E N U E LOM A V E R D E A V E N U E GRE E R R O A D RAM O N A S T R E E T LO S R O B L E S A V E N U E HI L L V I E W A V E N U E CAL I F O R N I A A V E N U E BAR R O N A V E N U E MA Y B E L L A V E N U E NO R T H C A L I F O R N I A A V E N U E QU A R R Y R O A D FER N E A V E N U E LANE 6 6 GE N G R O A D MIR A N D A A V E N U E ALM A S T R E E T EMBAR C A D E R O R O A D EMBAR C A D E R O R O A D STANFORD LOS ALTOS LA HONDA MENLO PARK MOUNTAIN VIEW EAST PALO ALTO Figure 2: Study Segments Survey Segments Segments Roads City of Segment ID City of Palo Alto XX TJKM Transportation Consultants | 05/2024 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 16  Packet Pg. 200 of 690  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MIDD L E F I E L D R O A D EL C A M I N O R E A L LOU I S R O A D HY 1 0 1 S O U T H ALM A S T R E E T WAV E R L E Y S T R E E T HY 1 0 1 N O R T H PAG E M I L L R O A D LI N C O L N A V E N U E ORE G O N E X P R E S S W A Y UNI V E R S I T Y A V E N U E PAR K B O U L E V A R D MIRA N D A A V E N U E LOM A V E R D E A V E N U E GRE E R R O A D RAM O N A S T R E E T LO S R O B L E S A V E N U E HI L L V I E W A V E N U E CAL I F O R N I A A V E N U E BAR R O N A V E N U E MA Y B E L L A V E N U E NO R T H C A L I F O R N I A A V E N U E QU A R R Y R O A D FER N E A V E N U E LANE 6 6 GE N G R O A D MIR A N D A A V E N U E ALM A S T R E E T EMBAR C A D E R O R O A D EMBAR C A D E R O R O A D STANFORD LOS ALTOS LA HONDA MENLO PARK MOUNTAIN VIEW EAST PALO ALTO TJKM Transportation Consultants | 05/2024 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Figure 3: Existing Speed Limits LEGEND Roads Segment IDXX Existing Speed Limits 40 mph 25 mph 30 mph 35 mph City of Palo Alto Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 17  Packet Pg. 201 of 690  7 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F 1.1 Relevant California Vehicle Code Sections Applicable California Vehicle Code (CVC) Code sections for conducting an E&TS are summarized below: CVC SECTION 235 – BUSINESS DISTRICT: An area in which at least 50 percent of the properties are used for business for a minimum distance of 400 feet on one side or 300 feet on both sides of a highway. CVC SECTION 515 – RESIDENCE DISTRICT: An area outside of the Business District along a highway that has a minimum of 13 separate dwelling units on one side, or 16 on both sides within a distance of a quarter mile. CVC SECTION 627 – ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY: A survey of highway and traffic conditions in accordance with methods determined by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for use by state and local authorities, which shall include consideration of prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements, collision records, and highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver. Local authorities may also consider residential district density (as defined in Section 515) and pedestrian and bicyclist safety. CVC SECTION 22349 – MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS: Provides that no person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 mph. An exception to this, as stated in CVC Section 22356, is that Caltrans may increase the speed and these increases can only be made after consultation with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and based on an engineering and traffic survey. Even if the maximum speed is raised, certain vehicles are still not permitted to be driven over 55 mph. These are listed below: • Motor trucks having three or more axles or any truck towing another vehicle • Passenger vehicles towing other vehicles • School buses transporting school pupils • Farm labor vehicles transporting passengers • Vehicles transporting explosives CVC SECTION 22350 – BASIC SPEED LAW: Provides that no person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property. In other words, a driver violates the basic speed law if he or she is driving at unsafe speeds, even if that speed is lower than the posted regulatory speed limit sign. CVC SECTION 22351 – SPEED LAW VIOLATIONS: States that the speed of any vehicle upon a highway not in excess of the limits specified in CVC Section 22352 or established as authorized in the CVC is lawful unless clearly proved to be in violation of the Basic Speed Law. This same section also states that the speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in CVC Section 22352 or established as authorized in the CVC is unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the Basic Speed Law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 18  Packet Pg. 202 of 690  8 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F CVC SECTION 22352 – PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS: Establishes prima facie speed limits for local roads and streets. The term “prima facie”, as used in the CVC, is a speed limit that applies when no other specific speed limit is posted. It is a Latin term meaning “at first face” or “at first appearance”. It is also defined as “first view” and “before investigation”. Prima facie evidence is evidence sufficient to establish fact, or to raise presumption of fact, unless rebutted. These speed limits shall be applicable unless changed as authorized in the CVC and, if so changed, only when signs have been erected giving notice thereof. It sets two speed limits covering six classes of location. A speed limit of 15 mph applies at railroad crossings, at uncontrolled highway intersections with obstructed view, and on alleys. A speed limit of 25 mph applies on any highway other than State highways in any business or residence district, unless a different limit is established by procedures described in the CVC. The 25 mph limit also applies in school zones. CVC SECTION 22357 (INCREASE OF LOCAL SPEED LIMITS TO 65 MPH) AND CVC SECTION 22358 (DECREASE OF LOCAL SPEED LIMITS): Authorizes local authorities to establish prima facie speed limits on streets and roads under their jurisdiction, on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey. CVC SECTION 22358.3 (DECREASE ON NARROW STREETS) AND CVC SECTION 22358.4 (DECREASE OF LOCAL LIMITS NEAR SCHOOLS OR SENIOR CENTERS): Authorizes local agencies to reduce prima facie speed limits to 20 or 15 mph on narrow streets (with roadway width less than 25 feet), school zones, or senior centers on the basis of engineering and traffic surveys. CVC SECTION 22358.5 – DOWNWARD SPEED ZONING: Physical conditions such as width, curvature, grade, and surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to a driver, in the absence of other factors, would not require special downward speed zoning. CVC SECTION 22358.6 – ROUNDING OF SPEED LIMITS: Authorizes local agencies to round speed limits to the nearest five miles per hour of the 85th percentile speed of the free-flowing traffic. In cases where the 85th percentile speed results in rounding up to the nearest five-mile per hour increment, the local authority may round the speed limit down to the lower five-mile per hour increment. Local authorities may additionally lower the speed limit as provided by CVC Section 22358.7 and CVC Section 22358.8. CVC SECTION 22358.7 – 5 MPH SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION: Authorizes local agencies to reduce the speed limit by an additional 5 mph if the portion of highway has been designated as a “safety corridor,” as defined in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD; Table 2), or if the portion of highway is adjacent to any land or facility that generates high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians (Table 3), especially those from vulnerable groups such as children, senior, persons with disabilities, and the unhoused. The procedure of rounding speed limits according to CVC Section 22358.6 and CVC Section 22358.7 is tabulated in Table 4. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 19  Packet Pg. 203 of 690  9 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F Table 2: Safety Corridor Definition Requirements Crash Weighting Factors to Develop One Serious/Fatal Injury Safety Corridor injury crash data and other factors to prioritize safety corridors. Suggested weighting factors are as follows: • Crash severity: Fatal Crashes, Serious Injury Crashes • Mode: Pedestrian-bicycle related crashes, vehicle/other • Disadvantaged Community Status: MPO/RTPA or locally defined disadvantaged community status based on most current version of CalEnviroScreen • Vulnerable Populations: Seniors (age 65 and older) and Youth (under age 15) based on the American Community Survey • School proximity (within 0.25 miles) based on the Crash Density mile overlapping "corridor" segments to create a consistent unit of measurement and assess the concentration of linear patterns of injuries within a define[d] distance. The highest scoring (i.e. most fatal and serious injury crashes per mile) "corridor" segments within a street needs to be identified and an appropriate threshold set to determine safety corridor Maintenance frequency for safety corridors. However, such frequency need Source: 2014 CA MUTCD, Revision 7, Table 2B-105(CA) Table 3: Land Uses and Facilities that Generate High Concentrations of Bicyclists and/or Pedestrians Land Use Transit Factors Presence of Pedestrian/Bicyclist Infrastructure Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 20  Packet Pg. 204 of 690  10 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F Category Generator Demographic Factors with disabilities, users of personal assistive mobility devices, and Local Data Source: 2014 CA MUTCD, Revision 7, Table 2B-106(CA) Table 4: Procedure of Rounding and Speed Limit Reductions on Local Agency Roadways 85th-Percentile Speed (mph) Rounding to nearest 5 mph increment (CVC 22358.6(a)) If rounding to nearest is up, may round down (CVC 22358.6(c)) If rounding to nearest is down, may additionally lower by 5 mph (CVC 22358.6(b)) adjacent to high concentration of bicyclists & pedestrians, may additionally lower by 5 mph 47.5-50.0 50 45 No 40 45.1-47.4 45 No 40 35 42.5-45.0 45 40 No 35 40.1-42.4 40 No 35 30 Source: 2014 CA MUTCD, Revision 7, Table 2B-104(CA) CVC SECTION 22358.8 – RETAINMENT OF LOCAL SPEED LIMIT: Authorizes local agencies to retain an existing speed limit on a portion of highway if it was established in a previous E&TS with a speed limit certification sheet and if a registered traffic engineer has determined that no additional general purpose lanes have been added to the portion of highway since completion of the previous E&TS. CVC SECTION 40802 (A)(2) – PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS: Provides that prima facie speed limits established under CVC Sections 22352(b)(1), 22354, 22357, 22358, and 22358.3 may not be enforced by radar unless the speed limit has been justified by an engineering and traffic survey within the last five years. This CVC section does not apply to a local street, road or school zone. CVC SECTION 40802 (B) – PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS: For purposes of this section, a local street or road is one that is functionally classified as "local" on the "California Road System Maps," that are approved by the Federal Highway Administration and maintained by the Department of Transportation. When a street or road does not appear on the "California Road System Maps," it may be defined as a "local street or road" if it primarily provides access to abutting residential property and meets the following three conditions: • Roadway width of not more than 40 feet; • Not more than one-half of a mile of uninterrupted length. Interruptions shall include official traffic control signals as defined in CVC Section 445; and • Not more than one traffic lane in each direction. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 21  Packet Pg. 205 of 690  11 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F 2.0 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The basic purpose of this study is to evaluate selected arterial, collector, and local streets within the City of Palo Alto limits and to recommend appropriate speed limit revisions consistent with current laws and practices of California. The TJKM team, in coordination with the City of Palo Alto staff, coordinated the E&TS. The data collection procedure and speed survey analysis methodology is briefly discussed below. 2.1 Radar Speed Surveys and Analysis The speed surveys involve the use of radar guns to collect sample speeds on selected street segments. A key aspect for conducting the surveys is to ensure that street segments with unique characteristics are individually surveyed. The most crucial component of a speed zone survey is the selection of locations for the data collection task. The prevailing speed at the data collection point was selected to be representative of the entire speed zone area. The project team worked with the City of Palo Alto staff and finalized the 23 street segments to be analyzed in this E&TS. Radar speed surveys were conducted in fall 2023 on days with fair weather, clear visibility, and dry pavement conditions. The survey locations were selected where the prevailing speeds were representative of the entire street segment and were not too close to any traffic control device. The selected locations were situated beyond the influence of stops, dips, curves, parked vehicles, and any other condition that may affect the normal rate of travel. An effort was made to ensure that the presence of radar survey equipment did not affect the speed of the traffic being surveyed. The radar speed surveys were conducted for all study segments, using calibrated radar equipment by certified technicians. Most samples sizes for a particular segment include around 100 vehicles. In the case of low volume roadways, surveys were conducted for a minimum of a 90 minute period. A Speed Survey Form was used to collect and summarize the following attributes: • Street surveyed • Precise location • Street direction • Date/day of the survey • Start time & end time of survey • Number of vehicles surveyed • 85th percentile speed, 50th percentile speed, 10 mile pace • Percent and number of vehicles observed within the 10 mph pace speed • Percent and number of vehicles observed below pace • Percent and number of vehicles observed above pace • Range of speeds observed and standard deviation A description of some of the attributes is provided below: Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 22  Packet Pg. 206 of 690  12 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F 50TH PERCENTILE SPEED (MEDIAN SPEED): The speed above and below which 50 percent of the sample speeds were observed. This value indicates the speed that a driver may choose to drive without the influence of any speed limits, speed signs, or enforcement. 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED (CRITICAL SPEED): The speed at or below which 85 percent of the sample speeds were observed. The 85th percentile speed of a spot speed survey is the primary indicator of the appropriate speed limit for a section of the roadway. 10 MPH PACE SPEED: The 10 mph increment (range) of speeds containing the greatest number of vehicles. In most cases, the 85th percentile speed and the recommended speed lie within the range, frequently in the middle to upper range of the interval. The percent of vehicles that fall within the pace speed is an indicator of the bunching of vehicular speeds. The number of observed vehicles within the 10 mph pace is often between 40 and 80 percent of the entire sample. AVERAGE SPEED: The average speed is simply the cumulative speed divided by the number of observed vehicles. SPEED RANGE: The range of speed is simply the difference in speeds of the fastest and slowest vehicles observed. A large range of speeds (in excess of 30 mph, for example) indicates less favorable conditions than a smaller range. The greater the range, the more inconsistency in travel speeds with a greater likelihood of traffic collisions. In general, uniform speeds result in a smooth progression of traffic. The radar speed survey data was compiled and analyzed to determine the 50th percentile speed, the 85th percentile speed, the average speed, the speed range, the 10 mph pace speed, and the percent of vehicles observed within the 10 mph pace. Table 5 presents the speed survey summary with existing speed limits, median speed, critical speed, 10 mile pace speed, and the percent of vehicles observed within pace. The completed speed survey forms for all 23 study segments are included in Appendix A. 2.2 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes The TJKM team collected average daily traffic (ADT) counts for all study segments by conducting tube counts along the segments. These counts were used to determine the collision rates for each segment, which in turn was used as a factor in determining the appropriate speed limit for each segment. Table 6 summarizes the roadway classification and ADT volumes for each study segment. The existing ADT volumes for the survey segments are illustrated in Figure 4. The ADT counts are available in Appendix A. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 23  Packet Pg. 207 of 690  13 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F 2.3 Field Observations A final field check was conducted by driving each study segment while “floating” with prevailing traffic to determine the speed of traffic that is reasonable from the engineer’s viewpoint. The traffic engineer evaluates the appropriateness of the 85th percentile speed and adds the perspective of human judgment to set the appropriate speed limit. Factors such as roadside development, the number and location of driveways, parked vehicles; emergency shoulder areas, schools and playgrounds, areas frequented by pedestrians, horizontal and vertical alignment of the roadway, intersection spacing, visibility and control, landscaping, street fixtures, and other less tangible factors, all contribute to finalizing the recommended speed limits. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 24  Packet Pg. 208 of 690  14 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F Table 5: Speed Survey Summary No. Street Survey Limits Speed Limit Speed Data Median (mph) 85th Percentile (mph) Mile Pace Percent w/in Pace 1 Alma St. 25 207 29 32 24-33 86% 2 Charleston Rd. 35 166 34 39 30-39 79% 3 25 201 31 35 27-36 79% 4 Fabian Way 30 210 36 42 31-40 70% 5 Hanover St. 30 203 28 33 23-32 79% 6 Hillview Ave. 30 129 28 32 23-32 84% 7 Middlefield Rd. 25 180 29 33 25-34 87% 8 35 200 39 44 34-43 76% 9 35 201 35 39 29-38 72% 10 35 167 39 45 34-43 68% 11 Charleston Rd. 25 211 32 36 28-37 80% 12 Charleston Rd. 25 175 30 35 25-34 77% 13 Charleston Rd. 25 204 31 37 26-35 70% 14 Deer Creek Rd. 40 178 33 38 30-39 62% 15 El Camino Way 25 121 25 28 20-29 87% 16 Hansen Way 30 161 31 35 27-36 81% 17 Louis Rd. 25 123 27 30 22-31 83% 18 Louis Rd. 25 122 22 25 17-26 92% 19 25 100 26 29 22-31 88% 20 Park Blvd. 25 115 25 29 19-28 72% 21 Quarry Rd. 25 164 29 33 24-33 83% 22 Middlefield Rd. 25 176 29 32 25-34 89% Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 25  Packet Pg. 209 of 690  15 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F No. Street Survey Limits Speed Limit Speed Data Median (mph) 85th Percentile (mph) Mile Pace Percent w/in Pace 23 Porter Dr. 25 106 26 31 20-29 76% Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 26  Packet Pg. 210 of 690  16 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F Table 6: Average Daily Traffic Volumes No. Street Survey Limits Direction Roadway Classification No. of Lanes NB/EB SB/WB Way 1 Alma St. Real to University NB/SB Arterial 2 5,322 6,961 12,283 2 Charleston Rd. to Southern EB/WB Arterial 4 11,513 3,997 15,510 3 Embarcadero Rd. Real to Alma St. EB/WB Arterial 4 12,584 11,388 23,972 4 Fabian Way Rd. to W. NB/SB Local/Collector 4 3,037 2,870 5,907 5 Hanover St. to Hillview NB/SB/EB/WB Local/Collector 2 3,610 2,914 6,524 6 Hillview Ave. to Foothill NB/SB/EB/WB Local/Collector 2 2,308 3,054 5,362 7 Middlefield Rd. Ave. to Embarcadero NB/SB Residential Arterial 2- to 4 3,528 3,132 6,660 8 San Antonio Rd. Middlefield EB/WB Arterial 4 14,728 16,705 31,433 9 San Antonio Rd. Rd. to Charleston EB/WB Arterial 4 11,838 13,311 25,149 10 W. Bayshore Rd. Ave. to NB/SB Local/Collector 2 2,323 2,151 4,474 11 Charleston Rd. Real to Alma EB/WB Residential Arterial 4 6,624 6,208 12,832 12 Charleston Rd. Middlefield EB/WB Residential Arterial 2- to 4 5,392 4,360 9,752 13 Charleston Rd. Rd. to Fabian EB/WB Residential Arterial 2 6,479 5,361 11,840 Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 27  Packet Pg. 211 of 690  17 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F No. Street Survey Limits Direction Roadway Classification No. of Lanes NB/EB SB/WB Way 14 Deer Creek Rd. to Arastradero NB/SB Local/Collector 2 2,319 1,989 4,308 15 El Camino Way Ave. to NB/SB Local/Collector 2 1,654 1,811 3,465 16 Hansen Way Real to Page NB/SB/EB/WB Local/Collector 2 1,687 1,577 3,264 17 Louis Rd. to Loma NB/SB Local/Collector 2 1,194 1,118 2,312 18 Louis Rd. Ave. to Charleston NB/SB Local/Collector 2 1,145 932 2,077 19 N. California Ave. Rd. to Middlefield EB/WB Local/Collector 2 1,189 946 2,135 20 Park Blvd. Ave. to NB/SB Local/Collector 2 2,009 1,428 3,437 21 Quarry Rd. Real to EB/WB Local/Collector 4 8,366 7,345 15,711 22 Middlefield Rd. Ave. to Northern NB/SB Residential Arterial 2 7,200 7,176 14,376 23 Porter Dr. to Hillview NB/SB/EB/WB Local/Collector 2 991 1,018 2,009 Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 28  Packet Pg. 212 of 690  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MIDD L E F I E L D R O A D EL C A M I N O R E A L LOU I S R O A D HY 1 0 1 S O U T H ALM A S T R E E T WAV E R L E Y S T R E E T HY 1 0 1 N O R T H PAG E M I L L R O A D LI N C O L N A V E N U E ORE G O N E X P R E S S W A Y UNI V E R S I T Y A V E N U E PAR K B O U L E V A R D MIRA N D A A V E N U E LOM A V E R D E A V E N U E GRE E R R O A D RAM O N A S T R E E T LO S R O B L E S A V E N U E HI L L V I E W A V E N U E CAL I F O R N I A A V E N U E BAR R O N A V E N U E MA Y B E L L A V E N U E NO R T H C A L I F O R N I A A V E N U E QU A R R Y R O A D FER N E A V E N U E LANE 6 6 GE N G R O A D MIR A N D A A V E N U E ALM A S T R E E T EMBAR C A D E R O R O A D EMBAR C A D E R O R O A D STANFORD LOS ALTOS LA HONDA MENLO PARK MOUNTAIN VIEW EAST PALO ALTO Survey Segments Segments Roads City of Segment ID Daily Traffic Count City of Palo Alto XX TJKM Transportation Consultants | 05/2024 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Figure 4: Daily Traffic Count XXXX 6,961 2,15 1 6,20 8 2, 8 7 0 16, 7 0 5 4,360 5,361 1,989 1,11 8 932 946 1,428 7,3 4 5 7,17 6 1,018 1,81 1 1,577 3,997 13 , 3 1 1 3,13 2 2,9 1 4 3, 0 5 4 11,388 Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 29  Packet Pg. 213 of 690  19 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F 2.4 Traffic Collision Data Collisions reported at study segments were obtained from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database for a period of five years from January 2019 to December 2021. Collision rates are a significant factor in determining the appropriate speed limits. Table 7 summarizes the type and the total number of collisions for all study segments. Table 8 and Figure 5 summarize the collision rates for the study segments in comparison with the statewide averages. Additional collision data is available in Appendix B of this report. Definitions for Collision Types: The types of collisions and their definitions are defined by CHP and are listed below: Head-On: Two motor vehicles, approaching from opposite directions, make direct contact. For example, the front of one vehicle collides with the front of another, or prior to impact, one vehicle skids sideways, causing the side of the skidding vehicle to collide with the front of the other. Sideswipe: One motor vehicle strikes the side of another with a glancing blow. For example, two vehicles are proceeding in the same direction or from opposite directions, and the side of one vehicle strikes the side of the other. Rear End: Two motor vehicles, traveling in the same direction, make direct contact. For example, the front of one vehicle strikes the rear of another vehicle, or Vehicle #1 approaches Vehicle #2 from the rear and skids sideways during a braking action, causing the side of Vehicle #1 to strike the rear of Vehicle #2. Broadside: One motor vehicle strikes another vehicle at an angle greater than that of a sideswipe. Hit Object: A motor vehicle strikes a fixed object or other object. Overturned: A motor vehicle overturns and no prior collision or hitting an object caused the overturning. This would include a motorcyclist losing control, causing the vehicle to lie down on its side. Auto/Ped: A vehicle strikes a pedestrian. Other: A collision not covered in the preceding elements. This entry shall be explained in the narrative, such as a vehicle involved with - a bicycle, train, or animal; an automobile fire; passengers falling or jumping from a vehicle; a vehicle backing; a bicycle involved with a pedestrian or another bicycle, etc. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 30  Packet Pg. 214 of 690  20 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F Ta b l e 7: Co l l i s i o n H i s t o r y S u m m a r y ( J a n . 20 19 – De c . 2 0 21 ) No . St r e e t Su r v e y L i m i t s To t a l N o . of Co l l i s i o n s He a d - On Si d e s w i p e Re a r En d Br o a d s i d e Hi t Ob j e c t Ov e r t u r n e d Au t o / P e d Ot h e r Fa t a l Se v e r e In j u r y Vi s i b l e Co m p l a i n t Da m a g e 1 Al m a S t . Re a l t o Un i v e r s i t y 18 1 0 7 8 2 0 0 0 0 1 6 11 0 2 Ch a r l e s t o n Rd . to S o u t h e r n 6 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 3 Em b a r c a d e r o Rd . Re a l t o A l m a St . 16 2 1 7 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 7 9 0 4 Fa b i a n W a y Rd . t o W . 10 0 0 3 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 5 Ha n o v e r S t . to H i l l v i e w 6 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 3 0 6 Hi l l v i e w A v e . to F o o t h i l l 8 1 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 3 0 7 Mi d d l e f i e l d Rd . Av e . t o Em b a r c a d e r o 80 6 1 12 55 0 0 4 2 0 0 31 49 0 8 Sa n A n t o n i o Rd . Mi d d l e f i e l d 12 0 0 3 4 2 1 1 1 0 0 6 6 0 9 36 1 4 10 13 3 1 1 3 0 0 16 20 0 Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 31  Packet Pg. 215 of 690  21 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F No . St r e e t Su r v e y L i m i t s To t a l N o . of Co l l i s i o n s He a d - On Si d e s w i p e Re a r En d Br o a d s i d e Hi t Ob j e c t Ov e r t u r n e d Au t o / P e d Ot h e r Fa t a l Se v e r e In j u r y Vi s i b l e Co m p l a i n t Da m a g e Ch a r l e s t o n Rd . 10 W. B a y s h o r e Rd . Av e . t o 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 11 Ch a r l e s t o n Rd . Re a l t o A l m a 5 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 12 Ch a r l e s t o n Rd . Mi d d l e f i e l d 7 1 1 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 4 0 13 Ch a r l e s t o n Rd . Rd . t o F a b i a n 9 1 1 2 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 6 0 14 De e r C r e e k Rd . to Ar a s t r a d e r o 8 0 0 4 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 3 4 0 15 El C a m i n o Wa y Av e . t o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Ha n s e n W a y Re a l t o P a g e 15 0 1 11 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 10 0 17 Lo u i s R d . to L o m a 17 2 3 6 4 0 0 1 1 0 1 9 7 0 18 Lo u i s R d . Av e . t o Ch a r l e s t o n 11 0 1 7 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 7 0 Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 32  Packet Pg. 216 of 690  22 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F No . St r e e t Su r v e y L i m i t s To t a l N o . of Co l l i s i o n s He a d - On Si d e s w i p e Re a r En d Br o a d s i d e Hi t Ob j e c t Ov e r t u r n e d Au t o / P e d Ot h e r Fa t a l Se v e r e In j u r y Vi s i b l e Co m p l a i n t Da m a g e 19 N. C a l i f o r n i a Av e . Rd . t o Mi d d l e f i e l d 8 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 4 0 20 Pa r k B l v d . Av e . t o 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 21 Qu a r r y R d . Re a l t o 35 0 1 13 10 2 1 8 0 0 3 11 21 0 22 Mi d d l e f i e l d Rd . Av e . t o No r t h e r n 11 1 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 0 23 Po r t e r D r . to H i l l v i e w 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 33  Packet Pg. 217 of 690  23 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F Table 8: Collision History Comparison with Statewide Averages No. Street Survey Limits (Jan 1, 2019 - Dec Collision Rate Collision State 1 Alma St. 18 2.82 1.18 No 2 Charleston Rd. Southern City 6 1.06 1.46 Yes 3 Embarcadero Rd. Alma St. 16 2.52 1.46 No 4 Fabian Way 10 2.70 1.46 No 5 Hanover St. 6 1.12 1.18 Yes 6 Hillview Ave. 8 3.66 1.18 No 7 Middlefield Rd. 80 11.44 1.18 No 8 San Antonio Rd. 12 0.57 1.10 Yes 9 San Antonio Rd. 36 3.25 1.10 No 10 W. Bayshore Rd. 1 0.35 1.18 Yes 11 Charleston Rd. 5 0.88 1.46 Yes 12 Charleston Rd. 7 1.12 1.18 Yes 13 Charleston Rd. 9 1.93 1.18 No 14 Deer Creek Rd. 8 2.42 1.18 No 15 El Camino Way 0 0.00 1.18 Yes 16 Hansen Way 15 7.35 1.18 No 17 Louis Rd. 17 8.22 1.18 No 18 Louis Rd. 11 4.58 1.18 No 19 N. California Ave. 8 4.41 1.18 No 20 Park Blvd. 3 1.38 1.18 No 21 Quarry Rd. 35 2.74 1.10 No Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 34  Packet Pg. 218 of 690  24 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F No. Street Survey Limits (Jan 1, 2019 - Dec Collision Rate Collision State 22 Middlefield Rd. Northern City 11 1.83 1.18 No 23 Porter Dr. 2 2.23 1.18 No Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 35  Packet Pg. 219 of 690  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MIDD L E F I E L D R O A D EL C A M I N O R E A L LOU I S R O A D HY 1 0 1 S O U T H ALM A S T R E E T WAVE R L E Y S T R E E T HY 1 0 1 N O R T H PAG E M I L L R O A D LI N C O L N A V E N U E ORE G O N E X P R E S S W A Y UNI V E R S I T Y A V E N U E PARK B O U L E V A R D MIRA N D A A V E N U E LOM A V E R D E A V E N U E GRE E R R O A D RAM O N A S T R E E T LO S R O B L E S A V E N U E HIL L V I E W A V E N U E CAL I F O R N I A A V E N U E BAR R O N A V E N U E MAY B E L L A V E N U E NO R T H C A L I F O R N I A A V E N U E QU A R R Y R O A D FER N E A V E N U E LANE 6 6 GE N G R O A D MIR A N D A A V E N U E ALM A S T R E E T EMBARC A D E R O R O A D EMBARC A D E R O R O A D STANFORD LOS ALTOS EAST PALO ALTO Survey Segments Collision Rate Below Statewide Average Collision Rate AboveStatewide Average Roads Segment ID City of Palo Alto XX TJKM Transportation Consultants | 05/2024 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Figure 5: Collision Analysis Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 36  Packet Pg. 220 of 690  26 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F 3.0 SPEED LIMIT RECOMMENDATIONS The setting of speed limits requires a rational and defensible procedure to maintain the confidence of the public and legal systems. Speed limit determinations rely on the premise that a reasonable speed limit is one that conforms to the actual behavior of the majority of drivers; one will be able to select a speed limit that is both reasonable and effective by measuring drivers' speeds. The speed zoning section of the CA MUTCD was changed in 2004 to require rounding the 85th percentile to the nearest 5 mph increment rather than to the lower 5 mph increment in order to better conform to the standards established in the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). This specific guideline revision resulted in raising certain street speed limits and had become a challenge to state and local jurisdictions. In 2007, the California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC) ruled to approve a language change in the CA MUTCD to clarify how local speed limits should be set. Caltrans ultimately issued a Traffic Operations Policy Directive (No. 09-04), effective July 1, 2009, which clearly defined these changes and incorporated new requirements into the CA MUTCD. The changes are summarized below: • Posted speed limits will be set "rounded to the nearest" 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile speed. • Jurisdictions can lower this speed by an additional 5 mph based on and justified by conditions and factors cited in the California Vehicle Code. Studies of the effects of establishing, raising, and lowering speed limits include federal studies such as FHWA-RD- 92-084 and FHWA-RD-98-154. These studies demonstrate that the most effective attribute in establishing the speed limit is to determine the 85th percentile speed and to set the posted speed close to that value. The empirical data in these studies demonstrates that setting the speed limit too high or too low can increase collisions. Speed limits that are set near the 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic are safer and produce less variance in vehicle speeds. Because of this, the 85th percentile is used to establish the upper limit of operating speeds that are considered reasonable and prudent. In addition, setting the speed limit arbitrarily low often makes violators of a disproportionate number of drivers, does not facilitate the orderly movement of traffic, and requires constant enforcement to maintain compliance. The 2014 Edition of the CA MUTCD requires as a standard that a speed limit shall be established at the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile speed, except that the posted speed may be reduced by 5 mph from the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile speed in compliance with CVC Sections 627 and CVC 22358.5. According to CVC 21400, for cases in which the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile speed would require rounding up, the speed limit may be rounded down to the nearest 5 mph increment below the 85th percentile speed if no further reduction is used. The following examples are provided to explain the application of these speed limit criteria: • If the 85th percentile speed in a speed survey for a location was 37 mph, then the speed limit would be established at 35 mph since it is the closest 5 mph increment to the 37 mph speed. The 35 mph established Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 37  Packet Pg. 221 of 690  27 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F speed limit can be reduced by additional 5 mph to 30 mph if the conditions and justification for using this lower speed limit are documented in the E&TS and approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer; and • If the 85th percentile speed in a speed survey for a location was 33 mph, then the speed limit would be established at 35 mph since it is the closest 5 mph increment to the 33 mph speed. The 35 mph established speed limit can be reduced by 5 mph to 30 mph if the conditions and justification for using this lower speed limit are documented in the E&TS and are approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer. Section 2B.13 of the 2014 CA MUTCD further states that justification for reducing speed limits can be based on residential density, pedestrian/bicyclist safety and other factors not readily apparent to drivers but essential to meet the traffic safety needs of the community. The following factors may be considered to adjust and determine the final speed limits: • Road characteristics, shoulder condition, grade, alignment, and sight distance • 10 mph pace speed (a 10 mile range in which the highest number of data is recorded) • Roadside development and environment • Parking practices and bicycle/pedestrian activity • Reported crash experience for at least a 12-month period On October 8, 2021, the procedure for establishing local speed limits was changed once again with Assembly Bill No. 43 (AB 43) being signed into law (and later clarified by Assembly Bill 1938 in 2022). Whereas the previous procedure required no further action be taken after rounding down to the nearest 5 mph increment below the 85th percentile speed, AB 43 allows a local authority to use an additional 5 mph reduction if a portion of highway has been designated as a “safety corridor” as is defined by Caltrans in the CA MUTCD or if a portion of highway is adjacent to any land or facility that generates high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians, particularly those from vulnerable groups such as children, seniors, persons with disabilities, and the unhoused. The procedure is shown in Figure 6. The existing speed limit may also be retained if it was established in a previous E&TS and if a registered traffic engineer has determined that no additional general purpose lanes have been added to the portion of highway since completion of the previous E&TS. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 38  Packet Pg. 222 of 690  28 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F Figure 6: Illustration of Procedure of Rounding and Speed Limit Reductions on Local Agency Roadways Source: 2014 CA MUTCD, Revision 7, Table 2B-104(CA) The guidelines from the California Manual for Setting Speed Limits published by Caltrans (Rev. January 2024) were followed in this study. The speed limit recommendations are proposed for 17 street segments in the study based on the above discussed guidelines and speed data analysis. The speed limit for each study segment was recommended after determining the average speed, the 85th percentile speed, the pace speed, and considering other significant factors such as existing land use, roadway design characteristics and collision rates. Appendix A presents the recommended speed limit certifications of the traffic survey analyses, which include prevailing speed data, collision history, traffic factors, and roadway conditions. The recommended speed limit for each street segment is also shown with a comment on the rationale for the recommendation. Table 9 tabulates the recommended speed limits. Figure 7 illustrates the segments where speed limit changes are recommended. Figure 8 illustrates the recommended speed limits at the respective study segments. 30 35 40 45 50 55 85th-Percentile"Critical Speed" (mph) Rounding to nearest5 mph increment (CVC 22358.6(a)) If rounding tonearest is up, may round down (CVC22358.6(c)) If rounding tonearest is down, may additionallylower by 5 mph(CVC 22358.6(b)) If safety corridor oradjacent to high concentration ofbicyclists &pedestrians, mayadditionally lowerby 5 mph (CVC22358.7) Sp e e d L i m i t Condition of Rounding 47.5-50.0 mph 45.1-47.4 mph Round down initially Round up initially Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 39  Packet Pg. 223 of 690  29 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F Table 9: Recommended Speed Limits Summary No. Street Survey Limits Existing Speed (mph) Percentile Speed Recommended Speed (mph) Changes to Existing Speed Limit (mph) 1 Alma St. El Camino Real to University Ave. 25 32 25 0 2 Charleston Rd. Fabian Way to Southern City Rd. Alma St. Ave. to Middlefield Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 40  Packet Pg. 224 of 690  30 E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F No. Street Survey Limits Existing Speed (mph) Percentile Speed Recommended Speed (mph) Changes to Existing Speed Limit (mph) 22 Middlefield Rd. University Ave. to Northern City Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 41  Packet Pg. 225 of 690  14 MIDD L E F I E L D R O A D EL C A M I N O R E A L LOU I S R O A D HY 1 0 1 S O U T H ALM A S T R E E T WAV E R L E Y S T R E E T HY 1 0 1 N O R T H PAG E M I L L R O A D LI N C O L N A V E N U E ORE G O N E X P R E S S W A Y UNI V E R S I T Y A V E N U E PAR K B O U L E V A R D MIRA N D A A V E N U E LOM A V E R D E A V E N U E GRE E R R O A D RAM O N A S T R E E T LO S R O B L E S A V E N U E HI L L V I E W A V E N U E CAL I F O R N I A A V E N U E BAR R O N A V E N U E MA Y B E L L A V E N U E NO R T H C A L I F O R N I A A V E N U E QU A R R Y R O A D FER N E A V E N U E LANE 6 6 GE N G R O A D MIR A N D A A V E N U E ALM A S T R E E T EMBAR C A D E R O R O A D EMBAR C A D E R O R O A D STANFORD LOS ALTOS LA HONDA MENLO PARK MOUNTAIN VIEW EAST PALO ALTO Survey Segments Reduced by 5 mph Increased by 5mph Not Applicable Roads Segment ID City of Palo Alto XX TJKM Transportation Consultants | 05/2024 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Figure 7: Segment Speed Limit Changes Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 42  Packet Pg. 226 of 690  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MIDD L E F I E L D R O A D EL C A M I N O R E A L LOU I S R O A D HY 1 0 1 S O U T H ALM A S T R E E T WAV E R L E Y S T R E E T HY 1 0 1 N O R T H PAG E M I L L R O A D LI N C O L N A V E N U E ORE G O N E X P R E S S W A Y UNI V E R S I T Y A V E N U E PAR K B O U L E V A R D MIRA N D A A V E N U E LOM A V E R D E A V E N U E GRE E R R O A D RAM O N A S T R E E T LO S R O B L E S A V E N U E HI L L V I E W A V E N U E CAL I F O R N I A A V E N U E BAR R O N A V E N U E MA Y B E L L A V E N U E NO R T H C A L I F O R N I A A V E N U E QU A R R Y R O A D FER N E A V E N U E LANE 6 6 GE N G R O A D MIR A N D A A V E N U E ALM A S T R E E T EMBAR C A D E R O R O A D EMBAR C A D E R O R O A D STANFORD LOS ALTOS LA HONDA MENLO PARK MOUNTAIN VIEW EAST PALO ALTO TJKM Transportation Consultants | 05/2024 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Figure 8: Recommended Speed Limits LEGEND Roads Segment IDXX Recommended Speed Limits 25 mph 30 mph 35 mph City of Palo Alto Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 43  Packet Pg. 227 of 690  A E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F Appendix A: Recommended Speed Limit Certifications and Supporting Data (Speed Survey Collection Forms and Average Daily Traffic Volumes) Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 44  Packet Pg. 228 of 690  Segment #1 Street:Alma St. Limits:El Camino Real to University Ave. Direction:NB/SB Date /Location of Survey Posted Speed Limit (mph) # Speed Data Collected 85th Percentile (mph) 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Length of Segment (mi.) Street Classification Date Range Covered Total Accidents Accident Rate (Acc/MVM) Adjacent Land Use Roadway Geometrics Approved and Authorized for release by the City of Palo Alto: Signed: Date:Date: Nayan Amin, TE Existing Speed Limit: 25 Signed: Title: Commercial and residential along northern edge. Railroad ROW and station along southern edge. An undivided 2-lane arterial. Double yellow line serves as median. Concrete sidewalks along most of northern edge. Some of southern edge has concrete sidewalks. Class III sharrows west of Palo Alto Ave. Class II bike lanes east of Palo Alto Ave. Signals at Lyfton Ave. and El Camino Real. Stop control at rest of intersections. Left-turn storage bays and right-turn storage bays present at some intersections. Marked crosswalks present at most intersections. On-street parking present on northern edge from Lyfton Ave. to Palo Alto Ave. No school zone present. Horizontal curve at Palo Alto Ave. Slight vertical curve at Palo Alto Ave. Driveway density high on northern edge and low on southern edge. §22358.6(b) - Lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph from the rounded speed limit if the speed limit was initially rounded down from the 85th percentile speed: 30 --> 25 No Recommended Speed Limit: 25 D. Roadway Conditions C. Collision History President, TJKM Transportation Consultants Factors A. Prevailing Speed Data B. Traffic Factors This survey conforms to Section 627 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code and Section 2B.13 of the California MUTCD and recommends a speed limit appropriate to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 45  Packet Pg. 229 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 19 20 21 1 22 4 23 4 24 8 25 13 26 22 27 26 28 23 29 27 30 20 31 14 32 15 33 11 34 5 35 5 36 3 37 3 38 1 39 1 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 207 18 - 39 29 mph 32 mph 24 - 33 179 86% 4% / 10 9% / 18 SPEED PARAMETERS #1 - Alma St Bet. Everett Ave & Hawthorne Ave City of Palo Alto Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 09:00-09:45 9/20/2023 Project #: 23-080265-001 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 46  Packet Pg. 230 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 19 20 21 1 22 3 23 2 24 4 25 5 26 10 27 11 28 11 29 12 30 9 31 7 32 9 33 7 34 3 35 2 36 1 37 2 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 100 18 - 37 29 mph 32 mph 24 - 33 85 85% 7% / 7 8% / 8 SPEED PARAMETERS #1 - Alma St Bet. Everett Ave & Hawthorne Ave City of Palo Alto Eastbound Spot Speeds 09:00-09:45 9/20/2023 Project #: 23-080265-001 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 47  Packet Pg. 231 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 23 2 24 4 25 8 26 12 27 15 28 12 29 15 30 11 31 7 32 6 33 4 34 2 35 3 36 2 37 1 38 1 39 1 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 107 22 - 39 28 mph 32 mph 24 - 33 94 88% 2% / 3 10% / 10 SPEED PARAMETERS #1 - Alma St Bet. Everett Ave & Hawthorne Ave City of Palo Alto Westbound Spot Speeds 09:00-09:45 9/20/2023 Project #: 23-080265-001 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 48  Packet Pg. 232 of 690  Day:Tuesday City:Palo Alto Date:9/12/2023 Project #:CA23_080264_001 NB SB EB WB Total 0 0 5,322 6,961 12,283 TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA NB SB EB WB TOTA 00:00 9 10 19 12:00 69 120 189 00:00 01:00 17 25 42 00:15 2 4 6 12:15 93 116 209 01:00 02:00 11 11 22 00:30 1 4 5 12:30 75 124 199 02:00 03:00 10 15 25 00:45 5 7 12 12:45 109 120 229 03:00 04:00 7 15 22 01:00 3 4 7 13:00 77 128 205 04:00 05:00 12 24 36 01:15 3 3 6 13:15 88 120 208 05:00 06:00 41 36 77 01:30 1 3 4 13:30 89 131 220 06:00 07:00 84 106 190 01:45 4 1 5 13:45 91 132 223 07:00 08:00 246 398 644 02:00 2 3 5 14:00 85 137 222 08:00 09:00 371 549 920 02:15 3 5 8 14:15 107 141 248 09:00 10:00 348 411 759 02:30 2 4 6 14:30 109 135 244 10:00 11:00 294 413 707 02:45 3 3 6 14:45 112 131 243 11:00 12:00 322 468 790 03:00 3 2 5 15:00 116 129 245 12:00 13:00 346 480 826 03:15 2 6 8 15:15 121 133 254 13:00 14:00 345 511 856 03:30 1 3 4 15:30 126 131 257 14:00 15:00 413 544 957 03:45 1 4 5 15:45 130 134 264 15:00 16:00 493 527 1020 04:00 1 5 6 16:00 111 134 245 16:00 17:00 449 507 956 04:15 5 4 9 16:15 118 126 244 17:00 18:00 432 510 942 04:30 3 8 11 16:30 106 118 224 18:00 19:00 353 464 817 04:45 3 7 10 16:45 114 129 243 19:00 20:00 293 326 619 05:00 9 6 15 17:00 112 131 243 20:00 21:00 188 307 495 05:15 4 7 11 17:15 109 126 235 21:00 22:00 137 177 314 05:30 13 8 21 17:30 106 125 231 22:00 23:00 78 92 170 05:45 15 15 30 17:45 105 128 233 23:0 00:0 32 45 77 06:00 17 13 30 18:00 87 129 216 06:15 10 15 25 18:15 98 125 223 NB SB EB WB TOTA 06:30 22 37 59 18:30 85 110 195 00:00 to 12:00 06:45 35 41 76 18:45 83 100 183 1763 2471 4234 07:00 38 69 107 19:00 87 103 190 8:15 7:45 7:45 07:15 60 80 140 19:15 81 92 173 380 559 933 07:30 61 114 175 19:30 54 75 129 0.856 0.884 0.952 07:45 87 135 222 19:45 71 56 127 08:00 87 158 245 20:00 51 89 140 12:00 to 00:00 08:15 89 139 228 20:15 49 81 130 3559 4490 8049 08:30 111 127 238 20:30 58 72 130 15:00 13:45 15:00 08:45 84 125 209 20:45 30 65 95 493 545 1020 09:00 96 104 200 21:00 40 53 93 0.948 0.966 0.966 09:15 89 112 201 21:15 31 43 74 09:30 88 101 189 21:30 32 40 72 07:00 to 09:00 09:45 75 94 169 21:45 34 41 75 617 947 1564 10:00 76 101 177 22:00 17 34 51 7:45 7:45 7:45 10:15 67 86 153 22:15 27 23 50 374 559 933 10:30 67 115 182 22:30 21 18 39 0.842 0.884 0.952 10:45 84 111 195 22:45 13 17 30 11:00 74 108 182 23:00 10 18 28 16:00 to 18:00 11:15 85 119 204 23:15 7 12 19 881 1017 1898 11:30 72 119 191 23:30 7 6 13 16:15 16:45 16:00 11:45 91 122 213 23:45 8 9 17 450 511 956 TOTALS 0 0 1763 2471 4234 TOTALS 0 0 3559 4490 8049 0.953 0.975 0.976 SPLIT % 0% 0% 42% 58% 34% SPLIT % 0% 0% 44% 56% 66% Peak Hour Factor Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Prepared by National Data & Surveying Service VOLUME #1 ‐ Alma St Bet. Everett Ave & Hawthorne Ave DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS 15‐Minutes Interval Hourly Intervals TIME STATISTICS Peak Period Volume Peak Hour 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 00 : 0 0 01 : 0 0 02 : 0 0 03 : 0 0 04 : 0 0 05 : 0 0 06 : 0 0 07 : 0 0 08 : 0 0 09 : 0 0 10 : 0 0 11 : 0 0 12 : 0 0 13 : 0 0 14 : 0 0 15 : 0 0 16 : 0 0 17 : 0 0 18 : 0 0 19 : 0 0 20 : 0 0 21 : 0 0 22 : 0 0 23 : 0 0 NB SB EB WB Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 49  Packet Pg. 233 of 690  Segment #2 Street:Charleston Rd. Limits:Fabian Way to Southern City Limits Direction:EB/WB Date /Location of Survey Posted Speed Limit (mph) # Speed Data Collected 85th Percentile (mph) 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Length of Segment (mi.) Street Classification Date Range Covered Total Accidents Accident Rate (Acc/MVM) Adjacent Land Use Roadway Geometrics Approved and Authorized for release by the City of Palo Alto: Signed: Date: :President, TJKM Transportation Consultants Signed:Nayan Amin, TE Date: C. Collision History D. Roadway Conditions Commercial on both sides. An undivided 4-lane arterial. Double yellow line serves as median. Concrete sidewalks present on both sides. Class II bike lanes on both sides from San Antonio Rd. to eastern City limit. Signals at Fabian Wy. and San Antonio Rd. Stop control at rest of intersections. Left-turn storage bays and right-turn storage bays present at some intersections. Marked crosswalks present at most intersections. No on-street parking permitted on either side. No school zone present. No horizontal or vertical curves present. High on southern edge and moderate on northern edge. §22358.6(c) - Lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph from the rounded speed limit if the speed limit was initially rounded up from the 85th percentile speed: 40 --> 35 No Existing Speed Limit: 35 Recommended Speed Limit: 35 Factors A. Prevailing Speed Data B. Traffic Factors This survey conforms to Section 627 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code and Section 2B.13 of the California MUTCD and recommends a speed limit appropriate to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 50  Packet Pg. 234 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:35 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 24 25 26 1 27 3 28 6 29 7 30 11 31 10 32 18 33 13 34 15 35 14 36 13 37 14 38 14 39 9 40 10 41 4 42 2 43 1 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 166 23 - 43 34 mph 39 mph 30 - 39 131 79% 10% / 18 11% / 17 SPEED PARAMETERS #2 - Charleston Rd Bet. Industrial Ave & Commercial St City of Palo Alto Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 10:10-11:10 9/21/2023 Project #: 23-080265-002 0 5 10 15 20 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 51  Packet Pg. 235 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:35 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 28 2 29 1 30 3 31 3 32 7 33 6 34 7 35 9 36 10 37 11 38 10 39 7 40 7 41 3 42 1 43 1 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 89 27 - 43 36 mph 39 mph 31 - 40 77 87% 7% / 7 6% / 5 SPEED PARAMETERS #2 - Charleston Rd Bet. Industrial Ave & Commercial St City of Palo Alto Eastbound Spot Speeds 10:10-11:10 9/21/2023 Project #: 23-080265-002 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 52  Packet Pg. 236 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:35 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 24 25 26 1 27 2 28 4 29 6 30 8 31 7 32 11 33 7 34 8 35 5 36 3 37 3 38 4 39 2 40 3 41 1 42 1 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 77 23 - 42 32 mph 37 mph 28 - 37 62 81% 5% / 4 15% / 11 SPEED PARAMETERS #2 - Charleston Rd Bet. Industrial Ave & Commercial St City of Palo Alto Westbound Spot Speeds 10:10-11:10 9/21/2023 Project #: 23-080265-002 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 53  Packet Pg. 237 of 690  Day:Tuesday City:Palo Alto Date:9/12/2023 Project #:CA23_080264_002 NB SB EB WB Total 0 0 11,513 3,997 15,510 TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA NB SB EB WB TOTA 00:00 27 6 33 12:00 184 88 272 00:00 01:00 56 27 83 00:15 13 8 21 12:15 192 96 288 01:00 02:00 36 13 49 00:30 12 7 19 12:30 209 76 285 02:00 03:00 16 10 26 00:45 4 6 10 12:45 158 86 244 03:00 04:00 21 10 31 01:00 11 4 15 13:00 165 75 240 04:00 05:00 35 17 52 01:15 13 4 17 13:15 167 74 241 05:00 06:00 94 48 142 01:30 8 1 9 13:30 175 86 261 06:00 07:00 183 74 257 01:45 4 4 8 13:45 184 73 257 07:00 08:00 434 177 611 02:00 4 2 6 14:00 202 60 262 08:00 09:00 910 208 1118 02:15 5 1 6 14:15 194 68 262 09:00 10:00 868 202 1070 02:30 4 3 7 14:30 217 80 297 10:00 11:00 631 197 828 02:45 3 4 7 14:45 216 70 286 11:00 12:00 720 287 1007 03:00 1 4 5 15:00 225 71 296 12:00 13:00 743 346 1089 03:15 6 1 7 15:15 234 83 317 13:00 14:00 691 308 999 03:30 4 3 7 15:30 249 72 321 14:00 15:00 829 278 1107 03:45 10 2 12 15:45 230 76 306 15:00 16:00 938 302 1240 04:00 4 4 8 16:00 253 77 330 16:00 17:00 980 316 1296 04:15 8 1 9 16:15 238 68 306 17:00 18:00 1033 381 1414 04:30 11 4 15 16:30 242 84 326 18:00 19:00 845 256 1101 04:45 12 8 20 16:45 247 87 334 19:00 20:00 597 225 822 05:00 15 9 24 17:00 292 93 385 20:00 21:00 379 168 547 05:15 23 7 30 17:15 250 101 351 21:00 22:00 196 84 280 05:30 27 11 38 17:30 247 110 357 22:00 23:00 156 35 191 05:45 29 21 50 17:45 244 77 321 23:0 00:0 122 28 150 06:00 35 17 52 18:00 241 72 313 06:15 42 10 52 18:15 205 53 258 NB SB EB WB TOTA 06:30 36 23 59 18:30 201 57 258 00:00 to 12:00 06:45 70 24 94 18:45 198 74 272 4004 1270 5274 07:00 72 31 103 19:00 191 42 233 8:15 11:00 8:15 07:15 96 33 129 19:15 157 44 201 952 287 1151 07:30 145 47 192 19:30 129 67 196 0.926 0.844 0.919 07:45 121 66 187 19:45 120 72 192 08:00 215 56 271 20:00 103 61 164 12:00 to 00:00 08:15 244 69 313 20:15 104 42 146 7509 2727 10236 08:30 247 43 290 20:30 87 28 115 16:45 16:45 16:45 08:45 204 40 244 20:45 85 37 122 1036 391 1427 09:00 257 47 304 21:00 59 30 89 0.887 0.889 0.927 09:15 220 55 275 21:15 64 19 83 09:30 214 54 268 21:30 42 19 61 07:00 to 09:00 09:45 177 46 223 21:45 31 16 47 1344 385 1729 10:00 169 45 214 22:00 51 13 64 8:00 7:30 8:00 10:15 154 46 200 22:15 46 7 53 910 238 1118 10:30 152 56 208 22:30 35 7 42 0.921 0.862 0.893 10:45 156 50 206 22:45 24 8 32 11:00 170 72 242 23:00 43 13 56 16:00 to 18:00 11:15 189 61 250 23:15 34 7 41 2013 697 2710 11:30 178 69 247 23:30 28 3 31 16:45 16:45 16:45 11:45 183 85 268 23:45 17 5 22 1036 391 1427 TOTALS 0 0 4004 1270 5274 TOTALS 0 0 7509 2727 10236 0.887 0.889 0.927 SPLIT % 0% 0% 76% 24% 34% SPLIT % 0% 0% 73% 27% 66% Peak Hour Factor Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Prepared by National Data & Surveying Service VOLUME #2 ‐ Charleston Rd Bet. Industrial Ave & Commercial St DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS 15‐Minutes Interval Hourly Intervals TIME STATISTICS Peak Period Volume Peak Hour 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 00 : 0 0 01 : 0 0 02 : 0 0 03 : 0 0 04 : 0 0 05 : 0 0 06 : 0 0 07 : 0 0 08 : 0 0 09 : 0 0 10 : 0 0 11 : 0 0 12 : 0 0 13 : 0 0 14 : 0 0 15 : 0 0 16 : 0 0 17 : 0 0 18 : 0 0 19 : 0 0 20 : 0 0 21 : 0 0 22 : 0 0 23 : 0 0 NB SB EB WB Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 54  Packet Pg. 238 of 690  Segment #3 Street:Embarcadero Rd. Limits:El Camino Real to Alma St. Overcrossing Direction:EB/WB Date /Location of Survey Posted Speed Limit (mph) # Speed Data Collected 85th Percentile (mph) 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Length of Segment (mi.) Street Classification Date Range Covered Total Accidents Accident Rate (Acc/MVM) Adjacent Land Use Roadway Geometrics Approved and Authorized for release by the City of Palo Alto: Signed: Date: :President, TJKM Transportation Consultants Signed:Nayan Amin, TE Date: C. Collision History D. Roadway Conditions Commercial mall on the northern side. Palo Alto High School on the southern side. An undivided 4-lane arterial. Double yellow line serves as median. Concrete sidewalks present on both sides. No bike facilities present. All intersections signalized. Left-turn storage bays and right-turn storage bays present at intersections on survey segment and side streets. Marked crosswalks present at all intersections. Midblock crosswalk present near Palo Alto High School. No on- street parking permitted on either side. School zone is present. Slight horizontal curves and gentle vertical curves present. Negative grade when approaching railroad ROW overpass. One driveway to the commercial mall on the northern side and one driveway to Palo Alto High School on the southern side. Roadway narrows to 3 lanes (two WB, one EB) due to limited clearance under Alma St. and railroad ROW overpass. §22358.6(c) - Lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph from the rounded speed limit if the speed limit was initially rounded up from the 85th percentile speed: 35 --> 30 §22358.7 - Reduce the speed limit by an additional 5 mph as the portion of highway is located near facilities that generate high concentrations of pedestrians and bicyclists, including a high school, concrete sidewalks, bikeways, and marked crosswalks: 30 --> 25 No Existing Speed Limit: 25 Recommended Speed Limit: 25 Factors A. Prevailing Speed Data B. Traffic Factors This survey conforms to Section 627 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code and Section 2B.13 of the California MUTCD and recommends a speed limit appropriate to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 55  Packet Pg. 239 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:None Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 22 3 23 4 24 4 25 6 26 7 27 10 28 14 29 17 30 18 31 17 32 24 33 17 34 19 35 14 36 8 37 8 38 6 39 1 40 1 41 1 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 201 21 - 41 31 mph 35 mph 27 - 36 158 79% 12% / 26 9% / 17 SPEED PARAMETERS #3 - Embarcadero Rd S/O Alma St City of Palo Alto Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 11:00-11:45 10/17/2023 Project #: 23-080265-003 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 56  Packet Pg. 240 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:None Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 24 2 25 3 26 2 27 4 28 7 29 8 30 7 31 8 32 13 33 10 34 13 35 9 36 6 37 5 38 3 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 101 23 - 38 32 mph 35 mph 28 - 37 86 85% 11% / 12 3% / 3 SPEED PARAMETERS #3 - Embarcadero Rd S/O Alma St City of Palo Alto Northbound Spot Speeds 11:00-11:45 10/17/2023 Project #: 23-080265-003 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 57  Packet Pg. 241 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:None Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 22 3 23 3 24 2 25 3 26 5 27 6 28 7 29 9 30 11 31 9 32 11 33 7 34 6 35 5 36 2 37 3 38 3 39 1 40 1 41 1 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 100 21 - 41 30 mph 35 mph 26 - 35 76 76% 13% / 13 11% / 11 SPEED PARAMETERS #3 - Embarcadero Rd S/O Alma St City of Palo Alto Southbound Spot Speeds 11:00-11:45 10/17/2023 Project #: 23-080265-003 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 58  Packet Pg. 242 of 690  Day:Wednesday City:Palo Alto Date:10/4/2023 Project #:CA23_080264_003 NB SB EB WB Total 12,584 11,388 0 0 23,972 TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA NB SB EB WB TOTA 00:00 14 11 25 12:00 192 196 388 00:00 01:00 71 43 114 00:15 25 17 42 12:15 183 188 371 01:00 02:00 68 20 88 00:30 20 7 27 12:30 178 221 399 02:00 03:00 51 21 72 00:45 12 8 20 12:45 196 254 450 03:00 04:00 30 47 77 01:00 18 4 22 13:00 190 204 394 04:00 05:00 39 117 156 01:15 13 4 17 13:15 192 163 355 05:00 06:00 40 291 331 01:30 24 8 32 13:30 229 176 405 06:00 07:00 155 715 870 01:45 13 4 17 13:45 198 203 401 07:00 08:00 506 839 1345 02:00 12 6 18 14:00 239 172 411 08:00 09:00 599 868 1467 02:15 10 7 17 14:15 232 212 444 09:00 10:00 563 777 1340 02:30 19 1 20 14:30 270 166 436 10:00 11:00 577 740 1317 02:45 10 7 17 14:45 258 200 458 11:00 12:00 662 753 1415 03:00 5 7 12 15:00 265 180 445 12:00 13:00 749 859 1608 03:15 7 7 14 15:15 268 223 491 13:00 14:00 809 746 1555 03:30 11 18 29 15:30 272 155 427 14:00 15:00 999 750 1749 03:45 7 15 22 15:45 286 191 477 15:00 16:00 1091 749 1840 04:00 9 22 31 16:00 288 165 453 16:00 17:00 1047 612 1659 04:15 8 36 44 16:15 243 136 379 17:00 18:00 1073 629 1702 04:30 17 33 50 16:30 245 145 390 18:00 19:00 867 710 1577 04:45 5 26 31 16:45 271 166 437 19:00 20:00 906 419 1325 05:00 7 28 35 17:00 271 173 444 20:00 21:00 621 250 871 05:15 10 87 97 17:15 290 149 439 21:00 22:00 548 190 738 05:30 11 147 158 17:30 281 154 435 22:00 23:00 277 165 442 05:45 12 29 41 17:45 231 153 384 23:0 00:0 236 78 314 06:00 15 70 85 18:00 225 166 391 06:15 28 196 224 18:15 239 212 451 NB SB EB WB TOTA 06:30 42 215 257 18:30 204 191 395 00:00 to 12:00 06:45 70 234 304 18:45 199 141 340 3361 5231 8592 07:00 80 160 240 19:00 227 111 338 11:00 8:15 8:15 07:15 87 197 284 19:15 221 113 334 662 923 1528 07:30 176 195 371 19:30 215 109 324 0.974 0.901 0.858 07:45 163 287 450 19:45 243 86 329 08:00 145 170 315 20:00 144 55 199 12:00 to 00:00 08:15 125 194 319 20:15 164 70 234 9223 6157 15380 08:30 132 256 388 20:30 161 61 222 15:15 12:15 15:15 08:45 197 248 445 20:45 152 64 216 1114 867 1848 09:00 151 225 376 21:00 159 58 217 0.967 0.853 0.941 09:15 125 177 302 21:15 144 51 195 09:30 152 183 335 21:30 152 43 195 07:00 to 09:00 09:45 135 192 327 21:45 93 38 131 1105 1707 2812 10:00 132 208 340 22:00 78 31 109 7:30 7:45 7:45 10:15 150 186 336 22:15 72 47 119 609 907 1472 10:30 138 172 310 22:30 68 37 105 0.865 0.790 0.818 10:45 157 174 331 22:45 59 50 109 11:00 162 176 338 23:00 55 30 85 16:00 to 18:00 11:15 170 191 361 23:15 60 23 83 2120 1241 3361 11:30 164 185 349 23:30 86 15 101 16:45 16:45 16:45 11:45 166 201 367 23:45 35 10 45 1113 642 1755 TOTALS 3361 5231 0 0 8592 TOTALS 9223 6157 0 0 15380 0.959 0.928 0.988 SPLIT % 39% 61% 0% 0% 36% SPLIT % 60% 40% 0% 0% 64% Peak Hour Factor Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Prepared by National Data & Surveying Service VOLUME #3 ‐ Embarcadero Rd S/O Alma St DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS 15‐Minutes Interval Hourly Intervals TIME STATISTICS Peak Period Volume Peak Hour 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 00 : 0 0 01 : 0 0 02 : 0 0 03 : 0 0 04 : 0 0 05 : 0 0 06 : 0 0 07 : 0 0 08 : 0 0 09 : 0 0 10 : 0 0 11 : 0 0 12 : 0 0 13 : 0 0 14 : 0 0 15 : 0 0 16 : 0 0 17 : 0 0 18 : 0 0 19 : 0 0 20 : 0 0 21 : 0 0 22 : 0 0 23 : 0 0 NB SB EB WB Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 59  Packet Pg. 243 of 690  Segment #4 Street:Fabian Way Limits:Charleston Rd. to W. Bayshore Rd. Direction:NB/SB Date /Location of Survey Posted Speed Limit (mph) # Speed Data Collected 85th Percentile (mph) 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Length of Segment (mi.) Street Classification Date Range Covered Total Accidents Accident Rate (Acc/MVM) Adjacent Land Use Roadway Geometrics Approved and Authorized for release by the City of Palo Alto: Signed: Date: :President, TJKM Transportation Consultants Signed:Nayan Amin, TE Date: C. Collision History D. Roadway Conditions Commercial, office, and institutional uses on both sides. An undivided 4-lane local/collector. Double yellow dotted line serves as median. Concrete sidewalks present on both sides. Class II bike lanes on both sides. Signal at E. Charleston Rd. Side street stop control at remaining intersections. Left-turn storage bays and right-turn storage bays present at intersections with E. Charleston Rd. and Federation Wy. Marked crosswalks present at all intersections. Several midblock crosswalks present. On-street parking present on eastern side from south of E. Meadow Dr. to 180 feet south of Federation Way. School zone is present. Gentle horizontal curves on north and south ends of segment. Virtually no vertical curves. Driveway density high on both sides. §22358.6(b) - Lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph from the rounded speed limit if the speed limit was initially rounded down from the 85th percentile speed: 40 --> 35 §22358.7 - Reduce the speed limit by an additional 5 mph as the portion of highway is located near facilities that generate high concentrations of pedestrians and bicyclists, including a high school, concrete sidewalks, Class II bike lanes, and marked crosswalks: 35 --> 30 No Existing Speed Limit: 30 Recommended Speed Limit: 30 Factors A. Prevailing Speed Data B. Traffic Factors This survey conforms to Section 627 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code and Section 2B.13 of the California MUTCD and recommends a speed limit appropriate to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 60  Packet Pg. 244 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:35 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 25 26 1 27 2 28 4 29 3 30 4 31 11 32 14 33 14 34 18 35 16 36 18 37 15 38 14 39 16 40 11 41 10 42 11 43 9 44 7 45 5 46 1 47 48 4 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 210 24 - 48 36 mph 42 mph 31 - 40 147 70% 7% / 16 23% / 47 SPEED PARAMETERS #4 - Fabian Way Bet. E Meadow Dr & E Charleston Rd City of Palo Alto Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 13:00-13:55 9/21/2023 Project #: 23-080265-004 0 5 10 15 20 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 61  Packet Pg. 245 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:35 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 25 26 27 1 28 2 29 3 30 2 31 6 32 5 33 6 34 8 35 6 36 8 37 7 38 7 39 9 40 4 41 6 42 5 43 5 44 6 45 2 46 1 47 48 2 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 102 24 - 48 37 mph 43 mph 31 - 40 66 65% 8% / 9 27% / 27 SPEED PARAMETERS #4 - Fabian Way Bet. E Meadow Dr & E Charleston Rd City of Palo Alto Northbound Spot Speeds 13:00-13:55 9/21/2023 Project #: 23-080265-004 0 2 4 6 8 10 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 62  Packet Pg. 246 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:35 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 25 26 1 27 1 28 2 29 30 2 31 5 32 9 33 8 34 10 35 10 36 10 37 8 38 7 39 7 40 7 41 4 42 6 43 4 44 1 45 3 46 47 48 2 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 108 24 - 48 36 mph 41 mph 31 - 40 81 75% 6% / 7 19% / 20 SPEED PARAMETERS #4 - Fabian Way Bet. E Meadow Dr & E Charleston Rd City of Palo Alto Southbound Spot Speeds 13:00-13:55 9/21/2023 Project #: 23-080265-004 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 63  Packet Pg. 247 of 690  Day:Tuesday City:Palo Alto Date:9/12/2023 Project #:CA23_080264_004 NB SB EB WB Total 3,037 2,870 0 0 5,907 TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA NB SB EB WB TOTA 00:00 1 2 3 12:00 38 47 85 00:00 01:00 12 10 22 00:15 6 5 11 12:15 56 43 99 01:00 02:00 7 9 16 00:30 3 2 5 12:30 40 32 72 02:00 03:00 5 5 10 00:45 2 1 3 12:45 46 32 78 03:00 04:00 9 2 11 01:00 3 3 6 13:00 53 45 98 04:00 05:00 11 6 17 01:15 2 4 6 13:15 36 30 66 05:00 06:00 109 17 126 01:30 0 0 0 13:30 44 38 82 06:00 07:00 115 27 142 01:45 2 2 4 13:45 36 40 76 07:00 08:00 156 137 293 02:00 0 0 0 14:00 35 30 65 08:00 09:00 276 318 594 02:15 0 1 1 14:15 40 38 78 09:00 10:00 219 199 418 02:30 2 2 4 14:30 44 62 106 10:00 11:00 141 142 283 02:45 3 2 5 14:45 43 63 106 11:00 12:00 145 152 297 03:00 3 0 3 15:00 57 58 115 12:00 13:00 180 154 334 03:15 2 1 3 15:15 80 70 150 13:00 14:00 169 153 322 03:30 1 1 2 15:30 40 76 116 14:00 15:00 162 193 355 03:45 3 0 3 15:45 40 66 106 15:00 16:00 217 270 487 04:00 1 4 5 16:00 54 55 109 16:00 17:00 245 257 502 04:15 2 1 3 16:15 64 69 133 17:00 18:00 324 370 694 04:30 4 1 5 16:30 58 74 132 18:00 19:00 191 186 377 04:45 4 0 4 16:45 69 59 128 19:00 20:00 138 118 256 05:00 13 4 17 17:00 78 78 156 20:00 21:00 81 72 153 05:15 22 3 25 17:15 64 90 154 21:00 22:00 60 36 96 05:30 31 2 33 17:30 84 101 185 22:00 23:00 36 16 52 05:45 43 8 51 17:45 98 101 199 23:0 00:0 29 21 50 06:00 25 6 31 18:00 56 56 112 06:15 23 7 30 18:15 46 44 90 NB SB EB WB TOTA 06:30 37 7 44 18:30 44 47 91 00:00 to 12:00 06:45 30 7 37 18:45 45 39 84 1205 1024 2229 07:00 24 15 39 19:00 40 48 88 7:45 8:00 8:00 07:15 26 23 49 19:15 39 31 70 281 318 594 07:30 44 37 81 19:30 28 17 45 0.739 0.811 0.858 07:45 62 62 124 19:45 31 22 53 08:00 95 78 173 20:00 17 16 33 12:00 to 00:00 08:15 63 98 161 20:15 21 18 39 1832 1846 3678 08:30 61 72 133 20:30 17 24 41 17:00 17:00 17:00 08:45 57 70 127 20:45 26 14 40 324 370 694 09:00 67 65 132 21:00 24 13 37 0.827 0.916 0.872 09:15 61 51 112 21:15 21 6 27 09:30 39 53 92 21:30 8 9 17 07:00 to 09:00 09:45 52 30 82 21:45 7 8 15 432 455 887 10:00 39 34 73 22:00 19 3 22 7:45 8:00 8:00 10:15 30 37 67 22:15 5 4 9 281 318 594 10:30 32 38 70 22:30 6 6 12 0.739 0.811 0.858 10:45 40 33 73 22:45 6 3 9 11:00 26 41 67 23:00 8 5 13 16:00 to 18:00 11:15 36 36 72 23:15 12 11 23 569 627 1196 11:30 38 35 73 23:30 4 3 7 17:00 17:00 17:00 11:45 45 40 85 23:45 5 2 7 324 370 694 TOTALS 1205 1024 0 0 2229 TOTALS 1832 1846 0 0 3678 0.827 0.916 0.872 SPLIT % 54% 46% 0% 0% 38% SPLIT % 50% 50% 0% 0% 62% Peak Hour Factor Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Prepared by National Data & Surveying Service VOLUME #4 ‐ Fabian Way Bet. E Meadow Dr & E Charleston Rd DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS 15‐Minutes Interval Hourly Intervals TIME STATISTICS Peak Period Volume Peak Hour 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 00 : 0 0 01 : 0 0 02 : 0 0 03 : 0 0 04 : 0 0 05 : 0 0 06 : 0 0 07 : 0 0 08 : 0 0 09 : 0 0 10 : 0 0 11 : 0 0 12 : 0 0 13 : 0 0 14 : 0 0 15 : 0 0 16 : 0 0 17 : 0 0 18 : 0 0 19 : 0 0 20 : 0 0 21 : 0 0 22 : 0 0 23 : 0 0 NB SB EB WB Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 64  Packet Pg. 248 of 690  Segment #5 Street:Hanover St. Limits:Page Mill Rd. to Hillview Ave. Direction:NB/SB/EB/WB Date /Location of Survey Posted Speed Limit (mph) # Speed Data Collected 85th Percentile (mph) 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Length of Segment (mi.) Street Classification Date Range Covered Total Accidents Accident Rate (Acc/MVM) Adjacent Land Use Roadway Geometrics Approved and Authorized for release by the City of Palo Alto: Signed: Date: :President, TJKM Transportation Consultants Signed:Nayan Amin, TE Date: C. Collision History D. Roadway Conditions Corporate campuses on both sides. An undivided 2-lane local/collector. Two-way left-turn lane serves as median. Concrete sidewalks present on both sides except on southbound side from approximately 1,355 feet north of Hillview Ave. to Hillview Ave. Class II bike lanes on both sides. Signals at Page Mill Rd. and Hillview Ave. Side street stop control at remaining intersections. Left-turn storage bays and right-turn storage bays present at intersections with Page Mill Rd. and Hillview Ave. Some side streets have turn lanes. Marked crosswalks at signalized intersections and some driveways. Midblock crosswalks also present. No on-street parking permitted on either side. No school zone present. Broad horizontal curve approximately 1,200 feet east of Page Mill Rd. Broad vertical curves present on southern half of segment. Moderate driveway density on both sides. §22358.6(c) - Lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph from the rounded speed limit if the speed limit was initially rounded up from the 85th percentile speed: 35 --> 30 No Existing Speed Limit: 30 Recommended Speed Limit: 30 Factors A. Prevailing Speed Data B. Traffic Factors This survey conforms to Section 627 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code and Section 2B.13 of the California MUTCD and recommends a speed limit appropriate to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 65  Packet Pg. 249 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:30 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 21 4 22 5 23 11 24 14 25 15 26 21 27 21 28 21 29 17 30 19 31 13 32 9 33 8 34 9 35 3 36 3 37 3 38 1 39 3 40 1 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 203 20 - 40 28 mph 33 mph 23 - 32 161 79% 5% / 11 16% / 31 SPEED PARAMETERS #5 - Hanover St N/O JPMC Silicon Valley Technology Center Dwy City of Palo Alto Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 10:45-11:45 9/28/2023 Project #: 23-080265-005 0 5 10 15 20 25 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 66  Packet Pg. 250 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:30 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 22 3 23 7 24 7 25 7 26 12 27 13 28 11 29 9 30 10 31 6 32 5 33 5 34 2 35 1 36 2 37 1 38 39 40 1 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 103 21 - 40 28 mph 32 mph 23 - 32 87 84% 3% / 4 12% / 12 SPEED PARAMETERS #5 - Hanover St N/O JPMC Silicon Valley Technology Center Dwy City of Palo Alto Northbound Spot Speeds 10:45-11:45 9/28/2023 Project #: 23-080265-005 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 67  Packet Pg. 251 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:30 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 21 3 22 2 23 4 24 7 25 8 26 9 27 8 28 10 29 8 30 9 31 7 32 4 33 3 34 7 35 2 36 1 37 2 38 1 39 3 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 100 20 - 39 28 mph 34 mph 23 - 32 74 74% 7% / 7 19% / 19 SPEED PARAMETERS #5 - Hanover St N/O JPMC Silicon Valley Technology Center Dwy City of Palo Alto Southbound Spot Speeds 10:45-11:45 9/28/2023 Project #: 23-080265-005 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 68  Packet Pg. 252 of 690  Day:Tuesday City:Palo Alto Date:9/12/2023 Project #:CA23_080264_005 NB SB EB WB Total 3,610 2,914 0 0 6,524 TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA NB SB EB WB TOTA 00:00 9 3 12 12:00 58 42 100 00:00 01:00 19 4 23 00:15 4 1 5 12:15 61 41 102 01:00 02:00 19 2 21 00:30 4 0 4 12:30 61 46 107 02:00 03:00 8 6 14 00:45 2 0 2 12:45 52 47 99 03:00 04:00 7 8 15 01:00 7 1 8 13:00 68 50 118 04:00 05:00 5 43 48 01:15 3 0 3 13:15 48 42 90 05:00 06:00 18 92 110 01:30 6 1 7 13:30 64 40 104 06:00 07:00 60 177 237 01:45 3 0 3 13:45 44 43 87 07:00 08:00 112 262 374 02:00 3 1 4 14:00 76 33 109 08:00 09:00 273 337 610 02:15 0 0 0 14:15 59 46 105 09:00 10:00 261 322 583 02:30 2 3 5 14:30 75 55 130 10:00 11:00 168 253 421 02:45 3 2 5 14:45 64 51 115 11:00 12:00 202 200 402 03:00 1 0 1 15:00 82 40 122 12:00 13:00 232 176 408 03:15 1 1 2 15:15 90 41 131 13:00 14:00 224 175 399 03:30 5 2 7 15:30 81 46 127 14:00 15:00 274 185 459 03:45 0 5 5 15:45 94 43 137 15:00 16:00 347 170 517 04:00 0 2 2 16:00 112 53 165 16:00 17:00 438 158 596 04:15 1 5 6 16:15 121 35 156 17:00 18:00 312 115 427 04:30 3 13 16 16:30 122 39 161 18:00 19:00 243 101 344 04:45 1 23 24 16:45 83 31 114 19:00 20:00 159 43 202 05:00 2 10 12 17:00 77 29 106 20:00 21:00 98 33 131 05:15 3 22 25 17:15 83 31 114 21:00 22:00 42 20 62 05:30 6 23 29 17:30 75 33 108 22:00 23:00 42 15 57 05:45 7 37 44 17:45 77 22 99 23:0 00:0 47 17 64 06:00 8 39 47 18:00 60 24 84 06:15 12 33 45 18:15 69 33 102 NB SB EB WB TOTA 06:30 13 38 51 18:30 55 21 76 00:00 to 12:00 06:45 27 67 94 18:45 59 23 82 1152 1706 2858 07:00 16 72 88 19:00 50 12 62 8:15 8:45 8:30 07:15 23 67 90 19:15 41 11 52 291 360 646 07:30 34 51 85 19:30 29 5 34 0.957 0.841 0.887 07:45 39 72 111 19:45 39 15 54 08:00 58 91 149 20:00 32 11 43 12:00 to 00:00 08:15 73 64 137 20:15 35 8 43 2458 1208 3666 08:30 67 75 142 20:30 17 6 23 15:45 14:15 15:45 08:45 75 107 182 20:45 14 8 22 449 192 619 09:00 76 97 173 21:00 12 6 18 0.920 0.873 0.938 09:15 73 76 149 21:15 11 6 17 09:30 53 80 133 21:30 11 6 17 07:00 to 09:00 09:45 59 69 128 21:45 8 2 10 385 599 984 10:00 47 74 121 22:00 7 4 11 8:00 8:00 8:00 10:15 41 69 110 22:15 13 3 16 273 337 610 10:30 40 57 97 22:30 8 3 11 0.910 0.787 0.838 10:45 40 53 93 22:45 14 5 19 11:00 57 72 129 23:00 16 1 17 16:00 to 18:00 11:15 54 45 99 23:15 12 8 20 750 273 1023 11:30 47 51 98 23:30 10 5 15 16:00 16:00 16:00 11:45 44 32 76 23:45 9 3 12 438 158 596 TOTALS 1152 1706 0 0 2858 TOTALS 2458 1208 0 0 3666 0.898 0.745 0.903 SPLIT % 40% 60% 0% 0% 44% SPLIT % 67% 33% 0% 0% 56% Peak Hour Factor Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Prepared by National Data & Surveying Service VOLUME #5 ‐ Hanover St N/O JPMC Silicon Valley Technology Center Dwy DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS 15‐Minutes Interval Hourly Intervals TIME STATISTICS Peak Period Volume Peak Hour 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 00 : 0 0 01 : 0 0 02 : 0 0 03 : 0 0 04 : 0 0 05 : 0 0 06 : 0 0 07 : 0 0 08 : 0 0 09 : 0 0 10 : 0 0 11 : 0 0 12 : 0 0 13 : 0 0 14 : 0 0 15 : 0 0 16 : 0 0 17 : 0 0 18 : 0 0 19 : 0 0 20 : 0 0 21 : 0 0 22 : 0 0 23 : 0 0 NB SB EB WB Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 69  Packet Pg. 253 of 690  Segment #6 Street:Hillview Ave. Limits:Hanover St. to Foothill Exp. Direction:NB/SB/EB/WB Date /Location of Survey Posted Speed Limit (mph) # Speed Data Collected 85th Percentile (mph) 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Length of Segment (mi.) Street Classification Date Range Covered Total Accidents Accident Rate (Acc/MVM) Adjacent Land Use Roadway Geometrics Approved and Authorized for release by the City of Palo Alto: Signed: Date: :President, TJKM Transportation Consultants Signed:Nayan Amin, TE Date: C. Collision History D. Roadway Conditions Corporate campuses on both sides. An undivided 2-lane local/collector. Two-way left-turn lane serves as median. Concrete sidewalks on both sides except from approximately 305 feet south of Porter Dr. to approximately 845 feet south of Porter Dr. and from approximately 300 feet north of street stop control at some driveways. Left-turn storage bays present at intersections with Porter Dr. and Miranda Ave. Right-turn storage bay present at Porter Dr. Marked crosswalks at signalized intersections and midblock crosswalks present. No on-street parking permitted on either side. No school zone present. Broad horizontal curve approximately 400 feet east of Hanover St. Slight horizontal bend approximately 245 feet north of Miranda Ave. Gentle vertical curves present throughout segment. Moderate driveway density on both sides. No Existing Speed Limit: 30 Recommended Speed Limit: 30 Factors A. Prevailing Speed Data B. Traffic Factors This survey conforms to Section 627 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code and Section 2B.13 of the California MUTCD and recommends a speed limit appropriate to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 70  Packet Pg. 254 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:30 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 21 3 22 3 23 5 24 9 25 12 26 11 27 19 28 18 29 11 30 11 31 6 32 6 33 3 34 3 35 1 36 3 37 2 38 39 40 1 41 1 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 129 20 - 41 28 mph 32 mph 23 - 32 108 84% 5% / 7 11% / 14 SPEED PARAMETERS #6 - Hillview Ave E/O Hanover St/Porter Dr City of Palo Alto Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 12:05-13:20 9/28/2023 Project #: 23-080265-006 0 5 10 15 20 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 71  Packet Pg. 255 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:30 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 22 1 23 2 24 3 25 3 26 5 27 8 28 9 29 6 30 5 31 2 32 1 33 1 34 1 35 36 1 37 1 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 50 21 - 37 28 mph 30 mph 22 - 31 44 88% 2% / 1 10% / 5 SPEED PARAMETERS #6 - Hillview Ave E/O Hanover St/Porter Dr City of Palo Alto Eastbound Spot Speeds 12:05-13:20 9/28/2023 Project #: 23-080265-006 0 2 4 6 8 10 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 72  Packet Pg. 256 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:30 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 21 2 22 2 23 3 24 6 25 9 26 6 27 11 28 9 29 5 30 6 31 4 32 5 33 2 34 2 35 1 36 2 37 1 38 39 40 1 41 1 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 79 20 - 41 27 mph 32 mph 23 - 32 64 81% 6% / 5 13% / 10 SPEED PARAMETERS #6 - Hillview Ave E/O Hanover St/Porter Dr City of Palo Alto Westbound Spot Speeds 12:05-13:20 9/28/2023 Project #: 23-080265-006 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 73  Packet Pg. 257 of 690  Day:Tuesday City:Palo Alto Date:9/12/2023 Project #:CA23_080264_006 NB SB EB WB Total 0 0 2,308 3,054 5,362 TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA NB SB EB WB TOTA 00:00 3 7 10 12:00 18 51 69 00:00 01:00 5 13 18 00:15 1 2 3 12:15 31 43 74 01:00 02:00 5 12 17 00:30 1 4 5 12:30 33 42 75 02:00 03:00 3 5 8 00:45 0 0 0 12:45 40 34 74 03:00 04:00 6 5 11 01:00 1 4 5 13:00 41 43 84 04:00 05:00 21 6 27 01:15 2 3 5 13:15 29 31 60 05:00 06:00 45 20 65 01:30 1 3 4 13:30 40 42 82 06:00 07:00 105 48 153 01:45 1 2 3 13:45 36 40 76 07:00 08:00 192 130 322 02:00 0 2 2 14:00 31 45 76 08:00 09:00 171 383 554 02:15 0 0 0 14:15 37 39 76 09:00 10:00 137 421 558 02:30 2 1 3 14:30 41 54 95 10:00 11:00 146 225 371 02:45 1 2 3 14:45 47 45 92 11:00 12:00 117 198 315 03:00 0 0 0 15:00 50 51 101 12:00 13:00 122 170 292 03:15 0 1 1 15:15 29 60 89 13:00 14:00 146 156 302 03:30 3 4 7 15:30 46 60 106 14:00 15:00 156 183 339 03:45 3 0 3 15:45 29 66 95 15:00 16:00 154 237 391 04:00 2 0 2 16:00 59 71 130 16:00 17:00 226 281 507 04:15 2 1 3 16:15 46 78 124 17:00 18:00 224 202 426 04:30 3 3 6 16:30 70 73 143 18:00 19:00 155 133 288 04:45 14 2 16 16:45 51 59 110 19:00 20:00 69 93 162 05:00 2 2 4 17:00 55 47 102 20:00 21:00 45 43 88 05:15 10 4 14 17:15 58 57 115 21:00 22:00 29 27 56 05:30 13 7 20 17:30 64 49 113 22:00 23:00 17 30 47 05:45 20 7 27 17:45 47 49 96 23:0 00:0 12 33 45 06:00 18 5 23 18:00 49 41 90 06:15 21 8 29 18:15 39 38 77 NB SB EB WB TOTA 06:30 20 13 33 18:30 34 28 62 00:00 to 12:00 06:45 46 22 68 18:45 33 26 59 953 1466 2419 07:00 48 23 71 19:00 25 26 51 7:15 8:45 8:45 07:15 54 30 84 19:15 15 22 37 194 460 627 07:30 29 31 60 19:30 13 15 28 0.795 0.865 0.891 07:45 61 46 107 19:45 16 30 46 08:00 50 79 129 20:00 13 18 31 12:00 to 00:00 08:15 35 96 131 20:15 10 10 20 1355 1588 2943 08:30 32 93 125 20:30 12 7 19 16:30 15:45 16:00 08:45 54 115 169 20:45 10 8 18 234 288 507 09:00 43 133 176 21:00 9 7 16 0.836 0.923 0.886 09:15 35 115 150 21:15 4 7 11 09:30 35 97 132 21:30 10 9 19 07:00 to 09:00 09:45 24 76 100 21:45 6 4 10 363 513 876 10:00 39 69 108 22:00 5 6 11 7:15 8:00 8:00 10:15 42 54 96 22:15 3 10 13 194 383 554 10:30 34 54 88 22:30 4 7 11 0.795 0.833 0.820 10:45 31 48 79 22:45 5 7 12 11:00 29 51 80 23:00 1 12 13 16:00 to 18:00 11:15 34 54 88 23:15 6 9 15 450 483 933 11:30 30 39 69 23:30 4 6 10 16:30 16:00 16:00 11:45 24 54 78 23:45 1 6 7 234 281 507 TOTALS 0 0 953 1466 2419 TOTALS 0 0 1355 1588 2943 0.836 0.901 0.886 SPLIT % 0% 0% 39% 61% 45% SPLIT % 0% 0% 46% 54% 55% Peak Hour Factor Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Prepared by National Data & Surveying Service VOLUME #6 ‐ Hillview Ave E/O Hanover St/Porter Dr DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS 15‐Minutes Interval Hourly Intervals TIME STATISTICS Peak Period Volume Peak Hour 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 00 : 0 0 01 : 0 0 02 : 0 0 03 : 0 0 04 : 0 0 05 : 0 0 06 : 0 0 07 : 0 0 08 : 0 0 09 : 0 0 10 : 0 0 11 : 0 0 12 : 0 0 13 : 0 0 14 : 0 0 15 : 0 0 16 : 0 0 17 : 0 0 18 : 0 0 19 : 0 0 20 : 0 0 21 : 0 0 22 : 0 0 23 : 0 0 NB SB EB WB Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 74  Packet Pg. 258 of 690  Segment #7 Street:Middlefield Rd. Limits:University Ave. to Embarcadero Rd. Direction:NB/SB Date /Location of Survey Posted Speed Limit (mph) # Speed Data Collected 85th Percentile (mph) 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Length of Segment (mi.) Street Classification Date Range Covered Total Accidents Accident Rate (Acc/MVM) Adjacent Land Use Roadway Geometrics Approved and Authorized for release by the City of Palo Alto: Signed: Date: :President, TJKM Transportation Consultants Signed:Nayan Amin, TE Date: C. Collision History D. Roadway Conditions Residential and institutional land uses on both sides. An undivided 2- to 4-lane residential arterial. Striped yellow line and double yellow line serve as median. Concrete sidewalks present on both sides. Class II bike lanes on both sides from south of Homer Ave. to approximately 180 feet north of Embarcadero Rd. on the western side and to approximately 385 feet north of Embarcadero Rd. on the eastern side. Signals at University Ave., Hamilton Ave., Homer Ave., Channing Ave., Addison Ave., Melville Ave., and Embarcadero Rd. Stop control at remaining intersections. Left-turn storage bays and right-turn storage bays present at some intersections on some approaches of segment present on both sides south of Homer Ave. School zone is present. No horizontal curves present. Some vertical curves present. Roadway has negative grade in the southerly direction. Driveway density high on both sides. Bulb-outs present at intersection with §22358.6(c) - Lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph from the rounded speed limit if the speed limit was initially rounded up from the 85th percentile speed: 35 --> 30 §22358.7 - Reduce the speed limit by an additional 5 mph as the portion of highway is located near facilities that generate high concentrations of pedestrians, including an elementary school, concrete sidewalks, and marked crosswalks: 30 --> 25 No Existing Speed Limit: 25 Recommended Speed Limit: 25 Factors A. Prevailing Speed Data B. Traffic Factors This survey conforms to Section 627 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code and Section 2B.13 of the California MUTCD and recommends a speed limit appropriate to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 75  Packet Pg. 259 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 19 20 21 22 23 4 24 6 25 13 26 10 27 20 28 13 29 27 30 24 31 19 32 15 33 9 34 7 35 3 36 4 37 1 38 39 1 40 1 41 1 42 43 1 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 180 18 - 43 29 mph 33 mph 25 - 34 157 87% 6% / 11 7% / 12 SPEED PARAMETERS #7 - Middlefield Rd Bet. Lincoln Ave & Kingsley Ave City of Palo Alto Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 11:00-12:00 9/20/2023 Project #: 23-080265-007 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 76  Packet Pg. 260 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 19 20 21 22 23 1 24 3 25 6 26 6 27 12 28 9 29 14 30 12 31 9 32 9 33 6 34 3 35 36 2 37 1 38 39 40 41 1 42 43 1 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 96 18 - 43 29 mph 32 mph 24 - 33 86 90% 2% / 2 9% / 8 SPEED PARAMETERS #7 - Middlefield Rd Bet. Lincoln Ave & Kingsley Ave City of Palo Alto Eastbound Spot Speeds 11:00-12:00 9/20/2023 Project #: 23-080265-007 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 77  Packet Pg. 261 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 3 24 3 25 7 26 4 27 8 28 4 29 13 30 12 31 10 32 6 33 3 34 4 35 3 36 2 37 38 39 1 40 1 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 84 23 - 40 29 mph 33 mph 25 - 34 71 85% 7% / 6 9% / 7 SPEED PARAMETERS #7 - Middlefield Rd Bet. Lincoln Ave & Kingsley Ave City of Palo Alto Westbound Spot Speeds 11:00-12:00 9/20/2023 Project #: 23-080265-007 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 78  Packet Pg. 262 of 690  Day:Tuesday City:Palo Alto Date:9/12/2023 Project #:CA23_080264_007 NB SB EB WB Total 0 0 3,528 3,132 6,660 TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA NB SB EB WB TOTA 00:00 2 4 6 12:00 53 53 106 00:00 01:00 10 12 22 00:15 5 1 6 12:15 53 52 105 01:00 02:00 2 7 9 00:30 2 5 7 12:30 52 44 96 02:00 03:00 2 4 6 00:45 1 2 3 12:45 58 65 123 03:00 04:00 4 1 5 01:00 1 3 4 13:00 49 53 102 04:00 05:00 11 7 18 01:15 0 1 1 13:15 59 48 107 05:00 06:00 8 14 22 01:30 0 0 0 13:30 54 58 112 06:00 07:00 53 53 106 01:45 1 3 4 13:45 70 45 115 07:00 08:00 137 167 304 02:00 0 1 1 14:00 89 44 133 08:00 09:00 291 296 587 02:15 0 2 2 14:15 58 60 118 09:00 10:00 265 214 479 02:30 2 0 2 14:30 62 60 122 10:00 11:00 233 207 440 02:45 0 1 1 14:45 71 52 123 11:00 12:00 222 214 436 03:00 2 0 2 15:00 51 65 116 12:00 13:00 216 214 430 03:15 1 0 1 15:15 78 59 137 13:00 14:00 232 204 436 03:30 1 1 2 15:30 92 52 144 14:00 15:00 280 216 496 03:45 0 0 0 15:45 92 48 140 15:00 16:00 313 224 537 04:00 1 1 2 16:00 84 67 151 16:00 17:00 328 269 597 04:15 4 2 6 16:15 69 63 132 17:00 18:00 351 284 635 04:30 3 3 6 16:30 73 63 136 18:00 19:00 224 204 428 04:45 3 1 4 16:45 102 76 178 19:00 20:00 132 139 271 05:00 1 0 1 17:00 99 76 175 20:00 21:00 98 83 181 05:15 1 3 4 17:15 103 66 169 21:00 22:00 58 60 118 05:30 2 5 7 17:30 82 61 143 22:00 23:00 38 31 69 05:45 4 6 10 17:45 67 81 148 23:0 00:0 20 8 28 06:00 6 12 18 18:00 60 64 124 06:15 8 9 17 18:15 61 52 113 NB SB EB WB TOTA 06:30 21 14 35 18:30 48 39 87 00:00 to 12:00 06:45 18 18 36 18:45 55 49 104 1238 1196 2434 07:00 28 22 50 19:00 40 47 87 8:30 8:15 8:15 07:15 22 25 47 19:15 37 37 74 294 301 590 07:30 35 51 86 19:30 30 16 46 0.855 0.907 0.934 07:45 52 69 121 19:45 25 39 64 08:00 71 67 138 20:00 17 22 39 12:00 to 00:00 08:15 81 77 158 20:15 26 22 48 2290 1936 4226 08:30 72 83 155 20:30 29 27 56 16:45 17:00 16:45 08:45 67 69 136 20:45 26 12 38 386 284 665 09:00 69 72 141 21:00 19 19 38 0.937 0.877 0.934 09:15 86 56 142 21:15 17 21 38 09:30 59 29 88 21:30 10 11 21 07:00 to 09:00 09:45 51 57 108 21:45 12 9 21 428 463 891 10:00 66 70 136 22:00 12 10 22 8:00 7:45 8:00 10:15 53 46 99 22:15 10 5 15 291 296 587 10:30 57 38 95 22:30 7 10 17 0.898 0.892 0.929 10:45 57 53 110 22:45 9 6 15 11:00 62 52 114 23:00 8 3 11 16:00 to 18:00 11:15 55 58 113 23:15 6 2 8 679 553 1232 11:30 46 52 98 23:30 6 0 6 16:45 17:00 16:45 11:45 59 52 111 23:45 0 3 3 386 284 665 TOTALS 0 0 1238 1196 2434 TOTALS 0 0 2290 1936 4226 0.937 0.877 0.934 SPLIT % 0% 0% 51% 49% 37% SPLIT % 0% 0% 54% 46% 63% Peak Hour Factor Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Prepared by National Data & Surveying Service VOLUME #7 ‐ Middlefield Rd Bet. Lincoln Ave & Kingsley Ave DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS 15‐Minutes Interval Hourly Intervals TIME STATISTICS Peak Period Volume Peak Hour 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 00 : 0 0 01 : 0 0 02 : 0 0 03 : 0 0 04 : 0 0 05 : 0 0 06 : 0 0 07 : 0 0 08 : 0 0 09 : 0 0 10 : 0 0 11 : 0 0 12 : 0 0 13 : 0 0 14 : 0 0 15 : 0 0 16 : 0 0 17 : 0 0 18 : 0 0 19 : 0 0 20 : 0 0 21 : 0 0 22 : 0 0 23 : 0 0 NB SB EB WB Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 79  Packet Pg. 263 of 690  Segment #8 Street:San Antonio Rd. Limits:Alma St. to Middlefield Rd. Direction:EB/WB Date /Location of Survey Posted Speed Limit (mph) # Speed Data Collected 85th Percentile (mph) 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Length of Segment (mi.) Street Classification Date Range Covered Total Accidents Accident Rate (Acc/MVM) Adjacent Land Use Roadway Geometrics Approved and Authorized for release by the City of Palo Alto: Signed: Date: :President, TJKM Transportation Consultants Signed:Nayan Amin, TE Date: C. Collision History D. Roadway Conditions Residential and institutional land uses on both sides. Commercial land uses on eastern side near Alma St. A divided 4-lane arterial. Raised median serves as median. Concrete sidewalks present on eastern side north of Nita Ave. No bike facilities present. Signals at Middlefield Rd. and Nita Ave. Side street stop control at remaining intersections. Left-turn storage bays present at Middlefield Rd. and right-turn storage bays present at Nita Ave. and Byron St. Marked crosswalks present at signalized intersections and at Byron St. No on-street parking permitted on either side. School zone is present. Broad horiztonal curves present throughout segment. Vertical curves present near Alma St. Roadway has negative slope in northerly direction. Moderate driveway density on eastern side. §22358.6(c) - Lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph from the rounded speed limit if the speed limit was initially rounded up from the 85th percentile speed: 45 --> 40 §22358.7 - Reduce the speed limit by an additional 5 mph as the portion of highway is located near facilities that generate high 40 --> 35 No Existing Speed Limit: 35 Recommended Speed Limit: 35 Factors A. Prevailing Speed Data B. Traffic Factors This survey conforms to Section 627 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code and Section 2B.13 of the California MUTCD and recommends a speed limit appropriate to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 80  Packet Pg. 264 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:35 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 31 2 32 5 33 8 34 10 35 15 36 15 37 17 38 19 39 20 40 18 41 15 42 12 43 10 44 8 45 7 46 5 47 4 48 3 49 1 50 4 51 1 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 200 30 - 51 39 mph 44 mph 34 - 43 151 76% 8% / 16 17% / 33 SPEED PARAMETERS #8 - San Antonio Rd S/O W Middlefleld Rd City of Palo Alto Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 10:50-11:40 9/27/2023 Project #: 23-080265-008 0 5 10 15 20 25 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 81  Packet Pg. 265 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:35 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 32 2 33 2 34 4 35 7 36 9 37 9 38 10 39 11 40 8 41 7 42 6 43 7 44 6 45 4 46 1 47 2 48 1 49 1 50 2 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 100 31 - 50 39 mph 44 mph 35 - 44 80 80% 9% / 9 11% / 11 SPEED PARAMETERS #8 - San Antonio Rd S/O W Middlefleld Rd City of Palo Alto Northbound Spot Speeds 10:50-11:40 9/27/2023 Project #: 23-080265-008 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 82  Packet Pg. 266 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:35 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 31 1 32 3 33 6 34 6 35 8 36 6 37 8 38 9 39 9 40 10 41 8 42 6 43 3 44 2 45 3 46 4 47 2 48 2 49 50 2 51 1 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 100 30 - 51 39 mph 44 mph 33 - 42 76 76% 5% / 5 19% / 19 SPEED PARAMETERS #8 - San Antonio Rd S/O W Middlefleld Rd City of Palo Alto Southbound Spot Speeds 10:50-11:40 9/27/2023 Project #: 23-080265-008 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 83  Packet Pg. 267 of 690  Day:Tuesday City:Palo Alto Date:9/12/2023 Project #:CA23_080264_008 NB SB EB WB Total 14,728 16,705 0 0 31,433 TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA NB SB EB WB TOTA 00:00 24 29 53 12:00 236 262 498 00:00 01:00 76 93 169 00:15 19 19 38 12:15 230 267 497 01:00 02:00 47 45 92 00:30 15 29 44 12:30 242 263 505 02:00 03:00 42 46 88 00:45 18 16 34 12:45 226 261 487 03:00 04:00 36 35 71 01:00 14 11 25 13:00 245 229 474 04:00 05:00 67 73 140 01:15 13 12 25 13:15 226 230 456 05:00 06:00 167 217 384 01:30 10 13 23 13:30 226 217 443 06:00 07:00 326 365 691 01:45 10 9 19 13:45 232 258 490 07:00 08:00 881 720 1601 02:00 9 17 26 14:00 203 254 457 08:00 09:00 1089 1099 2188 02:15 14 9 23 14:15 229 273 502 09:00 10:00 1059 852 1911 02:30 13 9 22 14:30 239 279 518 10:00 11:00 855 875 1730 02:45 6 11 17 14:45 226 306 532 11:00 12:00 879 971 1850 03:00 7 11 18 15:00 251 296 547 12:00 13:00 934 1053 1987 03:15 10 7 17 15:15 265 325 590 13:00 14:00 929 934 1863 03:30 8 6 14 15:30 260 352 612 14:00 15:00 897 1112 2009 03:45 11 11 22 15:45 292 330 622 15:00 16:00 1068 1303 2371 04:00 11 15 26 16:00 245 323 568 16:00 17:00 993 1380 2373 04:15 10 16 26 16:15 231 364 595 17:00 18:00 972 1589 2561 04:30 28 15 43 16:30 278 333 611 18:00 19:00 926 1346 2272 04:45 18 27 45 16:45 239 360 599 19:00 20:00 783 933 1716 05:00 32 36 68 17:00 232 400 632 20:00 21:00 740 720 1460 05:15 34 54 88 17:15 225 405 630 21:00 22:00 478 469 947 05:30 42 53 95 17:30 274 396 670 22:00 23:00 303 297 600 05:45 59 74 133 17:45 241 388 629 23:0 00:0 181 178 359 06:00 58 74 132 18:00 250 358 608 06:15 84 87 171 18:15 217 334 551 NB SB EB WB TOTA 06:30 88 89 177 18:30 203 309 512 00:00 to 12:00 06:45 96 115 211 18:45 256 345 601 5524 5391 10915 07:00 147 128 275 19:00 231 263 494 7:30 7:45 7:45 07:15 187 172 359 19:15 199 237 436 1152 1107 2255 07:30 242 188 430 19:30 163 205 368 0.862 0.884 0.871 07:45 305 232 537 19:45 190 228 418 08:00 334 313 647 20:00 197 213 410 12:00 to 00:00 08:15 271 264 535 20:15 198 191 389 9204 11314 20518 08:30 238 298 536 20:30 172 157 329 15:00 17:00 17:00 08:45 246 224 470 20:45 173 159 332 1068 1589 2561 09:00 245 204 449 21:00 136 139 275 0.914 0.981 0.956 09:15 288 217 505 21:15 117 126 243 09:30 240 205 445 21:30 120 101 221 07:00 to 09:00 09:45 286 226 512 21:45 105 103 208 1970 1819 3789 10:00 214 193 407 22:00 99 88 187 7:30 7:45 7:45 10:15 221 229 450 22:15 83 69 152 1152 1107 2255 10:30 215 201 416 22:30 72 68 140 0.862 0.884 0.871 10:45 205 252 457 22:45 49 72 121 11:00 233 216 449 23:00 79 53 132 16:00 to 18:00 11:15 215 231 446 23:15 41 48 89 1965 2969 4934 11:30 211 244 455 23:30 31 41 72 16:00 17:00 17:00 11:45 220 280 500 23:45 30 36 66 993 1589 2561 TOTALS 5524 5391 0 0 10915 TOTALS 9204 11314 0 0 20518 0.893 0.981 0.956 SPLIT % 51% 49% 0% 0% 35% SPLIT % 45% 55% 0% 0% 65% Peak Hour Factor Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Prepared by National Data & Surveying Service VOLUME #8 ‐ San Antonio Rd S/O W Middlefleld Rd DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS 15‐Minutes Interval Hourly Intervals TIME STATISTICS Peak Period Volume Peak Hour 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 00 : 0 0 01 : 0 0 02 : 0 0 03 : 0 0 04 : 0 0 05 : 0 0 06 : 0 0 07 : 0 0 08 : 0 0 09 : 0 0 10 : 0 0 11 : 0 0 12 : 0 0 13 : 0 0 14 : 0 0 15 : 0 0 16 : 0 0 17 : 0 0 18 : 0 0 19 : 0 0 20 : 0 0 21 : 0 0 22 : 0 0 23 : 0 0 NB SB EB WB Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 84  Packet Pg. 268 of 690  Segment #9 Street:San Antonio Rd. Limits:Middlefield Rd. to Charleston Rd. Direction:EB/WB Date /Location of Survey Posted Speed Limit (mph) # Speed Data Collected 85th Percentile (mph) 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Length of Segment (mi.) Street Classification Date Range Covered Total Accidents Accident Rate (Acc/MVM) Adjacent Land Use Roadway Geometrics Approved and Authorized for release by the City of Palo Alto: Signed: Date: :President, TJKM Transportation Consultants Signed:Nayan Amin, TE Date: C. Collision History D. Roadway Conditions Commercial and residential land uses on western side. Commercial land uses on eastern side. A divided 4-lane arterial. Raised median serves as median. Concrete sidewalks present on both sides. Class III sharrows on both sides. Signals at all intersections. Stop control on SB approach of frontage lane to mainline lanes. Lef-turn storage bays and right- turn storage bays present at signalized intersections. Marked crosswalks present at signalized intersections. On-street parking present on both sides from approximately 345 feet north of Middlefield Rd. to approximately 490 feet south of Charleston Rd. No school zone present. Slight horizontal curve near Leghorn St. No vertical curves. Segment sloped negatively northwardly. Driveway density high on both sides. Additional southbound lane from Charleston Rd. to approximately 490 feet south of Charleston Rd. separated from mainline by raised median and angled parking. §22358.6(c) - Lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph from the rounded speed limit if the speed limit was initially rounded up from the 85th percentile speed: 40 --> 35 No Existing Speed Limit: 35 Recommended Speed Limit: 35 Factors A. Prevailing Speed Data B. Traffic Factors This survey conforms to Section 627 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code and Section 2B.13 of the California MUTCD and recommends a speed limit appropriate to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 85  Packet Pg. 269 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:35 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 26 3 27 5 28 9 29 8 30 11 31 14 32 14 33 15 34 17 35 18 36 19 37 14 38 14 39 8 40 7 41 3 42 4 43 6 44 2 45 46 2 47 48 1 49 2 50 51 52 1 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 201 25 - 52 35 mph 39 mph 29 - 38 144 72% 10% / 21 18% / 36 SPEED PARAMETERS #9 - San Antonio Rd S/O Leghorn St City of Palo Alto Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 09:00-09:50 9/21/2023 Project #: 23-080265-009 0 5 10 15 20 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 86  Packet Pg. 270 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:35 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 26 2 27 3 28 6 29 6 30 5 31 7 32 7 33 8 34 10 35 10 36 8 37 5 38 5 39 3 40 2 41 1 42 2 43 3 44 1 45 46 1 47 48 1 49 1 50 51 52 1 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 100 25 - 52 34 mph 39 mph 28 - 37 72 72% 7% / 7 21% / 21 SPEED PARAMETERS #9 - San Antonio Rd S/O Leghorn St City of Palo Alto Northbound Spot Speeds 09:00-09:50 9/21/2023 Project #: 23-080265-009 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 87  Packet Pg. 271 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:35 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 26 1 27 2 28 3 29 2 30 6 31 7 32 7 33 7 34 7 35 8 36 11 37 9 38 9 39 5 40 5 41 2 42 2 43 3 44 1 45 46 1 47 48 49 1 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 101 25 - 49 35 mph 39 mph 30 - 39 76 75% 9% / 10 15% / 15 SPEED PARAMETERS #9 - San Antonio Rd S/O Leghorn St City of Palo Alto Southbound Spot Speeds 09:00-09:50 9/21/2023 Project #: 23-080265-009 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 88  Packet Pg. 272 of 690  Day:Tuesday City:Palo Alto Date:9/12/2023 Project #:CA23_080264_009 NB SB EB WB Total 11,838 13,311 0 0 25,149 TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA NB SB EB WB TOTA 00:00 20 28 48 12:00 191 182 373 00:00 01:00 67 81 148 00:15 19 15 34 12:15 205 218 423 01:00 02:00 37 38 75 00:30 13 26 39 12:30 163 203 366 02:00 03:00 27 37 64 00:45 15 12 27 12:45 191 189 380 03:00 04:00 27 30 57 01:00 14 10 24 13:00 193 177 370 04:00 05:00 51 62 113 01:15 8 9 17 13:15 170 175 345 05:00 06:00 127 140 267 01:30 6 10 16 13:30 166 193 359 06:00 07:00 255 271 526 01:45 9 9 18 13:45 174 220 394 07:00 08:00 715 577 1292 02:00 7 11 18 14:00 161 228 389 08:00 09:00 974 816 1790 02:15 6 6 12 14:15 193 233 426 09:00 10:00 903 722 1625 02:30 9 9 18 14:30 181 221 402 10:00 11:00 708 708 1416 02:45 5 11 16 14:45 176 263 439 11:00 12:00 689 773 1462 03:00 4 10 14 15:00 186 258 444 12:00 13:00 750 792 1542 03:15 7 5 12 15:15 185 278 463 13:00 14:00 703 765 1468 03:30 8 6 14 15:30 210 249 459 14:00 15:00 711 945 1656 03:45 8 9 17 15:45 205 278 483 15:00 16:00 786 1063 1849 04:00 11 9 20 16:00 216 292 508 16:00 17:00 863 1186 2049 04:15 9 17 26 16:15 214 283 497 17:00 18:00 871 1215 2086 04:30 16 12 28 16:30 229 304 533 18:00 19:00 700 1053 1753 04:45 15 24 39 16:45 204 307 511 19:00 20:00 568 799 1367 05:00 25 20 45 17:00 246 315 561 20:00 21:00 528 552 1080 05:15 28 33 61 17:15 211 332 543 21:00 22:00 355 335 690 05:30 35 46 81 17:30 204 294 498 22:00 23:00 281 219 500 05:45 39 41 80 17:45 210 274 484 23:0 00:0 142 132 274 06:00 50 51 101 18:00 198 277 475 06:15 60 57 117 18:15 196 253 449 NB SB EB WB TOTA 06:30 69 66 135 18:30 155 269 424 00:00 to 12:00 06:45 76 97 173 18:45 151 254 405 4580 4255 8835 07:00 123 114 237 19:00 159 215 374 8:30 8:00 8:00 07:15 164 136 300 19:15 152 227 379 999 816 1790 07:30 200 157 357 19:30 129 187 316 0.932 0.940 0.917 07:45 228 170 398 19:45 128 170 298 08:00 271 217 488 20:00 134 156 290 12:00 to 00:00 08:15 218 209 427 20:15 157 145 302 7258 9056 16314 08:30 232 211 443 20:30 114 138 252 16:15 16:30 16:30 08:45 253 179 432 20:45 123 113 236 893 1258 2148 09:00 268 165 433 21:00 100 97 197 0.908 0.947 0.957 09:15 246 191 437 21:15 84 89 173 09:30 179 188 367 21:30 79 76 155 07:00 to 09:00 09:45 210 178 388 21:45 92 73 165 1689 1393 3082 10:00 169 163 332 22:00 89 65 154 8:00 8:00 8:00 10:15 170 186 356 22:15 84 48 132 974 816 1790 10:30 177 161 338 22:30 67 55 122 0.899 0.940 0.917 10:45 192 198 390 22:45 41 51 92 11:00 169 182 351 23:00 57 39 96 16:00 to 18:00 11:15 160 187 347 23:15 33 33 66 1734 2401 4135 11:30 191 200 391 23:30 25 33 58 16:15 16:30 16:30 11:45 169 204 373 23:45 27 27 54 893 1258 2148 TOTALS 4580 4255 0 0 8835 TOTALS 7258 9056 0 0 16314 0.908 0.947 0.957 SPLIT % 52% 48% 0% 0% 35% SPLIT % 44% 56% 0% 0% 65% Peak Volume Prepared by National Data & Surveying Service VOLUME #9 ‐ San Antonio Rd S/O Leghorn St DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS 15‐Minutes Interval Hourly Intervals TIME STATISTICS Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 00 : 0 0 01 : 0 0 02 : 0 0 03 : 0 0 04 : 0 0 05 : 0 0 06 : 0 0 07 : 0 0 08 : 0 0 09 : 0 0 10 : 0 0 11 : 0 0 12 : 0 0 13 : 0 0 14 : 0 0 15 : 0 0 16 : 0 0 17 : 0 0 18 : 0 0 19 : 0 0 20 : 0 0 21 : 0 0 22 : 0 0 23 : 0 0 NB SB EB WB Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 89  Packet Pg. 273 of 690  Segment #10 Street:W. Bayshore Rd. Limits:Loma Verde Ave. to Fabian Way Direction:NB/SB Date /Location of Survey Posted Speed Limit (mph) # Speed Data Collected 85th Percentile (mph) 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Length of Segment (mi.) Street Classification Date Range Covered Total Accidents Accident Rate (Acc/MVM) Adjacent Land Use Roadway Geometrics Approved and Authorized for release by the City of Palo Alto: Signed: Date: :President, TJKM Transportation Consultants Signed:Nayan Amin, TE Date: C. Collision History D. Roadway Conditions Commercial land uses on western side. An undivided 2-lane local/collector. Double yellow line serves as median. Concrete sidewalks present on western side. Class II bike lanes on both sides. Stop control on side street (Loma Verde Ave.). No storage bays present. Marked crosswalk present on side school zone present. Gentle horizontal curve and vertical curves present on southern end of segment. Driveway density moderate on western side. Segment serves as frontage road to US 101. Pedestrian bridge allows crossing access over segment and US 101. §22358.6(c) - Lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph from the rounded speed limit if the speed limit was initially rounded up from the 85th percentile speed: 45 --> 40 §22358.7 - Reduce the speed limit by an additional 5 mph as the portion of highway is located near facilities that generate high concentrations of pedestrians and bicyclists, including a K-12 school, concrete sidewalks, bikeways, and marked crosswalks: 40 --> 35 No Existing Speed Limit: 35 Recommended Speed Limit: 35 Factors A. Prevailing Speed Data B. Traffic Factors This survey conforms to Section 627 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code and Section 2B.13 of the California MUTCD and recommends a speed limit appropriate to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 90  Packet Pg. 274 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:35 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 27 28 1 29 1 30 1 31 1 32 4 33 8 34 9 35 14 36 11 37 10 38 15 39 13 40 12 41 9 42 10 43 11 44 8 45 9 46 4 47 6 48 2 49 2 50 2 51 52 2 53 54 1 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 167 26 - 54 39 mph 45 mph 34 - 43 114 68% 10% / 17 22% / 36 SPEED PARAMETERS #10 - W Bayshore Rd Bet. E Meadow Dr & Loma Verde Ave City of Palo Alto Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 10:15-11:15 9/21/2023 Project #: 23-080265-010 0 5 10 15 20 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 91  Packet Pg. 275 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:35 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 27 28 1 29 1 30 31 32 1 33 5 34 3 35 6 36 4 37 5 38 8 39 3 40 6 41 6 42 5 43 9 44 6 45 6 46 3 47 5 48 2 49 1 50 2 51 52 2 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 91 26 - 52 41 mph 46 mph 35 - 44 58 64% 13% / 12 24% / 21 SPEED PARAMETERS #10 - W Bayshore Rd Bet. E Meadow Dr & Loma Verde Ave City of Palo Alto Northbound Spot Speeds 10:15-11:15 9/21/2023 Project #: 23-080265-010 0 2 4 6 8 10 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 92  Packet Pg. 276 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:35 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 31 1 32 3 33 3 34 6 35 8 36 7 37 5 38 7 39 10 40 6 41 3 42 5 43 2 44 2 45 3 46 1 47 1 48 49 1 50 51 52 53 54 1 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 76 30 - 54 38 mph 42 mph 33 - 42 60 79% 6% / 5 15% / 11 SPEED PARAMETERS #10 - W Bayshore Rd Bet. E Meadow Dr & Loma Verde Ave City of Palo Alto Southbound Spot Speeds 10:15-11:15 9/21/2023 Project #: 23-080265-010 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 93  Packet Pg. 277 of 690  Day:Tuesday City:Palo Alto Date:9/12/2023 Project #:CA23_080264_010 NB SB EB WB Total 2,323 2,151 0 0 4,474 TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA NB SB EB WB TOTA 00:00 1 0 1 12:00 28 32 60 00:00 01:00 7 2 9 00:15 5 2 7 12:15 35 18 53 01:00 02:00 5 2 7 00:30 1 0 1 12:30 25 16 41 02:00 03:00 4 4 8 00:45 0 0 0 12:45 29 23 52 03:00 04:00 2 1 3 01:00 1 1 2 13:00 39 17 56 04:00 05:00 3 5 8 01:15 2 0 2 13:15 19 20 39 05:00 06:00 3 18 21 01:30 1 0 1 13:30 31 21 52 06:00 07:00 38 29 67 01:45 1 1 2 13:45 32 24 56 07:00 08:00 87 128 215 02:00 0 0 0 14:00 39 17 56 08:00 09:00 217 279 496 02:15 0 1 1 14:15 36 23 59 09:00 10:00 128 184 312 02:30 3 2 5 14:30 54 28 82 10:00 11:00 87 112 199 02:45 1 1 2 14:45 34 31 65 11:00 12:00 104 94 198 03:00 0 0 0 15:00 43 47 90 12:00 13:00 117 89 206 03:15 1 1 2 15:15 70 50 120 13:00 14:00 121 82 203 03:30 0 0 0 15:30 71 44 115 14:00 15:00 163 99 262 03:45 1 0 1 15:45 43 48 91 15:00 16:00 227 189 416 04:00 0 0 0 16:00 54 44 98 16:00 17:00 231 204 435 04:15 1 2 3 16:15 61 56 117 17:00 18:00 319 289 608 04:30 2 0 2 16:30 58 45 103 18:00 19:00 175 143 318 04:45 0 3 3 16:45 58 59 117 19:00 20:00 110 96 206 05:00 0 1 1 17:00 104 60 164 20:00 21:00 90 56 146 05:15 0 2 2 17:15 69 65 134 21:00 22:00 45 24 69 05:30 1 7 8 17:30 66 84 150 22:00 23:00 22 11 33 05:45 2 8 10 17:45 80 80 160 23:0 00:0 18 11 29 06:00 10 3 13 18:00 51 47 98 06:15 5 5 10 18:15 44 39 83 NB SB EB WB TOTA 06:30 10 10 20 18:30 38 30 68 00:00 to 12:00 06:45 13 11 24 18:45 42 27 69 685 858 1543 07:00 9 16 25 19:00 35 38 73 7:45 7:45 7:45 07:15 12 21 33 19:15 32 23 55 219 281 500 07:30 20 24 44 19:30 18 14 32 0.805 0.789 0.796 07:45 46 67 113 19:45 25 21 46 08:00 68 89 157 20:00 17 17 34 12:00 to 00:00 08:15 61 73 134 20:15 19 10 29 1638 1293 2931 08:30 44 52 96 20:30 23 15 38 17:00 17:00 17:00 08:45 44 65 109 20:45 31 14 45 319 289 608 09:00 39 59 98 21:00 17 5 22 0.767 0.860 0.927 09:15 36 52 88 21:15 15 4 19 09:30 24 46 70 21:30 8 9 17 07:00 to 09:00 09:45 29 27 56 21:45 5 6 11 304 407 711 10:00 24 33 57 22:00 9 1 10 7:45 7:45 7:45 10:15 20 30 50 22:15 6 3 9 219 281 500 10:30 16 23 39 22:30 5 4 9 0.805 0.789 0.796 10:45 27 26 53 22:45 2 3 5 11:00 14 25 39 23:00 5 3 8 16:00 to 18:00 11:15 30 23 53 23:15 4 6 10 550 493 1043 11:30 24 17 41 23:30 7 1 8 17:00 17:00 17:00 11:45 36 29 65 23:45 2 1 3 319 289 608 TOTALS 685 858 0 0 1543 TOTALS 1638 1293 0 0 2931 0.767 0.860 0.927 SPLIT % 44% 56% 0% 0% 34% SPLIT % 56% 44% 0% 0% 66% Peak Hour Factor Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Prepared by National Data & Surveying Service VOLUME #10 ‐ W Bayshore Rd Bet. E Meadow Dr & Loma Verde Ave DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS 15‐Minutes Interval Hourly Intervals TIME STATISTICS Peak Period Volume Peak Hour 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 00 : 0 0 01 : 0 0 02 : 0 0 03 : 0 0 04 : 0 0 05 : 0 0 06 : 0 0 07 : 0 0 08 : 0 0 09 : 0 0 10 : 0 0 11 : 0 0 12 : 0 0 13 : 0 0 14 : 0 0 15 : 0 0 16 : 0 0 17 : 0 0 18 : 0 0 19 : 0 0 20 : 0 0 21 : 0 0 22 : 0 0 23 : 0 0 NB SB EB WB Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 94  Packet Pg. 278 of 690  Segment #11 Street:Charleston Rd. Limits:El Camino Real to Alma St. Direction:EB/WB Date /Location of Survey Posted Speed Limit (mph) # Speed Data Collected 85th Percentile (mph) 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Length of Segment (mi.) Street Classification Date Range Covered Total Accidents Accident Rate (Acc/MVM) Adjacent Land Use Roadway Geometrics Approved and Authorized for release by the City of Palo Alto: Signed: Date: :President, TJKM Transportation Consultants Signed:Nayan Amin, TE Date: C. Collision History D. Roadway Conditions Residential land uses on both sides. An undivided 4-lane residential arterial. Double yellow line serves as median. Concrete sidewalks present on both sides. Class II bike lanes on both sides. Signals present at intersections with Alma St., Wilkie Wy., and El Camino Real. Side street stop control at remaining intersections. Left-turn storage bays on segment and side streets present at intersections with Wilkie Wy. and El Camino Real. Marked crosswalks present at all intersections. No on-street parking permitted on either side. No school zone present, though a preschool is present on the southern side near El Camino Real. No horizontal curves present. Minimal vertical curves. Segment has easterly negative grade. Driveway density high on both sides from Park Blvd. to Wilkie Wy., and on northern side south of Wilkie Wy. One driveway to preschool on southern side south of Wilkie Wy. At-grade railroad crossing present adjacent to intersection with Alma St. §22358.6(b) - Lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph from the rounded speed limit if the speed limit was initially rounded down from the 85th percentile speed: 35 --> 30 §22358.7 - Reduce the speed limit by an additional 5 mph as the portion of highway is located near facilities that generate high concentrations of pedestrians and bicyclists, including a preschool, concrete sidewalks, Class II bike lanes, and marked crosswalks: 30 --> 25 No Existing Speed Limit: 25 Recommended Speed Limit: 25 Factors A. Prevailing Speed Data B. Traffic Factors This survey conforms to Section 627 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code and Section 2B.13 of the California MUTCD and recommends a speed limit appropriate to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 95  Packet Pg. 279 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 23 1 24 4 25 5 26 4 27 7 28 9 29 17 30 20 31 20 32 24 33 24 34 19 35 14 36 12 37 10 38 6 39 3 40 2 41 1 42 1 43 44 2 45 2 46 1 47 1 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 211 22 - 47 32 mph 36 mph 28 - 37 169 80% 10% / 23 10% / 19 SPEED PARAMETERS #11 - W Charleston Rd Bet. Ruthelma Ave & Wilkie Way City of Palo Alto Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 12:00-12:50 9/27/2023 Project #: 23-080265-011 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 96  Packet Pg. 280 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 23 1 24 3 25 3 26 2 27 4 28 6 29 9 30 11 31 12 32 13 33 12 34 8 35 6 36 3 37 4 38 3 39 40 41 42 1 43 44 1 45 46 47 1 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 104 22 - 47 31 mph 35 mph 27 - 36 84 81% 9% / 10 10% / 10 SPEED PARAMETERS #11 - W Charleston Rd Bet. Ruthelma Ave & Wilkie Way City of Palo Alto Northbound Spot Speeds 12:00-12:50 9/27/2023 Project #: 23-080265-011 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 97  Packet Pg. 281 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 23 24 1 25 2 26 2 27 3 28 3 29 8 30 9 31 8 32 11 33 12 34 11 35 8 36 9 37 6 38 3 39 3 40 2 41 1 42 43 44 1 45 2 46 1 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 107 22 - 46 33 mph 37 mph 28 - 37 85 79% 8% / 9 13% / 13 SPEED PARAMETERS #11 - W Charleston Rd Bet. Ruthelma Ave & Wilkie Way City of Palo Alto Southbound Spot Speeds 12:00-12:50 9/27/2023 Project #: 23-080265-011 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 98  Packet Pg. 282 of 690  Day:Tuesday City:Palo Alto Date:9/12/2023 Project #:CA23_080264_011 NB SB EB WB Total 6,624 6,208 0 0 12,832 TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA NB SB EB WB TOTA 00:00 21 6 27 12:00 101 71 172 00:00 01:00 39 21 60 00:15 8 6 14 12:15 110 92 202 01:00 02:00 15 14 29 00:30 8 7 15 12:30 108 105 213 02:00 03:00 14 6 20 00:45 2 2 4 12:45 125 88 213 03:00 04:00 6 8 14 01:00 4 2 6 13:00 88 77 165 04:00 05:00 10 32 42 01:15 2 3 5 13:15 102 86 188 05:00 06:00 40 83 123 01:30 3 2 5 13:30 110 95 205 06:00 07:00 89 201 290 01:45 6 7 13 13:45 116 87 203 07:00 08:00 340 429 769 02:00 3 1 4 14:00 112 92 204 08:00 09:00 570 653 1223 02:15 5 1 6 14:15 100 99 199 09:00 10:00 501 386 887 02:30 3 3 6 14:30 141 92 233 10:00 11:00 331 325 656 02:45 3 1 4 14:45 143 93 236 11:00 12:00 405 348 753 03:00 0 1 1 15:00 123 92 215 12:00 13:00 444 356 800 03:15 3 4 7 15:15 130 137 267 13:00 14:00 416 345 761 03:30 3 2 5 15:30 156 113 269 14:00 15:00 496 376 872 03:45 0 1 1 15:45 135 142 277 15:00 16:00 544 484 1028 04:00 2 5 7 16:00 153 116 269 16:00 17:00 563 440 1003 04:15 1 4 5 16:15 141 103 244 17:00 18:00 532 517 1049 04:30 3 9 12 16:30 147 101 248 18:00 19:00 424 380 804 04:45 4 14 18 16:45 122 120 242 19:00 20:00 311 333 644 05:00 6 16 22 17:00 145 126 271 20:00 21:00 234 232 466 05:15 7 7 14 17:15 123 134 257 21:00 22:00 151 112 263 05:30 9 20 29 17:30 138 131 269 22:00 23:00 86 69 155 05:45 18 40 58 17:45 126 126 252 23:0 00:0 63 58 121 06:00 11 42 53 18:00 114 119 233 06:15 23 47 70 18:15 101 81 182 NB SB EB WB TOTA 06:30 24 44 68 18:30 112 92 204 00:00 to 12:00 06:45 31 68 99 18:45 97 88 185 2360 2506 4866 07:00 54 92 146 19:00 90 87 177 8:15 8:00 8:00 07:15 53 80 133 19:15 83 80 163 598 653 1223 07:30 107 118 225 19:30 72 81 153 0.971 0.841 0.881 07:45 126 139 265 19:45 66 85 151 08:00 126 164 290 20:00 55 59 114 12:00 to 00:00 08:15 147 150 297 20:15 68 61 129 4264 3702 7966 08:30 153 194 347 20:30 53 44 97 15:30 17:00 15:15 08:45 144 145 289 20:45 58 68 126 585 517 1082 09:00 154 91 245 21:00 52 51 103 0.938 0.965 0.977 09:15 118 115 233 21:15 36 27 63 09:30 119 86 205 21:30 41 10 51 07:00 to 09:00 09:45 110 94 204 21:45 22 24 46 910 1082 1992 10:00 87 71 158 22:00 23 22 45 8:00 8:00 8:00 10:15 102 87 189 22:15 25 16 41 570 653 1223 10:30 65 68 133 22:30 22 17 39 0.931 0.841 0.881 10:45 77 99 176 22:45 16 14 30 11:00 88 82 170 23:00 23 13 36 16:00 to 18:00 11:15 111 90 201 23:15 15 17 32 1095 957 2052 11:30 110 94 204 23:30 10 17 27 16:00 17:00 17:00 11:45 96 82 178 23:45 15 11 26 563 517 1049 TOTALS 2360 2506 0 0 4866 TOTALS 4264 3702 0 0 7966 0.920 0.965 0.968 SPLIT % 48% 52% 0% 0% 38% SPLIT % 54% 46% 0% 0% 62% Peak Hour Factor Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Prepared by National Data & Surveying Service VOLUME #11 ‐ W Charleston Rd Bet. Ruthelma Ave & Wilkie Way DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS 15‐Minutes Interval Hourly Intervals TIME STATISTICS Peak Period Volume Peak Hour 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 00 : 0 0 01 : 0 0 02 : 0 0 03 : 0 0 04 : 0 0 05 : 0 0 06 : 0 0 07 : 0 0 08 : 0 0 09 : 0 0 10 : 0 0 11 : 0 0 12 : 0 0 13 : 0 0 14 : 0 0 15 : 0 0 16 : 0 0 17 : 0 0 18 : 0 0 19 : 0 0 20 : 0 0 21 : 0 0 22 : 0 0 23 : 0 0 NB SB EB WB Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 99  Packet Pg. 283 of 690  Segment #12 Street:Charleston Rd. Limits:Alma St. to Middlefield Rd. Direction:EB/WB Date /Location of Survey Posted Speed Limit (mph) # Speed Data Collected 85th Percentile (mph) 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Length of Segment (mi.) Street Classification Date Range Covered Total Accidents Accident Rate (Acc/MVM) Adjacent Land Use Roadway Geometrics Approved and Authorized for release by the City of Palo Alto: Signed: Date: :President, TJKM Transportation Consultants Signed:Nayan Amin, TE Date: C. Collision History D. Roadway Conditions Residential land uses on southern side. Residential and institutional (schools and church) land uses on northern side. A divided 2- to 4-lane residential arterial. Raised median serves as median. Concrete sidewalks present on both sides. Class II bike lanes on both sides. Signals present at intersections with Alma St., Carlson Ct., Nelson Dr., and Middlefield Rd. Left-turn storage bays present on segment and some side streets. U-turn storage bay present for eastbound direction. Marked crosswalks present at zone is present. Horizontal curve present at Mumford Pl. Vertical curve present at Adobe Creek. Segment slopes positively easterly. Driveway density high on southern side and moderate on northern side. Raised median designed to accommodate turning storage bays for vehicles ingressing/egressing school driveways. §22358.6(c) - Lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph from the rounded speed limit if the speed limit was initially rounded up from the 85th percentile speed: 35 --> 30 §22358.7 - Reduce the speed limit by an additional 5 mph as the portion of highway is located near facilities that generate high concentrations of pedestrians and bicyclists, including an elementary school, religious facilities, concrete sidewalks, bikeways, marked crosswalks, and transit stops: 30 --> 25 No Existing Speed Limit: 25 Recommended Speed Limit: 25 Factors A. Prevailing Speed Data B. Traffic Factors This survey conforms to Section 627 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code and Section 2B.13 of the California MUTCD and recommends a speed limit appropriate to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 100  Packet Pg. 284 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 20 21 2 22 2 23 1 24 6 25 11 26 7 27 12 28 16 29 18 30 17 31 15 32 16 33 13 34 10 35 8 36 5 37 3 38 4 39 2 40 4 41 2 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 175 19 - 41 30 mph 35 mph 25 - 34 135 77% 6% / 12 16% / 28 SPEED PARAMETERS #12 - E Charleston Rd Bet. Carlson Ct & Mumford Pl City of Palo Alto Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 09:30-10:30 9/27/2023 Project #: 23-080265-012 0 5 10 15 20 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 101  Packet Pg. 285 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 20 21 1 22 23 24 3 25 4 26 3 27 6 28 6 29 9 30 6 31 7 32 10 33 7 34 7 35 4 36 3 37 2 38 3 39 1 40 3 41 2 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 88 19 - 41 31 mph 36 mph 25 - 34 65 74% 5% / 5 21% / 18 SPEED PARAMETERS #12 - E Charleston Rd Bet. Carlson Ct & Mumford Pl City of Palo Alto Northbound Spot Speeds 09:30-10:30 9/27/2023 Project #: 23-080265-012 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 102  Packet Pg. 286 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 22 2 23 1 24 3 25 7 26 4 27 6 28 10 29 9 30 11 31 8 32 6 33 6 34 3 35 4 36 2 37 1 38 1 39 1 40 1 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 87 21 - 40 30 mph 33 mph 24 - 33 70 80% 4% / 4 15% / 13 SPEED PARAMETERS #12 - E Charleston Rd Bet. Carlson Ct & Mumford Pl City of Palo Alto Southbound Spot Speeds 09:30-10:30 9/27/2023 Project #: 23-080265-012 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 103  Packet Pg. 287 of 690  Day:Tuesday City:Palo Alto Date:9/12/2023 Project #:CA23_080264_012 NB SB EB WB Total 0 0 5,392 4,360 9,752 TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA NB SB EB WB TOTA 00:00 20 5 25 12:00 86 71 157 00:00 01:00 34 17 51 00:15 6 4 10 12:15 72 63 135 01:00 02:00 11 10 21 00:30 5 7 12 12:30 83 87 170 02:00 03:00 10 3 13 00:45 3 1 4 12:45 95 69 164 03:00 04:00 5 7 12 01:00 3 1 4 13:00 82 81 163 04:00 05:00 12 26 38 01:15 2 3 5 13:15 67 78 145 05:00 06:00 40 49 89 01:30 4 0 4 13:30 82 72 154 06:00 07:00 93 106 199 01:45 2 6 8 13:45 101 60 161 07:00 08:00 300 206 506 02:00 2 1 3 14:00 101 81 182 08:00 09:00 468 325 793 02:15 5 0 5 14:15 77 84 161 09:00 10:00 445 235 680 02:30 2 1 3 14:30 95 72 167 10:00 11:00 319 196 515 02:45 1 1 2 14:45 101 59 160 11:00 12:00 355 284 639 03:00 0 0 0 15:00 95 72 167 12:00 13:00 336 290 626 03:15 3 2 5 15:15 86 95 181 13:00 14:00 332 291 623 03:30 2 3 5 15:30 99 81 180 14:00 15:00 374 296 670 03:45 0 2 2 15:45 108 75 183 15:00 16:00 388 323 711 04:00 2 3 5 16:00 118 82 200 16:00 17:00 463 267 730 04:15 1 3 4 16:15 120 56 176 17:00 18:00 402 405 807 04:30 3 7 10 16:30 137 63 200 18:00 19:00 346 299 645 04:45 6 13 19 16:45 88 66 154 19:00 20:00 262 328 590 05:00 7 13 20 17:00 100 86 186 20:00 21:00 159 185 344 05:15 6 6 12 17:15 104 104 208 21:00 22:00 114 100 214 05:30 6 11 17 17:30 98 106 204 22:00 23:00 72 58 130 05:45 21 19 40 17:45 100 109 209 23:0 00:0 52 54 106 06:00 13 27 40 18:00 96 93 189 06:15 18 23 41 18:15 91 74 165 NB SB EB WB TOTA 06:30 23 23 46 18:30 72 72 144 00:00 to 12:00 06:45 39 33 72 18:45 87 60 147 2092 1464 3556 07:00 46 54 100 19:00 78 83 161 8:15 8:00 8:15 07:15 51 31 82 19:15 62 83 145 507 325 832 07:30 82 60 142 19:30 70 89 159 0.845 0.804 0.954 07:45 121 61 182 19:45 52 73 125 08:00 111 68 179 20:00 35 47 82 12:00 to 00:00 08:15 114 101 215 20:15 40 48 88 3300 2896 6196 08:30 125 92 217 20:30 32 36 68 15:45 17:15 17:15 08:45 118 64 182 20:45 52 54 106 483 412 810 09:00 150 68 218 21:00 39 41 80 0.881 0.945 0.969 09:15 111 68 179 21:15 26 21 47 09:30 92 56 148 21:30 26 17 43 07:00 to 09:00 09:45 92 43 135 21:45 23 21 44 768 531 1299 10:00 67 40 107 22:00 20 16 36 7:45 8:00 7:45 10:15 95 56 151 22:15 21 16 37 471 325 793 10:30 72 45 117 22:30 22 12 34 0.942 0.804 0.914 10:45 85 55 140 22:45 9 14 23 11:00 81 65 146 23:00 17 11 28 16:00 to 18:00 11:15 107 64 171 23:15 18 16 34 865 672 1537 11:30 89 84 173 23:30 6 19 25 16:00 17:00 17:00 11:45 78 71 149 23:45 11 8 19 463 405 807 TOTALS 0 0 2092 1464 3556 TOTALS 0 0 3300 2896 6196 0.845 0.929 0.965 SPLIT % 0% 0% 59% 41% 36% SPLIT % 0% 0% 53% 47% 64% Peak Hour Factor Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Prepared by National Data & Surveying Service VOLUME #12 ‐ E Charleston Rd Bet. Carlson Ct & Mumford Pl DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS 15‐Minutes Interval Hourly Intervals TIME STATISTICS Peak Period Volume Peak Hour 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 00 : 0 0 01 : 0 0 02 : 0 0 03 : 0 0 04 : 0 0 05 : 0 0 06 : 0 0 07 : 0 0 08 : 0 0 09 : 0 0 10 : 0 0 11 : 0 0 12 : 0 0 13 : 0 0 14 : 0 0 15 : 0 0 16 : 0 0 17 : 0 0 18 : 0 0 19 : 0 0 20 : 0 0 21 : 0 0 22 : 0 0 23 : 0 0 NB SB EB WB Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 104  Packet Pg. 288 of 690  Segment #13 Street:Charleston Rd. Limits:Middlefield Rd. to Fabian Way Direction:EB/WB Date /Location of Survey Posted Speed Limit (mph) # Speed Data Collected 85th Percentile (mph) 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Length of Segment (mi.) Street Classification Date Range Covered Total Accidents Accident Rate (Acc/MVM) Adjacent Land Use Roadway Geometrics Approved and Authorized for release by the City of Palo Alto: Signed: Date: :President, TJKM Transportation Consultants Signed:Nayan Amin, TE Date: C. Collision History D. Roadway Conditions Residential land uses on both sides, with exception of commercial automobile dealership at intersection with Fabian Wy. A divided 2-lane residential arterial. Raised median serves as median. Two-way left-turn lane serves as median at intersections with Sutherland Dr. and Grove Ave. Concrete sidewalks present on both sides. Class II bike lanes on both sides. Signals present at intersections with Middlefield Rd., Louis Rd./Montrose Ave., and Fabian Wy. Left-turn storage bays and right-turn storage bays present on segment and side streets at some intersections. Marked crosswalks present at all intersections. On-street parking present on some sections of both sides. No school zone present. Horizontal curve present between intersections with Louis Rd./Montrose Ave. and Fabian Wy. No major vertical curves present. Segment slopes negatively easterly. Driveway density high on both sides. §22358.6(b) - Lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph from the rounded speed limit if the speed limit was initially rounded down from the 85th percentile speed: 35 --> 30 §22358.7 - Reduce the speed limit by an additional 5 mph as the portion of highway is located near facilities that generate high concentrations of pedestrians and bicyclists, including concrete sidewalks, Class II bike lanes, and marked crosswalks: 30 --> 25 No Existing Speed Limit: 25 Recommended Speed Limit: 25 Factors A. Prevailing Speed Data B. Traffic Factors This survey conforms to Section 627 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code and Section 2B.13 of the California MUTCD and recommends a speed limit appropriate to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 105  Packet Pg. 289 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 22 2 23 4 24 7 25 8 26 9 27 13 28 13 29 17 30 17 31 14 32 14 33 17 34 16 35 13 36 7 37 10 38 5 39 4 40 4 41 2 42 2 43 1 44 1 45 2 46 1 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 204 21 - 46 31 mph 37 mph 26 - 35 143 70% 10% / 22 20% / 39 SPEED PARAMETERS #13 - E Charleston Rd Bet. Grove Ave & Louis Rd City of Palo Alto Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 11:15-12:05 9/21/2023 Project #: 23-080265-013 0 5 10 15 20 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 106  Packet Pg. 290 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 23 2 24 4 25 5 26 4 27 5 28 7 29 6 30 8 31 7 32 5 33 10 34 8 35 7 36 5 37 6 38 3 39 2 40 3 41 1 42 2 43 1 44 1 45 1 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 104 22 - 45 32 mph 37 mph 28 - 37 69 66% 20% / 21 14% / 14 SPEED PARAMETERS #13 - E Charleston Rd Bet. Grove Ave & Louis Rd City of Palo Alto Eastbound Spot Speeds 11:15-12:05 9/21/2023 Project #: 23-080265-013 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 107  Packet Pg. 291 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 22 1 23 2 24 3 25 3 26 5 27 8 28 6 29 11 30 9 31 7 32 9 33 7 34 8 35 6 36 2 37 4 38 2 39 2 40 1 41 1 42 43 44 45 1 46 1 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 100 21 - 46 31 mph 35 mph 26 - 35 76 76% 10% / 10 14% / 14 SPEED PARAMETERS #13 - E Charleston Rd Bet. Grove Ave & Louis Rd City of Palo Alto Westbound Spot Speeds 11:15-12:05 9/21/2023 Project #: 23-080265-013 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 108  Packet Pg. 292 of 690  Day:Tuesday City:Palo Alto Date:9/12/2023 Project #:CA23_080264_013 NB SB EB WB Total 0 0 6,479 5,361 11,840 TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA NB SB EB WB TOTA 00:00 18 7 25 12:00 109 90 199 00:00 01:00 33 26 59 00:15 8 10 18 12:15 101 85 186 01:00 02:00 11 9 20 00:30 6 6 12 12:30 110 79 189 02:00 03:00 11 5 16 00:45 1 3 4 12:45 106 82 188 03:00 04:00 5 5 10 01:00 4 1 5 13:00 99 80 179 04:00 05:00 15 23 38 01:15 1 2 3 13:15 76 105 181 05:00 06:00 52 52 104 01:30 3 1 4 13:30 78 80 158 06:00 07:00 106 110 216 01:45 3 5 8 13:45 100 94 194 07:00 08:00 291 335 626 02:00 3 1 4 14:00 111 98 209 08:00 09:00 693 408 1101 02:15 4 2 6 14:15 81 89 170 09:00 10:00 519 280 799 02:30 3 1 4 14:30 115 69 184 10:00 11:00 332 230 562 02:45 1 1 2 14:45 105 98 203 11:00 12:00 430 310 740 03:00 1 0 1 15:00 115 97 212 12:00 13:00 426 336 762 03:15 2 1 3 15:15 130 104 234 13:00 14:00 353 359 712 03:30 2 3 5 15:30 120 92 212 14:00 15:00 412 354 766 03:45 0 1 1 15:45 107 104 211 15:00 16:00 472 397 869 04:00 1 5 6 16:00 116 87 203 16:00 17:00 478 360 838 04:15 3 4 7 16:15 125 72 197 17:00 18:00 546 558 1104 04:30 5 4 9 16:30 129 91 220 18:00 19:00 407 392 799 04:45 6 10 16 16:45 108 110 218 19:00 20:00 368 337 705 05:00 10 12 22 17:00 116 118 234 20:00 21:00 201 240 441 05:15 17 13 30 17:15 142 135 277 21:00 22:00 142 107 249 05:30 10 12 22 17:30 133 144 277 22:00 23:00 120 64 184 05:45 15 15 30 17:45 155 161 316 23:0 00:0 56 64 120 06:00 23 29 52 18:00 127 113 240 06:15 16 18 34 18:15 98 102 200 NB SB EB WB TOTA 06:30 27 30 57 18:30 93 86 179 00:00 to 12:00 06:45 40 33 73 18:45 89 91 180 2498 1793 4291 07:00 56 69 125 19:00 116 80 196 8:00 7:45 8:00 07:15 51 44 95 19:15 98 81 179 693 460 1101 07:30 94 92 186 19:30 79 80 159 0.952 0.885 0.943 07:45 90 130 220 19:45 75 96 171 08:00 174 118 292 20:00 42 77 119 12:00 to 00:00 08:15 182 98 280 20:15 58 56 114 3981 3568 7549 08:30 175 114 289 20:30 52 34 86 17:15 17:00 17:15 08:45 162 78 240 20:45 49 73 122 557 558 1110 09:00 154 85 239 21:00 46 27 73 0.898 0.866 0.878 09:15 149 80 229 21:15 40 33 73 09:30 105 69 174 21:30 29 24 53 07:00 to 09:00 09:45 111 46 157 21:45 27 23 50 984 743 1727 10:00 69 58 127 22:00 45 17 62 8:00 7:45 8:00 10:15 87 55 142 22:15 31 16 47 693 460 1101 10:30 92 50 142 22:30 27 13 40 0.952 0.885 0.943 10:45 84 67 151 22:45 17 18 35 11:00 85 98 183 23:00 18 14 32 16:00 to 18:00 11:15 126 65 191 23:15 17 20 37 1024 918 1942 11:30 116 79 195 23:30 10 19 29 17:00 17:00 17:00 11:45 103 68 171 23:45 11 11 22 546 558 1104 TOTALS 0 0 2498 1793 4291 TOTALS 0 0 3981 3568 7549 0.881 0.866 0.873 SPLIT % 0% 0% 58% 42% 36% SPLIT % 0% 0% 53% 47% 64% Peak Volume Prepared by National Data & Surveying Service VOLUME #13 ‐ E Charleston Rd Bet. Grove Ave & Louis Rd DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS 15‐Minutes Interval Hourly Intervals TIME STATISTICS Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 00 : 0 0 01 : 0 0 02 : 0 0 03 : 0 0 04 : 0 0 05 : 0 0 06 : 0 0 07 : 0 0 08 : 0 0 09 : 0 0 10 : 0 0 11 : 0 0 12 : 0 0 13 : 0 0 14 : 0 0 15 : 0 0 16 : 0 0 17 : 0 0 18 : 0 0 19 : 0 0 20 : 0 0 21 : 0 0 22 : 0 0 23 : 0 0 NB SB EB WB Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 109  Packet Pg. 293 of 690  Segment #14 Street:Deer Creek Rd. Limits:Page Mill Rd. to Arastradero Rd. Direction:NB/SB Date /Location of Survey Posted Speed Limit (mph) # Speed Data Collected 85th Percentile (mph) 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Length of Segment (mi.) Street Classification Date Range Covered Total Accidents Accident Rate (Acc/MVM) Adjacent Land Use Roadway Geometrics Approved and Authorized for release by the City of Palo Alto: Signed: Date: :President, TJKM Transportation Consultants Signed:Nayan Amin, TE Date: C. Collision History D. Roadway Conditions Commercial (office and equestrian) land uses on both sides. An undivided 2-lane local/collector. Two-way left-turn lane serves as median. Concrete sidewalks present on southern side east of Tesla HQ central driveway. Class II bike lanes on both sides. Signal present at intersection with Page Mill Rd. Left-turn storage bays and right-turn storage bays present on segment at intersections with Page Mill Rd. and Arastradero Rd. Marked crosswalks present at intersections with Page Mill Rd. and Arastradero Rd. Midblock crossing present near Maple Leaf Equestrian driveway. No on- street parking permitted on either side. No school zone present. Gentle horizontal and vertical curves present throughout segment. Low driveway density on both sides. §22358.6(c) - Lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph from the rounded speed limit if the speed limit was initially rounded up from the 85th percentile speed: 40 --> 35 Yes Existing Speed Limit: 40 Recommended Speed Limit: 35 Factors A. Prevailing Speed Data B. Traffic Factors This survey conforms to Section 627 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code and Section 2B.13 of the California MUTCD and recommends a speed limit appropriate to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 110  Packet Pg. 294 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:40 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 21 22 2 23 2 24 3 25 11 26 10 27 8 28 7 29 8 30 12 31 12 32 9 33 13 34 9 35 15 36 13 37 8 38 11 39 9 40 6 41 1 42 2 43 1 44 1 45 3 46 47 48 49 50 51 1 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 178 20 - 51 33 mph 38 mph 30 - 39 111 62% 29% / 52 9% / 15 SPEED PARAMETERS #14 - Deer Creek Rd E/O CR G3/Page Mill Rd City of Palo Alto Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 09:00-10:00 9/28/2023 Project #: 23-080265-014 0 5 10 15 20 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 111  Packet Pg. 295 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:40 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 21 22 1 23 2 24 3 25 6 26 5 27 4 28 3 29 3 30 6 31 5 32 4 33 7 34 6 35 8 36 9 37 5 38 5 39 3 40 3 41 42 2 43 44 45 2 46 47 48 49 50 51 1 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 94 20 - 51 33 mph 38 mph 29 - 38 58 62% 26% / 25 12% / 11 SPEED PARAMETERS #14 - Deer Creek Rd E/O CR G3/Page Mill Rd City of Palo Alto Eastbound Spot Speeds 09:00-10:00 9/28/2023 Project #: 23-080265-014 0 2 4 6 8 10 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 112  Packet Pg. 296 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:40 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 23 24 25 5 26 5 27 4 28 4 29 5 30 6 31 7 32 5 33 6 34 3 35 7 36 4 37 3 38 6 39 6 40 3 41 1 42 43 1 44 1 45 1 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 84 22 - 45 32 mph 39 mph 30 - 39 53 63% 28% / 24 9% / 7 SPEED PARAMETERS #14 - Deer Creek Rd E/O CR G3/Page Mill Rd City of Palo Alto Westbound Spot Speeds 09:00-10:00 9/28/2023 Project #: 23-080265-014 0 2 4 6 8 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 113  Packet Pg. 297 of 690  Day:Tuesday City:Palo Alto Date:9/12/2023 Project #:CA23_080264_014 NB SB EB WB Total 0 0 2,319 1,989 4,308 TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA NB SB EB WB TOTA 00:00 0 5 5 12:00 27 32 59 00:00 01:00 2 6 8 00:15 0 1 1 12:15 27 26 53 01:00 02:00 0 1 1 00:30 0 0 0 12:30 24 29 53 02:00 03:00 2 4 6 00:45 2 0 2 12:45 29 25 54 03:00 04:00 13 17 30 01:00 0 1 1 13:00 18 19 37 04:00 05:00 15 4 19 01:15 0 0 0 13:15 13 26 39 05:00 06:00 39 12 51 01:30 0 0 0 13:30 22 27 49 06:00 07:00 86 34 120 01:45 0 0 0 13:45 24 17 41 07:00 08:00 247 64 311 02:00 1 1 2 14:00 20 35 55 08:00 09:00 417 85 502 02:15 0 2 2 14:15 19 30 49 09:00 10:00 470 82 552 02:30 0 1 1 14:30 15 40 55 10:00 11:00 222 85 307 02:45 1 0 1 14:45 34 32 66 11:00 12:00 111 92 203 03:00 1 2 3 15:00 21 53 74 12:00 13:00 107 112 219 03:15 3 13 16 15:15 35 48 83 13:00 14:00 77 89 166 03:30 3 1 4 15:30 25 53 78 14:00 15:00 88 137 225 03:45 6 1 7 15:45 22 40 62 15:00 16:00 103 194 297 04:00 6 1 7 16:00 17 47 64 16:00 17:00 78 219 297 04:15 1 0 1 16:15 26 59 85 17:00 18:00 84 277 361 04:30 4 2 6 16:30 18 66 84 18:00 19:00 68 214 282 04:45 4 1 5 16:45 17 47 64 19:00 20:00 31 140 171 05:00 9 4 13 17:00 23 80 103 20:00 21:00 24 63 87 05:15 4 3 7 17:15 20 76 96 21:00 22:00 15 28 43 05:30 8 4 12 17:30 18 60 78 22:00 23:00 8 19 27 05:45 18 1 19 17:45 23 61 84 23:0 00:0 12 11 23 06:00 10 5 15 18:00 13 54 67 06:15 22 8 30 18:15 16 57 73 NB SB EB WB TOTA 06:30 19 12 31 18:30 18 60 78 00:00 to 12:00 06:45 35 9 44 18:45 21 43 64 1624 486 2110 07:00 36 12 48 19:00 10 44 54 8:45 10:45 8:45 07:15 44 9 53 19:15 12 35 47 483 100 561 07:30 69 18 87 19:30 5 31 36 0.951 0.781 0.954 07:45 98 25 123 19:45 4 30 34 08:00 126 26 152 20:00 4 22 26 12:00 to 00:00 08:15 88 24 112 20:15 3 20 23 695 1503 2198 08:30 85 18 103 20:30 7 11 18 14:45 17:00 17:00 08:45 118 17 135 20:45 10 10 20 115 277 361 09:00 118 19 137 21:00 4 13 17 0.821 0.866 0.876 09:15 127 20 147 21:15 1 7 8 09:30 120 22 142 21:30 5 4 9 07:00 to 09:00 09:45 105 21 126 21:45 5 4 9 664 149 813 10:00 68 20 88 22:00 3 8 11 8:00 7:30 8:00 10:15 65 20 85 22:15 3 4 7 417 93 502 10:30 39 13 52 22:30 1 5 6 0.827 0.894 0.826 10:45 50 32 82 22:45 1 2 3 11:00 24 21 45 23:00 3 1 4 16:00 to 18:00 11:15 36 23 59 23:15 2 4 6 162 496 658 11:30 26 24 50 23:30 3 3 6 16:15 17:00 17:00 11:45 25 24 49 23:45 4 3 7 84 277 361 TOTALS 0 0 1624 486 2110 TOTALS 0 0 695 1503 2198 0.808 0.866 0.876 SPLIT % 0% 0% 77% 23% 49% SPLIT % 0% 0% 32% 68% 51% Peak Hour Factor Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Prepared by National Data & Surveying Service VOLUME #14 ‐ Deer Creek Rd E/O CR G3/Page Mill Rd DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS 15‐Minutes Interval Hourly Intervals TIME STATISTICS Peak Period Volume Peak Hour 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 00 : 0 0 01 : 0 0 02 : 0 0 03 : 0 0 04 : 0 0 05 : 0 0 06 : 0 0 07 : 0 0 08 : 0 0 09 : 0 0 10 : 0 0 11 : 0 0 12 : 0 0 13 : 0 0 14 : 0 0 15 : 0 0 16 : 0 0 17 : 0 0 18 : 0 0 19 : 0 0 20 : 0 0 21 : 0 0 22 : 0 0 23 : 0 0 NB SB EB WB Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 114  Packet Pg. 298 of 690  Segment #15 Street:El Camino Way Limits:Los Robles Ave. to Maybell Ave. Direction:NB/SB Date /Location of Survey Posted Speed Limit (mph) # Speed Data Collected 85th Percentile (mph) 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Length of Segment (mi.) Street Classification Date Range Covered Total Accidents Accident Rate (Acc/MVM) Adjacent Land Use Roadway Geometrics Approved and Authorized for release by the City of Palo Alto: Signed: Date: :President, TJKM Transportation Consultants Signed:Nayan Amin, TE Date: C. Collision History D. Roadway Conditions Commercial land uses on western side. Commercial and multifamily residential on eastern side. An undivided 2-lane local/collector. Double yellow line serves as median. Concrete sidewalks present on both sides. Class II bike lanes on both sides north of Meadow Dr. Class II bike lane and Class III sharrow present south of Meadow Dr. Signals present at intersections with El Camino Rl./Los Robles Ave. and El Camino Rl./Maybell Ave. Stop control at Meadow Dr. Side street stop control at remaining intersections. Left-turn storage bays present on segment at signalized intersections. Right-turn storage bay also present on segment at El Camino Rl./Los Robles Ave. Marked crosswalks present at almost all intersections. Midblock crosswalk present approximately 330 feet north of intersection with Meadow Dr. On-street parking present on both sides. No school zone present. Horizontal curves present near signalized intersections and near intersection with Meadow Dr. Roadway is northerly sloped positively. Driveway density high on both sides. §22358.6(c) - Lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph from the rounded speed limit if the speed limit was initially rounded up from the 85th percentile speed: 30 --> 25 No Existing Speed Limit: 25 Recommended Speed Limit: 25 Factors A. Prevailing Speed Data B. Traffic Factors This survey conforms to Section 627 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code and Section 2B.13 of the California MUTCD and recommends a speed limit appropriate to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 115  Packet Pg. 299 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 18 1 19 3 20 4 21 7 22 10 23 13 24 17 25 18 26 13 27 9 28 10 29 4 30 4 31 1 32 3 33 1 34 35 36 37 1 38 1 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 121 17 - 38 25 mph 28 mph 20 - 29 105 87% 4% / 5 10% / 11 SPEED PARAMETERS #15 - El Camino Way N/O James Rd City of Palo Alto Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 10:15-11:15 9/28/2023 Project #: 23-080265-015 0 5 10 15 20 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 116  Packet Pg. 300 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 19 2 20 1 21 3 22 4 23 7 24 9 25 11 26 8 27 5 28 5 29 2 30 2 31 1 32 2 33 1 34 35 36 37 1 38 1 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 66 18 - 38 25 mph 29 mph 21 - 30 56 85% 6% / 4 10% / 6 SPEED PARAMETERS #15 - El Camino Way N/O James Rd City of Palo Alto Northbound Spot Speeds 10:15-11:15 9/28/2023 Project #: 23-080265-015 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 117  Packet Pg. 301 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 18 19 1 20 3 21 4 22 6 23 6 24 8 25 7 26 5 27 4 28 5 29 2 30 2 31 32 1 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 55 17 - 32 24 mph 28 mph 20 - 29 50 91% 3% / 2 6% / 3 SPEED PARAMETERS #15 - El Camino Way N/O James Rd City of Palo Alto Southbound Spot Speeds 10:15-11:15 9/28/2023 Project #: 23-080265-015 0 2 4 6 8 10 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 118  Packet Pg. 302 of 690  Day:Tuesday City:Palo Alto Date:9/12/2023 Project #:CA23_080264_015 NB SB EB WB Total 1,654 1,811 0 0 3,465 TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA NB SB EB WB TOTA 00:00 0 0 0 12:00 16 26 42 00:00 01:00 1 2 3 00:15 1 0 1 12:15 27 25 52 01:00 02:00 2 0 2 00:30 0 1 1 12:30 20 25 45 02:00 03:00 1 0 1 00:45 0 1 1 12:45 24 25 49 03:00 04:00 1 1 2 01:00 0 0 0 13:00 24 25 49 04:00 05:00 5 1 6 01:15 0 0 0 13:15 24 26 50 05:00 06:00 6 7 13 01:30 1 0 1 13:30 17 22 39 06:00 07:00 28 18 46 01:45 1 0 1 13:45 19 27 46 07:00 08:00 63 57 120 02:00 0 0 0 14:00 23 24 47 08:00 09:00 179 191 370 02:15 0 0 0 14:15 27 41 68 09:00 10:00 115 90 205 02:30 1 0 1 14:30 40 27 67 10:00 11:00 109 109 218 02:45 0 0 0 14:45 33 30 63 11:00 12:00 107 123 230 03:00 0 0 0 15:00 32 31 63 12:00 13:00 87 101 188 03:15 1 0 1 15:15 43 47 90 13:00 14:00 84 100 184 03:30 0 1 1 15:30 35 47 82 14:00 15:00 123 122 245 03:45 0 0 0 15:45 40 46 86 15:00 16:00 150 171 321 04:00 0 0 0 16:00 48 30 78 16:00 17:00 162 139 301 04:15 2 0 2 16:15 46 37 83 17:00 18:00 141 182 323 04:30 3 0 3 16:30 28 37 65 18:00 19:00 119 151 270 04:45 0 1 1 16:45 40 35 75 19:00 20:00 65 99 164 05:00 2 1 3 17:00 36 49 85 20:00 21:00 53 74 127 05:15 1 0 1 17:15 39 45 84 21:00 22:00 35 43 78 05:30 1 1 2 17:30 33 42 75 22:00 23:00 14 21 35 05:45 2 5 7 17:45 33 46 79 23:0 00:0 4 9 13 06:00 3 4 7 18:00 40 45 85 06:15 5 2 7 18:15 25 43 68 NB SB EB WB TOTA 06:30 7 7 14 18:30 29 28 57 00:00 to 12:00 06:45 13 5 18 18:45 25 35 60 617 599 1216 07:00 11 6 17 19:00 25 28 53 8:00 8:15 8:15 07:15 10 8 18 19:15 19 27 46 179 205 382 07:30 19 17 36 19:30 14 23 37 0.734 0.674 0.803 07:45 23 26 49 19:45 7 21 28 08:00 36 18 54 20:00 22 18 40 12:00 to 00:00 08:15 39 42 81 20:15 12 15 27 1037 1212 2249 08:30 43 76 119 20:30 9 24 33 15:30 17:00 15:15 08:45 61 55 116 20:45 10 17 27 169 182 336 09:00 34 32 66 21:00 13 18 31 0.880 0.929 0.933 09:15 26 20 46 21:15 9 7 16 09:30 29 17 46 21:30 3 9 12 07:00 to 09:00 09:45 26 21 47 21:45 10 9 19 242 248 490 10:00 20 26 46 22:00 5 12 17 8:00 8:00 8:00 10:15 28 26 54 22:15 2 3 5 179 191 370 10:30 26 33 59 22:30 3 4 7 0.734 0.628 0.777 10:45 35 24 59 22:45 4 2 6 11:00 18 25 43 23:00 1 3 4 16:00 to 18:00 11:15 21 31 52 23:15 0 2 2 303 321 624 11:30 31 30 61 23:30 0 1 1 16:00 17:00 17:00 11:45 37 37 74 23:45 3 3 6 162 182 323 TOTALS 617 599 0 0 1216 TOTALS 1037 1212 0 0 2249 0.844 0.929 0.950 SPLIT % 51% 49% 0% 0% 35% SPLIT % 46% 54% 0% 0% 65% Peak Hour Factor Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Prepared by National Data & Surveying Service VOLUME #15 ‐ El Camino Way N/O James Rd DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS 15‐Minutes Interval Hourly Intervals TIME STATISTICS Peak Period Volume Peak Hour 0 50 100 150 200 250 00 : 0 0 01 : 0 0 02 : 0 0 03 : 0 0 04 : 0 0 05 : 0 0 06 : 0 0 07 : 0 0 08 : 0 0 09 : 0 0 10 : 0 0 11 : 0 0 12 : 0 0 13 : 0 0 14 : 0 0 15 : 0 0 16 : 0 0 17 : 0 0 18 : 0 0 19 : 0 0 20 : 0 0 21 : 0 0 22 : 0 0 23 : 0 0 NB SB EB WB Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 119  Packet Pg. 303 of 690  Segment #16 Street:Hansen Way Limits:El Camino Real to Page Mill Exp. Direction:NB/SB/EB/WB Date /Location of Survey Posted Speed Limit (mph) # Speed Data Collected 85th Percentile (mph) 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Length of Segment (mi.) Street Classification Date Range Covered Total Accidents Accident Rate (Acc/MVM) Adjacent Land Use Roadway Geometrics Approved and Authorized for release by the City of Palo Alto: Signed: Date: :President, TJKM Transportation Consultants Signed:Nayan Amin, TE Date: C. Collision History D. Roadway Conditions Commercial offices on both sides and commecial restaurant on northern side. An undivided 2-lane local/collector. Double yellow line serves as median. Concrete sidewalks present on both sides. Class II bike lanes on both sides. Signals present at intersections at Page Mill Rd. and El Camino Rl. Side street stop control at remaining intersections. Left-turn storage bay present on segment at intersection with Page Mill Rd. Marked crosswalks present at signalized intersections. Midblock crosswalks present near middle of segment. On-street parking present on both sides. No school zone present. Vertical curves and two horizontal curves and present near middle of segment. Segment slopes negatively easterly/northerly. Driveway density moderate on both sides. §22358.6(c) - Lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph from the rounded speed limit if the speed limit was initially rounded up from the 85th percentile speed: 35 --> 30 No Existing Speed Limit: 30 Recommended Speed Limit: 30 Factors A. Prevailing Speed Data B. Traffic Factors This survey conforms to Section 627 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code and Section 2B.13 of the California MUTCD and recommends a speed limit appropriate to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 120  Packet Pg. 304 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:30 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 25 5 26 6 27 9 28 12 29 18 30 18 31 19 32 17 33 11 34 10 35 10 36 7 37 5 38 39 3 40 1 41 3 42 1 43 1 44 45 1 46 1 47 48 1 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 161 24 - 48 31 mph 35 mph 27 - 36 131 81% 8% / 13 11% / 17 SPEED PARAMETERS #16 - Hansen Way S/O SR 82/EI Camino Real City of Palo Alto Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 09:20-10:20 9/28/2023 Project #: 23-080265-016 0 5 10 15 20 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 121  Packet Pg. 305 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:30 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 26 3 27 3 28 8 29 12 30 10 31 8 32 8 33 5 34 5 35 3 36 2 37 1 38 39 1 40 1 41 2 42 1 43 44 45 1 46 1 47 48 1 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 78 25 - 48 31 mph 35 mph 26 - 35 65 83% 2% / 2 15% / 11 SPEED PARAMETERS #16 - Hansen Way S/O SR 82/EI Camino Real City of Palo Alto Northbound Spot Speeds 09:20-10:20 9/28/2023 Project #: 23-080265-016 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 122  Packet Pg. 306 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:30 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 25 3 26 3 27 6 28 4 29 6 30 8 31 11 32 9 33 6 34 5 35 7 36 5 37 4 38 39 2 40 41 1 42 43 1 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 83 24 - 43 31 mph 36 mph 27 - 36 67 81% 9% / 8 10% / 8 SPEED PARAMETERS #16 - Hansen Way S/O SR 82/EI Camino Real City of Palo Alto Southbound Spot Speeds 09:20-10:20 9/28/2023 Project #: 23-080265-016 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 123  Packet Pg. 307 of 690  Day:Tuesday City:Palo Alto Date:9/12/2023 Project #:CA23_080264_016 NB SB EB WB Total 1,687 1,577 0 0 3,264 TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA NB SB EB WB TOTA 0:00 0 2 2 12:00 31 21 52 00:00 01:00 9 5 14 0:15 7 2 9 12:15 22 36 58 01:00 02:00 2 5 7 0:30 1 0 1 12:30 29 23 52 02:00 03:00 4 8 12 0:45 1 1 2 12:45 27 37 64 03:00 04:00 0 10 10 1:00 1 1 2 13:00 20 38 58 04:00 05:00 6 39 45 1:15 1 2 3 13:15 21 15 36 05:00 06:00 8 96 104 1:30 0 1 1 13:30 21 29 50 06:00 07:00 18 105 123 1:45 0 1 1 13:45 20 32 52 07:00 08:00 66 87 153 2:00 2 2 4 14:00 25 22 47 08:00 09:00 102 145 247 2:15 0 2 2 14:15 30 17 47 09:00 10:00 107 169 276 2:30 2 2 4 14:30 50 20 70 10:00 11:00 110 108 218 2:45 0 2 2 14:45 29 16 45 11:00 12:00 126 97 223 3:00 0 0 0 15:00 30 15 45 12:00 13:00 109 117 226 3:15 0 2 2 15:15 45 16 61 13:00 14:00 82 114 196 3:30 0 1 1 15:30 33 14 47 14:00 15:00 134 75 209 3:45 0 7 7 15:45 25 15 40 15:00 16:00 133 60 193 4:00 1 7 8 16:00 52 14 66 16:00 17:00 209 65 274 4:15 1 4 5 16:15 45 15 60 17:00 18:00 157 72 229 4:30 1 8 9 16:30 56 18 74 18:00 19:00 140 96 236 4:45 3 20 23 16:45 56 18 74 19:00 20:00 72 54 126 5:00 1 9 10 17:00 42 24 66 20:00 21:00 36 18 54 5:15 2 25 27 17:15 41 16 57 21:00 22:00 26 23 49 5:30 3 24 27 17:30 40 15 55 22:00 23:00 17 6 23 5:45 2 38 40 17:45 34 17 51 23:0 00:0 14 3 17 6:00 4 29 33 18:00 41 26 67 6:15 3 19 22 18:15 31 22 53 NB SB EB WB TOTA 6:30 5 34 39 18:30 36 26 62 00:00 to 12:00 6:45 6 23 29 18:45 32 22 54 558 874 1432 7:00 7 22 29 19:00 30 19 49 11:00 8:45 8:45 7:15 11 19 30 19:15 14 12 26 126 187 292 7:30 21 19 40 19:30 15 17 32 0.875 0.882 0.924 7:45 27 27 54 19:45 13 6 19 8:00 26 35 61 20:00 11 3 14 12:00 to 00:00 8:15 29 27 56 20:15 11 8 19 1129 703 1832 8:30 27 33 60 20:30 8 4 12 16:00 12:15 16:00 8:45 20 50 70 20:45 6 3 9 209 134 274 9:00 33 39 72 21:00 7 13 20 0.933 0.882 0.926 9:15 26 53 79 21:15 12 2 14 9:30 26 45 71 21:30 6 4 10 07:00 to 09:00 9:45 22 32 54 21:45 1 4 5 168 232 400 10:00 24 30 54 22:00 4 3 7 7:45 8:00 8:00 10:15 28 14 42 22:15 4 1 5 109 145 247 10:30 33 44 77 22:30 5 2 7 0.940 0.725 0.882 10:45 25 20 45 22:45 4 0 4 11:00 31 20 51 23:00 7 0 7 16:00 to 18:00 11:15 30 23 53 23:15 3 2 5 366 137 503 11:30 36 28 64 23:30 2 0 2 16:00 16:30 16:00 11:45 29 26 55 23:45 2 1 3 209 76 274 TOTALS 558 874 0 0 1432 TOTALS 1129 703 0 0 1832 0.933 0.792 0.926 SPLIT % 39% 61% 0% 0% 44% SPLIT % 62% 38% 0% 0% 56% Peak Volume Prepared by National Data & Surveying Service VOLUME #16 ‐ Hansen Way S/O SR 82/EI Camino Real DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS 15‐Minutes Interval Hourly Intervals TIME STATISTICS Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume 0 50 100 150 200 250 00 : 0 0 01 : 0 0 02 : 0 0 03 : 0 0 04 : 0 0 05 : 0 0 06 : 0 0 07 : 0 0 08 : 0 0 09 : 0 0 10 : 0 0 11 : 0 0 12 : 0 0 13 : 0 0 14 : 0 0 15 : 0 0 16 : 0 0 17 : 0 0 18 : 0 0 19 : 0 0 20 : 0 0 21 : 0 0 22 : 0 0 23 : 0 0 NB SB EB WB Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 124  Packet Pg. 308 of 690  Segment #17 Street:Louis Rd. Limits:Oregon Exp. to Loma Verde Rd. Direction:NB/SB Date /Location of Survey Posted Speed Limit (mph) # Speed Data Collected 85th Percentile (mph) 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Length of Segment (mi.) Street Classification Date Range Covered Total Accidents Accident Rate (Acc/MVM) Adjacent Land Use Roadway Geometrics Approved and Authorized for release by the City of Palo Alto: Signed: Date: :President, TJKM Transportation Consultants Signed:Nayan Amin, TE Date: C. Collision History D. Roadway Conditions Residential land uses on both sides. An undivided 2-lane local/collector. Striped yellow line serves as median. Concrete sidewalks present on both sides. Class II bike lanes on both sides. Signal at intersection with Oregon Expy. Stop control at remaining intersections. Left-turn storage bay present on segment at intersection with Oregon Expy. Marked crosswalks present at intersections with Oregon Expy., Fielding Dr., Amarillo Ave., Colorado Ave., Elbridge Wy., and Loma Verde Ave. On-street parking present on southern side. No school zone present. No horizontal curves present. Vertical curves present in eastern half of segment. Driveway density high on both sides. Colored pavement used at intersections with Moreno Ave., Fielding Dr., and Amarillo Ave. to indicate high pedestrian presence. §22358.6(c) - Lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph from the rounded speed limit if the speed limit was initially rounded up from the 85th percentile speed: 30 --> 25 No Existing Speed Limit: 25 Recommended Speed Limit: 25 Factors A. Prevailing Speed Data B. Traffic Factors This survey conforms to Section 627 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code and Section 2B.13 of the California MUTCD and recommends a speed limit appropriate to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 125  Packet Pg. 309 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 2 18 2 19 3 20 3 21 2 22 8 23 4 24 9 25 16 26 12 27 16 28 14 29 11 30 6 31 6 32 3 33 3 34 1 35 1 36 1 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 123 17 - 36 27 mph 30 mph 22 - 31 102 83% 9% / 12 8% / 9 SPEED PARAMETERS #17 - Louis Rd Bet. Colorado Ave & Clara Dr City of Palo Alto Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 09:00-10:00 9/21/2023 Project #: 23-080265-017 0 5 10 15 20 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 126  Packet Pg. 310 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 2 18 1 19 1 20 1 21 1 22 2 23 1 24 5 25 8 26 8 27 7 28 8 29 6 30 3 31 4 32 2 33 1 34 1 35 36 1 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 63 17 - 36 27 mph 30 mph 22 - 31 52 83% 9% / 6 8% / 5 SPEED PARAMETERS #17 - Louis Rd Bet. Colorado Ave & Clara Dr City of Palo Alto Eastbound Spot Speeds 09:00-10:00 9/21/2023 Project #: 23-080265-017 0 2 4 6 8 10 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 127  Packet Pg. 311 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 19 2 20 2 21 1 22 6 23 3 24 4 25 8 26 4 27 9 28 6 29 5 30 3 31 2 32 1 33 2 34 35 1 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 60 18 - 35 26 mph 29 mph 22 - 31 50 83% 10% / 6 7% / 4 SPEED PARAMETERS #17 - Louis Rd Bet. Colorado Ave & Clara Dr City of Palo Alto Westbound Spot Speeds 09:00-10:00 9/21/2023 Project #: 23-080265-017 0 2 4 6 8 10 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 128  Packet Pg. 312 of 690  Day:Tuesday City:Palo Alto Date:9/12/2023 Project #:CA23_080264_017 NB SB EB WB Total 0 0 1,194 1,118 2,312 TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA NB SB EB WB TOTA 00:00 2 1 3 12:00 32 25 57 00:00 01:00 4 4 8 00:15 0 1 1 12:15 13 20 33 01:00 02:00 2 2 4 00:30 1 1 2 12:30 19 13 32 02:00 03:00 1 1 2 00:45 1 1 2 12:45 19 14 33 03:00 04:00 0 0 0 01:00 0 0 0 13:00 20 17 37 04:00 05:00 2 1 3 01:15 1 1 2 13:15 10 19 29 05:00 06:00 7 1 8 01:30 1 0 1 13:30 17 23 40 06:00 07:00 25 14 39 01:45 0 1 1 13:45 19 15 34 07:00 08:00 50 62 112 02:00 0 0 0 14:00 26 20 46 08:00 09:00 118 121 239 02:15 1 1 2 14:15 32 27 59 09:00 10:00 82 66 148 02:30 0 0 0 14:30 33 22 55 10:00 11:00 58 54 112 02:45 0 0 0 14:45 35 30 65 11:00 12:00 63 71 134 03:00 0 0 0 15:00 18 28 46 12:00 13:00 83 72 155 03:15 0 0 0 15:15 24 21 45 13:00 14:00 66 74 140 03:30 0 0 0 15:30 16 22 38 14:00 15:00 126 99 225 03:45 0 0 0 15:45 28 28 56 15:00 16:00 86 99 185 04:00 1 1 2 16:00 23 28 51 16:00 17:00 102 100 202 04:15 0 0 0 16:15 29 24 53 17:00 18:00 108 84 192 04:30 0 0 0 16:30 26 25 51 18:00 19:00 79 60 139 04:45 1 0 1 16:45 24 23 47 19:00 20:00 57 46 103 05:00 0 0 0 17:00 19 20 39 20:00 21:00 31 46 77 05:15 1 0 1 17:15 34 24 58 21:00 22:00 18 24 42 05:30 1 1 2 17:30 29 20 49 22:00 23:00 17 11 28 05:45 5 0 5 17:45 26 20 46 23:0 00:0 9 6 15 06:00 6 2 8 18:00 32 14 46 06:15 3 1 4 18:15 22 19 41 NB SB EB WB TOTA 06:30 4 3 7 18:30 14 13 27 00:00 to 12:00 06:45 12 8 20 18:45 11 14 25 412 397 809 07:00 6 8 14 19:00 23 12 35 7:45 7:45 7:45 07:15 9 6 15 19:15 14 13 27 126 131 257 07:30 8 18 26 19:30 12 10 22 0.768 0.780 0.793 07:45 27 30 57 19:45 8 11 19 08:00 41 35 76 20:00 9 17 26 12:00 to 00:00 08:15 39 42 81 20:15 9 10 19 782 721 1503 08:30 19 24 43 20:30 7 6 13 14:00 14:15 14:00 08:45 19 20 39 20:45 6 13 19 126 107 225 09:00 23 19 42 21:00 5 6 11 0.900 0.892 0.865 09:15 25 18 43 21:15 6 5 11 09:30 16 15 31 21:30 6 7 13 07:00 to 09:00 09:45 18 14 32 21:45 1 6 7 168 183 351 10:00 13 21 34 22:00 8 4 12 7:45 7:45 7:45 10:15 15 13 28 22:15 5 2 7 126 131 257 10:30 18 10 28 22:30 2 3 5 0.768 0.780 0.793 10:45 12 10 22 22:45 2 2 4 11:00 11 15 26 23:00 4 2 6 16:00 to 18:00 11:15 13 17 30 23:15 0 2 2 210 184 394 11:30 19 14 33 23:30 4 0 4 17:00 16:00 16:00 11:45 20 25 45 23:45 1 2 3 108 100 202 TOTALS 0 0 412 397 809 TOTALS 0 0 782 721 1503 0.794 0.893 0.953 SPLIT % 0% 0% 51% 49% 35% SPLIT % 0% 0% 52% 48% 65% Peak Hour Factor Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Prepared by National Data & Surveying Service VOLUME #17 ‐ Louis Rd Bet. Colorado Ave & Clara Dr DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS 15‐Minutes Interval Hourly Intervals TIME STATISTICS Peak Period Volume Peak Hour 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 00 : 0 0 01 : 0 0 02 : 0 0 03 : 0 0 04 : 0 0 05 : 0 0 06 : 0 0 07 : 0 0 08 : 0 0 09 : 0 0 10 : 0 0 11 : 0 0 12 : 0 0 13 : 0 0 14 : 0 0 15 : 0 0 16 : 0 0 17 : 0 0 18 : 0 0 19 : 0 0 20 : 0 0 21 : 0 0 22 : 0 0 23 : 0 0 NB SB EB WB Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 129  Packet Pg. 313 of 690  Segment #18 Street:Louis Rd. Limits:Loma Verde Ave. to Charleston Rd. Direction:NB/SB Date /Location of Survey Posted Speed Limit (mph) # Speed Data Collected 85th Percentile (mph) 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Length of Segment (mi.) Street Classification Date Range Covered Total Accidents Accident Rate (Acc/MVM) Adjacent Land Use Roadway Geometrics Approved and Authorized for release by the City of Palo Alto: Signed: Date: :President, TJKM Transportation Consultants Signed:Nayan Amin, TE Date: C. Collision History D. Roadway Conditions Residential land uses on both sides. Institutional (school) on southern side. An undivided 2-lane local/collector. Striped yellow line serves as median. Concrete sidewalks present on both sides. Class II bike lanes on both sides. Signals at intersections with Oregon Expy. And Charleston Rd. Stop control at remaining intersections. No zone is present. Horizontal curves present between intersections with Meadow Dr. and Charleston Rd. Vertical curves present throughout segment. Driveway density high on both sides. No Existing Speed Limit: 25 Recommended Speed Limit: 25 Factors A. Prevailing Speed Data B. Traffic Factors This survey conforms to Section 627 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code and Section 2B.13 of the California MUTCD and recommends a speed limit appropriate to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 130  Packet Pg. 314 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 2 16 2 17 6 18 7 19 6 20 13 21 16 22 17 23 16 24 14 25 10 26 7 27 3 28 1 29 1 30 1 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 122 15 - 30 22 mph 25 mph 17 - 26 112 92% 3% / 4 5% / 6 SPEED PARAMETERS #18 - Louis Rd Bet. E Meadow Dr & Corina Way City of Palo Alto Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 11:35-12:35 9/21/2023 Project #: 23-080265-018 0 5 10 15 20 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 131  Packet Pg. 315 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 1 16 1 17 3 18 5 19 3 20 7 21 6 22 8 23 10 24 7 25 5 26 4 27 2 28 1 29 1 30 1 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 65 15 - 30 22 mph 25 mph 17 - 26 58 89% 3% / 2 8% / 5 SPEED PARAMETERS #18 - Louis Rd Bet. E Meadow Dr & Corina Way City of Palo Alto Eastbound Spot Speeds 11:35-12:35 9/21/2023 Project #: 23-080265-018 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 132  Packet Pg. 316 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 1 16 1 17 3 18 2 19 3 20 6 21 10 22 9 23 6 24 7 25 5 26 3 27 1 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 57 15 - 27 22 mph 25 mph 17 - 26 54 95% 3% / 2 2% / 1 SPEED PARAMETERS #18 - Louis Rd Bet. E Meadow Dr & Corina Way City of Palo Alto Westbound Spot Speeds 11:35-12:35 9/21/2023 Project #: 23-080265-018 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 133  Packet Pg. 317 of 690  Day:Tuesday City:Palo Alto Date:9/12/2023 Project #:CA23_080264_018 NB SB EB WB Total 0 0 1,145 932 2,077 TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA NB SB EB WB TOTA 00:00 1 0 1 12:00 24 13 37 00:00 01:00 1 1 2 00:15 0 0 0 12:15 22 17 39 01:00 02:00 2 1 3 00:30 0 1 1 12:30 24 14 38 02:00 03:00 0 1 1 00:45 0 0 0 12:45 19 16 35 03:00 04:00 1 1 2 01:00 0 0 0 13:00 12 18 30 04:00 05:00 1 1 2 01:15 2 1 3 13:15 19 19 38 05:00 06:00 4 6 10 01:30 0 0 0 13:30 14 10 24 06:00 07:00 12 15 27 01:45 0 0 0 13:45 14 21 35 07:00 08:00 56 59 115 02:00 0 0 0 14:00 11 18 29 08:00 09:00 123 69 192 02:15 0 0 0 14:15 23 19 42 09:00 10:00 103 51 154 02:30 0 0 0 14:30 19 21 40 10:00 11:00 66 42 108 02:45 0 1 1 14:45 30 13 43 11:00 12:00 61 48 109 03:00 0 0 0 15:00 22 18 40 12:00 13:00 89 60 149 03:15 1 0 1 15:15 30 21 51 13:00 14:00 59 68 127 03:30 0 0 0 15:30 26 14 40 14:00 15:00 83 71 154 03:45 0 1 1 15:45 28 20 48 15:00 16:00 106 73 179 04:00 0 1 1 16:00 24 20 44 16:00 17:00 87 90 177 04:15 0 0 0 16:15 21 26 47 17:00 18:00 112 83 195 04:30 0 0 0 16:30 20 26 46 18:00 19:00 74 84 158 04:45 1 0 1 16:45 22 18 40 19:00 20:00 48 45 93 05:00 0 0 0 17:00 28 18 46 20:00 21:00 41 35 76 05:15 2 0 2 17:15 26 18 44 21:00 22:00 9 16 25 05:30 0 1 1 17:30 31 20 51 22:00 23:00 4 10 14 05:45 2 5 7 17:45 27 27 54 23:0 00:0 3 2 5 06:00 2 4 6 18:00 19 24 43 06:15 4 4 8 18:15 15 20 35 NB SB EB WB TOTA 06:30 4 1 5 18:30 20 20 40 00:00 to 12:00 06:45 2 6 8 18:45 20 20 40 430 295 725 07:00 7 4 11 19:00 10 16 26 7:45 7:15 7:45 07:15 6 15 21 19:15 18 15 33 131 81 206 07:30 16 20 36 19:30 10 6 16 0.682 0.779 0.831 07:45 27 20 47 19:45 10 8 18 08:00 30 26 56 20:00 13 11 24 12:00 to 00:00 08:15 48 14 62 20:15 7 9 16 715 637 1352 08:30 26 15 41 20:30 9 8 17 17:00 15:45 17:00 08:45 19 14 33 20:45 12 7 19 112 92 195 09:00 25 14 39 21:00 3 3 6 0.903 0.885 0.903 09:15 29 11 40 21:15 2 8 10 09:30 25 15 40 21:30 2 1 3 07:00 to 09:00 09:45 24 11 35 21:45 2 4 6 179 128 307 10:00 20 14 34 22:00 1 3 4 7:45 7:15 7:45 10:15 11 11 22 22:15 2 4 6 131 81 206 10:30 18 9 27 22:30 0 1 1 0.682 0.779 0.831 10:45 17 8 25 22:45 1 2 3 11:00 17 10 27 23:00 0 0 0 16:00 to 18:00 11:15 15 15 30 23:15 2 0 2 199 173 372 11:30 11 12 23 23:30 1 1 2 17:00 16:00 17:00 11:45 18 11 29 23:45 0 1 1 112 90 195 TOTALS 0 0 430 295 725 TOTALS 0 0 715 637 1352 0.903 0.865 0.903 SPLIT % 0% 0% 59% 41% 35% SPLIT % 0% 0% 53% 47% 65% Peak Hour Factor Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Prepared by National Data & Surveying Service VOLUME #18 ‐ Louis Rd Bet. E Meadow Dr & Corina Way DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS 15‐Minutes Interval Hourly Intervals TIME STATISTICS Peak Period Volume Peak Hour 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 00 : 0 0 01 : 0 0 02 : 0 0 03 : 0 0 04 : 0 0 05 : 0 0 06 : 0 0 07 : 0 0 08 : 0 0 09 : 0 0 10 : 0 0 11 : 0 0 12 : 0 0 13 : 0 0 14 : 0 0 15 : 0 0 16 : 0 0 17 : 0 0 18 : 0 0 19 : 0 0 20 : 0 0 21 : 0 0 22 : 0 0 23 : 0 0 NB SB EB WB Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 134  Packet Pg. 318 of 690  Segment #19 Street:N. California Ave. Limits:Embarcadero Rd. to Middlefield Rd. Direction:EB/WB Date /Location of Survey Posted Speed Limit (mph) # Speed Data Collected 85th Percentile (mph) 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Length of Segment (mi.) Street Classification Date Range Covered Total Accidents Accident Rate (Acc/MVM) Adjacent Land Use Roadway Geometrics Approved and Authorized for release by the City of Palo Alto: Signed: Date: :President, TJKM Transportation Consultants Signed:Nayan Amin, TE Date: C. Collision History D. Roadway Conditions Residential land uses on both sides. Institutional (school) on southern side. An undivided 2-lane local/collector. Striped yellow line serves as median. Concrete sidewalks present on both sides. Class II bike lanes on both sides from Middlefield Rd. to Newell Rd. Class II bike lane on northern side and Class III sharrow on southern side from Newell Rd. to Louis Rd. Stop control at intersections throughout segment. No storage bays present. Marked crosswalks present at most intersections. On-street parking present on southern side from Newell Rd. to Louis Rd. On-street parking present on both sides from Louis Rd. to Embarcadero Rd. School zone is present. No horizontal curves present. Vertical curves present in northern half of segment. Segment slopes negatively northerly. Driveway density high on both sides. §22358.6(c) - Lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph from the rounded speed limit if the speed limit was initially rounded up from the 85th percentile speed: 30 --> 25 No Existing Speed Limit: 25 Recommended Speed Limit: 25 Factors A. Prevailing Speed Data B. Traffic Factors This survey conforms to Section 627 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code and Section 2B.13 of the California MUTCD and recommends a speed limit appropriate to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 135  Packet Pg. 319 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 17 18 2 19 2 20 1 21 2 22 5 23 5 24 8 25 11 26 14 27 12 28 12 29 11 30 7 31 3 32 1 33 1 34 35 1 36 37 38 39 1 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 100 16 - 39 26 mph 29 mph 22 - 31 88 88% 8% / 8 4% / 4 SPEED PARAMETERS #19 - N California Ave S/O Barbara Dr City of Palo Alto Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 13:10-14:25 9/27/2023 Project #: 23-080265-019 0 5 10 15 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 136  Packet Pg. 320 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 19 1 20 1 21 1 22 2 23 2 24 3 25 7 26 5 27 8 28 6 29 6 30 4 31 2 32 1 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 50 18 - 32 27 mph 29 mph 22 - 31 45 90% 8% / 4 2% / 1 SPEED PARAMETERS #19 - N California Ave S/O Barbara Dr City of Palo Alto Northbound Spot Speeds 13:10-14:25 9/27/2023 Project #: 23-080265-019 0 2 4 6 8 10 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 137  Packet Pg. 321 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 17 18 1 19 1 20 21 1 22 3 23 3 24 5 25 4 26 9 27 4 28 6 29 5 30 3 31 1 32 33 1 34 35 1 36 37 38 39 1 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 50 16 - 39 26 mph 29 mph 21 - 30 43 86% 6% / 3 8% / 4 SPEED PARAMETERS #19 - N California Ave S/O Barbara Dr City of Palo Alto Southbound Spot Speeds 13:10-14:25 9/27/2023 Project #: 23-080265-019 0 2 4 6 8 10 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 138  Packet Pg. 322 of 690  Day:Tuesday City:Palo Alto Date:9/12/2023 Project #:CA23_080264_019 NB SB EB WB Total 1,189 946 0 0 2,135 TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA NB SB EB WB TOTA 00:00 0 0 0 12:00 6 16 22 00:00 01:00 1 0 1 00:15 0 0 0 12:15 11 7 18 01:00 02:00 0 0 0 00:30 0 0 0 12:30 12 14 26 02:00 03:00 0 2 2 00:45 1 0 1 12:45 12 8 20 03:00 04:00 0 0 0 01:00 0 0 0 13:00 4 8 12 04:00 05:00 0 1 1 01:15 0 0 0 13:15 6 12 18 05:00 06:00 3 1 4 01:30 0 0 0 13:30 10 7 17 06:00 07:00 9 9 18 01:45 0 0 0 13:45 8 6 14 07:00 08:00 78 77 155 02:00 0 1 1 14:00 12 7 19 08:00 09:00 260 256 516 02:15 0 1 1 14:15 14 10 24 09:00 10:00 78 42 120 02:30 0 0 0 14:30 27 14 41 10:00 11:00 26 28 54 02:45 0 0 0 14:45 16 14 30 11:00 12:00 39 54 93 03:00 0 0 0 15:00 51 38 89 12:00 13:00 41 45 86 03:15 0 0 0 15:15 56 37 93 13:00 14:00 28 33 61 03:30 0 0 0 15:30 32 17 49 14:00 15:00 69 45 114 03:45 0 0 0 15:45 24 16 40 15:00 16:00 163 108 271 04:00 0 0 0 16:00 34 12 46 16:00 17:00 116 57 173 04:15 0 0 0 16:15 30 9 39 17:00 18:00 154 104 258 04:30 0 1 1 16:30 23 18 41 18:00 19:00 55 36 91 04:45 0 0 0 16:45 29 18 47 19:00 20:00 33 19 52 05:00 0 1 1 17:00 44 29 73 20:00 21:00 26 16 42 05:15 1 0 1 17:15 36 24 60 21:00 22:00 5 8 13 05:30 0 0 0 17:30 40 24 64 22:00 23:00 4 3 7 05:45 2 0 2 17:45 34 27 61 23:0 00:0 1 2 3 06:00 1 2 3 18:00 13 7 20 06:15 1 2 3 18:15 11 10 21 NB SB EB WB TOTA 06:30 6 4 10 18:30 21 9 30 00:00 to 12:00 06:45 1 1 2 18:45 10 10 20 494 470 964 07:00 2 5 7 19:00 13 5 18 7:45 7:45 7:45 07:15 6 8 14 19:15 7 7 14 285 278 563 07:30 15 14 29 19:30 9 5 14 0.685 0.764 0.722 07:45 55 50 105 19:45 4 2 6 08:00 84 71 155 20:00 11 5 16 12:00 to 00:00 08:15 104 91 195 20:15 4 5 9 695 476 1171 08:30 42 66 108 20:30 7 3 10 15:00 15:00 15:00 08:45 30 28 58 20:45 4 3 7 163 108 271 09:00 24 12 36 21:00 2 3 5 0.728 0.711 0.728 09:15 20 9 29 21:15 1 2 3 09:30 20 5 25 21:30 0 3 3 07:00 to 09:00 09:45 14 16 30 21:45 2 0 2 338 333 671 10:00 6 6 12 22:00 2 0 2 7:45 7:45 7:45 10:15 6 8 14 22:15 2 2 4 285 278 563 10:30 7 9 16 22:30 0 0 0 0.685 0.764 0.722 10:45 7 5 12 22:45 0 1 1 11:00 13 6 19 23:00 1 2 3 16:00 to 18:00 11:15 6 13 19 23:15 0 0 0 270 161 431 11:30 9 22 31 23:30 0 0 0 17:00 17:00 17:00 11:45 11 13 24 23:45 0 0 0 154 104 258 TOTALS 494 470 0 0 964 TOTALS 695 476 0 0 1171 0.875 0.897 0.884 SPLIT % 51% 49% 0% 0% 45% SPLIT % 59% 41% 0% 0% 55% Peak Hour Factor Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Prepared by National Data & Surveying Service VOLUME #19 ‐ N California Ave S/O Barbara Dr DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS 15‐Minutes Interval Hourly Intervals TIME STATISTICS Peak Period Volume Peak Hour 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 00 : 0 0 01 : 0 0 02 : 0 0 03 : 0 0 04 : 0 0 05 : 0 0 06 : 0 0 07 : 0 0 08 : 0 0 09 : 0 0 10 : 0 0 11 : 0 0 12 : 0 0 13 : 0 0 14 : 0 0 15 : 0 0 16 : 0 0 17 : 0 0 18 : 0 0 19 : 0 0 20 : 0 0 21 : 0 0 22 : 0 0 23 : 0 0 NB SB EB WB Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 139  Packet Pg. 323 of 690  Segment #20 Street:Park Blvd. Limits:California Ave. to Lambert Ave. Direction:NB/SB Date /Location of Survey Posted Speed Limit (mph) # Speed Data Collected 85th Percentile (mph) 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Length of Segment (mi.) Street Classification Date Range Covered Total Accidents Accident Rate (Acc/MVM) Adjacent Land Use Roadway Geometrics Approved and Authorized for release by the City of Palo Alto: Signed: Date: :President, TJKM Transportation Consultants Signed:Nayan Amin, TE Date: C. Collision History D. Roadway Conditions Land uses on both sides include residential, commercial, and utilities (substation). An undivided 2-lane local/collector. Striped yellow line serves as median. Concrete sidewalks present on both sides. Class II bike lanes on both sides. Signal at intersection with Page Mill Rd. Stop control at remaining intersections. Right-turn storage bay present on segment at intersection with Page Mill Rd. Marked crosswalks present at most intersections. On-street parking present at Oregon Expy. overcrossing. Broad vertical curves on eastern half of segment. Segment slopes positively easterly. Driveway density moderate on both sides. §22358.6(c) - Lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph from the rounded speed limit if the speed limit was initially rounded up from the 85th percentile speed: 30 --> 25 No Existing Speed Limit: 25 Recommended Speed Limit: 25 Factors A. Prevailing Speed Data B. Traffic Factors This survey conforms to Section 627 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code and Section 2B.13 of the California MUTCD and recommends a speed limit appropriate to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 140  Packet Pg. 324 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 2 16 17 4 18 6 19 3 20 4 21 5 22 11 23 10 24 12 25 7 26 12 27 9 28 10 29 3 30 4 31 4 32 4 33 2 34 35 2 36 37 1 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 115 15 - 37 25 mph 29 mph 19 - 28 83 72% 10% / 12 18% / 20 SPEED PARAMETERS #20 - Park Blvd Bet. Olive Ave & Page Mill Rd City of Palo Alto Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 14:15-15:40 9/21/2023 Project #: 23-080265-020 0 5 10 15 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 141  Packet Pg. 325 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 1 16 17 2 18 3 19 2 20 3 21 3 22 9 23 5 24 6 25 3 26 7 27 6 28 5 29 1 30 1 31 3 32 2 33 34 35 1 36 37 1 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 64 15 - 37 24 mph 28 mph 19 - 28 49 77% 9% / 6 15% / 9 SPEED PARAMETERS #20 - Park Blvd Bet. Olive Ave & Page Mill Rd City of Palo Alto Eastbound Spot Speeds 14:15-15:40 9/21/2023 Project #: 23-080265-020 0 2 4 6 8 10 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 142  Packet Pg. 326 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 1 16 17 2 18 3 19 1 20 1 21 2 22 2 23 5 24 6 25 4 26 5 27 3 28 5 29 2 30 3 31 1 32 2 33 2 34 35 1 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 51 15 - 35 25 mph 30 mph 21 - 30 37 73% 15% / 8 12% / 6 SPEED PARAMETERS #20 - Park Blvd Bet. Olive Ave & Page Mill Rd City of Palo Alto Westbound Spot Speeds 14:15-15:40 9/21/2023 Project #: 23-080265-020 0 2 4 6 8 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 143  Packet Pg. 327 of 690  Day:Tuesday City:Palo Alto Date:9/12/2023 Project #:CA23_080264_020 NB SB EB WB Total 0 0 2,009 1,428 3,437 TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA NB SB EB WB TOTA 00:00 1 2 3 12:00 39 26 65 00:00 01:00 4 7 11 00:15 1 3 4 12:15 37 22 59 01:00 02:00 4 4 8 00:30 1 1 2 12:30 39 17 56 02:00 03:00 0 3 3 00:45 1 1 2 12:45 29 30 59 03:00 04:00 2 1 3 01:00 4 1 5 13:00 34 28 62 04:00 05:00 7 4 11 01:15 0 3 3 13:15 27 28 55 05:00 06:00 19 10 29 01:30 0 0 0 13:30 32 32 64 06:00 07:00 39 24 63 01:45 0 0 0 13:45 41 21 62 07:00 08:00 120 59 179 02:00 0 0 0 14:00 34 18 52 08:00 09:00 225 106 331 02:15 0 2 2 14:15 27 17 44 09:00 10:00 266 78 344 02:30 0 1 1 14:30 35 32 67 10:00 11:00 167 68 235 02:45 0 0 0 14:45 34 45 79 11:00 12:00 134 72 206 03:00 1 0 1 15:00 20 30 50 12:00 13:00 144 95 239 03:15 0 0 0 15:15 33 42 75 13:00 14:00 134 109 243 03:30 0 0 0 15:30 26 17 43 14:00 15:00 130 112 242 03:45 1 1 2 15:45 21 32 53 15:00 16:00 100 121 221 04:00 0 2 2 16:00 39 38 77 16:00 17:00 134 140 274 04:15 0 1 1 16:15 26 30 56 17:00 18:00 137 158 295 04:30 1 0 1 16:30 27 34 61 18:00 19:00 88 130 218 04:45 6 1 7 16:45 42 38 80 19:00 20:00 61 62 123 05:00 1 2 3 17:00 35 43 78 20:00 21:00 47 32 79 05:15 3 0 3 17:15 37 45 82 21:00 22:00 26 16 42 05:30 3 3 6 17:30 33 35 68 22:00 23:00 17 10 27 05:45 12 5 17 17:45 32 35 67 23:0 00:0 4 7 11 06:00 9 4 13 18:00 24 43 67 06:15 6 6 12 18:15 25 26 51 NB SB EB WB TOTA 06:30 6 4 10 18:30 16 36 52 00:00 to 12:00 06:45 18 10 28 18:45 23 25 48 987 436 1423 07:00 23 15 38 19:00 13 27 40 8:45 8:00 8:45 07:15 32 8 40 19:15 16 12 28 267 106 351 07:30 21 18 39 19:30 11 13 24 0.902 0.946 0.924 07:45 44 18 62 19:45 21 10 31 08:00 50 28 78 20:00 10 11 21 12:00 to 00:00 08:15 61 26 87 20:15 11 6 17 1022 992 2014 08:30 53 26 79 20:30 14 8 22 16:45 16:45 16:45 08:45 61 26 87 20:45 12 7 19 147 161 308 09:00 71 24 95 21:00 11 6 17 0.875 0.894 0.939 09:15 61 19 80 21:15 3 3 6 09:30 74 15 89 21:30 9 4 13 07:00 to 09:00 09:45 60 20 80 21:45 3 3 6 345 165 510 10:00 46 19 65 22:00 3 5 8 8:00 8:00 8:00 10:15 35 17 52 22:15 7 0 7 225 106 331 10:30 44 16 60 22:30 4 1 5 0.922 0.946 0.951 10:45 42 16 58 22:45 3 4 7 11:00 29 16 45 23:00 3 1 4 16:00 to 18:00 11:15 29 18 47 23:15 0 1 1 271 298 569 11:30 36 21 57 23:30 1 3 4 16:45 16:45 16:45 11:45 40 17 57 23:45 0 2 2 147 161 308 TOTALS 0 0 987 436 1423 TOTALS 0 0 1022 992 2014 0.875 0.894 0.939 SPLIT % 0% 0% 69% 31% 41% SPLIT % 0% 0% 51% 49% 59% Peak Hour Factor Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Prepared by National Data & Surveying Service VOLUME #20 ‐ Park Blvd Bet. Olive Ave & Page Mill Rd DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS 15‐Minutes Interval Hourly Intervals TIME STATISTICS Peak Period Volume Peak Hour 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 00 : 0 0 01 : 0 0 02 : 0 0 03 : 0 0 04 : 0 0 05 : 0 0 06 : 0 0 07 : 0 0 08 : 0 0 09 : 0 0 10 : 0 0 11 : 0 0 12 : 0 0 13 : 0 0 14 : 0 0 15 : 0 0 16 : 0 0 17 : 0 0 18 : 0 0 19 : 0 0 20 : 0 0 21 : 0 0 22 : 0 0 23 : 0 0 NB SB EB WB Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 144  Packet Pg. 328 of 690  Segment #21 Street:Quarry Rd. Limits:El Camino Real to Campus Dr. Direction:EB/WB Date /Location of Survey Posted Speed Limit (mph) # Speed Data Collected 85th Percentile (mph) 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Length of Segment (mi.) Street Classification Date Range Covered Total Accidents Accident Rate (Acc/MVM) Adjacent Land Use Roadway Geometrics Approved and Authorized for release by the City of Palo Alto: Signed: Date: :President, TJKM Transportation Consultants Signed:Nayan Amin, TE Date: C. Collision History D. Roadway Conditions Commercial and institutional (school, medical) land uses on both sides. A divided 4-lane arterial. Raised median serves as median. Concrete sidewalks present on both sides. Class II bike lanes on both sides. Signals at most intersections except at Stanford Medical Center driveway and at Campus Drive. Storage bays present at most intersections. Marked crosswalks present at all intersections. Midblock crosswalk present north of driveway to Stanford Medical Center. No on-street parking permitted on either side. No school zone present. Horizontal curves near Stanford Medical Center driveway and at intersection with Sweet Olive Wy. Driveway density moderate on western side and low on eastern side. §22358.6(c) - Lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph from the rounded speed limit if the speed limit was initially rounded up from the 85th percentile speed: 35 --> 30 §22358.7 - Reduce the speed limit by an additional 5 mph as the portion of highway is located near facilities that generate high concentrations of pedestrians and bicyclists, including a university, concrete sidewalks, Class II bike lanes, and marked crosswalks: 30 --> 25 No Existing Speed Limit: 25 Recommended Speed Limit: 25 Factors A. Prevailing Speed Data B. Traffic Factors This survey conforms to Section 627 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code and Section 2B.13 of the California MUTCD and recommends a speed limit appropriate to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 145  Packet Pg. 329 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 20 21 2 22 3 23 6 24 9 25 11 26 14 27 17 28 15 29 22 30 15 31 13 32 10 33 10 34 6 35 3 36 2 37 3 38 1 39 1 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 164 19 - 39 29 mph 33 mph 24 - 33 136 83% 7% / 12 10% / 16 SPEED PARAMETERS #21 - Quarry Rd Bet. Arboretum Rd & Vineyard Ln City of Palo Alto Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 12:00-13:00 10/5/2023 Project #: 23-080265-021 0 5 10 15 20 25 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 146  Packet Pg. 330 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 22 2 23 4 24 6 25 5 26 8 27 10 28 8 29 11 30 7 31 7 32 3 33 4 34 2 35 1 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 79 21 - 35 28 mph 31 mph 23 - 32 69 87% 3% / 3 9% / 7 SPEED PARAMETERS #21 - Quarry Rd Bet. Arboretum Rd & Vineyard Ln City of Palo Alto Northbound Spot Speeds 12:00-13:00 10/5/2023 Project #: 23-080265-021 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 147  Packet Pg. 331 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 20 21 1 22 1 23 2 24 3 25 6 26 6 27 7 28 7 29 11 30 8 31 6 32 7 33 6 34 4 35 2 36 2 37 3 38 1 39 1 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 85 19 - 39 29 mph 34 mph 25 - 34 68 80% 9% / 8 11% / 9 SPEED PARAMETERS #21 - Quarry Rd Bet. Arboretum Rd & Vineyard Ln City of Palo Alto Southbound Spot Speeds 12:00-13:00 10/5/2023 Project #: 23-080265-021 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 148  Packet Pg. 332 of 690  Day:Wednesday City:Palo Alto Date:10/4/2023 Project #:CA23_080264_02 NB SB EB WB Total 8,366 7,345 0 0 15,711 TIME NB SB EB WB TOTAL TIME NB SB EB WB TOTAL NB SB EB WB TOTAL 00:0 22 9 31 12:0 157 113 270 00:0 01:0 81 37 118 00:15 20 10 30 12:15 145 132 277 01:0 02:0 53 24 77 00:3 24 12 36 12:3 115 129 244 02:0 03:0 42 16 58 00:45 15 6 21 12:45 104 118 222 03:0 04:0 43 45 88 01:0 14 6 20 13:0 113 141 254 04:0 05:0 50 124 174 01:15 18 6 24 13:15 129 100 229 05:0 06:0 103 294 397 01:3 14 9 23 13:3 131 125 256 06:0 07:0 244 636 880 01:45 7 3 10 13:45 134 115 249 07:0 08:0 567 498 1065 02:0 8 3 11 14:0 139 113 252 08:0 09:0 419 498 917 02:15 6 6 12 14:15 135 151 286 09:0 10:0 379 473 852 02:3 14 2 16 14:3 179 117 296 10:0 11:0 377 410 787 02:45 14 5 19 14:45 132 134 266 11:0 12:0 470 405 875 03:0 7 6 13 15:0 134 96 230 12:0 13:0 521 492 1013 03:15 7 8 15 15:15 152 107 259 13:0 14:0 507 481 988 03:3 22 11 33 15:3 193 105 298 14:0 15:0 585 515 1100 03:45 7 20 27 15:45 170 96 266 15:0 16:0 649 404 1053 04:0 6 14 20 16:0 132 94 226 16:0 17:0 607 389 996 04:15 10 20 30 16:15 159 113 272 17:0 18:0 628 340 968 04:3 16 35 51 16:3 160 98 258 18:0 19:0 553 450 1003 04:45 18 55 73 16:45 156 84 240 19:0 20:0 492 256 748 05:0 17 45 62 17:0 165 93 258 20:0 21:0 292 180 472 05:15 18 55 73 17:15 157 90 247 21:0 22:0 242 164 406 05:3 30 74 104 17:3 173 81 254 22:0 23:0 177 149 326 05:45 38 120 158 17:45 133 76 209 23:0 00:0 285 65 350 06:00 33 125 158 18:00 168 85 253 06:15 55 169 224 18:15 143 122 265 NB SB EB WB TOTAL 06:3 76 176 252 18:3 134 137 271 00:00 to 12:00 06:45 80 166 246 18:45 108 106 214 2828 3460 6288 07:0 69 106 175 19:0 120 76 196 7:30 6:00 7:15 07:15 89 150 239 19:15 105 61 166 623 636 1113 07:3 233 129 362 19:3 154 54 208 0.668 0.903 0.769 07:45 176 113 289 19:45 113 65 178 08:0 115 108 223 20:0 88 51 139 12:00 to 00:00 08:15 99 131 230 20:15 84 43 127 5538 3885 9423 08:3 93 133 226 20:3 68 43 111 15:30 12:15 14:00 08:45 112 126 238 20:45 52 43 95 654 520 1100 09:0 102 131 233 21:0 58 41 99 0.847 0.922 0.929 09:15 97 123 220 21:15 63 38 101 09:3 80 114 194 21:3 77 49 126 07:00 to 09:00 09:45 100 105 205 21:45 44 36 80 986 996 1982 10:0 92 107 199 22:0 53 38 91 7:30 7:15 7:15 10:15 112 91 203 22:15 32 29 61 623 500 1113 10:3 77 95 172 22:3 59 42 101 0.668 0.833 0.769 10:45 96 117 213 22:45 33 40 73 11:0 108 73 181 23:0 56 31 87 16:00 to 18:00 11:15 129 100 229 23:15 86 13 99 1235 729 1964 11:3 109 123 232 23:3 101 13 114 16:45 16:00 16:15 11:45 124 109 233 23:45 42 8 50 651 389 1028 TOTALS 2828 3460 0 0 6288 TOTALS 5538 3885 0 0 9423 0.941 0.861 0.945 SPLIT % 45% 55% 0% 0% 40% SPLIT % 59% 41% 0% 0% 60% Peak Hour Factor Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services VOLUME #21 ‐ Quarry Rd Bet. Arboretum Rd & Vineyard Ln DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS 15‐Minutes Interval Hourly Intervals TIME STATISTICS Peak Period Volume Peak Hour 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 00 : 0 0 01 : 0 0 02 : 0 0 03 : 0 0 04 : 0 0 05 : 0 0 06 : 0 0 07 : 0 0 08 : 0 0 09 : 0 0 10 : 0 0 11 : 0 0 12 : 0 0 13 : 0 0 14 : 0 0 15 : 0 0 16 : 0 0 17 : 0 0 18 : 0 0 19 : 0 0 20 : 0 0 21 : 0 0 22 : 0 0 23 : 0 0 NB SB EB WB Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 149  Packet Pg. 333 of 690  Segment #22 Street:Middlefield Rd. Limits:University Ave. to Northern City Limits Direction:NB/SB Date /Location of Survey Posted Speed Limit (mph) # Speed Data Collected 85th Percentile (mph) 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Length of Segment (mi.) Street Classification Date Range Covered Total Accidents Accident Rate (Acc/MVM) Adjacent Land Use Roadway Geometrics Approved and Authorized for release by the City of Palo Alto: Signed: Date: :President, TJKM Transportation Consultants Signed:Nayan Amin, TE Date: C. Collision History D. Roadway Conditions Residential land uses on both sides. An undivided 2-lane residential arterial. Two-way left-turn lane and double yellow line serves as median. Concrete sidewalks present on both sides. Class II bike lanes on both sides. Signals at intersections with Lyfton Ave. and University Ave. Side street stop control at remaining intersections. Westbound left-turn storage bays along segment at most intersections. Marked crosswalks present at all intersections. No on-street parking permitted on either side. No school zone present. Horizontal curve at intersection with Palo Alto Ave. Broad vertical curves throughout segment. Segment slopes negatively easterly. Driveway density high on both sides. §22358.6(b) - Lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph from the rounded speed limit if the speed limit was initially rounded down from the 85th percentile speed: 30 --> 25 No Existing Speed Limit: 25 Recommended Speed Limit: 25 Factors A. Prevailing Speed Data B. Traffic Factors This survey conforms to Section 627 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code and Section 2B.13 of the California MUTCD and recommends a speed limit appropriate to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 150  Packet Pg. 334 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 20 21 1 22 3 23 4 24 5 25 10 26 15 27 19 28 27 29 26 30 19 31 18 32 10 33 6 34 6 35 3 36 1 37 1 38 1 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 176 19 - 38 29 mph 32 mph 25 - 34 156 89% 7% / 14 4% / 6 SPEED PARAMETERS #22 - Middlefield Rd Bet. Hawthorne Ave & Everett Ave City of Palo Alto Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds 09:50-10:50 9/20/2023 Project #: 23-080265-022 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 151  Packet Pg. 335 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 20 21 1 22 2 23 3 24 3 25 6 26 10 27 11 28 15 29 13 30 9 31 9 32 4 33 1 34 3 35 1 36 37 1 38 1 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 94 19 - 38 28 mph 31 mph 23 - 32 83 88% 4% / 4 8% / 7 SPEED PARAMETERS #22 - Middlefield Rd Bet. Hawthorne Ave & Everett Ave City of Palo Alto Eastbound Spot Speeds 09:50-10:50 9/20/2023 Project #: 23-080265-022 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 152  Packet Pg. 336 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Eastbound & Westbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:25 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 23 1 24 2 25 4 26 5 27 8 28 12 29 13 30 10 31 9 32 6 33 5 34 3 35 2 36 1 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 82 22 - 36 29 mph 32 mph 25 - 34 75 91% 4% / 4 4% / 3 SPEED PARAMETERS #22 - Middlefield Rd Bet. Hawthorne Ave & Everett Ave City of Palo Alto Westbound Spot Speeds 09:50-10:50 9/20/2023 Project #: 23-080265-022 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 153  Packet Pg. 337 of 690  Day:Tuesday City:Palo Alto Date:9/12/2023 Project #:CA23_080264_022 NB SB EB WB Total 0 0 7,200 7,176 14,376 TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA NB SB EB WB TOTA 00:00 2 8 10 12:00 109 109 218 00:00 01:00 16 27 43 00:15 4 4 8 12:15 117 95 212 01:00 02:00 8 27 35 00:30 5 8 13 12:30 116 108 224 02:00 03:00 6 12 18 00:45 5 7 12 12:45 103 111 214 03:00 04:00 19 9 28 01:00 2 9 11 13:00 121 130 251 04:00 05:00 46 17 63 01:15 4 9 13 13:15 109 107 216 05:00 06:00 182 44 226 01:30 1 4 5 13:30 82 137 219 06:00 07:00 381 82 463 01:45 1 5 6 13:45 106 107 213 07:00 08:00 511 324 835 02:00 1 3 4 14:00 109 134 243 08:00 09:00 664 410 1074 02:15 2 1 3 14:15 102 138 240 09:00 10:00 638 310 948 02:30 2 6 8 14:30 97 147 244 10:00 11:00 525 340 865 02:45 1 2 3 14:45 108 152 260 11:00 12:00 499 380 879 03:00 4 2 6 15:00 92 141 233 12:00 13:00 445 423 868 03:15 6 2 8 15:15 97 167 264 13:00 14:00 418 481 899 03:30 5 2 7 15:30 104 156 260 14:00 15:00 416 571 987 03:45 4 3 7 15:45 114 132 246 15:00 16:00 407 596 1003 04:00 4 2 6 16:00 117 160 277 16:00 17:00 437 625 1062 04:15 8 4 12 16:15 110 147 257 17:00 18:00 530 688 1218 04:30 19 2 21 16:30 92 166 258 18:00 19:00 450 532 982 04:45 15 9 24 16:45 118 152 270 19:00 20:00 241 457 698 05:00 33 8 41 17:00 125 194 319 20:00 21:00 169 340 509 05:15 45 11 56 17:15 123 163 286 21:00 22:00 93 231 324 05:30 47 8 55 17:30 133 167 300 22:00 23:00 70 156 226 05:45 57 17 74 17:45 149 164 313 23:0 00:0 29 94 123 06:00 71 10 81 18:00 120 152 272 06:15 80 18 98 18:15 115 133 248 NB SB EB WB TOTA 06:30 122 16 138 18:30 100 125 225 00:00 to 12:00 06:45 108 38 146 18:45 115 122 237 3495 1982 5477 07:00 124 38 162 19:00 74 125 199 8:30 7:45 7:45 07:15 100 54 154 19:15 74 122 196 685 457 1085 07:30 151 82 233 19:30 53 103 156 0.906 0.762 0.916 07:45 136 150 286 19:45 40 107 147 08:00 158 89 247 20:00 32 96 128 12:00 to 00:00 08:15 145 111 256 20:15 54 97 151 3705 5194 8899 08:30 189 107 296 20:30 40 87 127 17:00 17:00 17:00 08:45 172 103 275 20:45 43 60 103 530 688 1218 09:00 171 86 257 21:00 22 65 87 0.889 0.887 0.955 09:15 153 74 227 21:15 22 78 100 09:30 141 73 214 21:30 26 45 71 07:00 to 09:00 09:45 173 77 250 21:45 23 43 66 1175 734 1909 10:00 139 104 243 22:00 20 44 64 8:00 7:45 7:45 10:15 106 72 178 22:15 16 45 61 664 457 1085 10:30 111 81 192 22:30 21 37 58 0.878 0.762 0.916 10:45 169 83 252 22:45 13 30 43 11:00 135 83 218 23:00 12 29 41 16:00 to 18:00 11:15 116 79 195 23:15 9 28 37 967 1313 2280 11:30 117 103 220 23:30 3 25 28 17:00 17:00 17:00 11:45 131 115 246 23:45 5 12 17 530 688 1218 TOTALS 0 0 3495 1982 5477 TOTALS 0 0 3705 5194 8899 0.889 0.887 0.955 SPLIT % 0% 0% 64% 36% 38% SPLIT % 0% 0% 42% 58% 62% Peak Volume Prepared by National Data & Surveying Service VOLUME #22 ‐ Middlefield Rd Bet. Hawthorne Ave & Everett Ave DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS 15‐Minutes Interval Hourly Intervals TIME STATISTICS Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 00 : 0 0 01 : 0 0 02 : 0 0 03 : 0 0 04 : 0 0 05 : 0 0 06 : 0 0 07 : 0 0 08 : 0 0 09 : 0 0 10 : 0 0 11 : 0 0 12 : 0 0 13 : 0 0 14 : 0 0 15 : 0 0 16 : 0 0 17 : 0 0 18 : 0 0 19 : 0 0 20 : 0 0 21 : 0 0 22 : 0 0 23 : 0 0 NB SB EB WB Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 154  Packet Pg. 338 of 690  Segment #23 Street:Porter Dr. Limits:Page Mill Rd. to Hillview Ave. Direction:NB/SB/EB/WB Date /Location of Survey Posted Speed Limit (mph) # Speed Data Collected 85th Percentile (mph) 10 mph Pace Percent in Pace Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Length of Segment (mi.) Street Classification Date Range Covered Total Accidents Accident Rate (Acc/MVM) Adjacent Land Use Roadway Geometrics Approved and Authorized for release by the City of Palo Alto: Signed: Date: :President, TJKM Transportation Consultants Signed:Nayan Amin, TE Date: C. Collision History D. Roadway Conditions Commercial (offices) and institutional (schools) land uses on both sides. An undivided 2-lane local/collector. Two-way left-turn lane serves as median. Concrete sidewalks present on both sides. Class II bike lanes on both sides. Signals at intersections with Page Mill Rd. and Hillview Ave. Left-turn storage bays along segment at intersections with Page Mill Rd. and Hillview Ave. Marked crosswalks present at signalized intersections. Midblock crosswalk present near middle of segment. No on-street parking permitted on either side. No school zone present. Broad horizontal curve on eastern half of segment. Vertical curves present throughout segment. Segment slopes negatively easterly/northerly. Driveway density high on both sides. §22358.6(b) - Lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph from the rounded speed limit if the speed limit was initially rounded down from the 85th percentile speed: 30 --> 25 No Existing Speed Limit: 25 Recommended Speed Limit: 25 Factors A. Prevailing Speed Data B. Traffic Factors This survey conforms to Section 627 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code and Section 2B.13 of the California MUTCD and recommends a speed limit appropriate to facilitate the safe and orderly movement of traffic. Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 155  Packet Pg. 339 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:30 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 20 5 21 7 22 6 23 7 24 12 25 7 26 11 27 10 28 9 29 7 30 5 31 4 32 3 33 3 34 1 35 2 36 2 37 38 1 39 40 2 41 42 1 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 106 19 - 42 26 mph 31 mph 20 - 29 81 76% 0% / 1 23% / 24 SPEED PARAMETERS #23 - Porter Dr S/O Hillview Ave City of Palo Alto Northbound & Southbound Spot Speeds 13:30-14:50 9/28/2023 Project #: 23-080265-023 0 5 10 15 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 156  Packet Pg. 340 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:30 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 20 3 21 1 22 3 23 3 24 5 25 4 26 5 27 6 28 7 29 3 30 3 31 2 32 2 33 1 34 1 35 1 36 1 37 38 1 39 40 2 41 42 1 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 56 19 - 42 27 mph 32 mph 22 - 31 41 73% 8% / 5 18% / 10 SPEED PARAMETERS #23 - Porter Dr S/O Hillview Ave City of Palo Alto Northbound Spot Speeds 13:30-14:50 9/28/2023 Project #: 23-080265-023 0 2 4 6 8 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 157  Packet Pg. 341 of 690  Spot Speed Study Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Northbound & Southbound DATE: Location: TIME: Posted Speed:30 MPH Clear/Dry Speed mph ALL Vehicles <=10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 21 6 22 3 23 4 24 7 25 3 26 6 27 4 28 2 29 4 30 2 31 2 32 1 33 2 34 35 1 36 1 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >=70 Class Count Range 50th Percentile 85th Percentile 10 MPH Pace # in Pace Percent in Pace % / # Below Pace % / # Above Pace ALL 50 20 - 36 25 mph 30 mph 20 - 29 41 82% 0% / 0 18% / 9 SPEED PARAMETERS #23 - Porter Dr S/O Hillview Ave City of Palo Alto Southbound Spot Speeds 13:30-14:50 9/28/2023 Project #: 23-080265-023 0 2 4 6 8 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 Sp e e d - M P H Number of Vehicles Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 158  Packet Pg. 342 of 690  Day:Tuesday City:Palo Alto Date:9/12/2023 Project #:CA23_080264_023 NB SB EB WB Total 991 1,018 0 0 2,009 TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA TIME NB SB EB WB TOTA NB SB EB WB TOTA 00:00 1 0 1 12:00 14 12 26 00:00 01:00 1 4 5 00:15 0 0 0 12:15 14 11 25 01:00 02:00 4 4 8 00:30 0 2 2 12:30 14 9 23 02:00 03:00 0 2 2 00:45 0 2 2 12:45 13 12 25 03:00 04:00 5 0 5 01:00 1 1 2 13:00 11 17 28 04:00 05:00 4 1 5 01:15 2 2 4 13:15 13 10 23 05:00 06:00 23 1 24 01:30 0 1 1 13:30 12 15 27 06:00 07:00 45 12 57 01:45 1 0 1 13:45 3 11 14 07:00 08:00 102 28 130 02:00 0 0 0 14:00 13 23 36 08:00 09:00 148 65 213 02:15 0 1 1 14:15 11 22 33 09:00 10:00 125 63 188 02:30 0 0 0 14:30 7 30 37 10:00 11:00 121 46 167 02:45 0 1 1 14:45 9 20 29 11:00 12:00 80 57 137 03:00 0 0 0 15:00 20 16 36 12:00 13:00 55 44 99 03:15 0 0 0 15:15 7 17 24 13:00 14:00 39 53 92 03:30 1 0 1 15:30 11 19 30 14:00 15:00 40 95 135 03:45 4 0 4 15:45 11 25 36 15:00 16:00 49 77 126 04:00 0 0 0 16:00 9 40 49 16:00 17:00 45 120 165 04:15 0 0 0 16:15 11 20 31 17:00 18:00 45 137 182 04:30 0 1 1 16:30 14 30 44 18:00 19:00 30 112 142 04:45 4 0 4 16:45 11 30 41 19:00 20:00 13 55 68 05:00 2 0 2 17:00 12 37 49 20:00 21:00 4 21 25 05:15 4 1 5 17:15 14 29 43 21:00 22:00 9 12 21 05:30 4 0 4 17:30 13 49 62 22:00 23:00 3 1 4 05:45 13 0 13 17:45 6 22 28 23:0 00:0 1 8 9 06:00 10 3 13 18:00 6 29 35 06:15 7 3 10 18:15 9 29 38 NB SB EB WB TOTA 06:30 13 5 18 18:30 11 28 39 00:00 to 12:00 06:45 15 1 16 18:45 4 26 30 658 283 941 07:00 26 6 32 19:00 5 18 23 8:00 8:45 8:15 07:15 25 5 30 19:15 4 9 13 148 77 218 07:30 23 4 27 19:30 3 16 19 0.841 0.837 0.826 07:45 28 13 41 19:45 1 12 13 08:00 34 15 49 20:00 1 4 5 12:00 to 00:00 08:15 33 14 47 20:15 2 5 7 333 735 1068 08:30 37 14 51 20:30 1 6 7 12:00 16:45 16:45 08:45 44 22 66 20:45 0 6 6 55 145 195 09:00 31 23 54 21:00 1 4 5 0.982 0.740 0.786 09:15 23 17 40 21:15 0 4 4 09:30 32 15 47 21:30 4 3 7 07:00 to 09:00 09:45 39 8 47 21:45 4 1 5 250 93 343 10:00 46 14 60 22:00 1 0 1 8:00 8:00 8:00 10:15 30 13 43 22:15 1 0 1 148 65 213 10:30 27 7 34 22:30 0 0 0 0.841 0.739 0.807 10:45 18 12 30 22:45 1 1 2 11:00 18 15 33 23:00 0 3 3 16:00 to 18:00 11:15 19 11 30 23:15 0 1 1 90 257 347 11:30 20 15 35 23:30 1 2 3 16:30 16:45 16:45 11:45 23 16 39 23:45 0 2 2 51 145 195 TOTALS 658 283 0 0 941 TOTALS 333 735 0 0 1068 0.911 0.740 0.786 SPLIT % 70% 30% 0% 0% 47% SPLIT % 31% 69% 0% 0% 53% Peak Hour Factor Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Peak Hour Factor Peak Period Volume Peak Hour Peak Volume Prepared by National Data & Surveying Service VOLUME #23 ‐ Porter Dr S/O Hillview Ave DAILY TOTALS DAILY TOTALS 15‐Minutes Interval Hourly Intervals TIME STATISTICS Peak Period Volume Peak Hour 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 00 : 0 0 01 : 0 0 02 : 0 0 03 : 0 0 04 : 0 0 05 : 0 0 06 : 0 0 07 : 0 0 08 : 0 0 09 : 0 0 10 : 0 0 11 : 0 0 12 : 0 0 13 : 0 0 14 : 0 0 15 : 0 0 16 : 0 0 17 : 0 0 18 : 0 0 19 : 0 0 20 : 0 0 21 : 0 0 22 : 0 0 23 : 0 0 NB SB EB WB Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 159  Packet Pg. 343 of 690  B E N G I N E E R I N G A N D T R A F F I C S U R V E Y | C I T Y O F Appendix B: Collision Data Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 160  Packet Pg. 344 of 690  ID Segment All  Collisions Head‐On Side  swipe Rear‐ End Broad side Hit  Object Over  turned Auto/  Ped All  Other Fatal Injury:  Serious Injury:  Other  Visible Injury:  Complaint  of Pain PDO Other 1 Alma St. from El Camino Real to  University Ave.18 1 0 7 8 2 0 0 0 0 1 6 11 0 0 2 Charleston Rd. from Fabian Way to  Southern City Limits 6 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 3 Embarcadero Rd. from El Camino Real  to Alma St. Overcrossing 16 2 1 7 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 7 9 0 0 4 Fabian Way from Charleston Rd. to W.  Bayshore Rd.10 0 0 3 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 5 Hanover St. from Page Mill Rd. to  Hillview Ave.6 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 3 0 0 6 Hillview Ave. from Hanover St. to  Foothill Exp.8 1 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 3 0 0 7 Middlefield Rd. from University Ave.  to Embarcadero Rd.80 6 1 12 55 0 0 4 2 0 0 31 49 0 0 8 San Antonio Rd. from Alma St. to  Middlefield Rd.12 0 0 3 4 2 1 1 1 0 0 6 6 0 0 9 San Antonio Rd. from Middlefield Rd.  to Charleston Rd.36 1 4 10 13 3 1 1 3 0 0 16 20 0 0 10 W. Bayshore Rd. from Loma Verde  Ave. to Fabian Way 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 Charleston Rd. from El Camino Real to  Alma St.5 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 12 Charleston Rd. from Alma St. to  Middlefield Rd.7 1 1 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 13 Charleston Rd. from Middlefield Rd. to  Fabian Way 9 1 1 2 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 14 Deer Creek Rd. from Page Mill Rd. to  Arastradero Rd.8 0 0 4 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 3 4 0 0 15 El Camino Way from Los Robles Ave.  to Maybell Ave.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Hansen Way from El Camino Real to  Page Mill Exp.15 0 1 11 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 10 0 0 17 Louis Rd. from Oregon Exp. to Loma  Verde Rd.17 2 3 6 4 0 0 1 1 0 1 9 7 0 0 18 Louis Rd. from Loma Verde Ave. to  Charleston Rd.11 0 1 7 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 7 0 0 19 N. California Ave. from Embarcadero  Rd. to Middlefield Rd.8 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 4 0 0 20 Park Blvd. from California Ave. to  Lambert Ave.3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 21 Quarry Rd. from El Camino Real to  Campus Dr.35 0 1 13 10 2 1 8 0 0 3 11 21 0 0 Type SeverityDescription  Collision Data (Jan 1, 2019 ‐ Dec 31, 2021) Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 161  Packet Pg. 345 of 690  ID Segment All  Collisions Head‐On Side  swipe Rear‐ End Broad side Hit  Object Over  turned Auto/  Ped All  Other Fatal Injury:  Serious Injury:  Other  Visible Injury:  Complaint  of Pain PDO Other Type SeverityDescription  22 Middlefield Rd. from University Ave.  to Northern City Limits 11 1 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 0 0 23 Porter Dr. from Page Mill Rd. to  Hillview Ave.2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Item 12 Attachment A - 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 162  Packet Pg. 346 of 690  NOT YET APPROVED Attachment B 1 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Sections of Chapter 10.56 (“Special Speed Zones”) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) to Reflect the 2024 Traffic Survey and Reduce the Speed Limit for a Portion of Deer Creek Road. The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. In conjunction with this ordinance, the City Council approved the “2024 Engineering & Traffic Survey” (Traffic Survey) for the City of Palo Alto. The survey was conducted by TJKM under contract by the City. B. Based on the findings of the Traffic Survey, the City now desires to amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) through this ordinance to indicate the latest survey completion date for 22 road segments and change the speed limit for one road segment – Deer Creek Road – from 40 to 35 mph. SECTION 2. Chapter 10.56.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is underlined, deleted text is in strikethrough): 10.56.010 Twenty-five miles per hour prima facie speed limit justified. It is determined that the state twenty-five miles per hour prima facie speed limit for business or residence districts is justified, as required by state law, with respect to the following streets or portions of streets by engineering and traffic surveys conducted by the city and completed on the dates shown below: Road Segment Name Survey Completion Date Alma St from El Camino Real to University Ave September 2023June 2014 Amaranta Ave from Los Robles Ave to Maybell Ave November 2017 Arboretum Rd from Sand Hill Rd to Quarry Rd November 2017 Birch St from California Ave to Page Mill Exp November 2017 California Ave from El Camino Real to Hanover St November 2017 Charleston Rd from Fabian Way to South City Limit September 2023June 2014 Charleston Rd from Middlefield Rd to Fabian Way September 2023 Charleston Rd from El Camino Real to Alma St September 2023 Channing Ave from W Bayshore Rd to Newell Rd November 2017 Channing Ave from Newell Rd to Guinda Ave November 2017 Channing Ave from Guinda Ave to Alma St November 2017 Item 12 Attachment B - Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 10.56 to Establish and Amend Speed Limits        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 163  Packet Pg. 347 of 690  NOT YET APPROVED Attachment B 2 Charleston Rd from Alma St to Middlefield Rd September 2023November 2017 Churchill Ave from Embarcadero Rd to Alma St November 2017 Churchill Ave from Alma St to El Camino Real November 2017 Colorado Ave from W Bayshore Rd to Middlefield Rd November 2017 E Meadow Dr from W Bayshore Rd to Louis Rd November 2017 E Meadow Dr from Louis Rd to Alma St November 2017 El Camino Way from Los Robles Ave to Maybell Ave September 2023November 2017 Embarcadero Rd from El Camino Real to Alma St October 2023June 2014 Guinda Ave from Lytton Ave to Channing Ave November 2017 Hamilton Ave from Middlefield Rd to Alma St November 2017 High St from Lytton Ave to Channing Ave November 2017 Homer Ave from Guinda Ave to Alma St November 2017 Laguna Ave from Matadero Ave to Los Robles Ave November 2017 Lambert Ave from Park Blvd to El Camino Real November 2017 Loma Verde Ave from W Bayshore Rd to Middlefield Rd November 2017 Loma Verde Ave from Middlefield Rd to Alma St November 2017 Los Robles Ave from Laguna Ave to El Camino Real November 2017 Louis Rd from Embarcadero Rd to Oregon Exp November 2017 Louis Rd from Oregon Exp to Loma Verde Rd September 2023November 2017 Louis Rd from Loma Verde Rd to Charleston Rd September 2023November 2017 Lytton Ave from Alma St to Middlefield Rd November 2017 Middlefield Rd from University Ave to Embarcadero Rd September 2023June 2014 Middlefield Rd from University Av to Northern City Limits September 2023 Newell Rd from East City Limit to Channing Ave November 2017 Newell Rd from Channing Ave to Embarcadero Rd November 2017 N California Ave from Embarcadero Rd to Middlefield Rd September 2023November 2017 N California Ave from Middlefield Rd to Alma St November 2017 Item 12 Attachment B - Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 10.56 to Establish and Amend Speed Limits        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 164  Packet Pg. 348 of 690  NOT YET APPROVED Attachment B 3 Park Blvd from California Ave to Lambert Ave September 2023November 2017 Peter Coutts Rd from Stanford Ave to Page Mill Rd November 2017 Porter Dr from Hillview Ave to Page Mill Rd September 2023November 2017 Quarry Rd from El Camino Real to Campus Dr October 2023November 2017 Stanford Ave from El Camino Real to Peter Coutts Rd November 2017 Blvd Waverley St from Lytton Ave to Channing Ave November 2017 Waverley St from Channing Ave to Embarcadero Rd November 2017 W Meadow Dr from Alma St to El Camino Way November 2017 SECTION 3. Chapter 10.56.015 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 10.56.015 Thirty miles per hour prima facie speed limit. It is determined and justified upon the basis of engineering and traffic surveys that a speed greater than the twenty-five miles per hour prima facie speed limit set forth in Section 22352 of the Vehicle Code of the state, would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe under the conditions found to exist upon the streets, or portions thereof, set forth in this section, and it is hereby declared that thirty miles per hour shall be the prima facie speed limit upon these streets, or portions thereof, except for school zones, as shown below: Road Segment Name Survey Completion Date Fabian Way from Charleston Rd to W Bayshore Rd September 2023June 2014 Hansen Way from El Camino Real to Page Mill Exp September 2023November 2017 Hanover St from Page Mill Rd to Hillview Ave September 2023June 2014 Hillview Ave from Hanover St to Foothill Exp September 2023June 2014 Sand Hill Rd from El Camino Real to Arboretum November 2017 W Bayshore Rd from Oregon Exp to Colorado Ave November 2017 SECTION 4. Chapter 10.56.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 10.56.020 Thirty-five miles per hour prima facie speed limit. It is determined and justified upon the basis of engineering and traffic surveys that a speed greater than the twenty-five miles per hour prima facie speed limit set forth in Section 22352 of Item 12 Attachment B - Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 10.56 to Establish and Amend Speed Limits        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 165  Packet Pg. 349 of 690  NOT YET APPROVED Attachment B 4 the Vehicle Code of the state, would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe under the conditions found to exist upon the streets, or portions thereof, set forth in this section, and it is hereby declared that thirty-five miles per hour shall be the prima facie speed limit upon these streets, or portions thereof, except for school zones, as shown below: Road Segment Name Survey Completion Date Alma St from Lincoln Ave to Oregon Expy November 2017 Alma St from Oregon Exp to E Meadow Dr November 2017 Alma St from E Meadow Dr to South City Limit November 2017 Arastradero Rd from Purissima Rd to Deer Creek Rd November 2017 Arastradero Rd from Deer Creek Rd to Foothill Exp November 2017 Deer Creek Rd from western City limits to Arastradero Rd Hillview Ave from Foothill Exp to Arastradero Rd September 2023 November 2017 Oregon Exp from Middlefield Rd to Highway 101 June 2014 Oregon Exp from Middlefield Rd to Alma St November 2017 Page Mill Rd from El Camino Real to Hanover St June 2014 Sand Hill Rd from Arboretum to West City limit November 2017 San Antonio Rd from Alma St Overpass to Middlefield Rd September 2023June 2014 San Antonio Rd from Middlefield Rd to Charleston Rd September 2023June 2014 San Antonio Rd from Charleston Rd to East City Limit June 2014 W Bayshore Rd from Oregon Exp to Loma Verde Ave November 2017 W Bayshore Rd from Loma Verde to Fabian Way September 2023June 2014 SECTION 5. Chapter 10.56.025 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 10.56.025 Forty miles per hour prima facie speed limit. It is determined and justified upon the basis of engineering and traffic surveys that a speed greater than the twenty-five miles per hour prima facie speed limit set forth in Section 22352 of the Vehicle Code of the state, would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe under the conditions found to exist upon the streets, or portions thereof, set forth in this section, and it is hereby declared that forty miles per hour shall be the prima facie speed limit upon these streets, or portions thereof, except for school zones, as shown below: Item 12 Attachment B - Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 10.56 to Establish and Amend Speed Limits        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 166  Packet Pg. 350 of 690  NOT YET APPROVED Attachment B 5 Road Segment Name Survey Completion Date E Bayshore from Embarcadero Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Overcrossing to Adobe Creek November 2017 Deer Creek Rd from western City limits to Arastradero Rd November 2017 SECTION 6. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 7. The Council finds that this ordinance is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines as a minor alteration to the existing street system. SECTION 8. This ordinance shall be effective 31 days after adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Chief Transportation Official Item 12 Attachment B - Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 10.56 to Establish and Amend Speed Limits        Item 12: Staff Report Pg. 167  Packet Pg. 351 of 690  City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: City Attorney’s Office Meeting Date: September 8, 2025 Report #:2502-4222 TITLE FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 16.64 (Development Fee and In- Lieu Payment Administration) of Title 16 (Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Reflect Changes in Law. CEQA Status – Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 16.64 (Development Fee and In-Lieu Payment Administration) of Title 16 (Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to facilitate additional analysis of development impact fees where requested by a project applicant. BACKGROUND The proposed ordinance updates the City's impact fee protest process to allow developers to challenge fees on constitutional grounds, ensuring fees are fairly linked to a project's impact, in addition to the existing process for legal challenges under state law. Under the Mitigation Fee Act, California Gov. Code §§ 66000-66025, cities may charge the proponent of a new development project various development impact fees to offset the development’s relative share of the impacts created by new residents on City resources. To set the formula by which a development impact fee is calculated, a city must first conduct a nexus study to ensure that the fee schedule assigns to each development project its fair share of the costs of necessary improvements. The formula by which each impact fee is set is approved by the City Council, and the amount of the fee assessed on each project is calculated according to the Council-approved formula. The City regularly updates the nexus studies underlying its development impact fees. Until recently, legislatively adopted development impact fees in California were governed principally by the Mitigation Fee Act, which requires that fees and exactions imposed on development bear a “reasonable relationship” to the impacts created by the development. In Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 601 U.S. 267 (2024), the United States Supreme Court held that in addition to the Mitigation Fee Act, legislatively adopted development impact fees must Item 13 Item 13 Staff Report        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 352 of 690  also satisfy a test based in the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Under Sheetz, there must be an “essential nexus” between the exaction and purpose of the permit and “rough proportionality” between the amount of the exaction and the projected impact of the proposed development. This test (the “Nollan/Dolan test”) is derived from two U.S. Supreme Court cases, Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n., 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). ANALYSIS Nollan/Dolan standard did not apply to legislatively adopted development impact fees in California until Sheetz was decided, City’s current impact fee protest procedures do not contemplate constitutional challenges. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Item 13 Item 13 Staff Report        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 353 of 690  ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Item 13 Item 13 Staff Report        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 354 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 1 0290176_20250825_ms29 Ordinance No. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 16.64 (Development Fee and In-Lieu Payment Administration) of Title 16 (Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Reflect Changes in Law The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. Until recently, legislatively adopted development impact fees in California were governed principally by state statute (the Mitigation Fee Act, California Gov. Code §§ 66000-66025), which requires that fees and exactions imposed on development bear a “reasonable relationship” to the impacts created by the development. B. In Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 601 U.S. 267 (2024), the United States Supreme Court rejected the previous rule, holding that in addition to the Mitigation Fee Act, development impact fees must also comply with the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. C. Under Sheetz, development impact fees are appropriate only where there is an “essential nexus” between the fee and purpose of the permit and “rough proportionality” between the amount of the fee and the projected impact of the proposed development (the “Nollan/Dolan test”). D. In some cases, an applicant may contend that the City’s impact fees do not satisfy the Mitigation Fee Act’s “reasonable relationship” standard or the constitutional “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” requirements with respect to the impact of the applicant’s proposed development. E. Currently, the City’s impact fee procedures provide a mechanism for applicants to pay the fees under protest while preserving a challenge to the fees under the Mitigation Fee Act. These procedures incorporate standards and requirements that are specific to the Mitigation Fee Act and do not account for constitutional challenges to the City’s fees. F. For this reason, the City Council now wishes to amend Chapter 16.64 to enhance the ability of an objector to administratively challenge the calculation of impact fees for their project. This amendment would adjust the City’s protest procedure to facilitate both protests under the Mitigation Fee Act and challenges by applicants who contend that the City’s legislatively adopted impact fees do not meet constitutional standards. SECTION 2. Section 16.64.060 (Notice of Protest Rights) of Chapter 16.64 (Development Fee and In-Lieu Payment Administration) of Title 16 (Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto Item 13 Attachment A - Ordinance Amending PAMC 16.64        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 355 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 2 0290176_20250825_ms29 Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (additions underlined; deletions struck-through): 16.64.060 Notice of protest rights. (a) Each applicant is hereby notified that, in order to protest the imposition of any impact fee required by this chapter, the protest must be filed in accordance with the requirements of this chapter and, if applicable to the protest, the Mitigation Fee Act. Failure of any person to comply with the protest requirements of this chapter and, if applicable, or the Mitigation Fee Act shall bar that person from any action or proceeding or any defense of invalidity or unreasonableness of the imposition, to the extent allowed by law. (b) On or before the date on which payment of the fee is due, the applicant shall pay the full amount required by the city and serve a written notice to the director of planning and development services with all of the following information: (1) for challenges under the Mitigation Fee Act, a statement that the required payment is tendered, or will be tendered when due, under protest; and (2) a statement informing the city of the factual elements of the dispute and the legal theory forming the basis for the protest. (c) The applicant shall bear the burden of proving, to the satisfaction of the director, entitlement to a fee adjustment. SECTION 3. Section 16.64.070 (Informal Hearing) of Chapter 16.64 (Development Fee and In-Lieu Payment Administration) of Title 16 (Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (additions underlined; deletions struck-through): 16.64.070 Informal hearing and preparation of additional analysis. (a) The director shall schedule an informal hearing regarding the protest, to be held no later than sixty days after the imposition of the impact fees upon the development project service of the applicant’s written notice of protest, and with at least ten days' prior notice to the applicant (unless either alternative dates are otherwise agreed by the director and the applicant). (b) Either at the applicant’s request or upon the director’s initiative, the director may seek preparation, at the applicant’s expense, of additional analysis of the impacts created by the application. The time in which an informal hearing must be scheduled shall be tolled while these studies are prepared. (c) During the informal hearing, the director shall consider the applicant's protest, relevant evidence assembled as a result of the protest, and any additional relevant evidence provided during the informal hearing by the applicant and the city. The director shall provide an opportunity for the applicant to present additional evidence at the hearing in support of the protest. Item 13 Attachment A - Ordinance Amending PAMC 16.64        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 356 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 3 0290176_20250825_ms29 (c d) The director shall issue a written determination regarding the protest directing that the fee shall remain unchanged or shall be increased or decreased based on the evidence presented at the hearing. The director's determination shall support the fee imposed upon the development project unless the applicant establishes, to the satisfaction of the director, entitlement to an adjustment to the fee. (d e) The director may elect to appoint an independent hearing officer or other designee to hear and decide a protest under this section. SECTION 4. Section 16.64.080 (Appeal of Director's Determination) of Chapter 16.64 (Development Fee and In-Lieu Payment Administration) of Title 16 (Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (additions underlined; deletions struck-through): 16.64.080 Appeal of director's determination. Reserved. (a) Any applicant who desires to appeal a determination issued by the director shall submit a written appeal to the director and the city manager. A complete written appeal shall include a complete description of the factual elements of the dispute and the legal theory forming the basis for the appeal of the director's determination. An appeal received by the city manager more than ten calendar days after the director's determination may be rejected as late. Upon receipt of a complete and timely appeal, the city manager shall appoint an independent hearing officer to consider and rule on the appeal. (b) The independent hearing officer shall, in coordination with the applicant and the director, set the time and place for the appeal hearing, and provide written notice thereof. The independent hearing officer shall consider relevant evidence, provide an opportunity for the applicant and the city to present additional noncumulative evidence at the hearing, and preserve the complete administrative record of the proceeding. (c) Within thirty days after the independent hearing officer closes the hearing and receives post-hearing briefs (if any), the independent hearing officer shall issue a written decision on the appeal hearing which shall include a statement of findings of fact in support of the decision. The independent hearing officer's discretion shall be limited to a determination that either supports the director's determination or orders the city to refund all or a portion of the impact fees to the applicant. The applicant shall bear the burden of proving entitlement to a fee adjustment. The decision of the hearing officer is final and conclusive, and is subject to judicial review. SECTION 5. Section 16.64.090 (Cost of Protest) of Chapter 16.64 (Development Fee and In- Lieu Payment Administration) of Title 16 (Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (deletions struck-through): 16.64.090 Cost of protest. The applicant shall pay all city costs related to any protest or appeal pursuant to this Item 13 Attachment A - Ordinance Amending PAMC 16.64        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 357 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 4 0290176_20250825_ms29 chapter, in accordance with the fee schedule adopted by the city. At the time of the applicant's protest, and at the time of the applicant's appeal, the applicant shall pay a deposit in an amount established by the city to cover the estimated reasonable cost of processing the protest and appeal. If the deposit is not adequate to cover all city costs, the applicant shall pay the difference within twenty days after receipt of written notice from the director. SECTION 6. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 7. The Council finds that the Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that amending the City’s administrative appeal procedures for development impact fees may have a significant effect on the environment. // // // // // // // // // // // // // Item 13 Attachment A - Ordinance Amending PAMC 16.64        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 358 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 5 0290176_20250825_ms29 SECTION 8. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: City Attorney or Designee City Manager Director of Planning and Development Services Item 13 Attachment A - Ordinance Amending PAMC 16.64        Item 13: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 359 of 690  City Council Staff Report Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: City Clerk Meeting Date: September 8, 2025 Report #:2508-5091 TITLE SECOND READING: Ordinance Adopting the 2025 Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map Issued by the State Fire Marshal (FIRST READING: August 11, 2025 PASSED 6-0-1, Lythcott-Haims Absent) BACKGROUND The City Council heard this item on August 11, 2025 for a first reading and approved it on a 6-0- 1 vote. No changes were made to the ordinance, and it is now before the City Council for a second reading. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto adopting the 2025 Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map Issued by the State Fire Marshal APPROVED BY: Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk Item 14 Item 14 Staff Report        Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 360 of 690  NOT YET APPROVED Attachment A 1 027072325 Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto adopting the 2025 Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map Issued by the State Fire Marshal The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. To better prepare for wildfires, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is required to periodically review its recommended classifications of fire hazard severity zones throughout California. The state legislature has found that the prevention of wildfires is a matter of statewide concern, not a municipal affair. B. The State released updated 2025 Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps, and requires all local jurisdictions, including Palo Alto, with moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zone recommendations to designate those zones by ordinance. C. State law also requires that the City post the maps indicating CAL FIRE’s FHSZ recommendations publicly for comment within 30 days of receipt, which the City conducted from March 26 - April 30, 2025. D. After consideration of public comments, the City will rely on the latest recommendations of CAL FIRE in its published FHSZ maps, notwithstanding local discretion to impose more restrictive fire and public safety requirements. SECTION 2. Adoption of 2025 Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map for Palo Alto. The City hereby designates the Fire Hazard Severity Zones as recommended by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Government Code Section 51178. The map, approved by the Council of the City of Palo Alto, is hereby incorporated by reference, and entitled, “Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area - City of Palo Alto”, dated February 24, 2025 (Exhibit A). The official map is also located electronically on the following website: https://www.paloalto.gov/wildfire SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. // // // Item 14 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto adopting the 2025 Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map Issued by the State Fire Marshal        Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 361 of 690  NOT YET APPROVED Attachment A 2 027072325 SECTION 4. CEQA. The City Council finds and determines that this Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines because adoption of the state FHSZ map and updating a statutory definition involves no action with potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment in that this Ordinance simply clarifies existing local regulations. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ City Attorney or designee City Manager _____________________________ Fire Chief, Palo Alto Fire Department Item 14 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto adopting the 2025 Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map Issued by the State Fire Marshal        Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 362 of 690  City and County boundaries as of 10/22/24 (CA Board of Equalization) CAL FIRE State Responsibility Areas (SRA25_1) CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZSRA23_3, FHSZLRA_25_1) Data Sources: Daniel Berlant, State Fire Marshal, CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Joe Tyler, Director/Fire Chief, CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Wade Crowfoot, Secretary for Natural Resources, CA Natural Resources Agency Gavin Newsom, Governor, State of CaliforniaThe State of California and the Department of Forestry and FireProtection make no representations or warranties regarding theaccuracy of data or maps. Neither the State nor the Department shallbe liable under any circumstances for any direct, special, incidental,or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user orthird party on account of, or arising from, the use of data or maps. and other relevant factors including areas where winds have been identified by the Office of the State Fire Marshal as a major cause of wildfire spread. statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones shall be based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, Government Code section 51178 requires the State Fire Marshal to identify areas in the state as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on consistent Waterbody Federal Responsibility Area (FRA)Unzoned LRA Incorporated City Projection: NAD 83 California Teale Albers Scale: 1:97,000 at 11" x 17" 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Km 0 1 2 3 4Mi Very High High Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area (SRA), Effective April 1, 2024 Very High High Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) in Local Responsibility Area (LRA), as Identified by the State Fire Marshal Palo Alto UNINCORPORATEDSAN MATEO CO. UNINCORPORATEDSANTA CLARA CO. elCam i n o Real 101 82 35 ATHERTON CUPERTINO EAST PALOALTO FREMONT LOS ALTOSLOSALTOS HILLS MENLO PARK MOUNTAIN VIEW NEWARK PORTOLAVALLEY REDWOOD CITY SAN CARLOS SAN JOSE SAN JOSE SANTACLARA SARATOGA SUNNYVALE WOODSIDE ALAMEDA CO. SANTA CLARA CO. SAN MATEO CO. SANTA CLARA CO. February 24, 2025 As Identified by the State Fire MarshalLocal Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones CITY OF PALO ALTO – SANTA CLARA COUNTY Exhibit A Item 14 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto adopting the 2025 Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map Issued by the State Fire Marshal        Item 14: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 363 of 690  City Council Staff Report Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: City Clerk Meeting Date: September 8, 2025 Report #:2508-5092 TITLE SECOND READING: Ordinance Adding Use of Council Chambers Fees to the FY 2026 Municipal Fee Schedule (FIRST READING: August 11, 2025 PASSED 6-0-1, Lythcott-Haims absent) BACKGROUND The City Council heard this item on August 11, 2025 for a first reading and approved it on a 6-0- 1 vote. No changes were made to the ordinance, and it is now before the City Council for a second reading. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Ordinance Amending the FY 2026 Muni Fee Schedule to Add New Fee APPROVED BY: Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk Item 15 Item 15 Staff Report        Item 15: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 364 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 1 0012_20250723_mv30 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Fiscal Year 2026 Municipal Fee Schedule to Add New Fees for the Use of the Council Chambers The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A.The City adopted a Council Chamber Use Policy to establish clear guidelines for the use of the Council Chambers, Community Meeting Room, and Flexible Meeting Room (“Council Chambers”). The City will assess a Refundable Cleaning and Damage Deposit of $250.00. B.In addition, users of the Council Chambers may require staff assistance. If so, a $49 attendant fee and a technology assistance fee of $100 per hour per staff member will be charged. C.The fees in this ordinance will help offset the reasonable cost of using City staff. SECTION 2. The Council of the City of Palo Alto amends the Fiscal Year 2026 Municipal Fee Schedule by adopting the new fees for the Use of Council Chambers as set forth in Exhibit “A” and incorporated here by reference. SECTION 3. The fee in this Ordinance is for a specific government service provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product. Pursuant to Art. XIII C, Section 1(e)(2) of the California Constitution, this fee is not a tax. SECTION 4. The Council finds that this ordinance is not a “project” under CEQA because it has no potential for resulting in either a direct or reasonable foreseeable indirect change in the environment. // // // // // // Item 15 Attachment A - Ordinance Amending the FY 2026 Muni Fee Schedule to Add New Fee        Item 15: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 365 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 2 0012_20250723_mv30 SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective upon adoption as an amendment to the City’s FY26 budget. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ City Clerk ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services Item 15 Attachment A - Ordinance Amending the FY 2026 Muni Fee Schedule to Add New Fee        Item 15: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 366 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 3 0012_20250723_mv30 Attachment A Fiscal Year 2026 Municipal Fee Schedule City Clerk Fees Item 15 Attachment A - Ordinance Amending the FY 2026 Muni Fee Schedule to Add New Fee        Item 15: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 367 of 690  City Council Staff Report Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: City Clerk Meeting Date: September 8, 2025 Report #:2508-5093 TITLE SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.21 (Architectural Review Board) and Chapter 2.25 (Parks and Recreation Commission) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Procedures for Electing a Chair and Vice Chair (FIRST READING: August 11, 2025, PASSED 6-0-1, Lythcott-Haims Absent) BACKGROUND The City Council heard this item on August 11, 2025, for its first reading and approved it on a 6- 0-1 vote. No changes were made to the ordinance, and it is now before the City Council for a second reading. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.21 (Architectural Review Board) and Chapter 2.25 (Parks and Recreation Commission) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Procedures for Electing a Chair and Vice Chair APPROVED BY: Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk Item 16 Item 16 Staff Report        Item 16: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 368 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 137_20250721_ts24 1 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.21 (Architectural Review Board) and Chapter 2.25 (Parks and Recreation Commission) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Procedures for Electing a Chair and Vice Chair The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. The City has an Architectural Review Board (ARB) and a Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) as established by ordinance. B. The City Council now desires to amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code through this ordinance to codify existing practice that the ARB elect a chair and vice chair from its membership. C. The City Council also desires to amend the procedure for electing a chairperson of the PRC to eliminate the requirement that the commission elect a chairperson at the first regular meeting of the PRC. This is consistent with other boards and commissions of the City. SECTION 2. New section 2.21.020 (Officers) is hereby added to Chapter 2.21 (Architectural Review Board) of Title 2 (Administrative Code) to read as follows: 2.21.020 Officers. The Board shall elect a chairperson and a vice chairperson from its membership who shall serve in such capacity for one year each, or until a successor is elected, unless his or her term as a member of the Board sooner expires. SECTION 3. Section 2.25.040 (Officers) of Chapter 2.25 (Parks and Recreation Commission) of Title 2 (Administrative Code) is hereby amended to read as follows (deleted text in strikethrough, new text in underline): 2.25.040 Officers. Each year, at the first regular meeting of the parks and recreation commission, the commission shall nominate and elect one of its members as the chairperson. The chairperson shall hold office for one year and until his or her successor is elected, unless his or her term as a member of the commission expires earlier. The Commission shall elect a chairperson and a vice chairperson from its membership who shall serve in such capacity for one year each, or until a successor is elected, unless his or her term as a member of the Commission sooner expires. Item 16 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.21 (Architectural Review Board) and Chapter 2.25 (Parks and Recreation Commission) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Procedures for Electing a Chair and Vice Chair        Item 16: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 369 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 137_20250721_ts24 2 SECTION 4. Severability. 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. Environmental Review This ordinance is categorically exempt under CEQA regulation 15320 because it is a change in the organization of a local government agency that does not affect the geographical area in which previously existing powers are exercised. SECTION 6. Effective Date This Ordinance shall be effective 31 days after adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director, Planning and Development Services ____________________________ Director, Community Services Department Item 16 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.21 (Architectural Review Board) and Chapter 2.25 (Parks and Recreation Commission) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Amend Procedures for Electing a Chair and Vice Chair        Item 16: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 370 of 690  City Council Staff Report Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR Lead Department: City Clerk Meeting Date: September 8, 2025 Report #:2508-5094 TITLE SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Restating Procedures for Expedited Permitting Processing for Electric Vehicle Charging Systems (FIRST READING: August 11, 2025 PASSED 6-0-1, Lythcott-Haims Absent) BACKGROUND The City Council heard this item on August 11, 2025 for a first reading and approved it on a 6-0- 1 vote. No changes were made to the ordinance, and it is now before the City Council for a second reading. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Restating Procedures for Expedited Permitting Processing for Electric Vehicle Charging Systems APPROVED BY: Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk Item 17 Item 17 Staff Report        Item 17: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 371 of 690  *Not Yet Approved* 1 0290175_20250611_ms29 Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Restating Procedures for Expedited Permitting Processing for Electric Vehicle Charging Systems The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. A. The State of California and the City of Palo Alto have consistently promoted and encouraged the use of fuel-efficient electric vehicles. B. The State of California recently adopted Assembly Bill 1236, which requires local agencies to adopt an ordinance that creates an expedited and streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging systems. C. Creation of an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations would facilitate convenient charging of electric vehicles and help reduce the City’s reliance on environmentally damaging fossil fuels. D. On June 27, 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance 5415, creating an expedited permitting process for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations as Section 16.14.440 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. E. The provisions adopted by Ordinance 5415 were inadvertently omitted from subsequent ordinances amending Chapter 16.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The City Council now wishes to correct this omission by re-codifying the provisions adopted by Ordinance 5415 in their own chapter of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. F. Urban tree canopy has a quantifiable impact on public health and safety. Near- surface temperatures in cities generally significantly exceed those in surrounding rural areas (the “urban heat island” effect). See A.J. Arnfield. Two decades of urban climate research: A review of turbulence, exchanges of energy and water, and the urban heat island . International Journal of Climatology, 23 (2003), pp. 1-26. G. Heat exposure has been associated with adverse health outcomes, including higher rates of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and emergency hospitalizations, across a range of study designs, and covering geographical regions worldwide. Bobb JF, Peng RD, Bell ML, Dominici F. 2014. Heat-related mortality and adaptation to heat in the United States. Environ Health Perspect 122:811–816; https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307392. In the United States, extreme heat is by far the most common cause of weather-related fatalities, accounting for 207 fatalities in 2023 alone. National Weather Service Weather Related Fatality and Injury Statistics, Available at: https://www.weather.gov/hazstat/. Item 17 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Restating Procedures for Expedited Permitting Processing for Electric Vehicle Charging Systems        Item 17: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 372 of 690  *Not Yet Approved* 2 0290175_20250611_ms29 H. Climate change is anticipated to greatly exacerbate the public health impacts of urban heat. One 2014 analysis found that an increase in average temperatures by 5°F (central climate projection) would lead to an additional 1,907 deaths per summer across 105 U.S. cities studied, which would exceed the total number of severe weather fatalities that occurred across the United States in 2012 by more than a factor of three. Bobb et al., 2014. I. A significant and growing body of research has shown that a change in the level of urban tree canopy can have a quantifiable impact on the urban temperatures. A study of 27 U.S. cities analyzed the effects of a decrease in urban canopy over a ten-year period, and concluded that full reforestation would cause average daily maximum summer air temperatures to decline by an estimated average 1.7 °C (1.4–2.0 °C) across cities. Kroeger, T., McDonald, R. I., Boucher, T., Zhang, P. & Wang, L. Where the people are: Current trends and future potential targeted investments in urban trees for PM10 and temperature mitigation in 27 U.S. cities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 177, 227–240 (2018). J. Because the cooling effects of trees can be highly localized, a change in canopy cover can affect the temperature of the immediate surroundings at levels that far exceed city- level average change. A meta-analysis of studies on the cooling effects of street trees found that cooling intensity varies from 0.4° C (0.7° F) to 3.0° C (5.4° F) depending on the site and the time of day. McDonald, R.I., et al., Planting Healthy Air: A global analysis of the role of urban trees in addressing particulate matter pollution and extreme heat. 2016, The Nature Conservancy: Arlington, VA., www.nature.org/healthyair. K. This cooling effect quantifiably reduces heat-related morbidity and mortality. One study of 97 U.S. cities estimated that urban tree cover saves 245-346 lives annually and helps avoid more than 50,000 doctor’s visits due to heat annually. McDonald, R. I., Kroeger, T., Zhang, P. & Hamel, P. The value of US urban tree cover for reducing heat-related health impacts and electricity consumption. Ecosystems 23, 137–150 (2019). L. Analysis of extreme heat events in Toronto, Canada found that the number of heat-related ambulance calls was negatively correlated to canopy cover (Spearman Rank rho = −0.094, p = 0.029) and positively correlated to hard surface cover (Spearman Rank rho = 0.150, p < 0.001). Graham D.A., Vanos J.K., Kenny N.A., Brown R.D. The relationship between neighbourhood tree canopy cover and heat-related ambulance calls during extreme heat events in Toronto, Canada. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016;20:180–186. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2016.08.005. M. One study quantified the average difference in urban tree coverage between majority white and majority person-of-color (POC) neighborhoods, and concluded that greater urban tree canopy in majority white neighborhoods helps avoid 632 ± 100 deaths, while the less robust tree canopy in majority POC neighborhoods helped avoid only 442 ± 97 deaths annually. McDonald, R.I., Biswas, T., Chakraborty, T.C. et al. Current inequality and future potential of US Item 17 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Restating Procedures for Expedited Permitting Processing for Electric Vehicle Charging Systems        Item 17: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 373 of 690  *Not Yet Approved* 3 0290175_20250611_ms29 urban tree cover for reducing heat-related health impacts. npj Urban Sustain 4, 18 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-024-00150-3. N. In another key study, researchers concluded that increased vegetative cover could help offset projected increases in heat-related mortality for heat wave conditions in 2050 by 40 to 99% across three U.S. metropolitan regions. Stone B., Vargo J., Liu P., Habeeb D., DeLucia A., Trail M., Hu Y., Russell A. Avoided heat-related mortality through climate adaptation strategies in three US cities. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e100852. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0100852. O. As extreme heat becomes increasingly common due to climate change, a project that reduces the City’s urban canopy by requiring the removal of a tree would have a specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety by reducing resistance to heat-related morbidity and mortality. P. Palo Alto requires the negative impact of tree removal to be mitigated through canopy replacement or payment of an in-lieu fee. The City’s mitigation standards reflect best practices in the Urban Forestry field. When installing an electric vehicle charging station would require removal of a tree, compliance with these mitigation measures is necessary to avoid a net reduction in urban tree canopy and the associated specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety. Q. Like a reduction in tree canopy, tree failure can cause significant adverse impacts on public safety. An analysis of wind-related tree failures in the United States found those failures caused 407 deaths from 1995 to 2007 at an average of 31 deaths per year (1 in 9.7 million). Schmidlin, T.W. 2009. Human fatalities from wind-related tree failures in the United States, 1995–2007. Natural Hazards 50:13–25. R. Construction activity in a tree’s root zone has a quantifiable impact on the risk of tree failure. Trees adjacent to construction have been found to be nearly twice as likely to die as those not exposed to development and redevelopment activities. Koeser, A., R. Hauer, K. Norris, and R. Krouse. 2013. Factors influencing long-term street tree survival in Milwaukee, WI, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 12:562–568. S. Site inspections of fallen urban trees frequently reveal root damage and evidence of trenching or other construction near the trunk of the tree. In one analysis of fallen urban trees, 58% showed evidence of site or trenching works within four meters of trunk. Moore, G.M. 2014. Wind-Thrown Trees: Storms or Management? Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 40:53-69. T. Research indicates that enforcement of construction and excavation standards within a tree protection zone (TPZ) is an important way to minimize the public safety risk of tree falls. Steenberg, J.W.N., P.J. Robinson, and P.N. Duinker. 2018. A spatio temporal analysis of the relationship between housing renovation, socioeconomic status, and urban forest ecosystems. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science. Item 17 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Restating Procedures for Expedited Permitting Processing for Electric Vehicle Charging Systems        Item 17: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 374 of 690  *Not Yet Approved* 4 0290175_20250611_ms29 U. Palo Alto has adopted TPZ excavation standards that reflect industry-wide best practices to minimize damage to a tree’s root system. When installing an electric vehicle charging station would require trenching or construction activity in a tree protection zone, compliance with these standards is necessary to avoid a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety. SECTION 2. Chapter 16.15 (Expedited Permitting Process for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read: 16.15.010. Expedited Permitting Process for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (a) Definitions (1) “Electric vehicle charging station” or “charging station” means any level of electric vehicle supply equipment station that is designed and built in compliance with Article 625 of the California Electrical Code, as it reads on the effective date of this Chapter, and delivers electricity from a source outside an electric vehicle into a plug-in electric vehicle. (2) “Specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, and written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (3) “Electronic submittal” means the utilization of one or more of the following: i. Electronic mail or email. ii. The internet. iii. Facsimile. (b) Expedited Permitting Process. Consistent with Government Code Section 65850.7, the Chief Building Official shall implement an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations, and adopt a checklist of all requirements with which electric vehicle charging stations shall comply with in order to be eligible for expedited review. The expedited, streamlined permitting process and checklist may refer to the recommendations contained in the most current version of the “Electric Vehicle Charging Station Permitting Guidebook” published by the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development. The City’s adopted checklist shall be published on the City’s website. (c) Permit Application Processing (1) Prior to submitting an application for processing, the applicant shall verify that the installation of an electric vehicle charging station will not have specific, adverse impact to public health and safety and building occupants. Item 17 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Restating Procedures for Expedited Permitting Processing for Electric Vehicle Charging Systems        Item 17: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 375 of 690  *Not Yet Approved* 5 0290175_20250611_ms29 Verification by the applicant includes but is not limited to: electrical system capacity and loads; electrical system wiring, bonding and overcurrent protection; building infrastructure affected by charging station equipment and associated conduits; areas of charging station equipment and vehicle parking. (2) A permit application that satisfies the information requirements in the City’s adopted checklist shall be deemed complete and be promptly processed. Upon confirmation by the Chief Building Official or designee that the permit application and supporting documents meets the requirements of the City adopted checklist, and is consistent with all applicable laws and health and safety standards, the Chief Building Official or designee shall, consistent with Government Code Section 65850.7, approve the application and issue all necessary permits. Such approval does not authorize an applicant to energize or utilize the electric vehicle charging station until approval is granted by the City. If the Chief Building Official or designee determines that the permit application is incomplete, he or she shall issue a written correction notice to the applicant, detailing all deficiencies in the application and any additional information required to be eligible for expedited permit issuance. (3) The Chief Building Official or designee shall not condition the approval for any electric vehicle charging station permit on the approval of such a system by an association, as that term is defined by Civil Code Section 4080. (4) Permit applications under this section may be submitted electronically, including electronic signatures on all forms, applications, and other documentation. (d) Technical Review. It is the intent of this section to encourage the installation of electric vehicle charging stations by removing obstacles to permitting for charging stations so long as the action does not supersede the Chief Building Official’s authority to address higher priority life-safety situations. If the Chief Building Official or designee makes a finding based on substantial evidence that the electric vehicle charging station could have a specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety, as defined in this section, the City may require the applicant to apply for a use permit. SECTION 3. Severability. 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 Item 17 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Restating Procedures for Expedited Permitting Processing for Electric Vehicle Charging Systems        Item 17: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 376 of 690  *Not Yet Approved* 6 0290175_20250611_ms29 unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. CEQA. The City Council finds that this Ordinance falls under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption found in Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility it will have a significant negative effect on the environment. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Attorney or Designee City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning and Development Services Item 17 Attachment A - Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Restating Procedures for Expedited Permitting Processing for Electric Vehicle Charging Systems        Item 17: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 377 of 690  City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: ACTION ITEMS Lead Department: Administrative Services Meeting Date: September 8, 2025 Report #:2506-4818 TITLE Discuss the FY 2026 budget amendments to reduce General Fund appropriations by approximately $6.2 million as Recommended by the Finance Committee and Approve the FY 2026 Budget Amendments in Various Funds. CEQA Status - Not a Project. RECOMMENDATION The Finance Committee and staff recommend the City Council review, discuss and approve amendments to the Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Appropriation for various funds and various capital projects, as identified in Attachment A, Exhibit 1 and 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City Council directed staff to recommend specific reductions across the General Fund, totaling $6 million, with at least $2 million in ongoing savings and $4 million one- time savings to plan for economic uncertainty and address longer term deficits, as part of the FY 2026 Budget Process. The Council direction allowed budget reductions to be a mix of General Fund operating budget reductions or capital project deferrals or reductions. Staff’s recommendations are outlined in this report and summarized by department, and achieve $6.2 million in savings in FY 2026, of which $3.4 million are ongoing and $2.8 million are one-time. The total reflects about 2% of the City’s General Fund budget. The recommendations prioritize core services while balancing impacts to the extent possible largely through reducing vacant positions, with only one currently filled at this time. Capital project savings are achieved by reducing the annual base General Fund transfer to the Capital Improvement Fund and supported by revisions to the 5-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), as proposed for specific projects. The revised Capital Improvement Fund ending balance is projected above the $3 million target annually, except in FY 2026 which is projected at $2.4 million. This report includes the detail of the proposed $6.2 million savings, along with anticipated impacts, that was presented to the Finance Committee “Committee” on August 19 (Staff Report Item 18 Item 18 Staff Report        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 378 of 690  2506-48171), with the exception of modifying CIP Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Implementation (PL-04010) that is explained further. As actual financial results from staffing changes and/or CIP projects will differ from this plan, the FY 2026 Mid-Year Budget Review will further refine the budget accordingly. In summary, the recommended reductions reflect impacts across all departments and limit service impacts largely by freezing vacant positions, while prioritizing continuity of services and changes already contained in the adopted budget. These recommendations advance Council Priorities, evolve services approaches such as reducing transportation consultant contracts while augmenting staffing resources and limiting contracts to annual appropriations with expense controls for information technology, planning and transportation consultants. Additionally, capital project savings are captured while acknowledging ongoing expense and schedule variability associated with construction. Table 1: Summary of $6.2 Million Savings General Fund $3.0M $2.4M $0.6M $2.4M $2.4M Capital Improvement Fund $3.2M $1.0M $2.2M $1.0M $1.0M On August 19 the Finance Committee unanimously recommended Staff advance these FY 2026 budget amendments inclusive in this memorandum for Council approval with these additional considerations for the Council’s consideration: - In the budget recommendations, indicate if the defunded position is currently vacant and if so, duration of vacancy (Table 2). - Summarize historical positions and vacancies by department and asterisk changes such as new classifications, in-house/out-source, inter-departmental shifts (Attachment B). - For CIP Bayland Levee, modify the recommendation to retain $50,000 in FY26 budget for permitting efforts. - JMZ Program Assistant (1 FTE) – review revenue recovery potential (i.e. range of assumptions) and potentially consider retaining this position. - Police Reserve Officer (0.12 FTE) – review impact to overtime and likelihood of a net zero result, and potentially consider retaining this part-time position. - Consultant savings will be discussed with Council on September 15 and include any available information within this budget report to Council, if possible. - CSD Enjoy Catalogue – review the revenue impact of going from 4 to 2 publications in FY26 and defer decision to transition to postcard only in FY27. 1 Finance Committee, August 19, 2025; Agenda Item #2; Staff report #2506-4817: https:// recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=64820&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto Item 18 Item 18 Staff Report Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 379 of 690  BACKGROUND On June 16, the City Council adopted the $1.0 billion FY 2026 budget (Staff Report #2503-42503) including the General Fund Budget of $313.0 million and capital budget of $312.9 million across all funds. The five-year 2026-2030 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is $1.1 billion. These adopted budgets included $6.0 million of anticipated savings, comprised of $2.8 million in operating savings and $3.2 million to reduce the transfer from General Fund to the Capital Improvement Fund, with direction to return to the Finance Committee with specific recommendations in August 2025 and City Council in September 2025. The FY 2026 Adopted Budget resulted in a projected General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve of $54.3 million or 17.7%, slightly below the Council’s target of 18.5% and within the recommended range of 15-20% of General Fund Expenditures. Furthermore, as part of a multi- year budget balancing strategy, Finance Committee recommended in FY 2027 to combine the Uncertainty Reserve with the BSR and increase the overall reserve. Moving $4.0 million of the Uncertainty Reserve into the BSR in FY 2027 would bring the BSR up to $58.3 million or 18.3% of the estimated FY 2027 expenses. This would leave $2.0 million in the Uncertainty Reserve to partially offset the projected $8.0 million deficit in FY 2027 projected at the time of budget adoption. ANALYSIS Staff reviewed general operations and capital projects to determine budget appropriation reductions while minimizing service impacts, capital project delays and exacerbating costs. The $6.2 million in recommended savings in FY 2026 includes $3.4 million ongoing and $2.8 million one-time. Capital project savings are achieved by reducing the General Fund transfer to the Capital Improvement Fund and supported by revisions to the 5-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), as proposed for specific projects. The revised Capital Improvement Fund ending balance is projected above the $3.0 million target annually, except in FY 2026 which is projected at $2.4 million. Proposed Reductions - General Fund (by Department): Total General Fund reduction of $3.0M of which $2.4M is on-going and $0.6M is one-time. Attachment A summarizes budget amendments for all funds. 3 City Council, June 16, 2025; Agenda Item #23; SR#2503-4250: https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=83462&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto Item 18 Item 18 Staff Report Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 380 of 690  Table 2: Summary of Department Reductions Department % of FY 26 General Fund Budget Proposed Reduction On-Going One- time Description Defund Positions - Vacant/Filled (Vacancy date) Administrative Services 1.4%$161,663 $161,663 Division Manager (1 FTE) (60% General Fund sourced) Vacant (5/3/25) City Attorney 0.5%$25,000 $25,000 General Expenses N/A City Auditor 2.5%$25,000 $25,000 General Expenses N/A City Clerk 1.6%$25,000 $25,000 General Expenses N/A City Manager 3.3%$176,081 $176,081 1 Senior Management Analyst Filled Community Services 0.8%$332,328 $332,328 JMZ Program Asst I (1 FTE) & JMZ Access Coordinator (0.48 FTE), Eliminate printing contracts, reduce general expenses Vacant (new) Vacant (4/22/25) Fire 0.5%$324,609 $324,609 Fire Fighter Trainees (2 FTE)Vacant (new) Human Resources 2.3%$133,640 $133,640 HR Technician (1 FTE)Vacant (6/30/25) General Benefits Fund $182,801 $182,801 Shifts HR positions (2 FTE) to Employee Benefit Fund (ISF) N/A Information Technology 1.2%$151,402 $151,402 IT Manager (1 FTE) (50% General Fund sourced) Vacant (5/3/25) Library 1.4%$175,587 $175,587 Library Associate (operations) (1 FTE), reduce general expenses Vacant (4/22/23) OES 1.4%$25,000 $25,000 General Expenses N/A Office of Transportation 1.7%$66,754 $66,754 Use Measure B funding for Planner (1 FTE) for SRTS program (40% General Fund sourced) N/A Planning & Development Services 1.3%$325,428 $16736 $158,542 Planners (2 FTE) (1 ongoing, 1 one- time) Vacant (6/2/25) (10/19/24) Police 0.4%$254,654 $254,654 Reserve Officer (0.12 FTE), eliminate hire ahead, and reduce general expenses Vacant (3/2/22) Public Works 0.5%$138,110 $138,110 CIP Staff (1 FTE, 100% CIP Fund 471), and Tree Trimmer (1 FTE) Vacant (8/24/24) (CIP 9/5/25) Public Works Vehicle Fund $460,000 $460,000 FY 2026 fire engine diesel instead of hybrid N/A TOTAL $2,983,056 $2,364,514 $618,542 Item 18 Item 18 Staff Report        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 381 of 690  Brief Service Impact: – Division Manager (1 FTE): This action will freeze an ASD division manager position in the Revenue Collections Division, which impacts division oversight and management. The Revenue Manager position is vacant and in FY 2026, division management and oversight will be supported through acting role assignment(s). ASD is reviewing organizational structure and service delivery models during this time, in order to maximize efficiencies while managing operational risks. - General Expense Reductions: This action will reduce general support expenses which could be absorbed with the current complement of staffing. – General Expense Reductions: This action will reduce the contract value by a manageable amount and may impact task-order assignments and/or scope of audits. – General Expense Reduction: This action will reduce general expense by a manageable amount and may impact existing contracts and/or general support expenses. – Senior Management Analyst (1 FTE): This action affects a filled position and freezes a dedicated citywide resource for Wellness and Belonging. With the Wellness and Belonging Action Plan still being implemented, the remaining work will be integrated between the City Manager’s Office and Human Services, advancing actions that align with existing programs, services, and other priorities as resources allow. This will result in an overall reduction in capacity and centralized focus to advance priorities, including discontinuance of regular reporting on the Action Plan. – o Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ) Program Assistant (1 FTE): This action will freeze a vacant Program Assistant I position at the JMZ, which was added during the FY 2025 Mid-Year Budget Review. The position was intended to support customer service, oversight of membership, reservation booking, event coordination, and admissions. To address these responsibilities, CSD will utilize a recently hired Program Assistant I from the Lucie Stern Community Center to assist with these tasks for up to 50% of their time. The amount of time that the Lucie Stern Program Assistant can devote to the JMZ is to be determined and may impact program revenues and/or support for visitor services and events at the JMZ, and reflects a reduction in customer service capacity for these functions. The potential range of annual revenue for 0.5 FTE and 1.0 FTE Program Assistant I is $80,000 to $115,000 and $160,000 to $195,000, respectively. o JMZ Access Coordinator (0.48 FTE): This action removes a vacant JMZ Item 18 Item 18 Staff Report        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 382 of 690  Access Coordinator (Staff Specialist) position that was added during the FY 2024 Budget Process and funded through a grant for two years with an expected transition to the General Fund. With the grant period concluded, the position will be eliminated. Outreach capacity in underserved communities such as East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Redwood City will be reduced as the role previously supported building relationships with community partners, developing inclusion strategies, and raising awareness of JMZ programs. These efforts may continue at a smaller scale or be shared among existing staff. o Contracts & General Expenses: A review of the Pets-in-Need (PIN) contract terms and corresponding budget determined that the original budget allocation exceeded the contract value. Alignment of this budget will not impact the current service levels. In FY 2026, the frequency of printed and mailed catalogs will decrease from four times per fiscal year to twice. In FY 2027, the catalog will transition to an online-only format. Funds remaining after this adjustment will be used to send postcards to residents multiple times throughout the year as reminders about sign-up periods and to direct them to the online catalog. Historically, from FY21 to FY24, over 90% (92% to 94%) of the class registrations occur online. The plan would be to still print 800 hard copies and have them available in community centers, libraries and city hall, and do the post card mailers. Instead of mailing 40,000 printed copies to homes, we would continue the full online virtual catalog. The Committee supported FY26 reduction to two printed and mailed catalogs but was inclined towards deferring FY27 full implementation of postcards to monitor revenue impacts. Fire – Trainees (2 FTEs): The Fire Department reductions include freezing two of the three Firefighter Trainee positions. These positions were added in FY 2023 to create a hiring pipeline and allow for vacancies to be filled sooner, thereby reducing overtime costs and mandatory overtime for current firefighters. However, these trainee positions have been vacant except recently when several current staff were temporarily on limited assignment duties. This action will retain one of the three trainee positions for flexibility and enable the Department to maintain current service levels while continuing to hire and train firefighters as needed to fill vacancies in the absence of these positions. Human Resources – HR Technician (1 FTE): Freezing this position will impact vacancy management, including the capacity to manage recruitments, and Item 18 Item 18 Staff Report        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 383 of 690  will delay start of recruitments for vacated positions. Support for the HR Liaison Program may decrease, lowering the quality and consistency of HR support across the organization. Longer-term risks to recruitment operations may include the City’s ability to maintain responsive and strategic workforce planning process. Careful monitoring, adaptive planning, and continued evaluation of staffing needs will be essential to minimize disruption and maintain core recruitment services. Employee Benefit and Worker’s Compensation Funds– This action would shift the funding of two human resources positions (Benefits Manager and Senior HR Administrator) to the Employee Benefit Internal Service Funds (ISFs). This would offset approximately 50% of those costs to the centralized ISF and better align the roles, duties and cost allocations. Information Technology – Information Technology Manager (1 FTE): This action freezes one vacant Information Technology Manager. The recently filled Assistant Director will mitigate some of the impacts of this position which has been vacant since May 2025 due to staff retirement. This IT Manager is responsible for IT Governance and project assignments. Thewill reduce overall capacity to manage and execute identified projects. Library – Library Associate (1 FTE) and General Expenses: Freezing one vacant Library Associate will reduce staffing flexibility at smaller branches (e.g., Downtown, College Terrace, and Children’s), particularly on weekends and during public programs. Core functions like customer service, technology support, and facility oversight will be absorbed by flexing responsibilities among existing staff. This will stretch capacity and limit the Library’s ability to maintain programming or respond quickly to community needs. Library staff will continually assess staffing allocations to minimize visible service impacts. Additionally, the general expenses reduction in collections will result in fewer new materials and longer wait times for patrons to obtain popular print titles. Digital collections — especially on high-use platforms like Kanopy, Hoopla, and OverDrive — will also see delayed expansion. This follows recent funding losses from state and regional library partners, which the Library has already absorbed by cutting lower-use resources. Office of Emergency Services (OES) - General expense reduction: The Office of Emergency Services is in the midst of moving to the new Public Safety Building (PSB), and it is anticipated that there will be a few expenses that are still needed for the full functionality of the new space. These anticipated expenses in FY 2026 will be difficult to absorb with the limited budget flexibility. To mitigate this, the Department will defer certain expenditures during the budget reduction period, while working around any deficiencies. Office of Transportation – Planner (1 FTE): On June 16, 2025, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) approved the use of Measure B Local Streets and Roads (LSR) funding for a Planner position working the Item 18 Item 18 Staff Report        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 384 of 690  elementary school Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program. Using LSR funding for SRTS has no direct service impact beyond the City having less funding available for street maintenance. The City’s average pavement condition index (PCI) is above 80, which allows LSR funds to be used for other transportation related programs. Planning and Development Services – Police – Item 18 Item 18 Staff Report        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 385 of 690  significant program is the regular maintenance of a backup analog radio system, which the Department recommends pausing indefinitely. The primary digital system already includes built-in redundancy and is highly reliable. Notably, most cities in the county do not utilize an analog backup system. Other affected programs include a scouting explorer program, citizens academy, and various community service initiatives that were offered pre-pandemic, when the department had more authorized police officers, but have not been offered since. Given that the Department does not expect to be able to restore authorized officer positions to pre-pandemic levels in the coming years, these programs would be expected to remain unavailable. As a result, the community is not expected to experience any immediate changes in service levels. Public Works – Vehicle Fund Item 18 Item 18 Staff Report        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 386 of 690  purchase is planned, although costs and equipment lead times remain under consideration before finalizing the decision. The shift from hybrid to diesel in FY 2026 for the second apparatus would yield one-time cost savings. Staff and Committee discussed current fire engine fleet (frontline and reserves) need while balancing fleet electrification and greater cost impacts. Alternatives include buying a used fire engine and/or deferring the purchase altogether for another year however, with current fleet inventory, Staff maintains this recommendation of a diesel engine in FY26 while also actively working with other public agencies for the potential of acquiring a used fire engine. Deferring the purchase for a year would have a minor overall budgetary impact because the funds that have already been collected over time through vehicle replacement allocated charges would still be needed the following year. While staff is hopeful that the effort to purchase a used engine may be successful, the timing of this potential acquisition is not within staff’s control, and given the current 54 month lead time for a diesel engine, staff recommends proceeding now with the purchase. Proposed Reductions/Deferrals – Capital Improvement Fund (by Project): Item 18 Item 18 Staff Report        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 387 of 690  Table 3: Summary of Capital Project Reductions/Deferrals Description FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Proposed Modifications: PF-93009 ADA Compliance – reduce appropriation ($150,000) OS-09002 Baylands Levee Repair (defer to FY 2028) ($288,000)$288,000 PG-06001 Athletic Court Resurfacing ($50,000) PG-06003 Benches, Signage...& Site Amenities ($50,000) PE-26000 Foothills Nature Preserve Restroom ($300,000)($900,000)$100,000 $600,000 OS-09001 Off-Road Pathway Repair ($75,000) PE-21002 Johnson Park ($250,000)($1,400,000)$1,700,000 PG-22000 Werry Park Playground ($350,000)$350,000 PE-13014 Streetlight Condition Assessment ($220,000)$220,000 PL-04010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Implementation(Measure B) ($2,400,000) TOTAL ($3,833,000)($1,700,000)$1,658,000 $100,000 $600,000 Revised Ending Capital Improvement Fund Balance $2,428,380 $4,801,793 $6,742,188 $7,125,119 $11,925,871 Project Brief Discussions: PF-93009 American Disability Act Compliance – reduce appropriation from $600k budgeted to $450k. While deferred funding would delay progress on accessibility upgrades, funding is reserved for time-critical needs such as code required improvements identified for active construction projects or urgent path-of-travel corrections. OS-09002 Baylands Levee Repair (defer from FY2026 to FY 2028) –While postponing could increase the risk of deterioration, this deferral allows concentration of resources on higher priority projects. In the interim, routine inspections and maintenance protocols will be maintained to mitigate risk until the project resumes in FY 2028. On August 19, 2025, the Finance Committee proposed retaining $50,000 of funding in FY 2026 in order to support work needed to obtain regulatory permits, which is not reflected in Table 3. PG-06001 Athletic Court Resurfacing – reduce appropriation from $365k to $315k, while continuing repairs in FY 2027 through FY 2030 at about $240k annually. Although the reduction may delay or extend schedules for full court resurfacing enhancements, the phased repair strategy ensures that safety and usability improvements continue on an annual basis through FY 2030. This approach balances short-term fiscal limitations with the ongoing need to maintain athletic facilities. This work safeguards user Item 18 Item 18 Staff Report        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 11  Packet Pg. 388 of 690  safety and extends the lifespan while addressing time-sensitive maintenance needs. Maintenance treatments like applying an overcoat at the right time can add five to seven years of useful life to the pavement, delaying the need for full reconstruction and significantly reducing lifecycle costs. PG-06003 Benches, Signage, Walkways, Perimeter Landscaping, & Site Amenities – reduce appropriation from $262k to $212k. While reducing the scope and budget will limit the number of immediate upgrades to park aesthetics and user amenities, it preserves critical funds for essential maintenance and high priority projects across the parks. This ensures that while some enhancements might be scaled back or deferred, the continued investment in core operational and safety improvements is maintained, supporting overall user experience and facility functionality in the short term. PE-26000 Foothills Nature Preserve Restroom – Defer replacement of three restrooms at Foothills Nature Preserve by one year (from FY 2027 to FY 2028) to focus on more time-sensitive projects. Staff will monitor conditions to ensure restrooms remain safe and functional in the interim. OS-09001 Off-Road Pathway Repair – reduce appropriation from $208k to $133k, while continuing repairs in FY 2027 and FY 2028 at $185k and $208k, respectively. The reduced budget will limit number of the off-roads paved trail segments addressed and will still enable repairs at the most degraded sections with safety concerns. Maintaining on-going funding addresses overall network usability and prevents further deterioration of Palo Alto’s nine miles of off-road paved trail system that are 35 years old. PE-21002 Johnson Park – Defer from FY 2026 and FY 2027 to FY 2028, renovation of existing park elements including asphalt concrete and pathways, furnishing and playground equipment and resurfacing, fencing and irrigation to focus on more time- sensitive projects. Staff will continue to monitor safety and accessibility needs in the interim and as a contingency plan use the ADA Compliance capital project to make any emergency repairs needed as a stop gap. PG-22000 Werry Park Playground – Defer by two years from FY 2026 to FY 2028, replacement and accessibility improvements of existing playground to focus on more time-sensitive projects. While the deferred funding would postpone the replacement and accessibility improvements of the Werry Park playground by two years, the existing play area remains serviceable and safe for use. The delay allows for advancement of higher-priority playgrounds and infrastructure with more critical needs, while maintaining Werry Park in the capital queue for future improvements. Item 18 Item 18 Staff Report        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 12  Packet Pg. 389 of 690  PE-13014 Streetlights Condition Assessment – Defer $220k funding for comprehensive assessment from FY 2026 to FY 2028 while retaining funding in the Street Light Improvements project (PO-05054) to replace street light poles, foundations, luminaries and wiring as needed. PL-04010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Implementation – Funds the design and construction of bicycle boulevards, enhanced bikeways, shared-use paths, bicycle parking, and pedestrian improvements in accordance with the Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, which was adopted by City Council in 2012. Staff expect that the funding will primarily be allocated to improvements along Embarcadero Road, between Alma Street and Emerson Street. These improvements will take a complete streets approach, addressing bicycle and pedestrian facilities as well as roadway upgrades, including pavement resurfacing within this segment. The City's average pavement condition index (PCI) is above 80, which allows Measure B LSR funds to be used for other transportation related programs. Staff propose to utilize Measure B, which VTA manager informally approved, noting formal application and written approval are required for VTA official determination. Previously, on August 19, staff recommended and the Committee considered Measure B funding for PL-41000 Churchill Avenue which funds design and construction of enhanced bikeways, shared- use paths, bicycle parking and pedestrian improvements and a construction contract was awarded on December 9, 2024 (Report #2410-3613), with the contractor mobilizing in Summer 2025. Further discussion with VTA manager determined that PL- 04010 Churchill Avenue was less probable for Measure B funding given the construction and funding status. Staff updated the project recommendation to PL-04010 for Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Implementation accordingly. Item 18 Item 18 Staff Report        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 13  Packet Pg. 390 of 690  FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Item 18 Item 18 Staff Report        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 14  Packet Pg. 391 of 690  ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1 Revenues Expenses Department Adjustment Adjustment GENERAL FUND (102 & 103) Administrative  Services Division Manager Freeze This action will freeze an ASD division manager position in the  Revenue Collections Division, which impacts division oversight and  management. The Revenue Manager position is vacant and in FY 2026, division management and oversight will be  supported through acting role assignment(s). ASD is reviewing  organizational structure and service delivery models during this  time, in order to maximize efficiencies while managing operational  risks. (Annual savings: $166,000) ‐$ (161,663)$             Attorney's Office General Expense Reduction This action will reduce general support expenses which could be  absorbed with the current complement of staffing. (Annual savings:  $25,000) ‐$ (25,000)$               Auditor's Office General Expense Reduction This action will reduce the contract value by a manageable amount  and may impact task‐order assignments and/or scope of audits.  (Annual savings: $25,000) ‐$ (25,000)$               Clerk's Office General Expense Reduction This action will reduce general expense by a manageable amount  and may impact existing contracts and/or general support  expenses. (Annual savings: $25,000) ‐$ (25,000)$               City Managers  Office Senior Management Analyst Staffing This action affects a filled position and freezes a dedicated citywide  resource for Wellness and Belonging. With the Wellness and  Belonging Action Plan still being implemented, the remaining work  will be integrated between the City Manager’s Office and Human  Services, advancing actions that align with existing programs,  services, and other priorities as resources allow. This will result in  an overall reduction in capacity and centralized focus to advance  priorities, including discontinuance of regular reporting on the  Action Plan. (Annual savings: $181,000) ‐$ (176,081)$             CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2026 ADOPTED BUDGET Page 1 of 15 Item 18 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 - FY 2026 Recommended Operating Budget Adjustments        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 15  Packet Pg. 392 of 690  ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1 Revenues Expenses Department Adjustment Adjustment GENERAL FUND (102 & 103) CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2026 ADOPTED BUDGET Community  Services Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) Guest Services Staffing  This action will freeze 1.00 FTE Program Assistant I position at the  Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ) for three years. This position was  added during the FY 2025 Mid‐Year Budget Review. The position  was intended to support customer service, membership oversight,  reservation booking, event coordination, and admissions. To  address these responsibilities, the Community Services Department  will reassign another 1.00 FTE Program Assistant I from the Lucie  Stern Community Center to the JMZ for up to 50% of their time.  The amount of time that the Lucie Stern position can devote to the  JMZ is still to be determined, however; it can be expected that less  revenue will be achieved through reservation bookings and  membership oversight, and there will be less support for visitor  services and events at the JMZ. (Annual savings: $133,000) ‐$                     (125,612)$             Community  Services Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) Access Staffing  This action freezes one 0.48 FTE Staff Specialist, working as the JMZ  Access Coordinator, for three years. This position was originally  grant funded for two years, starting in FY 2024, with an expected  transition to  General Fund support. With the grant period now  concluded, the position will be eliminated. This action will reduce  outreach capacity in underserved communities such as East Palo  Alto, Menlo Park, and Redwood City. The role supported building  relationships with community partners, developing inclusion  strategies, and raising awareness of JMZ programs. Without it,  these efforts may continue at a smaller scale or be shared among  existing staff.  (Annual savings: $42,000) ‐$                     (41,716)$               Community  Services Pets in Need (PIN) Contract Alignment This action reduces the allocated funding for the Pets in Need (PIN)  Contract within the Community Services Department. A review of  the contract terms and corresponding budget determined that  fewer resources are necessary for the City to uphold its obligations  to PIN and the community. This reduction will not impact the  current service levels. (Annual savings: $50,000) ‐$                     (50,000)$               Page 2 of 15 Item 18 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 - FY 2026 Recommended Operating Budget Adjustments        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 16  Packet Pg. 393 of 690  ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1 Revenues Expenses Department Adjustment Adjustment GENERAL FUND (102 & 103) CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2026 ADOPTED BUDGET Community  Services Printed and Mailed Catalogs This action eliminates the printing and mailing of recreation  catalogs, phased over two years. In FY 2026, the frequency of  printed and mailed catalogs will decrease from four times per fiscal  year to twice. In FY 2027, the catalog will transition to an online‐ only format. Limited remaining funds will be used to send  postcards to residents as reminders about sign‐up periods and to  direct them to the online catalog and potentially to print a limited  number of catalogs for placement in City facilities.  (Annual savings:  $80,000 ‐$                     (60,000)$               Community  Services General Expense Reduction This reduction covers various program areas within CSD within the  contract services, supplies and materials, and general expense  groups. The impact is anticipated to be minimal, as many of these  are adjustments align the budget with historical actuals.   (Annual  savings: $50,000) ‐$                     (55,000)$               Fire Fire Fighter Trainee Staffing This action freezes two of the three Firefighter Trainee positions.  These positions were added in FY 2023 to create a hiring pipeline  and allow for vacancies to be filled sooner, thereby reducing  overtime costs and mandatory overtime for current firefighters.  However, these trainee positions have been vacant except recently  when several current staff were temporarily on limited assignment  duties. This action will retain one of the three trainee positions for  flexibility and enable the Department to maintain current service  levels while continuing to hire and train firefighters as needed to fill  vacancies in the absence of these positions. (Annual net savings:  $343,000) (76,143)$             (400,751)$             Page 3 of 15 Item 18 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 - FY 2026 Recommended Operating Budget Adjustments        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 17  Packet Pg. 394 of 690  ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1 Revenues Expenses Department Adjustment Adjustment GENERAL FUND (102 & 103) CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2026 ADOPTED BUDGET Human Resources Recruitment Division Staffing  This action freezes 1.00 FTE Human Resources Technician position  in the Recruitment Division for three years. This action is  anticipated to reduce capacity for ongoing work and for progress  on strategic recruitment plan initiatives. As staffing levels decline,  departments  face increased pressure to expedite recruitment,  which increases strain on the recruitment team. This action is  anticipated to result in longer recruitment timelines, reduced  responsiveness to departmental needs and production of vacancy‐ related reports. The Recruitment Team, already supported by  temporary staff, will experience an increased workload, raising the  likelihood of burnout, reducing quality control, and limiting efforts  to improve process and data integrity. Careful monitoring, adaptive  planning, and continued evaluation of staffing needs will be  essential to minimize disruption and maintain core recruitment  services during this period. (Annual savings: $137,000) ‐$                     (133,640)$             Various Information Technology Manager Freeze This represents the General Fund's portion of allocated charges  funding the Information Technology Manager position. For more  details, refer to Fund 682 in the Internal Services Funds section of  this Exhibit. (Annual savings: $153,000) ‐$                     (149,147)$             Human Resources Reallocation of Staff to Benefit Funds This action reallocates 1.00 FTE Manager Employee Benefits and  1.00 FTE Senior Human Resources Administrator from the General  Fund. The positions will be allocated to the General Benefits Fund  and Worker's Compensation Fund 75%/25% respectively. This  aligns positions with duties. General Fund savings presented here  will be partially offset by allocated charges from these pass‐ through funds for the cost of employees.  (Annual savings: $376,00) ‐$                     (365,601)$             Library Library Staffing This action freezes 1.00 FTE Library Associate in the Library  Department. This action is anticipated to reduce staffing flexibility  at smaller branches (e.g., Downtown, College Terrace, and  Children's), particularly on weekends and during public programs.  Core functions like customer service, technology support, and  facility oversight will be absorbed by flexing responsibilities among  existing staff. This will stretch capacity and limit the Library's ability  to maintain programming or respond quickly to community needs.  Library staff will continually assess staffing allocations to minimize  visible service impacts. (Annual savings: $133,000) ‐$                     (125,587)$             Page 4 of 15 Item 18 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 - FY 2026 Recommended Operating Budget Adjustments        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 18  Packet Pg. 395 of 690  ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1 Revenues Expenses Department Adjustment Adjustment GENERAL FUND (102 & 103) CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2026 ADOPTED BUDGET Library General Expense Reduction This action will reduce general support expenses in collections  which will result in fewer new materials and longer wait times for  patrons to obtain popular print titles. (Annual savings: $50,000) ‐$ (50,000)$               Office of  Emergency Services General Expense Reduction This reduction will impact potential expenses related to the new  Public Safety Building as it is anticipated that there will be a few  expenses still needed for full functionality of the new space. The  Department will absorb these anticipated expenses and work  around any deficiencies during the budget reduction period.  (Annual savings: $25,000) ‐$ (25,000)$               Office of  Transportation Use Measure B Funding for SRTS Planner On June 16, 2025, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority  (VTA) approved the use of Measure B Local Streets and Roads (LSR)  funding for a Planner position working the elementary school Safe  Routes to School (SRTS) program. Using LSR funding for SRTS has no  direct service impact beyond the City having less funding available  for street maintenance. The City's average pavement condition  index (PCI) is above 80, which allows LSR funds to be used for other  transportation related programs. (Annual savings: $71,000) 66,754$              ‐$  Planning and  Development  Services Planning Staffing Freeze This action freezes 1.00 FTE Planner in Current Planning for three  years and 1.00 FTE Planner in Long‐Range Planning for one year. In  Current Planning, the freeze continues recent staffing vacancies,  limiting the program to application processing and statutory  deadlines while shifting code development and ordinance updates  (e.g., SB9, telecom work) to Long‐Range Planning. In Long‐Range  Planning, the freeze will delay or defer current and uninitiated  Council priorities, with remaining staff focused on Housing Element  implementation and state mandates. Impacts include reassignment  or delay of projects such as Matadero Creek Affordable Housing  Options, Innovative Housing Typologies, and ordinance updates for  seismic safety and retail. (Annual net savings: $168,000) (8,344)$               (333,771)$             Page 5 of 15 Item 18 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 - FY 2026 Recommended Operating Budget Adjustments        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 19  Packet Pg. 396 of 690  ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1 Revenues Expenses Department Adjustment Adjustment GENERAL FUND (102 & 103) CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2026 ADOPTED BUDGET Police Police Reserve Staffing This action freezes 0.12 FTE Reserve Officer in the Police  Department. Retired full‐time police officers can serve as part‐time  reserve officers, benefiting the community with their experience.  These positions often handle tasks such as transporting prisoners  to and from the jail in San Jose, which allows full‐time officers to  remain available for service in the city. Additionally, they may work  traffic roles during Stanford events. Eliminating one vacant reserve  position is unlikely to significantly affect service levels or the  quality of police services. However, there may be a modest impact  on overtime costs for events like Stanford Athletics, which are  subject to a cost‐sharing agreement with the University. (Annual  savings: $14,900) ‐$ (14,654)$               Police Hire Ahead Program This action eliminates the Police Hire Ahead Program. This is a new  program in FY 2026 and has no anticipated immediate impacts to  current service level. Currently, there are seven (7) sworn position  vacancies to focus on filling. (Annual savings: $150,000) ‐$ (150,000)$             Police General Expense Reduction This reduction covers several small programs that collectively  represent a modest expense. The most significant program is the  regular maintenance of a backup analog radio system, which the  Department recommends pausing indefinitely. The primary digital  system already includes built‐in redundancy and is highly reliable.  Notably, most cities in the county do not utilize an analog backup  system. Other affected programs include a scouting explorer  program, citizens academy, and various community service  initiatives that were offered pre‐pandemic, when the Department  had more authorized police officers, but have not been offered  since. Given that the Department does not expect to be able to  restore authorized officer positions to pre‐pandemic levels in the  coming years, these programs would be expected to remain  unavailable. As a result, the community is not expected to  experience any immediate changes in service levels. (Annual  savings: $90,000) ‐$ (90,000)$               Public Works Fire Engine Purchase Adjustment This represents the General Fund's share of the reduction in  allocated charges supporting the fire engine purchase. For more  details, refer to the Vehicle Fund in the Internal Service Funds  section of this attachment. (Annual savin s: $0 ‐$ (460,000)$             Page 6 of 15 Item 18 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 - FY 2026 Recommended Operating Budget Adjustments        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 20  Packet Pg. 397 of 690  ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1 Revenues Expenses Department Adjustment Adjustment GENERAL FUND (102 & 103) CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2026 ADOPTED BUDGET Public Works Tree Trimmer This action freezes 1.00 FTE Tree Trimmer in the Public Services  Urban Forestry Division. The division has seven tree trimmer  positions and one lead position with two tree trimmer positions  currently vacant. Freezing one of the positions while continuing to  leverage the City’s tree trimming contract, currently through West  Coast Arborist, should have only a modest impact on the annual  maintenance of the City’s trees. The contract term is through  October 17, 2026. The tree trimming program has a goal of  maintaining trees on a 7‐year cycle. While the position reduction  can be expected to reduce the number of trees maintained  annually, Urban Forestry staff will track the tree trimming cycle to  ensure there are no significant negative effects. The reduction is  also expected to have some impact on Palo Alto 311 tree‐related  response times, staff availability for after‐hours emergency  response, and tree planting. (Annual savings: $146,000) ‐$ (138,110)$             Public Works Capital Program Staffing This action freezes 1.00 FTE Engineer in the Engineering Services  Division. This position is one of six positions involved in  construction of streets, sidewalks, and transportation capital  projects. As part of the overall $6 million reduction in FY 2026, $3.2  million of capital projects are recommended to be deferred from FY  2026 to future years of the 5‐year CIP, and the proposed FY 2026  capital budget included a one‐year reduction in the sidewalks  project. Workload needs should not be impacted in FY 2026;  however, impacts to projects in future years of the 5‐year CIP may  happen due to reduced staff capacity to manage projects. Recently,  staff determined this position is 100% funded by Fund 471. (Annual  savings: $0)  ‐$ ‐$  Non‐Departmental General Fund Operating This action removes the $2.7 million placeholder reduction that  had been included in the FY 2026 Adopted Operating Budget.  (Annual savings: $1.0 million) ‐$ 2,744,000$           Fund Balance Adjustment to Fund Balance (Budget Stabilization Reserve) This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments  recommended in this report. ‐$ 419,601$              GENERAL FUND (102 & 103) SUBTOTAL (17,733)$             (17,733)$               Page 7 of 15 Item 18 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 - FY 2026 Recommended Operating Budget Adjustments        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 21  Packet Pg. 398 of 690  ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1 Revenues Expenses Department Adjustment Adjustment ENTERPRISE FUNDS AIRPORT FUND (530) Information  Technology Information Technology Manager Freeze This represents this fund’s share of allocated charges supporting  the Information Technology Manager position. For more details,  refer to Fund 682 in the Internal Services Funds section of this  Exhibit. (Annual Savings: $1,900) ‐$ (1,876)$               Fund Balance Adjustment to Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments  recommended in this re ort. ‐$ 1,876$                AIRPORT FUND (530) SUBTOTAL ‐$                  ‐$  UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION FUND (521) Information  Technology Information Technology Manager Freeze This represents this fund’s share of allocated charges supporting  the Information Technology Manager position. For more details,  refer to Fund 682 in the Internal Services Funds section of this  Exhibit. (Annual Savings: $113,000) 0 (109,542)             Fund Balance Adjustment to Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments  recommended in this re ort. ‐$ 109,542$            UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION FUND (521) SUBTOTAL ‐$                  ‐$  ELECTRIC FUND (513 & 523) Utilities Fire Engine Purchase Adjustment This represents the fund's share of the reduction in allocated  charges supporting the fire engine purchase. For more details,  refer to the Vehicle Fund in the Internal Service Funds section of  this attachment. (Annual savings: $0) ‐$ (82,341)$             Fund Balance Adjustment to Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments  recommended in this report. ‐$ 82,341$              ELECTRIC FUND (513 & 523) SUBTOTAL ‐$                  ‐$  GAS FUND (514 & 524) Utilities Fire Engine Purchase Adjustment This represents the fund's share of the reduction in allocated  charges supporting the fire engine purchase. For more details,  refer to the Vehicle Fund in the Internal Service Funds section of  this attachment. (Annual savings: $0) ‐$ (64,787)$             CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2026 ADOPTED BUDGET Page 8 of 15 Item 18 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 - FY 2026 Recommended Operating Budget Adjustments        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 22  Packet Pg. 399 of 690  ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1 Revenues Expenses Department Adjustment Adjustment ENTERPRISE FUNDS CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2026 ADOPTED BUDGET Fund Balance Adjustment to Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments  recommended in this report. ‐$ 64,787$              GAS FUND (514 & 524) SUBTOTAL ‐$                  ‐$  REFUSE FUND (525) Information  Technology Information Technology Manager Freeze This represents this fund’s share of allocated charges supporting  the Information Technology Manager position. For more details,  refer to Fund 682 in the Internal Services Funds section of this  Exhibit. (Annual Savings: $9,000) ‐$ (8,725)$               Public Works Fire Engine Purchase Adjustment This represents the fund's share of the reduction in allocated  charges supporting the fire engine purchase. For more details,  refer to the Vehicle Fund in the Internal Service Funds section of  this attachment. (Annual savin s: $0 ‐$ (21,214)$             Fund Balance Adjustment to Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments  recommended in this report. ‐$ 29,939$              REFUSE FUND (525) SUBTOTAL ‐$                  ‐$  STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FUND (528) Information  Technology Information Technology Manager Freeze This represents this fund’s share of allocated charges supporting  the Information Technology Manager position. For more details,  refer to Fund 682 in the Internal Services Funds section of this  Exhibit. (Annual Savings: $4,100) ‐$(3,980)$               Utilities Fire Engine Purchase Adjustment This represents the fund's share of the reduction in allocated  charges supporting the fire engine purchase. For more details,  refer to the Vehicle Fund in the Internal Service Funds section of  this attachment. (Annual savings: $0) ‐$ (32,446)$             Fund Balance Adjustment to Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments  recommended in this report. ‐$ 36,426$              STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FUND (528) SUBTOTAL ‐$                  ‐$  Page 9 of 15 Item 18 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 - FY 2026 Recommended Operating Budget Adjustments        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 23  Packet Pg. 400 of 690  ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1 Revenues Expenses Department Adjustment Adjustment ENTERPRISE FUNDS CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2026 ADOPTED BUDGET WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND (527) Utilities Fire Engine Purchase Adjustment This represents the fund's share of the reduction in allocated  charges supporting the fire engine purchase. For more details,  refer to the Vehicle Fund in the Internal Service Funds section of  this attachment. (Annual savin s: $0 ‐$ (42,304)$             Fund Balance Adjustment to Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments  recommended in this re ort. ‐$ 42,304$              WASTEWATER COLLECTION FUND (527) SUBTOTAL ‐$                  ‐$  WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND (526) Information  Technology Information Technology Manager Freeze This represents this fund’s share of allocated charges supporting  the Information Technology Manager position. For more details,  refer to Fund 682 in the Internal Services Funds section of this  Exhibit. (Annual Savings: $20,000) ‐$(19,082)$             Utilities Fire Engine Purchase Adjustment This represents the fund's share of the reduction in allocated  charges supporting the fire engine purchase. For more details,  refer to the Vehicle Fund in the Internal Service Funds section of  this attachment. (Annual savings: $0) ‐$ (15,661)$             Fund Balance Adjustment to Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments  recommended in this re ort. ‐$ 19,082$              WASTEWATER TREATMENT FUND (526) SUBTOTAL ‐$                  (15,661)$             WATER FUND (522) Utilities Fire Engine Purchase Adjustment This represents the fund's share of the reduction in allocated  charges supporting the fire engine purchase. For more details,  refer to the Vehicle Fund in the Internal Service Funds section of  this attachment. (Annual savings: $0) ‐$ (52,329)$             Fund Balance Adjustment to Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments  recommended in this report. ‐$ 52,329$              WATER FUND (522) SUBTOTAL ‐$                  ‐$  Page 10 of 15 Item 18 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 - FY 2026 Recommended Operating Budget Adjustments        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 24  Packet Pg. 401 of 690  ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1 Revenues Expenses Department Adjustment Adjustment SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING PERMITS FUND (237) Administrative  Services Division Manager Freeze This action will freeze an ASD division manager position in the  Revenue Collections Division, which impacts division oversight and  management. The Revenue Manager position is vacant and in FY  2026, division management and oversight will be supported  through acting role assignment(s). ASD is reviewing organizational  structure and service delivery models during this time, in order to  maximize efficiencies while managing operational risks. (Annual  savings: $11,000) ‐$                 (10,430)$          Fund Balance Adjustment to Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset the actions  recommended in this report. ‐$                 10,430$           CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING PERMITS FUND (237) SUBTOTAL ‐$                  ‐$                  RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS FUND (239) Administrative  Services Division Manager This action will freeze an ASD division manager position in the  Revenue Collections Division, which impacts division oversight and  management. The Revenue Manager position is vacant and in FY  2026, division management and oversight will be supported  through acting role assignment(s). ASD is reviewing organizational  structure and service delivery models during this time, in order to  maximize efficiencies while managing operational risks. (Annual  savings: $24,000) ‐$                 (23,467)$          Office of  Transportation Fire Engine Purchase Adjustment This represents the fund's share of the reduction in allocated  charges supporting the fire engine purchase. For more details,  refer to the Vehicle Fund in the Internal Service Funds section of  this attachment. (Annual savings: $0) ‐$                 (478)$                Fund Balance Adjustment to Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset the actions  recommended in this report. ‐$                 23,945$           RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS FUND (239) SUBTOTAL ‐$                  ‐$                  CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2026 ADOPTED BUDGET Page 11 of 15 Item 18 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 - FY 2026 Recommended Operating Budget Adjustments        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 25  Packet Pg. 402 of 690  ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1 Revenues Expenses Department Adjustment Adjustment SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2026 ADOPTED BUDGET UNIVERSITY AVENUE PARKING PERMITS FUND (236) Administrative  Services Division Manager This action will freeze an ASD division manager position in the  Revenue Collections Division, which impacts division oversight and  management. The Revenue Manager position is vacant and in FY  2026, division management and oversight will be supported  through acting role assignment(s). ASD is reviewing organizational  structure and service delivery models during this time, in order to  maximize efficiencies while managing operational risks. (Annual  savings: $40,000) ‐$                 (39,112)$          Fund Balance Adjustment to Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset the actions  recommended in this re ort. ‐$                 39,112$           UNIVERSITY AVENUE PARKING PERMITS FUND (236) SUBTOTAL ‐$                 ‐$                  Page 12 of 15 Item 18 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 - FY 2026 Recommended Operating Budget Adjustments        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 26  Packet Pg. 403 of 690  ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1 Revenues Expenses Department Adjustment Adjustment INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS GENERAL BENFITS FUND (687) Non‐ Departmental Reallocation of Staff to Benefit Funds This action reallocates 1.00 FTE Manager Employee Benefits and  1.00 FTE Senior Human Resources Administrator from the  General Fund. The positions will be allocated to the General  Benefits Fund and Worker's Compensation Fund 75%/25%  respectively. This aligns positions with duties. General Fund  savings will be partially offset by allocated charges from these  pass‐through funds for the cost of employees.  (Annual costs:  $282,000) ‐$                 274,201$         Fund Balance Adjustment to Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments  recommended in this re ort. ‐$                 (274,201)$        GENERAL BENFITS FUND (687) SUBTOTAL ‐$                  ‐$                  PRINTING & MAILING FUND (683) Administrative  Services Division Manager This action will freeze an ASD division manager position in the  Revenue Collections Division, which impacts division oversight  and management. The Revenue Manager position is vacant and  in FY 2026, division management and oversight will be supported  through acting role assignment(s). ASD is reviewing  organizational structure and service delivery models during this  time, in order to maximize efficiencies while managing  operational risks. (Annual savings: $27,000) ‐$                 (26,075)$          Information  Technology Information Technology Manager Freeze This represents this fund’s share of allocated charges supporting  the Information Technology Manager position. For more details,  refer to Fund 682 in the Internal Services Funds section of this  Exhibit. (Annual Savings: $1,000) (984)$                Fund Balance Adjustment to Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments  recommended in this re ort. ‐$                 27,059$           PRINTING & MAILING FUND (683) SUBTOTAL ‐$                  ‐$                  CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2026 ADOPTED BUDGET Page 13 of 15 Item 18 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 - FY 2026 Recommended Operating Budget Adjustments        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 27  Packet Pg. 404 of 690  ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1 Revenues Expenses Department Adjustment Adjustment INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2026 ADOPTED BUDGET WORKERS' COMPENSATION FUND (688) Non‐ Departmental Reallocation of Staff to Benefit Funds This action reallocates 1.00 FTE Manager Employee Benefits and  1.00 FTE Senior Human Resources Administrator from the  General Fund. The positions will be allocated to the General  Benefits Fund and Worker's Compensation Fund 75%/25%  respectively. This aligns positions with duties. General Fund  savings will be partially offset by allocated charges from these  pass‐through funds for the cost of employees.  (Annual costs:  $94 000 ‐$                 91,400$           Fund Balance Adjustment to Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments  recommended in this re ort. ‐$                 (91,400)$          WORKERS' COMPENSATION FUND (688) SUBTOTAL ‐$                  ‐$                  TECHNOLOGY FUND (682) Information  Technology  Department Information Technology Manager Freeze This action freezes one vacant Information Technology Manager,  which has been unfilled since May 2025 due to retirement. The  recently filled Assistant Director will help mitigate some of the  impacts related to IT government and project assignments. While  overall capacity is reduced, some project timelines may be  adjusted as workload is redistributed. Because the Technology  Fund is an internal service fund that allocates costs to other  departments, reductions are reflected in the funds receiving the  allocations. (Annual net savings: $0) (302,803)$       (302,803)$        Information  Technology  Department Fire Engine Purchase Adjustment This represents the fund's share of the reduction in allocated  charges supporting the fire engine purchase. For more details,  refer to the Vehicle Fund in the Internal Service Funds section of  this attachment. (Annual savings: $0) ‐$                 (1,685)$            Fund Balance Adjustment to Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments  recommended in this report. 302,803$        304,488$         TECHNOLOGY FUND (682) SUBTOTAL ‐$                 ‐$                  Page 14 of 15 Item 18 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 - FY 2026 Recommended Operating Budget Adjustments        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 28  Packet Pg. 405 of 690  ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 1 Revenues Expenses Department Adjustment Adjustment INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2026 ADOPTED BUDGET VEHICLE REPLACEMENT & MAINTENANCE FUND (681) Public Works Fire Engine Purchase Adjustment This action includes the purchase of one (1) diesel fire engine  instead of an electric hybrid engine in the FY 2026 vehicle  replacement CIP project. In the FY 2025 project, the City’s first  hybrid fire engine purchase is planned, although costs and  equipment lead times remain under consideration before  finalizing the decision. The shift from hybrid to diesel in FY 2026  for the second apparatus would yield one‐time cost savings.  Staff  and Committee discussed current fire engine fleet (frontline and  reserves) need while balancing fleet electrification and greater  cost impacts.  Alternatives include buying a used fire engine  and/or deferring the purchase altogether for another year  however, with current fleet inventory, staff maintains this  recommendation of a diesel engine in FY26 while also actively  working with other public agencies for the potential of acquiring  a used fire engine. Because the Vehicle Fund is an internal service  fund that allocates costs to other funds, reductions are reflected  in the funds receiving the allocations. (Annual savings: $0) ‐$                 (780,000)$        Information  Technology  Department Information Technology Manager Freeze This represents this fund’s share of allocated charges supporting  the Information Technology Manager position. For more details,  refer to Fund 682 in the Internal Services Funds section of this  Exhibit. (Annual Savings: $9,800) ‐$                 (9,495)$            Fund Balance Adjustment to Fund Balance This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments  recommended in this report. ‐$                 789,495$         ‐$                  ‐$                 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT & MAINTENANCE FUND (681) SUBTOTAL Page 15 of 15 Item 18 Attachment A, Exhibit 1 - FY 2026 Recommended Operating Budget Adjustments        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 29  Packet Pg. 406 of 690  ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Revenues Expenses Department Adjustment Adjustment CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (471) Capital PF‐93009 Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance This action reduces appropriation from $600,000 to $450,000.  While deferred funding would delay progress on accessibility  upgrades, funding is reserved for time‐critical needs such as code  required improvements identified for active construction projects  or urgent path‐of‐travel corrections. (One‐time savings:  $150 000 ‐$                (150,000)$           Capital OS‐09002 Baylands Levee Repair This action postpones the project from FY 2026 to FY 2028. While  postponing could increase the risk of deterioration, this deferral  allows concentration of resources on higher priority projects. In  the interim, routine inspections and maintenance protocols will  be maintained to mitigate risk until the project resumes in FY  2028. (One‐time savings: $288,000) ‐$                (288,000)$           Capital PG‐06001 Athletic Courts Resurfacing This action reduces appropriation from $365,000 to $315,000  while continuing repairs in FY 2027 through FY 2030 at about  $240,000 annually. Although the reduction may delay or extend  schedules for full court resurfacing enhancements, the phased repair strategy ensures that safety and usability  improvements continue on an annual basis through FY 2030. This  approach balances short‐term fiscal limitations with the ongoing  need to maintain athletic facilities. This work safeguards user  safety and extends the lifespan while addressing time‐sensitive  maintenance needs. Maintenance treatments like applying an  overcoat at the right time can add five to seven years of useful  life to the pavement, delaying the need for full reconstruction  and significantly reducing lifecycle costs. (One‐time savings:  $50,000) ‐$                (50,000)$             CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2026 ADOPTED BUDGET Page 1 of 3 Item 18 Attachment A, Exhibit 2 - FY 2026 Recommended Capital Budget Adjustments        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 30  Packet Pg. 407 of 690  ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Revenues Expenses Department Adjustment Adjustment CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2026 ADOPTED BUDGET Capital PG‐06003 Benches, Signage, Walkways, Perimeter Landscaping,  and Site Amenities This action reduces appropriation from $262,000 to $212,000.  While reducing the scope and budget will limit the number of  immediate upgrades to park aesthetics and user amenities, it preserves critical funds for essential maintenance and high  priority projects across the parks. This ensures that while some  enhancements might be scaled back or deferred, the continued  investment in core operational and safety improvements is  maintained, supporting overall user experience and facility  functionality in the short term. (One‐time savings: $50,000) ‐$                (50,000)$             Capital PE‐26000 Foothills Nature Preserve Restroom This action defers replacement of three restrooms at the Foothills  Nature Preserve by one year (from FY 2027 to FY 2028) to focus  on more time‐sensitive projects. Staff will monitor conditions to  ensure restrooms remain safe and functional in the interim. (One‐ time savings: $300,000 in FY 2027 and $900,000 in FY 2028) ‐$                ‐$  Capital OS‐09001 Off‐Road Pathway Repair This action reduce appropriation from $208,000 to $133,000  while continuing repairs in FY 2027 and FY 2028 at $185,000 and  $208,000, respectively. The reduced budget will limit the number  of off‐road paved trail segments addressed but will still enable  repairs at the most degraded sections with safety concerns.  Maintaining on‐going funding addresses overall network usability  and prevents further deterioration of Palo Alto’s nine miles of off‐ road paved trail system that are 35 years old. (One‐time savings:  $75,000) ‐$                (75,000)$             Capital PE‐21002 Johnson Park This action defers from FY 2026 and FY 2027 to FY 2028 the  renovation of existing park elements including asphalt concrete  and pathways, furnishing and playground equipment and  resurfacing, fencing and irrigation to focus on more time‐sensitive  projects. Staff will continue to monitor safety and accessibility  needs in the interim and as a contingency plan use the ADA  Compliance capital project to make any emergency repairs  needed as a stop gap. (One‐time savings: $250,000 in FY 2026 and  $1.4 million in FY 2027) ‐$                (250,000)$           Page 2 of 3 Item 18 Attachment A, Exhibit 2 - FY 2026 Recommended Capital Budget Adjustments        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 31  Packet Pg. 408 of 690  ATTACHMENT A, EXHIBIT 2 Revenues Expenses Department Adjustment Adjustment CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S FY 2026 ADOPTED BUDGET Capital PG‐22000 Werry Park Playground This action defers by two years from FY 2026 to FY 2028  replacement and accessibility improvements of the existing  playground to focus on more time‐sensitive projects. The existing  play area remains serviceable and safe for use. The delay allows  for advancement of higher‐priority playgrounds and  infrastructure with more critical needs while maintaining Werry  Park in the capital queue for future improvements. (One‐time  savin s: $350,000 ‐$                (350,000)$           Capital PE‐13014 Streetlight Condition Assessment This action defers $220,000 of funding for comprehensive assessment from FY 2026 to FY 2028 while retaining funding in  the Street Light Improvements project (PO‐05054) to replace  street light poles, foundations, luminaries, and wiring as needed.  (One‐time savings: $220,000) ‐$                (220,000)$           Capital PL‐04010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan  Implementation This action adds $2.4 million of approved Measure B Local Streets  and Roads (LSR) revenue from the Valley Transportation Agency  (VTA). (One‐time savings: $2,400,000) 2,400,000$    ‐$  Capital AS‐10000 Capital Improvement Fund Administration Capital Program  Staffing This action freezes 1.00 FTE Engineer in the Engineering Services  Division. This position is one of six positions involved in construction of  streets, sidewalks, and transportation capital projects. As part of the  overall $6 million reduction in FY 2026, $3.2 million of capital projects  are recommended to be deferred from FY 2026 to future years of the 5‐ year CIP, and the proposed FY 2026 capital budget included a one‐year  reduction in the sidewalks project. Workload needs should not be  impacted in FY 2026; however, impacts to projects in future years of  the 5‐year CIP may happen due to reduced staff capacity to manage  projects. (Annual savings: $220,000)  ‐$                (217,267)$           Capital AS‐10000 Capital Improvement Fund Administration This action removes the $3.2 million placeholder reduction that  had been included in the FY 2026 Adopted Capital Budget.  (Annual savings: $1.0 million) ‐$                3,200,000$         Fund Balance Adjustment to Fund Balance (Infrastructure Reserve) This action adjusts the fund balance to offset adjustments  recommended in this report. ‐$                850,267$            CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (471) SUBTOTAL 2,400,000$    2,400,000$         Page 3 of 3 Item 18 Attachment A, Exhibit 2 - FY 2026 Recommended Capital Budget Adjustments        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 32  Packet Pg. 409 of 690  Summary of Positions & Vacancy by Department Department Fiscal Year Adopted FTE Filled FTE Total Footnote City  Attorney 2019 11.00                  11.00         ‐  2020 11.00                  11.00         ‐  2021 11.00                  10.00         1.00  2022 11.00                  11.00         ‐  2023 11.00                  11.00         ‐  2024 13.00                  11.00         2.00  2025 13.00                  13.00         ‐  2026 13.00                  13.00         ‐  City  Auditor 2019 6.00 6.00           ‐  2020 5.00 4.00           1.00  2021 4.00 4.00           ‐  2022 1 2023 2024 2025 2026 City  Clerk 2019 5.00 5.00           ‐  2020 5.00 4.00           1.00  2021 5.00 4.00           1.00  2022 5.00 5.00           ‐  2023 5.00 4.00           1.00  2024 5.00 3.00           2.00  2025 5.00 5.00           ‐  2026 5.00 5.00           ‐  City  Manager 2019 12.00                  12.00         ‐  2020 10.75                  7.75           3.00  2021 10.00                  7.00           3.00  2022 9.00 4.00           5.00  2023 12.00                  11.00         1.00  2024 13.00                  12.25         0.75  2025 14.00                  14.00         ‐  2026 14.00                  14.00         ‐  Administrative Services 2019 58.50                  58.50         ‐  2020 58.50                  50.00         8.50  2021 59.50                  52.00         7.50  2022 53.50                  46.50         7.00  2023 55.50                  46.50         9.00  2024 57.00                  51.50         5.50  Source: FY 2019 ‐2026  Adopted  Operating Budget Books  ‐ Dept Org Charts, At Place Memos  ‐ Vacancy Reports  as  of April of that Calendar Year Vacant FTE Attachment B Page 1 of 5Item 18 Attachment B - Adopted Budget FTE and Vacancy        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 33  Packet Pg. 410 of 690  Department Fiscal Year Adopted FTE Filled FTE Total Footnote Vacant FTE 2025 60.00                  51.50         8.50  2026 60.00                  60.00         ‐  Community  Services 2019 78.60                  78.60         ‐  2020 78.60                  74.60         4.00  2021 78.60                  74.95         3.65  2022 71.25                  63.25         8.00  2023 74.35                  70.60         3.75  2024 82.25                  79.50         2.75 2 2025 82.25                  77.25         5.00  2026 84.50                  84.50         ‐  Development Services 2019 20.00                  20.00         ‐  2020 3 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Fire 2019 103.70               103.70      ‐  2020 103.50               99.50         4.00  2021 105.50               103.50      2.00  2022 94.50                  89.50         5.00  2023 107.50               99.50         8.00  2024 110.50               92.50         18.00                   4 2025 113.50               103.50      10.00                    2026 122.50               122.50      ‐ 5 Human Resources 2019 17.00                  17.00         ‐  2020 17.00                  16.00         1.00  2021 17.00                  16.25         0.75  2022 16.00                  12.00         4.00  2023 17.00                  14.00         3.00  2024 19.75                  17.75         2.00  2025 19.75                  18.75         1.00  2026 20.75                  20.75         ‐  Information Technology 2019 33.00                  33.00         ‐  2020 33.00                  31.00         2.00  2021 33.00                  33.00         ‐  2022 29.00                  24.00         5.00  2023 31.00                  29.00         2.00  2024 34.00                  32.00         2.00  2025 35.00                  31.00         4.00  Attachment B Page 2 of 5Item 18 Attachment B - Adopted Budget FTE and Vacancy        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 34  Packet Pg. 411 of 690  Department Fiscal Year Adopted FTE Filled FTE Total Footnote Vacant FTE 2026 35.00                  35.00         ‐  Library 2019 47.50                  47.50         ‐  2020 46.50                  46.50         ‐  2021 47.50                  43.50         4.00  2022 40.50                  32.00         8.50  2023 46.50                  35.50         11.00                    2024 49.00                  39.00         10.00                    2025 49.00                  43.00         6.00  2026 49.00                  49.00         ‐  Office of Emergency  Services 2019 3.00 3.00           ‐  2020 3.00 3.00           ‐  2021 3.00 3.00           ‐  2022 2.00 2.00           ‐  2023 2.00 2.00           ‐  2024 3.00 3.00           ‐  2025 3.00 3.00           ‐  2026 3.00 3.00           ‐  Office of Transportation 2019 6 2020 15.00                  15.00         ‐  2021 15.00                  15.00         ‐  2022 15.00                  13.00         2.00  2023 15.00                  15.00         ‐  2024 17.00                  15.00         2.00  2025 18.00                  16.00         2.00  2026 19.00                  19.00         ‐  Planning  & Development Services 2019 42.46 42.46         ‐ 7 2020 51.00                  33.50         17.50                    2021 51.00                  46.00         5.00  2022 45.00                  41.00         4.00  2023 52.00                  39.00         13.00                    2024 56.00                  47.00         9.00  2025 61.00                  50.00         11.00                   8 2026 62.00                  62.00         ‐  Police 2019 156.50               156.50      ‐  2020 150.50               128.50      22.00                    2021 148.50               144.50      4.00  2022 125.50               116.50      9.00  2023 134.50               120.50      14.00                    2024 140.50               124.50      16.00                   9 2025 140.50               131.50      9.00  2026 140.50               140.50      ‐  Attachment B Page 3 of 5Item 18 Attachment B - Adopted Budget FTE and Vacancy        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 35  Packet Pg. 412 of 690  Department Fiscal Year Adopted FTE Filled FTE Total Footnote Vacant FTE Public Works 2019 202.00               202.00       ‐  2020 199.50               181.50      18.00                    2021 198.25               176.00      22.25                    2022 193.25               158.00      35.25                    2023 200.50               177.00      23.50                    2024 207.00               179.00      28.00                    2025 208.00               185.00      23.00                    2026 212.00               212.00      ‐  Utilities 2019 244.50               244.50      ‐  2020 245.00               215.00      30.00                    2021 245.00               212.00      33.00                    2022 245.00               198.00      47.00                    2023 253.50               199.50      54.00                    2024 257.00               219.00      38.00                    2025 267.00               225.00      42.00                    2026 266.00               266.00      ‐  Reconciling  Difference (org chart vs total FTE) 2019 (0.59)                    2020 (2.00)                    2021 (3.00)                    2022 (0.50)                    2023 (0.50)                    2024 0.90  2025 (3.10)                    2026 1.90  Total for 2019 1,041.35           1,040.76   ‐  Total for 2020 1,034.85           920.85      112.00                 Total for 2021 1,034.85           944.70      87.15                    Total for 2022 956.00               815.75      139.75                 Total for 2023 1,017.85           874.10      143.25                10 Total for 2024 1,063.10           926.00      138.00                11 Total for 2025 1,092.10           967.50      121.50                 Total for 2026 1,104.35           1,106.25   ‐  Grand Total 8,344.45           7,595.91  741.65                 Attachment B Page 4 of 5Item 18 Attachment B - Adopted Budget FTE and Vacancy        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 36  Packet Pg. 413 of 690  Department Footnote Description City Auditor 1 After conducting a competitive process Council selected Baker Tilly as the City's Auditing firm. This function remains  with Baker Tilly through the writing of this report.  Community Services 2 FY23 and FY24 CSD had significant position resotrations including Assistant Director and Division Manager level  classifications frozen during the pandemic.  FY24 also saw small increases in services/positions within Art Center, JMZ,  and Theaters.  Development  Services 3 The Development Services Department was combined with the Planning and Community Environment Department in  FY 2020 to form the Planning and Development Services Department. Fire 4 The vacancy number reflects 18 vacancies but 8 of those were newly hired firefighters in the onboarding process and  not yet reflected in the report. We typically hire more than 8 firefighters at a time. Fire 5 Addition of 7.0 FTE positions to create the initial/pilot Single Role EMS Division of the Fire Department and 3.0 FTE  Fire Captain positions to permanently cross staff Engine 64 and Medic 64 (per council directive in FY25). Office of  Transportation 6 In FY 2020 Office of Transportation was created within the City Manager's office, these positions were transfered  from Planning and Community Environment. Planning and  Development  Services 7 See footnote 3. Planning and  Development  Services 8 In FY23 planning underwent an organizational structure review and analysis resulting in changes to the structure and  needed classification to meet increasing planning demands in long term planning and development services.  These  changes were implemented in FY24 consistent with this review and the recommendaitons.  Police 9 Restoredvarious positions including 2.00 Public Safety Dispatchers to the Dispatching Servicing Team due to the high  volume of calls for service and restored 2.00 Police Officers to the Traffic Enforcement Division due to increasing  community concern regarding traffic safety around the City. Total for 2023 10 FY 2022, the City Council approved amendments to realign the budget with a more optimistic economic outlook and  proactively reinvest in activities that addressed the most immediate needs of the City and its residents into FY2023. Total for 2024 11 FY 2024 Budget continues to invest in staffing resources that support City services and Council priorities. Attachment B Page 5 of 5Item 18 Attachment B - Adopted Budget FTE and Vacancy        Item 18: Staff Report Pg. 37  Packet Pg. 414 of 690  City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: ACTION ITEMS Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: September 8, 2025 Report #:2507-5020 TITLE Adoption of an Emergency Ordinance Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 16.04 to Add Local Administrative Amendments Related to Certificates of Occupancy and Definitions to the 2022 California Building Code, and an Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments Thereto. CEQA Status – Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) and 15308. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Adopt, by a four-fifths majority, the attached emergency ordinance (Attachment E) to incorporate administrative amendments into Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.04, which implements the California Building Code, and 2. Adopt, by a four-fifths majority, the attached emergency ordinance (Attachment F) amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to incorporate the 2025 Edition of the California Energy Code with local amendments related to energy efficiency. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff requests Council consideration of two emergency amendments to the California Building Standards Code (CBSC) in response to new state law, ahead of the scheduled October triennial update. The first amendment addresses definitions and certificate of occupancy requirements, while the second introduces new energy reach codes for single-family homes, focusing on air conditioning unit replacement and FlexPath requirements for major remodels. The CBSC (CCR, Title 24) is updated every three years, and local jurisdictions may adopt it as published or with more stringent amendments. The City has historically adopted stronger Energy and Green Building standards to promote sustainable, low-emissions construction. AB 130 (2025) restricts local amendments to residential building standards after October 1, 2025, unless certain exemptions apply. The proposed administrative amendments to the City’s 2022 building code must be adopted before September 30 to remain eligible for renewal, while Item 19 Item 19 Staff Report        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 415 of 690  early adoption of energy reach codes is recommended to strengthen climate resilience. Additional climate-related amendments will be brought forward in October when model code language becomes available, and other amendments related to new construction will be considered in 2026 following completion of statewide cost-effectiveness studies. BACKGROUND Item 19 Item 19 Staff Report        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 416 of 690  Second, reach codes for all residential building types cannot yet be proposed because Energy Code amendments depend on the completion of cost-effectiveness studies. These studies, typically completed by June of the year before the code cycle, are essential for justifying standards that exceed the state minimum. This year, the studies for multi-family residential and non-residential new construction have been delayed until late 2025 or early 2026, preventing staff from developing multi-family reach code proposals in time for the AB 130 deadline. September 2025: Adopt select local amendments to the 2022 California Building Code, effective immediately, and 2025 California Energy Code, effective January 1, 2026. October 2025: Propose adoption of the remaining parts of the 2025 California Building Standards Code, including re-adoption of currently active reach code amendments, also effective January 1, 2026. Spring 2026: Propose additional local amendments to the new construction Energy Code for all building types, with an effective date of July 1, 2026, pending completion of cost-effectiveness studies to support potential changes. Administrative Amendments to PAMC Chapter 16.04: These targeted changes, which clarify certificate of occupancy requirements and applicability of certain definitions, are intended to improve clarity and streamline code application. Although administrative in nature, they are subject to AB 130’s moratorium on new amendments to Title 24 provisions that apply to residential units, and must be adopted prior to October 1, 2025 to remain enforceable without restriction. Adoption as an urgency ordinance would allow them to take effect immediately and later serve as the basis for renewed local amendments under AB 130’s exemptions. Local Amendments to the California Energy Reach Code for Single-Family Homes, Duplexes, and Townhomes: These proposals, supported by cost-effectiveness analysis, include: Item 19 Item 19 Staff Report        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 3  Packet Pg. 417 of 690  o Air Conditioner Time-of-Replacement Requirement – Requires specified energy efficiency measures or installation of a heat pump system as the primary heating source when replacing or installing an air conditioner. Exceptions are provided for electrical panel limitations or oversized heating needs. o FlexPath for Major Remodels – Requires additions or alterations over 1,000 square feet to incorporate a flexible package of efficiency or electrification upgrades selected from an approved menu of measures, allowing for customization based on project scope and building characteristics. o Together, these amendments are intended to reduce fossil fuel reliance, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and prepare homes for a more efficient, electric- ready future, while aligning with state requirements, advancing Palo Alto’s climate action targets, and supporting timely adoption before AB 130’s October 1, 2025 deadline. While adopting these amendments before October 1 (via an emergency ordinance) may allow the City to avoid the AB 130 moratorium, AB 130 is a new law and its interpretation is untested. City staff will be prepared to bring the energy reach code for re-adoption later on using exemptions to the moratorium if necessary. Table 1 below provides an overview of the timeline for adoption of the proposed local reach code amendments. Table 1. Local Code Amendment Timeline Table 1: Local Code Amendment Timeline Local Code AmendmentsAdoption Date Green Building Reach Code Energy Reach Code September 2025 None Air Conditioner Time of Replacement FlexPath October 2025 Carry forward previous local Green Building Code amendments1 (including CALGreen Tier 1 & 2 adoption) LEED Certification Alternative Compliance Pathway Embodied Carbon Threshold EV Readiness Carry forward previous local Energy Code amendments, as supported by cost effectiveness studies Spring 2026 None Potential additional Energy Code amendments as supported by newly available cost effectiveness studies and model 1 More detail provided in Attachment A Item 19 Item 19 Staff Report        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 4  Packet Pg. 418 of 690  Table 1: Local Code Amendment Timeline Local Code AmendmentsAdoption Date Green Building Reach Code Energy Reach Code code language. E.g., Gas Water Heater Time of Replacement ANALYSIS Administrative Amendments to PAMC Chapter 16.04 PAMC Chapter 16.04 implements the California Building Code within the City. Staff are proposing targeted amendments to improve the code’s clarity. The proposed changes include: Certificate of Occupancy Requirements – Clearly establishing which types of buildings or occupancies must obtain a certificate of occupancy prior to use. Definitions – Clarifying applicability of certain definitions. These amendments refine both the administrative and technical provisions of the adopted codes that fall within the City’s local authority. Adoption prior to AB 130’s October 1, 2025 deadline is intended to keep these provisions enforceable without restriction. Staff recommends the Council adopt an ordinance codifying these changes, which staff will promptly file with the California Building Standards Commission. By adopting the ordinance as an emergency ordinance, Council intends the changes to take effect before AB 130’s October 1, 2025 deadline, allowing the City to renew these local amendments in the future. Local Amendments to the California Energy Reach Code for Single-Family Homes, Duplexes, and Townhomes Potential Energy Code local amendments require cost-effectiveness studies before they can be adopted. They must be more stringent than the California Energy Code, generally using the metrics established by that code (such as source energy). At this time, staff are proposing two different types of energy code amendments that are supported by the appropriate cost- effectiveness studies: Time of replacement requirements for air conditioners that would require either energy efficiency measures or installation of heat pumps when equipment is replaced. Time of remodel requirements that would require a flexible combination energy efficiency or electrification measures known as ”FlexPath”. AC to Heat Pump Time of Replacement Requirement Item 19 Item 19 Staff Report        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 419 of 690  The proposed ordinance would require that projects in single-family homes, duplexes and townhomes involving replacement or alteration of an existing air conditioning system or installation of a new air conditioning system must either include a heat pump space conditioner Item 19 Item 19 Staff Report        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 420 of 690  as the primary heating system or install specific energy efficiency measures. The attached study commissioned by the California Codes and Standard Program (see Attachment B) has found that the proposed requirements are cost-effective and will result in a reduction in Long-Term System Cost (LSC)3 energy. Heat pumps are far more efficient than gas furnaces and result in fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Table 2: Summary of Requirements System Ducts Condition State Code Requirements Additional Local Code Requirements Duct sealing (10% leakage) Airflow efficiency (300 CFM/ton) Refrigerant charge verification None Heat Pump Duct sealing (5% leakage) Airflow efficiency (350 CFM/ton) Fan efficacy (0.58 W/CFM) Refrigerant charge verification Attic insulation (R-49) Air sealing R-8 Duct insulation None Duct sealing (10% leakage) Airflow efficiency (300 CFM/ton) Refrigerant charge verification Fan efficacy (0.45 watts/CFM) Attic insulation (R-49) Air sealing AC Duct sealing (5% leakage)Refrigerant charge verification 3 Formerly known as Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) energy cost savings, LSC reflects the Energy Commission’s current LCC methodology, which is intended to capture the total value or cost of energy use over 30 years. This method accounts for the hourly cost of marginal generation, transmission and distribution, fuel, capacity, losses, and cap-and-trade-based CO2 emissions (California Energy Commission, 2023). This is the methodology used by the Energy Commission in evaluating cost-effectiveness for efficiency measures in the 2025 Energy Code. Item 19 Item 19 Staff Report        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 421 of 690  Table 2: Summary of Requirements System Ducts Condition State Code Requirements Additional Local Code Requirements Airflow efficiency (350 CFM/ton) Fan efficacy (0.45 W/CFM) Attic Insulation (R-49) Air sealing R-8 Duct insulation Fan efficacy (0.35 watts/CFM) The 2025 Single Family AC to HP Cost Effectiveness Study attached as Attachment B finds some incremental costs associated with converting to a heat pump, but these costs can be offset by utility bill savings over the lifetime of the equipment. The lifetime of a furnace and air conditioner are about the same, so it often makes economic sense to replace both if the furnace is near the end of its life. In this scenario, the cost of the furnace replacement is assumed as part of the base project cost. Alternatively, a heat pump could be configured to operate as the primary heating source using the air handler in the existing furnace and using the furnace for supplemental heating on very cold days. Table 3 below compares the incremental cost and lifecycle savings (net present value of utility bill savings less incremental cost) for each approach assuming a modest gas rate escalation. Table 3. Economic Costs and Savings Approach Incremental Cost Lifecycle Savings Heat pump with new air handler (furnace removed) $652 $556 Heat pump with existing furnace retained $1,670 $2,132 The costs may be able to be further offset by incentives offered through local utility rebate programs, depending on whether these are retained after the mandate takes effect. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, heat pumps can provide significant reductions. This is because heat pumps are far more efficient than gas furnaces (and electric resistance heat) and electricity in California is derived from low-carbon energy sources. Table 4 shows greenhouse gas reductions for both approaches generated using the statewide Cost Effectiveness Explorer tool. Table 4. Greenhouse Gas Reductions Climate Zone Approach GHG Reduction (tons annually) GHG Reductions (%) CZ04 Heat pump & new air handler (furnace removed)0.84 30% CZ04 Heat pump with existing furnace retained 0.63 22% The proposed policy offers two general exceptions. The first is for situations where the electrical panel capacity is insufficient to meet the load of a heat pump. The second is where the heat pump would need to be sized more than 12,000 Btu/hr (1 ton) over the air conditioner Item 19 Item 19 Staff Report        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 422 of 690  that would be installed. There are also exceptions to the duct sealing and airflow requirements that specify alternative methods of compliance. All applicable exceptions in the California Energy Code apply. FlexPath 5 greater than 1,000 square feet be required to include certain energy efficiency measures. Depending on the project scope, applicants of these types of projects typically already have an architect, engineer, and energy code compliance expert on their design team who can help facilitate compliance with the FlexPath energy code amendment. As proposed, qualifying single-family projects would be required to complete any combination of energy-related measures from Table 5 below totaling 12 or more points. Additional measure descriptions can be found in Attachment C. Table 5. Measures Building Vintage Measures Pre-1978 1978-1991 1992-2010 5 Alterations include raising the plate height, historic restoration, changes or rearrangements of the structural parts or elements, and changes or rearrangement of bearing walls and full height partitions. Normal maintenance, reroofing, painting or wall papering, floor finishes, replacement-in-kind of mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems, or replacing or adding new kitchen counter and similar furniture, plumbing fixture to the building are excluded Item 19 Item 19 Staff Report        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 423 of 690  Table 5. Measures Building Vintage Measures Pre-1978 1978-1991 1992-2010 Heat Pump Water Heater Replacing Electric 4 4 4 High Eff. Heat Pump Water Heater Replacing Electric 5 5 5 Heat Pump Space Conditioning System 21 16 13 High Eff. Heat Pump Space Conditioning System 23 18 15 Dual Fuel Heat Pump Space Conditioning System 15 11 10 Heat Pump Clothes Dryer 1 1 1 Induction Cooktop 1 1 1 Solar PV 17 17 15 To accommodate the wide variability in existing buildings, staff proposes the following exemptions (the list below provides a brief overview of exemptions which are described in greater detail in Attachment F): New Units 1. Mobile Homes, Manufactured Housing, or Factory-built Housing 2. Repairs 3. Emergency Housing 4. Technological or Economic Infeasibility 5. Energy usage of alternative proposed design better than requirement 6. Pre-Compliance 7. Covenant Restrictions 8. New Construction 9. Improvement projects limited to solar PV, EV charging, or battery storage 10. Hardship for Low-Income Owners 11. Historic Buildings 12. Hazard Mitigation (i.e. Seismic upgrades) 13. Alterations that consist solely of roof and/or window projects 14. State-exempted ADUs per SB1211 The CEC provides two different cost effectiveness metrics. “On-bill” cost effectiveness refers to the direct cost experienced by the homeowner. For something to be cost effective “on-bill”, the energy bill savings of a measure must at least pay for the cost of that measure over a 20-year period. The other approach is “Long-Term Systemwide Cost” (LSC). LSC considers the cost to install energy efficiency measures, the on-bill savings from those measures, and larger system costs that everyone pays for like energy infrastructure costs and the impacts of climate change. For CEC approval, a local amendment to the California Energy Code must show a compliance pathway that is either “on-bill” or “LSC” cost effective. As described below, staff’s proposed policy has “on-bill” and “LSC” cost effective compliance pathways. Item 19 Item 19 Staff Report        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 424 of 690  In support of reach code development, the California Energy Codes and Standards Statewide Utility Program, which includes the State's Investor-Owned Utilities (Pacific Gas, and Electric (PG&E), San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison (SCE), under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission) developed and published the 2025 Single Family Cost Effectiveness Report, provided as Attachment C and further supported by an updated memo provided as Attachment D. This study and the associated cost-effectiveness data are highly detailed and are included in the record to support Council’s findings and policy decisions. 7 tool published by the California Energy Codes and Standards Statewide Utility Program working group. Table 6. FlexPath Compliance Pathway Costs and Savings Measures Incremental Cost Lifecycle Savings FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT 7 Cost Effectiveness Explorer; https://explorer.localenergycodes.com/policies/4287/requirements?per_component_name=PolicyExistingBuilding sWithFlexiblePathRequirements&per_climate_zone_raw=4-CPAU&per_custom_combination_id=22972 Item 19 Item 19 Staff Report        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 11  Packet Pg. 425 of 690  STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT FlexPath: Stakeholders suggested adding/removing measures or adjusting point values. Staff explained changes would require new cost-effectives studies and could be considered in the future. Water Heaters: Questions focused on alignment with Bay Area Air District Zero-NOx standards (2027). Staff expects statewide model code language will incorporate exemptions. A request to allow electric resistance water heaters in ADUs was discussed; staff noted this option is inefficient and rarely complaint under state Energy Code. Water Conservation: Suggestions were made to add elective CALGreen Tier 1 and 2 measures (e.g., toilet efficiency). Staff clarified these are already permissible under “innovative concepts” and will improve applicant guidance. Other Suggestions: Additional future considerations included requiring electric stoves at replacement, regulating gas appliances under air quality authority, adopting passive house standards, adjusting EV readiness requirements, and updating electric load calculations. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Item 19 Item 19 Staff Report        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 12  Packet Pg. 426 of 690  ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Item 19 Item 19 Staff Report        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 13  Packet Pg. 427 of 690  Green Building Code Applicability Requirements and Existing Local Amendments Single Family CalGreen Code Applicability Scope of Work Current requirements ADU conversions, alterations, additions CalGreen Mandatory Alterations / Additions that Increase conditioned area and do not trigger Tier 1 requirements CalGreen Mandatory Additions / Alterations1 >1000 sf CalGreen Mandatory + Tier 1 New construction or substantial remodel CalGreen Mandatory + Tier 2 Scope of Work Current requirements Alterations / Additions that Increase conditioned area and do not trigger Tier 1 requirements CalGreen Mandatory Additions / Alterations1 >1000 sf CalGreen Mandatory + Tier 1 New construction or substantial remodel CalGreen Mandatory + Tier 2 Scope of Work Current requirements Tenant Improvements (Tis), Renovations, Alterations w/ $200,000 permit valuation and do not trigger Tier 1 or Tier 2 requirements CalGreen Mandatory TIs, Renovations, Alterations > 5,000 SF w/ replacement of two systems: HVAC system, building envelope, hot water system, lighting system CalGreen Mandatory + Tier 1 Additions > 1,000 SF CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2 New construction CalGreen Mandatory + Tier 2 1 Alterations include raising the plate height, historic restoration, changes or rearrangements of the structural parts or elements, and changes or rearrangement of bearing walls and full height partitions. Normal maintenance, reroofing, painting or wall papering, floor finishes, replacement-in-kind of mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems, or replacing or adding new kitchen counter and similar furniture, plumbing fixture to the building are excluded for the purposes of establishing scope of Tier 1 projects (PAMC 16.14.080). Attachment A Item 19 Attachment A - GBC Applicability and Existing Reach Code Amendments        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 14  Packet Pg. 428 of 690  Existing Local Amendments to the Green Building Code Applies To: Single Family Multi Family Non Res Third-party Green Building Special Inspector required for all projects (PAMC 16.14.080)X X X Low-carbon concrete requirements for Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects (PAMC 16.14.080, PAMC 16.14.240)X X X Deconstruction and construction materials management (PAMC 16.14.150, PAMC 5.24)X X X Cement and concrete made with recycled products (PAMC 16.14.420)X Enhanced construction waste reduction of 80% X X X Local storm water pollution prevention for new construction and additions (PAMC 16.14.290)X Invasive species prohibited (PAMC 16.14.330)X Indoor Air Quality Management Plan (PAMC 16.14.390)X X Recycled water infrastructure for irrigation X X Cooling tower water use X X Swimming pool and spa covers – vapor retardant cover required (PAMC 16.14.100)X X Non-residential enhanced water budget (PAMC 16.14.340)X Energy STAR portfolio manager profile for energy and water use, energy and water performance reviews (PAMC 16.14.360, 370, 380)X Full electrification of outdoor grills, stoves, and barbeques (PAMC 16.14.090)X X X Electric readiness requirements (PAMC 16.14.190/410, PAMC 16.17)X X X Enhanced EV Charging requirements (PAMC 16.14.160, PAMC 16.14.400)X X X Item 19 Attachment A - GBC Applicability and Existing Reach Code Amendments        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 15  Packet Pg. 429 of 690  Summary of Enhanced EV Charging Requirements in the Green Building Code For clarity, the table below summarizes the EV charging requirements in the Green Building Code at a high level and are accurate for most projects. For precise requirements see PAMC 16.14.160 and 16.14.400. Single Family Multi-family Hotels/Motels Nonresidential New Construction of Any Size (including substantial remodel for residential) Install 1 EV Ready Space OR Install 1 Level 2 EV Charger Exception: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Resident Parking: For each residential unit, install one Level 2 EV Charger OR Install one Level 2 EV Ready Space for each residential unit AND Guest Parking: 25% EV Capable, EV Ready, EV Chargers AND 10% EV Chargers Installed 40% EV Ready AND 10% Level 2 EV Chargers Installed 10 to 20 parking spaces: 20% EV Capable or EV Ready Space AND 20% Level 2 EV Chargers Installed OR Over 20 parking spaces: 15% EV Capable or EV Ready Space AND 15% EV Chargers Installed Item 19 Attachment A - GBC Applicability and Existing Reach Code Amendments        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 16  Packet Pg. 430 of 690  2025 Cost-Effectiveness Study:Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement Prepared by: Ada Shen, Alea German, Keith Saechao, & Marc Hoeschele, Frontier Energy, Inc Misti Bruceri, Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC Prepared for: Kelly Cunningham, Codes and Standards Program, Pacific Gas and Electric Revision: 1.0 Last modified: 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 17  Packet Pg. 431 of 690  Legal Notice This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission. Copyright 2025, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. All rights reserved, except that this document may be used, copied, and distributed without modification. Neither PG&E nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any privately- owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks or copyrights. Table 1. Summary of Revisions Original Release N/A 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 18  Packet Pg. 432 of 690  Acronym List AC – Air conditioner ACH50 – Air Changes per Hour at 50 pascals pressure differential AFUE – Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency B/C – Lifecycle Benefit-to- Cost Ratio BSC – Building Standards Commission CA IOUs – California Investor-Owned Utilities CARE – California Alternate Rates for Energy CASE – Codes and Standards Enhancement CBECC-Res – Computer program developed by the California Energy Commission for demonstrating compliance with the California Residential Building Energy Efficiency Standards CFM – Cubic Feet per Minute CO2 – Carbon Dioxide CPAU – City of Palo Alto Utilities CPUC – California Public Utilities Commission CZ – California Climate Zone DFHP – Dual Fuel Heat Pump DHW – Domestic Hot Water DOE – Department of Energy EDR – Energy Design Rating EER – Energy Efficiency Ratio EF – Energy Factor GHG – Greenhouse Gas HPWH – Heat Pump Water Heater HSPF – Heating Seasonal Performance Factor HVAC – Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning IOU – Investor Owned Utility kBtu – kilo-British thermal unit kWh – Kilowatt Hour LCC – Lifecycle Cost LLAHU – Low Leakage Air Handler Unit VLLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space NEEA – Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance NEM – Net Energy Metering NPV – Net Present Value 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 SMUD – Sacramento Municipal Utility District SoCalGas – Southern California Gas Company TDV – Time Dependent Valuation Therm – Unit for quantity of heat that equals 100,000 British thermal units Title 24 – Title 24, Part 6 TOU – Time-Of-Use UEF – Uniform Energy Factor 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 19  Packet Pg. 433 of 690  Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................4 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................7 2 Methodology and Assumptions ..................................................................................9 2.1 Modeling ............................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Prototype Characteristics .....................................................................................10 2.3 Cost-Effectiveness Approach ..............................................................................13 2.3.1 Benefits ...........................................................................................................13 2.3.2 Costs ...............................................................................................................13 2.3.3 Metrics .............................................................................................................15 2.3.4 Utility Rates .....................................................................................................16 2.4 Measure Details and Cost....................................................................................18 2.4.1 Lifecycle Cost Assuming Zero-NOx Standards for Space Heating After 2030 ..20 3 Results........................................................................................................................22 3.1 Cost-Effectiveness Results ..................................................................................22 3.1.1 Cost Effectiveness Results Using Standard Tariffs ...........................................23 3.1.2 Cost Effectiveness Results Using CARE Tariffs ...............................................26 3.2 Zero-NOx Scenario Results .................................................................................28 3.3 AC Pathways for Heat Pump Replacements........................................................30 4 Recommendations and Discussion ..........................................................................33 5 References .................................................................................................................36 6 Appendices ................................................................................................................38 6.1 Map of California Climate Zones ..........................................................................38 6.2 Cost-Effectiveness Results ..................................................................................39 6.2.1 Standard Rates ................................................................................................39 6.2.2 CARE tariffs .....................................................................................................45 6.3 Utility Rate Schedules..........................................................................................51 6.3.1 Pacific Gas & Electric.......................................................................................51 6.3.2 Southern California Edison ..............................................................................60 6.3.3 Southern California Gas...................................................................................64 6.3.4 San Diego Gas & Electric ................................................................................65 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 20  Packet Pg. 434 of 690  10 20 30 40 50 6.3.5 City of Palo Alto Utilities ...................................................................................72 6.3.6 Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (Electric Only) ......................................74 6.3.7 Fuel Escalation Assumptions ...........................................................................76 List of Tables Table 1. Summary of Revisions ............................................................................................ 1 Table 2. Residential Prototype Characteristics .................................................................... Table 9. HVAC Measure Cost Assumptions – 4-Ton Electric Replacements ........................ Table 11. Lifecycle Incremental Cost Breakdown for 4-Ton System with no Gas Furnaces Table 19. DFHP Existing Furnace LSC Savings (Zero-NOx Rule)....................................... Table 23. [Pre-1978] Standard Efficiency HPSH.................................................................. Table 33. [1978-1991] High Efficiency HPSH CARE............................................................ Table 3. Efficiency Characteristics for Three Vintage Cases ................................................12 Table 4. System Sizing by Climate Zone .............................................................................15 Table 5. Investor-Owned Utility Tariffs Used Based on Climate Zone ..................................16 Table 6. Publicly Owned Utility Tariffs Used Based on Climate Zone ...................................17 Table 7. Lifecycle Incremental Cost Breakdown for a 4-Ton DFHP Existing Furnace...........19 Table 8. Lifecycle Incremental Cost Breakdown for 4-Ton HPSH ........................................19 Table 10. SCAQMD Rule 1111 Proposed Manufacturer Compliance Targets.......................20 after 2030............................................................................................................................21 Table 12. [1992-2010] DFHP Existing Furnace....................................................................23 Table 13. [1992-2010] Standard Efficiency HPSH ...............................................................24 Table 14. [1992-2010] High Efficiency HPSH ......................................................................25 Table 15. [1992-2010] DFHP Existing Furnace CARE .........................................................26 Table 16. [1992-2010] Standard Efficiency HPSH CARE ....................................................27 Table 17. [1992-2010] High Efficiency HPSH CARE............................................................28 Table 18. DFHP Existing Furnace On-Bill NPV (Zero-NOx Rule).........................................29 Table 20. New AC Only Path Cost Estimates ......................................................................32 Table 21. New AC/Furnace and New Ducts Path Cost Estimates ........................................32 Table 22. [Pre-1978] DFHP Existing Furnace ......................................................................39 Table 24. [Pre-1978] High Efficiency HPSH.........................................................................41 Table 25. [1978-1991] DFHP Existing Furnace....................................................................42 Table 26. [1978-1991] Standard Efficiency HPSH ...............................................................43 Table 27. [1978-1991] High Efficiency HPSH ......................................................................44 Table 28. [Pre-1978] DFHP Existing Furnace CARE ...........................................................45 Table 29. [Pre-1978] Standard Efficiency HPSH CARE .......................................................46 Table 30. [Pre-1978] High Efficiency HPSH CARE ..............................................................47 Table 31. [1978-1991] DFHP Existing Furnace CARE .........................................................48 Table 32. [1978-1991] Standard Efficiency HPSH CARE ....................................................49 Table 34. PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone............................................................51 Table 35. PG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)......................................................................52 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 21  Packet Pg. 435 of 690  Table 36. SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ..............................................................60 Table 37. SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone .....................................................64 Table 38. SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)................................................................65 Table 39. SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone .........................................................65 Table 40. SDG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) ...................................................................66 Table 41. CPAU Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) ......................................................................72 Table 42. Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions, CPUC En Banc and 2022 TDV Basis ...................................................................................................................................77 Table 43. Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions, 2025 LSC Basis .........................78 List of Figures Figure 1. AC vs. Heat Pump Pathway Requirements ..........................................................31 Figure 2. AC vs. Heat Pump Energy Comparison................................................................31 Figure 3. Map of California climate zones. ..........................................................................38 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 22  Packet Pg. 436 of 690  Executive Summary The California Codes and Standards (C&S) Reach Codes program, also known as the Local Energy Codes program, provides technical support to local governments considering adopting a local ordinance (reach code) intended to support meeting local and/or statewide energy efficiency and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. The program facilitates adoption and implementation of the code when requested by local jurisdictions by providing resources such as cost-effectiveness studies, model language, sample findings, and other supporting documentation. It is important to note that there is a voluntary measure in the 2025 CALGreen for replacing an air conditioner with a heat pump at time of air conditioner replacement, which can be adopted as is. This report seeks to provide options to modify the heat pump measure, and demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of these options. This analysis used two different metrics to assess the cost-effectiveness of the proposed upgrades for a 1,665 square foot single family home prototype with an attached garage. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the incremental costs and energy savings associated with each energy efficiency measure over a 30-year analysis period. On- Bill cost-effectiveness is an occupant-based lifecycle cost (LCC) approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer utility bill savings using today’s electricity and natural gas utility tariffs. To reflect how natural gas prices fluctuate with seasonal supply and demand, a normalized curve was used to estimate the cost for the remaining months relative to today’s rates. Long-term Systemwide Cost (LSC) is the California Energy Commission’s metric for determining cost-effectiveness of efficiency measures in the 2025 Energy Code. This metric is intended to capture the long-term projected cost of energy including costs for providing energy during peak periods of demand, carbon emissions, grid transmission and distribution impacts. Local jurisdictions may adopt ordinances that amend different parts of the California Building Standards Code or may elect to amend other state or municipal codes. The decision regarding which code to amend will determine the specific requirements that must be followed for an ordinance to be legally enforceable. For example, reach codes that amend Part 6 of the California Building Code (the Energy Code) and require energy performance beyond state code minimums must demonstrate the proposed changes are cost-effective and obtain approval from the Energy Commission as well as the Building Standards Commission (BSC). Amendments to Part 11, such as requirements for increased water efficiency or electric vehicle infrastructure only require BSC approval and do not require the Energy Commission approval. Although a cost-effectiveness study is only required to amend Part 6 of the California Building Code, this study provides valuable context for jurisdictions pursuing other ordinance paths to understand the economic impacts of the policy decision. This study documents the estimated costs, benefits, energy impacts and greenhouse gas emission reductions that may result from implementing an ordinance based on the results to help residents, local leadership, and other stakeholders make informed policy decisions. 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 23  Packet Pg. 437 of 690  The following summarizes key results: 1. Heat pumps are significantly more efficient than gas furnaces, requiring less than half the energy to meet the heating load. However, despite this reduction in heating energy use, the cost of heating a home using electricity (heat pump) could be higher than the cost to heat that same home with natural gas (furnace), depending on the electricity tariffs relative to the gas tariffs. Therefore, while a heat pump measure could be deemed as cost-effective over its lifecycle, installing a heat pump could result in a decrease or an increase in utility costs in the first years relative to a gas furnace and AC system. 2. The study assumes utility rates escalate over time. Because it is very difficult to predict how the rates will change, the analysis presents two escalation scenarios (modest and high gas escalation) to represent a range of outcomes. 3. The LSC metric most often produces more favorable cost-effectiveness results relative to the results produced using actual utility costs (On-Bill). When the analysis assumes a higher escalation rate for natural gas costs relative to electricity in future years (high gas escalation), the On-Bill results are more favorable in some cases. a. In the oldest (pre-1978) vintage, all three measures (dual fuel heat pump with existing furnace, standard heat pump space heater, and high efficiency heat pump space heater) are cost-effective using the LSC metric in all climate zones. When using the On-Bill metric, the measures remain cost-effective in most climate zones. b. In the newer (1978-1991 and 1992-2010) vintages, the dual fuel heat pump (DFHP Existing Furnace) and the standard efficiency HPSH are cost-effective based on LSC in all cases except for Climate Zone 15 when using both the standard and California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) tariff. 4. Using the CARE tariff results in higher cost savings and cost-effectiveness relative to standard rates, with almost all cases yielding first year utility cost savings. The DFHP Existing Furnace is On-Bill cost-effective based on the high gas escalation scenario in all cases in the pre-1978 vintage, and almost all cases in the 1978-1991 and 1992-2010 vintage. It is also On-Bill cost-effective in most climate zones for the modest gas escalation scenario across all vintages. In Climate Zones 5, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 15, cost-effectiveness declines relative to other areas, and in some cases is not cost-effective from an On-Bill perspective. This is the case for both the CARE tariff and the standard rate. 5. The analysis also modeled the cost impact of using a standard time-of-use electricity tariff versus switching to a newer electrification tariff, designed to reduce costs in homes with heat pumps and/or electric vehicles. Older homes tend to be the least efficient and achieve the most savings from improving equipment efficiency. In most of the state, because older homes tend to use more electricity than a similarly sized, newer vintage home, they realize more costs savings under the electrification tariff. Newer homes tend to use less electricity and therefore do not realize the same cost 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 24  Packet Pg. 438 of 690  savings from switching tariffs; they generally perform better under the standard tariff. This trend is different in milder climate zones in SCE territory (excluding CZ 15), where newer homes realize more cost savings. Both the standard and electrification tariffs in SCE territory include a daily allocation of lower-cost baseline electricity and a second, higher-priced tier when the baseline is exceeded. In many newer homes, a higher percentage of overall electricity use is within the baseline allocation, resulting in greater cost savings. 6. Higher efficiency equipment reduces utility costs in all cases and improves cost- effectiveness in many climate zones in the oldest vintage relative to standard efficiency equipment. However, in more efficient newer homes, where cost- effectiveness is generally lower, the savings are insufficient to offset the roughly $3,000 increase in incremental cost. 7. Given the adopted Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAD) Zero NOx rule, and the proposed California Air Resource Board or South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Zero-NOx rules, and gas furnaces are no longer available or less available to be installed in 2030, a sensitivity analysis was performed for the Zero NOx scenario and found that cost-effectiveness declines in many cases except in Climate Zones 8-10, some results improve enough to become cost-effective. The improved cost-effectiveness in Climate Zones 8-10 is due to the higher baseline cost when a HPSH must be installed at year 10 when the furnace must be replaced. However, the overall magnitude of 30-year On-Bill cost- effectiveness is lower because there are only 10 years of utility cost savings. After year 10 the base case and upgrade measures are both heat pumps. This report documents the key results and conclusions from the Reach Codes Team analysis. A full dataset of all results can be downloaded at https://localenergycodes.com/content/resources. Results alongside policy options can also be explored using the Cost-effectiveness Explorer at https://explorer.localenergycodes.com/. Model ordinance language and other resources are posted on the C&S Reach Codes Program website at LocalEnergyCodes.com. Local jurisdictions that are considering adopting an ordinance may contact the program for further technical support at info@localenergycodes.com. 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 25  Packet Pg. 439 of 690  1 Introduction The California Codes and Standards Reach Codes program, also known as the Local Energy Codes program, provides technical support to local governments considering adopting a local ordinance intended to support meeting local and/or statewide energy efficiency and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. The program facilitates adoption and implementation of the code when requested by local jurisdictions by providing resources such as cost-effectiveness studies, model language, sample findings, and other supporting documentation. Local jurisdictions may adopt ordinances that amend different parts of the California Building Standards Code or may elect to amend other state or municipal codes. The decision regarding which code to amend will determine the specific requirements that must be followed for an ordinance to be legally enforceable. For example, reach codes that amend Part 6 of the California Building Code (the Energy Code) (CEC, 2025) and require energy performance beyond state code minimums must demonstrate the proposed changes are cost-effective and obtain approval from the Energy Commission as well as the Building Standards Commission (BSC). Amendments to Part 11, such as requirements for increased water efficiency or electric vehicle infrastructure only require BSC approval and do not require the Energy Commission approval. Although a cost-effectiveness study is only required to amend Part 6 of the California Building Code, this study provides valuable context for jurisdictions pursuing other ordinance paths to understand the economic impacts of the policy decision. This study documents the estimated costs, benefits, energy impacts and greenhouse gas emission reductions that may result from implementing an ordinance based on the results to help residents, local leadership, and other stakeholders make informed policy decisions. This report is an update to the 2022 Single Family Retrofit Cost-effectiveness Study (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2024) focused on an ordinance structure that encourages air conditioner (AC) to heat pump replacement. The methodology, prototype characteristics, and relevant measure packages are retained from the main study referenced above. The study includes updated utility rates, revised costs based on the TECH Clean California1 incremental cost study data, estimated costs for the AC path, updated and expanded AC path options, and a new cost-effectiveness scenario that considers upcoming proposed zero-NOx emission regulations (SCAQMD, 2025) (California Air Resources Board, 2022) (BAAD, 2025). Local jurisdictions in California may consider adopting local energy ordinances to achieve energy savings beyond what will be accomplished by enforcing building efficiency requirements that apply statewide. Local jurisdictions may also adopt ordinances that amend different parts of the California Building Standards Code or may elect to amend other state or municipal codes. The 1 https://techcleanca.com/ 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 26  Packet Pg. 440 of 690  decision regarding which code to amend will determine the specific requirements that must be followed for an ordinance to be legally enforceable. Although a cost-effectiveness study is only required to amend Part 6 of the CA Building Code, it is important to understand the economic impacts of any policy decision. This study documents the estimated costs, benefits, energy impacts and greenhouse gas emission reductions that may result from implementing an ordinance based on the results to help local leadership, residents, and other stakeholders make informed policy decisions. This report was developed in coordination with the California Statewide Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) Codes and Standards Program, the California Energy Commission (CEC), key consultants, and engaged cities—collectively known as the Statewide Reach Codes Team. Model ordinance language and other resources are posted on the C&S Reach Codes Program website at LocalEnergyCodes.com. Local jurisdictions that are considering adopting an ordinance may contact the program for further technical support at info@localenergycodes.com. 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 27  Packet Pg. 441 of 690  2 Methodology and Assumptions This study evaluates a potential reach code that encourages a heat pump or dual fuel system that includes a heat pump combined with a furnace when an air conditioner is replaced or installed new in existing single family homes. The ordinance structure and this analysis is based on the voluntary requirements adopted in 2025 Title 24, Part 11 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), Section A4.204.1.1 for heat pump space conditioning alterations in single family homes (California Energy Commission, 2025). The proposed reach code also defines pathways for air conditioning equipment to be installed combined with additional efficiency measures. The heat pump path requires the heat pump as the primary heat source, with backup heating allowable either provided by electric resistance or natural gas. In cases where the existing furnace remains, the heat pump is installed alongside the existing furnace with integrated controls to allow for the furnace to provide backup heating. In alignment with the 2025 Energy Code requirements the heat pump must be sized to satisfy the heating load at the design heating temperature without the use of backup heat. All methodology and assumptions are consistent with prior statewide analysis (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2024) with the following exceptions: 1. Updated utility rates to January 2025 2. Equipment costs based on TECH data where available; the original report was based on Statewide contractor survey costs 3. Cost estimates were obtained for the AC path 4. Expanded AC path options 5. Cost-effectiveness results for the scenario if gas furnaces are no longer available for sale in California in 2030 2.1 Modeling The Reach Codes Team performed energy simulations using the 2025 research version of the Residential California Building Energy Code Compliance software (CBECC). The 2025 version of CBECC includes updated weather files, metrics, and the weather stations were changed in Climate Zones 4 and 6 from San Jose to Paso Robles and Torrance to Los Angeles International Airport, respectively. Note that at the time of this report, the Energy Commission was working on integrating a new heat pump model into the CBECC-Res software to better reflect the actual energy use of heat pumps. The updated model results in lower heating energy use than is currently estimated. Once the revised software is released, the reach codes team plans to update this analysis. Three unique building vintages are included: pre-1978, 1978-1991, and 1992-2010. The vintages were defined based on review of historic building code requirements and defining periods with distinguishing features. The proposed measures were modeled to determine the projected site energy (therm and kWh), source energy, GHG emissions, and long-term systemwide cost (LSC) impacts. Annual utility costs were calculated using hourly data 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 28  Packet Pg. 442 of 690  output from CBECC, and updated (as of 1/1/2025) electricity and natural gas tariffs for each of the investor-owned utilities (IOUs) as appropriate for that climate zone. Site energy results are similar between CBECC-Res 2022 and 2025. The 2025 compliance metrics include assumptions that more appliances will be electric in the future. This is predicted to result in higher natural gas retail rates as a result of gas utilities continuing to maintain safe and reliable infrastructure amidst declining natural gas use. Equivalent CO2 emission reductions 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. Natural gas emissions do not vary hourly. To compare the mixed-fuel and all-electric cases side-by-side, GHG emissions are presented as pounds of CO2-equivalent (CO2e) emissions. The Statewide Reach Codes Team designed the approach and selected measures for evaluation based on the 2019 existing building single family reach code analysis (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2021) and supporting analysis used in the 2025 Energy Code development cycle as well as from outreach to architects, builders, and engineers. 2.2 Prototype Characteristics The Energy Commission defines building prototypes which it uses to evaluate the cost- effectiveness of proposed changes to Energy Code requirements. Average home size has steadily increased over time, and the Energy Commission single family new construction prototypes are larger than many existing single family homes across California. For this analysis, a 1,665 square foot prototype was evaluated. Table 2 describes the basic characteristics of the single family prototype. Additions are not evaluated in this analysis as they are already addressed in Section 150.2 of the Energy Code. In the 2025 Energy Code heat pumps are prescriptively required for space and water heating for additions (California Energy Commission, 2023). Table 2. Residential Prototype Characteristics Climate Zone Specification Existing Conditioned Floor Area 1,665 ft2 Three building vintages were evaluated to determine sensitivity of existing building performance on cost-effectiveness of upgrades. For example, it is widely recognized that adding attic insulation in an older home with no insulation is cost-effective, however, newer homes will likely have existing attic insulation reducing the cost-effectiveness of an incremental addition of insulation. The building characteristics for each vintage were 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 29  Packet Pg. 443 of 690  determined based on either prescriptive requirements from the building code that were in effect or standard construction practice during that time period. For example, homes built under 2001 Title 24 are subject to prescriptive envelope code requirements very similar to homes built under the 2005 code cycle, which was in effect until January 1, 2010. Table 3 summarizes the assumptions for each of the three vintages. Additionally, the analysis assumed the following features when modeling the prototype buildings. • Efficiencies were defined by year of the most recent equipment replacement based on standard equipment lifetimes. • Individual space conditioning and water heating systems, one per single family building. • Split-system air conditioner with natural gas furnace. • Gas cooktop, oven, and clothes dryer. The methodology applied in the analyses begins with a design that matches the specifications as described in Table 3 for each of the three vintages. Heat pump space conditioning measures were modeled to determine the projected energy performance and utility cost impacts relative to the baseline vintage. 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 30  Packet Pg. 444 of 690  Table 3. Efficiency Characteristics for Three Vintage Cases Pre-1978 Vintage 1978-1991 Vintage 1992-2010 Vintage Envelope Exterior Walls R-0 2 R-11 R-13 Foundation Type & Insulation Raised floor, R-0 (CZ 1 & 16) Raised floor, R-0 (CZ 1 & 16) Raised floor, R-19 (CZ 1 & 16) Ceiling Insulation & Attic Type 6 & 7, Vented attic, R-11 @ ceiling level (all other CZs) Vented attic, R-19 @ ceiling level Vented attic, R-30 @ ceiling level Roofing Material & Color (0.10 reflectance, 0.85 emittance) (0.10 reflectance, 0.85 emittance) (0.10 reflectance, 0.85 emittance) 3 HVAC Equipment Heating Efficiency 78 AFUE (assumes 2 replacements) 78 AFUE (assumes 1 replacement) 78 AFUE Cooling Efficiency 10 SEER (assumes 2 replacements) 10 SEER (assumes 1 replacement) 13 SEER, 11 EER Duct Location & Details Attic, R-2.1, 30% leakage at 25 Pa Attic, R-2.1, 25% leakage at 25 Pa Attic, R-4.2, 15% leakage at 25 Pa Whole Building Mechanical Ventilation None None None Water Heating Equipment Water Heater Efficiency replacements) replacement) 0.575 Energy Factor 2 Pre-1978 wall modeled with R-5 cavity insulation to better align wall system performance with monitored field data and not overestimate energy use. 3 Window type selections were made based on conversations with window industry expert, Ken Nittler. If a technology was entering the market during the time period (e.g., Low-E during 1992-2010 or dual-pane during 1978-1991) that technology was included in the analysis. This provides a conservative assumption for overall building performance and additional measures may be cost-effective for buildings with lower performing windows, for example buildings with metal single pane windows in the 1978-1991 vintage 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost-Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 31  Packet Pg. 445 of 690  2.3 Cost-Effectiveness Approach 2.3.1 Benefits This analysis used two different metrics to assess the cost-effectiveness of the proposed upgrades. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the incremental costs and energy savings associated with each energy efficiency measure. The main difference between the methodologies is the way they value energy impacts: • On-Bill: Customer-based lifecycle cost approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer On-Bill savings using electricity and natural gas utility rate schedules over a 30-year duration, accounting for a three percent discount rate and energy cost inflation per Appendix 6.3.7. • Long-term Systemwide Cost (LSC): Formerly known as Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) energy cost savings, LSC reflects the Energy Commission’s current lifecycle cost (LCC) methodology, which is intended to capture the total value or cost of energy use over 30 years. This method accounts for the hourly cost of marginal generation, transmission and distribution, fuel, capacity, losses, and cap-and-trade- based CO2 emissions (California Energy Commission, 2023). This is the methodology used by the Energy Commission in evaluating cost-effectiveness for measures in the 2025 Energy Code. Energy simulations were completed using the 2025 research version of the Residential California Building Energy Code Compliance software (CBECC). 2.3.2 Costs The Reach Codes Team assessed the incremental costs and savings of the packages over the lifecycle of 30-years. Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacement, and maintenance costs of the proposed measure relative to the 2025 Energy Code minimum requirements or standard industry practices. In February 2024, the TECH Clean California statewide program completed an incremental cost study from cost data collected from 64 contractor participants (Opinion Dynamics, 2024). This report directly uses the TECH costs for all the scenarios for which there was TECH cost data available. These costs were supplemented with measure costs the Reach Codes Team obtained from a contractor survey conducted in the summer of 2023. Additional detail on the contractor cost survey is available in the prior existing building statewide study (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2024). The following summarizes key assumptions in this costing approach. • Average statewide costs from the TECH Study were used, no regional specific costs were applied. • Costs for 3-ton and 4-ton units were scaled for smaller and larger systems based on linear interpolation between the 3-ton and 4-ton costs. 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 32  Packet Pg. 446 of 690  • The TECH study provided cost for a minimum efficiency 60,000 Btu/h gas furnace. However, beginning in 2028, newly installed residential gas furnaces must comply with updated federal efficiency standards requiring a minimum of 95% AFUE 4. Because the TECH study did not include cost estimates for a 95% AFUE condensing furnace, an adjustment was made using data from the statewide contractor cost survey. For systems requiring larger furnace capacities, cost estimates were derived as follows: o 80,000 Btu/h furnaces (serving systems sized 3 tons): The cost difference between the minimum efficiency and 95% AFUE versions of the 80,000 Btu/h furnace and the cost difference between the minimum efficiency 80,000 Btu/h furnace and the minimum efficiency 60,000 Btu/h furnace, as reported in the contractor survey, was added to the TECH cost for the 60,000 Btu/h unit. o 100,000 Btu/h furnaces (serving systems 4 tons and larger): The same method was applied using the corresponding cost differential for 100,000 Btu/h units. • At time of replacement for the heat pump, based on heating loads and contractor feedback it is assumed an electric resistance backup coil would be installed with the air handler for Climate Zones 1 and 16. The CBECC-Res software applies back up electric resistance heating for all climate zones whenever it is assumed that the heat pump cannot meet the heating load based on the performance of currently available products (Heinemeier, 2025).The TECH costs did not include this option. The $819 incremental cost from the statewide study was added in this case. • At the time of replacement for a furnace when it fails, the statewide study assumed a fan motor replacement. The TECH costs did not include this option. A $1,200 incremental cost was added to the TECH cost. • At time of replacement for high efficiency heat pump, the sum of the TECH cost for standard efficiency heat pump and the incremental cost difference from the statewide study for high efficiency and standard efficiency heat pump was applied. Costs were applied based on the system capacity from heating and cooling load calculations in CBECC-Res as presented in Table 4. Air conditioner nominal capacity was calculated as the CBECC-Res cooling load, rounded up to the nearest half ton. Heat pump nominal capacity was calculated as the maximum of either the CBECC-Res heating or cooling load, rounded up to the nearest half ton. In both cases a minimum capacity of 1.5- ton was applied as this represents the typical smallest available split system heat pump equipment. Load calculations revealed that Climate Zones 2 through 15 were cooling- dominated, whereas Climate Zones 1 and 16 were heating-dominated. In these heating- 4 https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-finalizes-energy-efficiency-standards-residential-furnaces-save- americans-15- billion#:~:text=These%20furnace%20efficiency%20standards%20were,heat%20for%20the%20living %20space. 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 33  Packet Pg. 447 of 690  dominated zones, the heat pump was upsized compared to an air conditioner designed solely for cooling to ensure adequate heating performance. Table 4. System Sizing by Climate Zone Climate Air Conditioner Heat Pump 1 1.5 3.0 2 3.5 3.5 3 2.5 2.5 4 3.5 3.5 5 3.0 3.0 6 3.0 3.0 7 3.0 3.0 8 4.0 4.0 9 4.0 4.0 10 4.0 4.0 11 4.5 4.5 12 4.0 4.0 13 4.5 4.5 14 4.0 4.0 15 5.0 5.0 16 3.5 4.0 2.3.3 Metrics Cost-effectiveness is presented using net present value (NPV). • NPV: The Reach Codes Team uses net savings (NPV benefits minus NPV costs) as the cost-effectiveness metric. If the net savings of a measure or package is positive, it is considered cost effective. Negative net savings represent net costs to the consumer. A measure that has negative energy cost benefits (energy cost increase) can still be cost effective if the costs to implement the measure are even more negative (i.e., construction and maintenance cost savings). Improving the energy performance of a building often requires an initial investment. In most cases the benefit is represented by annual On-Bill utility or LSC savings, and the cost by incremental first cost and replacement costs. However, some packages result in initial construction cost savings (negative incremental cost), and either energy cost savings (positive benefits), or increased energy costs (negative benefits). In cases where both construction costs and energy-related savings are negative, the construction cost savings are treated as the benefit while the increased energy costs are the cost. In cases where a measure or package is cost-effective immediately (i.e., upfront construction cost savings and lifetime energy cost savings). 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 34  Packet Pg. 448 of 690  2.3.4 Utility Rates In coordination with the CA IOU rates team (comprised of representatives from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E)) and two Publicly-Owned-Utilities (POUs) (Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) and City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU)), the Reach Codes Team determined appropriate utility rates for each climate zone to calculate utility costs and determine On-Bill cost-effectiveness for the proposed measures and packages. The utility tariffs, summarized in Table 5 and Table 6 with details in Section 6.2.26.2.2, were determined based on the appropriate rate for each. Utility rates were applied to each climate zone based on the predominant IOU serving the population of each zone, with a few climate zones evaluated multiple times under different utility scenarios. Climate Zones 10 and 14 were evaluated with both SCE for electricity and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) for gas and SDG&E tariffs for both electricity and gas since each utility has customers within these climate zones. Climate Zone 5 is evaluated under both PG&E and SoCalGas natural gas rates. Two POU or municipal utility rates were also evaluated: SMUD in Climate Zone 12 and CPAU in Climate Zone 4. First-year utility costs were calculated using hourly electricity and natural gas output from CBECC-Res and applying the utility tariffs summarized in Table 5 and Table 6. Homes with a heat pump in IOU territory are eligible for either the electrification or the standard tariff. Utility costs were calculated under both tariffs with results presented using the one that yielded the lower annual utility cost. The electrification tariff resulted in better utility costs savings when there was high kWh usage, typically in older, less efficient homes. Conversely, newer homes which are more efficient, tend to benefit more under the standard tariff. However, in SCE’s milder climate zones, older homes benefit more under the standard tariff. Annual costs were also estimated for IOU customers eligible for the CARE tariff discounts on both electricity and natural gas bills. Table 5. Investor-Owned Utility Tariffs Used Based on Climate Zone Climate Zones Electric / Gas Utility Electricity Tariff: Standard Rate Electricity Tariff: Electrification Rate Natural Gas Tariff 1-5,11-13,16 PG&E / PG&E E-TOU-C E-ELEC G1 5 PG&E / SoCalGas E-TOU-C E-ELEC GR 6, 8-10, 14, 15 SCE / SoCalGas TOU-D-4-9 TOU-D-PRIME GR 7, 10, 14 SDG&E / SDG&E TOU-DR-1 EV-TOU-5 GR 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 35  Packet Pg. 449 of 690  Table 6. Publicly Owned Utility Tariffs Used Based on Climate Zone Climate Zones Electric / Gas Utility Electricity Tariff: Standard Rate Tariff: Electrification Natural Gas Tariff 4 CPAU / CPAU E-1 G1 12 SMUD / PG&E R-TOD G1 Utility rates are assumed to escalate over time. Because it is very difficult to predict how rates will change, two escalation scenarios are presented in this study to represent a range of outcomes. See Appendix 6.3.7 Fuel Escalation Assumptions for details. 1) Modest Gas Escalation: This scenario is based on assumptions from the CPUC 2021 En Banc hearings on utility costs through 2030 (California Public Utilities Commission, 2021a). Escalation rates throughout the remainder of the 30-year evaluation period are based on the escalation rate assumptions within the 2022 Energy Code TDV factors developed by the Energy Commission (California Energy Commission. 2021b). 2) High Gas Escalation: This scenario is based on escalation rates developed by the Energy Commission and used within the 2025 Energy Code LSC factors (LSC replaces TDV in the 2025 Energy Code) which assumed steep increases in gas rates in the latter half of the analysis period. Electricity tariff structures will evolve over time. Most recently, the CPUC approved an income-graduated fixed charge intended to benefit low-income customers and support electrification measures.5 The IOUs are currently developing tariffs that meet the direction given by the CPUC in this proceeding. These tariffs were not available at the time of this study, but this analysis may be re-evaluated later in 2025 once the rates are finalized. 5 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/electric-costs/demand-response- dr/demand-flexibility-rulemaking 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 36  Packet Pg. 450 of 690  2.4 Measure Details and Cost This section describes the details of the measures and documents incremental costs. All measure costs were obtained from the TECH cost survey and contractor survey unless otherwise noted. These surveys reflect the cost to the customer and include equipment, labor, permit fees, and required HERS testing. The following heat pump space heater (HPSH) measures were evaluated as described below. All included HERS verified refrigerant charge, 10% duct sealing, and 300 CFM/ton airflow, aligned with the proposed code requirements for the 2025 Title 24 code. 1) Dual Fuel Heat Pump (DFHP Existing Furnace): Replace existing ducted AC with an electric heat pump and install controls to operate the heat pump as the primary space conditioning source and to use the existing gas furnace (78 AFUE) for backup heat when heating demands cannot be met by the heat pump. In this report, dual fuel heat pumps were modeled to disable furnace operation above an outdoor temperature of 35°F in compliance with Energy Code Section 150.0(h)7, which requires this lockout for any heat pump with supplemental heating. A minimum federal efficiency (14.3 SEER2, 11.7 EER2, 7.5 HSPF2) heat pump was evaluated. Savings are compared to a new AC (14.3 SEER2, 11.7 EER2) alongside the existing furnace (78 AFUE). A new evaporator coil is assumed to be installed with the AC system. 2) HPSH: Replace existing ducted AC and natural gas furnace with an electric heat pump and air handler. Minimum federal efficiency (14.3 SEER2, 11.7 EER2, 7.5 HSPF2) heat pumps were evaluated. Savings are compared to a new ducted natural gas furnace and AC (14.3 SEER2, 11.7 EER2, 80 AFUE). 3) High Efficiency HPSH: Replace existing ducted AC and natural gas furnace with an electric heat pump and air handler. Higher efficiency (17 SEER2, 12.48 EER2, 9.5 HSPF2) heat pumps were evaluated. Savings are compared to a new ducted natural gas furnace and AC (14.3 SEER2, 11.7 EER2, 80 AFUE). Over the 30-year analysis period, certain changes are assumed when the equipment is replaced that impact both lifetime costs and energy use. Table 7 and Table 8 present the lifetime scenario for the DFHP Existing Furnace and HPSH measures, respectively. The analysis assumed a 20-year effective useful lifetime (EUL) for a furnace, a 15-year EUL for an air conditioner and a 15-year EUL for a heat pump. Lifetimes are based on the Database for Energy Efficient Resources (DEER) (California Public Utilities Commission, 2021b). The existing furnace is assumed to be halfway through its EUL at the beginning of the analysis period. After 10 years when the furnace reaches the end of its life and needs to be replaced, it will be subject to new federal efficiency standards for residential gas furnaces that go into effect in 2028 requiring 95 AFUE 6. Five years later the air conditioner reaches the end of its life and is replaced with a new air conditioner. 6 https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-finalizes-energy-efficiency-standards-residential-furnaces-save- americans-15- billion#:~:text=These%20furnace%20efficiency%20standards%20were,heat%20for%20the%20livin g%20space. 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 37  Packet Pg. 451 of 690  For the DFHP upgrade case, after 10 years when the furnace fails it’s expected that the furnace is abandoned in place since the heat pump serves primary heating and was sized to provide the full design heating load. In this case it is assumed that the fan motor is replaced with a new aftermarket unit and operates another five years until the heat pump fails and is replaced with a new heat pump and air handler. Table 7 through Table 8 present the lifecycle incremental cost breakdown for a 4-ton system. The heat pump is sized for each climate zone based on the heating and cooling load as shown in Table 4, and the 4-ton system was selected as an example to show the lifecycle cost breakdown. Table 7. Lifecycle Incremental Cost Breakdown for a 4-Ton DFHP Existing Furnace Calendar Year Baseline AC Replacement Schedule Baseline Future Cost Baseline Present Value Cost Heat Pump Heat Pump Future Cost Heat Pump Present Value Cost 2026 AC fails, install new AC, keep existing HP, keep existing new 95AFUE replace fan motor Incremental Cost -$123 Table 8. Lifecycle Incremental Cost Breakdown for 4-Ton HPSH Calendar Year Baseline AC Replacement Schedule Baseline Future Cost Baseline Present Value Cost Heat Pump Heat Pump Future Cost Heat Pump Present Value Cost 2026 AC fails, install new AC & furnace install new HP & AHU new AC install new HP & AHU install new 95AFUE --- useful life for ---- Incremental Cost $110 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 38  Packet Pg. 452 of 690  Table 9 presents estimated first and lifetime costs for the baseline and heat pump scenarios for 4-ton equipment. Costs include all material and installation labor including providing new 240 V electrical service to the air handler location for all new air handler installations and decommissioning of the furnace for the cases where the furnace is removed. DFHP costs incorporate controls installation and commissioning to ensure the heat pump and the furnace communicate properly and don’t operate at the same time. Future replacement costs do not include any initial costs associated with 240V electrical service or furnace decommissioning. Table 9. HVAC Measure Cost Assumptions – 4-Ton Electric Replacements Measure Case Evaporator Furnace DFHP Existing Furnace HPSH Efficiency Base Case --AC + Evaporator Coil Gas Furnace Gas Furnace First Cost $10,431 $13,808 $12,347 $14,529 $17,506 Replacement Cost (Future Value) $17,907 $17,907 $15,729 $13,529 $16,506 $12,258 $11,639 $10,219 $8,684 $10,594 $0 -$1,540 $0 $0 $0 Incremental Cost ---$123 $110 $4,997 2.4.1 Lifecycle Cost Assuming Zero-NOx Standards for Space Heating After 2030 The California Air Resource Board proposed a strategy for reducing emissions in their 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality that includes a zero-emission standard for space and water heaters sold in California that would go into effect in 2030 (California Air Resources Board, 2022). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) proposed Rule 1111 for the Reduction of NOx Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Furnaces. This rule applies to furnaces less than 175,000 Btu/hr and sets compliance goals for manufacturers with the proposed dates in Table 10. The sale of gas furnaces above the compliance target will incur a mitigation fee (SCAQMD, 2025). Table 10. SCAQMD Rule 1111 Proposed Manufacturer Compliance Targets NOx Emitting Units (e.g. gas) 70% 50% 25% 10% Zero-Emission Units 30% 50% 75% 90% 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 39  Packet Pg. 453 of 690  The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAD) adopted Rule 9-4 that similarly requires zero NOx standards for space heating systems sold in the Bay Area. Implementation for residential furnaces will begin January 2029 (BAAD, 2025). The BAAD Rule 9-4 has been adopted, but both the California Air Resources Board and SCAQMD Rule 1111 are proposed rules that have not yet been adopted, but given the implications these rulings would have on the 30-year cost-effectiveness if gas furnaces were very limited or no longer available in 2030, a sensitivity analysis for this scenario is included in this study for the DFHP Existing Furnace scenario. The other heat pump measures would also be impacted by this ruling; however, for simplicity the team selected one measure to give a sense of the impact on the results. The following costs reflect the scenario where gas furnaces are not available in 2030. This 30-year lifecycle analysis assumes that in 10 years when the furnace reaches the end of its useful life and needs to be replaced, it will be subjected to the SCAQMD Rule 1111 or California Air Resources Board proposal and will be replaced with a heat pump. Table 11. Lifecycle Incremental Cost Breakdown for 4-Ton System with no Gas Furnaces after 2030 Calendar Year Baseline AC Replacement Schedule Baseline Future Cost Baseline Present Value Cost Heat Pump Heat Pump Future Cost Heat Pump Present Value 2026 AC, keep existing $10,431 $10,431 HP, keep existing $12,347 $12,347 2036 $14,529 $10,811 $1,200 $893 2041 ---$14,529 $9,326 2051 HP fails, install new $13,529 $6,462 --- 2056 --$4,459 --- Incremental Cost 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 40  Packet Pg. 454 of 690  22 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement 3 Results The primary objective of the evaluation is to identify cost-effective HPSH upgrade measures for existing single family buildings, to support the design of local ordinances encouraging installation of a heat pump when replacing an air conditioner. While this section focuses primarily on the results of the cost-effectiveness analysis, it is important to highlight that the associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions savings are significant – averaging a 25% annual reduction across the climate zones and vintages. A full dataset of all results, including site energy, source energy, LSC and GHG emissions, can be downloaded at https://localenergycodes.com/content/resources. Results alongside policy options can also be explored using the Cost-effectiveness Explorer at https://explorer.localenergycodes.com/. 3.1 Cost-Effectiveness Results Table 12 through Table 14 present results across the 16 climate zones for the 1992-2010 vintage using standard tariffs and Table 15 through Table 17 present results across the 16 climate zones and three vintages using CARE tariffs. Results show the incremental cost and utility bill savings for the first year along with cost effectiveness results for LSC and On-Bill under both the modest and high gas escalation scenarios. Results for additional vintages using standard tariffs are in Appendix 6.2 Cost-Effectiveness Results. 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 41  Packet Pg. 455 of 690  23 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement 3.1.1 Cost Effectiveness Results Using Standard Tariffs Table 12. [1992-2010] DFHP Existing Furnace Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost First-year Utility Savings Lifecycle NPV Savings 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $2,405 $60 $10,843 $5,471 $21,616 CZ02 PGE $1,670 ($86) $8,387 $2,238 $12,692 CZ03 PGE $1,178 $15 $8,383 $4,891 $13,958 CZ04 PGE $1,670 ($68) $7,322 $1,880 $10,049 CZ04 CPAU $1,670 ($9) $7,322 $2,132 $7,104 CZ05 PGE $1,424 ($12) $6,848 $3,425 $11,150 CZ05 PGE/SCG $1,424 ($195) $6,848 ($1,864) $2,099 CZ06 SCE/SCG $1,424 ($34) $2,647 $675 $1,468 CZ07 SDGE $1,424 ($36) $2,691 $599 $1,734 CZ08 SCE/SCG $1,916 ($65) $1,879 ($811) $162 CZ09 SCE/SCG $1,916 ($90) $2,600 ($1,186) $288 CZ10 SCE/SCG $1,916 ($79) $2,295 ($982) $394 CZ10 SDGE $1,916 $54 $2,295 $2,201 $4,708 CZ11 PGE $2,162 $68 $7,597 $4,639 $14,675 CZ12 PGE $1,916 $44 $8,317 $4,702 $15,222 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $1,916 $353 $8,317 $11,622 $22,364 CZ13 PGE $2,162 $76 $5,244 $3,897 $11,138 CZ14 SCE/SCG $1,916 ($179) $4,654 ($2,364) $1,340 CZ14 SDGE $1,916 ($22) $4,654 $1,282 $7,058 CZ15 SCE/SCG $2,408 ($133) ($271) ($3,438) ($3,209) CZ16 PGE $2,243 ($66) $8,842 $1,260 $11,982 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 42  Packet Pg. 456 of 690  24 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement Table 13. [1992-2010] Standard Efficiency HPSH Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost First-year Utility Savings Lifecycle NPV Savings 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $3,067 ($145) $10,949 ($34) $17,899 CZ02 PGE $652 ($229) $9,362 ($702) $11,825 CZ03 PGE $514 ($62) $8,244 $2,373 $11,665 CZ04 PGE $652 ($205) $8,680 ($572) $10,753 CZ04 CPAU $652 ($85) $8,680 $556 $7,194 CZ05 PGE $583 ($113) $6,957 $752 $9,206 CZ05 PGE/SCG $583 ($316) $6,957 ($5,101) ($811) CZ06 SCE/SCG $583 ($37) $2,134 ($63) $716 CZ07 SDGE $583 ($39) $2,156 ($149) $981 CZ08 SCE/SCG $721 ($79) $1,812 ($1,356) ($371) CZ09 SCE/SCG $721 ($118) $2,589 ($2,038) ($524) CZ10 SCE/SCG $721 ($103) $2,311 ($1,723) ($259) CZ10 SDGE $721 $34 $2,311 $1,533 $4,218 CZ11 PGE $790 ($35) $8,817 $2,833 $14,504 CZ12 PGE $721 ($94) $9,199 $1,812 $13,563 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $721 $363 $9,199 $12,027 $24,107 CZ13 PGE $790 $6 $5,948 $2,558 $10,687 CZ14 SCE/SCG $721 ($412) $6,635 ($6,964) ($1,073) CZ14 SDGE $721 ($107) $6,635 $166 $10,249 CZ15 SCE/SCG $859 ($139) ($112) ($3,434) ($3,186) CZ16 PGE $2,095 ($385) $13,600 ($2,842) $19,424 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 43  Packet Pg. 457 of 690  Table 14. [1992-2010] High Efficiency HPSH Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost First-year Utility Savings Lifecycle NPV Savings 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $5,998 $56 $9,783 ($350) $17,727 CZ02 PGE $3,606 ($94) $7,527 ($2,544) $10,080 CZ03 PGE $3,422 $59 $5,701 $312 $9,692 CZ04 PGE $3,606 ($61) $6,961 ($2,193) $9,235 CZ04 CPAU $3,606 $0 $6,961 ($2,389) $4,310 CZ05 PGE $3,514 $4 $4,176 ($1,450) $7,088 CZ05 PGE/SCG $3,514 ($199) $4,176 ($7,303) ($2,929) CZ06 SCE/SCG $3,514 ($14) ($2,162) ($4,367) ($3,567) CZ07 SDGE $3,514 ($12) ($2,090) ($4,312) ($3,191) CZ08 SCE/SCG $3,698 $13 ($1,660) ($4,217) ($3,149) CZ09 SCE/SCG $3,698 ($26) ($750) ($4,883) ($3,284) CZ10 SCE/SCG $3,698 ($4) ($844) ($4,418) ($2,864) CZ10 SDGE $3,698 $132 ($844) ($1,068) $1,587 CZ11 PGE $3,789 $186 $7,738 $2,845 $14,675 CZ12 PGE $3,698 $88 $7,575 $996 $12,879 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $3,698 $422 $7,575 $8,459 $20,580 CZ13 PGE $3,789 $208 $4,419 $2,165 $10,439 CZ14 SCE/SCG $3,698 ($219) $5,760 ($7,575) ($1,506) CZ14 SDGE $3,698 $77 $5,760 ($424) $9,604 CZ15 SCE/SCG $3,881 $50 ($2,144) ($4,209) ($3,786) CZ16 PGE $5,071 ($97) $14,557 ($1,291) $21,181 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 44  Packet Pg. 458 of 690  26 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement 3.1.2 Cost Effectiveness Results Using CARE Tariffs Table 15. [1992-2010] DFHP Existing Furnace CARE Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost First-year Utility Savings Lifecycle NPV Savings 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $2,405 $153 $10,843 $6,436 $19,266 CZ02 PGE $1,670 $18 $8,387 $3,842 $12,159 CZ03 PGE $1,178 $73 $8,383 $5,574 $12,777 CZ04 PGE $1,670 $14 $7,322 $3,143 $9,641 CZ04 CPAU $1,670 $0 $7,322 $711 $711 CZ05 PGE $1,424 $47 $6,848 $4,198 $10,337 CZ05 PGE/SCG $1,424 ($98) $6,848 $23 $3,191 CZ06 SCE/SCG $1,424 ($18) $2,647 $967 $1,600 CZ07 SDGE $1,424 ($16) $2,691 $1,000 $1,887 CZ08 SCE/SCG $1,916 ($38) $1,879 ($285) $495 CZ09 SCE/SCG $1,916 ($52) $2,600 ($450) $731 CZ10 SCE/SCG $1,916 ($45) $2,295 ($331) $771 CZ10 SDGE $1,916 $51 $2,295 $1,998 $3,963 CZ11 PGE $2,162 $115 $7,597 $4,993 $12,965 CZ12 PGE $1,916 $103 $8,317 $5,287 $13,643 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $1,916 $418 $8,317 $12,339 $20,922 CZ13 PGE $2,162 $100 $5,244 $3,939 $9,686 CZ14 SCE/SCG $1,916 ($98) $4,654 ($849) $2,119 CZ14 SDGE $1,916 $23 $4,654 $2,007 $6,528 CZ15 SCE/SCG $2,408 ($88) ($271) ($2,456) ($2,260) CZ16 PGE $2,243 $33 $8,842 $2,737 $11,267 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 45  Packet Pg. 459 of 690  27 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement Table 16. [1992-2010] Standard Efficiency HPSH CARE Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost First-year Utility Savings Lifecycle NPV Savings 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $3,067 $33 $10,949 $2,703 $16,973 CZ02 PGE $652 ($59) $9,362 $2,211 $12,188 CZ03 PGE $514 $25 $8,244 $3,685 $11,074 CZ04 PGE $652 ($53) $8,680 $2,048 $11,067 CZ04 CPAU $652 $0 $8,680 $255 $255 CZ05 PGE $583 ($13) $6,957 $2,389 $9,117 CZ05 PGE/SCG $583 ($173) $6,957 ($2,232) $1,208 CZ06 SCE/SCG $583 ($20) $2,134 $249 $872 CZ07 SDGE $583 ($18) $2,156 $279 $1,161 CZ08 SCE/SCG $721 ($47) $1,812 ($728) $62 CZ09 SCE/SCG $721 ($70) $2,589 ($1,094) $122 CZ10 SCE/SCG $721 ($61) $2,311 ($892) $281 CZ10 SDGE $721 $39 $2,311 $1,509 $3,612 CZ11 PGE $790 $60 $8,817 $4,141 $13,421 CZ12 PGE $721 $22 $9,199 $3,592 $12,940 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $721 $471 $9,199 $13,622 $23,292 CZ13 PGE $790 $61 $5,948 $3,234 $9,693 CZ14 SCE/SCG $721 ($241) $6,635 ($3,632) $1,098 CZ14 SDGE $721 ($5) $6,635 $1,996 $9,885 CZ15 SCE/SCG $859 ($91) ($112) ($2,414) ($2,201) CZ16 PGE $2,095 ($92) $13,600 $2,163 $19,892 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 46  Packet Pg. 460 of 690  Table 17. [1992-2010] High Efficiency HPSH CARE Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost First-year Utility Savings Lifecycle NPV Savings 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $5,998 $164 $9,783 $813 $15,177 CZ02 PGE $3,606 $28 $7,527 ($683) $9,357 CZ03 PGE $3,422 $104 $5,701 $674 $8,120 CZ04 PGE $3,606 $41 $6,961 ($703) $8,383 CZ04 CPAU $3,606 $0 $6,961 ($4,595) ($4,595) CZ05 PGE $3,514 $62 $4,176 ($727) $6,056 CZ05 PGE/SCG $3,514 ($98) $4,176 ($5,348) ($1,853) CZ06 SCE/SCG $3,514 ($5) ($2,162) ($4,219) ($3,583) CZ07 SDGE $3,514 ($0) ($2,090) ($4,112) ($3,235) CZ08 SCE/SCG $3,698 $15 ($1,660) ($4,248) ($3,401) CZ09 SCE/SCG $3,698 ($8) ($750) ($4,603) ($3,330) CZ10 SCE/SCG $3,698 $6 ($844) ($4,300) ($3,065) CZ10 SDGE $3,698 $103 ($844) ($1,892) $191 CZ11 PGE $3,789 $203 $7,738 $2,425 $11,808 CZ12 PGE $3,698 $141 $7,575 $1,351 $10,784 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $3,698 $471 $7,575 $8,735 $18,405 CZ13 PGE $3,789 $192 $4,419 $1,255 $7,809 CZ14 SCE/SCG $3,698 ($111) $5,760 ($5,632) ($783) CZ14 SDGE $3,698 $115 $5,760 ($98) $7,755 CZ15 SCE/SCG $3,881 $36 ($2,144) ($4,549) ($4,220) CZ16 PGE $5,071 $95 $14,557 $1,460 $19,324 3.2 Zero-NOx Scenario Results This section presents cost-effectiveness results for the DFHP Existing Furnace under the scenario where proposed air quality district zero-NOx rules go into effect over the next 10 years. In the base case, at time of replacement of the gas furnace at year 10 a heat pump is installed. The energy profile between the base case and the heat pump upgrade case are subsequently identical for the remaining 20 years of the 30-year analysis period. As a result, energy and cost savings only persist for the first 10 years. Table 18 shows the On-Bill NPV cost-effectiveness results and Table 19 the LSC cost- effectiveness results for all three vintages. 2025 LSC savings were calculated using individual year multipliers for the first 10 years, 2026 through 2035. 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 47  Packet Pg. 461 of 690  Table 18. DFHP Existing Furnace On-Bill NPV (Zero-NOx Rule) Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility Pre-1978 1978-1991 1992-2010 CZ01 PGE $5,473 $4,136 $2,349 CZ02 PGE $1,785 $1,031 $1,101 CZ03 PGE $2,863 $2,097 $2,052 CZ04 PGE $2,133 $1,162 $1,019 CZ04 CPAU $2,340 $1,599 $1,213 CZ05 PGE $1,918 $1,486 $1,576 CZ05 PGE/SCG ($1,308) ($834) ($491) CZ06 SCE/SCG $401 $605 $635 CZ07 SDGE $1,473 $999 $641 CZ08 SCE/SCG ($125) $99 $195 CZ09 SCE/SCG ($563) ($183) $22 CZ10 SCE/SCG ($259) $53 $110 CZ10 SDGE $2,985 $2,261 $1,430 CZ11 PGE $3,287 $2,866 $2,279 CZ12 PGE $2,935 $2,578 $2,202 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $7,877 $5,978 $5,040 CZ13 PGE $2,927 $2,556 $2,053 CZ14 SCE/SCG ($864) ($943) ($543) CZ14 SDGE $2,204 $1,655 $1,064 CZ15 SCE/SCG $1,338 $396 ($688) CZ16 PGE $1,192 $1,071 $1,096 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 48  Packet Pg. 462 of 690  Table 19. DFHP Existing Furnace LSC Savings (Zero-NOx Rule) Climate Electric/ LSC NPV Pre-1978 1978-1991 1992-2010 CZ01 PGE $3,019 $2,510 $1,558 CZ02 PGE $1,256 $1,025 $1,006 CZ03 PGE $1,460 $1,120 $1,036 CZ04 PGE $1,242 $949 $887 CZ04 CPAU $1,242 $949 $887 CZ05 PGE $1,127 $816 $820 CZ05 PGE/SCG $1,127 $816 $820 CZ06 SCE/SCG $545 $318 $251 CZ07 SDGE $639 $403 $314 CZ08 SCE/SCG $428 $279 $244 CZ09 SCE/SCG $608 $424 $372 CZ10 SCE/SCG $469 $320 $293 CZ10 SDGE $469 $320 $293 CZ11 PGE $1,871 $1,475 $1,263 CZ12 PGE $1,924 $1,539 $1,356 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $1,375 $1,090 $939 CZ13 PGE ($206) ($186) $50 CZ14 SCE/SCG ($206) ($186) $50 CZ14 SDGE $127 $60 $38 CZ15 SCE/SCG ($185) ($12) $77 CZ16 PGE $3,019 $2,510 $1,558 3.3 AC Pathways for Heat Pump Replacements Many jurisdictions are interested in seeing alternative pathways for residents who may prefer to replace an air conditioner with similar equipment, rather than migrating to a heat pump system. Alternative packages analyzed to support this request include air conditioning equipment combined with additional efficiency measures resulting in options that are reasonably energy or LSC cost equivalent to a heat pump system, to the extent feasible. Figure 1 shows two AC pathways, one with an existing duct system and another path with a new duct system, alongside the heat pump pathways. The figure presents the proposed efficiency upgrade measures that would be part of a reach code (solid blue) along with the relevant requirements from Title 24, Part 6 that are triggered as part of equipment replacements (white or gradient blue). A reach code that establishes requirements when an air conditioner is replaced or installed new could allow for either a heat pump to be installed or an AC as long as the performance measures listed below are met. 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 49  Packet Pg. 463 of 690  Figure 1. AC vs. Heat Pump Pathway Requirements The heat pump only and two AC pathways are presented in Figure 2 comparing total LSC energy use relative to the existing home for the 1992-2010 vintage. The heat pump path is represented by the DFHP Existing Furnace scenario. In most climate zones, the heat pump path results in higher energy savings, in the milder climates the AC and new ducts and New AC Only paths save marginally more energy. Figure 2. AC vs. Heat Pump Energy Comparison 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 50  Packet Pg. 464 of 690  Though the AC path does not need to meet cost-effectiveness criteria to be adopted as a reach code since it’s an alternative path, in order to understand the implications of the AC path on the customer, Table 20 and Table 21 present estimated costs for the new AC only and the new AC + new ducts paths respectively. Table 20. New AC Only Path Cost Estimates New AC Only Path Pre-1978 1978-1991 1992-2010 Fan Efficacy: 0.45 W/CFM --- Refrigerant Charge Verification $100 $100 $100 7 R-49 Attic Insulation $5,483 $3,612 $1,827 Air Sealing $1,963 $1,963 $1,963 Table 21. New AC/Furnace and New Ducts Path Cost Estimates New AC and New Ducts Path Pre-1978 1978-1991 1992-2010 New R-8 Ducts $6,311 $6,311 $6,311 Furnace $5,951 $5,951 $5,951 Fan Efficacy: 0.35 W/CFM $500 $500 $500 Refrigerant Charge Verification $100 $100 $100 7 This is an incremental cost and in some climate zones, refrigerant charge verification is required so there is no incremental cost added. 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 51  Packet Pg. 465 of 690  4 Recommendations and Discussion This analysis evaluated the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of AC to heat pump measures in California existing homes built before 2010. To meet the needs of jurisdictions evaluating this option, Statewide Reach Codes Team used both On-Bill and LSC-based lifecycle cost approaches to evaluate cost-effectiveness and quantify the energy cost savings associated with energy efficiency measures compared to the incremental costs associated with the measures. Conclusions and Discussion: 1. Heat pumps are significantly more efficient than gas furnaces, requiring less than half the energy to meet the heating load. However, despite this reduction in heating energy use, the cost of heating a home using electricity (heat pump) could be higher than the cost to heat that same home with natural gas (furnace), depending on the electricity tariffs relative to the gas tariffs. Therefore, while a heat pump measure could be deemed as cost-effective over its lifecycle, installing a heat pump could result in a decrease or an increase in utility costs in the first years relative to a gas furnace and AC system. For example, the heat pump space heater measure in climate zone 12 in the newest vintage results in the customer saving money on their utility bill in SMUD territory but paying more on their utility bill in PG&E territory. Both PG&E and SMUD territory use PG&E gas rates, but SMUD has lower electricity rates than PG&E. With fuel switching measures like the AC to HP measure, the electricity to gas ratio has a significant impact on the savings or costs the customer will see by switching from gas to an electric heat pump space heater. 2. The LSC metric most often produces more favorable cost-effectiveness results relative to the results produced using actual utility costs (On-Bill). When the analysis assumes a higher escalation rate for natural gas costs relative to electricity in future years (high gas escalation), the On-Bill results are more favorable in some cases. a. In the oldest (pre-1978) vintage, all three measures (dual fuel heat pump with existing furnace, standard heat pump space heater, and high efficiency heat pump space heater) are cost-effective using the LSC metric in all climate zones. When using the On-Bill metric, the measures remain cost- effective in most climate zones. b. In the newer (1978-1991 and 1992-2010) vintages, the dual fuel heat pump (DFHP Existing Furnace) and the standard efficiency HPSH are cost-effective based on LSC in all cases except for Climate Zone 15 when using both the standard and California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) tariff. 3. Using the CARE tariff results in higher cost savings and cost-effectiveness relative to standard rates, with almost all cases yielding first year utility cost savings. The DFHP Existing Furnace is On-Bill cost-effective based on the high gas escalation scenario in all cases in the pre-1978 vintage, and almost all cases in the 1978-1991 and 1992-2010 vintage. It is also On-Bill cost-effective in most climate zones for the 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 52  Packet Pg. 466 of 690  modest gas escalation scenario across all vintages. In Climate Zones 5, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 15, cost-effectiveness declines relative to other areas, and in some cases is not cost-effective from an On-Bill perspective. This is the case for both the CARE tariff and the standard rate. 4. The analysis also modeled the cost impact of using a standard time-of-use electricity tariff versus switching to a newer electrification tariff, designed to reduce costs in homes with heat pumps and/or electric vehicles. Older homes tend to be the least efficient and achieve the most savings from improving equipment efficiency. In most of the state, because older homes tend to use more electricity than a similarly sized, newer vintage home, they realize more costs savings under the electrification tariff. Newer homes tend to use less electricity and therefore do not realize the same cost savings from switching tariffs; they generally perform better under the standard tariff. This trend is different in milder climate zones in SCE territory (excluding CZ 15), where newer homes realize more cost savings than older homes. Both the standard and electrification tariffs in SCE territory include a daily allocation of lower-cost baseline electricity and a second, higher-priced tier when the baseline is exceeded. In many newer homes, a higher percentage of overall electricity use is within the baseline allocation, resulting in greater cost savings. 5. Higher efficiency equipment reduces utility costs in all cases and improves cost- effectiveness in many climate zones in the oldest vintage relative to standard efficiency equipment. However, in more efficient newer homes, where cost- effectiveness is generally lower, the savings are insufficient to offset the roughly $3,000 increase in incremental cost. 6. Given the adopted Bay Area Air Quality Management District Zero NOx rule, and the proposed California Air Resource Board or South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Zero-NOx rules, and gas furnaces may not be available to be installed in 2030, a sensitivity analysis was performed for the Zero NOx scenario and found that cost-effectiveness decreases in many cases except in Climate Zones 8- 10, some results improve enough to become cost-effective. The improved cost- effectiveness in Climate Zones 8-10 is due to the higher baseline cost when a HPSH must be installed at year 10 when the furnace must be replaced. However, the overall magnitude of 30-year On-Bill cost-effectiveness is lower because there are only 10 years of utility cost savings. After year 10 the base case and upgrade measures are both heat pumps. 7. While not evaluated in this report, the 2022 Single Family Retrofit Cost-effectiveness Study (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2024) shows it is beneficial to combine a heat pump space conditioning system with photovoltaics (PV) because the additional electricity required by the heat pump can be met by the PV system and result in reduced utility bills. 8. In this study the dual fuel heat pump is evaluated with an existing furnace, however the homeowner could choose to replace the existing furnace with a new furnace at 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 53  Packet Pg. 467 of 690  this time as well. This measure (DFHP New Furnace) was evaluated in the 2022 Single Family Retrofit Cost-effectiveness Study (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2024) but found to be less cost-effective than the DFHP Existing Furnace case. 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 54  Packet Pg. 468 of 690  5 References BAAD. (2025, May 7). Rules 9-4 and 9-6 Building Appliances. Retrieved from Bay Area Air District: https://www.baaqmd.gov/en/rules-and-compliance/rule- development/building-appliances California Air Resources Board. (2022, August 12). 2022 State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan (2022 State SIP Strategy). Retrieved from California Air Resources Board Web site: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 11/Proposed_2022_State_SIP_Strategy.pdf California Energy Commission. (2017). Rooftop Solar PV System. Measure number: 2019- Res-PV-D Prepared by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=221366 California Energy Commission. (2021b). Final Express Terms for the Proposed Revisions to the 2022 Energy Code Reference Appendices. Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/DocketLog.aspx?docketnumber=21-BSTD-01 California Energy Commission. (2023). 2025 Energy code Hourly Factors. Retrieved from https://www.energy.ca.gov/files/2025-energy-code-hourly-factors California Energy Commission. (2023). Draft 2025 Energy Code Express Terms. Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=252915&DocumentContentId=88 051 California Energy Commission. (2025). Final Express Terms for the Proposed Revisions to 2025 Title 24, Part 11 (CALGreen). Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=261229&DocumentContentId=97 592 California Public Utilities Commission. (2021a). Utility Costs and Affordability of the Grid of the Future: An Evaluation of Electric Costs, Rates, and Equity Issues Pursuant to P.U. Code Section 913.1. Retrieved from https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc- website/divisions/office-of-governmental-affairs-division/reports/2021/senate-bill-695- report-2021-and-en-banc-whitepaper_final_04302021.pdf California Public Utilities Commission. (2021b). Database for Energy-Efficient resources (DEER2021 Update). Retrieved April 13, 2021, from http://www.deeresources.com/index.php/deer-versions/deer2021 Department of Energy. (2023). DOE Finalizes Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Furnaces to Save Americans $1.5 Billion In Annual Utility Bills. Retrieved from www.energy.gov: https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-finalizes-energy-efficiency- standards-residential-furnaces-save-americans-15-billion 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 55  Packet Pg. 469 of 690  E-CFR. (2020). https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi- bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt1 0.3.431&r=PART&ty=HTML#se10.3.431_197. Retrieved from Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi- bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt1 0.3.431&r=PART&ty=HTML#se10.3.431_197 Heinemeier, K. (2025). Residential HVAC Performance. Retrieved from https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Residential-HVAC- Performance.pdf SCAQMD. (2025). Proposed Amended Rules (PAR) 1111 and 1121. Retrieved from aqmd.gov. SCAQMD. (2025, February 21). Space and Water Heating Building Appliances. Retrieved from South Coast AQMD: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas/ssc/ssc-agenda-2-21-2025.pdf Statewide CASE Team. (2023). Multifamily Domestic Hot Water. Retrieved from https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2025_T24_CASE- Report-_MF-DHW-Final-1.pdf Statewide CASE Team. (2023). Residential HVAC PErformance. Retrieved from https://title24stakeholders.com/wp- content/uploads/2023/11/Revised_2025_T24_Final-CASE-Report-RES-HVAC- Performance.pdf Statewide Reach Codes Team. (2021). 2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Residential Buidling Upgrades. Retrieved from https://localenergycodes.com/content/resources Statewide Reach Codes Team. (2024). 2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades. Prepared by Frontier Energy. Retrieved from https://localenergycodes.com/download/1222/file_path/fieldList/Single%20Family%2 0Retrofits%20CostEff%20Report.pdf 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 56  Packet Pg. 470 of 690  6 Appendices 6.1 Map of California Climate Zones Climate zone geographical boundaries are depicted in Figure 3. The map in Figure 3 along with a zip-code search directory is available at: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html Figure 3. Map of California climate zones. 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 57  Packet Pg. 471 of 690  39 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement 6.2 Cost-Effectiveness Results 6.2.1 Standard Rates The following tables present results across the16 climate zones for the pre-1978 (Table 22 through Table 24) and the 1978-1991 (Table 25 through Table 27) vintages supplementing the results in Section 3. Table 22. [Pre-1978] DFHP Existing Furnace Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost First-year Utility Savings Lifecycle NPV Savings 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $2,405 $155 $25,223 $14,524 $51,831 CZ02 PGE $1,670 ($81) $11,551 $4,316 $20,806 CZ03 PGE $1,178 $39 $11,680 $7,248 $21,906 CZ04 PGE $1,670 ($7) $10,574 $4,948 $18,321 CZ04 CPAU $1,670 $63 $10,574 $5,177 $14,531 CZ05 PGE $1,424 ($29) $9,462 $4,574 $16,955 CZ05 PGE/SCG $1,424 ($314) $9,462 ($3,674) $2,838 CZ06 SCE/SCG $1,424 ($70) $4,223 $179 $1,795 CZ07 SDGE $1,424 $41 $4,278 $2,725 $5,055 CZ08 SCE/SCG $1,916 ($111) $3,216 ($1,507) $375 CZ09 SCE/SCG $1,916 ($168) $4,238 ($2,500) $125 CZ10 SCE/SCG $1,916 ($133) $3,755 ($1,774) $774 CZ10 SDGE $1,916 $201 $3,755 $6,175 $10,683 CZ11 PGE $2,162 $93 $11,970 $7,593 $24,951 CZ12 PGE $1,916 $46 $12,302 $6,948 $24,190 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $1,916 $584 $12,302 $18,997 $36,626 CZ13 PGE $2,162 $112 $8,180 $6,374 $18,740 CZ14 SCE/SCG $1,916 ($244) $6,646 ($2,926) $3,332 CZ14 SDGE $1,916 $65 $6,646 $4,203 $13,297 CZ15 SCE/SCG $2,408 $80 $401 $1,506 $2,532 CZ16 PGE $2,243 ($199) $17,538 $2,333 $25,276 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 58  Packet Pg. 472 of 690  40 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement Table 23. [Pre-1978] Standard Efficiency HPSH Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost First-year Utility Savings Lifecycle NPV Savings 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $3,067 ($127) $27,155 $7,800 $48,445 CZ02 PGE $652 ($242) $13,342 $1,420 $21,282 CZ03 PGE $514 ($46) $11,946 $4,614 $19,670 CZ04 PGE $652 ($139) $13,059 $3,274 $21,888 CZ04 CPAU $652 ($48) $13,059 $3,194 $15,372 CZ05 PGE $583 ($131) $9,998 $2,045 $15,648 CZ05 PGE/SCG $583 ($449) $9,998 ($7,152) ($94) CZ06 SCE/SCG $583 ($76) $3,860 ($652) $931 CZ07 SDGE $583 $35 $3,876 $1,901 $4,218 CZ08 SCE/SCG $721 ($128) $3,305 ($2,112) ($199) CZ09 SCE/SCG $721 ($219) $4,415 ($3,839) ($1,141) CZ10 SCE/SCG $721 ($188) $3,982 ($3,168) ($483) CZ10 SDGE $721 $166 $3,982 $5,200 $10,049 CZ11 PGE $790 ($74) $14,045 $4,727 $24,836 CZ12 PGE $721 ($179) $13,850 $2,374 $21,622 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $721 $601 $13,850 $19,845 $39,654 CZ13 PGE $790 ($14) $9,394 $3,998 $17,858 CZ14 SCE/SCG $721 ($450) $10,103 ($6,294) $4,015 CZ14 SDGE $721 ($66) $10,103 $2,757 $18,994 CZ15 SCE/SCG $859 $68 $643 $1,364 $2,430 CZ16 PGE $2,095 ($484) $27,492 $2,918 $49,419 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 59  Packet Pg. 473 of 690  41 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement Table 24. [Pre-1978] High Efficiency HPSH Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost First-year Utility Savings Lifecycle NPV Savings 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $5,998 $249 $30,518 $11,401 $52,316 CZ02 PGE $3,606 ($24) $13,354 $1,431 $21,449 CZ03 PGE $3,422 $100 $10,768 $3,122 $18,282 CZ04 PGE $3,606 $118 $13,537 $4,185 $22,984 CZ04 CPAU $3,606 $101 $13,537 $1,665 $13,950 CZ05 PGE $3,514 $10 $8,416 $384 $14,087 CZ05 PGE/SCG $3,514 ($308) $8,416 ($8,814) ($1,654) CZ06 SCE/SCG $3,514 $3 $380 ($3,709) ($2,052) CZ07 SDGE $3,514 $114 $430 ($1,063) $1,230 CZ08 SCE/SCG $3,698 $31 $1,065 ($3,478) ($1,420) CZ09 SCE/SCG $3,698 ($40) $2,358 ($4,759) ($1,897) CZ10 SCE/SCG $3,698 $6 $2,191 ($3,746) ($882) CZ10 SDGE $3,698 $344 $2,191 $4,481 $9,276 CZ11 PGE $3,789 $283 $15,614 $7,801 $28,167 CZ12 PGE $3,698 $152 $14,490 $4,899 $24,385 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $3,698 $708 $14,490 $17,350 $37,236 CZ13 PGE $3,789 $326 $10,164 $6,697 $20,802 CZ14 SCE/SCG $3,698 ($173) $11,876 ($5,041) $5,522 CZ14 SDGE $3,698 $244 $11,876 $5,111 $21,254 CZ15 SCE/SCG $3,881 $335 $393 $2,323 $3,635 CZ16 PGE $5,071 $45 $34,043 $9,856 $56,737 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 60  Packet Pg. 474 of 690  42 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement Table 25. [1978-1991] DFHP Existing Furnace Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost First-year Utility Savings Lifecycle NPV Savings 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $2,405 $99 $20,184 $10,746 $40,368 CZ02 PGE $1,670 ($114) $9,142 $2,185 $14,361 CZ03 PGE $1,178 $3 $9,033 $5,101 $15,624 CZ04 PGE $1,670 ($68) $8,160 $2,319 $11,818 CZ04 CPAU $1,670 $18 $8,160 $3,161 $9,418 CZ05 PGE $1,424 ($32) $7,070 $3,268 $11,902 CZ05 PGE/SCG $1,424 ($238) $7,070 ($2,666) $1,747 CZ06 SCE/SCG $1,424 ($39) $2,941 $614 $1,557 CZ07 SDGE $1,424 $1 $3,046 $1,512 $2,837 CZ08 SCE/SCG $1,916 ($78) $2,145 ($1,026) $145 CZ09 SCE/SCG $1,916 ($116) $2,978 ($1,655) $122 CZ10 SCE/SCG $1,916 ($89) $2,606 ($1,096) $571 CZ10 SDGE $1,916 $139 $2,606 $4,321 $7,320 CZ11 PGE $2,162 $103 $9,118 $6,239 $18,777 CZ12 PGE $1,916 $60 $9,604 $5,770 $18,506 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $1,916 $430 $9,604 $14,059 $27,062 CZ13 PGE $2,162 $111 $6,237 $5,242 $14,247 CZ14 SCE/SCG $1,916 ($230) $4,931 ($3,277) $1,039 CZ14 SDGE $1,916 $35 $4,931 $2,793 $9,271 CZ15 SCE/SCG $2,408 ($17) ($99) ($807) ($310) CZ16 PGE $2,243 ($161) $14,397 $1,740 $20,318 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 61  Packet Pg. 475 of 690  43 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement Table 26. [1978-1991] Standard Efficiency HPSH Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost First-year Utility Savings Lifecycle NPV Savings 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $3,067 ($128) $21,427 $5,043 $37,346 CZ02 PGE $652 ($235) $10,428 ($90) $14,711 CZ03 PGE $514 ($67) $8,999 $2,767 $13,608 CZ04 PGE $652 ($164) $9,984 $1,062 $14,605 CZ04 CPAU $652 ($66) $9,984 $1,535 $9,914 CZ05 PGE $583 ($132) $7,290 $703 $10,264 CZ05 PGE/SCG $583 ($361) $7,290 ($5,939) ($1,104) CZ06 SCE/SCG $583 ($43) $2,450 ($151) $775 CZ07 SDGE $583 ($3) $2,539 $747 $2,065 CZ08 SCE/SCG $721 ($96) $2,111 ($1,658) ($472) CZ09 SCE/SCG $721 ($152) $3,022 ($2,659) ($831) CZ10 SCE/SCG $721 ($121) $2,672 ($2,017) ($239) CZ10 SDGE $721 $114 $2,672 $3,568 $6,801 CZ11 PGE $790 ($46) $10,682 $3,545 $18,156 CZ12 PGE $721 ($110) $10,747 $2,278 $16,574 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $721 $445 $10,747 $14,697 $29,392 CZ13 PGE $790 $1 $7,141 $3,112 $13,232 CZ14 SCE/SCG $721 ($398) $7,556 ($6,191) $1,058 CZ14 SDGE $721 ($53) $7,556 $1,909 $13,834 CZ15 SCE/SCG $859 ($25) $71 ($848) ($322) CZ16 PGE $2,095 ($445) $22,236 $708 $37,873 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 62  Packet Pg. 476 of 690  Table 27. [1978-1991] High Efficiency HPSH Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost First-year Utility Savings Lifecycle NPV Savings 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $5,998 $169 $23,092 $6,895 $39,412 CZ02 PGE $3,606 ($75) $9,242 ($1,370) $13,547 CZ03 PGE $3,422 $53 $6,872 $675 $11,602 CZ04 PGE $3,606 $26 $9,114 $463 $14,143 CZ04 CPAU $3,606 $43 $9,114 ($868) $7,590 CZ05 PGE $3,514 ($16) $4,859 ($1,522) $8,122 CZ05 PGE/SCG $3,514 ($246) $4,859 ($8,164) ($3,246) CZ06 SCE/SCG $3,514 ($1) ($1,546) ($4,024) ($3,059) CZ07 SDGE $3,514 $47 ($1,407) ($2,879) ($1,576) CZ08 SCE/SCG $3,698 $37 ($828) ($3,608) ($2,300) CZ09 SCE/SCG $3,698 ($17) $232 ($4,573) ($2,623) CZ10 SCE/SCG $3,698 $20 $82 ($3,764) ($1,856) CZ10 SDGE $3,698 $251 $82 $1,869 $5,060 CZ11 PGE $3,789 $259 $10,685 $5,452 $20,283 CZ12 PGE $3,698 $138 $10,023 $2,954 $17,430 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $3,698 $525 $10,023 $11,609 $26,363 CZ13 PGE $3,789 $289 $6,612 $4,624 $14,951 CZ14 SCE/SCG $3,698 ($188) $7,697 ($6,429) $1,012 CZ14 SDGE $3,698 $182 $7,697 $2,525 $14,378 CZ15 SCE/SCG $3,881 $193 ($1,111) ($992) ($267) CZ16 PGE $5,071 ($30) $26,407 $5,118 $42,581 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 63  Packet Pg. 477 of 690  45 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement 6.2.2 CARE tariffs Table 28. [Pre-1978] DFHP Existing Furnace CARE Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost First-year Utility Savings Lifecycle NPV Savings 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $2,405 $364 $25,223 $16,641 $46,300 CZ02 PGE $1,670 $64 $11,551 $6,432 $19,553 CZ03 PGE $1,178 $128 $11,680 $8,248 $19,898 CZ04 PGE $1,670 $90 $10,574 $6,198 $16,835 CZ04 CPAU $1,670 $0 $10,574 $711 $711 CZ05 PGE $1,424 $69 $9,462 $5,901 $15,746 CZ05 PGE/SCG $1,424 ($157) $9,462 ($613) $4,598 CZ06 SCE/SCG $1,424 ($37) $4,223 $776 $2,067 CZ07 SDGE $1,424 $42 $4,278 $2,609 $4,434 CZ08 SCE/SCG $1,916 ($63) $3,216 ($595) $911 CZ09 SCE/SCG $1,916 ($97) $4,238 ($1,132) $972 CZ10 SCE/SCG $1,916 ($75) $3,755 ($660) $1,379 CZ10 SDGE $1,916 $160 $3,755 $4,963 $8,500 CZ11 PGE $2,162 $183 $11,970 $8,415 $22,212 CZ12 PGE $1,916 $152 $12,302 $8,126 $21,834 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $1,916 $686 $12,302 $20,080 $34,172 CZ13 PGE $2,162 $160 $8,180 $6,595 $16,418 CZ14 SCE/SCG $1,916 ($126) $6,646 ($779) $4,233 CZ14 SDGE $1,916 $101 $6,646 $4,530 $11,652 CZ15 SCE/SCG $2,408 $60 $401 $982 $1,788 CZ16 PGE $2,243 $34 $17,538 $5,963 $24,236 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 64  Packet Pg. 478 of 690  46 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement Table 29. [Pre-1978] Standard Efficiency HPSH CARE Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost First-year Utility Savings Lifecycle NPV Savings 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $3,067 $205 $27,155 $12,440 $44,777 CZ02 PGE $652 ($16) $13,342 $5,095 $20,910 CZ03 PGE $514 $76 $11,946 $6,319 $18,293 CZ04 PGE $652 $41 $13,059 $6,031 $20,843 CZ04 CPAU $652 $0 $13,059 $255 $255 CZ05 PGE $583 $12 $9,998 $4,285 $15,110 CZ05 PGE/SCG $583 ($240) $9,998 ($2,978) $2,679 CZ06 SCE/SCG $583 ($42) $3,860 ($7) $1,259 CZ07 SDGE $583 $37 $3,876 $1,837 $3,652 CZ08 SCE/SCG $721 ($75) $3,305 ($1,076) $457 CZ09 SCE/SCG $721 ($131) $4,415 ($2,095) $72 CZ10 SCE/SCG $721 ($110) $3,982 ($1,649) $504 CZ10 SDGE $721 $139 $3,982 $4,305 $8,106 CZ11 PGE $790 $94 $14,045 $7,108 $23,108 CZ12 PGE $721 $20 $13,850 $5,506 $20,829 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $721 $772 $13,850 $22,326 $38,189 CZ13 PGE $790 $89 $9,394 $5,347 $16,369 CZ14 SCE/SCG $721 ($241) $10,103 ($2,418) $5,836 CZ14 SDGE $721 $62 $10,103 $4,832 $17,541 CZ15 SCE/SCG $859 $52 $643 $930 $1,769 CZ16 PGE $2,095 $16 $27,492 $10,883 $47,907 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 65  Packet Pg. 479 of 690  47 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement Table 30. [Pre-1978] High Efficiency HPSH CARE Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost First-year Utility Savings Lifecycle NPV Savings 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $5,998 $450 $30,518 $13,096 $45,609 CZ02 PGE $3,606 $126 $13,354 $3,405 $19,322 CZ03 PGE $3,422 $172 $10,768 $3,678 $15,720 CZ04 PGE $3,606 $209 $13,537 $4,926 $19,859 CZ04 CPAU $3,606 $0 $13,537 ($4,595) ($4,595) CZ05 PGE $3,514 $103 $8,416 $1,521 $12,412 CZ05 PGE/SCG $3,514 ($148) $8,416 ($5,742) ($19) CZ06 SCE/SCG $3,514 $11 $380 ($3,634) ($2,319) CZ07 SDGE $3,514 $89 $430 ($1,774) $25 CZ08 SCE/SCG $3,698 $33 $1,065 ($3,586) ($1,955) CZ09 SCE/SCG $3,698 ($10) $2,358 ($4,304) ($2,027) CZ10 SCE/SCG $3,698 $21 $2,191 ($3,628) ($1,354) CZ10 SDGE $3,698 $255 $2,191 $2,127 $5,893 CZ11 PGE $3,789 $327 $15,614 $7,382 $23,549 CZ12 PGE $3,698 $236 $14,490 $5,437 $20,914 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $3,698 $772 $14,490 $17,439 $33,302 CZ13 PGE $3,789 $310 $10,164 $5,378 $16,558 CZ14 SCE/SCG $3,698 ($54) $11,876 ($3,161) $5,265 CZ14 SDGE $3,698 $263 $11,876 $4,651 $17,300 CZ15 SCE/SCG $3,881 $232 $393 ($35) $970 CZ16 PGE $5,071 $360 $34,043 $13,682 $50,953 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 66  Packet Pg. 480 of 690  48 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement Table 31. [1978-1991] DFHP Existing Furnace CARE Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost First-year Utility Savings Lifecycle NPV Savings 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $2,405 $273 $20,184 $12,619 $36,168 CZ02 PGE $1,670 $12 $9,142 $4,166 $13,857 CZ03 PGE $1,178 $76 $9,033 $6,011 $14,375 CZ04 PGE $1,670 $23 $8,160 $3,702 $11,261 CZ04 CPAU $1,670 $0 $8,160 $711 $711 CZ05 PGE $1,424 $40 $7,070 $4,285 $11,150 CZ05 PGE/SCG $1,424 ($122) $7,070 ($400) $3,130 CZ06 SCE/SCG $1,424 ($21) $2,941 $952 $1,705 CZ07 SDGE $1,424 $9 $3,046 $1,631 $2,667 CZ08 SCE/SCG $1,916 ($45) $2,145 ($395) $544 CZ09 SCE/SCG $1,916 ($67) $2,978 ($712) $712 CZ10 SCE/SCG $1,916 ($50) $2,606 ($357) $976 CZ10 SDGE $1,916 $110 $2,606 $3,472 $5,826 CZ11 PGE $2,162 $155 $9,118 $6,542 $16,502 CZ12 PGE $1,916 $128 $9,604 $6,434 $16,553 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $1,916 $506 $9,604 $14,879 $25,269 CZ13 PGE $2,162 $135 $6,237 $5,170 $12,318 CZ14 SCE/SCG $1,916 ($128) $4,931 ($1,351) $2,112 CZ14 SDGE $1,916 $65 $4,931 $3,123 $8,195 CZ15 SCE/SCG $2,408 ($9) ($99) ($653) ($256) CZ16 PGE $2,243 $28 $14,397 $4,676 $19,471 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 67  Packet Pg. 481 of 690  49 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement Table 32. [1978-1991] Standard Efficiency HPSH CARE Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost First-year Utility Savings Lifecycle NPV Savings 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $3,067 $146 $21,427 $8,941 $34,641 CZ02 PGE $652 ($47) $10,428 $3,076 $14,864 CZ03 PGE $514 $33 $8,999 $4,259 $12,882 CZ04 PGE $652 ($10) $9,984 $3,558 $14,338 CZ04 CPAU $652 $0 $9,984 $255 $255 CZ05 PGE $583 ($18) $7,290 $2,586 $10,196 CZ05 PGE/SCG $583 ($199) $7,290 ($2,659) $1,219 CZ06 SCE/SCG $583 ($24) $2,450 $215 $956 CZ07 SDGE $583 $6 $2,539 $898 $1,929 CZ08 SCE/SCG $721 ($57) $2,111 ($896) $57 CZ09 SCE/SCG $721 ($91) $3,022 ($1,455) $13 CZ10 SCE/SCG $721 ($71) $2,672 ($1,035) $390 CZ10 SDGE $721 $96 $2,672 $2,939 $5,474 CZ11 PGE $790 $74 $10,682 $5,209 $16,830 CZ12 PGE $721 $30 $10,747 $4,418 $15,794 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $721 $573 $10,747 $16,567 $28,332 CZ13 PGE $790 $72 $7,141 $4,003 $12,047 CZ14 SCE/SCG $721 ($224) $7,556 ($2,880) $2,930 CZ14 SDGE $721 $42 $7,556 $3,476 $12,809 CZ15 SCE/SCG $859 ($13) $71 ($639) ($219) CZ16 PGE $2,095 ($25) $22,236 $7,529 $37,120 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 68  Packet Pg. 482 of 690  Table 33. [1978-1991] High Efficiency HPSH CARE Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost First-year Utility Savings Lifecycle NPV Savings 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $5,998 $339 $23,092 $8,460 $34,300 CZ02 PGE $3,606 $57 $9,242 $547 $12,409 CZ03 PGE $3,422 $111 $6,872 $1,228 $9,907 CZ04 PGE $3,606 $113 $9,114 $1,472 $12,340 CZ04 CPAU $3,606 $0 $9,114 ($4,595) ($4,595) CZ05 PGE $3,514 $58 $4,859 ($544) $7,120 CZ05 PGE/SCG $3,514 ($124) $4,859 ($5,789) ($1,857) CZ06 SCE/SCG $3,514 $5 ($1,546) ($3,963) ($3,196) CZ07 SDGE $3,514 $39 ($1,407) ($3,143) ($2,122) CZ08 SCE/SCG $3,698 $32 ($828) ($3,800) ($2,766) CZ09 SCE/SCG $3,698 ($0) $232 ($4,336) ($2,784) CZ10 SCE/SCG $3,698 $25 $82 ($3,803) ($2,290) CZ10 SDGE $3,698 $184 $82 $124 $2,631 CZ11 PGE $3,789 $272 $10,685 $4,725 $16,488 CZ12 PGE $3,698 $191 $10,023 $3,148 $14,639 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $3,698 $573 $10,023 $11,680 $23,445 CZ13 PGE $3,789 $259 $6,612 $3,262 $11,441 CZ14 SCE/SCG $3,698 ($82) $7,697 ($4,629) $1,311 CZ14 SDGE $3,698 $195 $7,697 $2,166 $11,452 CZ15 SCE/SCG $3,881 $133 ($1,111) ($2,349) ($1,794) CZ16 PGE $5,071 $245 $26,407 $8,685 $38,470 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 69  Packet Pg. 483 of 690  51 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement 6.3 Utility Rate Schedules 6.3.1 Pacific Gas & Electric The following pages provide details on the PG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 34 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. A net surplus compensation rate of $ 0.03396/ kWh was applied to any net annual electricity generation based on a one-year average of the rates between February 2024 and January 2025. Table 34. PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone Climate Baseline CZ01 V CZ02 X CZ03 T CZ04 X CZ05 T CZ11 R CZ12 S CZ13 R CZ16 Y The PG&E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis according to the rates shown in Table 35. The gas rates were developed based on the latest available gas rate for January 2025 and a curve to reflect how natural gas prices fluctuate with seasonal supply and demand. The seasonal curve was estimated from PG&E’s monthly residential tariffs between 2015 and 2024. 12-month curves were created from monthly gas rates for each of the ten years. The ten annual curves were then averaged to arrive at an average normalized annual curve. The baseline and excess transmission charges were found to be consistent over the course of a year and applied for the entire year based on January 2025 rates. The costs presented in Table 35 were then derived by establishing the baseline and excess rates from the latest January 2025 tariff as a reference point, and then using the normalized curve to estimate the cost for the remaining months relative to the January rates. Corresponding CARE tariffs reflect the 20 percent discount per the GL-1 tariff. 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 70  Packet Pg. 484 of 690  52 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement Table 35. PG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) Month January $2.63 $3.15 February $2.64 $3.16 March $2.41 $2.94 April $2.24 $2.77 May $2.21 $2.74 June $2.23 $2.77 July $2.26 $2.80 August $2.36 $2.90 September $2.42 $2.98 October $2.52 $3.07 November $2.63 $3.17 December $2.70 $3.23 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 71  Packet Pg. 485 of 690  ial GAS Baseline Territories and Quantities 11 Effective A ril 1, 2022 • Present BASELINE QUANITTIES (Therms Per Day Per Dwellin g Unit) ln divid u alli Metered Ba seline Summer W i nie r Off-Peak Territories (April -October) (Nov, Feb, Mar) Effective Al!r, 1, 2022 Effective Nov. 11 2022 p 0.39 1.88 Q 0.56 1.48 R 0.36 1.24 s 0 39 1.38 T 0.56 1.3 1 V 0.59 1.51 w 0.39 1.1 4 X 0.49 1.48 y 0.72 2.22 Master Metered Ba seline Summer Te rr itories (April -October) Elfecllve Apr. 1, 2022 p 0.29 Q 0.56 R 0.33 s 0.29 T 0 56 V 0.59 w 0 26 X 0.33 y 0.52 Summer Season : Apr.Oct Winte r Off-Peak: Nov , Feb , Mar W inier On .Pea k: Dec , Jan Advice Leit er: 4589-G Dec ision 21 -1 1-01 6 GRC 2020 Ph II [Appli cation 19-11 -0 19] Filed: Nov 22 . 2019 W inter Off-Pea k (Nov, Feb, Mar) Effective Nov. 1, 2022 1.01 0.67 0.87 0.61 1.01 1.28 0.71 0.67 1.01 W i nter On-Peak (Dec,Jan) Effective Dec. 11 2022 2.19 2.00 1.81 1 94 1.68 1.71 1.68 2.00 2.58 W inter On-Peak (Dec,Jan) Effective Dec. 1 , 2022 1.1 3 0.77 1.16 0.65 1.10 1.32 0.87 0.77 1.13 53 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 72  Packet Pg. 486 of 690  Gas and Electric Compa.ny· U 39 Oekland, Gafifomia Revised cancell ing Revised Gal. P.UC. Sheet No . Gal. P.U.C. Sheet No . 59 12().E 58758-E EIUECTRIC SC HEDULE E-TOU-C Sheet 2 RESIDENT IAL TIM E-OF-USE (PEAK :PRICING 4 -9 p.m. EVERY DAY) RATES: (Co nt'd} E-TOU -CTOTAL BUND LED RATE S Total Energy Rates ($ pe r kWh) Summer Total Usage Basel ine Credlt (Applied to Base li ne Usage Only) \Mnter Total Usage Base1tne Credit (Applied to Baseline Usage Only) Delivery Minimum Bill Amourrt ($ per meter pe r day) Californ ia Climate Credit (pe r househo ld, per sem i­ annua1 payment occu rri ng in the Apnl and Octobe r bill cycles} PEAK OFF-PEAK ro .oong (R ) S0.50429 (R) ($0 .10135) (R ) (SO 10135) (R) $0 .49312 (R ) S0 .46312 (R ) ($.0 .10135) (R ) (S0.10135) (R ) $,0 .39167 ($58.23 ) ,(R ) Total bund ed: service cha rges shO'Wll on customer s bi ll s are unb 111dled acco rding to th e compo ne nt rates shOWTil, below. lMlere the de l1very minimum bi[I ammmt appr es , the ,customer's bill wi[I equ al tile sum of (1 ) lhe delivery minimum bi ll amount plus (2) for bundled service , the ge neration rate times the number of kWh used. For revenue aroounli ng purposes, til e re venues from the delivery minimum bi[I amount wm be assigned to the Transmission, Transmission Rate Adj;ustments, Re li ability Serv ices , Public Purp ose Programs , Nuclea r Derommissiontng,, Competition Transiti on Cha rges , E111ergy Cost Recovery Am ou nt , Wil'.dfi re Fund Ciharg:e , arn d New System Generation Charges based on kWh usage times th e co rre spmding unbundled rate com po111ent per kWh, with any residual reve nue assigned to Distribution. Advice 7469-E Dedsion Issued by Shi/pa Ramaiya Vice President Regulatory Proceedings ana Rates Submitted Effective Resolution (Conti nued ) Decembe r 30, 2024 Jan uary 1, 2025 54 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 73  Packet Pg. 487 of 690  Gas and Elec.tric Company" Revise d Cancelling Revised Gal. P.U.C. Sh ee.t No. Gal. P.U.C. Shee.t No. u 39 Dakland, Gal ifomia ElJEC TRIC SCH ED ULE E-TOU -C Sh eet 3 IRESID ENT AL TIM E-OF-USE (PEAK PR ICING 4 -9 p.m . EVERYDAY) RAT ES : (Cont'd .) UNBUNDLING OF E-TOU -C l OTAL RAlES 5ne rg y Rates by Co m,pon ent (S p e:r kWh ) Ge nerati on : S umme r (a'II u sag.e ) Wi:n ter (al l usag e ) Distrib utio n••.: S u m me r (a'II u sage ) Wi:nter (a l l u,sag e ) PEAK $0.2 4 730 $0 .18725 $0 .2 4 056 $0.HIM 5 Co nservation Ince ntive Adj'u,st m ent (B asel in e U sag e) Conservation Ince ntive Adjlllst m e n t (O Ye r Baselin e Usag e ) T,ra ns m ·iss ion* (a l l u.sag e) Tra ns m i ss ion Rate Adjus tme nts• {am usag e ) Re liab ility Services •· (a us ag e) P ub l'lc P urpose P rogra m s (a l l usa ge ) N uc,lea r Deco mm issio ning (a ll usage) Com pe titio n Tra n siti on Charges (a l l u sage ) E nergy Cost Reco v-e:ry Amou rrt (all usag e ) W fldlire Fu nd Ch arge (al l u sage ) New System, Generat ion Charge (a ll usage)"" W rldli re Harde ning Charg e (a I u sag e ) Rec ove.ry IBond Charge-(a'II u sa,9 e ) Re c ove.ry IBond Credit (all u sage ) Bu n dled P ower Cha r ge I nd i fferem:e Adju s1me n t (a l usage )~ .. (I ) (I ) (I) (I ) OFF-P EAK $0.16430 $0.16057 $0 .22056 $0 .18313 (S0.03733 ) (I} S0.06402 (I) S0.051 2 2 (I) (S0.0 150 9 ) (R ) S0.00032 (I} S0.02tl 44 (R ) (SO.OC>D•13) (I} (S0.000172 ) (R ) so.000 0 1 (I) S0.00595 (I) S0.005,7 4 (R ) S0.00494 SO.OC>650 (SO.OC>650 ) (S0.023 2 7) (R ) (I ) (I ) (IJ (I ) .. T ra nsmission , Transmission Rate Adj ustments and Reliabil ity Service charges are comb in ed tor pFesentation on customer b ills, H Distri but ion andl Mew System Generati on Oharges are comb i ed for prese ntation on customer lbfllls . • ,.. Dir ect Access , Commu ity Choi ce Agg reQ!iltio n a nd T ra nsilional Bun dled Servi ce customers pay th.e .a pplica ble Vi nta ged Powe r Cha fge l no iffe rence Adj ustment. Gene rati on and Bu ncUed PC IA a Fe combined for presen tation on bund led customer bi lls. 59 121-E 5875 9-E (Conti nuecl ) Advice Decision 7469-E Issued by Shilpa Ramaiya Vice President Regulatory Proceed ings and Rates Submitted Effective Resolution December 30. 202 4 Jan uary 1. 2025 55 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 74  Packet Pg. 488 of 690  Gas and Electric ,Company· Revised Cancelling Revised Ca f. P.U.C. Sheet No. Ca f. P.U.C. Sh eet No. 59109-E 58755-E U 3.9 Oakland, Ga!ifomia ELECTRIC SCH EDULE E-ELEC Sheet 2 RESID ENT IAL TI M E-OF-US E (ELECT RIC HOM E) SERV ICE FOR CUSTOMERS WITH QUALIFYING EL ECT RIC TE CHN OLOG IES R AT ES :{Co n.t'd .) Di re ct A ccess (D A) a nd Community C h o ice Agg re gatio n {CCA) ch arges s ha ~ be calru la !e d i n acco rdan ce with t he parag raph in th is rate sche dul e 1i!i1ed B i lin g. TOT AL BU NDL E D RA TES Base Se rv ice s C ha rg e ($ pe, me er p e r da y ) $0 .4Q2S1 PE AK PP.RT-P EAK O FF-P EAK Tota l E m,.-QiY Rates ($ per kWh) S u mm er U sag e $0 .60728 (R) ll0.44540 (R ) $0 .38872 (1R) W in er Us ag e $0.375n {R) $0.3 5368 (R ) $0 .33982 {R ) C s i o m ia Cfi ma e C red it (per h ou ,;e'h o ld , pe r se m i-a nn ual p aym ent occu rr in g i n th e Ap ri l an,d Octobe r b ill cyc les ) ($58.23 ) (R) Total trun dled s erv ice ch arg es shown o n a. c usto m e,'s b i Is a re un b u ndlied accord in g to l h e co 111pon e n.t rates sh own bel ow. UN B UINDLING OF TOTAL RA T ES En ergy Ra te s by Comp one:n l ($ per· kW h ) PEAK PP.RT -PE AK O FF-PEAK Ge ne.rat ion : Su m m er Usag,e-$0.3 165-ll (I) $0-217 48 (I) $0 .17238 Winter 'Usag e $0.15446 (I) $0.13 449 (I ) $0 .12 114 D is t ribution ••: Sum mer Usagoe-$0 .23528 (I) $0.1725 1 (I ) $0 .16093 Winter IIJsa.g e $0 .1651l0 (I) $0.16378 (I) $0 .16327 T ra nsm iss ion,• (a ll u sa.g:e) $0.05 1122 (I) $0.0 5 122 (I) $0 .05 122 T r ansm i ss i on, Rate Ad j u,stm e nts • (s I u sag e) ($0.0 1501l) (R) ($0.01 5 09 ) (R ) ($0 .0 1501l) Reli ab il i ty Services• {a ll u sagoe) $0.00032 (I) $0.00032 (I) $0 .00032 Pub lic Pu r pose Pr og ram s ,(al l u sag e) $0.0 2 644 (R) $0.02644 (R ) $0 .02644 Nlu c l ear Decomm i ss i o n ing (al l usag e} ($0.00013~ (I) ($0.000 13~ (I) ($0 .00 0 13~ C ompet itio n Transit i on C h arges (all u sagoe") {$0.00 072 (R) ($0.00072 (R ) ($0 .00072 IEner g;y C ost Recover;y A mou n t {all u sa ge ) $0.00001 (I) $0.0000 1 (I) $0 .0000 1 W il dfire Fu n d Cha r ge (a l u sage ) $0.005Q5 (I) $0.005 95 (I) $0 .005g5 Nlew Syst e m Gen e rati o n Char ge (a I usag e}" $0 .00574 {R) $0.00574 (R ) $0 .00574 W il dfire Ha:rde r,i n g C h arge (a ll u sage) $0.0049'4 $0.00494 $0 .00494 IRecov er;y B ond Charge (all u sage) $0 .00650 S0.00650 $0 .00650 IRecover;y B ond Cred it (a ll ,usage ) ($0.00650l ($0.00650 ~ ($0 .00650 ~ B und led Power C ha rge In d ifferen c e {$0 .023-27 {R) ($0.02 327 (R ) ($0 .02327 Adj ust m en t (al l usag e}"' Trans miss iom. Tra ns mission Ral e Adjustments and Rel" ·1ity Se.rvice ch~ are combined for p,es en ation on cusAorner bills. Dis ·bulioo and N,ew Syst em Generation Ciharges e co mbi ned fur presentation on ru~to rner bills . Direcl Access. Co mmunity Cboi ce Aggregation amd Transiti on Bum.med Se<Vic e Customers pay 1tte applicabl.e Vimiaged P.owe r Charge Indifference Adjus1ment. Gemera tion ar>d Bund led PC IA a re combined for pre sentation oo bu ndl'.e,d custcm er bills. (I) (I ) {I ) (I ) (I ) (R } {I ) (R } (I ) (R } (I) {I) (R } (R } {Cont inued) A cMce Decision 7469-E Issued by Shi/pa Ramaiya Vice President Reg ulatory Proceedings and Rates Submitted Effective Resoiutfon December 30, 20 24 Jan uary 1, 2025 56 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 75  Packet Pg. 489 of 690  Gas and Electric ,Compan( Original ca,: P.UC. Sheet No. 54738-E U 39 San FrancisC(); Cafitomi a ELECTRIC SC HEDULE E-ELEC Sheet 3 (N) RESIDENT IAL TIME-OF-US E (EL ECT RIC HO ME) (N) SE RV ICE FOR CUSTO MERS WITH QUA!LIFYING EL ECTRIC TECiHNOLOOl lES SP EC IA L 1. TI M E PER I ODS : T im es ofli'le year a n d (mes of !he day are defi ned as fo l ows: CON DITII ON S : Advice Decision All Y ear: Pee : 4 :00 p .m . to Q:0 0 p .m . ~ery day in:cl u d in,g w ee ke n ds an d lu:J idays . Part ia l-Pea k: 3 :0D p .m . to 4 :00 p .m . an d Q:00 p .m. t o 12 :00 a .m. e·very day in clu d in 11 weeke n ds .end oo 1d!sys . Olf-Pes_ : All olh e.r hour s. 2 . SEASONA L CH ANG E S : T1he su mm er season is J u:n e 1i 1hrou gh Septem ber 30 a n d t he ~,i nte r s,a-ason is October 1 lhrou g'h M ay 3,1. W he n b·lr ng in clude.s u se ·n both lhe su mm e r and w inter pe ri ods , charges will b e pra-ated based u:po n t he n um be.r of days in e<a cli pe.iod . 3 . A DD ITIONAL M ET ER S: If a re.siden ·s1 dwe ll in g u nit i s served by m o re t han -o.ne e lectric m eter. t he cu sl o mer must desilJ n at,a-w hl ch meter is lhe p r imary me e r an.d wh ich is (are ) h e a ddit ion.a l meter(s ). 4 . B l LLI NG : A cu sto:m e r"s b.11 is csJculs.ted based on lh e opl io n app licab le to th e custo:mer. Bundled Serv i.Ce Cu.stomers receive g en erat ion a nd de liv ery seniice.s sole ly fro m PG&E . The cu sto:mer"s b.11 is bas e d on the U nb u n.dl in g o T otal Rates set o rth .abo ve . Tr-ansiliona Bund ed Service (TBS) Customers ta ke TBS as p:resc ri bed in Ru les 22 .. 1 and 23,. 1. or ta k•e PG&E bund led serv ice prior to th e en d oi li't e· six (6 ) m on1h ad va n ce notice period req ui red to e leci PG&.E b u ndl ed serv ice as prescn."bed in Ru les 22 .. 1 a nd 23,.1. TB S ,cu st arn ers sha ll pa y a ll ch arges soo wn i n !he Un b un d ling ,of Tota l Raf es -excep o r ·l n e-B u nd d Power C harg e I n.differe n ce Adj ustme.nt andl !he gen era l ion cha rge . TB S cu slomers s ha ll a lso pay fo:r the ir a,pp lica'b l e Vi:n aged lf>,ower Ch arge In d iffere n ce Adj,:,i sbn-e,n t provided i n the table bel ow . a:n d t he sh ort.te r m com m odity pr ices as set forth in Sch ed u le TB G C. (N) (Oo ntim.100) 6768-E D.2 1-11"0116 Issued by Meredith Allen Vice President, Regufato,y Affairs Submitted Effective Resolution November 18, 2022 December 1i. 2022 57 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 76  Packet Pg. 490 of 690  cific Gas and Electtic Companf Revised Cam;e/11119 Revised Cal. P_U'..C. Sheef MJ_ Cal. P_LJ'..C. Sheet MJ_ 59329-E 50086-E U 39 Oakland. CalifDmia ELEC11RI C: SC H EDULE O.CAR!E Sheet 1 LI.NEJITEM DISCOUNT FOR CAU FORiNIA. Al TEIRiNA TE RA TES FOR EJNERGY (CAR;E) CUSTOMBRS AW,l lCABI LITY : This sched is app licab le to sing l~ese and po l~se re-sidential .service in single-famiJy dK'Eling a and i111 flalll and apeltmEti lll separatEfy rnelefed by PG&E and domeslic i;;:ub1111eterad tena nts r,es.iding -n mul1ila rmyaccom1111odal i □11.S . mohileh□1111e p erks and to q,u ifyin g recraa t i □n al veh ide ?SllB and mSJ!Das ,BIil! 11D fBrm servi.ae o n lhe premise5i opa-ated by me person Ml□se re-sidence is i;;:uppied llrurc!qjh lh.e same 1111e er. Where ·Ille applicant q u: es for California Alternate Raisa or Enet'QIY (CA.RE) ul!lder lhe ,el igibiity and celtifica!io111 ,c::ritetria set forth in l:!lectllicRuie 19 .L CARiE ser,,ice is avai le o n Sclried Ulea E-1. E-TOU-B. E-TOLJ-C. E-TOLJ-0 . EV2. E-E LEC. EIM\ IES . ESR. ET &11d IEM-TOU _ TERiRITORY: This rate schedute ,appl ies eVEl"'J!Nhetre PG&E j!rowles electric seMCB.. RAT1ES: Cusllllrnars takimg ear.ice oo 1lili5i rale schedule whose 01Jrleiwisa BJ1pli ceille rate sched h.as n o IDeivetry inmum Bill Amounl (Scln.ecMe IE-ELEC) wil reoaiYe a CAIRE petraelllege dioootnt of 38 .351% (IR) on lheir at.al bundled ,charges (exoepl for the Califolllllia Climate Crad i . id! ·wi ll not be d iscoonted) .. Customers tIDamg SEHrvioe oo lh ia rate 6-Chedule whose o lherwise appica}!je rate .schedule has a Oeivet!)' M inimum Bill Amount (al othe r sched'ule!i) wi ll receive ,e CAIRE percentage disco unt r p;: o r "C " below) on llrles at.al bundled ,charges less charges from wtach they are e:,;e!11lt (W ildm,e IFumd Cherg/31, IRE!CO'o'BI'}' Soo d Cl1arge . ReGOYB[)' B«ld Credit, and he C/!IRJE i;;:urdlerge poltion o f the p.iblic purpose i-ogram charge used o fu nd Iha CAIRE diSCOO!it) oo ·lfle.ir odrlEtwise .eppliceille rate scli,edule (e,ooept ·for Iha C oonia Cli1111ete Cre,:f • l!lhim will nal be disoou111.ted) 811d also wil reoa ive a ~ disoounl ("iB" or "O' below) oo he deli'le.ry 1111inimum ~ B11T1 □u111.t. if applicable _ The CARE d is.couni wil be calcueted for d irect acoesa and com1111 un ity choice e,ggregatio111 aJSlomers based on 1lne tot.al charges es if lhey were i;;:umjecl o, b undl seMOe rales. Oioootnlll will be appl ied as ,e reduction o, d isiribuiioo ,merges . These oond i ions also ,eppl:;o to maslBr­ meier-ed oustorne1E and lo, qual i 1ed Elm-metered IBnants wlrLetre he maste r-meter customer is jcintly seNe<I ul!lder PG&E'a Ra e Sdned ule D-CAIRE ,end e ither Scl!,edule EM, ES. ESR. ET. or EIM-TOU . Adwoe 7"5 16-E Oecision For 1111estE!t'-me ered ,oost□1111ers where one or more of the subme ered tenenlls qualifies ro r CAIRE rste!l uJ!ldEJ he elig ibiJJly and aertificati□n critetlia .set forth in Rule 119.. 1. 19 .2. or 19.3. lln.e CARiE disooulll is equal ·to a perae1111!ege (~c· below) m the otal bundled merges . 1111Ultiplied by he n urmer of CARiE units cf"IVide<I D')' lln.e to1BI 11UJJT1ber of unilll . In add i -□n , 1111ester-m.eterad customera elig ible for O'-C.AR E wil reoa iYB a pernetlltag;e disoounl or be low) o n lhe deli,YBI)' millWllUIITl bi ll am001t, if .ep,p liceille. II is lhe r~pa 11.S ib ility of he master-m e ered wstomer ID ,advise PG&E within 15 days ·follwmg any dtlange in lhe nu1111bet' of d'welq units and/or any decrease in me nu1111iletr of q,ualifyi1119 CARiE app licants ltiat resullll wf:ten sud! ew licants move out of he ir swmetef8d or ooo-subrnetered dwellq unit. or i;;:u b1111eterad perma ne 1111-reaide 11oe RV or per1111enent-msidence ooa.t lssuedby Shi tpa Ramaiy a Vice F:re.sidertl: Regulalo,:y Prooe adingB and Rales S-ubmitted l!:tfecm,a ili!esal!Jtioo (Con.ti111Ued} Fe'brue !)' 26 , 2025 Meroh 1, .2025 58 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 77  Packet Pg. 491 of 690  Gas and Electdc Campanv· Cancel/frig Revise Revise Ca l. P.IJ..C. S'heeJ MJ. Cal. fi'.U.C. S'heeJ MJ. 50087-E 58198-E U 39 OaMand, Ca lifornia Ei1LEC11RI C SCHEDULE D.CARiE Sheet 2 LINE-I TEM D ISCOUNT FOR CAU FO~IA Al T18RJNA TE RA TES FOR ENERGY (CAR!E ) CUSTO BRS A. D-CARE Disoou llll: B. Deiveqr Miwnim Bill Disooulll : C. tast er-Meter 0-C.ARIE Discoont: D . t.1.asl er-Meter Del ivery MiJlli,m u,m Bill Discount: 3!lu000 S0..000 as..,ooo so.,ooo % (Percent} (II % ~P,erc:ent) % ~P,erc:ent} (I) % (Percent} SPECIAL 1. OTI-IERW ISE APiPL ICA.filE SCHEDULE: Th.e Speci Candi iall1.8 of ·the CO DJTIONS: Customer's. otherwis.e ewlicable rate schedu le Ml apj!ly to this. sr:hedu la Advioe 7'469-E Oeci.s-ioo 2 . BL IGIBI LITY : To be efigib le to receive D-CARE the applicant lillllSt qualify u ndE!lf 1he crit eria s.et ·fol1lrl in PG&E's IBlecillic Rules 1 Q_ 1. 19-2. aJl1d 19 .3 .ellld meet llne oertifica -n requ irements hereof l.o 1he se l isfactioo of PG&E ,Q uatify ing Daect Aooes5!., Commu nity Cha i.OB Aggreg,;Uioo Setl'llioe , BM TrsnsiliooSI Bund led Servioe custo,me1a are also ,eligiNe in, im:s s.ervica on Sdnedule D-CA.RE Af1p lice 11J 1, rnay qµaify fur D-CAIRE .el thei r primary residence o l!lly. Cu'Sl arnera or au , l'lllll1.a-ed anBlll1!i panicipating in lln.e Famiy Electric Rate A.ssistanoe (F ERA,\ pragll'Bm ,cannot ooncurrsruly panicipale m he CARE J]fOgl'am. (B,,/Jedby S-bilpa R ameiya VH:e PTesidellt R egulalt:Ny Proae eding,s and Rates Svbmitted Deoernbe.r 30 , .2024 f':.fmctivs Janu 811V 1 .. 2025 "1 eoolution 59 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 78  Packet Pg. 492 of 690  Summe r Da ily Allocations (June throug h Se ptember) Win ter Daily All ocatio ns (October through May) A ll - Daily kWh Electric Baseli ne Region Num be r Allocati on A llocation Ba seline Region Number 5 6 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 .2 17.9 11.4 8 .8 12.6 9 .8 16.5 12.4 18.9 15.8 22 .0 24 .6 18.7 18.3 46.4 24 .1 14.4 13.5 SPECIAL CONDITIONS 5 6 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 Schedule TOU-D T IME-OF-USE DOMES T IC (Continued) 1. Applicable rate time periods are defi ned as follows: Option 4 -9 PM . Option 4 -9 PM-CPP. O ption PRIME . Option PRIME-CPP : Sheet 12 TOU Period Weekdays Weekends and Holidays Summer Winter Summer Winter On-Peak 4 p.m. -9 p.m. NI A NIA NI A Mid-Peak NIA 4 p.m . -9 p.m . 4 p.m. -9 p.m. 4 p.m. -9 p.m. Off-Peak All other hours 9 p.m . -8 a.m . All other hours 9 p.m . -8 a.m . Super-Off-Peak NIA 8 a.m . - 4 p.m. NI A 8 a.m. -4 p.m . CPP Eve nt 4 p.m. - 9 p.m. 4 p.m . -9 p.m . NI A NIA Period All - Daily kWh Electric Allocation Allocation 18.7 29 .1 11 .3 13.0 10.6 12.7 12.3 14.3 12.5 17.0 12.6 24 .3 12.0 21 .3 9 .9 18.2 12.6 23 .1 (T) (T) 60 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement 6.3.2 Southern California Edison The following pages provide details on the SCE electricity tariffs applied in this study. Table describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. A net surplus compensation rate of $ 0.01532/ kWh was applied to any net annual electricity generation based on a one-year average of the rates between February 2024 and January 2025. Table 36. SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone Climate Zone Baseline CZ06 6 CZ08 8 CZ09 9 CZ10 10 CZ14 14 CZ15 15 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 79  Packet Pg. 493 of 690  G.a:lifom ia Edison Rosemead , Ca lifornia (IJ .338-E) Revis ed Cancell li ng Revis ed Scrn,e.dule,,IOJ,Y) TIIM E-OF-USE DDM ESHC (Continued) Ca L PUC Sh eet No . Ca l. PU C Sh eet No . Sheet 2 89278-E 88856-E Cus,tomers receiving service und er tihis Sdhed e wi I lbe ,cfliilrg ed lhe app icable rates und er Option 4-'9 PM, Opti on 4!-9 IPMLC PP, Op ion 5-8 PM, Option 5-8, PM-CPP, Option PRIME, Opi ion PIR IME-CPP Opti'o:n .A, Opti on A-CPP, Oplion B, or Option B-C PP, as listed belO\v . OP P Ev ent Char,ges wlll appGy to all ener,gy usage durirng CPP Event Einergy Cha rg~ periods and CPiP Non-Ev en Ern erg(Y Cr edils wil l apply as a r,educlion on CPP Non-Even Energy Cred'it Pe riods, du rin g Summer Seasorn days , 4!:00 p.mL to 9·,00 p.m., as described in Speci al Cornd i ·ans 1 and 3, below : iA,pQen ◄◄ PY I Qqf;JPIJ ◄=:A PM::Cee 11:1..rQ-,, Ch•ra• -.SJkWh lvl C'.A.lvl Char,g,a• -s.ik..._, h 1lvUn'"1um C.h.a-"liil• ... -S:ld ■V C •AlkN'n l• C■m.ac.a C:r ■,c:H s.,,. C..•Man1I• A 11 .. ,,.. •• R .-... ri:a r ti:Cla.tQ",' D l■.c:o!I.IDt -'!JI. Siumm•r :S..•.1111.0r1 -On.-P••k .... ld.P,a;a k ON-.P,a;a k Wlru-.r S.•.11-..an -.... ld-{P•a k ON-'P••k SiilupM"-ON-.P••k Si ln.:gl•-Fam lly RAl..&ki.Anc.a Mi.a-11 1-S:am lty R•..&ldllH'I C.- !.l lnlill• Fam lly R..--..&ld,anc.a MLaill l-Fam lty R•.&ld-•nc.a Siil lnlill• Famlly R.a-.a ld•nc.a MLJilll-Fam lly R..all::l_•nc.a S:-iun..it,' k.1-.cuic. R:"-•• A• .. ••n.c• D1i&Co.u~u -'%. ~t ,. ~M!:Ctt C PP 1r;;;._,..nt r;;;,n•rgy Chara• -s.J11.'\!i!iho !.umm•r CPP IN,an-~ .. an., C.-.d lL On-P•.ak Gn•rir.-C.-.cl ll -SJk Wrl o.~!5154 41• 0 .!15.~4 tli• O .!>U?◄ tli• O .!l:51~-'li tli• O .!>U?◄ tli• 0 .2.G5 1 !l ·Ii· (O .QD5 1 ◄~ (IJ' 0 .91.!tG 0 .914G 0 .'1 7.Ji 0 .'1 7.Ji O .~◄H-'li 4R . 0 .1 2.D-tlll 4R. O .Qll,D7G 4R . 0 .1 72".3? CR • o .oi;,,0,0,2 CR • 0 .07T7lil CR • 0 .111000(1 40 .1 5tHiJ O .i>OOOQ O .i>OOOO O .i>OOOO O .BOOOQ 0 .00000 0 .00000 ' ~ 100% of the di=<:rll ~ m 5h:MTI i11 the ~p~ Special c:-.oo.itioo ct fio SclrmlJle. Toe I nimlrn C/age is aJ:l:li<3ile, ,.,tr,,,, ihe DeWl!f}' SeM:z! llellergf ~e-. ~ the "FP~ 18'!"" Cllarge ,is '"'" !hon ihe-Pdnin:un ~ Toe~ ~inn T""15ifian Onarge CJC el ClQ.ll(l(lf8) I""' kWh is~ i11 the UG COltfDM"1I cf Gene-raibn . iR) Toe l3=li1o o..dil ~i"" up lb t 00%d the Basel'ne A:ICIC!lion,. ,._.a.,., afTmed,I.Jlsa (m, p,,ri::d. Ad<loonal 13ase1;,,.,.~ :owl!' fer iCusbners ..a~ ~"l' Waler~~ uni!l,r ihis Op&:,n. lt.. Baseline-1111:ic:a'!ii:m; ase sl!fl blh.., Ptelinnsiy ~ Pal1i H. ""Tho t.la:<a-num Availal:il,, a-..dil is h!· oal'f"'d <>:ml asn:,unl far OFIP ~ liJal !""'i""'"~ in cila-mnantl =1"'""' ~ 1 Tclllll ~ T<li.ol M""')" Seni::e ral= ....,. ~ble io Bu:,:lled Ser,;c,,, [X...,.;i I= (DA) and Comiruriily Chcico ~~(CCI, Sernce) ~ l9Cep! DI< ;s,:l CCASemco Cu.lmier.,'""' rd ""bjed ~,. lb, Cl!M<8C 1111'1<!· ""'1:f0"'11t cf lhis Sdte:lulo bllt irnolis,d :,11h<, IJl'ffi8G as µ,m;do,:l by Scl\ed'ule-DA,ORS a-Schet:l\rji, CCA,CRS. 2 Ge...-..tioo = Tilo Gen"''"" are ,app ,:;ablo <JOiy lo Bunt'll!d Serooe C...II:mer.<. See Special Cooatioo bew ~ PCII\ ~- 3 IJ!1'11u;c = ~1 ct Waler R=:uoes IDWR) isne,gy Oretl~ -i<ar m:xe ~ on lho ~ siergy Oeit~ • ..,.. the Bil lh;J ,Cz,lcuJaoon Sp,,::;ill Caxl of Lhis Sd'ied'ule. 4 l<ppied on an, o,q.al bmis, I""' ITa.I,dd:l , ,en:i,-,uall)'. See· 1h Sp,,m,11 Condiibns o l lhi• Scl\ed'ulo, ID: n:ui, illimr:ma,. & Tilo ll.lodfi eo.; A:l'cc:,tjoo ~ledw!i,m (MCl•M! charge-re<XM0:5 1h ""' oos'I ... soa:-=t w 51¢,em ref:ltil ily pro:ul!fll51i oo:lered by ihe CP,UC Iha! SOE b... FflJCUl"d on ~JI ol rus iomeor5 ...ms,, !1"f11"1'."loo ..,..,..,.,. are· J!flMde:I l>,<oertain Ell,ctri:: S.S..:., 1'1-tM:le,s ar Camnu-ily Oooicz, .ol,;,g~Lcn. (Tio be insen.ed by u lity) Advice _5449"-'-'-'-....C-E"------- Decision (Con ·mred), Issued by Midh...el Backsl rom Viice President (To be ins erted by c..t . PUC) Date Subm itted Dec 30, 2024 Effect ive a:n 1 , 2025 Resolutiorn -=Ec....c·-5c..c2cc1cc.7 ____ _ 61 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 80  Packet Pg. 494 of 690  ern Californ ia Edison Rosemead, Ca liforn ia (U 338-E} Revis ed Canoell"ng Revised Cal. PUC Sheet N:o . Cal. PU C Sheet N:o . 89282"E 88860-E RA TES (Contin ued ) Opiloo PRIME' r OntlQn PBIME.C:PP Energy °""''11" • ~'M.,L,,rJDay S ummer ~ MCAM ~.,• , $,l<'!M-i Blllsic Chaif9" • &iMet=ID")' Scb,ecdule,,IDJJ;O TIME-Of-US E D.QM ESI &C (Con ·n,ued } On,.P=k M d ,Peoik Off,Peoik M d 'Peoik Off,P=k ~r.off,Peoik Ff\/ t.ll!ler Credii {Seyar.:,t,,ly Me!ered EV Op1icn) • $1M<,L,,ri'Da.y Ff\/ Sul:,mel,,r Cred il O SfMel,,r;Oay c..'lifarria, Olirrn,;e Credi!' c..'lifaorm AJtem ,;t,, _,, for Esnergy Ci=Junl • % F"~mi ly EJ~dri::; ~l:e As!i istance D i sCDU rn'I. • % Me d i<,;,! Line I tem Disa,urtt • % Opllil111 PRIME:.CP P CPP g,,.,m, E~y C h "'B" • $\k,Wh s..nm..-CP.P Non-Even t C...,.fi 1 Qn.Pealk Eenetrgy C...,.fil , $il<Vl!h Delivt,ry S,,n,ja, Taial' 0•.28716 (1) o,.2a?16 (1) 0•.20039 (1) 0,.29:246 (1) o,.rs 12 15 (1) 0•.19-2 15 (I) 0,.00 19!1 (1) 0,.00 160 (1) 0 .539 (R) (0 .(08)(1) (0 .139)(1) j 56.00} (IR ) 100.00" 00 .00 100..000 Sll eet 6, 11.283 17 (R) 0.100n (R) 0.067.28 (R) 11.24759 (R ) ll.05686 (R ) 0.05886 (R) 6.1!0000 (0..15 170) (O.J5482 1) (R) 0 .00000 0 .00000 0 .00000 0 .00000 0 .00000 0 .00000 Reix=rn 1Cl!I% di th<, cisooullt ~3""" "11<,,,,m 01 1th<, ~" Spociol Candilo, d 11-i• Sd,ed_j..._ The ~119 ~lion Tran,iiioo Charge (CTC) of ($11•.00058) per k!/lh i,o. re<XM<ed in lie UG ~ of Gener•lion. lR) The Ma>:irru:nA""l.:tie c...:ti • the '-',l'pecl c:red~ ,illtD.A11. fa-Cl?P Cu,;iorn,r.; d id palili<i~ 01 .,u,.,,-d'emand "'"i""'<"' -=· Total =Tdlal Dl,l~Ser,,era1e5,.,,,~.,1o -..:lSernoo, C.<!dkoe .. (OA)~ Camrruil.y CJioioo~SeMCO (OCAs..rro.) Ou~ e,;u:epl DA and CC\ Se,,,e OJst.cn,ers ""' na: subjed lb the ClM'RllC raile· ~ ct lhi• Schedle bui .,,.,., y lhe DWRBC ... ~~Sched.h,D,lt,.CRSarSchm,loOCA,CRS .. 2 ~a,~ The Gen -,..,, ~c.,bli, rrly ID E!uirllerl SernCll!• ~ See Spociol Can,Hii:m lbelow b PCIA ~- 3 D'l\lREC • D,,partmen l cf Ylouor Remu"""' (l:M'Rl Energy Clredl: -F« ....-e infi:mlOlioo "" lhe Ol'/IR Ernu'f a-..a~ ..,. lhe Bilrg C.tcul alioo Spociol Candilo, d 11-i • --~- 4 ~ed"" :m ""lual • is, pi,r ir>:>u5t!hdd, ~~-See tho Sp<riil Coodlioco, ct 11'15 SdlOO!Je b more iibmaiian . 6 The lMcd fi C...,Ata:.,ticnModiarni,m (MCMll chargi,re<XM0:5 u,.,.,.1 coo1 .. ~...; •l"'lemreli.ul ily pn:a.romsitorderedibyOH,0POC ihal SOE I=~ on t,,lialf of =iomo,, .-.h,.., ger;,,rJlioo some"" ....,. pro,i:lod 1,y.,,,11an Elt,,::ri:; Sen.i,e -"' ar Camnuiily Choic:z, ·~•=- (Tio be inserted by u "lity ) Advice _5449"-·'-'· -'---"E'------­ Dec is ion (Con ·mied) Issued by Micha.el Ba c:b l rom \Ace Presi dent (To be ·nserted by Cal . PUC) Dat e Subm itted Dec 30,1 2024 Effect ive J!a:n 1 , 202.5 Resol ution E-5217 -------- 62 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 81  Packet Pg. 495 of 690  0150 Southern Clillifornia, !Edison Revised Call PUC Sheet No. 892n-E Rosemead, Califorria (U 338-IE ) Canoe! 1'1Q Revised Cal . PUC Sheet No. 88502-E • • '.ule 0-CAAE Sheet 1 CAUFORN TE RA.TES FOR ENERGY Sil"IC SERVICE APPLICAB IUTY Appli.cable to domestic •senooe to Califomia All:emate Ra. es fot" Energy CARE) households res id ing ,in a pennanent Sio9e-Fa ily Acoommoda00111 Of" Multifam Acoommodaoon where e ,011Js-tomer meets all the Special Cood lions of lhis Sd'ledule. customers enroled in the CARE program are not eligible for the Family Electric Rate Ass.istance FERA) program. Pur..uant to Special Cond lion 2 luerein, customers rec:eMng service under this Schedule are eligible to receive the Cal forn "a a1mate Credit as shown in the Rates seotioo below_ TERRITORY Wrthio the entire territory served. The applicable diarges set fo " Schedu D shat ~pply 'lo Oustomera served under this Schedule. CARE Discount A 32 .5 percelilt discou • t is, appl ed to ai CARE Customer's bi poor to the application of the Public U~ili~ies (11) Commission Re' bu sement Fee (PUCRF) and any .:qiplicable user fees , taxes, and late paymen t charges. CAR!E Customers are required lO pay lhe PUORF and any applicable user fees . tax.es , and late payment charges in ful. addition CARE Customers are exempt from paying, ~he CARE Surcharge of 0.01435, per 'Wh. lhe Widfire fund on-Bypass.able Charge of $0.0DSQ.5 per Wh , arnd (11) the Fixed Recovery Charge o 0.00 98, ~ :'Nh.. (II) (To be inserted by uti ily) Advice 5449-E Decision --------- Coil " ued ~edby ichael BackslrOm Vice Aresideot (To be inserted by ca r. PUG) Date Subnutted Dec 30 . 2024 Effedille Jan 1, 2025 Resolution E.5217 ------- 63 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 82  Packet Pg. 496 of 690  6.3.3 Southern California Gas Following are the SoCalGas natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 37 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. Table 37. SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone Climate Zone Baseline Territory CZ05 2 CZ06 1 CZ08 1 CZ09 1 CZ10 1 CZ14 2 CZ15 1 The SoCalGas monthly gas rate in $/therm applied in this analysis is shown in Table 38. The gas rates were developed based on the latest available gas rate for January 2025 and a curve to reflect how natural gas prices fluctuate with seasonal supply and demand. The seasonal curve was estimated from SoCalGas’s monthly residential tariffs between 2015 and 2024. 12-month curves were created from monthly gas rates for each of the ten years. The ten annual curves were then averaged to arrive at an average normalized annual curve. Long-term historical natural gas rate data was only available for SoCalGas’ procurement charges.8 The baseline and excess transmission charges were found to be consistent over the course of a year and applied for the entire year based on January 2025 rates. The costs presented in Table 38 were then derived by establishing the baseline and excess rates from the latest January 2025 tariff as a reference point, and then using the normalized curve to estimate the cost for the remaining months relative to the January rates. CARE tariffs reflect the 20 percent discount per the GR tariff. 8 The SoCalGas procurement and transmission charges were obtained from the following site: https://www.socalgas.com/for-your-business/energy-market-services/gas-prices RES2023.xlsx (live.com) 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 83  Packet Pg. 497 of 690  Table 38. SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) Month Procurement Charge Transportation Charge Total Charge January $0.45 $0.98 $1.40 $1.43 $1.85 February $0.31 $0.98 $1.40 $1.29 $1.71 March $0.26 $0.98 $1.40 $1.24 $1.66 April $0.21 $0.98 $1.40 $1.19 $1.62 May $0.22 $0.98 $1.40 $1.20 $1.62 June $0.25 $0.98 $1.40 $1.23 $1.65 July $0.26 $0.98 $1.40 $1.24 $1.66 August $0.29 $0.98 $1.40 $1.27 $1.70 September $0.27 $0.98 $1.40 $1.25 $1.67 October $0.26 $0.98 $1.40 $1.24 $1.66 November $0.29 $0.98 $1.40 $1.27 $1.69 December $0.33 $0.98 $1.40 $1.31 $1.73 6.3.4 San Diego Gas & Electric Following are the SDG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 39 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. A net surplus compensation rate of $ 0.01837/ kWh was applied to any net annual electricity generation based on a one-year average of the rates between February 2024 and January 2025. Table 39. SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone Climate Zone Baseline CZ07 Coastal CZ10 Inland CZ14 Mountain The SDG&E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis according to the rates shown in Table 40. The gas rates were developed based on the latest available gas rate for January 2025 and a curve to reflect how natural gas prices fluctuate with seasonal supply and demand. The seasonal curve was estimated from SDG&E’s monthly residential tariffs between 2015 and 2024. 12-month curves were created from monthly gas rates for each of the ten years. The ten annual curves were then averaged to arrive at an average normalized annual curve. The baseline and excess transmission charges were found to be consistent over the course of a year and applied for the entire year based on January 2025 rates. The costs presented in Table 40 were then derived by establishing the baseline and excess rates from the latest January 2025 tariff as a reference point, and then using the normalized curve to estimate the cost for the remaining months relative to the January rates. CARE tariffs reflect the 20 percent discount per the G-CARE tariff. 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 84  Packet Pg. 498 of 690  Table 40. SDG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) Month Total Charge January $2.07 $2.36 February $2.01 $2.30 March $1.93 $2.22 April $1.86 $2.16 May $1.88 $2.18 June $1.94 $2.24 July $1.95 $2.25 August $2.02 $2.32 September October $1.97 $2.27 $1.94 $2.24 November $1.97 $2.27 December $2.07 $2.37 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 85  Packet Pg. 499 of 690  S Diego Gas & Eleciric C=pany s.. Di,gc,, c.m r""raa RA1E S Tota l Ra\e:s: ~;ptl:oo,-T OU DR.11 Summe-_ o.,.p.,..1; OJI.P.,..k Super Oll,P,, Wnte:. On.P .... 'k OJl.p...,1; Super Of!.P<!~ St.nim58=:ii,.,Adju51menl0t:<lil l.fl b 130% ol 8=:iine- Wm 811...tir,e AdjU5lmJ!llt 0.-d ~ Lf' lo 130% ol 8=:iine- ~mum Bi l f$1d'a •l ~;ptl:oo -T OU O:R.11-IIOCTota l CARiE R.lilii, S □Jllllllll!'I -CARiE Rat es.: On.P...,k 0 .28222 Qll,P...,1; 0 .28222 Super 011,P,, 0.28222 WJoter -CARiE Rates : On.P....'k 0.4 143!1 OJI.P...,k 0.4 1 3!I Super 011,P,, 0.4 143!1 S=met 8;,,s,ili,., i,u.,tmenl Coodl up le (0.10543) 130% ol 8=:iiie- Wm 811...tino AdjU5lmJ!llt Ci'edlt up iD 13llll'l'. a:r (0.10 543) B ...... Jim, , ... ,mum Bi l ($1d'a•l 0.196 Nma : Revised Cat f:) .U.C. Sheel t>lo . Ca111aelin!!I Revised Ce1. f:) .U .C . Sheel t>lo . SCHEDU LIE T OU-DR1 RE:SIDEN TIAJL T [ME-O F-US E DWR8C + III OC il'oial 1ta1,; Wl'-INBC EIECC:Ral'<i 0.28222 0.00661 0.4 1738 ll.28222 ll.~1 ll.1,&792 ll.28222 o.~1 0.0674,1 0.4 14'.l9 0.00661 0.14115 0.4 14!.19 ll.00661 0.019.28 ll.4 14'.!9 0.00661 (1.06133 (0.11l543} (0.11)543} 0..392 OWR BC •• r o1 · EECCfitafo WF' BC Rat;;, 0.00000 0 ..4 1136 0 .119968 0.00000 0 .1819.2 0 ..47014 0.00000 0.0674 1 0.34!163 0.00000 0 .14 1 15 0Ji5564 0..00000 0..117928 0 ..49367 0.00000 0..116133 0..47572 (0.10543) (0.10543) 0.196 62500-E 623 60-E Sheet .2 TOI R.l,ja, 0.7 051!1 o.A7fi7fi o.:lSS;M Oli6 1 1lS 0 .49!128 0.48 133 (0.1054-'.l ) (0.1054-'.l ) 0 .3!12 T.t11ial IEffi!di,..I!, ~•Rat!! 0 .413249 R 0 .3llllffl2 R 0 .22627 R 0 Jl8 526 R 0 .32350 R 0 .3 1 138 R (ll.01 111} I (ll.01 111} l 0.1911 (1) Tcml Ft.I= a:a,m, _,. LDC , SchodLt,, DWF!..SC {Depa-....L cl Wai.-r Re50Ula,,; &o::t Oha-9"~ Sct-etY. Wf'-BC (CA WJifi,.­ FLn:t d.sge ) and Smeoile EECC ts-i" E=w Ccrnm::11:lly Co,;ij 1es. EECC r.,I= ,., .. "flP""'tl" ta btm::lled a.mcJITlef5. C111ly. See Special Condli:n 111 r..-Pctll (Per.el-a-El" lril&rence AdJ=enl} """""""Y- (2) Talal Rat.,,. p-.,.,,.,b,d ,are-for a.is'iomons llal ..,.,,,;,,, ""'""1Cld ~y st1pp't/ i3nd do!Msy...,,,.,. rrom itr- (3) □v.'R.BC "'1d Vi'r•NBC cha~ do ool app:Jr lo CARE ciesl'om..-.._ (4) A,; idettlifo.-d i11 t,,, ,raii,,, • wsl.an>er bi n l ,me .mduode ""' ii,,m sLE1111...-..,c1 MniN czed~s rr. u~" up lo 100% e r basm,e ta fCWD•.:1" 0... rah,, ,ping b..,.,r.is ad'qll:ed by ll=n:tJl.r Bill 1)[ and S.,nab,, Bi ll 119l>. (5) WI' BC .-is 0.00511 1 + DWR,BC Bait! er.mg,, ;,. ll.00000 . 2}jf(J Ad 'lice Ur. No. <1582-E 0.24-05-028 Cotrl!lnued l!ISUl!d by Dan Skopec Senio r Vice Pre911!1ent Reg ulatory Affah Submitted Effec ti ve Resolu tion o. Jan 1. 2005 67 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 86  Packet Pg. 500 of 690  HB□UllE TOU-O R1 R ES ID:ENT IA L TIME-O F-US E Sheet 5 Th e m ini mum bill to recover rn stri bulion aoo TRAC cos s i s ca lcu lated as lh e m ini m m bill clia:r,g;e of io-4182 per day Ii s the n u mber of days • the b i in,g cyc'le w ith a 50% discoo nt app lie • o r CA RE o:r Fa mily E!lectric Rate Assistance Progr a m (FE RA) cu sfo rs res ·ng in a miir1imu m bi ll ch.arge of io .201 per da y . Ra e Compooems Th e U ify D islnb ution COOi\pany Tof Rates (IJDC Total } shown above a:re co mprised o the fo llolNin g compo n ems (if ,ap ca'b le )c (1) T ransmiss ion (T rans ) Oharg;es . (2 ) D isb ib won (D is r) Charges , (3 ), P u b c P rpose Prog ra m (PPP ) Charges,. (4 ) N u cl ear Decomm ission ing (MD ) Charge. (5 ) Ong;ain g Compehlio n Transiti cm Oh arges (CTCI , (6 ) Locall Ge n eratio n Charge (LGC). (7) R 1ab ility SelVices (RS ). and f8 ) the Tota l Rate Ad" s me:n Compo n.ent (TRAC ). Ousfomers tak ing seIV ice under t his .Sch ed may be• e.l ig i • or a Ca lifo rni a A lt ernate Ra fes for Energy (CARE) d iscount on lhe ir b i , if t hey· q u ify to r ece ive serv ice u nder-lne• ams and cond i ions of Schedu le E.­ GAR E.. In add itio n, qua li 1ed CARiE cusfomers e e:X!em:p from pay ing the CAR E surch ge o io.o 123-D Pe:r kWih . Cu stomers t a:re , g l e a:nd receive ba CARE an d med i:ca l b ase lin e w il be given 't he add ition med ic b8!5'ell ne s atmerit for Ydi ich th ey qu al ify and w il r,eceive th e tot al e · ective CARE , me di cs b ase r e discounts id en lilied in Soh ed e• E-CAR E. Franch ise Fee Differe.n A. Rranc'hise Fee Diffe irenlial of 5 .78/II, w ill be app li ed to the m anfHl y bil gs 'Lll ated un der thi s Sdhed' e ar a ll ,cusfomers within ihe co rporate imils o • lhe Oity of Sa n o· go . Suc'h Franchise Ree Diftereriti stia l be so • d"ICS ed and added as a :separate item to b ill s rendered to such cust omers . A l • e p eriods li'sted are ,ap pl icab le t o loc ·me . The de 11r1ifi oo ,of lime I be b ased upo n the date serv ice is reooe.red . TO U Periods -Weekdays On-Peak Off-Peak Super Off~Pea Su er O:ff~Pea'k Season s: S u mme.r W inter d Summe r 4::0D 'liYL -9:00 .m. 6,:00 aJm. -4.:00 111 .m.; QtOO pum. -midnighi idnighl -6,:00 aJm. Summe r 4::0D nn. -9:00 .m. 2:00 p1Jm. -4 :CIO 111.rm .; •• lil l Ju ne 1 -O :ober 3 1 :ove.m'be ir 1 -May 3 1 W...ier 4·:00 .ra. -9:.00 .m. 6 :00 ill . . -4 :.00 p.m . Ex 10:00 a.m. -2 :00 p . . i'I March and Ap ri l; 9:00 •• Midlii~ -,. ' acme 0:00 ai.,lill.. -2:.00 .m . in Mareh anlil W...i er 4 :00 .ra . -9:00 .m . 2: • I) pJm, •-4 :CI O p.m.; 9:00 ht 68 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 87  Packet Pg. 501 of 690  l)».lqi.11,..~]r, nt,,t~l,l(!Cr,_· _,.,,;.,,_. !h~~~EY-'rOV-S-iiihtQM."""111'~ .. ,.ll~ illldW'F-N8C 11,o;UCJC • aJIT1PC)l"lll'bPf.-ad""' MM0111nis~EV--lOU-5nP1 • fnh •lllrilfl>oox. ~)~ ~ t~..tw:i -~...,olht<p~-."'~~[.OA)111~Clw;ict;ll,gg!tgaili;viCOCAJ ~~~1>;1!1'@¥$00,I, •~"--fl'lt T 'r;,u,1 fno,v, 0-V-b-anllriKn:hd cullDmll • U0C. F ' .C, OV.'R -BC arid ~w Ch.>qt;o lrd WIC4I ~ (PCIAI s-. PCU!. , t.,, ~, hludod babw -Sct!oddlH Dll.al:Sar OCi!r l;~!o,,-~~ PQIA• 69 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost-Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 88  Packet Pg. 502 of 690  H EDU LE EV-T OU -5 Sheet 4 COST-BASED DOMESTIC T IME~OF-USE FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITH ELECTRIC VEH IClES Notes: l"ransrnlssfon !Energy charges in.dude lhe TmnsmiSSion Revenue Ba lan.olng Accou nt Ad1ustment (TRBAA ) of $(0 00289} per lcWh and the 1iransml ssfon Access Charge Ba lan.d ng Account Adj us1men1 (TACBAA) of $(0.01656 } per kWh . PPP Energy charges includes Low Income PPP mle (LI-PPP) $0 .015151kWn , Non-low Income PPP rate (Non-LJ­ PPP ) So.00031/licWh (pursuant to PU Code Seotion 399.8 , the t\lon.U-PPP ra te may nol exceed January 1, 2000 leve.ls), and Cal[fo m la So lar Initiative rate (CS I) of $(0 .00075)/l(Wh and Self-Genera~on Incentive Prog ram rate (SG IP) $0.00 149Jkl/Yh. 1illle bas ic service fee of 16 per montlll is app lied to a customer's bill and a 50 % discount is app li ed fot CARE, Medi cal Baseline , or Family Electri c Rate Assislance Program (IFERA) custorriers resulting, in lheir basic sef\l ice fees to be 8 pe r month. Rate Components The Utility Distribution Company Tota l Rates (UDC Total ) shown above are compris ed of the fol lowing components (if applicable): (1) Transm ission (Trans) Charges , (2} Distribution (D istr) Charges, (3) Publi c Purpose Program (PPP) Charges, (4) Nuclear Decommissioning (ND) Charge, (5) Ongoing Competition Transition Charges (CTC), (6) Local Generation Charge (L GC). (7) Reliability Services (IRS},. and (8) the Total Rate Adj ustment Component (TRAC). Gertain Direct Access customers are exempt f rom the TRAC , as defined i n Ru le 1 -Defini tions. Franchise Fee Differential A Franchise F,ee Differential of 5. 78% will be applied to the mon th ly billings calculated unde r this schedule for all customers within the corporate limits of the City of San Dieg o. Such Franch ise Fee Differen tial shall be so indicated and added as a separate item to b ills rendered to such cus tomers . T ime Pe ri ods: A ll time peri ods listed are appl icable to actual "clock" time) TOU Pe riod -Weekdays Summer Winte r On•Peak 4:00 p.m. -9 :00 p .m . 4:00 p.m . -9:00 p.m. 6:00 a .m. -4:00 p .m .; 6:00 a.m . -4:00 p .m. Off.Peak Excluding 10:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m.in March and Apri l; 9:00 p.m. -mid night 9:00 p.m . -mi dnight Super ~Off-Peak Midnight -6 :00 a .m. Midnigh t -6 :00 a.m. 10:00 a.m.. -2:.00 p.m. in Marc h and April TOU Period -Weekend.s Summer Win ier and Holi days On•Peak 4:00 p.m. -9 :00 p .m . 4:0 0 p.m . -9:00 p.m. Off-Peak 2:00 p.m. -4:00 p .m .. ; 2:00 p.m. -4 :00 p.m . 9:00 p.m. -midnight 9:00 p.m. -mi dnight Super .Off.Peak Midnight -2:00 p .m. Midnight -2 :00 p.m . Seasons: Summer June 1 -October 31 Winter November 1 -May 31 70 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 89  Packet Pg. 503 of 690  ·• ....,JE San Diego Gas & Electric Co,npany San Diego, Califom ie R1wl sed Ca l . F'·.U.C. ShHI No. Cancel 9 RevJsed Ca l . F'·.u .c. ShHI No. SCHEDULE E CARE CAL IFORN IAALiERNA.TE RATES FOR ENERGY APPLICAB ILITY 62755-E 357 18 ~E Sheet 1 lh is schedu le provides a Ca lifornia Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE ) disrount to each of the fo ll owing types of customers li sted below that meet the· requirements for CARE eli gibility as defined in Huie 1, Defin iti ons , and here in, and is taken in conjunction w ith the customer's otherwise app licab le· service schedu le. 1) Customers resi.ding in a pe rmanent s in gle~fami ly accommodation , separate ly metered by the Utility. 2 ) Mu lti-famc ly dwelling units and mob il e home parks supp li ed throug.h one meter on a s ingle prem ises where the ind ividua l un it is submetered. 3 ) Non -profit group living fac ilities . 4 ) Agri oultura I employee hous ing faci lities. l ERIRITORY W ith in the ent ire territory served t>y the UHl ity . DISCOUNT 1) Res ide ntial! CARE: Pursuant to D.24-05-028 , the appli cable GARE discount rate is to be· between 30 % and 35 %, with the intended CARE d iscount ra t e to be 35% for SDG&E, specifica lly , app li ed as a fi xed CARE line~item d iscount. 1H6 In add'ition to t he CARE lin e-item discount, the tota l effective GARE discount cons ists of: (a ) exemptions from pay ing the CARE Surcharge , Departme nt of Wa te r Resou rces Bond Char ge (DWiR-BC ), Ca lifo rn ia W ildfire Fund Charge (WF-NBC), Veh ic e-Gr id Integration (VGI ) costs , and Ca lifo rn ia Solar Initi ative• (CS I) and (t>) a 50 % minimum bill relative to N.on ­ CARE. Oontl rrued Issued by Submitted Ja n 24. 2025 Advi ce U r. No. 4572-E-A Dan1Skopec Effective Jan 1, 2025 Senlo.r V ice F'r es ldeni Decision No. D.24-05-028 Reg ul atory Affairs R.esol utllon No. T N N 71 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 90  Packet Pg. 504 of 690  6.3.5 City of Palo Alto Utilities Following are the CPAU electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. The CPAU monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis according to the rates shown in Table 41. The gas rates were developed based on the latest available gas rate for January 2025 and a curve to reflect how natural gas prices fluctuate with seasonal supply and demand. The seasonal curve was estimated from CPAU’s monthly residential tariffs between 2018 and 2024. 12-month curves were created from monthly gas rates for each of the seven years. The seven annual curves were then averaged to arrive at an average normalized annual curve. The baseline and excess transmission charges were found to be consistent over the course of a year and applied for the entire year based on January 2025 rates. The costs presented in Table 41 were then derived by establishing the baseline and excess rates from the latest January 2025 tariff as a reference point and then using the normalized curve to estimate the cost for the remaining months relative to the January rates. The monthly service charge applied was $16.93 per month per the January 2025 G-1 tariff. Table 41. CPAU Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) Month G1 Volumetric Total Baseline G1 Volumetric Total Excess January $1.74 $3.02 February $1.33 $2.53 March $1.24 $2.43 April $1.21 $2.39 May $1.21 $2.39 June $1.23 $2.42 July $1.31 $2.64 August $1.37 $2.71 September $1.36 $2.71 October $1.38 $2.72 November $1.45 $2.80 December $1.57 $2.96 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 91  Packet Pg. 505 of 690  :S m.E U L IE IJE C fR H: 'K R I C E U1"[UTY RATE SCHEIDULE E-1 A. .Pl"U(' . BEUTY : This Rate Sch dule app!.i to sep rarely m t.ered in ,Je-mil · resi!fen11ial d/ llin -receiving Electric Se • ice Imm dlle iiy of Palo Alto Ut ilities. B. T E R:Rn'OR : C. Thi rate chedule appli.e everywhe.re the Ci f Palo Alto pro ide.s E.!earic Se • ce. DL KD· RAT ES: Tier I u:sag.e Tier2u:sage All}' II age O .er Ti.er I Customer Chari.,<.e ( monili) Commodi 0.10-270 0 .13240 Di tr1bu1ion 0 .0$642, 0.08079 Public Be-ilefits (UICl549 (UICl549 Tolal .1946 1 0.2 1868 4.64 D·. ~l'IOC I . L OT ··: l . C afe11 I tio olf Co t Co ponen . The crual bill. amount i calculat ed. based on. th.e applicable • te i.n Section C above and adj u ted for any pplkable oliscounl , sureharge and/o r ta. e . On a Cu tomer' bill talem.enl the bill amount may be broken clown into appropriate componenl as ,eaklllated under Secti.on C. C afe11 I tio olf oe-Tie Tier 1 -1.ecttidty usage haM be calrulated and biUed. based. upon. a 1eve4. o,f 15 kWh per day proratecl b Meter reooing days of S ice. As an example for a 30-<l'ay bill, ihe Tier I level \¥OUM be 450 Wh. for furd1er discus ion of bill c.alculation and proration, refe-r to Rule ancl Regul tion 11 . Is ued by the Cil)• Council Supe.l':!i~ Sl'l8el'Nt, E-1-1 tJate cJ 7-1-WZJ Tm U TIES O C IT YOF PALO AL.:,T'O UTI LI T-IES {Entl} Sheet No E-1-l Effocti e 7-1-20-24 73 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 92  Packet Pg. 506 of 690  idential Time-of-Day Servi ce Rate Schedule R-TOD II . Firm Serv ice Rates A. Timc'-<lf-D•y (5-S p.m.) Rak Of't"tliW" id ot ftr«1i~ 1e1 ut £Kttti ,rti ut lim-cliw all or fl'l'edi\1:' M ut Ji ■ury l .2tlH J anlbn l.2tH l\bt.\' 1.2124 JiUluar ~•J.2025 ll,bt'l .2(1?5 N,., 11n11aer Se~oo (Oc1ober -Ma}'J S~i lt!1n lntr.tilnlttu r e fiiM'd Ulillle p~r ,_,,. tli pu JffC'.tu $23.50 Pl.IS S24.80 S2S.50 Detlritity lJsW11tr U ii.rji.1! f"e.11lt.$11:IH1 lb.ISO S0.IS90 lb.HOO S0..161f! OO-Pir.11lt.S/llf-1r S0.1120 SO.II.S I S0.11 83 $0.12.U S uJ1111N!r Sr.uon (Jur,i:, • Sepll-mbcr) B. S:i,-s 1e1a lnfntilnl.ctur e fiud <:lJtrtt! prr l'ND'.n tb pu l'ff.tu $23.50 $24.IS $24.80 S2S.50 Ott1ric.i1y l illl:rCbrji.e f>c,kS/1 11~ lb.3219 lb.l:wl $0.3462 $0..lSS? M.t-l-..k $/llf~ lb.lllfi-l S0.1914 $0.1967 $0.202 1 Ofl'f>c,Ull II~ lb.mo SO.llll7 $0.142.S $0.1'164 Optional Critica l Peak Pricing Ra tc 1. T hC' CPP Rate base prices per time-of-day pcriod a.re the same as thC" pri ces per time-of-day period for TOD (S-8 p.m.). 2. The CPP Rate provides :::i d iscount per kWh on the Mid-Peak nnd Off-Peak prices during summer months. 3. During CPP Events, cu.stomCl"S wi11 be charged fo r energy used i:it the npplici:ible time--of-di:iy period rate p lus I.he CPP Rate E"·cnt Pric.epcr kWh as shown on www_smud_org... $26.20 S0..17'-A S0..1248 $26.20 $0.36$5 $0.1077 $0.1505 4. During CPP E'\-·enls, cne.-gy exported lo the grid will be compensated at the CPP Rate Event Price per kWh as shown on www_smud.org.. 5. The CPP Rate E"·cnt Price and djsco,mt will be updated annually a.I SMUD's discretion and posted on www.smud.org. C. Plug-In Elect ri c Vehicle C n.-d il (n l.e cal.L-go.-ics RT02 and RTC l ) This credit is fo r rcsidentia.l customers who ha~·c a licensed passenger battery electric pl ug-in or plug-in hybrid electric "·chicle. Credit applies to alJ clcctricl1y usage charges from midnjg.ht to 6:00 a .m. dai ly . Electric Vchjcle Crcdj t . _____ ... ---·--·. _________ _ .... .... .... -$0.0 ISO/kWh Ill . Electrlclty Usage Surcharges Ref er to the fol lowing rn.le. schcd u]cs fo.-drtails on these surcharges. A. H)"d m G en c.-ation Adju!tl.mtni (HCA}. RcfCf" to Rate Scha:l uJe HGA. IV. Rate OpUon Menu A. Energy A.s!dsla nc.e Prog.n11m R :ll'k, Refer to Rate Schedule EAPR. 0 . J\t r::dicsl Equip mtnl Di!icOu nt P.-ognm. Refer lo Rate Sc.hcdu]e MED. C. J oin t P :ut ici pa t ion in Medical Equipment Diseo uni and E'..n r r gy Allistancr Pragn.rn Ra te. R.cfcrlo Rate Schedule MED. SACRAM ENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY D ISTRI CT Resolution No. 23-09-09 adopted S eptember 21 , 2023 Sheet No . R -T00 -2 Effective: Se ptem ber 22 , 2023 74 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement 6.3.6 Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (Electric Only) Following are the SMUD electricity tariffs applied in this study. The rates effective January 2025 were used. 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 93  Packet Pg. 507 of 690  . Conditions ,of Service Pe ak Wcckclays bclwccn 5:00 p .m . ancl. 8:00 p .m . ... umm u · idl-P~-a k \Vcckcleys bclwccn n oon lllld m idnight =□cp l clu rin • ·lh c (.!J u n 1 -. i;pt 30) ~,al,: hou r.;_ 0 I-Pe ak A ll other hours. includ in£ wce'kc.ml!s lllld holidays 1. 1.1 ~ ummr r Pe ak Wcckclays bclwccn 5.:00 p .m . ancl. 8,00 p .m . (Oct 1 -1.ay 3O 0 I-Pe a · A ll other hours, includin£ wce'kcnd!s lllld holidaysl . . -1 Sec Scclmn V. Conc'btLons of Se:rv,oc 75 V Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 94  Packet Pg. 508 of 690  6.3.7 Fuel Escalation Assumptions The average annual escalation rates in Table 42 and Table 43 were used in this study. Table 42 rates are based on assumptions from the CPUC 2021 En Banc hearings on utility costs through 2030 (California Public Utilities Commission, 2021a). Escalation rates through the remainder of the 30-year evaluation period are based on the escalation rate assumptions within the 2022 TDV factors. No data was available to estimate electricity escalation rates for CPAU and SMUD, therefore electricity escalation rates for PG&E and statewide natural gas escalation rates were applied. Table 43 rates are based on the escalation rate assumptions within the 2025 LSC factors from 2026 through 2055.9 These rates were developed for electricity use statewide (not utility-specific) and assume steep increases in gas rates in the latter half of the analysis period. Data was not available for the year 2026 and so the CPUC En Banc assumptions were applied for those years using the average rate across the three IOUs for statewide electricity escalation. 9https://www.energy.ca.gov/files/2025-energy-code-hourly-factors. (California Energy Commission, 2023). Actual escalation factors were provided by consultants E3. 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 95  Packet Pg. 509 of 690  77 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement Table 42. Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions, CPUC En Banc and 2022 TDV Basis Statewide Natural Gas Residential Average Rate Electric Residential Average Rate 2026 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8% 2027 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8% 2028 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8% 2029 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8% 2030 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8% 2031 2.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2032 2.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2033 2.1% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2034 1.9% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2035 1.9% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2036 1.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2037 1.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2038 1.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2039 2.1% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2040 1.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2041 2.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2042 2.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2043 2.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2044 2.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2045 2.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2046 1.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2047 1.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2048 1.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2049 1.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2050 1.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2051 1.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2052 1.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2053 1.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2054 1.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2055 1.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 96  Packet Pg. 510 of 690  78 Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement Table 43. Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions, 2025 LSC Basis Year Statewide Natural Gas Residential Average Rate (%/year, real) Electricity Residential Average Rate 2026 4.6% 2.1% 2027 4.2% 0.6% 2028 3.2% 1.9% 2029 3.6% 1.6% 2030 6.6% 1.3% 2031 6.7% 1.0% 2032 7.7% 1.2% 2033 8.2% 1.1% 2034 8.2% 1.1% 2035 8.2% 0.9% 2036 8.2% 1.1% 2037 8.2% 1.1% 2038 8.2% 1.0% 2039 8.2% 1.1% 2040 8.2% 1.1% 2041 8.2% 1.1% 2042 8.2% 1.1% 2043 8.2% 1.1% 2044 8.2% 1.1% 2045 8.2% 1.1% 2046 8.2% 1.1% 2047 3.1% 1.1% 2048 -0.5% 1.1% 2049 -0.6% 1.1% 2050 -0.5% 1.1% 2051 -0.6% 1.1% 2052 -0.6% 1.1% 2053 -0.6% 1.1% 2054 -0.6% 1.1% 2055 -0.6% 1.1% 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 97  Packet Pg. 511 of 690  The adoption of reach codes can differentiate jurisdictions as efficiency leaders and help accelerate the adoption of new equipment, technologies, code compliance, and energy savings strategies. As part of the Statewide Codes & Standards Program, the Reach Codes Subprogram is a resource available to any local jurisdiction located throughout the state of California. Our experts develop robust toolkits as well as provide specific technical assistance to local jurisdictions (cities and counties) considering adopting energy reach codes. These include cost- effectiveness research and analysis, model ordinance language and other code development and implementation tools, and specific technical assistance throughout the code adoption process. If you are interested in finding out more about local energy reach codes, the Reach Codes Team stands ready to assist jurisdictions at any stage of a reach code project. Visit LocalEnergyCodes.com to access our resources and sign up for newsletters Contact info@localenergycodes.com for no-charge assistance from expert Reach Code advisors Explore The Cost-Effectiveness Explorer is a free resource to help California local governments and stakeholders develop energy policies for buildings. Follow us on Linkedin Revision: 1.0 Last modified: 2025/06/09 2025/06/09 Item 19 Attachment B - 2025 Cost- Effectiveness Study Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 98  Packet Pg. 512 of 690  Revision: 1.0 Ada Shen, Alea German, Rebecca Evans, & Marc Hoeschele, Frontier Energy, Inc Misti Bruceri, Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC Prepared for: Kelly Cunningham, Codes and Standards Program, Pacific Gas and Electric Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 99  Packet Pg. 513 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades Executive Summary 2 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 2024, 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. Acronym List 2023 PV$ – Present value costs in 2023 ACH50 – Air Changes per Hour at 50 pascals pressure differential ACM – Alternative Calculation Method ADU – Accessory Dwelling Unit AFUE – Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency B/C – Lifecycle Benefit-to-Cost Ratio BEopt – Building Energy Optimization Tool BSC – Building Standards Commission CA IOUs – California Investor-Owned Utilities CASE – Codes and Standards Enhancement CBECC-Res – Computer program developed by the California Energy Commission for use in demonstrating compliance with the California Residential Building Energy Efficiency Standards CEER – Combined Energy Efficiency Rating CFI – California Flexible Installation CFM – Cubic Feet per Minute CO2 – Carbon Dioxide CPAU – City of Palo Alto Utilities CPUC – California Public Utilities Commission CZ – California Climate Zone DFHP – Dual Fuel Heat Pump DHW – Domestic Hot Water DOE – Department of Energy DWHR – Drain Water Heat Recovery EDR – Energy Design Rating EER – Energy Efficiency Ratio EF – Energy Factor Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 100  Packet Pg. 514 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades Executive Summary 3 GHG – Greenhouse Gas HERS Rater – Home Energy Rating System Rater HPA – High Performance Attic HPSH – Heat Pump Space Heater 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 –British thermal unit (x1000) kWh – Kilowatt Hour LBNL – Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory LCC – Life Cycle Cost LLAHU – Low Leakage Air Handler Unit VLLDCS – Verified Low Leakage Ducts in Conditioned Space LSC – Long-term Systemwide Cost MF – Multifamily MSHP – Mini-Split Heat Pump NEEA – Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance NEM – Net Energy Metering NPV – Net Present Value NREL – National Renewable Energy Laboratory PG&E – Pacific Gas and Electric Company POU – Publicly-Owned-Utilities PV – Photovoltaic SCE – Southern California Edison SDG&E – San Diego Gas and Electric SEER – Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio SF – Single Family SMUD – Sacramento Municipal Utility District SoCalGas – Southern California Gas Company TDV – Time Dependent Valuation Therm – Unit for quantity of heat that equals 100,000 British thermal units Title 24 – Title 24, Part 6 TOU – Time-Of-Use UEF – Uniform Energy Factor VCHP – Variable Capacity Heat Pump, Title 24 compliance credit ZNE – Zero-net Energy Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 101  Packet Pg. 515 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades Executive Summary 4 Summary of Revisions Date Description Reference (page or section) 4/25/2024 Original Release N/A Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 102  Packet Pg. 516 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades Executive Summary 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary..........................................................................................................................................................1 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................6 2 Methodology and Assumptions ...............................................................................................................................7 2.1 Analysis for Reach Codes ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.1 Modeling ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.2 Prototype Characteristics .............................................................................................................................................. 7 2.1.3 Cost-Effectiveness Approach ...................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.4 Utility Rates ................................................................................................................................................................. 11 2.1.5 Measure Cost Data Collection Approach .................................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Measure Details and Cost ................................................................................................................................................... 12 2.2.1 Building Envelope & Duct Measures ........................................................................................................................... 13 2.2.2 PV Measures .............................................................................................................................................................. 14 2.2.3 Equipment Fuel Substitution Measures – Heat Pump Equipment............................................................................... 15 3 Results ......................................................................................................................................................................21 3.1 Cost-Effectiveness Results ................................................................................................................................................. 22 3.1.1 HPSH Measures ......................................................................................................................................................... 22 3.1.2 HPWH Measures ........................................................................................................................................................ 24 3.2 Climate Zone Case Studies ................................................................................................................................................ 26 3.2.1 HPSH Cost-Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................................... 27 3.2.2 HPWH Cost-Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................................... 28 3.2.3 Envelope & Duct Improvement Cost-Effectiveness..................................................................................................... 29 3.2.4 Sensitivities ................................................................................................................................................................. 30 3.3 Gas Pathways for Heat Pump Replacements ..................................................................................................................... 31 4 Recommendations and Discussion .......................................................................................................................33 5 References ...............................................................................................................................................................37 6 Appendices ..............................................................................................................................................................38 6.1 Map of California Climate Zones ......................................................................................................................................... 38 6.2 Utility Rate Schedules ......................................................................................................................................................... 39 6.2.1 Pacific Gas & Electric.................................................................................................................................................. 40 6.2.2 Southern California Edison ......................................................................................................................................... 48 6.2.3 Southern California Gas .............................................................................................................................................. 52 6.2.4 San Diego Gas & Electric............................................................................................................................................ 54 6.2.5 City of Palo Alto Utilities .............................................................................................................................................. 64 6.2.6 Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (Electric Only)................................................................................................. 66 6.2.7 Fuel Escalation Assumptions ...................................................................................................................................... 68 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 103  Packet Pg. 517 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades Executive Summary 6 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Prototype Characteristics ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 Table 2. Efficiency Characteristics for Three Vintage Cases ................................................................................................................ 9 Table 3. Measure Cost Assumptions – Efficiency & Duct Measures .................................................................................................. 14 Table 4. Measure Descriptions & Cost Assumptions – PV ................................................................................................................. 15 Table 5. Lifetime Analysis Replacement Assumptions for DFHP (Existing Furnace) Scenario .......................................................... 16 Table 6. System Sizing by Climate Zone ............................................................................................................................................ 17 Table 7. Ducted HVAC Measure Cost Assumptions – 4-Ton Electric Replacements ......................................................................... 18 Table 8. Non-Ducted HVAC Measure Cost Assumptions – 4-Ton Electric Replacements ................................................................. 18 Table 9. Water Heating Measure Cost Assumptions – Existing Gas .................................................................................................. 19 Table 10. Water Heating Measure Cost Assumptions – Existing Electric Resistance ........................................................................ 20 Table 11. HPSH CZ 12 [1992-2010]................................................................................................................................................... 27 Table 12. HPSH CZ 16 [1992-2010]................................................................................................................................................... 27 Table 13. HPWH CZ 12 [1992-2010].................................................................................................................................................. 28 Table 14. HPWH CZ 16 [1992-2010].................................................................................................................................................. 28 Table 15. Envelope and Duct Measures CZ 3 [Pre-1978] .................................................................................................................. 29 Table 16. Envelope and Duct Measures CZ 10 [Pre-1978]................................................................................................................. 29 Table 17. Envelope and Duct Measures CZ 12 [Pre-1978]................................................................................................................. 29 Table 18. Sensitivity Analysis Results for On-Bill NPV Cost-Effectiveness in Climate Zone 12, PG&E.............................................. 30 Table 19. Electric Panel Upgrade Sensitivity for CZ 12 [1992-2010] .................................................................................................. 30 Table 20. PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone .......................................................................................................................... 40 Table 21. PG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)..................................................................................................................................... 40 Table 22: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ............................................................................................................................ 48 Table 23. SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ................................................................................................................... 52 Table 24. SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) .............................................................................................................................. 52 Table 25. SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone ....................................................................................................................... 54 Table 26. SDG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) .................................................................................................................................. 54 Table 27. CPAU Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)..................................................................................................................................... 64 Table 28: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions, CPUC En Banc and 2022 TDV Basis ...................................................... 68 Table 29: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions, 2025 LSC Basis ....................................................................................... 69 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 104  Packet Pg. 518 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades Executive Summary 7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: DFHP with Existing Furnace ............................................................................................................................................ 22 Figure 2: Standard Efficiency HPSH ............................................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 3: High Efficiency HPSH ...................................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 4: Ducted MSHP .................................................................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 5: HPSH + PV ...................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 6: 240V Federal Minimum HPWH ........................................................................................................................................ 24 Figure 7: 240V Market Standard NEEA HPWH .............................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 8: 120V Market Standard NEEA HPWH .............................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 9: 240V Federal Minimum HPWH + PV ............................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 10: R-6 Ducts ....................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 11: 10% Duct Leakage ........................................................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 12: R-13 Wall Insulation....................................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 13: R-49 Attic Insulation....................................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 14. Heat pump space heater path compared to the air conditioner path. ............................................................................ 32 Figure 15. Heat pump water path compared to gas with solar thermal........................................................................................... 32 Figure 16. Map of California climate zones..................................................................................................................................... 38 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 105  Packet Pg. 519 of 690  Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 106  Packet Pg. 520 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades Executive Summary 1 Executive Summary The California Codes and Standards (C&S) Reach Codes program provides technical support to local governments considering adopting a local ordinance (reach code) intended to support meeting local and/or statewide energy efficiency and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. The program facilitates adoption and implementation of the code when requested by local jurisdictions by providing resources such as cost-effectiveness studies, model language, sample findings, and other supporting documentation. This report documents cost-effective measure upgrades in existing single family buildings that exceed the minimum state requirements. It evaluates efficiency measures such as adding insulation, replacing windows, and duct upgrades, fuel substitution measures that upgrade space heating and water heating to heat pumps, and solar photovoltaics (PV) across all 16 California climate zones. A 1,665 square foot single family home prototype with an attached garage was evaluated in this study. This analysis used two different metrics to assess the cost-effectiveness of the proposed upgrades. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the incremental costs and energy savings associated with each energy efficiency measure over a 30-year analysis period. On-Bill cost-effectiveness is a customer-based lifecycle cost (LCC)approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer utility bill savings using today’s electricity and natural gas utility tariffs. Long-term Systemwide Cost (LSC) is the California Energy Commission’s LCC methodology for the 2025 Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) code cycle (previously referred to as Time Dependent Valuation (TDV)), which is intended to capture the long-term projected cost of energy including costs for providing energy during peak periods of demand, carbon emissions, grid transmission and distribution impacts. This is the methodology used by the Energy Commission in evaluating cost-effectiveness for efficiency measures in Title 24 code development. The following summarizes key results from the study: Conclusions and Discussion: 1. Envelope measures. Improving envelope performance is very cost-effective in many older homes. In addition to reducing utility costs, these measures provide many other benefits such as improving occupant comfort and satisfaction and increasing a home’s ability to maintain temperatures during extreme weather events and power outages. Below is a discussion of the results of specific measures. a. Adding attic insulation is cost-effective based on both LSC and On-Bill in many climate zones in homes with no more than R-19 existing attic insulation levels. Increasing attic insulation from R-30 to R-49 was still found to be cost-effective based on at least one metric in the colder and hotter climates of Climate Zone 10 (SDG&E territory only) through 16. b. Insulating existing uninsulated walls is very cost-effective based on both metrics everywhere except Climate Zones 6 and 7 (in Climate Zone 8 it’s only cost-effective based on LSC). c. Adding R-19 or R-30 floor insulation is cost-effective based on LSC in the older two vintages (Pre-1978 and 1978-1991) in all CZ except CZ 6-10. d. Replacing old single pane windows with new high-performance windows has a very high cost and is typically not done for energy savings alone. However, energy savings are substantial and justify cost- effectiveness of this measure based on at least one metric in Climate Zones 4, 8 through 12 (PG&E territory only), and 13 through 16. e. At time of roof replacement, a cool roof with an aged solar reflectance of 0.25 was found to be cost- effective in Climate Zones 4, 6 through 12 (PG&E territory only), and 13 through 15. When the roof deck is replaced during a roof replacement, adding a radiant barrier is low cost and provides substantial cooling energy savings, and was found to be cost-effective in almost all climate zones and homes. 2. Duct measures: Many older homes have old, leaky duct systems that should be replaced when they reach the end of life, typically 20-30 years. In this case, installing new ducts was found to be cost-effective based on at least one metric (both in most cases) everywhere except mild Climate Zone 7 and Climate Zones 5 and 6 in California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 107  Packet Pg. 521 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades Executive Summary 2 the 1978-1991 vintage. If duct systems still have remaining life they should be sealed and tested to meet 10% leakage or lower; however, duct upgrades alone were only found to be cost-effective for newer homes in Climate Zones 10 (SDG&E territory only), 11, and 13 through 16. Duct upgrades may be able to be coupled with other measures to reduce the cost. 3. Heat pump space heating: HPSHs were found to be LSC cost-effective in many cases. The Dual Fuel Heat Pump (existing furnace) was LSC cost-effective everywhere except Climate Zone 15. The HPSH was LSC cost-effective everywhere except Climate Zones 8 and 15. a. Challenges to On-Bill cost-effectiveness include higher first costs and higher first-year utility costs due to higher electricity tariffs relative to gas tariffs. SMUD and CPAU are two exceptions where first year utility costs are lower for heat pumps than for gas equipment. Table 11 shows the impact of utility rates on cost-effectiveness of HPSH where the standard and high efficiency HPSH and the HPSH + PV measures are cost-effective under SMUD but not PG&E. Even with higher first year utility bills, there were some cases that still proved On-Bill cost-effective including the DFHP with an existing furnace in the central valley and northern coastal PG&E territories, the ducted MSHP in the central valley as well as Climate Zone 14 in SDG&E territory, and the HPSH + PV measure in CZ 3-5 (PGE), 7-11, and 12 (SMUD) – 15. b. The ductless MSHPs were only found to be cost-effective based on either metric in Climate Zones 1 and 16. Ductless MSHPs have a high incremental cost because it is a more sophisticated system than the base model of a wall furnace with a window AC unit. However, the ductless MSHP would provide greater comfort benefits if properly installed to directly condition all habitable spaces (as is required under the VCHP compliance credit as evaluated in this study) which may be an incentive for a homeowner to upgrade their system. c. Higher efficiency equipment lowered utility costs in all cases and improved cost-effectiveness in many cases, particularly with a ducted MSHP. 4. Heat pump water heating: All the HPWH measures were LSC cost-effective in all climate zones. Most measures were not On-Bill cost-effective with the exception of the HPWH + PV which was cost-effective On- Bill in CPAU, SMUD, and SDG&E territories in addition to Climate Zones 11, 13, 14, and 15. The HPWH measures share many of the same challenges as the HPSH measures to achieving cost-effectiveness including high first costs and utility rates and assumptions. Table 13 shows the impact of utility rates on cost- effectiveness where some HPWH measures are cost-effective under SMUD utility rates but are not cost- effective anywhere under PG&E rates in Climate Zone 12. a. Various HPWH locations were also explored, however there are some factors outside of cost- effectiveness that should also be considered. i. HPWHs in the conditioned space can provide benefits such as free-cooling during the summer, reduced tank losses, and shorter pipe lengths, and in some cases show improved cost-effectiveness over garage located HPWHs. However, there are various design considerations such as noise, comfort concerns, an additional heating load in the winter, and condensate removal. Ducting the inlet and exhaust air resolves comfort concerns but adds costs and complexity. Split heat pump water heaters address these concerns, but currently there are limited products on the market and there is a cost premium relative to the packaged products. ii. Since HPWHs extract heat from the air and transfer it to water in the storage tank, they must have adequate ventilation to operate properly. Otherwise, the space cools down over time, impacting the HPWH operating efficiency. This is not a problem with garage installations but needs to be considered for water heaters located in interior or exterior closets. For the 2025 Title 24 code the CEC is proposing that all HPWH installations meet mandatory ventilation requirements (California Energy Commission, 2023). 5. The contractor surveys revealed overall higher heat pump costs than what has been found in previous analyses. This could be due to incentive availability raising demand for heat pumps and thereby increasing the price. This price increase may be temporary and may come down once the market stabilizes. There are also California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 108  Packet Pg. 522 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades Executive Summary 3 new initiatives to obtain current costs including the TECH Clean California program 1 that publishes heat pump data and costs; however, at the time of this analysis, the TECH data did not contain incremental costs because it only had the heat pump costs but not the gas base case costs. 6. Table 18 shows how CARE rates and escalation rate assumptions will impact cost-effectiveness. a. Applying CARE rates in the IOU territories has the overall impact to increase utility cost savings for an all-electric building compared to a code compliant mixed fuel building, improving On-Bill cost- effectiveness. This is due to the CARE discount on electricity being higher than that on gas. The reverse occurs with efficiency measures where lower utility rates reduce savings and subsequently reduce cost-effectiveness. b. If gas tariffs are assumed to increase substantially over time, in-line with the escalation assumption from the 2025 LSC development, cost-effectiveness substantially improves for the heat pump measures over the 30-year analysis period and many cases become cost-effective that were not found to be cost-effective under the CPUC / 2022 TDV escalation scenario. There is much uncertainty surrounding future tariff structures as well as escalation values. While it’s clear that gas rates will increase, how much and how quickly is not known. Future electricity tariff structures are expected to evolve over time, and the CPUC has an active proceeding to adopt an income-graduated fixed charge that benefits low-income customers and supports electrification measures for all customers.2 The CPUC will make a decision in mid-2024 and the new rates are expected to be in place later that year or in 2025. While the anticipated impact of this rate change is lower volumetric electricity rates, the rate design is not finalized. While lower volumetric electricity rates provide many benefits, it also will make building efficiency measures harder to justify as cost-effective due to lower utility bill cost savings. 7. Under NBT, utility cost savings for PV are substantially less than what they were under prior net energy metering rules (NEM 2.0); however, savings are sufficient to be On-Bill cost-effective in all climate zones except Climate Zones 1 through 3, 5, and 6. a. Combining a heat pump with PV allows the additional electricity required by the heat pump to be offset by the PV system while also increasing on-site utilization of PV generation rather than exporting the electricity back to the grid at a low rate. b. While not evaluated in this study, coupling PV with battery systems can be very advantageous under NBT increasing utility cost savings because of improved on-site utilization of PV generation and fewer exports to the grid. Recommendations: 1. There are various approaches for jurisdictions who are interested in reach codes for existing buildings. Some potential approaches are listed below along with key considerations. a. Prescriptive measures: Non-preempted measures that are found to be cost-effective may be prescriptively required in a reach code. One example of this type or ordinance is a cool roof requirement at time of roof replacement. Another example is requiring specific cost-effective measures for larger remodels, such as high-performance windows when new windows are installed or duct sealing and testing when ducts are in an unconditioned space. b. Replacement equipment: This flavor of reach code sets certain requirements at time of equipment replacement. This study evaluated space heating and water heating equipment. Where a heat pump measure was found to be cost-effective based on either LSC or On-Bill, this may serve as the basis of a reach code given the following considerations. i. Where reach codes reduce energy usage and are not just fuel switching, cost-effectiveness calculations are required and must be based on equipment that does not exceed the federal minimum efficiency requirements. ii. Where reach codes are established using cost-effectiveness based on LSC, utility bill impacts and the owner’s first cost should also be reviewed and considered. 1 TECH Public Reporting Home Page (techcleanca.com) 2 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/electric-costs/demand-response-dr/demand-flexibility-rulemaking California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 109  Packet Pg. 523 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades Executive Summary 4 iii. A gas path should also be prescriptively allowed to safely satisfy federal preemption requirements considering the CRA v. Berkeley case.3 Additional requirements may apply to the gas path, as described in Section 3.3, as long as the paths are reasonably energy or cost equivalent. c. “Flexible Path”, minimum energy savings target: This flexible approach establishes a target for required energy savings based on a measure or a set of measures that were found to be cost-effective based on either LSC or On-Bill. A points menu compares various potential upgrades ranging from efficiency, PV, and fuel substitution measures, based on site or source energy savings. The applicant must select upgrades that individually or in combination meet the minimum energy savings target. The maximum target value shown in the Cost-effectiveness Explorer is based on a combination of cost- effective, non-preempted measures. 2. Equipment replacement ordinances should consider appropriate exceptions for scenarios where it will be challenging to meet the requirements, such as location of the HPWH, total project cost limitations, or the need for service panel upgrades that wouldn’t have been required as part of the proposed scope of work in absence of the reach code. 3. Consider extending relevant proposals made by the CEC for the 2025 Title 24 code (California Energy Commission, 2023) in ordinances that apply under the 2022 Title 24 code, such as the following: a. Mandatory ventilation requirements for HPWH installations (Section 110.3(c)7). The cost-effectiveness analysis can be found in the Multifamily Domestic Hot Water CASE report (Statewide Team, 2023). b. Requirement for HERS verified refrigerant charge verification for heat pumps in all climate zones (Table 150.1-A 4). The cost-effectiveness analysis can be found in the Residential HVAC Performance CASE report (Statewide Team, 2023). 4. When evaluating reach code strategies, the Reach Codes Team recommends that jurisdictions consider combined benefits of energy efficiency alongside electrification. Efficiency and electrification have symbiotic benefits and are both critical for decarbonization of buildings. As demand on the electric grid is increased through electrification, efficiency can reduce the negative impacts of additional electricity demand on the grid, reducing the need for increased generation and storage capacity, as well as the need to upgrade upstream transmission and distribution equipment. 5. Education and training can play a critical role in ensuring that heat pumps are installed, commissioned, and controlled properly to mitigate grid impacts and maximize occupant satisfaction. Below are select recommended strategies. a. The Quality Residential HVAC Services Program 5 is an incentive program to train California contractors in providing quality installation and maintenance while advancing energy-efficient technologies in the residential HVAC industry. Jurisdictions can market this to local contractors to increase the penetration of contractors skilled in heat pump design and installation. b. Educate residents and contractors of available incentives, tax credits, and financing opportunities. c. Educate contractors on code requirements. Energy Code Ace provides free tools, training, and resources to help Californians comply with the energy code. Contractors can access interactive compliance forms, fact sheets, and live and recorded trainings, among other things, on the website: https://energycodeace.com/. Jurisdictions can reach out to Energy Code Ace directly to discuss offerings. 6. Health and safety a. Combustion Appliance Safety and Indoor Air Quality: Implementation of some of the recommended measures will affect the pressure balance of the home which can subsequently impact the safe operation of existing combustion appliances as well as indoor air quality. Buildings with older gas appliances can present serious health and safety problems which may not be addressed in a remodel 3 https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/2024-01/CRA-v-Berkeley-Ninth-Circuit-Opinion-Jan2024.pdf 4 This requirement does not show up in the Express Terms for alterations in Section 150.2(b)1F, but the Statewide Reach Codes Team expects that it will be added to the next release of the proposed code language in the 45-day language as it aligns with the proposal made by the Codes and Standards Enhancement Team (Statewide CASE Team, 2023). 5 https://qualityhvac.frontierenergy.com/ California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 110  Packet Pg. 524 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades Executive Summary 5 if the appliances are not being replaced. It is recommended that the building department require inspection and testing of all combustion appliances located within the pressure boundary of the building after completion of retrofit work that involves air sealing or insulation measures. b. Jurisdictions may consider requiring mechanical ventilation in homes where air sealing has been conducted. In older buildings, outdoor air is typically introduced through leaks in the building envelope. After air sealing a building, it may be necessary to forcefully bring in fresh outdoor air using supply and/or exhaust fans to minimize potential issues associated with indoor air quality. Local jurisdictions may also adopt ordinances that amend different Parts of the California Building Standards Code or may elect to amend other state or municipal codes. The decision regarding which code to amend will determine the specific requirements that must be followed for an ordinance to be legally enforceable. For example, reach codes that amend Part 6 of the CA Building Code and require energy performance beyond state code minimums must demonstrate the proposed changes are cost-effective and obtain approval from the Energy Commission as well as the Building Standards Commission (BSC). Amendments to Part 11, such as requirements for increased water efficiency or electric vehicle infrastructure only require BSC approval. Although a cost-effectiveness study is only required to amend Part 6 of the CA Building Code, this study provides valuable context for jurisdictions pursuing other ordinance paths to understand the economic impacts of any policy decision. This study documents the estimated costs, benefits, energy impacts and greenhouse gas emission reductions that may result from implementing an ordinance based on the results to help residents, local leadership, and other stakeholders make informed policy decisions. This report documents the key results and conclusions from the Reach Codes Team analysis. A full dataset of all results can be downloaded at https://localenergycodes.com/content/resources. Results alongside policy options can also be explored using the Cost-effectiveness Explorer at https://explorer.localenergycodes.com/. Model ordinance language and other resources are posted on the C&S Reach Codes Program website at LocalEnergyCodes.com. Local jurisdictions that are considering adopting an ordinance may contact the program for further technical support at info@localenergycodes.com. California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 111  Packet Pg. 525 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades Introduction 6 1 Introduction This report documents cost-effective measure upgrades in existing single family buildings that exceed the minimum state requirements, the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, effective January 1, 2023. Local jurisdictions in California may consider adopting local energy ordinances to achieve energy savings beyond what will be accomplished by enforcing building efficiency requirements that apply statewide. This report was developed in coordination with the California Statewide Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) Codes and Standards Program, key consultants, and engaged cities—collectively known as the Statewide Reach Codes Team. The focus of this study is on existing single family buildings and does not apply to low or high-rise multifamily buildings. Each jurisdiction must establish the appropriate structure and threshold for triggering the proposed requirements. Some common jurisdictional structures include triggering the requirements at major remodels, additions, or date-certain (upgrades must be completed by a specific date). Some of these measures could be triggered with a permit for another specific measure, such as a re-roofing project. The analysis includes scenarios of individual measures and identifies cost-effective options based on the existing conditions of the building in all 16 California Climate Zones (CZ) (see Cost- Effectiveness Results for a graphical depiction of climate zone locations). This report documents the key results and conclusions from the Reach Codes Team analysis. A full dataset of all results can be downloaded at https://localenergycodes.com/content/resources. Results alongside policy options can also be explored using the Cost-effectiveness Explorer at https://explorer.localenergycodes.com/. The California Codes and Standards (C&S) Reach Codes program provides technical support to local governments considering adopting a local ordinance (reach code) intended to support meeting local and/or statewide energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction goals. The program facilitates adoption and implementation of the code when requested by local jurisdictions by providing resources such as cost-effectiveness studies, model language, sample findings, and other supporting documentation. The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (CEC, 2019) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies: the California Energy Commission (the Energy Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances—or reach codes—that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards). 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. The Department of Energy (DOE) sets minimum efficiency standards for equipment and appliances that are federally regulated under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, including heating, cooling, and water heating equipment (E-CFR, 2020). Since state and local governments are prohibited from adopting higher minimum efficiencies than the federal standards require, the focus of this study is to identify and evaluate cost-effective packages that do not include high efficiency heating, cooling, and water heating equipment. High efficiency appliances are often the easiest and most affordable measure to increase energy performance. While federal preemption limits reach code mandatory requirements for covered appliances, in practice, builders may install any package of compliant measures to achieve the performance requirements. California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 112  Packet Pg. 526 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades Methodology and Assumptions 7 2 Methodology and Assumptions 2.1 Analysis for Reach Codes This section describes the approach to calculating cost-effectiveness including benefits, costs, metrics, and utility rate selection. 2.1.1 Modeling The Reach Codes Team performed energy simulations using the 2025 research version of the Residential California Building Energy Code Compliance software (CBECC). The 2025 version of CBECC was used instead of the 2022 version to take advantage of updated weather files and metrics. Site energy results are similar between CBECC-Res 2022 and 2025; however, the 2025 compliance metrics applies assumptions reflective of an electrified future, such as high escalation for natural gas retail rates, which favors electric buildings. In addition, in 2025 the weather stations were changed in Climate Zones 4 and 6 from San Jose to Paso Robles and Torrance to Los Angeles International Airport, respectively. Three unique building vintages are considered: pre-1978, 1978-1991, and 1992-2010. The vintages were defined based on review of historic Title 24 code requirements and defining periods with distinguishing features. Prospective energy efficiency measures were identified and modeled to determine the projected site energy (therm and kWh), source energy, GHG emissions, and LSC (long-term systemwide cost) impacts. Annual utility costs were calculated using hourly data output from CBECC, and current (as of 11/01/2023) electricity and natural gas tariffs for each of the investor-owned utilities (IOUs) appropriate for that climate zone. Equivalent CO2 emission reductions 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. Natural gas emissions do not vary hourly. To compare the mixed-fuel and all-electric cases side-by-side, GHG emissions are presented as lbs CO2-equivalent (CO2e) emissions. The Statewide Reach Codes Team designed the analysis approach and selected measures for evaluation based on the 2019 existing building single family reach code analysis (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2021) and work to support the 2025 Title 24 code development cycle as well as from outreach to architects, builders, and engineers. 2.1.2 Prototype Characteristics The Energy Commission defines building prototypes which it uses to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of proposed changes to Title 24 requirements. Average home size has steadily increased over time,6 and the Energy Commission single family new construction prototypes are larger than many existing single family homes across California. For this analysis, a 1,665 square foot prototype was evaluated. Table 1 describes the basic characteristics of the single family prototype. Additions are not evaluated in this analysis as they are already addressed in Section 150.2 of Title 24, Part 6. The CEC has proposed changes to the 2025 Energy Code that would remove the allowance of gas space heating and water heating equipment for additions and instead require additions to follow the same space heating and water heating equipment requirements as new construction (California Energy Commission, 2023). The proposed prescriptive requirements for single family new construction homes are heat pump space heaters and water heaters, with gas equipment only allowed in the performance approach. 6 https://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 113  Packet Pg. 527 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades Methodology and Assumptions 8 Table 1. Prototype Characteristics Existing Conditioned Floor Area 1,665 ft2 Num. of Stories 1 Num. of Bedrooms 3 Window-to-Floor Area Ratio 13% Attached Garage 2-car garage Three building vintages were evaluated to determine sensitivity of existing building performance on cost-effectiveness of upgrades. For example, it is widely recognized that adding attic insulation in an older home with no insulation is cost- effective, however, newer homes will likely have existing attic insulation reducing the cost-effectiveness of an incremental addition of insulation. The building characteristics for each vintage were determined based on either prescriptive requirements from Title 24 that were in effect or standard construction practice during that time period. Homes built under 2001 Title 24 are subject to prescriptive envelope code requirements very similar to homes built under the 2005 code cycle, which was in effect until January 1, 2010. Table 2 summarizes the assumptions for each of the three vintages. Additionally, the analysis assumed the following features when modeling the prototype buildings. Efficiencies were defined by year of the most recent equipment replacement based on standard equipment lifetimes. • Individual space conditioning and water heating systems, one per single family building. • Split-system air conditioner with natural gas furnace. o Scenarios with an existing natural gas wall furnace without AC were also evaluated. • Small storage natural gas water heater. o Scenarios with an existing electric resistance storage water heater were also evaluated. • Gas cooktop, oven, and clothes dryer. The methodology applied in the analyses begins with a design that matches the specifications as described in Table 2 for each of the three vintages. Prospective energy efficiency measures were modeled to determine the projected energy performance and utility cost impacts relative to the baseline vintage. In some cases, where logical, measures were packaged together. California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 114  Packet Pg. 528 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades Methodology and Assumptions 9 Table 2. Efficiency Characteristics for Three Vintage Cases Envelope Exterior Walls R-0a R-11 R-13 Foundation Type & Insulation Raised floor, R-0 (CZ 1 & 16) Raised floor, R-0 (CZ 1 & 16) Raised floor, R-19 (CZ 1 & 16) Ceiling Insulation & Attic Type 6 & 7, Vented attic, R-11 @ ceiling level (all other CZs) Vented attic, R-19 @ ceiling level Vented attic, R-30 @ ceiling level Roofing Material & Color (0.10 reflectance, 0.85 emittance) (0.10 reflectance, 0.85 emittance) (0.10 reflectance, 0.85 emittance) HVAC Equipment Heating Efficiency 78 AFUE (assumes 2 replacements) 78 AFUE (assumes 1 replacement) 78 AFUE Cooling Efficiency 10 SEER (assumes 2 replacements) 10 SEER (assumes 1 replacement) 13 SEER, 11 EER Duct Location & Details Attic, R-2.1, 30% leakage at 25 Pa Attic, R-2.1, 25% leakage at 25 Pa Attic, R-4.2, 15% leakage at 25 Pa Whole Building Mechanical Ventilation None None None Water Heating Equipment Water Heater Efficiency replacements) replacement) 0.575 Energy Factor a Low-E during 1992-2010 or dual-pane during 1978-1991) that technology was included in the analysis. This provides a conservative assumption for overall building performance and additional measures may be cost-effective for buildings with lower performing windows, for example buildings with metal single pane windows in the 1978- 1991 vintage. California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 115  Packet Pg. 529 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 2.1.3 Cost-Effectiveness Approach 2.1.3.1 Benefits This analysis used two different metrics to assess the cost-effectiveness of the proposed upgrades. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the incremental costs and energy savings associated with each energy efficiency measure. The main difference between the methodologies is the way they value energy impacts (the numerator in the benefit cost calculation): Utility Bill Impacts (On-Bill): This customer-based lifecycle cost (LCC) approach values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer utility bill savings using the latest electricity and natural gas utility tariffs available at the time of writing this report. Total savings are estimated over a 30-year duration and include discounting of future utility costs, as well as assumed energy cost inflation over time. Long-term Systemwide Cost (LSC): Formerly known as Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) energy cost savings, LSC reflects the Energy Commission’s current LCC methodology, which is intended to capture the total value or cost of energy use over 30 years. This method accounts for the hourly cost of marginal generation, transmission and distribution, fuel, capacity, losses, and cap-and-trade-based CO2 emissions (California Energy Commission, 2023). This is the methodology used by the Energy Commission in evaluating cost-effectiveness for efficiency measures in the 2025 Energy Code. 2.1.3.2 Costs The Reach Codes Team assessed the incremental costs of the measures and packages over a 30-year analysis period. Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacement, and maintenance costs of the proposed measure relative to the 2022 Title 24 Standards minimum requirements or standard industry practices. Present value of replacement cost is included only for measures with lifetimes less than the 30-year evaluation period. In cases where at the end of the analysis period the measure has useful life remaining, the value of this remaining life is calculated and credited in the total lifetime cost. 2.1.3.3 Metrics Cost-effectiveness is presented using net present value (NPV) and benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio metrics. NPV: Equation 1 demonstrates how lifetime NPV is calculated. If the NPV of a measure or package is positive, it is considered cost-effective. A negative value represents a net increase in costs over the 30-year lifetime. B/C Ratio: This is the ratio of the present value of all benefits to the present value of all costs over 30 years (present value benefits divided by present value 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 2. Equation 1 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 = 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑝𝑝 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑣𝑣𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑝𝑝 𝑏𝑏𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑝𝑝 − 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑝𝑝 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑣𝑣𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑝𝑝 𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 Equation 2 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑝𝑝 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑣𝑣𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑝𝑝 𝑏𝑏𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑝𝑝 𝐵𝐵𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑝𝑝 − 𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜 − 𝐶𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑅𝑅𝑣𝑣𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜 = 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑝𝑝 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑣𝑣𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑝𝑝 𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 Improving the efficiency of a project often requires an initial incremental investment. In most cases the benefit is represented by annual On-Bill utility or LSC savings, and the cost is represented by incremental first cost and future replacement costs. Some packages result in initial construction cost savings relative to the assumed base case scenario, and either energy cost savings (positive benefits), or increased energy costs (negative benefits). In cases where both construction costs and energy-related savings are negative, the construction cost savings are treated as the ‘benefit’ while the increased energy costs are the ‘cost.’ In cases where a measure or package is cost- effective immediately (i.e., upfront construction cost savings and lifetime energy cost savings), B/C ratio cost- effectiveness is represented by “>1”. California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 116  Packet Pg. 530 of 690  . -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades The lifetime costs or benefits are calculated according to Equation 3. Equation 3 (𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑜 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑐𝑐)𝑡𝑡 𝐴𝐴 𝑁𝑁𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑝𝑝 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑣𝑣𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑝𝑝 𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑜𝑜𝑝𝑝 𝑏𝑏𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑝𝑝 = ∑𝑐𝑐=0 (1+𝑜𝑜)𝑡𝑡 Where: 1. n = analysis term in years 2. r = discount rate The following summarizes the assumptions applied in this analysis to both methodologies. 3. Analysis term of 30 years 4. Real discount rate of three percent Both base case measures and alternative energy efficiency measures may have different lifetime assumptions which impact life cycle economics. Future costing of many of the evaluated electrification measures are only based on current cost assumption, which may be overly conservative as the expected growth in heat pump-based technologies is growing rapidly and will likely lead to future cost reductions (at least relative to current fossil fueled equipment) as production volumes increase. 2.1.4 Utility Rates In coordination with the CA IOU rate team (comprised of representatives from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E)) and two Publicly-Owned-Utilities (POUs) (Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) and City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU)), the Reach Codes Team determined appropriate utility rates for each climate zone to calculate utility costs and determine On-Bill cost- effectiveness for the proposed measures and packages. The utility tariffs, summarized in Chapter 6.2, were determined based on the appropriate rate for each case in each territory. Utility rates were applied to each climate zone based on the predominant IOU serving the population of each zone, with a few climate zones evaluated multiple times under different utility scenarios. Climate Zones 10 and 14 were evaluated with both SCE for electricity and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) for gas and SDG&E tariffs for both electricity and gas since each utility has customers within these climate zones. Climate Zone 5 is evaluated under both PG&E and SoCalGas natural gas rates. Two POU or municipal utility rates were also evaluated: SMUD in Climate Zone 12 and CPAU in Climate Zone 4. For cases with onsite generation (i.e. solar photovoltaics (PV)), the approved NBT tariffs were applied along with monthly service fees and hourly export compensation rates for 2024.7 In December 2022, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) issued a decision adopting NBT as a successor to NEM 2.0 that went into effect April of 2023 8 Utility rates are assumed to escalate over time according to the assumptions from the CPUC 2021 En Banc hearings on utility costs through 2030 (California Public Utilities Commission, 2021a). Escalation rates through the remainder of the 30-year evaluation period are based on the escalation rate assumptions within the 2022 TDV factors. The Statewide Natural Gas Residential Average Rate for 2023 through 2030 is projected to be 4.6%. The Electric Residential Average Rate for PG&E, SCE and SDG&E for 2023 through 2030 is projected to be 1.8%,1.6% and 2.8% respectively. A second set of escalation rates were also evaluated to demonstrate the impact that utility cost changes have on cost-effectiveness over time. This utility rate escalation sensitivity analysis, presented in Section 3.2.4, was based on those used within the 2025 LSC factors (LSC replaces TDV in the 2025 code cycle) which assumed steep 7 Hourly export compensation rates were based on the NBT spreadsheet model created by E3 for the CPUC. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/net-energy-metering- nem/nemrevisit/nbt-model--12142022.xlsb 8 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/nemrevisit California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 117  Packet Pg. 531 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades increases in gas rates in the latter half of the analysis period. See Appendix 6.2.7 Fuel Escalation Assumptions for details. Future electricity tariff structures are expected to evolve over time, and the CPUC has an active proceeding to adopt an income-graduated fixed charge that benefits low-income customers and supports electrification measures.10 These were not included in this analysis but may be evaluated later in 2024 once the rates are finalized. 2.1.5 Measure Cost Data Collection Approach To support this effort, a detailed cost study was completed in the summer of 2023 to gather data from a range of contractors to inform actual installed costs in the areas they provide services. These areas include HVAC, plumbing, envelope and air-sealing, and PV installation. Home performance contractors were also approached to collect this data. Collecting this type of data is challenging, both due to contractor reticence to share cost information and due to the timing of the survey which unfortunately coincided with the summer busy season for most contractors, especially HVAC installers. With these known challenges, the outreach effort focused on leveraging existing relationships between the analysis team and contractors to both gain access and provide assurance that all cost data would remain confidential and aggregated. Contractors that provided feedback were nominally compensated for their time. The collected cost data was intended to represent recent costs for a “typical” retrofit installation. Each home in which a contractor does work has different site-specific issues that will likely affect costs. In addition, different jurisdictions have different levels of building department installation oversight and permit fees. Finally, each contractor typically has a different manufacturer product line they prefer to install. All these factors will influence installed costs 11. The most detailed and broad cost request was for the HVAC contractors, as there are a wide range of equipment replacement scenarios available for an existing ducted gas furnace with central split-system air conditioning. Options range from a base case scenario (like for like swap out), split-system heat pump replacement, dual fuel heat pumps (DFHP), ducted mini-split heat pumps, non-ducted mini-splits, etc. For plumbing contractors, a range of scenarios existed for water heater replacements including like-for-like replacement, HPWHs (in different locations-garage, indoor), need for electrical upgrade for HPWH installation, need for HPWH ducting, etc. Envelope measures focused on attic and wall insulation, window replacement, re-roofing (with Cool Roof materials or not), and attic ceiling plane air- sealing. PV costing included different system sizes, panel upgrades costs, and battery costs. Home performance contractors were asked to provide as much data as they could on the different measure options. All costing information requested was intended to represent most recent installations, in an effort to capture current pricing as best as possible. The contractors that responded with their cost estimates work in different regions of the state, operate in different markets with (potentially) different local efficiency incentives, do varying amounts of work based on the size of their company, target different market demographic sectors, and install different brands of equipment. All these factors will contribute to price variability. The Team considered applying climate zone specific cost adjustments to reflect some of these differences, but ultimately decided not to since a climate zone is not a monolithic entity with uniform customer pricing throughout. The Team recognizes that “zip code” pricing is a reality, but for simplicity, as well as consistency with Title 24, Part 6 code development costing approaches, applied uniform statewide costs to all measures. 2.2 Measure Details and Cost This section describes the details of the measures and documents incremental costs. All measure costs were obtained from the contractor survey unless otherwise noted. All contractor provided costs reflect the cost to the customer and 10 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/electric-costs/demand-response-dr/demand- flexibility-rulemaking 11 One HVAC contractor mentioned that equipment brand alone may contribute to a +/-%5 variation in the total bid cost. California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 118  Packet Pg. 532 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades include equipment, labor, permit fees, and required HERS testing. Additional details of the measures can be found in Appendix Section Error! Reference source not found.. All measures are evaluated assuming they are not otherwise required by Title 24. For example, duct sealing is required by code whenever HVAC equipment is altered. For this analysis duct sealing was evaluated for those projects where it is not already triggered by code (i.e., no changes to the heating or cooling equipment). Where appropriate, measure requirements align with those defined in Title 24. In some cases, cost-effective measures were identified that exceed Title 24 requirements, such as attic insulation, cool roofs, and duct sealing. 2.2.1 Building Envelope & Duct Measures The following are descriptions of each of the efficiency upgrade measures applied in this analysis. Attic Insulation: Add attic insulation in buildings with vented attic spaces to meet either R-38 or R-49. The pre-1978 vintage assumes an existing condition of R-11, the 1978-1991 vintage assumes an existing condition of R-19, and the 1992-2010 vintage assumes R-30 as the existing insulation level. For pre-1978 vintage homes this measure was also evaluated to include air sealing of the attic. A 14% leakage reduction was modeled such that 15 ACH50 was reduced to 12.9 ACH50 in this measure. The costs for this measure include removing existing insulation. Air Sealing and Weather-stripping: Apply air sealing practices throughout all accessible areas of the building. For this study, it was assumed that older vintage homes would be leakier than newer buildings and that approximately 30 percent improvement in air leakage is achievable through air sealing of all accessible areas. For modeling purposes, it was assumed that air sealing can reduce infiltration levels from 15 to ten air changes per hour at 50 Pascals pressure difference (ACH50) in the oldest vintages (pre-1978), to ten to seven ACH50 for the 1978-1991 vintage, and seven to five ACH50 in the 1992-2010 vintage. Cool Roof: For steep slope roofs, install a roofing product rated by the Cool Roof Rating Council (CRRC) with an aged solar reflectance of 0.20 or 0.25 and thermal emittance of 0.75 or higher. This measure only applies to buildings that are installing a new roof as part of the scope of the remodel; the cost and energy savings associated with this upgrade reflects the incremental step between a standard roofing product with one that is CRRC rated with an aged solar reflectance of 0.20 or 0.25. This is similar to cool roof requirements in 2022 Title 24 Section 150.2(b)1Ii but assumes a higher solar reflectance. Radiant Barrier: Add radiant barrier to any existing home vintage. This measure only applies to buildings that are installing a new roof as part of the scope of the remodel; the cost and energy savings associated with this upgrade reflects the incremental step between a standard roofing product with one that includes a laminated radiant barrier. Raised Floor Insulation: In existing homes with raised floors and no insulation (pre-1978 and 1978-1991 vintages), add R-19 insulation. An upgraded R-30 floor insulation, assuming no current insulation, was evaluated in the pre-1978 and 1978-1991 vintages. Wall Insulation: Blow-in R-13 wall insulation in existing homes without wall insulation (pre-1978 vintages). Window Replacement: Replace existing windows with a non-metal dual-pane product, which has a U-factor equal to 0.28 Btu/hour-ft2-°F or lower and a Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC) equal to 0.23 or lower, except in heating dominated climates (Climate Zones 1, 3, 5, and 16) where an SHGC of 0.35 was evaluated. Duct Sealing, New Ducts, and Duct Insulation: Air seal all ductwork to meet the requirements of the 2022 Title 24, Part 6 Section 150.2(b)1E. For this analysis, final duct leakage values of ten percent (proposed revised leakage rate for 2022 Title 24) was evaluated. The pre-1978 and 1978-1992 vintages assume leaky existing ducts (25-30% leakage). The 1992-2010 vintage assumes moderately leaky existing ducts (15-20% leakage). Replacing existing ductwork with entirely new ductwork to meet Sections 150.2(b)1Di and 150.2(b)1Diia of the 2022 Title 24 was also evaluated. This assumed new ducts meet 5% duct leakage and the option of R-6 and R-8 duct insulation in all climate zones. California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 119  Packet Pg. 533 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades Table 3 summarizes the cost assumptions for the building envelope and HVAC duct improvement measures evaluated. All the measures in Table 3 assume a 30-year effective useful life. Table 3. Measure Cost Assumptions – Efficiency & Duct Measures Measure Performance Level Pre 1978 1978 – 1991 1992 -2010 Wall Insulation R-13 $2,950 N/A N/A Raised Floor Insulation R-19 $3,633 $3,633 N/A R-30 $4,113 $4,113 $4,113 Attic Insulation R-38 $6,762 $2,555 $1,781 R-49 $7,446 $3,612 $1,827 Air Sealing 10 ACH50 $4,684 N/A N/A 7 ACH50 N/A $4,684 N/A 5 ACH50 N/A N/A $4,684 Cool Roof $2,407 $2,407 $2,407 $1,203 $1,203 $1,203 Window U-factor/SHGC 0.28 U-factor. 0.23 SHGC in CZs 2,4,6-15. $11,463 $11,463 $11,463 0.28 U-factor. 0.35 SHGC in CZs 1,3,5,26 $11,871 $11,871 $11,871 Radiant Barrier Add Radiant Barrier $893 $893 $893 Duct Sealing 10% nominal airflow $2,590 $2,590 $1,400 All New Duct System R-6 ducts; 5% duct leakage $4,808 $4,808 $4,808 R-8 ducts; 5% duct leakage $6,311 $6,311 $6,311 2.2.2 PV Measures Installation of on-site PV is required in the 2022 Title 24 code for new construction homes, but there are no PV requirements for additions or alterations to existing buildings. PV was evaluated in CBECC-Res according to the California Flexible Installation (CFI) 1 assumptions and 98% solar access. To meet CFI eligibility, the requirements of 2022 Reference Appendices JA11.2.2 (California Energy Commission, 2021b) must be met. A 3 kW PV system was modeled both as a standalone measure as well as coupled with heat pump installations. The costs for installing PV are summarized in Table 4. They include the first cost to purchase and install the system, future inverter replacement costs, and annual maintenance costs. Upfront solar PV system costs are estimated from the contractor surveys to be $4.58/WDC and are reduced by 30 percent to account for the federal income Residential Clean Energy Credit. The solar panels are estimated to have an effective useful life of 30 years and the inverter 25 years. The inverter replacement cost of $7,000 (future value) is also from the contractor surveys. System maintenance costs are taken from the 2019 PV CASE Report (California Energy Commission, 2017) and are assumed to be California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 120  Packet Pg. 534 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades $0.31/WDC present value. These costs do not include costs associated with electrical panel upgrades, which will be necessary in some instances. Table 4. Measure Descriptions & Cost Assumptions – PV Measure Performance Level Incremental Cost Pre 1978 1978 – 1991 1992 -2010 PV 3 kW $9,608 2.2.3 Equipment Fuel Substitution Measures – Heat Pump Equipment The fuel substitution measures are evaluated as replacements at the end of the life of the existing equipment. This means the baseline compared against is usually a like-for-like change-out of the natural gas equipment, and the upgrade is a heat pump. For most of the space heating and water heating cases, costs for electrical service panel upgrades are not included as it is assumed many existing homes have the service capacity to support converting one appliance from gas to electric. For homes with existing air conditioners, any incremental electric capacity necessary to support a heat pump space heater is marginal. The same applies for homes with existing electric resistance equipment. Section 3.2.4 presents the impacts for select cases where an upgrade to the electric panel is required. Heat Pump Space Heating All the heat pump space heater (HPSH) measures are described below. All were evaluated with HERS verified refrigerant charge aligned with the proposed code requirements for the 2025 Title 24 code. Dual fuel heat pumps (DFHPs) were controlled to lockout furnace operation above 35°F. DFHP (Existing Furnace): Replace existing ducted air conditioner (AC) with an electric heat pump and install controls to operate the heat pump to use the existing gas furnace for backup heat. A minimum federal efficiency (14.3 SEER2, 11.7 EER2, 7.5 HSPF2) heat pump was evaluated. Savings are compared to a new AC (14.3 SEER2, 11.7 EER2) alongside the existing furnace (78 AFUE). DFHP (New Furnace): Replace existing ducted AC and natural gas furnace with an electric heat pump and new gas furnace plus controls to operate the heat pump and use the new gas furnace for backup heat. A minimum federal efficiency (14.3 SEER2, 11.7 EER2, 7.5 HSPF2) heat pump and furnace (80 AFUE) were evaluated to replace existing equipment. Savings are compared to a new ducted AC and natural gas furnace (14.3 SEER2, 11.7 EER2, 80 AFUE). Heat Pump Space Heater: Replace existing ducted AC and natural gas furnace with an electric heat pump. Minimum federal efficiency (14.3 SEER2, 11.7 EER2, 7.5 HSPF2) and higher efficiency (17 SEER2, 12.48 EER2, 9.5 HSPF2) heat pumps were evaluated. Savings are compared to a new ducted natural gas furnace and AC (14.3 SEER2, 11.7 EER2, 80 AFUE). Ducted Mini-Split Heat Pump (MSHP): Replace existing ducted AC and natural gas furnace with a ducted high efficiency MSHP (16.5 SEER2, 12.48 EER2, 9.5 HSPF2). Savings are compared to a new ducted AC and natural gas furnace (14.3 SEER2, 11.7 EER2, 80 AFUE). Ductless MSHP: In a home without AC, replace existing wall furnace with a ductless MSHP. A standard efficiency unit meeting minimum federal efficiency standards (14.3 SEER2, 11.7 EER2, 7.5 HSPF2) was evaluated by modeling the variable capacity heat pump (VCHP) compliance credit in CBECC-Res. A premium, higher efficiency upgrade was also California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 121  Packet Pg. 535 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades evaluated using CBECC-Res’ detailed VCHP model 12 by simulating the performance of a representative high efficiency product (14.3 SEER2, 11.7 EER2, 7.5 HSPF2). Savings are compared to a new natural gas wall furnace with fan distribution (75% AFUE) and window AC (9 CEER). Over the 30-year analysis period, certain changes are assumed when the equipment is replaced that impact both lifetime costs and energy use. Table 5 presents the lifetime scenario for the DFHP (existing furnace) measure. The analysis assumed a 20-year effective useful lifetime (EUL) for a furnace, a 15-year EUL for an air conditioner and a 15- year EUL for a heat pump. Lifetimes are based on the Database for Energy Efficient Resources (DEER) (California Public Utilities Commission, 2021b). The existing furnace is assumed to be halfway through its EUL at the beginning of the analysis period. After 10 years when the furnace reaches the end of its life and needs to be replaced, it will be subject to new federal efficiency standards for residential gas furnaces that go into effect in 2028 requiring 95 AFUE 13. 5 years later the air conditioner reaches the end of its life and is replaced with a new air conditioner. For the DFHP upgrade case, after 10 years when the furnace fails it’s expected that the furnace will be abandoned in place since the heat pump serves primary heating and was sized to provide the full design heating load. In this case it is assumed that the fan motor would be replaced with a new aftermarket unit and would operate another 5 years until the heat pump fails and is replaced with a new heat pump and air handler. The other ducted heat pump cases similarly apply a 95 AFUE furnace in the baseline when the furnace reaches its EUL after 20 years. Table 5. Lifetime Analysis Replacement Assumptions for DFHP (Existing Furnace) Scenario Year Baseline Upgrade 0 10 15 AC fails, install new AC Costs were applied based on the system capacity from heating and cooling load calculations in CBECC-Res as presented in Table 6. Air conditioner nominal capacity was calculated as the CBECC-Res cooling load, rounded up to the nearest half ton. Heat pump nominal capacity was calculated as the maximum of either the CBECC-Res heating or cooling load, rounded up to the nearest half ton. In both cases a minimum capacity of 1.5-ton was applied as this represents the typical smallest available split system heat pump equipment. Load calculations demonstrated that Climate Zones 2 -15 were cooling-dominated while Climate Zones 1 and 16 were heating-dominated. In the heating dominated climate zones the heat pump needed to be upsized relative to an air conditioner that only provides cooling. 12 The detailed VCHP option allows for the user to input detailed specifications based on the published National Energy Efficiency Partnership (NEEP) manufacturer specific performance data. It is not currently available for compliance analysis. 13 https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-finalizes-energy-efficiency-standards-residential-furnaces-save-americans-15- billion#:~:text=These%20furnace%20efficiency%20standards%20were,heat%20for%20the%20living%20space. California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 122  Packet Pg. 536 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades Table 6. System Sizing by Climate Zone Zone Capacity (tons) Capacity (tons) 1 1.5 Table 7 presents estimated first and lifetime costs for the various ducted baseline and heat pump scenarios for 4-ton equipment. Costs include all material and installation labor including providing new 240 V electrical service to the air handler location for all new air handler installations and decommissioning of the furnace for the cases where the furnace is removed. DFHP costs incorporate controls installation and commissioning to ensure the heat pump and the furnace communicate properly and don’t operate at the same time. Future replacement costs do not include any initial costs associated with 240V electrical service or furnace decommissioning. Table 8 presents estimated first and lifetime costs for the ductless baseline and 2 heat pump scenarios, also for 4-ton heat pump equipment. EULs are based on 20 years for the gas wall furnace, 10 years for the window AC, and 15 years for the heat pump.14 14 The gas wall furnace and heat pump EULs were based on DEER (California Public Utilities Commission, 2021b). Gas wall furnace lifetime was assumed to be the same as for central gas furnace equipment. Room air conditioner EUL was based on the DOE’s latest rulemaking for room air conditioned (Department of Energy, 2023). DOE determined an average lifetime of 9.3 years, which was rounded up to 10 years for this analysis. California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 123  Packet Pg. 537 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades Table 7. Ducted HVAC Measure Cost Assumptions – 4-Ton Electric Replacements Case AC + Coil Furnace DFHP (Existing Furnace) Furnace) Min. Eff. Heat Pump High Eff. Heat Pump Ducted MSHP Base Case --AC + Coil Furnace /AC Gas Furnace /AC Gas Furnace /AC Gas Furnace /AC First Cost $10,402 $16,653 $12,362 $20,676 $17,825 $20,802 $18,075 Replacement Cost (Future Value) $19,365 $19,365 $19,025 $19,025 $16,825 $19,802 $18,075 $13,346 $11,639 $12,334 $12,897 $10,800 $12,710 $11,601 $0 ($1,846) $0 ($1,846) $0 $0 $0 $23,748 $26,446 $24,696 $31,727 $28,625 $33,512 $29,676 Incremental Cost --$948 $5,281 $2,179 $7,066 $3,230 Table 8. Non-Ducted HVAC Measure Cost Assumptions – 4-Ton Electric Replacements Wall Furnace + Window AC Ductless MSHP Ductless MSHP First Cost $4,075 $17,412 $21,342 Replacement Cost (Future Value) $4,075 $17,412 $21,342 Replacement Cost (Present Value) $3,365 $11,176 $13,698 Remaining Value at Year 30 ($532) $0 $0 Total Lifecycle Cost $28,588 Incremental Cost -$21,680 $28,132 Heat Pump Water Heating: The heat pump water heater (HPWH) measures are described below, and costs are presented in Table 9 and Table 10. The most typical scenario in California is a home with existing natural gas storage tank water heaters. However, there are also many existing homes with existing electric resistance storage tank water heaters and this work considers both baselines. This analysis evaluates the following 65-gallon replacement HPWHs: 1. HPWH that meets the federal minimum efficiency requirements of UEF 2.0 2. HPWH that meets the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA)15 Tier 3 rating (3.45 UEF) 3. HPWH that meets the NEEA Tier 4 rating and that has demand response (DR) or load shifting control capability (4.02 UEF) 4. 120V HPWH that meets the NEEA Tier 3 rating (3.3 UEF). 15 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. California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 124  Packet Pg. 538 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades The four cases above were evaluated with the HPWH located within an attached garage. Additionally, three separate cases for the federal minimum efficiency HPWH were analyzed to consider the impacts of location on performance and cost-effectiveness. These locations included the following: 1. Exterior closet. 2. Interior closet, no ducting. 3. Interior closet, ducted to the outside. Additional costs for providing electrical wiring to these locations and for providing ductwork were included. Savings are compared to a new 50-gallon natural gas storage water heater (UEF 0.63) or a new 50-gallon electric water heater (UEF 0.92). For this analysis, a HPWH that just meets the federal minimum efficiency standards of close to 2.0 Uniform Energy Factor (UEF) was evaluated in order to satisfy preemption requirements. However, the Reach Codes Team is not aware of any 2.0 UEF products that are available on the market. The lowest UEF reported for certified products in the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA)16 database is 2.73. In fact, of the four certification tiers offered by NEEA for high efficiency HPWHs, those meeting Tier 3 or Tier 4 are the dominant products on the market today. According to NEEA all major HPWH manufacturers are represented in NEEA’s qualified product list 17 and there are fewer than 10 integrated products certified as Tier 1 or Tier 2, all of which have UEFs greater than 3.0.18 Therefore, in this analysis, we refer to the NEEA rated HPWH as the “market standard” HPWH. The HPWH costs for the 120V and NEEA certified units are based on a larger (60 or 65 gallon) HPWH, as most contractors are upsizing the HPWH tank size relative to an equal volume, but higher capacity gas storage water heater. Costs include all material and installation labor including providing a new 240 V electrical service to the water heater location (not needed for the 120V product). Water heating equipment lifetimes are based on DOE’s recent water heater rulemaking (Department of Energy, 2022) and assume 15-year EULs for both the baseline water heaters and the HPWHs.19 Future replacement costs for 240V HPWHs do not include any initial costs associated with 240V electrical service, condensate disposal, etc. Table 9. Water Heating Measure Cost Assumptions – Existing Gas Gas Storage Water Heater 240V Fed. Min. HPWH 240V Market Std. NEEA HPWH Market Std. NEEA HPWH + DR 120V Market Std. NEEA HPWH Min. HPWH, Exterior Closet Min. HPWH, Interior Closet, Not Ducted Min. HPWH, Interior Closet, Ducted First Cost $2,951 $7,283 $8,144 $8,144 $5,844 $7,702 $7,363 $8,442 Replacement Cost (Future Value) $2,951 $6,413 $7,274 $7,274 $5,101 $6,413 $6,413 $6,413 $1,894 $4,116 $4,669 $4,669 $3,274 $4,116 $4,116 $4,116 Incremental Cost -$6,554 $7,968 $7,968 $4,273 $6,973 $6,634 $7,713 16 Based on operational challenges experienced in the past, NEEA established rating test criteria to ensure newly installed HPWHs perform adequately, especially in colder climates. The NEEA rating requires products comply with ENERGY STAR and includes requirements regarding noise and prioritizing heat pump use over supplemental electric resistance heating. 17 https://neea.org/success-stories/heat-pump-water-heaters 18 As of 12/21/23: https://neea.org/img/documents/residential-unitary-HPWH-qualified-products-list.pdf 19 The recent DOE rulemaking references a lifetime of 14 years for gas storage water heaters and 14.8 years for electric storage water heaters. 15 years for each was used in this analysis for both types for simplification. California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 125  Packet Pg. 539 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades Table 10 presents similar costs to Table 9, except that the costs assume replacement of an existing 50-gallon electric storage water heater and does not include the 240 V electrical service cost. Table 10. Water Heating Measure Cost Assumptions – Existing Electric Resistance Electric Storage Water Heater 240V Fed. Min. HPWH 240V Market Std. NEEA HPWH Market Std. NEEA HPWH + DR 120V Market Std. NEEA HPWH Min. HPWH, Exterior Closet Min. HPWH, Interior Closet, Not Ducted Min. HPWH, Interior Closet, Ducted First Cost $2,583 $6,413 $7,274 $7,274 $5,101 $6,413 $6,413 $7,492 Replacement Cost (Future Value) $2,583 $6,413 $7,274 $7,274 $5,101 $6,413 $6,413 $6,413 Replacement Cost (Present Value) $1,658 $4,116 $4,669 $4,669 $3,274 $4,116 $4,116 $4,116 Total Lifecycle Cost $4,241 $10,529 $11,943 $11,943 $8,375 $10,529 $10,529 $11,608 Incremental Cost California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 126  Packet Pg. 540 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 3 Results The primary objective of the evaluation is to identify cost-effective energy upgrade measures and packages for existing single family buildings, to support the design of local ordinances requiring upgrades, which may be triggered by different events, such as at the time of a significant remodel or at burnout of mechanical equipment. In this report, the 1992-2010 vintage is shown for the equipment measures because it is the most conservative case (lowest loads), while the pre-1978 vintage is shown for the envelope and duct measures because some of those measures only apply to the pre-1978 vintage. A full dataset of all results can be downloaded at https://localenergycodes.com/content/resources. Results alongside policy options can also be explored using the Cost-effectiveness Explorer at https://explorer.localenergycodes.com/. California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 127  Packet Pg. 541 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 3.1 Cost-Effectiveness Results The extensive analysis for this type of report leads to an overwhelming number of scenarios including different base cases, house vintages, replacement options, and climate zones. To simplify the reporting, the Statewide Reach Codes Team has relied on graphical representation of select key cases indicating high level measure cost effectiveness from either an On-Bill perspective, an LSC perspective, both metrics, or neither. Figure 1 through Figure 13 present this reduced set of results of the LSC and On-Bill cost-effectiveness conclusions across the 16 climate zones. In the cases where there are multiple utilities serving a single climate zone, an asterisk “*” label is added to separately show the alternate utility cases. These graphs provide a general sense of the findings. A full dataset of all results can be downloaded at https://localenergycodes.com/content/resources. Results alongside policy options can also be explored using the Cost-effectiveness Explorer at https://explorer.localenergycodes.com/. 3.1.1 HPSH Measures Figure 1 through Figure 5 show the cost-effectiveness of space heating equipment replacement measures for the 1992-2010 vintage including the following cases. The 1992-2010 vintage results are presented here as this is the most conservative scenario for HPSH measures. In general, where a HPSH measure is cost-effective for a new home it was also found to be cost-effective for older homes. • Dual fuel heat pump with existing furnace as backup. • Standard efficiency ducted central heat pump replacement. • High efficiency ducted central heat pump replacement. • Ducted mini-split heat pump replacement. • Standard efficiency ducted central heat pump replacement with 3kW PV system. Figure 1: DFHP with Existing Furnace Figure 2: Standard Efficiency HPSH California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 128  Packet Pg. 542 of 690  23 Results Figure 3: High Efficiency HPSH Figure 4: Ducted MSHP Figure 5: HPSH + PV California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 129  Packet Pg. 543 of 690  24 Results 3.1.2 HPWH Measures Figure 6 through Table 11 show the cost-effectiveness of water heater measures for the 1992-2010 vintage including the following cases. HPWH energy savings and LSC cost-effectiveness is not sensitive to home vintage but rather depends on the magnitude of hot water loads, which are typically driven by the number of occupants. On-Bill cost- effectiveness does vary slightly by vintage due to the impact of the electrification tariff relative to the load profile of the existing home. The impact is largest for the HPWH + PV case where On-Bill cost-effectiveness improves for older homes or homes with overall higher energy use resulting in less exports to the grid for a fixed size PV system. • 240V federal minimum HPWH • 240V market standard NEEA HPWH • 120V market standard NEEA HPWH • 240V federal minimum HPWH with 3kW PV Figure 6: 240V Federal Minimum HPWH Figure 7: 240V Market Standard NEEA HPWH Figure 8: 120V Market Standard NEEA HPWH Figure 9: 240V Federal Minimum HPWH + PV California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 130  Packet Pg. 544 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades • Envelope and Duct Measures Figure 10 through Figure 13 show the cost-effectiveness results of envelope and duct measures for the pre-1978 vintage including the following measures. The pre-1978 vintage is presented as representing the most favorable existing conditions for cost-effective upgrades. Newer homes with higher performing envelope may still benefit from these types of upgrade measures, but cost-effectiveness is reduced. Some measures, like R-13 wall insulation, aren’t applicable to newer homes which would have been constructed originally with insulated walls. • New R-6 ducts • 10% duct leakage • R-13 wall insulation • R-49 attic insulation California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 131  Packet Pg. 545 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades Figure 10: R-6 Ducts Figure 11: 10% Duct Leakage Figure 12: R-13 Wall Insulation Figure 13: R-49 Attic Insulation 3.2 Climate Zone Case Studies To better understand the details of the results, a few climate zones were selected to provide a more detailed presentation of cost-effectiveness results. Section 3.2.1 through 3.2.3 show the first-year incremental cost, first-year utility savings, and NPV for a variety of cases. Section 3.2.4 shows the sensitivity of the cost effectiveness results due to varying utility escalation rates, the impact of CARE rates, future equipment cost assumptions, and the need for electrical panel upgrades. The climate zones were selected to be representative of areas of significant reach code activity. Please refer to the Cost-Effectiveness Explorer (Statewide Reach Codes, 2023) or the source dataset for the full analysis. California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 132  Packet Pg. 546 of 690  27 Results 3.2.1 HPSH Cost-Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness of heat pump space heating measures for Climate Zones 12 and 16 is summarized in Table 11 and Table 12 below. In Climate Zone 12, HPSH measures are cost-effective based on LSC in all cases except the ductless MSHP cases and are cost-effective On-Bill with SMUD rates in all cases except the DFHP case with a new furnace and the ductless MSHP cases. These measures are cost-effective On-Bill with PGE for the DFHP with an existing furnace and ducted MSHP measures. Climate Zone 16 provides an example of HPSH cost-effectiveness in a cold climate where almost all HPSH measures are cost effective based on LSC but not cost-effective On-Bill. Table 11. HPSH CZ 12 [1992-2010] Measure First Incremental Cost 2025 LSC NPV Utility On-Bill NPV Utility On-Bill NPV DFHP Existing Furnace $1,960 $7,093 ($19) $1,633 $247 $7,693 DFHP New Furnace $4,023 $3,915 ($34) ($3,134) $234 $2,979 HPSH (Std Efficiency) $1,172 $6,990 ($147) ($2,151) $246 $6,812 HPSH (High Efficiency) $4,149 $5,366 $13 ($3,368) $300 $3,160 Ducted MSHP $1,421 $9,136 $10 $378 $298 $6,951 Ductless MSHP (Std Efficiency) $13,336 ($9,175) $30 ($18,039) $276 ($12,428) Ductless MSHP (High Efficiency) $17,266 ($6,753) $409 ($15,853) $423 ($15,532) HPSH + PV $10,780 $5,289 $452 ($59) $885 $9,821 Table 12. HPSH CZ 16 [1992-2010] Measure Incremental 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV DFHP Existing Furnace $2,397 $7,289 ($116) ($1,891) DFHP New Furnace $4,757 $2,457 ($133) ($6,322) HPSH (Std Efficiency) $2,725 $11,142 ($480) ($8,532) HPSH (High Efficiency) $5,701 $12,099 ($204) ($7,125) Ducted MSHP $2,155 $16,554 ($221) ($2,853) Ductless MSHP (Std Efficiency) $13,336 ($134) ($170) ($19,742) Ductless MSHP (High Efficiency) $17,266 $9,397 $539 ($10,031) HPSH + PV $12,333 $10,640 $316 ($1,949) California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 133  Packet Pg. 547 of 690  28 Results 3.2.2 HPWH Cost-Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness of heat pump water heating measures for Climate Zones 12 and 16 is summarized in Table 13 and Table 14 below. This sensitivity study looks at a wider range of HPWH tank locations and whether or not the unit has ducting for supply and exhaust air. All the HPWH measures in Climate Zones 12 and 16 are cost effective based on LSC. Table 13. HPWH CZ 12 [1992-2010] Measure First Incremental Cost 2025 LSC NPV Utility On-Bill NPV Utility On-Bill NPV 240V Fed. Min. HPWH $4,332 $3,536 ($213) ($8,738) $191 $477 240V Market Std. NEEA HPWH $5,193 $4,304 ($82) ($7,164) $230 ($56) $5,193 $5,536 ($21) ($5,773) $248 $362 $2,893 $9,730 ($2) ($1,651) $254 $4,203 $4,751 $2,834 ($224) ($9,431) $186 ($78) $4,413 $3,123 ($71) ($6,138) $188 ($235) $5,492 $3,359 ($202) ($9,505) $205 ($231) Table 14. HPWH CZ 16 [1992-2010] Measure Incremental 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV 240V Fed. Min. HPWH $4,332 $4,186 ($250) ($9,307) 240V Market Std. NEEA HPWH $5,193 $4,088 ($160) ($8,652) 240V Market Std. NEEA HPWH + DR $5,193 $5,653 ($79) ($6,804 120V Market Std. NEEA HPWH $2,893 $10,646 ($13) ($1,602) 240V Fed. Min. HPWH (Exterior Closet) $4,751 $3,317 ($268) ($10,154) 240V Fed. Min. HPWH (Interior Closet) $4,413 $5,004 ($18) ($4,690) 240V Fed. Min. HPWH (Interior Closet, ducted) $5,492 $4,857 ($202) ($9,174) California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 134  Packet Pg. 548 of 690  29 Results 3.2.3 Envelope & Duct Improvement Cost-Effectiveness Cost-effectiveness of envelope and duct measures for Climate Zones 3, 10, and 12 is summarized in Table 15 through Table 17. Table 15. Envelope and Duct Measures CZ 3 [Pre-1978] Measure Incremental 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV R-6 Ducts $4,808 $2,851 $188 $463 R-8 Ducts $6,311 $1,747 $198 ($776) 10% Duct Sealing $2,590 $1,956 $104 $397 R-13 Wall Insulation $2,950 $3,476 $144 $1,221 R-38 Attic Insulation $6,762 ($1,567) $127 ($3,178) R-49 Attic Insulation $7,446 ($1,768) $139 ($3,520) R-30 Raised Floor Insulation $4,113 $9,008 $224 $2,975 Cool Roof (0.20 Ref) $893 ($2,419) ($18) ($1,811) Table 16. Envelope and Duct Measures CZ 10 [Pre-1978] Measure First Incremental Cost 2025 LSC NPV First-year Utility Savings On-Bill NPV year Utility On-Bill NPV R-6 Ducts $4,808 $7,463 $783 $13,168 $1,100 $22,155 R-8 Ducts $6,311 $6,326 $800 $12,076 $1,125 $21,268 10% Duct Sealing $2,590 $3,438 $370 $5,969 $518 $10,166 R-13 Wall Insulation $2,950 $1,795 $179 $1,476 $250 $3,494 R-38 Attic Insulation $6,762 $664 $416 $2,951 $582 $7,654 R-49 Attic Insulation $7,446 $796 $467 $3,435 $655 $8.756 R-30 Raised Floor Insulation $4,113 ($999) ($29) ($4,235) ($46) ($4,687) Cool Roof (0.20 Ref) $893 $428 $174 $2,647 $246 $4,656 Table 17. Envelope and Duct Measures CZ 12 [Pre-1978] Measure First Incremental Cost 2025 LSC NPV First-year Utility Savings On-Bill NPV year Utility On-Bill NPV R-6 Ducts $4,808 $11,609 $804 $14,727 $413 $5,816 R-8 Ducts $6,311 $10,722 $828 $13,849 $427 $4,711 10% Duct Sealing $2,590 $6,418 $397 $7,280 $222 $3,281 R-13 Wall Insulation $2,950 $5,774 $262 $4,054 $187 $2,342 R-38 Attic Insulation $6,762 $3,727 $499 $5,461 $261 $19 R-49 Attic Insulation $7,446 $4,092 $552 $6,063 $288 $33 R-30 Raised Floor Insulation $4,113 $5,245 $27 ($1,176) $156 $1,175 Cool Roof (0.20 Ref) $893 ($354) $154 $2,123 $44 ($386) California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 135  Packet Pg. 549 of 690  30 Results 3.2.4 Sensitivities Table 18 shows the On-Bill NPV results of Climate Zone 12 with PG&E utility rates and the impacts of escalation rates, and CARE rates. The “Standard Results” in Table 18 assumes the escalation rates used in the analysis presented elsewhere in this report. Table 19 shows the impact of electrical panel upgrades. The “Standard Results” in Table 19 does not assume a panel upgrade is required. Table 18. Sensitivity Analysis Results for On-Bill NPV Cost-Effectiveness in Climate Zone 12, PG&E Measure Vintage CARE DFHP Existing Furnace 1992-2010 $1,063 $8,443 $1,884 DFHP New Furnace 1992-2010 ($6,770) $383 ($5,846) HPSH (Std Efficiency) 1992-2010 ($2,151) $6,011 ($220) HPSH (High Efficiency) 1992-2010 ($3,368) $4,987 ($2,721) Ducted MSHP 1992-2010 $378 $8,729 $1,057 Ductless MSHP (Std Efficiency) 1992-2010 ($18,039) ($10,732) ($17,623) Ductless MSHP (High Efficiency) 1992-2010 ($15,853) ($8,091) ($18,460) HPSH + PV 1992-2010 ($59) $8,822 ($1,255) 240V Fed. Min. HPWH 1992-2010 ($8,738) ($2,433) ($6,448) 240V Market Std. NEEA HPWH 1992-2010 ($7,164) ($694) ($5,918) 240V Market Std. NEEA HPWH + DR 1992-2010 ($5,773) $770 (5,014) 120V Market Std. NEEA HPWH 1992-2010 ($1,651) $4,930 (1,038) 240V Fed. Min. HPWH (Exterior Closet) 1992-2010 ($9,431) ($3,184) ($7,055) 240V Fed. Min. HPWH (Interior Closet) 1992-2010 ($6,138) ($1,000) ($5,098) 240V Fed. Min. HPWH (Interior Closet, ducted) 1992-2010 ($9,505) ($2,836) ($7,271) 240V Fed. Min. HPWH + PV 1992-2010 ($2,300) $4,952 ($4,858) R-6 Ducts Pre-1978 $14,727 $18,685 $8,592 R-8 Ducts Pre-1978 $13,849 $17,990 $7,532 10% Duct Sealing Pre-1978 $7,280 $9,752 $4,294 R-13 Wall Insulation Pre-1978 $4,054 $6,898 $2,196 R-38 Attic Insulation Pre-1978 $5,461 $8,126 $1,668 R-49 Attic Insulation Pre-1978 $6,063 $8,978 $1,864 R-30 Raised Floor Insulation Pre-1978 ($1,776) $2,468 ($1,602) Cool Roof (0.20 Ref) Pre-1978 $2,123 $1,848 $851 Table 19. Electric Panel Upgrade Sensitivity for CZ 12 [1992-2010] Measure HPSH (Std Efficiency) ($2,151) $6,990 ($4,931) $4,210 240V Fed. Min. HPWH ($8,738) $3,536 ($11,624) $756 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 136  Packet Pg. 550 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 3.3 Gas Pathways for Heat Pump Replacements Many jurisdictions are exploring policy options to accelerate the decarbonization of existing homes. A recent Ninth Circuit Court ruling in California Rest. Ass'n v. City of Berkeley 20 invalidated Berkeley’s ordinance banning the installation of gas infrastructure in new construction. The ruling stated that the ordinance effectively banned covered products and was preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (“EPCA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6297(c). Given the possible impacts of that ruling, the Reach Codes Team analyzed policy options targeting equipment replacements that allow for the installation of either electric or gas-fueled equipment. These packages include gas equipment combined with additional efficiency measures resulting in options that are reasonably energy or LSC cost equivalent, to the extent feasible. For space heating, the heat pump path is a DFHP (existing furnace).. The gas pathway is a new air conditioner with the following list of efficiency upgrades: • 400 cfm/ton system airflow (HERS verified). • 0.35 W/cfm fan efficacy (HERS verified). • Refrigerant charge verification (HERS verified). • R-8 ducts, 5% leakage (HERS verified). • R-49 (from R-30) attic insulation. • Air sealing of the ceiling from 7 to 6.5 ACH50. The two pathways are presented in Figure 14 comparing total LSC energy use relative to the existing home for the 1992-2010 vintage. In most climate zones, the DFHP (existing furnace) path results in higher energy savings, in the milder climates the air conditioner path saves marginally more energy. A reach code that establishes requirements when an air conditioner is replaced or installed new, could allow for either a heat pump to be installed or an air conditioner as long as the performance measures listed above are met. Note that in this analysis a DFHP (existing furnace) was used; however, a reach code could require a different heat pump measure for the heat pump path. This approach aligns with the CEC’s proposal for the 2025 Title 24 code cycle for heat pump alterations in single family homes (California Energy Commission, 2023). 20 California Rest. Ass'n v. City of Berkeley, 65 F.4th 1045 (9th Cir. 2023) amended by 89 F.4th 1094 (9th Cir. 2024). California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 137  Packet Pg. 551 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades Figure 14. Heat pump space heater path compared to the air conditioner path. For water heating, the federal minimum HPWH case was used to develop the package. The HPWH was compared to a new gas storage water heater with a 50% solar thermal backup system. Figure 15. Heat pump water path compared to gas with solar thermal. The two pathways are presented in Figure 15 comparing total LSC energy use relative to the existing home for the 1992-2010 vintage. In all climate zones, the heat pump path results in higher energy savings than the gas path. A reach code that establishes requirements when a water heater is replaced could allow for either a HPWH to be installed or a gas water heater in combination with a solar thermal system that meets the solar fraction requirements listed above. California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 138  Packet Pg. 552 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 4 Recommendations and Discussion This analysis evaluated the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of retrofit measures in California existing homes built before 2010. The Statewide Reach Codes Team used both On-Bill and LSC-based LCC approaches to evaluate cost- effectiveness and quantify the energy cost savings associated with energy efficiency measures compared to the incremental costs associated with the measures. Conclusions and Discussion: 1. Envelope measures. Improving envelope performance is very cost-effective in many older homes. In addition to reducing utility costs these measures provide many other benefits such as improving occupant comfort and satisfaction and increasing a home’s ability to maintain temperatures during extreme weather events and power outages. Below is a discussion of the results of specific measures. a. Adding attic insulation is cost effective based on both LSC and On-Bill in many climate zones in homes with no more than R-19 existing attic insulation levels. Increasing attic insulation from R-30 to R-49 was still found to be cost-effective based on at least one metric in the colder and hotter climates of Climate Zone 10 (SDG&E territory only) through 16. b. Insulating existing uninsulated walls is very cost-effective based on both metrics everywhere except Climate Zones 6 and 7 (in Climate Zone 8 it’s only cost-effective based on LSC). c. Adding R-19 or R-30 floor insulation is cost-effective based on LSC in the older two vintages (Pre-1978 and 1978-1991) in all climate zones except Climate Zones 6-10. d. Replacing old single pane windows with new high-performance windows has a very high cost and is typically not done for energy savings alone. However, energy savings are substantial and justify cost- effectiveness of this measure based on at least one metric in Climate Zones 4, 8 through 12 (PG&E territory only), and 13 through 16. e. At time of roof replacement, a cool roof with an aged solar reflectance of 0.25 was found to be cost- effective in Climate Zones 4, 6 through 12 (PG&E territory only), and 13 through 15. When the roof deck is replaced during a roof replacement, adding a radiant barrier is low cost and provides substantial cooling energy savings to be cost-effective in almost all climate zones and homes. 2. Duct measures: Many older homes have old, leaky duct systems that should be replaced when they reach the end of life, typically 20-30 years. In this case, installing new ducts was found to be cost-effective based on at least one metric (both in most cases) everywhere except mild Climate Zone 7 and Climate Zones 5 and 6 in the 1978-1991 vintage. If duct systems still have remaining life they should be sealed and tested to meet 10% leakage or lower; however, duct upgrades alone were only found to be cost-effective for newer homes in Climate Zones 10 (SDG&E territory only), 11, and 13 through 16. Duct upgrades may be able to be coupled with other measures to reduce the cost. 3. Heat pump space heating: HPSHs were found to be LSC cost-effective in many cases. The DFHP (existing furnace) was LSC cost-effective everywhere except Climate Zone 15. The HPSH was LSC cost-effective everywhere except Climate Zones 8 and 15. a. Challenges to On-Bill cost-effectiveness include higher first costs and higher first-year utility costs due to higher electricity tariffs relative to gas tariffs. SMUD and CPAU are two exceptions where first year utility costs are lower for heat pumps than for gas equipment. Table 11 shows the impact of utility rates on cost-effectiveness of HPSH where the standard and high efficiency HPSH and the HPSH + PV measures are cost-effective under SMUD but not PG&E. Even with higher first year utility bills, there were some cases that still proved On-Bill cost-effective including the DFHP with an existing furnace in the central valley and northern coastal PG&E territories, the ducted MSHP in the central valley as well as Climate Zone 14 in SDG&E territory, and the HPSH + PV measure in CZ 3-5 (PGE), 7-11, and 12 (SMUD) – 15. b. The ductless MSHPs, evaluated for homes with existing ductless systems, were only found to be cost- effective based on either metric in Climate Zones 1 and 16. Ductless MSHPs have a high incremental cost because it is a more sophisticated system than the base model of a wall furnace with a window AC unit. However, the ductless MSHP would provide greater comfort benefits if properly installed to California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 139  Packet Pg. 553 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades directly condition all habitable spaces (as is required under the VCHP compliance credit as evaluated in this study) which may be an incentive for a homeowner to upgrade their system. c. Higher efficiency equipment lowered utility costs in all cases and improved cost-effectiveness in many cases, particularly with a ducted MSHP. 4. Heat pump water heating: All the HPWH measures were LSC cost-effective in all climate zones. Most measures were not On-Bill cost-effective with the exception of the HPWH + PV which was cost-effective On- Bill in CPAU, SMUD, and SDG&E territories in addition to Climate Zones 11, 13, 14, and 15. The HPWH measures share many of the same challenges as the HPSH measures to achieving cost-effectiveness including high first costs and utility rates and assumptions. Table 13 shows the impact of utility rates on cost- effectiveness where some HPWH measures are cost-effective under SMUD utility rates but are not cost- effective anywhere under PG&E rates in Climate Zone 12. a. Various HPWH locations were also explored, however there are some factors outside of cost- effectiveness that should also be considered. i. HPWHs in the conditioned space can provide benefits such as free cooling during the summer, reduced tank losses, and shorter pipe lengths, and in some cases show improved cost-effectiveness over garage located HPWHs. However, there are various design considerations such as noise, comfort concerns, and condensate removal. Ducting the inlet and exhaust air resolves comfort concerns but adds costs and complexity. Split heat pump water heaters address these concerns, but currently there are limited products on the market and there is a cost premium relative to the packaged products. ii. Since HPWHs extract heat from the air and transfer it to water in the storage tank, they must have adequate ventilation to operate properly. Otherwise, the space cools down over time, impacting the HPWH operating efficiency. This is not a problem with garage installations but needs to be considered for water heaters located in interior or exterior closets. For the 2025 Title 24 code the CEC is proposing that all HPWH installations meet mandatory ventilation requirements (California Energy Commission, 2023). 5. The contractor surveys revealed overall higher heat pump costs than what has been found in previous analyses. This could be due to incentive availability raising demand for heat pumps and thereby increasing the price. This price increase may be temporary and may come down once the market stabilizes. There are also new initiatives to obtain current costs including the TECH Clean California program 21 that publishes heat pump data and costs; however, at the time of this analysis, the TECH data did not contain incremental costs because it only had the heat pump costs but not the gas base case costs. 6. Table 18 shows how CARE rates and escalation rate assumptions will impact cost-effectiveness. a. Applying CARE rates in the IOU territories has the overall impact to increase utility cost savings for an all-electric building compared to a code compliant mixed fuel building, improving On-Bill cost- effectiveness. This is due to the CARE discount on electricity being higher than that on gas. The reverse occurs with efficiency measures where lower utility rates reduce savings and subsequently reduce cost-effectiveness. b. If gas tariffs are assumed to increase substantially over time, in-line with the escalation assumption from the 2025 LSC development, cost-effectiveness substantially improves for the heat pump measures over the 30-year analysis period and many cases become cost-effective that were not found to be cost-effective under the CPUC / 2022 TDV escalation scenario. There is much uncertainty surrounding future tariff structures as well as escalation values. While it’s clear that gas rates will increase, how much and how quickly is not known. Future electricity tariff structures are expected to evolve over time, and the CPUC has an active proceeding to adopt an income-graduated fixed charge that benefits low-income customers and supports electrification measures for all customers.22 The CPUC will decide in mid-2024 and the new rates are expected to be in place later that year or in 2025. 21 TECH Public Reporting Home Page (techcleanca.com) 22 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/electric-costs/demand-response-dr/demand- flexibility-rulemaking California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 140  Packet Pg. 554 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades While the anticipated impact of this rate change is lower volumetric electricity rates, the rate design is not finalized. While lower volumetric electricity rates provide many benefits, it also will make building efficiency measures harder to justify as cost-effective due to lower utility bill cost savings. 7. Under NBT, utility cost savings for PV are substantially less than what they were under prior net energy metering rules (NEM 2.0); however, savings are sufficient to be On-Bill cost-effective in all climate zones except Climate Zones 1 through 3 and 5 through 6. a. Combining a heat pump with PV allows the additional electricity required by the heat pump to be offset by the PV system while also increasing on-site utilization of PV generation rather than exporting the electricity back to the grid at a low rate. b. While not evaluated in this study, coupling PV with battery systems can be very advantageous under NBT increasing utility cost savings because of improved on-site utilization of PV generation and fewer exports to the grid. Recommendations: 1. There are various approaches for jurisdictions who are interested in reach codes for existing buildings. Some potential approaches are listed below along with key considerations. a. Prescriptive measures: Non-preempted measures that are found to be cost-effective may be prescriptively required in a reach code. One example of this type or ordinance is a cool roof requirement at time of roof replacement. Another example is requiring specific cost-effective measures for larger remodels, such as high-performance windows when new windows are installed or duct sealing and testing where ducts are in unconditioned space. b. Replacement equipment: This flavor of reach code sets certain requirements at time of equipment replacement. This study evaluated space heating and water heating equipment. Where a heat pump measure was found to be cost-effective based on either LSC or On-Bill, this may serve as the basis of a reach code given the following considerations. i. Where reach codes reduce energy usage and are not just fuel switching, cost-effectiveness calculations are required and must be based on equipment that does not exceed the federal minimum efficiency requirements. ii. Where reach codes are established using cost-effectiveness based on LSC, utility bill impacts and the owner’s first cost should also be reviewed and considered. iii. A gas path should also be prescriptively allowed to safely satisfy federal preemption requirements considering the CRA v. Berkeley case.23 Additional requirements may apply to the gas path, as described in Section 3.3, as long as the paths are reasonably energy or cost equivalent. c. “Flexible Path”, minimum energy savings target: This flexible approach establishes a target for required energy savings based on a measure or a set of measures that were found to be cost-effective based on either LSC or On-Bill. A points menu compares various potential upgrades ranging from efficiency, PV, and fuel substitution measures, based on site or source energy savings. The applicant must select upgrades that individually or in combination meet the minimum energy savings target. The measures used to set the target should be non-preempted measures. 2. Equipment replacement ordinances should consider appropriate exceptions for scenarios where it will be challenging to meet the requirements, such as location of the HPWH, total project cost limitations, or the need for service panel upgrades that wouldn’t have been required as part of the proposed scope of work in absence of the reach code. 3. Consider extending relevant proposals made by the CEC for the 2025 Title 24 code (California Energy Commission, 2023) in ordinances that apply under the 2022 Title 24 code, such as the following: a. Mandatory ventilation requirements for HPWH installations (Section 110.3(c)7). 23 https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/2024-01/CRA-v-Berkeley-Ninth-Circuit-Opinion-Jan2024.pdf California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 141  Packet Pg. 555 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades b. Requirement for HERS verified refrigerant charge verification for heat pumps in all climate zones (Table 150.1-A 24). 4. When evaluating reach code strategies, the Reach Codes Team recommends that jurisdictions consider combined benefits of energy efficiency alongside electrification. Efficiency and electrification have symbiotic benefits and are both critical for decarbonization of buildings. As demand on the electric grid is increased through electrification, efficiency can reduce the negative impacts of additional electricity demand on the grid, reducing the need for increased generation and storage capacity, as well as the need to upgrade upstream transmission and distribution equipment. 5. Education and training can play a critical role in ensuring that heat pumps are installed, commissioned, and controlled properly to mitigate grid impacts and maximize occupant satisfaction. Below are select recommended strategies. a. The Quality Residential HVAC Services Program 25 is an incentive program to train California contractors in providing quality installation and maintenance while advancing energy-efficient technologies in the residential HVAC industry. Jurisdictions can market this to local contractors to increase the penetration of contractors skilled in heat pump design and installation. b. Educate residents and contractors of available incentives, tax credits, and financing opportunities. c. Educate contractors on code requirements. Energy Code Ace provides free tools, trainings, and resource to help Californians comply with the energy code. Contractors can access interactive compliance forms, fact sheets, and live and recorded trainings, among other things, on the website: https://energycodeace.com/. Jurisdictions can reach out to Energy Code Ace directly to discuss offerings. 6. Health and safety a. Combustion Appliance Safety and Indoor Air Quality: Implementation of some of the recommended measures will affect the pressure balance of the home which can subsequently impact the safe operation of existing combustion appliances as well as indoor air quality. Buildings with older gas appliances can present serious health and safety problems which may not be addressed in a remodel if the appliances are not being replaced. It is recommended that the building department require inspection and testing of all combustion appliances located within the pressure boundary of the building after completion of retrofit work that involves air sealing or insulation measures. b. Jurisdictions may consider requiring mechanical ventilation in homes where air sealing has been conducted. In older buildings, outdoor air is typically introduced through leaks in the building envelope. After air sealing a building, it may be necessary to forcefully bring in fresh outdoor air using supply and/or exhaust fans to minimize potential issues associated with indoor air quality. 24 This requirement does not show up in the Express Terms for alterations in Section 150.2(b)1F, but the Statewide Reach Codes Team expects that it will be added to the next release of the proposed code language in the 45-day language as it aligns with the proposal made by the Codes and Standards Enhancement Team (Statewide CASE Team, 2023). 25 https://qualityhvac.frontierenergy.com/ California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 142  Packet Pg. 556 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 5 References California Energy Commission. (2017). Rooftop Solar PV System. Measure number: 2019-Res-PV-D Prepared by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=221366 California Energy Commission. (2021b). Final Express Terms for the Proposed Revisions to the 2022 Energy Code Reference Appendices. Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/DocketLog.aspx?docketnumber=21- BSTD-01 California Energy Commission. (2022b). 2022 Reference Appendices for the 202 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. CEC-400-2022-010-AP. Retrieved from https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/CEC-400- 2022-010-AP.pdf California Energy Commission. (2022c, Feb). 2022 Single-Family Residential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual. CEC-400-2022-008-CMF-REV. Retrieved from https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2022/2022- single-family-residential-alternative-calculation-method-reference-manual California Energy Commission. (2023). 2025 Energy code Hourly Factors. Retrieved from https://www.energy.ca.gov/files/2025-energy-code-hourly-factors California Energy Commission. (2023). Draft 2025 Energy Code Express Terms. Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=252915&DocumentContentId=88051 California Public Utilities Commission. (2021a). Utility Costs and Affordability of the Grid of the Future: An Evaluation of Electric Costs, Rates, and Equity Issues Pursuant to P.U. Code Section 913.1. Retrieved from https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/office-of-governmental-affairs- division/reports/2021/senate-bill-695-report-2021-and-en-banc-whitepaper_final_04302021.pdf California Public Utilities Commission. (2021b). Database for Energy-Efficient resources (DEER2021 Update). Retrieved April 13, 2021, from http://www.deeresources.com/index.php/deer-versions/deer2021 Department of Energy. (2022). Preliminary Analysis Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment. Retrieved from https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0019-0018 Department of Energy. (2023). Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Room Air Conditioners. Retrieved from https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0059-0053 E-CFR. (2020). https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi- bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt10.3.431&r=PART&ty=HTM L#se10.3.431_197. Retrieved from Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi- bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt10.3.431&r=PART&ty=HTM L#se10.3.431_197 Statewide CASE Team. (2023). Residential HVAC Performance. Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative 2025 California Energy Code. Prepared by Frontier Energy. Retrieved from https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Revised_2025_T24_Final-CASE-Report-RES- HVAC-Performance.pdf Statewide Reach Codes. (2023). Cost Effectiveness Explorer. Retrieved from Cost Effectiveness Explorer: https://explorer.localenergycodes.com/ Statewide Reach Codes Team. (2021). 2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Residential Buidling Upgrades. Retrieved from https://localenergycodes.com/content/resources California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 143  Packet Pg. 557 of 690  - lding Cli mate Zones California , 2017 cJ Building Climate Zone s [] County Boundary SOurc.. C.~omll Ene,gyCOmm- Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 38 Appendices 6 Appendices 6.1 Map of California Climate Zones Climate zone geographical boundaries are depicted in Figure 16. The map in Figure 16 along with a zip-code search directory is available at: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html Figure 16. Map of California climate zones. California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 144  Packet Pg. 558 of 690  - 2023 Electric California Climate Credit Schedule PG&E SCE SDG&E February or March $38.39 $7 1.00 $60.70 April May June Ju l y Residential Natural Gas California Climate Credit Aug In 2023, the 2023 Natural Gas Californ ia Climate Cred i t will be d istributed in Febr uar y o r Ma rch i nstead o f April. Sept Oct $38.39 $71.00 $60.70 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Value Received Per Household 2018-2023 PG&E $30 $25 $27 $25 $48 $52 .78 $208 SDG&E $34 $21 $18 $43 $43.40 $162 Southwest Gas $22 $25 $27 $28 $49 $56 .35 $207 SoCalGas $50 $26 $22 $44 $50 .77 $194 Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 39 Appendices 6.2 Utility Rate Schedules The Reach Codes Team used the CA IOU and POU rate tariffs detailed below to determine the On-Bill savings for each package. The California Climate Credit was applied for both electricity and natural gas service for the IOUs using the 2023 credits shows below.26 The credits were applied to reduce the total calculated annual bill, including any fixed fees or minimum bill amounts. Electricity rates reflect the most recently approved tariffs. Monthly gas rates were estimated based on recent gas rates (November 2023) and a curve to reflect how natural gas prices fluctuate with seasonal supply and demand. The seasonal curve was estimated from monthly residential tariffs between 2014 and 2023 (between 2017 and 2023 for CPAU). 12-month curves were created from monthly gas rates for each of the ten years (Seven years for CPAU). These annual curves were then averaged to arrive at an average normalized annual curve. This was conducted separately for baseline and excess energy rates. Costs used in this analysis were then derived by establishing the most recent baseline and excess rate from the latest tariff as a reference point (November 2023), and then using the normalized curve to estimate the cost for the remaining months relative to the reference point rate. 26 https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/natural-gas/greenhouse-gas-cap-and-trade-program/california- climate-credit California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 145  Packet Pg. 559 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 6.2.1 Pacific Gas & Electric The following pages provide details on the PG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 20 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. A net surplus compensation rate of $0.07051/ kWh was applied to any net annual electricity generation based on a one-year average of the rates between December 2022 and November 2023. Table 20. PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone Zone Territory CZ01 V CZ02 X CZ03 T CZ04 X CZ05 T CZ11 R CZ12 S CZ13 R CZ16 Y The PG&E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis according to the rates shown in Table 21. These rates are based on applying a normalization curve to the November 2023 tariff based on ten years of historical gas data. Corresponding CARE rates reflect the 20 percent discount per the GL-1 tariff. Table 21. PG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) Month January $2.05 $2.43 February $2.08 $2.46 March $1.92 $2.31 April $1.80 $2.20 May $1.77 $2.18 June $1.78 $2.18 July $1.80 $2.20 August $1.85 $2.26 September $1.92 $2.33 October $1.99 $2.40 November $2.06 $2.46 December $2.05 $2.44 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 146  Packet Pg. 560 of 690  - GAS Baseline Territories and Quantities 11 --- Effective April 1, 2022 -Present BASELINE QUANTITIES (Therms Pe r Day Per Dwelling Unit) Individually Metered Baseline Summer Winte r Off.Peak Territories (April-October) (Nov, Feb, Mar) Effective Apr. 1, 2022 Effective Nov. 1, 2022 p 0 .39 1.88 Q 0 .56 1.48 R 0 .36 1.24 s 0 .39 1.38 T 0 .56 1.31 V 0 .59 1.51 w 0 .39 1.14 X 0 .49 1.4 8 y 0 .72 2 .22 Master Metered Baselin e Summer Territories (April-October) Effective Apr. 1, 2022 p 0 .29 Q 0 .56 R 0 .33 s 0 .29 T 0 .56 V 0 .59 w 0 .26 X 0 .33 y 0 .52 Summer Season: Apr-Oct Winter Off-Peak: Nov, Feb, Mar Winter On-Peak: Dec, J an Advice Letter: 4589-G Decision 21-11-016 GRC 2020 Ph II [Applicat ion 19-11 -019] F il ed: Nov 22, 2019 Winter Off.Peak (Nov, Feb, Ma r) Effective Nov. 1 , 202.2 1.01 0.67 0.87 0.61 1.01 1.28 0.71 0.67 1.01 Wi nter On-Peak (Dec,Jan) Effective Dec, 1, 2022 2.19 2 .00 1.81 1.94 1.68 1.71 1.68 2 .00 2.58 Winter On -Peak (Dec,Jan) Effective Dec. 1, 2022 1.13 0 .77 1.16 0 .65 1.10 1.32 0 .87 0 .77 1.13 Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 41 Appendices California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 147  Packet Pg. 561 of 690  - Gas and Electric Company· Revised Cancelling Revised Cal. P .V.-C. Sheet No. Cal. P .V.C. Sheet No. U 39 Oakland, Ca/ifomia ELECTRIC SCHEDULIE E -TOU-C Sheet 2 R ESIDE NTIAL T IME-OF-USE (PEft/K PRIC ING 4 -Q, p .m . EVERY DAY) RATES: (Cont'd.) E -TOU-C TOTA L B UNDLE D RATES Total Energy Rates ($ P E!f kWh) Summer Total Usage Basel ine Credit (Applied 1o Baseline Usage Only) Winter Total Usage Baseline Credil (Applied 1o Baselin e Usage Only) Delivei:y M ini mu m B il Amount ($ per m et e r per day) California C limate Cred".rt (per hoosehold . per sem i­ annual paymenl ocourring, in the Marcil' and October bill cydes) PEAK $0.53933 (I) (S0.08S5 t ) {R) $0.43662 (I) ($0.08S5 1 ), (R) $0.37612 ($38.39) OF:F-PEAK $0.4558Q (I) ($0.08851 ) ,(R) S0.40827 (I) ($0.08851 ) ,(R) 56550-E 5622:Q-'E Total b undled se rvice charges shown on customE!f's b ills are u nbund led acoording to the component rates shown bel'ow. W here the defive:ry minimum b ill amount applies . lhe customer's bill w ill equal lhe• sum of (1) the delivery mini mum bill amounl plus (2 ) for bun dled servic:e, the generation rate times the n umber o f kWh used. Fo r revenue• accounting pu rposes. lne r·ev enues from the delivery mi nimum b illl amounl will be assigned lo the Transmission. Transmission Rate Adju stments. Reliability Services, Pub lic Purpose P,ograms, Nu clear Ole-commissi oning, Compe titi on Transition Ch arg:es, En ergy Cost Recovery Amou:nl. W ildfire F u nd Charge, and New System Gene,ralion Charges based on kWh usage limes the corresponding unbu ndled rate, component pe r kWh, w'ith any res idual reven ue assigned 1o Disb:ibutio n. • P u rsuant to D.23-02-0 14 . disbursement o f the April 2023 residential C limat e Credit s ha ll begin by March 1. 2023 . Advice Decision 7009-E Issued by Mereruth A llen Vi ce President, Regulatory Affaint Submitted Effective Resolution (Continued) August 25. 2023 September 1, 2023 Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 42 Appendices California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 148  Packet Pg. 562 of 690  - ific Gas and Electric Campany' Revised Caooe1!ing Revised Cal. P .LJ.C. Stteet No. Cal. P . LJ. C. Street No. U 39 Oa l<Jand, Ga!lfomia EL EC TRIC SCHEDU LE E-lOU-C Sheet 3 RATES: (Cont'd.) IRESID 8 NTIAL TIME-OF -USE (PEAK PRICIN G 4 -Q p.m. EVERY DAY} UHBUNDLIHG OF E-TOU-C TOTA l!..IRAl E S Enargy Rllll!s by Companor,l I S I"" l \'llh) PEAK OFF-PEAK c;e_,...r.mon:; Sun:sner 1• usage) so.19ns W..ler f •u••ge) $0.1491 8 Disuibtiti'on•it: Surmruor (d u•oge) $0.17029 w .,1e;r 1• u••ge) $0.11618 ConH•rv..tion l n<Hlli-.. Adjus'lnmnl (&...tino Usage) Consl!'JV>dioo l nc:l!'llliY<I Adjustrruont (Ow!r B.uelin" I.Jsa!ll") Tran smi u iod (a l """9") Tran smission llbrte AIIJu!ltmenls" (a ll usa;a) 'Reli;abiltiy Se-rviioes ' (all usa,~) Public PulJ>Ose P.ograms (al usage> 'Ml,cl9r Decommis sionin9 1• u•"9") C'ampetman Transili0<1 Charges (211 u sage) 'En"'V)' Cosl ROGOYK)' Amount (all usagr,) Wildfire FtJnd Ch..-g,e (aD usage) New Sys'!=> G=-erall0t1 Cb..-90 (all ..,_.,9"r' Wildfire H;udonl ng Ch;u-ge {all U5"!11!) Reconry IBond Ch..-ge (•II usztgel Rec:onry lBond Credit (a l u•ag•) Bundlod P,owK Charg1t lncll~,enc-e Adjustmoenl (all u.age)""" (I) (I) W .13432: $0.12 41 3- ro.15029 $0.112811 (S0..02:216 ) (I) S0..061135 (I) $1)..(15254 S0.00059 S0..00069 $1)..(12578 $0.0 0 135 S0.00030 ($1),,000711 $1)..00530 $1),,00046 $0 0 0254 Sl).0 052:8 (R) ($ll..0052:8) (I ) $1),,0 1309 (I) (I) • Transmission, Transmission Rate ~ls and R ~ Selvice dnarges are combi ned for presenliltion on ,aJStx>mer bills. llistrilution and New Sys1em Gena-ation Charges are conm.ed for iwesentation o n c115tomer bills . .. • Direct Aca», Corn-nunity Chcioe J¼lgr,,g;,tion and T ransillonal Bundliod Senrioe Cuslomen pay a,., ""'plicable V°"1laged Power Clmrge lndi!ll!femc., Adjus11111!nl.. Gen""'51ion "r>:f Bur>:fled PCIA are mmbilllkl far pr6"'tt:ation on bundled c ustomer bills. Advice Dea~ 7009-E ~.sued by Meredith Allen V-.ice Pn:-sidenf, Regulato,y Alfilifs Submitted Effective Re:whmon (Continued) Aug ust 25. 2023 Sep t ember 1. 2023 Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 43 Appendices California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 149  Packet Pg. 563 of 690  - ific Gas and Electric Company· Revised Cancelling Re vi sed Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 56547-E 56226-E u 39 Oakland, California ELECTRIC SCHEDULE E-E L EC Sheet 2 RESIDENTIAL TIME-OF-USE (E LECTRIC H OME) SERVICE FOR CUSTOMERS WITH QUALIFY ING ELECT RIC T ECHNOLOGIES RA TES:(Cont'd .) TOTAL BUN DLED RATES Base Services Charge (S per meter per day) $0.4 9281 PEAK PART-PEAK OFF-PEAK Total Energy Rates ($ per kWh) Summer Usage Winter Usage $0.56589 (I) $0.33438 (I) $0.40401 (I) $0.3 1229 (I) $0.34733 (I) $0.29843 (I) California Climate Credit (per household, per semi-annual payment occurring in the March' and October bill cydes) ($38.39) Total bundled service charges shown on a customer's bills are unbundled according to the component rates shown below. UNBUNDLING OF TOT AL RA TES Energy Rates by Component($ per kWh) PEAK PART-PEAK OFF-PEAK t Genera tion: Summer Usage $0.28164 $0.18253 $0.13743 Winter Usage $0 .11951 $0.09954 $0.086 19 Di stribution-: Summer Usage $0 .17932 (I) $0.11655 (I) $0.10497 Winter Usage $0 .10994 (I) $0.10782 (I) $0.1073 1 Transmission* (a ll usage) $0 .05254 $0.05254 $0.05254 Transmiss ion Rate Adjustment s* (all usage) $0 .00059 $0.00059 $0.00059 Reliability Services• (all usage) $0.00069 $0.00069 $0.00069 Public Purpose Programs (all usage) $0.02578 $0.02578 $0.02578 Nuclear Decommissioning (all usage) $0 .00135 $0.00 135 $0.00 135 Competitio n Trans it ion Charges (all usage) $0 .00030 $0 00030 $0.00030 Energy Cost Recovery Amount (all usage) ($0 .00071) ($0 .00071) ($0.0007 1) Wildfire Fund Charge (all usage) $0 .00530 $0.00530 $0.00530 New System Generation Charge (all usager $0 00346 $0.00346 $0.00346 Wildfire Hardening Charge (a ll usage) $0 .00254 $0.00254 $0.00254 Recovery Bo nd Charge {all usage) $0 00528 (R) $0.00528 {R) $0.00528 Recovery Bo nd Credit (all usage) ($0.00528) (I) ($0 .00528) (I) ($0.00528) Bu ndled Power Charge Indifference $0 01309 $0 0 1309 $0.01309 A dj ustment (all usage)* .. Transmi ssion , Transmi ssion Rate Adjustments and Reli ability Service charges are combined for presentation on customer bilts. Distribution and New System Generation Charges are combi ned for presenlation on oustomer bi lls. Dir ect Access, Community Choice Aggregation and Transitional B undled Servi ce Customers pay the a ppl ica·ble Vintaged Power Charge Indifference Adjustment. Generation and Bundled PCIA are combined fo r presenlat ion on bundled customer bills. Pursuant to D .23-02-014 , disbursement of the April 2023 resi dential C limate Cr edit shal l begin by March 1, 2023. (I) (I) (R ) (I) (Continued ) Advice Decision 7009-E Issued by Meredi th Allen Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Submitted Effective Resolution August25,2023 September 1 , 2023 Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 44 Appendices California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 150  Packet Pg. 564 of 690  - Gas and Electric Company· Original Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 54738-E U 39 San Francisco, California ELECTRIC SCHEDULE E-ELEC Sheet 3 (N) RESIDENTIAL TIME-OF-USE (ELECTRIC HOME) (N) SERVICE FOR CUSTOMERS WITH QUALI FYING ELECTRIC TECHNOLOGIES SP ECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. TIME PERIODS: Times of the year and l imes of the day are defi ned as follows: (N ) Advice Decision All Year: Peak: 4:00 p .m . to 9:00 p.m. every day includ ing weekends arid holidays. Partial-P eak: 3:00 p.m . t o 4:00 p.m . and 9:00 p.m . to 12:00 a.m . every day incl udi ng weekends and holidays. Off-Peak: All other hours. 2. SEASONAL C HANGES: The summer season is June 1 through September 30 and the winter season is October 1 through May 31 . When biUing includes use in both the summer and winter periods, charges will be prorated ba.sed upon the number of days in each period . 3. ADDITIONAL METERS: If a residential dwelling unit is served by more than one elecbic meter, the customer must desig nate which meter is the primary meter and which i s (are) the additional meter(s). 4 . BILLING: A customer's bill is calculated based on the option applicable to the customer. Bundled Service Customers recei ve generation and delivery services solely from PG&E. The customer's bill is based on the Unbund ling of Total Rates set forth above. Transitional Bundled Service (TBS) Customers take TBS as prescribed in Rules 22.1 and 23.1, or take PG&E bundled service prior to the end of the six (6) month advance notice period requi red to elect PG&E bundled service a s prescribed in Rules 22.1 and 23.1. TBS cust omers shall pay all charges shown in the Unbundling of Total Rates except for the Bundled Power Charge Indifference Adj ustment and the generation charge. TBS customers shall also pay for their applicable Vintaged Power Charge Indifference Adjustment provided in the table below, and the short-t erm commodity prices as set forth in Schedule TBCC. (N) (Continued} 6768-E D.21-11-0 16 Issued by Meredith Allen Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Submitted Effective Resolution Nove mber 18, 2022 December 1, 2022 Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 45 Appendices California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 151  Packet Pg. 565 of 690  - Gas and Electric Company· Rev ised Cancelling· Rev ised Ca l. P .U.C. Sheet No . Ca l. P .U.C. Sheet No . 54734-E 53424-E U 39 San Francisco, Ca fifom;a ELECTRIC SCHED ULE 0-CARE Sh eet 1 LINE-ITEM IJl1SOOUNT FOR CALIFORN IAALTERNAT E RAT1ES FOR E NERGY (CARE) CUSTOMERS APPUCABILHY: This sclledule i s applicabl e to single-phase andl polyph ase r esidential service in single.family dwellings and in flats and apantments separately metered by PG&E and domestic submetered tenants r esidi ng in multifam ily accommodations, mobi!ehome parks and to q,ualify ing recreational ·vehicle par:ks and m arinas and to tarm selVice on the pr emises operated by l he p er son whose res idence is supplied lhrough the same me ter, w here the ap plicanl qualifies for Cerrfomia Ailternate Rates for Energy (CAR E) under the elig ibility and certification criteria set forth in E lect ric R ule H I. 1. CARE service is available on Schedu les E-~. E~. IE-T OU-lB, E-TOU-C . E-TOU-0. EV2. E-ELEC. EM . ES . ESR. Eir and EM-TOU . (T) T E:RRITORY: RAT ES : This rate schedu le applies everywhere PG&E provides e lectric serv.ice. C ustomers. taking seN ice o n this rate sche dule whose o.the rwi.se applicable rate sclledule has no Delivery M inimum B ill Amount (Schedul e E-El EC) will receive a CARE percentage d isooont of 35.000% on ·their total bundle d dla rges (except tor ihe California Climate Credit, which will no! be d'iscounted ). Customers takil)Q servic e on this rate schedule whose otherwise applicable rate s chedu'le h as e Delivery M in imum Bi!I Amount (el l o ther sched'ules) will receiv e e CARE p ercentage di soount ('A" or ·c· b e low) on, lheir total bundle d charges o n ,their otherwise applicable rate sch edu le (except tor the Ca lifomie C limate Credit .. which will not be d iscounted) and .also will receive a per centage discounl ("8" or ·o· b elow), on the delivery min imum biU amount. ,if epp1icabte. The CARIE d iscou nt will b e celoolated for dire ct a.ooess and community choice aggJegation custom ers based on the total charges as 1if they w ere subj ecl to b u ndle d service rafes. D iscounts will be applied es a 1residual reduction to distribulion cllarg es .. afte:r 0 - CARE cus tomer s a r e exem pted from the W il'dfire Fund Charge , Reco..,ery B ond Ch arge, Rec0'.lery Bond Credit. end !tie CARE surcharg;e portion of the public p urpose p rogram chmge used to fund ltie CARE d iscoun t These conditions a l.so apply to m aster-meter ed customers and to, qua lifie d sub-metered tenants where the master-meter customer i s j oin1fy serve d under PG&Es Ra te Sclledule 0- CARE and e ither Schedule EM. ES . ESR. ET. ,or EM-TOU. for master-met er ed customers where one o r more o f t he sub metered t enants q ualffie-s. for CARE rates unde r th e e ligibility an d certifi.celion criteria sel forth in R ule HU , 19.2 . or 19.3 . the CARE d iscount is e qual to a percen tage re· below) of the total bundled charges, multiplied by t he numbe:r o f CARE unfts divid ed by lhe lotall number ot unils. In addition, m aster-metere d customers e ligib le for D-CARIE will receive· a percentage discount ("O" below) on the deli very minimum b iD amou nt. if applicable . Iii is t he responsib ility of the maste r-metered cus tome r to advise PG&E within 15 d ays fo llowing any chall!Je in the number o f dweOing units andfor any de crease· in ihe num ber of qualifyill!J CARE e,pp licants that resu lts when s uch applicants move out of their su'.bmet ered or ncn-su bm etered dwelfing uni t. or ·submeter,ed p ermanent-residence RV or per manent-reside.nee boat. (N ) I I (N) (T) I (T) (T) (l ) I (L} (Continued) Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 46 Appendices California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 152  Packet Pg. 566 of 690  - Gas and Electric Company• Revis e d Cancelling Rev ised C a l. P . U. C. Sheet No. C a l. P .U.C. Sheet No. 56208-E 56020,E U 3 9 5.in F rancisco, C alifornia ELECTRIC SCHEOU l E D-CARE Sheet 2 LIN E-ITEM D ISCOUNT FOR CALIFORN IA .A/LllERNATE RAT ES FO R E NERGY (CARE) CUST O MERS RATES: (Cont'd) SPE C IAL CONO IT IONS: Advi ce Decision 6968-E A. D-CARE Discou nt B . De livery Minim11m B ill Discount: C . Master -M eter D-CARE Discount D . Master-M ete r Delivery MinimYm BiD D iscoun t: 34 .965 50.000 34.965 50.000 '% (Percent) (I) %{Per cent) '% (Percent) (I) % {P,ercent) 1. O T HERW,IS E APPLICABLE SCHEDULE : T he Specia l Cond[ti<ln s o f t he Ou.stome r's otherwise a pplicable rate schedule will a p pl'y lo this schedul e. 2 . E LI G IBILITY: To b e e lig ible to re c e ive D-CARE the .applicant nnusl qualify \llooe r lhe criteria set forth in P G&E·s IElectric Rul es 19.1. H>.2. and Ul.3 and meel 1he cerlifical ion r equirements I1-ler eof to th e s.alisfacticm of P G &E . Q ua lifying Dire ct Acces s. CommYnity Choice Aggregation, S eN ice. and Tran sitional B undled Service custome rs are also eligible to take s.ervice on Sdled'ule D-CARE. Applic a nls may q11a lifyfor D-CARE at their pr imary resid e nce ,o nl'y . Customers or sub-mete red tenan ts participating in the Family Electric Rate Assistance {FERA) program cann ot concurrently participate in I lle CARE p rogram. Issued by .Meredi th A lferi Vice P n,sident, Regu lata<y A ffairs Submitted Effe ctive ResoJuti on June-2 3 . 2023 July 1 , 2023 Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 47 Appendices California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 153  Packet Pg. 567 of 690  - S ummer Da ily Al locations (Ju ne th rough Septem be r) Basel ine Region N umber 5 6 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 SPECIAL CO NDITIONS All - Daily kWh E lectric Allocation Allocation 17.2 179 11 .4 8 .8 12.6 9 8 16 .5 12.4 18 9 15.8 22.0 24.6 18.7 18.3 46 .4 24.1 14.4 13.5 Schedule TOU-D TIM E-OF-USE DOMESTIC (Continued) 1. A pplicab le ra te time periods are defined as follows: Option 4-9 P M. Option 4-9 PM-CPP. Option PRIME. Option PRIME-CPP : W int er Daily Allocations (Octobe r through May) All - Daily kWh Electr ic Base line Region Num ber All ocation All ocati on 5 18.7 20.1 6 11.3 13.0 8 10.6 12.7 9 12.3 14.3 1C 12.5 17.0 12 12.6 243 14 12.0 21.3 1~ 9.9 18.2 Hi 12.6 23.1 Sheet 12 (T) (T) TOU Period Weekdays Weekends and Holidays Summer Winter Summer W inter On-Peak 4 p.m. -9 p.m. N/A NIA NIA Mid-Peak N/A 4 p .m. - 9 p.m . 4 p.m. - 9 p.m. 4 p.m . -9 p .m. Off-Peak All other hours 9 p.m. - 8 a.m. All other hours 9 p.m. - 8 a .m. Super-Off-Peak N/A 8 a .m. -4 p.m. NIA 8 a.m. -4 p.m. CPP Event 4 p.m . - 9 p.m. 4 p .m. - 9 p.m. NIA NIA Per iod Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 48 Appendices 6.2.2 Southern California Edison The following pages provide details on the SCE electricity tariffs applied in this study. Table 22 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. A net surplus compensation rate of $ 0.06030/ kWh was applied to any net annual electricity generation based on a one-year average of the rates between December 2022 and November 2023 Table 22: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone CZ06 6 CZ08 8 CZ09 9 CZ10 10 CZ14 14 CZ15 15 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 154  Packet Pg. 568 of 690  - rn Cslifom is Edison Ros,emead. Caritomia (U 338-E) Revised Car1Celli"9 Revi sed Cal. PUC Sheet N o_ 85 11 1--E CaL PUC Sheet No _ 74502-E RATES Schedule IOV:P T IM E-OF-USE DOMESTI C (Continued) Sh eet 2 Customers receiving service u nder ihis Schedule w ill be charged the appl icab le rates un der O ption 4-9 1PM, Option 4-Q PM-CPP. Op1ion 5-8 PM , Option 5-8 PM·CPP, Op ti on PRIME .. Opti on PRIME-CPI? Option A , Option A -CPP. O plioll B . or-Option B-CRP. as listed beww. CPP Ev ent Ch arges w ill appl y to a ll energy u sage d u rin g CPP Ev ent Energy C harge per iods alld CPP Non,-Ev ent Energy Credits will apply as a r edu ction or, CPP f'lon -<Event Energ y Credit Periods duri ng Summe r Season days. 4:00 p_m _ to Q:OCl p.m .. as described ill Sp ecial Cond itions 1 and 3 . be low: ,Qplfpn +R FM J NIAJ +R PM::¢FP 1::,n..,W °'1-w■ • 1.ik.W.h 8t.Jrnm•t S .. •on -On.-~.._ O.UDYI lfiJ h1hl-h.a. 0 .7'1~11 I IRJ O il,.P.,o1, 0 .:1' ..... 1!2' IA I W11ntat Sauan -1.1Jt11-~-. O.Ul~s, IIRJ Ofi.~_,. D.2441-82' tA:J ~upt1r..Off..P.._., 0 .221)11) tR) 8-;; .. ic Ctta~• -S~•Y Sangl__,.affllly R-idanca O .O·~ 1 MuN..,.-•md'I Raalidanca 0 .024 Manunum CNlrg■·-• Sid•~ :Sine• ... nm., R_ld.,c::• o.34s IMYlt~■md)' R_Ki.,c• O.:!M8 MW11m:um Cha"R• -4.t.t ed1c .. 8 ..... lln■)"" ~ • $Jday "!lmv·• lf'■mlly A--=t .. c:• 0 .1 rs 1M 1.ifb-F■md)' R--=t_.c::• 0 .1 tS C.b fam .. , A'tt■rr:1111ta R ... ■ '°' En4N1iJY Ooccu.-.l • '%, t--,,111 t:.~1r.c KIib■ Aaaa.1•nc::• ~Ill ·Qpbpp +I: PM:CPP CP~ EvwnJ: En..rw,Ch.,1:1" -SJkWh :kJrnm•r CT•P Non-iE'Hnll c,..c111 On-""";a k t:..1-vr e ... sW -SIII.Wh Mlil:dmum A V Mllim'l-tl C r •dtl . Sncw,,·--· ~umrnar !s•aaan 11 1 ,00) «•► 1 DU.00"' 10000 O 2-eS-43'Ctt 0 .1 1101 Cit 0 .1 1 :US::i Ci t 0 ~2 1,~:l CIJ 0 .1 36~1 Ci t 0 1 1 800Ct► ouooou oilOOOo (0 .'l !li l n:tl o .OUOOO o.ooouo <),C>l)O(l(J 0 .00000 <l.OUOllo 0 .00000 I • Rtlanlill'.G 1~ a1 IIMI dsic<l<Jnl !"'"'""'.age aoa -In.,_ awlk•lllo Spod•1 c«dlxin ol lhls _,._ •• Tllo ~li>llffllln Olal!J• IS"~ -.,. Dolt."Gf) -.. El\ll!Q', Chal\jll, p"5 Iha ~ a....: Ch•rge i. loss -.,. Mlninum Charg,a. ••• Tho.,,_ CompoOlon Tranollon Ol•Jtl• C TC ol CW.00000) po, l Y/11 Is ,__ In lho UG com-ol -,lion. (Tl ••••Tna Baalna Cra.S1.a~L1p,U> 1001'. alrana l!.-alna.Ali0caUon.ro91nU15•of lima4...US. lDapa,'ald. Adlldan,alB.11MIAbaAlbc..nofl1111f:'lP)'ID' CUMDmars wll'I Ha.al Purn_p w.-, HuNn. sar¥ad t.ftiar a..s Optl0ft Thu ~Dina A.lloc~llons ara 5411 b1h ift fl.ra«hin;a~ SQlamonl, Part H . ........... -A.-Ctodh rs Ncoppo<lu.<il"mwMlorCPPC....lamond.lal P•~-119mod'-«dllllo>nd .... pan .. --· 1 To"'l = Jo1.110olt.•!)I S.000 , .... •"' app-• loBrdad S.W...lli111c1Acoass (DAI and Comm•"')> 000.,0 ~ s.n<oo (OCA -) CUStama.rs,timi:01 DA ilnd Cc.A Sa~ Ousmm.Gf'S .lll'lllnot SJ.bioa: tDlhA OL\lR9C nat■compona.m at'lla k'hodub but.btllildp;lf lha OWR9Cm .,,.-,idad l¥ S-IQ DA-CRS « SCIIOdUII OCA-CRS. 2 GanGrallor1 = Tha Gon '"""' •111 applic.atia oott ID 6'.rlded 54rnce OJslomws. Sff !lpeclot C<ntt.on bal:lw tor !'CIA,._ ~ m\REC.=~011111., .. -iIJ'IIR) lE""f0 c.-, _~or,_. llflOnnalxin OR lhJI D\YR &>orirt en.cu, -h ea,,q ~ SpQd•l COodllonOll lhl• ~- 4 ~lid on an iftq~ bi1Sdo, per~ sam~t,. SM: b Spoci.111 c«dUXIS ,O'I au,; &:.hOdUlt fOf' a'ICt'e: ~ (T o be in serted by u liliiyl Adv ice 4Q2Q•E -----------Decision :!tnJ (Contin ue d ) I ssu ed by Michael Backstrom ~ice P resident (To be iMerled b y Cal. PU C} Date Submitted Dee 28, 2022 Effective Resolution Jan 1 , 2023, E-5217 Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 49 Appendices California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 155  Packet Pg. 569 of 690  - " -I Vff>ll.~•nCl!'LIILC-- Sout hem California Edison Rosemead, California (U 338-E) Cancelling Revised Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. Cal. PUC Sheet No. RA TES (Continued) Schedule TOU-D TIME-OF-USE DOMESTIC (Continued) Option PRIME I Option PRIME-CPP Energy Cllarge -$/kWh/Meter/Day Summer Season I D e'livery Service Total' On-Peak 0.22789 (I) Mid-Peak 0.22789 (I) Off.Peak 0.151111 (I) W inter Season Mid-Peak 0.23353 (I) Off-Peak 0.14530 (I) Super-Off-Peak 0.14530 (I) Fixed Re<oYery Charge -$'1<Wh 0.00260 (I) Ba•ic Cllarge -S/MeterJDay 0.427 (I) EV Meter Crl'cfrt (Sep,arately Met..,ed E (0.323) (N) EV Submeler Credit -S/Mell'JiDay (0. 111) (R) Caifomia C limate Credit '0 (71.00) Caifomia Alternate Rates fo, Energy Disoount -'-100.00' Family Electri<: Rate A••istonce Di•cou 100.00 Medical Lile Item D iscount -% 100.000 Option PRIME-CPP CPP Event Energy Charge -$'1<Wh Summer CPP Non-Event Credit On.Peak Energy Credit -$/kWh Maximum AY&ilable Credit -$/kWh"•• Summer Season Generation UG" I DWRE~- 0.42769 (1) 0 .00000 0.15221 (I) 0.00000 0.10162 (1) 0.00000 0.38028 (1) 0.00000 0.08630 (1) 0.00000 0.08630 (1) 0.00000 0 .80000 (0. 71812) (R) R~p,es.MtS 100% of the discount peroe,rmge as shown SI the applic.ible Special Condition Qf Bas Schedule. • • The CflllO'ng Ganpelition T tanSition Charge (CTC) ct (S0.00003) peer kWh is tee:OYered in lhe UG companen1 al Gener.ni on. Sheet 6 I I "" The MillCinun Available Credit is lhe capped aedit amount lor CPP Cu5lomers dual p;,rticip;r.ire in other demand response pr __ 86132-E 85624-E I Tcc.,i = Tccal Delivery Servicl' -• are appicabl e 10 Buncled Service. llRd Acee•• (DA) and Comnu nity Choice Aggregation Service (CCA SeMce) ~ exoept DA and CCA SeMce Custome<,; are n01 subject to me DWRBC rate compcnen, ct lhs SdledJle bu! instead pay the DWRBC as provided by Sche<l.je OA-CRS er SchecUe CCA-CRS. 2 Genera:ion = The Gen me• are ~ Oliy to Buncled SeMce Customers. See Special Condition below for PClA reoovery. 3 O'WREC = Department al Waler Resources (!>WR) Energy C.edit -Fer more information on the DWR Energy Crecil. ""' the Billing Calcw:ion Special Caiciticn ct this Schedule . 4 Applied on a n equal basis. per household, semi-annually. See the Special Conditions of this SchedlAe lor more infonnalion. (To be inserted by utility) Advice -'50=-.c.41'--E=----- Decision - (Continued) Issued by Michael Backstrom Vice P resident (To be inserted by Cal. PUC) Date Submitted May 30, 2023 Effective Jun 1, 2023 Resolution Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 50 Appendices California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 156  Packet Pg. 570 of 690  Caflfomia E dison Revised Cal. P UC Sheet N'o. 85618-E Rosemead, California (U 338-E) Cancelling Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. -85 109-E S cbedu;te,D;CABE Sheet 1 CALIFORtNIA AL T ERNA T E RA TES FOR ENE RGY DOM ESTIC S E RV ICE APPLICABILITY Applicabl e to domestic service to CARE househofds residing in a p ennartenl Single-Family Accommodation DI' Mul1ifami ly Accommodation where the cus tomer meels a ll the Speci al Col'\di:tion s of this Schedu le. Custom ers en rolled in the CARE program are not e lig ible fo r !he Fam ily E lectric Rate Assistance (FE RA) program. P•ursuartt to Spe cia l Coooi1iion 12 herein, customers receivi ng se rvioe under this Schedule are e'-olble lo receive the Califomia Clunate Credit as shown in t he Ra tes section below. JEBBIIPBY Wrthin the entire territory s&Ved. The applicable charge s set forth in Sche dufe D shall apply to Cu s tomers served un der this Schedule. CARE Discount: A 29.8 percent d iscount is epp lie dl to a CARE Customer's bill prior to the application of lhe Public Utilities Commission Reimburs.emenl Fe e (P UCRF) artd any applicable user f ees. t axes. and la t e payment charges. CARE Ci.istom ers are re.:iuir ed to :pay the PIJCRF and any .app licabl e, user f ees. taxes. an d l ate paymertt charges i n full. In addition. CARE Customers .are exempt from paying lhe CARE Surd'large of $0.00888, per kWh aoo the Wildfire Furld Nor..Bypassable Cha:r,ge of $0.00530 per k W h.. (R) The 2{1.8 percent d iscount , in additior1 to these exemp1ions result in an average e ffective• CARE Disco.mt of 32.5 perce nl (To, be inse rted by utility) Ad vice 4!977-lE ----------O e c i sio n 23-01--002 lh J2 22-12•031 (Contin ued) I ssued by Michael Backstrom V ice Pt esident (To be inserted b y Cal. PUC) Date Submitted Feb 27. 2023 Effective Resolution Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 51 Appendices California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 157  Packet Pg. 571 of 690  - utliern Cal iforni a Gas Company Res idential Rates NoY-23 Procurement Transponallon N&w Rate New Rate Absolute Customer Type Commodity Rate Charge Charge Elfedlve Elfec11ve Rate % I Rate Schedule Charge Type ¢/therm ¢/therm 111112023 1011/2023 Change Change Rasklentlal lndlvldually Metered Schedule No. GR GR BaseDne 67.806 86.490 154296 125.096 29.200 23.3% Res .SelVlce GR NonBaselne 67.806 131-037 198.843 169.726 29.117 17.2% GT-R Basel ne 00.000 86.490 86.490 87.038 -00.548 -0.6% GT-R N on Basel ne 00.000 131 .037 131.037 131.668 -00.631 -0.5% Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 52 Appendices 6.2.3 Southern California Gas Following are the SoCalGas natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 23 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. Table 23. SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone CZ05 2 CZ06 1 CZ08 1 CZ09 1 CZ10 1 CZ14 2 CZ15 1 The SoCalGas monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis according to the rates shown in Table 24. These rates are based on applying a normalization curve to the November 2023 tariff based on ten years of historical gas data. Long-term historical natural gas rate data was only available for SoCalGas’ procurement charges.27 The baseline and excess transmission charges were found to be consistent over the course of a year and applied for the entire year based on 2023 rates. CARE rates reflect the 20 percent discount per the GR tariff. Table 24. SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) Month January $0.72 $0.86 $1.31 $1.92 $2.36 February $0.50 $0.86 $1.31 $1.57 $2.02 March $0.44 $0.86 $1.31 $1.48 $1.93 April $0.39 $0.86 $1.31 $1.39 $1.84 May $0.41 $0.86 $1.31 $1.43 $1.87 June $0.46 $0.86 $1.31 $1.49 $1.93 July $0.47 $0.86 $1.31 $1.51 $1.96 August $0.51 $0.86 $1.31 $1.58 $2.03 September $0.46 $0.86 $1.31 $1.52 $1.96 October $0.45 $0.86 $1.31 $1.48 $1.92 November $0.48 $0.86 $1.31 $1.54 $1.99 December $0.57 $0.86 $1.31 $1.63 $2.08 27 The SoCalGas procurement and transmission charges were obtained from the following site: https://www.socalgas.com/for-your-business/energy-market-services/gas-prices RES2023.xlsx (live.com) California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 158  Packet Pg. 572 of 690  - ine Usage: The following quantities of gas used in ind ividually metered residences are to be billed at the baseline rates : All Customers: Summe r (M ay to Oct) W inter On-Peak (Dec, J an & Feb) Winter Off-Peak (N ov, Ma r, & Apr) Daily Therm Allowance 0.359 1.233 0 .692 Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 54 Appendices 6.2.4 San Diego Gas & Electric Following are the SDG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. Table 25 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. A net surplus compensation rate of $0.04542/ kWh was applied to any net annual electricity generation based on a one-year average of the rates between December 2022 and November 2023. Table 25. SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone CZ07 Coastal CZ10 Inland CZ14 Mountain The SDG&E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis according to the rates shown in Table 26. These rates are based on applying a normalization curve to the November 2023 tariff based on ten years of historical gas data. CARE rates reflect the 20 percent discount per the G-CARE tariff. Table 26. SDG&E Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) Month January $2.34 $2.63 February $2.28 $2.57 March $2.21 $2.51 April $2.14 $2.45 May $2.18 $2.48 June $2.23 $2.55 July $2.26 $2.57 August $2.32 $2.62 September $2.26 $2.59 October $2.21 $2.55 November $2.24 $2.57 December $2.38 $2.70 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 159  Packet Pg. 573 of 690  - ,.,,,,..'E San Diego Gas & Electric Campany S•n Diego. Calif"'"., Totell Rates: Description -JOU DR1 Summer: On,Pe,k Olf0 Peok Super Off,Pe>k Winter. a.,.P,,:,k Olf-Ploal< &Jper Off,Peak Summer B:,seliM Adju,tmenl C:relfll up to 130% ol B:,seline Win'ler 8 03<!lin~ 1u:1,.,stniml Credit up ID 130% ol 8:,seJiM t.i.,imum Bill (S/day) Description -JOU DR1-UDC To t;>! CARE Rate Summe.r -CARE lbtes: O.,,Pe:ik 0.25682 Off0 Peok 0.25682 Super Off.J>e•k 0.25682 Winte r -CARE Rates : °'1•Pe•k 0.43739 Olf,Pe;ak 0.43739 Super Off•Pe•k 0.4-1739 Summer B~~ine Ad),slm"'1l Cradil up ID 130% ol Bueline (0.117241 Win'le-r B.iseline Adju!1itme11l C:n,rfit up ID 110% cd Ba~fine [0.11724► taii1T11Jm Bill ($/day) 0.190 Note: Revised CaL P.U.C. Sheet No. Canceling Revised CaL P.U.C. S heet No. SCHEDULE 1 0ll-OR1 RE SIO ENrTIAl T IME-O F-USE lJOC Total Rau DWR IBC• E:ECC IR.ato ♦ Wl'.t.lBC DWR Cn,dat 0 .25752 R 0.00530 I 0 .57043 0 .25752 R 0.00530 I 0.25697 0 .25752 R 0.00530 I 0 .09233 0 .43809 I 0.00530 I 0.19307 0 .43809 I 0.00530 I 0 .10855 0 .4-3809 I 0.00530 I 0 .08402 (0 .11724) R (0 .11724) R 0 .380 I DWR BC+ E ECCRate • T,o t•I WF-NBC DWR.Cnodlt IR:al o• R 0..00000 0.57043 I 0 .82725 R 0.00000 0.25697 I 0 .5 137!1 R 0..00000 0.09233 I 0 .34915 I 0.00000 0.19307 I 0 .630441 I 0.00000 0.10855 I 0 .54594 I O.QOOOO 0.08402 I 0 .5214 1 R (0.1 1724) R (0.11724) I ,0 .190 [ [ [ [ [ [ 37022-E 36337-E Sheet 2 Total Rai-e 0.33326 I 0 .51979 I 0.35515 I 0.63646 I 0 .55194 I 0.52741 I (0 .11724) IR (0 .11724) It 0.380 I Total Effedive ,care ltllte l 0..55366 l I 0.33'965 I l 0.22725 l I O.A1930 I l 0..36160 l I 0..34485 I R (0.08004) R R (0.08004) R I 0 .190 I (1) Jai,,f R>""' ax,,isl ol LDC, Schedul~ D\'/R-8C (Ol!Jl•rtml!nll ol W:,1i,r Re,..,..101!< Bond Cll:iri,,I, Sdled.JI!! WF -HBC (CA Wldfre Fund d!"'JliO) and SdledJI!! EEOC~ Eneogy Commoditt Casl) r.sles, ,,.;th 'lho EECC rote• relledi~ .a DWR Cledtt. E ECC rarles ""' ;>ppl icobh, IO t:undl!!d OJ.tomen only Sae Special CondlllOn HI b POIA (Fl'o,,o.., ct...rg~ ~iWerenc e Adju.aiier11) reC:Jve<y. (2) Talal R•tes p,esenli:d ...e lor w,slcmen !hat reooiYe commocily ~ ""d dewory """'°' rrom UIJily. (l } DWR-8C •nd WF,NllC chorgos d o not apply lo CARE ru,lomo,rs. (4) As idenb6oil 11 11,a RIies labh,s., amomer bih ..,11 also jncl,di, lim,oi,em •llllTVller ,.r,d winier medtts lo< ll»fl'! lljl ID 130111 of ba2line ID prDWGe Iha ral<! cappmg banefils nd~d by Assembly Bill l X a nd Senllle Bil 1195-. (6} WF •N'BC r•te is 0.00630 • DWR-BC 8ond °'"'9" is 0.00000 . Continued . 2C8 ISasued by Submitted Dec 30, 2022 Advice U r . No. 4 129-E Dan Skopec Effective J an 1. 2023 Seflior Vioe Presidenl Decision Na. R.egu1atary A.ffai-s Resolrtion No . E-52 17 R,I Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 55 Appendices California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 160  Packet Pg. 574 of 690  - Time Periods A ll time periods listed are applicable to local time. The definition of time will be based upon the date service is rendered_ TOU Periods -Weekdays On-Peak Off-Peak Super Off-Peak TOU Period -Weekends and Holidays On-Peak Off-Peak Super Off-Peak Seasons: Summer Winter Summer 4:00 p_m _ -9:00 pm_ 6:00 a.m. -4:00 p.m.; 9:00 p.m . -midnight Midnight - 6:00 a.m . Summer 4:00 o.m. - 9:00 o .m. 2 :00 p_m_ -4 :00 p.m.; 9:00 p.m. -midnight Midniqht -2:00 p m. June 1 -October 31 November 1 -May 31 W inte r 4:00 p _m_ -9 :00 p_m_ 6:00 a .m. -4 :00 p.m. Excluding 10:00 a.m. -2:00 p .m. in Ma rch and Apri l; 9:00 p.m. -midnight Midnight - 6 :00 a.m. 10 :00 a.m. -2 :00 p_m in March and April Winter 4 :00 o.m. - 9 :00 o.m. 2:00 p.m. -4 :00 p.m.; 9:00 p.m. -midnight Midnight -2 :00 p_m_ 15. Baseline Usage: The following quanti ties of elec tricity are used to calculate the baseline adjustment cred it. Baseline Allowance For C limatic Zones• Coastal Inland Mountain Desert Ba sic A llowance Summer (June 1 to October 31 ) 9.0 10.4 13.6 15.9 Wi nter (November 1 to May 31) 9.2 9 .6 12.9 10.9 Alli Elecmic,.. Summer (Jun e 1 to October 31 ) 6.0 8.7 15,2 17.0 Wi nter (November 1 to May 31 ) 8.8 12.2 22.1 17.1 " "" a lmatic Z ones are s hown o n t he Tenilory Served, Map No. 1. All Electric allowances are available up on appEcatlon to tho se customers who hav e permanently Installed spaoe healing or who have electrlc water heating1 and rece i ve no enes-gy from another source. Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 56 Appendices California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 161  Packet Pg. 575 of 690  - ....,.f San Diego Gas & Elecbic Company San Diego, California Revised CaL PU.C. Sheet No. 37217-E Canceling Revised CaL PU.C. Sheet No. 37016-E S CH EDULE EV -TOU -5 Sheet 1 COST-BASED DOMESTI C T IME-OF-USE FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITH ELECTRIC VEHICLES APPLICABILITY Service under this schedule is specifically limited to customers who require service for c harging of a curren tly registered Motor Vehicle, as defined by the Cal ifornia Motor Vehicle Code, which is: 1) a battery electric veh icle (BEV) or plug-in hybr id electric vehicle (PHEV) recharged via a recharging outlet at the customer's premises: or 2) a natural gas vehicle (NGV) refUeled via a home refuel ing appl iance (HRA) at the customer's premises. This schedule is not avai lable to customers with a conventional c ha rge sustain ing (battery recharged sole ly from the vehicle's on-board gener ator ) hybrid electric vehicle (HEY). Residential customers taking service on Schedule NBT, who are required t o utilize EV-T OU -5 as their otheiwise applicable schedule (OAS) for electric service, do not require a qualifying motor vehi cle , as described above to participate on Sched ule EV -TOU-5. Customers on this schedule may also qualify for a semi-annual California Climate Credit $(60. 70) per Schedule GHG-ARR. TERRITORY Within the entire territory served by the utility. Total Rates : UDC T otal DWRBC+ Descri ption -EV-TOU-S Rates Rate WF-NBC Basic Service Fee 16 .00 Summer On-Peak 028032 I 0 .00530 Off-Peak 0 .28032 I 0 .00530 Super Off-Peak 0 .05588 I 0 .00530 Winter On-Peak 028032 I 0 .00530 Off-Peak 028032 I 0 .00530 Super Off-Peak 0 .05588 I 0 .00530 1C5 Advice Ur. No. 4154-E Decision No. D.22-12-056 EECC Rate + DWR Credit I 0 .53067 I I 0 .1 9567 I I 0 .09233 I I 0 .22587 I I 0 .1 6213 I I 0 .08402 I Continued Issued by Total Rat e 16.00 0 .81629 I 0.48129 I 0 .15351 I 0 .51149 I 0.44 775 I 0 .14520 I Submitted Effective Resolution No. Jan 30, 2023 Mar 1, 2023 N N N Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 57 Appendices California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 162  Packet Pg. 576 of 690  - ....,,/E Revised Cal. P .U .C. Sheet No_ San Diego Gas & Electnc Company San Diego, Cal~omia Canceling Revised Cal. P .lJ.C. Sheet No. 35912-E SCHEDULE EV-TOU -5 Slleet 4 COST-BASED DOMESTIC TIME-OF-USE FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITH ELECTRIC VEHICLES Notes: Transmission Energy charges indude the Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment (l;RBAA) of S(0.00242) per kWh and lhe Transmissicm Access Charge Balancing Account Adjustment (TACBAA) of S(0.01631) per kWh. PPP Energy charges includes Low Income PPP rate (LI-PPP) S0.0 1669/kWh, Non-low Income PPP rate (Non-U ­ PPP) S0_00333"'Wh (pursuant to PU Code Section 399.8 , lhe Non-LI-PPP rate may not exceed January 1, 2000 levels ), Procurement Energy Efficiency Surcl\arge Rate of SQ.00422 /kWh, Galifom1a Solar lnrtiative rate (CSI) of $0.00000/kWh and Self-Generation Incentive Program rate (SGIP) $0.00122/kWh. The basic service fee of $16 per monlh is applied to a customer's bil and a 50% discount i s applied for CARE, Medical Baseline, 0< Family Electric Rate Assistance Program (FERA) customers r esumng in their basic service fees to be SB per monlh. Rat e Components The Utility Distribution Company Total Rates (UDC Total) shown above are comprised of the following components (if applicable): (1) Transmission (Trans) Charges, (2) Distribution (Distr) Cha rges, (3) Public Purpose Program (PPP) Charges, (4) Nuclear Decommissioning (ND) Charge, (5) Ongoin9 Competition Transition Cnarges (CTC). (6) Local Generation Charge (LGC), (7) Reliability Services (RS), and (8) the Total Rate Adjustment Component (TRAC). Certain Direct Access customers are exempt from the TRAC, as defined in Rule 1 -Definitions. Franchise Fee Differential A Franchise Fee Differential of 5.78% will be applied to the monthly billings calculated under this schedule for all customers w it hin the corporate limits of the City o f San Diego. Such Franchise Fee Differential shall be so indicated and added as a separate item to &ills rendered to such customers. T ime Periods : All time periods listed are applicable to actual "clock" time) TOU Period -Weekdays Summer Winter On--Peak 4:00 p.m. -9:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. -9:00 p .m. b:w a.m. -4 :UU p.m. Off-Peak 6:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.; 9:00 p.m. -midnight Exduding 10:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m.in March and April; 9:00 p.m. -midnight Super-Off-Peak M idnight -6:00 a.m. Midnight -6:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. in March and Apri l I uu t"enuu -vveeKenas Summer Winter and Ho lidays On--Peak 4:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. 4 :00 p.m. - 9 :00 p .m. Off-Peak 2:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.; 9:00 p.m. -midnight 2:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. 9 :00 p.m. -midnight Super-Off-Peak M idnight -2:00 p_m_ Midnight -2:00 p_m_ Seasons: Summer June 1 -October 31 Winter November 1 -May 31 Continued 4C8 Issued by Su bmitted Dec 30, 2022 Advice Llr. No. 4129-E Da n Skopec Effective Jan 1, 2023 Senior Vice President Decision No. Regulatory Affairs Resolution No . E-5217 R,R I R I I Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 58 Appendices California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 163  Packet Pg. 577 of 690  - -f s.., Die90 Gas & Elecliic; Cttnpan)' San Diego. califmria Orjglnel Cal. P.U.C. Sheel No. 37195-'E Canceling Cal. P.U.C. Sheel No. SCHED ULE TOU-ELIEC Sheet 11 DOMEST1IC llt,IE-OFJUSE FOR HOI..IS8HOLOS Wln-t ELECTRIC VEHICUES . EN ERGY STORAGE . OR !ELECTRIC HEAT Pll!Jt.tPS ARPLICABILllY Service under this scl'ledul'e is avai lable on a volun1ary basis. for all resiidential ruslomBfS who meet one or more of Iha tollowing c~eria: 1) require sernce for clhargi n,g or a currenlly ragi slarad Motor Va'hida. as de'1ned by the California Motor Vehicle C-ooe, 'Whkh ris: a) a battery el.ectric VBhlcle (BEV) or plug-,ln hybrid eleciric ve:hicle (f>HEV) recharged via a recharging ou1Jet at the customer's premises: or b ) a natural gas \lehide (NGV) refoeled I/fa a home rerualing applian ce (HRA) al 11\e customer's premises; 2 ) have a bahind­ lhe-miiler energy storage device th.at is intsrconnecied through Elednie Rule 21 ; or 3 ) have an electric heat pump •for water lhaatlng or climate controL This sc'had ule iS not available to customa-rs with a conventional charge sw;taining (battery teeharged solsly from, the vehi cle"s on-board generatot) hybrid a!iicittic vehidle (HEV). This schedule is also available lo, customers who meet ll'le above criteria ,as wel as quality for lhe Cal ifornia Alla-mate Rates for Energy {CARE) Program as outline<I i n Schedule E-CARE, and/or Medical IBasa!ine as oullineo in Special Conchoon (SC) 5. The ra!es for CARE customers anc:llor Medical IBas8line are ident.-lild in lhe rate rabies below as TOU-ELEC-CARE and TOU-8LEC-MB rates. respect iv1tty. lbiire is a cap of 10,00CI customers w'ho may take service on lrns rats. as d.e6ned rn SC 10. Pu.rsuant to, o .22-·11-022. customilrs that opt-in to seheduta TOU-ElEC Within its fust year or b8in9 offered have the qplion to return to lheir previous rate sdledule prior lo lhe 12-month imquiremenL See $C4 T ern,s or SGl'\rioe lor a l requuaments. CtJstomM; on Ill.is schedule may also qualify re, a sem..a.nnual California Cllmate Credit $(611'.70) per Sdiedu.e GHG-ARR. iERRJTORY Wi thin lhe entire terrilory seNed by lhe utility. RATES Total Rates : lltiotiptian -TOU-.El.EC Rams UDC TOUI DWRBC• R.al1> WF0 N8C Mcn!hty SeMCB f;ee 18..00 Summer On-Pmk D.22228 0.00530 011°Pmk 0.22228 0.00530 Super Off~""k 0.22228 0.00530 WJnter O..,Peak 0.22228 0,00530 Oll>Pmk 0.22228 0.00530 Super Off~""k 0.22228 0,00530 tH6 Adw:e Ur. No. 4 152-E OedSIOfl No . 0.22-11-022 EECC Riite 0 .61588 0.14644 0.09785 0.27480 0.13323 0.08905 Conlin11ed Issued by T- Rate 18.00 0.74328 0.3740:2 0.32543 0.50218 0.36081 0.31663 Submitted ElfeciJve Resolution l'lo. Jan 31 . 2023 Jan 31 . 2003 N N N N Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 59 Appendices California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 164  Packet Pg. 578 of 690  - San Diego Gas & Elecrric Canp;any San IJiesa. ~rcrri.s O riginal Canoe.ling CaL P.U.C. Sheel No. CaL P.U.C. Sheel No. SCHED ULE T OU-ELEC 37196-E Sheet 2 DOMESTIC TIME -OF-USE FOR HOUSEHOLDS Wllll ELEC1RIC VEHICLES. ENERGY STORAGE . OR ELIECTRIC HEAT PUMPS .BAIES. ·(Contiru.ie<J) Description -TOU,E:LE.C CARE UDC Toial DWR IIIC ♦ TO!lal Tow EEOC Fttu, Eff;;ctl.,. Rates Rat,, WF.JiBC Rm CARERm Monlhly SeMCe Fee HUX! 16.00 16.00 Summer -CAR,E Rates: OII.P<>ak 0.221158 0.00000 0.515611 0.73726 0 .. 49222 Qa.P""k 0 .221158 0.00000 0..14644 0 .36Ml2 0.2401! &l"'f Ofl.P,ea 0.22158 0.00000 0..09735 0;31943 0.20698 Winter-CAAE Rates: a,,,p,.,,k 0.221158 0·.00000 0.27480 DA9618 0 .32763 Cla.PRl< 0.221158 0,00000 0..13323 0.35481 0.23U1 s.,""' Otl,.Pea 0.221158 0,00000 0..08905 0.31063 0.201195 Description -TOU,E:LEC MB UDC Total DWR IIIC • Total Tow EECC Rat,i, Elf6ctM MB Rates Rat,, WF-HBC Raia -· Monlhly SeMCe Fee HI.DO 16.00 16.00 Summer -MB Rates: o,,,p..,,, 0 .22228 0,00000 0.515611 0.73796 0 .59037 Qa,P.,.ak 0.22228 0.00000 0..14644 0,38872 0..29498 s.,""' Ofl.Poa 0.22228 0.00000 0..09735 0:32013 0.251110 Winter -MB Rates: a,,.p..,,, 0.22228 0.00000 0.27480 OA96118 0.39760 Qa.Pe.il< 0.22228 0.00000 0..1332:3 0-35551 0.28441 Silp<!f QIW'<,al 0 .22228 0.00000 0.08905 0 .31133 0.24906 Noll!: (1) Toltlt Rates oo,.,,is1 d UOC. &hodiJi<-OWR.SC {~ cl W:tr.t Re"'°1le5 Bcnl Ctwg,,). Schedule \'IF.NBC (CA 'Mklft"' FLnf chag!!) and Sdled:Jle· E:ECC jElec:lric Ens9)' Canm:xfily CMQ ral!ts. EECC rai..s .,., "l'f'lica~ II, bundl!,d cummon t11ly. SeeSp:dal Ooodilla, 9roi PCIA(P<lWer Cliar~ ~hljustmenl) """'Yefl'• (2) T olOI Roil!s P"'""""'d ,.,., lbt __,,,., lhai ...,.,;,,, oormncxliiy "'4'f'ly and di!lw,ry ~ llom UBty. o..,.,rces in tmt.ol r,,11,s paid by Oiled! AazS> (DA) an! Canrrunity O!aice Aggr9bDn (OCA) aJslameB ""' i:!,ntifrod in Sdledi.e llA.CRS and OCA. CRS, ,,,,spec•,.;,. ($) DWR<BC a,d WF-NBC chorg,,s do not a.l'\lly lo CA.RE or Medical B:ISl!line """1<lrlH!n. (4 ) ltW"-"IBC raleis0Jl0530 + C111/R.SC BandOusg,, is 0.00000 2HS l!lsued by Adw:e Llr. No. 415 2-E DeclSiOO No. D.22-1i~ Submitted Effective Resolution No. Jan 31 . 2023, Jan 31 . 2023 N N N N Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 60 Appendices California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 165  Packet Pg. 579 of 690  - llio(IO G.,s & IElecbic Cmnp,o11J S.m Dw,go. Califmna Orlglnel Canceling Cel. P.U.C. Sheet No. Cel P U C Sheet No .. SCHEDULE TOl!J-ELEC 37197-E Sheel3 DOMESTIC TIME-OF-USE FO R HOUSEHOLDS Willi E LEClRIC VE HtCLES , ENERGY STORAGE , RATES (CONTINUE D) UDC RalH Oe5U11flm -Trmism Distr JOU-El.EC MonlNyS-fN 18-CIO 1$11.kl) StJmmer. On.P .. .u 0.07340 0.10796 Ol.f'e-ak 0.07340 D.10796 ~pe,OM'eak 0.07340 0.10798 Winur. On.f' .. .u 0.07340 0.10796 OI.P .. .u 0.07340 0.10796 &ipe,Otf.l'l,al 0.07340 0.10798 Dastnplian - TOU-ELEC • CARE Transna Dlsb: Ribls ~S-fN lll1.kl ,a..oo S<Jmnl«C-6!RiE lb lle3: On.f'e;;k 0.07340 0 .10726 OI.P..,;,k 0.07340 0.10726 &!per Ot!.l'l,al 0.07340 0 .10726 W111~r ~I! Rain: On.f'-l!'ak 0.07340 0 .10726 Ol-k 0.07340 0 .10726 &ipe,Ot!.1'1,a 0.07340 0 .10726 Deoacr(pllon - TOU-ELEC • l&S - T~m Dlsb: ~ SeNi>I f.M 16,.00 15'1.kl)) 5.,....,,.. -MB-Ral<l,o On.f'-1!'.u 0.073-44) 0 .107911 OI.P ... ak 0.073-44) 0 .107911 &iper Ot!.1'1,-. 0.073441 0 .107911 W.inucr ,. M:B R:iltas On.P ....... 0.073441 0 .107911 Ol.f'!!cl 0.0~ 0 .107911 &i.per Ot!.1'1,a 0..073-44) 0 .107911 3Htl Adwce Llr. ND. 4 152-E Decision No. 0.22-11-022 O R EL ECTRIC HEAT P UMPS PPP ND CTC D,02548 0.00007 0.00153 0,02546 0.00007 0.00153 0,02546 0 .00007 0.00153 0,02546 000007 0.00153 0·,02548 000007 0.00153 0,02548 000007 0.00153 PPP ND CTC 0.02548 0•.00007 0.00153 0.02548 0.00007 0.00153 0 .0254t 0.00007 0 .00163, 0 .0254t 0.00007 0 .00153, 0.02548 0 .00007 0 .00163, OJl2546 0.00007 0 .00163, PPP ND CTC 0 .0254t 11.00007 0 .00153, 0 .0254t 11.00007 0.00163, 0 .0254t 0.00007 0 .00153, 0.02548 0.00007 0.00163 0 .0254t 0.00007 0.00163 0 .0254t 0.00007 0..00153 (Cootlnuedl l~!IUl!d by LGC RS 0.01383 0.00000 0.01383 0.00000 0.01383 0.00000 0.01383 0.01383 0.01383 ILGC 0.01383 0.01383 0.01383 0.0 1383 0.01383 0,0 1383 1LGC 0.01383 0.01383 0.01383 0.01383 0.0 1383 0.01383 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 R:S 0.00003 0.00003 0.00003 0.00003 0.00000 D..00003 R:S D..00003 0.00000 D..00003 D..00003 D..00003 D..00003 Submitted Effective TRAC 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 .00000 0 .00000 0.00000 TRAC 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 TRAC 0 .00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 .00000 Resolution No. uoc Total 18_()1) 0.22228 0.22228 0.22228 0.22228 0.22228 0.22228 UDC Toial 16..00 0.22161! 0.22161! 0.22161! G.22161! Q.22161! 0.22161! UDC Tot al 16..00 D.22228 G.22228 0.22228 0.22228 G.22228 0.22228 Jan 31 . 2023 Jen 3 1. 2023 N N N N Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 61 Appendices California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 166  Packet Pg. 580 of 690  - l Cel. P.U .C . Sheet No. 37198-E Canceling Cel. P.U .C . Sheet No. SCHEDULE TOU-ELEC Sheel4 DOMESTIC TIME-OF-USE FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITl·t ELEClRIC VEHICLES. ENERGY STORAGE, OR EL ECTRIC HEAT PUMPS Note..: Tran!lrrl!l!IIOM, Energy i:narges linmJCle he Transmission R'e~ Balancing Acoan Adjuslrmnt (TRBAA) al ${0.oo2A2) per kWh and lhe Transml!ism Aooesa Charge Balan~ Aa:ol.lll f141as~ (TACSAA) of $(0.01631 ) per kWh. PPP EnEfllY charges~ law Income PPP ra11! (LI-PPP) S0.01668/k:Wh, Non-low lnoome PPP rera (Non-U­ PPP) S0..0033JJkWh (pursuant 1D PU Code Section 399.8. lhe Non-4..1-PPP ra1a may not exceed Ja,uary 1. 2000 levels). Procurement Energy 6flcieocy SWdlerge, Rate of $0.00422 /kWh, California Soler tnitia11ve rate (CSI) cl $0.0000MWh and Self.Generabo11, Incentive 1Pr<9am rate (SGIPj $0.00122/kWh. Rate Component$ The Utility 0islribu'liion Company Totall IRates (UDC Total) shown above are comp,rised c:11 the ldllowing components (ii appUcabJe): (1) Transmission (Trans) Charges, (2) Distlib<Ulion (Dislt) Oiarges.. (3) Public P,wpose Program (PPP) Charges .. (4) Nuclear Oooommissioning (ND) Charge, (5) O"-)oin,g Competition Tratwlion Charges (CTC), ·(6) Local Genetalion Chat9e (LGC). (7) Reliability Services (RS), and (8) lhe Total Rate Adjustm811lCornponent (llRAC). Certain DilectAocess.customers are !Hlempt from lhe TRAC, M def111ed in Rule 1 -Daf111ilions .. EcaOdlist fee Piftere01,;a1 A Franchi:se Fee Differential of 5. 78% wiD be applied lo Iha monthly billings calculaled under 'thiss schedule ror all custome<:s wilhin Ille oorporate limits ol lhe City or San Di ego. Suc:11 IFfaochiH Fee Differential shall be so indicated a.nd added as a separale [tern lo bills rendered to sudh cus'klmer!;. Tlm a Periods : All time per iods listed a re applicable Lo actual "dock" lime) TOU Period -Wae'kdayt; SummBf Wini.er On-Peak 4 i00 Ip.m . - 9 :001rn;_ 4:00 p.m . -9i00 p•.m. 16:00a..m. -4:00p•.m. 6 :00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m,; Off.P-eak 9~00 Ip.m. -midnighl Exdlidin,g 10:00 a.rn.-2:00 p.m .i:n Marth aoo April; '9:00 p.m. -midnight Midnight - 6:00 am. Super-Off.P1tak Midnight -6:00 rum. 10:00 ajm. -2:00 p.m. in March andAprli TOU Penod -Weekend~ SummBf and Holidays On..f>-eak 4 i00 Ip.m. - 9 :00 p .m, 4:00 p.m. -9:00 p•.m. Ott-Peak 2l00 Ip.m. - 4:00 p .rn,; 2:00p.m. - 4 :00 p-.rn. 9~00 Ip.m. -midnighl '9:00 p.m. -midnight Super-Off..P1tak Midnigh.t -2:00 p.m. Midnight - 2:00 p .rn. Seasons; Summer June l -Odober 31 Winter Novernber 1 -May 3-1 Continued 4H1 Issued by Adw:e Llr. No. 4152-E D.22-tt-022 Winl8r Submitted Effective Resolution No. Jen 31 . 2023 Jan 31 . 2023 N N N N Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 62 Appendices California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 167  Packet Pg. 581 of 690  •1111111/E Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. San Diiago Gas & Electric Company San Diego, Califomia Canceli ng Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. APPLICABILITY SCHEDULE E-CARE CALIFORNIA AL TERNA TE RA TES F OR EN ERGY 35718-E 32576-E Sheet 1 This schedule provides a Cal ifornia Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) discount to each of the following types of customers listed below t hat meet the requirements for CARE eligibility as defined i n Rule 1 , Definitions , and herein , and is taken 1in conjuncti on with the customer's otherwi se a pplicable service schedule. 1) Customers residing in a permanent sing le-family accommoda tion, separately metered by the Ullllty. 2) Multi-family dwelling units and mobile home parks supplied th rough one meter on a single premises where the individual unit i s submetered . 3) Non -profit group living facilities. 4 ) Agricu ltural employee housing facili ties. TERR ITORY Within the entire territory served by the Utility. DISCOUNT 1) Residential CARE: Qualified residential CARE customers will receive a total effective discount according to the follow ing : 2015 2016 2017 2.018 2019 2020 and beyond crrect1ve 40 % 39% 38% 38% 36%R 35% Discount 1C5 Pursuant to Commission Deci sion (D.) 15-07-001, the average effective CARE discount for residen ti al customers will decrease 1% each year until an average effective discount of 35% is reached in 2020. The average effecti ve CARE discount consists of: (a) exemptions from paying the CARE Surcharge, Department of Water Resources Bond Charge (DWR-BC ), Vehl d e-G rid Integration (VGI) costs, and Californi a Solar !I nitiati ve (CS I); (b) a 50% minimum bill relative to Non-CARE; (c) the California Wildfire Fund Charge (WF-NBC) and (d) a separate line-T item bill d iscount for all qualified residenti al CARE customers wi th the exclusion of CARE Medical Baseline customers taking service on tiered rates schedules. D.15~07-001 retai ned the rate subsi dies i n Non-CARE Medical Baseline tiered rates and ther eby a separate line-item d iscount is provided for these GARE Medical Baseline customers Cont inued Dec 30, 2021 Advice ltr. No . 3 928-E Issued by Dan Skopec Submitted Effective Jan 1, 2022 \/if"Q PrP---t;i.if'tir;,n t Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 63 Appendices California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 168  Packet Pg. 582 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 6.2.5 City of Palo Alto Utilities Following are the CPAU electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study. The CPAU monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis according to the rates shown in Table 27. These rates are based on applying a normalization curve to the October 2023 tariff based on seven years of historical gas data. The monthly service charge applied was $14.01 per month per the November 2023 G-1 tariff. Table 27. CPAU Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) January $1.83532 $3.35639 February $1.38055 $2.59947 March $1.32506 $2.47695 April $1.29680 $2.44038 May $1.29511 $2.43804 June $1.32034 $2.45406 July $1.35688 $2.61519 August $1.40696 $2.67944 September $1.42130 $2.70301 October $1.42310 $2.48300 November $1.46286 $2.45547 December $1.62415 $2.62128 California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 169  Packet Pg. 583 of 690  . A PPLICABILITY: R ESID ENTIAL ELECTRJC SER VICE UT ILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-1 This Rate Schedu le applies to separately metered single-family residential dwell ings rece iving Electric Service from the City of Palo Alto Utilities. B. TERRJTORY: This rate schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides E lectric Service. C. UNBU DLED RA TES : Per kilowatt-hour (kWh) Commod ity Tier l usage Tier 2 usage Any usage over Tier l Minimum Bill ($/day) D. SPECIAL NOTES: $ 0.09999 0.13873 I. Calculation of Cost Co mpon en ts Distribution Pub lic Benefits $ 0.06954 $ 0.00568 0.10225 0.00568 Total $ 0.17521 0.24666 0.4181 The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and adjusted for any applicable d iscounts , surcharges and/or taxes. On a C us tomer's bill statement, the bill amoun t may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated under Section C. 2 . Calculation of Usage Tiers T ier I Electric ity usage sha ll be calculated and billed based upon a leve l of 11 kWh per day, prorated by M eter readi ng days of Service. As an example, for a 30-day bi ll, the Tier I level would be 330 kWh. For further discussion of bill calcu lation and proration , refer to Rule and Regulation 11. ClTY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES Issued by the City Council Supersedes Sheet No E -1-1 dated 7-1-2022 O CITYOF PALO A LTO UTILITIES {E nd} Sheet o E-1-1 Effective 7-1-2023 Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 65 Appendices California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 170  Packet Pg. 584 of 690  - F irm Service Rates A. Tim.,..,r-D•;v (S-ll p .m .) R•le Resi dential Time-of-Day Service Rate Schedule R-TOD •l'rf'.ctiwlt!I ul O'htlle Id J Of'ttlhir•li ul El'kct.lw u at fflntiwn u/ h■uryl.lOU J Jtns· I.JU• .\1a\'1.2•u J101uar, l .lGlS ~b,d.2015 IHIIMG!MINl5lh Nu•S•nantr S tbun (Octohn-• M:ty) s,1 lfnl lntraslrvcru.rt fl....ed Clriilrlt prr ""1fl ,A p#!'rlM.tU lltt1rlcii1~1 l .lt -f'O.artt P.,l$/lH~ Off.Peak SIi H"' S ummer SrbOd (June-• Sep1mftr} S~'Jltrd lntrascrucru.rt fi.1.-ed('kartt pb' "'°'1tA pn-mnu ll«lril"i.l~ 11'11(t.t Cliara.e P.,l$/1H~ Mod-l',,ak$/Hll Off.Peak Sil it• B. Optio na l C ritical P~'8k Pricing Rate m.so $24.IS $24.llO W.30 SO.ISO SO.Im S0.16" $0.1678 S0.1120 $0.IISI S0.1183 S0.1215 m.so $24.IS $2◄.llO $2S.$0 SO.l-"79 S0.33<,9 S0.3462 $0.JS57 $0.11164 $0.1914 $0.1967 $0.200 1 $0.13$0 S0.1387 SO. 14:!S $0.1464 I. The CPP R.ale base prices per time-or-<lay period arc lhe same as lhe prices per time-or-day period for TOD (S--8 p.m. ). 2. The CPP Ra1e prosidcs o discount per kWb on the M id-Peak and Off-Peak prices during summer months. 3. During CPP EvenlS. customers will be charged for ""''llY used 31 the applicable Li~r-<lay period rate plus the CPP Ralc Event Price per k \l.'h :as :sho"'TI on www .srnud._org.. $26.20 $0.17'..A $0.1248 $2t,.20 $0.36S5 $0.2077 $0.ISQS 4. During CPP EvenlS. energy exported lo the grid will be compensated a l the CPP Rate Event Price per kWh as shown oo www.smud.org.. S. The CPP Rale Event Price and discount will be upda1ed annu.ally al SMUD's discn,1ion and posted on www.smud.org. C. Plug-In Ell-d ric Vehicle CndH (r•k cafl-gorin RTOl an d RTC I) Thi!i credit is for l"Qidcntia.l customcn. who have a licensed passenger battery electric plug-in or pl ug-in hybrid dt'Clric ,·chide. Cred.iL applies lo a ll clcclric ity usage charges from midnight to 6,00 a.m. daily. Electric Vehicle Credit.. ........................................................ -$0.0ISOlkWh Ill . Elect ricity Usage Surcharges Refer to the follo\\'Jng rate schedu1es for details on these: surcharges_ A. Hydro Gcnr•tion Adju5fm enl (HCA). Refor to Rate Schedule HGA. IV. Rate OpUon Menu A~ E:nt rgy A.ni5htncc Pn ~nm R ide. Refer to Rate Schedule EAPR. B. Medi 0tl Eq uipmt nt Di,count Progr a m. Rder to Rate Schedule MED. C. J oint Partici pation in Mnli CJiJ Equi pment Di~unt a nd En cr-gy Assi!!ita nce Pl"o-gr :iim Rate. Refer lo Rate Schedule MED. SACRAMEN TO MUNIC IPAL UTILITY D ISTRICT Resolution No. 23-09.09 adopted September 21 , 2023 Sheet No. R-TOD-2 Effective: September 22, 2023 Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 66 Appendices 6.2.6 Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (Electric Only) Following are the SMUD electricity tariffs applied in this study. The rates effective January 2023 were used. California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 171  Packet Pg. 585 of 690  - . 11,ne-of-Da~ (5--8 p.m .) Rate (r111e category RT0-2) 1. The TOD (5-8 p.m.) Rate is tbe standard rate for SMUD's res_idential customers. El igjble customers can elect the fixed .Rate unde r Rate Schedule Ras an al ternative m1e. 2. The TOD (5-8 p.m.) .Rate is an opt ional rate for cm,tomers who have an e-ligible renewable electrical generat ion facility under Rate Schedule NEM I that was approved for installation by SMUD prior 10 J anuary I , 2018. 3. This rate has five kilowan-h.ou:r (kWh) prices, depending on rhe rime-of-day and season as shown below. Holidays are de10iled in Section V . Conditions of Service. Peak Weekdays be1ween 5:00 p.m. and 8 ,00 p.m. S umme:r Mid-Pe11J.: Weekdays between noon and midnight ex.cept d'uring lhe {JUl'I E -Sept 30) Pe.ak hours. Off-Peak All othe r hours, including weekerids and '1olidays1. on-Somme r Pe ak Weekdays belween 5:00 p.m. and 8,00 p.m. (O c l l -May JI J Off-Peak AH other hours, including wee kends and holidays1. 1 See Sect ion V. Condi 1ion:s o f Service Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 67 Appendices California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 172  Packet Pg. 586 of 690  68 Appendices 6.2.7 Fuel Escalation Assumptions The average annual escalation rates in Table 28 were used in this study. These are based on assumptions from the CPUC 2021 En Banc hearings on utility costs through 2030 (California Public Utilities Commission, 2021a). Escalation rates through the remainder of the 30-year evaluation period are based on the escalation rate assumptions within the 2022 TDV factors. No data was available to estimate electricity escalation rates for CPAU and SMUD, therefore electricity escalation rates for PG&E and statewide natural gas escalation rates were applied. Table 29 presents the average annual escalation rates used in the utility rate escalation sensitivity analysis shown in Section 3.2.4. Rates were applied for the same 30-year period and are based on the escalation rate assumptions within the 2025 LSC factors from 2027 through 2053.28 These rates were developed for electricity use statewide (not utility-specific) and assume steep increases in gas rates in the latter half of the analysis period. Data was not available for the years 2024, 2025, and 2026 and so the CPUC En Banc assumptions were applied for those years using the average rate across the three IOUs for statewide electricity escalation. Table 28: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions, CPUC En Banc and 2022 TDV Basis Gas Residential Average Rate Electric Residential Average Rate 2024 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8% 2025 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8% 2026 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8% 2027 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8% 2028 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8% 2029 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8% 2030 4.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.8% 2031 2.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2032 2.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2033 2.1% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2034 1.9% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2035 1.9% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2036 1.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2037 1.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2038 1.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2039 2.1% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2040 1.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2041 2.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2042 2.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2043 2.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2044 2.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2045 2.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2046 1.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2047 1.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2048 1.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2049 1.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2050 1.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2051 1.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2052 1.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 2053 1.8% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 28https://www.energy.ca.gov/files/2025-energy-code-hourly-factors. Actual escalation factors were provided by consultants E3. California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 173  Packet Pg. 587 of 690  69 Appendices Table 29: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions, 2025 LSC Basis Statewide Natural Gas Residential Average Rate (%/year, real) Electricity Residential Average Rate 2024 4.6% 2.1% 2025 4.6% 2.1% 2026 4.6% 2.1% 2027 4.2% 0.6% 2028 3.2% 1.9% 2029 3.6% 1.6% 2030 6.6% 1.3% 2031 6.7% 1.0% 2032 7.7% 1.2% 2033 8.2% 1.1% 2034 8.2% 1.1% 2035 8.2% 0.9% 2036 8.2% 1.1% 2037 8.2% 1.1% 2038 8.2% 1.0% 2039 8.2% 1.1% 2040 8.2% 1.1% 2041 8.2% 1.1% 2042 8.2% 1.1% 2043 8.2% 1.1% 2044 8.2% 1.1% 2045 8.2% 1.1% 2046 8.2% 1.1% 2047 3.1% 1.1% 2048 -0.5% 1.1% 2049 -0.6% 1.1% 2050 -0.5% 1.1% 2051 -0.6% 1.1% 2052 -0.6% 1.1% 2053 -0.6% 1.1% California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 174  Packet Pg. 588 of 690  -Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades Get In Touch The adoption of reach codes can differentiate jurisdictions as efficiency leaders and help accelerate the adoption of new equipment, technologies, code compliance, and energy savings strategies. As part of the Statewide Codes & Standards Program, the Reach Codes Subprogram is a resource available to any local jurisdiction located throughout the state of California. Our experts develop robust toolkits as well as provide specific technical assistance to local jurisdictions (cities and counties) considering adopting energy reach codes. These include Cost-effectiveness research and analysis, model ordinance language and other code development and implementation tools, and specific technical assistance throughout the code adoption process. If you are interested in finding out more about local energy reach codes, the Reach Codes Team stands ready to assist jurisdictions at any stage of a reach code project. Visit LocalEnergyCodes.com to Contact info@localenergycodes.com Follow us on LinkedIn access our resources and sign up for no-charge assistance from expert for newsletters. Reach Code advisors California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-04-25 Item 19 Attachment C - 2022 Cost - Effectiveness Study Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 175  Packet Pg. 589 of 690  Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades Prepared by: Frontier Energy, Inc Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC Prepared for: Kelly Cunningham, Codes and Standards Program, Pacific Gas and Electric Revision: 1.0 Last modified: 2025/08/15 Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 176  Packet Pg. 590 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 1 2025/08/15 Table 1 Summary of Revisions Original Release N/A Legal Notice This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission. Copyright 2025, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. All rights reserved, except that this document may be used, copied, and distributed without modification. Neither PG&E nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any privately- owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks or copyrights. Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 177  Packet Pg. 591 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 2 2025/08/15 Acronym List B/C – Lifecycle Benefit-to-Cost Ratio CASE – Codes and Standards Enhancement CFL – Compact Fluorescent Lamps CPAU – City of Palo Alto Utilities CPUC – California Public Utilities Commission CZ – California Climate Zone kWh – Kilowatt Hour NPV – Net Present Value PG&E – Pacific Gas and Electric Company PV – Photovoltaic SCE – Southern California Edison SDG&E – San Diego Gas and Electric SMUD – Sacramento Municipal Utility District SoCalGas – Southern California Gas Company Therm – Unit for quantity of heat that equals 100,000 British thermal units Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 178  Packet Pg. 592 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 1 2025/08/15 Table of Contents 1 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 2 2 Air Sealing at the Ceiling ............................................................................................. 4 3 Lighting Measures ..................................................................................................... 10 4 Water Heating Package .............................................................................................. 14 5 PV ................................................................................................................................ 15 6 References ................................................................................................................. 22 List of Tables Table 1 Summary of Revisions ............................................................................................. 1 Table 2. [Pre-1978] Air Sealing at the Ceiling (Std) ............................................................... 4 Table 3. [1978-1991] Air Sealing at the Ceiling (Std) ............................................................ 5 Table 4. [1992-2010] Air Sealing at the Ceiling (Std) ............................................................ 6 Table 5. [Pre-1978] Air Sealing at the Ceiling (CARE) .......................................................... 7 Table 6. [1978-1991] Air Sealing at the Ceiling (CARE) ........................................................ 8 Table 7. [1991-2010] Air Sealing at the Ceiling (CARE) ........................................................ 9 Table 8. [All Vintages] LED Lamp vs. CFL ........................................................................... 11 Table 9. [All Vintages] Exterior Photosensor ........................................................................12 Table 10. [All Vintages] LED and Photosensor ....................................................................13 Table 11. [All Vintages] Water Heating Package ..................................................................14 Table 12. [Pre-1978] 3 kW PV without Solar Tax Credit (Std) ..............................................16 Table 13. [1978-1991] 3 kW PV without Solar Tax Credit (Std) ...........................................17 Table 14. [1992-2010] 3 kW PV without Solar Tax Credit (Std) ............................................18 Table 15. [Pre-1978] 3 kW PV without Solar Tax Credit (CARE) ..........................................19 Table 16. [1978-1991] 3 kW PV without Solar Tax Credit (CARE) .......................................20 Table 17. [1992-2010] 3 kW PV without Solar Tax Credit (CARE) .......................................21 List of Figures No table of figures entries found. Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 179  Packet Pg. 593 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 2 2025/08/15 1 Summary The California Codes and Standards (C&S) Reach Codes program provides technical support to local governments considering adopting a local ordinance (reach code) intended to support meeting local and/or statewide energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction goals. The program facilitates adoption and implementation of the code when requested by local jurisdictions by providing resources such as cost-effectiveness studies, model language, sample findings, and other supporting documentation. In April 2024, the Statewide Reach Codes Team published the 2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades. This study focuses on existing single family buildings identifying cost-effective measures and measure package upgrades in all 16 California climate zones. The study was conducted to complement Part 6 of the California Building Code (the Energy Code) for the 2022 code cycle, effective January 1, 2023. In the 2019 code cycle the 2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Residential Building Upgrades study included outdoor lighting and a water heater package that was discontinued in the 2022 study but has been brought back in this memo by request from jurisdictions. The studies document the estimated costs, benefits, energy impacts and greenhouse gas emission reductions that may result from implementing an ordinance to help local leadership, residents, and other stakeholders make informed policy decisions. The Statewide Reach Codes Team reviewed the cost-effectiveness study for impacts of code changes implemented in the 2025 Energy Code. Measures that are now required by code may alter the results presented in the 2022 study. Below is a summary of the changes to the additions and alterations for residential buildings sections of the 2025 Energy Code. • Mandatory wall insulation R-value has been increased from R-13 to R-15. [Section 150.2(a) of the Energy Code] • Prescriptive window U-factor has decreased from 0.30 to 0.27 in Climate Zones 1-5, 11-14, and 16. [Section 150.2(b)1B of the Energy Code] The wall insulation measure has been re-evaluated with R-15 instead of R-13. There is generally a slight increase in utility cost savings as expected with the increase in efficiency. However, there is not a substantial impact on the cost-effectiveness results. For the prescriptive window U-factor, the original study modeled U-0.28 in all climate zones. This updated memo drops the U-factor from 0.28 to 0.27 in all climate zones. The SHGC is maintained at 0.23 for climate zone 2, 4, and 6-15 and 0.35 for CZ 1, 3, 5, 16. There is minimal impact on the cost-effectiveness results due to this update. However, there are two instances in the 1978-1991 vintage where cost-effectiveness flips from cost-effective to not cost-effective. Climate zone 4 in PGE territory utilizing standard rates and the modest gas escalation is no longer cost-effective on-bill by the smallest margin. Climate zone 10 in SDGE territory utilizing CARE rates and the modest gas escalation has also become no longer cost-effective on-bill. Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 180  Packet Pg. 594 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 3 2025/08/15 The 2022 study included a whole building air sealing measure defined as a 30% reduction in air leakage. A new measure – air sealing of the ceiling floor, representing a 14% reduction in air leakage – is added in this memo. Further details and cost-effectiveness results are provided in Section 2. Lighting measures were previously presented in the 2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Residential Building Upgrades study but were not analyzed in the 2022 study. Updated cost-effectiveness analysis for this measure is presented in Section 3. The water heating package measure was previously presented in 2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Residential Building Upgrades study. Updated cost- effectiveness analysis for this measure is presented in Section 4. The 3 kW PV measure from the 2022 study is revised here with an updated cost- effectiveness analysis that accounts for the elimination of the Federal Solar tax credit December 31, 2025. Additional details and analysis are provided in Section 5. The 2022 report, model ordinance language and other resources are posted on the C&S Reach Codes Program website at LocalEnergyCodes.com. Local jurisdictions that are considering adopting an ordinance may contact the program for further technical support at info@localenergycodes.com. Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 181  Packet Pg. 595 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 4 2025/08/15 2 Air Sealing at the Ceiling Unlike full air sealing, which has previously been presented, air sealing of the ceiling floor may be an attractive measure for an attic remodel project. The whole building air sealing measure estimated a 30% reduction in air leakage, while air sealing at the ceiling measure results in a 14% reduction in air leakage. Table 2 through Table 7 present the cost-effectiveness results for the air sealing at the ceiling plane measure. The estimated incremental cost for air sealing at the ceiling plane is $1,963 which is from the 2022 Residential Additions and Alterations CASE Report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020). Table 2. [Pre-1978] Air Sealing at the Ceiling (Std) Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost First-year Utility Savings Lifecycle NPV Savings 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $1,963 $33 ($465) ($997) ($432) CZ02 PGE $1,963 $18 ($1,114) ($1,433) ($1,118) CZ03 PGE $1,963 $17 ($1,180) ($1,463) ($1,171) CZ04 PGE $1,963 $25 ($1,081) ($1,290) ($979) CZ04 CPAU $1,963 $21 ($1,081) ($1,379) ($1,069) CZ05 PGE $1,963 $16 ($1,230) ($1,500) ($1,235) CZ05 PGE/SCG $1,963 $14 ($1,230) ($1,555) ($1,325) CZ06 SCE/SCG $1,963 ($2) ($1,797) ($1,987) ($1,937) CZ07 SDGE $1,963 ($3) ($1,813) ($2,008) ($1,934) CZ08 SCE/SCG $1,963 $7 ($1,680) ($1,775) ($1,703) CZ09 SCE/SCG $1,963 $10 ($1,597) ($1,693) ($1,592) CZ10 SCE/SCG $1,963 $17 ($1,497) ($1,540) ($1,420) CZ10 SDGE $1,963 $23 ($1,497) ($1,366) ($1,237) CZ11 PGE $1,963 $32 ($1,014) ($1,120) ($816) CZ12 PGE $1,963 $22 ($1,147) ($1,348) ($1,064) CZ12 SMUD/PGE $1,963 $17 ($1,147) ($1,468) ($1,190) CZ13 PGE $1,963 $31 ($1,114) ($1,162) ($918) CZ14 SCE/SCG $1,963 $32 ($897) ($1,130) ($832) CZ14 SDGE $1,963 $42 ($897) ($845) ($519) CZ15 SCE/SCG $1,963 $40 ($1,297) ($1,041) ($946) CZ16 PGE $1,963 $30 ($581) ($1,071) ($551) Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 182  Packet Pg. 596 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 5 2025/08/15 Table 3. [1978-1991] Air Sealing at the Ceiling (Std) Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost First-year Utility Savings Lifecycle NPV Savings 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $1,963 $23 ($931) ($1,292) ($903) CZ02 PGE $1,963 $13 ($1,364) ($1,570) ($1,341) CZ03 PGE $1,963 $10 ($1,480) ($1,668) ($1,496) CZ04 PGE $1,963 $16 ($1,330) ($1,522) ($1,292) CZ04 CPAU $1,963 $13 ($1,330) ($1,575) ($1,356) CZ05 PGE $1,963 $11 ($1,447) ($1,649) ($1,466) CZ05 PGE/SCG $1,963 $10 ($1,447) ($1,684) ($1,522) CZ06 SCE/SCG $1,963 ($1) ($1,830) ($1,967) ($1,934) CZ07 SDGE $1,963 ($4) ($1,896) ($2,040) ($1,991) CZ08 SCE/SCG $1,963 $4 ($1,797) ($1,860) ($1,813) CZ09 SCE/SCG $1,963 $5 ($1,747) ($1,823) ($1,764) CZ10 SCE/SCG $1,963 $10 ($1,663) ($1,722) ($1,652) CZ10 SDGE $1,963 $14 ($1,663) ($1,603) ($1,517) CZ11 PGE $1,963 $25 ($1,264) ($1,320) ($1,096) CZ12 PGE $1,963 $16 ($1,380) ($1,520) ($1,314) CZ12 SMUD/PGE $1,963 $12 ($1,380) ($1,604) ($1,402) CZ13 PGE $1,963 $23 ($1,364) ($1,373) ($1,199) CZ14 SCE/SCG $1,963 $22 ($1,230) ($1,397) ($1,182) CZ14 SDGE $1,963 $28 ($1,230) ($1,212) ($974) CZ15 SCE/SCG $1,963 $32 ($1,463) ($1,225) ($1,154) CZ16 PGE $1,963 $21 ($1,014) ($1,357) ($1,001) Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 183  Packet Pg. 597 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 6 2025/08/15 Table 4. [1992-2010] Air Sealing at the Ceiling (Std) Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost First-year Utility Savings Lifecycle NPV Savings 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $1,963 $14 ($1,314) ($1,550) ($1,309) CZ02 PGE $1,963 $9 ($1,530) ($1,687) ($1,529) CZ03 PGE $1,963 $7 ($1,613) ($1,744) ($1,618) CZ04 PGE $1,963 $11 ($1,530) ($1,653) ($1,501) CZ04 CPAU $1,963 $9 ($1,530) ($1,701) ($1,557) CZ05 PGE $1,963 $7 ($1,613) ($1,759) ($1,637) CZ05 PGE/SCG $1,963 $6 ($1,613) ($1,788) ($1,686) CZ06 SCE/SCG $1,963 $1 ($1,863) ($1,936) ($1,911) CZ07 SDGE $1,963 $0 ($1,896) ($1,944) ($1,911) CZ08 SCE/SCG $1,963 $3 ($1,830) ($1,885) ($1,851) CZ09 SCE/SCG $1,963 $3 ($1,780) ($1,892) ($1,853) CZ10 SCE/SCG $1,963 $6 ($1,763) ($1,814) ($1,767) CZ10 SDGE $1,963 $8 ($1,763) ($1,741) ($1,681) CZ11 PGE $1,963 $14 ($1,530) ($1,581) ($1,437) CZ12 PGE $1,963 $10 ($1,580) ($1,693) ($1,560) CZ12 SMUD/PGE $1,963 $8 ($1,580) ($1,737) ($1,606) CZ13 PGE $1,963 $12 ($1,580) ($1,643) ($1,531) CZ14 SCE/SCG $1,963 $12 ($1,530) ($1,639) ($1,503) CZ14 SDGE $1,963 $16 ($1,530) ($1,537) ($1,382) CZ15 SCE/SCG $1,963 $17 ($1,680) ($1,572) ($1,532) CZ16 PGE $1,963 $14 ($1,314) ($1,556) ($1,314) Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 184  Packet Pg. 598 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 7 2025/08/15 Table 5. [Pre-1978] Air Sealing at the Ceiling (CARE) Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost First-year Utility Savings Lifecycle NPV Savings 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $1,963 $26 ($465) ($1,212) ($766) CZ02 PGE $1,963 $14 ($1,114) ($1,550) ($1,302) CZ03 PGE $1,963 $13 ($1,180) ($1,574) ($1,343) CZ04 PGE $1,963 $18 ($1,081) ($1,459) ($1,216) CZ04 CPAU $1,963 $0 ($1,081) ($1,963) ($1,963) CZ05 PGE $1,963 $12 ($1,230) ($1,604) ($1,395) CZ05 PGE/SCG $1,963 $11 ($1,230) ($1,648) ($1,467) CZ06 SCE/SCG $1,963 ($1) ($1,797) ($1,969) ($1,928) CZ07 SDGE $1,963 ($1) ($1,813) ($1,976) ($1,918) CZ08 SCE/SCG $1,963 $5 ($1,680) ($1,824) ($1,768) CZ09 SCE/SCG $1,963 $8 ($1,597) ($1,764) ($1,686) CZ10 SCE/SCG $1,963 $12 ($1,497) ($1,659) ($1,566) CZ10 SDGE $1,963 $16 ($1,497) ($1,546) ($1,443) CZ11 PGE $1,963 $23 ($1,014) ($1,353) ($1,116) CZ12 PGE $1,963 $17 ($1,147) ($1,503) ($1,279) CZ12 SMUD/PGE $1,963 $11 ($1,147) ($1,623) ($1,406) CZ13 PGE $1,963 $22 ($1,114) ($1,394) ($1,205) CZ14 SCE/SCG $1,963 $23 ($897) ($1,352) ($1,120) CZ14 SDGE $1,963 $30 ($897) ($1,163) ($905) CZ15 SCE/SCG $1,963 $27 ($1,297) ($1,334) ($1,266) CZ16 PGE $1,963 $24 ($581) ($1,270) ($859) Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 185  Packet Pg. 599 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 8 2025/08/15 Table 6. [1978-1991] Air Sealing at the Ceiling (CARE) Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost First-year Utility Savings Lifecycle NPV Savings 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $1,963 $18 ($931) ($1,442) ($1,135) CZ02 PGE $1,963 $10 ($1,364) ($1,658) ($1,477) CZ03 PGE $1,963 $8 ($1,480) ($1,734) ($1,598) CZ04 PGE $1,963 $12 ($1,330) ($1,627) ($1,446) CZ04 CPAU $1,963 $0 ($1,330) ($1,963) ($1,963) CZ05 PGE $1,963 $8 ($1,447) ($1,719) ($1,575) CZ05 PGE/SCG $1,963 $7 ($1,447) ($1,746) ($1,619) CZ06 SCE/SCG $1,963 ($0) ($1,830) ($1,959) ($1,933) CZ07 SDGE $1,963 ($2) ($1,896) ($2,003) ($1,964) CZ08 SCE/SCG $1,963 $3 ($1,797) ($1,886) ($1,848) CZ09 SCE/SCG $1,963 $4 ($1,747) ($1,859) ($1,813) CZ10 SCE/SCG $1,963 $7 ($1,663) ($1,790) ($1,736) CZ10 SDGE $1,963 $10 ($1,663) ($1,710) ($1,641) CZ11 PGE $1,963 $18 ($1,264) ($1,500) ($1,325) CZ12 PGE $1,963 $12 ($1,380) ($1,631) ($1,469) CZ12 SMUD/PGE $1,963 $8 ($1,380) ($1,716) ($1,558) CZ13 PGE $1,963 $16 ($1,364) ($1,545) ($1,411) CZ14 SCE/SCG $1,963 $16 ($1,230) ($1,545) ($1,378) CZ14 SDGE $1,963 $20 ($1,230) ($1,422) ($1,233) CZ15 SCE/SCG $1,963 $22 ($1,463) ($1,460) ($1,410) CZ16 PGE $1,963 $16 ($1,014) ($1,491) ($1,211) Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 186  Packet Pg. 600 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 9 2025/08/15 Table 7. [1991-2010] Air Sealing at the Ceiling (CARE) Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost First-year Utility Savings Lifecycle NPV Savings 2025 LSC NPV On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $1,963 $11 ($1,314) ($1,642) ($1,452) CZ02 PGE $1,963 $7 ($1,530) ($1,749) ($1,625) CZ03 PGE $1,963 $6 ($1,613) ($1,793) ($1,693) CZ04 PGE $1,963 $8 ($1,530) ($1,729) ($1,609) CZ04 CPAU $1,963 $0 ($1,530) ($1,963) ($1,963) CZ05 PGE $1,963 $5 ($1,613) ($1,804) ($1,708) CZ05 PGE/SCG $1,963 $5 ($1,613) ($1,827) ($1,747) CZ06 SCE/SCG $1,963 $1 ($1,863) ($1,940) ($1,920) CZ07 SDGE $1,963 $0 ($1,896) ($1,944) ($1,918) CZ08 SCE/SCG $1,963 $2 ($1,830) ($1,905) ($1,879) CZ09 SCE/SCG $1,963 $2 ($1,780) ($1,908) ($1,878) CZ10 SCE/SCG $1,963 $4 ($1,763) ($1,855) ($1,819) CZ10 SDGE $1,963 $6 ($1,763) ($1,805) ($1,758) CZ11 PGE $1,963 $10 ($1,530) ($1,685) ($1,572) CZ12 PGE $1,963 $7 ($1,580) ($1,759) ($1,654) CZ12 SMUD/PGE $1,963 $5 ($1,580) ($1,802) ($1,700) CZ13 PGE $1,963 $9 ($1,580) ($1,732) ($1,644) CZ14 SCE/SCG $1,963 $9 ($1,530) ($1,722) ($1,615) CZ14 SDGE $1,963 $11 ($1,530) ($1,652) ($1,529) CZ15 SCE/SCG $1,963 $12 ($1,680) ($1,696) ($1,667) CZ16 PGE $1,963 $11 ($1,314) ($1,645) ($1,454) Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 187  Packet Pg. 601 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 10 2025/08/15 3 Lighting Measures LED lighting and exterior lighting control measures were previously evaluated in the 2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Residential Building Upgrades study. These measures are not included in the 2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades study, but have been re-evaluated and included in this memo. The updated analysis follows the same methodology as the 2019 study, but with updated costs for equipment and updated utility rates. The three measures evaluated are LED lighting, exterior photosensor, and LED lighting plus photosensor. Table 8 through Table 10 show the results for the different lighting measures evaluated. Each measure is explained in more detail below. LED Lighting: Replace screw-in (A-based for lamps) incandescent lamps and compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) with light-emitting diode (LED) A-lamps. This analysis was conducted external to the energy model and evaluated replacement of a 13 W CFL lamp with an 9.6 W LED lamp operating 620 hours annually. Annual hour estimates were based on whole building average hours of operation from a 2010 lighting study by KEMA (KEMA, 2010). Lifetime assumptions were 10,000 hours for CFLs and 25,000 hours for LED lamps. For incremental cost calculations it was assumed CFLs have a lifetime of 15 years, are installed five years prior to the retrofit, and would need to be replaced at year ten and 25. Exterior Lighting Controls/Photosensor: Evaluation of exterior lighting controls was completed on a per-luminaire basis external to the energy model and assumes a screw-in photosensor control is installed in outdoor lighting luminaires. Energy savings of 12.1 kWh per year was applied based on analysis done by the Consortium for Energy Efficiency, assuming LED lamps, 2.6 hours per day of operation, and that photosensor controls reduce operating hours on average 20 percent each day (CEE, 2014). Energy savings will be higher for incandescent or CFL luminaires. Exterior Lighting Controls/Photosensor+LED: An additional evaluation was completed for exterior lighting controls on a per-luminaire basis external to the energy model and assumes a screw-in photosensor control is installed in outdoor lighting luminaires and incandescent lamps CFLs are replaced with light-emitting diode (LED) A-lamps. Energy savings of 14.3 kWh per year was applied based on the sum of the LED lighting and Exterior Lighting Controls with Photosensor kWh energy savings. For the measures including a LED, a cost of $3.49 for LED dimmable A19 lamp 60 W equivalent is used. A cost of $1.74 is used for an equivalent CFL product which was used to estimate total replacement costs at years 10 and 25. Costs are based on a single LED lamp replacement. For the photosensor, an incremental cost of $12.62, based on a screw-in photosensor control, was obtained from an on-line product search of available products. A five-year lifetime for this type of control was assumed. Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 188  Packet Pg. 602 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 11 2025/08/15 Table 8. [All Vintages] LED Lamp vs. CFL Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility Measure Cost Electricity Savings First Year Utility Cost Savings Customer On-Bill Customer On-Bill B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE $1.75 2.2 $0.77 10.05 $15.82 10.58 $16.74 CZ02 PGE $1.75 2.2 $0.86 11.26 $17.94 11.85 $18.98 CZ03 PGE $1.75 2.2 $0.78 10.14 $15.99 10.68 $16.92 CZ04 PGE $1.75 2.2 $0.80 10.39 $16.42 10.94 $17.38 CZ04 CPAU $1.75 2.2 $0.41 5.32 $7.56 5.60 $8.05 CZ05 PGE $1.75 2.2 $0.78 10.14 $15.99 10.67 $16.92 CZ05 PGE/SCG $1.75 2.2 $0.78 10.14 $15.99 10.67 $16.92 CZ06 SCE/SCG $1.75 2.2 $0.66 8.44 $13.01 8.99 $13.97 CZ07 SDGE $1.75 2.2 $0.95 13.15 $21.24 13.03 $21.04 CZ08 SCE/SCG $1.75 2.2 $0.74 9.51 $14.89 10.14 $15.98 CZ09 SCE/SCG $1.75 2.2 $0.71 9.17 $14.29 9.77 $15.33 CZ10 SCE/SCG $1.75 2.2 $0.73 9.38 $14.65 9.99 $15.72 CZ10 SDGE $1.75 2.2 $1.07 14.86 $24.24 14.74 $24.02 CZ11 PGE $1.75 2.2 $0.85 11.05 $17.57 11.63 $18.59 CZ12 PGE $1.75 2.2 $0.79 10.32 $16.29 10.86 $17.24 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $1.75 2.2 $0.47 6.08 $8.88 6.40 $9.44 CZ13 PGE $1.75 2.2 $0.86 11.27 $17.96 11.86 $19.00 CZ14 SCE/SCG $1.75 2.2 $0.74 9.58 $15.00 10.21 $16.10 CZ14 SDGE $1.75 2.2 $1.06 14.68 $23.93 14.56 $23.71 CZ15 SCE/SCG $1.75 2.2 $0.78 10.01 $15.75 10.66 $16.90 CZ16 PGE $1.75 2.2 $0.77 9.98 $15.71 10.51 $16.62 Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 189  Packet Pg. 603 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 12 2025/08/15 Table 9. [All Vintages] Exterior Photosensor Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility Measure Cost Electricity Savings First Year Utility Cost Savings Customer On-Bill Customer On-Bill B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE $54.03 12.1 $4.16 1.75 $40.75 1.85 $45.74 CZ02 PGE $54.03 12.1 $4.16 1.75 $40.75 1.85 $45.74 CZ03 PGE $54.03 12.1 $4.16 1.75 $40.75 1.85 $45.74 CZ04 PGE $54.03 12.1 $4.16 1.75 $40.75 1.85 $45.74 CZ04 CPAU $54.03 12.1 $2.12 0.89 ($5.69) 0.94 ($3.15) CZ05 PGE $54.03 12.1 $4.16 1.75 $40.75 1.85 $45.74 CZ05 PGE/SCG $54.03 12.1 $4.16 1.75 $40.75 1.85 $45.74 CZ06 SCE/SCG $54.03 12.1 $3.48 1.45 $24.36 1.55 $29.48 CZ07 SDGE $54.03 12.1 $5.07 2.27 $68.58 2.25 $67.53 CZ08 SCE/SCG $54.03 12.1 $3.48 1.45 $24.36 1.55 $29.48 CZ09 SCE/SCG $54.03 12.1 $3.48 1.45 $24.36 1.55 $29.48 CZ10 SCE/SCG $54.03 12.1 $3.48 1.45 $24.36 1.55 $29.48 CZ10 SDGE $54.03 12.1 $5.07 2.27 $68.58 2.25 $67.53 CZ11 PGE $54.03 12.1 $4.16 1.75 $40.75 1.85 $45.74 CZ12 PGE $54.03 12.1 $4.16 1.75 $40.75 1.85 $45.74 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $54.03 12.1 $1.46 0.62 ($20.73) 0.65 ($18.98) CZ13 PGE $54.03 12.1 $4.16 1.75 $40.75 1.85 $45.74 CZ14 SCE/SCG $54.03 12.1 $3.48 1.45 $24.36 1.55 $29.48 CZ14 SDGE $54.03 12.1 $5.07 2.27 $68.58 2.25 $67.53 CZ15 SCE/SCG $54.03 12.1 $3.48 1.45 $24.36 1.55 $29.48 CZ16 PGE $54.03 12.1 $4.16 1.75 $40.75 1.85 $45.74 Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 190  Packet Pg. 604 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 13 2025/08/15 Table 10. [All Vintages] LED and Photosensor Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility Measure Cost Electricity Savings First Year Utility Cost Savings Customer On-Bill Customer On-Bill High B/C Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE $55.77 14.3 $4.93 2.01 $56.57 2.12 $62.48 CZ02 PGE $55.77 14.3 $5.02 2.05 $58.70 2.16 $64.72 CZ03 PGE $55.77 14.3 $4.94 2.02 $56.74 2.12 $62.66 CZ04 PGE $55.77 14.3 $4.95 2.03 $57.17 2.13 $63.12 CZ04 CPAU $55.77 14.3 $2.53 1.03 $1.87 1.09 $4.90 CZ05 PGE $55.77 14.3 $4.94 2.02 $56.74 2.12 $62.66 CZ05 PGE/SCG $55.77 14.3 $4.94 2.02 $56.74 2.12 $62.66 CZ06 SCE/SCG $55.77 14.3 $4.13 1.67 $37.37 1.78 $43.45 CZ07 SDGE $55.77 14.3 $6.02 2.61 $89.82 2.59 $88.57 CZ08 SCE/SCG $55.77 14.3 $4.22 1.70 $39.25 1.82 $45.46 CZ09 SCE/SCG $55.77 14.3 $4.19 1.69 $38.65 1.80 $44.82 CZ10 SCE/SCG $55.77 14.3 $4.21 1.70 $39.01 1.81 $45.20 CZ10 SDGE $55.77 14.3 $6.14 2.66 $92.82 2.64 $91.55 CZ11 PGE $55.77 14.3 $5.00 2.05 $58.33 2.15 $64.33 CZ12 PGE $55.77 14.3 $4.95 2.02 $57.05 2.13 $62.98 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $55.77 14.3 $1.93 0.79 ($11.85) 0.83 ($9.54) CZ13 PGE $55.77 14.3 $5.02 2.05 $58.71 2.16 $64.73 CZ14 SCE/SCG $55.77 14.3 $4.22 1.71 $39.37 1.82 $45.58 CZ14 SDGE $55.77 14.3 $6.13 2.66 $92.51 2.64 $91.24 CZ15 SCE/SCG $55.77 14.3 $4.26 1.72 $40.12 1.83 $46.38 CZ16 PGE $55.77 14.3 $4.92 2.01 $56.46 2.12 $62.36 Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 191  Packet Pg. 605 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 14 2025/08/15 4 Water Heating Package This package includes the following: • R-6 water heater blanket • R-3 hot water pipe insulation • Low flow fixtures: two low flow showerheads and three sink aerators. This analysis assumes the homeowner installs these measures themselves and therefore no labor costs. Costs are based on Home Depot prices from August of 2025. The water heater package is evaluated over a 15-year analysis period and assumes the modest gas escalation rate. Table 11. [All Vintages] Water Heating Package Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility Measure Cost Gas Savings (therms) Customer On-Bill First Year Utility Cost Savings B/C Ratio NPV CZ01 PGE $125.68 14.69 $31.11 3.96 $371.76 CZ02 PGE $125.68 15.60 $35.20 4.48 $437.15 CZ03 PGE $125.68 15.70 $31.43 4.00 $376.88 CZ04 PGE $125.68 16.05 $32.62 4.15 $395.78 CZ04 CPAU $125.68 16.05 $31.99 4.07 $385.77 CZ05 PGE $125.68 15.83 $31.37 3.99 $375.88 CZ05 PGE/SCG $125.68 15.83 $28.29 3.60 $326.59 CZ06 SCE/SCG $125.68 16.67 $29.18 3.71 $340.84 CZ07 SDGE $125.68 16.75 $37.25 4.74 $469.81 CZ08 SCE/SCG $125.68 16.78 $29.36 3.74 $343.80 CZ09 SCE/SCG $125.68 16.66 $29.27 3.72 $342.34 CZ10 SCE/SCG $125.68 16.58 $28.99 3.69 $337.73 CZ10 SDGE $125.68 16.58 $37.77 4.80 $478.19 CZ11 PGE $125.68 15.87 $32.96 4.19 $401.32 CZ12 PGE $125.68 15.90 $32.85 4.18 $399.47 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $125.68 15.90 $32.85 4.18 $399.47 CZ13 PGE $125.68 16.32 $33.00 4.20 $401.93 CZ14 SCE/SCG $125.68 16.11 $29.79 3.79 $350.57 CZ14 SDGE $125.68 16.11 $39.23 4.99 $501.49 CZ15 SCE/SCG $125.68 17.40 $30.16 3.84 $356.50 CZ16 PGE $125.68 15.14 $31.75 4.04 $381.87 Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 192  Packet Pg. 606 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 15 2025/08/15 5 PV The results for 3 kW PV have been updated from the 2022 study to remove the federal solar tax credit from the cost-effectiveness calculations. The removal of the solar tax credit has a substantial impact on many climate zones across all vintages and will impact the FlexPath. The following describes the impacts and changes to cost-effectiveness from the 2022 study. These observations are utilizing standard rates. Previously, with the solar tax credit, the 3 kW PV measure in the pre-1978 vintage was on-bill cost effective in all climate zones using both the modest and high gas escalation rates. However, with the credit removed, Climate Zones 1-3, 5, 6, and 12 are no longer cost effective on-bill for both the modest and high gas escalations. Previously for the 1978-1991 vintage the only cases that were not on-bill cost effective were climate zones 2 and 6 utilizing the modest gas escalation. Now, with the credit removed, many more climate zones are no longer cost effective. Using the modest gas escalation, climate zones 1-3, 5, 6, 12, and 16 are not cost effective on-bill. Using the high gas escalation, climate zones 1-3, 5, 6, and 12 (SMUD) are not cost effective on-bill. Previously for the 1992-2010 vintage the following cases were not cost effective on-bill: climate zones 1-3, 5, and 6 utilizing the modest gas escalation and climate zone 6 using the high gas escalation. With the credit removed an increased number of climate zones are no longer cost effective. Using the modest gas escalation, climate zones 1-3, 4 (PGE) 5-9, 10 (SCE/SCG),12, and 16 are not cost effective on-bill. Using the high gas escalation, climate zones 1-3, 4 (PGE), 5-7, 9, 12, and 16 are not cost effective on-bill. The cost-effectiveness results are presented in Table 12 through Table 1717. Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 193  Packet Pg. 607 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 16 2025/08/15 Table 12. [Pre-1978] 3 kW PV without Solar Tax Credit (Std) Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost On-Bill Savings On-Bill B/C Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill B/C High Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $13,726 0.80 ($3,074) 0.85 ($2,410) CZ02 PGE $13,726 0.80 ($3,072) 0.85 ($2,409) CZ03 PGE $13,726 0.77 ($3,567) 0.81 ($2,930) CZ04 PGE $13,726 1.11 $1,652 1.16 $2,564 CZ04 CPAU $13,726 1.38 $5,983 1.45 $7,123 CZ05 PGE $13,726 0.78 ($3,431) 0.82 ($2,786) CZ05 PGE/SCG $13,726 0.78 ($3,431) 0.82 ($2,786) CZ06 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.87 ($2,118) 0.92 ($1,231) CZ07 SDGE $13,726 1.31 $4,886 1.30 $4,711 CZ08 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.30 $4,655 1.38 $5,984 CZ09 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.18 $2,821 1.26 $4,030 CZ10 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.29 $4,622 1.38 $5,948 CZ10 SDGE $13,726 1.99 $15,550 1.97 $15,284 CZ11 PGE $13,726 1.55 $8,684 1.64 $9,967 CZ12 PGE $13,726 1.07 $1,117 1.13 $2,002 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $13,726 0.93 ($1,109) 0.98 ($342) CZ13 PGE $13,726 1.80 $12,597 1.90 $14,085 CZ14 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.58 $9,098 1.68 $10,717 CZ14 SDGE $13,726 2.15 $17,983 2.13 $17,695 CZ15 SCE/SCG $13,726 2.24 $19,477 2.39 $21,774 CZ16 PGE $13,726 1.04 $579 1.09 $1,435 Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 194  Packet Pg. 608 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 17 2025/08/15 Table 13. [1978-1991] 3 kW PV without Solar Tax Credit (Std) Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost On-Bill Savings On-Bill B/C Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill B/C High Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $13,726 0.77 ($3,570) 0.81 ($2,932) CZ02 PGE $13,726 0.71 ($4,549) 0.75 ($3,963) CZ03 PGE $13,726 0.74 ($4,106) 0.78 ($3,497) CZ04 PGE $13,726 1.00 $7 1.05 $833 CZ04 CPAU $13,726 1.35 $5,517 1.42 $6,633 CZ05 PGE $13,726 0.75 ($3,985) 0.79 ($3,369) CZ05 PGE/SCG $13,726 0.75 ($3,985) 0.79 ($3,369) CZ06 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.73 ($4,249) 0.78 ($3,501) CZ07 SDGE $13,726 1.17 $2,623 1.16 $2,466 CZ08 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.20 $3,086 1.27 $4,313 CZ09 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.09 $1,487 1.17 $2,609 CZ10 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.18 $2,884 1.26 $4,097 CZ10 SDGE $13,726 1.85 $13,356 1.84 $13,108 CZ11 PGE $13,726 1.41 $6,420 1.48 $7,583 CZ12 PGE $13,726 0.97 ($512) 1.02 $287 CZ12 SMUD/PGE $13,726 0.93 ($1,109) 0.98 ($342) CZ13 PGE $13,726 1.63 $9,953 1.72 $11,302 CZ14 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.42 $6,655 1.52 $8,115 CZ14 SDGE $13,726 2.00 $15,653 1.98 $15,386 CZ15 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.94 $14,686 2.06 $16,670 CZ16 PGE $13,726 0.95 ($737) 1.00 $49 Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 195  Packet Pg. 609 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 18 2025/08/15 Table 1414. [1992-2010] 3 kW PV without Solar Tax Credit (Std) Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost On-Bill Savings On-Bill B/C Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill B/C High Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $13,726 0.71 ($4,475) 0.75 ($3,885) CZ02 PGE $13,726 0.73 ($4,198) 0.77 ($3,593) CZ03 PGE $13,726 0.72 ($4,411) 0.76 ($3,817) CZ04 PGE $13,726 0.80 ($3,121) 0.84 ($2,459) CZ04 CPAU $13,726 1.16 $2,477 1.22 $3,433 CZ05 PGE $13,726 0.73 ($4,299) 0.76 ($3,700) CZ05 PGE/SCG $13,726 0.73 ($4,299) 0.76 ($3,700) CZ06 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.61 ($6,143) 0.65 ($5,520) CZ07 SDGE $13,726 0.94 ($931) 0.93 ($1,057) CZ08 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.98 ($242) 1.05 $767 CZ09 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.88 ($1,890) 0.94 ($988) CZ10 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.96 ($676) 1.02 $305 CZ10 SDGE $13,726 1.51 $8,054 1.50 $7,852 CZ11 PGE $13,726 1.10 $1,569 1.16 $2,477 CZ12 PGE $13,726 0.80 ($3,169) 0.84 ($2,510) CZ12 SMUD/PGE $13,726 0.93 ($1,109) 0.98 ($342) CZ13 PGE $13,726 1.27 $4,170 1.33 $5,215 CZ14 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.15 $2,295 1.22 $3,470 CZ14 SDGE $13,726 1.66 $10,386 1.65 $10,164 CZ15 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.37 $5,788 1.46 $7,191 CZ16 PGE $13,726 0.81 ($3,006) 0.85 ($2,338) Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 196  Packet Pg. 610 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 19 2025/08/15 Table 1515. [Pre-1978] 3 kW PV without Solar Tax Credit (CARE) Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost On-Bill Savings On-Bill B/C Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill B/C High Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $13,726 0.62 ($6,030) 0.65 ($5,522) CZ02 PGE $13,726 0.64 ($5,707) 0.67 ($5,182) CZ03 PGE $13,726 0.60 ($6,344) 0.63 ($5,853) CZ04 PGE $13,726 0.83 ($2,725) 0.87 ($2,042) CZ05 PGE $13,726 0.60 ($6,266) 0.63 ($5,771) CZ05 PGE/SCG $13,726 0.60 ($6,266) 0.63 ($5,771) CZ06 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.71 ($4,578) 0.75 ($3,852) CZ07 SDGE $13,726 0.71 ($4,508) 0.71 ($4,604) CZ08 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.97 ($483) 1.03 $510 CZ09 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.90 ($1,530) 0.96 ($605) CZ10 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.97 ($465) 1.03 $530 CZ10 SDGE $13,726 1.19 $3,032 1.18 $2,872 CZ11 PGE $13,726 1.07 $1,150 1.13 $2,036 CZ12 PGE $13,726 0.79 ($3,324) 0.83 ($2,673) CZ13 PGE $13,726 1.23 $3,587 1.29 $4,601 CZ14 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.17 $2,662 1.25 $3,861 CZ14 SDGE $13,726 1.28 $4,436 1.27 $4,264 CZ15 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.57 $8,962 1.67 $10,572 CZ16 PGE $13,726 0.79 ($3,342) 0.83 ($2,692) Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 197  Packet Pg. 611 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 20 2025/08/15 Table 1616. [1978-1991] 3 kW PV without Solar Tax Credit (CARE) Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost On-Bill Savings On-Bill B/C Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill B/C High Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $13,726 0.60 ($6,343) 0.63 ($5,851) CZ02 PGE $13,726 0.56 ($6,845) 0.59 ($6,380) CZ03 PGE $13,726 0.57 ($6,757) 0.60 ($6,287) CZ04 PGE $13,726 0.76 ($3,715) 0.80 ($3,085) CZ05 PGE $13,726 0.57 ($6,686) 0.60 ($6,213) CZ05 PGE/SCG $13,726 0.57 ($6,686) 0.60 ($6,213) CZ06 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.61 ($6,195) 0.64 ($5,575) CZ07 SDGE $13,726 0.62 ($6,004) 0.61 ($6,087) CZ08 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.91 ($1,483) 0.96 ($555) CZ09 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.85 ($2,368) 0.90 ($1,497) CZ10 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.90 ($1,597) 0.96 ($676) CZ10 SDGE $13,726 1.10 $1,560 1.09 $1,413 CZ11 PGE $13,726 0.98 ($295) 1.03 $515 CZ12 PGE $13,726 0.72 ($4,320) 0.76 ($3,722) CZ13 PGE $13,726 1.12 $1,893 1.18 $2,818 CZ14 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.07 $1,051 1.14 $2,144 CZ14 SDGE $13,726 1.18 $2,878 1.17 $2,719 CZ15 SCE/SCG $13,726 1.37 $5,735 1.45 $7,135 CZ16 PGE $13,726 0.74 ($4,126) 0.78 ($3,517) Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 198  Packet Pg. 612 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 21 2025/08/15 Table 1717. [1992-2010] 3 kW PV without Solar Tax Credit (CARE) Climate Zone Electric/ Gas Utility First Incremental Cost On-Bill Savings On-Bill B/C Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV Modest Gas Escalation On-Bill B/C High Gas Escalation On-Bill NPV High Gas Escalation CZ01 PGE $13,726 0.56 ($6,963) 0.59 ($6,504) CZ02 PGE $13,726 0.26 ($11,640) 0.20 ($12,611) CZ03 PGE $13,726 0.55 ($6,997) 0.58 ($6,540) CZ04 PGE $13,726 0.62 ($5,900) 0.66 ($5,385) CZ05 PGE $13,726 0.56 ($6,932) 0.59 ($6,471) CZ05 PGE/SCG $13,726 0.56 ($6,932) 0.59 ($6,471) CZ06 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.51 ($7,652) 0.55 ($7,127) CZ07 SDGE $13,726 0.48 ($8,115) 0.48 ($8,180) CZ08 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.78 ($3,430) 0.83 ($2,629) CZ09 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.72 ($4,462) 0.76 ($3,728) CZ10 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.76 ($3,748) 0.81 ($2,968) CZ10 SDGE $13,726 0.86 ($2,225) 0.85 ($2,340) CZ11 PGE $13,726 0.79 ($3,259) 0.83 ($2,605) CZ12 PGE $13,726 0.63 ($5,876) 0.66 ($5,359) CZ13 PGE $13,726 0.89 ($1,678) 0.94 ($941) CZ14 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.89 ($1,676) 0.95 ($761) CZ14 SDGE $13,726 0.95 ($838) 0.94 ($964) CZ15 SCE/SCG $13,726 0.99 ($142) 1.06 $873 CZ16 PGE $13,726 0.63 ($5,850) 0.66 ($5,333) Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 199  Packet Pg. 613 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 22 2025/08/15 6 References California Energy Commission. (2017). Rooftop Solar PV System. Measure number: 2019- Res-PV-D Prepared by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=221366 California Energy Commission. (2021b). Final Express Terms for the Proposed Revisions to the 2022 Energy Code Reference Appendices. Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/DocketLog.aspx?docketnumber=21-BSTD-01 California Energy Commission. (2023). 2025 Energy code Hourly Factors. Retrieved from https://www.energy.ca.gov/files/2025-energy-code-hourly-factors California Energy Commission. (2023). Draft 2025 Energy Code Express Terms. Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=252915&DocumentContentId=88 051 California Public Utilities Commission. (2021a). Utility Costs and Affordability of the Grid of the Future: An Evaluation of Electric Costs, Rates, and Equity Issues Pursuant to P.U. Code Section 913.1. Retrieved from https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc- website/divisions/office-of-governmental-affairs-division/reports/2021/senate-bill-695- report-2021-and-en-banc-whitepaper_final_04302021.pdf California Public Utilities Commission. (2021b). Database for Energy-Efficient resources (DEER2021 Update). Retrieved April 13, 2021, from http://www.deeresources.com/index.php/deer-versions/deer2021 E-CFR. (2020). https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi- bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt1 0.3.431&r=PART&ty=HTML#se10.3.431_197. Retrieved from Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi- bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=8de751f141aaa1c1c9833b36156faf67&mc=true&n=pt1 0.3.431&r=PART&ty=HTML#se10.3.431_197 Statewide CASE Team. (2020). Residential Energy Savings and Process Improvements for Additions and Alterations. Statewide CASE Team. (2023). Multifamily Domestic Hot Water. Retrieved from https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2025_T24_CASE- Report-_MF-DHW-Final-1.pdf Statewide CASE Team. (2023). Residential HVAC PErformance. Retrieved from https://title24stakeholders.com/wp- content/uploads/2023/11/Revised_2025_T24_Final-CASE-Report-RES-HVAC- Performance.pdf Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 200  Packet Pg. 614 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 23 2025/08/15 Statewide Reach Codes Team. (2021). 2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Residential Buidling Upgrades. Retrieved from https://localenergycodes.com/content/resources Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 201  Packet Pg. 615 of 690  2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades 24 2025/08/15 -effectiveness other code development and implementation Visit LocalEnergyCodes.com to Contact info@localenergycodes.com - Explore The Cost-Effectiveness is a free resource to Follow us on Linkedin Revision: 1.0 Item 19 Attachment D - Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code Existing Single Family Building Upgrades        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 202  Packet Pg. 616 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 1 0290178_20250826_ms29 Ordinance No. Emergency Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 16.04 (California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 & 2) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Add New Local Amendments and Associated Findings Related to Certificates of Occupancy and Definitions The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. Every three years, a new version of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC, or Title 24) is published. Local jurisdictions may enforce the model code as published or, subject to certain requirements, adopt local amendments. B. Most recently, the City adopted the 2022 edition of the California Building Code with local amendments pursuant to Ordinance 5564. The purpose of this ordinance is to make additional local amendments to the Building Code to clarify types of projects exempted from Use and Occupancy certificates and make clarifying edits to the definitions section. C. The changes shown in this ordinance are relative to the existing provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) as adopted by Ordinance 5564. The City’s local amendments are more restrictive building standards than those provided in the California Building Standards Code. D. Recent legislation, Assembly Bill (AB) 130 (2025), limits local jurisdictions’ authority to amend the California Building Standards Code beginning October 1, 2025, and ending June 1, 2031. The Council desires to make these amendments effective before the AB 130 moratorium begins. E. The Council declares that this emergency ordinance, which is effective immediately, is necessary as an emergency measure to preserve the public peace, health, or safety by ensuring that the City may enforce its local amendments to the California Building Code during the AB 130 moratorium. F. California Health and Safety Code sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 requires that the City, in order to make changes or modifications in the requirements contained in the California Building Standards Code on the basis of local conditions, make express finding that such modifications or changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. The required findings are attached to this ordinance as Exhibit A. SECTION 2. Section 16.04.190 of Chapter 16.04 (California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 & 2) of Title 16 (Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (additions Item 19 Attachment E - Emergency Ordinance Adopting Administrative Amendments to Chapter 16.04, California Building Code        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 203  Packet Pg. 617 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 2 0290178_20250826_ms29 underlined and deletions struck-through, bracketed ellipses indicate text of the California Building Code, 2022 Edition, that has been adopted as amended by Ordinance 5564 but is omitted for brevity): 16.04.190 Section 111.1 Use and occupancy. 111.1 Use and occupancy. A building or structure shall not be used or occupied, and a change in the existing occupancy of a building or structure or portion thereof shall not be made, until the chief building official has issued a certificate of occupancy therefor as provided herein. Issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not be construed as an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction. Exception: Certificates of occupancy are not required or issued for: 1. Work exempted from permits under Section 105.2 2. Group R – Division 2, 3 occupancies Division 3 and Group U occupancies located on a single-family residential/agricultural lot. 3. Group U occupancies accessory to R3 and R2 occupancies. Non- residential “core and shell” or similar construction (exterior envelope and structural framework) without finalized tenant improvement(s). 4. Site development without a building or buildings as defined in section 202. […] SECTION 3. Section 16.04.235 (Section 202 Definitions) is added to Chapter 16.04 (California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 & 2) of Title 16 Building Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows (additions underlined, bracketed ellipses indicate text of the California Building Code, 2022 Edition, that has been adopted without amendment but is omitted for brevity): 16.04.235 Section 202 Definitions […] FLOOR AREA, GROSS. The floor area within the inside perimeter of the exterior walls of the building under consideration, exclusive of vent shafts and courts, without deduction for corridors, stairways, ramps, closets, the thickness of interior walls, columns or other features. The floor area of a building, or portion thereof, not provided with surrounding exterior walls shall be the usable area under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above. The gross floor area shall not include shafts with no openings or interior courts. For the purposes of Title 18 (Zoning), the definition of “gross floor area” in Section 18.04.030 shall apply. Item 19 Attachment E - Emergency Ordinance Adopting Administrative Amendments to Chapter 16.04, California Building Code        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 204  Packet Pg. 618 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 3 0290178_20250826_ms29 […] FLOOR AREA, NET. The actual occupied area not including unoccupied accessory areas such as corridors, stairways, ramps, toilet rooms, mechanical rooms and closets. For the purposes of Title 18 (Zoning), the definition of “net floor area” in Section 18.04.030 shall apply. […] SECTION 4. The Council adopts the findings for local amendments to the California Building Code, 2022 Edition, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 5. The Council finds that this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the amendments herein adopted will have a significant effect on the environment. // // // // // // // // // // // // // Item 19 Attachment E - Emergency Ordinance Adopting Administrative Amendments to Chapter 16.04, California Building Code        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 205  Packet Pg. 619 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 4 0290178_20250826_ms29 SECTION 6. Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.270, this ordinance shall be effective immediately upon adoption if passed by a vote of four-fifths of the council members present. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Attorney or Designee City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning and Development Services ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services Item 19 Attachment E - Emergency Ordinance Adopting Administrative Amendments to Chapter 16.04, California Building Code        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 206  Packet Pg. 620 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 5 0290178_20250826_ms29 Exhibit A FINDINGS FOR LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, TITLE 24, PART 2, VOLUMES 1 AND 2 Section 17958 of the California Health and Safety Code provides that the City may make changes to the provisions of the California Building Standards Code. Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code require that for each proposed local change to those provisions of the California Building Standards Code which regulate buildings used for human habitation, the City Council must make findings supporting its determination that each such local change is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Local building regulations having the effect of amending the uniform codes, which were adopted by the City prior to November 23, 1970, were unaffected by the regulations of Sections 17958, 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code. Therefore, amendments to the uniform codes which were adopted by the City Council prior to November 23, 1970 and have been carried through from year to year without significant change, need no required findings. Also, amendments to provisions not regulating buildings used for human habitation do not require findings. Code: California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2 Chapter(s), Section(s), Table(s), Appendices Title Added Amended Deleted Justification (See keys below) Ch. 1, Div. II, Part 2, Section 111.1 Use and occupancy  A Ch. 2, Section 202 Definitions  A Key to Justification for Amendments to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations A This is an administrative amendment to clarify and establish civil and administrative procedures, regulations, or rules to enforce and administer the activities by the Palo Alto Building Inspection Department. These administrative amendments do not need to meet HSC 18941.5/17958/13869 per HSC 18909(c). C This amendment is justified on the basis of a local climatic condition. The seasonal climatic conditions during the late summer and fall create severe fire hazards to the public health and welfare in the City. The hot, dry weather frequently results in wild land fires on the brush covered slopes west of Interstate 280. The aforementioned conditions combined with the geological characteristics of the Item 19 Attachment E - Emergency Ordinance Adopting Administrative Amendments to Chapter 16.04, California Building Code        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 207  Packet Pg. 621 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 6 0290178_20250826_ms29 hills within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Building Standards Code is required. Natural gas combustion and gas appliances emit a wide range of air pollutants, such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx, including nitrogen dioxide (NO2)), particulate matter (PM), and formaldehyde, which according to a UCLA Study, have been linked to various acute and chronic health effects, and additionally exceed levels set by national and California-based ambient air quality standards. The burning of fossil fuels used in the generation of electric power and heating of buildings contributes to climate change, which could result in rises in sea level, including in San Francisco Bay, that could put at risk Palo Alto homes and businesses, public facilities, and Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway), particularly the mapped Flood Hazard areas of the City. Energy efficiency is a key component in reducing GHG emissions, and construction of more energy efficient buildings can help Palo Alto reduce its share of the GHG emissions that contribute to climate change. All-electric new buildings benefit the health, safety, and welfare, of Palo Alto and its residents. Requiring all-electric construction, without gas infrastructure will reduce the amount of greenhouse gas produced in Palo Alto and will contribute to reducing the impact of climate change and the associated risks. Due to decrease in annual rain fall, Palo Alto experiences the effect of drought and water saving more than some other communities in California. Embodied carbon of concrete is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and this amendment includes a requirement to use low-carbon concrete. Providing additional capacity for electric vehicle use reduces use of gasoline which is a major contributor to climate change. E Green building enhances the public health and welfare by promoting the environmental and economic health of the City through the design, construction, maintenance, operation and deconstruction of buildings and sites by incorporating green practices into all development. The green provisions in this Chapter are designed to achieve the following goals: (a) Increase energy efficiency in buildings; (b) Reduce the use of natural gas in buildings which improves indoor environmental quality and health; (c) Reduce the use of natural gas which will reduce the natural gas infrastructure and fire risk over time; (d) Reduce the embodied carbon of concrete which reduces greenhouse gas emissions; (e) Increase water and resource conservation; (f) Reduce waste generated by construction and demolition projects; (g) Provide durable buildings that are efficient and economical to own and operate; (h) Promote the health and productivity of residents, workers, and visitors to the city; Item 19 Attachment E - Emergency Ordinance Adopting Administrative Amendments to Chapter 16.04, California Building Code        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 208  Packet Pg. 622 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 7 0290178_20250826_ms29 (i) Recognize and conserve the energy embodied in existing buildings; (j) Increase capacity for use of electric vehicles which reduces greenhouse gas emissions and improves air quality; (k) Encourage alternative transportation; and (l) Reduce disturbance of natural ecosystems. G This amendment is justified on the basis of a local geological condition. The City of Palo Alto is subject to earthquake hazard caused by its proximity to San Andreas fault. This fault runs from Hollister, through the Santa Cruz Mountains, epicenter of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, then on up the San Francisco Peninsula, then offshore at Daly City near Mussel Rock. This is the approximate location of the epicenter of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The other fault is Hayward Fault. This fault is about 74 mi long, situated mainly along the western base of the hills on the east side of San Francisco Bay. Both of these faults are considered major Northern California earthquake faults which may experience rupture at any time. Thus, because the City is within a seismic area which includes these earthquake faults, the modifications and changes cited herein are designed to better limit property damage as a result of seismic activity and to establish criteria for repair of damaged properties following a local emergency. Reduction or eliminating of natural gas infrastructure over time will reduce maintenance costs and fire risk in difficult geological conditions. T The City of Palo Alto topography includes hillsides with narrow and winding access, which makes timely response by fire suppression vehicles difficult. Palo Alto is contiguous with the San Francisco Bay, resulting in a natural receptor for storm and waste water run-off. Also, the City of Palo Alto is located in an area that is potentially susceptible to liquefaction during a major earthquake. The surface condition consists mostly of stiff to dense sandy clay, which is highly plastic and expansive in nature. The aforementioned conditions within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Building Standards Code is warranted. In addition, the reduction or elimination of natural gas infrastructure reduces the likelihood of fire or environmental damage should they become disrupted due to challenging topographic conditions during construction or repair. Item 19 Attachment E - Emergency Ordinance Adopting Administrative Amendments to Chapter 16.04, California Building Code        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 209  Packet Pg. 623 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 1 0290179_20250826_ms29 Ordinance No. ____ Emergency Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 16.17 (California Energy Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code, Along With Local Amendments Thereto, to Add FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirements. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. A. The City of Palo Alto adopted a Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, or S/CAP, to meet the City's stated goal of "80 x 30": reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2030. B. The S/CAP outlines goals and key actions in eight areas, one of which is energy and more specifically, energy efficiency and electrification. The goals for the energy area of the S/CAP are to reduce GHG emissions from the direct use of natural gas in Palo Alto’s building sector by at least 60% below 1990 levels (116,400 MT CO2e reduction) and to modernize the electric grid to support increased electric demand to accommodate state- of-the-art technology. C. One key action the City is taking to accomplish those goals is to use codes and ordinances - such as the energy reach code, green building ordinance, zoning code, or other mandates - to facilitate electrification in both existing buildings and new construction projects where feasible. D. The purpose of this ordinance is to formally adopt California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, 2025 California Energy Code, with local amendments in furtherance of the City of Palo Alto’s S/CAP goals and other sustainability-related goals included in the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The amendments adopted herein are more restrictive than the building standards in Title 24, Part 6. E. Recent legislation, Assembly Bill (AB) 130 (2025), limits local jurisdictions’ authority to amend the California Building Standards Code beginning October 1, 2025, and ending June 1, 2031. The Council desires to adopt these amendments before the AB 130 moratorium begins. The Council may in the future adopt additional amendments to the 2025 California Energy Code that are not subject to, or are exempt from, the AB 130 moratorium. Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 210  Packet Pg. 624 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 2 0290179_20250826_ms29 F. The Council declares that this emergency ordinance is necessary as an emergency measure to preserve the public peace, health, or safety by ensuring that the City may enforce its local amendments to the California Energy Code during the AB 130 moratorium. These local amendments are necessary to mitigate the public health and safety impacts of GHG emissions from natural gas usage by incentivizing energy efficiency and electrification. G. Additionally, the Council finds that these changes or modifications to the California Energy Code are necessary to implement a local code amendment that is adopted to align with a general plan approved on or before June 10, 2025, and that permits mixed-fuel residential construction consistent with federal law while also incentivizing all-electric construction as part of an adopted greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategy. The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan was adopted on November 13, 2017, and amended on December 19, 2022. The relevant policies and goals in the Comprehensive Plan include, but are not limited to: Goal N-7 (“A clean, efficient energy supply that makes use of cost- effective renewable resources”) and Goal N-8 (“Actively support regional efforts to reduce our contribution to climate change while adapting to the effects of climate change on land uses and city services”) contained in the Natural Environment Element and associated policies and programs. These include Policy N-7.4 (“Maximize the conservation and efficient use of energy in new and existing residences and other buildings in Palo Alto”), Program N-7.4.1 (“Continue timely incorporation of State and federal energy efficiency standards and policies in relevant City codes, regulations and procedures and higher local efficiency standards that are cost-effective”), Policy N-7.7: (“Explore a variety of cost-effective ways to reduce natural gas usage in existing and new buildings in Palo Alto in order to reduce associated greenhouse gas emissions”), and especially Policy N- 8.2 (“With guidance from the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) and its subsequent updates and other future planning efforts, reduce greenhouse gas emissions from City operations and from the community”). H. California Health and Safety Code sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 require that the City, in order to make changes or modifications in the requirements contained in the California Building Standards Code on the basis of local conditions, make express finding that such modifications or changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions. The required findings are attached to this ordinance as Exhibit A. SECTION 2. Chapter 16.17 (California Energy Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing in its entirety existing Chapter 16.17 and adopting a new Chapter 16.17 to read as follows: Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 211  Packet Pg. 625 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 3 0290179_20250826_ms29 CHAPTER 16.17 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 24, PART 6 Sections 16.17.010 2025 California Energy Code, Title 24, Part 6 adopted. 16.17.020 Cross ‐ References to California Energy Code 16.17.030 Local Amendments 16.17.040 Administration & Enforcement of 2025 California Energy Code 16.17.050 Violations – Penalties 16.17.060 Subchapter 1 All Occupancies – General Provisions 16.17.070 Reserved 16.17.080 Reserved 16.17.090 Reserved 16.17.100 Reserved 16.17.110 Reserved 16.17.120 Subchapter 7 Single‐family Residential Building – Mandatory Features and Devices 16.17.130 Reserved 16.17.140 Subchapter 9 Single‐Family Residential Buildings—Additions And Alterations To Existing Residential Buildings 16.17.150 Reserved 16.17.160 Reserved 16.17.170 Infeasibility Exemption 16.17.180 Appeal 16.17.010 2025 California Energy Code, Title 24, Part 6 adopted. The California Energy Code, 2025 Edition, Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations together with those omissions, amendments, exceptions and additions thereto, is adopted and hereby incorporated in this Chapter by reference and made a part hereof the same as if fully set forth herein. Except as amended herein, all requirements of the California Energy Code, 2025 Edition, Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations shall apply. Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 212  Packet Pg. 626 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 4 0290179_20250826_ms29 Unless superseded and expressly repealed, references in City of Palo Alto forms, documents and regulations to the chapters and sections of the former editions of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, shall be construed to apply to the corresponding provisions contained within the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2025. Ordinance No. 5627 of the City of Palo Alto and all other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby suspended and expressly repealed. One copy of the California Energy Code, 2025 Edition, has been filed for use and examination of the public in the Office of the Chief Building Official of the City of Palo Alto. 16.17.020 Cross ‐ References to California Energy Code The provisions of this Chapter contain cross-references to the provisions of the California Energy Code, 2025 Edition, in order to facilitate reference and comparison to those provisions. 16.17.030 Local Amendments The provisions of this Chapter shall constitute local amendments to the cross-referenced provisions of the California Energy Code, 2025 Edition, and shall be deemed to replace the cross- referenced sections of said Code with the respective provisions set forth in this Chapter. 16.17.040 Administration & Enforcement of 2025 California Energy Code Administration and enforcement of this code shall be governed by Chapter 1, Division II of the 2025 California Building Code as amended by Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.04. 16.17.050 Violations ‐ Penalties It is unlawful for any person to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter or any permits, conditions, or variances granted under this Chapter. Violators shall be subject to any penalty or penalties authorized by law, including but not limited to: administrative enforcement pursuant to Chapters 1.12 and 1.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; and criminal enforcement pursuant to Chapter 1.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Each separate day or any portion thereof during which any violation of this Chapter occurs or continues shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense. When the chief building official determines that a violation of this Chapter has occurred, the chief building official may record a notice of pendency of code violation with the Office of the County Recorder stating the address and owner of the property involved. When the violation has been corrected, the chief building official shall issue and record a release of the notice of pendency of code violation. 16.17.060 Subchapter 1 All Occupancies – General Provisions Section 100.0 – SCOPE is amended to add new subsections (i) and (j) as follows: (i) Single Family Building Remodel Energy Reach Code - Purpose and Intent. In addition to all requirements of the California Energy Code applicable to Single Family building additions and alterations, the energy efficiency, renewable energy, and electric readiness measures specified in Sections 150.0(w) and 150.0(x) shall be required for Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 213  Packet Pg. 627 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 5 0290179_20250826_ms29 certain single-family additions and alterations. (j) SUBSTANTIAL REMODEL (or “50-50-50” RULE) Any project that affects the removal or replacement of 50% or more linear length of the existing exterior walls of the building, 50% or more linear length of the existing exterior wall where the plate height is raised, or 50% or more of the existing roof framing area is removed or replaced, over a 3-year period is considered a substantial remodel. a. Any permit(s) applied for will trigger a review of a 3-year history of the project. This review will result in determining if a substantial remodel has occurred. b. The Chief Building Official or designee shall make the final determination regarding the application if a conflict occurs. Section 100.1(b) of Subchapter 1 of the California Energy Code is amended by adding the following definitions: COVERED SINGLE FAMILY PROJECT shall mean any project in a Single-Family residential building originally permitted for construction before 2011 that meets any of the following criteria: 1. All residential building additions and/or alterations exceeding 1000 square feet, as amended by this Chapter and as applicable to the scope of work. For Covered Single Family Projects, the area of alterations will include any construction or renovation to an existing structure other than repair or addition. Alterations include raising the plate height, historic restoration, changes or rearrangements of the structural parts or elements, and changes or rearrangement of bearing walls and full height partitions. Normal maintenance, reroofing, painting or wall papering, floor finishes, replacement-in-kind of mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems, or replacing or adding new kitchen counter and similar furniture, plumbing fixture to the building are excluded for the purposes of establishing scope of Covered Single- Family Projects. The area of alteration should be limited to the footprint of element(s) being altered. The sum of the footprint of the elements being altered with respect to Covered Single Family Projects, shall be calculated using the following methodology: 1. Raising the plate height: The calculation with respect to raising of the plate height will be based on the area of the footprint in which the plate height is being increased. Plate height means the vertical distance measured from the top of the finished floor to the top of the plates. 2. Historic restoration: The calculation with respect to historic Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 214  Packet Pg. 628 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 6 0290179_20250826_ms29 restoration will be based on the area of work covered in the California Historical Building Code (Title 24, Part 8). 3. Structural parts or elements: The calculation with respect to changes or rearrangements of the structural parts or elements will be based on the sum of the individual footprints of each structural change or rearrangement. The footprint shall be calculated based on the proposed design and inclusive of any demolished structural parts or elements. 4. Bearing walls and full height partition: The calculation with respect to changes or rearrangement of walls and full height partitions will be based on the footprint of any demolished wall or full height partition and any new wall or new full height partition. Exception: Attached and detached Accessory Dwelling Units, ADU conversions of existing structures shall meet the California Energy Code Mandatory measures only. CERTIFIED ENERGY ANALYST is a person registered as a Certified Energy Analyst with the California Association of Building Energy Consultants as of the date of submission of a Certificate of Compliance as required under section 10-103 of Building Energy Efficiency Standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT OR APPLIANCE means one or more devices that use electric energy to serve the needs for heating and cooling, water heating, cooking, and electric vehicle charging. In addition, ancillary equipment such as an electric panel, photovoltaic equipment, and energy storage systems that are deployed to support such devices shall be considered Electric Equipment or Appliance. ELECTRIC HEATING APPLIANCE is a device that produces heat energy to create a warm environment by the application of electric power to resistance elements, refrigerant compressors, or dissimilar material junctions, as defined in the California Mechanical Code. SUBSTANTIAL REMODEL (or “50‐50‐50” RULE) Any project that affects the removal or replacement of 50% or more linear length of the existing exterior walls of the building, 50% or more linear length of the existing exterior wall where the plate height is raised, or 50% or more of the existing roof framing area is removed or replaced, over a 3-year period is considered a substantial remodel. (Refer to Section 100.0 (j). 16.17.070 Reserved 16.17.080 Reserved Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 215  Packet Pg. 629 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 7 0290179_20250826_ms29 16.17.090 Reserved 16.17.100 Reserved 16.17.110 Reserved 16.17.120 SUBCHAPTER 7 SINGLE‐FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING – MANDATORY FEATURES AND DEVICES Section 150.0 MANDATORY FEATURES AND DEVICES Section 150.0 of Subchapter 7 of the California Energy Code is amended to read as follows (additions underlined, deletions struck through): Single-family residential buildings shall comply with the applicable requirements of Sections 150(a) through 150.0(x). NOTE: The requirements of Sections 150.0 (a) through (v) apply to newly constructed buildings. Sections 150.2(a) and 150.2(b) specify which requirements of Sections 150.0(a) through 150.0(v) also apply to additions or alterations. The electric readiness requirements of Sections 150.0 (n), (t), (u) and (v) apply to residential remodels or additions when the applicable system is included in the remodel. In addition, Covered Single Family Projects shall also be required to comply with Section 150.0(w) and certain additions and alterations shall also be required to comply with Section 150.0(x). Subsections 150.0 (a) – (s) are adopted without modification. (t) Heat pump space heater ready. Systems using gas or propane furnace to serve individual dwelling units shall include the following: 1. A dedicated 240 volt branch circuit wiring shall be installed within 3 feet from the furnace and accessible to the furnace with no obstructions. The branch circuit conductors shall be rated at 30 amps minimum. The blank cover shall be identified as “240V ready.” All electrical components shall be installed in accordance with the California Electrical Code. 2. The main electrical service panel shall have a reserved space to allow for the installation of a double pole circuit breaker for a future heat pump space heater installation. The reserved space shall be permanently marked as “For Future 240V use.” 3. A designated exterior location for a future heat pump compressor unit. Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 216  Packet Pg. 630 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 8 0290179_20250826_ms29 Subsections 150.0 (u) – (v) are adopted without modification. A new Subsection, (w), is added to Section 150.0 as follows: (w) A Covered Single-Family Project shall install a set of measures based on the building vintage from the Measure Menu Table, Table 150.0-J, to achieve a total Measure Point Score that is equal to or greater than the Target Score in Table 150.0-I. In addition, all mandatory measures listed in Table 150.0-J shall be installed. Measure verification shall be explicitly included as an addendum to the Certificate of Compliance to be filed pursuant to 2025 Title 24, Part 6, Section 10-103. Installed measures shall meet the specifications in Table 150.0-K. Building vintage is the year in which the original construction permit for the building was submitted, as documented by building department records, or the permit issue date of an addition or alteration that satisfied the Performance Standards (California Energy Code, Title 24, Part 6, Section 150.1(b)) that were in effect at that time. Unless otherwise specified, the requirements shall apply to the entire dwelling unit, not just the additional or altered portion. Measures from the Measure Menu table that are to be installed to satisfy requirements under the California Energy Code, Title 24, Part 6, may not count towards compliance with these requirements. Where these requirements conflict with other California Energy Code requirements, the stricter requirements shall prevail. Exception 1 to Section 150.0(w): Creation of a new accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit that is within the existing space of a single family dwelling or accessory structure and include an expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure. An expansion beyond the physical dimensions of the existing accessory structure shall be limited to accommodating ingress and egress. Or, if the project would not otherwise be a Covered Single Family Project were it not for the inclusion of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit that meets the criteria above. Exception 2 to Section 150.0(w): Mobile Homes, Manufactured Housing, or Factory-built Housing as defined in Division 13 of the California Health and Safety 12 Code (commencing with Section 17000 of the Health and Safety Code). Exception 3 to Section 150.0(w): Emergency Housing pursuant to Appendix P of the California Building Code. Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 217  Packet Pg. 631 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 9 0290179_20250826_ms29 Exception 4 to Section 150.0(w): An alteration that consists solely of roof and/or fenestration projects. Exception 5 to Section 150.0(w): If the project includes circumstances which constitute hardship or infeasibility, the applicant may request an exemption. In applying for an exemption, the burden is on the applicant to show hardship or infeasibility. Circumstances that constitute hardship or infeasibility shall include one or more of the following: (a) That the cost of achieving compliance exceeds 20% of the valuation of cost of the project; (b) That it is technically infeasible to achieve compliance through all packages due to conditions specific to the project; (c) That strict compliance with these standards would create or maintain a hazardous condition(s) and present a life safety risk to the occupants. Applicants shall follow the Infeasibility procedures in PAMC 16.17.170. Exception 6 to Section 150.0(w): If the applicant demonstrates, using Commission-certified compliance software as specified by Section 10- 109(c) and Section 10-116, that the Energy Budget of the Proposed Building Design would be less than or equal to the Energy Budget of the building under the project if it included any set of measures that would achieve compliance under this Section 150.0(w). Certificate of Compliance. The Certificate of Compliance shall be prepared and signed by a Certified Energy Analyst and the energy budget for the Proposed Design shall be no greater than the Standard Design Building. Exception 7 to Section 150.0(w): If the dwelling unit has previously installed measures from the Measure Menu, Table 150.0-J, and compliance can be demonstrated to the building official, then these measures shall not be required to be newly installed, and appropriate credit shall be included in the applicable compliance calculations. Exception 8 to Section 150.0(w): A measure that is necessary for compliance is prohibited because of a covenant or other deed restriction on the property, such as a homeowners association covenant. Exception 9 to Section 150.0(w): A Covered Single-Family Project, other than an addition, that would not otherwise be subject to this section 150.0(w) but for installation of solar PV, solar water heating, EV charging, electrical upgrades for solar PV or EV charging, or energy storage. Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 218  Packet Pg. 632 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 10 0290179_20250826_ms29 Exception 10 to Section 150.0(w): The project is solely related to a repair, as defined by Title 24 Part 2 Section 202. Exception 11 to Section 150.0(w) and 150.0(x): A Covered Single Family Project that consists solely of medically necessary improvements or solely of seismic safety improvements. TABLE 150.0‐I: TARGET SCORES Building Vintage Pre‐1978 1978‐1991 1992‐2010 Climate Zone 4 12 12 12 TABLE 150.0‐J: MEASURE MENU, CLIMATE ZONE 4 ID Measures Building Vintage Pre‐ 1978 1978‐ 1991 1992‐ 2010 E1 Lighting Measures Mandatory E2 Water Heating Package 1 1 1 E3 Air Sealing 2 1 1 E4.A R-38 Attic Insulation 7 3 1 E4.B R-49 Attic Insulation 7 3 1 E5 Duct Sealing 6 4 1 E6.A New Ducts, R-6 Insulation + Duct Sealing 10 7 2 E6.B New Ducts, R-8 Insulation + Duct Sealing 11 8 3 E7 Windows 6 5 3 E8 R-15 Wall Insulation 6 -- -- E10.A R-19 Raised floor insulation 8 8 -- E10.B R-30 Raised floor insulation 9 9 -- E11 Radiant Barrier Under Roof (when re-roofing) 3 2 1 FS1 Heat Pump Water Heater Replacing Gas 12 12 12 FS2 High Eff. Heat Pump Water Heater Replacing Gas 13 13 13 FS3 Heat Pump Water Heater Replacing Electric 4 4 4 FS4 High Eff. Heat Pump Water Heater Replacing Electric 5 5 5 Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 219  Packet Pg. 633 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 11 0290179_20250826_ms29 TABLE 150.0‐K: MEASURE SPECIFICATIONS ID Measure Specification Energy Efficiency Measures E1 Lighting Measures – Install lighting with an efficiency of 45 lumens per watt or greater in all interior and exterior screw-in fixtures. Install photocell, occupancy sensor or energy management system controls that meet the requirements of 150.0(k)3 in all outdoor lighting permanently mounted to a residential building or to other buildings on the same lot. E2 Water Heating Package: Insulate all accessible hot water pipes with pipe insulation a minimum of ¾ inch thick. This includes insulating the supply pipe leaving the water heater, piping to faucets underneath sinks, and accessible pipes in attic spaces or crawlspaces. Upgrade fittings in sinks and showers to meet current California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11) Section 4.303 water efficiency requirements. Exception: Upgraded fixtures are not required if existing fixtures have rated or measured flow rates of no more than ten percent greater than 2025 California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11) Section 4.303 water efficiency requirements. E3 Air Sealing: Seal all accessible cracks, holes, and gaps in the building envelope at walls, floors, and ceilings. Pay special attention to penetrations including plumbing, electrical, and mechanical vents, recessed can light luminaires, and windows. Weather-strip doors if not already present. Verification shall be conducted following a prescriptive checklist that outlines which building aspects need to be addressed by the permit applicant and verified by an inspector. Compliance can also be demonstrated with blower door testing conducted by a certified ECC Rater no more than three years prior to the permit application date that either: a) shows at least a 30 percent reduction from pre-retrofit conditions; or b) shows that the number of air changes per hour at 50 Pascals pressure difference (ACH50) does not exceed ten for Pre-1978 vintage buildings, seven for 1978 to 1991 vintage buildings and five for 1992-2010 vintage buildings. If combustion appliances are located within the pressure boundary of the building, conduct a combustion safety test by a certified ECC Rater or a professional certified by the Building Performance Institute, in accordance with the BPI Technical Standards for the Building Analyst Professional. E4.A R-38 Attic Insulation: Attic insulation shall be installed to achieve a weighted assembly U-factor of 0.025 or insulation installed at the ceiling level shall have a thermal resistance of R-38 or greater for the insulation alone. Recessed downlight luminaires in the ceiling shall be covered with insulation to the same depth as the rest of the ceiling. Luminaires not rated for insulation contact must be replaced or fitted with a fire-proof cover that allows for insulation to be installed directly over the cover. FS5 Heat Pump Space Conditioning System 21 16 13 FS6 High Eff. Heat Pump Space Conditioning System 23 18 15 FS7 Dual Fuel Heat Pump Space Conditioning System 15 11 10 FS8 Heat Pump Clothes Dryer 1 1 1 FS9 Induction Cooktop 1 1 1 PV Solar PV 17 17 15 Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 220  Packet Pg. 634 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 12 0290179_20250826_ms29 Exception: In buildings where existing R-30 is present and existing recessed downlight luminaires are not rated for insulation contact, insulation is not required to be installed over the luminaires. E4.B R-49 Attic Insulation: Attic insulation shall be installed to achieve a weighted assembly U-factor of 0.020 or insulation installed at the ceiling level shall have a thermal resistance of R-49 or greater for the insulation alone. Recessed downlight luminaires in the ceiling shall be covered with insulation to the same depth as the rest of the ceiling. Luminaires not rated for insulation contact must be replaced or fitted with a fire-proof cover that allows for insulation to be installed directly over the cover. Exception: In buildings where existing R-30 is present and existing recessed downlight luminaires are not rated for insulation contact, insulation is not required to be installed over the luminaires. E5 Duct Sealing: Air seal all space conditioning ductwork to meet the requirements of the 2025 Title 24, Part 6, Section 150.2(b)1E. The duct system must be tested by a ECC Rater no more than three years prior to the Covered Single Family Project permit application date to verify the duct sealing and confirm that the requirements have been met. This measure may not be combined with the New Ducts and Duct Sealing measure in this Table. Exception: Buildings without ductwork or where the ducts are in conditioned space. E6.A New Ducts, R-6 insulation + Duct Sealing: Replace existing space conditioning ductwork with new R-6 ducts that meet the requirements of 2025 Title 24 Section 150.0(m)11. This measure may not be combined with the Duct Sealing measure in this Table. To qualify, a preexisting measure must have been installed no more than three years before the Covered Single Family Project permit application date. E6.B New Ducts, R-8 insulation + Duct Sealing: Replace existing space conditioning ductwork with new R-8 ducts that meet the requirements of 2025 Title 24 Section 150.0(m)11. This measure may not be combined with the Duct Sealing measure in this Table. To qualify, a preexisting measure must have been installed no more than three years before the Covered Single Family Project permit application date. E7 Windows: Replace at least 50% of existing windows with high performance windows with an area- weighted average U-factor no greater than 0.27 in Climate Zones 4. E8 R-15 Wall Insulation: Install wall insulation in all exterior walls to achieve a weighted U-factor of 0.095 or install wall insulation in all exterior wall cavities that shall result in an installed thermal resistance of R-15 or greater for the insulation alone. E9 Reserved for future use E10. A R-19 Floor Insulation: Raised-floors shall be insulated such that the floor assembly has an assembly U- factor equal to or less than U-0.037 or shall be insulated between wood framing with insulation having an R-value equal to or greater than R-19. E10. B R-30 Floor Insulation: Raised-floors shall be insulated such that the floor assembly has an assembly U- factor equal to or less than U-0.028 or shall be insulated between wood framing with insulation having an R-value equal to or greater than R-30. E11 Radiant Barrier: A radiant barrier that meets the requirements of Section 150.1(c)2 shall be installed under at least 50% of the roof surface. Fuel Substitution and Solar PV Measures FS1 Heat Pump Water Heater (HPWH) Replacing Gas: Replace existing natural gas water heater with a heat pump water heater that meets the requirements of Sections 110.3 and 150.2(b)1.H.iii.b. Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 221  Packet Pg. 635 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 13 0290179_20250826_ms29 FS2 High Efficiency Heat Pump Water Heater (HPWH) Replacing Gas: Replace existing natural gas water heater with heat pump water heater with a Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) Tier 3 or higher rating that also meets the requirements of Sections 110.3 and 150.2(b)1.H.iii.c. FS3 Heat Pump Water Heater (HPWH) Replacing Electric: Replace existing electric resistance water heater with a heat pump water heater that meets the requirements of Sections 110.3 and 150.2(b)1.H.iii.b. FS4 High Efficiency Heat Pump Water Heater (HPWH) Replacing Electric: Replace existing electric resistance water heater with heat pump water heater with a Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) Tier 3 or higher rating that also meets the requirements of Sections 110.3, and 150.2(b)1.H.iii.c. FS5 Heat Pump Space Conditioning System: Replace all existing gas and electric resistance primary space heating systems with a heat pump system that meets the requirements of Sections 110.3, 150.2(b)1.C, 150.2(b)1.E, 150.2(b)1.F, and 150.2(b)1.G. FS6 High Efficiency Heat Pump Space Conditioning System: Replace all existing gas and electric resistance primary space heating systems with an electric-only heat pump system that meets the requirements of Sections 110.3 and 150.2(b)1.C, 150.2(b)1.E, 150.2(b)1.F, and 150.2(b)1.G and one of the following: A. A ducted heat pump system with a SEER2 rating of 16.5 or greater, an EER2 rating of 12.48 or greater and an HSPF2 rating of 9.5 or greater; or B. A ductless mini-split heat pump system with a SEER2 rating of 14.3 or greater, an EER2 rating of 11.7 or greater and an HSPF2 rating of 7.5 or greater FS7 Dual Fuel Heat Pump Space Conditioning System: Install a heat pump space conditioning system that meets the requirements of Sections 110.3 and 150.2(b)1.C, 150.2(b)1.E, 150.2(b)1.F, and 150.2(b)1.G and either: A. Replaces all existing gas and electric resistance primary heating systems with a hybrid gas and electric heat pump system, or B. Is an electric-heat pump system in tandem with a gas furnace and controls to use the gas furnace for backup heat only. FS8 Heat Pump Clothes Dryer: Replace existing electric resistance or gas clothes dryer with heat pump dryer with no resistance element and cap gas line. FS9 Induction Cooktop: Replace all existing gas and electric resistance stove tops with inductive stove top and cap the gas line. PV.A Solar PV: Install a solar PV system that meets the requirements of Section 150.1(c)14. A new Subsection, (x), is added to Section 150.0 as follows: (x) Electric Readiness for Alterations 1. Electric range. Where branch circuits or receptacles are added or altered in a kitchen and the work requires a building permit, install electrical components in accordance with the California Electrical Code. The electrical components shall include either of the following: A. A 125 volt, 20 amp electrical receptacle that is connected to the electric panel with a 120/240 volt 3 conductor branch circuit rated at 50 amps minimum, within 3 feet from the appliance and accessible to the appliance with no obstructions. Both ends of the unused conductor shall be Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 222  Packet Pg. 636 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 14 0290179_20250826_ms29 labeled with the word “spare” and be electrically isolated. Space shall be reserved for a single pole circuit breaker in the electrical panel adjacent to the circuit breaker for the branch circuit and labeled with the words “Future Use”. B. A pathway for a future 240 volt 50 amp minimum branch circuit that shall consist of either conductors or raceway from the main electrical service panel. The main electric panel shall have space reserved to allow for the installation of a double pole circuit breaker for a future electric range installation. The reserved space shall be permanently marked as “For Future 240V use”. The raceway or conductors shall terminate at a junction box within 3 feet of the appliance. The blank cover shall be identified as “240V ready”. 2. Electric dryer. Where a branch circuit is added or altered within 3 feet of a gas or propane clothes dryer and the work requires a building permit, install electrical components in accordance with the California Electrical Code. The electrical components shall include either of the following: A. A dedicated 125 volt, 20 amp electrical receptacle that is connected to the electric panel with a 120/240 volt 3 conductor branch circuit rated at 30 amps minimum, within 3 feet from the appliance and accessible to the appliance with no obstructions. Both ends of the unused conductor shall be labeled with the word “spare” and be electrically isolated. Space shall be reserved for a single pole circuit breaker in the electrical panel adjacent to the circuit breaker for the branch circuit and labeled with the words “Future Use”; or, B. A pathway for a future 240 volt 30 amp minimum branch circuit that shall consist of either conductors or raceway from the main electrical service panel. The main electric panel shall have space reserved to allow for the installation of a double pole circuit breaker for a future heat pump dryer installation. The reserved space shall be permanently marked as “For Future 240V use”. The raceway or conductors shall terminate at a junction box within 3 feet of the appliance. The blank cover shall be identified as “240V ready”. 3. Heat pump water heater. A. If wall framing is removed or replaced within 3 feet of a gas or propane water heating appliance, space suitable for the future installation of a heat pump water heater (HPWH) shall be provided. The space shall be at least 2.5 feet by 2.5 feet wide and 7 feet tall and shall include a condensate drain that is no more than 2 inches higher than the base of an installed water heater and allows natural draining without pump assistance or installed piping or tubing within 3 feet of the water heater Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 223  Packet Pg. 637 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 15 0290179_20250826_ms29 location to a condensate drain or exterior location. If pump assistance is needed, a receptacle on a 120 volt, minimum 15 amp branch circuit for a condensate pump must be available within 3 feet of the water heater location. B. Where branch circuits are altered or added within 3 feet of an existing gas or propane water heater or within 10 feet of the designated future location of a heat pump water heater as required under Section 150.0(x)3A, and the work requires a building permit, install electrical components in accordance with the California Electrical Code. The electrical components shall include either of the following: i. A dedicated 125 volt, 20 amp electrical receptacle that is connected to the electric panel with a 120/240 volt 3 conductor, 10 AWG copper branch circuit rated at 30 amps minimum, within 3 feet from the water heater and accessible to the water heater with no obstructions. Both ends of the unused conductor shall be labeled with the word “spare” and be electrically isolated. Space shall be reserved for a single pole circuit breaker space in the electrical panel adjacent to the circuit breaker for the branch circuit and labeled with the words “Future 240V Use”; or ii. A pathway for a future 240 volt 30 amp minimum branch circuit that shall consist of either conductors or raceway from the main electrical service panel. The main electric panel shall have space reserved to allow for the installation of a double pole circuit breaker for a future HPWH installation. The reserved space shall be permanently marked as “For Future 240V use”. The pathway shall terminate at a junction box within 3 feet of the appliance. The blank cover shall be identified as “240V ready”. Exception 1 to Section 150.0(x): The project is the result of a repair as defined by Title 24 Part 2 Section 202. Exception 2 to Section 150.0(x): If a building permit, is not otherwise required for the project other than compliance with this section. Exception 4 to Section 150.0(x): The project is the result of a safety improvement to remove a known hazard. Exception 5 to Section 150.0(x): Mobile Homes, Manufactured Housing, or Factory-built Housing as defined in Division 13 of the Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 224  Packet Pg. 638 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 16 0290179_20250826_ms29 California Health and Safety 12 Code (commencing with Section 17000 of the Health and Safety Code). Exception 6 to Section 150.0(x): Emergency Housing pursuant to Appendix P of the California Building Code. Exception 7 to Section 150.0(x): Creation of a new accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit that is within the existing space of a single family dwelling or accessory structure and includes an expansion of not more than 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory structure. An expansion beyond the physical dimensions of the existing accessory structure shall be limited to accommodating ingress and egress. Or, if the project would not otherwise be a Covered Single Family Project were it not for the inclusion of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit that meets the criteria above. 16.17.130 Reserved 16.17.140 SUBCHAPTER 9 SINGLE‐FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS—ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS The requirements of PAMC 16.17.140 shall apply to building permit applications submitted to the City on or after January 1, 2027 and shall apply to all building permit applications submitted to the City on or after that date. Section 150.2 – ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS – of Subchapter 9 of the 2025 California Energy Code is adopted without amendment, except as follows (additions underlined, deletions struck through): Section 150.2(b)1C is hereby amended to read: C. En rely new or complete replacement space‐condi oning systems installed as part of an altera on, shall include all the system hea ng or cooling equipment, including but not limited to: condensing unit cooling or hea ng coil, and air handler for split systems; or complete replacement of a packaged unit; plus en rely new or replacement duct system (Sec on 150.2(b)1Diia). En rely new or complete replacement space-condi oning systems shall meet the requirements of Sec ons 150.0(h), 150.0(i), 150.0(j)1, 150.0(j)2, 150.0(m)1 through 150.0(m)10; 150.0(m)12; 150.0(m)13, 150.1(c)7, 150.2(b)1Fii, 150.2(b)1G, and TABLE 150.2-A. Addi onally, where an en rely new or complete replacement space condi oning system includes a new or replacement air-cooled air condi oner in Climate Zones 1 through 14 and 16, Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 225  Packet Pg. 639 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 17 0290179_20250826_ms29 it shall meet the applicable requirements of Sec on 150.2(b)1Fiv. Where an en rely new or complete replacement space condi oning system includes a new or replacement heat pump, it shall meet the applicable requirements of Sec on 150.2(b)1Fv. Section 150.2(b)1.F. is hereby amended to read: F. Altered space‐conditioning system ‐ mechanical cooling. Alterations which install new or replacement air-cooled air conditioners shall meet the applicable requirements of subsections i and iv. Alterations which install new or replacement heat pumps shall meet the applicable requirements of subsections i, ii, iii, and v. All other alterations to refrigerant containing components such as the compressor, condensing coil, evaporator coil, refrigerant metering device, or refrigerant piping, shall meet the applicable requirements of subsections i, ii, and iii. When a space-conditioning system is an air conditioner or heat pump that is altered by the installation or replacement of refrigerant-containing system components such as the compressor, condensing coil, evaporator coil, refrigerant metering device or refrigerant piping, the altered system shall comply with the following requirements: i. All thermostats associated with the system shall be replaced with setback thermostats meeting the requirements of Section 110.2(c). ii. Air-cooled air conditioners in Climate Zones 2 and 8 through 15 and air- source heat pumps in all climate zones, including but not limited to ducted split systems, ducted package systems, small duct high velocity air systems, and minisplit systems, shall comply with Subsections a and b, unless the system is of a type that cannot be verified using the specified procedures. Systems that cannot comply with the requirements of 150.2(b)1Fii shall comply with Section 150.2(b)1Fiii. Exception to Section 150.2(b)1Fii: Entirely new or complete replacement packaged systems for which the manufacturer has verified correct system refrigerant charge prior to shipment from the factory are not required to have refrigerant charge confirmed through field verification and diagnostic testing. The installer of these packaged systems shall certify on the Certificate of Installation that the packaged system was pre-charged at the factory and has not been altered in a way that would affect the charge. Ducted systems shall comply with minimum system airflow rate requirement in Section 150.2(b)1Fiia, provided that the system is of a type that can be verified using the procedure specified in RA3.3 or an approved alternative in RA1. a. Minimum system airflow rate shall comply with the applicable Subsection I or II below as confirmed through field verification and diagnostic testing in accordance with the procedures specified in Reference Residential Appendix Section RA3.3 or an approved Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 226  Packet Pg. 640 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 18 0290179_20250826_ms29 alternative procedure as specified in Section RA1. I. Small duct high velocity systems shall demonstrate a minimum system airflow rate greater than or equal to 250 cfm per ton of nominal cooling capacity; or II. All other air-cooled air conditioner or air-source heat pump systems shall demonstrate a minimum system airflow rate greater than or equal to 300 cfm per ton of nominal cooling capacity; and Exception 1 to Section 150.2(b)1Fiia: Systems unable to comply with the minimum airflow rate requirement shall demonstrate compliance using the procedures in Section RA3.3.3.1.5; and the system's thermostat shall conform to the specifications in Section 110.12. Exception 2 to Section 150.2(b)1Fiia: Entirely new or complete replacement space conditioning systems, as specified by Section 150.2(b)1C, without zoning dampers may comply with the minimum airflow rate by meeting the applicable requirements in Tables-150.0-B or 150.0-C as confirmed by field verification and diagnostic testing in accordance with the procedures in Reference Residential Appendix Section RA3.1.4.4 and RA3.1.4.5. The design clean-filter pressure drop requirements of Section 150.0(m)12C for the system air filter device(s) shall conform to the requirements given in Tables150.0-B and 150.0-C. b. The installer shall charge the system according to manufacturer’s specifications. Refrigerant charge shall be verified according to one of the following options, as applicable. I. The installer and rater shall perform the standard charge verification procedure as specified in Reference Residential Appendix Section RA3.2.2, or an approved alternative procedure as specified in Section RA1; or II. The installer shall perform the weigh-in charging procedure as specified by Reference Residential Appendix Section RA3.2.3.1 provided the system is of a type that can be verified using the RA3.2.2 standard charge verification procedure and RA3.3 airflow rate verification procedure or approved alternatives in RA1. The ECC-Rater shall verify the charge using RA3.2.2 and RA3.3 or approved alternatives in RA1. Exception 1 to Section 150.2(b)1Fiib: When the outdoor temperature is less than 55° F and the installer utilizes the weigh- in charging procedure in Reference Residential Appendix Section RA3.2.3.1to demonstrate compliance, the installer may elect to utilize the verification procedure in Reference Residential Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 227  Packet Pg. 641 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 19 0290179_20250826_ms29 Appendix Section RA3.2.3.2. If the verification procedure in Section RA3.2.3.2 is used for compliance, the system's thermostat shall conform to the specifications in Section 110.12. Ducted systems shall comply with the minimum system airflow rate requirements in Section 150.2(b)1Fiia. iii. Air-cooled air conditioners in Climate Zones 2 and 8 through 15 and air-source heat pumps in all climate zones, including but not limited to ducted split systems, ducted package systems, small duct high velocity, and minisplit systems, which are of a type that cannot comply with the requirements of 150.2(b)1Fiib shall comply with subsections a and b, as applicable. a. The installer shall confirm the refrigerant charge using the weigh- in charging procedure specified in Reference Residential Appendix Section RA3.2.3.1, as verified by an ECC-Rater according to the procedures specified in Reference Residential Appendix RA3.2.3.2; and b. Systems that utilize forced air ducts shall comply with the minimum system airflow rate requirement in Section 150.2(b)1Fiia provided the system is of a type that can be verified using the procedures in Section RA3.3 or an approved alternative procedure in Section RA1. Exception to Section 150.2(b)1Fiii: Entirely new or complete replacement packaged systems for which the manufacturer has verified correct system refrigerant charge prior to shipment from the factory are not required to have refrigerant charge confirmed through field verification and diagnostic testing. The installer of these packaged systems shall certify on the Certificate of Installation that the packaged system was pre-charged at the factory and has not been altered in a way that would affect the charge. Ducted systems shall comply with minimum system airflow rate requirement in Section 150.2(b)1Fiiib, provided that the system is of a type that can be verified using the procedure specified in Section RA3.3 or an approved alternative in Section RA1. iv. New or replacement air-cooled air conditioners in Climate Zones 1 through 14 and 16 shall meet the requirements of Section 150.2(b)1Fiva or 150.2(b)1Fivb. a. Systems with existing duct distribution systems shall meet the following requirements: I. In all climate zones, meet the airflow and fan efficacy requirements of Section 150.0(m)13B, 150.0(m)13C, or 150.0(m)13D. Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 228  Packet Pg. 642 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 20 0290179_20250826_ms29 Exception 1 to Section 150.2(b)1FivaI: Single zone central forced air systems and zonally controlled central forced air systems may demonstrate compliance with an airflow greater than or equal to 300 CFM per ton of nominal cooling capacity. II. In all climate zones, meet the refrigerant charge verification requirements of Section 150.2(b)1Fii; and III. In all climate zones, vented attics shall have insulation installed to achieve a U-factor of 0.020 or insulation installed at the ceiling level shall result in an insulated thermal resistance of R-49 or greater for the insulation alone; luminaires not rated for insulation contact must be replaced or retrofitted with a fireproof cover that allows for insulation to be installed directly over the cover; and Exception 1 to Section 150.2(b)1FivaIII: Dwelling units with at least R-38 existing insulation installed at the ceiling level. Exception 2 to Section 150.2(b)1FivaIII: Dwelling units where the alteration would directly cause the disturbance of asbestos unless the alteration is made in conjunction with asbestos abatement. Exception 3 to Section 150.2(b)1FivaIII: Dwelling units with knob and tube wiring located in the vented attic. Exception 4 to Section 150.2(b)1FivaIII: Where the accessible space in the attic is not large enough to accommodate the required R-value, the entire accessible space shall be filled with insulation provided such installation does not violate Section 806.3 of Title 24, Part 2.5. Exception 5 to Section 150.2(b)1FivaIII: Where the attic space above the altered dwelling unit is shared with other dwelling units and the requirements of Section 150.2(b)1FivaIII are not triggered for the other dwelling units. IV. In all climate zones, air seal all accessible areas of the ceiling plane between the attic and the conditioned space in accordance with Section 110.7. Exception 1 to Section 150.2(b)1FivaIV: Dwelling units with at least R-38 existing insulation installed at the ceiling level. Exception 2 to Section 150.2(b)1FivaIV: Dwelling units where the alteration would directly cause the disturbance of asbestos unless the alteration is made in conjunction with asbestos abatement. Exception 3 to Section 150.2(b)1FivaIV: Dwelling units with atmospherically vented space heating or water heating Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 229  Packet Pg. 643 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 21 0290179_20250826_ms29 combustion appliances located inside the pressure boundary of the dwelling unit. b. Systems with entirely new or complete replacement duct systems shall meet the following: I. R-8 duct insulation shall be installed for all new ducts located in unconditioned space; and II. In all climate zones, meet the airflow requirements of Section 150.0(m)13B, 150.0(m)13C, or 150.0(m)13D and demonstrate an air-handling unit fan efficacy of less than or equal to 0.35 W/CFM. III. In all climate zones, meet the refrigerant charge verification requirements of Section 150.2(b)1Fii; Exception 1 to Section 150.2(b)1Fiv: Where the capacity of the existing main electrical service panel is insufficient to supply the electrical capacity of a heat pump and where the existing main electrical service panel is sufficient to supply a new or replacement air conditioner, as calculated according to the requirements of California Electrical Code Article 220.83 or Article 220.87, systems shall comply with the applicable requirements of Sections 150.2(b)1Fi, 150.2(b)1Fii, and 150.2(b)1Fiii. Documentation of electrical load calculations in accordance with Article 220 must be submitted to the enforcement agency prior to permitting for both the heat pump and proposed air conditioner. Exception 2 to Section 150.2(b)1Fiv: Where the required capacity of a heat pump to meet the system selection requirements of Section 150.0(h)5 is greater than or equal to 12,000 Btu/h more than the greater of the required capacity of an air conditioner to meet the design cooling load OR the capacity of the existing air conditioner, systems shall comply with the applicable requirements of Sections 150.2(b)1Fi, 150.2(b)1Fii, and 150.2(b)1Fiii. Documentation of heating and cooling load calculations in accordance with 150.0(h) must be submitted to the enforcement agency prior to permitting for both the heat pump and proposed air conditioner. v. In all climate zones, heat pumps with supplementary heat, including, but not limited to, electric resistance heaters or gas furnace supplementary heating, shall comply with Section 150.0(h)7 and shall lock out supplementary heating above an outdoor air temperature of no greater than 35°F. Section 150.2(b)2 is hereby amended to read: 2. Performance approach. The energy budget for alterations is expressed in terms of Long-term System Cost (LSC), and the altered component(s) and any newly installed Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 230  Packet Pg. 644 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 22 0290179_20250826_ms29 equipment serving the alteration shall meet the applicable requirements of Subsections A, B, and C below. A. The altered components shall meet the applicable requirements of Sections 110.0 through 110.9, Sections 150.0(a) through (l), Sections 150.0(m)1 through 150.0 (m)10, and Sections 150.0(p) through (q). Entirely new or complete replacement mechanical ventilation systems as these terms are used in Section 150.2(b)1L, shall comply with the requirements in Section 150.2(b)1L. Altered mechanical ventilation systems shall comply with the requirements of Section 150.2(b)1M. Entirely new or complete replacement space- conditioning systems, and entirely new or complete replacement duct systems, as these terms are used in Sections 150.2(b)1C and 150.2(b)1Diia, shall comply with the requirements of Sections 150.0(m)12 and 150.0(m)13. New or replacement air-cooled air conditioners in Climate Zones 1 through 14 and 16 shall meet the applicable requirements of Section 150.2(b)1Fiv. B. The standard design for an altered component shall be the higher efficiency of existing conditions or the requirements stated in Table 150.2-G. For components not being altered, the standard design shall be based on the existing conditions. When the third party verification option is specified as a requirement, all components proposed for alteration for which the additional credit is taken, must be verified by a certified ECC-rater. Table 150.2-G is hereby amended to read: Table 150.2‐G Standard Design for an Altered Component Altered Component Standard Design Without Third Party Verification of Existing Conditions Shall be Based On Standard Design With Third Party Verification of Existing Conditions Shall be Based On Ceiling Insulation, Wall Insulation, and Raised- floor Insulation The requirements of Sections 150.0(a), (c), and (d). The requirements of Section 150.2(b)1J for altered ceilings and for entirely new or complete replacement duct systems where the air handler and ducts are located within a vented attic. The requirements of Section 150.2(b)1Fiv for alterations which include new or replacement air-cooled air conditioners. The existing insulation R-value Fenestration The requirements of Section 150.1(c)3A. The existing fenestration U-factor Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 231  Packet Pg. 645 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 23 0290179_20250826_ms29 and SHGC values as verified. Window Film The requirements of Section 150.1(c)3A. The existing fenestration in the alteration shall be based on TABLE 110.6-A and TABLE 110.6- B. Doors The U-factor of 0.20. The door area shall be the door area of the existing building. If the proposed U-factor is < 0.20, the standard design shall be based on the existing U-factor value as verified. Otherwise, the standard design shall be based on the U-factor of 0.20. The door area shall be the door area of the existing building. Space- Heating and Space- Cooling Equipment Table 150.1-A for equipment efficiency requirements; Section 150.2(b)1C for entirely new or complete replacement systems; Section 150.2(b)1F for refrigerant charge verification, airflow, and fan efficacy requirements. Section 150.2(b)1Fiv for new or replacement air-cooled air conditioners The existing efficiency levels. Air Distribution System – Duct Sealing The requirements of Sections 150.2(b)1D and 150.2(b)1E The requirements of Sections 150.2(b)1D and 150.2(b)1E Air Distribution System – Duct Insulation The proposed efficiency levels. The requirements of Sections 150.2(b)1D, and for new or replacement air-cooled air conditioners, Section 150.2(b)1Fiv. The existing efficiency levels. Water Heating Systems The requirements of Section 150.2(b)1Hii The existing efficiency level. Roofing Products The requirements of Section 150.2(b)1I. The requirements of Section 150.2(b)1I Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 232  Packet Pg. 646 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 24 0290179_20250826_ms29 C. The proposed design shall be based on the actual values of the altered components. 16.17.150 Reserved 16.17.160 Reserved 16.17.170 Infeasibility Exemption. (a) Exemption. If an applicant for a Covered Project believes that circumstances exist that makes it infeasible to meet the requirements of this Chapter, the applicant may request an exemption as set forth below. In applying for an exemption, the burden is on the Applicant to show infeasibility. (b) Application. If an applicant for a Covered Project believes such circumstances exist, the applicant may apply for an exemption at the time of application submittal in accordance with the Planning and Development Services administrative guidelines. The applicant shall indicate the maximum threshold of compliance the energy compliance design professional believes is feasible for the covered project and the circumstances that make it infeasible to fully comply with this Chapter. Circumstances that constitute infeasibility include, but are not limited to the following: (1) There is conflict with the compatibility of the currently adopted California Building Standards Code; (2) There is a lack of commercially available materials and technologies to comply with the requirements of this Chapter; (3) Applying the requirements of this Chapter would effectuate an unconstitutional taking of property or otherwise have an unconstitutional application to the property. (c) Granting of Exemption. If the Director of Planning and Development Services, or designee, determines that it is infeasible for the applicant to fully meet the requirements of this Chapter based on the information provided, the Director, or designee, shall determine the maximum feasible threshold of compliance reasonably achievable for the project. The decision of the Director, or designee, shall be provided to the applicant in writing. If an exemption is granted, the applicant shall be required to comply with this Chapter in all other respects and shall be required to All Other Measures The proposed efficiency levels. The existing efficiency levels. Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 233  Packet Pg. 647 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 25 0290179_20250826_ms29 achieve, in accordance with this Chapter, the threshold of compliance determined to be achievable by the Director or designee. (d) Denial of Exemption. If the Director of Planning and Development Services or designee determines that it is reasonably possible for the applicant to fully meet the requirements of this Chapter, the request shall be denied, and the Director or designee shall so notify the applicant in writing. The project and compliance documentation shall be modified to comply with this Chapter prior to further review of any pending planning or building application. (e) Council Review of Exemption. For any covered project that requires review and action by the City Council, the Council shall act to grant or deny the exemption, based on the criteria outlined above, after recommendation by the Director of Planning and Development Services. 16.17.180 Appeal. (a) Any aggrieved Applicant may appeal the determination of the Director of Planning and Development Services or designee regarding the granting or denial of an exemption pursuant to 16.17.170. (b) Any appeal must be filed in writing with the Planning and Development Services Department not later than fourteen (14) days after the date of the determination by the Director. The appeal shall state the alleged error or reason for the appeal. (c) The appeal shall be processed and considered by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.77.070 (f) of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 3. The Council adopts the findings for local amendments to the California Energy Code, 2025 Edition, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. Under the authority granted by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)(2), which permits local California Energy Code amendments, and based on staff’s analysis of the “2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades ,” “2025 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Single Family AC to Heat Pump Replacement,” and “Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades” developed for the California Energy Codes and Standards Program and attached to staff’s report to Council, the Council finds that the proposed local amendments to the 2025 California Energy Code that affect building energy performance are cost-effective and will require buildings to be designed to consume less energy than permitted by Title 24, Part 6. SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 234  Packet Pg. 648 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 26 0290179_20250826_ms29 and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 6. The Council finds that this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), under Section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it is a regulatory action for the protection of the environment, and under Section 15061(b)(3) on the grounds that the proposed standards are more stringent than the State energy standards, there are no reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental impacts and there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 235  Packet Pg. 649 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 27 0290179_20250826_ms29 SECTION 7. Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.270, this ordinance shall be effective immediately upon adoption if passed by a vote of four-fifths of the council members present. Unless otherwise specified in this ordinance, its provisions shall become applicable 180 days after publication of the 2025 Edition of California Energy Code, Title 24, Part 6. Until that date, the provisions of the 2022 Edition of the California Energy Code, as adopted and amended by Ordinance 5627, shall apply and remain in effect. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Attorney or Designee City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning and Development Services ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 236  Packet Pg. 650 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 28 0290179_20250826_ms29 Exhibit A FINDINGS FOR LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, 2025 EDITION TITLE 24, PART 6 Section 17958 of the California Health and Safety Code provides that the City may make changes to the provisions of the California Building Standards Code. Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code require that for each proposed local change to those provisions of the California Building Standards Code which regulate buildings used for human habitation, the City Council must make findings supporting its determination that each such local change is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Regarding the Energy 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), provided the City Council finds 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. Local building regulations having the effect of amending the uniform codes, which were adopted by the City prior to November 23, 1970, were unaffected by the regulations of Sections 17958, 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code. Therefore, amendments to the uniform codes which were adopted by the City Council prior to November 23, 1970 and have been carried through from year to year without significant change, need no required findings. Also, amendments to provisions not regulating buildings used for human habitation do not require findings. Code: California Energy Code, Title 24, Part 6 Chapter(s), Sections(s), Appendices Title Add Deleted Amended Justification (See below of keys) 100.0 Scope  C & E 100.1(b) Definitions  C & E 150.0 Mandatory Features and Devices  C & E 150.2(b) Energy Efficiency Standards for Additions and Alterations to Existing Single-Family Residential Buildings - Alterations  C & E Table 150.2- G Standard Design for an Altered Component  C & E Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 237  Packet Pg. 651 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 29 0290179_20250826_ms29 Key to Justification for Amendments to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations A This is an administrative amendment to clarify and establish civil and administrative procedures, regulations, or rules to enforce and administer the activities by the Palo Alto Building Inspection Department. These administrative amendments do not need to meet HSC 18941.5/17958/13869 per HSC 18909(c). C This amendment is justified on the basis of a local climatic condition. The seasonal climatic conditions during the late summer and fall create severe fire hazards to the public health and welfare in the City. The hot, dry weather frequently results in wild land fires on the brush covered slopes west of Interstate 280. The aforementioned conditions combined with the geological characteristics of the hills within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Energy Code is required. Failure to address and significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could result in rises in sea level, including in San Francisco Bay, that could put at risk Palo Alto homes and businesses, public facilities, and Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway), particularly the mapped Flood Hazard areas of the City. Energy efficiency is a key component in reducing GHG emissions, and the construction of more energy efficient buildings can help Palo Alto reduce its share of the GHG emissions that contribute to climate change. The burning of fossil fuels used in the generation of electric power and heating of buildings contributes to climate change, which could result in rises in sea level, including in San Francisco Bay, that could put at risk Palo Alto homes and businesses 1 public facilities, and Highway 101. Due to a decrease in annual rainfall, Palo Alto experiences the effect of drought and water saving more than some other communities in California. E Energy efficiency enhances the public health and welfare by promoting the environmental and economic health of the City through the design, construction, maintenance, operation, and deconstruction of buildings and sites by incorporating green practices into all development. The provisions in this Chapter are designed to achieve the following goals: (a) Increase energy efficiency in buildings; (b) Increase resource conservation; (c) Provide durable buildings that are efficient and economical to own and operate; (d) Promote the health and productivity of residents, workers, and visitors to the city; (e) Recognize and conserve the energy embodied in existing buildings; and (f) Reduce disturbance of natural ecosystems. G This amendment is justified on the basis of a local geological condition. The City of Palo Alto is subject to earthquake hazards caused by its proximity to San Andreas fault. This fault runs from Hollister, through the Santa Cruz Mountains, epicenter of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, then on up the San Francisco Peninsula, then offshore at Daly City near Mussel Rock. This is the approximate location of the epicenter of the 1906 San Francisco Infeasibility Exemption  A Appeal  A Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 238  Packet Pg. 652 of 690  *NOT YET APPROVED* 30 0290179_20250826_ms29 earthquake. The other fault is the Hayward Fault. This fault is about 74 mi long, situated mainly along the western base of the hills on the east side of San Francisco Bay. Both of these faults are considered major Northern California earthquake faults which may experience rupture at any time. Thus, because the City is within a seismic area that includes these earthquake faults, the modifications and changes cited herein are designed to better limit property damage as a result of seismic activity and to establish criteria for repair of damaged properties following a local emergency. T The City of Palo Alto topography includes hillsides with narrow and winding access, which makes timely response by fire suppression vehicles difficult. Palo Alto is contiguous with the San Francisco Bay, resulting in a natural receptor for storm and waste water run-off. Also the City of Palo Alto is located in an area that is potentially susceptible to liquefaction during a major earthquake. The surface condition consists mostly of stiff to dense sandy clay, which is highly plastic and expansive in nature. The aforementioned conditions within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Building Standards Codes is warranted. Item 19 Attachment F - Emergency Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 16.17 to Adopt the 2025 California Energy Code and Local Amendments, Adding FlexPath and Air Conditioner Time-of- Replacement Requirement        Item 19: Staff Report Pg. 239  Packet Pg. 653 of 690  City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: INFORMATION REPORTS Lead Department: Transportation Meeting Date: September 8, 2025 Report #:2506-4896 TITLE Community Engagement Plan for Rail Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road Crossings RECOMMENDATION Receive information on the Community Engagement Plan for the Rail Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road Crossings EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In partnership with City staff, Caltrain has prepared a Draft Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Phase of the City of Palo Alto Project for Grade Separation at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road. The goal of the engagement plan is to foster the involvement of community, Rail Committee and Council members at key project milestones, inform decision-making, and advance well- supported alternatives for the project. Efforts include diverse outreach strategies, transparent processes, and accessible engagement opportunities to guide decision-making that reflects community priorities. This plan was reviewed with the Rail Committee at its meeting on May 20, 2025. Caltrain will lead engagement efforts and the City will act as the project sponsor. The anticipated project timeline to complete 35% conceptual design and environmental clearance is Fall 2027. BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto’s rail corridor planning efforts commenced in 2010 with the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study, which was adopted by Council on January 22, 2013 (SR # 34101). From November 4, 2013, the City developed preliminary grade separation alternatives as part of 1 City Council , January 22, 2013; Item 7, Action Item, SR# 3410 https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports- cmrs/year-archive/2013/railcorridor1_22.pdf Item A Item A Staff Report        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 654 of 690  the Connecting Palo Alto project, which explored multiple options for the four at-grade rail crossing locations of Charleston Road, Meadow Drive, Churchill Avenue, and Palo Alto Avenue. This work resulted in a Rail Corridor Circulation Study and initial screening of ideas for various alternatives that was reviewed by the Council on May 29, 2018 (Staff Report # 92843) . In April 2018, in-depth analysis of engineering options continued, with review by the Council Rail Committee and Rail Crossing Community Advisory Committee (XCAP). The XCAP process concluded deliberations in March 2021. The XCAP completed the review and presented its recommendation to the Council on March 23, 2021 (Staff Report 117974) Since 2021, staff have secured grants from Federal Rail Administration (FRA), California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), and have continued to develop, evaluate and present grade separation alternatives for consideration. In consultation with the community, Rail Committee and Council, the City has refined project alternatives for rail crossings at Charleston Road, Meadow Drive, and Churchill Avenue. Palo Alto Avenue crossing was put on hold. On June 10, 2024 (Staff Report # 2402-29575) and June 18, 2024 (Staff Report # 2406-31696 , Council selected the following alternatives to advance into the Conceptual Development phase in preparation for Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation: For Churchill Avenue, the Council selected the Partial Underpass as the locally preferred alternative with vehicle crossing at Churchill Avenue and pedestrian/bicycle crossing at Seale Avenue / Peers Park. Additionally, the Council identified the Pedestrian/Bicycle Undercrossing at Churchill (aka Closure Alternative) as the backup alternative if needed in the future for this location. (The backup alternative will not advance to preliminary engineering at this time.) For Meadow Drive and Charleston Road, the Council identified the Hybrid Underpass and Underpass as the two alternatives to advance to Conceptual Development with refinements to minimize right-of- way impacts and improve mobility at each location. A preferred alternative for each location will advance to 35% Design. (Constructability concerns may require the City to implement grade 3 City Council , May 29, 2018; Item 7, Action Item, SR# 9284 https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports- cmrs/year-archive/2018/9284.pdf 4 City Council , March 23, 2021; Item 1, Study Session Item, SR# 9284 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=2236&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto 5 City Council , June 10, 2024; Item 13, Action Item, SR# 2402-2957 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=82879&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto 6 City Council , June 18, 2024; Item AA3, Action Item, SR# 2406-3169 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=82944&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto Item A Item A Staff Report Item A: Staff Report Pg. 2 Packet Pg. 655 of 690  separations in these two locations in a coordinated manner.) Caltrain will lead the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation phase and the City will collaborate with Caltrain on project design and will act as project sponsor. The City has successfully secured $6 million in Rail Crossing Elimination (RCE) program funds from the FRA towards completing the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental phase for grade separations at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road. In addition, on December 9, 2024 (Staff Report # 2408-332211), the City Council approved a Cooperative Agreement with VTA for $14 million in Measure B Grade Separation funding for this phase. ANALYSIS In consultation with City staff, Caltrain has prepared a Draft Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Phase of the Grade Separation at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road (Attachment A). The plan aims to foster involvement from the community, Rail Committee, City Council, and interested parties at key Project milestones for the proposed Project. The goals of the plan are to provide clear public information and updates on the project; ensure accessible platforms and diverse opportunities for meaningful community involvement; actively gather detailed feedback to understand community needs; communicate community insights and concerns to decision-makers; present well-supported alternatives for decision-makers to evaluate; and inform decision-making. To facilitate durable decision-making and expedited refinement of the alternatives, the Project is divided into two steps: Preliminary Engineering Conceptual Development (15% Design), which is anticipated to progress through mid-2026; and Preliminary Engineering (35% Design) and Environmental Documentation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which is anticipated to conclude in Fall 2027. The Council has directed staff to refine the project Concepts with a focus on minimizing property impacts and enhancing pedestrian and bicycle crossings. Conceptual Development will also include estimation of project costs and evaluation of constructability issues in order to support the selection of a Locally Preferred Alternatives at each location, prior to development of 35% design plans and environmental documents. Public engagement events will be hosted throughout the life of the Project to share information and gather community feedback on the alternatives. 11 City Council , December 9, 2024; Item 12, Consent Item Item, SR# 2408-3322 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=83126&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto Item A Item A Staff Report Item A: Staff Report Pg. 3 Packet Pg. 656 of 690  FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT Funding for these projects is programmed in the 2026-2030 Capital Improvement Plan in the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road (PL-24000) and Churchill Avenue (PL-24001) Rail Grade Separation and Safety Improvements projects. This item is included in the scope of the two projects with no additional fiscal impact. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT This staff report provides the Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for the Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Documentation phase of the project. Activities include meeting postings on the City calendar and through the City and Caltrain‘s communications channels and events such as community workshops, public open houses, and regular updates to the City’s Rail Committee, and Caltrain’s Technology, and Operations, Planning, and Safety (TOPS) Committee. Additionally, the project team will bring forward considerations to the City Council for review and direction at key decision points. The City and Caltrain remains committed to community engagement and collaboration with regional partners to ensure that grade separation solutions align with the City’s long-term mobility and safety goals. Staff presented the draft Public Outreach and Engagement Plan to the Rail Committee on May 20, 2025 (Staff Report # 2504-449913). Following that meeting, staff reviewed and incorporated recommendations and feedback from both the Rail Committee and members of the public. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This is an informational report with no proposed action as part of this report. The grade separation project will include environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase) APPROVED BY: Ria Hutabarat Lo, Chief Transportation Official 13 Rail Committee , May 20, 2025; Item 1, Action Item, SR# 2504-4499 https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=53110&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto Item A Item A Staff Report Item A: Staff Report Pg. 4 Packet Pg. 657 of 690  FINAL Public Outreach and Engagement Plan August 2025 Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 5  Packet Pg. 658 of 690  i Document Version Acceptance Date Plan Version 1 August 21, 2025 Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 6  Packet Pg. 659 of 690  ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................... iii Acronym List ..................................................................................................................................................... iv Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 Project Background .......................................................................................................................................... 1 What We Have Heard So Far............................................................................................................................ 2 How Community Feedback Shaped the Process ............................................................................................... 3 Role of the Engagement Team ......................................................................................................................... 4 Engagement Plan Goals ................................................................................................................................... 5 Project Milestones.............................................................................................................................................. 6 Public Engagement ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Approach .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Standard Process ............................................................................................................................................. 7 Conceptual Development (15% Design) ............................................................................................................ 8 Preliminary Engineering (35% Design) and Environmental .............................................................................. 10 Engagement and Digital Communication Tools ............................................................................................. 13 Digital Communication .................................................................................................................................... 13 Data Synthesis ............................................................................................................................................... 14 Community Partner Engagement .................................................................................................................... 17 Community Partner Identification Process ....................................................................................................... 17 Community Participation ................................................................................................................................. 17 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 18 ATTACHMENT A............................................................................................................................................... 19 Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 7  Packet Pg. 660 of 690  iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Project Milestones .............................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2: Engagement Process ......................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3: Conceptual Development Engagement Activities ............................................................................. 9 Figure 4: Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Engagement Activities ............................................ 11 Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 8  Packet Pg. 661 of 690  iv A CRONYM L IST Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a United States (U.S.) federal law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities and ensures equal access to public spaces, transportation, employment, and services. Caltrain is the Lead Agency for this project phase. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a state law that requires government agencies to evaluate and disclose the environmental impacts of proposed projects before approval. City of Palo Alto Project for Grade Separation Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road (Project) refers to separation of three Caltrain at-grade crossing locations in the City of Palo Alto. Community-Based Organization (CBO) is a non- profit or non-governmental organization that operates within a specific community, addressing local needs and improving the well-being of its residents. Engagement Team includes Kimley-Horn, Caltrain, and City of Palo Alto staff. Kimley-Horn will lead the engagement strategy and collaborate closely with Caltrain and the City of Palo Alto. Equity-Based Engagement refers to an inclusive and intentional approach to public participation that prioritizes the voices and needs of historically underserved and marginalized communities. Funding Sponsors refers to both the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is an agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) responsible for regulating and overseeing the nation's railroad industry. Lead Agency is the public agency with the primary responsibility for oversight of the project. Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) is the design option selected by a local agency, usually through a public planning process, as the best solution to meet project goals while balancing factors like cost, community impact, and feasibility. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a U.S. federal law enacted in 1969 that requires government agencies to assess the environmental effects of their proposed actions before making decisions. Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) governs Caltrain and consists of agencies from the three counties served by Caltrain: San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara. Project Management Plan (PMP) is a framework that serves as the programmatic document for the Project, from which other management and administrative processes are defined. Project Sponsor refers to the City of Palo Alto which has secured funding from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) to advance the Project through preliminary engineering, public engagement, and environmental clearance. Public Outreach and Engagement Plan (Plan) outlines specific strategies for connecting with and informing the public about opportunities, with the goal of raising awareness and engaging them in a specific project or agenda. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is a public transportation agency responsible for providing and planning transportation services in Santa Clara County, California. Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 9  Packet Pg. 662 of 690  1 I NTRODUCTION Caltrain, in partnership with the City of Palo Alto (City) and Kimley-Horn and Associates (Kimley-Horn), prepared this Public Outreach and Engagement Plan (Plan) for the City of Palo Alto Project for Grade Separation Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road (Project). The Plan guides public outreach efforts thought the life of the Project, fostering involvement from the community, City Rail Committee, City Council, and interested parties at key Project milestones for the proposed grade separation crossing locations at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road. Ongoing engagement efforts will be adapted and refined based on community needs and feedback, ensuring a responsive and effective process. Through open communication, diverse outreach strategies, and accessible engagement opportunities, this Plan will help build consensus and guide informed decision-making that reflects the community’s priorities. PURPOSE This Plan establishes a structured framework of engagement activities, enhanced communication activities for disseminating key Project information, milestones, and synthesizing public input to the community and public officials. PROJECT BACKGROUND The Project is a long-term initiative aimed at improving rail safety, reducing traffic congestion, and enhancing mobility along the Caltrain corridor in the City. The Project stems from ongoing efforts to address safety concerns and transportation challenges posed by at-grade rail crossings along Alma Street, where seven major crossings intersect the rail line. Caltrain, operated by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB), has served as a key transportation corridor for the region, but with plans for electrification and expanded service under the 2040 Business Plan, increased train frequency is anticipated to lead to longer gate downtimes and greater congestion at at-grade crossings. Three of Palo Alto’s crossings—Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road (Project crossing locations)—remain at-grade, posing safety risks and traffic challenges. Recognizing the need for action, the City initiated the Connecting Palo Alto Project, with the goal of separating roadways from the rail line at key intersections. Over the past two years, the Rail Committee has played a crucial role in evaluating potential grade separation solutions, conducting detailed reviews of underpass alternatives, geotechnical assessments, traffic impact studies, noise, and vibration analyses, and Caltrain’s operational requirements. In June 2024, City Council approved advancing the Project into the Preliminary Engineering (35% design) and Environmental Documentation phase for the following alternatives:  Churchill Avenue: The Partial Underpass at Churchill Avenue with a Bicycle and Pedestrian crossing at Seale Avenue was chosen as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), with the Closure alternative as backup to advance.  Meadow Drive and Charleston Road: The Hybrid (including a mixed wall/column approach) and Underpass alternative were chosen to advance. Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 10  Packet Pg. 663 of 690  2 To facilitate durable decision-making and expedite refinement of the alternatives, the Project is divided into two steps: Step 1 – Conceptual Development (15% Design) and Step 2 – Preliminary Engineering (35% Design) and Environmental Documentation. Step 1 is anticipated to progress through mid-2026, after which Step 2 will begin, focusing on advancing the alternatives to 35% design and complete the environmental clearance under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Public engagement events will be hosted throughout the life of the Project to gather community feedback on the alternatives. The anticipated Project timeline to complete a 35% conceptual design and environmental clearance is anticipated to culminate in late 2027. Securing funding has been a key component of the Project’s history. In October 2022, the City received $6 million in federal funding through the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) Rail Crossing Elimination (RCE) Program. An additional $14 million was allocated from Santa Clara County’s 2016 Measure B funds, managed by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). As the Project progresses, the City remains committed to community engagement and collaboration with regional partners, ensuring that the final grade separation solutions align with the City’s long-term mobility and safety goals. Step 2 is expected to conclude in late 2027, marking a significant milestone in the transformation of the City’s rail infrastructure. WHAT WE HAVE HEARD S O FAR Over several years, the City of Palo Alto has conducted extensive community outreach to better understand local concerns, values, and priorities related to rail grade separations. Community input was gathered through Community Advisory Panel (CAP) and later through the Expanded Community Advisory Panel (XCAP), neighborhood meetings, town halls, surveys, online platforms, and one-on-one engagement. The outreach to date has reaffirmed the importance of transparent decision-making, neighborhood-specific impacts, and tailored engagement strategies for different communities within Palo Alto. Key themes emerged across outreach efforts:  Support for Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety: Residents consistently emphasized the importance of safe, grade-separated bike and pedestrian crossings, particularly near schools and along key corridors like Churchill, Meadow, and Charleston.  Concerns About School Traffic and Cut-Through Traffic: Feedback underscored the impact of school drop-offs and pickups at Churchill Avenue and the broader concern that street closures or detours could increase congestion on local neighborhood streets.  Desire to Minimize Visual and Noise Impacts: Many community members expressed strong opposition to alternatives that would introduce large-scale visual barriers or elevated rail infrastructure. Noise was also a common concern, particularly regarding viaduct options and the impact of construction.  Worries About Construction Disruption and Cost: Residents voiced apprehension about long-term construction activities, potential business and household displacement, and whether the City could fund and maintain the proposed improvements over time. Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 11  Packet Pg. 664 of 690  3 HOW COMMUNITY FEEDBACK SHAPED THE PROCESS Community input has directly shaped the refinement of project alternatives and the prioritization of evaluation criteria. A council adopted criteria that lead to development of the Evaluation Matrix supporting the evaluation of various alternatives. Additional community input also supported the Rail Committee and the City Council in the decision making. For example:  A community-generated concept, the Churchill Partial Underpass, was added and evaluated in response to concerns about full closure and circulation impacts.  Noise and visual impact mitigation strategies were explored further for viaduct and hybrid alternatives.  Bike/pedestrian tunnel designs and new crossings (e.g., Seale Avenue) were developed and evaluated.  Traffic analyses and mitigations were expanded based on stakeholder feedback, especially from the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and Safe Routes to School advocates. Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 12  Packet Pg. 665 of 690  4 ROLE OF THE ENGAGEMENT TEAM The Engagement Team operates based on the following key guiding principles: The Engagement Team will engage the community through workshops, surveys, and open house events while utilizing online platforms and outreach campaigns to gather input and share Project updates. The Engagement Team will collaborate with local leaders to ensure inclusive participation and work to address diverse concerns. The Engagement Team will serve as liaisons between the Project and the community, engagement efforts focus on building trust through meaningful relationships with local leaders, organizations, and residents. Maintaining these connections beyond individual events fosters long-term collaboration and strengthens community partnerships. The Engagement Team will foster community engagement by involving community members in planning, maintaining open communications, andrecognizing community involvement.. The Engagement Team will ensure clear, timely, and consistent communication through diverse channels, encourage open dialogue, address feedback transparently, and provide accessible resources for transparency. The Engagement Team will collect community input through various platforms, including community meetings, technical workshops, open houses, online surveys, website updates and public comment forms. The collected data is then synthesized by analyzing feedback, identifying key themes, grouping similar responses, and summarizing insights to guide decision-making and support project outcomes. The Engagement Team will compile and present community feedback through summary reports, visual data, and regular briefings, emphasizing key concerns, actionable recommendations, and focused discussions with decision-makers. Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 13  Packet Pg. 666 of 690  5 E NGAGEMENT PLAN GOALS The Plan is designed to foster inclusive community engagement. The Plan’s goal is to: Educate and Inform: objectives, and existing alternatives. Engage: involvement. Solicit Input: priorities. Share Feedback: Recommend: Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 14  Packet Pg. 667 of 690  6 P ROJECT MILESTONES The Plan timelines, shown in Figure 1, outline anticipated engagement events, activities, and milestones throughout the life of the Project from Conceptual Development through Preliminary Engineering and Environmental. Decision Point (DP 1) will include the refined concepts presented to Rail Committee and City Council. City Council will decide which alternatives to advance to 15% Design based on community feedback and the refined concepts. Decision Point 2 (DP 2) will include the refined 15% design concepts for City Council to decide which one alternative (per crossing) to advance to Preliminary Engineering (35% Design) and Environmental Documentation. Figure 1: Project Milestones During Conceptual Development, the technical workshops will focus on the review of the refined concepts. During Preliminary Engineering and Environmental, the technical workshops will focus on the key topics of the refined concepts such as traffic and mobility, right-of-way, constructability, and cost estimating to provide a more in-depth review and discussion. Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 15  Packet Pg. 668 of 690  7 P UBLIC ENGAGEMENT APPROACH The engagement approach can be summarized by two overarching categories: Engage and Gather Community Input, and Report Findings. Engage and Gather: The Engagement Team will actively engage the community and stakeholders and gather feedback through virtual and in-person meetings, technical workshops, and open houses. Targeted outreach via social media, newsletters, and local publications will ensure broad reach and participation. As shown in Figure 1, many opportunities will be provided for the community to voice concerns and ask questions. Collaboration with local organizations and community leaders will also help identify and reach underrepresented groups, ensuring diverse perspectives are heard and incorporated into the P roject. Report Findings: The Engagement Team will collect community feedback through various engagement opportunities and online platforms, ensuring a structured and transparent communication process with decision- makers. Summary reports will synthesize public input into clear, concise documents for the Rail Committee and City Council, highlighting key concerns, recurring themes, and top priorities. Regular briefings at project milestones will keep decision-makers informed, utilizing data visualization tools like charts and maps to illustrate community input and project impacts. Additionally, actionable recommendations will be provided to guide decision-making, ensuring public feedback plays a vital role in project development. STANDARD PROCESS The engagement process follows a structured approach to ensure effective outreach and meaningful community participation, as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Engagement Process Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 16  Packet Pg. 669 of 690  8 1. Identify Key Community Partners & Target Audiences – Collaborate with the City and local organizations to identify stakeholders, ensuring inclusive and equitable engagement. 2. Define Engagement Objectives – Establish clear goals for each event, aligning outreach efforts with project milestones and community priorities. 3. Select Venue & Logistics Planning – Choose accessible locations for in-person events and set up virtual options to maximize participation. 4. Promote Events/Mailers – Utilize mailers, website updates, newsletters, and social media to inform the public about upcoming engagement opportunities. 5. Website Updates – The Project website will serve as primary channels for advertising the Project, keeping the community informed and engaged. These platforms will provide news, event notifications, upcoming engagement opportunities, timeline progress, major announcements, and feedback summaries. Additionally, the website will serve to provide emergency notifications, changes in Project scope, or responses to significant community input. Updates are anticipated to occur monthly and quarterly. 6. Social Media Updates – The social media platform(s) will be used to share quick updates, upcoming events, surveys, and other engagement platforms available to the community. 7. Provide Language Access – Ensure accessibility by offering translation and interpretation services for diverse community members. 8. Gather & Synthesize Feedback – Collect input during events, analyze key themes, and distribute summaries to stakeholders and decision-makers. This process ensures that community voices are heard, information is accessible, and engagement efforts are transparent and effective throughout the Project. C ONCEPTUAL D EVELOPMENT (15% DESIGN) Goal: The goal during conceptual development is to educate the community on the Project’s history and proposed alternatives, inform them of the technical body of work and opportunities for engagement, gather feedback on conceptual designs and synthesize input for dissemination to the community, Rail Committee and City Council. Feedback gathered and synthesized will inform Decision Point 1, refining conceptual alternatives and Decision Point 2, advancing selected alternatives to a 15% conceptual design. Figure 3 is a visual interpretation of planned Step 1 engagement activities. Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 17  Packet Pg. 670 of 690  9 Figure 3: Conceptual Development Engagement Activities ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES Two Community Meetings are planned to occur prior to Decision Point 1 to provide a platform for a diverse group of stakeholders—including schools, businesses, and community-based organizations (CBOs)—to engage with the Project Team and review the selected alternatives prior to Decision Point 1 when the Rail Committee and City Council will consider community input and refine the alternatives under consideration. The following is a breakdown of anticipated Community Meetings format, content to be co vered during the meetings, and time for community questions and input. Format: Present the design options for Churchill/Seale Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road in a public setting, as well as online via a Project website, mailers, and social media. Content: Show how the designs have evolved since the alternatives where first introduced. Include visualizations, presentations to communicate Project details, provide opportunities for community input, and gather community concerns. The community meetings will walk through each of the design options. The Engagement Team will collect community feedback in-person and will also collect community feedback via online portals that will be made available to the public. Proposed Meetings:  1 for Churchill Avenue/Seale Avenue alternatives  1 for Meadow Drive and Charleston Road alternatives Target Audience:  Community members and leaders  Community business organizations  Schools  Local businesses Q&A Session: Give the community an opportunity to ask questions and provide additional feedback on the updated designs. Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 18  Packet Pg. 671 of 690  10 Two Technical Workshops are planned to occur prior to Decision Point 2. The technical workshops will provide opportunities to community members to engage in focused discussions on a variety of topics ranging from traffic, acquisitions, right-of-way, safety, among others, pertaining to the selected alternatives. The following is a breakdown of anticipated Technical Workshops format, content to be covered during the meetings, and time for community questions and input. Format: Present design alternatives in a focused group setting. The engagement will include visual aids (renderings, maps), and a presentation. Content: The Technical Workshops will provide updated refined concepts to the public and discussions will be geared towards the discussion of specific technical aspects of the various alternatives. Proposed Workshops:  1 for Churchill Avenue/Seale Avenue alternatives  1 for Meadow Drive and Charleston Road alternatives Target Audience: Community members, including property owners, tenants, and businesses located adjacent to or near the proposed project areas. This also includes residents who rely on the roadways and transit users who may experience changes in access or service as a result of the project. Homeowner associations, neighborhood groups, and other locally organized stakeholders with a vested interest in the project’s design and implementation are also encouraged to participate. Q&A Session: Each workshop will set aside time for the public to ask questions, express concerns, and give overall feedback. An Open House is planned to occur prior to Decision Point 2 and will provide community members and all interested parties with an opportunity to learn about and provide input on the proposed LPAs. Format: The open house will be structured as an interactive, drop-in style event where attendees will have the opportunity to review display boards, maps, and other materials showcasing the LPAs for each Project location. Content: The Engagement Team and technical staff will be available to provide Project status, advancements or changes in design and will be available to answer technical questions. The Open House will offer information on detailed construction schedules, phasing plans, traffic, safety measures, and expected outcomes of the designs. Q&A and Feedback: The event is planned to allow community members to ask questions and provide feedback on the Project at their leisure to staff members, in written format, or online. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (35% DESIGN) AND ENVIRONMENTAL Goal: The goal of engagement in Step 2 is to continue discussions on design alternatives with a more in-depth technical analysis. As the design progresses, this step will focus on providing the community with opportunities to engage in a more technical capacity, ensuring that input is collected on critical design elements. This step will help Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 19  Packet Pg. 672 of 690  11 refine concepts leading to Decision Point 2, where the City Council will finalize selections for 35% Design and Environmental Documentation, expected to be completed by the end of 2027 per the Cooperative Agreement. Figure 4 is a graphical interpretation of the technical engagement activities in Step 2, including purpose, types of community events, anticipated crossing locations, and target audience. Figure 4: Preliminary Engineering and Environmental Engagement Activities ENGAGEMENT ACTIVIT IES Two Community Meetings will provide community members with an opportunity to learn about and provide input on the proposed LPAs. These workshops will include presentations from project staff and technical experts, interactive discussions, and opportunities for participants to ask questions and voice their concerns. Attendees will be encouraged to provide feedback on key elements of the proposed LPAs, including mobility impacts, potential right-of-way requirements, safety considerations, and community integration. The workshops will also highlight how previous community input has shaped the design process and explain the next steps in project development. By fostering an open and inclusive dialogue, these workshops will ensure that community voices are heard and considered as part of the decision-making process. Format: Present the design options for Churchill/Seale Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road in a public setting, as well as online via a Project website, mailers, and social media. Content: The community meetings will aim to re-engage the community and gather input on design alternatives, present updated design concepts with an overview of refinements, and facilitate discussions to capture feedback on community priorities and concerns Proposed Meetings:  1 for Churchill Avenue/Seale Avenue alternatives  1 for Meadow Drive and Charleston Road alternatives Target Audience:  Community members and leaders  Community business organizations Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 20  Packet Pg. 673 of 690  12  Schools  Local businesses Six Technical Workshops: Specific technical discussions covering topics such as right-of-way, mobility, constructability, and Project cost estimates. Content: The proposed content for the technical workshops will include key project topics such as right-of-way impacts, mobility and accessibility considerations, constructability and cost estimates. Proposed Workshops:  3 for Churchill Avenue/Seale Avenue alternatives  3 for Meadow Drive and Charleston Road alternatives Target Audience: Community members, including property owners, tenants, and businesses located adjacent to or near the proposed project areas. This also includes residents who rely on the roadways and transit users who may experience changes in access or service as a result of the project. Homeowner associations, neighborhood groups, and other locally organized stakeholders with a vested interest in the project’s design and implementation are also encouraged to participate. An Open House will provide community members with an opportunity to learn about and provide input on the proposed LPAs. Format: The final open houses will be structured as interactive, drop-in style events. Attendees will have the opportunity to review display boards, maps, and other materials showcasing the LPAs for each location. Project Team members will be available at different stations to provide information, answer questions, and gather community feedback. Content: Provide detailed construction schedules, phasing plans, traffic forecasts, safety measures, and expected outcomes of the final designs. Target Audience: Open to all community members, including residents, local business owners, commuters, advocacy groups, and other stakeholders interested in the project’s development. This event is designed to provide an inclusive space where individuals from all backgrounds can learn about the project updates, voice their perspectives, and contribute to the decision-making process. Special outreach will be conducted to ensure participation from historically underrepresented groups, renters, seniors, and individuals with disabilities. Q&A and Feedback: Allow community members to ask final questions and provide feedback on the anticipated layout. Include specific questions on what the community likes or dislikes about the final design and any concerns they have for the construction phase. Interactive Tools:  Interactive maps will supplement open houses to allow residents to engage with digital maps  Comment walls will be set up throughout for community members to leave comments and suggestions. There will also be comment boxes where comments can be dropped off. Online platforms will also be available to provide comments. Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 21  Packet Pg. 674 of 690  13 ENGAGEMENT AND DIGITAL COMMUNICATION TOOLS Throughout the engagement process, the Project will implement a variety of outreach and engagement techniques to connect with the community and community partners. STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS WITH EXISTING NETWORKS Kimley-Horn will collaborate with Caltrain and the City, CBOs, and other parties already active in the community that are interested in participating in the project’s public engagement opportunities. The goal is to leverage existing relationships which will facilitate effective, respectful, and targeted engagement efforts. This will also provide the engagement team with the opportunity to help identify additional community members/groups with the community that are not aware of this engagement effort. PUBLIC COMMENT Throughout the duration of the public engagement period, the engagement team will solicit ongoing public comments in written format or digitally through a form on the project website. FACTSHEETS The Engagement Team will produce factsheets to support all steps of public engagement. One factsheet will be produced after each round. The factsheets are intended to provide updates and general information surrounding major milestones and will be available for print distribution during engagement events and on the project website. Each factsheet will be offered in both English and Spanish and will be designed to be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible both digitally and in print. DIGITAL COMMUNICATION To support all public engagement, the Engagement Team will prepare digital communications intended to supplement the workshops, factsheets, and website updates. The following tools will be utilized to create supplemental digital communications and will assist in educating, informing, and engaging the public. WEBSITE The Engagement Team will create and update a project website to serve as a source for updates and information. The website will be updated to include factsheets and other information during each round of public engagement. There will also be updates at the end of the project, to communicate project outcomes and next steps. The website is expected to be hosted on Caltrain’s server and is anticipated that Kimley-Horn will make the necessary website updates. The City’s website will include a link to the project website on Caltrain’s site. Other information to be included on the project website will include:  Project background  Information such as timelines and key milestones  Events and key process points, as applicable Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 22  Packet Pg. 675 of 690  14 VIDEO CONTENT AND SOCIAL MEDIA A key component of our digital outreach will be the development of short, 60-second video clips designed for social media platforms. These videos will:  Provide an overview of the project, including its goals, timeline, and benefits.  Highlight examples of successfully grade separation projects that are similar in nature, demonstrating best practices and community benefits.  Feature visualizations, animations, and before-and-after comparisons to illustrate the potential improvements. These videos will be shared on the Project’s website, as well as Caltrain’s and the City’s YouTube and media channels, to maximize visibility and engagement. INTERACTIVE AND ACCESSIBLE CONTENT To promote inclusivity, digital materials will be developed with accessibility in mind, offering translated content, captions for videos, and alternative text for images. Where possible, interactive tools such as online surveys, story maps, and virtual open houses will be used to encourage public input. Through these digital communication efforts, the Engagement Team aims to build community awareness, encourage participation, and foster informed discussions about the grade separation project. D ATA S YNTHESIS The Public Involvement Report is a comprehensive document that serves as a key tool in our outreach and engagement plan. It systematically captures the strategies, methods, and outcomes of public participation efforts, ensuring transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement in our engagement processes. This report will help assess the effectiveness of the Project’s outreach activities, document community feedback, and inform decision-making processes to align with the needs and concerns of community partners. SYNTHESIZING COMMUNITY FEEDBACK AND TRACKING RESPONSES To ensure transparency, consistency, and responsiveness in our community engagement messaging, the Engagement Team will implement a structured approach to synthesizing public feedback and tracking inquiries. This approach will enhance our ability to address community concerns effectively. COMMUNITY INQUIRY TRACKER A centralized list will be developed to compile all community questions received during outreach events, online engagement, and other forms of public input. The tracking tool would be a matrix to easily track questions/comments and categorize them per general topics. This list will categorize questions by topic, including but not limited to:  Design and engineering considerations  Environmental impacts  Traffic and safety  Project timeline and funding  Community impact and mitigation measures Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 23  Packet Pg. 676 of 690  15 The Community Inquiry Tracker will be updated by the Engagement Team regularly and serve as a reference to ensure consistent messaging across various engagement activities. TRACKING SYSTEM FOR RESPONSES AND FOLLOW -UPS To facilitate timeline and accurate responses, the engagement team will establish a tracking process that:  Assigns each inquiry to the appropriate technical expert or project team member.  Documents responses provided to the public to maintain consistency in communication.  Tracks follow-ups to ensure that all questions are adequately addressed and that stakeholders receive timely updates. INTEGRATION WITH PUBLIC RECORDS RE QUESTS The Community Inquiry Tracker will also support compliance with public records requests by maintaining a well- documented repository of community inquiries and responses. This structured approach will enhance accountability and streamline the process for responding to formal information request. Implementing these measures will foster greater trust and engagement with the community while ensuring that feedback is effectively synthesized by the Engagement Team and addressed throughout the outreach process. M EASURING OUTREACH EFFECTIVENESS To ensure our outreach and engagement efforts are meaningful, accessible, and inclusive, the project team is committed to tracking key performance indicators throughout the public engagement process. The engagement team will monitor and evaluate outreach activities using the following metrics: • Number of participants at each community meeting or outreach event • Demographic information (as voluntarily reported) to capture the diversity of participants • Language access provided (e.g., translation services, materials in multiple languages) • Survey response rates (both online and in-person) • Engagement with digital tools, such as clicks on QR codes, social media impressions, and web page views These metrics will help us understand who we are reaching and identify opportunities to refine our approach as needed. A summary of these findings will be included in the final outreach and engagement report to promote transparency and continuous improvement. FINAL REPORT SUMMARY After Preliminary Engineering and Environmental engagement, the Engagement Team will publish a comprehensive summary report detailing the outcomes of the engagement process. Through the Final Report Summary, the Engagement Team aims to facilitate meaningful discussions, gather targeted feedback, and ensure transparency in the decision-making process as the project advances. This report will include: Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 24  Packet Pg. 677 of 690  16  Summary of Presented Materials: A detailed overview of the design alternatives and refinements presented during the final design stage. This section will outline key changes based on prior community feedback and technical analysis.  Community Feedback Integration: Documentation of how community input influenced design decisions, including a summary of recurring themes, key concerns, and any adjustments made to accommodate stakeholder feedback.  Next Steps and Project Timeline: A clear outline of the next phases of the project, including expected timelines for decision-making, permitting, and construction activities.  Future Public Engagement Opportunities: Information on any remaining opportunities for public involvement during the construction phase, including methods for providing ongoing input, scheduled meetings, and how to stay informed through project updates. LANGUAGE TRANSLATION SERVICES During planned rounds of engagement, public-facing materials will be provided in Spanish, in addition to English. Project website users will have the option of using Google Translate and factsheets will also be provided in Spanish. Should translated materials or translation services be required in a different language, these will be provided on an as needed basis. Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 25  Packet Pg. 678 of 690  17 C OMMUNITY P ARTNER E NGAGEMENT COMMUNITY PARTNER IDENTIFICATION PROCESS Kimley-Horn, in collaboration with the City and Caltrain will curate a comprehensive list of community partners, local organizations, and the public to ensure inclusive outreach for each planned event. This process will involve:  City Input and Recommendations: The City will provide insights on key stakeholders, including neighborhood associations, business groups, advocacy organizations, and underrepresented communities.  Community Partnerships: Engagement specialists will work with local organizations and advisory groups to identify trusted voices and outreach networks that can help distribute information effectively.  Event-Specific Targeting: Each event will have a tailored outreach approach, ensuring the right audiences—such as residents near specific crossings, transit users, or businesses—are engaged.  Public Engagement Records: Previous community participation, feedback, and expressed interests will inform future outreach, ensuring consistent and meaningful engagement. Community partner groups are categorized into the following three categories:  Education Institutions – Institutions within proximity to project sites  Local Businesses – Local businesses within proximity to project sites  Community Groups – Local community groups within proximity to project sites By leveraging City resources, local networks, and community insights, the engagement team will ensure outreach is inclusive, effective, and tailored to each event’s objectives. COMMUNITY P ARTICIPATION The Project team is committed to fostering broad participation by proactively engaging communities that have been historically underrepresented in planning processes. This means going beyond standard outreach to ensure that all residents—regardless of age, language, income, or housing status—have the opportunity to contribute meaningfully to Project decisions. This approach ensures that a diverse cross-section of the community not only has access to information but also feels empowered to shape the outcomes of the Project. To achieve this, the engagement approach will include:  Targeted Outreach to Priority Groups – Outreach efforts will be tailored to engage seniors, youth and students, renters, non-English speakers, people with disabilities, and communities of color.  Language and Cultural Accessibility – Project materials and communications will be translated into commonly spoken languages in the area. Interpretation services will be made available at outreach meetings.  Family-Friendly Events – Outreach efforts will feature child-friendly activities so parents and caregivers can more easily participate.  Multiple Participation Formats – To address digital and physical access barriers, outreach will include in-person and virtual events, tabling at community hubs, Caltrain stations, and phone-based or mailed surveys as needed. Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 26  Packet Pg. 679 of 690  18 CONCLUSION The Plan ensures that public participation remains at the core of the Project, fostering transparency, inclusivity, and collaboration. By implementing a structured approach to outreach, engagement, and feedback collection, the plan creates meaningful opportunities for the community to stay informed, share input, and shape Project decisions. By working together, the Engagement Team can create solutions that enhance safety, mobility, and quality of life for residents. Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 27  Packet Pg. 680 of 690  19 ATTACHMENT A RAIL COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT PLAN No Comment Response 1 Hold separate meetings for Charleston and Meadow to ensure equitable and detailed engagement. Outreach meetings will feature separate stations for both Meadow Drive and Charleston Road to provide location-specific information. The Engagement Team will assess the need for future separate meetings or focused technical workshops for each crossing as the outreach effort continues. 2 Combine community and technical content in one meeting, with breakout options for varying interest levels. The Engagement Team will tailor the messaging based on the meeting purpose and outcome. 3 Acknowledge emotional and disruptive impacts to households with empathetic, transparent messaging. All project communications will aim to be transparent as well as include empathetic framing and context for impacts. 4 Expand translation beyond Spanish, consider Mandarin and app-based tools for real-time translation. The Engagement Team will utilize tools such as QR code–enabled transcripts and Wordly’s real-time translation platform to support multilingual participation and improve accessibility for non- English-speaking residents. The Engagement Team recognizes the importance of balancing digital and in-person content and will provide translated materials and interpretation services across both formats to support inclusive participation. 5 Offer childcare to reduce participation barriers, especially in more affordable neighborhoods. While formal childcare will not be provided, the project team is exploring ways to make meetings more family-friendly by offering child-oriented activities—such as coloring stations and interactive materials—so parents can more easily participate while their children are engaged. 6 Clarify why the Churchill/Seale LPA was selected, including public process and Council decision. The What We Have Heard So Far and How Community Feedback Shaped the Process Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 28  Packet Pg. 681 of 690  20 Churchill/Seale selection and decision history. 7 Establish a clear evaluation framework for Charleston/Meadow alternatives with scoring and decision logic. An evaluation matrix and methodology will be developed during conceptual development as the project design is advanced and leading up to Decision Point 2 to transparently show tradeoffs and scoring approach. Previously City has used a Matrix – Summary of Evaluation based on the Council adopted criteria to compare various elements. 8 Explain how property impacts will be managed, including early notice, compensation, and support. As design advances, the engagement team will host technical-focused workshops to discuss potential property impacts in more detail. 9 Define equity engagement methods, target groups, tracking metrics, and evaluation mechanisms. The Community Participation section was added to outlines strategies to reach additional groups such as seniors, youth, renters, non-English speakers, and communities of color. It also commits to offering language interpretation, child-friendly activities, and multiple participation formats to reduce access barriers and facilitate broad engagement. 10 Summarize prior community feedback themes and show their influence on current alternatives. The What We Heard So Far section was added to summarize key themes from prior outreach. 11 Explain how the grade separation project connects to other transportation initiatives and planning efforts. An Associated Projects Map has been developed to show how the grade separation project aligns with and complements other local and regional efforts, including those led by Caltrain, and the City’s broader planning efforts. This map will be provided on the project website and updates will be given throughout the various outreach forums. 12 Establish metrics to track outreach effectiveness and commit to publicly reporting results. The Measuring Outreach Effectiveness section was added to identify the metrics that will be tracked and summarized in the final outreach report for public transparency. 13 Improve the timeline graphic with a clearer layout and milestone details, including construction caveats. The timeline section was revised to include the potential topics for the technical workshops which may include construction-related information. Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 29  Packet Pg. 682 of 690  21 14 Emphasized need to re-tell the full story for newcomers and avoid assumptions about community knowledge. The Engagement Team is working on outreach materials to include a narrative timeline and background project summary accessible to new participants. 15 Supported creation of modernized website with updated visuals and clear materials. A new user-friendly project website with updated graphics is in development. 16 Recommended clear explanation of current funding sources and how grade separations are traditionally funded. The Engagement Team will develop slides and materials to include explanation of current project funding and how grade separations are traditionally funded. 17 Noted funding is competitive and slow; emphasized importance of ongoing design work. The funding slides and materials will explain why design work is essential to stay competitive for limited federal and state grant dollars. 18 Called for clear explanation of how quiet zones, grade separations, and safety upgrades interact. An Associated Projects Map has been developed to show how the grade separation project aligns with and complements other local and regional efforts, including those led by Caltrain, and the City’s broader planning efforts. This map will be provided on the project website and updates will be given throughout the various outreach forums. 19 Urged re-explaining why certain alternatives were removed, like tunneling. The Engagement Team is working on outreach materials and presentations to include a narrative timeline and project background summary during community meetings and on the project website. 20 Stressed need for honest communication about high-speed rail’s (HSR) uncertain role in planning. The Engagement Team will highlight the project assumption changes. 21 Highlighted need to reflect changes in ridership, traffic, and growth since 2019. This phase will include new traffic data collection and revised traffic analysis. In addition, the Engagement Team will highlight the project assumption changes. 22 Suggested better explanation of differences in Meadow and Charleston designs. Collateral materials will include a side-by-side comparison of alternatives, community meetings and workshops will feature renderings of alternatives displaying differences. Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 30  Packet Pg. 683 of 690  22 23 Recommended clarifying Churchill’s lower priority status. The Engagement Team will highlight the project priority status. 24 Stressed importance of stating what decisions are made vs. under review. The Engagement Team is working on outreach materials and presentations to include a narrative timeline that provides project background summary to new participants. A decision matrix is in development for this phase. 25 Clearly communicate what decisions remain and upcoming key decision points (e.g., 15% design milestone). All materials will highlight pending decisions, milestones, and next steps. 26 Be upfront about funding limitations and the possibility of pausing or canceling the project. The funding slides and materials will explain the funding limitations. 27 Record meetings for public access by those unable to attend live. The presentation portion of the Community Meetings will be provided in a virtual format such as Zoom. Community meetings and presentation materials will be recorded and posted online to increase access. 28 Address varied community member priorities - whether property impacts, technical questions, or general curiosity with flexible, staff should be prepared to meet these varied information needs through flexible engagement strategies. To meet the varied needs of community members, each meeting will offer both high-level overviews and opportunities to engage with more detailed technical information through breakout sessions or topic specific stations. Speakers and facilitators will be trained to guide participants to the appropriate materials, with follow-up resources provided to ensure continued access and understanding. 29 Prepare resource lists to explain topics like eminent domain, even if not active issues. The Engagement Team will prepare resources based on key topics relative to the project, as needed. 30 Prioritize big picture understanding of planning context over technical depth at this stage. The Engagement Team will tailor the messaging based on the meeting purpose and outcome. 31 Start with why grade separations are needed, reviewing urgency and changes since 2019. The Engagement Team is working on outreach materials to include a narrative timeline and project background summary accessible to new participants. Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 31  Packet Pg. 684 of 690  23 32 Support newcomers and repeat participants with background and equal footing. The Engagement Team is working on outreach materials and presentations to include a narrative timeline and provide project background to new participants. 33 Explain why some alternatives were eliminated and how project goals influenced narrowing. The Engagement Team is working on outreach materials and presentations to include a narrative timeline and provide background summary to new participants. 34 Resolve design conflicts early to avoid rework and retain community-supported options. Design coordination between Caltrain and the City is being proactively discussed and documented early. Feedback from the community will be reviewed and addressed in collaboration with staff from both agencies and the direction of the Rail Committee. 35 Use Q3 and 15% design milestones to reassess Churchill and finalize design exceptions. Key milestones and decisions, including Churchill Avenue and design exceptions, will be communicated during each meeting. 36 Discuss the risk that not all separations will be funded. Public will be informed that not all alternatives may be funded and prioritization may occur in community meetings, technical workshops and project collateral. 37 Discuss quiet zones and other short-term improvements as part of a broader strategy. An Associated Projects Map has been developed to show how the grade separation project aligns with and complements other local and regional efforts, including those led by Caltrain, and the City’s broader planning efforts. This map will be provided on the project website and updates will be given throughout the various outreach forums. 38 Provide context from peer cities about rising costs to shape expectations. Cost context from peer cities will be included in outreach materials. 39 Lay a strong foundation of context, funding, and technical limits before asking for feedback. The Engagement Plan will guide the project outreach strategy, ensuring each community meeting begins with clear context on project goals, constraints, and funding. Messaging will be coordinated closely with Caltrain and the City to maintain accuracy and transparency throughout the process. Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 32  Packet Pg. 685 of 690  24 40 Expressed concern that public feedback may not influence outcomes; called for more transparency on timeline, budget, and quiet zone integration. Public materials and meeting content will clarify decision-making processes, current status of alternatives, funding constraints, and how feedback will inform next steps. 41 How will long-term continuity and accountability be ensured despite staff turnover. To ensure continuity and accountability over the long term, the project team is committed to thoroughly documenting key decision points, maintaining a publicly accessible record of project milestones, and providing regular updates online. Roles and responsibilities will be clearly defined, and knowledge transfer protocols will be in place so that any staffing changes do not disrupt project momentum or transparency with the community. 42 Questioned need for grade separation, citing cost, design concerns, and disruption; proposed alternative approaches including legal action for HSR funding. Outreach materials will provide context for grade separation need, design alternatives, and explain how funding strategy ties into regional and state efforts. 43 Suggested consulting Japanese transportation agencies on non-disruptive rail construction methods. The Engagement Team may explore relevant international case studies to assess their applicability in the local context, as needed. 44 Noted public unawareness, particularly near Seale Avenue; recommended visible signage and engagement with Palo Alto High students. Signage at crossings and targeted outreach to students and schools are being incorporated into outreach strategy. 45 Urged raw outreach data be publicly shared, expressed concern over staff turnover and funding reliability; recommended creating a beginner-friendly website. Final report will include both raw and summarized data, and a redesigned, user-friendly updated project website is being planned for broader access. Item A Attachment A - Public Outreach and Engagement Plan for Grade Separation Project at Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, (Preliminary Engineering & Environmental Documentation Phase)        Item A: Staff Report Pg. 33  Packet Pg. 686 of 690  City Council Staff Report From: City Manager Report Type: INFORMATION REPORTS Lead Department: Administrative Services Meeting Date: September 8, 2025 Report #:2508-5049 TITLE Fiscal Year 2025 Significant Gifts and Donations to the City of Palo Alto RECOMMENDATION This is an informational report; no Council action is required. DISCUSSION The City of Palo Alto’s Policy and Procedures 1-18, Gift and Donations to the City of Palo Alto1 requires annual reports to the City Council regarding significant gifts that have been accepted on behalf of the City. In compliance with this policy, attachment A lists significant gifts (over $5,000) that the City received during Fiscal Year 2025. All gifts had a designated purpose as stated under the “Use of Gift” Column in attachment A. Staff monitors designated restrictions to comply with the Donor’s request. In addition, in mid-2008 the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) adopted new regulations relating to gifts benefiting specific employees. The new regulations contain guidelines on when these types of gifts should be disclosed as gifts to the City. Gifts required to be disclosed pursuant to this regulation are now also reported on the new FPPC Form 801, and that gift information is now posted to the City Clerk’ s web page2 as required by the FPPC. Annual reports of gifts will continue to be provided to the Council. Form 801 information will be available on the City Clerk’ s website throughout the year as gifts are received. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Significant Gifts and Donations Received in FY 2025 Over $5,000 APPROVED BY: Lauren Lai, Administrative Services Director 1 Policy and Procedures 1-18, Gift and Donations to the City: https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/city-clerk/fppc-forms/2014-updated-final-gifts-to-city-policy.pdf 2 City Clerk’s Web Page: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/City-Clerk/Gifts-to-the-City Item B Item B Staff Report        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 687 of 690  Significant Gifts and Donations Received FY 2025 Over $5,000 Attachment A Date Donor Dept. Gift Use of Gift July 1, 2024 Friends of the Palo Alto Library (FOPAL) Library $120,000.00 development and February 5, 2025 George F. Goel Police $100,000.00 Animal Services Division, directly to the Animal Shelter for the care and housing of animals under February 24, 2025 Friends of Palo Alto Parks Community Services $7,775.00 ADA Binoculars for Foothills Nature Preserve Item B Attachment A - Significant Gifts and Donations Received in FY 2025 Over $5,000        Item B: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 688 of 690  Item No. 6. Page 1 of 2 City Council Supplemental Report From: Alan Kurotori, Director Utilities Meeting Date: September 8, 2025 Item Number: 6 Report #:2509-5167 TITLE Approve Amendment #1 of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the California Alternate Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority (CAEATFA), to Extend the Term of the Agreement from Two Years to Five Years, to Continue to Enable the Residents of Palo Alto to Participate in the GoGreen Home Energy Financing Program. RECOMMENDATION Staff and Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend City Council approve Amendment #1 of the Memorandum of Agreement with the California Alternate Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority (CAEATFA), to extend the term of the agreement from two years to five years, to continue to enable the residents of Palo Alto to participate in the GoGreen Home Energy Financing Program. BACKGROUND Staff is providing feedback from the September 3, 2025 UAC meeting. This supplemental memo provides information to aid Council consideration of this action item. UAC inquired whether contractors found the process of receiving payment at the end of projects to be burdensome. Staff acknowledged that some concerns had been raised, however, over 100 participating contractors within Santa Clara County have agreed to the payment terms of the GoGreen Program. Mayor Lauing, serving as the Council Liaison to the UAC, asked whether continuation of the program was warranted given that only one customer had participated over the past two years. Staff anticipates greater potential participation with the 2025 launch of the whole-home electrification customer program as a mechanism to fund higher cost home electrification projects. Staff emphasized that it would be premature to discontinue the program at this time. Staff also noted that the CAEATFA loan guarantee program had a lower startup administration costs than initially projected. This program provides residents with a financing option that is Item 6 Item 6 Supplemental Report        Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 1  Packet Pg. 689 of 690  Item No. 6. Page 2 of 2 offered by PG&E and other electric utilities. Furthermore, the program is funded with restricted Natural Gas Cap-and-Trade revenues, and not through ratepayer revenues. ATTACHMENTS APPROVED BY: Item 6 Item 6 Supplemental Report        Item 6: Staff Report Pg. 2  Packet Pg. 690 of 690