fiSMMnaa
Summary of Proceedings

t.

Board of Supervisors. County of Santa Clara
uecemDer4,iuui

* 45. Approved 2002 Board of Supervisors' Meeting Calendar.

45A. Accepted Final Report and considered recommendations from Emergency Energy
Task Force relating to County energy consumption and generation,
a. Approved Energy Luminary Awards.

b. Directed Administration to study and make recommendations on

implementation of"Green Building" standards for private developments in
unincorporated County, as well as construction or improvement of buildings
owned or leased by the County,

c. Directed Administration to study and make recommendations on Heat Island

Reduction that primarily focus on street pavement but also identify gaps in
County regulations and policies covering private developments in
unincorporated County, as well as construction or improvement of buildings

owned or leased by the County,

d. Approved General Services Agency's three-year plan(FY 2003,FY 2004,FY
funding
2005)to complete installation of"cool roofs," contingent on continued
by Board for Backlog Facility Maintenance Program consistent with current
Board policy,

e. Directed Administration to develop a Board policy establishing energy efficient
standards for new County building designs and that explicitly considers

delegated energy use impacts as a formal criterion in purchasing decisions

related to buildings, facility space leases, equipment and supplies that use
energy unless they meet specific exemption criteria.

Directed Administration to include in a Bo^rd policy a.n emphasis on continuing
to explore solar energy and other renewable resources for energy uses,
f. Directed Administration to explore concept oftwo related State legislative

initiatives: a)establish a Statewide process whereby specified categories of

equipment and supplies would receive energy efficiency ratings; and, b)provide

either rebates and/or subsidies to the higher rated energy efficient equipment and
16

Board of Supervisors, County of Santa Clara

Summan'of Proceedings

uecemoer 4, yuu'i

supplies.

g. Directed Administration to present recommendations and options on
implementing long-term public educational strategies that promote energy

conservation as both a community value and organizational ethic, focusing on

partnership opportunities and communication strategies involving both
governmental and non—governmental resources,

h. Directed Administration not to move forward with power generation at the

October 2001
possible Hedding project and referred review and analysistheofAdministration,

Health and Hospital System co-generation proposal to
retaining flexibility for both co-generation and distributed generation projects to
insulate critical County operations from the vagaries of market forces,

i. Directed the Administration to maintain current General Plan policies and
zoning regulations regarding power plant siting.

. Directed Administration to present a proposal at FY 2002 Mid-year Budget

J

Review to implement an Enterprise Energy Management System to include
funding options for remaining components involving the FY 2003 Capital
Budget, Building Operations Budget, and Information Technology Executive
Committee Budget,

k. Directed Administration to identify and pursue additional funding sources for

continued energy conservation efforts on a pilot basis through end of FY 2004,
and, delegated authority to Administration to determine appropriate staffing
methods to implement this effort, ending June 30, 2004, pending Board action to
continue a position.

Referred to Administration for consideration: Preparation of report on power

y located
plant locations and impact of new power plants disproportionatel
and low-income

m

communities comprised predominantly of people of color
households.

County Executive
* 46.
17

te£^,rioer ^ ^ 2^)o i
Ag-enda X4€,'n

County of Santa Clara
Board of Supervisors

qo y
.O'
tr

Supervisorial District Three
Supervisor Pete McHugh

M 0"^

Trans-ID; BOS03-01-008
DATE:

December 4, 2001

TO:

Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Pete McHugh
Supervisor, District 3

Liz Kniss

Supervisor, District 5
SUBJECT: EMERGENCY ENERGY TASK FORCE HNAL REPORT

RFX:OMMENDED ACTION

Accept the Final Report of the Emergency Energy Task Force and approve the following

recommendations related to County energy consumption and generation.

1. Adopt and present Energy Luminary awards to the following County employees to
recognize their contributions in support of the County's energy conservation program: a)
Joseph Takacs, General Services Agency, Building Operations Division; b)Dennis Montero,
General Services Agency, Building Operations Division; c) Steven Palmadessa, Social
Services Agency; d)Darcie Mctsker, Department of Correction, Correctional Center for
Women(CCW),Elmwood Facility; e) Audrey Trautwein, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center;
f) David Ginsborg, Office of the Assessor; g)Ponce Sia, General Services Agency, Building

Board

D-Ji'.sW F,

Cour.rr- ExccLilsv«; Richard VViltcabcrg

BLsiU'a A!varaifcv., Petr McHush. JarnrwT.

Jr., Liz
1

Operations Division.

2. Direct staff to study and make recommendations to the Board through the Housing, Land
Use, Environment and Transportation Committee(HLUET)on implementation of "Green
Building" standards for both private developments in the unincorporated County as well as
construction or improvement of buildings owned or leased by the County.

3. Direct staff to study and make recommendations on Heat Island Reduction that primarily
focus on street pavement but also identify gaps in County regulations and policies covering

private developments in the unincorporated County as well as construction or improvement of
buildings owned or leased by the County where the County might incorporate strategies
presented by Hashem Akbari of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory as well as those

found in other resources and references.

4. Approve General Service Agency's three-year plan (FY2003, FY2004, FY2005) to
complete the installation of "cool roofs" on roofs that Building Operations maintains where
appropriate, contingent on the Board providing continued funding for the Backlog Facility
Maintenance Program consistent with current Board policy.

5. Direct staff to develop a Board policy that establishes energy efficiency standards for new
County building designs and that explicitly considers the direct energy use impacts as a formal
criterion in purchasing decisions related to buildings, facility space leases, equipment and
supplies that use energy unless they meet specific exemption criteria.
6. Direct staff to explore the concept of the following two related State legislative initiatives

and present recommendations and options to the Board through the Legislative Committee, a)

establish a statewide process whereby specified categories of equipment and supplies

purchased by local governments and special districts would receive energy efficiency ratings;
b) provide either rebates to entities that purchase higher rated energy efficient equipment and
supplies and/or subsidies to the manufacturers of the higher rated energy efficient equipment
and supplies to lower the effective purchase price.

7. Direct staff to present recommendations and options to the Board through the Finance and
Government Operations Committee(FGOC)on implementing a long-term public educational
strategies that promotes energy conservation as both a community value and as an
organizational ethic. The proposals should focus on partnership opportunities and
communication strategies involving both governmental and non-governmental resources.
8. Do not move forward with power generation at the possible Hedding project and refer to
staff for further review and analysis the October 2001 SCVHHS co—generation proposal with
report back to both the Finance and Government Operations Committee and Health and
Hospital Committee in January 2002. Retain the flexibility for both co-generation as well as

8c:«r'-iof3u[5crvis.i:<-i>: DojjaM F: Gsgr, Blaiica

Counij- E-secistive; Kichard Wmcnfac:^

Pete McHugh,James T. BcaaJr.. Lu Kriias
2

distributed generation projects in an effort to insulate critical County operations from the

vagaries of market forces. The report back should also provide information on the availability

of tax credits and grants to offset the funding and operation of the project.
9. Maintain current General Plan policies and zoning regulations regarding power plant siting.
10. Direct staff to present a proposal at the FY02 Midyear Budget Review to implement an
Enterprise Energy Management System that identifies the number of meters with their
associated cost that might be installed through June 30, 2002 and that recommends funding

options for the remaining components that involve the FY03 Capital Budget, the Building
Operations Budget, and the ITEC Budget.

11. Direct staff to identify and pursue additional funding sources for continued energy
conservation efforts on a pilot basis through the end of FY2004 with a report at each Midyear

Budget Review and during the Budget Flearings that discusses efforts and successes. To
implement this effort, direct the Administration to determine the most appropriate staffing

method that would end in June 30, 2004 unless the Board took action to continue a position.

FTSCAT,IMPLICATIONS

The Energy Luminary awards are recommended at the $100 and $500 level and existing
appropriations will be used to cover the cost of this action (Recommendation 1). To
implement the pilot project through June 30, 2004 to pursue and report on additional funding
sources

for conservation efforts (Recommendation 11) will require one analyst position for

that length of time. An unclassified analyst position working on energy conservation matters
in the General Services Agency is already funded through October 2002. To fund a position
from November 2002 through June 30, 2004 would cost approximately $141,500.

The other nine proposed recommendations may lead to final Board actions on both policies
and selected project initiatives that should reduce County energy consumption. Whether
reduced energy consumption will lead to reduced County costs and an overall net savings to
the County depends on the weather and market conditions that govern utility costs. As the
recommended proposals come forward, staff will provide the General Fund costs and potential
savings associated with them.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

In February 2001, the Board of Supervisors established the Santa Clara County Emergency
Energy Task Force. The Board assigned the Task Force the broad goal to identify policy
recommendations for the full Board to consider relating to conservation and generation of

of s-ap<rrvi3cr«; DisjiHia F. Cage, Blar.c.% Aivarmto, tec McH-agh,

CouRty Executive; R;ch.anl WsTJenberg

T. Bsall Jr.. La Ktii3.4
3

renewable and non-renewable energy resources for the County and for County facilities. Last

May, the Task Force submitted an interim report containing nine recommendations intended

to reduce energy use in the near term. The Board adopted these strategies.

The Task Force has evidence from five facilities where the County has an ability to measure

energy usage better that these .strategies and those implemented over the last few years
achieved major energy reductions. Using average daily kilowatt hours consumed (adu s) as the
measure of energy usage, these five facilities used almost 12,000 less adu s in June 2001 than
in 2000 for over an eight percent decrease.

The percentage decreases were almost ten percent in July, over twenty-two percent in August,
almost nineteen percent in September and over sixteen percent in October. Over the five
month period (June through October), the total reduction in adu's was over 112,000 kilowatt
hours. This level of savings is roughly equivalent to a reduction in energy demand (kilowatts)
quired to meet the needs of 1,100 homes. At an average cost of between ten and twelve
cents per kilowatt hour, the average monthly savings resulting from this energy conservation

re

effort ranges from $67,000 to $80,000.

However,limitations in the data preclude generalizations about energy consumption trends
across all County facilities. As more data is evaluated, staff will be better able to assess the

impact on the County's utilities budget in the General Services Agency. In the current fiscal
year, the Board approved an additional $4.7 million to support utility costs over the amount
budgeted in FY 2001. Through October 28, 2001 (Accounting Period 4, or 31 percent of the
fiscal year), departments covered by this account have spent $3.7 million or only 27 percent of
the budget. For next fiscal year, staff is not projecting a change in base costs for this budget
allocation. This forecast may change, however, when budget development takes place in early
2002 because there will be more experience with the impacts of gas prices and winter energy
use that staff will factor into the forecast for next fiscal year.

The Task Force is now submitting its final report with one recommendation that honors

employees who had special energy conservation ideas and ten others have the potential to;
a) reduce long-term energy consumption by both County facilities and privately owned
facilities in the unincorporated area;

b) maintain the County's current flexibility on siting power plants under 50 megawatts;
c) continue the review and analysis of one co-generation project that may warrant
implementation;

d) improve the County's ability to manage its energy use and identify additional strategies to

fund energy conservation projects.

HONORING EMPLOYEES WITH SPECIAL ENERGY CONSERVATION IDEAS

Bijaxii a"Superfiafij-B; UiiiaW ?. Gag«, Blanca Aivarasio.

Cour.tj- E.h;i;cuuw; .Richafd Witiesbcrg

McHugh, JasnesT. BealUlf., lus Krtjss

Recommendation 1: Adopt and present Energy Luminary awards to the following County

employees to recognize their contributions in support of the County's energy conservation
program; a) Joseph Takacs, General Services Agency, Building Operations Division; b)

Dennis Montero, General Services Agency, Building Operations Division; c) Steven
Palmadessa, Social Services Agency; d)Darcie Metsker, Department of Correction,
Correctional Center for Women(CCW),Elmwood Facility; e) Audrey Trautwein, Santa Clara

Valley Medical Center; f) David Ginsborg, Office of the Assessor; g)Ponce Sia, General

Services Agency, Building Operations Division.

Rationale: These employees have made energy savings suggestions that the Emergency

Energy Task Force believes merit special recognition as "Energy Luminaries." See

Attachment A for the details of their suggestions and the benefits that the County obtained.

REDUCING LONG-TERM ENERGY CONSUMPTION

Recommendation 2; Direct staff to study and make recommendations to the Board through the

Housing, Land Use, Environment and Transportation Committee(HLUET)on
implementation of "Green Building" standards for both private developments in the

unincorporated County as well as construction or improvement of buildings owned or leased
by the County.

Rationale: Architects and builders apply the term "Green Building standards" to those for

lighting, insulation, climate control systems, and other building design elements that

increase the efficiency in the use of energy for residential and non-residential buildings.
The State legislature has assigned the California Energy Commission(CEC)the primary

sponsibility for establishing these Green Building standards. The CEC adopted and the
Building Standards Commission approved emergency sUmdards for energy efficiency

re

effective June 1,2001.

Local jurisdictions, however, may enact more stringent building and design standards or
require earlier implementation of standards set by the State. They may do so, if they

demonstrate to the State that the standards are cost effective and at least as energy efficient
as the State standards. Given how much energy consumption comes from building

operations, the Task Force recommends that the County consider adopting Green Building
standards for both private development in the unincorporated County as well as

construction or improvement of County owned or leased buildings. Since the County has
choices, the Task Force further recommends that the staff .study not only the State's
adopted standards but those that were under State review and not adopted and those
currently under State review that may be adopted. In addition, staff should survey local

Jurisdictions on their current standards and any pending actions to change them, as well as
identify any standards that would promote the use of non-renewable energy sources and
Bv-Aiu-d of Supei'.'WWs: Dt'irtail'i ?. Ga^, Blanc.-* Aiv«.radJ.»-.

Count.' E-xeeiitsvc: Richard Witscjibcfi;

McHogSi, James T. Beall Jr.. !.iz Kitlaa

make content and timing recommendations to the Board through the HLUET.
Recommendation 3: Direct staff to study and make recommendations on Heat Island

Reduction that primarily focus on street pavement but also identify gaps in County regulations
and policies covering private development in the unincorporated County as well as
construction or improvement of County owned or leased buildings where the County might
incorporate strategies presented by Hashem Akbari of the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory as well as those found in other resources and references.
Rationale: Heat Islands refer to geographical areas that generate significantly more heat
than surrounding areas. Dr. Hashem Akbari, from the Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory, presented the results of credible scientific research to the Task Force that Heat
Islands lead to higher energy consumption and poorer air quality. He also presented
findings that showed that cooler roofs, cooler street pavements, and more shade trees
reduce Heat Islands. The County already has an extensive cool roof program (see
Recommendation 4) and it has certain development requirements related to trees.
Therefore, the Task Force recommends that staff study Dr. Akbari's strategies and other

resources

and references and make recommendations on Heat Island reduction that focus

primarily on street pavement but also identify opportunities to apply these strategies to
gaps in existing County regulations and policies that govern private development in the
unincorporated County as well as construction or improvement of County owned or leased
buildings.

Recommendation 4: Approve General Service Agency's three-year plan (FY2003, FY2004,
FY2005)to complete the installation of "cool roofs" on roofs that Building Operations
maintains where appropriate, contingent on the Board providing continued funding for the
Backlog Facility Maintenance Program consistent with current Board policy.
Rationale: Since 1997, County staff has installed lighter colored materials on 28 County
roofs encompassing 682,300 square feet. Over the next year, staff plans to treat 11 more

County roofs that will complete over 50% of the total roof area maintained by General

Services. Staff has identified an additional 26 projects that would add 456,680 square feet

of roof area and complete 80% of the total roof area maintained by General Services. GSA
staff has outlined a three-year plan in the memo from Steve Black, Building Operations
Manager, dated August 6, 2001, to complete these 26 projects (Attachment B). Spreading
these projects over three fiscal years uses existing County staff members more effectively
and also limits any negative impacts on the other Backlog Maintenance projects.
Therefore, the Task Force recommends approval of the staff plan, contingent on the Board

providing continued funding to the Backlog Facility Maintenance Program that is

con.sistent with current Board policy.

BwirC ofSuj.iervtMH'g; Donaki F. Gage, BUijiea,.^IvaradQ,

Counn* E.'ceeutive: Rschanl Witreaber^

MeHugh,James T. Beali Jr,, Lu; Knsaa
6

Recommendation 5: Direct staff to develop a Board policy that establishes energy efficiency
standards for new County building designs and that explicitly considers the direct energy use

impacts as a formal criterion in purchasing decisions related to buildings, facility space leases,
equipment and supplies that use energy unless they meet specific exemption criteria.
Rationale: The County procures space, equipment and supplies that to varying degrees

energy when County employees use them. The Task Force believes that how
much energy these items consume when used and how much the County might pay in

consume

energy

costs over the useful life of these items should become a formal and more

significant part of the purchasing decision. Therefore, this recommendation asks staff to
develop a Board policy that establishes energy efficiency standards for new County
building designs and that explicitly considers the direct energy use impacts as a formal
criterion in purchasing decisions related to buildings, facility space leases, equipment and
supplies that use energy unless they meet specific exemption criteria. Since the collection
of energy consumption and cost information on the alternatives under consideration for
purchase have costs associated with them, staff should include criteria that if met would
exempt the specific purchase from the energy efficiency analysis.
Recommendation 6: Direct staff to explore the concept of the following two related State

legislative initiatives and present recommendations and options to the Board through the
Legislative Committee: a) establish a statewide process whereby specified categories of

equipment and supplies purchased by local governments and special districts would receive
energy efficiency ratings; b) provide either rebates to entities that purchase higher rated

efficient equipment and supplies and/or subsidies to the manufacturers of the higher
rated energy efficient equipment and supplies to lower the effective purchase price.
Rationale: The County already has adopted a comprehensive set of legislative policy
statements with regard to energy. These statements cover tax and revenue impacts, power
generation, public power, conservation, protection from and notification of power outages,

energy

and protection of low—income rate payers and small businesses from rate increases. These

statements also call for development of a statewide grant program to fund energy

conservation and energy management equipment in local government facilities. They also
support a rate structure that recognizes conservation efforts, including incentives to reduce
air conditioning.

This recommendation is a companion to Recommendation 5 on making energy efficiency
standards a formal and explicit criterion in purchasing decisions of supplies and equipment
that use energy. Board action on such a policy would not be contingent on achieving

legislative action but it would be much easier to implement and more effective if specified
categories of supplies and equipment had energy efficiency ratings. These categories
ofSup»r»;i8ors; Donald F. Cage, Blaiica Alvaraife, Pete- MoHugh,JamesT Beal! Jr., Lis: Enssa-

Countj- Executive: Richard Wittenberg

7

would be those that local governments purchase eitlier in high volume or in low volume
but high dollar amounts and that as a group consume a great deal of energy. This concept
is similar to the energy star designation for consumer products such as refrigerators. When
purchasing these supplies and equipment, these ratings would allow County employees to
easily identify those products that are more energy efficient. A rebate and/or subsidy

program would also create a financial incentive to purchase these more energy efficient
products over less energy efficient products that might have a lower initial purchase price.
Recommendation 7: Direct staff to present recommendations and options to the Board through

the Finance and Government Operations Committee(FGOC)on implementing long-term

public educational strategies that promotes energy conservation as both a community value
and as an organizational ethic. The proposals should focus on partnership opportunities and

communication strategies involving both governmental and non-govemmental resources.
Rationale: Over the past few decades, American society has undergone fundamental shifts
in cultural attitude and behavior on such issues as recycling of solid waste, driving under
the influence of alcohol, and domestic violence. Each of these cultural shifts has involved

a combination of changes in the law, market incentives, and a continuous and
comprehensive education and promotion effort to achieve the shift in attitude and

behavior. The Task Force recommends that the County reduce its long-term use of energy
for economic, environmental, and public health reasons. Since an educational and

promotional effort has historically been part of a successful comprehensive effort to
modify community and County practices, the Task Force recommends that staff develop
recommendations and options for implementing long-term public educational strategies
that target both the general public and County employees. These strategies would promote
energy conservation as both a community value and as an organizational ethic.

The proposals should focus on partnership opportunities and communication strategics
involving both governmental and non-govemmental resources where the County may play
a variety of roles. Since there are both private and public sector organizations working to
promote energy conservation by the public, the County's best role in these cases may be to
act as a regional facilitator. For other strategies, the County may use a small amount of
County funds to leverage or enhance the efforts of other organizations. For example, there
might be a joint funding opportunity with PG&E to use VTA bus and light rail

advertisements. When it comes to County employees, the County will be the direct

implementer using such tactics as having a regular column in the County newsletter,
adding conservation messages in new-hire briefings, and sending promotional material to
employees with their paychecks.
PURSUING LIMITED OPTIONS FOR CO- AND DISTRIBUTED GENERATION

Bciaj-d ofSufWfr.tatirsT DosiaJd R

CoiiBiy E-xecutivc: Rsehard Winesibc:^

Bia/tia AivataiiiJ, Pete McHugii,JasHss T. Beall Jr„ Cu Kna*
8

Recommendation 8: Do not move forward with power generation at the possible Hedding

Street project and refer to staff for further review and analysis the October 2001 SCVHHS
co-generation proposal with report back to both the Finance and Government Operations

Committee and Health and Hospital Committee in January 2002. Retain the flexibility for
both co-generation as well as distributed generation projects in an effort to insulate critical

County operations from the vagaries of market forces. The report back should also provide
information on the availability of tax credits and grants to offset the funding and operation of
the project.

Rationale: County staff hired a consultant firm to study the feasibility of generating the
electrical energy needed for the Civic Center complex. The study considered 70 West
Hedding, the Sheriffs Office Building, the underground Fleet garage and the proposed

parking structure and a 300,000 square foot new building scheduled for construction. The
peer review of that study concludes that as a means to reduce energy costs, the
self-generation system is only cost effective under the most optimistic conditions. The

Task Force concurs and recommends that the Board not proceed with that project.

The Task Force, however, believes that the proposal for co-generation at Valley Medical

Center should not be judged on cost effectiveness alone. The public gains a defined benefit
to Valley Medical Center being self-sustaining to some degree during both natural and
manmade power disruptions extending beyond the current emergency back-up generator
capability. The final version of the report of the consultant hired by SCVHHS was unable
to undergo a peer review prior to its scheduled Task Force meeting. At this meeting, the
Task Force also asked for more information regarding the availability of tax credits and

grants that would offset the funding and operation of the project. Therefore, the Task Force
recommends delaying any decision on going forward with this project until staff completes

further review and analysis with report back to both the Finance and Government

Operations Committee and the Health and Hospital Committee in January 2002.

Recommendation 9; Maintain current General Plan policies and zoning regulations regarding
power plant siting.

Rationale: The Task Force considered whether the County should identify likely parcels

where power generation facilities might be built and if there needed to be any changes to
County policy or zoning regulations to facilitate those efforts. The Task Force understands
that the California Energy Commission has exclusive authority to certify the construction
and operation of any thermal electric power plants with a generating capacity of 50

megawatts(MW)or more and related facilities. The CEC considers local land use policies

and regulations in its certification process, but may override local rules.

Board of SupcrviMrs; Donald F. Onga, Blanca Alvaradn, P<rt<* McHugh,JamrasT- 3caJl Jr., Liz Kniaa

County Executive: Rjehand Wiitcnbc;^

9

For capacity under 50 MW,the zoning ordinances require a use permit and architecture

and site approval along with certain conditions. The site must have adequate water and
waste water disposal facilities. Where contiguous to a City boundary and within the city's
urban service area, the proposed use must conform to the local city's General Plan and the
city must annex the property unless the city waives the annexation. Staff believes the

current zoning districts and General Plan designations give the County the greatest
flexibility in these situations involving less than 50 MW.The Task Force agrees and
therefore recommends maintaining the current ordinances and regulations regarding power
plant siting.

PROVIDING BETTER ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Recommendation 10: Direct staff to present a proposal at the FY02 Midyear Budget Review

to implement an Enterprise Energy Management System that identifies the number of meters
with their associated cost that might be installed through June 30, 2002 and that recommends
funding options for the remaining components that involve the FY03 Capital Budget, the
Building Operations Budget, and the Information Technology Budget.
Rationale: An Enterprise Energy Management System requires three main components to
function effectively: 1) monitoring devices, 2)computerized building control systems for

lighting, heat and air conditioning, and 3)software that would seamlessly integrate all of
these components together. Staff has developed a preliminary proposal of 73 meters,

software for 500 points to be monitored or controlled, and necessary equipment that totals

$1.17 million. See the attached staff report from Building Operations, dated October 11,
2001,for details as well as the benefits of such a system.

The foundation for any energy management system is to install monitoring devices or

meters. The Task Force believes that this effort to measure and manage energy use better

may be important for our energy situation next summer as well as for future years. To gain

that benefit next summer, the Board should strongly consider installing some meters in the
first six months of 2002. To do that the Task Force recommends that staff present a

proposal at the FY02 Midyear Budget Review on the number of meters that might be
installed through June 30, 2002 with their associated cost. In addition, the proposal should
discuss funding options for the remaining components that would be presented during the
FY03 Budget process. These options might use a combination of the Capital Budget, the
Building Operations Budget and the Information Technology Budget.
Recommendation 11. Direct staff to identify and pursue additional funding sources for

continued energy conservation efforts on a pilot basis through the end of FY2004 with a

report at each Midyear Budget Review and during the Budget Flearings that discusses efforts

and successes. To implement this effort, direct the Administration to determine the most

EkiiraofSut-wriAsci-ai Dor..^W F. Gage, Blanca.Uvaradt. Pete McHugh,
Coiintj'

Richard 'iVitic-ifc-crg

T. Beall Jr., LU Knjsia
10

appropriate staffing method that would end in June 30, 2004 unless the Board took action to
continue a position.

Rationale: With the County experiencing dwindling revenue streams, outside funding
sources for County programs, initiatives and services will become increasingly important.

For the energy conservation projects this year, the County has applied for almost $260,000
in rebates and grants and through early November has received over $213,000. The County

should continue to do its part in energy conservation and should build on the initial efforts
so far. To do so requires staff resources to identify likely sources, complete applications,
and follow-up with these sources to maximize the funds received.

Since the ongoing effectiveness of such an effort with a dedicated staff person is
unknown, the Task Force recommends conducting a pilot through the end of FY2004. The
General Services Agency already has an unclassified analyst position established to assist
in this year's efforts and it is funded through October 2002. Since there is a County policy
against extending unclassified positions over 18 months, this position would not be
available for the full length of the pilot. Therefore, to implement this effort, the staff
should determine the most appropriate staffing method that would end in June 30,2004
unless the Board took action to continue a position. To help the Board evaluate the

progress of this effort, the Task Force recommends that staff provide at each Midyear
Budget Review and during the Budget Hearings a report that discusses efforts and
successes since the last report.

ATTACHMENTS

® Energy Luminary Award Nominees(Miscellaneous)
• Energy Management Systems (Miscellaneous)
• Cool Roof Three-Year Plan (Miscellaneous)

Board of'Supervisors; Di-vsiaia F. Gagr, Bianca MvajwJo, Brt® SleHagh, James ?. Beall Jir... Liz Knias

County Executive: Rscfeandl'Wltf«iberf

11

County of Santa Clara

iM.

General Services Agency

i

Administration
-

Q,v>

Trans-ID:GSA12-12-401
DATE:

December 4,2001

TO:

Board of Supervisors

FROM:

G. Kevin Carruth

Director, General Services Agency

SUBJECT: Adopt and Present Energy Luminary Awards
regomMENDEP action

County employees, to recognize
Adopt and present Energy Luminary awards to the following
conservation program: Joseph Takacs,

their contributions in support of the County’s energy

General Services Agency, Budding Operations Division; Dennis
SocialMontero,
ServicesGeneral
Agency;Slices
Darcie
Agency Building Operations Division; Steven Palmadessa,
Women(CCW) Elmwood
Metsker,Department of Correction, Conectional Center for
Center; David Ginsborg, Office of

Facility Audrey Trautwein, Santa Clara Valley Medical

;Ponce Sia, General Services Agency,Building Operations Division.

the Assessor

FTSCAT. TMPLTCATIQ-NS

There is no additional impact to the General Fund,over
and above existingf
FY2002, as a result of this action. Energy Luminary Awards are recommended at the $100
by the General Fund; however, existing
and $500 level. The cost of these awards will be borne
action.
appropriations will be used to cover the cost of this

Board of Supemsors: Donald K Dago,Blanca AIvamdo, retcr McHogh,Jamca T. BaaU Jr.,
County Executive: Richard Wittenberg

Kniaa
1

rONTRACT HISTORY

Not applicable.
REASONS FOT^ RFCOMMENDATIOM

The following County employees have made energy savings suggestions which the Board of
Supervisors’ Emergency Energy Task Force believes merits special recognition as "Energy
Luminaries":

TnQpph Takacs. General Services Agency. Building QpsmtionS PmsiOIl

npTinls Montero. General Services Agency. Bmlding Operations PtyismB.

Provide local motion sensing control of the lighting system in the Board of Supervisors
offices. Both of the above candidates co-designed and engineered a remote control system

that allows the occupant to control the overhead lights by selecting a Low,Med or Hi intensity

and overriding the timer when appropriate. This will result in an approximate savings annually

of $26,000 per year in energy costs.

Darnie Met^Vp.r Department of Correction. CorrectionalCePter fpr Womgn(CCWl,Elimvo.Qii
Facility

capabilities to various control
Suggests lighting controls with switching and/or motion control Including
interior public
panels at Elmwood's Correctional Center for Women(C.C.W.).
men & women's locker
lobby, lounge, sundecks, visiting booths, interior public restrooms,
over officer stations with less energy
'Replace large, overhead stadium style yard lights

rooms.

consuming lighting.

Steven Palmadessa. Social Services Agghcy.

in the morning and shutting off earlier
Adjust all air system automatic clocks by starting laterper
at night by one-half hour. A total savings of one hour day,5 days per week x 35 umts.
when finished cleaning. Reducing
Asking their contractjanitorial service to turn off allthelights
atrium. Placing signs at every copy
lighting in all 12 restrooms. Turn offbeat lamps in

room asking people to turn off lights after they leave. Disabling unnecessary decorative

lighting in hallways and waiting rooms.

Audrey Trautwein. Santa Clara Valkv Mcdical CchtSI

by: Painting stairwell doors and
Efforts to promote using stairways instead of elevators
of
stairwells.
Advertise health and calone
attractive, eye catching color and paint interiors motivational
items in stairweUs, put

usage advantage of using stairs. Post fun sayings or fun. Have badge access to stairwells so
balloons in stairwells occasionally to make them more
Board ot Suporvisora: Donald R Qago,Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHugh,Jamoa T. Boall Jr.. Liz ICnias

Countj' Execulh'c: Richard Wittenberg

employees can use them instead of elevators.
David Ginsbor^. Office of the Asses.S.Qr

For holidays that fall on a work day, switch building system controls to weekend schedule,
reducing energy used for lighting, heating, ventilation and air conditioning.
Pnnre..Sia. General Services Agency. Building OperatioPS Division

At Main Jail North, designed a system to regularly turn off lights during peak usage hours

utilizing a time clock. This system sweeps through each floor and turns off lights every two
hours. If they are needed, then they are turned back on. This system sweeps during daylight

hours. He has also installed 750 cell night-lights which burn 24/7 on a photocell turning them

stairwells from incandescent
off during daylight hours. Suggested converting all 9 mechanical
bulbs to fluorescent and implemented a switching system for the main controls desk for these
lights. Suggested that the 5 floors of the mezzanine deck lights be changed out from
incandescent to fluorescent bulbs.

background

At the direction of the Board of Supervisors' Emergency Energy Task Force(EETF), the

Energy Ideas Review Committee was established to review and evaluate employee
Suggestion
suggestions for energy savings. Since the launch of the County Energy-Savings
than 250 suggestions,
Program on June 15, 2001, County employees have submitted more

Energy saving ideas have included solar power, light and motion sensors,

adjusting

changes to fixtures,
temperatures:inside of buildings, shorter work weeks, and specific
equipment and lighting schedules in various County facilities.

When the County became aware of the energy problem faced by the State of California,
departments and agencies
General Services Agency staff as well as staff of various County
A number of changes had already
began implementing a number of energy-saving measures.Award
program was announced.
been made or were underway when the Energy Suggestion

an ’T Had A Bright Idea
All employees who participated in this program have received
in
this
effort along with a letter
magnet, as a token of appreciation for their participation Some
of the proposed ideas were

thanking them from Richard Wittenberg, County Executive.and cost of implementation.
more complex and are under review to determine feasibility

These ideas have been designated as Energy Star award winners, and the creative suggestions

of these employees were rewarded with a compact fluorescent light bulb.

For ideas that are expected to result in a more significant energy
savings,
the EE-^
has
Board
of
Supervisors
of
certificates
recommended special recognition — presentation by the
BcMirci of SupervisorB: Donald F. Qago,Blanca Alvarado, Pete

Countj' Executive: Richard Wittcnbci^

James T. Boall Jr„ tiz Knias

of appreciation as Energy Luminaiies and a cash award.
rONSEOUENCFS OF NEGATIVE ACTIQM

If this action is not implemented,Energy Luminary Awards will not be presented in
accordance with the recommendation of tlie Board of Supervisors' Emergency Energy Task
Force.

SI EPS FOLJ OWING APPROVAL

No action is required.
attachments

*(Transmittal submitted on Nov 19, 2001 12:28:27 PM - PDF Version)

Booi'd of Supervisors: Donald F. Qago,Blanca Alvarado, Pete McHu^,James T. Boall Jr., Liz tCniaa

County Executh'c: Richard Wittenberg

4

County of Santa Clara
General Services AgencyFacilities Department

Building Operations Division
1555 Berger Drive #3
San Jose,California 95112
(4081 299-4181 #2141 FAX 297-2793

Date: October 11, 2001
To;

Steve Black, Manager

Building Operations Division

From: Lin Ortega, Manager

Preventive Maintenance Work Center, Building Operations
Subject: COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ENTERPRISE ENERGY MANAGEMENT<SYSTEM
BACKGROUND

During
me las. several
me C-y~hea^^
This has been the result of the emer^ g ^ romnleted a multitude of energy conservation

-re™—

blackouts.

aee..e me ^eeri fee eoUmg

over SI 3M on implementing new energy conservation policies and

u

To
date, the bounty
completmg energy conservation proje

apprLimately
$2.8M in additional projects waitmg to
^ difficult if not impossible to measure

,

m

^rieS—Cot^h ™e—
.eVamify mea .eana
resuta of
reSS'co°L—ThisL
cxeated a .alofitsneedfaclmes.
for me Co™« .o have
meaauring and quantifying me power consumed by each
be

ANALYSIS

Having the ability to measure the

positive results provide

“ergy conservation Llts.11 provides an opportunity for

the County to tap into grants

qualified for. Also, it provides a management

electrical utility budgets on a per facility basis.

From an operational and maintenance P-P"/
many

: Donald F. Gage. Blanca Alvarado. Pete McHugh.James T. Beall Ir.. Uz Kmss

Board of Supervisors

County Executive: Richard Wittenberg

“w l”Sg m:

systems are more sensitive to “dirty” pov^'er. In order for the County to measure the, results of its
energy conservation efforts, it must be able to monitor and log the power consumption data for each

facility. Many of the County’s power utility accounts cover multiple buildings, making it nearly

impossible to assess the power consumption from an individual facility level.

In addition to needing a means of tracking its power consumption and conservation performance, the

County also requires an effective mechanism or process to curtail power during stage two or three
situations (i.e., low power supply on the grid). This is especially true if the County is considering
entering into an energy curtailment program agreement with the utility providers; this usually provides
the County with better billing rates. This entails controlled load management of the various building

systems such as lighting and heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC). Controlled load
management allows for automatic or manual curtailment (pre-programmed) usage of the various
building systems, resulting in a lower power demand and thus reducing the peak load. This type of
function can only be accomplished via an Enterprise Energy Management System (EEMS), which can
provide monitoring and control functions of the different facility systems that directly affect energy
consumption.
ENTERPRISE ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

The performance of an enterprise energy management system, however, is dependant upon the

necessary equipment being installed in the facilities. Figure 1 is a graphic representa&n of how a

basic EEMS would be configured. An EEMS requires three main components in order to function
effectively: 1) monitoring devices (e.g., electricity, gas, water), 2) computerized building control
systems (e.g., lighting, HVAG), and 3) a software package that can seamlessly integrate all of these
components together. In addition, an EEMS can be linked to other important data sources such as
.’
PG&E electronic data, and weather related data warehouses.

The installation of power meters would be the first step in pursuing the implementation of an EEMS
for the County. The EEMS monitor and control the various systems that are integrated to it, and record
data generated by these systems. The data gathered can then be analyzed by the system and used to

produce various types of reports and trends, including degree-day power trend reports (i.e., power
trend comparisons of a same building during two different days with similar environmental conditions)
and energy cost comparisons. See Attachment B for a power trend comparison chart of the 70 West
Hedding (West Wing) facility generated during two different days with similar weather conditions.
This data was gathered using the existing meters, previously installed by Building Operations, and the
Pegasys Vista software (used specifically for monitoring) interface used to monitor these meters and
record their data.
Power Meters

The County currently has limited capabilities of performing power monitoring and metering functions.
Power meters, which report to a central server and allow for data collection, were installed at several of
the County’s major facilities in the late 1990s (see Table 1 in page 3 for a list of facilities), These
facilities represent nearly 1 million square feet of the County’s space. These meters, with their cunent
management software, allow the County to monitor and trend power consumption and quality, and to
an extent, to measure the results of the energy conservation efforts. However, they do not allow for
automatic load curtailments or other needed utilities management functions. These functions can only
be accomplished via an EEMS.

2

Facility# Address
70 West Hedding
0102

City

Building Description

San Jose

West Wing
East Wing

OIOI-

70 West Hedding

San Jose

0103

190 West Hedding
200 West Hedding

San Jose

Hall of Justice

San Jose

San Jose Court

840 Guadalupe Parkway
840 Guadalupe Parkway

San Jose

Sail Jose

Juvenile Probation
Juvenile Detention

'w 0105

5903
5901

Table 1

Facilities equipped with power meters

developed, with &e of a Power
Buildin^^ Operations, considering the present and futureofneeds,
$800K for the purchase and installation of 73
A wr ma^facturer’s representative, a cost estimate

wou d

mnnitnr meters for several of the County’s major facilities (see Attachment A). These meters
In some cases,
't annmximatelv 134 buildings covering just over 4 million square feet.Holden
Ranch).

L a Siup (e g. Elmwood old complex, James Ranch,

smaU .o justify a separate ute.er, er the .et«

installations are only possible at the buildings’ mam electncal feeds.

tavestmeut. Thts
facilities on an

X'^gretplle^r

r

basis,
jSife udglting and Lldug on a per facility
County
is
power metis to these facilWes if the

ofeUea.utiUties for each ofrts facilities.

r

Stw:
and
HVAC
management
syllSfiS.'fT^ teS,among oL iings, lighting conPols
systems.

lughtmgContr^
Lighting controls have already been i^stalie

(East and West Wings), 1555 Berger Dr.

Probation Offices). These projects

projects, FY2002 MAP includes an

includmg 70 West Hedding
and 3), and 840 Guadalupe(Juvemle
Operations’ MAP

^

^ontro! system installation projects,

® ^ qqJ j

2OOI diSng Building Operations’ annual MAP

IXCnfComTuteSISSng-^^^
this lil to perform automatic lighting curtailment functions.
HVAO Managftment Systems

Building Operations has taken a proactive ap^oach

_

. ,

the las, several years. Builtags^^^^
,

as well as major building improvemen p J

“““

.addressing HVAC management

^^esw^that new construction,

facilities (Attachment C table 2)
3

Building Operation can centrally monitor and control at this time, and could easily be integrated to an
HEMS.

C '.ugust 17, 2000, Advanced Design Consultants (private design firm) prepared an HVAC Controls
S .y for GSA. The study was done to delineate a program to replace antiquated HVAC controls with
sta-,e-of-the-art Andover DDC systems. The study covered 13 of the County’s major facilities, and

identified a project cost of $1,229,250. Attachment C table 1 provides a list of the buildings targeted

by the ADC study. The County has been using Andover controls in its facilities the last several years.
Andover controls provide high quality automated systems to manage buildings’ HVAC equipment.

Attachment C table 3 provides a list of additional buildings that would require their HVAC controls

to be upgraded to the Andover system. These were not included in the study by ADC, and if upgraded
would require additional funding. The cost to upgrade these buildings has not yet been determined.

I

r

Enterprise EM Server

HU
EEM Wc rkstatlon

EEM Wc rkstatlon

EZl

I
HVAC Shrver

Meter Server

m

d
t

••

Proxy
Server

Lighting Coi itrols Server

&

%

c;.-; HVAC
. Interface

Lighting

Meters

2—3

(E

CWHer

PGiE

Equipment
Fans, Bollara

Third Party
Data

Figure 1

Basic representation of an Enterprise Energy Management System
EHMS Software Packages

EEM Systems provide the software gateway to allow building systems to communicate wa a common

record and control a vanety ot
language. The EEMS acts as a translating device that can decipher,
nature
of
these products, the costs tend
different building automation systems. Due to the sophisticated
to be high. The common approach used by the various suppliers of these systems to assess costs is
three tiered: 1)consulting and integration design services, 2) software product costs (heeding), an )
yearly software maintenance costs. The costs also vary greatly depending on the number of points

purchased; the more points purchased, the lower the cost per point. These systems typically do not _

include any hardware as part of the package (e.g., application servers, field momtonng devices). .

“Points” refer to a specific device or system parameter that will be monitored or controlled, and not
necessarily the device itself. Each device or system to be monitored or controlled may have multiple
“points”.

GSA has learned that at least two other Counties (Sacramento and Los Angeles) axe already in the
orocess of deploying EEMS in their organizations, and that in fact they had done research on the
various providers of these types of systems. Both of these Counties opted to use Silicone Energy as

their provider ofchoice. The County of Los Angeles will be integrating 5000 points, and the County of

Sacramento will be integrating 300 points.

Tn the case of Los Angeles County, their total cost for 5000 points, includingbeconsulting,
$917,710.integration
County of

oZ", and softwL annual maintenance, was reported to

Sacrmento, reports their total cost for integrating 300 points was $230,160, These costs do not tnckde

field equipment or computer hardware.'

Tt is estimated that the County of Santa Clara would require at least 500 points in order to properiy

systems plus the additional 73 metersa that
are listed
- Attac^^
thorough
evaluation
of the County s
numbi of points may raise significantly upon completing
systems and needs.

r

Assuming the
500.points, and considering
costs could
mc^m^
Sacramento and
costsLos
m
Assuming
me Countyy requires
h
Clarathe
County
be by
contemplatmg
S3W 000 This does not include any hardware necessary to make the system functional (e.g.,
HVAC and lighting management systems). If 750 points are
needed the total cost would be in the range of$450,000.
FISCAL IMPACTS

of this magnitude could have upon Ae
Tn order to address the possible fiscal impacts that a projectbudgeting
subcategones withm the project

ronnt Id GSA it is important to understand the various
Uself. The EMMS,a.smning

opu“

Ex=co6v= Co.nE«eo (mC),

typically
mn
^
Building Operation’s

^.t^on plan(MAP),and Capital Improvements.

ITEC

and the EEMS software (350 points) can be
Funding for the identified 73 power meters from ITEC. This would include hardware,
requested (via required application process) services.
software, installation, and consulting and integration
One-Time Costs
EMMS Software cost:
Power Meters cost:

Auxiliary EQ. Costs;

Total Estimated Cost:

Recurring Costs

$350,000
$800,000
$20,000

$1,170,000

5

EEMS annual maint cost:

$20,000

Staff annual cost:

$85,000(estimated)

MAP

Building Operations, through its yearly MAP planning has, and will continue to address the

replacement of older inefficient HVAC systems throughout the County’s facilities, with more
energy efficient and technologically compatible systems. These are systems that can seamlessly

integrate to an existing EEMS. The replacements of these systems, has been an evolving
process that has, and will continue to occur on a yearly basis. As older systems are replaced
with newer ones, they can be integrated to an EEMS.

For the purposes of funding, this portion of the overall EEMS could be funded by Building
Operations’ yearly MAP budget, therefore having no additional fiscal impact.
Capital Improvements

Lighting control system installations have been funded by Building Operations in years past,
however, because these systems are considered new additions to facilities they should be
funded by Capital Improvement funds. Buildings Operations, in a conscientious effort to reduce
energy consumption and provide better lighting management for the building dccupants, has
allocated $250,000 from its FY02 MAP funds to the installation of these systems, and will

proceed with the completion ofsuch projects.

Regardless of the funding source (Capital Improvements or Building Operations’ M^)this
will be an evolving process that will have no additional fiscal impacts.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Considering the critical need for the County to have a means of more effectively managing ite
electrical utilities funding, and to track energy consumption and power quality in its facilities, it is

recommended that the County EETF approve the following request;

of 73 power meters and
1 Permission to proceed with ITEC funding request for the installation
for
the
sum
of$1,170,000 for one
the purchase and installation of an EEMS software package
time funds, and $105,000 in ongoing funds.

6

Attachment A

■ y .y-

Kfl‘

• t

1553 Berger Dr.

County Service Ctr - Bldg L

9

5602

1555 Berger Dr

5603

1555 Berger Dr

County Service Ctr - Bldg 2
County Service Ctr - Bldg 3

included above

5401

1505 SchallenbetRer Rd

Roads & Airports

104

180 San Pedro St.

Main Jail South(Old Jail)

114

150 W,Hedding St,

Main Jail North

840 Guadalupe Pkwy

Juvenile Hall/Probation

2

Civic Center Visitor Paid Parkins Garage

1

5601

5900
121

171 W. Hedding St.

501

2700 Carol Dr.

502

2700 Carol Dr.

GSA Communications Service Bldg

403

90 W,Younger St.

GSA - Fleet Gaiage

406

950 N. San Pedro

GSA Fleet Manajjement

407

90 W.Younger St.

GSA-Garage Gas Station

6100

701 S. Abel St.

included above
included above
2
4

GSA Communications Main Bldg

I
1
1

included above
included above
15

960

4525 Union Ave.

5100

19050 Malaguena Ave.

5200

19050 Malaeuena Ave.

1301

298 W.Bernal Rd.

2110

S90 E. Middlefield Rd.

Elmwood - 54 Buildings
Childrens' Shelter - 13 Buildings
James Ranch - 23 Buildings
Holden Ranch -18 Buildings
Muriel Wright Girls Ranch
Men's Work Furlough Center

2090 Evans Ln.

Women's Residential Center

1

500

191 N. First St.

Downtown Superior Court

I

209
203

161 N. First St.

916

976 Lenzen Ave.

935

850 Thornton Way

3101

80 W.Highland Ave.

3115

12425 Monterey Rd.

730

2101 Alexian Dr

1309

9500 Malech Rd.

704

1989 McKee Rd.

10
1
1
I
1

1

Old Courthouse

1

Park Alameda Facility

1

Medical Examiner/Coroner

1

South County Office Building

1

South County Court Complex

I

A lexian Drive Complex

1

Mariposa Lodge

1

East Valiev Health

1

Sunnyvale Municipal Court

2401

'605 W. El CaminoReal

2403

660 S. Fair Oaics Ave.

2507

1095 Homestead Rd.

2904

14205 Capri Dr.

Santa Clara Municipal Court
Los Gatos Municipal Court

710

1991 McKee Rd.
101 Jose Figueres Ave

East Valley Pavilion - Mental Health SNF

713

101 Jose Fijzueres Ave

711

1993 McKee Rd.

707

2005

231 Grant St.

2006

270GR.A.NTSt

2902

375 Knowles Dr.

2906

14205 Capri Dr.

3102

12370 Murphy Ave.

Fair Oaks Mental & Public Health Clinic
East Valley Mental Health

Mental Health SNF-modular(vacant)

1

1
1
I

VMC-East Valley Clinic

North County Mental Health
'North County Office Building
West Valiev Mental Health

1

:—

Temporary Court Room
sinnth County Animal Shelter

1
I
1
1
1

Proposed power meter installation sites.
7

Attachment B

West Wing Power Trend Comparison
Between May 8th and July 2nd,2001
800

700

800

500

400

300

200

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

8

Attachment C

ADC HVAC Controls Study
Address

Facility #

Sullding Description

Estimated Cost

0501

2700 Carol Drive

San Jose

County Communications

S182.5K

0104

180 West Heddinq

San Jose

^aln Jail North

S34K

0114

150 San Pedro

San Jose

^43in Jail South

S23K
$74.35K

6168

701 S. Abel SL

Milpitas

Elmwood W-2

6189

701 S. Abel St.

Milpitas

Elmwood W-3

$40.75K

$105^K

6180

701 S, Abel St.

Milpitas

Elmwood W-4

6170

701 S. Abe) St.

Milpitas

Elmwood M-2

$47.75K

Elmwood M-3

$56.25K

6171

701 S. Abel St.

Milpitas

6191

705 S. Abel St.

Milpitas

Elmwood M4

$91.5K

6192

70S S. Abel St.

Milpitas

Elmwood M5

$91-SK

6160

701 S. Abel St

Milpitas

Elmwood M-6

$115.75K

0103

190 West Heddinq

San Jose

Hal! of JusHca

$277.4K

2006

270 Grant rd.

Palo Alto hiorth County Court

r

$89.3K

Table 1

ADC study subject facilities

Andover Equipped Facilities
Facility

0101
0102

Building Description

Address

#

70 West Heddinq East Wing

San Jose

70 West Heddinq West Wing San Jose

East Wing
West Wing

Andover Controlled
X

Comments

Completed

X

Completed

X

Completed

0404 55 West Younger SI.

San Jose

Sheriffs

5602 1555 Berger Or.#2

San Jose

Building 2

X

Completed

San Jose

auilding 3

X

Partial

San Jose

Medical Examiners

X

Completed

5603

1555 Berger Dr. » 3

0935 850 Thornton Wav
5903 840 Guadalupe Parkway

San Jose

Probation

6185 701 S. Abel St

Milpitas

^^Tograms

6184 [701 S. Abel St.

Milpitas

West Gala

6193 701 S. Abel St.

Milpitas

Administration

6187 701 S. Abel SL

Milpitas

Medical/Processing

6186 701 S. Abel St.

Milpitas

Support Services

0209 190 North MarXet SL

San Jose

Superior Court

0105 200 West Heddinq

San Jose

San Jose Municipal Court

2401 ,605 West El Camino Real

Sunnyvale Sunnyvale Municipal Court
Table Z

X

Completed

X

Completed

X

Completed

X

Completed

X

Completed

X

Completed

X

Compfeied

X

Partial.installation only

X

Completed

Andover equipped facilities.

9

Attachment C(coat)

Additional Building Requiring Andover Upgrade
Facility

Building Description

Address

#

S90S 840 Guadalupe Partway San Jose

lew Administration

S904 S4Q Guadalupe Pariwav San Jose

lew Detention

0704 1991 McKee Rd.

last Valley Clinic

San Jose

Andover
Controlled

Upgrade
Required

NO

X

Interface w/Andover

NO

X

Interface w/Andover

NO

X

Interface w/Andover

X . Interface w/Andover

Comments

3101 SO Highland

San Martin

Farit Alameda Health

NO

0916 976 Lenzen Ave.

San Jose

l^arX Alameda Clinic

NO

X

Convert to Andover

NO

X

Interface w/Andover

3115 30 Highland

San Martin

iouth County Clinic

2403 1660 Fair Oaks Ave.

Sunnwale

■air Oaks Clinic

NO

X

Convert to Andover

2507 1095 Homestead Rd.

Santa Clara

ianta Clara Court

NO

X

Interface w/Andover

0105 200 West Heddinq

San Jose

Ian Jose Municipal Court

NO

X

Convert floors to Andover

NO

X

Interface w/Andover

2904

14205 Capri Rd.

Los Gatos

Los Gatos Court

'

Table 3

Facilities in need of Andover Controls upgrade.

r

1

10

County of Santa Clara
General Services Agency
Facilities Department

Building Operations Division
1555 Berger Drive #3

San Jose,ciifomia 95112
(408)2994181 FAX 297-2476

August 6, 2001

TO: .

G. Kevin Carrutfi, Director
General Services Agency

FROM:

Steve Blad<, Manager

Buiiding Operations Division
SUBJECT: Santa Clara County Cool Roof Program
Cool Roof Installation—Planned Roll Out

At the June 8 2(XI1 EETF it was requested that a GSA plan for completing the
installation of the balance of the Cool Roofs in the County be prepared. The atta^ed
Operations Division s
spreadsheets outline the General Services Agency,
Building
County
buildings
maintained by GS/ic
current status on installing cool roof products on

The first sheet entitled Completed RoofProjects, lists
the roofs'
Coun^ildings
th^
material
sinceon1997
TTiese matenals
have been covered with this light or white colored
are either an actual roof membrane where a new roof was being '^stoned or a seat^
coating that was applied to roofs to extend their life. Building

these Ighter colorSi materials on 28 County roofs encompassing 682.300 square feet
of roof. (42% of total roof area maintained by GSA)

The second spreadsheet entitled Scheduled RoofProjects lists
toat^
programmed for installation with the cool roof material over the next year by Bujdi^
Operations. This will expand our program to another 11 County ro^s and ^d 172^°
%are
feet of roof to our program at a cost of$1.047.^. of total r^a^ will
then be completed) These projects are funded through the FY 2001 and FY 2002
Backlog Program.

The third Spreadsheet entitled Backlog Projects, lists the future identified roofing
projects that will be programmed as funds and resources become available and the
workload can be managed. These identified projects wiii further expand the cool roof

application an additional 456,680 square feet of roof at a cost of $2,584,000. This is a
prioritized list and GSA Building Operations has programmed $900,000(plus or minus)
per year of the Backlog funds for these roof repairs and replacements. If this staged
programming continues as planned it will not negatively impact other Backlog
Maintenance priorities, if additional funds and resources are approved specifically for
this purpose the Cool Roof Program could be escalated. Under the current plan, project
priorities 1 through 6 on the attached spreadsheet would be completed in FY2003,

project priorities 7 through 14 would be completed in FY 2004 and project priorities 15

through 26 would be completed in FY 2005.

To compress this schedule using existing resources much of this work would need to be
contracted in order to avoid hiring staff and then subjecting them to layoffs at the end of
of additional work this fiscal year
an aggressive work schedule. Contracting $2,584,000
and
would require the addition of two Contract Managers one additional Roof Irtspector
position to manage the contracted work and construction process. One-time staffing
costs for 18 month assignments would add $415,689 to the project costs. Tt^total
roof installations in FY 2002 would
one-time cost to escalate the completion of the cool
be about $3,000,000.

The three attached spreadsheets represent approximately 80% of the roof
maintained by Building Operations. The remaining roofs are either too small to be

effectively included in the program, a type of roof that is not conducive to the application
of the cool roof material (e.g., non-heated or cooled space, red tile roofs or sningley

the roof is too new to be currently considered for a re-roof—re-seal process or roofs that
have not yet been identified as needing re-roofing maintenance.

Cool Roof Rebates

Attached is the California Energy Commission(CEC)Cool Savings Program Guid^ines
as of June 26, 2001. The Cool Roof Program and rebate qualifications are outhned
within these guidelines. GSA Building Operations has currently
° ^
square feet of qualifying cool roof projects. The rebate amount wi I be determined ^er

the CEC performs their inspections. The rebate back to the County is

^

$8 000 to $11,000. Building Operations is developing projects for the FY 2uuz uooi

Roof program 'which will add an additional 120,500 square feet of cool roofs to the
program. Rebates, if funding is still available, are anticipated to be approximately
$18 000 If the balance of the planned cool roof installations(456,000 square feet) vvje

guidelines, the County would
to qualify for the cool roof program, under today’s rebate
rebates.
expect to receive approximately $68,000 in additional

Proposed Cool Roof Regulations

It is proposed under the California 2001 Building Energy Standards regulations that

effective January 1, 2003 it will be mandatory for cool roof products to be installed on all
new non-residential construction within California. These new requirements are being

proposed under Section 118 of the 2001 Building Energy Standards. The certification
criteria, testing and labeling standards are outlined in Section 10-113 of the regulations
and also proposes that the Cool Roof Rating Council(CRRC)be designated as the
entity responsible for administering the State’s cool roof labeling and certification

Copies of both sections of
program, provided that the CRRC meets specified aiteria.
These
are currently only proposed
the proposed regulations are attached for reference.
progresses. Additionally,
regulations and as such could change as the State’s program
still
needs
to meet the cfiteria of
the entity that will administer this program, the CRRC,
Section 10-113 of the regulations before they can begin establishing the specific
reflectance and emittance standards of the cool roof roofing material. The cool roof

material the County is currently Installing meets or exceeds all the currently identified

reflectance and emittance standards of today’s cool roof program guidelines. The

the application of cool roof >
County is also reaping the benefits of energy savings by
and
entity to administer the
products. However, until the regulations are adoptedcriteriathe
of the regulations, the actual
State’s cool roof program is selected and meets the

certification and testing criteria will not be know.

be adopted, the CRRC will meet the
It is highly likely that the proposed regulations willand
emittance standards will be
criteria of the regulations and current reflectance
adopted by the CRRC. However, until this process is in place we will not know if the
cool roof products we are installing will meetthese new future criteria. Therms no
currently using, Th® °niy
impact to our continued installation of the materials we are
to
adjustment that may be needed in the future is to switch the new standard by Building
Operations if the standards change. The roofs that are completed or will be ^mpleted
will continue to provide energy savings throughout their useful life and will not need any
additional retrofitting if new standards are adopted.
cc: Susan Phillips
Bob Whitehair

-„7r :,.;
.,,.t

• ■ 5 ^ • •.

i;',

I

" ,i :■»'

-•V:

is'fe i

-it'i

- iJ

'j

-2; -,

■

3:^ 4>A :

%Av::-:y «?i3. ^

a,'A

If *8

:A:- ,,r

^»35-A; (?]£.©

; ■■■, V. ■
t.;;v

j

-^'"4 v--g. ■ !,jr. . A

?:a
.-

- ■■■:

■
- ■

.:■ ■

<

. :y-'

:.

r

Ka.^ A,,:

-vii

r

-"V

•a

ia

a'A a. m- ^ :?A8iA’ t'-'m '».%

:,.

a'!t, ft ?*' ;as*iaf"

a/'* A;

'A '■' ■

..A'®'-' i‘ ■ ..

■: t'. ■' '■ ■ ■ «tA, v ■ , ■ ■

a'»'

■,:• • •■-

ti-y

■; ‘■'■■■-■•: a a; :v^

■' r".,

•■ ■ AifrAa , -K. a v “iO ' a’/tf**,'.::*'

-Stiv,

■

1, '...^

■»

,:-

A'cfi,;. -

/•, ■■:, ■ -■ -; ,■ ■■’ ■

V
,

i'-a-;. /;v-!.h; ; ' i

.-■ 'Art: f ■;:,

‘i;!

. ..

,--

•-t' i Ji

, t.i %.

': ' ,;... ...3^ ;.'v

it

K ,.

:»

a - ! ;. ■

^ - '’'a

ra

■ ,j.« . .

i

- C:- •"

■- •

■> ■

• ■

■

s- ^

t;/' ’ AaUsi.' ; :9f{f JaA-tAi;:;' -T. sA
■f ki -

-'}

^r,. -

>

■■ ti.

c

(

SCHEDULED ROOF PROJECTS
&jlldlng

FAC#

ELMWO REHA© CNTR-OLO AOMl^^ffiUP{^T 8VCS

6101

adm;n
;»

|1«
6148

ELMWD REHAB CNTR-OLD PRCCESS^^!G SLDQ.
ELMWO REHAB CNTR-CCW-LCOUM-VIEST NO/SO

8T#
701

S.AaEL8T.

701

S.ABEL ST.

OFFlCe

5.300

4.000

1

JAa.

15,800

7.500

1

WHITE/

LT.GREY
WHITE EPDM

Dots

3ch«dUlsd

5/1/2001

Data

Compffitad*

Commant*

Estimata

SPRAY W«TE COLO

W2.000.00

PROCESS

5/1/2001

COLD PROCESS wHrre

515.800.00

5,000

1

WHITE GRAVEL

5/2/2001

COLD PROCESS WHITE

S15X00.M

30,000

2

WHITE ORAVEL

6/1/2001

SINGLE PLYWWTE

*144,000.00

ROSANNA ST.

OFFICE

4.550

5.500

1

6/1/2001

SINGLE PLYWHn^

7/1/2001

OCLO PROCESS WHITE

8/1/2001

SINGLE PlYWHTE

*280.000.00

9/1/2001

COLO PROCESS WHITE

*216.000.00

6/1/2002

COLD PROCESS WHITE

*57,000.00

8/1/2001

COLO PROCESS WHITE

*50.000.00

8/1/2001

COLD PROCESS WHITE

*112

SOUTH COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH

0835

MEDICAL EXAMINERCOROfCR

650

W.KiGHLANOAVE.
THORNTON WAY.

HVP4318552

OFFICE

24,000

24,000

1

OFRCS

20,300

14,000

1

138,800

18.1X

4

10,000

6.200

1

HALL OF JUSTICE

190

W.HEDDiNQ ST.

COURT

EAST VALLEY MENTAL HEALTH

1881

MCKEE RO.

CUNIC

285

W.BERN/4.RO.

JA4L

20.800

23,600

1

286

W. BERNAL RD.

MOOUIAR

1.440

23,600

1

ni.Oii

172,500

Subtotal 8q. Ft

Roof Project 0521018/6/2001

Color

5^

60

CLASSROOM

Floor#

23,746

7350

PROBAT10N-MURIEL WRIGHT GIRLS R INCH-

FocUpe

jAa.

ALCOHOLRECOVERY-MARIPOSAUOCGE

MURIEL WRIGMT GIRLS RANCH-AOMIK / DORMS

Roof

BkiQ
Footage

HOUSING

6SA CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES

1302

CVP28e5851

Bidg Usa

S.ABEL ST.

1308

1301

o

MALECHRD.

*206

0707

ElaotrIcAccN

701
5500

Q103

Address

-

WWTE
CAPSHEET
WHTfE

CAPSH5ET

WHITE
HYPALON

WHITE
CAPSHEET
WHITE

CAPSHEET

SifiQla Piy
T&f^ Down

SInplaPiy
Torch Ocwn

t

565.000/X}

*108/X».00

Total Estimate: $1,047,000.00

1
I

f
i,

^<•

! ,ii'- ri;'
I
i

!

5

Vi

Vi

-:j

I

,)

.1

i

-J

].

k.'

j

.«•

?

f 41

.'4

f

rt: 1

V

*

I .;?

i-

/'i

t
■|V

I

I

i

■k

S

.t!

M.

■■'■)

)

I

i

f

-

!

\v

f-

■I

•it

-•H

1 '■

'

?:

.t.

i

■i

.y

t

h

f

-. . A,.
r

t

j --tp,;

I'

I ^

^14

s_

(
- i

fV

*

I

:?■

i

V-

^:4

vt 'ifi f
■ •-’4',
at";
m

I
Vii:

1

r-\

,•<

". 'St

\\.i
V/

1:

<

5

a

=1

?

4

<'fa,

£.

S

i

ISi

» m

If

*

r

i

s

i
i

i

jr

V

1

15

•^-

&
r“-

jl^
3

}

¥■

!t

*

4*

3

...

•4

■:k

^

-t

i

:

f-r
•4-,

•S''

*5

-f-

a

i
c

}

r

9ltU.
3
*

.I.*

l

f

t

V-

i J4 ?
1

t

i... ,|.

k

I

■<ft

f'

'X ; i

isf'

T'

: ■ ¥-

p

i

"s

:t

I
■?■

f

"■ i

&

1 -G-

1

. /yr

4;
1

>

'-■i: ■ •

^

f.

iS

i

S'

'1

•I

i

!

j

t;>;

IT

• i^

t

V

44

■*f

f

'•i

4i I
1?

4^

5;

1

•V

>.

#
11

>ry

if

5

-•*

X i

I

kli
■f

f

I a

r. '

■}

5^.

i

I ?

f:

ivi

f

iT-l

•ili

w

1

f

•i

I-

1.002^/?loicso P»|Oid

72/ *i>$ fSmQtiS
WdhSC^A'M ^^N

mv

Wiim

Hd/WMBM

gesi-

TSJotT

Wd/MiM3N

zeet

^wo'n
Awon

nd/SS3DOl#d 0X0 so

S9330BdOTCOA^N

;

OCXg

hd/SS30a8dCnOJ/09M9M

0002

S$3OOydaTCOAA0N

0002

^f>n

l-

ATd31PNS31IHMM3H

1002

gjJHM

V

I

V

i

1002

»»MM
*r4M

wd; ssaooad oico &8 /vqn

966t

n

Wd/SS300ddQ->OOPOAA3N

■;t

t-

Wd/CSaOQdd OTOD M MSN

ggev

wd / ssaoodd OTco n m3n

oagi

SS30O«d<nO0AeN

nm

0002

SS30QadQlQ5>WOMdd9AA3N

^^0^

dVO/WiecOMa4

0002

dvcrttns

2861

r<d/S<30OHdO^0OA9A^^N

seat.

9881
*?{MM

WdfSSSOOddOlOO 06AA3N

Z68(

•«MVi

pea^u^ /rvy»^ f
•WUtt»3

^U«4UUM»0

fAItJI

0002
0002

n

pvmduloo

p*lRp*tp9

•W3

W3

•AWdBdmvavno

0li«6

3S0f^^

'Awtd adrnyoyno

•

<0010 NIvWjQMqX?? WM50’ldi>qeYI43da<SV<*>3
(wcodfsyrri toohc® aMUoroo-iiYM

ioti

dOHs^rtoiwmvH 3iw3Anr
m

ooox

coot

Tivr

iC0C«

TINNVOdCM

•3AV YwaanovTvH

OSOSl

HOOW 03d / AdOi/«dOO-HONY« nsoioh

00009

ocetc

30Ud0

iS0S6

Tl»< KVOWSI

‘SAWduanoYTyw

l»06l

N^K«i>VO^«S<Qr•'NIWOVi^OW^ N3010H

COO'$t

idOddrje

IX09i

rm tiioaon

'^AyYtf^evTW

0S085.

AvwTVMoadaAoonDNYW sswvr

COIjt

ooot

l?vr

iWS9

TWNVOdC^

•3AY VddafiQVTVW

CpSCCt

•AdOiiyoioo-HONvw samf

000 oe

000%

301330

iCOSO

TWNVOdOM

■SAVVHW^OVtir^

09001-

ixna NCHiyut»NiwoY-K>NYd SBWvr

V>\9

C«‘»t

095>2

JJbflOO

(r»t»0

HUWVWHVS

3AVW<Y1H0?H

xavrtoo idAoo juKooo os

fl V^«

OCS'll

OM'il

SCtddO

9K»e

NUdYWHVS

■3AVC»{nH0!H 'M

OOO’Sl

OOCtl

i«fXX>

PW9i

BOArOSOT

■wdiddVD

COTl

oo»*ri

30U30

iwy«

ooa'9

coa'o

OINTO

000■^t

IKOOO

lV3*t

*svr

ctoro

09

K>!rs

•Ot9

1X318 NIWAJWOiXJ Hines

WU
KMl

aiVAAWMfffl

■3AV£WVOdryj's

K«

waiN30HiTy3HDr»findSXV0B?V3

ww

aiYAANWW

■3AVSXVO>^d‘S

C©9

d31K3DHi-Ty3HlYlN3WB>!YOWV3

WW

aiYAANNOS

"I'^acMmoTa'M

ianoo ivd!oiNr!« a-jv/UN^^ns

ww

aw

a3i>ao HOOOianjxbOM-noi!.Y9cad

OKt

miVSH 1YAH3WAlNneO KiaCN

cc«

X3idwooaaMYDaiY

ocao

CC012

OOC'9

009P

ocro

90M

oiTyenvd

iS.iHVtg>

IS

I

COOBi

ooe'Ai

30yd0

»li9«

3eOf MYS

•aaNWOTv

iOl£

aoiido

WC9

IWICO IVtflO'.Nnrt SOIYO 801

'oa masdaiaaa^ 3
OiTVOTVd

301330 >ANnOO HUfON

ifiiNvao

fOOt

O0»‘Bl

COS'Bl

C5wno

9U9e

3SOf NYS

oaaaxotY

9931

HnV3H331TYAA5y3

WAtt

OCO'Ok

ow’o;

idOddns

KV9a

560f KYS

•doiotro

OOAZ

'0010 BOtAtSSWCHJLVOmWOO V6D

MW

V

owoc

on'02

3C«dO

m99

BSOTNYS

dOToavo

OOAZ

POT8 MiyWSKXIYO(Nn>WCO YSO

ww

c

OOA‘»Y

ooy’Ae

aouio

ouw

SeOTNVS

iS VJOHTtOX ’M

iHSkuavdaosddWSKS

>ow

9

AeA%

OOO'tZi-

lanoo

»(S8

360f WS

'IS ASaid MAdOlY

tsi

ianoo aawBdns nyatwoo

$ou

s

ax'x

ooroA

AdnOD

Pitw

SSOTNVe

•ISDMOOaM'M

0%

lanoo Tvdownrt svij«fW3Sor nvs

ww

f

9W'0l-

oce'eu

■Hvr

0U69

asorhfVB

•iS IWJO03H 'M

0«l

000' KJios tvr h»fvw

ww

9

oco%

30'ddO

Oltw

aSOTHYS

iS3M-ASOMiOaSH-A\

OA

•Batooa |CK>M

•*(\ 6pfl

aiz

Ajia

Wippv

»xs

x»ia

OWMASgM-flCXXJ

soipnne

)

EOIO

HOYd

Sioarodd dooy nooo aaiaidwoo

)

vm

90010 «OliN313a MfVWITVH SUSSMf

cco'ei

Si5»

fW/BSaOQMdOTOaw/ABN

>W/6S30Odd0TO0gBM3N

SSOTNVS

HVze

A

0002

aim

<-

*HW

JYVOd

aOsIrW

iOi

m

i

liiOfr

Wd / esaootw cnoo A8 M3N

•jijviXd 3<mvovm)

004'OCl

^on

oeet

aaOTMva

C»i2t

0002

•is-aavs

0U»

9

Z&8t>

BWNVS

TOOHDS

000%

I

oti^e

OOtZ
«»■«

wBooddcnoo

seaoodd !^50o^^3N

OOZ'JV

I

Sg3COdd(nOOM3N

Wd / SSjKWtW OTOO «e M3M

COC’81.

\

(

(
RAnxi no ROOF PROJECTS - ESTIMATED
Priority

FAC#

1

0121

eultdlng

CMC CENTER PARKING «a

2

W«

PARK ALAMEDA 455

3

$108

SOUTH COUNTY MEDIQAL 120

4

2902

WEST VALLEY HEALTH'63

5

6602

COUNTY SERVICE CENTER-BUILDING »2

6

6904

JUVENILE HALL-GYWN/iSIUM

6902

7

7

6906'

B

6109
6110

9

10

6111

n

St#

Addraaa

aidg Uaa

171

W. YOUNQER ST.

C3ARAG6

976

LENZEN AVE.

CLINIC

90
375
15K
840

W. HIGHLAND AVE.

BUg fooUga RooftooUfla

74.300

OFFICE

Floor#

Data

DAtt

Schadulad

Complated

Estlmats

600

1

$10,000,00

24,900

4

$393,000.00

6,700

1

$108,000.00

$130,000.00

KNOWLES DR.

CLINIC

8,240

1

BERGER OR.

OFFICE

242,300

66,300

4

$210,000.00

GUADALUPE PKWY.

OFRCE

9,548

107,000

4

$107.O(X.0O

21,879

21,879

1
1

JUVENILE HALL-KITCHEN/SHOP

840

GUADALUPE PKWY.

OFFICE

JUVENILE HALL-OSBOFINE SCHOOL(CLASSROOM)

84C

S. ABEL ST.

SCHOOL

2,400

21,879

19(»0

MALAGUERRA AVE.

SUPPORT

3,648

3,648

1

$41,000.00

10)50

MALAGUERRA AVE.

SUPPORT

7,171

7,171

1

$29,000,00

19050

MALAGUERRA AVE.

OFFICE

7,668

7,669

1

$54,000.00

191

NORTH FIRST ST.

COURT

124,600

35,000

7

$60,000.00

701

S. ABEL ST.

SUPPORT

33,374

17,000

2

$153,000.00

43,070

26,439

2

$300,000.00

JAMES RANCH-KITCHEN & DINING
JAMES RANCH-RSCRELTION HALL

JAMES RANCH-OFFICE’CLASSRCKJMS/SHOPS
DOWNTOWN SUPERIOR COURT
ELMWD REHAB CNTR-HEW PROGRAMS BLDG/SHOPS
ELMWD REHAB CNTR-idEQlCAUPROCESSING
ELMWD REHAB CNTR-4EW ADMINISTFtATIQN BLDG.

11

0209

12

6166 .

13

6167

14

6193

15

'■9134

16

0114

MAIN JAIL NORTH-DOC

17

0407

GSA-GARAOE GAS ST/.TION

18

6111

19

6114-^

ELMWD REHAB CNTR-O^PENTRY SHOP(OLD BLOCK HOUSE)

701

S. ABEL ST.

OFFICE

$153,000.00

$200,000.00

701

S. ABEL ST.

OFRCE

34,820

34,820

701

S. ABEL ST.

SUPPORT

3,691

3,891

$3,000.00

38,193

$352,000.00

11,055

$94,000.00

160

W. HEDOINQ

JAIL

325,000

SO

W. YOUNQER ST.

OFFICE

60,000

ELMWD REHAB CNTR- PINING HALL (OLD KITCHEN)

701

S. ABEL ST.

SUPPORT

11,055

701

S. ABEL ST.

OFFICE

100

100

$1,000.00

701

S. ABEL ST.

SUPPORT

1,780

1,760

$21,000.00

701

8. ABEL ST.

OFFICE

2,331

2,331

$26,000.00

MALAGUERRA AVE.

OFFICE

5.266

5,268

$34,000.00
$16,000.00

20

8127

21

6146

ELMWD REHAB CNTR-EAST GATE
ELMWD REHAB CNTR-SHOP (OLD CI-OTHINt3)
ELMWD REHAB CNTR-CHApEL (LIBRARY)

22

6104

JAMES RANCH-VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

19050

23

8107

JAMES RANCH-TRAINING ROOM 6 FREEZER

18050

24

6113

JAMES RANCH-MAINTENANCE

19050

25

5114

JAMES RANCH-SUPERINTENDENTS HOUSE

19050

26

6117

JAMES RANCH-TOOL ROOM IS

19050

MALAGUERRA AVE.

SUPPORT

2,657

2,657

MALAGUERRA AVE.

SUPPORT

1,820

1,620

$20,000.00

MALAGUERRA AVE.

HOUSE

2,816

2,61 B

$30,000.00

MALAGUERRA AVE.

SUPPORT

1,500

1,500

$11.(X)Q.0O

Subtotal Sq. Ft.
Rod Project 0521018/6(2001

$8,000.00

1,022,879 456,684

Total: $2,ss4.o<io.oo