Loading...
SR-510-001 '5S:SPS:PG:JS Council Meeting: oclber 12, 1982 4.~o.rfV. 0" Santa Mo~a, California )D-B :!?/ bJ - tPC; I oel 1 2 \982 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: SUBJECT: City S t a f f Energy Ordinances INTRODUCTION On April 14, 1981, the City Council was presented with recommendations from the Energy Task Force. The Task Force proposed the addition of an "Energy Code" to the existing Municipal Code, which would include a variety of measures including provisions for solar energy use in new construction and conservatlon retrofit for existing buildings. At that meeting the Council referred the matter to the Planning Commission for its recommendations. On August 2, 1982, City Staff made a series of recommendations to the Planning Commission regarding the proposed "Energy Code". Specifically, recommendations were made to eliminate provisions for conservation retrofit and also to substitute the adoption of the s ta te- develope d residential building standards for the measures which would have applied to new residential construction. At the August 2 meeting, the Planning Commission moved, consistent with the recommendation of staff, to recommend against the conservation retrofit provision of the proposed "Energy Code"; the Planning Commission also moved to hold a joint public hearing with the Building and Safety Commission to consider the adoption of residential buil ding standards. The Commission referred back /0 -B O:CT 1 2 1982 , G S : S,E S : P G ~ J S Council Meeting: .ober 12, 1982 San ta ~i c a, C a 1 i fo r n i a to Staff the remaining portions of the proposed "Energy Code" for further analysis and recommendations. The joint public hearing was held on September 20; all Planning Commissioners were present, but there was not a quorum present of the Building and Safety Commissioners. At the hearing, the Commissioners moved to recommend to the City Council that the state-developed residential building standards be adopted by the City. Thus this report conveys the recommendations of the Planning Commission to the City Council as follows: 1. To adopt Residential Building Standards for new construction as developed by the California Energy Commission; and, 2. To reject that portion of the proposed "Energy Code" which would require conservation retrofit of existing residential buildings, with the balance of the proposed "Energy Code" continuing to be analyzed by the Planning Commission and Staff. BACKGROUND I. Residential Buildings Standard~ ReSldential Building Standards which set forth minimum energy efficiency regulations for new buildings have been developed by the California Energy Commission in fulfillment of its mandate under state law requiring the development and periodic revision of such standards. These standards were to have gone into effect on 2 G S : S.E S : P G : J S Council Meeting: ~ober 12, 1982 Santa ~ica, California July 13, 1982, but the effective date of implementation was delayed through legislative action (AS 1843, signed into law by the Governor an July 13, 1982) until June 15, 1983 for single family detached homes and until December 31, 1983 for all other residential construction. On June 6, 1982, the City Council passed Resolution 6492 which supported the July 13, 1982 adoption date for the standards. Consistent with this position the Planning Commission, on September 20, 1982, conducted a public hearing to consider the early adoption of the standards by the City. As a result of that hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the adoption of the standards to the City Council. A. METHODS OF COMPLIANCE Presently in California, standards which became law in 1978 are in existence for all residential construction. The standards recommended herein are a revision of those standards, strengthed to ensure greater energy efficiency for new residential buildings. These new standards for the Santa Monica Cllmate Zone include the following provisions: 1. Cal cul ation Method The builder may present calculations which show that the building, as designed, will not consume more energy than is allowed for the climate zone in which it is located. For Santa Monica (Cllmate Zone #6), the annual lIenergy budgetU for a single-family home is 5200 British Thermal Units (BTU) per 3 GS:S-ES:PG:JS Council Meeting: .ober 12, 1982 Santa .ica, Californla square foot of building area for space heating plus 19,400,000 BTU for water heating. For a multi-family dwelling unit, the annual energy budget is 5000 BTU/square foot for space heating plus 11,500,000 BTU for water heating. This is about 20% less energy than is consumed by a typical residence built to tOday's standards. 2. Altern~~ive Package Method Three "alternative component packages" are available under this simplified method: a) The thermal mass or passive design package, which specifies insulation levels of R-19 in ceilings and R-ll in walls, thermal mass such as masonry or concrete and restrictions on glazing {window to wall ratio and window orientation} . b} t' ,t The thermos bottle package, which is a super insulated home conslsting of R-30 level in ceilings and R-19 level in walls and very limited glazing. c) The solar package, which requires R-19 ceiling insulation, R-11 wall insulatlon, a maximum of 14% ratio of glazing to walls and a domestic solar water heating system with a natural gas backup which supplies at least 60% of the hot water load. 4 , GS:SES:PG:JS Council Meeting: ~ober 12~ 1982 Santa M~ca~ California 3. Point System Method Instead of the above methods, the builder may use any other combination of energy saving features such that a minimal number of energy efficiency "points" are achieved. The Energy Commlssion has assigned point values to various energy saving measures for th1S purpose. B. COST The Energy Commission estimates that the added cost of the energy eff1ciency measures will be recovered through energy savings wlthin seven years in the Santa Monica Climate Zone. For example, the Commission estimates that Package A would cost $494 for a 1384 square foot detached home, and would save an estimated 1000 KWH and 106 therms (about $103) per year over current CEC standards. The additional cost to a builder opting to use calculation or p01nt system energy budget methodology is impossible to predict. For the alternative package choices~ R-19 and R-l1 insulation for ceil i ngs and walls respectively are already required under existing state building standards and and thus require no additional expenditure. Restrictions on the ratio of glazing to wall area also are not a cost factor in a newly constructed home. Thus the "additional" cost to be considered 1n the alternatlve package options are the cost of additional insulation for the "thermos bottle"~ the cost of thermal mass in that package, or the cost of the solar system in the third option. Under this scenario, then~ the most costly route a builder may choose will 5 . .GS:SES:PG:JS Council Meeting: .ober 12, 1982 Santa M~ca, California typically be the solar package. For new single-family homes, a domestic solar water heating system costs approximately $3,000; for a multi-family building this cost drops to $1,000 per unit. Under existing state law, local governments cannot pass ordinances requiring energy conservation measures without certiflcation from the Californla Energy Commisslon that the proposed requirements are cost-effective. Since the building standards being recommended were developed by the Commission, they clearly meet this test and have been certified to be cost-effective for all new homes. c. REASONS FOR ADOPTING THE BUILDING STANDARDS Early adoption of the state-developed Residential Building Standards has several advantages: it wilT accomplish energy savings more simply and more flexibly than ordinances which require specific technologies; Santa Monica's law will be consistent with the state requirement once it goes onto effect in 1983; the standards and related regulations have already been developed for the state's 16 climate zones through a rigorous and lengthy process of public hearings and the approval of the state Building Standards Commission; City Staff has been familarized with the appropriate inspection and enforcement procedures; and it will be consistent with the Council I s stated support for the early adoption of the state standards as passed in Council Resolution Number 6492 on June 1, 1982. 6 . G S : S-E S : P G : J S Council Meeting: ~ober 12, 1982 Santa Jltica, California II. Conservation Retrofit On April 14, 1981, the Energy Task Force established by the Council presented recommendations to the Council for the passage of an "Energy Code". Chapter 2 of this proposed code includes a provision for conservation retrofit, where existing homes would be required to be retrofitted with cost-effective conservation measures at the time of sale of the home or no later than December 31, 1985. The Council referred the proposed Energy Code to the Planning Commission for its recommendations. Since the "Energy Code" was first presented to the Councll for its consideration, certain events have occurred or will soon occur wh 1 c h call into question the usefulness of a mandatory conservation law. The City is currently negotiating a contract with the Southern California Edlson Company and the Southern California Gas Company which would provide funds for the City to perform household energy audits for each resident in the City. It is anticipated that this contract will be successfully negotiated and audits will commence in early 1983. In a separate matter, both utilities will soon have available 8% conservation loans for the owners of single-family homes and multi-family buildings for the purchase of attic insulation and other measures. These programs have tremendous potential for saving energy in the residential sector through an aggressive effort that does not entail any mandatory particlpation. In light of this, the Planning Commission recommends that the conservation retrofit provision of the proposed Energy Code be dropped from further 7 GS:SES:PG:JS Council Meeting: ~ober 12, 1982 Santa ~ca, California consideration. The balance of the proposed "Energy Code" will continue to be examined by the Planning Commission and staff for possible recommendation at a later date. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commisslon recommends that the City Councll: 1. Direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance for the adoption of the residential building standards as developed by the California Energy Commission for consideration by the Clty Council within 60 days. 2. Direct City Staff to delete all provisions for conservation retrofit requirements from the previously proposed "Energy Code". Prepared by: Stan Scholl Peg 9Y Ga rdel s 8 e . ADD /0 /0-8 OCT 1 2 1982 Plannlng Commission Meeting August 2, 1982 EXCERPT....ltem 8 8. ~EW BUSINESS: A. Ene~gy Plans Energy Program Adml n1 s tra tor Peggy Ga rde 1 s viaS present to revi ew s td ff' s recoirlmerrdations ConC€'fmng the Energy Code. Her recommenddtjons were for adop- tion of the Staters Resldential Euilding Standards as developed by tne Callfornla Energy Commlss1on and for further investigatlon by staff of the fea~lb111ty of providing ordlnances governlng solar access, non-resldential buildlng stdnddrds and solar pool heating require~ents. She speclfically asked for rejectlon of the Energy Conservation Law requlrlng reLrotlt by 1985 and noted that the City has been worklng wltn Southern California Ga~ Company and Southern California Edison to establish a voluntary program; also that solar access be considered when revising the Land Use Element. . Comm. Rhoden had presen~ed the COmffilSS10ners a copy of her recommendations on the proposed Energy Code. She also noted her agreement with many of staff's reco~men- dations. COlllmlssioner Rhoden, follovnng tile recommendatlOns she had made 1n her memorandum, moved that the CorrmisslOn act on tf1e Platter by biforcating C.hapters 1 througil 7 of the Enerqy Code and dct upon eacn section individually. Secondea by Cha1nmman Cloke, a substitute notlon was presented by Commlssioner Snearer to accept staff's recommendations. Seconded by Commlssioner Ball, discussion followed. Community and Economic Development O,rector Tlgan suggested a joint hearing with the Building and Safety Comm1ssion to review the Code and make recommendations to the City Council . At this point, Commissioners Katz and Hotchkiss moved and seconded a motion to permit the Commission to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. as required by the bylaws. The motion carried and discussion continued. Commissloner Shearer vlith- drew his motion in favor of Commissioner Rhot~en's notion vhich carried as follows: AYE; Ball, Hotchk~ss, ~atz, Shearer, Rhoden, Cloke ABSTAIN: K1effel Commissioner Rhoden then mov~d that Chapter 1 of the proposed Energy Code be referred to staff for rewriting as ~eeded. The vote again was six in favor with Commissloner Kleffel abstainlng. Commissioner Rhoden then moved that a public hearing be scheduled concerning Chapters 2 and 3, meeting jointly with the Buildlng and Safety Commission to consider the State Residential Building Standards for an ordinance of the Clty. This motion carried unanimously. A-f)f) /0 10-8 OCT 1 2 '982- e . Commissioner Ball moved t:la"L thl; Commission hold a brief dlScussion of the Residen- tion Conservation Service Program and the mandatory aspects of the Energy Conser- vation Law concerning Retrofit to alleviate cltizens concerns. Seconded by Com- missioner Katz, the motion carried as follows: AYE: NAY: ABSTAIN: Ball, Katz, Shearer, Cloke Rhoden Kleffle, HotchklSS Thereafter Cha1nJoman Cloke moved to put Items E1 and E2 (electrical energy for lighting and airconditionlng in commercial buildings) under Section 4--Passive Design. and to ask staff to incorporate the concept of ceiling insulation where approprlate. Commlssioner Rhoden seconded and the motion carried with SlX favorable votes and one abstension by Commlssioner Kleffel. Commissioner Rhoden then moved that Chapter 4, Passive Design, be investigated by staff and tts recommendations reported concernlng passive design features for non-residentlal buildi~g construction, inc1udlng consideration of the proposed passive features outlined in the Energy Code and that the concept of C€111ng insulation be incorporated under 6C. Commissioner Katz seconded the motlon which carried with on~ abstension by Co~missioner Kleffel. Staff member Gardels ascertalned that the report requested would be part of the public hearing considerations. Chapter 5 concerning clotheslines was voted on in Commissioner Rhodents motion to refer the proposed clothesline ordinance to the Architectural Review Board for reco~mendations on feasibillty, in new construction projects, and to refer the section affecting lease agreements to the City Attorneyts office for legal ruling. The motion carrled by the following vote: AYE: NAY: ABSTAIN: Ball, HotchklSS, Katz, Rhoden, Cloke Shearer Kl effel Commissioner Rhoden moved that Chapter 6 be referred to staff for review and recom~endatlon for an ordinance for the conservation and/or elimination of fossil fuels for heating of swimming pools, spas and jacuzzis, both new and existlng. Seconded by Commlssioner Katz the motion carried as noted in Chapter 5 above. Chapter 7 was consldered by Commlssioner Rhoden with her motion recommending that solar access and shade control--as drafted in the Energy Code and adJusted for cur~ent zoning practice in residentially-zoned land--be included in the work program of the land Use Element and that solar access and shade control in com- mercial and industrlally zoned land be included 1n tne work program of the Land Use Element as recommended by staff. Seconded by Commissioner Ball, the motlon carried as follows: AYE: ABSTAIN: Ball, Hotchkiss, Katz, Rhoden, Shearer, Cloke Kleffel At the end of consideration of the Energy Code proposals, Cowmissioner Ball com- plimented Commlssioner Rhoden on her work in providing her recommendations on the Code.