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.