No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD Green Building RegulationsAgenda Item No: 6 Meeting Date: January 19, 2010 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: Co munity Development Prepared by ObBro ^` City Manager Approval Community Development Director SUBJECT: Green Building Regulations (citywide): Proposed Amendments to the San Rafael Municipal Code to update green building requirements by replacing Section 14.16.365 with a new Chapter 12.44 (Green Building Requirements) and amending Chapters 12.16 (California Plumbing Code), Chapter 12.20 (California Electrical Code) and Chapter 12.12 (California Building Code) to include local code amendments requiring pre -wiring and pre -plumbing for future solar photovoltaic and solar hot water systems in new buildings, insulating exposed hot water pipes in remodeling projects and adding a radiant barrier in certain reroofing projects. Applicant: City of San Rafael, File No.: P09-020. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Ordinance and Resolution BACKGROUND: What is Green Building? Green building is the fastest growing trend in the construction industry. It promotes a whole -systems approach to the planning, design, construction and operation of buildings. It offers substantial benefits to property owners, occupants and the entire community by: • Reducing utility, maintenance and infrastructure costs • Reducing water usage • Improving construction quality and building longevity • Protecting the health of workers and residents • Reducing environmental impacts through efficient resource use and sustainably created products Green Building Rating Systems Over the past several years two principal green building rating systems have risen to the level of national and statewide standards — LEED® (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and GreenPoint Rated. The benefit of these rating systems is that they have been developed with industry involvement, extensively tested and frequently updated. They train and certify green building designers or raters, which significantly simplifies implementation by local building divisions. The European Union has endorsed a very rigorous green building standard called Passive House that focuses almost entirely on energy efficiency to the point of eliminating the need for furnace or air conditioning systems, even in northern European climates. Over 16,000 Passive House buildings have FOR CITY CLERK ONLY File No.: Council Meeting: Disposition: SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2 been certified over the past decade, and many European cities and countries have mandated it use for all new construction. GreenPoint Rated is administered by Build It Green (BIG), located in Berkeley. Over 70 California cities have adopted green building regulations utilizing the GreenPoint Rated system. Over 445 professionals have been certified as Green Point Raters, including dozens in the North Bay, and are utilized as part of a project design team and verify the inclusion of green building features in the final building construction. Green Point Rated checklists are only available for residential projects. There are three checklists: New Home (Single Family) and New Home (Multi -Family) and Existing Home. The Existing Home system is devised for both major (Whole House) and minor (Elements) remodels to single-family homes. BIG will have a remodeling checklist for multi -family buildings completed next year. The GreenPoint Rated system allows flexibility in selecting from a broad list of possible green building elements, but requires a minimum number of points in five categories: Community Design, Energy Efficiency, Indoor Air Quality, Water Conservation and Resource Conservation. The energy requirements mandate that a project achieve at least 15% greater energy savings than the minimum level required by the state energy code (Title 24). To qualify as GreenPoint Rated a project must achieve at least 50 points (25 points for the remodeling Elements checklist) out of a potential of over 300 maximum points. LEED® is administered by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), located in Washington, D.C. LEED® has 5 rating systems for various types of non-residential building types: New Construction (for new buildings and major renovations), Core and Shell (for spec. buildings with unfinished interiors), Commercial Interiors (for interior improvements), Schools, Healthcare and Retail, and Operations and Maintenance (for fine tuning building systems and maintenance). LEED® has recently completed LEED® for Homes (residential) and a pilot version of LEED® Neighborhood Development (for subdivisions and mixed-use projects). The LEED® rating systems include items which are "Prerequisites" — mandatory requirements which must be met prior to points being accumulated. For example, for new construction projects must demonstrate a minimum 20% water savings and 10% energy reduction from base codes. There is also a prerequisite for building commissioning, which requires the involvement of a building systems specialist to verify that the energy related systems (lighting, cooling, heating, hot water) are designed, installed and calibrated for maximum efficiency. The many discretionary options which may be included to accumulate necessary points to achieve certification are known as "Credits." LEED® offers different rating levels based upon the number of points achieved (out of a possible 110 points): Certified [40-49 pts.], Silver [50-59 pts.], Gold [60-79 pts.] and Platinum [80-110]. It is hoped that eventually green building standards will be incorporated into the mandatory state building codes for statewide consistency. A first step in this direction was taken by the California Building Standards Commission in 2008 when they adopted the California Green Building Standards Code for new construction. Most of these are voluntary measures, but there are 7 required items currently and 11 more will be mandated in 2011. These requirements are very much a minimum standard at present, and the adopting legislation gave explicit authority for local governments to adopt more stringent standards. Existing Green Building Ordinance The San Rafael City Council adopted green building regulations in July, 2007. The requirements apply only to the construction of new dwelling units or new non-residential buildings over 5,000 square feet in size. For new residential structures, the ordinance requires achieving at least 60 points in the GreenPoints rating system. New non-residential buildings between 5,000 and 30,000 square feet must achieve LEED® Certified level, and buildings over 30,000 square feet LEED® Silver. Remodeling was not addressed since Building It Green was developing a rating system for renovations to existing homes. Preparation of a Model Green Building Ordinance for Marin County Jurisdictions In an attempt to standardize green building regulations among the cities, towns and County of Marin, elected or appointed representatives from each jurisdiction volunteered to serve as a Task Force as part of the Marin Green BERST (Green Building, Energy Retrofit and Solar Transformation) process. A Technical Advisory Committee composed of approximately 50 experts in the fields of construction, architecture, energy consultation, building performance, building inspection, planning, and real estate met 11 times to recommend model regulations to the Task Force. Several presentations were made to SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3 city/town councils, and the Task Force endorsed the proposed green building regulations at their meeting of November 19, 2009. The regulations included in the attached ordinance and resolution are consistent with the proposed countywide model green building ordinance. ANALYSIS: Technical Advisory Committee — Objectives The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) identified the following objectives for green building regulations in Marin: 1. Regulations which are consistently implemented across Marin jurisdictions. 2. Regulations which achieve the following, in priority order: a. Energy savings b. Greenhouse gas reductions c. Water conservation d. Practicality of implementation e. Cost effectiveness f. Improved indoor air quality and occupant health g. Resource conservation h. Adaptability for future technology i. Effective marketing j. Environmental protection Technical Advisory Committee—Key Findings and Strategies Over the course of information sharing and discussions over seven meetings, the following findings and strategies emerged, which influenced the TAC recommendations: Key Findings • Most contractors and designers in Marin are already utilizing many green building techniques, either through government requirements or because they save costs and materials. There is great desire among contractors and designers to have a consistent set of standards among jurisdictions to simplify compliance. • Incorporation of green building components, and involvement of design professionals with expertise in green building, can increase initial construction costs by a few percent, and is most easily absorbed in the cost of larger projects. • The energy and water savings required by green building rating systems will have long term benefits to property owners, building occupants and the entire community. • The State of California has mandated that new commercial buildings have zero net energy use by 2020 and residential buildings by 2030. This may result in consideration of standards like Passive House. • GreenPoint Rated is the most commonly utilized residential green building rating system, and LEED® is most common for non-residential projects. • Many contractors and designers in Marin indicate that achieving the minimum number of points required in the GreenPoint Rated system (50 points) is not difficult and requires few design modifications. • There are great benefits to building commissioning, which is required for LEED® certification, since it involves maximizing the efficiency of energy components in a building (lighting, HVAC, hot water), both during design and in actual operation. • Since Marin communities are largely "built out," there is relatively little construction of new buildings. Imposing green building requirements to remodeled buildings will have a greater impact in Marin than limiting requirements to new buildings. It is also more challenging to apply green building SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4 requirements to remodeling, since there can be such wide variation in the scope and cost of remodeling projects. A very high proportion (over 80%) of building permits issued in Marin are for very minor permits, with valuation of less than $25,000. Verification of the inclusion of green building measures is best accomplished through both plan review/field verification/on-site testing by designers or raters who have been trained and certified by the organizations which have developed the rating systems (BIG for GreenPoint Rated or the USGBC for LEED®), and through those organizations formal certification processes. Such certification is also intended to create a branding that will increase property value upon resale or leasing. Certification of homes by BIG costs approximately $450, and provides the local jurisdiction with a computation of greenhouse gas reduction achieved, which will be helpful in future reporting to state agencies. The USGBC certification process is much more involved, and may add several thousands of dollars in cost to large projects and occurs after occupancy of a project (to complete building commissioning). The USGBC has recently contracted with another non-profit recently to streamline its certification process. Strategies • As the size and cost of building projects increase, greater green building requirements can be accommodated by the larger project budgets and the expertise of design professionals involved. The TAC recommendations propose higher point requirements as project size and valuation increases. • For smaller, less costly projects, the emphasis is on increasing owner awareness of energy use, using a "whole building" systems approach. The recommendations include either very minimal green building requirements or merely completing the applicable green building checklists (without any point requirements) to educate property owners or lessees on the options and benefits of green building. For residential additions and remodels valued at over $50,000, it is recommended that property owners be required to have an energy audit performed on the existing building, again to increase energy awareness and to promote the pursuit of greater energy efficiency. • Since the highest priority objective of the TAC is energy conservation, several of the recommendations propose that projects exceed the minimum requirements of the State Energy Code (Title 24) by prescribed percentages. This approach is also consistent with state objectives to move the construction industry towards zero net energy use in buildings over the next two decades. • Given the desire of property owners and the City to have vacant commercial buildings reoccupied following the current recessionary period, only voluntary green building measures are recommended for tenant improvements or minor alterations of less than 5,000 square feet or $500,000 valuation. Relatively minimal requirements are recommended for tenant improvements and minor alterations between 5,000 - 25,000 square feet or less than $5 million. • For consistency, GreenPoint Rated and LEED® are the recommended standards, with the ability of applicants to propose other comparable rating systems or techniques, such as Passive House. • Third -party verification is proposed to significantly reduce implementation responsibilities for local building departments. • The model ordinance needs to include flexibility for the Chief Building Official to waive requirements which are infeasible (e.g., the requirement to pre -wire homes for photovoltaic systems for lots in deep shade) or to allow applicants to 'offset' requirements by funding installations of energy or water conserving features on other properties that achieve comparable savings. • Given the rapid evolution of green building techniques, research, training and government mandates, it is certain that these regulations will need to be updated frequently, hopefully in a similar comprehensive manner between jurisdictions. Recommendations The following is a summary of the recommendations of the TAC: Residential Buildings New single family and duplex structures would have to be GreenPoint Rated, using the New Home Green Building Guidelines. The number of required points would.increase from 75 for a home up to 2,500 square feet, up to 150 points for a new home of 7,000 square feet. In addition, larger homes would have to exceed the requirements of the State Energy Code, Title 24, beyond the 15% increase normally SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Patte: 5 required to be GreenPoint Rated. Homes over 7,000 square feet would have to achieve 200 points, and have zero net energy use. There would be an allowance to "offset" the energy requirements if they cannot be achieved on site, allowing a developer to pay for energy efficiency or renewable energy systems on other properties. In addition, new homes would have to be pre -plumbed and pre -wired to accommodate future installation of photovoltaic panels and solar hot water. New multi -family projects would also be required to be GreenPoint Rated, using the Multi -family Green Building Guidelines. The minimum points required would increase based on average unit size to encourage smaller, more efficient units, starting at 60 points for units less than 1,000 square feet, up to 75 points for larger units. The same requirements for pre -plumbing and pre -wiring PV and solar hot water would be included, with exceptions for some multi -story units. Remodeling and additions to residential structures would be treated as follows: • Building permits for construction of less than $50,000 in project valuation would be subject to some minor requirements beyond the state building code, based on the type of work. Remodeling which opens walls would be required to insulate exposed hot water pipes, and reroofing projects that remove the roof sheathing would be required to install a radiant barrier (a thin metal material which inhibits heat transfer by radiation). Both upgrades involve minimal additional cost but have significant energy savings benefits. • For remodeling valued from $50,000 - $100,000, applicants would have to submit a completed GreenPoint Rated Existing Homes checklist, but there would be no requirements to include any green features in the project. The purpose of completing the checklist is only to help educate property owners, which may incentivize them to voluntarily modify plans. In addition, the property owner would be required to have a home performance (energy) audit performed (using either the HERSII protocols from the California Energy Commission when these become available for use in 2010 or those from the Building Performance Institute), which will identify areas where the home is not energy efficient. Such an audit can cost between $500 and $700, although costs may decrease due to increased volume and green job training efforts to increase the number of auditors. Again, the intent is owner education and to incentivize voluntary energy efficiency upgrades. • For remodels between $100,000 - $300,000, applicants would be required to achieve between 25 and 35 points on the GreenPoint Rated Existing Homes Elements checklist, which was devised for partial remodeling projects. The Existing Homes checklist requires an up -front home performance audit to establish an energy baseline upon which the remodeling must improve building energy performance. • For remodels over $300,000, applicants would have to achieve at least 50 points on the GreenPoint Rated Existing Homes Whole House checklist, which is intended for larger remodels, and which may require modifications beyond the area of remodeling, and demonstrate at least a 20% improvement from the home energy audit. • Remodeling of multi -family projects is not addressed since Build It Green is currently developing a rating system for multi -family renovations. Verification of compliance with green building requirements may vary by jurisdiction due to staff capabilities (certification of building inspectors as GreenPoint Raters or LEED® Accredited Professionals) or the desire to utilize third -party experts. For new single-family and multi -family dwellings it is recommended that the GreenPoint Rated certification from Build It Green, which costs $450 for a custom single-family home) be obtained for four reasons: 1. Build It Green provides a quality assurance program for certified projects, whereby a percentage of a raters projects are reevaluated by third parry experts, 2. Green building certification will add value in real estate sales, and is being branded by Build It Green through realtor associations, 3. Build It Green provides a calculation of greenhouse gas reductions resulting from the certified project which will assist local agencies in tracking and taking credit for greenhouse gas reductions, and 4. The fees from certification help fund Build It Green's maintenance of rating checklists and extensive training efforts. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6 Due to the reduced budget for remodeling projects, it is recommended that the requirements for projects between $50,000-$100,000 in valuation be verified by agency staff. Larger remodeling projects would be verified in plan check and through field inspection by a GreenPoint Rater, either in-house staff or third party, without the requirement for project certification by Build It Green. Non -Residential (including Civic) Buildings New non-residential buildings or additions would use the LEED New Construction or Core & Shell Guidelines, and requirements would vary based on project size: • Projects between 2,000 and 5,000 square feet would have to submit a completed LEED checklist, but no minimum points would be required. However, applicants would have to meet the 8 LEED Prerequisites (SS -P1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention, WE -P1 20% Water Use Reduction, EA -P1 Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems, EA -P2 Minimum Energy Performance, EA -P3 Fundamental Refrigerant Management, MR -P1 Storage and Collection of Recyclables, IAQ-P1 Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance, and IAQ-P2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control). • Projects between 5,000 and 50,000 square feet would have to achieve a LEED Silver rating. To improve energy efficiency, buildings above 5,000 square feet would have to be 15% below Title 24 requirements. • Projects over 50,000 square feet would have to achieve a LEED Gold rating. • As with residential, new non-residential buildings and major remodels would have to be pre -plumbed and pre -wired for future PV and solar hot water, with an exception process. Tenant improvement and minor alteration projects for non-residential buildings are even more difficult to regulate than residential remodeling due to the great variation in the vintage, construction type and condition of existing commercial buildings, the challenge of dealing with incremental improvement of tenant spaces in multi -tenant buildings, and the splitting of utility and capital costs between landlords and tenants. The LEED Commercial Interiors or Operations & Maintenance checklists would be utilized, with the following requirements based on project size: • For projects less than $500,000 in valuation, only voluntary compliance with 2 Prerequisites and 1 Credit of the Commercial Interiors checklist would be suggested. For multi -tenant buildings, the Prerequisite and Credit affecting the HVAC system would only be applicable if over half of the building is being modified, since it would not be reasonable for a single tenant improvement to trigger the replacement of the HVAC unit for the entire building. • For projects between $500,000 and $5 million in valuation, compliance with these 2 Prerequisites and 1 Credit of the Commercial Interiors checklist would be required. • Projects over $5 million in valuation would be required to be LEED Silver rated. The building certification process under the LEED® rating system by the U.S. Green Building Council has been notoriously slow and costly. For this reason, the USGBC has delegated this function to the Green Building Certification Institute which has regional offices. Due to the increased cost and complexity of LEED® certification it is recommended that green building requirements in new non-residential buildings be verified by a LEED® Accredited Professional. Since LEED® APs are not required to have field inspection experience, it is further recommended that LEED®APs verifying compliance with the ordinance requirements also have an additional green building certification which tests for field expertise, such as GreenPoint Rated or the Building Performance Institute. For large new non-residential buildings (recommended at 50,000+ square feet) it is recommended that full LEED® building certification be required. Exceptions For both residential and non-residential buildings, the model ordinance would include a hardship or infeasibility exemption, and there would also be an exception for historic structures from green building requirements that would impair the structure's historic integrity. Exceptions are also included for seismic upgrades, installation of renewable energy systems, flood or earthquake repair and required disabled access improvements. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7 Financial Implications There have been several studies and much debate about the cost effectiveness of green building techniques. An attached engineering analysis of several LEED" certified buildings found a range of additional cost from 1% to 6% of total project budget, however these initial costs are offset by long term cost savings from lower energy and water use (see Exhibit 3). This range of cost premium is similar to that reported by the construction manager of the San Rafael Corporate Center (new LEED® Gold office buildings) and the County's Health and Wellness Campus (extensively remodeled LEED® Gold buildings). Incorporation of LEED® provisions increased the cost of the Corporate Center construction by about 1% and by the Wellness Campus by about 6%. It is also instructive to note that the owners of both the Corporate Center and the Northgate Mall have elected to seek LEED" Gold certification even though not required by current City ordinances due to expectations of both lower long term maintenance costs and higher lease rates/more rapid lease -up due to occupant desires for better air quality and comfort and lower utility costs. A September, 2009 study by the U.C. Energy Institute found that LEED" office buildings command rental rates that average 6% higher and sold for an average of 16% more than standard buildings. There have been no definitive studies of the added costs of the GreenPoint Rated system or for building renovations under the LEED® system. A cost effectiveness study was commissioned for the Marin County Model Green Building Ordinance and prepared by Gabel Associates (see Exhibit 5). This analysis is required by the California Energy Commission when local ordinances require energy reductions beyond that required by Title 24, the State energy code. The study must demonstrate that the incremental costs of the energy efficiency measures can be recouped from energy savings within the useful life of the improvements. The report analyzes 12 prototypical new single family homes of various sizes, 4 new multi -family projects and 4 new office buildings (Climate Zones 2 and 3 are analyzed for the countywide ordinance — San Rafael is in Climate Zone 2). The incremental costs of energy efficiency improvements and the cost per square foot of new construction are provided for each. For the single family homes, the additional costs average about $1 per square foot, compared to typical construction costs of $250-300 per square foot. Multi -family projects had a similar incremental cost, and office buildings ranged from $1.26-$2.86 per square foot. The study concludes that, through simple payback analysis, the costs of ordinance requirements would be recouped during the useful life of the improvements. It is useful to note that a $200 annual reduction in energy costs, which can be achieved in a typical new home of up to 4, 000 square feet for an initial cost of about $2,000, would yield about $40,000 in total savings over the life of the structure assuming conservative increases in electricity rates. Although the costs for professional assistance to incorporate green design into projects varies significantly based on the scope of specific projects, there are some typical ranges of costs for design, verification and home performance test for residential applications. For new single-family dwellings, the cost of a GreenPoint Rater to assist in the design phase, the submittal of the completed checklist and field verification typically costs $1,500 - $2,500, and the cost of final certification by Build It Green costs $450. The GreenPoint Rated system for remodeling requires that a home energy audit be conducted to help focus improvements on the most cost-effective means of energy savings. The cost of a home energy audit is typically $500 - $700, but is regarded by construction industry experts as vital information for effective remodeling projects and money very well spent. This cost can be incorporated into a loan under an AB811 program (which may be operational in Marin in 2010) and will likely be available for a rebate or tax credit under regulations under consideration by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Public Utilities Commission. Construction and Demolition Debris Reduction Both the GreenPoint Rated and LEED systems require the reduction of debris from construction and building demolition projects. In Marin, construction and demolition (C&D) debris accounts for 22% of the total material deposited at the Redwood Landfill. In order to create a process for implementing C&D waste reduction, it is proposed that the City adopt an ordinance identical to that of Marin County, which has also been adopted by 5 other Marin cities. This ordinance requires that at least 50% of C&D waste be either reused or recycled, and establishes a process for submittal of an initial waste reduction plan and then documentation for verification. Recycling of C&D waste can occur at either Marin Sanitary or the SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: S Redwood Landfill, and a reuse/resale facility (e.g., "Urban Ore" in Berkeley) will be opened at Fairfax Lumber in 2010. San Rafael General Plan 2020 Consistency General Plan 2020 promotes energy and resource efficiency in new construction in Conservation Element Policy CON -18 (Resource -Efficient Building Design), Program CON -18a (Energy -Efficient Homes), Program CON -18b (Zoning and Building Code Review), Program CON -18c (Use of Alternative Building Materials), Policy CON -21 (Waste Reduction/Recycling), Program CON -21d (Demolition Waste), Policy CON -22 (Resource Efficiency in Site Development), and Air and Water Quality Element Policy AW -8 (Reduce Pollution from Urban Runoff). The adoption of more stringent green building regulations would be consistent with these General Plan objectives. Climate Change Action Plan Consistency The San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan identifies green building requirements as one of the three most effective means of meeting the adopted goal of reducing the production of greenhouse gases within the community by 25% from 2005 level by the year 2020, and includes Program BU -4 which calls for applying green building requirements to residential, commercial and civic remodeling projects as well as new construction, Program BU -5 which calls for reduction in building energy use by 20% by 2020 and Program BU -6 which calls for reduction of potable water use in buildings and landscaping by 30% by 2020. Again, adoption of more stringent green building regulations is called for in the Climate Change Action Plan. Environmental Determination The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts actions by regulatory agencies intended for the preservation of the environment. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed ordinance on December 15, 2009, and recommended adoption to the City Council on a 5-1 vote (Chair Pick dissenting, indicating strong support for the ordinance concepts, but concerns about adopting additional building regulations during the economic recession). Endorsements The Marin Model Green Building Ordinance has been endorsed by the BERST Task Force and by the Green Building Committee of the Marin Builders Association. Ordinance Monitoring and Updates Green building construction, design and regulatory techniques are rapidly evolving, and there will be a need to continuously monitor and update these regulations. One advantage of a countywide approach will be the ability for county building officials to collaborate on ordinance interpretations and identifying proposed modifications. This will be particularly important for regulation of remodeling, which is the most significant change to the previously adopted green building ordinances in Marin. Because there is so little data available on the costs and implications of green building requirements on remodeling, staff will commit to providing an evaluation of the adopted ordinance within one year after implementation and will solicit information from applicants regarding costs and process. FISCAL IMPACT: Since the ordinance relies upon third -party green building professionals to verify compliance, there will be minimal additional workload for City staff. Incremental costs to applicants will vary by project type. For new construction, additional initial costs of 1-6% have been documented, although savings on energy and water use typically recoup these initial costs within 5-10 years. It has also been documented that commercial green buildings result in higher rental rates and greater resale value. OPTIONS: 1. Adopt the ordinance and resolution as proposed. 2. Modify provisions of the ordinance or resolution. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 9 3. Refer the draft ordinance and resolution back to staff and the Planning Commission for additional consideration. ACTION REQUIRED: Adopt the attached ordinance and resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Ordinance 2. Draft Resolution establishing green building standards 3. Summary of Green Building Requirements in Marin County 4. Charles Lockwood: "The dollars and sense of green retrofits' 5. Marin County Green Building Ordinance Energy Cost Effectiveness Study 6. LEED® Commercial Interiors Prerequisites WE1 and EA3 and Credit 1.3 7. Letter from Ackeret/Sheron LLP Attorneys 8. Public Hearing Notice Note: Copies of the GreenPoint Rated guidelines and checklists can be found at: http://www.builditgreen.org/guidelines; and copies of the LEED® guidelines and checklists can be found at http //www.usgbc.oro/displaypage.aspx?CMsPagelD=222 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE INCLUDING: 1) AMENDING CHAPTER 12.44 TO REPLACE ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WITH GREEN BUILDING REGULATIONS; 2) AMENDING CHAPTERS 12.16 (CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE) AND 12.20 (CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE) TO INCLUDE REQUIREMENTS FOR PRE -WIRING AND PRE -PLUMBING NEW RESIDENTIAL AND NON- RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS FOR SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC OR SOLAR HOT WATER SYSTEMS; 3) AMENDING CHAPTER 12.16 (CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE) TO INCLUDE A REQUIREMENT FOR INSULATING HOT WATER PIPES WHEN EXPOSED DURING REMODELING; 4) AMENDING CHAPTER 12.12 (CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE) TO INCLUDE A REQUIREMENT FOR INSTALLATION OF A RADIANT BARRIER DURING REROOFING; 5) ADDING CHAPTER 12.46 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS; 6) DELETING SECTION 14.16.365 (GREEN BUILDING); AND 7) DELETING DEFINITIONS PERTAINING TO GREEN BUILDING REQUIREMENTS FROM CHAPTER 14.03. WHEREAS, the San Rafael City Council adopted Ordinance 1853 and Resolution 12299 on July 16, 2007 which established green building requirements for new residential and non-residential buildings, and directed staff to return with future ordinance amendments to regulate building additions as well when suitable green building rating systems for remodeling projects were available; and WHEREAS, General Plan 2020 promotes energy and resource efficiency in new construction in Conservation Element Policy CON -18 (Resource -Efficient Building Design), Program CON -18a (Energy -Efficient Homes), Program CON -18b (Zoning and Building Code Review), Program CON -18c (Use of Alternative Building Materials), Policy CON -21 (Waste Reduction/Recycling), Program CON -21d (Demolition Waste), Policy CON -22 (Resource Efficiency in Site Development), and Air and Water Quality Element Policy AW -8 (Reduce Pollution from Urban Runoff); and WHEREAS, the San Rafael 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis determined that the operation of residential and non-residential buildings within the city generates 34% of the city's total annual greenhouse gas emissions and forecasts that these emissions will increase 9.6% from residential buildings and 13.1 % from non-residential buildings between 2005 and 2020; and WHEREAS, the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan identifies green building requirements as one of the three most effective means of meeting the adopted goal of reducing the production of greenhouse gases within the community by 25% from 2005 level by the year 2020, and includes Program BU -4 which calls for applying green building requirements to residential, commercial and civic remodeling projects as well as new construction, Program BU -5 which calls for reduction in building energy use by 20% EXHIBIT 1 by 2020 and Program BU -6 which calls for reduction of potable water use in buildings and landscaping by 30% by 2020; and WHEREAS, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, known as AB 32, established a statewide goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and to a level 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, and directs the California Air Resources Board to develop a strategy to achieve such reductions; and WHEREAS, the California Air Resources Board adopted its Climate Change Scoping Plan on December 12, 2008, which identified the imposition of mandatory green building techniques as achieving 15% of the AB 32 greenhouse gas reduction goal for 2020; and WHEREAS, the California Public Utilities Commission has adopted a goal of 40% improved energy efficiency in all buildings by 2020; and WHEREAS, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission has indicated that the level of San Francisco Bay has increased by 8 inches over the past century and projects that sea level will rise between 20 and 55 inches by 2100, which will inundate properties currently valued at over $48 billion dollars and over 700 miles of state and local roadways and will require the installation of seawalls and levee increases costing over $1 billion; and WHEREAS, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that failure to address the causes of global climate change within the next few years will result in significantly increasing sea levels and frequency of wildland fires and reduced freshwater resources, which will significantly increase the cost of providing local governmental services and protecting public infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that the construction and operation of buildings in the United States collectively account for 39% of total energy use, 68% of total electricity consumption, 12% of total freshwater consumption, 40% of all raw materials used, and 38% of total carbon dioxide emissions; and WHEREAS, the total energy consumption by residential dwelling units in Marin County increased from 619 million kWh to 734 million kWh (a 19% increase) from 1995 to 2000; and WHEREAS, debris from construction and demolition projects constitutes 22% of the Marin County waste stream, and the total tonnage of the County waste stream increased by 17% from 2006 to 2007; and WHEREAS, the Marin Hazardous and Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority has established a goal of a 50% diversion in construction and demolition debris, and this is the level of reduction that is required by the GreenPoint Rated green building system; and WHEREAS, the California Health and Safety Code Sections 18938 and 17958 provide that the California Building Standards Code establishes building codes and standards for all building throughout the State, and Section 17958.5 provides that a local government may establish more stringent building standards if they are reasonably necessary due to local climatic, geological or topographical conditions; and WHEREAS, California Assembly Bill 210 states that a city is authorized to change or modify green building standards if the California Building Standards Commission determines such changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions, and Section 18941.5(2)(b) of the California Health and Safety Code states that, "neither the State Building Standards Law contained in this part, nor the application of building standards contained in this section, shall limit the authority of a city or county to establish more restrictive building standards, including, but not limited to, green building standards, reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions;" and WHEREAS, the Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)(2) states that a local enforcement agency may adopt more restrictive energy standards when they are cost- effective and approved by the California Energy Commission; and WHEREAS, green building is a practice of design, construction and maintenance techniques that have been demonstrated to have a significant positive effect on energy, water and resource conservation, waste management and pollution generation and on the health and productivity of building occupants over the life of the building; and WHEREAS, green building benefits are spread throughout the systems and features of a building. Green buildings can include, among other things, the use of certified sustainable wood products, extensive use of high -recycled -content products; recycling of waste that occurs during deconstruction, demolition and construction; orientation and design of a building to reduce the demand on the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems; the use of heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems that provide energy efficiency and improved air quality; enhancement of indoor air quality by selection and use of construction materials that do not emit chemicals that are toxic or irritating to building occupants; the use of water conserving methods and equipment; and installation of alternative energy methods for supplemental energy production; and WHEREAS, in recent years, green building design, construction and operational techniques have become increasingly widespread. Many homeowners, businesses, and building professionals have voluntarily sought to incorporate green building techniques into their projects. A number of local and national systems have been developed to serve as guides and rating systems for green building practices. The U.S. Green Building Council, developer of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) Green Building Rating Systems, has become a leader in promoting and guiding green building, particularly for non-residential structures. Build It Green has developed the New Home, Existing Home and Multi -Family Green Building Guidelines and associated GreenPoints Calculators, which have been adopted for use in approximately 70 Bay Area jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, construction of buildings in accordance with the GreenPoint Rated and LEED° rating systems results in average energy savings of about 20% compared with buildings constructed in accordance with current minimum standards of the state building code; and WHEREAS, representatives of all municipalities within Marin County and of the county government participated in a collaborative effort known as the Marin Green BERST (Green Building, Energy Retrofit and Solar Transformation) Task Force, held meetings on June 11, July 13, September 29 and 30, and November 19, 2009 and endorsed a model green building ordinance recommended by a Technical Advisory Committee comprised of over 50 experts in the fields of architecture, building construction, green building, building energy systems, energy conservation, water conservation,'building inspection, planning and real estate over the course of 11 meetings; and WHEREAS, study sessions on the proposed model green building regulations were held by the San Rafael City Council on November 2, 2009, by the San Rafael Planning Commission on November 10, 2009 and by the San Rafael Design Review Board on September 22, 2009; and WHEREAS, on December 15, 2009, the San Rafael Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended adoption of the proposed Municipal Code amendments to the City Council; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: DIVISION 1: The City Council finds as follows: A. The adoption of this ordinance is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code §15308) because it is an action taken by a regulatory agency for the protection of the environment and no exceptions to this categorical exemption apply. B. The proposed amendments are consistent with the policies and programs of the San Rafael General Plan 2020, including Conservation Element Policy CON -18 (Resource -Efficient Building Design), Program CON -18a (Energy -Efficient Homes), Program CON -18b (Zoning and Building Code Review), Program CON - 18c (Use of Alternative Building Materials), Policy CON -21 (Waste Reduction/Recycling), Program CON -21d (Demolition Waste), Policy CON -22 (Resource Efficiency in Site Development), and Air and Water Quality Element Policy AW -8 (Reduce Pollution from Urban Runoff) in that the proposed green building requirements will result in greater energy efficiency and water conservation, use of recycled and sustainably produced building materials and reduction in the waste stream through recycling and reuse of construction debris. C. The public health, safety and general welfare will not be adversely impacted by the proposed amendments which reduce impacts on respiratory health and chemical sensitivity of building occupants, reduce production of greenhouse gases, reduce impacts on wildlife and vegetative habitats and reduce generation and landfilling of waste products. D. In conformance with California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.5, local climatic conditions require the adoption of local building code amendments to implement green building techniques and increase building energy efficiency since total energy consumption from residential structures in Marin County increased 18.5% between 1995 and 2000 and the energy use in residential and non-residential buildings within the City of San Rafael generated 34% of the city's total annual greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 and is forecasted to increase 9.6% for residential buildings and 13.1 % for non-residential buildings between 2005 and 2020. The increased contribution to greenhouse gas production from local sources will contribute to overall climate change, resulting in the increased height of San Francisco Bay, more wildland fires, reduced water supply and significantly increased City costs for public services and infrastructure protection. E. In conformance with Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)(2), Gabel Associates, LLC has prepared a study which will be submitted as evidence to the California Energy Commission which demonstrates the feasibility and cost- effectiveness of the proposed municipal code amendments. DIVISION 2: Chapter 12.44 (Energy Efficiency Standards for Single Family Dwellings) of the San Rafael Municipal Code is hereby deleted and a new Chapter 12.44 (Green Building Regulations) is hereby added to read as follows: Chapter 12.44 Green Building Requirements. Sections: 12.44.010 Purpose 12.44.020 Applicability 12.44.030 Definitions 12.44.040 Standards for Compliance 12.44.050 Incentives for Compliance 12.44.060 Administrative Procedures 12.44.070 Exemptions 12.44.080 Appeal 12.44.010 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to enhance the long-term public health and welfare by contributing to the overall reduction of greenhouse gas production and emissions and improving the environmental and economic health of the City through the efficient design, construction, operation, maintenance and deconstruction of buildings and site development by incorporating green building practices and materials. The green building provisions referenced in this Chapter are designed to achieve the following objectives: a. Increase energy efficiency in buildings; b. Encourage water and resource conservation; c. Reduce waste generated by construction projects; d. Reduce long-term building operating and maintenance costs; and e. Improve indoor air quality and occupant health; and f. Contribute to meeting the state and local commitments to reduce greenhouse gas production and emissions. 12.44.020 Applicability. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to all construction or development projects defined below as a "Covered Project." 12.44.030 Definitions. For the purposes of interpreting this Chapter and the associated Standards for Compliance, the following terms are defined as follows. When the definitions below differ from those contained elsewhere in this Title, the provisions of this Chapter shall apply. a. "Addition" means the addition of building square footage to an existing structure. b. "BIG" means Build It Green, a non-profit organization which established and maintains the Green Point Rated system for evaluating and certifying residential green buildings and green building professionals. c. "BPP' means the Building Performance Institute, a non-profit organization which provides training and certification of green building professionals. d. "Building envelope" means the ensemble of exterior and demising partitions of a building and roof structure that enclose conditioned space. e. "Compliance threshold" means the minimum number of points or rating level required to be achieved by a particular Covered Project as set forth by the Standards for Compliance outlined in Section 12.44.040. f. "Conditioned space" means any area within a building or structure that is heated or cooled by any equipment. g. "Covered project' means a development project for new construction or renovations for which one or more building permits are required and which is also designated as a "Covered Project' by resolution of the City Council as described in Section 12.44.040. h. "GBCI" means the Green Building Certification Institute, a non-profit organization which certifies green buildings and green building professionals under the LEED® rating system. i. "Green building" means a comprehensive process of design and construction that employs techniques to increase the efficiency of resource use, including energy, water and building materials, while minimizing adverse impacts on human health and the natural environment. j. "Green building checklist' means a checklist or rating sheet used for calculating a green building rating. k. "Green building rating system" means a standardized rating system providing specific criteria to determine the level of compliance of building projects as set forth by the Standards for Compliance outlined in Section 12.44.040. 1. "GreenPoint Rated" means a residential building certified as complying with the green building rating systems developed by the Build It Green organization. in. "GreenPoint Rater" means an individual certified by Build It Green as capable of evaluating and rating residential construction projects for compliance with the GreenPoint Rated green building rating systems. n. "HERS" means the Home Energy Rating System adopted by the California Energy Commission. o. "LEED®" means the "Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design" green building rating system developed by the U.S. Green Building Council. p. "LEED® AP" means an individual who has been certified a LEED® Accredited Professional by the U.S. Green Building Council or the Green Building Certification Institute as capable of evaluating and rating construction projects for compliance with the LEED® green building rating systems. q. "Net Zero Energy" means a building that has a net annual Time Dependent Valued (TDV) Energy Consumption, as defined by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, of zero, accounting for both energy consumption and the use of on-site renewable energy production. r. "New construction" means the construction of a new or replacement residential dwelling unit or a new or expanded non-residential building. s. "Qualified green building rater" means an individual who has been trained and certified as a LEED®AP, GreenPoint Rater or has similar qualifications and certifications if acceptable to the Chief Building Official. t. "Renovation" means any remodeling, modification or tenant improvement to an existing building that includes replacement or alteration of at least two of the following: heating/ventilating/air conditioning system, building envelope, hot water system or lighting system, but excluding improvements and project valuation related to seismic or disabled access, building replacement due to catastrophic loss due to flood or earthquake damage or installation of renewable energy systems. Renovation shall include any, addition of conditioned space to an existing dwelling unit. u. "U SGBC" means the U.S. Green Building Council, anon -profit organization which established and maintains the LEED® rating systems for evaluating and certifying residential green buildings and green building professionals. 12.44.040 Covered Projects - Standards for Compliance. The City Council shall adopt a resolution defining which projects shall be deemed to be "Covered Projects" within the meaning of this Chapter, and establishing "Standards for Compliance" applicable to those Covered Projects, which standards shall include, but not be limited to the green building rating system(s) applicable to various types and sizes of Covered Projects; minimum compliance thresholds for various types and sizes of Covered Projects; and methods for verification of compliance with the adopted standards. In applying Standards for Compliance under this Chapter: a. Cumulative new construction or renovations over any one-year period shall be considered as a single Covered Project, and subject to the highest compliance threshold based on the cumulative project size or valuation. b. The Chief Building Official shall determine the appropriate project valuation based on the cost of similar improvements, and may request substantiating documentation from the applicant. Where Compliance Thresholds contain project size ranges expressed as both building square footage and project valuation, the intent is to base project requirements upon the project valuation range. However the Chief Building Official shall have the authority to determine whether the building square footage or valuation range most accurately reflects the scope of the proposed project for purposes of determining the required minimum Compliance Threshold. c. The Chief Building Official may determine that an alternative green building rating system may be used to determine project compliance, where it can be demonstrated that the alternative rating system is as stringent as or greater in terms of reduced energy and resource use and improved interior air quality than that normally required by the Standards for Compliance. d. Mixed use (residential and non-residential) projects must comply either with the applicable Covered Project requirements for the respective residential and non- residential portions of the project, or may propose to utilize a mixed use rating system, subject to approval by the Chief Building Official. e. The cost of reviewing any proposals requesting the use of alternate green building rating systems or requests for exemptions including, but not limited to, the cost of the City of hiring a consultant to review the proposal, shall be borne by the applicant. f All buildings submitted for permit must meet all applicable requirements of the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, or subsequently adopted state energy standards. g. The applicable green building rating system shall be that which is most recently adopted by Build It Green or the U.S. Green Building Council. The green building rating system in effect at the time of building permit submittal shall be that which is applicable to the development project throughout the project construction. 12.44.050 Incentives for Compliance. In addition to the required Standards for Compliance, the City Council may establish by resolution financial or application processing incentives and/or award or recognition programs to encourage higher levels of green building compliance for a project. 12.44.060 Administrative Procedures. The procedures for compliance with the provisions of this Chapter shall include, but not be limited to, the following: a. Project design. Applicants for a Covered Project are strongly encouraged to involve a qualified green building rater in the initial design phases of the project in advance of submittal of an application to determine applicable green building compliance thresholds and the most cost effective and appropriate means of achieving compliance. b. Planning applications. If a discretionary planning application is required for a Covered Project, applicants should be prepared to identify expected green building measures to be included in the project to achieve the compliance thresholds. Applicants should identify any anticipated difficulties in achieving compliance and any exemptions from the requirements of this Chapter that may be requested. c. Building plan check review. Upon submittal of an application for a building permit, building plans for any Covered Project shall include a green building program description and completed checklist. The checklist shall be incorporated onto a separate full-sized plan sheet included with the building plans. A qualified green building rater shall provide evidence that the project, as indicated by the project plans and green building program description, will achieve the Standards for Compliance established in or pursuant to Section 12.44.040 prior to issuance of a building permit. d. Changes during construction. During the construction process, alternate green building measures may be substituted, provided that the qualified green building rater provides documentation of the proposed change and the project's continued ability to achieve the Standards for Compliance to the Chief Building Official. e. Final building inspection. Prior to final building inspection and occupancy for any Covered Project, a qualified green building rater shall provide evidence that project construction has achieved the required compliance set forth in the Standards for Compliance established in or pursuant to Section 12.44.040. The Chief Building Official shall review the documentation submitted by the applicant, and determine whether the project has achieved the compliance threshold as set forth in the Standards for Compliance established in or pursuant to Section 12.44.040. Where subsequent certification of the building is required by the Standards for Compliance, the Chief Building Official shall also determine whether the applicant has demonstrated that such certification is in process and will be achieved not later than one year after approval of final building inspection. If the Chief Building Official determines that the applicant has met these requirements, the final building inspection may proceed. f. Post final inspection requirement. Where certification of the building is required by the Standards for Compliance, and such certification is only available subsequent to occupancy of the completed building, the applicant shall provide documentation of such certification within one year of the date of the final building inspection for the project. Failure to provide evidence of this certification within this timeframe, or within an alternate timeframe as determined by the Chief Building Official, will result in a determination that the Covered Project is not in compliance with the requirements of this Chapter. g. Conflict with other laws. The provisions of this Chapter are intended to be in addition to and not in conflict with other laws, regulations and ordinances relating to building construction and site development. If any provision of this Chapter conflicts with any duly adopted and valid statutes or regulations of the federal government or the State of California, the federal or state statutes or regulations shall take precedence. 12.44.070 Exemptions. a. The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to: 1.. Buildings which are temporary (such as construction trailers). 2. Building area which is not or is not intended to be conditioned space. 3. Any requirements of this Chapter which would impair the historic integrity of any building listed on a local, state or federal register of historic structures, as determined by the Chief Building Official. In making such a determination, the Chief Building Official may require the submittal of an evaluation by an architectural historian or similar expert. b. Hardship or Infeasibility Exemption. If an applicant for a Covered Project believes that circumstances exist that make it a hardship or infeasible to meet the requirements of this Chapter, the applicant may request an exemption as set forth below. In applying for an exemption, the burden shall be on the applicant to show hardship or infeasibility. 1. Application. The applicant shall identify in writing the specific requirements of the Standards for Compliance that the project is unable to achieve and the circumstances that make it a hardship or infeasible for the project to comply with this Chapter. Circumstances that constitute hardship or infeasibility shall include, but are not limited to, the following: i. There is a conflict between the provisions of the applicable green building rating system and the California Building Standards Code, other State code provisions, other requirements of this Title or conditions imposed on the project through a previously approved planning application; ii. There is a lack of commercially available green building materials and technologies to comply with the green building rating system; iii. That the cost of achieving compliance is disproportionate to the overall cost of the project; 10 iv. That physical conditions of the project site make it impractical to incorporate necessary green building measures or achieve the Standards for Compliance; v. That compliance with certain requirements would impair the historic integrity of buildings listed on a local, state or federal list or register of historic structures; 2. Granting of exemption. If the Chief Building Official determines that it is a hardship or infeasible for the applicant to fully meet the requirements of this Chapter, the Chief Building Official shall determine the maximum feasible threshold of compliance reasonably achievable for the project. In making this determination, the Chief Building Official shall consider whether alternate, practical means of achieving the objectives of this Chapter can be satisfied, such as reducing comparable energy use at an offsite location within the City. If an exemption is granted, the applicant shall be required to comply with this chapter in all other respects and shall be required to achieve the threshold of compliance determined to be achievable by the Chief Building Official. 3. Denial of exemption. If the Chief Building Official determines that it is reasonably possible for the applicant to fully meet the requirements of this Chapter, the request shall be denied and the applicant shall be notified of the decision in writing. The project and compliance documentation shall be modified to comply with the Standards for Compliance. 12.46.080 Appeal. Any aggrieved applicant or person may appeal a Chief Building Official's determination under this Chapter, including a determination regarding compliance with the provisions of this Chapter and a determination on the approval or denial of an exemption under Section 12.46.070, to the City Council by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk and paying the necessary filing fee within ten (10) days of the determination. DIVISION 3: A new Section 12.16.025 (Solar water heater pre -plumbing requirements) is hereby added to the San Rafael Municipal Code to read as follows: 12.16.025 Solar water heater pre -plumbing requirements. All new residential dwelling units shall include plumbing specifically designed to allow the later installation of a system which utilizes solar energy as a means of heating domestic potable water. Construction specifications to accomplish this requirement shall be adopted by the Chief Building Official. No building permit shall be issued unless the requirements of this section are incorporated into the approved building plans. The provisions of this section can be modified or waived when it can be satisfactorily demonstrated to the Chief Building Official that the requirements are impractical due to shading, building orientation, construction constraints or configuration of the parcel. 11 DIVISION 4: A new Section 12.20.025 (Photovoltaic pre -wiring requirements) is hereby added to the San Rafael Municipal Code to read as follows: 12.20.025 Photovoltaic pre -wiring requirements. New non-residential buildings over 5,000 square feet in floor area and all new residential dwelling units shall include electrical conduit specifically designed to allow the later installation of a photovoltaic (PV) system which utilizes solar energy as a means to provide electricity. Construction specifications to accomplish this requirement shall be adopted by the Chief Building Official. No building permit shall be issued unless the requirements of this section are incorporated into the approved building plans. The provisions of this section can be modified or waived when it can be satisfactorily demonstrated to the Chief Building Official that the requirements are impractical due to shading, building orientation, construction constraints or configuration of the parcel. DIVISION 5: Section 12.12.020 (Amendments made to the California Building Code) of the San Rafael Municipal Code is hereby amended to add the following amendment: Section 1510 is amended by adding the following subsection: 1510.1.2 Radiant Barriers. When reroofing causes the roof sheathing to be removed, a radiant barrier (reflective insulation) shall be installed in conjunction with the reroofing project. DIVISION 6: Section 12.16.020 (Amendments to the California Plumbing Code) of the San Rafael Municipal Code is hereby amended to add the following amendment: Section 1500) is amended by adding the following subsection: 150 0).4 Hot water piping insulation. When hot water pipes are exposed by removal of wall surfaces insulation shall be installed having a minimum thickness of 1 inch for pipe diameter of 2 inches or less, and having a minimum thickness of 1.5 inches for pipe diameter exceeding 2 inches. DIVISION 7: A new Chapter 12.46 (Requirement to Divert Construction and Demolition Debris from Landfill) is hereby added to the San Rafael Municipal Code to read as follows: Chapter 12.46 Requirement to Divert Construction and Demolition Debris from Landfill. Sections: 12.46.010 Definitions 12.46.020 Threshold for covered projects 12.46.030 Submission of Waste Management Plan 12.46.040 Review of Waste Management Plan 12.46.050 Compliance with Waste Management Plan 12 12.46.060 Exemption 12.46.070 Appeal 12.46.010 Definitions. For the purposes of this Chapter, the following definitions shall apply: a. "Applicant" means any individual, firm, limited liability company, association, partnership, political subdivision, government agency, municipality, industry, public or private corporation, or any other entity whatsoever who applies to the City for the applicable permits to undertake any construction, demolition, or renovation project within the City. b. "Construction" means the building of any facility or structure or any portion thereof including any tenant improvements to an existing facility or structure. c. "Construction and Demolition Debris" means used or discarded materials removed from premises during construction or renovation of a structure resulting from construction, remodeling, repair or demolition operations on any pavement, house, commercial building or other structure. d. "Conversion Rate" means the rate set forth in the standardized Conversion Rate Table approved by the City Community Development Department pursuant to this Chapter for use in estimating the volume or weight of materials identified in a Waste Management Plan. e. "Covered Project" means any construction, demolition or renovation project which is 1,000 square feet or greater for which one or more building permits are required. f. "Demolition" means the decimating, razing, ruining, tearing down or wrecking of any facility, structure, pavement or building, whether in whole or in part, whether interior or exterior. g. "Divert" means to use material for any lawful purpose other than disposal in a landfill or transformation facility. h. "Diversion Requirement" means the diversion of at least fifty (50) percent of the total Construction and Demolition Debris generated by a Project via reuse or recycling, unless the Applicant has been granted an Exemption pursuant to Section 12.46.060 of this Chapter, in which case the Diversion Requirement shall be the maximum feasible diversion rate established by the Chief Building Official for the Covered Project. 12.46.020 Threshold for Covered Projects. a. Covered Projects: Every construction, demolition and renovation project which is 1,000 square feet or greater for which one or more building permits is required shall comply with this Chapter. b. Compliance as a Condition of Approval: Compliance with the provisions of this Chapter shall be listed as a condition of approval on any building or demolition 13 permit issued for a Covered Project provided, however, that any omission of such condition shall not affect the Applicant's duty to comply with this section. 12.46.030 Submission of a Waste Management Plan. a. Waste Management Plan Forms: Applicants for building or demolition permits for any Covered Project shall complete and submit a Waste Management Plan ("WMP"), on a WMP form approved by the City for this purpose. The completed WMP shall indicate all of the following: 1. the estimated volume or weight of project construction and demolition debris, by materials type, to be generated; 2. the estimated maximum volume or weight of such materials that can feasibly be diverted through material reuse; 3. the estimated maximum volume or weight of such materials that can feasibly be diverted through recycling; 4. the vendor and/or facility that the Applicant proposes to use to collect or receive said materials; 5. the estimated volume or weight of construction and demolition materials that will be landfilled. b. Calculating Volume and Weight of Debris: In estimating the volume or weight of materials identified in the WMP, the Applicant shall use the standardized Conversion Rates approved by the City for this purpose, which shall be provided to the Applicant with the WMP application form. 12.46.040 Review of a Waste Management Plan. a. Approval: No building or demolition permit shall be issued for any Covered Project unless and until the Chief Building Official has approved the WMP application. Approval shall not be required, however, where an emergency demolition is required to protect public health or safety, as determined by the Chief Building Official, Public Works Director or Fire Chief. The Chief Building Official shall only approve a WMP application if he or she first determines that all of the following conditions have been met: 1. the WMP application provides all of the information set forth in Section 12.46.030(a) of this Chapter; and 2. the WMP application indicates that at least fifty (50) percent of all construction and demolition debris generated by the Project will be diverted. b. Non -approval: If the Chief Building Official determines that the WMP application is incomplete or fails to indicate that at least fifty (50) percent of all construction and demolition debris generated by the Project will be reused or recycled, he or she shall return the WMP application to the Applicant, including a statement of reasons and shall deny issuance of building or demolition permits. 14 12.46.050 Compliance with a Waste Management Plan. a. Documentation: Within thirty (30) days after completion of any Covered Project, the Applicant shall submit to the Chief Building Official documentation that it has met the Diversion Requirement for the Project. This documentation shall include all of the following: I. Receipts from the vendor or facility which collected or received each material showing the actual weight or volume of the material received; 2. A copy of the previously approved WMP application for the Project setting forth the actual volume or weight of each material diverted and landfilled; 3. Any additional information the Applicant believes provides evidence of compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. b. Weighing of Wastes: Applicants shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that all construction and demolition debris diverted or landfilled are measured and recorded using the most accurate method of measurement available. To the extent practical, all construction and demolition debris shall be weighed by measurement on scales. Such scales shall be in compliance with all regulatory requirements for accuracy and maintenance. For construction and demolition debris for which weighing is not practical due to small size or other considerations, a volumetric measurement shall be used. For conversion of volumetric measurements to weight, the Applicant shall use the standardized Conversion Rates approved by the City for this purpose. c. Determination of Compliance: The Chief Building Official shall review the information submitted under subsection (a) of this Section and determine whether the Applicant has complied with the Diversion Requirement. d. Good Faith Effort to Comply: If the Chief Building Official determines that the Diversion Requirement has not been achieved, he or she shall determine on a case-by-case basis whether the Applicant has made a good faith effort to comply with this Chapter. In making this determination, the Chief Building Official shall consider the availability of markets for the construction and demolition debris, the size of the Project and the nature of its waste stream, and the documented efforts of the Applicant to divert construction and demolition debris, and this determination shall be made in writing with reasons stated, and shall be included in the building permit file. 12.46.060 Exemption. a. Application: If an Applicant for a Covered Project experiences unique circumstances that the Applicant believes make it infeasible to comply with the Diversion Requirement, the Applicant may apply for an exemption at the time that he or she submits the WMP required under Section 12.46.030(a) of this Chapter. The Applicant shall indicate on the WMP the maximum rate of diversion that he or she believes is feasible for each material and the specific circumstances that he or she believes makes it infeasible to comply with the Division Requirement. 15 b. Meeting with Chief Building Official: The Chief Building Official shall review the information supplied by the Applicant and may meet with the Applicant to discuss possible ways of meeting the Diversion Requirement. Based on the information supplied by the Applicant, the Chief Building Official shall determine whether it is possible for the Applicant to meet the Diversion Requirement. c. Granting of Exemption: If the Chief Building Official determines that it is infeasible for the Applicant to meet the Diversion Requirement due to unique circumstances, he or she shall determine the maximum feasible diversion rate for each material and shall indicate this rate on the WMP application submitted by the Applicant. The Chief Building Official shall return a copy of the WMP application to the Applicant marked "Approved for Exemption" and place a copy in the building permit file. d. Denial of Exemption: If the Chief Building Official determines that it is possible for the Applicant to meet the Diversion Requirement, he or she shall so inform the Applicant in writing. The Applicant shall have 30 days to resubmit a WMP application form in full compliance with Section 12.46.030(a) of this Chapter. If the Applicant fails to resubmit the WMP application, or if the resubmitted WMP application does not comply with Section 12.46.030(a) of this Chapter, the Chief Building Official shall deny the WMP application and shall deny issuance of building or demolition permits. 12.46.070 Appeal. Any aggrieved applicant or person may appeal a Chief Building Official's determination under this Chapter, including a determination regarding compliance with the provisions of this Chapter and a determination on the approval or denial of an exemption under Section 12.46.060, to the City Council by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk and paying the necessary filing fee within ten (10) days of the determination. DIVISION 8: Section 14.16.365 (Green building) of the San Rafael Municipal Code is hereby deleted. DIVISION 9: The following portions of Section 14.03.03 (Definitions) of the San Rafael Municipal Code are hereby deleted: "Certified green building rater" means a person or organization certified or designated by a green building rating organization associated with a specific green building rating system adopted by city council resolution for performing inspections and providing documentation to assure compliance with green building requirements. "Conditioned floor area" has the meaning set forth in Section 101(b) of the 2005 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. "Green building rating calculator" means a rating system adopted by city council resolution for determining compliance of new construction with green building requirements. "LEED®" means any one of the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design green building rating systems or programs. T "LEED® accredited professional" means a person who is accredited by the U.S. Green Building Council as having a thorough understanding of green building practices and principles and familiarity with LEED® requirements, resources and processes. DIVISION 10: This Ordinance shall not be applicable to any development project for which a planning application has been approved or a complete building permit application has been filed prior to the effective date of the Ordinance. DIVISION 11: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. DIVISION 12: This Ordinance shall be published once in full before its final passage in a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of San Rafael, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage, and until the Ordinance provisions are approved by both the California Energy Commission and the California Building Standards Commission, whichever comes later. ALBERT J. BORO, Mayor ATTEST: ESTHER BEIRNE, City Clerk The foregoing Ordinance No. was read and introduced at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of San Rafael, California, held on the 19th day of January, 2010 and ordered passed to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: and will come up for adoption as an Ordinance of the City of San Rafael at a Regular Meeting of the Council to be held on the 1 st day of February, 2010. ESTHER BEIRNE, City Clerk 17 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS WHEREAS, the San Rafael City Council adopted Ordinance 1853 and Resolution 12299 on July 16, 2007 which established green building requirements for new residential and non- residential buildings, and directed staff to return with future ordinance amendments to regulate building additions as well when suitable green building rating systems for remodeling projects were available; and WHEREAS, General Plan 2020 promotes energy and resource efficiency in new construction in Conservation Element Policy CON -18 (Resource -Efficient Building Design), Program CON -18a (Energy -Efficient Homes), Program CON -18b (Zoning and Building Code Review), Program CON -18c (Use of Alternative Building Materials), Policy CON -21 (Waste Reduction/Recycling), Program CON -21d (Demolition Waste), Policy CON -22 (Resource Efficiency in Site Development), and Air and Water Quality Element Policy AW -8 (Reduce Pollution from Urban Runoff); and WHEREAS, the San Rafael 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis determined that the operation of residential and non-residential buildings within the city generates 34% of the city's total annual greenhouse gas emissions and forecasts that these emissions will increase 9.6% from residential buildings and 13.1 % from non-residential buildings between 2005 and 2020; and WHEREAS, the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan identifies green building requirements as one of the three most effective means of meeting the adopted goal of reducing the production of greenhouse gases within the community by 25% from 2005 level by the year 2020, and includes Program BU -4 which calls for applying green building requirements to residential, commercial and civic remodeling projects as well as new construction, Program BU - 5 which calls for reduction in building energy use by 20% by 2020 and Program BU -6 which calls for reduction of potable water use in buildings and landscaping by 30% by 2020; and WHEREAS, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, known as AB 32, established a statewide goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and to a level 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, and directs the California Air Resources Board to develop a strategy to achieve such reductions; and WHEREAS, the California Air Resources Board adopted its Climate Change Scoping Plan on December 12, 2008, which identified the imposition of mandatory green building techniques as achieving 15% of the AB 32 greenhouse gas reduction goal for 2020; and WHEREAS, the California Public Utilities Commission has adopted a goal of 40% improved energy efficiency in all buildings by 2020; and EXHIBIT 2 WHEREAS, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission has indicated that the level of San Francisco Bay has increased by 8 inches over the past century and projects that sea level will rise between 20 and 55 inches by 2100, which will inundate properties currently valued at over $48 billion dollars and over 700 miles of state and local roadways and will require the installation of seawalls and levee increases costing over $1 billion; and WHEREAS, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that failure to address the causes of global climate change within the next few years will result in significantly increasing sea levels and frequency of wildland fires and reduced freshwater resources, which will significantly increase the cost of providing local governmental services and protecting public infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that the construction and operation of buildings in the United States collectively account for 39% of total energy use, 68% of total electricity consumption, 12% of total freshwater consumption, 40% of all raw materials used, and 38% of total carbon dioxide emissions; and WHEREAS, the total energy consumption by residential dwelling units in Marin County increased from 619 million kWh to 734 million kWh (a 19% increase) from 1995 to 2000; and WHEREAS, debris from construction and demolition projects constitutes 22% of the Marin County waste stream, and the total tonnage of the County waste stream increased by 17% from 2006 to 2007; and WHEREAS, the Marin Hazardous and Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority has established a goal of a 50% diversion in construction and demolition debris, and this is the level of reduction that is required by the GreenPoint Rated green building system; and WHEREAS, the California Health and Safety Code Sections 18938 and 17958 provide that the California Building Standards Code establishes building codes and standards for all building throughout the State, and Section 17958.5 provides that a local government may establish more stringent building standards if they are reasonably necessary due to local climatic, geological or topographical conditions; and WHEREAS, California Assembly Bill 210 states that a city is authorized to change or modify green building standards if the California Building Standards Commission determines such changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions; and WHEREAS, the Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)(2) states that a local enforcement agency may adopt more restrictive energy standards when they are cost-effective and approved by the California Energy Commission; and 2 WHEREAS, green building is a practice of design, construction and maintenance techniques that have been demonstrated to have a significant positive effect on energy, water and resource conservation, waste management and pollution generation and on the health and productivity of building occupants over the life of the building; and WHEREAS, green building benefits are spread throughout the systems and features of the building. Green buildings can include, among other things, the use of certified sustainable wood products, extensive use of high -recycled -content products; recycling of waste that occurs during deconstruction, demolition and construction; orientation and design of a building to reduce the demand on the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems; the use of heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems that provide energy efficiency and improved air quality; enhancement of indoor air quality by selection and use of construction materials that do not emit chemicals that are toxic or irritating to building occupants; the use of water conserving methods and equipment; and installation of alternative energy methods for supplemental energy production; and WHEREAS, in recent years, green building design, construction and operational techniques have become increasingly widespread. Many homeowners, businesses, and building professionals have voluntarily sought to incorporate green building techniques into their projects. A number of local and national systems have been developed to serve as guides and rating systems for green building practices. The U.S. Green Building Council, developer of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) Green Building Rating Systems, has become a leader in promoting and guiding green building, particularly for non-residential structures. Build It Green has developed the New Home, Existing Home and Multi -Family Green Building Guidelines and associated GreenPoints Calculators, which have been adopted for use in approximately 70 Bay Area jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, construction of buildings in accordance with the GreenPoint Rated and LEED° rating systems results in average energy savings of about 20% compared with buildings constructed in accordance with current minimum standards of the state building code; and WHEREAS, representatives of all municipalities within Marin County and of the county government participated in a collaborative effort known as the Marin Green BERST (Green Building, Energy Retrofit and Solar Transformation) Task Force, held meetings on June 11, July 13, September 29 and 30, and November 19, 2009 and endorsed a model green building ordinance recommended by a Technical Advisory Committee comprised of over 50 experts in the fields of architecture, building construction, green building, building energy systems, energy conservation, water conservation, building inspection, planning and real estate over the course of 11 meetings; and WHEREAS, study sessions on the proposed model green building regulations were held by the San Rafael City Council on November 2, 2009, by the San Rafael Planning Commission on November 10, 2009 and by the San Rafael Design Review Board on September 22, 2009; and WHEREAS, on December 15, 2009, the San Rafael Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended adoption of the proposed Municipal Code amendments to the City Council; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Rafael adopts the following Standards for Compliance and Incentives for administration of Green Building regulations contained in Chapter 12.44 of the San Rafael Municipal Code: Standards for Compliance All covered projects shall be constructed using the green building standards listed on Table A for residential projects and on Table B for non-residential projects, which tables are incorporated herein by reference. Incentives Projects which meet the following enhanced green building standards are entitled to administrative and financial incentives: a) Construction of new single-family or duplex dwelling units which achieve at least one hundred (100) points using the most recently published edition of the New Home Construction Green Building Guidelines and the associated GreenPoints Calculator published by Build It Green, b) Construction of new multi -family dwelling units where the total construction project achieves at least one hundred (100) points using the most recently published edition of the Multifamily Green Building Guidelines and the associated GreenPoints Calculator published by the Build It Green, c) New non-residential construction projects which achieve at least a LEED® "Gold" rating using the most recently published version of the LEED® for New Construction or other more appropriate LEED® rating system as determined by the Chief Building Official based on the proposed construction type. Administrative and financial incentives shall include all of the following: a) Expedited processing of building permit plan checks, b) Reimbursement for costs of a Certified GreenPoint Rater associated with verification of compliance with green building regulations for residential projects, c) Provision of a plaque certifying the building as meeting the City's Green Building Standards, d) Provision of a City Green Building logo for placement on construction and sales signage, and e) Listing on the City's website for a period of time, as determined by the Community Development Director. 4 Covered Projects —Definition. A Covered Project for the purposes of Chapter 12.44 of the San Rafael Municipal Code means all single-, two-, or multi -family construction, single- or two-family renovation projects and all non-residential construction or renovation set forth in Tables A and B, attached and incorporated herein. I, ESTHER BEIRNE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of said City on Monday, the 19th day of January, 2010, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 5 ESTHER BEIRNE, City Clerk N N N N O N Y N d N N d C (0 (0 (0 (6 d (0 p- N N i0 f0 t0 l0 O O O O O C a) O O O O O CL a a a a v n a a s d d d d d U C7 (7 C) (D U C7 C7 U d OT1 C F- to d = =ar (d o 0 0 o d o 10 0 t0 U a N to N M O N d N W [L Z - @ U% N V N O N- O p c d = N o W e N@ C p d I- O- G) p p E a) U V N V) N N N ) p O y) y d U N N 'Q 'Q 'Q 'oQ 3 'Q 'Q co 'oQ 'a Rp O @ a CL ,n E o O N N o 0 C) t d O m a = 1O 1n E p W `t = (D r- r- 0t` L= N (D L � N M L) N O N d a O M N O O- � N d E C p_.0 t X� y O } E N O C C O'n C Y� CL E co W'v E c N d L W U S 0 1O 0 C d d d d d d EE I I E I E >> a) 2 2= 2 2 rn = Y =" cm C __ li O) O W 46 p1"= E E .�. �. H d >� Z 43 Z d Z a3 Z aa)) c Z y 'X N a) N d a) N O m Yn K.. a: d• W W W x W W �( L W L9 aU a - a- 0 0. (9 a aa. a ( 0 C7 C7 _ O LO (00CDO1 [-Lo nO m0QN wd N I� O t pNc c O O d C 3 CL O. � "7 > (6 > = o > rn rn o 0 N +• a= a= d rn rn CF m o ' > (a 'Q N 6 O' V O � LO O O) W N f6 O > a= 0. O a O <1' O) O) EA W a) fA N 'O O O O O w y N O O O O N O� O C) Q" O c) 4= 10 O IA O N O p o t37 O 10 O a) t0 O' 2S O' Cl) d o U � N d' to i` J fA N fA to 6fi N Vi J c O 1 C M L 3 d C ca N N U d O a 6 d fn L .3 U d O O. d w O 75 O r N N CL I- v U " C U O E O O d UY E E E T d N v Y 12 O � U C U) O _ _ @ N O U d-6 r c - N a) U O C O CIN d dd (6 d G C Lam, o .O E� CL a np d C a) d Y o T T L O 9 .0 = d o O = o� U U N p > > > tf a) d d d d C a`aaL, r N m A W O N D C O 0 D OCD Oe <m m =. C O d < 50 7 x 3 x CD- o Q C a m a o 3 Cm (D m C O o CD Q� o3 o =9 m 0 0 C O m 0v N � = O 0 3 Om N O c N N N o (D 5 (D CD =� � (D 3 s m o a3 O 0 (D O o !Z0 o 0 O a D fD N 0 0 0 C CD a `m' n 3 O v 0 m' N N a m CD CD d m 0 N< O Q 01 N<fA .?03 Ot 0< r � OI d D) (D O cn N 0 C m F'D) 0 (O C O (Ow O >= N O Fp N O O O O G O w0 (D (OO w0 j- O ,P 0 A m >Z O °� p O N °� 9 O 0 v N 0 x°ifl Cn Cn mO co N CYI pc w0� -0 Ci 00 3 0— !OP .P 00 .�.` ..' + _ O O co O 0 O > > > m m m mr ((Dr (D m m m m M. M. 0 om Ka o 0 1O® oO® N 0 �'O O �'O N O �'O oz o N ca o CD y ® O ® O C-)90 ® W _ O N _. 'm a 3 'm a 3'm a 3 Q0 o Q° o Q° o A N N 0 d A N S N � N CoN 3 (fl 0 m (D (CD ((DD (D m m m A 0 n 0 n 0 Nv Nv FD' 90 fN Q0 !w ° ° = 10 tton D o D m o O C O C O CD °^Z'o 00 O m O 0) O 0ic (n O a O 0 v CD O c 7 N cD IvF,a Iva m3 0 0-- v c m 0) o 0 W o m 3 r w m=m OCD m OA0 m r m + (i 0 I r m m O o 3 m m� m C (D C (n — D O O m O O. o O < m A A m 3= 2 K(D O 0 (D i M CD (D(�Dm m(oa(fl s m x C 0 1 0 0 3 m� N v m Q d 3 m p a mDin CD m m m 9 O N' N O (p (D < N (n A mm A 0m 0 yW m-ia =m F .. G)m �m Gm CD m m m 0 p W (Do D c ooD CD o D z mms (D mm� m(D� O (D m N ='t O N Df O CD N O 0 CL m n o a o- o fl — t)uv o _ ° �v CO D W r m O m m z W C r v_ z N D z v D V W T O X n O r D z n m T O X z O z X m y v m z a r n O z c n -1 O z D z v m z 0 O z / k j \ k 0 f- @t ® § \\\\/ \ \ \k)/\ ) D (D � �� � f 4) \ a \\/\� t'E) _ /§/2a k)/\/ _ _ CL ± a) 2 \\/\\ 0 ,- ® pe — ; a <2[ m® u Cl) ca \\-0m -co> ) a) \\\\\ ) L) E > \/\g 2 )E-� - ±%m/£ _ (\0 \ \ \W )� § { ) f =[, \\\c \\ {& 2 \ o (,£% qm)r CL a�/e e a 0—ffi = =# ©% / / < W.S f < ¥ b a. \ \ k 0 CL Lu ) § / EXHIBIT 3 mD a C r O 1G DIY C U C a - 6 ow h � o+ c oU mUU O 0Oom �d 02 OW J00O uppmQmn. IOn Nc U0 V - N IOOO M D O. ry 0�zo O V N m N m N + c m m� p 2mI V 23'K ae O oU of ow oo ti mi0o> mm3 C oo9 Q N 6.Q �O (1 h iq CJ 41 C5 0 M N N (7 U rnE ct6 rn 2 o`m k2 wmv m Wm c2a_E�o o(jmm O o ma. �m '0 m.�aa Jz0 E'�m y(j C w J w w UU'mIU U� v o o cn m z> m �m EI" z> Z >O .c v v c 'E a E m _ � Q oy ° vo�o - a"o m'G U"YiI 20 900 g:�o O N I d'Q alw 'n^ > 3cq � Z Z } 6 we Z cU N y 0' Z V 3a A Z O O M p C nU y c o c c rnm �� boom D'�aaaa 'o c N n v'a m� a m d m = t= y moaS m 0 z OF-C7 W. y ay3 � I O _ J3E m«vn mn n m 3'ao `ao my om inm nZ Z Z yo da0> oo V MK n Qm ao O n ZQNOCCO Qh d�O C(O T T y T cEwE w 0 :✓ L C d N C_ N m _ Z0p, 'wJ 90 oo am K yON C`9 afL Ag Q C a o o y m. K EZ> N c o Z o Z> T K m V U U LL o c rn o y a o ti c 3 �I a c a .. _ z aN Za0 ZN�OCy�d' y Z1. v Z o m O N c o � mU c 5a 0 d aao 0 lei o 0 J m n41 a 5 m U U' fL ami F- K 1- U� F- CSI K 6 ON O ON m wan 19 mn M O N y OaEio + 3'ao `mmn.vm zo. WM a3i � ZU'aoJn Quo Z ZQNo coo QuoimNc� m c 3 v m c m c a �� (7 wtr m.c ZC7aziwS ¢c?a mo Uo"m C�a.m m a m c m O 0 o - `m - > 0 m > D N O O V U U O T i Z Z Z a > 3 C N 3 w 3 O 3« 3N'oo d/ Z m Z� yaoa�� zmnmmK Z� Zemin m `mm m n Y R c O U Z m m N a j= EXHIBIT 3 o0 9 n o a� -• H? < m N 6 N K oD o0Z Z N '�• o -o' F m a - n y 'm 3 y 09 z A N 0 10 0 3 m m 0 v v n - d AAp Aap m 3 m m 3 m 3= 'm Ono q.mo cmNm mN� 'Dena cy nO 5g.. > ULOm a'gz o.�'N �a oyF Oi Q0�1 B'o 0 ° n�d�an M< nm�nmo 'foo wGoa.l mon m -'•oo o m�.\''� o 91 G) G m 0 3 �d 0 o ooD n0f� 3' m Ty mno n N� y 3 8Z m o <z m O 3 » m o. d AAp- m oa mo,ig m m m S m adv rnm�r Nc ac om a0go<n➢ 0Z o my o' am -� 0 II II N O V O w N j Ei o N I A p N �md l 9 N A d N 04 •G O 1 S •< O o o z ORZ m Z z 4 m m f n m F n 0 00C 00� n fD �N(O mt➢ y a -n N gZ '0up N O A D N N 0o N �m o» v moo o no 0 r m n r Oz m A and o = M F o 'c m 3 � p NN n` 0 0 N mo _� O N N O y O n noo ^ an mm anmm �mm -< «aim Ham m n m 9 a =w m m - O Deloitte. Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Charles Lockwood www.charleslockwood.com The dollars and sense of green retrofits A joint study by Deloitte and Charles Lockwood jom A growing number of companies are implementing green retrofits of their buildings to save money, improve productivity, lower absenteeism and healthcare costs, strengthen employee attraction and retention, and improve their corporate sustainability reports and brand equity — all at a relatively modest cost. However, timing is important for companies seeking to use green retrofits as a point of competitive differentiation. The earlier a company performs a green retrofit, the more differentiation it stands to gain, as we believe that the increasing interest in green building among businesses and lawmakers will soon make green construction practices mainstream. Audit.Tax . Consulting. Financial Advisory. There is substantial statistical evidence that green buildings are better for the environment than conventional buildings. Many forward -thinking companies are realizing that green buildings can be better for business, too. Green buildings offer their owners and tenants a number of bottom- line benefits, including reductions in water and energy use and costs; opportunities with respect to tax credits, permitting, and other regulatory incentives; and greater worker productivity and satisfaction, improved brand image, and better community relations.' A building doesn't have to be new to be green. An empty building can undergo a top -to -bottom green renovation that incorporates green design, building products, and technologies. Or companies can choose a green retrofit, which enables them to introduce green benefits into their existing occupied workplaces at a reasonable cost and with only minor impact on their day-to-day operations. Companies that cannot afford to construct a new green building, or that cannot afford the cost and disruption of moving to a green building or of undertaking a top -to -bottom green renovation of their existing conventional workplaces, may find that green retrofits are a practical way to improve their sustainability, reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and reap the many benefits of green workplaces. As used In this document, "Deloitte" means Deloitte & Touche LLP, Deloitte Tax LLQ Delolue Consulting up, and Deloitte financial Advisory Services Lu', which are separate subsidiaries of Deloitte LLP. Please see www rieloiltetorrdus/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte LLP and its subsidiaries. t EXHIBIT 4 Figure 1. Respondent LEED category Figure 2. Respondent LEED certification level Golc 27% Platinum 7% Certification Figure 3. Respondent Title Other 23% Senior Project Manager fi% .94 Executive Director 1111111150 6% Vice President 6% President 12% LEED-CI 67% ver 3% Architect 17% Director of Sustainable Design/ Construction 18% Mechanical Engineer 12% But for every organization that embraces green retrofits, there are many others that forego the many benefits of green in favor of conventional retrofits. Some of these may simply be unaware that a green option exists. Many others, however, contend that green adds too much to the cost of a retrofit, or that green's return on investment (ROI) is too low or unclear." Deloitte believes that organizations taking this overly cautious approach should reconsider. We believe that within the next three years, companies that do not have green workplaces will be at a competitive disadvantage from higher operating costs, lower productivity, declining attraction and retention of skilled workers, and an increasingly negative brand image. In addition, owners and investors in conventional buildings will be less able to compete in the marketplace as green buildings become tenants' preferred choice. An April 2008 study of 1,300 buildings by the Costar Group found that LEED-certified buildings are commanding rent premiums of $11.24 per square foot overtheir conventional building competitors, and they have a 3.8 percent higher occupancy ratel' LEED-certified buildings also sell for an average of $171 more per square foot than their conventional competitors. 13 Finally, the tax and regulatory incentives now available in many areas to encourage green retrofits are likely to disappear as more cities institute energy-efficient green building construction and renovation regulation and as more organizations adopt green construction, renovation, and retrofit practices as a matter of course. For all these reasons, we believe that companies pursuing value through green retrofits have good reason to act sooner rather than later. 2 Green retrofits: Clear benefits What leads organizations to choose green retrofits over conventional retrofits, and what is their experience with carrying out green retrofits? To explore these questions, Deloitte performed a survey of organizations that had undergone at least one LEER -certified green building retrofit. 16 project owners or members of LEED-certified projects participated in the online survey, which was conducted in 2007. Each respondent answered the questions with respect to a specific green retrofit project of his or her choice that had received either LEED-EB or LEED-CI certification. We expected cost reduction to be the primary motive for most green retrofits. Instead, although savings from energy efficiency was indeed one of the top drivers (cited by 75 percent of the respondents), a number of other benefits unrelated to real estate and facilities costs were at least as important to our respondents (Figure 4). "Corporate environmental commitment" topped the list of motives for the green retrofit, and more than half the respondents also identified greater indoor air and environmental quality, public relations and publicity, improved employee productivity, and enhanced employee attraction and retention as important drivers. From these results, it appears to us that many businesses that are taking on green retrofits are doing so to achieve market rather than cost structure objectives. 3 By and large, our respondents' green retrofits achieved many of the stated objectives. Ninety-three percent of our respondents reported greater ability to attract talent, 81 percent saw greater employee retention, 87 percent reported an improvement in workforce productivity, 75 percent saw an improvement in employee health, and 73 percent reported that they had achieved cost reductions as a result of implementing green measures (Figure 5). As a group, survey respondents displayed high satisfaction with their green retrofits. Seventy-five percent of the respondents reported that they were "very satisfied" with their retrofits, and 25 percent reported that they were "somewhat satisfied." Eighty-three percent also reported that they were "very likely" to implement green retrofits in the future, while the remaining 17 percent reported that they were "somewhat likely' to do so. These high levels of satisfaction occurred even though most respondents paid a cost premium for going green. Sixty-three percent of the respondents reported that they spent 5 percent or more on their green retrofit project than they would have on a comparable conventional project (Figure 6). 4 Where did the cost premium come from? The most frequently cited factor was the cost of green -capable designers and engineers, followed by the extra time and longer learning curve needed to research and implement sustainability practices and products. Longer lead time, higher up -front systems/technology costs, and the limited supply or extra cost of environmentally preferable materials rounded out the list of factors increasing green's cost over conventional costs. Taken together, these results show that despite the financial barrier to choosing a green retrofit over a conventional one, the overall benefits of green outweighed the costs enough for our survey respondents to be satisfied with their green retrofit projects. Somewhat surprisingly to us, benefits related to corporate image and employee relations were at least as important to our survey respondents as operational cost savings. Finally, the majority of survey respondents paid a cost premium of only 10 percent or less for their green retrofits —which, in our opinion, they are likely to recoup over time due to lower operating costs, higher property values, and/or the value gained through intangible factors. The green cost premium: perception and reality The "green cost premium" issue deserves a closer look, as one of the most common objections raised to green building is the idea that it costs significantly more than conventional construction. Ma, y studies document this widespread perception: 78 percent of architectural, engineering, and construction respondents to Building Design & Construction 2007 survey believed that going green "adds significantly to first costs."14 And in CoreNet Global/Jones Lang LaSalle's January 2008 survey, 30 percent of respondents believed that new green buildings cost 5 to 10 percent more than conventional buildings, and 22 percent believed that green costs more than 10 percent over the cost of conventional buildings.'s How accurate are these perceptions? Certainly, some green projects can cost more than a comparable conventional project, as shown by our survey respondents' experience. On the other hand, Davis Langdon's "Cost of Green Revisited" study in 2007 found that "there is no significant difference in average costs for green buildings as compared to non -green buildings.... Average construction costs have risen dramatically the past three years — between 25 and 30 percent. And yet we still see a large number of projects achieving LEED within budget."16 Recent studies by the IFMA Foundation and Turner Construction also demonstrate that most new green buildings cost less than 1 percent more than conventional buildings. Some even cost less than conventional buildings.171. Whether or not a green retrofit costs more than conventional, it's clear that the ROI can be substantial. Adobe Systems, for instance, implemented a green retrofit of its downtown San Jose, California headquarters complex at a total cost of $1.4 million.'s Although the headquarters' staff grew by 35 percent between 2001 and 2007,'0 Adobe's electricity consumption has dropped by 35 percent, natural gas use by 41 percent, domestic potable water consumption by 22 percent, and landscape irrigation water use by 76 percent 2' In addition, Adobe received $389,000 in grants and equipment purchase rebates from the city, state, and local utilities for the newly installed energy -conserving technologies .""The green retrofit boasted an average per -project payback of 9.5 months, generated a 121 percent ROI, and saves Adobe $1.2 million annually34 And Adobe earned LEED-Platinum ratings for its headquarters buildings in 2006?5 Green retrofit costs and trends We believe that green retrofits are on the same track that new green construction was five years ago. Just as new green construction costs have dropped greatly in the last five years, any green retrofit cost premium that organizations encounter today will likely decrease over the next few years as more real estate industry professionals become knowledgeable about and experienced in green retrofit design, construction, materials, and technologies. Since 2001, for example, the USGBC has certified more than 43,000 LEED Accredited Professionals, and it has reported a 20 percent increase annually in the number of real estate industry professionals earning LEED accreditations.'fi Too, companies that have completed at least one green retrofit project will have the experience to lessen the time and cost of future green retrofit projects. But even though waiting for costs to come down before going green may be attractive from a financial standpoint, companies that do so risk missing out on many of green building's potential intangible benefits: improved brand image, greater attractiveness as an employer, and better community relations. The reason? Our research indicates that many industry observers believe that the green building trend is growing — and as green building becomes more widespread, the marketplace differentiation crucial to such intangible benefits as brand image will become more difficult to achieve. The evidence is mounting that green building is indeed gaining momentum. Ninety-four percent of the respondents in the 2007 Building Design & Construction survey of architectural, engineering, and construction professionals reported that the trend in sustainable building projects is "growing,"3082 percent reported that their firms would be more active in green building in two to three years than they are today," and almost 90 percent reported that their clients were more willing to invest in green building projects in 2007 than they were three to four years ago (figure 7).32 Green buildings can now be found in every building category, from office buildings, stores, warehouse/distribution centers, hotels, and restaurants to universities, car dealerships, police and fire stations, and even convents. The rapid recent increase in USGBC membership, which has swelled from just over 1,000 in 2001 to over 12,000 in 2007," is another testament to green building's increasing popularity. A growing number of local and state governments are mandating energy-efficient green building construction and renovations, first in the public sector, and now increasingly in the private sector. As of April 2008, 28 states, 24 counties, and 96 municipalities had mandated some level of LEER criteria for new and renovated public buildings. And as of May 2008, Boston, Dallas, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Montgomery County, Maryland, and other jurisdictions had mandated LEED criteria for some private new construction and renovations.3fi 37.38.39.40,41 On Earth Day (April 22) 2008, for example, the City of Los Angeles passed a private - sector green building ordinance that requires new commercial buildings and high-rise residential structures with more than 50,000 square feet of floor space, as well as major renovations and low-rise developments of 50 units or more, to build to LEED standards 42 Companies forced into green retrofits by such mandates stand to lose many of the potential benefits available to companies that go green before such laws take effect. A jurisdiction that passes laws requiring companies to green their workplaces may, at the same time, eliminate tax incentives, rebates, and other financial perks that exist now for companies that undertake green retrofits of their own free will. - The potential benefit in terms of talent attraction and retention is another compelling reason to consider going green sooner rather than later. Many human resource specialists believe that companies across all industries will face a growing talent crunch as members of the Baby Boomer generation begin to retire in increasing numbers in 2008 and onward.43 To replace these retiring employees, companies will need to appeal to younger generations of workers for whom environmental and social responsibility is an important factor in their choice of where to work. A 2007 MonsterTRAK.com survey found that 80 percent of young professionals are interested in securing a job that has a positive impact on the environment, and 92 percent would be more inclined to work for a company that is environmentally friendly," Because a green workplace can be a convincing way to establish such a reputation, companies that adopt green retrofit practices ahead of the curve may be able to create an image of environmental leadership that will stand them in good stead in their future search for talent. The bottom line? Companies that want to stay ahead of the green regulatory curve, reap the many green building benefits, and remain competitive in the marketplace should implement green retrofits of their workplaces sooner rather than later. All things considered, we believe the business imperative is clear: The earlier a company adopts green building practices, the bigger the gains it stands to reap. Codes and Standards Title 24 Energy -Efficient Local Ordinances Title: Marin County Green Building Ordinance Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study Prepared for: Bob Brown City of San Rafael Community Development Director Omar Pena Marin County Community Development Agency Pat Eilert Codes and Standards Program Pacific Gas and Electric Company Maril Pitcock Government Partnership Program Pacific Gas and Electric Company Prepared by: Michael Gabel Gabel Associates, LLC Last Modified: December 10, 2009 Pacific Gas and ;, Electric Company" EXHIBIT 5 Marin County Green Building Ordinance Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study December 10, 2009 Report prepared for: Bob Brown, Community Development Director City of San Rafael San Rafael, CA 94901 (415) 485-3090 Email: bob.brown@cityofsanrafael.org Report prepared by: Michael Gabel of Gabel Associates, LLC 1818 Harmon Street, Suite #1 Berkeley, CA 94703 (510) 428-0803 Email: mike@gabelenergy.com Report on behalf of: Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Codes and Standards Program, Pat Eilert, 202 Cousteau Place, Davis, CA 95616 (530) 757-5261 Email: PLE2@pge.com Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Government Partnership Program, Maril Pitcock, 245 Market, , San Francisco, Room 687, CA 94105 (415) 973-9944 Email: MxWL@pge.com LEGAL NOTICE This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission. Copyright 2009 Pacific Gas and Electric Company. All rights reserved, except that this document may be used, copied, and distributed without modification. Neither PG&E nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express of implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any privately -owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks or copyrights. Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ............................................. 1 2.0 Impacts of the New Ordinance ..................................... 2 3.0 Cost Effectiveness ............................................. 31 1.0 Executive Summary This report presents the results of Gabel Associates' research and review of the feasibility and energy cost-effectiveness of building permit applicants exceeding the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards to meet the minimum energy -efficiency requirements of the proposed Marin County Ordinance for local energy efficiency standards. The proposed ordinance states that residential new construction projects must meet the overall requirements summarized in the Resolution printed on the following pages. The study contained in this report shall be included in Marin County's application to the California Energy Commission (CEC) which must meet the requirements specified in Section 10-106 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 1, LOCALLY ADOPTED ENERGY STANDARDS. The proposed Ordinance shall be enforceable after the CEC has reviewed and approved the local energy standards as meeting all requirements of Section 10-106; and the Ordinance has been adopted by the County and filed with the Building Standards Commission. The 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2010, are the baseline used to calculate the cost-effectiveness of the proposed Ordinance. Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Mann County Green Building Ordinance, 12/10/09 Page 1 MARIN COUNTY MODEL GREEN BUILDING ORDINANCE (Draft) TABLE A: GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS FOR COMPLIANCE FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION Covered Project Green Building Rating Minimum Compliance Threshold Energy Budget Verification System Below CA Title Single�Fanifiy or Two-Farrilly Residential: New construction 24 PartB 500-2,499 sq. ft GPR New Home 75 points 16% Green Point Ratad' 2,500-3,999 sq. ft. GPR New Home 100 points 15% Green Point Rated' 4,000-5,499 sq. ft. GPR New Home 125 points 20% Green Point Rated' 5,500-6,999 sq. ft. GPR New Home 150 points 30% Green Point Rated' 7,000+ sq. ft. Two Residential: GPR New Home Renovations 200 points to buildings) Net zero energy Green Point Rated' Single -Family or -Family Less than 556,000 valuation (including additions n/a existing Insulate exposed hot water pipes; Install City building Inspector radiant barrier when reroofing and removing sheathing Less than 500 sq, ft. or $50,000-$99,999 GPR Existing Home Checklist submittal and completion of a City plan check valuation' HERSII or BPI home performance audit 500-749 sq. ft. or $100,000-$149,999 GPR Existing Home— 25 points GreenPoint Rater' valuation' Elements 750-999 sq. ft. or $150,000-$299,999 GPR Existing Home — 35 points GreenPoint Rater' valuation' Elements 1,000+ sq. ft. or $300,000+ valuation' GPR Existing Home — 50 points +20% improvement in HERSII GreenPoint Rated' Whole House or BPI home performance audit results or a HERSII score 100 or better Mulfi-Famliy Residential: New Construction Less than 1,000 sq. ft. average unit size GPR Multi -Family 60 points 15°% GreenPoint Rated' 1,000+ sq. ft. average unit size GPR Multi -Family 75 points 15% GreenPoint Rated' ' Project verification by GreenPoint Rater and certification by Build it Green ' Project verification by GreenPoint Rater ' Project valuation will be the primary determinate in establishing the Minimum Compliance Threshold for the project, with use of project size range when valuation is uncertain or in the opinion of the building official does not accurately reflect the project scope. Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Marin County Green Building Ordinance, 12/10/09 Page 2 MARIN COUNTY MODEL GREEN BUILDING ORDINANCE (Draft) TABLE B: GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS FOR COMPLIANCE FOR NONRESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION Covered Project Green Building Rating Minimum Compliance Threshold Energy Budget Verification System Below CA Title 24 Part 6 (includingNew construction 2,000-4;999 sq. ft. buildings) LEEDe New Construction Checklist submittal+ compliance with Prerequisites LEEDo AP with additional or Core &Shell GreenPoint Rater or BPI Certification 5,000-49,999 sq. ft LEED@ New Construction LEED'a Silver 15% LEED® AP with additional or Core & Shell GreenPoint Rater or BPI Certification 50,000+ sq, ft. LEEDe New Construction LEED® Gold 15% GBCI Cerfrfied or Core & Shell Renovations 500-4,999 sq ft. or LEED`" Commercial Voluntary compliance with the following Prerequisites: None less than $500,000 Interiors or Operations & WE P1 (Water Efficiency —Baseline Requirements only) valuation' Maintenance EA P3 (Fundamental Refrigerant Management) for renovations of >50% of the building interior area Voluntary compliance with the following Credits: EA C1.3 (Optimize Energy Performance — HVAC) for renovations of>50% of the building interior area 5,000-24,999 sq, ft or LEEd° Commercial Same as above, but Required. City building inspector $500,000 - $5 million Interiors or Operations & valuation' Maintenance 25,000+ sq. ft. or LEED® Commercial LEEV Silver LEE[f AP with additional greater than $5 million Interiors or Operations & GreenPoint Rater or BPI valuation' Maintenance Certification ' Project valuation will be the primary determinate in establishing the Minimum Compliance Threshold for the project, with use of project size range when valuation is uncertain or in the opinion of the building official does not accurately reflect the project scope. Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Mann County Green Building Ordinance, 12/10/09 Page 3 SOLAR ELECTRIC SYSTEMS A solar photovoltaic (PV) energy system may be used to meet the Energy Budget Below CA Title 24 Part 6 requirements of this resolution which exceed 15%. To qualify for energy credits, the PV energy system must be capable of generating electricity from sunlight, supply the electricity directly to the building, and the system is connected, through a reversible meter, to the utility grid. The installation of any qualifying PV energy system must meet all installation criteria contained in the California Energy Commission's Guidebook "Eligibility Criteria and Conditions for Incentives for Solar Energy Systems." The methodology used to calculate the energy equivalent to the PV credit shall be the CECPV Calculator, using the most recent version, provided by the California Energy Commission. INCENTIVES [optional] A City Green Building emblem for construction signage shall be provided for all residential and non-residential projects that obtain a GreenPoint or LEED rating. The following incentives shall be provided for residential projects that achieve at least 100 GreenPoints or non- residential projects that achieve at least a LEED® Gold rating: 1. Expedited building permit plan check (typically 2 -week turnaround) 2. Reimbursement for the cost of the GreenPoint Rater services (residential projects only, up to a maximum of $1,000) 3. Provision of a bronze plaque for building mounting, identifying the project as a green building EXCEPTIONS [optional] The following shall not be included as Covered Projects: 1. Second dwelling units, 2. Buildings which are temporary, 3. Building area which is not or is not intended to be conditioned space, and 4. Any requirement which would impair the historic integrity of any building listed on a local, state or federal register of historic structures. The following shall not be included in project valuation: 1. Improvements primarily intended for seismic upgrades or required disabled access, 2. Building replacement due to catastrophic loss due to flood or earthquake damage, and 3. Installation of renewable energy systems. Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Marin County Green Building Ordinance, 12/10/09 Page 4 2.0 Impacts of the New Ordinance The energy performance impacts of the Ordinance have been evaluated using several prototypical designs which collectively reflect a broad range of building types, including: • Single family house: 2 -story 1,582 sf (CZ3) • Single family house: 2 -story 2,025 sf (CZ2, CZ3) • Single family house: 2 -story 2,682 sf (CZ2) • Single family house: 2 -story 5,000 sf (CZ2, CZ3): Exceeding Title 24 by 20% • Single family house: 2 -story 6,500 sf (CZ2, CZ3): Exceeding Title 24 by 30% • Single family house: 2 -story 7,500 sf (CZ2, CZ3): Net Energy Zero TDV • Low-rise Multi -family building, 8 dwelling units: 2 -story 8,442 sf (CZ2, CZ3) • High-rise Multi -family building, 40 dwelling units: 4 -story 36,800 sf (CZ2, CZ3) • Nonresidential office building: 2 -story, 21,160 sf (CZ2, CZ3) • Nonresidential office building: 5 -story, 52,900 sf (CZ2, CZ3) The methodology used in the case studies is based on a design process for buildings that meet or exceed the energy standards, and includes the following: (a) Each prototype building design is tested for compliance with the 2008 Standards, and the mix of energy measures are adjusted using common construction options so the building first just meets the Standards. The set of energy measures chosen represent a reasonable combination which reflects how designers, builders and developers are likely to achieve a specified level of performance using a relatively low first incremental (additional) cost (b) Starting with that set of measures which is minimally compliant with the 2008 Standards, various energy measures are upgraded so that the building just meets the minimum energy performance required by the proposed Ordinance (e.g., 15% better than 2008 Title 24). The design choices by the consultant authoring this study are based on many years of experience with architects, builders, mechanical engineers; and general knowledge of the relative acceptance and preferences of many measures, as well as their incremental costs. This approach tends to reflect how building energy performance is typically evaluated for code compliance and how it's used to select design energy efficiency measures. Note that lowest simple payback with respect to building site energy is not always the primary focus of selecting measures; but rather the requisite reduction of Title 24 Time Dependent Valuation(TDV) energy at a reasonably low incremental cost consistent with other non - monetary but important design considerations. Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Mann County Green Building Ordinance, 12/10/09 page 5 (c) A minimum and maximum range of incremental costs of added energy efficiency measures is established by a variety of research means. A construction cost estimator, Building Advisory LLC, was contracted to conduct research to obtain current measure cost information for many energy measures; and Gabel Associates performed its own additional research to establish first cost data. Site energy in kWh and therms, is calculated from the Title 24 simulation results to establish the annual energy savings, energy cost savings and CO2 -equivalent reductions in greenhouse gases. 2.1 Single Family Homes CLIMATE ZONE 2 The following energy design descriptions of single family building prototypes Just meet the 2008 Title 24 Ruildino Enerav Efficiencv Standards in Climate Zone 2: CZ2: Single Family House 2,025 square feet, 2 -story, 20.2% glazing/floor area ratio NTOM. , il�liim -13 Walls -0 Slab on Grade -19 Raised Floor over Garage/Open at 2nd Floor Dw E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.30 urnace: 80% AFUE it Conditioner: 13 SEER -6 Attic Ducts educed Duct Leakagefl"esting (HERS) J Gallon Gas Water Heater: EF=0.60 CZ2: Single Family House 2,682 square feet, 2 -story, 21.1% glazing/floor area ratio Measures 13 Walls 19 Raised Floor w E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.30 rnace: 80% AFUE Conditioner: 13 SEER 6 Attic Ducts !duced Duct Leakage/Testing (HERS) Gallon Gas Water Heaters: EF=0.60 Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Marin County Green Building Ordinance, 12/10/09 Page 6 CZ2: Single Family House 5,000 square feet, 2 -story, 22.0% glazing/floor area ratio R-38 Roof w/ Radiant Barrier R-13 Walls R-19 Raised Floor Low E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.30 (2) Furnaces: 80% AFUE (2) Air Conditioners: 13 SEER, 11 EER (HERS) (2) Air Conditioners: Refrig. Charge (HERS) R-8 Attic Ducts Reduced Duct Leakage/Testing (HERS) (2) 50 Gallon Gas Water Heaters: EF=0.60 CZ2: Single Family House 6,500 square feet, 2 -story, 22.0% glazing/floor area ratio ures R-30 Roof w/ Radiant Barrier R-13 Walls R-19 Raised Floor Quality Insulation Installation (HERS) Low E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.30 (3) Furnaces: 80% AFUE (3) Air Conditioners: 13 SEER, 11 EER (HERS) (3) Air Conditioners: Refrig. Charge (HERS) R-8 Attic Ducts Reduced Duct Leakage/Testing (HERS) (3) 50 Gallon Gas Water Heaters: EF=0.60 CZ2: Single Family House 7,500 square feet, 2 -story, 22.0% glazing/floor area ratio R-30 Roof w/ Radiant Barrier R-13 Walls R-19 Raised Floor Quality Insulation Installation (HERS) Low E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.30 (3) Furnaces: 80% AFUE (3) Air Conditioners: 13 SEER, 11 EER (HERS) (3) Air Conditioners: Refrig. Charge (HERS) R-8 Attic Ducts Reduced Duct Leakage/Testing (HERS) 3) 50 Gallon Gas Water Heaters: EF=0.60 Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Mann County Green Building Ordinance, 12110/09 Page 7 Climate Zone 2 Energy Efficiency Measures Needed to Meet the Ordinance The following tables list the energy features and/or equipment included in the Title 24 base design, the efficient measure options, and an estimate of the incremental cost for each measure included to improve the building performance to use 15% less TDV energy than the corresponding Title 24 base case design (except homes equal or greater than 4,000 square feet as indicated). In any actual project, the designer, builder or owner selects which measures will be included to meet the proposed Ordinance requirements. There are a number of factors in choosing the final mix of energy measures including first cost, aesthetics, maintenance and replacement considerations. The analysis includes at least two different options to meet the proposed Ordinance requirements for each prototypical design. Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 151/6 Single Family Prototype: 2,025 SF, Option 1 2025 sf Climate Zone 2 Energy Efficiency Measures Change Type Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max Avg R-38 Roof w/ Radiant Barrier $ - $ - $ - R-19 Walls from R-13:2,550 sf 0 $0.55 to $0.85/sf Upgrade $ 1,403 $ 2,168 $ 1,786 R-0 Slab on Grade - $ - $ - $ - R-19 Raised Floor over Garage/Open at 2nd Floor - $ - $ - $ - Low E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0.36 SHGC=0.30 - $ - $ - $ - Furnace: 80%AFUE $ - $ - $ - Air Conditioner: 13 SEER, 11 EER HERS Uporade $ 25 $ 75 $ 50 Air Conditioner: Refri . Charge HERS Upgrade $ 150 $ 200 $ 175 R-6 Attic Ducts $ - $ - $ Reduced Duct Leakage/Testing( HERS $ - $ - $ - 50 Gallon Gas Water Heater: EF=0.60 $ - $ - $ - Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficiency Measures: $ 1,678 $ 2443 $ 2,011 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.78 $ 1.21 $ 0.99 Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Mann County Green Building Ordinance, 12110109 Page 8 Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 15% Single Family Prototype: 2,025 SF, Option 2 2025 sf Climate Zone 2 Energy Efficiency Measures Change Type Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max Avg R-38 Roof w/ Radiant Barrier $ - $ - $ - R-21 Walls from R-13:2,550 sf @ $0.70 to $0.95/sf Upgrade $ 1 785 $ 2 423 $ 2,104 R-0 Slab on Grade - $ 2.242 $ - $ - R-19 Raised Floor over c3araqe/Open at 2nd Floor - $ - $ - $ - Low E2 Vin I Windows, U=0.36 8HGC=0.30 - $ - $ - $ Furnace: 80% AFUE - $ - $ - $ Air Conditioning: 13 SEER - $ - $ $ R-6 Attic Ducts - $ - $ 75 $ Reduced Duct Leakage/resting( HERS - $ - $ - $ 50 Gallon Gas Water Heater: EF=0.60 - $ - $ - $ Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficient Measures: $ 1,785 $ 2,423 $ 2,104 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.88 $ 1.20 $ 1.04 Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 15% Single Family Prototype: 2,682 SF, Option 1 2682 sf Climate Zone 2 Energy Efficiency Measures Change Type Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max I Avg R-30 Roof w/ Radiant Barrier $ - $ $ - R-19 Walls from R-13:2,638 sf 2 $0.55 to $0.85/sf Upgrade $ 1,451 $ 2.242 $ 1,847 R-19 Floor $ - $ $ - Low E2 Vinyl Windows U=0.36 SHGC=0.30 $ - $ - $ Furnace: 80% AFUE $ $ - $- Air Conditioner: 13 SEER, 11 EER (HERS) Upqrade $ 25 $ 75 $ 50 Air Conditioner: Refri . Charge HERS Upgrade $ 150 $ 200 $ 175 R-6 Attic Ducts $ $ $ Reduced Duct Leaka elfestin HERS $ - $ - $ - 50 Gallon Gas Water Heater: EF=0.60 $ - $ - $ - Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficient Measures: $ 1,626.$ 2,617. $ 2,072 Total incremental Costper Square Foot: 1 $ 0.61 1 $ 0.94 $ 0.77 Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Madn County Green Building Ordinance, 12110/09 Page 9 Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 15% Single Family Prototype: 2,682 SF, Option 2 2682 sf Climate Zone 2 Energy Efficiency Measures Change Tvpe Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max Avg R-38 Roof w/ Radiant Barrier (from R-30): 1,402sf Q 0.40 to 0:60/sf Upgrade $ $ 561 $ 841 $, 701 R-15 Walls from R-13:2,638 sf @ $0.12 to $0.20/sf Upgrade 1,847 $ 317 $ 528 $ 422 R-19 Floor - $ $ - $ - $ - Quality Insulation Installation HERS Upgrade - $ 450 $ 600 $ 525 Low E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.30 - $ $ - $ - $ - Furnace: 90% AFUE from 80% AFUE Upgrade - $ 500 $ 1,000 $ 750 Air Conditioner: 13 SEER - Reduced Duct Leakage/Testing( HERS $ - $ - $ - R-6 Attic Ducts 50 Gallon Gas Water Heater: EF=0.62 from EF=0.60 Upgrade $ - $ - $ - Reduced Duct Leakage/resting( HERS - $ - $ - $ - 50 Gallon Gas Water Heater: EF=0.62 from EF=0.60 Upgrade 0.73 $ 100 $ 200 $ 150 Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficient Measures: $ 1,928 $ 3,169 $ 2 548 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.72 $ 1.18 $ 0.95 Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 15% Single Family Prototype: 2,682 SF, Option 3 2682 sf Climate Zone 2 Energy Efficiency Measures Change Type Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max Avg R-30 Roof w/ Radiant Barrier $ - $ - $ R-21 Walls from R-13:2,638 sf 0 $0.70 to $0.95/sf Upgrade $ 1,847 $ 2,506 $ 2,177 R-19 Floor - $ - $ - $ - Low E2 Vinyl Windows U=0.36 SHGC=0.30 - $ - $ - $ - Furnace: 80% AFUE - $ - $ - $ - Air Conditioner: 13 SEER - $ - $ - $ - R-6 Attic Ducts - $ - $ - $ - Reduced Duct Leakage/Testing( HERS - $ - $ - $ - 50 Gallon Gas Water Heater: EF=0.62 from EF=0.60 Upgrade $ 100 $ 200 $ 150 Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficient Measures: $ 1,947 $ 2,706 $ 2,327 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.73 $ 1.01 $ 0.87 Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Marin County Green Building Ordinance, 12110109 Page 10 is For homes > 4,000 square feet to 5,499 square feet, the following tables list the energy measures needed to improve a 5,000 square foot home so that it uses at least 20% less TDV energy than the corresponding Title 24 base case design. Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 20% Single Family Prototype: 5,000 SF, Option 1 5000 sf Climate Zone 2 Energy Efficiency Measures Change Type Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max I Avg R-38 Roof w/ Radiant Barrier $ - $ - $ - R-21 Walls from R-13 : 2,616 sf'Ccp $0.45 to $0.70/sf U rade $ 1,177 $ 1,831 $ 1,504 R-19 Raised Floor 1,504 $ - $ - $ - Super Low E Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.23 (from Low E2, U=0,36 SHGG0.23 : 1,100 sf $1.40 - $1.75 / sf Upgrade $ 1 540 $ 1.925 $ 1,733 2) Furnace: 92%AFUE from 80%AFUE Upqrade $ 1,000 $ 2,400 $ 1 700 (2) Air Conditioners: 13 SEER, 11 EER HERS 2 Air Conditioner: Refri . Charge HERS - - $ $ - $ $ - - $ $ - - R-8 Attic Ducts - $ - $ - $ - Reduced Duct Leakage/Testing( HERS - $ - $ - $ - 2 50 Gallon Gas Water Heaters: EF=0.62 from EF=0.60 Upgrade $ 200 $ 400 $ 300 Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficient Measures: Downgrade $ 3,91'7 $ 6 556 $ 5 237 Total Incremental Costper Square Foot: $ 0.78 $ 1.31 - $ Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 20% Single Family Prototype: 5,000 SF, Option 2 5000 sf Climate Zone 2 Energy Efficiency Measures Change Type Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max I Avg R-38 Roof w/ Radiant Barrier $ - $ - $ R-21 Walls from R-13): 2,616 sf 0 WAD to $0.70/sf Upgrade $ 1 177 $ 1 831 $ 1,504 R-38 Raised Floor from R-19:3,000 sf CCD $0.30 to $0.45 Upgrade $ 900 $ 1,350 $ 1,125 Quality Insulation Installation HERS Upgrade $ 450 $ 600 $ 525 Super Low E Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.23 (from Low E2, U=0.36, SHGC=0.23: 1,100 sf @ $1.40- $1.75 / sf UPQrade I $ 1,540 $ 119-2-5- $ 1 733 2 Furnaces: 80%AFUE $ - $ - $ - 2 Air Conditioners: 13 SEER, 11 EER HERS $ - $ - $ - 2 Air Conditioner: Refri . Charge HERS $ - $ - $ - R-6 Attic Ducts from R-8 Downgrade $ 650 $ 450 $ 550 Reduced Duct Leakage/Testing( HERS. $ - $ - $ - (2) 50 Gallon Gas Water Heaters: EF=0.62 from EF=0.60) Upgrade $ 200 $ 400 $ 300 Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficient Measures: $ 3,617 $ 6,656 $ 4,637 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.72 $ 1.13 $ 0.93 Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Mann County Green Building Ordinance, 12110/09 Page 11 Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 20% Single Family Prototype: 5,000 SF. Option 3 5000 sf Climate Zone 2 Energy Efficiency Measures Change Type Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max Avg R-38 Roof w/ Radiant Barrier Upgrade $ - $ - $ - R-21 Walls from R-13:2,616 sf $0.45 to $0.70/sf Upgrade $ 1,177 $ 1,831 $ 1,504 R-19 Raised Floor 1,615 $ - $ - $ - Super Low E Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.23 (from Low E2, U=0.36, SHGC=0.23: 1 100 sf 0 $1.40 - $1.75 / sf Upgrade $ 1,540 $ 1,925 $ 1,733 2 Furnace: 80% AFUE $ - $ - $ - 2) Air Conditioners: 13 SEER, 11 EER HERS $ - $ - $ - 2 Air Conditioner: Refri . Charge HERS 1 500 $ - $ - $ - R-6 Attic Ducts from R-8 Downgrade $ 650 $ 450 $ 550 Reduced Duct Leakage/Testing( HERS $ - $ - $ - (2) Instantaneous Gas Water Heater: RE=0.80 (from (2) 50 Gal Gas: EF=0.62) Upgrade $ 1 800 $ 30 $ 2 400 Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficient Measures: $ 3,867 $ 6,306 $ 5 087 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: (3) Instantaneous Gas Water Heater: RE=0.80 (from (3) 50 Gal Gas: EF=0.60) $ 0.77 $ 1.26 $ 5 100 For homes > 5,500 square feet to 6,999 square feet, the following tables list the energy measures needed to improve a 6,500 square foot home so that it uses at least 30% less TDV energy than the corresponding Title 24 base case design. Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 30% Single Family Prototype: 6,500 SF, Option 1 6500 sf Climate Zone 2 Energy Efficiency Measures Change Type Incremental Cost Estimate Avg MinF$2,503 R-38 Roof w/ Radiant Barrier (from R-30 w/Radiant Barrier): 3,900 sf 0.15 to 0.20/sf Upgrade $ 585 $ 683 R-21 Walls from R-13): 2 808 sf '$0.45 to $0.70/sf Upgrade $ 1,264 $ 1,615 R-30Raised Floor from R-19:3 900 sf $0:25 to $0.35 Upgrade $ 975 $ 1 170 QualityInsulation Installation HERS $ - $ - Super Low E Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.23 (from Low E2, U=0.36, SHGC=0.23: 1,430 sf $1.40 - $1.75 / sf U rade $ 2,002 $ 2 252 3 Furnaces: 92% AFUE from 80% AFUE U rade $ 1 500 $ 2,550 3 Air Conditioners: 13 SEER 11 EER HERS $ - $ - $ - 3 Air Conditioner: Ref rig, Charge HERS $ - $ - $ R-6 Attic Ducts from R-8 Downgrade $ 975 $ 675 $ 825 Reduced Duct Leakage/Testing( HERS $ - $ - $ - (3) Instantaneous Gas Water Heater: RE=0.80 (from (3) 50 Gal Gas: EF=0.60) Upgrade $ 3 000 $ 5 100 $ 4,050 Pie Insulation Upgrade $ 450 $ 600 $ 525 Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficient Measures: $ 8,801 $ 15,238 $ 12019 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 1.35 $ 2.34 $ 1.85 Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Mann County Green Building Ordinance, 12110109 Page 12 Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 30% Sinale Family Prototype: 6,500 SIP, Option 2 6500 sf Climate Zone 2 Energy Efficiency Measures Change Type Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max Avg R-38 Roof w/ Radiant Barrier (from R-30 w/Radiant Barrier): 3 900 sf 0.15 to 0.20/sf Upgrade $ 585 $ 780 $ 683 R-19 Walls from R-13:2,808 sf 0 $0.31 to $0.54/sf Upgrade $ 870 $ 1 516 $ 1,193 R-19 Raised Floor $ - $ - $ - Quality Insulation Installation HERS $ - $ - $ - Super Low E Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.23 (from Low E2, U=0.36, SHGC=0.23: 1,430 sf @ $1.40 - $1.75 / sf Upqrade 1 $ 2.002 $ 2,503 $ 2,252 3 Furnaces: 80% AFUE $ - $ $ 3 Air Conditioners: 13 SEER 11 EER HERS $ - $ $ 3 Air Conditioner: Refri . Charge HERS $ - $ $ R-6 Attic Ducts from R-8 Down rade $ 975 $ 675 $ 825 Reduced Duct Leakage/Testing (HERS $ $ $ - (3) 50 Gallon Gas Water Heaters: EF=0.62 from EF=0.60 Upgrade $ 300 $ 600 $ 450 Solar Photovoltaic PV System: 1 KW Upgrade $ 4,500 $ 6,500 $ 5 500 Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficiency Measures: $ 7,282 $ 11,224 $ 9,263 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 1.12 $ 1.73 $ 1.42 Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Mann County Green Building Ordinance, 12/10/09 Page 13 For homes > 7,000 square feet the following tables list the energy measures needed to improve a 7,500 square foot home so that its net Title 24 TDV energy use is zero (i.e. Net Zero TDV Energy) as compared with the corresponding Title 24 base case design. To achieve this level of performance, a solar PV system is added to the home sized to just meet the Net Zero Energy threshold by rounding up to the next largest whole KW of nominal solar PV capacity. Incremental Cost Estimate of Net Zero TDV Energy Sinale Family Prototype: 7,500 SF, Option 1 7500 sf Climate Zone 2 Energy Efficiency Measures Change Type Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max Avg R-38 Roof w/ Radiant Barrier (from R-30 w/Radiant Barrier): 4,500 sf @ 0.15 to 0.20/sf Upgrade $ 675 $ 900 $ 788 R-21 Walls from R-13:2,904 sf 0 $0.45 to $0.70/sf Upgrade $ 1,307 $ 2,033 $ 1,670 R-38 Raised Floor from R-19:4,500 sf @ $0.30 to $0.45 Upgrade $ 1 350 $ 2025 $ 1 688 Quality Insulation Installation HERS $ - $ - $ - Super Low E Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.23 (from Low E2, U=0.36, SHGC=0.23: 1,650 sf @ $1.40 - $1.751 sf Upqrade 1 $ 2,310 $ 2,8881$ 2,599 3 Furnaces: 94%AFUE from 80%AFUE $ 2700 $ 5400 $ 4050 (3) Air Conditioners: 15 SEER, 12 EER (HERS) (from 13 SEER, 11 EER $ 1 500 $ 45003 Air Conditioners: Refri . Char e HERS Frad $ - $ - $ - R-8 Attic Ducts $ - $ - $ - Reduced Duct Leakage/Testing (HERS $ - $ - $ - (3) Instantaneous Gas Water Heater: RE=0.82 (from (3) 50 Gal Gas: EF=0.60 $ 3,600 $ 6,000 $ 4.800 Pie Insulation Upgrade $ 4502 $ 525 Solar Photovoltaic PV System: 4 KW Upgrade $ 18 000 $ 26 000 $ 22 000 Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficient Measures: $ 31,892 $ 50,346 $ 41,119 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 4.25 $ 6.71 $ 5.48 Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Mann County Green Building Ordinance, 12110109 Page 14 Incremental Cost Estimate of Net Zero TDV Energy Sinale Family Prototype: 7.500 SF. Option 1 7500 sf Climate Zone 2 Energy Efficiency Measures Change Type Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max Avg R-38 Roof w/ Radiant Barrier (from R-30 w/Radiant Barrier): 4,500 sf @ 0.15 to 0.20/sf Upgrade $ 675 $ 900 $ 788 R-19 Walls from R-13): 2 904 sf a $0.31 to $0.54/sf Upgrade $ 900 $ 1 568 $ 1,234 R-30 Raised Floor from R-19:4500 sf @ $0.25 to $0.35 Upgrade $ 1,125 $ 1,575 $ 1,350 Quali Insulation Installation HERS $ $ $ Housewrap: 2,904 sf @ $0.50 to $0.75/sf Uporade 1 $ 1,452 $ 2,178 $ 1,815 Super Low E Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.23 (from Low E2, U=0,36 SHGC=0.23:1,650 sf CcD $1.40- $1.75 / sf Upqrade $ 2,310 $ 2,888 1 $ 2,599 3 Furnaces: 92% AFUEfrom 80I AFUE Upgrade $ 1,500 $ 3,600 $ 2,550 (3) Air Conditioners: 15 SEER, 12 EER (HERS) (from 13 SEER, 19 EER) Upgrade $ 1 500 $ 4,5001 $ 3,000 3 Air Conditioners: Refri . Charge HERS $ - $ - $ - R-8 Attic Ducts $ - $ - $ Reduced Duct Leakage/Testing( HERS $ - $ - $ (3) Instantaneous Gas Water Heater: RE=0.82 (from (3) 50 Gal Gas: EF=0.60) Upgrade $ 3 600 $ 6 000 $ 4,800 Pi e Insulation Upgrade $ 450 $ 600 $ 525 Solar Photovoltaic PV System: 4 KW Upgrade $- 18,000 $ 26 000 $- 2-2-'0- 0 -0 - Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficient Measures: $ 31,512 $ 49,809 $ 40,660 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: 1 $ 4.20 $ 6.64 $ 5.42 CLIMATE ZONE 3 The following energy design descriptions of single family building prototypes just meet the 2008 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards in Climate Zone 3: CZ3: Sinqle Family House 1,582 square feet, 2 -story, 14.3% glazing/floor area ratio -13 Walls -19 Raised Floor )w E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.30; no overhangs urnace: 80% AFUE; No Cooling -6 Attic Ducts D gallon Gas DHW: EF=0.58; no extra pipe insulation Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Marin County Green Building Ordinance, 12110109 Page 15 CM: Single Family House 2,025 square feet, 2 -story, 20.2% glazing/floor area ratio H-38 Root w/ Haoiant starrier R-13 Walls R-19 Raised Floor Low E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0.40, SHGC=0.40; no overhangs Furnace: 80% AFUE; No Cooling R-6 Attic Ducts 50 gallon Gas DHW: EF=0.62 no extra pipe insulation CZ3: Single Family House 5,000 square feet, 2 -story, 22.0% glazing/floor area ratio R-30 Roof w/ Radiant Barrier R-13 Walls R-19 Raised Floor Low E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.30 (2) Furnaces: 80% AFUE Air Conditioners: None R-8 Attic Ducts Reduced Duct Leakage/Testing (HERS) 2 50 Gallon Gas Water Heaters: EF=0:60 CM: Single Family House 6,500 square feet, 2 -story, 22.0% glazing/floor area ratio R-30 Roof w/ Radiant Barrier R-13 Walls R-19 Raised Floor Quality Insulation Installation (HERS) Low E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.30 (3) Furnaces: 80% AFUE Air Conditioners: None R-8 Attic Ducts Reduced Duct Leakage/Testing (HERS) 3 50 Gallon Gas Water Heaters: EF=0.60 Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Mann County Green Building Ordinance, 12/10/09 Page 16 CZ3: Single Family House 7,500 square feet, 2 -story, 22.0% glazing/floor area ratio R-13 Walls R-19 Raised Floor Quality Insulation Installation (HERS) Low E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.30 (3) Furnaces: 80% AFUE Air Conditioners: None R-6 Attic Ducts Reduced Duct Leakagelfesting (HERS) (3) 50 Gallon Gas Water Heaters: EF=0.60 Climate Zone 3 Energy Efficiency Measures Needed to Meet the Ordinance The following tables list the energy features and/or equipment included in the Title 24 base design, the efficient measure options, and an estimate of the incremental cost for each measure included to improve the building performance to use 15% less TDV energy than the corresponding Title 24 base case design (except homes equal or greater than 4,000 square feet as indicated). Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 15% Single Family Prototype: 1,582 SF, Option 1 Climate Zone 3 Energy Efficiency Measures to Exceed Title 24 by 151/6 Change TvDe Incremental Cost Estimate Avg MinK1,200 Furnace: 92% AFUE Upgrade $ 500 $ 850 Reduced Duct Leaka e/Testin HERS U rade $ 300 $ 450 House wra : 1,116 sf $0.08 to $0.12/sf U rade $ 90 $ 113 R-49 roof insulation: 1,582 sf $0.19 to $0.22/sf U rade $ 300$ 325 50 allon DHW: EF=0.62 from E=0.58 U rade $ 100 $ 150 R-15 Wall Insulation: 1,116 sf $0.06 to $0.08/sf $ $ - AII DHW Pipe Insulation $ - $ - $ - Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficient Measures: $ 11290,$ 2,485 $ 1,888 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.82 I $ 1.57 1 $ 1.19 Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Mann County Green Building Ordinance, 12110109 Page 17 i Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 16% Single Family Prototype: 2,025 SF, Option 1 Climate Zone 3 Energy Efficiency Measures to Exceed Title 24 by 16% Change TvPe Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max Avg Furnace: 92% AFUE Upgrade $ 500 $ 1 200 $ 850 Reduced Duct Leaka e/Testin HERS Upgrade $ 300' $ 600 $ 450 House wrap: 1,116 sf @ $0.08 to $0.12/sf Upgrade $ 205 $ 305 $ 255 R-49 roof insulation: 1,443 sf $0.19 to $0.22/sf - $ - $ - $ - 50 gallon DHW: EF=0:62 from EF=0.58 - $ - $ - $ - R-15 Wall Insulation: 2,550 sf $0,06 to $0.08/sf - $ - $ - $ - AII DHW Pipe Insulation - $ - $ - $ - Total Incremental Cost of Ener Efficient Measures: $ $ 1 005 $ 2,105 $ 1,555 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.50 $ 1.04 $ 0.77 For homes > 4,000 square feet to 5,499 square feet, the following tables list the energy measures needed to improve a 5,000 square foot home so that it uses at least 20% less TDV energy than the corresponding Title 24 base case design. Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 20% Single Family Prototype: 5,000 SF, Option 1 5000 sf Climate Zone 3 Energy Efficiency Measures Change T e Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max Avg R-30 Roof w/ Radiant Barrier $ - $ - $ R-21 Walls from R-13:2,616 sf " $0.45 to $0.70/sf Upgrade $ 1,177 $ 1,831 $ 1,504 R-19 Raised Floor $ - $ - $ - Qualit Insulation Installation HERS U rade $ 450 $ 600' $ 525 Low E2 Vin I Windows, U=0.36 SHGC=0:30 $ $ - $ - 2) Furnaces: 92% AFUE from 80% AFUE UlDqrade $ 1,000 $ 2,400 $ 1 700 Air Conditioners: None $ - $ - $ - R-8 Attic Ducts $ - $ - $ - Reduced Duct Leaka effestin HERS $ - $ - $ - 2 50 Gallon Gas Water Heaters: EF=0.62 from EF=0.60 Upgrade $ 200 $ 400 $ 300 Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficient Measures: $ 2,827 $ 5,231 $ 4,029 Total Incremental Cost er S uare Foot: $ 0.671$ 1.05 1 $ 0.81 Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Marin County Green Building Ordinance, 12/10/09 Page 18 Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 20% Single Family Prototype: 5,000 SF, Option 2 5000 sf Climate Zone 3 Energy Efficiency Measures Change Type Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max Avg R-30 Roof w/ Radiant Barrier - $ - $ - $ $ R-19 Walls from R-13:2,616 sf $0.31 to $0.54/sf U rade $ 811 $ 1,413 $ 1,112 R-19 Raised Floor - $ - $$ Upgrade - Low E2 Vinyl Windows U=0.36 SHGC=0.30 - 1,365 - 1,170 Quali Insulation Installation HERS 2 Furnaces: 80% AFUE - $ - $ $ Air Conditioners: None $ $ - $ - $ 3) Furnaces: 80% AFUE R-6 Attic Ducts from R-8 Downgrade $ 650 $ 450 $ 550 Reduced Duct Leaka e/Testin HERS $ - $ - $ - (2) Instantaneous Gas Water Heater: RE=0.80 (from (2) 50 Gal Gas: EF=0.60) Upgrade $ 2 000 $ 3,400 $ 2,700 Total Incremental Cost of Ener Efficiency Measures: $ 2,161 $ 4,363 $ 3,262 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ $ 0.43 1 $ 0.87 $ 0.65 For homes > 5,500 square feet to 6,999 square feet, the following tables list the energy measures needed to improve a 6,500 square foot home so that it uses at least 30% less TDV energy than the corresponding Title 24 base case design. Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 20% Single Family Prototype: 6,500 SF, Option 1 6500 sf Climate Zone 3 Energy Efficiency Measures Change TvPe Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max Avg R-38 Roof w/ Radiant Barrier (from R-30 w/Radiant Barrier): 3,900 sf @ 0.15 to 0.20/sf Upgrade $ 585 $ 780 $ 683 R-21 Walls from R-13): 2,808 sf Q $0.45 to $0.70/sf Upgrade $ 1,264 $ 1,966 $ 1,615 R-30 Raised Floor from R-19): 3,900 sf $0.25 to $0.35 Upgrade $ 975 $ 1,365 $ 1,170 Quali Insulation Installation HERS $ $ $ LOW2 m in ows, =0.3 , G = $ $ 3) Furnaces: 80% AFUE - $ - $ $ Air Conditioners: None - $ - $ $ R-8 Attic Ducts - $ $ $ Reduced Duct Leakage/Testing( HERS - $ - $ $ (3) Instantaneous Gas Water Heater: RE=0.80 (from (3) 50 Gal Gas: EF=0.60) Upgrade $ 3,000 $ 5,100 $ 4,050 Pipe Insulation 1 Upgrade 1 $ 450 $ 600 $ 525 Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficiency Measures: $ 6,274 $ 9 811 $ 8,042 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.971$ 1.51 $ 1.24 Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Marin County Green Building Ordinance, 12110109 Page 19 Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 20% Single Family Prototype: 6,500 SF. Option 2 6500 sf Climate Zone 3 Energy Efficiency Measures Change Type Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max Avg R-30 Roof w/ Radiant Barrier Upgrade $ - $ - $ - R-19 Walls from R-13:2,808 sf $0.31 to $0.54/sf Upgrade $ 870 $ 1,516 $ 1,193 R=19Raised Floor - $ - $ - $ - Quali Insulation Installation HERS $ $ - $ - $ - Low E2 inyl Windows, U=0.36 SHGC=0.30 - $ - $ - $ - 3 Furnaces: 92% AFUE from 80% AFUE Upgrade I $ 1,500 $ 3,600 $ 2,550 Air Conditioners: None - $ - $ - $ Upgrade R-8 Attic Ducts $ $ - $ - $ - Reduced Duct Leaka efrestin HERS $ - $ - $ - (3) Instantaneous Gas Water Heater: RI: -=0.80 (from (3) 50 Gal Gas: EF=0.60) Upgrade $ 3 000 $ 5 100 $ 4 050 Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficient Measures: Reduced Duct Leaka e/Testin HERS $ 6,370 $ 10,216 $ 7,793 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: - $ 0.83 $ 1.57 $ 1.20 For homes > 7,000 square feet the following tables list the energy measures needed to improve a 7,500 square foot home so that its net Title 24 TDV energy use is zero (i.e. Net Zero TDV Energy) as compared with the corresponding Title 24 base case design. To achieve this level of performance, a solar PV system is added to the home sized to just meet the Net Zero Energy threshold by rounding up to the next largest whole KW of nominal solar PV capacity. Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 20% Single Family Prototype: 7.500 SF. Option 1 7500 sf Climate Zone 3 Energy Efficiency Measures Change Type Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max Avg R-38 Roof w/ Radiant Barrier (from R-30 w/Radiant Barrier): 4,500 sf 2 0.15 to 0.20/sf Upgrade $ 675 $ 900 $ 788 R-21 Walls from R-13:2,904 sf CcD $0.45 to $0.70/sf Upgrade $ '1,307 $ 2,033 $ 1,670 R-30 Raised Floor(from R-19 : 4,500 sf Q $0.25 to $0.35 Upgrade $ 1,125 $ 1,575 $ 1,350 Quality Insulation Installation HERS $ - $ - $ - Housewra : 2,904 at @ $0.50 to $0.75/sf UIDqrade $ 1,452 $ 2,178 $ 1,815 Low E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0:30 $ - $ - $ - 3 Furnaces: 92% AFUE from 80% AFUE Upgrade $ 1,500 $ 3,600, $ 2,550 Air Conditioners: None $ - $ $ R-6 Attic Ducts $ - $ - $ - Reduced Duct Leaka e/Testin HERS $ - $ - $ - (3) Instantaneous Gas Water Heater: RE=0.82 (from (3) 50 Gal Gas: EF=0.60) Upgrade $ 3,600 $- 6-10-0-0- $ 4 800 Solar Photovoltaic PV System: 2 INV Upgrade $ 9 000 $ 13,000 $ 11 000 Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficient Measures: $ 18,659 $- 2-9,28-6- $ 23,972 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 2.491$ 3.901$ 3.20 Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Marin County Green Building Ordinance, 12110/09 Page 20 Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 20% Single Family Prototype: 7,500 SF Option 2 7500 sf Climate Zone 3 Energy Efficiency Measures Change Type Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max I Avg R-38 Roof w/ Radiant Barrier (from R-30 w/Radiant Barrier): 4402 to D.20/sf Upgrade $ 675 $ 900 $ 788 from R-13:2,904 sf $0.45 to $0.70/sf Upgrade $ 1,307 $ 2 033 $ 1 670 R-38 Raised Floor from R-19): 4,500 sf 0 $0,30 to $0.45 Upgrade $ 1 350 $ 2,025 $ 1 688 Quali Insulation Installation' HERS $ - $ $ Low E2 m n ows, _ . 6, C= 3 Furnaces: 94% AFUE from 80% AFUE) U $ 2,700 $ 5,400 $ 4,050 Air Conditioners: None -rade $ - $ - $ - R-8 Attic Ducts from R-6 Upgrade $ - $ - $ Reduced Duct Leaka efTestin HERS $ - $ - $ - (3) Instantaneous Gas Water Heater: RE=0.84 (from (3) 50 Gal Gas: EF=0.60 Upgrade $ 4,200 $ 7,200 $ 5,700 Pie Insulation Upgrade $ 450 $ 600 $ 525 Solar Photovoltaic PV System: 2 KW Upgrade $ 9,000 $ 13 000 $ 11,000 Total Incremental Cost of Ener Efficient Measures: $ 19,682 $ 31,158 $ 25,420 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 2.62 $ 4.15 $ 3.39 2.2 Low-rise Multi -family Residential Building The following is the energy design description of the low-rise multifamily building prototype which just meets the 2008 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards: CZ2: Low-rise Multi -family: 2 -story 8,442 square feet, 8 units, 12.5% glazing R-15 Wal is R-0 Slab on Grade Low E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0.36, SHGC=0.30 (8) Furnaces: 80% AFUE (8) Air Conditioners: 13 SEER R-8 Attic Ducts (8) 40 Gallon Gas Water Heaters: EF=0.63 Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Marin County Green Building Ordinance, 12110/09 Page 21 CZ3: Low-rise Multi -family: 2 -story 8,442 square feet, 8 units, 12.5% glazing R-13 Walls Slab -on -grade 1st floor Low E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0.39, SHGC=0.33; no overhangs Furnace: 80% AFUE; No Cooling R-6 Attic Ducts 50 gallon Gas DHW: EF=0.575; no extra pipe insulation _ Climate Zone 2 Energy Measures Needed to Meet the Ordinance See Section 2.0 for the description of the approach used to establish which energy measures are used to meet the proposed Ordinance for this prototype building design. Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 15% Low-rise Multifamily Prototype: 8.442 SF. Option 1 8442 sf Climate Zone 2 Energy Efficiency Measures Change TvPe Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max Avg R-38 Roof w/ Radiant Barrier $ - $ - $ R-21 Walls from R-15 : 10,146 sf $0.50 to $0.75/sf Upgrade $ 5,073 $ 7,510 $ 6,292 R-0 Slab on Grade $ - $ - $ - Low E2 Vinyl Windows U=0.36 SHGC=0.30 $ - $ - $ - 8 Furnaces: 80% AFUE $ - $ - $ - 8 Air Conditioner: 13 SEER, 11 EER (HERS) UDarade $ 200 $ 600 $ 400 (8) Air Conditioner: Refri .Charge HERS Upgrade $ 1,200 $ 1600: $ 1,400 R-8 Attic Ducts $ - $ - $ - 8 40 Gallon Gas Water Heaters: EF=0.63 $ - $ - $ - Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficient Measures: $ 6L473 $ 9,710 $ 8,092 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.77 $ 1.15 $ 0.96 Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Mann County Green Building Ordinance, 12110/09 Page 22 Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 151/6 Low-rise Multifamily Prototype: 8.442 SF. Option 2 8442 sf Climate Zone 2 Energy Efficiency Measures Change Type Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max I Av R-38 Roof w/ Radiant Barrier Upgrade $ - $ - $ - R-19 Walls from R-15):10,146 sf 0 $0.45 to $0.75/sf Upgrade $ 4,566 $ 7,610 $ 6,088 70 Slab on Grade - $ - $ - $ - Low E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0.36 SHGC=0.30 - $ - $ - $ - 8 Furnaces: 80% AFUE - $ - $ - $ - 8 Air Conditioners: 13 SEER - $ - $ - $ - R-4.2 Attic Ducts from R-8 Downgrade $ 3,000 $ (2,000) $ (2,500) Reduced Duct Leakage/ I estin HERS Upgrade $ 2,000 $ 4,000 $ 3,000 8 40 Gallon Gas Water Heaters: EF=0.62 from 0.63 EF Downgrade $ 7,855 $ 400 $ 200 Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficient Measures: $ 3-,-56-6- $ 9,210 $ 6,388 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.42 $ 1.09 $ 0.76 Climate Zone 3 Energy Measures Needed to Meet the Ordinance Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 15% Multifamily Prototype: 8.442 SF, Option 1 Climate Zone 3 Energy Efficiency Measures to Exceed Title 24 by 15%o Change TvDe Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max Avg Furnace: (8) @ 92% AFUE Upgrade $ 4 000 $ 9,600 $ 6,800 Reduced Duct Leakage/Testing( HERS upgrade $ 2,000 $ 4 000 $ 3,000 House wrap: 9,266 sf @ $0.08 to $0.12/sf Upgrade $ 745 $ 1 115 $ 930 R-49 roof insulation: 2,880 sf $0.19 to $0.22/sf Upgrade $ 550 $ 635 $ 593 50 gallon DHW: EF=0.62 from EF=0.58 $ - $ - $ - R-15 Wall Insulation: 9,266 sf @ $0.06 to $0.08/sf U rade $ 560 $ 745 $ 653 All DHW Pipe Insulation $ - $ - $ - Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficient Measures: $ 7,855 $ 15 095 $ 11,975 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.93 $ 1.91 $ 1.42 Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Marin County Green Building Ordinance, 12/10/09 Page 23 2.3 High-rise Multifamily Building The following is the energy design description of the high-rise multifamily building prototype which just meets the 2008 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards: CZ2: High-rise Residential: 4 -story 36,800 sf, 40 units, Window Wall Ratio=35.2% Measures R-19 in Metal Frame Walls R-6 (2" K-13 spray -on) Raised Slab over parking garage Vinyl Windows, NFRC U=0.36, SHGC=0.35 Split Heat Pumps: HSPF=7.2, EER=10.2 Central DHW boiler: 82.7% AFUE and recirculating system w/ timer -temperature controls & VSD hot water pump CZ3: High-rise Residential: 4 -story 36,800 sf, 40 units, Window Wall Ratio=35.2% Meet Title 24 R-30 Attic w/ Cool Roof Reflectance=0.30, Emittance=0.75 R-19 in Metal Frame Walls R-0 (un -insulated) raised slab over parking garage Low E2 Vinyl Windows, U=0.33, SHGC=0.30 (see Note 1) Split heat pumps: HSPF=7.2, EER=10.2 Central domestic DHW boiler: 82.7% AFUE and recirculating ,system w/ timer -temperature controls & VSD hot water pump Note 1: Includes a small amount of fixed overhangs aoove rrrst noon front renestranon CZ 2: Energy Measures Needed to Meet the County's Ordinance Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 15% High-rise Residential Prototype: 36,800 SF, Option 1 Climate Zone 2 Energy Efficiency Measures to Exceed Title 24 by 16% Change Type Incremental Cost Estimate MinR20,000 Ay R-30 Attic; Cool Roof Reflectance=0.70 Emittance=0.75 $ - $ - R-19 in Metal Frame Walls $ - $ - R-8 2.5' K-13 s ra -on Raised Slab over parkingarae Upgrade $ 3,680 $' 4,600 Vinyl Windows, NFRC U=0.33, SHGC=0.25; 6,240 sf $1.40 to $1.60/sf Upgrade $ 8,736 $ 9 360 (80) Room Heat Pumps: HSPF=7.84, eer-11.2 (No Ducts) @ $150 to $250/unit Upgrade $ 12,000 $ 16 000 Premium Efficiency DHW Hot Water Pump Upgrade $ 150 $ 250 $ 200 Total Incremental Cost of Ener EfficiencyMeasures: $ 24,566 $ 36,764 $ 30,160 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.67 $ 0.97 $ 0.82 Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Mann County Green Building Ordinance, 12/10/09 Page 24 Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 15% High-rise Residential Prototype: 36,800 SF, Option 2 Climate Zone 2 Energy Efficiency Measures to Exceed Title 24 by 15% Change Tvpe Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max Avg R-30Attic; Cool Roof Reflectance=0.70, Emittance=0.75 $ - $ $ R-19 in Metal Frame Walls + R-5 exterior rigid insulation 11,472 sf $5.00 to $8.00/sf Upgrade $ 57 360 $ 91,776 $ 74.568 R-6 2" K-13 spray -on) RaisedSlab over arkin arae $ - $ - $ - Vinyl Windows, NFRC U=0.33, SHGC=0.25; 6,240 sf @ $1.40 to $1.60/sf Upgrade $ 8,736 $ 9,984 $ 9.360 Split Heat Pumps: HSPF=7.2, EER=10.2 $ $ - $ - $ - 2 94% AFUE DHW boilers a $1500 to$2500 each U rade $ 3,000 $ 5,000 $ 4,000 Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficient Measures: $ 6-9,09-6- $106,760 $ 87 928 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: 0.94 $ 1.88 $ 2.90 $ 2.39 CZ 3• Energy Measures Needed to Meet the County's Ordinance See Section 2.1 for the description of the approach used to establish which energy measures are used to meet the proposed Ordinance for this prototype building design. Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 15% High-rise Residential Prototype: 36,800 SF, Option 1 Climate Zone 3 Energy Efficiency Measures to Exceed Title 24 by 15% Change Type Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max Avg R-30 Attic; Cool Roof Reflectance=0.30, Emittance=0.75 R-19 in Metal Frame Walls $ - $ - R-3 (1" K-13 spray -on) Raised Slab over parking garage 9,200 sf 1.20 to $1.50 sf Upgrade $ 11,040Vinyl W800$ Windows,NFRCU=0.33, SHGC=0.23; 6 240 sf $1.40 to $1.60/sf U rade $ 8,425 (80) Room Heat Pumps: HSPF=7.84, eer-11.2 (No Ducts) $150 to $250/unit U rade $ 12,000 $ 20,000 $ 16,000 2 94% AFUE DHW boilers P $1500 to$2500 each U rade $ 3,000 $ 5 000 $ 4,000 Total Incremental Cost of Ener Efficient Measures: $ 34,4651$ 48,160 $ 41,313 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 0.94 $ 1.31 $ 1.12 Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Marin County Green Building Ordinance, 12/10/09 Page 25 2.4 Nonresidential Buildings The following is the energy design description of the nonresidential building prototypes which just meet the 2008 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards: CLIMATE ZONE 2 The following energy design descriptions of nonresidential building prototypes must meet the 2008 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards in Climate Zone 2: CZ2: Nonresidential 2 -story office building: 21,160 sf, Window Wall Ratio= 37.1% R-19 in Metal Frame Walls R-0 (un -insulated) slab -on -grade 1st floor Windows NFRC U=0.50 and SHGCc=0.38, no exterior shading (248) 2 -lamp 4'T8 fixtures, 62w each; and (104) 26w CFLs @ 26w each; no lighting controls (beyond mandatory) (4) 10 -ton Packaged DX units EER=11.0, 4,000 cfm; and (4) 7.5 -ton Packaged DX units EER=11.0, 3,000 cfm; all standard efficiency fan motors R-4.2 duct insulation w/ ducts in conditioned space Standard 50 gallon gas water heater, EF=0.575 CZ2: Nonresidential 5 -story office building: 52,900 sf, Window Wall Ratio= 29.1% R-19 in Metal Frame Walls R-0 (un -insulated) slab -on -grade 1 st floor Windows NFRC U=0.50 and SHGCc=0.31, 2' overhang 1st floor front elevation only (720) 2 -lamp 4'T8 fixtures w/ high efficiency instant start ballasts & premium lamps, 50w; and (300) 18w CFLs @ 18w each; no lighting controls (beyond mandatory) (5) 30 -ton Packaged VAV units EER=10.4, 10,000 bfm; 20% VAV boxes w/ reheat; all standard efficiency fan motors R-4.2 duct insulation w/ ducts in conditioned space Standard hot water boiler, AFUE=80% Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Mann County Green Building Ordinance, 12110/09 Page 26 CZ2: Nonresidential 2 -story office building: 21,160 sf, Window Wall Ratio= 37.1% Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 15% Nonresidential Prototype: 21,160 SF, Option 1 Climate Zone 2 Energy Efficiency Measures to Exceed Title 24 by 15% Change Tvve Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max Avg R-38 Attic w/ No Cool Roof Max I $ - $ - $ $ R-19 in Metal Frame Walls $ $ - $ $ $ $ R''-0 un -insulated slab -on- rade 1st floor $ 30.632 R-0 un -insulated slab -on -grade 1st floor Windows, NFRC U=0.50, SHGC=0.31; 5 160 sf $2:0032 $3.00/sf Upgrade $ 10,320 $ 15 480 $ 12 900 (248) 2 -lamp 4' T8 fixtures w/ hign efficiency instant start ballasts & premium lamps, 50w $25.00 - $30.00 each Upqrade 1 $ 6,000 $ 7 200 $ 6!600 4 10 -ton Packaged DX units, EER= 13.4 @ $2300 - $2600 ea Upgrade $ 16,000 $ 24,000 $ 20,000 4 7.5 -ton Packaged DX units, EER= 13.4 $1950 - $2450 ea, Upgrade $ 12,000 $ 18,800 $ 15,400 8 Premium Efficiency supply fans @ $100 to $200 each Upgrade $ 800 $ 1,600 $ 1,200 R-4.2 duct insulation w/ ducts in conditioned space - $ - $ - $ - Standard 50 gallon gas water heater, EF=0.575 - $ - $ - $ - Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficiency Measures: 68,488 $ 45,120 $ 67,080 $ 56,100 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: 3.24 $ 2.13 $ 3.17 $ 2.65 Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 15% Nonresidential Prototype: 21.160 SF, Option 2 Climate Zone 2 Energy Efficiency Measures to Exceed Title 24 by 15% Change Type Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max I Avg R-38 Attic w/ No Cool Roof $ - $ - $ R-19 in Metal Frame Walls + R-6.5 (1") rigid insulation 8,752 sf a $3.00 to $4.00/sf $ 26,256 $ 35,008 $ 30.632 R-0 un -insulated slab -on -grade 1st floor Windows, NFRC U=0.50, SHGC=0.28; 5,160 sf @ $3.50 to $4.50/sf U lade 1 $ 18,060 $ 23,220 $ 20,640 (72) [30% on 2 -lamp sensors in small offices 4 T8 fixtures on (36) multi-level occupant each $65.00 to$85.00 each U rade $ 2,340 $ 3,060 $ 2,700 (248) 2 -lamp 4'T8 fixtures w/ high effciency start ballasts & remium lam s, 50w $25.00 - $30.00 each Upgrade $ 6,000 $ 7,200 $ 6,600 (4) 10 -ton Packaged DX uni s EER=11.0, 4,000 cfm; and (4) 7.5 -ton Packaged DX units EER=11.0, 3,000 cfm; all standard efficiency fan motors $ - $ - $ - R-4.2 duct insulation w/ ducts in conditioned space $ - $ - $ - Standard 50 gallon gas water heater, EF=0.575 $ - $ - $ - Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficiency Measures: $ 52L656 $ 68,488 $ 60,572 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 2.49 $ 3.24 $ 2.86 Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Marin County Green Building Ordinance, 12110109 Page 27 CZ2: Nonresidential 5 -story office building: 52,900 sf, Window Wall Ratio= 29.1% Energy Efficiency Measures to Exceed Title 24 by 15% Change Type Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max Avg R-38 Attic w/ Cool Roof Reflectance=0.70, Emittance=0.75 10,580 sf @ $0.40 to $0.60/sf Upgrade $ 4,235 $ 6,348 $ 5,292 R-19 in Metal Frame Walls Upgrade $ - $ - $ 30 632 R-0 un -insulated) slab -on -grade 1st floor Windows, NFRC U=0.50, SHGC=0.31; 5,160 sf $2.00 to $3.00/sf Ubarade $ - $ - $ - (180) [25% of] 2 -lamp 4 T8 fixtures on (90) multi-level occupant sensors in small offices @ $65.00 to $85.00 each Upgrade $ 5,850 $ 7,650 $ 6,750 T5 -)10 -ton Packaged DX units, EER= 11.0 w/ Premium fan motors $10,800 to $15,600 ea, Upgrade $ 54,000 $ 78,00-0- $ 6-6,000 R-4.2 duct insulation w/ ducts in conditioned space $ - $ - $ 1,250 Standard hot water boiler, AFUE=80%0 $ - $ - $ - Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficient Measures: $ 69,860 $ 85 650 $ 72,750 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 1.13 $ 1.621 $ 1.38 Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 15% Nonresidential Prototype: 52,900 SF, Option 2 Climate Zone 2 Energy Efficiency Measures to Exceed Title 24 by 15% Change Type Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max Avg R-38 Attic w/ Cool Roof Reflectance=0.70, Emittance=0.75 10,580 sf Q $0.40 to $0.60/sf Upgrade $ 4,235 $ 6 348 $ 5,292 R-19 in Metal Frame Walls + R-6.5 (1 ") rigid insulation 8,752 sf $3.00 to $4.00/sf Upgrade $ 26,256 $ 35008 $ 30 632 R-0 un -insulated slab -on -grade 1st floor Windows, NFRC U=0.50, SHGC=0.28; 8,500 sf @ $2.00 to $3.00/sf Ubarade I $ 17,000 $ 25 500 $ 21,250 (180) [25% of] 2 -lamp 4T8 fixtures on (90) multi-level occupant sensors in small offices @ $65.00 to $85.00 each Upgrade$ 5,850 $ 7,650 $ 6,750 (248) 2 -lamp 4'T8 fixtures w/ high efficiency instant start ballasts & premium lamps, 50w $25.00 - $30.00 each $ 6000 $ 7,200 $ 6600 (5) 30 -ton Packaged VAV units EER=10.4, 10,000 cfm; 20% VAV boxes w/ reheat; 10 Premium Effiiciency fan motors $ 1,000 $ 1,500 $ 1,250 R-4.2 duct insulation w/ ducts in conditioned space $ - $ - $ - Standard hot water boiler, AFUE=80% $ - $ - $ Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficient Measures: $ 56106 $ 76,868 $ 66,482 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 1.06 $ 1.45 $ 1.26 Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Mann County Green Building Ordinance, 12110/09 Page 28 CLIMATE ZONE 3 The following energy design descriptions of nonresidential building prototypes just meet the 2008 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards in Climate Zone 3: CZ3: Nonresidential 2 -story office building: 21,160 sf, Window Wall Ratio= 37.1% R-19 in Metal Frame Walls R-0 (un -insulated) slab -on -grade 1st floor Windows NFRC U=0.50 and SHGCc=0.38, no exterior shading (248) 2 -lamp 4'T8 fixtures, 62w each; and (104) 26w CFLs @ 26w each; no lighting controls (beyond mandatory) (4) 10 -ton Packaged DX units EER=11.0, 4,000 cfm; and (4) 7.5 -ton Packaged DX units EER=11.0, 3,000 cfm; all standard efficiency fan motors R-4.2 duct insulation w/ ducts in conditioned space Standard 50 gallon gas water heater, EF=0.575 CZ3: Nonresidential 5 -story office building: 52,900 sf, Window Wall Ratio= 29.1% to R-19 in Metal Frame Walls R-0 (un -insulated) slab -on -grade 1st floor Windows NFRC U=0.50 and SHGCc=0.38, no exterior shading (720) 2 -lamp 4'T8 fixtures w/ high efficiency instant start ballasts & premium lamps, 50w; and (260) 26w CFLs @ 26w each; no lighting controls (beyond mandatory) (5) 30 -ton Packaged VAV units EER=10.4, 10,000 cfm; 20% VAV boxes w/ reheat; all standard efficiency fan motors R-4.2 duct insulation w/ ducts in conditioned space Standard hot water boiler, AFUE=80% Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Marin County Green Building Ordinance, 12110/09 Page 29 CZ3: Nonresidential 2 -story office building: 21,160 sf, Window Wall Ratio= 37.1% Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 15% Nonresidential Prototype: 21.160 SF, Option 1 Climate Zone 3 Energy Efficiency Measures to Exceed Title 24 by 15% Change Type Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max I Av R-38 Attic + R-10 rigid insulation w/ Cool Roof Reflectance = 0.70, Emittance = 0.75 10,580 sf Q $1.75 to $2.351sf Upgrade $ 18,515 $ 24,865 $ 21,690 R-19 in Metal Frame Walls $ - $ - $ - R-0 un -insulated slab -on -grade 1st floor Windows, NFRC U=0.50, SHGC=0.31; 5,160 sf @ $2.00 to $3.00/sf Uparade 1 $ 10,320 $ 15,480 $ 12,900 (248) 2 -lamp 4 T8 fixtures w/ high efficiency instant start ballasts & premium lams 50w @ $25.00 - $30.00 each Uparade $ 6,200 $ 7,440 $ 6.820 (64) [26% of] 2 -lamp 4'T8 fixtures on (32) multi-level occupant sensors in small offices 0, $65.00 to $85.00 each Upgrade $ 2,080 $ 2,720 $ 2,400 (24) additional recessed CFL fixtures w/ all CFLs 18w lamps @ $175 to $250 each Upgrade $ 4,200 $ 6,000 $ 5 100 (4) 10 -ton Packaged DX units EER=11.0, 4,000 cfm; (4) 7.5 -ton Packaged DX units EER=11.0, 3,000 cfm; and 8 Premium Efficiency fan motors @ $100 to $200 each Upqrade $ 800 $ 1,600 $ 1,200 R-4.2 duct insulation w/ ducts in conditioned space $ -$ $ - $ - Standard 50 gallon gas water heater, EF=0.575 $ - $ - $ - Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficiency Measures: $ 42,115 $ 58,105 $ 60,110 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: 1.64 $ 1.99 $ 2.75 $ 2.37 CZ3: Nonresidential 5 -story office building: 52,900 sf, Window Wall Ratio= 29.1% Incremental Cost Estimate to Exceed Title 24 by 15% Nonresidential Prototype: 52,900 SF, Option 1 Climate Zone 3 Energy Efficiency Measures to Exceed Title 24 by 15% Change Type Incremental Cost Estimate Min Max Avg R-30 Attic w/ No Cool Roof $ - $ - $ R-19 in Metal Frame Walls $ - $ - $ R-0 un -insulated slab -on -grade Istfloor Windows NFRC U=0.50 and SHGCc=0.38 no exterior shading $ - $ - $ - (720) 2 -lamp 4'T8 fixtures w/ high efficiency instant start ballasts & premium lamps, 50w @ $25.00 - $30.00 each Upqrade $ 18,000 $ 21,600 $ 19,800 (240) 33% of] 2 -lamp 4'T8 fixtures on (120) multi-level occupant sensors in small offices 0 $65.00 to $85.00 each Upqrade $ 7,800 $ 10,200 $ 9,000 (40) additional recessed CFL fixtures w/ all CFLs 18w lamps $175 to $250 each Upgrade $ 7,000 $ 10.000 1 $ 8,500 (5) 10 -ton Packaged DX units, EER= 11.0 w/ Premium fan motors $10,800 to $15,600 ea, Upgrade $ 54,000 $ 78,000 $ 66,000 R-4.2 duct insulation w/ ducts in conditioned space $ $ - $ - Standard hot water boiler, AFUE=80% I$ $ - $ - Total Incremental Cost of Energy Efficiency Measures: $ 86,800 $119800 $103300 Total Incremental Cost per Square Foot: $ 1.64 $ 2.26 $ 1.95 Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Marin County Green Building Ordinance, 12110/09 Page 30 3.0 Cost Effectiveness The summary of results in this section are based upon the following assumptions: • Annual site electricity (kWh) and natural gas (therms) saved are calculated using a beta version of the state -approved energy compliance software for the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Micropas 8. • Average utility rates of $0.173/kWh for electricity and $1.151therm for natural gas in current constant dollars • No change (i.e., no inflation or deflation) of utility rates in constant dollars • No increase in summer temperatures from global climate change The Simple Payback data includes a cost-effectiveness analysis of the Ordinance with respect to each case study building design and assumes: • No external cost of global climate change -- and corresponding value of additional investment in energy efficiency and CO2 reduction — is included • The cost of money (e.g, opportunity cost) invested in the incremental cost of energy efficiency measures is not included. Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Marin County Green Building Ordinance, 12/10/09 Page 31 3.1 New Single Family Houses Climate Zone 2: 15% Better Than Title 24 Single Family Building Description Total Annual KWh Saving Total Annual Therms Saving Incremental First Cost M Annual Energy Cost Savings ($ Simple Payback (Years) 2,025 sf (Option 1 399 69 $2,011 $148 13.5 2,026 sf (Option 2 348 81 $2104 $153 13.7 Averages: 427 374 75 $2,057 $151 13.6 Annual Reduction in CO2 -equivalent: 1,041 Ib./building-year 0.51 Ib./sq.ft.-year Building Description Total Annual KWh Saving Total Annual Therms Saving Incremental First Cost M Annual Energy Cost Savings $ Simple Payback Years 2,682 sf (Option 1 524 71 $2,072 $172 12.0 2,682 sf (Option 2 338 111 $2,549 $186 13.7 2,682 sf (Option 3 427 92 $2327 $180 12.9 Averages: 430 91 $2316 $179 12.9 Annual Reduction in CO2 -equivalent: 1,2561b./building-year 0.47 Ib./sq.ft.-year Climate Zone 3: 15% Better Than Title 24 Single Family Annual Reduction in CO2 -equivalent: 808 Ib./building-year 0.51 Ib./sq.ft.-year Total Total Annual EnergySimple Simple Annual KWh I Annual Therms Incremental Cost Savings Payback Building Description Saving Saving First Cost $ $ Years 1,682 sf (Option 1 63 67 $1,888 $88 21.5 Annual Reduction in CO2 -equivalent: 808 Ib./building-year 0.51 Ib./sq.ft.-year Annual Reduction in CO2 -equivalent: 1,061 Ib./building-year 0.52 Ib./sq.ft.-year Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Mann County Green Building Ordinance, 12110109 Page 32 Total Total I Annual Energy Simple Annual KWh Annual Therms Incremental I Cost Savings Payback Building Description Saving Saving First Cost $ $) (Years) 2,025 sf (Option 1 81 88 $1,555 1 $115 1 13.5 Annual Reduction in CO2 -equivalent: 1,061 Ib./building-year 0.52 Ib./sq.ft.-year Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Mann County Green Building Ordinance, 12110109 Page 32 Climate Zone 2: 20% Better Than Title 24 Large Single Family Building Description Total Annual KWh Saving Total Annual Therms Saving Incremental First Cost $ Annual Energy Cost Savings ($) Simple Payback (Years) 5,000 sf (Option 1 908 129 $5,237 $305 17.1 5,000 sf (Option 2 1040 116 $4,637 $313 14.8 5,000 sf (Option 3) 850 148 $5,087 $317 16.0 Averages: 933 131 $4,987 $312 16.0 Annual Reduction in CO2 -equivalent: 1,945 Ib./building-year 0.39 Ib./sq.ft.-year Climate Zone 3: 20% Better Than Title 24 Large Single Family Building Description Total Annual KWh Saving Total Annual Therms Saving Incremental First Cost ($) Annual Energy Cost Savings ($) Simple Payback (Years) 5,000 sf (Option 1 171 146 $4,029 $197 20.4 5,000 sf (Option 2 93 161 $3,262 $201 16.2 Averages: 132 154 $3,646 $199 18.3 Annual Reduction in CO2 -equivalent: 1,846 Ib./building-year 0.37 Ib./sq.ft.-year Climate Zone 2: 30% Better Than Title 24 Large Single Family Building Description Total Annual KWh Saving Total Annual Therms Saving Incremental First Cost ($) Annual Energy Cost Savings ($) Simple Payback (Years) 6,500 sf (Option 1 1130 321 $12,020 $565 21.3 6,500 sf (Option 2 1029 26 $9,253 $398 23.2 Averages: 1080 174 $10,636 $481 22.3 Annual Reduction in CO2 -equivalent: 2,753 lb./building-year 0.42 Ib./sq.ft.-year Climate Zone 3: 30% Better Than Title 24 Large Single Family Building Description Total Annual KWh Saving_Saving Total Annual Therms Incremental First Cost $ Annual Energy Cost Savings $ Simple Payback Years 6,500 sf (Option 1 165 275 $8,043 $345 23.3 6,500 sf (Option 2 95 281 $7,793 $340 22.9 Averages: 130 278 $7,918 $342 23.1 Annual Reduction in CO2 -equivalent: 3,294 lb./building-year 0.51 Ib./sq.ft.-year Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Mann County Green Building Ordinance, 12/10109 Page 33 Climate Zone 2: Net Zero TDV Energy Large Single Family Building Description Total Annual KWh Saving Total Annual Therms Saving Incremental First Cost $ Annual Energy Cost Savings $) Simple Payback (Years) 7,600 sf (Option 1 1568 378 $41,119 $1,467 28.0 7,500 sf (Option 2 1582 378 $40,661 $1,470 27.7 Averages: 1575 378 $40,890 $1,468 27.8 Annual Reduction in CO2 -equivalent: 7,089 lb./building-year 0.95 Ib./sq.ft.-year Climate Zone 3: Net Zero TDV Energy Large Single Family Building Description Total Annual KWh Saving Total Annual Therms Saving Incremental First Cost $) Annual Energy Cost Savings $ Simple Payback (Years) 7,500 sf (Option 1 212 375 $23973 $849 28.3 7,500 sf (Option 2 205 375 $26,420 $847 30.0 Averages: 209 375 $24,696 $848 29.1 Annual Reduction in CO2 -equivalent: 5,449 Ib./building-year 0.73 IbJsq.ft. year 3.2 Low-rise Multi -family Building Climate Zone 2: 15% Better Than Title 24 Low-rise Apartments Building Description Total Annual KWh Saving Total Annual Therms Saving Incremental First Cost ($ Annual Energy Cost Savings $) Simple Payback (Years) 8,442 sf (Option 1 1575 261 $8,089 $573 14.1 8,442 sf (Option 2 1468 284 $6,388 $581 11.0 Averages: 1522 273 $7,238 $577 12.6 Annual Reduction in CO2 -equivalent: 3,8571b./building-year 0.10 Ib./sq.ft.-year Climate Zone 3: 15% Better Than Title 24 Low-rise Apartments Annual Reduction in CO2 -equivalent: 3,865Wbuilding-year 0.46 Ib./sq.ft.-year Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Marin County Green Building Ordinance, 12/10/09 Page 34 TotalTotal Annual Energy Simple Annual KWh Annual Therms Incremental Cost Savings Payback Building Description Saving Saving First Cost ($L $ (years) 8,442 sf (Option 1 363 318 $11,975 $428 27.9 Annual Reduction in CO2 -equivalent: 3,865Wbuilding-year 0.46 Ib./sq.ft.-year Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Marin County Green Building Ordinance, 12/10/09 Page 34 3.3 High-rise Multi -family Building Climate Zone 2: 15% Better Than Title 24 Hiah-rise Apartments Building Description Total Annual KWh Saving Total Annual Therms Saving Incremental First Cost $ Annual Energy Cost Savings $ Simple Payback ears 36,800 sf (Option 1 14292 0 $30,160 $2,473 12.2 36,800 sf (Option 2 9590 268 $87,428 $1,967 44.4 Averages: 11941 134 $58,794 $2,220 28.3 Annual Reduction in CO2 -equivalent: 6,933 lb✓building-year 0.19 Ib./sq.ft.-year Climate Zone 3: 15% Better Than Title 24 High-rise Apartments Annual Reduction in CO2 -equivalent: 6,598 Ib./building-year 0.18 Ib./sq.ft. year 3.4 Nonresidential Buildings Climate Zone 2: 15% Better Than Title 24 2 -Story Office Buildin_q Building Description Total Total Incremental First Cost $ Annual Energy Simple 21,160 sf (Option 1 Annual KWh Annual Therms Incremental Cost Savings Payback Building Description Saving Saving First Cost $ $ (Years) 36,800 sf (Option 1 10032 179 1 $40,513 $1,941 20.9 Annual Reduction in CO2 -equivalent: 6,598 Ib./building-year 0.18 Ib./sq.ft. year 3.4 Nonresidential Buildings Climate Zone 2: 15% Better Than Title 24 2 -Story Office Buildin_q Building Description Total Annual KWh Saving Total Annual Therms Saving Incremental First Cost $ Annual Energy Cost Savings $ Simple Payback Years 21,160 sf (Option 1 19085 -95 $56,100 $3,192 17.6 21,160 sf (Option 2 15862 90 $60 572 $2848 21.3 Averages: 17474 -3 $58,336 $3,020 19.4 Annual Reduction in CO2 -equivalent 7,834 lb./building-year 0.37 Ib./sq.ft.-year Climate Zone 3: 15% Better Than Title 24 2 -Story Office Building Annual Reduction in CO2 -equivalent: 7,809 lb./building-year 0.37 Ib./sq.ft.-year Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Marin County Green Building Ordinance, 12110109 Page 35 Total Total I Annual Energy I Simple Annual KWh Annual Therms I Incremental Cost Savings Payback Building Description Saving Saving First Cost ($) $ ears) 21,160 sf (Option 1 19294 -75 $49,670 1 $3,262__L 15.3 Annual Reduction in CO2 -equivalent: 7,809 lb./building-year 0.37 Ib./sq.ft.-year Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Marin County Green Building Ordinance, 12110109 Page 35 Climate Zone 2: 15% Better Than Title 24 5 -Story Office Building Building Description Total Annual KWh Saving Total Annual Therms Incremental Saving First Cost $ Annual Energy Cost Savings $ Simple Payback Years 52,900 sf (Option 1 40514 -506 $80,417 $6,427 12.5 52,900 sf (Option 2 35774 -653 $39,917 $5438 7.3 Averages: 38144 -580 $60,167 $5,932 9.9 Annual Reduction in CO2 -equivalent: 10,419 Ib./building-year 0.20 Ib.1sq.ft. year Climate Zone 3: 15% Better Than Title 24 5 -Story Office Building Annual Reduction in CO2 -equivalent: 38,046 lb./building-year 0.72 IbJsq.ft. year Conclusions Regardless of the building design, occupancy profile and number of stories, the incremental improvement in overall annual energy performance of buildings under the Marin Green Building Ordinance and the 2008 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards appears cost-effective. However, each building's overall design, occupancy type and specific design choices may allow for a large range of incremental first cost and payback. As with simply meeting the requirements of the Title 24 energy standards, a permit applicant complying with the energy requirements of the Marin Green Building Ordinance should carefully analyze building energy performance to reduce incremental first cost and the payback for the required additional energy efficiency measures. Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Mann County Green Building Ordinance, 12110/09 Page 36 Total Total Annual Energy Simple Annual KWh Annual Therms Incremental Cost Savings 11 Payback Building Description Saving Saving First Cost ($) $ (Years) 62,900 sf O tion 1 47039 1450 $92,300 i 805 9.4 Annual Reduction in CO2 -equivalent: 38,046 lb./building-year 0.72 IbJsq.ft. year Conclusions Regardless of the building design, occupancy profile and number of stories, the incremental improvement in overall annual energy performance of buildings under the Marin Green Building Ordinance and the 2008 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards appears cost-effective. However, each building's overall design, occupancy type and specific design choices may allow for a large range of incremental first cost and payback. As with simply meeting the requirements of the Title 24 energy standards, a permit applicant complying with the energy requirements of the Marin Green Building Ordinance should carefully analyze building energy performance to reduce incremental first cost and the payback for the required additional energy efficiency measures. Energy Cost -Effectiveness Study for the Mann County Green Building Ordinance, 12110/09 Page 36 tA lf t k -, V ;I E i it'l R L� WE Prerequisite 1: Water Use Reduction Required Intent To increase water efficiency within the tenant space to reduce the burden on municipal water supply and wastewater systems. Requirements Employ strategies that in aggregate use 2o% less water than the water use baseline calculated for the tenant space (not including irrigation). Calculate the baseline according to the commercial and/or residential baselines outlined below.' Calculations are based on estimated occupant usage and must include only the following fixtures and fixture fittings (as applicable to the project scope): water closets, urinals, lavatory faucets, showers, kitchen sink faucets and prerinse sprayvalves. `GnmMetctaTRXfutesr FIStrlrgsr arytt dlllllr�beea �_ Cii"gegt Ba"se(ih,�' - _ Residential toilets 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf)* Commercial toilets Except blow-out fixtures: 3.5 (got) Commercial urinals 1.0 (gpf) 2.5 (gpm) at BO (psi) per shower stall**** 2.2 gallons per minute (gpm) at 60 pounds per square inch (psi), private applications only In addition to EPAct requirements, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers standard for public lavatory faucets is 0.5 gpm at 60 psi (ASME A)12.18.1- (hotel or motel guest rooms, hospital patient rooms) Commercial lavatory (restroom) faucets 0.5 (gpm) at 60 (psi)** all others except private applications waterfalls, bodysprays, bodyspas antl let,, must be limited to the allowable showerhead flow rate as specified above (2.5 gpm) per shower compartment, where 0.25 gallons per cycle for metering faucets Commercial prerinse spray valves Flow rates 1.6 (gpm) (far food service applications) (no pressure specified; no performance requirement) 'liesr5tential t:ikEtiYe5 Flflln�si-gnri-3Vpp11anGCs Gtrrdtir$39EII(i0 - „ Residential toilets L6 (gpf)*** Residential lavatory (bathroom) faucets 2.2 (gpm) at 60 psi Residential kitchen faucet Residential showerheads 2.5 (gpm) at BO (psi) per shower stall**** EPAct 1992 standard for toilets applies to both commercial and residential models, In addition to EPAct requirements, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers standard for public lavatory faucets is 0.5 gpm at 60 psi (ASME A)12.18.1- 2005). This maximum has been incorporated into the national Uniform Plumbing Code and the International Plumbing Code. ' EPAct 1992 standard for toilets applies to bath commercial and residential models. "Residential shower compartment (stall) In dwelling units: The total allowable flow rale from all flowing showerheads at any given time, including rain systems, waterfalls, bodysprays, bodyspas antl let,, must be limited to the allowable showerhead flow rate as specified above (2.5 gpm) per shower compartment, where the floor area of the shower compartment Is less than 2,500 square Inches. For each increment of 2,500 square inches of floor area thereafter or part thereof, an additional showerhead with total allowable Flaw rate from all flowing devices equal to or less than the allowable flow rate as specified above must be allowed. Exception: Showers that emit recirculated remissible water originating from within the shower compartment while operating are allowed to exceed the maximum as long as the total potable water flow does not exceed the flow rate as specified above, I Tablim cdaix ed firolm¢n'ormatnon developed.all dSea marjudby Ona I.S. Ea,. iron men tat Rroecnt iAgency(IPA) Office of Water basad on axoireinents of Dwrg)° Policy Act (EPAct) ofigga andsubscquent udingsby the Deparuncin of Energy, requlremaats of the.EPiu tofapog. addrhoph.lmbntgcode icquireelents as stated m Iu..oCaSs!d erns oftheuniform Phentung Connor Inten.conal Plrtrnb tg Cc,depu-[ainir, enPixtury per fen l.rF:'.D 200`) FOR C',"?F✓Sf,'^.^,':.Ri;iAl. ihTFR10RS 9 EXHIBIT 6 EA Prerequisite 3: Fundamental Refrigerant Management Required Intent To reduce stratospheric ozone depletion Requirements Zero use of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) -based refrigerants in tenant heating, ventilating, air conditioning and refrigeration (HVAC&R) systems usedwithin the LEED project scope of work. Potential Technologies & Strategies For new installations, specify new HVAC equipment that uses no CFC -based refrigerants. When reusing existing HVAC systems, conduct an inventory to identify equipment that uses CFC -based refrigerants and replace or retrofit these systems with non -CFC refrigerants. Project teams are encouraged to either locate in buildings that have no CFC -based refrigerants or to influence the building owner to use such systems to reduce ozone depletion. UEED 2009 FOR COM=fi..RCIA'. !NTER!ORS 16 EA Credit 1.3: Optimize Energy Performance—HVAC 5-10 points Intent To achieve increasing levels of energy conservation beyond the prerequisite standard to reduce environmental and economic impacts associated with excessive energy use. - Requirement OPTION 1 Implement t or both of the following strategies: • Equipment Efficiency—(5 points) Install heating,ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems that complywith the efficiency requirements outlined in the New Building Institute's Advanced Buildings- Core Performance" Guide Sections 1.4: Mechanical System Design, 2.9: Mechanical Equipment Efficiency and 3.t o: Variable Speed Control. • Appropriate Zoning and Controls: (s points) Zone tenant fit out of spaces to meet the following requirements: • Every solar exposure must have a separate control zone. • Interior spaces must be separately zoned. • Private offices and special occupancies (conference rooms, kitchens, etc.) must have active controls capable of sensing space use and modulating the HVAC system in response to space demand. OR OPTION 2 Reduce design energy cost compared with the energy cost budget for regulated energy components described in the requirements of ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007 (with errata but without addenda`) AND PATH 1 (5 points) Demonstrate that HVAC system component performance criteria used for tenant space are 1S% better than a system in minimum compliance with ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 9o.r-zoo7 (with errata but without addenda'). OR PATH 2 (10 points) Demonstrate that HVAC system component performance criteria used for tenant space are 3o% better than a system that is in minimum compliance with ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007 (with errata but without addenda'). r Yroj"t tcamawislmv,tonne. UI RAC;, appaoved ad0endgwrt1 .acposesdk lsredit maydosoal d1eir discrckiofl. Aklkl r a n:Usl be _applied commiswntly Across aIlIXED credits. i.El-D %00`' FOR (;0NIMERCW, NTERIOPz: 19 ACKERET ♦ SHERON LLP ATTORNEYS December 15, 2009 By Hand Delivery San Rafael Planning Commission 1400 Fifth Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Re: Planning Commission Meeting—December 15, 2009 Green Building Regulations Dear Commission Members: This letter is being submitted for the record in hopes that the Commission will not recommend approval by the City Council of the Green Building Regulations being presented at this time. This firm represents a commercial property owner in San Rafael and Corte Madera, with one such building being in excess of 100,000 square feet. While my client supports reasonable environmental building requirements, approval of these regulations is premature for both procedural and substantive reasons. Procedural Issues: My client—and presumably other commercial property owners— were not notified that this legislation was being drafted and considered. That lack of notice to commercial property owners, and the resulting lack of input, means the people most affected by the commercial remodel requirements were not given an opportunity to provide input. While the commercial brokerage industry was consulted—albeit late in the process—and evidently gave input that led to favorable changes, this is no substitute for the input and participation of the commercial property owners themselves. According to Bob Brown, notice was given by newspaper publication because the number of property owners exceeded 1,000. Publication of constructive notice may have saved some money in notice costs, but actual notice would be more appropriate so those actually affected by the new regulations are given the opportunity to be heard. A notice could have been send by postcard, or included with property tax bills, or provided in some fashion reasonably designed to provide actual notice to as many property owners as possible. Substantive Issues: Substantively, the regulations do not adequately address the following issues and concerns: whether property owners will delay—or avoid altogether—upgrades that will otherwise improve the appearance, utility and safety of their properties, 890 LAMONT AVENUE, SUITE 202 * NOVATO, CALIFORNIA U,S.A. 94945-4100 TELEPHONE: (415) 898-3200 + FACSIMILE; (415) 897-6526 c�sss�W'A San Rafael Planning Commission December 15, 2009 Page 2 such as electrical and plumbing upgrades, roof replacements, new paint jobs, additional parking, maintenance and repairs, etc.; • whether the recommended use of "accredited professionals" for building certification will actually correct the "notoriously slow and costly" certification process; • whether new tenants will be lost, and vacancies be extended or go unfilled because of additional costs and delays; • whether there is a prompt and fair process (including appeals) for an aggrieved property owner; and • whether the new requirements will trigger property tax increases. Conclusion: While green building requirements are certainly necessary and appropriate in this day and age, the process for developing the applicable regulations should be as fair and inclusive as possible, with reasonable and actual notice being given to those who will be affected the most. And the regulations themselves should not hinder the filling of vacancies and the expansion of the City's business base. Nor should the regulations themselves create a disincentive for property owners to put money into their properties and to take good care of them for fear of triggering additional requirements and expenses. Finally, if the changes that would be mandated by these regulations are cost effective and beneficial to the property owners in terms of energy savings and increased values, then voluntary compliance should be sufficient. Rather than rush these regulations through, the Commission should give the proposed building standards an opportunity to prove their own worth in the community. It is worthwhile to see whether the arguments in favor of these regulations are accurate. Thank you for your time and attention in this important matter. Sincerely, 5383.000/12PIanning Commission SR 01 CITY OF Mayor Albert J Boro C1 am gzq I'v Council Members Greg Brockbank Damon Connolly Barbara Heller Marc Levine COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION. P.O. BOX 151560, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94915 TEL. (415) 485-3085 • FAX (415) 485-3184 CITY OF SAN RAFAEL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following project: PROJECT: Green Building Regulations (citywide): Proposed Amendments to the San Rafael Municipal Code to update green building requirements by replacing Section 14.16.365 with a new Chapter 12.44 (Green Building Requirements) and amending Chapters 12.16 (California Plumbing Code), Chapter 12,20 (California Electrical Code) and Chapter 12.12 (California Building Code) to include local code amendments requiring pre -wiring and pre -plumbing for future solar photovoltaic and solar hot water systems in new buildings, insulating exposed hot water pipes in remodeling projects and adding a radiant barrier in certain reroofing projects. Applicant: City of San Rafael, File No.: P09-020. As required by state law, the project's potential environmental impacts have been assessed. Planning staffrecommends that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section/5308. /fthe City Council determines that this project is in an environmentally sensitive area, further studies may be required HEARING DATE: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 at 8:00 P.M. LOCATION: San Rafael City Hall — City Council Chambers 1400 Fifth Avenue at "D" Street San Rafael, California WHAT WILL You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and decide whether to HAPPEN: approve the project application. IF YOU CANNOT You can send a letter to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of San Rafael, P.O. ATTEND: Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560. You can also hand deliver it prior to the meeting. FOR MORE Contact Bob Brown, Community Development Director, at (415) 485-3090 or bob.brown@ci.san- INFORMATION: rafael.ca.us. You can also come to the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office is open from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM, weekdays. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL r451� ErutCicc Esther Beime CITY CLERK At the above time and place, all letters received will be noted and all interested parties will be heard. If you challenge in court the matter described above, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public hearing. (Government Code Section 65009(6)(2)). Judicial review of an administrative decision of the City Council must be filed with the Court not later than the 9e day following the date of the Council's decision. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6) Sign language interpretation and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3085 (voice) or (415) 485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies ofdocuments are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gale Transit, Line 20 or 23. Para -transit is available by calling Whistlestop Wheels at (415) 454-0964. To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested to refrain from wearing scented products. EXHIBIT 8 Marin Independent lournal 150 Alameda del Prado PO Box 6150 Novato, California 94948-1535 (415) 382-7335 legals@marinij.com - CITY OF SAN RAFAEL PO BOX 151560/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT, 1400 FIFTH AVE SAN RAFAEL CA 94915-1560 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Marin FILE NO. 0003354918 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above matter. 1 am the principal clerk of the printer of the MARIN INDEPENDENT JOURNAL, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published daily in the County of Marin, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Marin, State of California, under date of FEBRUARY 7, 1955, CASE NUMBER 25565; that the notice, of which the annexed Is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to -wit: 1/4/2010 I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated this 4th day of January, 2010. �--e \wXVvvw�J Signature U PROOF OF PUBLICATION Legal No. 0003354918 CIT/ OF SAN RAFAEL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING You are Invited to attend the City Council hewing on the following project As required by state law, the urojebYs potential environmental Impacts have been assessed. Plan nine staff recommends that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and Is Categorically Exempt from the ppprovisions of the California Envlronmentai Quality Act (CEQA) under this projactIs Intan a vironmenftally sensitivehat area, further studies maybe required. HEAIBNGDATEI Tuesday, January 19, 2010 at Ik00 PAI. LOCATION: San Rafael City Hall - City Council Chambers 1400 Fifth Avenue at "D' Street San Rafael, California WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You can comment on the projecL The City Council will consider all public testimony and decide whether to approve the project application. IFYOUCANNOTATIEND. You can send a letter to the Community Develop ment Department, Planning Olvlsion.0 of San Rules" P.O. Box 15156, San Rafael, CA 915.1550. You can also hand deliver R prior to the meeting. FOR MORE INFORMATIONrContact Bob Brown, Community Devei po m�e Director, at (4104115- 3090 or bo Yafaal. a You can also come to the Planning Division office located In City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at {he file for the proposed project. The office Is open from &Do AM [0 5:00 PM, weekdays. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL Esther EstBelme her CITY CLERK NO.2325 JANUARY 4, 2009