The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012/01/10 Item 05CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~,~_; ~~t/~ CITY OF '~` CHULA VISTA Item No.: Meeting Date:01/10/2012 ITEM TITLE: ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 15.12, GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS, OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE, ADDING SECTION 15.12.030, COOL ROOF SUBMITTED BY: Assistant City Mana evelopment Services Director REVIEWED BY: City Manager 4/STHS VOTE: YES ~ NO SUMMARY On May 3, 2011, City Council approved Resolution 2011-076 adopting Climate Adaptation Plans for the 11 Climate Adaptation Strategies. Strategy # 3, Cool Roofs, proposed amending the current California Green Buildings Standards Code to require cool roofs on new residential developments. This Ordinance proposes adopting mandatory cool roof measures on new residential developments in Climate Zone 10; the most eastern part of the City. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity falls within the Class 8 Categorical Exemption pursuant to California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 19 (the "State CEQA Guidelines") section 15308 and therefore is exempt from environmental review; and notwithstanding the Class 8 Categorical Exemption, the Director of Development Services has further determined that there is also no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, pursuant to section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is exempt From the provisions of CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is required. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council place the ordinance on first reading. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Board of Appeals and Advisors at their Monday, November 14, 2011 meeting unanimously recommended adoption of the Ordinance. 5-1 Item No.: S Meeting Date: 01/10/2012 Page 2 of 8 The Energy Subcommittee at their Monday, December 12, 2011 meeting unanimously recommended adoption of the Ordinance. The Resource Conservation Commission at their Monday, December 12, 2011 meeting unanimously recommended adoption of the Ordinance. DISCUSSION On May 3, 2011, City Council approved Resolution 2011-076 adopting the proposed Climate Adaptation Plans for the 11 Climate Adaptation Strategies. Strategy # 3, Cool Roofs, proposed amending the current California Green Buildings Standards Code (CalGreen) to require cool roofs on new low-rise residential developments (3-story or less single-family and multi-family). Currently, cool roofs are voluntary measures in CalGreen and the Implementation Plan proposed making these measures mandatory. CalGreen's residential voluntary measures for cool roofs aze categorized into two tiers: Tier 1 and Tier 2. Tier 1 standards meet ENERGY STAR and California Energy Commission (CEC) minimum specifications for cool roofs, while Tier 2 standards require higher "coolness" levels than Tier 1. Urban Heat Islands and Cool Roofs Annual average temperatures are expected to increase up to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050 with summer temperatures increasing even higher. These higher temperatures, combined with a larger regional population, could result in peak electricity demand growing by over 70% compared to current levels. Urban and suburban areas are chazacterized by dry and impervious surfaces such as conventional roofs, roads and parking lots that strongly absorb sunlight causing air temperatures in these areas to be higher than those in surrounding areas. This elevation in air temperature is called an urban heat island. Urban heat islands increase discomfort for everyone, require an increase in the amount of energy used for cooling purposes, and increases the formation and concentration of smog. Dark-colored roofing materials absorb sunlight, become hot in the sun and transmit the heat into the home and the atmosphere. White or cool color roofs absorb less sunlight therefore staying cooler and transmitting less heat. This reduces the need for cooling energy if the house is air- conditioned, or lowers the inside air temperature if the house is not cooled. Cool roofs, which are made of highly reflective and emissive material that can remain cooler than traditional materials, can help mitigate the problem of urban heat island by lowering the ambient temperature inside and outside of buildings, providing a more comfortable and healthy environment, and by reducing energy use for air-conditioning. The "coolness" of a roof is determined by two properties; Solar reflectance (SR) and Thermal Emittance (TE) and their combined effects on temperature. SR is the fraction of sunlight that is reflected, and TE is the efficiency with which a surface cools itself by emitting thermal radiation. Both are measured on a scale of 0 to 1, the higher the value the cooler the roof. Anplication to the California Enemy Commission ~ San Diego Foundation. "Focus 2050 Study: San Diego's Changing Climate." 2008 5-2 Item No.: S Meeting Date: 01/10/2012 Page 3 of 8 The Implementation Plan discussed the need to meet the requirements and follow the process established by Section 10-106 of the CA Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 1; Locally Adopted Energy Standards (Section 10-106) before the mandatory requirements can take effect. Even though staff is not proposing amending the California Energy Code to require cool roofs, it is the CEC's opinion that because cool roofing is one of the options available to builders under the performance method of compliance with the Energy Code and it plays a role in the energy efficiency of buildings, mandating cool roofs will need to go through the process outlined in Section 10-106. The process is similar to the process the City had to follow when it adopted increased energy efficiency standards. It involved acost-effectiveness analysis, a City Council determination that the proposed requirements are cost-effective, and submittal of the proposed requirements to the CEC after the ordinance's first reading by City Council. The CEC's review can take up to three months. Per Section 10-106, before local energy efficiency standards can take effect, the CEC must make the finding "that the standards will require buildings to be designed to consume no more energy than permitted by Part 6 [California Energy Code." The application to the CEC must include 1) the proposed ordinance (after a public hearing and first reading), 2) a study/analysis showing how the City determined energy savings, 3) a statement that the standards will require buildings to be designed to consume no more energy than permitted by the California Energy Code, and 4) the basis of the City's determination that the standards are cost effective. Cost-Effectiveness Study A cost-effectiveness study (Attachment B) was prepared by energy consulting firm Gabel Associates, LLC (GA). The study analyzed a 2,500 square foot, 2-story single family house and an 8,442 square foot, 8 unit 2-story multi-family building in Climate Zones 7 and 10 to consider the cost effectiveness of going from no cool roof requirements to Tier 1 and Tier 2 levels specified in CalGreen. Attachment C, Climate Zones Map, shows the two Climate Zones the City falls within. The following two tables represent the voluntary Tier 1 and Tier 2 levels in CalGreen: TiT. A 1 Min. 3-yr. Aged Solar Thermal Roof Sloe Roof Wei ht Climate Zone Reflectance Emittance SRI ~°~ Low-sloped ~ N/A 13 & 15 0.55 0.75 64 <_ 2:12 Steep-sloped <S lb/ft - 10-15 0.20 0.75 16 > 2:12 > 5 Lb/ft 1-16 0.15 0.75 10 TTL`D 1 Min. 3-yr. Aged Solar Thermal Roof Sloe Roof Wei ht Climate Zone Reflectance Emittance SRI ~°~ Low-sloped N/A 2,4,6-li 0.65 0.85 78 <_ 2:12 Steep-sloped N/A 2,4,6-15 0.23 0.85 20 > 2:12 5-3 Item No.:Jr Meeting Date: 01/10/2012 Page 4 of 8 (I) Examples oflow-sloped rooting are thermoplastic membranes and elastomeric coatings. (2) Examples of steep-sloped lightweight (<516/ft~'); asphalt shingles and metal roofing. (3) Examples of steep-sloped heavyweight (? Slb/ft~); clay and concrete tile. (4) SRI (Solar Reflectance Index) is a single value that incorporates both SR and TE and is a measure of fhe roof s ability to reject solaz heat. It is measured on a scale of 0 to 100, the higher the value the cooler the roof. The majority of new low-rise residential developments in the City will have steep-sloped roofs with the roofing ? 5 lb/ft2. The methodology used in the study is based on how real buildings are designed and evaluated in meeting or exceeding the energy standards. The study takes into account the City's increased building energy efficiency standards (15% and 20% above Title 24 for Climate Zone 7 (CZ 7) and Climate Zone 10 (CZ 10), respectively) when the base case for each building design was established. Using astate-approved software, Micropas v8.1, a series of computer simulations were performed at Tier 1 and Tier 2 levels with and without a radiant barrier (RB). The reason for including RB in the analysis is that builders have frequently utilized radiant barriers as one of the measures used towards meeting the City's increased energy efficiency standards. RB is a reflective foil applied to the underside of the roof sheathing and reflects radiant heat away from the attic reducing the temperature in the attic and house. RB is cost effective and tends to provide greater energy savings than Tier 1 or Tier 2 levels of cool roofing. The incremental energy savings from a cool roof tends to decrease when installed on a roof that has RB. Based on the results of this study, discussed later in this report, the presence of RB reduced the incremental energy saving of the cool roof. The average incremental cost used in the study for Tier 1 and Tier 2 measures are based on recent data from a CEC study on the incremental cost of various cool roofs and aze as follows: Roof Sloe Wei ht T e Avg. Incremental Cost $/ft~ Flat/Low Slope (<_ 2:12) N/A Thermoplastic membranes and elastomeric coatis s 0.50 Stee -slo e (> 2a2) Li htwei ht As halt shin les and metal roofin 0.05 Stee -sloe (> 2:12) Hea wet ht Clay and concrete the 0.05 The results of the study are based on the assumption that the house has air-conditioning; there is cooling energy savings, and that utility rates and summer temperature do not change over time. The average rate for electricity used in the study is $0.19/1cWh and for natural gas is $1.14/therm. The determination of cost-effectiveness is based on the simple payback period of the measure compared to the useful life of the material. Based on CEC data, the useful life of lightweight and coating cool roofs is assumed to be I S yeazs, and for steep-slope heavyweight cool roofs to be 30 years. A payback period of around 15 years or less for built-up roofing or asphalt shingles would be considered cost-effective, and around 30 years or less for tile. Results and Observations for Climate Zone 7 The following tables are the results of the study for Climate Zone 7, with and without RB. None of the measures resulted in a simple payback period around or less than the useful life of the measure. 5-4 Item No.: Meeting Date: 01/10/2012 Page 5 of 8 Table 1:2.500 SF Sinele-Family House. CZ 7. Without Radiant Barrier Description Total kWh/Yr Savin Total Therms/Yr Savin Incremental First Cost ($) Cost Savings ($/Yr) Simple Payback (Years) Cost Effective Stee -slo e, Li htweiQh[ Tier 1 14 0 $75 $3 28.2 No Stee -slo e, Hea wei ht: Tier 1 5 1 $75 $2 35.9 No Stee -slo e, Li htwei ht: Tier 2 24 -3 $75 $1 65.8 No Stee -slo e, Heavywei ht: Tier 2 25 -3 $75 $1 56.4 No Table 2: 2500 SF Sinele-Family House. CZ 7. With Radiant Barrier Description Total kWh/Yr Savin Total Therms/Yr Savin Incremental First Cost ($) Cost Savings ($/Yr) Simple Payback (Years) Cost Effective Stee -slo e, Li htwei ht: Tier 1 7 0 $75 $1 56.4 No Stee -slo e, Hea wei ht: Tier 1 0 1 $75 $1 65.8 No Stee -slo e, Li~htwei ht: Tier 2 7 -2 $75 -$1 -78.9 No ' Stee -slo e, Heavyweight: Tier 2 l0 -2 $75 $0 -197.4 No TahlP 4 ~ R 447 SF Mnlti-Family hnilrlina_ ('.7 7_ Without Radiant Bawler Description Total Total Incremental Cost Simple Cost kWh/Yr Therms/Yr First Cost Savings Payback Effective Savin Savin ($) ($/Yr) (Years) Low-slo e: Tier 1 305 -15 $2,111 $41 51.7 No Low-slo e: Tier 2 362 -26 $2,111 $39 53.9 No TahlP d~ R dd'J CF Mnlti-Family hnilAino C'7 7 With Radiant Barrier Description To[al Total Incremental - Cost Simple Cost kWh/Yr Therms/Yr First Cost Savings Payback Effective Savin Savin ($) ($/Yr) (Years) Low-slo e: Tier 1 116 -8 $2,111 $13 163.4 No Low-slo e:Tier2 149 -15 $2,1L1 - $11 188.3 No Based on the site energy results of the study for the Single-Family house (Tables 1 and 2), neither Tier 1 nor Tier 2 Lightweight or Heavyweight roof types for steep-sloped roofs in CZ 7 appear to be cost effective. CZ 7 is a mild climate with very low air-conditioning use. Even though the average incremental cost for steep-sloped cool roofs used in the study is only $0.05/sf ($75 Fora 2,500 sq. ft. house), the incremental cooling energy savings from Tier 1 or Tier 2 cool roofs is projected to be very small in order to recover the incremental cost within the expected useful life of the cool roof. In addition, and as the tables above show, because cool roofs keep the house cooler in the winter, there is an incremental heating energy use (heating penalty) for when heating the house during the winter season. For the same reasons discussed above, the modeled two story multi-family building with low- sloped or flat roof also appears not to be cost effective in CZ 7 (Tables 3 and 4). Even though both Tiers in CZ 7 do not appear to be cost effective, Tier 1 has a shorter payback period than Tier 2. This is mainly due to the higher heating penalty (incremental Therms/Yr 5-5 Item No.: Meeting Date: 01/10/2012 Page 6 of 8 used) for Tier 2. In addition, roofs without RB tend to have shorter payback periods than those with RB. Results and Observations for Climate Zone 10 The following tables are the results of the study for Climate Zone 10, with and without RB. All of the measures resulted in a simple payback period around or less than the useful life of the measure; they are cost effective. Table 5: 2,500 SF Single-Family House, CZ 10, Without Radiant Barrier Description Total kWh/Yr Savin Total Therms/Yr Savin Incremental First Cost ($) Cost Savings ($/Yr) Simple Payback (Years) Cost Effective Stee -slo e, Li htweiaht: Tier 1 61 0 $75 $ l2 6.5 Yes Stee -slo e, Heav wei ht: Tier 1 10 2 $75 $4 17.9 Yes Stee -slo e, Li htwei ht: Tier 2 142 -4 $75 $22 3.3 Yes Steep-slope, Heavyweight: Tier 2 142 -4 $75 $22 3.3 Yes Table 6: 2,500 SF Single-Family House, CZ 10, With Radiant Barrier Description Total kWh/Yr Savin Total Therms/Yr Savin Incremental Firs[ Cost ($) Cost Savings ($/Yr) Simple Payback Years) Cost Effective Stee -slo e, Li htwei ht: Tier 1 29 0 $75 $6 13.6 Yes Stee -slo e, Heav wei ht: Tier 1 7 1 $75 $2 30.4 Yes Stee -slo e, Li htwei ht: Tier2 66 -2 $75 $10 7.3 Yes Stee -slo e, Heav weight: Tier 2 68 -2 $75 $1l 7.0 Yes Table 7: 8,442 SF Multi-Family building, CZ 10, Without Radiant Barrier Description Total Tota] Incremental Cost Simple Cost kWh/Yr Therms/Yr First Cost Savings Payback Effective Savin Savino ($) $/Yr) (Years) Low-s to e: Tier 1 1410 -24 $2,111 $241 8.8 Yes Low-slo e: Tier 2 1864 -41 $2,111 $307 6.9 Yes Table 8: 8,442 SF Multi-Family building, CZ 10, With Radiant Barrier Description Total Total Incremental Cost Simple Cost kWh/Yr Therms/Yr First Cost Savings Payback Effective Savin Savin ($) ($/Yr) (Years) Low-slo e: Tier 1 734 -12 $2,111 $l26 16.8 Yes Low-slo e: Tier2 9S2 -23 $2,lll $160 13.2 Yes CZ 10 is a harsher climate that CZ 7 and therefore has much greater cooling loads and incremental cooling energy savings. Based on the site energy results of the study, both Tier 1 and Tier 2 measures appeaz to be cost effective for steep-sloped and low-sloped roofs, with and without radiant barriers. Roofs that do not have a radiant barrier appear to be more cost effective (shorter payback periods) than those that do. In addition, Tier 2 measures appear to be more cost effective than Tier 1. Local Construction Practices and Staff Reseazch 5-6 Item No.: 5 Meeting Date: 01/10/2012 Page 7 of 8 The majority of new residential developments in the City will have steep-sloped roofs with concrete or clay the roofing. Locally, Eagle Roofing and MonierLifetile are the two dominant the roofing products and most of their the products meet Tier 1 level, and they have a wide variety of types, shapes and colors that meet Tier 21eve1. Both manufacturers informed staff that they do not do anything special to the tiles to make them "cool", they simply have all their products tested and the ones that rate high are marketed as "cool roofs", where as the rest, of which many meet Tier 1 level, are sold as regular tile. They also informed staff that there is no cost premium set on cool roofing products. The difference in cost between different the roofing products is based on the style, weight, color and shape, and not necessarily based on the "coolness" of the product. Many of the existing homes in the City that have the roofing, the roofing meets Tier 1 level, and based on continuation of current practice, most of the new homes will have the roofs that will meet that level. Staff surveyed the manufacturers of Eagle Roofing and MonierLifetile on the top three of their the products that are sold in Chula Vista and found that the top three from each manufacturer meets or exceeds Tier 1 level. Recommendation Based on the results of the study and staff's research, staff recommends that Council adopt mandatory Tier 2 cool roof measures in CZ 10, and no mandatory measures in CZ 7. As indicated above, CZ 7 is a mild climate with very low air-conditioning use. The marginal cost savings resulting from the incremental cooling energy savings is reduced, and in some cases eliminated or exceeded, by the additional cost of the incremental increase in the heating energy use during the winter season (heating penalty). In addition, and as indicated above, absent any mandatory cool roof measures in CZ 7 and based on continuation of current local construction practices, most of the new homes will have file roofing that meets Tier 1 standards: As for CZ 10, Tier 2 standards are cost effective and have a shorter payback period than Tier 1. Exniration of Local Cool Roof Standards Pursuant to State law, local amendments to California building codes will no longer be in effect the date new California building codes take effect. Therefore, if adopted, the proposed local cool roof standards will have to expire upon the date the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code is no longer in effect; currently projected to expire January 1, 2014 when the 2013 State codes take effect. Local amendments to future State green building standards may have to go through the CEC approval processes outlined above under Application to the California Energy Commission. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has determined that the recommendations requiring Council action are not site specific and consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code of Regulations Section 18704.2(a)(1) is not applicable to this decision. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT No current fiscal year impact. Plan review and inspection costs will be minimal and staff is not proposing an increase in fees. The cost of public education and outreach efforts will be covered through external funding sources. 5-7 Item No.: S Meeting Date: 01/10/2012 Page 8 of 8 ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT No ongoing fiscal impact. Plan review and inspection costs will be minimal and staff is not proposing an increase in fees. The cost of public education and outreach efforts will be covered through external funding sources. ATTACHMENTS A. Board of Appeals arid Advisors December 14, 2011 Meeting Minutes. B. Cost-Effectiveness of Cool Roof for a Proposed City of Chula Vista Energy Ordinance, June 30, 2011. C. Climate Zone Map, City of Chula Vista. Prepared by: Lou EL-Khazen, Building Official, Development Services 5-8 D ~ ~ Attachment "A" MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADVISORS CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA November 14, 2011 Conference Room #137 5:15 PM 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 MEMBERS PRESENT: Sanfilippo, Lopez, Sides, Meservy, and West MEMBERS ABSENT: Jones CITY STAFF PRESENT: Lou EI-Khazen, Building Official OTHERS PRESENT: None CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Vice Chair Sides called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m and took the roll call. ROLL CALL: Members present constituted a quorum. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 25, 2011 MSC (JL/LM) (5-0-0-1) Approve the Board of Appeal & Advisors minutes of April 25, 2011. Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: A. Elect new Chair and Vice-Chair for fiscal year 2011/12. Vice Chair Sides tabled the election to the next meeting (12/12/11) because two of the committee members were absent. B. An ordinance amending Chapter 15.12, Green Building Standards, of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, adding Section 15.12.030, Cool Roof (Chair Sanfilippo arrived at 5:25 pm) Mr. Lou EI-Khazen, Building Official gave some background information and a brief overview of the amendments to CVMC section 15.12.030, Cool Roof presented in the staff report. He noted the ordinance would be presented to City Council on December 13, 2011, and then reviewed by the California Energy Commission, which would take possibly 2-3 months. A second reading of the ordinance would probably occur in the early spring. There was discussion concerning the differentiation between Climate Zones 7 and 10 and the results of the study. Vice Chair Sides asked for clarification on why not have the same requirements on both climate zones. Mr. EI-Khazen explained the difference between the two climate zones and the results of the study show cool roofs not to be cost effective in Climate Zone 7. After further deliberation, the Board approved of adding section 15.12.030 Cool Roof to Green Building Standards, Chapter 15.12 and recommended that Council adopt the ordinance as proposed. MSC (LM/CS) (5-0-0-1) Recommend that City Council adopt the ordinance as proposed. 4. MEMBERS COMMENTSICHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS/REPORTS: There was discussion on whether they should table the election of new officers for FYE 2011 /12 since they didn't have a complete quorum of members at the meeting. Member Jones was absent. Chair Sanfilippo asked if there were any other members that would like to be elected? There was no response. The Committee took a vote and decided that Chair Sanfilippo and Vice Chair Sides would remain in their current positions. 5-9 Board of Appeals & Advisors Page 2 D D ~ November 14, 2011 Meeting Minutes Vice Chair Sides reminded the committee to go on line and do the two hours of Ethics Training and also complete Form 700 if they hadn't already done so. It was important to turn in Form 700 on time to avoid a penalty for late submission. 5. BUILDING OFFICIAL'S COMMENTSIREPORTS: Mr. EI-Khazen stated that most likely there would not be another meeting until January 2012, unless an appeal that is related to building codes comes up. Lou mentioned another Implementation Measure, #4 that deals with water conservation, would be coming to the committee within 2-3 months. The measure will contain a recommendation to have builders install stub outs for gray water from washing machines. 6. COMMUNICATIONS (PUBLIC REMARKSI WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE: None. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Sanfilippo adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m. to a regular meeting on December 12, 2011 at 5:15 p.m. in Planning and Building Conference Room#137. ~~~~_~ ~L MINUTES TAKEN BY: ROSEMARIE RICE, SECRETARY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT -BUILDING DIVISION H:\BLD_HSG\Board of Appeals\Board of Appeals and Advisors\2011-2012\Minutes\Draft Minutes\11.14.11 draft.doc 5-10 Attachment °B" Cost-Effectiveness of Cool Roof for a Proposed Chula Vista Energy Ordinance June 30, 2011 Report prepared for: Lou EI-Khazen, PE, CBO City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619) 409-1960 Email: lelkhazen@ci.chula-vista.ca.us Report prepared bv: Michael Gabel Gabel Associates, LLC 1818 Harmon Street, Suite #1 Berkeley, CA 94703 (510) 428-0803 mikeCa~gabelenergy.com 5-11 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ................................................ 1 2.0 Potential Impacts of a Cool Roof Ordinance ............................. 2 3.0 Results and Cost Effectiveness ....................................... 4 4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................. 7 Appendix A: Cool Roof Cost Data Study, 6/10/11 CEC Presentation 5-12 1.0 Executive Summary Gabel Associates has researched and reviewed the energy cost-effectiveness of a proposed City of Chula Vista ordinance which would require that low-rise residential buildings include "cool roof' coatings that meet the 2010 CALGreen Tier 1 or Tier 2 prescriptive criteria. If such an ordinance is adopted, this study may be included in the City's application to the California Energy Commission which must meet the criteria specified in Section 10-106 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 1, LOCALLY ADOPTED ENERGY STANDARDS. A proposed Chula Vista ordinance would be enforceable after the Commission reviews and approves the local energy standards as meeting all requirements of Section 10-106; and the Ordinance is filed with the Building Standards Commission. Case studies of two low-rise residential building designs were used in Climate Zones 7 and 10 to consider the cost-effectiveness of going from roofs which do not meet any cool roof requirements to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 levels specified in CALGreen for Climate Zone 10. These case studies, as directed by City Staff, have been used to consider the following questions for common building types in each climate zone: What is the incremental (added) construction cost per square foot of cool roofs performing at or above the Tier 1 levels? What is the annual energy saving in each case study? What is the annual energy cost saving for each scenario? What is the Simple Payback for the added energy measures? Which cool roofs in which climate zones appear cost-effective? Cool Roof Energy Cost-ENectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 6/30/11 Page ~ 5-13 2.0 Potential Impacts of a Cool Roof Ordinance Energy performance impacts of a proposed cool roof ordinance have been evaluated using two case studies which reflect the range of low-rise residential buildings typical in Chula Vista: • 2,500 sq.ft., 2-story single family house • 8,442 sq.ft., 8 unit 2-story multi-family building Case Study Method The methodology used in these case studies is based on the way that real buildings are designed and evaluated in just meeting or exceeding the energy standards. (a) Abase case for each building design just meets the CALGreen Tier 1 performance requirements so that it exceed the 2008 Standards by 15%, but with no cool roof specification (i.e., solar reflectance = 0.08, thermal emittance = 0.85). The air conditioning system is assumed to just meet the prescriptive requirements: 13.0 SEER, 10.0 EER, R-6 ducts in a standard ventilated attic. Note: the current Chula Vista energy ordinance requires 15% better than Title for Climate Zone 7, and 20% better in Climate Zone 10. The difference in Climate Zone 10 (20% vs. 15%) is not significant in determining the change (i.e., delta) in energy use from the various cool roof scenarios from the baseline. (b) For each building prototype, a series of computer simulations are performed, first with no radiant barrier: • Low-slope, Tier 1: Solar Reflectance = 0.55, Emittance = 0.75 • Steep-slope, Lightweight, Tier 1: Solar Reflectance = 0.20, Emittance = 0.75 Steep-slope, Heavyweight, Tier 1: Solar Reflectance = 0.15, Emittance = 0.75 Low-slope, Tier 2: Solar Reflectance = 0.65, Emittance = 0.85 • Steep-slope, Lightweight, Tier 2: Solar Reflectance = 0.23, Emittance = 0.85 • Steep slope, Heavyweight, Tier 2: Solar Reflectance = 0.23, Emittance = 0.85 (c) A minimum and maximum range of incremental costs of added energy measures is established from the research presented at the California Energy Commission on June 10, 2011 in the 2013 Standards public workshops (see Appendix 1). Site energy KWh and Therms is calculated for each run to establish the annual energy savings, and energy cost savings as compared with the base case. (d) Steps "a", "b" and "c" above are repeated after first including a radiant barrier in the base case and the cool roof variations. The point is to see what extent first including a radiant barrier affects the incremental energy impacts of cool roofs. Cool Roof Energy Cosf-Eflecfiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 6/30/11 Page 2 5-14 Incremental Costs A California Energy Commission study (6/10/11) presented in support of the 2013 standards development work is included as Appendix A. This presentation includes recent data on the incremental costs of various types of cool roof. The incremental cost cool roof assumptions of this report are as follows: • Steep Slope Lightweight, No Cool Roof to Tier 1 or 2: $0.00 - $0.10/sf, Avg = 0.05/sf • Steep Slope Heavyweight (Ceramic Tile), No Cool Roof to Tier 1 or 2: 0.05/sf • Flat/Low Slope (Built-Up Roof or Shingles), No Cool Roof to Tier 1 or 2: $0.00 - $1.00, Avg = $0.50 Cool Roof Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 6/30/11 Page 3 5-15 3.0 Results and Cost Effectiveness The tables in this section are based upon the following: • The assumption of air conditioning where there is some cooling energy savings from cool roof coatings; Incremental site electricity (kWh) and natural gas (therms) saved per year as calculated using the -most current 2008 Standards state-approved software, Micropas v8.1; Average utility rates for residential buildings: $0.19/kWh for electricity and $1.14/therm for natural gas (in constant dollars); The assumption that there is no change (i.e., no inflation or deflation) in utility rates in constant dollars over time The assumption that there is no increase in summer temperatures even though most scientific studies predict that global climate change will increase temperatures in the Western U.S. which will increase air conditioning energy use Simple Payback includes neither the cost of financing nor any external cost associated with global climate change Based on California Energy Commission studies, the useful life of lightweight cool roof coatings is assumed to be 15 years. A built-up-roof or asphalt shingle cool roof with a payback of around 15 years or less would be considered cost-effective. Steep slope heavyweight cool roofs such as ceramic the may be expected to last up to 30 years. The data summarized here is intended to be illustrative, not comprehensive or definitive, in demonstrating the scale of typical results and the variability of results depending on the selection of a particular cool roof CRRC rating and the actual longevity of the roof coating used. Cool Roof Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 6/30/11 Page 4 5-16 _~._ .. n inn c-. a c:..,. ~,, o-,..,:~.. u.,..~e Clima4c 7nnc 7 Nn Rariia nt Rarrior Iwv.c .. L v.... .. .. ..... ..-... Buildin Descri lion .... ..____ Total KWhlYear Savin _.....___ -_- Total Therms/Yr Savin __ - --- -_. Incremental First Cost $ Cost Savings $/Yr Simple Payback Years Stee -slo a Li htwei ht: Tier 1 14 0 $75 $3 28.2 Steep-slope, Heavyweight: Tier 1 5 1 $75 $2 35.9 Stee -slo e, Li htwei ht: Tier 2 24 -3 $75 $1 65.8 Stee -slo e, Heav ei ht: Tier 2 25 -3 $75 $1 56.4 .. ~._ r. e.:__~_ r-..... a., u,...~.. !`nm stn 7nnn 7 With Radiant Rarrior I C1uIG L• L JVV Buildin Descri lion Total KWh/Year Savin Total Therms/Yr Savin Incremental First Cost $ Cost Savings $/Yr Simple Payback Years Stee -slo e, Li htwei ht: Tier 1 7 0 $75 $1 56.4 Stee -slope, Heav eight: Tier 1 0 1 $75 $1 65.8 Stee -slo e, Li htwei ht: Tier 2 7 -2 $75 -$1 -78.9 Stee -slo e, Heav ei ht: Tier 2 10 -2 $75 $0 -197.4 ., enn o_ a c:....i,, r~...a., u.,..~e Cnmatn 7nna 90 Nn Radiant Rarrior I auic v. L .IVV v .. ....... ..- ... Buildin Descri lion ..... ..____ Total KWhfYear Savin _.._. Total Therms/Year Savin Incremental First Cost $ Cost Savings $/Yr Simple Payback Years Stee -slo e, Li htwei ht: Tier 1 61 0 $75 $12 6.5 Steep-slope, Heavyweight: Tier 1 10 2 $75 $4 17.9 Stee -slo e, Li htwei ht: Tier 2 142 -4 $75 $22 3.3 Stee -slo e, Heav ei ht: Tier 2 142 -4 $75 $22 3.3 _ r_.-:~.. u_...-,. rl:... -,f.. 7..ne 4n Ul/ith Qarlia nt Rarrior lau~c Y. Lwvv .. .. ..... ..-.... Buildin Descri lion .... ......__ Total KWh/Year Savin _.....___-_ Total Therms/Yr Savin __ __ _____- Incremental First Cost $ Cost Savings $!Yr Simple Payback Years Stee -slo e, Li htwei ht: Tier 1 29 0 $75 $6 13.6 Steep-slope, Heav eight: Tier 1 7 1 $75 $2 30.4 Stee -slo e, Li htwei ht: Tier 2 66 -2 $75 $10 7.3 Stee -slo a Heav ei ht: Tier 2 68 -2 $75 $11 7.0 Cool Roof Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 6/30/11 Page 5 5-17 Table 5: 8.442 Sq. Ft. Multi-family Building, Climate Zone 7, No Radiant Barrier Building Description Total KWh/Year Savin Total ThermslYr Saving Incremental First Cost {$) Cost Savings ($/Yr) Simple Payback Years) Low-Slo e: Tier 1 305 -15 $2,111 $41 51.7 Low-Slo e: Tier 2 362 -26 $2,111 $39 53.9 Table 6: 8.442 Sg. Ft. Multi-famil y Building, Climate Zone 7, With Radiant Barrier Total Total Cost Simple KWh/Year Therms/Yr Incremental Savings Payback Building Description Savin Savin First Cost ($) $1Yr) (Years) Low-Slo e: Tier 1 116 -8 $2,111 $13 163.4 Low-Slo e: Tier 2 149 -15 $2,111 $11 188.3 Table 7: 8 442 Sg. Ft. Multi-family Building, Climate Zone 10, No Radiant Barrier Total Total Cost Simple KWh/Year ThermslYr Incremental Savings Payback Building Description Saving Saving First Cost $ $/Yr Years) Low-Slo e: Tier 1 1410 -24 $2,111 $241 8.8 Low-Slo e: Tier 2 1864 -41 $2,111 $307 6.9 Table 8: 8 442 Sg. Ft. Multi-family Building, Climate Zone 10, With Radiant Barrier Total Total Cost Simple KWh/Year ThermslYr Incremental Savings Payback Building Description Savin Saving First Cost $ $/Yr Years) Low-Slo e: Tier 1 734 -12 $2,111 $126 16.8 Low-Slo e: Tier 2 982 -23 $2,111 $160 13.2 Cool Roof Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City o/ Chula Vista, 6/30/11 Page 6 5-18 4.0 Conclusions and Recommendation Climate Zone 7 Based on the site energy results obtained by modeling the single family home case study with the 2008 state-approve version of Micropas v8.1, steep-sloped roofs in Climate Zone 7 do not appear to be cost-effective for either Lightweight or Heavyweight roof types (with or without the presence of radiant barriers). This is consistent with the fact that Climate Zone 7 is a mild climate with very low air conditioning use. The incremental cooling energy savings from cool roof alone are projected to be very low, even though the typical incremental costs for steep slope cool roofs are also small. For low-sloped or flat roofs as modeled in the two-story multi-family building, neither Tier 1 or Tier 2 cool roof requirements are cost-effective for the same reason. Climate Zone 10 For steep-sloped roofs in Climate Zone 10, lightweight cool roofs appear extremely cost- effective for both Tier 1 and Tier 2 values with or without a radiant barrier. Assuming a 30 year life of ceramic tile, heavyweight cool roofs are marginally cost effective for Tier 1 with a radiant barrier, but apparently easily cost-effective without radiant barrier achieving Tier 1; and more cost-effective in meeting Tier 2 values with or without a radiant barrier. This makes sense in that Climate Zone 10 has much greater cooling loads than Climate Zone 7, while the incremental cost of cool roof remains the same. Low-sloped or flat roofs in the two-story multi-family building are cost-effective in Climate Zone 10 with or without a radiant barrier. Recommendation If the City wishes to proceed with a local reach code which makes selected cool roof requirements mandatory, our recommendation based on this limited study is to implement either Tier 1 or Tier 2 values in Climate Zone 10 only; and not have any cool roof requirements for buildings in Climate Zone 7. This is based on the distinctly different cost-effectiveness profiles of the same buildings when comparing them in CZ7 vs. CZ10. Cool Roof Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 6/30/11 Page ~ 5-19 Appendix A: Cool Roof Cost Data Study 6/10/11 CEC Presentation Cool Roof Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 6/30/11 Page $ 5-20 N J E. ~ ~:.- F> L' e. .~~r.v F, ~ I' ~i L _ .:a u: T e ~ ~ " ) ,3 Dan Suyeyasu Director of Energy Programs Architectural Energy Corporation for the California Energy Commission June 10, 2011 i N N pn~ q ~ew ;_ ~4~~ a . r~~~ Table 4. Roofing Pi ballasted 6 BUR td~ith s BUR with single-ply r modified bi metal roofs roof coatin concrete ti cement tiie red clay iil~ ~~' " ~~~ ~ ~# ~a~. ~~ `i ' . Ft • 2010 DOE Study on Cool Roof options N W . ~ ~' Guidelines for `~°"'~ Selecting Cool Roofs i, `_ July 2010 ~` vii F i J= r:,. s.crv_,.,...~ 8 i ., ~ i ;p Tame 5: Roof Surfaces, Cool Alternatives, and Approximate Price Premiums* N I N a ul t- p oa itaera aggregate em~e e lgit-eoor aggregate, in flood coat like marble chips, gray slag p a Lc emu slon ie app re caating on -7. top of emulsion Mineral surfaced cap sheet White mineral granules 0.50 Metal Unpainted metal May already be cool 0:00 Factory applied white paint 0:20 Painted metal Cool-mlofed paint 0.00-'I.00+ Modified Bitumen Mineral surfaced cap sheet Factory applied coat6ig, 0.50 vrhite mineral granules rave su aceln Rumen lg tcoare grave v to Ic of y a rea y e coo ie apple coaing - .~ p a t coating le app re coating on -7. top of asphaltic coating Shingles Mineral granules White granules 0:00 Cool-colored granules 0.35-0.75 Sprayed Liquid applied coating Most coatings are already 0.00 Polyurethane cool to protect the foam Foam Aggregake Lightoolored aggregate 0.00 iermop asuc ~€te, co ore , or ar loose a ~•v rte ar ig it Membranes surface colored surface ermoset ar mem rane, not oo ormu atron - Memhranes ballasted (adhered or FactorycOOl ply or Coaking 0.50 mechanicallyattachedj on dark EPDM Tiles Non reflective colors Clay. slate: naturally cool 0.00 Cool colored coatings 0.00 ... _ ___ .._.. -_.__ ~_ _. . ..... ..... ..u a,.... ,.r ,,.s ~.m. .,s ~~tr,w.,r~ t6n rool roof oorion as comoared with the conzs ponding non-cool option. Premiums are hazed on achirvine the minimum cool root oh ara cteristi cm described in Table 1. Valu es are approximam, and are based on discussions wl tlt rooting contractors. manufacn[r ers, wholesalers, and RSMeans eo st data. n °These rw}s may 6e used in steep sbpe applications where mol roof regaire merits are less str ingent. uncoated metal roofs 7 normally meet requirements for steep slope. but not fur low slops. Pro miu ms for shingles S tiles are based on sleep slope requirements. Pll other premiums are bayed on low slope requirements. v, i N ~7 ~~ '~ ~ s° t~~~vii~jli°~~iltJPl(€:~G: Et~a~iit~s~ __ - --_ -- , _ -__ __ {17 SR 1~>it7 1'aiyvinyl-Chlarid~ C,oc~fing (RV.C.} 7:'ll~ i'IJIYVIN'tl-CFILOItipE RQOFlMG {I'.V.C.) S31i~ l.n`: uul[ hlra ~Ufi F,IItiUIt ! Ji' arls ~ ~ ("S.f. j?iU :'~ 1, Iuui , lu ed t,l t ^'~t:; yn t l i J L'i '.i GS .`.~ 1:11~~ Y;d I II I, 1.714:y .., „'u tJ .': s 11!e. :a!;:~I „Ihsrc•r,~. rJ~ l~i;?P.Sj': !~.t S ~{PFi~ ~Jif J.I;I ~IIiPi r!I ,,, ~~57~' tl it .I~Ill.t., .!'I ~~~I 'I:4f G __~:4 a4 ~~ "- i"~i~rrn~+~i~s~i~: ~~~aty~?~~~in R~~fi~l~ !}7 ~4 23.iC3 '~h~nnoi~lastic. Calycrl~iiit €toafrr~ f,T.P.a} J,~i~, ria ~~trnr~rias€~~ ~at~pJ.~wtw !too~lr:~ {r.a:a) JiG(i lS lllil,. ~~~~~.', $ F;Jrisc ,, I ~ ;rl'it' , I, i `::;.' !~ :l tilti: l~r..:.:ru , iii ~~ ' .1 iill'pu ~.C!l.~ iQ ['~.hJ I ~.~ .~ ,`li .r ill ~:IISP Ii z~',~d1 ( ~ ,I`., !II~II.,I' 'I, LS:C u9 ,." l..e ~tr { i 1 _. Source: RS Means, Building Construction Cost Data, 2010 L 'F.. '~'.~ .5 fl.tl.1 ~.4~. Jal.~,'[~ GY Sry. ~6.4ti ~7 .'i l'.! lie"' L!~,5 fi~?`ali 3S.SI1 i11J,~1 IGS~ "u x. 41 G ?5 i.;:' 1 " hot: ;.iii: 'I)i:.`j tll il'. ; :.`; '.,..;i1.',;. =E2 _l it is ~' YrI "„ . .... :5 15~ J 4U !iI.SU ... ~. ~i t 1..''. i~~; b'i ~, ~..~: , , J5 ',rl .1' I n.., lip` 10 1 N O~ ,; _ .. ;. r~- __ _ _ 9~ ~7 `i~ -~ ~c~ii~ ~d~ ~~~M~i~ #~~~x~8wq - - -- - __.. ___ Cllr Cia.ai ;41UQ7 u.[s',!~ _ C,':ul ~7 ~9 9~1.~O t~tdkflUp~ Nuafio~ S}+s4emti G~e~ tt,q I Il,.~c, ;ntl ;,Si,L ial Lu6ui iq~tipmerl Tohrl `I¢I Q§Y . Ill+.1 i 111, ~ . i ~ ([ai ,~ ." ?Onl_pr+ L'I .;~1 ;,1. ~,~ i ~: -fl ~;; ,5154 ~ ~~ l l..,I:1 Iulinllld~~., 1 i.'7.i! I%F I!I a..p ;i~r j}3.`ry {!~; I ''..II) £'d i; ulr lul r,t~ Y -. url;:nl n ~. 1-'_P( '~ ~l ~. '7",aQ :4V 1'",~i I4nI Idl~ ..., ( :'t':' .: ;t'r "i P e 717 clu ~:h! Ili~r ' ).ii il? i,n I ,;, .. _ 7;'s Hr _.. 'I ~"_d.'.G [?1 _2JIJ f~ I t(y,+i[I I F:IY SJIIAi:. d' ?'~l1~ 1~-i JIt1111 . .n ~,S Ir) ~, 1l x111-gal ~ 11 `IIUIiIa:b tYI -..1~.} 'i ~ 7~Q .. ~u,p~ ~,70.li ~; .t Ol.' , :Ill Ih ,?r q l` tsin] _.'.:y J ,a Y`I,4(Y 217.5'.} I!'.!:i} l:4 Jt^,~~~ '~~, ?StlJll~lllli~l. ~..': .1)_l', ~i e _ }:. .. ~1Y.~i~ ~ .I.. A/'~ . !ji i1~ it e ~... ~' 11 ~.f F'.4 1 .° µ 1„f .' ~It.~ n t ..;p ~ ~ _ !. ytilriil ;I' ,,. ., .:~I li ., ~.r id IS"~tP. .,. 1'S'! ~th)~I -~ ~ Y ~ IlI111 ~ 2'J ~. .~ .~~ 551 ~r ~~i' ~ l ~c~~) ~A1 ,flit= ; i.;i.; ~ '..dS s; ,.I u,~ ~a! ?u:; , °dtni .~~' , nt._`Ill eY~;l' ~ n-t1~~ ... ... ;;n-=i3 !si.u 91,t f',~. vrlp . ,. . ,i ~:.~~;, ~~ trc z~.~~ ;~°.It ,,; I,ifr °I`~°`, rt i 11;=s:, Ic; ., cs,'I~,, II hl, r:: ped ' ~;va~ ~.]a t~ sm. e7 v!~:~~ IsY I.di ,1. :..r:-1 a-i ~., .'rl; °~$ .. _.JV 1?3 q; ,. :~a ~!: ai6 II I a;I ~ln ;u,~ ~;i3; ,Irt .=f lr, l' I .sl .;, '. .. .. .. :... cap ':[~~ JJ,°II~'11{"~f 1411;1 :'.C ~ 1 '~! tt: .: Y:' ~t".. .e..'7 t's' '_`fiii Iu. I . sl ..I I 1 , iP} 91 r lll ~.lf ~,. i 11 ..:.nrl ,u „zci GI 1-.J -J o. .rf!~'t %55 Source: RS Means, Building Construction Cost Data, 2010 11 ~ a i ~ r t i ~.: a 3 • RS Means: - Built-up roofing ~ $2.60/ft2 - Single-ply membrane ~ $1.75/ft2 ~; - Suggests cost savings in moving to a cool roof even without energy benefits • Cost Premium from No Standard to Raged - 0.70 Conservative estimate of $0.50/ft2 12 C01/NiYOF SAN OIc'GO C71 I N IMPERIAL BEACH ~`~~~ CITV OF cHUw vn~n CITYO/ SAN DIEGO Climate Zones Map City of Chula Vista Climate Zone Boundary zal /Ilage 11 EUC UruversirylWest ~ r '.u umvervN~l'vasr n U u .~ CODNry O` SAN DIEGO .. ~, 1 a.f.:: .. .. NATIONAL CITV CITY of SAN DIEGO GENSRP~ vanch ~ M/ i.~ CG o ! 1_T ~.~' G p pp !" ~ T ' Ea date T p ~\ti/p ~ • 9L IAII a en O ' _ E A -- ~"9 ~~ ~~ ~'~ RancholDa4 ReY II ~ ~/fF TeJeg2phlCanyon O l ~ S B~ T `~ ~ ~ wova NCHODE~ RF tc~ C Y 9 H . F S AB. ,~~,..E G ~S~ RancholDel Reyl lP~ ~ P~f - Rancno Del Rey 111 Y Nllage5 d ffiay Ranch Yaage Q~ ~ 0 Goa Course Rdang Hilk Ranch Hate Zone 10 Z °~ u evy EastlakelWOOps1L14s1 ~(` Ap ~ aaYV EasflakelTraAs as8ake s - Easflal t :c T ,Climate Zone 7 asflakeLLanN ` h ~Z K pN~ P R'ncn vmaget e~EC'RgPHCANYON ~-. a~ m'wlaves n ~ O powl S ~ Q\O Q Fwy C~'nm ~ P ES F un ~y~ v P?~ O o T MOSS N Hllagerwesr ~.. ~ .: ~ Z 1411a e2 village] p' Y~ ? OXFORD fO g Nuaga2 ~U m ''. a , P~OMp,P .~ . Z S uniwwu ylrya,~@"i:~.. , W~age1 ~` . P ..P 3 i ~~ Nlla e4 . } 1~n~u~u1 g ..~.. ~ ~ 1 aaiALanrma ~ ~ - N ORq : NG~ Z ~ couNTr DF wt I SAN DIEGO ' ~ ~; Nllage4 Nllagef A ~ m ~n~.uu~J~.f' Mlage,3 Ngage4 :. A lBB m F MAIN 3 red HdPMng villa 4 om' l ,... . AutoWaM village4 V' '~ e~'~ ~ '~ AmPM(~ga(erl anN LY3ter Park `'-~_. --"'~v,~giayRary~.. f1 Cl rt n ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 15.12, GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS, OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE, ADDING SECTION 15.12.030, COOL ROOF WHEREAS, on May 3, 2011 City Council approved Resolution 2011-076 in which City Council adopted the Climate Adaptation Plans and approved their implementation; and WHEREAS, the adopted Climate Adaptation Strategies will help reduce the City's future risks and costs from expected local climate change impacts; and WHEREAS, the Implementation Plan for Strategy #3, Cool Roofs, proposed amending the City's Green Building Standards, Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapter 15.12, to require what are currently voluntary cool roof measures in the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code on new low-rise residential developments; and WHEREAS, the California Energy Commission determined that because cool roofing is currently one of the compliance options available in the California Energy Code and because it affects the energy efficiency of buildings, mandating cool roofs requires the California Energy Commission's review and approval prior to a cool roof ordinance taking effect; and WHEREAS, the California Energy Commission's review and approval process requires City Council's determination that the proposed local standards will not require buildings to consume more energy than permitted by the current California Energy Code and are cost-effective; and WHEREAS, a study prepared by Gabel Associates, LLC analyzed the energy savings and cost-effectiveness of requiring Tier 1 and Tier 2 residential cool roof standards, which are currently voluntary standards in the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code, in the two Climate Zones that are within the boundary of Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, the results of the study showed that requiring Tier 1 or Tier 2 cool roof standards in Climate Zone 7 is not cost-effective, however the requirements are cost-effective in Climate Zone 10; and WHEREAS, based on the results of the study, Gable Associates, LLC recommends requiring Tier 1 or Tier 2 standards only in Climate Zone10; and WHEREAS, based on the results of the study, Tier 2 cool roof standards in Climate Zone 10 are more cost-effective than Tier 1 standards; and WHEREAS, based on staff research, the majority of new residential developments in Chula Vista will have steep-sloped roofs with concrete or clay the roofing that will meet or exceed Tier 1 cool roof standards; and 5-29 Ordinance No. Page 2 WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity falls within the Class 8 Categorical Exemption pursuant to California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 19 (the "State CEQA Guidelines") section 15308 and therefore is exempt from environmental review; and notwithstanding the Class 8 Categorical Exemption, the Director of Development Services has further determined that there is also no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, pursuant to section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. SECTION I: NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find and determine that: Mandating Tier 2 cool roof standards in Climate Zone 10 will not require buildings to consume more energy than permitted by the current California Energy Code; and Tier 2 cool roof standards in Climate Zone 10 are cost-effective; and Mandating Tier 2 cool roof standards in Climate Zone 10 is necessary due to local climatic and environmental conditions. SECTION II: BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find and determine that Chapter 15.12 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 15.12.030, Cool Roof, as follws: Section 15.12.030 Cool Roof The voluntary Tier 2 cool roof measures found in Subsection A4.106.5 of the Califomia Green Building Standards Code are mandatory in Climate Zone 10 for new low-rise residential developments. SECTION III: EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall take effect after the City Council acknowledges receipt of actions taken by the California Energy Commission pursuant to Title 24, Part 1 of the California Code of Regulations (the "California Administrative Code") section 10-106 but no sooner than the thirtieth day from and after this Ordinance's final adoption. Presented by Gary Halbert P.E., AICP Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director Approved as to form 5-30