Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2011/11/14 Board of Appeals & Advisors Agenda Packet
CITY OF CHULA VISTA BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADVISORS REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Monday - 5:15 pm Conference Room #137 (PSB Bldg. 200) November 14, 2011 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, C'A 91910 ROLL CALL: Jones_ Lopez_ Meservy_ Sanfilippo Sides West 1. CALL TO ORDER ~ 2. DECLARATION OF EXCUSED/UNEXCUSED ABSENTEEISM: 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 25, 2011 4. NEW BUSINESS: a) Elect new Chair and Vice-Chair for fiscal year 2011/12. b) Ordinance amending Chapter 15.12, Green Building Standards, of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, adding Section 15.12 030, Cool Roof... 5. CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS/REPORTS: 6. BUILDING OFFICIAL'S COMMENTS/REPORTS: ~ 7. COMMUNICATIONS (PUBLIC REMARKS/WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE): 8. ADJOURNMENT TO REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON MONDAY, December 12, 2011 AT 5:15 PM IN CONFERENCE ROOM 137. COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Ad (ADA), request individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a city meeting, activity, or service, request such accommodation at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance for meetings and five (5) days for scheduled services and activities, Please contact Rosemarie Rice, Secretary for specific information (619) 409-5838 or Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 585-5647 California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired, D°a MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADVISORS CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA April 25, 2011 Conference Room #146 5:15 PM 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 MEMBERS PRESENT: Sanfilippo, Lopez, Sides, Jones, Meservy MEMBERS ABSENT: None CITY STAFF PRESENT: Lou EI-Khazen, Building Official; Justin Gipson, Deputy Fire Chief; Maria Kachadoorian, Director of Finance; Tiffany Allen, Fiscal & Management OTHERS PRESENT: Terry Matson, NBS Janet Hough, NBS CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Chairperson Sanfilippo called the meeting to order at 5:15 p m and the secretary called the roll, 1 ROLL CALL: Members present constituted a quorum, 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MSC (LM/JL) (5-0-0-0) Approve the minutes of October 11, 2010.. Motion carried. MSC (LM/JL) (5-0-0-0) Approve the minutes of March 14, 2010. Motion carried, 3 NEW BUSINESS: A, Cast of Service Analysis and proposed Fee Schedules Mr Lou EI-Khazen, Building Official noted the last Master Fee Schedule update was done in 2007 Since then there have been significant changes to staffing levels, personnel costs and they've also adopted new codes (Green Building and Residential) that have added workload for the department, i, which the new fees will reflect In 2009 the City Manager developed a Fiscal Health Plan, which was endorsed by Council, One of the items in that plan was to look at our fee schedules and make sure that we are fully recovering the cost of service that we provide Council has adopted a Citywide Cost Recovery Policy and in the most development service fees its 100% recovery.. In some cases, those fees have been reduced and subsidized because of urgency and emergency purposes (i.e water heater replacements, gas line replacements, photovoltaic) for residential to ensure compliance.. L.ou said they have been working with NBS Consultants for some time now, and they will be giving an overview of the Cost Service Analysis, which also serves the basis of the hourly rates that the fees are based on. The presentation would focus on the fees associated with building and fire that are related to the building permit fees The fee study would be presented to City Council on June 14, 2011, Mr. Terry Matson, Consultant, with NBS gave a power point presentation providing background information about the Cost Service Analysis, After the presentation the committee members had the following comments and questions: • Are fees increasing on green building permits items (photovoltaic, etc.)? Mr. EI-Khazen stated ' that for photovoltaic staff is proposing 25% cost recovery vs, $45 The building department currently has a program where they educate the public on incentives provided through SDG&E or the Federal Government for using energy efficient items. Incremental time that will be spent on plan check review of green building standard codes is included in the new fee schedule, Board of Appeals & Advisors Page 2 D D ~ April 25, 2011 Meeting Minutes • The Board asked for clarification of the hourly rates noting a large discrepancy between the building fees ($186) and fire fees ($135) The consultant said the difference between building and fire is that the $186 actually is a cumulative fee that has some land development and planning time built into it. He explained that the building division segregated all their fees into categories (new construction, miscellaneous, and mechanical/plumbing/electrical). The mechanical/plumbing/electrical rate is $148 per hour because it assumes no other division is participating in the review process, Building alone reviews those plans and does that inspection However, the new construction permits and miscellaneous items permits are also reviewed by Land Development staff and planners for compliance with zoning codes and all sorts of engineering related activities. The fire prevention's rate is a stand-alone rate for fire prevention staff only The consultant went on and explained the other components ' concerning the hourly rates in relation to staff time and how that is incorporated into the building permit fee process • Is the City trying to recuperate some of its loss revenue with the new fee schedule? Mr. EI- Khazen stated absolutely no, The main reason for the increase is purely cost recovery Legally the city is not allowed to try and recover losses from the past • Is the staff time being billed and permit fee increase comparable to other jurisdictions similar in population? Lou said the Consultant has compared our rates with the cities of Oceanside and San Diego and found the fees are comparable and in some instances some of our fees are lower A handout of this information was provided to the board for their review. After further deliberation, the Board unanimously recommended that the updated fee schedule be presented to the City Council for their review and approval. MSC (CS/TJ) (5-0) Recommend that the Cost of Service Analysis and proposed fee schedule be recommended to City Council for approval 4, MEMBERS COMMENTS/CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS/REPORTS: There was discussion about the level of service (plan check) and meeting deadlines, if some of the fees were going up the public would probably expect that reviews get done on a timely basis. It was suggested that perhaps the turnaround time ranges could be increased to be more in keeping with what was actually occurring Mr, EI-Khazen stated that staff is working hard to achieve this; however I they are limited, and when outside factors (i a vacation, sickness, etc.) happen it impacts the workload The department recently had three agreements approved for consultants when the ~ workload picks up, Another option is hiring an hourly person.. Staff is currently working on hiring a former retired plan checker to come in and do the work versus hiring a consultant and having to let them go after a few months because of the workload, The committee asked whether the city has considered having an express plan check where a customer would pay more for this service Lou stated that currently the city does not have enough staff to offer this service, Staff is working on a program called Express Program where certain projects will have the option of requesting expedited service Affordable housing, green building, and a list of development economic projects like businesses that bring in 10 or more employees, specialties stores, and new construction could take advantage of this program. Justin Gipson, Deputy Fire Chief noted that Fire has offered, for the last 4 years, to expedite plan review specific to only fire functions like sprinklers, fire alarms, etc., and it's only approved if they have the staffing to take of it With respect to plan check review for building permits Fire is in 90% of meeting the plan check turnaround time. This is due to restructuring the way things are processed (have 7 inspectors and 7 reviewers doing the work). More discussion took place concerning the projected plan check turnaround time and the actual time it took Mc EI-Khazen informed the Board that he monitors this on a daily basis. They are currently two weeks behind in plan check and are only meeting compliance of projected turnaround by 40%, In his view, increasing the turnaround time was not a good solution, The current method is a better tool for management to assess the need for additional resources. D Board of Appeals & Advisors Page 3 D 4 April 25, 2011 Meeting Minutes 5 BUILDING OFFICIAL'S COMMENTS/REPORTS: Lou EI-Khazen discussed the meeting room change that today's meeting was held in conference room 146 versus the other conference room (137) towards the back of the building Staff was trying to find a location that was more accessible to the board and public. Next month's meeting May 9 would probably be held back in conference room 137 until they could find another permanent location 6 COMMUNICATIONS (PUBLIC REMARKS/ WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCEI: None. Mr. EI- Khazen noted the fee increase has been presented to the stakeholders and BIA so there is public outreach about this proposal 7 ADJOURNMENT: Chair Sanfilippo adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p m to a regular meeting on May 9, 2011 at 5:15 p m in Planning and Building Conference Room #137 MINUTES TAKEN BY: ROSEMARIE RICE, SECRETARY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT -BUILDING DIVISION BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADVISORS Meeting Date: 11/14/11 Subject: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISIA AMENDING CHAPIER 15.12, GREEN BUILDING SIANDARDS, OF THE CHULA VISIA MUNICIPAL CODE, ADDING SECTION 15.12.030, COOL ROOF Submitted By: Building Official 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 Ihis Ordinance proposes adopting mandatory cool roof measures on new residential developments in Climate Zone 10; the most eastern part of the City, RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to City Council the adoption of the ordinance, DISCUSSION: On May 3, 201 I, City Council approved Resolution 2011-076 adopting the proposed Climate Adaptation Plans for the 11 Climate Adaptation Strategies.. Strategy # 3, Cool Roof's, proposed amending the current California Green Buildings Standards Code (CalGreen) to require cool roof's on new low-rise residential developments (3-story or less single-family and multi-family) Currently, cool roof's are voluntary measares in CalGreen and the Implementation Plan proposed making these measures mandatory CalGreen's residential voluntary measures for cool roof's are categorized into two tiers: Tier 1 and Iier 2 Iier 1 standards meet ENERGY STAR and California Energy Commission (CEC) minimum specifications for cool roofs, while Iier 2 standards require higher "coolness" levels than Tier 1, Urban Heat Islands and Cool Roofs Annual average temperatures are expected to increase up to 45 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050 with summer temperatures increasing even higher r Ihese 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 aze characterized 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 Ihis 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 roof's absorb less sunlight therefore staying r San Diego Foundation. "Focus 2050 Study: San Diego's Changing Climate." 2008 C:\Documents and Settings\loue\My Documents\Green Building\cool rnoflBOAA Cool Roof Ocd doc Board of Appeals and Advisors Meeting Date 11/14/11 Page 2 of 7 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 (IE) and their combined effects on temperature., SR is the fraction of sunlight that is reflected, and IE is the efficiency with which a sarface cools itself by emitting thermal radiation. Both are measured on a scale of 0 to 1, the higher the value the cooler the roof. A_pnlication to the California Energy Commission 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, Iitle 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 roof's, 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 effciency standards. Itinvolved 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-stary multi-family building in Climate Zones 7 and 10 to consider the cost effectiveness of going from no cool roof requirements to Iier 1 and Iier 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 Iier 1 and Tier 2 levels in CalGreen: Board of Appeals and Advisors Meeting Date 11/14/11 Page 3 of 7 TIER 1 Min. 3-yr .Aged Solar Thermal Roof' Slo a Roof Wei ht Climate Zone Reflectance Emittance SRI 141 Low-slopedtrl N/A 13 & 15 0.55 0,75 64 2:12 Steep-sloped < S lb/fts 1~) 10-15 0.20 0.75 16 > 2:12 > 5 lb/ft~ Irl 1-16 0.15 0.75 10 TIER 2 Min. 3-yr. Aged Solar Thermal Roof Sloe Roof' Wei ht Climate Zone Reflectance Emittance SRI (°1 Low-sloped Irl N/A 2,4,6-15 0.65 0.85 78 2:12 Steep-sloped N/A 2,4,6-IS 0 23 0 85 20 > 2:12 (1) Examples oflow-sloped roofing are thermoplastic membranes and elastomeric coatings. (2) Examples of steep-sloped lightweight Slb/ftz); asphalt shingles and metal roofing. (3) Examples of steep-sloped heavyweight Slb/fiz); clay and concrete tile. (4) SRI (Solar Reflectance Index) is a single value that incorporates both SR and IE and is a measure of the roof's ability to reject solar 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? S lb/ftz 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 I'24 for CZ 7 and 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 Iier 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 temperahzxe in the attic and house. RB is cost effective and tends to provide greater energy savings than Iier 1 or Iier 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 repart, the presence of RB reduced the incremental energy saving of the cool roof. the average incremental cost used in the study fox Iier 1 and Tier 2 measures axe based on recent data from a CEC study on the incremental cost of various cool roofs and areas follows: Avg. Incremental Cost Roof Sloe Wei ht I' e $/ft2 Flat/Low Slope 2:12) N/A Thermoplastic membranes and 0 50 elastomeric coatin s Stee -slo e 2:12) Li~htwei ht As halt shin les and metal toofm 0.05 Stee -slo e 2:12) Hea wei ht Cla and concrete the 0.05 Board of Appeals and Advisors Meeting Date 11/14/11 Page 4 of 7 the results of the study axe based on the assumption that the house has air-conditioning; there is cooling energy savings, and that utility rates and srunxner temperature do not change over time.. The average rate for electricity used in the study is $0,19/kWh and fox nahrral gas is $1,14/therm the determination of cost-effectiveness is based on the simple payback period of the measure compared to the useful life of the material. Based on CEC data, the useful life of lightweight and coating cool roof's is assumed to be 15 years, and for steep-slope heavyweight cool roof's to be 30 years, A payback period of around 15 years ox less fox built-up roofing or asphalt shingles would be considered cost-effective, and around 30 years or less fox tile.. Results and Observations for Climate Zone 7 The following tables are the results of the study for Climate Zone 7, with and without RB None of the measures resulted in a simple payback period around or less than the useful life of the measure.. Iable 1:2,500 SF Single-Family House, CZ '7, Without Radiant Barrier Description Total Total Incremental Cost Simple Cost kwh/Yr Iherms/Yr First Cost Savings Payback Effective Savin Saving ($/Yr) (Yeats) Stee -slo e, Li htwei t: Tier 1 14 0 $75 $3 28.2 No Stee -slo e, Hea ei~ t: Tier 1 5 1 $75 $2 35.9 No Stee -slo e, Li twei~ t: Tier 2 24 -3 $75 $1 65.8 No Stee -slo e, Heav ei t: Tier 2 25 -3 $75 $ I 56.4 No Iable 2: 2,500 SF Single-Family House, CZ '7, With Radiant Barrier Description Total Total Incremental Cost Simple Cost kWh/Yr Iherms/Yr First Cost Savings Payback EflBctive Savin Savin ($/Yr) (Yeats) Stee -slo e, Li htwei t: Tier 1 7 0 $75 $1 56.4 No Stee -slo e, Hea wei t: Tier 1 0 1 $75 $1 65.8 No Stee -slo e, Liahtwei t: Tier' 2 7 -2 $75 -$1 -78.9 No Stee -slo e, Hea ei t: Tier 2 10 -2 $75 $0 -197.4 No Iable 3: 8,442 SF Multi-Family buildin , CZ 7, Without Radiant Barrier Description Total Total Incremental Cost Simple Cost kWh/Yr Iherms/Yr First Cost Savings Payback Effective Savin Savin ($/Yr) Yeazs) Low-slo e: Tier 1 305 -15 $2,111 $41 51.7 No Low-slo e: Tier 2 362 -26 $2,111 $39 53.9 No Iable 4: 8,442 SF Multi-Family buildin , CZ 7, With Radiant Barrier Description Total Total Incremental Cost Simple Cost kWh/Yr Iherms/Yr FhstCost Savings Payback Effective Savin Savin ($/Yr9 (Yeats) Low-slo e: Tier 1 116 -8 $2,111 $13 163.4 No Low-slo e:Tier2 149 -15 $2,ll1 $11 188.3 No Board of Appeals and Advisors Meeting Date 11/14/11 Page 5 of 7 Based on the site energy results of the study for the Single-Family house (Iables 1 and 2), neither Iier 1 nor Tier 2 Lightweight or Heavyweight roof types for steep-sloped roof's 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 ($75 fora 2,500 sq ft house), the incremental cooling energy savings from Iier 1 or Iier 2 cool roofs is projected to be very small in order to recover the incremental cost within the expected useful life of the cool roof hz addition, and as the tables above show, because cool roof's keep the house cooler in the winter, there is an incremental heating energy use (heating penalty) for when heating the house during winter season, For the same reasons discussed above, the modeled two story multi-family building with low- sloped or flat roof also appears not to be cost effective in CZ 7 (Iables 3 and 4) Even though both Iiers in CZ 7 do not appear to be cost effective, Iier 1 has a shorter payback period than Iier 2. Ihis is mainly due to the higher heating penalty (incremental Iherms/Yr used) for Iier 2 In addition, roof's without FHB tend to have shorter payback periods than those with RB Results and Observations for Climate Zone 10 The following tables are the results of the study for Climate Zone 10, with and without RB, All of the measures resulted in a simple payback period around or less than the useful life of the measure; they are cost effective. Iable 5: 2,500 SF Single-Family House, CZ 10, Without Radiant Barrier Description Total Total Incremental Cost Simple Cost kWh/Yr Iherms/Yr First Cost Savings Payback Effective Savin Savin ($/Yr) (Years) Stee -slo e, Li twei t: Tier 1 61 0 $75 $12 6.5 Yes Stee -slo e, Hea ei ht: Tier 1 10 2 $75 $4 17.9 Yes Stee -slo e, Li htwei t Tier 2 142 -4 $75 $22 3.3 Yes Stee -slo e, Heav ei t: Tier 2 142 -4 $75 $22 3.3 Yes Iable 6: 2,500 SF Single-Family House, CZ 10, With Radiant Barrier Description Total Total Incremental Cost Simple Cost kWh/Yr Iherms/Yr FhstCost Savings Payback Efective Savin Savin ($/Yr) Years) Stee -slo e, Li htwei t: Tier 1 29 0 $75 $6 13.6 Yes Stee -slo e, Hea eight: Tier 1 7 1 $75 $2 30.4 Yes Stee -slo e, Li twei ht: Tier 2 66 -2 $75 $10 73 Yes Stee -slo e, Hea weia t: Tier 2 68 -2 $75 $11 7.0 Yes Iable 7: 8,442 SF Multi-Family building, CZ 10, Without Radiant Barrier Description Total Tota] Incremental Cost Simple Cost kWh/Yr Iherms/Yr FhstCost Savings Payback Effective Savin Savin ($/Yr) (Years) Low-slo e: Tier 1 1410 -24 $2,1 I 1 $241 8.8 Yes Low-slo e: Tier 2 1864 -41 $2,111 $307 6.9 Yes Table 8: 8,442 SF Multi-Family building, CZ 10, With Radiant Barrier Board of Appeals and Advisors Meeting Date 11/14/11 Page 6 of 7 Description Total Total Incremental Cost Simple Cost kwlt/Yr Iheims/Yr First Cost Savings Payback Effective Saving Savin ($/Yr9 (Years) Low-slo e: Tier 1 734 -12 $2,111 $126 16.8 Yes Low-slo e: Tier2 982 -23 $2,111 $160 li.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 appear to be cost effective far 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, Iier 2 measures appear to be more cost effective than Iier 1, Local Construction Practices and Staff Research The majority of new residential developments in the City will have steep-sloped roof's with concrete ox clay file roofing Locally, Eagle Roofmg and MoxrierLifetile axe the two dominant file roofing products and most of their file products meet Iier 1 level, and they have a wide variety of types, shapes and colors that meet Tier 2 level.. 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 Iier 1 level, are sold as regular tile, Ihey also informed staff that there is no cost premium set on cool roofing products.. the difference in cost between different file 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 file roofing, the roofing meets Iier 1 level, and based on continuation of current practice, most of the new homes will have file roofs that will meet that level Staff surveyed the manufacturers of Eagle Roofing and MonierLifetile on the top three of their file products that are sold in Chula Vista and found that the top three from each manufacturer meets or exceeds Tier 1 level. Recoxxunendation Based on the results of the study and staffs research, staff recommends that Council adopt mandatory Iier 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 au-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 Iier 1 standards As fox CZ 10, Iier 2 standards are cost effective and have a shorter payback period than Iier 1 Expiration 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 Careen Building Standards Code is no longer in effect; currently projected to expire .January 1, 2014 when the 2013 State Board of Appeals and Advisors Meeting Date 11/14/11 Page 7 of 7 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 Attachments: A AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING GRAPIER 1512, GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS, OF IRE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE, ADDING SECTION 15..12.030, COOL ROOF B Cost-effectiveness Study by Gabel Associates, LLC dated .June 30, 2011 C, Climate Zones Map for the City of Chula Vista. Attachment °A" ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE OF IHE CIIY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 15..12., GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS, OF IHE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE, ADDING SECTION 15..12..030, COOL ROOF The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: SECTION I, Findings, the City Council finds as follows: WHEREAS, on May 3, 2.011, City Council approved Resolution 2.011-076 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 fox Strategy #3, Cool Roof's, proposed amending the City's Green Building Standards, CVMC Chapter 12.,15.12, to require what axe currently voluntary cool roof measures in the 2010 California Green Building Standazds Code on new low- - rise residential developments; and WHEREAS, the California Energy Commission determined that because cool roofmg is currently one of'the compliance options available in the California Energy Code and because it affects the energy effciency 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 axe cost-effective; and WHEREAS, a study prepazed by Gabel Associates, LLC analyzed the energy savings and cost-effectiveness of requiring Iiex 1 and Tier 2 residential cool roof standards, which are currently voluntary standazds 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 Tiex 1 or Tier 2 cool roof standazds in Climate Zone 7 is not cost-effective, whereas the requirements aze cost-effective in Climate Zone 10; and WHEREAS, based on the results of the study, Gable Associates, LLC recommends requiring Tier 1 or Iiex 2 standards only in Climate Zone10; and WHEREAS, based on the results of the study, Tier 2 cool roof standards in Climate Zone 10 aze more cost-effective than Tier 1 standards; and Ordinance No Page 2 WHEREAS, based on staff'research, the majority of new residential developments in Chula Vista will have steep-sloped roof's with concrete or clay the roofing that will meet or exceed Iier 1 cool roof standazds; and WHEREAS, City Council finds that mandating Iier 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 that Iier 2 cool roof standads in Climate Zone 10 aze cost-effective; and WHEREAS, City Council finds that mandating Iier 2 cool roof standards in Climate Zone 10 is necessazy due to local climatic and environmental conditions; and WHEREAS, this proposed Ordinance will preserve and enhance the environment within the City of Chula Vista and is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), as amended, pursuant to Guideline 15308, Guideline 15183 and Guideline 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. SECIION II Ihat Chapter 15..12 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Section 15,.12.030, Cool Roof: Section 15.,12.030 Cool Roof the voluntazy Tier 2 cool roof measures found in Subsection A4.106,5 of the California Green Building Standards Code aze mandatary in Climate Zone 10 for new low-rise residential developments.. SECIION III EFFECIFVE DATE This Ordinance will take effect and be in force thirty days after final passage. Presented by Approved as to form by Gary Halbert Bast Miesfeld Assistant City Manager/Development City Attorney Services Director 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 mike(a~gabelenergy com Table of Contents 1,.0 Executive Summa • . . • 1 ry 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 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-Effectiveness S[udy for City of Chula Vista, 6/30/11 Page 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 = 023, 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 Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 6/30/11 Page 2 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, Avq = $0.50 Cool Roof Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista, 6/30/11 Page $ 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 Table 1. 2 500 Sg Ft Sinqle Familv House Climate Zone 7, No Radiant Barrier Total Total Cost Simple KWh/Year T'herms/Yr Incremental Savings Payback Buildin Descri tion Savin Savin First Cost $ $tYr 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 Table 2. 2 500 Sq Ft Sinqle Family House Climate Zone 7, With Radiant Barrier Total Total Cost Simple KWh/Year ThermslYr Incremental Savings Payback Buildin Descri tion Savin Savin First Cost $ $/Yr Years Stee -slo e, Li htwei ht: Tier 1 7 0 $75 $1 56.4 Steep-slope, Heavyweight: 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 Table 3. 2 500 Sg Ft Sinqle Familv House Climate Zone 10, No Radiant Barrier Total Total Cost Simple KWHIYear Therms/Year Incremental Savings Payback Buildin Descri tion Savin .Savin First Cost $ $/Yr Years Stee -slo e, Li htwei ht: Tier T 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 Table 4. 2 500 Sg Ft Sinqle Familv House Climate Zone 10, With Radiant Barrier Total Total Cost Simple KWhlYear Therms/Yr Incremental Savings Payback Buildin Descri tion Savin Savin First Cost $ $/Yr Years Stee -slo e, Li htwei ht: Tier 1 29 0 $75 $6 13.6 Steep-slope, Heavyweight: Tier 1 7 1 $75 $2 30.4 Stee -slo e, Li htwei ht: Tier 2 66 -2 $75 $10 7.3 Stee -slo e, Heav ei ht: Tier 2 68 -2 $7S $11 7.0 Cool Roof Energy Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Chula Vista 6/30/11 Page $ Table 5. 8 442 Sg Ft Multi-family Buildinq Climate Zone 7 No Radiant Barrier Total Total Cost Simple KWh/Year Therms/Yr Incremental Savings Payback Building Description Saving Saving First Gost {$!Yr) (Years) Low-Slo e: Tier 1 305 -15 $2,111 $41 51.7 Low-Slo e: Tier 2 362 -26 $2,111 $39 53.9 Table 6. 8 442 Sg Ft Multi-family Buildinq Climate Zone 7 With Radiant Barrier Total Total Cost Simple KWh/Year ThermslYr Incremental Savings Payback Building Description Saving Saving First Cost {$j ($fYrj (Years) Low-Slo e: Tier 1 116 -8 $2,111 $13 163.4 Low-Slo e: Tier 2 149 -15 $2,111 $11 188.3 Table 7. 8 442 Sq Ft Multi-family Buildinq Climate Zone 10 No Radiant Bar'rier' Total Total Cost Simple KWh/Year ThermslYr Incremental Savings Payback Building Description Saving.. Saving First Cost ($/Yrj (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 Sq Ft Multi-family Buildinq Climate Zone 10 With Radiant Barrier Total Total Cost Simple KWh/Year Therms/Yr Incremental Savings Payback Building Description Saving 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 of Chula Vista. 6/30/11 Page s 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 ~ 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 8 ~a ~3 sav U' _v E F 'k ~ a~ E i - ~ - r~' LL' i yy ~ _ " r- n st t'a ~ ~ .!@- ~ '.~E~' i 0 k ~ y ~ . t ~ . ~ ~..i ~ • ear ~ ~ o ~ ~ o r\ ~ ~ C/] h"'1 V ~ r1 E2 7 Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U N ,t A v 3 F 4~"I ~P ~r~ V 1 ~ O r ~ ~ W 4-~ 5 > ~ 4 3 O .u Y t ~ • rI s ~ ~ ` U 3 Q~ ~ ;R ~n~ H xei > ~'I ~ s s :t m r y :Clj ~.~_e[iT ~u 1~~. ssXv m ~y+ a ~ r i ~ y.E M Pt 4..-~ at 4' y? s 5 :g , _1....,,. Sa S~ " p a a ~ t < Icy ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 4ST ~n c~ ti7 ~ ,y ~ ~y N N D 4ry O O 'S'fi. ~ C7 O O b C3 l~ O O '~aa (L O O 6 O O O O D m5 Q 9 O O O ~ O C} d ~ . SiY,a23 = ~ ~ O O O ~ O CJ O C7 f~ n.a i! v uS 7e O YL ~ I'~ ~ O a7 a~ ~ n: ~a s, O u ax ~ c~ n o `o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a o b a o a i~~~ b r (-s~ ~ O b Q c b b b O a ~ ~ iU ~ 3 ~ ~ U O O N ~L ~h2, ~ a ~ b o ~ oc3 a `0 0 0 a N 7 u V p tit ~u ~ ~ ~ u ~,n, t fl7 0 N N ~ ~ UPS ~ N V (~(1 Uri y ~6~~ . ~ i ~ _ fi. y U _:..i, -.:.n~ t ~'b- ~ c ~ E ~ _ ~ ~ s ~ 'i N to W ~ `o - i:4 sue' w ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ v. ~ ~ O ~ ai Lfl ul ~ ~ ~ U A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O N b ~ ~ "a 4~ d ~ ~ 4W r5~- El 8g j ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~4 1 i ~ F t s O w ~ ' O O mG :t{,}~c gv r1 ! O ~ ti 3 ` N ~ ,~a. .:~m~~ ':y~ m ~~n ~ i ::~.I.~ -.-,f td_ 'LL T t ..y L ~ S k4 E !,2v~y ypp ~,j5 agd}}3 18# g Y 0~ ~ - i'~ $ . o ."4 $vgapdq~ pg~ ¢~$snJ§lJ, A 1 J .g ~ _ ~ r R~II Rd.~ bmS ~ S' 1 . . ~ i. r { n iW~ 7j, t _ Y ~ i ~ ts° Y.. g~ ~ < r .i .t v $ ~ £ fF rr 3 z`"' 4 S Se r: * a - Attachment "C" s r . ~ 1 a 1 3 °i ems,, y. { ~ ~~1 x a ~~"Q ~ } •*I.,.S,„1~~ ~ r i s y F ~ s ti 1 e ~a'~ ~ ~ ~ „w~ ? ~o ~ e z' x ° ~ ~ ~ x 8U ~ o " .vE ~.:-,~~.,.Z Qom. .y i ~y ~g ~ ,y: v'~" ~ ~ ~ 3 '1 e E ~ o ~ a = ~ '`r~~ ~fN quit' s ~,i ~ ~ ~ v z 1 $ ~y r ` q (f /1 N yfeil~Ye~~ ~ ~ ~ / $ ~W ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ 1 n Po A~q,-b ~3Nb~l k ~ ~ c 3 ~ } j e ~4 y~o ~s~+. o g 0 ~Y~~m3~ k ~ ~ 4 y Y \ S yy ia1 Fm"'-x'~.~?'ti ~ ~ ~?OO ~y1 ~ ~ R~Z h [ 4~ f+x' may. ~ "~`v ~~f,~ '1 y S 1~ S' ,y ~ Q4-'` *'X q y\5 ~b~~~";n ~ C:=.;s'4..: a t gat. UV~, ~y ~~„e,. 'q~'~yZ,i3 ~i~g'~ ~ Q ~p m 4 Yak ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ E a c a ' 3~ ~ ~ ~ e ¢ x ~ ~ } m i 1. vm N rn 3 y ' s~ ,,•e""3NI ,\pNU2Iff ~Q6 a:..~ _ ~ a ~ r, ~~.c L'•a~ ~ t 2 ~ 1t~y ~b~ "±VM3~~ 5081 Q~ O E I O • 8 ~ Q t_ v~ a*`~`~~} ep-..F" ' -\1Y \ O ~ O~ p" ~ 02iIH1~ 1. ~ w r a 'w • ~ Ei`1 HtR\~ ~.~kF~~'~" ~Y~F\F~~ 11 ( R ; o ~ . ~ ~ ~ ff : _p M ` ~\Ft~.. y. ~ ~ > \ck~USjR $15FF:EE~AY 'i l.- 1 n~ I i _ _ ~ ~ ` F.. i r fj i T ` ~ z i Iy ? ° r ~ I~ p t I k { { t ~ 3 Sal' I 5' i ~ '.i ~ _ ! - ~N ~ z . ~ ~ a ~ ar i a p, 1{~ aan?aan ana,.a _ L U a @ 4~ t y . u eJm... r , ~y.°~ ri e 1 ~ r } a u~ w 1 ~~roa ODQ4t7 Oti)O ~ ~ O I94 tdw,", n T ~ u} d N G7 N CI M O O to O ~ u? p v a. ~ ~'~~-m,5 o c? ~i o c~ 1 o o cj o ~ o ~©o d u E v s .w r'~~ ~ d m d o ~~aav ~ Q i a Ia'q ~ y ~ ~ C' 0. a 'r+Q N 2, ~Nf S.1 ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ CS q u a b AI 'SS} C ~ O 7 C 4 ~ 7 q ~ ~ ~ C kt QI ~ Q ~ " !tl ~ c v m Net ~ CL C11 ~ tE3 a_ U s L} U ill Rj a ly L ~ CA O N o n o a d a -v'~ ~ p_ ~ q) ~ t9 ~ ~ q q Q N « LT! N N ~ 7x O ¢ n ~ y 15' ~ ~:._d X ~ u t~. q ~ s ds ~ ~ ~ q! U c1 y ~t ~ ~ U.. ~ - ~ p. a~ ~ o a ~ n ~ a 1'2. r,. N ~ N '6 ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ .w p... N b 4L aj ~ a ~ ~ e n G. 'r q d3 d ~ ~ CS ~ D ~ C q (i1 ~ i3. ip O i. 4 N 4}. f5 €J.I q d a ~ O~O.-~41`fl qOI Cq, `!'.~{-pypL'QN L.~~~6 oau Ea ~ U fi Rt ~ u ~ ~7 rµ'.,.^ ~ q :W qi 1U ~ 4 q yG.. V ID ~ N U ° t v c _ uu.~ a a r " _O q VF - ~ q 4 q i~ Yf ~ ~ c o s o' y ~ qF v tll. ~L3' S ~ L7 ro ] N U! q, S q Q of r =4 O CJ C ~ O o ~ 1 ~ ~ -''~,x ~ 1L. U 0. J O~ t) G~ J) o LL q U ro E L ~ 1 G1 c o c o a a _ rs d e ~ 5~m ~ nE~`o 2~ E u ax`v~, r~r+ ~ @ ~7 a ~ v ~ ~ m _ _ 53 U cD ~ O 4 OS N N ~ ~ 47 ~ ~ O O C~ q~q 0 y~ u 3c ~ ~ q ~ ~ 111. ~ C dy N ~ h~~ t um via ~ .71 ~ q d1 - N pOp {6 ij d c n a ar ~ tq U q 91 N ~ N N.q ~ ~ ~ ~ U fir' C ~ ~o'u eha . ~ V IU Tr " N t6 f0 CR ~ ~ ~ (6 ~ ~ •p d ~ a v ,,.~.~w u1p qa O N m ~ +U 7 N ~ U7 9 N '4'1 ~ ~ n n ° " w K d [ ~ m 34. ~ i %g~ _ ~s tt7 ~ q m ` m ma"'a a o q/ q ~ r m N N _ ~ z, A: q Qa W fi N. d1 v o °5 ~ a a R ;m ~ G~ L g L Q L N o R D ^f pN ~ ~ ~ fQ N q- LL ~c ~ ~F^ n. o c M o w ~ " ~ a ~ ~nrcn. ~ n ~ Y~` F i`R 3"!` tY3. 'x ~ ~ y _ ~ ~ ~~~m k~ ~ _ +'A'S ~ e .,r,~ ~ ~ c ~ r.. ! t 'z ro it ,te. ,9sezc~ sr+ n c r- ~ i ~kt~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i u~~. - - ,~y ~ ~ n3 s i ~ a Lx2 . E ° nT - Y .r- .n L I } 3'.~.+ j ~~`_0."" ~'Tp3 °'i N Les S3 ^fi I .'1 ~ ~Y u~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ max' ~ u ~h`y4 c 'J ~ V d P =C~ CEO ~ e~~ ` „r 4. n .'N~ 4 ~ vF 'h ~?.av`L~° p ~ - ~ mod' xcn3 ~ '°a~Cms` 4 sw ~ C1 ~ ~ 4.°t i-: cz M vi sue,. c~~ Q ~t m #'3 ~ t'S e~ j ~ f N ~ i ~ , ~ Q Y ~ j o ' ~ t~ w E o ~ y(3 ~ ih E ~ € U C 6.< O fi3 /r Y 3 ' i x^ n c4 _ a s,s r + } Lam} uF~ e^ iUr ~ ~ F, ~ ~ k f. ' { 3i~ yn re= w. .--i u as F ~ ~ .-5 ~:ewxw.d I ~ ~ r=, c.: of '.-'max . , i ~-a~.H1, I ~ ~'s4„~14~'y~e~7'r g":.'i'rRUp" ~r ci~ - ?K 4 35 -F` I` l R.`'9:i1 ~ '3 :1t ~ C~ei v-rv~1 m y~^+ t'f C* ^M1m ~ ~ 'X a v- ~ . s: ~J : Y~i ~ T ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ m S~ ~.'v n, e . eat tx. c._ , rt . ~ rv " c Ln ~ rte; ~ ~ .r~ a t ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ P~ . w e _ _ n f 4 ~ Cr 'c Cv-1 7 •T 4z ~ k ~ . t~ ~ x .x ~ 3 ~ £'v t'V Ci ~"`t iV 4 Cl CI .y x'ti. C ) L^r ^ti M 'i t Cv %cv ~ a~ 'rv. T+- ht y^" kYJ J3 m. vP. C c'1 ^J i4') i+' 4 ~ ~ t+. 0 E !5g C {V :`xx °3 t"L t :'A t'n <~4 "J CF. :V ^y ' m { ~ 3 ~ry may". q O a _ ~ '~I S~"'''~ O _ r~ ' ' U v ~ - ~ ~ ~ d. n _ - 33 ~ ~ ~ z ~ G,: a +t- w a.-, s. _ r.v ~ ~ ~ a : \.J `-'tom ~ ~ .a.~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ fl e s ~ ~ ~ ~ u a ~ 1G~a ~ qty, (3~,^ i'~ £ ~ c _ b ~ ~ C "^'r '4 r - V] :W`u' ~ _ _ a 7? 'may ~ .v eJ --5 "R 't ,,~~gg~ i sywY~i ti ~ ~ rF-/5I S YNY +t^, l " i i ~n~~ ...-A:~.:3I. °iF,.vu'ci . •_P•_•drp _ 3i~ :.:k N °4 e n~i7 ~ Y ~~~i ~ ~ 0 '~4 ~f 3 ~ ~~.3 ~ Gp Fy'-: 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~m ' O ~ Q m ~ c~ ~ O b~ o ~ O a ~'`a.e ~ N +1 ~6 ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ' O° ~ _ ~ ~ ~~a N ~ ~ 1~-~ • 'ri rte- ~ 12 ~ N N ~ bA ~ } 6g ~ ~ ~ N ZZ ~ ~ ~ ry p ~ ~ N 3-~ _ ~ ~ p ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ bA N E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A A A ~ • • _ ~ , ~w