The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-03-03 Agenda Packet I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City of Chula Vista in the office of the City Clerk and that I posted the document according to Brown Act requirements. Dated: 212 Signed C . CITY OF CHULA VISTA • Mary Casillas Salas, Mayor John McCann, Councilmember- District 1 Gary Halbert, City Manager Jill M. Galvez, Councilmember- District 2 Glen R. Googins, City Attorney Stephen C. Padilla, Councilmember- District 3 Kerry K. Bigelow, City Clerk Mike Diaz, Councilmember- District 4 Tuesday, March 3, 2020 5:00 PM Council Chambers 276 4th Avenue, Building A Chula Vista, CA 91910 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Diaz, Galvez, McCann, Padilla and Mayor Casillas Salas PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY A. 20-0080 OATHS OF OFFICE Youth Action Council: -Arturo Osorio Jr. -Meghan Palitz -Milana Rodriguez -Andrea Roji -Rodrigo Tapia Guevara -Hector Vidrio -Alejandro Villalvazo -Eliya Yoo City of Chula Vista Page 1 Printed on 212712020 City Council Agenda March 3,21020 B., 20-0091 PRESENTATION BY SAN DIEGO STRIKE FORCE VICE PRESIDENT OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND PLAYER ENGAGEMENT VIVI, LIN) INTRODUCING THE ORGANIZATION AND ITS INVOLVEMENT IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONSENT CALENDAR (11tems 1 - 4) The Council will enact the Consent Calendar staff recommendations by one motion, without discussion, unless a Councilmember, a member of the public, or staff requests that an item be removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar. 11. .20-0098 APPROVAL OF MINUTES of September 10, 2019. Recommended Action: Council approve the minutes. 2. 120-0084 DECLARATION OF VACANCY OF THE FOLLOWING, SEAT, PURSUANT TO CHARTER SECTION 602 AND MUNICIPAL, CODE SECTION 2.25.105: International Friendship Commission Member Venus Molina AtLargeMember Seat), Term Exp. 6/30/2022 Recommended Action: Council deem the seat vacant. 3. 119-0567 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA INCREASING THE SPEED LIMITS AT' THE, FOLLOWING SEGMENTS: (1) EAST "H" STREET BETWEEN SOUTHWESTERN DRIVE AND OTAY LAKES ROAD FROM 35MPH TO 45MPH,1 (2) TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD BETWEEN HALECREST DRIVE, AND CREST DRIVE/OLEANDER AVENUE FROM 40 MPH TO 45MPH, AND (3) TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD BETWEEN PASEO DEL REY AND OLD TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD FROM 45 MPH TO 5g MPH, AND AMENDING SCHEDULE X OF THE REGISTER MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER TO REFLECT THE ESTABLISHED SPEED LIMITS (FIRST READING) Department: Engineering Department Environmental Notice: The Project qualifies, for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines Section 153011 Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15061(b)(3). City of Chula Vista Page 2 Printed on 212712020 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet Page 2 of 152 City Council Agenda March 3,21020 Recommended Action: Council place, the ordinance on first (reading., 4. .20-0063 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING A CITY COUNCIL POLICY REGARDING ACCEPTING DONATIONS TO THE CITY Department: CiManager Environmental Notice: The activity is not a 'Project"'' as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required. Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC COMMENTS Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the Council on any subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item, on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the Council from discussing or taking action on any Issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Council may schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to three minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following item(s) have been advertised as public hearing(s) as required by law. If you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a ""Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 51. 19-0335 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TRANS,NET LOCAL STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2018/19THF OUCH 20,22/23 Department: Engineering Department Environmental Notice: The activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required. Recommended Action: Council conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolution. City of Chula Vista Page 3 Printed on 212712020 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 3 of 152 City Council Agenda March 3,21020 ACTION ITEMS The Item(s) listed in this section of the agenda will be considered individually by the Council and are expected to elicit discussion and deliberation. If you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 6. .20-0038 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHUB A VISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 15.26 of THE CHLILA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH MANDATORY ENERGY UPGRADE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITIONS AND REMODELS TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES (FIRST READING) This item was continued from 2/25/2020. Department: Economic Development Department Environmental Notice: The Project qualifies ora Class 8 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the, Environment) of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the "Project 1) also qualifies for an Exemption pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines. Recommended Action: Council place the ordinance on first reading. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS T. 120-0093 CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL ENDORSEMENT OF THE CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION OF THE, CHULA VISTA FIRE DEPARTMENT MAYOR'S REPORT'S COU NCI LM EMBERS' COMMENTS CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS ADJOURNMENT to the regular City Council meeting on March 10,, 2020, at 5:00 p,.m., in the Council Chambers. Materials provided to the City Council related to any open-session item on this agenda are available for public review at the City Clerk's Office, located in City Hall at 276 Fourth Avenue, Building A, during normal business hours. City of Chula Vista Page 4 Printed on 212712020 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 4 of 152 City Council Agenda March 3,21020 In compliance with the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and'or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, contact the City Clerk's Office at(6 9; 691-504 1(California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired by dialing 711) at least forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting. Most Chula Vista City Council meetings, including public comments, are video recorded and aired live on AT&T U-verse channel 99 (throughout the County), on Cox Cable channel 24 (only in Chula Vista), and online at www.chulavistaca.gov. Recorded meetings are also aired on Wednesdays at 7 p.m. (both channels) and are archived on the City's website. Sign up at www.ch,ulavistaca.gov to receive email notifications when City Council agendas are published online. City of Chula Vista Page 5 Printed on 212712020 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 5 of 152 C® of Chula Vista Meetinge Minutes -, Draft Tuesday,September 10,2019 5:00 RM Council Chambers 276 4th Avenue, (Building A Chula Vista, CA 91910 REGULAR MEETING CSF THE CITY COUNCIL The City Council minutes are prepared and ordered to correspond to the City Council Agenda. Agenda items may be taken out of order during the meeting. The agenda items at this meeting were considered in the order presented. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista was called to order at 5:09 pm, in the Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmember Diaz, Councilmernber Galvez, Councilmember McCann, Deputy Mayor Padilla and Mayor Casillas Salas Also Present: City Manager Halbert, City Attorney Googins, City Clerk Bigelow, and Assistant City Clerk Turner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE Councilmember Diaz led the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Casillas ,alas requested a moment of silence in remebrance of the,victims of 9111. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY A. 191-0280 PRESENTATION OF 'THE SANDAG BIG VISION AND 5 BIG MOVES FOR THE 2021 REGIONAL PLAN UPDATE BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HASAN IKHRATA AND SPECIAL PROJECTS DIRECTOR COLEEN CLEMENTSON Executive Director Hasan lkhrata, Special Projects Director Coleen Clementson, and staff representing SAI' DAG gave a presentation on the item. The following members of the public spoke in support of the SANDAG Big 5 Moves program -Rita Clement, Chula Vista resident -Larry Emerson, National City resident The following members of the public submitted written documentation in support of the SANDAG Big 5 Moves program and did not wish to speak- -Carolina Rodriguez -Denia Martin City of Chula Vista Page 1 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 6 of 152 City Council Meeting Minutes-IDraft September 10,2019 B. 1 -0413 PRESENTATION BY METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM (MTS) MARKETING SPECIALIST MARCIAL. GUTIERR T DECLARING ING OCTOBER 2, 2019 RIDE FREE DAY ON MTS TRANSIT SYSTEM Mayor Casillas Salas read the proclamation and Councilmember C'alvez presented it to l arcial Gutierrez, representing the,San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, who gave a presentation on the item.. C. `191-0423 PRFBENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING SEPTEMBER 2019 AS NATIONAL CHILDHOOD OBESITY AND HUNGER AWARENESS MONTH IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Mayor Casillas Salas read the proclamation and Councilmember McCann presented it to Senior Project Coordinator Kurz and Principal Recreation Manager Contreras, who game a presentation on the item. D. `191-0427 PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING SEPTEMBER 13TH GUGH SEPTEMBER 22, 2019 AS WELCOMING, WEEK I THF CITY OF CHULA VISTA Mayor Casillas Salas read the proclamation and Deputy Mayor Padilla presented it to members of the Human Relations Commission.. 191-0443 PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING SEPTEMBER 201 AS NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS MONTH IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Mayor Casillas Salas read the proclamation and Councilmember Diaz presented it to Fire Chief Leering and Emergency Services Coordinator King, who gage a presentation on the item. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 11 .. 11 Items 4, 10,and 7 I were removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of a member of the public, staff, and Councilmember Calvez, respectively. City Attorney Coogins announced that a revised resolution for Item 3 and an updated reimbursement agreement for Item 4 had been distributed to the Council, and that action on the items would be with respect to the revised documents. 1. 191-0444 APPROVAL. OF MINUTES of April 9,1 201 . Recommended Action: Council approve the minutes. 2. 191-0392 ORDINANCE NO. 3461 OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 2334 RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE TELEGRAPH CANYON DRAINAGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEB (SECOND REACHING AND ADOPTION) This itern was con iinued from August 6, 2019. Recommended Action: Council adapt the ordinance. 3. 18-0528 A. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-167 OF THE, CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING A MAP SHOWING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE TERRITORY PROPOSED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE BAYFRONT PROJECT SPECIAL TAX F=INANCING DISTRICT City of Chula Vista Page 2 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 7 of 152 City Council Meeting Minutes-IDIraft September 10,2019 B. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-168 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ESTABLISH THE BAYFRONT PROJECT SPECIAL TAX FINANCING DISTRICT AND TO AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX THEREIN TO FINANCE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS, AND MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE' C. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-169 O1= THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DECLARING, THE NECESSITY TO INCUR A BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OF THE BAYFRONT PROJECT SPECIAL TAX FINANCING DISTRICT TO BE SECURED BY SPECIAL FAXES LEVIED WITHIN SUCH DISTRICT TO FINANCE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS Recommended Action: Council adopt the resollutions. Item 4 was removed from the Consent Calendar. 5. 191-0432 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-173 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS MEMORIALIZING A STATE DENSITY BONUS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT COD SECTION 65915ET SECS. BETWEEN THE CITY AND HAMILTON PLAZA LTD, INCLUDING ALLOWING THE RENTAL OF DWELLING UNITS A AN AFFORDABLE RENT UNTIL THEY ARE SOLD AT AN AFFORDABLE SALES PRICE AT KINGSWOOD MANOR Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution. . 19-0399 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-174 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE PERFORMING AND VISUAL- ARTS GRANT REVIEW PA E 'S AWARD RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL. YEAR 201 9/20 1ITH A TOTAL MONETARY GRANT AWARD FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR TOTALING $80,1390 Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution. 7. 191-0416 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-175 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS; AWARDING TGIF CONTRACT'T 1=OR THE COMBINED ADVERTISEMENT OF THE "SEWER ACCESS ROAD REHABILITATION FOR FISCAL. YEAR 2013114 (C IP# S'IIIIR0282)97 AND "SEWER ACCT BB TOAD REHABILITATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014115 CIP# SWR0288) PROJECTS TO BLUE PACIFIC ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1927089; AND APPROPRIATING $44,000 FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE OF THE SEWER FACILITY REPLACEMENT FUND TO CIPS# SWR02 2 (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution. City of Chula Vista page 3 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 8 of 152 City Council Meeting Minutes-IDraft September 10,2019 . 19-941 " RESOLUTION N9 2019-175 9F THE CITY COUNCIL 9F THE CITY 9F CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS, AWARDING ING TIDE CONTRACT FOR THE "INSTALLATION 9F= PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN INDICATIONS AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL. MODIFICATIONS TRF9495)" PROJECT T9 HMS CONSTRUCTION, INC., IN THE AMOUNT O $1,945,999; ANIS TRANSFERRING $135,OOOIN TRAFFIC SIGNAL APPROPRIATIONS FROM TRF0398 T9 TRF04O5 4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) Recommended Action: Council adopt the resolution. 91. 191-9415 INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 39, 2019 Recommended Action: Council receive the report. Item's 10 and I I were removed from the Consent Calendar. Approval of the Consent Cal ncl r ACTION: A motion was made by Councilmember McCann, seconded by Deputy IMayor Padilla, to approve staffs recommendations on the above Consent Calendar items, headings read,text waived.The motion carried by the following vete: Yes: 5- Diaz, Galvdez, McCann, (Padilla and Casiillas Salas N co: 0 Abstain: 0 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 4. 191-9414 A. RESOLUTION N9. 2919-170 9F THE CITY COUNCIL 9F THE CITY 9F CHULA VISTA 1 APPROVING A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND RICA CHULA VISTA, L,LC ("DEVELOPER"') T9 CONSTRUCT SPECIFIED SEWER IMPROVEMENTS; 2) FINDING THE DEVELOPER'S PROPOSED SOLE SOURCE AWARD T9 ITS GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO CONSTRUCT SUCH IMPROVEMENTS TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC, PURSUANT TO CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE SUBSECTION 2.56.160(H)7 "DEVELOPER-PERFORMED PUBLIC WORKS"; ) DELEGATING TO THE CITY MANAGER AUTHORITY T9 ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBCONTRACTORS; AND (4) APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR (4/5 VOTE REQU�IRFLP) B. RESOLUTION NO. 2919-171 OF THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A REIMBURSEMENT AGR MFNT BETWEEN THE CITY AND RIDA CHULA VISTA, LLC: TO DESIGN SPECIFIED BAYFRONT INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR 4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) City of Chula Vista Page 4 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 9 of 152 City Council Meeting Minutes-IDraft September 10,2019 C. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-172 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDING RIDA CHULA VISTA, LL.0"S PROPOSED SOLE SOURCE AWARD TO ITS GENERAL CONTRACTOR AC'TOR O CONSTRUCT BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC, PURSUANT TO CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL COD SUBSECTION 2.55.150(H7 "DEVE LOPE R-PERFORMED PUBLIC WORKS,51 ANIS DELEGATING TO THE CITY MANAGER AUTHORITY TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBCONTRACTORS This item was Continued from August 13, 2019. Theresa Acerro, Chula Vista resident, also speaking on behalf of Kenn C'olclasure, Chula Vista resident, spoke in opposition to staffs recommendation. ACTION: A motion was made by Mayor Cas llas Salas, seconded by Deputy IMayor Padilla, to adopt Resolution Nos. 2019-170, 2019-171, and 2019-172, Readings read, text waived.The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 5- Diaz, Galvdez, McCann, (Padilla and Casiillas Salas INco: 0 Abstain: 0 10. 191-0434 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING TIME ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT AWARD FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND, SECU�RITY, APPROPRIATING 1 55,x"35 IN THE FEDERAL GRANT FUND, AN AUTHORIZING, TIME FIRE CHIEF OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE ALL RELATED DOCUMENTATION AND PROCUREMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS GRANT 4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) Item 10 was not discussed and was continued to the meeting of September 24, 2019. 11. 191-0425 A. RESOLUTION NO 2019-177 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISA AMENDING THE COMPENSATION SCHEDULE AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN TO REFLECT THE ADDITION AND DELETION OF VARIOUS POSITION TITLES AND AMENDING THE AUTHORIZED POSITION COUNTS IN VARIOUS" DEPARTMENTS WITH A NET INCREASE IN AUTHORIZED STAFFING B. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-173 OF THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE REVISED FISCAL YEAR 20191/20 COMPENSATION SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 13,1 2919, AS REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, 'TITLE 2, SECTION 570.5 City of Chula Vida Page 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 10 of 152 City Council Meeting Minutes-IDraft September 10,2019 C. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CH LA VISTA AMENDING CHUB A VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2 05.010 TO ADD THE UNCLASSIFIED POSITIONS OF 1=A CYBER SECURITY PROGRAM MANAGER, FA NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR 111, AND FACILITIES FINANCING MANAGER AND TO DELETE THE FA INFORMATION SECURITY PROGRAM MANAGER POSITION (FIRST READING) (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED Human Resources Director Chase responded to questions of the Council. ACTION: A motion was made by Councillmemlber Galvez, seconded by Councillmemlber McCann, to adopt Resolution Nos. 2019-177 and 20,19-178, and to place the above ordinance on first reading, headings read, text waived. The motion carried by the following vote: "Yes: 5- Diaz, Galve,z, McCann, (Padilla and Casillas Salas No: 0 Abstain: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS The following members of the spoke in opposition to the drag queen story time program: -John Moore, San Diego resident -Arthur Schaper -Karen Grube, Escondido resident -Mary Mayer-Oaks, (National City resident -Tony Villafranca and he also spoke on behalf of Ruben Serrano, Chula Vista resident -Allison Smith, El Cajon resident -Laurel bailey, Chula Vista resident -Mose Solis, Chula Vista resident -.Nita Hodges, Chula Vista resident -batt Kocher, Chula Vista resident -George 1Nobbs, Chula Vista resident -Aaron Sanders, Chula Vista resident -Martha Souza, Chula Vista resident -Hanoli Sandez, Chula Vista resident -Robert Sandez, Chula Vista resident -Carolina Thomas, Chula Vista resident -Lillie Hebert, Chula Vista resident -Michelle Huffman, Imperial Beach resident -Pastor Amado Huizar, Chula Vista resident, and he submitted written protests -Pastor Art Hodges, Chula Vista resident -Alexandra Mot, , Chula Vista resident -Hector Gastelum, Chula Vista resident The following members of the public spoke in support of the drag queen story time program and the f.CBTQ+community: -Shane Parmely, Chula Vista resident -Marco Amaral, Imperial Beach resident -Paola Martinez Montez Chula Vista resident -baba Gonzalez, Chula Vista resident -Lizzie rechner, Chula Vista resident -William Felix, Chula Vista resident City of Chula Vista Page 6 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage].I of 152 City Council Meeting Minutes-IDrarft September 10,2019 The following members of the public submitted written documentation in support of the drag queen story time program and did not wish to speak: -Carolina Rodriguez, Chula Vista resident -Farah Walsh, ,San Diego resident -Gina Woodard, Chula Vista resident -penia Martin, Chula Vista resident -Rita Clement, Chula Vista resident -Becky Thimm, Chula Vista resident -Patricia Huffman, Chula Vista resident -Maggi Baker, Chula Vista resident Eva Varela, Chula Vista resident, expressed safety concerns related to the drag queen story time program. Daniel Teaque, Chula Vista resident, expressed concern regarding brush .maintenance in the area of his house. The following members of the public expressed concern regarding a proposed psychiatric hospital- -Ian Burgar, Chula Vista resident -Bill Stellin, Chula Vista resident -David Molinari, Chula Vista resident Rebekah Edwards, Chula Vista resident, submitted written documentation regarding a proposed psychiatric hospital and did not wish to speak. The following members of the public submitted a request to speak but were not present when called: -Reverend Billy Palling, Chula Vista resident -Vanessa Ramos, Chula Vista resident -Gail Levin, San Diego resident -Ray Richmond -Maria Valdez -Jim,Scofield, Chula Vista resident henayim Sandez, Chula Vista resident, introduced herself Becky Rapp, Chula Vista resident, spoke in support of City participation in litigation against the Bureau of Cannabis Control, and she expressed concern regarding marijuana use and spoke in opposition to the drag queen story time program. Tim Neil, Chula Vista resident, expressed concern regarding a tree in his yard. ACTION ITEMS 112 1 �-0413 A. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CH LA V'IS'TA ESTABLISHING COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION IN THE CITY OF CULA VISTA (FIRST READING) B. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-179 OF THE CITY COUNCIL CSF THE CITY OF C HULA VISTA APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT CREATING THE SAN DIEGO REGIONAL COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY AUTHORITY Conservation Specialist Downs and Chief Sustainability Officer Cakunga gave a presentation on the item. City of Chula Vida Page 7 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 12 of 152 City Council Meeting Minutes-IDraft September 10,2019 City Attorney Googins presented information regarding risk mitigation. The following members of the public spoke in support of staff's recommendation.- -Rita Clement, Chula Vista resident -Maggie Baker, Chula Vista resident -Carolyn Scofield, Chula Vista resident -Matthew Vasilakis and Carolina Rodriguez, representing San Diego Community Choice Alliance, and they ,gave a presentation on the item -Farah Walsh, representing Sullivan Solar Power -Cody Hooven, representing!the City of San Diego -Sebastian Saria The following members of the public expressed concern with some of the provisions of the proposed agreement related to labor: -Gretchen Newsom, representing IBEW Local 569 -hector Gastelum, representing the Coalition for Fair Employment and Construction The following members of the public submitted written documentation in support of the item and did not wish to speak: -Tynan Wyatt, Chula Vista resident -Jacob Babauta, Bonita resident -Dema Martin Lopez, Chula Vista resident -Patricia Huffman, Chula Vista resident -Gina Woodward, Chula Vista resident -Becky Thimm, Chula Vista resident -Joyce Lane, representing San Diego 350 Lisa Cohen, representing the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, submitted written documentation requesting the Council postpone a decision on the item.. Edgar Garcia, representing Green Seed Investment and First Seed Development, spoke regarding a potential solar farm at the Salt Creek Golf Course property. Councilmember Padilla stated that he agreed with the testimony of speaker Gretchen Newsom. Council discussion ensued.. ACTION: A motion was made by Councilmember McCann, seconded by Deputy (Mayor Padilla, to place the above ordinance on first reading and adopt Resolution No. 2019-179, headings read,text waived.The motion carried by the following vote: "des: 3- McCann, Padilla and Casilllas Salas INo: 2- Diaz and Gallvez Abstain: CITE' MANAGER'S REPORTS City Manager Halbert expressed ,gratitude for the exceptional work performance by the Community Services and Police Departments surrounding the demonstration related to the drag queen story time program. Mayor Casillas S'alas concurred with City Manager Halbert"s comments and also recognized Library staff City of Chula Vida Page g 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 13 of 152 City Council Meeting Minutes-IDraft September 10,2019 MAYOR'S REPORTS 13. 11 -0429 RATIFICATION of APPOINTMENT'S of THE FOLLOWING: - Jennifer Bustamante, ousing Advisory Commission (At-Large Seat) - Jay Francisco, Safety Commission - Steven Cold krantz, Historic Preservation Commission - Curtis Moore, International Friendship, Commission - Shawan Owusu�, Housing Advisory Commission - Peggy Ratner, Human relations Commission - Jeff Redondo, Cultural Arts Commission - Tanya Rodriguez, Cultural Arts Commission - Jasmine Rubel, Board of Library Trustees - Emily Tran, Commission on Aging ACTION: A motion was made by Councilmember McGann, seconded by Deputy (Mayor Padilla, to ratify the above appointments. The motion carried by the following vote: "Yes: 5- Diaz, Galvez, McCann, (Padilla and Casillas Salas No: Abstain: 0 At the request of Mayor Casillas Salas, there was consensus of the Council to add the following items to an upcoming agenda: -Consideration of endorsing and sponsoring the 7th annual International Marachi Festival at Bayside Park;and -Consideration of a referral to the Charter Review Commission to analyze and draft for City Council consideration a charter amendment that would allow Chula 'Vista "residents,"' not just "qualified electors," to serve on City boards and commissions. OUN ILM MBERS" COM�MENITS Counc lmember McCann spoke regarding his Naval Reserve service. He thanked first responders to 9111 and the military members who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Deputy Magor Padilla spoke regarding 9111, and he paid tribute to the victims and recognized first responders. Deputy Magor Padilla and Mayor Casillas Salas spoke regarding acceptance and inclusion. Counclmember Diaz spoke regarding the importance of respecting others'views and opinions. Counclmember Calvez, expressed appreciation to the faith-based community and suggested a member of that community serve on the Board of Library Trustees. Councilmember C'alvez extended an invitation to a meeting of the United ,Mates section of the International Boundary and Nater Commission, regarding the border sewage issue in Tijuana River Walley. City of Chula Vista page 9 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 14 of 152 City Council Meeting Minutes-IDraft September 10,2019 CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS 14. 1 9-0419 RE U!EST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION TO AUTHORIZE CITY PARTICIPATION N I N LITIGATION AGAINST THE STAFF BUREAU OF CANNABIS CONTROL IN ORDER TO CHALLENGE STATE EFFORTS TO PREEMPT LOCAL REGULATION OF CANNABIS DELIVER BUSINESSES (COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, ET AL. V. BUREAU O CANNABIS CONTROL, ET AL. City Attorney C►eagins spoke regarding the item. ACTION: A motion was made by Councilmember McCann, seconded by Councilmembeer Galvez, to authorize City Attorney Googins to sign on Ibehalf of the City to join the litigation with expenditures of up to $5,000. The motion carried by the following vote: "yes: 5- Diaz, Calvet, McCann, (Padilla and Casillas salas INo: 0 Abstain: CLOSED SESSION Pursuant to Resolution No. 13706 and Council Policy No. 346-03, Official Minutes and records of action taken during Closed Sessions aro maintained by the City Attorney. 115. 191-0421 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING INITIATION OF LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54g5 .g(c) One [1] Case. County of Santa Cruz, et a . v. Bureau of Cannabis Control, et al., Fresno Superior Court, Casa No. 1 gCFCCg1224. Item 15'was withdrawn and was not discussed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 p.m. m. Minutes prepared by. T spar L. Turner,Assistant City Clerk Derry K. Bigelow, MMC, City Clerk City of Chula Vista Osage 10 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 15 of 152 zmr, ..' l IN III til v r :a C1TY' C,0UNC'1LSTIA, ""EMENT CITY, OF CHUIAVISTA r l 1 March 3, 020 File IIS: 0-0084 TI1TLE DECLARATION OF VACANCY OF THE FOLLOWING SLAB', PURSUANT TO CHARTER SECTION 6012 ANIS MUNICIPAL CODE SEC'T'ION 2.25.1.05: INTERNATIONAL FRIENDSHIP COMMISSION MEMBER VENUS MOLINA (AT-LARGE MEMBER SEAT),TERM EXP. 6/30/2022 RECOMMENDED AC"TION Council deem the seat vacant. DISCUSSION City Charter section 602(C) and Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) section 2.25.105(A) require that a. board or commission seat become vacant, and be so declared by the City Council, when any board or commission member, is absent from three consecutive, regular meetings, unless the absence was excused by a majority vote of the other members. The City Clerk was notified of International Friendship C'ommission. member, Venus Molina's u.nexcused absences from three consecutive, regular meetings. Details of the absences are provided in the attached memo. Library staff have attempted to contact the member to discuss the situation but have been unable to reach her. This matter has been agen.dized for Council to declare the seat vacant,as required by the Charter and C M section.2.25.1.05(A) Staff Contact Leah Larrar e PIi3ge 1 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 16 of 152 HUT. LIBRARY MEMORANDUM DATE: February 26, 2020 TO: City Clerk, Kerry K. Bigelow FROM: Alicia Balcazar, Commission Secretary SUBJECT: Member Absence from Three,Consecutive Meetings In accordance with Chula Vista Municipal Code 2.25.110 (E), "The secretary of each board or commission shall notify the City Clerk if a voting member misses three regular, consecutive meetings of the board or commission without being excused by a majority vote of the board or commission as expressed in its official minutes." Venus Molina(International Friendship Commission),missed the following three regular, consecutive meetings: 1. October 16, 2019 2. November 20,2019 3. January 15, 2020 Commissioner Molina's absences from these meetings were not excused by the Commission, as reflected in the official minutes of the meetings. Our office has made multiple attempts to contact Commissioner Molina.We are requesting that the Council consider deeming the seat vacated at its next available meeting. 276 Fourth Averme, Chula 'Vista, A. 91910 www.chulavistaca.,gov (61,9) 691-5 Q fax (61,9 5,85-5774 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 17 of 152 C1W OF CHUAVISTA International Friendship i • REVISED I U T S OF A REGULART THE INTERNATIONAL FRIENDSHIP COMMISSION OF THE CI Y OF CHULA VISTA October 1+ 2019 Civic Center Building A Executive Conference Room 103x. 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista 919,10 CALL T .# 2 ROLL CALL-. Chair Gallardo P Commissioners; Aka a P Baueree R � I uran, P Mares_P"—, McCabe—P—, Molina—A—, Moore—P , and Murao P , CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Declaration of excused/unexcused absenteeism June 19th 2019 Commissioner: McCabe Commissioner.- Molina 2. Approval of minutes, June I 91h 32019 ACTION-. Commissioner r1cCabe's absence was excused. No action was taken on Commissioner Molina's absence, A.motion was made by Commissioner Duran to approve the minutes of June 19th, 2019. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moore and passed unanimously. YES. 7 - Gallardo, Akana, .Duran, Mares, McCabe, Moore, and Muraoka PUBLIC "CT' There were none. INFORMATIONAL IT 3. Fundra sing Chair Gallardo A. Proposed Activities Proposed fundraising activities include Pined& Taint, This is Breweries of Chula Vista T-shirts, and floral arrangements. B. Current IFC Budget Report ACTION:N: motion was made by Con.nissioner Duran to allot money from the budget towards t-shirts for fundraiser. The motion was seconded by Chair Gallardo and passed unanimously. YES: 7' - Gallardo, Akana, Duran, Mares, McCabe, Moore, and Mu.raoka Page 1 I International Friendship Commission Minutes October 16th, 2019 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 18 of 152 4, Discussion on uommissloner Business Cards Lynnette Tess tore, Cultural Arts Manager anager explains business cards rules. ACTION ITEMS 5. Subcommittee Updates A. Subcommittee Openings and Changes; L,ynnette Tessltore; Cultural Arts Manager Lynnette Tessitore opened discussion to assign commissioners to each subcommittee. Commissioners Mares and Muraoka volunteered for Odarawa, Japan subcommittee. Chair Gallardo, Commissioner Akana volunteered for Cebu Philippines subcommittee B. + da vara, Japan. 1. Sister City School with dam ara; Vice Chair Murao,ka ACTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Muraoka to reach out to Odawara Elementary School to add a new sister school. The motion was seconded by Commissioner dares and passed unanimously. YES: 7 Ga.11ardo, Al ana, Duran, Mares, McCabe, Moore, and Muraol a C. Cebu, Philippines 1. Update from Mayor's Office; Lynette Tessitore Cultural Arts Manager Commission discussed possible international marathon with Cebu City. D. Ira.puato, Mexico Commission discussed how Irapuato has not replied to any communication from the Chula vista or the commission. OTHER BUSINESS 6. Staff Comments There were none. 7. Chair Comments There were none, . Commissioner Comments Commissioner Moore suggested sending holiday cards to all ,sister cities. ADJOURNMENT at 7 oprn to a regular meeting on November 201 2019 6pm in the Executive Conference Room 103A, City Hall Building A, 276 Fourth. Avenue, Chula"Nista California.. Alicia _ alcazar, Fiscalffice Specialist Page 2 1 International Friendship Commission Minutes October 16th, 2019 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 19 of 152 C11YOF CHULAVISTA d International Fria s i missio REGULARMINUTES OF A I INTERNATIONAL FRIENDSHIP COMMISSION A VISTA November 201h 9,2019 Civic Center Building A Executive uonierence Room 103A 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula vista. 91910 CAL ROLL _ _ oucree_I , Du.ran,_A. �.`�.I.� Chair Gallardo—P_;, Commissioners; a�na P' ':ares—P—, McCabe—P—, Molina—A—, Moore—P—, and Muraoka P CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Declaration of excuse / excuse . absenteeism October 16 1h, 2019 Commissioner Molina No action was taken on this items... 2. Approval of minutes October 16'h, 2 1 ACTION: A motion was made by Chair Gallardo to approve the minutes of ctober 1 th, 2019. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mares and passed unanimously pending corrections. YES: 6— allard , Akana, Mares McCabe fareand Murala PUBLIC `here were none. ACTION T 3. Fundraising; Chair Gallardo A. Proposed Activities Chair Gallardo discussed possible fundraising ideas. Pined and painted happening on January 16th, 2020 at Novo Brazil located at the Otay Ranch Mall. 4. Subcommittee Updates Page 1 I International Friendship Commission Minutes November 201h 2019 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 20 of 152 A. u'dawara, Japan 1. Sister City School with Odawara; Vice Chair Muraoka Discussed relationship with Sister City School Odawara. B. Cebu, Philippines Commission discussed relationship with new Mayor C. Irapuato, Mexico Commission had no update. 5. Vice Chair Muraoka's update on fundraiser t-shirts. Vice Chair Muraoka updated the Commission on the t-shirt fundraiser. OTHER BUSINESS 6. Staff Comments A. Resolution to Change Location and Time. ACTION: A motion was, made by Chair Gallardo to change the location of the International Friendship Commission meetings from the Executive Conference Room 103A located in City Hall to the Conference Room located at the Chula Vista Public Library. Motion was seconded by Commissioner McCabe and passed unanimously. YES: 6—Gallardo, Akana, Mares, McCabe, Moore, and Muraoka Staff updated Commission on current IFC Budget Report. 7. Chair Comments There were none. 8. Commissioner Comments There were none. ADJOURNMENT at 7:32pm to the next regular meeting on December 18th, 20�19 at 6pm in the Conference Room, Chula Vista Public Library, 365 F Street, Chula Vista California. Alicia Balcazar, Fiscal Office Specialist Page 2 1 International Friendship Uommission Minutes November 20t",, 2019 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 21 of 152 QW F COMMISSIONCHULAVISTA International Friendship t_�oinmission MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE INTERNATIONAL FRIENDSHIP T U A VISTA January 15th, 2020 Civic Center Building.A Executive Conference Room 103A 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula VI*sta 9191+ A : 12pm ROLL CALL: Chair Gallardo_A-- Commissioners; Al ana P" , Duran, Mares—P—, McCabe_. , Mol na-A_,Moore-P—!, and Muraaka—P—. ALSO, SEN : Naomi Davis CONSENT A 1. APPROVAL OF COMMISSIONER DURAN' S NCE FROM NOVEMBER 20TH, 2019.. Staffrecommendation: Commission excuse the absence. 2. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER20TH,2+ 19 MINUTES Staff recommendation: Commission approve the minutes, ACTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Moore to approve staff s recommendations for the Consent Calendar Items I through 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mares and passed unanimously., YES: Al ana, :furan,Mares, McCabe,Moore,and Muraeka PUBLIC COMMENTS See Action Item 5. ACTION ITEMS 3. DISCUSSION OF THE TOKYO 2020 OLYMPICS AMBASSADOR PROGRAM Staff recommendation: Commission discuss and provide staff with direction. ACTIO A notion was made by Commissioner Duran to comply with + dawara's decision to not hold the exchange program for 2020 due to the Tokyo Olympics. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moore and passed unanimously. YES: Al ana,Duran,Mares, McCabe, Moore, and Murao a Page i I international Friendship Commission Minutes January 15th, 2020 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 22 of 152 4. DISCUSSION OF POSSTBLE FUNDRAISING IDEAS Commission discussed possible ftindraising ideas including flower arrangements and book signings. 5. SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATES A. Update on Partnership with Sister City: Odawara, Japan 1. DISCUSSION ON SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE PARTNERSHIP TO PROVIDE BOOKS TO ODAWARA JAPAN Staff recommendation: Commission hear the update, discuss and provide staff with direction. ACTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Duran to have Naomi Davis as an Ambassador for IFC when she visits Japan in April 2020. Naomi Davis will meet with Odawara International Friendship Association to reinforce our relationship. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Moore and passed unanimously. YES: Akana, Duran, Mares, McCabe,Moore, and Muraoka B. Update on Partnership with Sister City: Cebu,Philippines Commission discussed relationship with new Mayor C. Update on Partnership with Sister City: Irapuato,Mexico Commission had no update. OTHER BUSINESS 6. STAFF COMMENTS A. Update on Current IFC Budget Report 7. CHAIR'S COMMENTS There was none 8. COMMISSIONERS'/BOARD MEMBERS' COMMENTS A. Update on Fundraiser T-Shirts fi-om Vice Chair Muraoka ADJOURNMENT at 7:45prm to the next regular meeting on February 19', 2020 at 6pm in the Conference Room, Chula Vista Public Library, 365 F Street, Chula Vista California., .............. Alicia Balcazar:,-ri§ca'r0_fflfi_ce Specialist Page 2 1 Int emationai Priendship Corrmission Minutes Janum-Y 15th, 2020 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 23 of 152 zmr, ..' l IN III til v r :a C1TY' C,0UNC'1LSTIA, ""EMENT CITY, OF CHUIAVISTA r l 1 March 3,2020 File ID: 19-0567 „MITI ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CULA VISTA INCREASING THE SPEED LIMITS AT THE FOLLOWING SEGMENTS: (1) EAST "H" STREET BETWEEN SOUTHWESTERN DRIVE AND O AY LAKES ROAD FROM 35 MPH TO 45 MPH, (2) TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD BETWEEN HALECREST DRIVE AND CREST DRIVE/OLEANDER AVENUE FROM 40 MPH TO 45 MPH, AND (3) TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD BETWEEN PASO DEL REY AND OLD TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD FROM 45 MFH TO 50 MPH, AND AMENDING SCHEDULE X OF THE REGISTER MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER TO REFLECT THE ESTABLISHED SPEED LIMITS (FIRST READING) ACTIONRECOMMENDED ° Council place the ordinance on first reading. SUMMARY Staff completed Engineering and Traffic Surveys E&TS) on. East "H" Street and Telegraph Canyon Road in accordance with the California Vehicle Code, which indicates that the posting of speed limits that are not the maximum or,standard prima facie speed limits be determined by an F .'TS for each street with a posted speed limit within the City. Based on the results of the EATS and by consolidating some short segments, staff has determined that the speed limits increase on: 1) East"H" Street between Southwestern Drive and Otay Lakes Road from. 35 mph to 45 mph, (2) Telegraph. Canyon Road between Halecr,est Drive and Crest Drive/Oleander Avenue from 40 mph to 45 mph, and (3), Telegraph Canyon Road between. Paseo Del Rey and Old Telegraph Cantron Road from 45 mph to 5O mph (see Attachments 1 and 2,Location Plats). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act C QA) and has determined that the project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to State CE,QA Guidelines ,Section 1.5301 Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and. Section 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment."Thus,no further environmental review is required. BOARD/COMMISSIO,N/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Safety Commission, at their meeting on October 2, 2019, voted to concur with staff"s recommendation to increase the speed limit on. East "H" Street between Southwesters Drive and Otay Lakes Road from 35 mph to 45 mph (Attachment ). On November 6, .2019,the Safety Commission voted to concur with staffs recorn.men.dation to increase the speed limit on Telegraph Canyon Road between Halecrest Drive and Crest Drive/Oleander Avenue from 4 PIi3ge I 1 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 24 of 152 mph to 45 mph and on Telegraph Canyon Road between Paseo Del Rey and Old Telegraph Canyon Road from 45 mph to 50 mph (Attachment 4). DISCUSSION Background The California Vehicle Code (CVC) establishes minimum and maximum prima facie speed limits for all streets in the State. The minimum prima facie speed limit is 25 miles per hour (MPH) for specific roadways and the maximum speed limit is 65 MPH (5 MPH for undivided roads).An E&TS is generally required (see CVC Sections 2235, 22,,358 etc.) to change the prima facie speed limit from these preset limits for any City roadway. The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) recommends that local agencies conduct engineering studies at least once every 5, 7 or 10 years, in compliance with CVC Section 40802, to reevaluate non-statutory speed limits on segments of their roadways that have undergone significant changes since the last review, such as the addition or elimination of parking or driveways, changes in the number of travel lanes, changes in the configuration of bicycle lanes, changes in traffic control signal coordination, or significant changes in traffic volumes. In 2019, staff completed E&TS's for the following segments and determined which speed limits are to be maintained and which were to have proposed increases. ,Street Segment Existing Speed Proposed Speed :limit Limit A East"H" Street Southwestern Dr to Otay Lakes, Road 35 mph 45 mph B Telegraph Canyon Halecrest Dr to Crest Dr/Oleander 40 mph 45 mph Road Ave C Telegraph Canyon Paseo Del Rey to Old Telegraph 45 mph 50 mph Road Canyon Road Per the CVC,the E&TSs performed by staff included: (1) Prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements; (2) Accident records; and (3) Traffic/roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver. Segment Consolidation During routine E&T'S updates for East "H" Street and Telegraph Canyon Road, the physical characteristics and traffic patterns of the above roadway segments were nearly identical to their adjacent roadway segments, warranting that they be merged into those segments to reflect the similarities. In addition, all segments were less than or nearly one quarter mile in length, the minimum length recommended by the California MUTCD. This consolidation required that the speeds for the above segments be increased,which was also supported by the data in their respective E&TS's. Traffic Calming Due to the major roadway classification of the subject segments,no traffic calming measures can feasibly be implemented. P 2 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 25 of 152 Speed Enforceability If the proposed speed limit supported by an E&TS is approved, police can use RADAR/LiDAR to enforce the approved posted speed limit. If the proposed speed increase supported by an E&TS is not approved, the means of enforcing speeds on the subject segments will be limited to as follows: • Basic Speed Law: police determine visually that speed of vehicle is greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway. Here, such enforcement method is infeasible due to insufficient police availability and the very short segment lengths. • Maximum Speed Law: use RADAR/LiDAR methods to enforce a speed limit of 65 mph. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT' Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council members and has found no property holdings within 1,000 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. Consequently, this item does not present a disqualifying real property-related financial conflict of interest under California Code of Regulations Title 2, section 18702.2(a)(7) or (8),for purposes of the Political Reform Act(Cal. Gov't Code§87100,et seq. . Staff is not independently aware and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. CURRENT-YEAR FISCAL IMPACT" The increase of'the speed limit would require the posting of new speed limit signs and speed limit legends. This work will be funded by an existing Capital Improvement Project, TR170332, Signing and Striping Program. ONGOING FISCAL IMPAC of Regular maintenance of the pavement legends will be needed every 5 to 7 years, and the signage, every 12 to 15 years. Al"TACHMENTS 1. Location Plat- East"H" Street 2. Location Plat-Telegraph Canyon Road 3. Safety Commission Report, October 2, 2019 4. Safety Commission Report, November 6, 2019 Staff Contact: Paul oberbauer,Senior Civil Engineer P : ge 3 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 26 of 152 ORDINANCE INTO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF' CHULA VISTA INCREASING FETE SPEED LIMITS AT THE FOLLOWING SCCA'ENTS (1) AST "H" STREET BETWEEN SOUTHWESTERN DRIVE AND OTAY LAKES ROAD FROM 5 MPH TO 45 MPH, (2) TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD BETWEEN HA ECR ST DRIVE AND CREST DRIVE OLEANDER AVENUE FROM 40 MPSI TO 45 MPH, AND (3) TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD BETWEEN PASEO DEL REY AND OLD TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD FROM 45 MPH TO 50 MPH, AND AMENDING SCHEDULE X OF' THE REGISTER MAINTAINED ED IST THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER TO REFLECT THE ESTABLISHED ►PFFD LIMITS (FIRST READING) WHEREAS, staff completed an Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) for Fast "H,, Street between Buena Vista Way and Otay Lakes Road and for Telegraph Canyon.Road between Halecrest Drive and Otay Lakes Road/La Media Road in accordance with the California Vehicle Code (CVC), which indicates that the posting of sped limits be detei-ined by an. E TS for each street with a posted speed limit in the City; and WHEREAS, the F&TS includes (1) prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements; (2) accident records; and (3) traffic/roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver; and. WHEREAS, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states that the speed limit shall,be established at the nearest 5 mph increment to the 85th percentile speed; and. WHEREAS,, based on the 85th percentile speed of the roadways, as well as other roadway characteristics outlined in each E&TS, staff has determined that the speed limit on Fast "H" Street between Southwestern Drive and Otay Lakes Road be increased to 45 mph, that the speed limit on Telegraph Canyon Road between Halecrest Drive and Crest Drive/Oleander Avenue be increased to 45 mph, and the speed limit on Telegraph Canyon Road between Paseo del Rey and Old Telegraph Canyon Road be increased to 50 mph; and WHEREAS, on. October 2, 2019, the City of Chula Vista Safety Commission concurred with staff s recommendation that the sped limit on. East "H" Street be 45 mph between Southwestern Drive and Otay Lakes Road; and WHEREAS, on November 6, 2019, the City of Chula Vista Safety Commission concurred with staff s recommendation that the sped limit on Telegraph Canyon. Road be 45 mph between Halecrest Drive and Crest Drive/Oleander Avenue and 50 mph between Paseo Del Rey and Old Telegraph Canyon Load. 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 27 of 152 Ordinance Page 2 NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: Section I. Establish Speed Limit The established speed limits and Schedule X of the register maintained in the office of the City Engineer shall be amended to reflect the revised speed limits as follows.- 10.48.020 Schedule X—:established. Speed Limits in Certain Zones - Designated Street Name Beginning At Ending At Speed Limit East "H" Street Buena Vista Way Otay Lakes Road 45 mph Telegraph Canyon Road Halecrest Drive Paseo del Rey 45 mph Telegraph Canyon Road Paseo Del Rey Otay Lakes Road 50 mph Section 11. Severability If any portion of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional, by a court of competent jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed severable, and such invalidity, unenforceability or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of the Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, sentences, clauses or phrases of the Ordinance be declared invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional. Section 111. Construction The City Council of the City of Chula Vista intends this, Ordinance to supplement, not to duplicate or contradict, applicable state and federal law and this, Ordinance shall be construed in light of that intent. Section IV. Effective Date This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the thirtieth day after its final passage. Section V. Publication The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted according to law. Presented by Approved as to form by William S. Valle Glen R. Googins Director of Engineering & Capital Projects City Attorney 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 28 of 152 mNO M,/vrri YN %//OD/O//// iii%%// ri Az�� f00000 fir/%//rriiiiii r r r it �� / RM LOCATIUN IVIAP I " ICL ., CHUIAVISTA gni<r wum ��'�al m"V6 p' ,SIN000u ��. i(fi y w Y' �U I�Illi hl 1 �N9w'� �. n a Im i��u,��i �%//, iv UVI {�ruG' w �� uu ryry r1�II W, NWY C u wr r a m �iM 1 lu�� fl��„W'�i Iiµ � @ i• ,`,s ,n IIIII�Neu IN I�",`ml�'+{Iw�`� 'rrnww�^II�� N IIVf I��u,wNw` I' r,s 1 ��If��U�J�j 4��11hr WWlar ,..r W' rr �,, ��d' I!ii�/r i �fr.��n i nlil u 1 �/r r' //� ^N( S If, m / � Waw( ��dl w,�r I i, � / v I i hr�t 1 t)P u1u.U ry/ � i, ��V I D �1 � � fi I,p /%%� ISI 9 i K ly I � `✓ 00 01 "��;,� I "J lua„ 't. Park�'f f ii l'I'0.. �r`f r .../V�.JAI 1>I v, ,.U 4.11,� ,1. 4 r j1 wU� �p riu IVI JY,P T"p�lyYf�'"f� pI m ( 4�UJ!Ul N113 11iompY'8 w Y� oiN�'�X 14�cn ;7Vlipmt� .�:9�di^N��a UU'i Jrr P �I�IR p i Y�d�. IiiW�Nlwl� w wry. ilr of I �1 �uP I, ,yy Ww II1 ��j11 �� ry'MV nu�' rvu mir*Muu ml,nmuv", +w h ui �� Jw1 1 ^III� u«WI>4" INI �1 II�J 11 r�i N is la�M N rn;n� r N e rRr I� a� �num 9wwub uumuN �y�aa MCA, m m� l ""° MCA �Iro fw�lll�� ry f 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet Page 29 of 152 i iii///,/ „a alai" E y, �aiioii ii�%%%%//,,,,, m j a ao a/aaaaia LOCATION MAP lw CRY OF CHULAVISTA ki A.�y r11"�ur � III IDVu�pl�� It 1110 ��a r� ',D)°� '(G NI ;Z nor` oy Mill Y!�`r�yir iUl lr/'! T ,; w n Il r% r Iv, Iw �u�� UIY MI iui�rsOl�yl r� Y(IIII r i iui'. 1141mm=IUDIP�I�� 101r N r/111 r�r� IIII I� ,'rum y °rmom y' fly" ;°%° „.; �w m Irro� r,,, '�� 4 ➢ ��,� Jih Ilir4U W��l Yf1 i � i ,r 1�I �f J�V«Illi 71 a �IIV4 � �00 I�J��IIIA„��,��„�r u4u�,��9V��"� � � mom 4 rata I SII„I,A 4lj `,,l E� ,�frw1J!m IW W,II 17a �tr�r I's �w fir; r IVi Up Ifau' ,��1r;uW➢1f II ,t mu` 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 30 of 152 ,SAFETY COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item I Meeting Date 10/02/19 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE SAFETY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL INCREASE THE EXISTING SPEED LIMIT ON EAS 'H' STREET BETWEEN SOUTHWESTERN DRIVE AND OTAY LAKES ROAD FROM 35 MPH To 45 MPH, AND THAT SCHEDULE X OF THE REGISTER MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER BE AMENDED To REFLECT THIS SPEED LIMIT SUBMITTED Y. Principal Traffic Engineer Staff completed an Engineering and Traffic Survey for a segment on East `H'' Street in accordance with the Cali ornia Vehicle Code, which indicates that the posting of speed limits be determined by an Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) for each street with a posted seed limit within the City (With some exceptions). A previous E&TS was conducted in 201017 on East `H' Street, mbetween Buena Vista way and Southwestern Drive, resulted in a posted speed limit of 45 mph and is now expired. An E&TS conducted in 3 on East `H' Street, between Southwestern. Drive and Otay Lakes Road, resulted in a posted speed limit of 35 mph and is now expired. Since this segment is 0.1 7 miles, it is proposed to combine this segment with the segment to the west (see Attachment, combined Segments I and 2). The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)states that speed zones less than .5 miles should be avoided. The new E&TS conducted on E. ` ' Street from Buena Vista Way to Otay Lakes Road determined that the posted speed limit on East `H' Street should bie 45 mph. The shorter segment from Southwestern Drive to Otay Lakes Road 46 is proposed to be increase from 35 mph to 45 mph. I ECOMMENDATIC N Safety Commission concur with staff and recommend that the Chula Nista City Council increase the existing speed limit on East `H' Street, between Southwestern Drive and Otay Lakes Road from 35 mph to 45 mph, thus making a continuous segment with 45 mph speed limit from Buena Vista way to Otay Lal-es Road, and that Schedule X of the register maintained in the Office of the City Engineer be amended to reflect this speed limit DISCUSSION, The California Vehicle Coe (CVC) establishes minimum and maximum prima facie seed limits for all streets in the State. The minimum prima facie speed limit is 25 miles per hour (MPH) and the maximum seed limit is 65 MPH and an E&TS is required to change the prima facie speed limits in the City. The CVC requires that local agencies review changes in local speed limits every five to ten years to determine if the existing street segment speed limits require updating due to the age of the engineering and traffic survey or due to changes in roadway and traffic conditions. 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 31 of 152 Page 2, Item - 1 Meeting Date 10/2/19 Currently, the existing posted speed limit on East 'H' Street, between Buena Vista Way and Southwestern Drive is 45 graph (Segment 1). The existing posted speed limit on East "H" Street between Southwestern Drive and Otay Lakes Road is 35 mph (Segment 2). The E&TS for both segments have expired, and roadway conditions are consistent between both segments. City staff completed a speed survey for above segments in accordance with the California Vehicle Code. As described in the California Vehicle Code, the survey sball include: (1) Prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements; (2) Accident records-, (3) Traffic/roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver. Physical Conditions The following information describes the existing conditions along East 'H' Street between Buena Vista Way and Otay Lakes Road: 0 Classification Between Buena Vista Way and Otay Lakes Road— Six Lane Major. 0 Lengtb/Width — 2,444 feet (0.46 miles) long and 84' to 113' wide, including raised median. 0 Average Daily Traffic: 42,997 (2 15) 0 Number of Lanes: 6 lanes (3 per direction). 0 Existing Speed Limits—Posted 45 (Segment 1) and 35 mph (Segment 2). 0 85% Percentile Speed: Segment I is 46 mph. Segment 2 is 46 mph. 0 Striping— Six lanes of traffic, bike lanes, left-turn and right-turn pockets. 0 Parking— Parking is not allowed along both segments. 0 Bike Lanes in both directions. 0 Horizontal Alignment — Horizontal Curve east of Southwestern Drive with a radius of 2000' over a length of 557' yields a design speed over 50 mph. 0 Vertical Alignment — Vertical Sag east of Southwestern Drive with a grade change of 4.5% over 500' indicates a design speed over 50 mph 0 Accident Rate History — The accident rate at this segment is 0.32 accidents per million vehicle miles, which is lower than the rate of 1.36 for similar roadways in the State of California. Traffic Calming Segment 2 is the only segment with a proposed speed increase. Given its short length and major roadway classification, no traffic calming measures are feasible. The MUTCD recommends that roadway segments be a minimum of 0.25 miles; therefore, a speed increase on Segment 2 and merging it with Segment I is the recommended approach. Traffic Calming Measure Ap 0 eas* lamented ._pficablO F ib Imple Police SAM Trailer Y N N Large Signs/Legends Y N N Narrowed Lanes N N N 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 32 of 152 Page 3„ Item 1 Meetings Date 10/2/19 Traffic Calml*ng Measure lic�ble? F+��sible? Im lamented? tri ed Chicanes N N N Permanent Feedback Si n Speed Cushions N N N Curb Extensions Traffic Circics/Divertcrs Spe,ed Enforceability If the proposed speed increase is not approved, the fallowing are the only means of enforcing sped on Segment 2 • Basin Speed Lave: police car matches speed of vehicle and determines that speed is unsafe for current conditions. Infeasible due to insufficient police availability and the segment is too short. • Maximum Speed Lave: use RA /LiDA.R.methods to enforce sped limit of 65 mph. If the proposed sped limit is approved, police can use RA /LiI R_ to "enforce the approved posted speed limit. When speed limits are appropriately established the following objectives are achieved: - Meaningful, unambiguous "enforcement - Voluntary public compliance - Clear identification of the unreasonable violator - Elimination of unjustifiable "tolerances" of higher speed travel Based on the 85th percentile speed of the roadway, as well as a low collision rate outlined in the Engine wering/Traffic Survey, staff has determined that the sped limit on East `H' Str"e"et between Buena Vista "may and Otay .Lakes load be 45 mph. Segment 1,, between Buena Nista Way and Southwestern Drive, is proposed to retain the 45 mph posted speed limit. Segment 2, Southwestern Drive and Otay .Lakes :Road Segment 2 is proposed to be increased from 35 mph to 45 mph. Should the City Council establish the 45 mph sped limit, Schedule x of the register maintained in the Office of the City Engineer be amended to reflect the speed limit increase: • East `H' Street, Buena Vista Way and ending at Otay Lakes Road, proposed Speed Limit 5 mph. FISCAL IMPACT: The increase of the sped limit would require the posting of two (2) neve speed limit signs and sped limit l"eg"ends. This work will be funded by an existing Traffic Engineering Capital Improvement project, TRF 332, Signing and Striping :Program. 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 33 of 152 Page 4, Item - 1 Meeting Date 10/2/19 Attachments: 1. Location Plat 2. Speed Survey 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 34 of 152 mNO M,/vrri YN %//OD/O//// iii%%// ri Az�� f00000 fir/%//rriiiiii r r r it �� / RM LOCATIUN IVIAP I " ICL ., CHUIAVISTA gni<r wum ��'�al m"V6 p' ,SIN000u ��. i(fi y w Y' �U I�Illi hl 1 �N9w'� �. n a Im i��u,��i �%//, iv UVI {�ruG' w �� uu ryry r1�II W, NWY C u wr r a m �iM 1 lu�� fl��„W'�i Iiµ � @ i• ,`,s ,n IIIII�Neu IN I�",`ml�'+{Iw�`� 'rrnww�^II�� N IIVf I��u,wNw` I' r,s 1 ��If��U�J�j 4��11hr WWlar ,..r W' rr �,, ��d' I!ii�/r i �fr.��n i nlil u 1 �/r r' //� ^N( S If, m / � Waw( ��dl w,�r I i, � / v I i hr�t 1 t)P u1u.U ry/ � i, ��V I D �1 � � fi I,p /%%� ISI 9 i K ly I � `✓ 00 01 "��;,� I "J lua„ 't. Park�'f f ii l'I'0.. �r`f r .../V�.JAI 1>I v, ,.U 4.11,� ,1. 4 r j1 wU� �p riu IVI JY,P T"p�lyYf�'"f� pI m ( 4�UJ!Ul N113 11iompY'8 w Y� oiN�'�X 14�cn ;7Vlipmt� .�:9�di^N��a UU'i Jrr P �I�IR p i Y�d�. IiiW�Nlwl� w wry. ilr of I �1 �uP I, ,yy Ww II1 ��j11 �� ry'MV nu�' rvu mir*Muu ml,nmuv", +w h ui �� Jw1 1 ^III� u«WI>4" INI �1 II�J 11 r�i N is la�M N rn;n� r N e rRr I� a� �num 9wwub uumuN �y�aa MCA, m m� l ""° MCA �Iro fw�lll�� ry f 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet Page 35 of 152 / /ii%//iv //k/w/,//� it//i///a /of // ,,,'` ,,,, „„ / 1 �`A ani J/4"LOCATION MAP AND ICU OF CHUIAVISTA +Iw, "E Irk NIN+i rl� �F7'u,ll�o� rr r N^N Uly� �11L �pII EI ASL% H S u'r,ll',,,r� x.,..000000 J , ryuYl I ,I��. a. n a wl n ..,. r I��iil � Vu�,r% ,wm J td/ I d�I ie' pplI++� /l,lJ 4.,,.r 4Ie 4 u 1NifP� MPH IA"'TIN" a�°law.rV'w: vll"w1Gv NII a Wy C u� i IrNr,ri' ..VI uelu' �IUw r'II:l U N� �� w Mmw. )OP S,Ia Er" �� _. ,., �. ... _.,." lrl ,!V,r,- �i I'p � ��I,w "r I I�+++ vl. rr I�, JOE mw' ii';;yeti,. v,,,wa � AI✓, VG',Vt'w, �N, �rs y+l;,��:rw IY,Y"�;,�;, I a/ I'h'�>'�,u� >IY Ifi;d�� '� ""yypp�� III � � u, r YI rr ......PN I i ww,m I4YII "N 1tl rv�� °�fnllll r 4,wf Ilr 'r<:VIIIVON, '� � w N �i "I�II� � ale V r U �i� r / `, Ni r,.,p� CA.G j/� hr�tli�l I!w -AIR %/!( ISI $M C of Vl�r I m �,�„ ,�'.; rr��='m�'!w� j j� la7mr� r, //%' II il,,➢I�n:�C �IIIuj I, %/ /%„ w �!��r,I;`:,`"^Uu ti / I,... ��,r �, F"'10 1 �Ir.a�,,II�',"'f, , Jw��.. i r i 111� yYy SkEG EMIT 1 I,�m left EA50"T H ZOST �JJW Yo� Nn J �w 4'" Y. N rl Iw Mw%H E NEA0`T H: ST45 MPH I6 N�V7J I ar MAINTAIN 4� MPH a EX"ISTING �lµl am 4:), MPH P"Kw'0'0w1PubL;,u lus^ wl Il,r rl N III,. M I "91) Iu�a IIII, of uP I+ U W�I+ ry'MI'. ��II�„s,: NS lu rvuy��l ly ""'hml"dl ml,mis'��'I! u JJJ�� ////// I«7u„1 ela wI a U" r IUg1N r�IIl! VIII WM„ ST r 9 eI rRr Ir/ �num bv'�b IIIpIU� �w � .........n Ily Y MCA, Oft M PH �f�fl' 5 x P� �of2020-3.03,age ;'1 I° ticket 5 SPEED LIMIT - ENGINEERINGITRAFFIC SURVEY STREET: last "'H" Street LIMITS: Buena vista Way - Otay Lakes Rd Length of Segment (ft). 2,444' (0.46 miles) SUMMARY OF SPEED SURVEYS Segment: Buena vista way- SW College Drwy SW College Drwy-Otay Lakes Fid Existing Posted Limit(mph): 45 3 Date Taker 3/4/201 2/26/201 No. of Vehicles on. Sample (cars): 110 107 85 percentile (mph): 46 4 Range of Speeds Recorded. (mph): 30-50 33- ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Width (ft): 'paries from 4'-113' curb to curb (with a 4'-2 F raised median) Total No. of Lanes: 6 total lanes (3 per direction Horizontal Alignment: Between SW College Drwy to Otay Lakes Rd exists a radius of over 2000' over 557' along the centerline indicating a design. speed over 50 mpb. Vertical Alignment: A vertical sag with a grade change of 4.5% over 00' along the centerline indicates a design speed over 50 mph.. TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS Average Baily Traffic: 42,997 (2015) n-Street Parking There is no on-street parking allowed Special Conditions: Bus routes and bile lanes located on both. sides of the segment. Bonita Nista High School is located on Otay Lakes Ted and East "H" St. Southwestern College is located on the south of the segment. TheChildren's Copan daycare center is located on the corner of Southwestern College entrance and E "H" Street. Bonita Point plaza, a collection of commercial and retail. businesses, is located along the north side of the segment. Accident History: The accident rate is 0.32 (accidents per million vehicle miles)which is lowei than the rate of 1.36 for similar roadways in the State of California. SURVEY RESULTS Study was Prepared. by Nancy Cen Date: Recommendation: A 10 mph increase between Southwestern College driveway and Otay Cafes load to 45 mph die to the 85th percentile speed. Retain the 45 mpb posted speed limit between, Buena vista Way and the driveway Date Recommendation approved By: Paul Oberbauer, P.E. Approved Speed Limit (mph): Per CVS" 40803, Survey Expires: 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 37 of 152 CITY OF CHULA VISTA = VEHICLE SPEED SU�RVEY SEGMENT UNDER STUDY: East H Street(Buena Nista Way- Southwestern College Driveway) DATE: 314/2019 SURVEY SITE: Mid-block POSTED SPEED: 45 TIME START: 2:52 PM TIME END: 3:13 PM WEATHER: Cloudy DIRECTION: WB _ 0 EB _ IIVI P H 5 10 15 20 'TOTAL % ICUM % 59 9 9% 199% 59 0 0% 1199% 58 9 9% 100% 57 0 0% 1199% 56 9 9% 199% 55 0 0% 1199%0 54 9 9% 199% 53 0 0% 1199% 52 9 9% 199% 511 0 0% 100% 50 9 1 1% 100% 49 1 9 2 2% 99% 48 / 9 9 3 3% 97% 46 1 1 1 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 8% 89"% 45 1 / / / 0 9 0 9 0 9 9 9 9 9 14 13% 81% 44 / 1 1 / / 9 9 9 8 7% 58° 43 1 / / / / / / 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 14 13% 61% 42 l 1 1 / / / / / 0 9 9 9 12 11% 48% 40 / 1 1 9 9 9 5 5% 31% 39 1 / / / / / / 9 0 9 0 11 10% 25% 38 / 1 9 9 9 0 5 5% 15° 36 1 1 9 9 4 4% 8% 35 1 9 0 3 3% 5°1 34 9 1 1% 2% 33 0 9° 1°1 32 9 !0% 1 31 0 0 1% 30 9 1 1% 1% 29 0 9° 0 28 9 9% 9% 2? 0 9° 0 25 9 9% 9% RECORDER: Nancy Cen TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES: 119 85th percentile screed: 46 mph H:1NOMI IIENGINEER\TRA FIICISpeed_Surve rsler ca-292b-298a-9958.xls 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet gage 38 of 152 CITY OF CHULA VISTA = VEHICLE SPEED SU�RVEY SEGMENT UNDER STUDY: l=ast H Street(Southwestern College Driveway_+stay IL.akes Road) DATE: 2/26/2019 SURVEY SITE: Mid-block POSTED SPEED: 35 TIME START: 3:12 PM TIME END: 4:13 PM WEATHER: Cloudy DIRECTION: EB _ 0 WB _ IIVI P H 5 10 15 20 'TOTAL % C U M % 59 9 9% 199% 59 0 0% 1199% 55 9 9% 199% 57 0 0% 1199% 56 9 9% 199% 55 0 0% 1199%0 54 9 1 1% 199% 53 0 0% 99% 52 9 1 1% 99° 51 0 1 1% 98% 59 9 9 / 3 3% 97% 49 0 / 2 2% 94% 45 / 1 1% 93 47 0 9 9 9 1 5 5% 92% 46 9 9 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 19 9% 7% 45 0 9 9 9 1 / 1 / 1 1 / l l l 14 13% 78% 44 9 9 9 1 / 1 5 5% 54% 43 0 9 9 5 5% 59% 42 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 15 14% 54% 41 0 9 0 9 / 1 / 7 7°! 40%® 49 9 9 9 8 7% 34° 9 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 l 1 1 11 10% 25% 35 9 9 9 1 / 1 5 5% 15° 7 0 / 2 2% 10% 35 9 9 9 1 1 5 5% 5% 5 0 1 1° % 34 9 9% 3% 33 0 3 3% 3% 32 9 9% 9% 1 0 9% 9% 39 9 9% 9% 29 0 9° 0 25 9 9% 9% 27 0 9° 0 25 L 9 9% 9% RECORDER: Nancy Cen TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES: 107 85th percentile screed: 46 mph H:1NOM IENGlNE R\TRA FITC\Speed_Surveysl5ac8-bea5-5a39-ed15. 1s 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 39 of 152 I SAFETY COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item. 2 Meeting Date 11/06/1 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION of THE SAFETY COMMISSION of THE `ITY of CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CHULA VISTA. CITY COUNCIL INCREASE THE EXISTING SPEED LIMITS ON TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD: 1 BETWEEN HALECREST DRIVE AND CREST DRIVE/OLEANDER DRIVE/OLEANDERAVENUE FROM 40 MPH To 45 H AND 2 .,BETWEEN PASEO DEL REY AND OLD TELEGRAPH CANYON IdoAIS FROM 45 MPH To 50 MPH, AND THAT SCHEDULE X of TIME REGISTER.. l"' AINTAINE IN THE OFFICE OF TATE CITY ENGINEER. BE AMENDED TO REFLECT THESE SPEED LIMIT �00, . SUBMITTED : Principal Tra f c Engineer Staff completed an Engineering and Traffic Survey on Telegraph Canyon Road in accordance with the California Vehicle Code, vlzicli �dlcates that the posting of speed li��.t tat �: n. t t: maximum or standard prima facie speed limits be determined by an Engineering and Traffic Survey E&TS for each street with a posted speed limit within the City. Based on the results of the E&TS and by consolidating some short segments, staff has determined that the speed limits on Telegraph Canyon Road increase: 1 bet- ween Halecrest Drive and Crest Drive/Oleander Avenue from.40 mph to 45 mph and 2 between Paseo Del Rey and old Telegraph Canyon Road from 45 mph to 50 nz ph(see Attaclu-nent 1 Location Plat). RECOMMENDATION: That the Safety Commission adopt the resolution. DISCUSSION: : The California Vehicle Code CVC establishes minimum and maximum prima facie speed limits for all streets in. the State. The minimum prima facie speed limit is 25 miles per hour (MPH) for specific roadways and the maximum speed limit is 65 MPH 55 MPH for undivided roads) and an Engineering and Traffic Survey E&TS is required to change the prima facie speed limit from these preset limits for any City roadway. The CFTC requires that local agencies review changes in local speed hin is every five to ten years to determine if the existing street segment speed limits require updating due to the age of the E&TS or changes in roadway and traffic conditions. In..April 201 , staff completed an EATS for the following segments and deternz.ind which speed limits are to be maintained and which were to have proposed increases. 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 40 of 152 Page 2, Item -2 Meeting Date 11/06,/19 The existing E&TS segments and the proposed speed limits are as follows: Existing Proposed Segment Speed Speed Length Limi"t Limi"t I Halecrest Dr Crest Dr/Oleander Ave 40 45 0.33 miles 2 Crest Dr/Oleander Ave Paseo, Del Rey 45 45 0.1,E miles 3 Paseo Del Rey Old Telegraph Canyon Rd 45 50 0.13 miles 4 Old Telegraph Canyon Paseo Ladera 50 50 0.73 miles Rd 5 Paseo Ladera Otay Lakes Rd 50 50 2.14 miles Staff recommends eliminating a segment and combining another segment to coincide with the existing traffic signals. The proposed segments,would be as follows: Speed Segment Length Limit A Halecrest Dr Paseo Del Rey 45 0.48 miles B Paseo Del Rey Otay Lakes Rd 50 3.00 miles City staff completed a speed survey for above segments in accordance with the California Vehicle Code. As described in the California Vehicle Code, the survey shall include: (1) Prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements; (2) Accident records; (3) Traffic/roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver. Physical Conditions The following information describes the existing conditions along all segments of Telegraph Canyon Road: 0 Six-lane Prime Arterial. 0 Length/Width—3.5 miles long and I OO' to 122' wide. 0 Average Daily Traffic: 50,844 (2018) 0 Number of Lanes-, 6 lanes (3 per direction). 0 Existing Speed Limits—Posted 4 , 45 and 50 mph.. 0 85%, Percentile Speed: 1) Halecrest Dr to Crest Dr/Oleander Ave is 45 mph. 2) Crest Dr/Oleander Ave to Paseo Del Rey is 47 mph. 3,) Paseo Del Rey to Otay Lakes Rd is 51 mph. Striping— Six lanes of traffic. 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 41 of 152 Page 3, Item -2 Meet�ing Date 11/06,/19 • Parking—Parking is not allowed along entire segment. • Bike Lanes in both directions. • Horizontal Alignment — Horizontal Curve with a radius of 1600' over a length of 733' yields a design speed of 50 mph. • Vertical Alignment—Less than a 2% grade change. • Accident Rate History — The accident rate at this segment is 0.37 accidents per million vehicle miles,, which is lower than the rate of 1.36 for similar roadways in the State of California (2016). Traffic Calming Segments I and 3 are the only segments with a proposed speed increase. Given their short length and major roadway classification no traffic calming measures are feasible. The MUTCD recommends that roadway segments be a minimum of 0.25 miles; therefore, a speed increase on Segment 1. and merging it with Segment 2 as well as a speed increase on Segment 3 and merging it with Segments 4 and 5 are the recommended approach. Traffic Calming Measure Applicable? Feasible? Irn lemented.9 Police SAM Trailer Y N N Large Signs/Legends Y N N Narrowed Lanes N N N Striped Chicanes N N N Permanent Feedback Sign N N N Speed Cushions N N N Curb Extensions N N N Traffic Circle s/Diverters N N N Speed Enforceabilit If the proposed speed increase is not approved, the following are the only means of enforcing speed on Segments I and 3.- • Basic Speed Law: police car matches speed of vehicle and determines that speed is unsafe for current conditions. Infeasible due to insufficient police availability and the segment is too short. • Maximum Speed Law: use RADAF,/LiDAR methods to enforce speed limit of 65 mph. If the proposed speed limit is approved, police can use RADAR/LiDAR to enforce the approved posted speed limit. CONCLUSION: When speed limits are appropriately established the following objectives are achieved: - Meaningful, unambiguous enforcement - Voluntary public compliance - Clear identification of the unreasonable violator - Elimination of unjustifiable "tolerances" of higher speed travel Based on the 85 1h percentile speed of the roadway, as well as a low collision rate outlined in the Engineering/Traffic Survey, staff has is recommending the speed limit increases and modifying 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 42 of 152 Page 4, Item -2 Meefing Date 11/06/1 9 the segments to be from a traffic signal to another traffic signal. It is also recommended that a speed survey segment not be less than 0.25 mi. Should the City Council establish the proposed 45 mph and 50 mph speed limits, Schedule X of the register maintained in the Office of the City Engineer be amended to reflect the speed limit increase: • Telegraph Canyon Road, between Halecrest Drive and Crest Drive/Oleander Avenue, proposed Speed Limit Increase toy mph. • Telegraph Canyon Road, between Paseo Del Rey and Old Telegraph Canyon Road, proposed Speed Limit Increase to 50 mph. a FISCAL IMPACT, The increase of the speed limit would require the posting of new speed limit signs and speed limit legends. This work will be funded by an existing Traffic Engineering Capital Improvement Project, TF-332, Signing and Striping Program. Attachments: 1. Location Plats 2. Speed Surveys 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 43 of 152 i iii///,/ „a alai" E y, �aiioii ii�%%%%//,,,,, m j a ao a/aaaaia LOCATION MAP lw CRY OF CHULAVISTA ki A.�y r11"�ur � III IDVu�pl�� It 1110 ��a r� ',D)°� '(G NI ;Z nor` oy Mill Y!�`r�yir iUl lr/'! T ,; w n Il r% r Iv, Iw �u�� UIY MI iui�rsOl�yl r� Y(IIII r i iui'. 1141mm=IUDIP�I�� 101r N r/111 r�r� IIII I� ,'rum y °rmom y' fly" ;°%° „.; �w m Irro� r,,, '�� 4 ➢ ��,� Jih Ilir4U W��l Yf1 i � i ,r 1�I �f J�V«Illi 71 a �IIV4 � �00 I�J��IIIA„��,��„�r u4u�,��9V��"� � � mom 4 rata I SII„I,A 4lj `,,l E� ,�frw1J!m IW W,II 17a �tr�r I's �w fir; r IVi Up Ifau' ,��1r;uW➢1f II ,t mu` 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 44 of 152 MEMO R/ ii�%%%%//,,,,, a �i CRYOF "ILOCATIUN MAP AND d CHULAVISTA lq� i E.&I%J11TING kiI7H� 'off ExistingProposed sed Se mer 1�r�lPrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrirrrr ir"Yirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr { Spend Spend Length Existing 50 mph Limit Limit 1 Halecrest Dr Crest Ctrl Oleander Ave 40 45 0.33 mile 41 2 Grest Drl leande�r Ave Paseo, Del Rey 45 45 0.15 miles 3 Paseo Del Frey Old Tele raphM Canyon Rd 45 50 0.13 miles uu OV Ir 4 Old Telegraph Canyon Paseo, Madera 50 50 0.73 mile!; Rd 011� 5 Paseo Ladera Ota Lakes Rd2.1-4 rail+ -rd "` �r 1141 101j,'N r/111 %�///0�%��l/lllJlllll�lllll ////�'l///,, ff ®� r; se, 000 °° �fl pp nn� ��I�� N"�oMV�df��r�'�nNll�� "i'-1 �u ull I(� u � V� ,,vN,,,� I v y �, ; f0//9////m/////////, fff«rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr�rrr�rrrrrr�rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr�rrr�rrrrrr�rrr�rrr�rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr�rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr�rrr�rrr�rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr�rrr�rrr�rrrrrrrrrrrrrr�rrr�rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr�rrr�rrr�rrr�rrr�rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr�rrr�rrr�rrr�rrr�rrr�rr� » » Maintaining 35 mhwo ooMM rata ) Ilr r w ror y2atl tau R I SII„I A 4 El E " 1 �J�i� p � a ,�frw1J!VU m IW 1'N' y Up Ifau ,��1riuW➢1� ( im��lI1IG1I rlu� ppyVryryry��I)I�,o' JtlI/�j/�� I Yl�w. IT," uu ill; ,t m u` 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 45 of 152 MEMO iioii �a ilial ii JA LOCATION MAP Wl'�'TH „��, ,,�i//�� ,.,, ,,,�, i✓ii,,,%//%i,."' j�� %iii i /%/ r CRY CHULAVISTA Ell PRO,POSIE,D ki i t A.",It VIIx , JIV w1r r NG �I �� r,i t �, rl�f � �� I IIII�,,,��r raw�ry w�hr 1 ll Mill Y!�`r�yir IUl 11HKu a >rr� �, 1111) Ir°��,ate dnr Speed Limit Segment Length !r rr��x Hal cr st [fir Paseo Del Frey 45 0.48 mile », Paseo Del Rey Otay Lakes Fid 50 3.00 mile I�I dw �w�f Ulf UI IIII��N1�91 IIp� � �IIDl1 ,MINT„ 111 101j,NIr/;,1low „ 1I�r v* pwlxaj, r k, 4* mJI, »r °NWIY" m ;I ^l V% �y lll a ro IIII of l J l IIUIrY (� �r��II � nn r IVr �NIS "!�x IIIII�O r�i� �1Ww w to 00 0000 was 00 �r�l DIY Ik�N�"°° UWv I!!,fil rata I SII„I A 9 E, E 3" � '110111101 J� IIII��7 p � 0�I ,�frw1J!UI IW 1'7"II 17a,��tr�r I's �w fir; rIVi /J INfau i, X10 ,��1rruW➢IU II ,t mu` 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 46 of 152 CITY OF CHULA VISTA = VEHICLE SPEED SU�RVEY SEGMENT UNDER STUDY: Telegraph Canyon IRd Halecrest Dr Crest Dir/Oleander Ave) DATE: 4/812919 SURVEY SITE: East of Canyon (Plaza ;siginalized entrance POSTED SPEED: 49 TIME START: 2:02p nm TIME END: 2: 0pm WEATHER: Sunny DIRECTION: EB = 0 WB INI P H 5 10 15 20 'TOTAL % C U M % 5 9 9% 199% 4 0 0% 199"°1'0 3 9 9% 199% 2 0 0% 199"°1'0 1 9 9% 199% 9 0 0% 199% 49 9 9 2 2% 199% 48 0 1 1% 98 47 9 9 2 2% 97% 45 9 9 9 9 / 1 6 6% 88 44 0 9 9 9 9 8 8% 83 43 9 9 9 9 8 8% 75 42 0 9 9 9 9 9 1 9 9% 67% 41 9 9 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 11% 9"% 40 0 / 1 1 / l l 7 7% 4 ° 39 9 9 9 9 9 9 / 1 / 9 9% 41°1 38 0 9 8 8% 33 37 9 1 / 3 3% 25 35 9 1 / 3 3% 15 33 l 1 1 / 4 4% 11% 2 1 1 1% 7% 31 2 2% 6% 9 1 1 1°! %, 29 2 2% 3% 28 1 1% 1% 27 9 9% 9% 26 0 9° 9° 25 9 9% 9% 23 9 9% 9% 22 0 9° 9°1 21 9 9% 9% 20 0 9° 9°1 19 9 9% 9% 18 0 9% 9% RECORDER: Nancy Cen ]TOTAL NUMBER OF'VEHICLES: 194 85TH P'ERCENT'ILE: 45 mph H:1NOMI IIENGINEER\TRA FIlC\Speed_Surveysl a29l-d52f-hfe4-12c7.xlls 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet gage 47 of 152 CITY OF CHULA VISTA = VEHICLE SPEED SU�RVEY SEGMENT UNDER STUDY: Telegraph Canyon IRd (Crest Dr/Oleander Ave-Old Telegraph Canyon Ind) DATE: 4/8/2919 SURVEY SITE: Crest Dr/Oleander Ave - Paseo Del Ray POSTED SPEED: 45 TIME START: 2:59p m TIME END: 19pm WEATHER: Sunny DIRECTION: EB = 0 WB I MPH 5 °o 15 20 'TOTAL % CUM % 59 0 0% 1199% 59 9 9% 199% 58 0 0% 1199% 57 9 9% 100% 55 0 0% 100% 55 / 1 1% 100% 53 / 1 1% 98% 52 / / 0 3 3% 98% 51 9 9% 95"% 47 / / 9 9 9 1 5 4% 7% 44 / / 0 9 0 5 4% 72% 41 / / / / 9 9 9 6% 51% 40 0 0 0 0 0 4 9 8% 45% 39 / / / / / / 9 9 9 9 9 11 9% 38% 37 / / 9 9 9 5 4% 24% 35 / / 9 9 9 5 4% 10 4 / 9 2 2 5% 33 / / 9 9 4 3% 4% 2 / 1 1% 1% 31 9 9% 9% 9 0 0 9% 29 9 0% 0% 28 0 0 9% 27 9 0% 0% 25 0 9% 9% 24 0 9° 0 23 9 9% 9% 22 0 0 9% 21 9 9% 9% RECORDER: Nancy Cen TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES: 129 85th Percentile: 47mh H:1NO IIENGINEER\TRA FIICISpeed_Surveys1 9201-1 ada-24a3-3ea3.xls 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet gage 48 of 152 CITY OF CHULA VISTA = VEHICLE SPEED SU�RVEY SEGMENT UNDER STUDY: Telle raph Canyon Rd (Paseo Del Rey- Medical Center Cir) DATE: 41812919 SURVEY SITE: Paseo Del Rey- Gld Telegraph Canyon lid POSTED SPEED: 45 TIME START: 8:24pm TIME ENCS: 8:49pm WEATHER: Sunny DIRECTION: EB = 0 WB IMPH 5 °o 15 20 'TOTAL % CUM % 59 0 0% 1199% 59 9 9% 199% 58 0 0% 1199% 57 9 9% 199% 55 / 1 1% 199% 58 9 1 1% 98° 52 0 9 1 / 1 5 4% 97% 51 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 5% 98"% 50 0 / 1 8 2% 88% 49 9 9 9 9 / 1 / 1 / 9 7% 85° 48 0 9 9 8 6% 79% 47 9 9 9 1 / 1 / ' l 9 7% 78° 45 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 / 1 / 1 / 1 15 12%® 88%® 45 9 9 9 9 9 9 / 1 / 1 / 11 8% 54% 44 0 9 9 9 9 19 8% 45% 43 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1 / 9 7% 88° 42 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 91 15 12% 31% 41 9 9 9 1 1 1 5 5% 19"% 49 0 9 1 8 2% 14% 89 9 9 9 9 / 1 / 5% 12% 87 9 1 / 8 2% 5% 85 / 1 1% 1% 84 0 9° 0 88 9 9% 9% 82 0 9° 0 81 9 9% 9% 89 0 9° 0 29 9 9% 9% 28 0 9° 0 27 9 9% 9% 25 0 9° 9° 25 9 9% 9% 24 0 9° 0 28 9 9% 9% 22 0 9° 0 21 9 9% 9% RECORDER: Nancy Con TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES: 182 85th Percentile: 49 mph H:1NOMI IIENGINEER\TRA FIlC\Speed_Surveys1544'-9891-9581-57cc.xls 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 49 of 152 CITY OF CHULA VISTA = VEHICLE SPEED SU�RVEY SEGMENT UNDER STUDY: Telegraph Canyon IRd Medical Center Dr- Paseo Ladera) DATE: 4/10/2019 SURVEY SITE: Medical Center Dr- Paseo Ladera POSTED SPEED: 59 TIME START: 11:27am TIME END: 11:47am WEATHER: Sunny DIRECTION: EB = 0 WB IM P H 5 10 15 20 'TOTAL % CUM % 79 9 0% 95° 59 0 0% 96% 58 9 0% 95° 57 0 0% 96% 55 9 0% 96 55 0 0% 96% 54 9 0% 95° 53 0 0% 96% 52 9 0% 95° 51 0 0% 98°x® 59 9 0% 95° 59 0 0% 96% 58 9 0% 95° 4 1 51 0 9 0 9 / / / / / 9 8% 72x® 59 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 / / / 19 8% 64% 48 9 0 9 0 / / / / / 9 8% 43% 47 0 9 9 / / / 8 5% 35% 45 0 9 9 9 / / / 7 6% 23% 44 9 0 9 0 / / / / / 9 8% 18° 41 1 0 0 0 38 9 0% 0% 37 0 9° 0 36 9 9% 9% 35 0 9° 0 34 9 0% 0% 33 0 9° 0 32 9 9% 9% 31 0 9% 9% RECORDER: Nancy+Den "TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES: 12 85th Percentile Speed 52 mph H:1NOM IIENGINEER\TRA FIICISpeed_Surveys1d53e-2b88-be95-alb. is 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet gage 50 of 152 CITY OF CHULA VISTA = VEHICLE SPEED SU�RVEY SEGMENT UU'NDER.STUDY: Telegraph Canyon Rd (Paseo Madera - Heritage Rd DATE: 4/10/2019 SURVEY SITE: Paseo M adera - Heritage IRd POSTED SPEED: 59 TIME START: 11:02am TIME END: 11:18am WEATHER: Sunny DIRECTION: EB = 0 WB IM P H 5 10 15 20 'TOTAL % CUM % 79 9 9% 199% 9 0 0% 199% 68 9 0% 199% 7 0 0% 199% 65 9 9% 199% 5 0 0% 199% 64 9 0% 199% 63 0 0% 199% 62 9 0% 199% 69 9 0% 199% 59 0 0% 199% 58 9 0% 199% 57 0 0% 199% 5 / 1 1% 199% 55 0 0% 99% 54 / 1 1% 99° 2 / / / 9 9 9 / ' 9 9 19 19% 94% 1 / / 9 9 / / / 9 9 9 9 / / / 9 9 16 15% 5% 9 / / / 9 / 9 9 ' / / / / 9 9 9 15 14% 69° 49 / / / / 0 / 0 / 0 9 0 / 0 / 1 / 9 1 0 17 16% 55% 48 / / 9 9 9 / / 9 9 0 / 0 9 0 9 0 1 15% 3 % 47 / / / 9 0 9 0 9 8 8% 23% 46 / / / / 9 9 9 / / 9 9 9 12 12% 15% 45 / / 2 2 % 44 / 9 2 2% 2% 43 0 9° 0 42 9 0% 0% 41 0 9% 9% 49 9 0% 0% 9 0 9° 0 38 9 9% 9% 7 0 9° 0 35 9 9% 9% 5 0 9° 0 34 9 0% 0% 33 0 9° 0 32 9 9% 9% 1 0 9% 9% RECORDER: Nancy+Den "TOTAL NUMBER OF'VEHICLES: 194 85th Percentile Speed: 51 mph H:1NOMI IIENGINEER\TRA FllC\Speed_Surveysl59e5-db7c-af c-8b89.xls 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet gage 51 of 152 CITY OF CHULA VISTA = VEHICLE SPEED SU�RVEY SEGMENT UNDER STUDY: Telegraph Canyon Rd (H&itage Rd - Otay Lakes Rd) DATE: 4/10/2019 SURVEY SITE: Heritage Ind - Otay Lakes Ind POSTED SPEED: 59 TIME START: 19:22am TIME END: 19:58am WEATHER: Sunny DIRECTION: EB = 0 WB IM P H 5 10 15 20 'TOTAL % CUM % 9 9 0% 199% 59 0 0% 199% 58 9 0%0 199% 57 0 0% 199% 55 9 9%0 199% 55 0 0% 199% 54 9 0%0 199% 58 0 0% 199% 52 9 0%0 199% 51 0 0% 100% 59 9 0%0 199% 59 0 0% 199010 58 0 0%0 100% 57 0 / 2 2% 100% 56 0 0 3 3% 98% 55 0 9 9 9 / 5 5% 95% 58 0 9 / / 4 4% 89% 52 9 0 9 0 9 0 / / / / / 11 19% 85% 51 0 9 0 9 0 9 / / / / / 11 10% 75%0 49 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1 91 9 / / / / / / 18 15% 58%0 48 0 0 0 0 / / / / / 9 8% 88% 47 0 9 9 9 / / / / / 9 8% 29% 45 0 / / 8 8%0 10% 44 / / / / 4 4% 8% 48 0 9 2 2% 401 42 0 1 1% 2% 41 0 1 1% 1% 49 0 0%0 0%0 89 0 9%0 901 88 0 0%0 0%0 87 0 9%0 901 36 0 9%0 ( %o 85 0 9%0 901 84 0 0% 0% 88 0 9%0 901 32 0 0% 0% 81 0 0% O% RECORDER: Nancy+Den "TOTAL NUMBER OF'VEHICLES: 195 85th Percentile Speed 52 mph H:1NOM IIENGINEER\TRA FIlC\Speed_Surveys17'421-88b7-ca85-54c8.xlls 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet gage 52 of 152 zmr, ..' l IN III til v r :a C1TY' C,0UNC'1LSTIA, ""EMENT CITY, OF CHUIAVISTA r l 1 March 3,2020 File ID: -0063 TITS RESOLUTION OF THE CITE" COUNCIL OF 'THE CITY of CHULA VISTA ADOP'T'ING A CITY COUNCIL POLICE" REGARDING ACCEPTING DONATIONS To THE CITY RECOMMENDED AcriON Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY Adoption of the resolution would establish a formal process for acceptance and documentation of donations made to the City. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental Noir"ce. The activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the California. Environmental Quality pct State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section: 150610(c)(3) no environmental review is required. BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Not applicable DISCUSSION There are occasions when interested parties wish to donate to the City. It is the policy of the City to consider all donation requests and decide if accepting the gift is in the best interest of the City. Donations generally comae in the form of facility enhancements, monetary gift, memorial items, services/labor, equipment/materials, land/'real property, or partnerships. Adoption of this resolution would establish a policy to provide guidance when individuals, community groups,and businesses wish to male donations to the City. DECISION-MAKER ' Staff:has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and.has determined that it is not site-specific and consequently, the real property holdings of the City Council do not create a disqualifying real property_. related financial conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act(Cal. Govt Code§ 87100, et seq.). Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Councilmdember, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision-maker conflict of interest in this matter. 1 . 0 0 1 P Ii1 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 53 of 152 CURRENT-YEAR FISCAL IMPACT None ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT None AT rACHMEN rs 1. Council Policy on Donations to the City 2. Donation Acceptance Form 3. Examples of Undesignated,and Designated Beneficiaries Staff Contact:Kelley B'acon,Deputy City Manager P 2 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 54 of 152 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CI- ULA VISTA ADOPTING A CITY COUNCIL POLICY REGARDING ACCEPTING DONATIONS TO THE CITY WHEREAS, there are occasions when donation offers are made to the City; and WHEREAS, donations generally come in the form of facility enhancements, monetary gifts,memorial items, services/labor, equipment/materials, an reg property, or partnerships- and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the City to consider all donation requests and decide if accepting the donation is in the best interest of the City, as a condition to acceptance; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt a policy to provide guidance to City staff when individuals,, community groups, businesses, or others wish to make donations to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it hereby does approve adoption of a City Council policy regarding accepting donations to the City, in the form presented, a copy of which is available in the City Clerk's Office. Presented by Approved as, to form by Kelley Bacon Glen R. Googins Deputy City Manager City Attorney 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 55 of 152 COUNCIL POLICY CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBJECT: Donations to the City policy POLICY EFFECTIVE NUMBER DATE PAGE xxx ADOPTED BY: (Resolution No. DATED: 20�20 AMENDED BY: Resolution No. (date of resolution) A. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to establish a formal process for acceptance and documentation of donations made to the City. This policy provides guidance when individuals, community groups, and businesses wish to make donations to the City. B. POLICY There are occasions when donation offers are made to the City. Donations generally come in the form of facility enhancements,, monetary gifts, memorial items, services/labor, equipment/materials, land/real property, or partnership projects. This policy shall apply to all donation offers. Prior to accepting a donation, the City shall determine if accepting the donation would be in the best interest of the City. If such a determination is made, the City may proceed with accepting the donation. C. DESCRIPTIONS 1. Types of Donations a. Designated Donations means donations which the donor specifies are to go to a particular City department, location, or purpose. b. Undesignated Donations means those donations that are given to the City for an unspecified use. 2. Consistency with City's Best Interest-Donations may only be accepted when they have a purpose consistent with the City's goals and objectives and are in the best interest of Chula Vista. The City must always consider the public trust and comply with all applicable laws when accepting donations. 30 Acceptance of Donations—All donations to the City, shall be processed in accordance with this policy. used on the value of the donation offered as outlined below, appropriate City staff, or the City Council, shall review every donation and determine if the benefits to be derived warrant acceptance of the donation. D. PROCEDURE 1. Donation Acceptance Form: The Donation Acceptance Form, a copy of which is attached to this policy, is required to be completed by the receiving Department Director or the City Manager and, if applicable, the City Attorney and/or the City Council, prior to a donation being accepted. This form may be updated from time-to-time by the City Manager, as necessary. 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 56 of 152 COUNCIL POLICY CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBJECT: Donations to the City policy POLICY EFFECTIVE NUMBER DATE PAGE XXX ADOPTED BY: (Resolution No.) DATED: 2020 AMENDED BY: Resolution No. (date of resolution) 2. Approving Authority a. Department Director: Offers of Designated Donations of items valued at$5,01010,or below may be accepted by the Department Director of the department for which the donation is designated. b. City Manager-, The City Manager is authorized to accept all donations within a Department Director's authority as well as, offers of: i. Designated Donations of items valued at more than $5,000 and up to $25,010,01; ii. Undesignated Donations of items valued at up to $25,000; and iii. Monetary donations up to $,25,000. Monetary donations must be submitted to the Finance Department for proper deposit and accounting purposes. c. City Council: City Council approval is required for all of the following offers, of donations-, i. Donations valued at more than $25,000 ii. Donations of real property; and iii. Any donations which require budget amendments d. City Attorney: If the donation involves real, property or in-kind services,, City Attorney review and approval shall be obtained prior to accepting the donation. 3. Donation Evaluation. Once a donation offer is made to the City, the appropriate Department Director or City Manager will review the conditions of the donation and determine if accepting the donation is in the City's best interest and if the benefits to be derived warrant acceptance of the donation. Criteria for the evaluation include but are not limited to: a. Consideration of whether an immediate or initial expenditure is required in order to accept the designated donation; b. Thepotential for, and extent, of the City's obligation to maintain, match, or supplement the donation; c. Donations from an organization can only be accepted if the organization is a legal, legitimate operation that is in. good standing with the state and the City, as determined in the sole discretion of the City; d. Donations which require City Council approval shall first be evaluated based on the above criteria by the City Manager, or designee, who will determine whether the proposed donation will be recommended for City Council approval. 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 57 of 152 COUNCIL POLICY CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBJECT: Donations to the City policy POLICY EFFECTIVE NUMBER DATE PAGE xxx ADOPTED BY: (Resolution No. DATED: 20�20 AMENDED BY: Resolution No. (date of resolution) 4. Donation Acceptance. If the appropriate approving authority determines that the City will accept the donation, he or she shall: a. Obtain all necessary signatures on the Donation Acceptance Form and, if required, prepare the item for City Council approval. In addition to the types of donations identified in 2.c. above, those which require a budget amendment or appropriation must be approved by the City Council. b. Notify the Director of Finance of any monetary donations. c. Provide a copy of the Donation Acceptance Form to the donor(s). 5. The Donation Acceptance Form including the donor names and donation amounts are public information subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act. 6. The City of Chula Vista reserves the right to decline any donation if, upon review, acceptance of the donation offer is determined in the sole discretion of the City to be not in the best interests of the City. 7. City staff, with the approval of City Council, shall maintain a list of possible City programs for designation by an interested donor, or for City Council consideration when directing un- designated donations. Such list shall be updated from time to time, made available to prospective donors, and attached hereto. 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 58 of 152 CITY of CHULA VISTA DONATION ACCEPTANCE ORM Name of donor: Address: City: State: Zip: Description of donation: Donor estimate of current value.- Potential alue:Potential immediate or initial acquisition or installation cost, any on-going maintenance or replacement cost: Intended use: Conditions of acceptance or donor designation: Remarks: City department receiving donation: APPROVED /DISAPPROVED Tate Department Head's Signature Bate City Manager's Signature Tate Submitted to Council Date approved by Council Date Mayor's Signature Note:The City of Chula Vista cannot guarantee future funding for repair,maintenance,use or replacement of donated items. C":City Council,Finance Department,City Manager's Office Page 1 of 2 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet Page 59 of 152 CITY OF CHULA VISTA DONATION AND GIFT POLICY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I have received and read the City of Chula Vista's Donation and Gift Policy and understand its provisions. I further understand that when I sign this acknowledgement form, it will be placed in my personnel file. Employee (PRINT NAME) Signature Date Page 2 of 2 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 60 of 152 Example List Provided for Potential Undesignated Funds There are numerous areas in the City that could benefit from donations. The following list provides examples for general undesignated donations to the City. The City Council will take into consideration your top five choices when determining where they will allocate funds for the City. Special Events (HarborFest,4 th Fest,, Starlight Parade, Chula Vista Champions) Library—Books Library—Furniture for children's area Library—Museum Nlorman Park Senior Center- Furniture, II-Pads for technical training. Animal Care Facility—Updated Kennels, Food Cultural Arts—Performing Arts, Visuall Arts Loma Verde Recreation Center—Rebuild Oleander property—Len Moore Skate Expansion, Gym upgrade Community Gardens Beautify Chula Vista Chula Vista Police Foundation Chula Vista Fire Fighters Foundation Additionally,there are many non-profits in the City of Chula Vista. Below are just a few examples to consider: Friends of the Chula Vista Public Library Chula Vista Library Foundation Friends of the Animal Care Facility Friends of Parks and Recreation Chula Vista Charitable Foundation United Way Chula Vista Elite Athlete Training Center 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 61 of 152 zmr, ..' l IN III til v r :a C1TY' C,0UNC'1LSTIA, ""EMENT CITY, OF CHUIAVISTA r l 1 March 3,2020 File IIS: 19-033 TI1TLE. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SHE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSNET LOCAL STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2018/1' THROUGH 2022/2 ACTIONRECOMMENDED ° Council conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolution. SUMMARY The San Diego Association of Governments [SANDAL) is accepting submittal requests for the 11th amendment to the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP),. SAND,AG provided its member agencies with new financial projections for Fiscal Years 2018-19 through 2022-23. Staff recommends several administrative adjustments and updating estimated allocations for all future fiscal years to conform to these projections.. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Director ofl3e elopmentServices has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality pct (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project 11 as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because the activity consists of governmental Regional Transportation.Improvement Program./TransNet funds activity,which does not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. Therefore,pursuant to Section 1506,0(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines,the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus,no environmental review is required. Although environmental review is not required at this time,once the scope of potential individual projects has been defied, environmental review will be required for each project and the appropriate environmental determination will be made. BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Notapplicable. DISCUSSION The 2018 Regional Transportation. Improvement Program (RT'IP) includes a program of projects and expenditures for Fiscal Years 2018,-19 through 2022-23. The City participates in the Focal Street Improvement Program portion of the overall RTIP. On January 24, 2020, SANDAG provided the member agencies with an updated TrnsNet Revenue Forecast Local street Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2 02 0-21 through 2024-25 (Attachment 1 ,which are conservative estimates for planning purposes. 1 . 0 0 1 P � 1 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 62 of 152 The Fiscal Year 2019-20 Trans et fund allocation on this latest forecast remained constant from the previous projection provided on January 15, 2019 in the amount of$6,395,000. At this time, only Administrative Transfers (Attachment 2) need to be approved with this current amendment. The projected revenues for each upcoming fiscal year have increased by approximately$230,000 (3%) from the previous estimates. The estimated TransNet allocation for future fiscal years 2020-21 through 2023-24 have all increased to reflect the updated projected revenues (Attachment 3,). Staff will need to return to Council in the summer of 2,0 2,0 for adoption of'Chula Vista's portion of the 20201 RTIP., At that time, the, allocation of' costs for the upcoming fiscal years will be revised to more closely approximate the proposals for the Fiscal Year 202,0-21 CIP. Administrative Transfer's This action is intended to either reallocate leftover funds allocated to Capital Improvement Program (CIP)i projects that have been completed or to transfer money from one CIP project to another within the same SANT AG project number(MPO ID).These transfer's will not affect the balance between Congestion Relief and Maintenance projects. These transfers are strictly administrative to address SANT AG's project,accounting. These funds have already been budgeted in the current Capital Improvement Program so no appropriation is required.Attachment 2 provides details of'these transfers. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT" Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site-specific and consequently, the real property holdings of the City Council members do not create a disqualifying real property-related financial conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act(Cal.Govt Code§07100,et seq.). Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Council member', of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision-maker conflict of interest in this matter. CURRENT,YEAR FISCAL IMPACT There will be no current fiscal year impact,since this Council action pertains to revenue estimates for Fiscal Years 2018,-19 through 2,022-23. ONGOING FISCAL IMPAC oil There will not be any ongoing fiscal impact,since these amounts are only estimates,which will not affect the budget and will be amended in summer 2019. ATTACHMENTS 11. TransNet Revenue Forecast- 01/24/2020 2. 2018 RTIP Administrative Transfers 3. Estimated TransNet Allocation (FY 2 0-24) Staff Contact:Patrick C Moneda,Senior Civil Engineer P 2 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 63 of 152 RESOLUTION No. RESOLUTION of THE CITY COUNCIL of TIME CITY of CHULA VISTA ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSN T LOCAL STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018/19 THROUGH 2022/23 WHEREAS, on November 4, 2004, the voters of San Diego County approved the San Diego Transportation. Improvement Program Ordinance and Expenditure Fan TransNet Extension ordinance); and WHEREAS, the TransNet Extension ordinance provides that SANDAG, acting as the Regional Transportation. Commission, shall approve on a biennial basis a multi-year program of projects submitted by local jurisdictions identifying those transportation projects eligible to use transportation sales tai (TransNet) funds, and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista was provided with an estimate of annual TransNet local street improvement revenues for fiscal ears 2019 through 2023; and WHEREAS,the City of Chula Vista approved its 2018 TransNet Local Street Improvement Program of Projects (POP) on. June 26, 2018 and the City of Chula Vista desires to make adjustments to its Program of Projects; and WHEREAS,the City of Chula Vista has bald a noticed public hearing with an agenda item that clearly identified the proposed amendment prior to approval of the projects by its authorized legislative body in accordance with Section 5(A) of the TransNet Extension Ordi Bance and Rule 7 of SANDAG Board Policy No. 31.. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it requests that S NDAG make the changes to its 2018 POP as identified on Exhibit ".A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein (the ".Amendment" ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED bye the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that pursuant to Section 2(C)(1)of the TransNet Extension Ordinance,the City of Chula Vista certifies that no more than 30 percent of its annual revenues shall be spent on local street and road maintenance-related projects as a result of the Amendment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED y the City Council of the City of Chula Nista, that pursuant to Section 4 _ (3) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance,the City of Chula Vista certifies that all.new or charged projects, or major reconstruction projects included in the Amendment and funded by TransNet revenues shall accommodate travel by pedestrians and bicyclists, and that any exception to this requirement permitted under the Ordinance and proposed was clearly:noticed as art of the City of Chula Vista's public hearing process for the Amendment. 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 64 of 152 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it does hereby certify that all applicable provisions of the TransNet Extension Ordinance and SANDAG Board Policy No. 31 have been net. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it continues to agree! to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend SAND�AG, the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, and all officers and employees thereof against all causes of action or claims related to City of Vista's TransNet funded projects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it adopts an amendment to the Trans Tet Local Street Improvement Program of Pro 0 ects for Fiscal Years 2018/19 through 2022/23. Presented by Approved as, to form by William S. Valle Glen R. Googins Director of Engineering & Capital Projects City Attorney EXHIBIT A 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 65 of 152 Resolution No. Page 3 ATTACHMENT 2 2018 RTIP Amendment / Administrative Transfers Funds Transfer FROM TO MPO ID Project Amount MPO ID Project Amount CHV70 (CR) STM0384 $741,279 CHV35 (M) TRF0402 $130,000 CHV48 (CR) STM0397 $1,421,279 CHV70 (CR) STM0392 $550,000 CHV80 (CR) STL0406 $11010001 CHV85 (CR) STM0398 $910,000 CHV70 (CR) STM0384 $800,000 CHV79 (CR) TRF0397 $100,000 CHV30 (CR) STM0361 $100,000 CHV48 (CR) STM0387 $345,502 CHV48 (CR) STM0390 $345,502 TRF0393 $12.1576 CHV35 (M) TRF0332 $1 CHV35 (M) TRF0366 $12,577 CHV85 (CR) STM0398 $1,380 CHV54 (CR) STM0367 $1,749 CHV78 (M) CTY0228 $369 CHV64 (CR) TRF0396 $62 CHV70 (CR) STM0384 $62 (M) Maintenance (CR) Congestion Relief 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet Page 66 of 152 TransNet Revenue Forecast-Local Street improvement Program' Est[mates for FY 2021 to FY 2025(in$000s)** 112412020 Jan 2019 (Maintained Jurisdiction Population 3 MileS3 IFY 2020* FY 2021 FY"2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 Carlsbad 115,241 340.23 $3,245 $3,447 $3,571 $3,701 $3,828 $3,962 Chula Vista 271,411 486.22 $6,395 $6,853 $7,099 $7,360 $7,614 $7,883 Coronado 24,199 52.29 $612 $691 $714 $738 $762 $788 Del Mar 4 4,451 24.41 $13 $27 $31 $38 $46 $52 El Cajon 105,559 195.51 $2,554 $2,720 $2,817 $2,919 $3,019 $3,125 Encinitas 63,390 167.33 $1,739 $1,843 $1,908 $1,977 $2,044 $2,115 Escondido 152,739 333.55 $3,859 $4,106 $4,253 $4,409 $4,560 $4,721 Imperial Beach` 27,448 60.46 $752 $689 $717 $747 $777 $808 La Mesa 4 60,820 148.67 $1,643 $1,194 $1,267 $1,344 $1,913 $1,979 Lemon Grove 27,208 62.96 $740 $786 $813 $841 $868 $898 National City 62,307 104.50 $1,211 $1,585 $1,640 $1,699 $1,756 $1,817 PRIWINNOW 178,021 444.68 $4,005 0.i/l/l/n WIN 4111�1 Poway 50,320 170.56 $1,527 $1,617 $1,674 $1,734 $1,793 $1,855 San Diego 1,420,572 2,987.21 $35,268 $37,339 $38,691 $40,122 $41,512 $42,987 San MarCOS4 98,369 176.12 $1,388 $1,570 $1,660 $1,754 $1,846 $1,9441 Santee 4 58,408 117.61 $495 $600 $658 $713 $767 $827 Solana Beach 4 13,933 42.55 $118 $141 $156 $172 $188 $204 Vista 101,987 169.92 $2,447 $2,558 $2,649 $2,745 $2,838 $2,937 515,403.0 1,953.2 $141300 Subtotal Street&Road*** 3,351,786 8,038.0 $82,310 $86,921 $90,283 $95,264 $99,194 $102,818 Local EMP"r, $5,404 $5,734 $5,940 $6,157 $6,369 $6,593 Local Smart Growth5 $6,30411 $6,690 $6,930 $7,184 $7,430 *As provided in Feb.2019 estimate **Revenue estimates for planning Ipurlposes only. Payments will be based on actual sales tax monthly receipts from the State Board of Equalization. ***Totals may not add up due to rounding 'I.Projection of revenues are based on estimate of growth rate on taxable sales as forecasted by SANDAL and excludes interest and prior year excess funds. 2.Distribution of revenue estimates are based on the 2004 Proposition A Extension:San Diego Transportation Improvement Program and Expenditure Plan and apportioned as follows:(a)$50,000 annual base per agency;(b)balance distributed on a formula of 2/3 population and 1/3 maintained miles. 3.Population numbers are based on state Department of Finance(DOF)report of January 2019 population(May 2019);Maintained miles figures are based on Caltrans 2018 California Public Road Data(November 2019). 4.Revenues are net of estimated commercial paper and/or bond debt service payments 5.EMP to be distributed on a project by project basis,-Smart Growth to be allocated based on Call for Projects process. 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 57 of 152 ATTACHMENT 2 2018 RTIP Amendment / Administrative Transfers Funds Transfer FROM TO MPO ID Project Amount MPO ID Project Amount CHV70 (CR) ISTM0384 $741,279 CHV35 (M) TRF0402 $130.1000 CHV48 (CR) ISTM0397 $1,f421.#1279 CHV70 (CR) STM0392 $550.1000 CHV80 (CR) STL0406 $110.1000 CHV85 (CR) STM0398 $910,000 CHV70 (CR) STM0384 $800.1000 CHV79 (CR) ITRF0397 $100,000 CHV30 (CR) 1 STM0361 $100,000 CHV48 (CR) STM0387 $345,502 CHV48 (CR) STM0390 $345,502 TRF0393 $12,,576 CHV (M) TRF0332 $1 CHV35 (M) TRF0366 $12,577 CHV85 (CR) STM0398 $1,380 CHV54 (CR) STM0367 $1,749 CHV78 (M) CTY0228 $369 CHV64 (CR) ITRF0396 $62 CHV70 (CR) STM0384 $62 (M) Maintenance (CR) Congestion Relief 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet Page 68 of 152 7000080000OIO - OO LJ 000O�O 50000010 40000010 30000010 20000010 100000 FY 22/23 $150,0100 "►$45370,000 .` $4005000 FY 21/22 $150,0100 $45159,000 $4005000 FY 20121 $150,0100 $3,863,000 $5005000 D#IREF1 Traffic Signing and Striping (T'RF03 ,TRF39 , TRF0399),, Signal/Streetlight Upgrade and Mod. (TIS 0366 ®i(Maintenance) U� T TAS of CIP PROGRAM TOTAL 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet gage 69 of 152 7000080000OIO - OO LJ 000O�O 50000010 40000010 30000010 20000010 100000 FY 22/23 $150,0100 "►$45370,000 .` $4005000 FY 21/22 $150,0100 $45159,000 $4005000 FY 20121 $150,0100 $3,863,000 $5005000 D#IREF1 Traffic Signing and Striping (T'RF03 ,TRF39 , TRF0399),, Signal/Streetlight Upgrade and Mod. (TIS 0366 ®i(Maintenance) U� T TAS of CIP PROGRAM TOTAL 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet gage 70 of 152 ATTACHMENT 3 ESTIMATED TRAM ET ALLOCATION-FY 2020 THROUGH FY 2024 Traffic Signal System Optimization(TRF0350) CHV39 $314,500 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 U- Major Pavement Rehabilitation J (Overlays/Reconstruct) (STM0397) CHV48 $2,636,716 $3,863,000 $4,159,000 $4,370,000 $4,574,000 MW Bikeway Master Plans CHV53 $64,000 - �z 01 New Sidewalk Construction CHV58 $610,000 $500,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 Ih Traffic Signal Upgrade CH 60 $640,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 UJ 0 �z Bikeway Design and Construction CHV70 $135,635. - - 01 0 Raised Median Improvements CHV79 $175,000 (Congestion Relief)SUBTOTAL $4,575,851 71.6% $4,913,000 71.7% $5,109,000 72.0% $5,320,000 72.3% $5,524,000 72.6% Minimum Required Congestion Relief $4,476,500 70.0% $4,797,100 70.0% $4,969,300 70.0% $5,152,000 70.0% $5,329,800 70.0% Pavement,Management System/Minor Pavement Rehabilitation Program(CTY02191) CHV06 $84,988 $600,000 $650,000 $700,000 $750,000 Advance Planning Studies(CTY0202) CHV221 $60,000 $60,000 1 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 School Zone Traffic Calming(TRF384,TRF345) CHV33 $375,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 �w Neighborhood Traffic/Ped Safety Program 0 �z (TRF041 1,TRF0413) CHV34 $1,060,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 INV.& �z Traffic Signing and Striping(TRF0332,TRF393, �w Z i- TRF0399),Signal/Streetllight Upgrade and Mod. � (TRF0366) CHV35 $39,161 $100,000 $1100,000 $100,000 $1100,000 Traffic Monitoring Program (TRF0321)(S,TM0369) CHV451 $200,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Emergency Storm Drain and Bridge Culvert Repair CHV50 - $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 ADA Curb Ramps CHV75 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 (Maintenance)SUBTOTAL $1,819,149 28.4% $1,940,000 28.3% $1,990,000 28.0% $2,040,000 27.7% $2,090,000 27.4% 1111 11 11111r'�r )W� . IF/m/51 W,w/ . w1 !91w'))M //////)/�" 1111 M1111"Allig"11111 ffillll/ Estimated Annual TransNet Revenue $6,395,000 $6,853,000 $7,099,000 $7,360,000 $7,614,000 J *TransNet Revenue Forecast-Local Street Improvement Program(Estimates for FY2021 to FY2025)dated 112412020 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet Page 71 of 152 zmr, ..' l IN III til v r :a C1TY' C,0UNC'1LSTIA, ""EMENT CITY, OF CHUIAVISTA r l 1 Parch 3,2020 File IIS: -0038 ,TITS ORDINANCE OF THE CITY of CHULAVISTA AMENDING CHAPTER 15.26 off"THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH MANDATORY ENERGY UPGRADE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITIONS ANIS REMODELS TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES (FIRST READING) RECOMMENDEDT Council place the ordinance on first reading. SUMMARY In September 2017, the City Council adopted the 2017 Climate Action Plan (CAP) to help address the local threat of climate change by reducing greenhouse gas (CHG) emissions and lowering Chula Vista's vulnerability to expected climate change impacts. The 2017 CAP called for promoting energy efficiency upgrades. The proposed increased energy efficiency standards for some pre-2006 residential properties undergoing additions or remodels is intended to support that effort. Based on the attached cost effectiveness studies created by the California Public UtilitiesCommission (CPUC) and Investor owned Utilities, City staff has determined that the proposed requirements are cost effective and are anticipated to lower utility bills for applicable Chula Vista residents. In addition., the proposed requirements will exceed existing Title 24 ears energy qy qp . e�.er requirements.e.nts. In ten.. , �t �s estimated that these requirements could save approximately 41 metric tons Cote emissions and$559,000 in utility costs per year,by 2040,those figures rise to 1,340 metric tons and$1.1 million in bill savings annually. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Director of'De velopment Services has reviewed the proposed Project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the Project qualifies for a Class 8 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section. 1.5308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment) of the state CEQA Guidelines. The proposal seeps to help address the local threat of climate change by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and lowering vulnerability to anticipated climate change impacts. Thus,no further environmental review is necessary.In addition,notwithstanding the foregoing,the Director of Development Services has also determined that the Project qualifies for an Exemption pursuant to Section 15061(b) ) of the California Environmental tal+duality pct State Guidelines. BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE The Sustainability Commission (SSC) on. September 9th, 2019 unanimously supported the proposed requirements. 1111. 0 0 1 P � 1 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 72 of 152 The Board of Appeals and Advisors on February 10th, 2,020 recommended that City Council adopt the ordinance., DISC'USSION The 2017 Climate Action Plan (CAP) and related implementation actions were established through an extensive outreach effort to Chula Vista residents and communities. The Climate Change, Working Group (CCW ) was chaired by Sustainability Commission members and consisted of 13 other members representing various community sectors. The CCWG held a total of 11 meetings, including 10 publically- noticed meetings and one public forum to solicit input and engage the public on the development of the greenhouse gas reduction strategies through a consensus-building process. In November 2014,City Council adopted the, 12 GHG reduction strategies that the CCWG presented,which included requiring energy savings ngs retrofits in existing buildings. These CCW G recommendations were subsequently incorporated into the CAP adopted by the City Council in September 2017. Working with community stakeholders and consultants, city staff have created the Home Energy Sustainability Ordinance. This proposed ordinance builds off previous energy efficiency efforts the City Council has approved such as the Commercial Outdoor LED Ordinance,"reach codes"that required new homes be built above Title 24 code requirements and PACE financing to allow residents to finance energy saving projects. The City of Carlsbad has also adopted a similar ordinance called the Residential Energy Conservation Ordinance which went into effect in 2019. After Council approval the California Energy Commission (CEC) must confirm that the proposed ordinance meets certain requirements including that the City has made a cost effectiveness finding. There are two common measures of cost effectiveness, simple payback and benefit-to-cost ratio. Simple payback divides the up-fr�ont installation cost by the expected utility bill savings each year.The result is a simple measure of the number of years it takes to "pay back"the initial investment. The lower the number,the quicker a measure pays back and the more cost effective it is. Benefit-to - cost ratio divides the lifecycle benefits over the one-time costs. Lifecycle benefits are calculated over 30 years and discounted at 3,%. B,enefit-to-cost ratios above 1.0 are considered cost effective and the higher the ratio, the better. In addition, every three years as updated state building codes are adopted, the City will need to seek new approval from the CEC by affirming via letter that the cost-effectiveness of these requirements is unaffected by the new standards. Table I Timeline Task/ Milestone Date Present to City Council (first reading) 3/3/20 City Council (second reading' 3/10/20 Submit California Energy Commission 3/4/20 (CE,C)Application Receive CC Response (expected) 4/0/20 P 2 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 73 of 152 File with California Building Standards 4/9/20 Commission (expected) Effective Date (30 days following CEC 5/8/20 approval) Proposed Home Energy Sustainability Ordinance, The proposed Home Energy Sustainability Ordinance requires that homes built before 2006 make some energy efficiency upgrades, see Table 2, when they are also making an addition or remodel of their home. used on the age of the home and the Climate Zone where the home is located, different energy efficiency upgrades are required. The reason for the different requirements is because typically older or more inland homes consume more energy and have more opportunities to save energy.These requirements are based on the Statewide Cost Effectiveness Study, attached with a Chula Vista Summary. All of the proposed requirements were found to be cost-effective in the energy simulations performed by these studies. Over the first 10 years staff estimate that residents will spend $4.9 million on the required energy upgrades. Depending on the condition of the home,the homes location and the measures installed the energy savings are expected to equal the implementation costs within 7.9 to 10.7 years. Based on forecasted projects, staff estimate the average home will save more than$170 in utility costs per year and take 8.3 years to equal the implementation costs. For more an overview of'the cost-effectiveness of proposed requirements see the attached",Summary Cost-Effectiveness Results The climate zones are created by the California Energy Commission to guide building requirements and align with zip codes. Within the City of Chula Vista, the following zip code 91914 lies within climate zone 10 and the rest of the city is located in climate zone 7. Once adopted,this proposed ordinance is expected to impact 3,8,72 units which will reduce approximately 3,218 metric ton (MT) of carbon emissions and save an estimated $2.9 million over the first 10 years. The savings will help the City meet the energy and carbon reduction goals included in Objective 3.3 of'the 2,017 Climate Action Plan. Table 2 Required Energy Efficiency Upgrades Year Built Climate Zone 7 Climate Zone 10 Pr�e-1978 Water Heating Package; LED Lighting; R38 Attic Insulation; Water Heating Package; LED Duct Sealing Lighting; Duct Sealing; R38 Attic; Air Sealing 1978-2005 Water Heating Package; LED Lighting; 1978-1991 Condos onl Duct Sealing also required P3 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 74 of 152 Table three below includes more,information about each of'the energy efficiency measures listed above. Table 3 Required Measures Installation Details Measure Description Name R-38 Attic Add attic insulation in buildings with vented attic spaces to meet R- Insulation 38. Air Sealing Apply air sealing practices throughout all accessible areas of the building.All joints,penetrations and other openings in the building envelope that are potential sources of air leakage shall be caulked, gasketed,weather stripped,or otherwise sealed to limit infiltration and exfiltration. Buildings constructed before 1992 should be sealed to 7 Air Changes per Hour(AC- ,and buildings constructed from 1992-2,005 should be sealed to 5 ACH,at 50 Pascals pressure difference. Homes with one or more vented combustion appliances must have a Building Performance Institute (BPI) Combustion Appliance Safety Inspection performed after air sealing. Cool Roof For steep slope roofs,install a roofing product rated by the Cool Roof Rating Council (CRRC) with an aged solar reflectance of 0.25 or higher and thermal emittance of 0.75 or higher. Duct Sealing Air seal all ductwork to meet the requirements of Section 150.2(b)1 E as if the heating system were being replaced. LED Lighting Replace screw-in halogen,incandescent or CFL light bulbs with LED light bulbs in accordance with the requirements of Section 1,50.0(k)1.A,D,G,H and I. Water Water Heater Blanket Add R-6 insulation to the exterior of existing Heating residential tank storage water heaters manufactured before April Package 2015. Requirement is waived for water heaters with internal tank insulation of at least R-16,. Hot water Fi e Insulation Insulate all accessible hot water pipes with R-3, pipe insulation. Low Flow Fixtures Upgrade sink and shower fittings to meet current CALGreen requirements,which require maximum flow rates of 1.8 gallons per minute (gpmfor showerheads and kitchen faucets,and 1.2 gpm for bathroom faucets. Staff anticipate that some homeowners and contractors may find other ways to reach the same energy reduction levels in their projects.The ordinance accommodates this option,providing a"performance path" that would allow owners to concurrently complete an alternative set of energy measures that performs equal to or better than the applicable prescribed measures. P 4 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 75 of 152 Exemptions These proposed energy efficiency requirements are an effort to bring existing buildings closer to the energy efficiency of current energy code for new homes. The required updates are cost effective energy efficiency measures that have been adopted by other cities and have been widely available for years.Staff assumes that some residents may have already voluntarily adopted them. The following exemptions are, designed for homes that have already undertaken voluntary energy updates. • Homes,where similar measures have already been completed • Homes that have achieved a Department of Energy(DOE) Home Energy Score (HES) of at least 8 out of 10 • Homes with on-site photovoltaics,in place offsetting at least 95% of the annual electricity and gas equivalent usage, Additionally,a property would be exempt for the reasons stated below: • Project Value Cutoff- If the cost of completing energy efficiency measures required exceeds 20% of the overall project cost absent those measures, permit applicants can propose a more limited set from among the required measures which does not exceed 20%. • Technically/Financial infeasibility-If the prescribed measures would be technically infeasible or not be cost-effective due to unique characteristics of home or other special circumstances. • Home Owners Association(HOA) Restrictions-A measure is beyond the authority of the homeowner due to HOA covenant • Exempt Project Types - An Addition or Remodel consists solely of medically necessary improvements, or principally of, solar PV, solar water heating, electrical upgrades for PV or electric vehicle (EV) charging, or energy storage. Re aired Next In order for the City to adopt and enforce increased building energy standards, the City must submit an application to the California Energy Commission (CEC) and obtain approval before the increased standards can take effect. The application submittal must include: 1) The proposed standards as adopted by Council, 2) The City's determination that the proposed standards will save energy and are cost-effective, and 3) A study with supporting analysis for the City's energy savings and cost effectiveness findings, The proposed ordinance includes the necessary energy savings and cost effectiveness findings.By reviewing the attached cost effectiveness study and adopting this proposed ordinance, Council will be making the cost effectiveness and energy savings determinations mentioned above. After City Council votes on the proposed ordinance after the first reading, staff will submit the application to the CEC for their review and approval,a process that can take up to three months. After CEC approval,staff will file the ordinance with the California P15 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 76 of 152 Building Standards Commission and the ordinance will go into effect 30 days after the CEC approval. After City Council Approval, staff will begin preparing for the ordinance to take effect by working with various internal departments and stakeholders to educate impacted parties about the requirements and how they can be met. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site-specific and consequently, the, real property holdings of the City Council members do not create a disqualifying real property-related financial conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act(Cal.Govt Code§871001,et seq. ., Staff is not independently aware and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision-maker conflict of interest in this matter. CURREN'T-YEAR FISCAL IMPACI 11 No current year fiscal impact. The building permit review and inspection time associated with implementing this ordinance will be funded through building permit fees; outreach and education time will be supported through existing Economic Development Department funds. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT No ongoing fiscal impact. The building permit review and inspection time associated with implementing this ordinance will be funded through building permit fees. ATTACHMENTS 1. Existing Home Energy Sustainability Ordinance Summary 2. Existing Home Energy sustainability Ordinance Overview 3. Summary Cost-Effectiveness Results 4. Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-Effectiveness Study Staff Contact: Cory Downs P �3ge 6 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 77 of 152 City of Chula Vista d' 0r inance . A"W Existing Home Energy Sustainability Ordinance v1.9.3 Policy Overview 0 Require homes built before 2006 that are performing additions or remodels to also perform specific energy upgrades 0 Prescribed upgrade measures depend on home age and climate zone 0 Prescribed upgrades will apply to the remainder of the home not otherwise required to comply with current building code as a result of the addition or remodel 0 Allow homes to install a custom set of upgrades, instead of the required upgrades, as long as they meet or exceed the energy performance of the required upgrades 0 Avoid dis-incentivizing solar installation or other energy efficiency measures 0 Avoid inordinate financial burden 0 Avoid impeding ADUs or JADUs in any way 0 Avoid disruption to permit process 0 Estimated to affect 3,872 units and reduce GHG1 emissions by 3,142 metric tons over the first 10 years 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 78 of 152 Ordinance Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTAAMENDING CHAPTER 15.26 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH MANDATORY ENERGY UPGRADE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITIONS AND REMODELS TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WHEREAS, through its 2017 Climate Action Plan, the City committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to below six metric tons C02e per capita by 2030 and two metric tons CO2e per capita by 2050; and WHEREAS, as presented in a citywide 2014 greenhouse gas inventory, Chula Vistas greenhouse gas emissions decreased since 2005 but are still 10% above the City's 2020 emission goal; and WHEREAS, 'as a result, the City Council directed staff to convene a Climate Change Working Group (CCWG) to develop recommendations to reduce the community's greenhouse gas emissions; and WHEREAS, the CCWG recommended twelve climate protection measures, including requiring energy-savings retrofits in existing buildings at a specific point in time, which were included in the 2017 Climate Action Plan; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 2017, City Council adopted the 2017 Climate Action Plan and directed staff to implement the measures based on funding levels; and WHEREAS,, as a component of the 2017 Climate Action Plan, staff proposed developing a residential and commercial, energy conservation ordinance for City Council consideration; WHEREAS,, staff is presenting to Council an ordinance amending Chapter 15. 26 of the Municipal Code and adding Section 15.26.04,0 requiring single family homes built before 2006 that are undergoing additions to also install certain energy saving measures; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 1, Section 10- 106, Locally Adopted Energy Standards, and the CEC' s submittal and approval process, the City finds that the requirements below will save energy and are cost-effective within the City of Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to Sections 17958 and 18941 of the Health and Safety Code, before making any modifications to the California Building Standards Code, the City must make an express finding that such modifications are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions. Modifications to the California Building Standards and Building Energy Efficiency Standards, as detailed in this Ordinance, are reasonably necessary due to local climatic conditions. As a result of high summer ambient temperatures and periods of heat waves, average load demand and peak load demand of energy used in Chula Vista is an important factor concerning public 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 79 of 152 Ordinance Page 3 safety and adverse economic impacts of power outages or power reductions. Reduction of total and peak energy use, as a result of incremental energy conservation measures required by this Ordinance, will have local and regional benefits in the cost-effective reduction of energy costs for the building owner, additional available system energy capacity, and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. WHEREAS, the City affirms that the requirements below will require buildings to be designed to consume no more energy than permitted by California Energy Code; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance is intended to preserve and enhance the environment of the City of Chula Vista and is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15o 1(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, because there is no possibility that the ordinance may have a significant negative impact on the environment. The proposed ordinance is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 1530�8 of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempts actions taken by regulatory agencies for the enhancement and protection of the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby adopts this ordinance and directs staff to prepare and present for City Council consideration proposed local amendments to future versions of California Energy Code requiring increased local energy efficiency standards and the necessary future cost- effectiveness studies,, consistent with this resolution. NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: Section 1. Chapter 15.26 of the Chula Vista Municipal, Code is hereby amended by addition of the section 15.26.040 as follows: 15.26.040 Mandatory Energy Efficiency Requirements for Additions to Single Family Homes A. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose and intent of this section to require installation of specific energy efficiency measures in less energy-efficient homes, when such homes undertake additions or remodels, in order to reduce GHG emissions resulting from energy consumption. B. Applicability. This section applies to dwelling units constructed before 2006, that are undergoing a permitted Addition or Remodel, either in Low-Rise Residential Buildings (as defined in Title 24 Part 6 Section 100.1) with 1-4 dwelling units, or that are individually owned residential condominiums and townhouses. EXCEPTION: This section shall not be triggered by creation of a new ADD or JADU alone. This section does apply to Additions or Remodels of existing ADUs and JAI. Us. 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 8,0 of 152 Ordinance Page 4 C. q in t ons. For purposes of this section, the following to shall have the following meanings: "Addition" See definition in Title 24 Part 6 Section 100.1(b). "Compliance Report" A Certificate of Compliance generated by approved Energy Code compliance software, including CBECC-Res and EnergyPro. "Remodel" Means any of the following: 1. Any change or rearrangement, other than a repair, of the structural elements of an existing building including foundations, footing, sub-floors, lintels, beams, columns, girders, slabs, roof trusses, staircases, load bearing walls, door frames,, window frames, or any other part of the building that resists force or moment. 2. Change or rearrangement of the plan configuration of walls and full-height partitions of an existing building. "Steep Slope"A roof slope greater than two units vertical in 12 units horizontal (17- percent slope). "Total Energy Use" The energy consumption estimated by approved Energy Code compliance software, including CB,ECC-Res and EnergyPro, in terms ofd IAV per square foot1)ervear(kTDV/sf2—yr). L .1 D. Requirements. The following requirements shall apply to the entire dwelling unit, not just the additional or altered portion. Where these requirements conflict with other energy code requirements, the stricter requirement shall prevail. Homes shall comply with either the Prescriptive Approach or the Performance Approach. (1) Prescriptine Approach a. The upgrade measures shown below in Table 15.26.040(D)(1)(al) must be completed in accordance with the home's construction date and climate zone. Table 15.26.040(D)(1)(a1)*, Existing Home Addition Prescriptive Energy Upgrade Measures Year Built Climate Zone 7 Climate Zone 10 Before 1978 Water Heating Package; LED Lighting; R38 Attic Water Heating Package; LED Insulation; Duct Sealing Lighting; Duct Sealing; R38 1978-2005 WaterHeating Package; Attic; Air Sealing LED Lighting 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 8,1 of 152 Ordinance Page 5 EXCEPTION: Individually owned residential units within buildings containing five or more units must complete the upgrade measures shown below in Table 15.26.040(D)(1)(a2) in accordance with the home's construction date and climate zone. 'Table 15.26.040(D)(1)(a2): Existing Condo Prescriptive Energy Upgrade Measures Year Built Climate Zone 7 Climate Zone 10 Pre-1978 Water Heating Package; LED Lighting; R38 Attic Insulation; Duct Sealing Water Heating, 1)Package; LED 1978-1991 Water Heating Package; Lighting; Duct Sealing; R38 1 LED Lighting; Duct Sealing Attic; Air Sealing 1992-2005 Water Heating Package; LED Lighting; a. Additions or Remodels involving steep sloped roof replacement, recovering, or recoating of either more than 50% or more than 2,000 square feet of roof area, or new steep sloped roof sections of any size, are also required to meet the Cool Roof requirements in Table 15.26.040(1))(1)(b) for the roofing material added to: i. 1-4 unit residential buildings constructed pre-1978 in climate zone 7 or pre-20Oin climate zone 10. iii. Individually owned units in 5+unit buildings constructed pre- 1992 in climate zone 7 or pre-2006 in climate zone 10. b. Required measures in Tables 15.26.040(D)(1)(a) and (2) shall be completed in accordance with the following specifications. Materials must meet the parameters included below in Table 15.26.040(D)(l)(b) as a minimum. More energy efficient materials may be substituted. Table 15.26.040(D)(1)(b),* Prescriptive Energy Upgrade Measure Specifications Paelkage'' Specification R-38 Attic Add attic insulation in buildings with vented attic spaces to meet R- Insulation 3 8 per requirements of section 150.1(c)1 Aii or iii. 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet Page 8,2 of 152 Ordinance Page Air Sealing Apply air sealing practices throughout all accessible areas of the building. All joints,penetrations and other openings in the building envelope that are potential sources of air leakage shall be caulked, gasketed,weather stripped,or otherwise sealed to limit infiltration and exfiltration. Buildings constructed before 1992 should be sealed. to 7 Air Changes per Hour(ACH),and buildings constructed from 1992-2005 should be sealed to 5 A H,at 50 Pascals pressure difference..Homes with one or more vented combustion appliances must have a BPI Combustion Appliance Safety Inspection performed after air sealing. +fool.Roof For steep slope refs,install a roofing product rated by the Cool Roof Rating Council( RR )with an aged solar reflectance of 0.25 or higher and thermal emittance of o.75 or higher. Duct Sealing Air seal all ductwork to meet the requirements of Section 15o.2(b)I E as if the heating system were being replaced. LED Lighting Replace screw-in halogen, incandescent or CFL,light bulbs.with. LED light bulbs in accordance with the requirements of Section. 150.0(k)1.A,.D,G,H and 1. Nater Heating 1.Nater Heater Blanket: Add R-6 insulation to the exterior of Package existing residential tank storage water heaters manufactured before April 20 15. Requirement is waived for water heaters with internal. tank insulation of atleast R-1 16. .Hot Nater Pipe Insulation-Insulate all accessible hot water pipes with.R-3 pipe insulation per requirements of section 150�.00)2.A.. .Low Flow Fittings-Upgrade sink and shower fittings to meet current CALGreen requirements,which require maximum flow rates of 1..8 gallons per minute(gpm)for showerheads and kitchen faucets, and 1.2 gpm for bathroom faucets per requirements of section. C LLGreen.Section.4.303. c. Project value Cutoff. If the cast of completing the energy efficiency measures required under this section are projected to exceed 20% of the projected cast of the Addition or Remodel absent those measures, permit applicants can propose a more limited set from among the required measures which does not exceed 20%. The limited set must include as many of the required measures as possible without exceeding the 20% cutoff. (2) Performance Approach a.. Complete any set of energy efficiency measures concurrent with. Addition or Remodel that are projected to result in equivalent or lower energy y usage than the applicable prescriptive measures required in section 15.26.040(D)(1). 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet gage 83 of 152 Ordinance Page 7 b. Shall be demonstrated by the following method. i. Install the LED Lighting and Water Heater Blanket measures as specified in Table 15.26.040(D)(1)(b). ii. Submit two compliance reports. One compliance report shall be generated from a model of the proposed energy performance measures, and, the existing home plus the proposed addition(s) and any other alterations. A second compliance report shall be generated by modeling the existing home with the prescriptive measures that would otherwise be required by section 15.26.040(D)(1), not including the LED Lighting and Water Heater Blanket, and including proposed addition(s) and any other alterations. The Total Energy Use for the first compliance report must be equal or less than that of the second compliance report. E. Exemptions. The requirements of Sections 15.26.040(A), (B), (C) and (D) are waived, in part or in whole, if any of the following conditions are met. (1) Measure Already Completed. Substantially similar measures to those required by Table 15.26.040(D)(1)(a) and meeting the specifications of Table 15.26.040(D)(1)(b) are already in place. (2) Technical Infeasibility. Prescribed measure would be technically infeasible or not be cost-effective due to unique characteristics of home or other special circumstances. a. Evidence requirement to show lack of cost effectiveness: Letter from certified energy professional attesting to the lack of cost effectiveness with explanation of methodology and calculation. b. Evidence to show technical, infeasibility: Letter from licensed building professional documenting infeasibility for one of the following reasons: inaccessibility, violation of other codes, low likelihood of success, measure would affect proper functioning of other building elements, result in safety risks, cause harm to building occupants. (3) High Performing Home. Home has earned a Home Energy Score of 8 or above within the previous 3 years. (4) Fully Solar Powered. Home is powered by a solar PV system offsetting at least 5%, of the annual, electricity demand and gas equivalent energy consumption. 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 8,4 of 152 Ordinance Page 8 (5) Exempt Additions. Additions where work is principally composed of one of the following: Solar PV, Solar water heating, EV charging, electrical upgrades for solar PV or EV charging, energy storage. (6) Homeowner's Association. A measure is beyond the authority of the homeowner due to Homeowner's Association (HOA) covenant. (7) Medical Necessity. An Addition or Remodel consists solely of medically necessary improvements. F. Implementation Authority. (1) The City Manager may adopt rules and regulations for the implementation of this section. (2) The City Manager may modify or suspend the requirements of this section after submitting a written justification to the Sustainability Commission for one or more of the following reasons: a. Technological infeasibility. b. Economic infeasibility. c. Legal infeasibility. d. Streamlined compliance Section 11. Severability If any portion of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed severable, and such invalidity, unenforceability or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of the Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, sentences, clauses or phrases of the Ordinance be declared invalid,, unenforceable or unconstitutional. Section III. Construction The City Council of the City of Chula Vista intends this Ordinance to supplement, not to duplicate or contradict, applicable state and federal law and this Ordinance shall,be construed in light of that intent. Section IV. Effective Date 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 8,5 of 152 Ordinance Page 9 This ordinance shall take effect on the 30th day following approval by the California Energy Commission and not before June 1, 2020. Section V. Publication The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted according to law. Presented by Approved as to form by Eric Crockett Glen R. Googins Director of Economic Development City Attorney 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 8,6 of 152 Page 1 of 4 City of Chula Vista Draft Policy Summary Existing Home Energy Sustainability Ordinance (EHr au ) version 3.6 Policy Overview � Require installation of specific energy upgrades for homes built before 2006 (including condos and townhouses)when they perform additions and remodels � Required upgrades depend on the age of home and climate zone � Required upgrades will apply to the part of the home not already required to comply with current building code as a result of the addition or remodel � Allow homes to install a custom set of upgrades, instead of the required upgrades, as long as they meet or exceed the energy performance of the required upgrades � Avoid dis-incentivizing solar installation or other energy efficiency measures � Avoid inordinate financial burden � Avoid impeding ADUs or JADUs � Avoid disruption to permit process � Estimated to affect 3,872 units and reduce GHG emissions by 3,218 metric tons over the first 10 years Prepared for City of Chula Vista Jan 2019 Eric Engelman I Energy Policy Consulting 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet Page 87 of 152 DRAFT URAFT Policy Summary—Single Family Existing Building Energy Ordinance Page 2 of 4 Proposed Requirements 1. APPLICABILITY: Applies to 1-4 unit residential buildings and individually owned townhome and condominium units built before 2006 when an Addition or Remodel is performed. 2. DEFINITIONS Addition:As defined in Energy Code'. Remodel: Means any of the following: 1. Any change or rearrangement, other than a repair, of the structural elements of an existing building including foundations,footing, sub-floors, lintels, beams, columns,girders, slabs, roof' trusses, staircases, load bearing walls, door frames,window frames, or any other part of the building that resists force or moment. 2. Change or rearrangement of the plan configuration of walls and full-height partitions of an existing building. 3. OPTION 1: PRESCRIPTIVE PATHI.: Owners shall install specific measures according to the requirements below. 3.1. Owners of residential buildings with 1-4 units residential buildings must complete the following prescribed upgrades measures according to their climate zone and year of construction: Year Built Climate Zone 7 Climate Zone 10 Pre-1978 Water Heating Package; LED Lighting; R38 Attic Insulation; Duct Sealing Water Heating Package; LED Lighting; Duct Sealing; R38 Attic;Air Sealing 1978-2005 Water Heating Package; LED Lighting 3.2. Owners of individual townhomes or condominiums within buildings of 5 or more units must complete the following prescribed upgrades measures according to their climate zone and year of construction: Year Built Climate Zone 7 Climate Zone 10 IPre-1978 Water Heating Package; LED Lighting; R38 Attic Insulation; Duct Sealing Water Heating Package; LED Lighting; 1978-1991 Water Heating Package; Duct Sealing; R38 Attic;Air Sealing LED Lighting; Duct Sealing 1992-2005 Water Heating Package; LED Lighting; 3.3. These prescriptive requirements shall apply to the entire unit or units within the scope of the triggering permit, not just the additional or altered portion. Where these requirements conflict with other energy code requirements,the stricter requirement shall prevail. Any change to a building that increases conditioned floor area and conditioned volume. See,also "newly conditioned space." Addition is also any change that increases the floor area and volume of an unconditioned building of an occupancy group or type regulated by Part 6. Addition is also any change that increases the illuminated area of an outdoor lighting application regulated by Part 6. 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 8,8 of 152 DRAFT DRAFT Policy Summary—Single Family Existing Building Energy Ordinance Page 3 of 4 3.4. For Additions and Remodels involving roof replacement, recovering or recoating(>50%or>2,000sf), or new roof sections, on a steep sloped roof the Cool Roof measure applies for: a. 1-4 unit buildings, built before 1978 in climate zone 7, or pre-20016 in climate zone 10 b. Individually owned units in 5+ unit buildings, built before 1992 in climate zone 7, or pre-2006 in climate zone 10 3.5. Required Measures shall be installed per the description below: Measure Name Description R-38 Attic Add attic insulation in buildings with vented attic spaces to meet R-38. Insulation Air Sealing Apply air sealing practices throughout all accessible areas of the building.All joints, penetrations and other openings in the building envelope that are potential sources of air leakage shall be caulked,Basketed,weather stripped, or otherwise sealed to limit infiltration and exfiltration. Buildings constructed before 1992 should be sealed to 7 Air Changes per Hour(ACTH),and buildings constructed from 1992-2005 should be sealed to 5 ACH,at 50 Pascals pressure difference. Homes with one or more vented combustion appliances must have a BPI Combustion Appliance Safety Inspection performed after air sealing. Cool Roof For steep slope roofs, install a roofing product rated by the Cool Roof Rating Council (CRRC) with an aged solar reflectance of 0.25 or higher and thermal emittance of 0.75 or higher'. Duct Sealing Air seal all ductwork to meet the requirements of the 2016 Title 24 Section 150.2(b)1E. Homes with one or more vented combustion appliances are STRONGLY RECOMMENDED to have a BPI Combustion Appliance Safety Inspection performed after duct sealing. LED Lighting Replace screw-in halogen, incandescent or CFL light bulbs with LED light bulbs in accordance with the requirements of Title 24 Section 150.0(k)1.A,D,G,H and I., Water Heating Water Heater Blanket Add R-6 insufflation to the exterior of existing residential tank storage Package water heaters manufactured before April 2015. Requirement is waived for water heaters with internal tank insulation of at least R-16. Hot Water Pipe Insulation Insulate all accessible hot water pipes with R-3 pipe insulation. Low Flow Fittin s Upgrade sink and shower fittings to meet current CALGreen requirements,which require maximum flow rates of 1.8 gallons per minute(gpm)for showerheads,and kitchen faucets,and 1.2 gpm for bathroom faucets. 4. OPTION 2: PERFORMANCE PATH: Owners may concurrently complete an alternative set of energy measures that performs equal to or better than the applicable prescribed measures subject,to the requirement's below and/or additional rules as put forth by the Conservation Department., 4.1. Applicants may demonstrate this by submitting one compliance report, as already reqluired,the with the proposed performance measures, and a second compliance report modeling the existing home+ alteration with the prescribed measures.The Total Energy Use for the first compliance report must be equal or less than that of the second compliance report. 4.2. The LED Lighting and Water Heater Blanket requirements are mandatory, and cannot be substituted for performance measures. 5. EXEMPTIONS: Owners are exempt from this ordinance, in part or in whole, subject to the requirements below. 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 8,9 of 152 r%n URAFT Policy Summary—Single Family Existing Building Energy Ordinance Page 4 of 4 5.1. Project Value Cutoff. If the cost of completing energy efficiency measures required under the prescriptive path exceeds 20%of'the overall project cost absent those measures, permit applicants can propose a more limited set from among the required measures which does not exceed 20%. 5.2. Permits for work principally composed of one of the following are excluded from this requirement: Solar PV, Solar water heating, electrical upgrades for PV or EV charging, energy storage, EV charging 5.3. Homes where similar measures have already been completed. 5.4. Prescribed measures would be technically infeasible or not be cost-effective due to unique characteristics of home or other special circumstances. a. Evidence to show lack of cost effectiveness: Letter from energy professional explaining calculation b. Evidence to show technical infeasibility: Letter from building professional documenting infeasibility for one of the following reasons: inaccessibility,violation of other codes, low likelihood of success, measure would affect proper functioning of other building elements, result in safety risks, cause harm to building occupants S.S. Home achieves a Home Energy Score (HES) of at least 8 out,of 10 5.6. Home has on-site photovoltaics in place offsetting at least 95%of the annual electricity and gas equivalent usage (simplified evidence options to be included in implementation guidelines) 5.7. A measure is beyond the authority of the homeowner due to HOA covenant 5.8. An Addition or Remodel consists solely of medically necessary improvements. 6. IMPLEMENTATION AUTHORITY 6.1. The City Manager may adopt rules and regulations for the implementation. 6.2. The City Manager may modify or suspend the requirements of this section after submitting a written justification to the Sustainability Commission for one or more of the following reasons: a. Technological infeasibility b. Economic infeasibility C. Legal infeasibility d. Streamlining of compliance 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 90 of 152 City of Chulaista ExistVing Home Energy Esta na i ria rice Overview Background: Homes in Chula Vista have been built over the years to meet the applicable energy related building codes which were first put in place in 1978. Since then new homes have gotten healthier and more efficient while some existing homes have gotten left behind. To help address these older homes the City is educating residents about retrofit opportunities and requiring older homes undergoing additions or remodels to make certain targeted upgrades, where applicable and feasible, to bring them closer to current codes. Who Needs to Comply: These energy saving improvements are something most homes can benefit from but because newer homes have already been built to meet more recent energy code the focus of this policy is homes built in Chula Vista before 2006. Any home that does not have these measures should evaluate if they would benefit their home, but this ordinance is focused on homes that are doing alterations or remodels. Under this ordinance the definition of"remodel" is tied to structural changes that trigger the need for a permit. Please review the potential examples below to better understand what projects need to comply. What projects trigger this requirement"? • Adding square footage 0 Moving interior walls • Adding windows and doors Single Family Measure,Requirement Flow Chart These projects do NOT trigger this requirement: iiIIIVi y' IIII 0 Adding new the or flooring 0 Bathroom fixtures Igo 0 Lighting fixtures @: i p�uuu", "Illp mi uIIIIN 0 Appliances 0 Adding or moving a kitchen island 0 Adding or changing Igo co u me rs uiuuu 0 Adding an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU/JADU) yes 0 Projects that are �No medically necessary w uu eased on the age and location yes of the home different energy saving measures will be required. Please use the flow chart to the right and measure 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 91 of 152 table below to identify what specific requirements are required if your home undergoes an alteration or addition. What Energy Efficiency Actions Could Be Required? Below is a table that reviews the home energy efficiency standards that the City is trying to ensure homes meet. Upgrade Name Description Benefit Implementation Notes Number 1 LED Replace screw-in halogen, LED lights can use up to 75% Not applicable to lights plugged Lighting incandescent or CFL light bulbs less energy than into outlets, recommend Energy with LED light bulbs incandescent bulbs,and are Star bulbs. Historic fixtures 15%more efficient than exempt if not compatible with average Compact Florescent LED bulbs. Light(CFQ Bulbs. 2 Water A.Water Heater Blanket- Water heating can account Only accessible hot water pipes Hlea�ting Insulate exterior of storage for up to 50%of an average need to be insulated. Historic Package water heaters manufactured home's natural gas usage. fixtures exempt if not before Aprill 2015. By insulating the tank(if not compatible with,water efficiency B. Hot Water Pipe Insulation - already insulated)and measures. Insulate alll accessible hot water exposed piping you can pipes with R-3 pipe insulation. minimize the amount of heat C. Low Flow Fixtures- Upgrade that is lost on its way to your. sink and shower fittings to By utilizing low flow faucets, maximum flow rates of 1.8 aerators,and low flow gallons per minute(gpm)for showerheads you not only shiowerheads,and kitchen save water,but also save the faucets,and 1.2 gpm for energy used to heat up that bathroom faucets. water. 3 Attic Add attic insulation in buildings Attic insufflation helps your Homes with existing insulation Insulation with vented attic spaces to home maintain a stable greater than R-5 in Climate Zone meet R-38. temperature. 7 or greater,than R-19 in Climate Zone 10 are exempt. Homes without vented attics are exempt. 4 Duct Air seal all accessible ductwork Duct leakage can be as high Sealing with a goal of reducing duct as 30%,in average California leakage to be equal to or less homes. This means that up than 15,%of system airflow. to 30%of the air you are paying to heat or cool is being lost before it reaches its destination. Additionally, leaky ducts can allow a pathway for dust or other indoor air qluality concerns to enter,your rooms. 5 Air Apply air sealing practices Houses built over the past Only accessible areas need to be Sealing throughout all accessible areas five years are over 20 sealed. Attics with crawl space of the building. Homes with one percent tighter than those are considered accessible, or more vented combustion built a decade earlier. This 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 92 of 152 appliances MUST have a BPI means the air you paid to Combustion Appliance Safety heat or cool can escape and Inspection performed after air increases your energy bills sealing. and outside pollutants can enter your home. By sealing your home you can make it safer and healthier. 6 Cool Roof only applicable if project Cool roofs help save energy only for steep slope roofs includes re-roofing or addition by increasing the amount of (shallow slope roofs already of steep slope roofs. Install a solar energy that get covered). roofing product rated by the reflected away from your Cool Roof Rating Council (CRRC) home and minimize the need with an aged solar reflectance for cooling on hot summer of 0.25 or higher and thermal days. emittance of 0.75 or higher. Benefits: As mentioned in the tele above there are numerous benefits that these upgrades can provide depending on your home. Below is some more information about the main benefits. • Energy Bill Reductions -over the expected life of the products all of the measures are expected to reduce thehomes energy bills by more than the cost of installing them. i Improved Indoor Air+duality,—Leaky homes and ducts are one of the largest ways that outdoor pollutants life dust and pollen can enter a home. Properly sealing homes and ducts can help increase indoor air quality. But all homes need ventilations, especially homes using fuel-fired appliances—gas water heaters, heating systems and stoves need ventilation but homes can be sealed up too tight to allow this. If you seal your home beyond the recommended 15,%of system airflow you may need mechanical ventilation to ensure you are still receiving fresh air. (Residents can have a third party verify their homes air leakage. • Reduce Carbon Emissions -Home energy use is one of the largest contributors to climate change in Chula vista. By saving energy residents will also reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. For more ways to reduce GHG emissions please visit www.cvclimatechallenge.com. What if I have already Made Similar Upgrades: If your have already made these, or similar, upgrades, or they will be a part of your home project, your will be benefiting from a more energy efficient home and do not need to make any additional upgrades. Please review the list of exemptions below: Similar measures have already been completed o (Including participation in a low-income weatherization program a deferment will be provided to qualifying applicants that have applied for weatherization programs but not received the work yet) Home achieves a Home Energy Score (HES) score of at least 8 out of 10 Home has on-site photovoltaics, PV offsetting at least 95%of the annual electricity and gas- equivalent usage * An alternative,voluntary, set of energy measures is concurrently being completed that will achieve equivalent energy savings to the prescriptive packages 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, gage 93 of 152 What if These Upgrades WiIIII Not Work for My Project: Due to unique characteristics of some homes these upgrades may not work as intended for all residents. To help ensure that residents are not negatively impacted by this requirement the following additional exemptions are also allowed. 0 Project Value Cutoff- If the cost of completing energy efficiency measures required under this policy exceeds 200 of the overall project cost without those measures, permit applicants can propose a more limited set from among the required measures which does not exceed 20% 0 A measure is beyond the authority of the home owner due to HOA covenant 0 Prescribed measures would be technically infeasible or not be cost-effective due to unique characteristics of home or other special circumstances, When will it be in effect, if approved by City Council' Assuming City Council and California Energy Commission approval the ordinance is expected to take effect May 81h, 2020. Resources: Please review the resources listed below for information about home energy performance or energy efficiency resources. 0 SDG&E Energy Savings Assistance Program—The ESAP is an income qualified program that can make minor improvements to your home at no cost to you, such as insulation and appliance replacement,to help save energy. For full EAP program eligibility requirements and application information, please visit www.sdge.com/esap,or call 619-387-4757 0 SDG&,E Marketplace—A website,www.,sdg,e,m,a,r,k,et,p,l,ace.com,,created by SDG&E that features thermostats,,washers, dryers, refrigerators,surge protectors and lighting products with easy to shop at-a- glance product features,energy savings estimates and product reviews. 0 Federal Weatherization Assistance—A income qualified program can provide you with no cost wea,therization to help you save energy and make your home more energy efficient. If you would like to find out if you qualify for this,program, please call (619)409-7588 or visit MAAC's website www.maacproiect.org/miain/impact/heailthy-homes,-health-services/weathierization-se 0 Home Energy Score—Developed by the Department of Energy(DOE) and its national laboratories,the Home Energy Score provides home owners, buyers, and renters directly comparable and credible information about a home's energy u�se. Like a miles-per-gallon rating for a car,the Home Energy Score is based on a standard assessment of energy-related assets to easily compare energy use across the housing market. For more information please visit: www.homeenergvscore.gov. 0 Go Green Financing—To help residents find financing for energy saving projects the state created the Go Green Financing website: www.gogreenfinancing.com. This allows California residents and businesses to create a custom energy action plan, find rebates and incentives and find a financing option. Questions?Contact the City of Chula Vista's Conservation Section at 619-409-3893 or coniservation@chiulavistac�a.gov. 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 94 of 152 City of Chl ula-umm,pi W ViNsta EkiIst'[��ig Eiiwi�111-gyiW WNi iGii�mdiinance (E111111111111111111ESO) Summary CostmE ecteiveness Results Background The energy efficiency requirements in Chula Vista's proposed Existing Home Energy Sustainability Ordinance (EH SO) were derived from a statewide cost—effectiveness study produced by California's major utility companies.The study evaluated a variety of measures for homes of various ages and each climate zone in the state, estimating the total installation cost and utility bill savings for each.These estimates were used on a prototype single family home and prototype multi-unit building considered typical of California"s older housing stock and standard construction practices during the periods evaluated. From this study Chula Vista selected the measures that indicated a good payback.The table below shows the basic prototype assumptions.The full study can be accessed at Localenergycodes.com.' Table 1—Basic Prototype Characteristics Prototype Stories Square Bedrooms �Footage Single Family 1 1,,665 3 Multi-unit 1 965 2 Measuring Cost Effectiveness There are two common measures of cost effectiveness. Simple Payback divides the up-front installation cost of a measure by the expected utility bill savings each year.The result is a simple measure of the number of years it takes to "pay back" the initial investment.The lower the, number, the quicker a measure pays back and the more cost,effective it is. Simple Payback does not take into account financing costs. Benefit-to-Cost Ratio divides the lifecycle benefits over the one-time costs. Lifecycle benefits are summed over 30 years and discounted at 3%.The costs assume that the owner borrows money to make improvement at common mortgage rates. Benefit-to-cost ratios above 1.0 are considered cost effective and the higher the ratio,the better. Results The table 2 below shows the cost effectiveness for individual measures or packages of measures required by the proposed ordinance. Not every measure was found to be cost effective for all building ages, zip codes and configurations.Accordingly, the requirements differ based on these factors. Note that apartment buildings with five or more units are not covered by this ordinance, unless the units are individually owned condominiums. 1 Download link:https://loca I e ne rgycodes.co rn/d own load/3 78/f i le_path/f i el d List/Resid entia WORetrof it%20Cost-Eff%20Repo rt Under the `Toolkit'tab see'Prescriptive Ordinances', "Existing Low-Rise Residential Remodels"'. Page 1 of 3 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 95 of 152 City of Chula Vista - EHE SO Summary Cost Effectiveness Information Table 2- Individual Measure Cost Effectiveness Annual Simple Measure Year BCoSt2 u'l*lt S a n g S 2 Payback Renefift/'Cost, (yea rs) Single Family: Homes with one to four units (except 91914 zip code) Water Heating Package Before 2006 $208 $30, 6.9 2.5 LED Lighting4 Before 2006 $26 $24 1.1 15.6 Duct Sealing Before 1978 $240 $52 4.6 3.8 Attic Insulation Before 1978 $2,273 $168 11.4 1.5 CoolRoof Before 1978 $635 $66 9.6 1.8 Multifamily: Conclos in Buildings with five or more units Water Heating Package Before 2006 $168 $24 8.0 2.5 LED Lighting4 Before 2006 $26 $24 1.1 17.7 Before 1978 $120 $29 4.4 4.4 Duct Sealing 1978-1991 $120 $15 8.0 2.5 Attic Insulation Before 1978 $594 $47 16.1 1.2 Before 1978 $184 $29 9.2 2.1 CoolRoof 1978-1991 $184 $15 12.3 1.6 Single Family: Homes with one to four units (only 911914 zip code) Water Heating Package Before 2006 $208 $30, 6.9 2.5 LED Lighting4 Before 2006 $26 $36 0.7 24.0 Attic Insulation, Duct,Sealing Before 1992 $3,562 $359 9.9 1.8 and Air Sealing 5 1992-2005 $3,562 $317 11.2 1.5 Before 1978 $635 $272 2.3 7.4 Cool Roof 1978-1991 $635 $195 B. 5.3 1992-2005 $635 $164 3.9 4.5 2 Unless otherwise noted,figures are from the Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study, December 2019 version.Some errors in the study have been corrected in consultation with the author. I Calculated using methodology from Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study,June 2018 version 4 Assumes 6.6 bulbs replaced with LED bulbs in a home.Assumes replaced bulbs are half CFLs and half incandescent/halogen. 5 Includes$35,0 for BRI Combustion Safety Testing. Page 2 of 3 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 96 of 152 City of Chula Vista - EHESO Summary Cost Effectiveness Information Table 3 assumes that a home in each scenario' is required to, undertake all the required measures'and evaluates the total cost effectiveness of the combined measures. Figures are shown with and without additional permit costs. Table 3-Combined Cost EffectiveneSS8 S'Imple S'Imple Benefit Total a b cl1 ayback Benefit Cost Home Scenario 'Total Annual with (without Cost(with (without Cost" Savings additional additional additional additional permit permit Permit Cost) Permit cost) cost) Cost) Single Family Pre-1978 $2,935 $274 10.7 10.0 1.6 1.7 Single Family 19,78-2005 $422 $54 7.9 4.4 2.2 4.0 Single Family 19,78-1991 (Only 911914 $3,F984 $425 9.4 8.9 1.9 1.91 zip) Single Family 1992-2005 (Only 911914 $3,984 $383 10.4 9.,9 1.7 1.8 Zip) Multifamily Pre-1978 $1,,096 $153 7.2 5.9 2.7 3.3 Multifamily 1978-1991 $502 $63 8.,0 5.,0 2.5 3.9 Multifamily 1992-2005 $382 $48 8.,0 4.,0 2.5 4.9 6 In the 91914 zip code there are no buildings with five or more units built before 2006. 7 Since the Cool Roof measure is only required if roofing work is being completed anyway as part of the addition or remodel, it is not included in Table 3 results., 8 Includes$188 estimated additional permit costs Page 3 of 3 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 97 of 152 (ALI FO RN 1A Ell [ 11GY (0 DES&STAN EIS A STAT ,rna;P,f �Wy !miarniYw NriiiailV '�y�l ��'Jk�. I,. EMd[")YE [,J"Hd�,.JT'Y Title 24, Parts 6 and 11 Local Energy Efficiency Ordinances 2019 Cost-Effective n ss Study: Existing Low-rise Residential Building Efficiency Upgrade Prepared for: Kelly Cunningham Codes and Standards Program Pacific Gas and Electric Company Prepared by: Frontier Energy, Inc. Misti Bruceri &Associates, LLC Last Modified: December 19, 2019 Zff SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAPacift Gas and ANOW MSoCal�Gas .j EDISON"' Fll Electric C01111111rally! Packet Page 98 of 152 LEGAL NOTICE This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission. Copyright 2019, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. All Frights reserved, except that this document may be used, copied, and distributed without modification. Neither PG&E nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any privately-owned rights including, but not limited to, patents,, trademarks or copyrights. 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 99 of 152 Table ^��Contents �� Acronyms..........................................................................................................................................................3 1 Overview...................................................................................................................................................4 2 Introduction...............................................................................................................................................4 3 Methodology and Assumptions.................................................................................................................5 3.1 Building _—................................._—_ ................................. _—................................._— ...... 5 3.2 Efficiency Measures.... _—................................._— ................................. —_—................................._- 8 3.3 Efficiency Packages................................ _— ................................. —_.................................—_ ............. Q 3.4 Measure Cost.......... _—................................._— ................................... _—................................._—_. 9 3.4.1 ......................................—_— ................................. —_.................................—_-- 11 4 Results....................................................................................................................................................12 5 Recommendations& Discussion...—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_—_-16 5.1 Recommended Efficiency Measures—_ ................................. _—................................._— ................... 16 5.2 Other Considerations....................... _— ................................. —_.................................................................. 18 5.3 Next Stems—_ ..................................._— ................................. —_ ................................. _—................ 18 6 References.............................................................................................................................................20 Appendix—California Climate Zone Map....................................................................................................21 Appendix B— UtilUvRaƒe Tariffs.....................................................................................................................22 AnpeDdiX[|—StaDdards Sec�oDs--------------------------------------�� 6.1.1 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Section 1502Ud1|_— ................................. —_ .............. 32 6.1.2 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Section 15O2(b)1E—_—................................. 32 6.1.3 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Section 11O.9(b)4........................................................................ 33 AppendixD—Measure Tables.........................................................................................34 2QI9-I2-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 100or152 List of Tables 'Table 1: Prototype Characteristics,---..,................................. ................................. ................................. 6 Table 2: Efficiency Characteristics for Three Vintage Cases ................................. ................................... 7 Table 3: Measure Descriptions,&Cost Assumptions' ................................... ................................. ......... 10 'Table 4: IOU Utility Tariffs Applied Based on Climate Zone,..,..,..,.................................1.........�.................................1........ 11 Table 5: Final Financing Assumptions.............................................. ................................. ............................... 12 'Table 6: Summary of Single Family Results.,--..,................................. ....�................................. ....�......................... 14 Table 7: Summary of Multifamily Results........,................................. ................................. ............................. 15 Table 8: PG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone.......,................................. ................................. ............. 23 'Table 9: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone,..,..,..,.................................1.......�.................................1.......�................. 26 'Table 10: SoCalGas Baseline Territory by Climate Zone.,..,..,.................................................................................................... 28 'Table 11: SIDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone.................................1.�..�..�..�..�.................................1.�..�..�..�..... 29 'Table 12: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions.,---..,................................................................................................ 31 'Table 13: CZ 1 -Single Family Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results...................................................................... 34 Table 14: CZ 1 - Multifamily Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results(Peer Unit) .........1.�..�..�..�............................... 34 Table 15: CZ 2-Single Family Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results............................................................ 35 Table 116: CZ 2-Multifamily Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results(Per Unit)................................................ 35 Table 117: CZ 3-Single Family Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results............................................................ 36 Table 18: CZ 3 Multifamily Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results(Per U!nit)................................................ 36 Table 19: CZ 4 Single Family Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results............................................................ 37 Table 20: CZ 4 Multifamily Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results(Per Uinit)................................................ 37 Table 21: CZ 5 PG&E/PG&E-Single Family Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results.............................�......... 38 Table 22: CZ,5 PC IPC -Multifamily Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results(Per Unit)............. ...... 38 Table 23: CZ 5 PG&E/SoCalGas-Single Family Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results................................ 39 Table 24: CZ 5 PG&E/SoCalGas- Multifamily Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results (Per Unit).................... 39 Table 25: CZ 6-Single Family Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results.................. ................................. 40 Table 26: CZ 6-Multifamily Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results(Per Unit) ......................................... 40 Table 27: CZ 7-Single Family Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness,Results............................................................41 'Table 28: CZ 7- Multifamily Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results (Peer Unit)................................................41 Table 29: CZ 8-Single Family Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results............................................................42 Table 30: CZ 8- Multifamily Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results(Per Unit).....................................................42 Table 31: CZ 9-Single Family Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results............................................................43 Table 32: CZ 9-Multifamily Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results(Per Unit)................................................43 Table 33: CZ 10 SCE/SoCalGas-Single Family Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results.................................44 Table 34: CZ 10 SCE/SoCalGas-Multifamily Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results(Per Unit).....................44 Table 35: CZ 10 SDG&E-Single Family Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results.............................................45 Table 36: CZ 10 SDG&E-Multifamily Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results(Per Unit).......................... 45 Table 37: CZ 11 -Single Family Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results..........................................................46 Table 38: CZ 11 -Multifamily Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results (Per Unit) ..............................................46 Table 39: CZ 12-Single Family Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results..........................................................47 Table 40: CZ 12-Multifamily Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results (Per Unit) .................................................47 Table 41: CZ 13-Single Family Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results.......................................................................48 Table 42: CZ 13-Multifamily Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results (Pear Unit) ..............................................48 Table 43: CZ 14 SCE/SoCalGas-Single Family Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results.,................................49 Table 44: CZ 14 SCE/So�CalGias- Multifamily Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results (Per Unit).....................49 Table 45: CZ 14 SDG&E-Single Family Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results.....,........................................ 50 Table 46: CZ 14 SDG&E-Multifamily Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results(Per Unit).,--............................ 50 Table 47: CZ 15-Single Family Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results...................... ............................ 51 Table 48: CZ 15-Multifamily Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results(Peer .................................... 51 Table 49: CZ 16-Single Family Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results.......................... ........................ 52 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 101 of 152 'Table 50: CZ 16- Multifamily Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results(Per Unit) ................................. 52 Acronyms ACH50 Air Changes per Hour at 50 pascals pressure differential ACM Alternative Calculation Method AFUE Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency B/C Lifecycle B,enefit-to-Cost Ratio BEopt Building Energy Optimization Tool BSC Building Standards Commission CBECC-Res Computer program developed by the California Energy Commission for use in demonstrating compliance with the California Residential Building Energy Efficiency Standards CFI California Flexible Installation CZ California Climate Zone EDR Energy Design Rating EER Energy Efficiency Ratio HERS Rater Home Energy Rating System Rater HVAC Heating,Ventilation, and Air Conditioning IOU Investor Owned Utility kWh Kilowatt Hour MF Multifamily NPV Net Present Value PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company SCE Southern California Edison SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric SEER Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio SF Single Family CASE Codes and Standards Enhancement TDV Time Dependent Valuation Title 24 Title 24, Part 6 TOLD Time-Olf-Use 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 102 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study. 1 Overview The California Codes and Standards Reach Codes team has completed a preliminary cost-effectiveness study for existing bui'ldi'ng upgrades.This analysis evaluated the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of retrofit measures in California existing homes built before 2006.A customer-based lifecycle cost approach to evaluating cost- effectiveness was applied quantifying the utility cost swings associated with energy efficiency measures compared to the costs associated with the measures.This preliminary study updated a cost-effectiveness study completed in June 2018 (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2018).The focus of this study was to revisit the recommended retrofit efficiency measure and package cost-effectiveness based on current utility rates and updated measure costs. Additional efforts have been identified that will be evaluated and released in an updated Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-Effectiveness Study in 2,02,0.These include: Revisit base,case assumptions for different vintages Additional HVAC upgrade options including: • High efficiency equipment replacement as alternative to non-preempted upgrade • Air sealing and attic insulation at time of HVAC replacement • Improved duct insulation,tighter ducts, buried ducts Additional building envelope improvements • Higher ceiling insulation requirements • Address low-slope roof replacements Lighting luminaire replacements in addition to lamp replacements • Evaluation of electrification measures at equipment change-out and electrification-ready Additions: Installation of PV system when building an addition, and • PV System Installation: Additional efficiency upgrade requirements when installing PV 2, Introduction The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (Energy Commission, 2018b) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies,the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances, or reach codes,that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and do not result in bui'ldings consuming more energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable. This report documents cost-effective combinations of measures that exceed the minimum state requirements, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, effective January 1, 20201,for existing single family and low-rise (one-to three-habitable story) multifamily buildings when a remodel is submitted for permit.This analysis does not apply to high-rise multifamily buiild�ings (four habitable stories or greater), nor to common areas categorized as nonresidential spaces within low-rise muiltifamily buildings. Each jurisdiction must establish the appropriate threshold for triggering the requirements, often based on the value of the project or percent of floor area impacted.Alternatively, a jurisdiction could require the upgrades described in this analysis at,the time of sale or listing of a home.The analysis includes scenarios of individual measures, as well as package upgrades, and identifies cost-effective options based on the existing conditions of the building in all sixteen California Climate Zones (CZ) (see Appendix A—California Climate Zone Map for a graphical depiction of Climate Zone locations). 4 201 -12- 2020-Q3-03 0 - 2- 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 103 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study. This analysis does not evaluate the impact of retrofit measures on Title 24 compliance margins, as the proposed measures are required in addition to achieving compliance with all codes.The analysis uses a customer-based lifecycle cost approach for evaluating cost-effectiveness of the proposed upgrades, which requires estimating and quantifying incremental costs and the energy and utility cost savings for each energy efficiency measure. The applied approach establishes recommendations based on existing conditions and cost-effectiveness of each measure or package. 3 Methodology and Assurptions The general approach applied in this analysis is to evaluate performance and determine cost-effectiveness of various energy retrofit measures, individually and as packages. Both single family and low-rise multifamily cases are considered,for three unique bui'ldi'ng vintages: pre-1978, 1978-1991, and 1992-2005.The vintages were defined based on review of historic Title 24 code requirements and selecting year ranges with disti'ngui'shing features. The California Building Energy Code Compliance—Residential (CBECC-Res) 2016.3.0 (SP2 977) compliance simulation tool was used to evaluate energy savings for most measures, with the exception of those outside the code compliance scope. In these cases,the National Renewable, Energy Laboratory's Building Energy Optimization (BEopt v2.8 software and the EnergyPlus v8.8 simulation engine were used. This analysis builds on the work completed for the 2016 Title 24 code (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2018) and has been updated to reflect changes in measure costs over,time as well as current utility tariffs. Energy simulations were not re-evaluated in CBECC-Res 2019 because there have been minimal updates to the software that impact the energy use results.This was validated by evaluating the pre-1978 basecase model in climate zone 12 with the version of the CB,ECC-Res software for the 2019 code, and comparing annual energy use with that from the 2016 version of software. Both total electricity and natural gas use differed between the two version by less than one percent.Therefore,this analysis can support ordinances adopted under either the 2016 or 2019 Title 24 code. 3.1 Building Prototypes W - The Energy Commission defines building prototypes which it uses to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of'proposed changes to Title 24 requirements. For the multifamily analysis, the Energy Commission eight-unit,two-story, multifamily new construction prototype was determined to be representative of low-rise multifamily buildings across the state within the vintages evaluated under this analysis.A single two-bedroom unit was extracted from the multifamily building model because CBECC-Res cannot evaluate building envelope air sealing for multifamily buildings.The two-bedroom unit was modified to be orientation neutral and represent the average properties of a lower floor and upper floor unit. Only individual, in-unit water heating and space conditioning systems we,re,evaluated.Additional details on the multifamily prototype can be found in the Alternative Calculation Method (ACM)Approval Manual (Energy Commission, 2018a). Average home size has steadily increased over time,1 and the Energy Commission single family new construction prototypes are larger than many existing single family homes across California. For this analysis an existing home 1 htts,://www.census.gov/cons,t/C25Ann/sftotalmiedavgs,gft.p f S 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 104 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study model developed by the Energy Commission for residential ACM testing'was used with the following revisions. The original model includes an existing 1,440 square foot space and a 225 square foot addition. For this analysis, the entire 1,665 square feet was evaluated as existing space and features (i.e., insulation levels, glazing) were applied consistently across the entire bui'ldi'ng consistent with the existing home specifications in Table 2. Additions are not addressed in this analysis as they are already addressed by the Title 24, Part 6 code. Table I describes the basic characteristics of each prototype. Table 1: Prototype Characteristics 'Single Family Multifamily Existing Cond�itione,d Floor Area 1,665 ft2 960 ft2 unit it Num. of Stories 1 1 Nu�m. of Bedrooms 3 2 Window-to-Floor Area Ratio 13% 15% Three building vintages were evaluated to determine sensitivity of existing building performance on cost- effectiveness of upgrades. For example, it is widely recognized that adding attic insulation in an older home with no insulation is cost-effective, however, newer homes will likely have at least some existing insulation in the attic reducing the potential savings from the measure. The building characteristics for each vintage were determined based on either prescriptive requirements from the Title 24 code that was in effect or standard construction practice during that time period. Based on the vintages selected,this analysis covers homes built before 2006. Homes built between 2006 and 2012 are expected to be similar in envelope characteristics to the 1992-2005 era homes, but include higher performing HVAC. Table 2 summarizes the assumptions for each of the three vintages. Additionally,the analysis assumed the following features when modeling the prototype buildings: Individual space conditioning and water heating systems, one per apartment or single family building. Multifamily buildings with central HVAC or water heating systems were, not considered in this evaluation. Split-system air conditioner with gas furnace. Efficiency defined by year of the most recent equipment replacement(based on standard equipment lifetime). Small storage gas water heater. Efficiency defined by year of most recent equipment replacement (based on standard equipment lifetime). Gas cooktop, oven, and clothes dryer. 2 Residential ACM test U12 can be accessed at the following website: htt :,// ww.bwilcox.com/BEES/cbecc20l6.htmil 6 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 105 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Table 2: Efficiwencv Characteri*sfic,s for Three Vintage Case,s C zi Building Component Efficie Vintage Caaqu Feature Pre-19�78 1978-1991 19�92-2005 Envelope I I Exterior Walls 2x4 16"oc wood frame, R-0 2x4 16"oc wood framel R-11 2x4 16"oc wood framel R-13 Foundation Type& Insulation Raised floor, R-0 Uninsulated slab(CZ 2-15) Uninsulated slab(CZ 1-15) Raised floor, R-0(CZ 1& 16) Raised floor., R-19(CZ 16) Vented attic, R-11 @ ceiling level Ceiling Insulation &Attic Type Vented attic', R-5 @ ceiling level (CZ 6, Vented attic, R-19 @ ceiling level Vented attic, R-19 @ ceiling level &7) Roofing Material &Color Asphalt shingles,dark Asphalt shingles,dark Asphalt shingles,dark Radiant Barrier No No No Window Type: U-factor/SHGC1 Metal,single pane: 1.16/0.76 Metal,dual pane:0.791/0.70 Vinyl,dual pane Low-E:0.55/0.40 House Infiltration 10 ACH50 10 ACH50 7 ACH50 HVAC Equipment2 —�Heating Efficiency 78 AFUE(assumes 1 replacement) 78 AFUE(assumes 1 replacement) 78 AFUE Cooling Efficiency 9.,7 SEER(assumes 1 replacement) 9.,7 SEER(assumes 1 replacement) 9.,7 SEER Duct Location & Details Attic, R-2.1,30%leakage Attic, R-2.1.,25%leakage Attic, R-4.2,25%leakage Whole Building Mechanical Ventilation None None None Water Heating Equipment2 Water Heater Efficiency 0.,575 Energy Factor(assumes 2 0.,575 Energy Factor(assumes 1 0.575 Energy Factor replacements) replacement) Water Heater Tank 40gal uninsulated tank 40gal uninsulated tank 40gal uninsulated tank Pipe Insulation None None None —�Hot Water Fixtures Standard, non-low flow Standard, non-low flow Standard, non-low flow 1 Window type selections were made based on conversations with window industry expert, Ken Nittler., If a technology was entering the market during the time period (e.g. Low-E during 1992-2005 or dual pane during 1978-1991)that technology was included in the analysis.This provides a conservative assumption for overall building performance and additional measures may be cost effective for buildings with lower performing windows,for example buildings with metal single pane windows in the 1978-1991 vintage., 2Multifamily analysis assumes one HVAC and water heating system per apartment. 7 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 106 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study 3.2 Efficiency Measures The methodology used in the analyses for each of the prototypical building types begins with a design that matches the specifications as described in Table 2 for each of the three vintages. Prospective energy efficiency measures were modeled in each of the prototypes to determine the projected electricity and natural gas energy savings relative to the baseline vintage. In some cases, where logical, measures were packaged together. Unless specified otherwise, all measures were evaluated using CBECC-Res. All measures are evaluated based on work required above and beyond any work triggered by Title 24 code requirements. Measures apply regardless of the scope of the remodel and are evaluated assumi,ng they are not otherwise required by Title 24. For example, duct sealing is required by code whenever heating and cooling equipment i's altered. For this analysis duct sealing was evaluated for those projects where it is not al�ready triggered by code (i.e., no changes to the heating or cooling equipment). Where appropriate, measure requirements align with those defined i'n Title 24.The one exception is the cool roof measure which a�pplies when a building is a�lready installing a new roof as part of the remodel.The minimum solar reflecta�nce value is more stringent than that required in Title 24, Part 6. Following are descriptions of each of the efficiency u�pgrad�e measures applied in this analysis. Attic Insulation: Add attic insulation in bui'ldi'ngs with vented attic spa�ces to meet R-38. Air Sealing&Weather-stripping; Apply air sealing practices throughout all accessible areas of the building., For this study, it was assumed that older vintage buildings would be leakier than newer buildings and that approximately 30% improvement in air leakage was achievable through air sealing of all accessible areas. For modeling purposes,, it was assumed that air sealing can reduce infiltration levels from 10 to 7 air changes per, hour at 50 Pascals pressure difference (ACH50), in the two older vintages (pre-1992) and from 7 to 5 ACH50 in the newer vintage. Cool Roof:: For steep slope roofs, install a roof'ing product rated by the Cool Roof Rating Council (C,RRC,)with an aged solar reflectance of 0.25 or higher and thermal emittance of 0.75 or higher.This measure only applies to buildings that are installing a new roof as part of the scope of the remodel; the cost and energy savings associated with thi's upgrade reflects the incrementa�l step between a standard roofing product with one that is CRRC rated with an aged solar reflectance of 0.25.This i's similar to cool roof requirements in 2019 Title 24 Section 150.2(b)lli but assumes a higher solar reflectance. Win�dow Replacement: Replace existing single pane windows with a dual pane product, which has a U-factor equal to 0.32 or lower and a Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC)equal to 0.25 or lower.This measure was only evaluated for the pre-19�78 vintage, which i's assumed to have single-pane, metal-frame windows. Duct Se Air seal all cluctwork to meet the requirements of the 2019,Title 24 Section 150.2(b)1E. For this analysis, a final duct leakage va�lue of 15 percent was applied, which corresponds to Option i in the Title 24 code section referenced. Water Heater Blanket: Add R-6 insulation to the exterior of exi'sti'ng residential tank storage water heaters. For the analysis, the water heater was modeled within conditioned space, which is a typical configuration for older homes.This assumption is conservative since a water heater located in unconditioned space will tend to have higher tank losses and installing a water heater blanket in those situations will result in additional savings.The energy savings for this measure reflect only water heating energy savings only, and do not include any impacts to the space conditioning load, which reduces space cooling loads and increases space heating loads.The impact on space conditioning energy used would be minimal. In most climates, with the exception of heating dominated ones,the combination of these two impacts results in net energy savings. This measure was 8 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 107 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study evaluated using EnergyPlus.This measure was evaluated for inclividual water heaters only a�nd would not a�pply to central water heating systems. Hot Water Pipe Insulation: Insulate all accessible hot water pipes with R-3 �pipe insulation. In certain buildings which have slab on grade construction, and the majority of pipes located either underground or within the walls, most of the pipes will be inaccessible. For the purposes of this analysis a conservative assumption that only ten percent of the pipes could be insulated was applied. In buildings where pipes are located in the attic,, crawlspace, or are otherwise more accessible, energy savings will be higher than those presented in this analysis.This measure was evaluated using BEopt and EnergyPlus. Low Flow Fixtures: Upgrade sink and shower fittings to meet current CALGreen requirements, which �require maximum flow rates of 1.8 gallons per minute (gpm)for showerheads and kitchen faucets, and 1.2 gpm for bathroom faucets. Baseline whole house hot water use was based on BEopt assumptions and this measure assumed the upgraded fixtures reduce flow rates by ten percent for showerheads and 20 percent for all faucets based on a 2010 water use study(ConSol, 2010).This measure was evaluated using BEopt and EnergyPlus. LED Lighting; Replace screw-in incandescent lamps and compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs)with screw-in light emitting diode (LED) lamps.This analysi's was conducted externa�l to the energy model and evaluated replacement of both a single 45 W incandescent lamp and a 13W CFL lamp with an 11 W LED lamp operating 620 hours annually.Annual hour estimates were based on whole building average hours of operation from a 2010 lighting study by KEIVIA(KEIVIA, 2010). Lifetime assumptions were 1,000 hours for incandescent lamps, 10,000 hours for CFLs and 25,000 hours for LED lamps. Lighting Vacancy Sensors: Install manual on -automatic off vacancy sensors that meet the requirements of Title 24 Section 110.91(b)4.This analysis was conducted external to the energy model, assuming ten percent savings i'n operating hours for a single vacancy sensor installed on a switch controlling three lamps. Energy savi'ngs were calculated assumi'ng both 45 W i'ncandescent lamps and 11 W LED lamps, operating 620 hours annually.Annual hour estimates were based on whole building average hours of operation from a 2,010 lighting study by KEMA (KE,MA, 2010). 3.3 Efficiency Packages A few of the measures described above were also evaluated as part of a package.Three packages were developed as described below. Envelope & Duct Package—R-38 Attic ln�sulation�&Air Sealing& Duct Se Air sealing and attic insulation are very often applied as a package in building retrofits.The boundary between the living space and vented attics is where a significant amount of building air leakage can occur and sealing these areas as well as ducts prior to covering the attic floor with insulation is both pra�ctica�l a�nd effective. Air sealing, cluct sealing and insulation also directly address occupant comfort, a�s they reduce heat transfer, and result in more even temperatures wi'thi'n the building. Water Heating Package—Water Heater Bl�anketj, Hot Water Pipe Insulation,& Low-Fl�ow Fixtures: These three water heating measures are all relatively low cost and work together to reduce building hot water energy use. 3.4 Measure Cost Table 3 summarizes the cost assumptions for each of the measures evaluated. Costs were obtained from various sources, including local contractors, i'nternet searches, past projects, and technical reports. 91 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 108 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Table 3: Mea,sure De,scriopti"on,s &Co,st As,sumpfionsl Incremental Cost— Incremental Cost- Measure Performance Single Family Build�ing Multifamily Residential Unit Source Notes Level in (SF=single fam,ily-MF=multifamily) Pr a 1978— 199922- Pre 1978— 1992- 1978 1991 2005 1978 1991 2005 $1.37/sqft ceiling area to add insulation to existing R-11 Attic Insu�lation R-38 $1,915 $1,548 $1,548 $500 $405 $405 Retrofit 2 insu�lation contractor $1.21/sqft to add insulation to existing R-19 insulation Air sealing 7 ACH50 $959 $959 n/a $341 $341 n/a Retrofit $173 materials&19.5 hours labor($40.30/hr common la,bor 5 ACH50 n/a n/a $959 n/a n/a $341 contractor' rate)'for SF.$67 materials and 6.8 hours labor for IVIF. Aged Based on$0.32/sqft roof area incremental cost for cool asphalt Coolroof Reflectance $577 $577 $577 $167 $167 $167 Research shingle product,plus a 10%contractor markup.Higher report3 reflectance values for lower cost are achievable for tile roof >0.25 products Window U�-factor/ 0.32/0.25 $9,810 n/a n/a $5,873 n/a n/a Retrofit 4 Based on$45/sqft window area installed cost SHGC contractor 15%of HVAC Assumes 4 hours of labor for SF and 2 hours per IVIF apartment Duct sealing nominal $240 $240 $240 $120 $120 $120 contractor with ducts in the attic($54/hr HVAC labor�rate)5+$24 material airflow for SF and$12 material for IVIF(per unit). Water heater Internet blanket R-6 $40 $40 $40 $40 $40 $40 search $20 blanket+Y2-hr labor($40.30/hr laborer�rate)5 Hot water pipe ;I -%% Internet $0.20/ft Of W pipe insu�lation.10ft total+1-hr labor($40.30[hr insu�lation 3/4 (R-3) $42 $42 $42 $42 $42 $42 search common labor rate)5 Showerheads at$34.74 each+sink aerators at$5,.37 each+1- Low flow fixtures CALGreen $126 $126 $126 $86 $86 $86 Retrofit 4 hr labor($40.30/hr common labor�rate)5.2 showerheads&3 contractor aerators assumed for SF and 1 showe�rhe�ad and 2 aerators for IVIF. $4 for LED dimmable A19�lamp 60W equivalent.$0.97 for an LED lamp 11W screw-in $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 Internet eq�uivalent incandescent product which was used to estimate bulb search total rep�lacement costs.Cost based on a single lamp replacement Vacancy Sensor manual on, $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 $30 Internet $20 per sensor+1/4-hr labor($40.30/hr common labor rate)5. a uto off search Costs include contractor overhead and profit Source: Retrofit contractor pricing, including labor,obtained by Davis Energy Group through the 2012 LA County Retrofit Program (DEG, 2017). Codes and Standards Enhancement Initiative: Residential Roof Envelope Measures. 2013 Title 24. htlt " energV.ca-gov/t,itl�e24/2013st,andards/prerulemaking/documents/current/Repo�rt,s/Resident,ial/Envel�ope 2013 CASE R Roof M�easures Oct 2011.p f P://WWW 4 Source: Retrofit contractor pricing obtained by Davis Energy Group through the Stockton Energy Challenge neighborhood retrofit program (DEG, 2017). Labor rates are estimated from RSMeans(RSMeans, 2014). 10 2 0 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 109 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study 3.4.1 Cost-Effec veness A customer-based approach to evaluating cost-effectiveness was used based on experience with reach code adoption by local governments. Residential utility rates at the time of the analysis were applied to calculate utility costs for all cases and determine cost-effectiveness for the proposed measures and packages. First year utility costs were calculated using hourly e�lectricity and gas output from CBEC,C-Res and applying the utility tariffs summarized in Table 4.The applicable re�sidential time-of-use (TOU) rate was applied to all cases. Climate zones have been applied according to the predominant investor owned utility(IOU) serving the population of each zone., Climate Zones 10 and 14 are evaluated with both SCE/SoCalGas and SDG&E tariffs since each util�ity ha�s customers within these climate zones. Climate Zone 5, is evaluated under both PG&E and SoCalGas natural gas rates. Table 4: IOU Uti ity Tariffs Applied Baised on Climate Zone Climate Zones Ellectric/Gas Electricity Naturall Utility (Standard�) Gas 1-51 11-13, 16 PG&E E-TOUI G1 Option B S PG&E E-TOUI GR SoCalGas Option B 61 8-10, 14, 15 SCE/SoCalGas TOU-D-4-9 GR 7, 10, 14 E7 D TOU-DR1 GR SIDGM Source: Utility websites,see Appendix B—Utility Rate Tariffs for details on the tariffs applied. Utility rates are assumed to escalate over time, using assumptions from research conducted by Energy and Environmental Economics (H) in the 2019 study Residential Building Electrification in California study(Energy& Environmental Economics, 2019�). Escalation of natural gas rates between 2019 a�nd 2022 is based on the currently filed General Rate Cases (GRCs) for PG&E, SoCa�lGas and SDG&E. From 202,3 through 202,5,ga�s rates are assumed to escalate at 4% per year above i'nfl�ation,which reflects historica�l rate increases between 2013 and 2018. Escalation of electricity rates from 2019 through 2025, is assumed to be 2% per year above inflation, based on electric utility estimates.After 2025, escalation rates for both natural gas and electric rates are assumed to drop to a more conservative 1% escalation per year above inflation for long-term rate trajectories beginning i'n 2026 through 2050. See Appendix B—Utility Rate Tariffs for additional details. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated for all 16 climate,zones and results are presented as a lifecycle benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio, a net present value (NPV) metric which represents the cost-effectiveness of a measure over a 30- year lifetime taking into account discounting of future savings and costs and financing of incremental first costs. A value of one indicates the NPV of the savings over the life of the measure is equivalent to the NPV of the lifetime incremental cost of that measure. A value,greater than one represents a positive return on investment. The B/C ratio is calculated according to Equation L Equation 1 Benef it — to — Cost Ratio _' NPV of lif etime benef it NPV of lifetime cost The benefit is represented by annual utility savings and the cost by incremental first cost and replacement costs. The lifetime costs or benefits are calculated according to Equation 2. 11 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page I 10 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Equation 2 NPV of liff eti'me co�st or benefit 11' (Annual cost or benefit)t t=O (1+r)t Where: • n = analysis term • r= discount rate The following summarizes the assumptions applied in thi's analysis to both methodologies. 9 Analysis term of 30-years 0 Real discount rate of 3 percent 0 First incremental costs are financed into a mortgage or loan Table 5 summarizes the financing assumptions and terms that were applied in this analysis.The ana�lysis term is 30 years in all cases.The LED lighting and vacancy sensor upgrades are the only measures that are not assumed to be financed. Table 5: Final Financing Assumptions Loan Loan Term Rate Single Family 30 5% Multifamily 10 4% Simple payback is also presented and is calculated using the equation below. Simple payback=First incremental costlFirstyear utility cost sa t4ngs Equation 3 Maintenance costs were not included for any measures because there are no incremental maintenance costs expected for any of the measures evaluated.Any maintenance requi,rements,that would apply are similar to both the upgrade and the base case. LED lamp upgrade is the only measure with assumed replacement costs based on lifetime assumptions of LED and incandescent technologies and estimated operating hours. See the measures description in Section 2.2 for additional details. 4 Results Cost-effectiveness analysis was completed for the three vintages and both single family and multifamily unit prototypes. Evaluations looked to identify cost-effective energy upgrades for existing buildings at the time of a remodel. Results are summarized below as well as in Ta�ble 6 for single family and Table 7 for multifamily. Results of cost-effectiveness analysis along with energy savings are presented in Appendix D—Measure Cost- effectiveness Tables in Table 13 through Table 50 for single family and multifamily buildings, by climate zone., Site energy savings, cost savings,. measure cost, and cost-e�ffectiveness including simple payback and lifecycle B/C ratio are provided. Results are presented for each of the three vintages.Shaded rows in the tables indicate that the measure, is not cost-effective.The lifecycle B/C ratio threshold of one for the financed measures is roughly equivalent to a simple, payback of 20 years for single,family and 24 years for multifamily. For,Climate Zones 10 and 14, cost-effectiveness results are separated out for buildings in both SCE and SDG&E territories, which differ based on applicable utility rates. 12 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packett Page I I I of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Some measure results do not differ between the vi'ntages such as LED lamp replacement and water heating upgrades.The water heating and LED lighting measures are cost-effective for both single fami'ly and multifamily in all cases. Cost-effectiveness for the envelope and seali'ng measures is dependent on climate zone and building vintage. A summary of these results i's provided below. Envelope & Duct Package—R-38 Attic Insulation&Air Sealing& Duct Seal All three of these measures are cost-effective for all vintages in inland, cooling climates, as we�ll as cold climates (Climate Zone 1, and 9-16 for single family and Climate Zone 1, 2,4, and 8-16 for multifamily). Duct sealing is cost-effective in all cases except for single family homes in Climate Zone 6 built after 1991 and Climate Zone 7 built after 1977; and multifamily in Climate Zone 5 PG&E territory and Climate Zone 7 built after 1991. Air sealing and attic insulation are less cost-effective in newer vintages in transitional and coastal climates.This package of measures is cost-effective in the following cases: Buildings built between 19�9�2 and 2005: Single family Climate Zones 1 and 91-16; and multifamily Climate Zones 11 21P 41 and 8-16. Buildings built between 19,78,and 19,911: Single family Climate Zones 1,4 and 8-16; and multifamily Climate Zones 1, 21 4 and 8-16. Buildings built before 19,78: Single family and multifamily in Climate Zones 1-16. Cost-effectiveness of the envelope and duct measures was better in SDG&E territory than SCE territory for both Climate Zone 10 and 14. Cool Roofi.� Cool roof is cost-effective for all vintages of single family homes in Climate Zones 8 through 15 and multifamily homes in Climate Zones 2,4, and 6 through 16. It is also cost-effective for homes built before 19,78 for single family i'n Climate Zone 2,41 6�, and 7 and for multifamily buildings in Clim�ate Zone 5. Window Repllacement:�Window replacements are only cost-effective in buildings built before 19�78 in single family homes in Climate Zones 10 i'n SDG&E territory only and 13 through 15; and in multifamily homes in Climate Zones 5 in PGM territory only, 10 in SDG&E territory only, and 11-16. Water Heating Package—Water Heater Blanket,, Hot Water Pipe Insulation,& Low-Fl�ow Fixtures: The package including these three water heating measures is cost-effective in all climate zones. Lighting—LED Lamps: Replacing either an existing CFL or incandescent lamp with an LED lamp is cost-effective in all climate zones.The lighting results in Appendix D report c,ost-effectiveness for replacement of CLFs with LED lamps. Replacement of i'ncandescent with LED lamps result in simple payba�cks of less than one year�. While vacancy sensors are cost-effective when incandescent lamps are assumed, once lamps are replaced with LED luminaires', most of the savings disappear and vacancy sensors are not cost-effective. In 20201, industry standard practice will be 45 lumens per Watt or greater for all lamps,which make the vacancy sensor measure not cost- effective. 13 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page H 2 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Table 6: Summary of Sing e Family Results CASE CZ1- CZ2- CZ3- CZ4- CZ5- CZ5- CZ6- CZ7- CZ8- CZ9- CZ10" CZ10- CZ11- CZ12- CZ13- CZ14- CZ14- CZ15- CZ16- PGE PGE PGE PGE PGE SCG SCE SDGE SCE SCE SCE SDGE PGE PGE PGE SCE SDGE SCE PGE Pre- Ducts'/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ 1978 R-382/ R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ Ducts Ducts Ducts R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ jAi r,Sea,13 AirSeal Air Seal AirSeal Air Seal Air Seal AirSeal Air Seal Air Seal AirSeal Air Seal AirSeal Air Seal AirSeal Air Seal AirSeal Envelope 1978- Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ & Duct R-38/ Ducts Ducts Ducts Ducts Ducts Ducts R-38/ R-38/ �R-38/ R-38/ �R-38/ R-38/ �R-38/ R-38/ �R-38/ R-38/ Package, 1991 1 Air Seal Air Sea,I Air Seal Air Seal Air Seal Air Seal Air Seal Air Seal Air Seal Air Seal Air Seal 1992- Ducts/ �Ducts/ Ducts/ �Ducts/ Ducts/ �Ducts/ Ducts/ �Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts 2005 Ducts Ducts Ducts Ducts Ducts Ducts Ducts R-38/ �R-38/ R-38/ �R-38/ R-38/ �R-38/ R-38/ �R-38/ R-38/ Air Seal Air Seal AirSeal Air Seal AirSeal Air Seal AirSeal Air Seal AirSeal Pre- 1978 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cool 1978- Roof 1991 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1992- Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Pre- Wind�ows 1978 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes IMS1 Water All Heating Vintages Yes es, Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Package, LED All Lamps Vintages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ducts refers to the Duct Sealing upgrade,which calls for the air seal of all ductwork to meet the requirements of the 2019 Title 24 Section 150.2(b)1E., 2 R-38 refers to the Attic Insulation upgrade,which calls for the addition of attic insulation to a minimum level of R-38 in vented attics. 3 Air Seal refers to the Air Sealing upgrade,which calls for the sealing of all accessible cracks, holes and gaps in the building envelope at walls,floors,and ceilings., 14 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 1]3 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Table 7: Summary of Multifami y Results 74- CASE CZ1- CZ2- CZ3- C I CZ5- CZ5- CZ6- CZ7- CZ8- CZ9- CZ10- CZ10- CZ11- CZ12- CZ13- CZ14- CZ14- CZ15- CZ16- PGE PGE PGE PGE PGE SCG SCE SDGE SCE SCE SCE SDGE PGE PGE PGE SCE SDGE SCE PGE Pre- Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ 1978 R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ Ducts R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ Air Seal AirSeal Air Seal AirSeal Air Seal AirSeal Air Seal AirSeal Air Seal Air Seal AirSeal Air Seal AirSeal Air Seal AirSeal Air Seal AirSeal Envelope 1978- Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ & Duct 1991 R-38/ R-38/ Ducts R-38/ Ducts Ducts Ducts Ducts �R-38/ R-38/ R-38/ �R-38/ R-38/ �R-38/ R-38/ �R-38/ R-38/ �R-38/ R-38/ Package, Air Seal Air Seal Air Sea,I Air Seal Air Seal Air Seal Air Seal Air Seal Air Seal Air Seal Air Seal Air Seal Air Seal Air Seal 1992- Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ Ducts/ �Ducts/ Ducts/ �Ducts/ Ducts/ �Ducts/ Ducts/ �Ducts/ Ducts/ 2005 R-38/ R-38/ D u cts Ducts Ducts R-38/ R-38/ �R-38/ R-38/ �R-38/ R-38/ �R-38/ R-38/ �R-38/ R-38/ Air Sea AirSeal Ai rSea I Air Seal Air Seal AirSeal Air Seal AirSeal Air Seal AirSeal Air Seal AirSeal Pre- Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1978 Cool 1978- Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Roof 1991 1992- Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2005 Pre- �1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Wind�ows 1978 Water All Heating Vintage,s� Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Package, LED All Lamps Vintages Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ducts refers to the Duct Sealing upgrade,which calls for the air seal of all ductwork to meet the requirements of the 2019 Title 24 Section 150.2(b)1E., 2 R-38 refers to the Attic Insulation upgrade,which calls for the addition of attic insulation to a minimum level of R-38 in vented attics. I Air Seal refers to the Air Sealing upgrade,which calls for the sealing of all accessible cracks, holes and gaps in the building envelope at walls,floors,and ceilings., 15 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 1]4 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study 5 Recommendations & Discussion This analysis evaluated the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of retrofit measures in California existing homes built before 2006. A customer-based lifecycle cost approach to evaluating cost-effectiveness was applied quantifying the utility cost savings associated with energy efficiency measures compared to the costs associated with the measures. 5.1 Recommended Efficiency Measures Based on the analysis,the following cost-effective measures or packages of measures are recommended.The multifamily measures apply only to residentia�l spaces in lo�w-ri'se buildings (3 stories or fewer) and not to a�ny common or non-resi'denti'al spaces. Descriptions of each measure or pa�cka�ge a�re provided below. In most ca�ses, exceptions are defined which would exempt a particular project from a measure if certain conditions exist. These exceptions are based on existing on-site conditions and cost-effectiveness. Attic Insulation:Add attic insulation to a minimum level of R-38 in vented attics.This measure applies to homes according to vintage, building type and climate zone as defined in Table 6,and Table 7. Exception 1: Buildings without vented attic spaces and buildings with existing attic insulation levels greater than R-191 in Climate Zones 1-5 and 8-16 and greater than R-5 in Climate Zones 6 and 7. Air Sealing: Seal all accessible cracks, holes and gaps in the building envelope at walls,floors, and ceilings. Pay special attention to penetrations including plumbing, electrical, and mechanical vents, recessed can light fixtures, and windows. Weather-strip doors if not already present.Verification shall be conducted following a prescriptive checklist(to be developed)which outlines what building aspects need to be addressed by the permit applicant and verified by an inspector. Compliance can also be demonstrated with blower door testing showing at least a 3,0% reduction from pre-retrofit conditions.This measure applies to homes according to vintage, building type and climate zone as defined in Table 6 and Table 7. Exception 1: Buildings that can demonstrate blower door test results showi'ng 5 ACH50 or lower or can otherwise demonstrate that air sealing meeting the requirements of this ordinance was conducted within the last 12 months. Duct Se : Air seal all cluctwork to meet the requirements of the 2019 Title 24 Section 150.2(b)IE, with the exception that duct testing is not required to be verified by a HERS Rater.The duct system must be tested to confirm that the requirements have been met.The building department may allow the contractor to self-certify, may request to be present at the time of leakage testing, or may engage another thi'rd-party consultant to verify the duct sealing. See Appendix C—Standards Sections for additional details on the requirements per Title 24. This measure applies to homes according to vintage, building type a�nd climate zone as defined in Table 6 and Table 7. Exception 1: All exceptions as stated in the 2019 Title 24 Section 150.2(b)lE are allowed. Exception 2,: Projects that require duct sealing as part of an HVAC alteration or replacement must meet all of the requirements of Title 24, Part 6, including HERS Rater verification. Envelope & Duct Pac This is the combination of the Attic Insulation', Air Sealing, and D�uct Sealing upgrades listed above. Cool Roof:When replacing a �roof, install a roofing product rated by the Cool Roof Rating Council to have an aged solar reflectance equal to or greater than 0.251, and a thermal emittance equal to or greater than 0.75, regardless of the compliance approach (prescriptive or performance).This measure only applies to steep slope roofs (ratio of rise to run greater than 2:12) and to buildings that are installing a new roof as part of the scope of 16 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 1]5 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study the remodel and where more than SO percent of the roof is being replaced.This applies only to certain homes according to vintage, building type and climate zone as defined in Table 6 and Table 7. Low slope roofs (ratio of rise to run of 2:12 or less) shall meet the requirements of Section 1SO.2(b)11ii of 2019,Title 24 Standards. See Appendix C—Standards Sections for additional details on the requirements per Title 24. Exception 1,: �Projects that are not installing a new roof as part of the scope. Only areas of roof that are to be re-roofed are subject to the cool roof upgrade. Exception 2: All exceptions as stated in the 2019 Title 24 Section 150.2(b)lli for steep slope roofs and 150.2(b),11ii for low slope roofs are allowed. Windows: In a few climate zones, window upgrades were found to be cost-effective for the pre-1978 vintage buildings with existing si'ngle pane windows but is not inc,luded as a recommended measure.The cost requirement for window replacement is significant and the margin for cost-effec,tiveness is lower than many other measures. Water Heating Package: Add exterior insulation meeting a mi'nimum of R-6 to storage water heaters. Insulate all accessible hot water pipes with pipe insulation a minimum of%"' inch thick.This includes insulating the supply pipe leaving the water heater, piping to faucets underneath sinks, and accessible pipes in attic spaces or crawlspaces. Upgrade fittings in sinks and showers to meet current CALGreen requirements. Exception 1: Water heater blanket is not required on water heaters less than 20 gallons. Exception 2: Water heater blanket not required if application of a water heater blanket voids the warranty on the water heater. Exception 3: Fixtures with rated or measured flow rates no more than ten percent greater than current CALGreen requirements. Exception 4: Water heater blanket is not required for multifamily buildings with central water heating systems. Lighting—LED Lamps: Replace all interior and exterior screw-in (A-base) incandescent, halogen, and compact fluorescent lamps with screw-in LED lamps. 17 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page H 6 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study 5.2 Other Considerations HERS Field Verification: HERS field verification is not required to meet any of the requirements for the recommended measures unless the measure is used to meet Title 24 compliance. Measure installation shall be verified by a city building inspector or another third-party inspector deemed appropriate by the building department. While a HERS Rater is not required, one could be used as an alternative to inspections by the building department. Combustion Appliance Safety and Indoor Air Quality: Implementation of some of the recommended measures will affect the pressure balance of the home which can subsequently impact the safe operation of existing clom�bustion appliances as well as indoor air qua�lity. Buildings with older gas appliances can present serious health and safety problems which may not be addressed i'n a remodel if the appliances are not being replaced. It is recommended that the building department require inspection and testing of all combustion app�li'ances after completion of the retrofit work. It"s also recommended that jurisdictions require combustion safety testing by a certified professional whenever air sealing and insulation measures are applied, and existing combustion appliances are located within the pressure boundary of the building. Jurisdictions may also want to consider requiring mechanical ventilation in homes where a�ir sealing has been conducted. In older buildings, outdoor air is typically introduced through leaks in the building enve�lope�.After air sealing a building, it may be necessary to forcefully bring in fresh outdoor air using supply and/or exhaust fans to minimize issues associated with indoor air quality. Reguired Measures Included in Title 24 Performance Simulation: If any of the measure�s above are included in a performance Title 24 compliance report,, it's suggested that trade-offs be allowed as long as all minimum code requirements are met. For example, if a project is installing new windows and a new roof and insulating the attic and is demonstrating compliance with Title 24 with a performance simulation run, it would be acceptable if the installed roof did not meet the requirements listed above as long as this was traded off with either an increase in attic insulation or better performing windows.This would also allow trade-offs for projects that are installing high impact measures, such as solar water heating or whole house fans.This would require two simulation runs; however, it"s not expected this approach would be uti'lized often. Run#1 would evaluate the proposed bui'ldi'ng upgrades.This would also be the report submitted to the building department for the permit appl�ication demonstrating compliance with Title 24. Run#2 would also be completed with the mi'nimum ordinance requirements modeled for each of the affected bui'ldi'ng components. In order to show compliance with the ordinance the applicant would need to demonstrate that the proposed upgrades (#1)would result in annual time dependent valuation (TDV) energy use equal to or less than the annual TDV energy use of the case based on the ordinance requirements (#2). 5.3 Next Steps The focus of this study was to update the existing building upgrade cost-effectiveness study completed in June 2018 (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2018), based on current utility rates and updated upgrade costs.Additional efforts have been identified that will be evaluated and released in an updated Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-Effective n ess Study in 2020.These include: Revisit base case assumptions for different vintages Additional HVAC upgrade options including: • High efficiency equipment replacement as alternative to non-preempted upgrade • Air sealing and attic,insulation at time of HVAC replacement • Improved duct insulation, tighter ducts, buried ducts 0 Additional building envelope improvements 18 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 1]7 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study • Higher ceiling insulation requirements • Address low-slope roof replacements 0 Lighting luminaire replacements in addition to lamp replacements 0 Evaluation of electrification measures at equipment change-out and electrification-ready 0 PV r�equirements at time of addition, and 0 Additional efficiency upgrade requirements when installing PV 19 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 1]8 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study 6 References California Energy Commission. 2018a. 2019 Alternative Calculation Method Approval Ma�nua�l. CEC-400-2018- 023-CM�F. December 2018. California Energy Commission. http�s://www.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC- 400-2018-023/CE,C-400-2018-023-CM�F.pd California Energy Commission. 2018b. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. CEC-400-2018-020-CM�F. December 2018. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2018�publications/C�EC-400-2018-020/CEC-400-2018-020-CMF ConSol. 2010.Water Use in the California Residential Home.January 20,10. http�://www.cbi'a.org/up�loads/5/l/2/6/5,126,8865,/2010 - chf water use study.pdf DEG. 2017. Large Scale Residential Retrofit Program. Prepared for the California Energy Commission by Davis Energy Group.January 2017. http�:,//www.energy.ca.gov/""""`2017p�ub�lications/""""` EC-500-2017-009/cEC-500-2017 0 KEMA. 2010. Final Evaluation Report: Upstream Lighting Program, Vol 1. KEMA, Inc. February 2010. r http�:,// ww.energ aweb.com/c �ucf'il�es,/18/fi�na�lupstre�amlightingevaluationre�port 2.pdT RSMeans. 2014. R&Means Residential Cost Data 2014. Statewide Reach Codes Team. 2018. Existing Building Efficiency Upgracle Cost-Effect ive n ess Study.June 8, 2018. https,://Iocalenergvcodes,.com/download/""""`378/""""`file� path fieldList ential�%120Retrofit%20�Cost-Eff%20 20 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 1]9 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Appendix A California Climate Zone Map Bu�ilding Climate Zones Cahfo�r�nia, 2017' 1 6 EMBuilding Climate Zones, County Boundary .............. ON ............... ........... 21, California Energy Commission Source. AW111111 J I............. lift LA "I................. .............. j"1'4 161 15 116 16' ........... .............. 14 6, 01 50 '100, 200 �M I I es Sa�d,1 V15112017 10-20-43 AM 21 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 120 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Appendix B, �- Utility Rate Tariffs PG&E ............................................................................................................................................................23 SCE ...............................................................................................................................................................25 So�CalGas......................................................................................................................................................28 SDG&E..........................................................................................................................................................28 Escalation Assumptions...........................................................................................................................31 22 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 121 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study PG&E The following pages provide details on the PG&E e�le�ctricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study.Table 8, describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. Table 8: PG&E Baseline Territor by Climate Zone !_ r Baseline Territory CZ01 V CZ02 X CZ03 CZ04 X CZ05 T CZ1 I R CZ12 S CZ13 R CZ16 Y The PG&,E monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending January 2019,according to the rates shown below. Pacif ic G as a nd Electric Corn l3a ny, Residential Non-CARE and CARE,Gas,Tariff Rates January 1,2,018,to,Present IS/thertin) Mlinirnurn Advice Transportation TOTAL Residential Effective Letter Charge�2f Procurernent Transportation Non-CARE Date, Nurnber (per�da y), C h a rge C h a rge2f Schedules Charge3y (Non-CARE) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Baseline I Excess Baseline Excess ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 01,101,118 39,18-G $,0 09,863 $,0 37310 $,0 9,1828::$,1469,25 $-12913 8 $.1.842'35 ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:.......... 02101118 39,31-G $,0 09,863 $040635 $09,18281$146925 $.1.3246,3 1 $-1.87560 .....................................................:....................................................................... 3 941-G $,0 09,863 $,0 32103 $,0 9,182'8:::$,l 469,25 $-123 9,31 $.1.79,02'8 ................................................................................................. 04,101,118 39,59,-G $,0 09,863 $,0 34,783 $,0 9,182'8::$,l 46925 $-126,611 1 $.1.81708 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................:......................................................................... 05,101,118 39,69,-G $,0 09,863 $,0 2'6 99,5 $,0 9,182'8:::$,l 469,25 $.1.1882'3 $-1.73920 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 06,101,118 39,80-G $,0 09,863 $,0 2'15 71 $,0 9,182,8::$,l 46925 $.1.1339,9, 1 $-1.68496 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................:......................................................................... 07,101,118 39,84-G $,0 09,863 $,0 2'248 8 $,0 9,34 3 8 $1495 0 2' $.1.15 926 $.1.719,9,0 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................:.................................................................... 08101,118 39,9,5-G $,0 09,863 $,0 28814 $,0 9,3438::$149,502' $.1.222'52' 1 $-1.78316 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 09,101118 4,008-G $,0 09,863 $,0 2,5597 $,0 9,3438:::$,l 49,502, $.1.19,035 $.1.7509,9, .................................................................................................................................................................................................................:.................................................................... ....1.0,191,118.......4,0.1.8.-.G................$,.0...0.9,8.6.3......................$,.0...2,73.8.3...........$,.0..9'3438::$,149,502' 5.120 8 21 5.1.76,885 ...................................................................................................................... 11,101,118 4034-G $,0 09,863 $,0 35368 $,0 9,34 3 8 $1495 0 2 $-128 8 0 6 $.1.84870 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................:.................................................................... 12101118 4046-G $,0 09,863 $,0 4293 2' $,0 9,34 3 8 1$1495 0 2' $.1.3,6,370 1 $.1.9,2434 .......................................................................................................................................:..................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................... ................................................... ................................. Ti' 01,101,119, 41052-G $,0 09,863 $,0 43394 $10 9,9414::$1 5 90 6 3 $.1.4 2'8 0 8 $2.0 24 5 7 ]... ...I ..................................................................................................................I................................................................................................. ............................ ...................... ........................................... ........................ U n less oth erw ise n oted EffectiveJuly-1,2GGS,the Transportatio�n Charge will be no less than the 114inimurn Transportatio�n Charge of5G.G9M3(per day).Applicable to Rate Schedlule G-1 uly a nd do,es n ot a pply to su larnetered ten a nts o fma ster-metered cu storners serted u nder ga s Rate Sch edu le GS a nd GT Sch edu le�G-PPPS(Pu blic Pu rpo�se Progra rn Su rch a rgfe),n eeds to be added to th e TOTAL N o�n-CARE C h a rge a nd TOTAL CARE C h a rge for bill ca lcu latio�n. See Sch ed!,u le�G-PPPS for deta ils a nd exempt custorners. CARE Schedules include California So1ar Initiative(CSI),Exernptio�n in accordance withAdice Letter 3257-G-A. Per�dw ellin g u n it per�da y(114 u Itifa mily Serice), Per installed space per�day(114obilehorne Park Serice), This pmcurernent rate includes a charge of5G.G36W per therm to reflect account balance arnortizatio�ns in accordance withAdice Letter 3,1 57-�G. R�e s ide ii ti,a I lo i I I�c r-ed i t o f(�S 29,8 5)lo�e r-hi)u se[ii)ld,a ii ii ma I lo i I I�c r-ed i t ocic u the r-ea fte r-i ii the A p r-i I lo i I I cyc l,e Seasons,Mnter=;Nov-11dar Summer=;.A.prilOct 23 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 122 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Pacific Gas and' Re4��sed 'CaL P.V11.'C'. Sheetft 43533-E E 'I CwTceffl',ag Re4��sed 'CaL P.V11.'C'. SheetNo 4,272,8-E foadc C im pany"' 'C'alliforma U139 SaviFrop"TOSCO, �El'l LIE CT RIC SCHEDULE E.-TOU S hee,t 4 RESDENTIAL TIIM�El'�-,OF-1,JSE,S�E,RV��C�El,' RATES:� (CGnf'd,j OPTION B TOTAL RATES, Total Enargy Raties($per kWh), PEAK OFF-PEAK Summier,(a[l��usa,ge',) 0.,' 7188 (Rj $G_26,881112 (Rj W intar(611 usage) $0.2.3441 (Rj $G.,21561 (RI ��D el i'very M�in�im um B J 11 A nvowdt($,p�er�m et�eir�pe�r d ay) -112854 Califoo.,rnia C�imiate (per,hoousehold,p,er seim J-annual payment oc,icurfing in the April and Oet�cvlber biiflcyclem)� 3 9_4 Total bwidled service dharges shown onoustomer"'s Nis we unlif',,und��ed accordingto the c,am�paineiatt�ra,tes shawn bP,,,]G"w,,., Wheire the,de livery minim unt liill amount qp,,,'pliets,tthe ws't�Gmer S bill will eqlua�l��the suni,G��f(1)�the defivery'niiinimurn 13M anioounl��plus(2)For,buin,dled service I the geneiration rat�e himes the numi)er of k,W h used. Far ret-veinue a,c,iccvun1Jhg powposies,the revenues frcm the delive,,,.ry�rn��h��Mlum, b[1�1 arn,omt wil�]be a&&.,,Jgn&d to the Trans,,.,m ission,Transmission Rate Adjus'tmi�ente,,,RelialiJlily'Service,s, P�Ub�lic RuT�pos,e Rrogmmn s,,Nluc[ear��D ec�omm Jss""J'a"n 1,11 g Competifion"Transidon C hargets,En ergy,Cost,Riee,overy Amount,�DW R,Band,and New System Ge,ji,erali,oa.,n Charg es�biase,d an M h usage"Himets the correspiGinding un bmidled ral�e c,am�POne,,,,n't�, peer,k,Wh,W,,Rh any residual reavenue,azzigned to U1, BUNIDLING-3i OF OP"TION�B TOTAL RATES, Geni,e�frat`Jcm PEAK OFF-PEAK, 'Sumirnme.'��r�(,a�1�1�usage) $0.21238, $0 1 D932 Winter (all usag�,e) $0.1 D554 $0 08674 Di 5 1 rib�"'Ljb iion sulmnne,�r�("a�1�1�usag'e) $0.1 D7 I G (R) $0 1 D716 (R) Winter (all usa,ge) $0.07,853 (R) $0 07,853 (R) Tra,,nsm,iss�dn'(afl�usage.), $0.0246�9 (R!.), Tra,,n sm,iss�dn Rate,Adilustm,erls."'0111 usag'e) $0.0021114 Re),Iiabibty'Serwices,�" 41,11 us&ge) $0.002BO Puh,Olic Puirpose Programs(afll usi�g,e) $0.0 141113 Nudflsa)�r Deco�irn,,,m��ssio�ni�ing�,fai�l��usage) $0.00G20 Competition Tranzitibun Charges(a El usage) W.00132 EreTfgy'Cost usagre) ($O.'GaD05�) ��DWR Bovind(aEl�usage) $0.005D3 (R) New System Geineration Chaoirga,(all usag�,',e)"` $0.00228 Transmiss-ion "Transmiss-ion Rate Ad Y I justmentz an,d R',,eliabfli�t� ��Servite dharges are eanfb),ined for, p,,).,rease,ntatbn an c,�ust'ani�er bills, ��D istrilyu fian an,d�N e w S y&t�em Ge n eirab on C h a,rig,e s are,c am,1YJ�ne,�d fb�r ptriese n tafio�n o�n custom er b i 11 Is,. Th is samie as&).,iginrneml�,of revenues a,�ppfies,to direcat a cicesz and comnvuinity,choi ce ag g�regabon cuslomera. (Continued), Ad'vibe 5444-E Issue d b�y Submitted Deceniber'"18,,20,118, Oec�,sioa '18-08-0 13 Rb,,bert S.Ken,n,ey' Effeative, Jan�uary"1,20,19, Vic,er Plrersiden t,F?egula bry A ffb�,rs, R"'ashokit'j"on, 24 20 2- 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 123 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Pacific.Gasand Revised Cal". P,.U.C Shelet No. 34735-11G Ekct&Company Calf?cielfing, Revised Cal". P,.U.C Shelet No. 3-4691 U 39 California G AS,S C H ED,U L E G_.111 Shelet I R.Ell I IS I DENT IAL'SEIRVICE APPLJGABILITY:� T11his,rate s,,chedL.11,,L=r'.1 app�l��,es to natUT"M gasservi�icje,"to Gio�rer Eimd-Use.Customers,on FG&E,'-Mi T'rzainsrniss�!�ion and/or Distri�blldfion Systems "To q11UMifY',,se,rvice MUst be tai, s�!�ngjle farnily��prern�lis�es,for res�!�d.enti,41�Use, ��n6�Uding tho,ser��n a multifamily,oomplex,and to commmon ajrer,24S,1�n a muffifajm[l�y oarnplex GM,GS3,1,or(33T alre not applicable. Cernmon area accounis,thal�alre serjparat4l�y imelered by PG&E,haver an oplijon, of switchling tai,aoa�r,e,cornmercizil� Commlon zaire.,3 ac;oountr,are thilose 3COOL.Ents"that pruruide&-as,servioe to ouirnrnon use ajr,eias as deffined in R11L11e 111 Per D 15-10-0,32 taind D.1118-0:3-01117,1,tranqporlafiio�n rates��nGlUde,G HGil Ciampliance Cust lb,r� ...... are di�rectly,bi[14d bry the,Al��r'RerOL.Mraes Boaff'd j(',ARB,),,, Le mwered eintities,,are ex.fempl fromi paying AB312 GIRG thrOIILQ��h FG&EI's rates 7L A"',C;ap,ii-i�ind�,'T"�iri-ide�,Giost�Exxemption'"orejdft for EKeseoostr,wiF��be shown arr,a line item on bills 3,4 TERRITORY: SzKerdule,Gii-1 applies ewre-,rywhere wwfth�!�n PGOISEs naft.[Fal g3r,,Se�irviee,Terridzir Y, RATES,:� Cuslorners on this,schediulie pil-4y'3 alnd a,Transporlation Charger,per� rnloeler.as shown b�ieliow T'Ker T`rajnsportation Glharger will lbe,�ino��ess tfian tKer PAfinlirn um ch�,,RT,OR._�as fo[l��aws: MinliMILM T"ransportation Glharq�,e:SE Per Day, $011 Oig"(18,153 Per'T'Ke.,rm ��B arr,el i n�,er E XOE.Ss Procurement $0 43.394 $U 433,94 (1) $0&,1,941114 $111 1590&31 (11, T'otal: $1 428H, $2,0,24,57 (1) Natural Gias Gkimale,Credit ij($2`5......45") (per HOLIsehold,1,annual psyment oocurr��ng cayole,iiand in the,Ajpril�bill Gy'ale") Pub�l�i�,,c Purpose,Rrlmi Surdhagle, Cuslorners served sched414 are,SUbject"to a gar,Plflb[!�!C PlUnposer Program(PPP) Silux,chairgie under Socheduler G-FlPPS See Pre[!�minary,St-atament, Paxt B,for"the Diefmfll�T`ah�ff'Rat.e,Components. T11he, on thiS 5GKerd11L11e, equivalent�tai,thie rale shvlown on!��rifonmaliio�inajl SzKerdule,(3-CF-43as PrOCI.Fre.,meM Service tia,Core�lE�'nv(d-Use,Cu��r,�tio��me��rs FT(73,&E's,gars tiar��ffs are wivaJ I�Iab�l�ie online at wwvm pgie com. Gove.,red eniifies,are nval�exvernpl fromi payipg cosIs assoicialed with LUAF(33as and Gas Used 1by-Company FL.vci[!�,'fies. "The ex.femption uedil�,wfll b�ie eq, 11U31"to��the effeclive non-exernlipl�,A,B,32111,(33 H131i Gompfian/z,e Cosl�Rate($,,pev-therm) in�,r,lukded��n Statement—Flart B,,irm.1fliplied b"y theCtIStOrner's billed v6l�umes(therrns)for'e,ach, biffl�ngj 4 P(3&EwiF��iupdzite,��--ts 6111ing system anmja[l�y to refleoct nemwly��exxi-ampt or ineowly"ex.,,c1Ud4,.,d oustomerir,to coniform wth of Direally B�iii�l��ied'CIILI�r,'ta�irne�flir,pruvid4A annually,by the,ARB. The c,,harge,does not apply,"to SlUbmeltered tenants 0,11SIDnISIrs,serirvemrd under garr,rate Sochedules jG3,S alnd G"T Continued" Advicie 40,561"92-G Issued b Submitted 118 December 21 Decis,kan 9T.-ID-ID65,&98- Robert S.-Kelinney Effelictive Ja,ikuaTy, 1 11�9 07-021,1 E), Vice P�rei�,,si6ant� rs, Riesalutrran SCE 25 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 124 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study The following pages provide cletails on are the SCE electricity tariffs applied in this study. Table 9 describes the baseli'ne territories that were assumed for each climate zone. Table 9: SCE Baseline Territory by Climate Zone Baseline Territory CZ06 6 CZ08 8 CZ09 9 CZ10 10 CZ14 14 CZ15 5 D,e1h,7,e.Ty,, Generation Total Rate ( -,,'Peak,11411:00 m "9,:00 M) On,. "P "P E,,ne,,,r,,gy, Charg-e - S/kINVI Sun,in,ie,,,r Se,,,,,asi,o,n - 0,,n-P,e,,,,,ak- 10-1,�918 8110 10-210072 10-399,52 ml',d-p,e,,,,,ak. 10-1,�918 8110 0_1059148 10-258,28 OfT-Pe,,,,,ak- 10-1,5 5 7114 10-1060,23 10-21,597 Winte,,,r Se,,,,,asi,o,n - ml',d-p,e,,,,,ak. 10-1,�918 8110 10-1083,08 10-281,88 OfT-Pe,,,,,ak- 10-1,5 5 7114 10-11,3109, 10-26883 S up e,,,r-0 f f-P e,,,,,ak- 10-1,51G6,2 10-10 1,344� 10-1,641,06 B asi e Char ��ge- SI&y, Si"n' a-le-Fanil"ly Residence 10-1031, 10-1000 10-1031, L711' "' Multi-Fanil"ly Residence 0_1024 10-1000 0_1024 Mininmna C.Ihai-ge - S/day, Si'n, cfle,Faniily Residence 10-338 10-1000 10-338 L711' "' ' Multi-Fannil"ly Resil"dence 10-338 10-1000 10-338 Rasi,eti'n, elli, C.11111-edl[t - S/kINVI (0.0651 L2�"1 10-100000 (1c) (),6515"1,,2�� 26 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 125 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Dleliv,er,� Generadon Total Rate Ener,gy Charge- Summe,,,r Se,,,,,asi,o,n- 0,,n-P,e,,,,,ak- 10-1,59,1126 10-1,98 1,1, 10.3 5 73 7' ml',d-p,e ak. 10-1,59,1126 10-1,10091,12 10.26018 Off-Pe,ak- 10-108310,8 0_104687' 10.1,29,95 Winter Se,,,,,asi,o,n - ml',d-p,e,,,,,ak. 10-1,6268 10-1,676 1, 0_3310291 Off-Pe,,,,ak- 10-108,1081, 10-1043 3 1, 10.1,24 1,2 Super-Off-Peak 10-108081, 0_1043 3 1, 10.1,241.2 Cusi"tamer Char - S/day, 10-395 10-1000 10-395 YS Weekda s Weekends,anid Holida Y" 'TOU Pedold Sur Summ,w, Wint,er nmer, Winter, d 1 4 P,.m On-Peak 91 P M., pl.m. Mid-Peak �4 �p.m. 91 p.m. P.m�, gl , �4 4, p.m. 9,p M. 8,&nl 8,a_m. Off-Peak All otber hou,,,rs 9 P.m. A11 oth,er hours 9 p.m., Super-Off-Peak 8 a.m 81a.m. - 4 .................. Y ea,r AN, u,n un, �r,k "'r,11)"s Win'teril k'N,,V`bl (ke"t A111 Raw, ne on 7.9 4 c)9f 16.5 1:j!.-1 1 021 31 1��01 1 S., 5 ro 121,111,.3 17.01 fill AP .6, 13 Am .3, 7 low, 4 15 13 9"1.9 1j S"'* 2 16, 14.4 11,11' .............................. 27 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 126 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study SoCalGas Following are the SoCalGas natural gas tariffs applied in this study.Table 10 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. Table 10: SoCalGais Baseline Territory by Climate Zone Baseline Territory CZ05 2 CZ06 I CZ08 I E, CZ09 1 CZ10 � 1 CZ14 2 CZ15 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY Rel;i&ed L P.U.C.SEEET NO, 5,58 54-G LOS ANGELES,�.",.UZFOTIZA Rel;ried L RU.C.SHEET NO, 5,582&G Sch,edule No.GR Slieet,I PISIDENTIAL SERVIC E (Includes GR.GR-C and GT-R Rates) APPLIC"'ABELITY The GR rate,is applicable,to,natural gas procitrement service to indi-vidtially metered residential custoniers The GR-,C,,,cross-ol,,er rette,is a core plocurement option for indi-vidually metered residentiod core muisportation customers witli annual consumption ol;er 50,000 therms,as set forth in Special Condition 1,10 The GT-,R rate is ap'plicable to Core Aggxeization Tnansportation(�CAT)service to indilridually metered residential customers,asset forth in Special Condition 11. The,California Alternate,Rates for Energ��,,(CARE)discount of 20'1,6,reflected as a se arate,line,item on P the bill.,is applicable to inconae-qualified households tliqt meet the requirements for the CAPLE Prog am asset forth iii ScheduleNo.G-CARE, TERRITORY Applic.able througliout thesenice,territoi7,. P_k T E S, GR Gp"C' 'GT_1R Customer Q`h�,per meter per day��... ....... ....... .....1,6.43 Sc 16 43,8�o 16.43&c For"Space Heating,Only""'cu;stoniers,a daily Customer Charge,applies during,the winter perio,d �from Nol;ember 1,tlirou;2h April 30 V:... ... ... 33.1,49,c 3 3 14,91 33149�c Baseline Rate.,per flienn(�.rseline usage defined in Special Conditions 3 an'd 4): Y,..... ...... ..... ...... ...... N,"A Procurement Ch.arge: ... 41.589,c 42 6760 R Tra3ismission Charge: .... ..... ..... ....... ...... 635660 6 3 5,660 63.5 660 Total Baseline Charge: ... ...... ...... ...... ...... 10,6 242 c�� 63.566c R .N'Q�n-Baseline,Rate.,per therm(usage in exwcess of baseline usqge): 21,..... ...... N,"A Procurement Ch.arge: ..... ...... ...... ... 41.589,c 42 6760 R Tra3ismission Charge:..... ..... ..... ....... ...... '996.8060 9116 80601 961060 Total Non-Baseline,Charge:.. ..... ...... ...... 13 83915-0 139,48,20 96.8�m� R For the siturmei period beginning May 1 throtigh Odob�ex, 3 1,,with&o,me,exceptions.usage,will be acci,imula ted to at least 20,Ccf(100 cubic feef)be,fore billing- (Footnotes continue next p,age.) (Co n tin ue,d) (TO BE KriERTED,BY 1, 117Y) GSUED BY (TO BE,FNSERTED�BY CAL FUC) ADVICE LE7rER N0. 5410 Dan,Skop,ec -susm7rsio Jan 7,�2019 DEC1310N N0 Vice President EFFECTIVE, J'qn 10,,2019 ICIF Regdatory Affairs ?,ES'0L11JT10NN,0. G-33511 28 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 127 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study SDG&E Following are the SDG&E electricity and natural gas tariffs applied in this study.Table 11 describes the baseline territories that were assumed for each climate zone. Table 11: SDG&E Baseline Territory by Climate Zone Baseline Territory CZ07 Coastal CZ10 Inland CZ14 Mountain SOAN ReVi�sed Ca,I F.U C.S,",,h es,t N,o. 3132G-E 5an Diego Gas&Eiect.ric Company a[iifbmia, Canoeling Revised Ca I F".U C. ee t N o. 311:03-FE San 134g,cs,CL SCHEDULE TOU-DR1 Sheet 2 RESIDENTIAL TME-OF-USE RATES To ta I 111"11"Ra,tes'. Desicirip,tioin—T'OU DRI UDC Total,Rate DWIR-BiC EECC Rate+ TM41 �Rate DW"R,Gredit Rate Siiun,ii mer: Gn-Ftmak D.,2!9 5,5 2 �R 0,005,133 R 0 350 13, R 0,65078 �R .2 Off-ptmak 0!9552 �R 0,005,11 R 0 112, R 04,1300 �R 3 '39 R 0 35804 �R suiper Off-Reak 0.295,52 �R 0,00541 R 0 057, W''inIer: On-fleak 0.32:037 �R 9,005,(13 R, 0 97d18 R 0 Q 158 �R Z 3 Off-fleak 0.32037 �R 0,00541 R 0 0,6762 R 039302 �R R 0 3835.2 �R SuiperOff-Reak 0.32:037 �R 9,005,(13 R, 0 05812 S�ammer up,tal 1092-1) 1 't,20%of Baseline Winter Ras4ine Adjustnent Cred;,?t i la, (D.'t'8q5'3 I �'O 16253", 11 11,30%of Baseline jMnimum BJ1�Vdaj) 0329 0.329 EECC Total Desicriptioin—TOU UDC Total DWR�Bcl Rate,+ T'DtAl E�ctive! DRI Rate Rala �DWR Rake Care Rialm Gredit Siun,ii mer — CKIRE Rat,es,: On-Fleak 0.29*94 R O.MODD O.MOIS R 0&4507 �R 0.411528 R Off-Fleak 0.29*94 R O.MODD 0.11:235 R 04,3729 �R 0.26077 R 3uper'DF-Peak 0.29*94 R O.MODD 0.9 6:7,331P R 0 3 5 23,3, �R 0.224,83 R Wini—C ARE Rates,,: On-Peak, 0,+,1 H1512 R O.GWD,,D 0�0781S R 0 3,0527 �R, 0.2533,25 �R" Off-peak, 0,+,1 H1512 R O.GWD,,D 0�G 0371,2 R 0 387,11 �R, 0.24770 �R" SuiperOff-Peak 0_1411 H1512 R O.GWD,,D OZOSU R 0 37781 �R, 0�24142 �R" Siommer Baseline Ac�u!ilment Credit up to 0.1 W21) (0 19921 �,0.1 3028) 11"Y'D%of Bass,fine Wnuar Baseline AA,u5iment Credit up to (G.1 d'&53) (G I bmz) (0.11022) LW%of Baseline jVlinimum Sifl('VIday) 0.104 0�104 0�154 Note: ,(I) Raies,con,sJst of U DC,3,chedu[e D�VR-BC(Deparment of Water Resou'rces Beaim,d Charge),&nd 3,chedu�O,EECt7 (EkerclOr,Eir�ergy Ccrmmadily Cost)rai vAlh the E ECC7 rates refledir g a DWR C redit. ,(2:) 7'ou,"11 RaIes pieseirybed&',re forr C1JStO115P,,1rs 1hat ineceive comimiadity su,',pply and deFveiryseirviceftm Utility. ,(3) DIN R-BC ch arges do i appl�to CAR E cu!sbo.mers. ,(4) As,irdeintified i in th e ra tes tab[es,cu!sbomer bi!Is will a lso ii,inc-Iude,I irve-Nern 5111�Rdr an d wi n1eir icredin fcor ILMS ag,#R U�p tO ate capping boeinefit's adoa ted by Assembly B111 NX and Seinate,&I'll 5,C45 'N 30%of ba seli n e to pirowde,the ra P (Cointiinui"ed') 2G11 1ISSUed FIFY Submited Dec 2'9,.2018 Advios,Ur.Nz�,. 33 2&E Dan Skolpec Effactive Jan 1.20 1 19 Vica,President Decision Nica. R,eq1L1[at,'ory Affairs RIeS01116101n N"D 29 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet Page 128 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study s AF 7G Revised C F.U.,C'.Shee"I",N1113'. 2363,14,-G3 Sam Diegicv,,Gas&Electrlc Company San D*go,CalifamJ,a C,an celing Revised C F.U.,C'.311h,ee"I'l N1113'. 2361,01-G SCHEDULE GIR, RESIDENTIAL,NATURAL GAS SERVICE Uncludes Ra,,,,,tes, lof GRR G,R7C,,,,GT'CI,G'T,C,A APPLICABILITY The,GR,rate��s appl icable to 1111ZA[ra I ga s procui,ernent,seirvice fof�i n,,,,d[Vid ua,I Ily,metei,,edl res i denti a I custonlers.. The GR-C,1, cross-over F��ite, is a care proCtilrernellit optioili ffor n,*AeFed, resWentia] care, transpartalioili CLI:Storners with zailirru'a I cu,-vsu n1ptim ov er 5 G,000 thems,as set foft Ili i41,'S pe ci a I Gond it i o�ili'I fo. The GTG(GTC_A rzate is zippli'm[Ne to intr,asbtle, gas sefvices to indi'viduafly metened res�ident�a]�CLISblmerscas set,fbfth iii Special Conlidilbili 11. Customers takliiig servi'tpl mill th[s schedule,nizay beel igible for a 20%Calffomia Altemate,Rate for'Energy J,CARE) ragrlw cl,iscount,y reftected as a se,'par�,#e!1hie itema,,,ii the bil,11,If theyqualify"to rece[ve,sefm-Ce Under the terms and cmd,ftimons,of SchedLilleG—CARE. TERRITORY Wth i n,the ent're,te rrito ry,se Ned natu ra 1,g as b, the W ity. RATES GR GR7C GTQj(GjTGA`P' basaftne "Milied Hii Special Conditioilis 3 O,,,,n,,d Baxsehne RxTte per themi ase usage de Procumnie,nt Clha rlge .......... ....... $0.41,614 R NIA Charq&: ........... ....... $1.01230 S1.01,230 51.01230 TuLal Beaseline Chzugie $1.421,844 $,1_428,44, R $,1.0123 G age rr'n,(u& in excess of,talasel ine,usiage)", NbnBlzasse[�hel Rl per the Procweme,nt Charlge", $0.416,14 $0.41614 R NJA 9 Transm8slo"O'1111 CNIrge] $1.1,-9,8 G $11.199, $11.11919180 T6,0,I Nocn-Bzase,Ii ne Cha,rgie.,', $1.615,94. 51.61594 R $1.11919191D Miiiimum,D�1�� per,dzy., Nm-CARE custorners,:, ............. $0.0-91863 $0.098 63 $0.099,63 CARE custornersz:, ...1.1.1..,.,.,1.1.1..,.,.,,. $,0.0 789,0� $0.07890 $0.078 DO V The',ira,tes far im,re train, Ousloinimer-m"with th,e exce,ption of'rLjs,tomP_,,Ts tak,i,ng s-enikae,under S,abediiL�,de GT M33V iincliude,,any FER:C Sli,ettilement Frcceeds,Memorandum ACC,i'DIUM(F"SFM Aj ciredii't adi-L'Ism' 'ents'. 2� Thisch,arge,is applisable,to Utilily�Provili r en,t Ciust'armers a, d incl ud.es the G RC and. G PC,-A Procurernent Cliarges shawn in lule GPC wbibh, &,rle sub ect to ch ange mionth ly as set ffbartlh In Sqpedia�l Carnolli.ion T Effectiiil starling May 1,2017,1he rnini�TWM lbliill Is ci.�Iculated as theiminimum $43.098)53 per day t"imes $3, p&,r imon'th" ) w""11i a 2G% disal applie_,,d for CARE diii-, inuinimblo-er of"days lin ffi�e b�,T[ing (L CILI s tcvm er ir s ult im,g,ii n a rn i��n,i��rn u rn��b il]ch airge of K.D 7 BOO per d sy(a p prox i�rn ate,,Iy$2 4D per imonth)., Curn tn U ed) 1 G5 I ssii.,ied by S Ll bm,,,Jtta_,,d i�an 7,2019, Advice,Dr.Nio. 2735-G Dain�Skopec Effecd'Vp?, Jan 111,20'19, V i cle,FrIel s i d e n t Decis,ijlan No_ Regu latury,Affa[,is, ll 30 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 129 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Escalation Assumptions The average annual escalation rates in the following table were used in this study and are from ET's 2019 study Residential Bui'ldi'ng Electrification in California (Energy& Environmental Economics, 2019).These rates are applied to the 2019, rate schedules over a thirty-year period beginni'ng in 2020. SDG&E was not covered in the E3 study.The Reach Code Team reviewed SDG&E"s GRC filing and applied the same a�pproach that E3 appl�ied for PG&E and SoCalGas to arrive at average escalation rates between 2020 and 2022. Table 12: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Aisisumptims Statewide Electric Natural Gas Residential Core Rate Residential (%/yr escalation, real) Average Rate (%/year, real) PG&E SoCalGas S,DG&E 2020 2.0% 1.48% 6.37% 5.00% 2021 2.0% 5.69% 4.12% 3.14% 2022 2.0% 1.11% 4.12% 2.94% 2023 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 2024 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 2025 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 2026 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2027 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2028 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2029, 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2030 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2031 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 20-32 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2033 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2034 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2035 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2036 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2037 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2038 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2039, 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2040 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2041 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2042 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2043 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2044 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2045 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2046 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2047 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2048 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2049, 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 31 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 130 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Appendix C - Standards Sections 6.1.1 2019 Standards Section� 150.2fp�)l I Roofs. Replacements of the exterior surface of existing roofs, including adding a new surface layer on top of the existing exterior surface,shall meet the requirements of Section 110.8 and the applicable requirements of Subsections i and ii where more than 50 percent of the roof is being replaced i. Low-rise residential buildings with steep-sloped roofs, in Climate Zones 10 through 15 sha�ll have a minimum aged sola�r reflecta�nce of 0.20 a�nd a minimum thermal emittance of 0.75., or a minimum SRI of 16. EXCEPTION TO 150.2(b)lli:The following shall be considered equiva�lent to Subsection i: a. Air-space of 1.0 inch (25 mm), is provided between the top of the roof deck to the bottom of the roofing product;or b. The installed roofing product has a profile ratio of rise to width of 1 to 5 for 50 percent or greater of the width of the roofing product;or c. Existing ducts in the attic are insulated and sealed according to Section 150.1(c)9; or d. Buildings with at least R-38 ceiling insulation;or e. Buildings with a radiant barrier in the attic meeting the requirements of Section 150.1(c)2; or f. Buildings that have no ducts in the attic;or g. In Climate Zones 10-15, R-2or greater insulation above the roof deck. ii. Low-sloped roofs in Climate Zones 13 and 15 shall have a 3-year aged solar reflectance equal or greater than 0.63 and a thermal emittance equal or greater than 0.75,or a minimum SRI of 75. EXCEPTION 1 to Section 150.2(b)111ii: Buildings with no ducts in the attic., EXCEPTION 2,to Section 150.2(b)llii:The aged solar reflectance can be met by using insulation at the roof deck specified in TABLE 150.2-B. 6.1.2 2019 Standards Section� 150.2,,,( P.2 1 E Altered Space-Conditioning System-Duct Sealing: In all Climate Zones,when a space-conditioning system serving a single family or multifamily dwelling is altered by the installation or replacement of space-conclitioning system equipment, including replacement of the air handler,outdoor condensing unit of a split system air conditioner or heat pump,or cooling or heating coil;the duct system that is connected to the altered space-conditioning system equipment shall be sealed,as confirmed through field verifica�tion a�nd diagnostic testing in accordance with the applicable procedures for duct sealing of altered existing duct systems as specified in Reference Residential Appendix RA3.1 and the leakage compliance criteria specified in subsection i, ii,or iii below.Additionally,when altered ducts,a�ir-handling units,cooling or heating coils,or plenums are located in garage spaces,the system shall comply with Section 150.2(b)lDiic regardless of the length of any new or replacement space-conditioning ducts installed in the garage space. i. The measured duct leakage shall be equal to or less than 15 percent of system air handler airflow as determined utilizing the procedures in Reference Residential Appendix Section RA3.1.,4.,3.1;or ii. The measured duct leakage to outside shall be equal to or less than 10 percent of system air handler airflow as determined utilizing the procedures in Reference Residential Appendix Section RA3.,1.4.3.4;or iii. If it is not possible to meet the duct sealing requirements of either Section 150.,2(b)�lEi or Section 150.,2(b)lEii,then, all accessible leaks shall be sealed and verified through a visual inspection a�nd a smoke test by a certified HERS Rater utilizing the methods specified in Reference Residential Appendix RA3.1.4.,3.5. EXCEPTION 1 to Section 150.2(b)1E:Duct Sealing. Duct systems that are documented to have been previously sealed as confirmed through field verification a�nd diagnostic testing in accordance with procedures i'n the Reference Residential Appendix RA3.1. EXCEPTION 2 to Section 150.2(b)lE:Duct Sealing. Duct systems with less than 40 linear feet as determined by visual inspection., 32 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 131 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study EXCEPTION 3 to Section 150.2(b)H:�Duct Sealing. Existing duct systems constructed, insulated or sealed with asbestos. 6.1.3 2019 Building EneWy Efficiency Standards Section 110. Occupant Sensing Controls.Occupant sensing controls include occupant sensors., motion sensors,and vacancy sensors, including those with a Pa�rtia�l-ON or Partial-OFF function. Occupant sensing controls shall: A. Be capable of automatically turning the controlled lights in the area either off or down no more than 20 minutes after the area has been vacated; B. For manual-on controls/ have a grace period of no less than 15 seconds and no more than 30 seconds to turn on lighting automatically after the sensor has,timed out;and C,. Provide a visible status signal that indicates that the device is operating properly,or that it has failed or malfunctioned.The visible status signal may have an override that turns off the signal. EXCEPTION to Section 110.9(b)4:Occupant Sensing Contro�l systems may consist of a combinatio�n of single or multi-level Occupant, Motion,or Vacancy Sensor Controls, provided that components installed to comply with manual-on requirements shall not be capable of conversion by occupants from manual-on to automatic-on functionality 33 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 132 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Appendix D - Measure Cost-effectiveness, Tables Climate Zone 1:The envelope and duct package is cost-effective for single family built before 19912 and multifamily homes built before 2006. For single family homes built between 1992 and 2005 duct sealing alone is cost-effective. Cool roof upgrades and window replacements are not cost-eff'e ct ive. Note:Grey rows indicate option is not cost effective. N Table 13: CZ 1 - Single Family Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results, Electricity Gas utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Measure Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (th�erms) Savings Cost Ratio Envelope& Duct Pre-19178 154 179, $3,472 $36�6 9.49, 2.10 Package 1978-1991 80 913 $3,212 $190 16�.95 1.18 1992-2005 65 76 $3,212 $lc:r- 1.� 20.73 0.916 Pre-19178 50 57 $2,273 $119, 19.17 1.04 R-38 Attic Insulation 1978-1991 23 27 $2,013 $55 36.46 0.551 1992-2005 23 26 $2,013 $54 37.14 0.54 Pre-19178 84 917 $240 $190 1.21 16.51 Duct Sealing 1978-1991 37 43 $240 $88 2.72 7.34 1992-2005 31 36 $240 $73 3.28 6.09 Pre-1978 1 -28 -34 $635 -$68 -9.41 -2.12 CoolRoof 1978-1991 -21 -25 $635 -$4,91 -12.88 -1.55 1992-2005 -22 -216 $635 -$52 -12.19 -1.64 Windows Pre-1978 ill 130 $9,810 $265 37.08 0.54 Water Heating Package All Vintages 0 19 $208 $33 6�.35 3.16 LED Lamp vs. CFL_ All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.919, $0.29 13.96 4.45 Table 14: CZ 1 - Multifamily Efficiency grade Cost-effectiveness Results (Per Unit) Electricity Gas Measure utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (th�erms) Savings Cost Ratio Envelope & Duct Pre-19178 58 67 $1,054 $137 7.72 3.15 Package 1978-1991 28 33 $9,87 $56 17.59 1.38 19,912-2005 21 25 $9,87 $41 24.21 1.00 Pre-19178, 15 16 $5914 $34 17.48 1.39, R-38 Attic, Insulation 1978-1991 7 8 $526 $15 34.59 030 1992-2005 7 8 $526 $13 39.30 0.6,2 Pre-19178 32 37 $120 $76 1.57 15.47 Duct Sealing 8,-191911 12 13 $120 $24 4.99, 4.88 19,912-2005 8 10 $120 $16 7.55 3.22 Pre-1978 -7 -9 $184 -$17 -10.6�O -2,30 Cool Roof' 1978-1991 -4 _16 $184 _$10 -19.10 -1.27 1992-2005 -4 -6, $184 _$191 -20.78 -1.17 Windows Pre-1978 78 92 $5,873 $185 31.71 037 Water Heating Package All Vintages 0 16 $168, $28 6�.02 4.07 LED Lamp vs. CFL, All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.919, $0.29, 13.96 4.45 34 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 133 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Climate Zone 21:1 The envelope and duct package is cost-effective for single family homes built before 1978 and multifamily homes bui'lt before 2006. For single family homes built between 1978 and 2005 duct sealing alone is cost-effective. Cool �roof upgrades are cost-effective for single family homes bui'lt before 1978 and multifamily homes built before 2006. Window replacements are not cost-effective. Note.- Grey rows indicate optio�n is not cost effective. 0 Table 15: CZ 2 - Single Family Efficienc Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results Electricity Gas Measure utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savings Cost Ratio Pre-1978 578 109 $3,.472 $387 8.917 2.17 Envelope & Duct Package 1978-1991 194 51 $3,212 $154 20.80 0.94 01 r 1992-2005 12 5 45 $3,212 $117 27.47 032 Pre-1978 385 38 $2 0)7q r_r_ I d-I .OF $1915 11.67 I.V,..; R-38 Attic Insulation 1978-1991 137 18 $2,013 $79 25.47 036 1992-2005 91 17 $2,013 $60 33.30 0_58 Pre-1978 203 56 $240 $169 1.42 13.77 r% r r% Duct Sealing 1978-1991 S2 2 $240 $55 4.39 4.50 1992-2005 31 20 $240 $44 5.50 3.6�O Pre-1978 219, -20 $6�35 $37 17.12 1.02 CoolRoof 1978-1991 95 -15 $635 $8 76.43 0.191 _$9 -I A:k 1992-2005 47 -15 $635 69.12 -0. Windows Pre-1978 529 39 $9,810 $246 39.93 0.48 Water Heating Package All Vintages 0 19, $208 $33 6.31 3.19, Lamp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.919, $0.32 12.62 4.92 Table 16: CZ 2 - Multifamily Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results er Unit) Electricity Gas Measure utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Saviongs, Cost Ratio Pre-1978 224 40 $1,054 $136 7.76 3.05 Envelope & Duct Package 1978-1991 89 18 $987 $52 18.83 1.25 1992-2005 69 15 $987 $42 23.26 1.02 Pre-1978 116 11 $594 $55 10.89, 2.15 R-38 Attic Insulation 1978-1991 51 5 $526 $23 22.40 1.04 1992-2005 44 5 $526 $21 24.65 0.95 Pre-1978 112 22 $120 _$72 1.67 14.16 Duct Sealing 1978-1991 44 6 $12. $23 5.22 4.50 1992-2005 26 5 $120 $16 7.49 3.15 Pre-1978 914 -5 $184 $22 8.31 2.6�7 CoolRoof 1978-1991 65 -3 $184 $17 10.918 2.04 1992-2005 45 -3 $184 $11 16.88 1.31 Windows Pre-1978 409 29 $5,873 $179 32.85 031 Water Heating Package- All Vintages 0 16 $16�8 $27 6.16 3.98 LED Lamp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.919, 1:;F4 $0.32 12.62 4.02 35 2 19-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 134 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Climate Zone 31:1 The envelope and duct package is cost-effective for single family and multifamily homes built before 1978. For single family and multifamily homes built between 19,78 and 2005 duct sealing alone i's cost- effective. Cool roof upgrades and wi'ndow replacements are not cost-effective. Note.- Grey rows indicate option is not cost effective. 0 Table 17: CZ 3 - S"ngle Family Efficiency pgrade Cost-effectiveness Results Electricity Gas Measure utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savings Cost Ratio Envelope & Duct Pre-1978 132 919 $3,.472 $222 15.61 1.28 Package 1978-1991 41 46 $3,212 $91 35.39 0.56 1992-2005 36 40 $31212 $78 40.97 0.49 Pre-1978 74 37 $2 171 I A-of%J $91 24.87 0,80 R-38 Attic Insulation 1978-1991 17 17 $2,013 $36 56.57 0.35 1992-2005 16 17 $2,013 60.55 0�.3 3 Pre-1978 53 51 $240 $110 2.19 91.11 Duct Sealing 19,78-19,911 15 17 $240 $35 6.88 2.911 19,912-2005 14 16 $240 $31 7.65 2.61 Pre-1978 17 -18 $635 -$25 -25.51 -0.80 CoolRoof 1978-1991 -19, -13 $635 _$24 _26.20 -0.76 1992-2005 -10 -13, $635 -$24 -26.17 -0.76 Windows Pre-1978 92 72 $9,810 $159 61.51 0.32 Water Heating Package All Vintages 0 19 $208 $33 63-9 3.15 LED Lamp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.919, $0.29 13.75 4.52 Table 18: CZ 3 - Multifamily Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results (Per Unit) Electricity Gas Measure Utility S,imple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savings Cost Ratio Pre-1978 qA. Envelope & Duct ..P-"r 35 $1,054 $72 14.60 1.66 Package 1978-1991 19 15 $987 $26 38.21 0.63 1992-2005 14 12 $987 $20 48.42 0.50 Pre-1978 26 10 $594 $25 24.16 0.919 R-38 Attic, Insulation 1978-1991 10 5 $526 $1 53.48 0.45 1992-2005 8 5 $526 $9 57.71 0.42 Pre-1978 25 18 $120 $37 3.27 7.41 Duct Sealing 19,78-19,911 7 5 $120 $8 14.65 1.65 19,912-2005 4 4 $120 $6 19.37 1.25 Pre-1978 12 -4 $184 -$2 -78.18 -0.35 CoolRoof 1978-1991 7 -3, $184 _$1 -167.26 -0�.17 1992-2005 3 -3, $184 -$2 -716�.88 -0.33, Windows Pre-1978 67 49 $5,873 $98 60.05 0.40 Water Heating Package All Vintages 0 16 $168 $26, 6�.41 3.82 LED Lamp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.919, $0.29, 13.75 4.52 36 20 2- 0 Sr Sr 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 135 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Climate Zone 41:1 The envelope and duct �package is cost-effective for single family homes built before 1978 and multifamily homes bui'lt before 1992. For single family homes built between 1978 and 2005 and multifami'ly homes built between 1992 and 2005 duct sealing alone is cost-effective. Cool roof upgrades are cost-effective for single fami'ly homes bui'lt before 1978 and multifamily homes built before 2006. Window replacements are not cost-effective. Note.- Grey rows indicate option is not cost effective. 0 Table 19�: CZ 4 - Single Family Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results Electricity Gas Measure utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savi*ngs, Cost Ratio Envelope & Duct Pre-1978 56�O 93 $3,472 $349 91.915 1.95 Package 1978-1991 228 44 $3,212 $146 21.94 0.89, 1992-2005 158 38 $3,212 $1116 27.80 030 Pre-1978 383 35 $2,273 $186 12.23 1.57 R-38 Attic Insulation 1978-1991 172 17 $2,013 $84 24.10 0.80 1992-2005 124 16 $2,013 $68 29.55 0.16�5 Pre-1978 185 46 $240 $144 1.67 11.73 Duct Sealing 1978-1991 6�O 17 $240 $48 5.04 3.88 1992-2005 34 15 $240 $37 6.53 3.02 Pre-1978 240 -16 $635 $49, 13.00 1.38 CoolRoof 1978-1991 147 -12 $635 $29 21.69 0.82 1992-2005 87 -12 $635 $10 64.71 0.25 Windows Pre-1978 567 28 $9,810 $234 41.95 0.45 Water Heating Package All Vintages 01 19, $208 $33 6.33 3.18 LED Lamp vs. CFL All Vintages] 1.2 0 $3.919, $0.32 12.63 4.92 Table 20: CZ 4 - Multifamily Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results (Per Unit) Electricity Gas Measure utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh�) (therms) Savings Cost Ratio Envelope& Duct Pre-1978 214 33 $1,054 $118 8.913 2.6�4 Package 1978-1991 913 15 $9,87 $49, 20.05 1.17 1992-2005 75 12 $987 $40 24.65 0.95 Pre-1978 114 10 $5914 $51 11.61 2.01 R-38 Attic Insulation 1978-1991 53 5 $526 $23 22.89, 1.02 1992-2005 47 5 $526 $21 24.91 0.94 Pre-1978 107 17 $120 $61 1.916 12.06 A r% Duct Sealing 1978-1991 [+V 5 $120 $22 5.47 4.27 1992-2005 33 4 $120 $16 7.61 3.08 Pre-1978 101 -4 $184 $26 7.19 3.12 CoolRoof 1978-1991 75 -3 $184 $21 8.914 2.52 1992-2005 57 -3 $184 $15 12.49, 1.80 Windows Pre-1978 438 21 $5,873 $173 34.01 0.16�8 Water Heating Package All Vintages 0 16 $168 $26 6.43 3.81 LED Lamp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.919, $0.32 12.63 4.92 37 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 136 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Climate Zone 5 PG&E/PG&E:The envelope and duct package is cost-effective for single family and multifamily homes built before 1978. For single fami'ly homes built between 1978 and 2005 and multifamily homes built between 1978 and 1991 duct sealing alone i's cost-effective. Cool roof upgrades are cost-effective for multifamily homes bui'lt before 1978 but are not cost-effective for single family homes. Window replacements a�re cost- effective for multifamily homes built before 1978 but are not cost-effective for single family homes. Note.- Grey rows indicate option is not cost effective. Table 21: CZ 5 PG&E/PG&E - Single Farnil Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results Electricity Gas Measure utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savings Cost Ratio Pre-1978 105 102 $3,.472 $215 16.12 1.24 Envelope & Duct Package 1978-1991 42 48 $3,212 $92 34.85 0,57 1992-2005 36 41 $3,212 $/ 40.63 0.491 Pre-1978 49 36 $2 171 A-of%J $80 28.54 030 0%% R-38 Attic Insulation 1978-1991 15 16 $2,013 $,32 62.07 0_32 1992-2005 14 15 $2,013 $29 68.90 0.29, Pre-1978 46 52 $240 $107 2.24 8.93 Duct Sealing 1978-1991 16 18 $240 $36 6.70 2.98 1992-2005 15 17 $240 7.17 2.79, Pre-1978 -5 -25 $635 -$45 -14.14 -1.42 CoolRoof 1978-1991 -14 -18 $635 -$36 -17.72 -1.13 1992-2005 -15 -19, $635 -$36 -17.70 -1.13 Windows Pre-1978 81 76 $9,810 $160 61.19 0_33 Water Heating Package All Vintages 01 19, $208 $33 6.40 3.14 LED Lamp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.919, $0.29 13.88 4.48 Table 22: CZ 5 PG&E/PG&E - Multifamily Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results (Per Unit Electricity Gas Measure Utility S,imple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savings Cost Ratio Envelope& Duct Pre-1978 45 36 $1,054 $260 4.06 5.76 Package 1978-1991 13 15 $987 $19 53.03 0.46 1992-2005 10 13 $987 $15 64.74 0,38 Pre-1978 22 10 $5914 $226 2.6�3 8.85 R-38 Attic Insulation 1978-1991 7 5 $526 $7 76.62 0_31 1992-2005 5 5 $526 $6 87.62 0.28 Pre-1978 20 19 $120 $234 01.5 1 45.53 Duct Sealing 1978-1991 5 4 $120 $5 21.88 1.11 1992-2005 3 4 $120 $5 26.51 0.92 Pre-1978 7 -6 $184 $203 01.�91 25.55 CoolRoof 1978-1991 3 -3, $184 -$2 -75.951 -0,33 1992-2005 -1 -3 $184 -$4 -45.73 -0-53 Windows Pre-1978 59 52 $5,.873 $280 20.98 1.12 Water Heating Package All Vintages 01 16 $168 $21 8.07 3.04 LED Lamp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.919, $0.29, 13.8,8 4.48 38 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 137 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Climate Zone 5-PG&E/S,oCalGas:The envelope and duct package is cost-effective for multifamily homes built before 1978. For single family homes bui'lt before 2006 and multifamily homes built between 1978 and 1991 duct sealing alone i's cost-effective. Cool roof upgrades are cost-effective for multifamily homes bui'lt before 1978 but are not cost-effective for si'ngle family homes. Wi'ndow replacements are not cost-effective. Note.- Grey rows indicate option is not cost effective. Table 23: CZ 5 PG&E/SoCalGais - S,11"ngle Famifly Efficil"ency Upgrade Coist-effectil"veneisis Results Electricity Gas Measure Utility S,imple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savings Cost Ratio Envelope & Duct Pre-1978 105 102 $31472 $165 20.98 1.00 Package 1978-1991 42 48 $31212 $69 46.38 0.45, 1992-2005 36 41 $31212 $60 53.86 0.39 Pre-1978 49 36 $2 171 A-of%J _$61 37.07 0.56 <-)A R-38 Attic Insulation 1978-1991 15 16 $2,013 83.94 0.25 1992-2005 14 15 $2,013 $22 92.44 0.23 Pre-1978 46 52 $240 $82 2.92 7.20 Duct Sealing 1978-1991 16 18 $240 $27 9.04 2.32 F 1992-2005 15 17 $240 $25 9.51 2.21 Pre-1978 -5 -25 $635 -$34 -18.44 -1.16 CoolRoof 1978-1991 -14 -18 $635 -$,28 -22.95 -0.92 1992-2005 15 $635 -$28 -22.6�2 -0.93, Windows Pre-1978 81 76 $9,810 $125 78.62 0.27 Water Heating Package All Vintages 01 19 $208 $26, 7.95 2.69 LED Lamp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.919, $0.29, 13.88 4.48 Table 24: CZ 5 PG&E/SoCa1Ga,s - Multil"famfly Efficl"ency Upgrade Cost-effectil"veness Results (Per Unil"t) Electricity Gas Measure Utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savings L Cost Ratio Envelope & Duct Pre-19,78 45 36 $1,054 $216 4.89 4.80 Package 1978-1991 13 15 $987 $19 53.03 0.48 1992-2005 10 13 $987 $15 64.74 0.40 Pre-19,78, 22 10 $594 $182 3.26 7.07 R-38 Attic Insulation 1978-1991 7 5 $526 $7 76.62 0.33 1992-2005 5 5 $526 $6 87.62 0.29 Pre-19,78, 20 19, $120 $1911 0.63 36.87 Duct Sealing 1978-1991 5 4 $120 $5 21.88 1.16 1992-2005 3 4 $12o $5 26.51 0.917 Pre-19,78 7 -6 $184 $159 1.16 191.64 CoolRoof 1978-1991 3 -3 $184 -$2 -75.915 -0.36 1992-2005 -1 -3 $184 -$4 -45.73 -0.56 Windows Pre-1978 59 52 $5.s873 $236 24.87 0.915 Water Heating Package All Vintages 01 16 $16�8 $21 8.07 3.22 LED Lamp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.99 $0.291 13.88 4.48, 39 2 19-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 138 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Climate Zone 61:1 The envelope and duct package is not cost-effective for single family or multifamily homes. For single family homes built before 19,78 and multifamily homes built before 19,912 duct sealing alone i's cost- effective. Cool roof upgrades are cost-effective for multifamily homes built before 1992 but are not cost- effective for si'ngle family homes. Window replacements are not cost-effe c,t ive. Note.- Grey rows indicate option is not cost effective. 0 Table 25: CZ 6 - Single Family Efficiency pgrade Cost-effectiveness Results Electricity Gas Measure utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savings Cost Ratio r_r_ Envelope & Duct Pre-1978 455 54 $3,.472 $211 19.98 0.78 Package 1978-1991 144 22 $3,212 $69 56.35 0.28 1992-2005 955 19 $3,212 $47 81.42 0.191 Pre-1978 373 25 $21273 $150 18.68 0.83 R-38 Attic Insulation 1978-1991 122 9 $2,.013 $50 49.70 0.3 1 1992-2005 80 9 $2.sO13 $33 73.83 0.21 Pre-19178, 114 23 $240 $65 4.38 3.54 Duct Sealing 19,78-19,911 33 6 $240 $18 16.35 01.�95 1992-2005 19 6 $240 $12 234...Kp 0.16�5 Pre-19178, 1915 -15 $6�35 $44 191.31 01.�80 CoolRoof 1978-1991 100 -19, $635 $25 34.16 0.45 1992-2005 53 -10 $635 $7 134.99 0.11 Windows Pre-1978 393 5 $9,810 $132 93.50 0.17 Water Heating Package All Vintages 0 19, $208 $26 91.05 1.72 LED Lamp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.99 0.25 15.73 3.95 Table 26: CZ 6 - Multifamily Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results (Per Unit) Electricity Gas Measure Utility S,imple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savings Cost Ratio Envelope & Duct Pre-1978 164 18 $1,054 $67 19.24 0.918 Package 1978-1991 58 5 $987 $?A 51.43 0.37 1992-2005 47 4 $987 $18 68.16 0.28 Pre-1978 107 7 $594 $39 18.98 1.00 R-38 Attic, Insulation 1978-1991 41 2 $526 $14 45.11 0.42 1992-2005 3.5 2 $526 $12 53.10 0.36 Pre-1978 6�8 7 $120 $29 5.12 3.69 Duct Sealing 1978-1991 32 1 $120 $12 13.00 1.46 1992-2005 20 1 $120 $7 22.40 0,84 Pre-1978 82 -3 $184 $21 11.31 1.67 CoolRoof 1978-1991 6�O -1 $184 $17 13.54 1.40 1992-2005 45 -1 $184 $12 20.06 0.914 Windows Pre-1978 321 6 $5,873 $101 73.32 0.26 Water Heating Package All Vintages 01 16 $168 $19 9.78 1.913 LED Lamp vs. CFL All Vintages= 1.2 0 $3.919, $0.25 15.73 3.915 40 2 19-12-19 202OmO3-03 Agenda Packet, Page 139 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Climate Zone 71:1 The envelope and duct package is not cost-effective for single family or multifamily homes. For multifamily homes bui'lt before 1978 a combination of the duct sea�ling and R-38 attic insulation upgrades are cost effective. For single family homes built before 1978 and multifamily homes built between 19�78 and 1991 duct sealing alone i's cost-effective. Cool roof upgrades are cost-effective for single family homes built before 1978 and multifamily homes built before 1992. Window replacements are not cost-effective. Note.- Grey rows indicate option is not cost effective. 0 Table 27: CZ 7 - Single Family Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results Electricity Gas Measure utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savings Cost Ratio Pre-1978 314 31 1 $3,472 $209 20.63 035 Envelope & Duct Package 1978-1991 85 11 $3,212 857 68.80 0.23 1992-2005 64 10 $3,212 $41 96.06 0.16 Pre-1978 272 16 $2,273 $168 16.91 0.92 R-38 Attic Insulation 1978-1991 76 6 $2,013 $46 54.75 0.28 1992-2005 59 6 $2,013 $33 75.36 0.21 Pre-1978 6�6 11 $240 $52 5.68 2.74 Duct Sealing 1978-1991 17 2 $240 $12 24.50 0.6,3 1992-2005 9 2 $240 $7 41.18 0,38 Pre-1978 150 -11 $635 $66 12.43 1.25 CoolRoof 1978-1991 65 -6, $635 $26 32.16 0.48 1992-2005 41 -7 $635 $9 100.28 0.15 Windows Pre-1978 293 -7 $9,810 $151 82.91 0.191 Water Heating Package All Vintages 0 19 $208 $30 7.912 1.96 LED Lamp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.919, $0.33 12.01 5.17 Table 28: CZ 7 - Multifamily Effidency Uperade Cost-effectiveness Results (Per Uni"t) CO TA Electricity Gas Measure Utility S,imple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savings Cost Ratio Pre-1978 98 8 $1,054 $68 19.21 0.918 Envelope & Duct Package 1978-1991 40 1 $987 $10 59.54 0.32 $90-7 1992-2005 25 1 $5 101.52 0.19 Pre-1978 66 3 $594 $47 15.72 1.20 R-38 Attic Insulation 1978-1991 30 1 $526 $0 44.99 0.42 1992-2005 20 1 $526 $0 71.64 0.26 Pre-1978 28 2 $120 $27 5.54 3.41 Duct Sealing 19,78-19,911 21 0.13 $120 $21 14.56 1.30 1992-2005 12 0.08 $120 $12 29.36 0.64 Pre-1978 46 -3 $184 8.01 2.36 CoolRoof 19,78-19,911 47 -0-35 $184 $15 10.96 1.73 1992-2005 29 -0.35 $184 $9 20.10 0.914 Windows Pre-1978 235 -1 $5,.873 $114 65.55 0.29 Water Heating Package All Vintages 01 16 $16�8 $24 7.98 2.37 LED Lamp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.99 $0.33 12.01 5.17 41 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 140 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Climate Zone 81:1 The envelope and duct package is cost-effective for single family built before 19178 and multifamily homes bui'lt before 1992. For single family homes bui'lt between 1978 and 2005 and multifami'ly homes built between 1992 and 2005 duct sealing alone is cost-effective. Cool roof upgrades are cost-effective for all single fami'ly and multifamily homes built before 2006. Window replacements are not cost-effective. Note.- Grey rows indicate option is not cost effective. Table 29�: CZ 8 - Single Family E 1"C" Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Results Electricity Gas Measure Utility S,imple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings --A. Cost Benefit- (kWh)i (therms) Cost Savings Payback Cost Ratio Pre-19178, 850 39 $3,.472 $312 11.14 1.72 Envelope & Duct Package 1978-1991 359 17 $3,212 $132 24.30 0.79 1992-2005 311 15 $3,212 $119 26.98 0.71 �)7 Q 201 11.28 1.69 Pre-19178 590 18 $2, $-- R-38 Attic Insulation 1978-1991 266 8 $2,013 $ 21.90 0.8 1992-2005 248 8 $2,013 S90 2 2.3.3 0.85 Pre-19178, 307 17 $240 $120 2.00 91.60 Duct Sealing 1978-1991 122 5 $240 $46 5.21 3.65 1992-2005 84 4 $240 $34 7.14 2.68 Pre-19178, 389 -10, $635 $108, 5.89, 3.13 CoolRoof 1978-1991 266 -7 $635 $78 8.12 2.28, 1992-2005 219 -8 $635 $6,6, 9.67 1.910 Windows Pre-1978 723 4 $9,810 $222 44.12 0.43 Water Heating Package All Vintages 0 19 $208 $25 8.22 2.60 LED Lamp vs. CFL tAll Vintages 1.2 0 $3.919, $0.29, 13.83 4.49 Table 30: CZ 8 - Multifamily Efficiency Up rade Cost-effectiveness Results (Per Unit) Electricity Gas Measure Utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savi ngs Cost Ratio Envelope & Duct Pre-19178 312 13 $1,054 $103 10.21 2.28 Package 19178-191911 139, 4 $987 $46 21.31 1.08, nn 1992-2005 123 3 $987 $42 23.65 0.918 1 Q-7 Pre-19178, .;1 5 $594 $48 12.2)91 1.89 R-38 Attic Insulation 1978-1991 73 2 $526 $23 23.28 0.919 1992-2005 69 1 $526 $22 23.73 0.917 Pre-19178, 171 5 $120 $57 2.10 11.02 Duct Sealing 19,78-19,911 83 1 $120 $27 4.45 5.15 19,912-2005 64 1 $120 $22 5.56 4.12 Pre-19178 149, -2 $184 $40 4.64 4.88, CoolRoof 19,78-19,911 11 r- �L_j -1 $184 $33 5.56 4.10 19,912-2005 gin, -1 $184 $29 6.29 3.62 Windows Pre-1978 519 5 $5,.873 $149 39.50 0.58 Water Heating Package All Vintages 0 16 $1618 $20 8.54 3.04 LED Lamp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.99 $0.29, 13.83 4.49 42 2 19-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 141 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Climate Zone 91:1 The envelope and duct package is cost-effective for single family built before 19�92 and multifamily homes bui'lt before 2006. For single family homes built between 1992 and 2005 duct sealing alone is cost-effective. Cool �roof upgrades are cost-effective for all single fami'ly and multifamily homes built before 2006. Window replacements are not cost-effective. Note.- Grey rows indicate option is not cost effective. Table 31: CZ 9 - Single Family E i"C" pgrade Cost-effectiveness Results Electricity Gas Measure Utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savings Cost Ratio Envelope & Duct Pre-19,78, 1.0101 51 $3.,472 $3912 8.86 2.17 Package 1978-1991 4913 23 $3,212 $171 18.77 1.02 1992-2005 432 20 $3.s212 $156 20.55 0.913 10.r-r- Pre-19178 6�49, 22 $2,273 $215 1.81 R-38 Attic Insulation 1978-1991 305 11 $2.sO13 $98 20.45 0.913 1992-2005 299 10 $2.sO13 $102 19.74 0.916 Pre-19,78, 466 23 $240 $174 1.38 13.911 Duct Sealing 1978-1991 1919, 7 $240 $70 3.41 S.57 1992-2005 142 6 $240 $54 4.44 4.30 Pre-19,78, 457 -12 $6�35 $122 5.22 3.53 CoolRoof 1978-1991 319, -8 $6�35_� $87 7.30 2.53 1992-2005 267 -9 $6�35 $75 8.44 2.19 Windows Pre-1978 941 9 $9,310 $285 34.43 0.55 Water Heating Package All Vintages 01 19, $208 $25 8.21 2.60 LED amp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.99 $0.29, L 13.60 4.57 Table 32: CZ 9 - Multifamily Efficiency Upiyrade Cost-effectiveness Results (Per Unit) Electricity Gas Measure Utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost ayback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) LSavings, Cost Ratio RA Q,7 Envelope & Duct Pre-1978 418 17 $1,054 $135 7.w--r 2.-If I Package 19178-191911 201 6 $987 $6�5 15.12 1.53 19,912-2005 16�8 5 $987 $54 18.23 1.27 JO.A-r, Pre-1978 186 6 $594 $57 r W 2.22 R-38 Attic Insulation 19,78-19,911 89, 3 $526 $27 191.15 1.21 19,912-2005 79, 2 $526 $24 21.48 1.08 Pre-1978 245 8 $120 $78 1.53 15.13 Duct Sealing 19,78-19,911 122 1 $120 $38 3.17 7.24 A 19,912-2005 95 1 $120 $30 4.0 1 5.68 Pre-1978 179 -3 $184 $45 4.06 S.58, CoolRoof 19,78-19,911 138 -2 $184 $37 4.9,6 4.58 19,912-2005 ill -2 $184 $30 6.20 3.66 Windows Pre-1978 673 8 $5,.873 $188 31.28 0.74 Water Heating Package All Vintages 01 16 $16�8 $19 8.81 2.915 1.2 0 $3.99 $0.29, q7 LED Lamp vs. CFL All Vintages 13.60 4. 43 2 19-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 142 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Climate Zone 10-SCE alGas:The envelope and duct package is cost-effective for single family and multifamily homes bui'lt before 2006. Cool roof upgrades are cost-effective for all single family and multifamily homes built before 2006. Window replacements are not cost-effective. Note.- Grey rows indicate option is not cost effective. Table 33: CZ 10 SCE/SoCalGais - Si"ngle Famifly Efficl"ency Upgrade Cost-effecti"veness Results Electricity Gas Measure utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savings Cost Ratio Pre-19,78, 11354 57 $3.,472 $470 7.39 2.59 Envelope & Duct Package 1978-1991 597 25 $3,212 $206 15.62 1.22 1992-2005 516 22 $3.,212 $180 17.81 1.07 Pre-19,78 729 24 $2,273 $235 91.66 1.918 R-38 Attic Insulation 1978-1991 330. 11 $2.,013 $110 18.29, 1.04 1992-2005 332 11 $2.,013 $109 18.53 1.03 Pre-19,78, 617 25 $240 $221 1.09 17.63 Duct Sealing 1978-1991 248 8 $240 $89 2.69 7.06 1992-2005 186 7 $240 $6�9 3.50 5.44 Pre-19,78, S55 -13 $6�35 $143 4.43 4.16 CoolRoof 1978-1991 377 -9 $6�35 $105 6.05 3.06 1992-2005 315 -10 $6�35 $86 7.41 2.49 Windows Pre-1978 1 11178 11 $9,810 $349 28.07 0.67 Water Heating Package All Vintages 01 19, $208 $25 8.24 2.59 LED amp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.99 $0.30 13.28 4.68 Table 34: CZ 10 S E/SoCalGas - Multi"famifly Efficl"ency Upgrade Cost-effectil"veness Results (Per Unilot) Electricity Gas Measure Utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savings Cost Ratio Envelope & Duct Pre-1978 526 19, $1,054 $170 6.20 3.75 Package 19178-191911 250 7 $987 $79 12.49, 1.85 19,912-2005 207 6 $987 $66 14.910 1.55 Pre-1978 221 7 $594 $70 8.52 2.72 R-38 Attic Insulation 19,78-19,911 106 3 $526 $32 16.44 1.41 19,912-2005 91 3 $526 $29 18.31 1.26 Pre-1978 317 9 $120 $103 1.16 191.88 Duct Sealing 19,78-19,911 152 2 $120 $46 2.61 8.82 19,912-2005 119 1 $120 $39 3.11 7.38 Pre-1978 215 -3 $184 $57 3.22 7.03 CoolRoof 19178-191911 16�3 -2 $184 $43 4.3 5.27 19,912-2005 129 -2 $184 $35 5.21 4.36 Windows Pre-1978 840 10 $5.s873 $235 24.97 0.912 Water Heating Package All Vintages 01 16 $16�8 $20 8.59 3.03 LED Lamp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.99 $0.30 13.28 4.68, 44 0 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 143 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Climate Zone 10-SDG&E:The envelope and duct package is cost-effective for all single family and multifamily homes built before 2006. Cool roof upgrades are cost-effective for all single family a�nd multifamily homes built before 2006. Window replacements are cost-effective for single family and multifarnily homes built before 197'8. Note.- Grey rows indicate option is not cost effective. Table 35: CZ 10 SDG&E - S,ilongle Famfly Efficl"ency Upgrade Coist-effectiloveneisis Results Electricity Gas Measure utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savings Cost Ratio Envelope & Duct Pre-1978 11354 57 $3.,472 $800 4.34 4.37 Package 19178-191911 597 25 $3,212 $359 8.915 2.12 19,912-2005 S 16 22 $3.,212 $317 10.13 1.87 Pre-1978 729 24 $2,273 $405 5.61 3.38 R-38 Attic Insulation 19178-191911 338 11 $2.,013 $1913 10.40 1.82 19,912-2005 332 11 $2.,013 $1915 10.31 1.83 Pre-1978 617 25 $240 $377 0-64 291.78 Duct Sealing 19,78-19,911 248 8 $240 $155 1.55 12.20 19,912-2005 186 7 $240 $120 2.00 91.47 Pre-1978 S55 -13 $6�35 $272 2.33 7.918, CoolRoof 19178-191911 377 -9 $6�35 $1915 3.26 5.71 19,912-2005 315 -10 $6�35 $164 3.87 4.80 Windows Pre-1978 11178 11 $91.,8,10 $631 15.56 1.21 Water Heating Package All Vintages 01 19, $208 $30 6.87 3.01 LED Lamp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.99 $0.50 8.02 7.75 Table 36: CZ 10 SDG&E - Multi"famfly Efficl"ency Upgrade Cost-effectioveness Results (Per Uni"t) Electricity Gas Measure Utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savings Cost Ratio Pre-1978 526 19, $1,054 $2918 3.54 6.52 Envelope & Duct Package 19178-191911 250 7 $987 $141 6.918 3.30 19,912-2005 207 6 $987 7 $116 8.54 2.70 Pre-1978 221 7 $594 $120 4.915 4.65 R-38 Attic Insulation 19,78-19,911 106 3 $526 $57 91.21 2.50 19,912-2005 911 3 $526 $48 10.89, 2.11 Pre-1978 317 9 $120 $180 O.U7 34.43 j.AQ Duct Sealing 19,78-19,911 152 2 $120 $84 T%J 16.04 19,912-2005 119, 1 $120 $6�7 1.79 12.77 0� -70 Pre-1978 2 153, $184 $103 1./0 12.79, � CoolRoof 19178-191911 163 -2 $184 $80 2.30 91.911 19,912-2005 129, -2 $184 $6�2 2.915 7.72 Windows Pre-1978 840 10 $51873 $427 13.76 1.67 Water Heating Package All Vintages 01 16 $16�8 $25 6.79 3.71 LED Lamp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.99 $0.50 8.02 7.75 45 0 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 144 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Climate Zone 11:The envelope, and duct package is cost-effective for all single family and multifamily homes built before 2006. Cool roof upgrades are cost-effective for all single family a�nd multifamily homes built before 2006. Window replacements are cost-effective for single fami'ly and multifamily homes built before 1978. Note.- Grey rows indicate option is not cost effective. Table 37: CZ 11 Single Family Efficiency pgrade Cost-effectiveness Results Electricity Gas Measure utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savings Cost Ratio Envelope & Duct Pre-19,78, lIP827 120 $3,P472 $774 4.48 4.27 Package 1978-1991 858 55 $3,212 $358 8.916 2.13 1992-2005 770 48 $3,P212 $324 91.913 1.912 Pre-19,78 7915 47 $2,273 $318 7.15 2.68 1:1 -)A R-38 Attic Insulation 1978-1991 383 22 $2,PO13 $152 %.f.A-_T 1.44 1992-2005 3916 22 $2,PO13 $158, 12.76 1.50 Pre-19,78, 982 61 $240 $415 0.58 33.10 Duct Sealing 1978-1991 434 20 $240 $174 1.38 13.77 1992-2005 355 18 $240 $147 1.64 11.65 Pre-19,78, 6�24 -14 $6�35 $161 3.9%.# 4.71 CoolRoof 1978-1991 440 -10 $6�35 $118, 5.40 3.44 1992-2005 369, -10 $6�35 $99 6.41 2.89 Windows Pre-19,78, 11568, 45 $9,P810 $554 17.71 1.07 Water Heating Package All Vintages 01 19, $208 $34 6.0 6 3.32 LED amp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.99 $0.35 11.53 5.39 Table 38: CZ 11 - Multifamily Efficiency U grade Cost-effectiveness Results (Per Unit) Electricity Gas Measure Utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savings Cost Ratio Pre-1978 728 44 $1,054 $2916 3.57 6.53 Envelope & Duct Package 19178-191911 363 19, $987 $139 7.09 3.27 19,912-2005 315 16 $987 $119 8.29 2.79 Pre-1978 268 13 $594 $102 5.80 4.00 R-38 Attic Insulation 19,78-19,911 131 6 $526 $49 10.75 2.15 19,912-2005 118 6 $526 $43 12.10 1.911 Pre-1978 473 25 $120 186 O.UJ 36.02 Duct Sealing 19,78-19,911 231 7 $120 $82 1.47 15.72 19,912-2005 1916 6 $120 $6�9 1.74 13.25 Pre-1978 245 -4 $184 $66 2.76 8.21 CoolRoof 19178-191911 189, -2 $184 $53 3.44 6.61 19,912-2005 156 -2 $184 $45 4.13 5.51 Windows Pre-1978 11 107 33 $5;.,8,73 $387 15.19, 1.52 Water Heating Package All Vintages 01 16 $16�8 $29 5.76 4.26 n rN L4R-La m p vs. C F L All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.99 $0.35 11.5 3. 539 46 0 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 145 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Climate Zone 12:The envelope, and duct package is cost-effective for all single family and multifamily homes built before 2006. Cool roof upgrades are cost-effective for all single family a�nd multifamily homes built before 2006. Window replacements are cost-effective for multifamily homes bui'lt before 1978 but are not cost- effective for si'ngle family homes. Note.- Grey rows indicate option is not cost effective. Table 39�: CZ 12 Single Famfly Efficiency pgrade Coist-effecti"veneisis Results Electricity Gas utillitu Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Measure Cost Y Simple Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Cost Savings Payback Cost Ratio 1no C-7 Envelope & Duct Pre-1978 11209, ULF $3.,472 $-.)1:7 6.00 3.21 Package 19178-191911 540 51 $3,212 $26.3 12.23 1.57 19,912-2005 471 45 $3.,212 $229 14.02 1.37 Pre-1978 674 43 $2,273 $285 7.917 2.40 -70 R-38 Attic Insulation 19178-191911 318 20 $2.,013 $136 14.,8 1.29 19,912-2005 317 20 $2.,013 $135 14.88 1.28, Pre-1978 532 55 $240 $272 0.88 21.82 Duct Sealing 19,78-19,911 216 20 $240 $107 2.24 8.57 19,912-2005 155 18 $240 $83 2.89 6.67 Pre-1978 479 -16 $6�35 $121 5.26 3.50 CoolRoof 19178-191911 332 -12 $6�35 $87 7.33 2.51 19,912-2005 273 -12 $6�35 $6�9 91.17 2.00 Windows Pre-1978 11090 43 $9,310 $420 23.34 0.81 Water Heating Package All Vintages 01 19, $208 $34 6.05 3.32 LED Lamp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.99 $0.34 11.80 5.26 Table 40: CZ 12 - Multifamfly Efficiency U grade Coist-effecti"veneisis Results (Per Uni"t) Electricity Gas Measure Utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savi ngs, Cost Ratio Envelope & Duct Pre-19,78 465 40 $1,054 $211 5.01 4.67 Package 1978-1991 223 18 $987 $94 10.50 2.22 1992-2005 187 15 $987 $79 12.45 1.87 Pre-19,78, 1919, 11 $594 $80 7.40 3.14 R-38 Attic Insulation 1978-1991 917 6 $526 $37 14.03 1.65 1992-2005 88 6 $526 $35 15.14 1.53 Pre-19,78, 276 22 $120 $123 0.900 23.87 Duct Sealing 1978-1991 134 7 $120 $51 2.34 91.87 1992-2005 103 5 $120 $40 2.916 7.81 Pre-19,78 188 -4 $184 $51 3.63 6.23 CoolRoof 1978-1991 146 -3 $184 $42 4.42 5.13 A.Q 1992-2005 117 -3 $184 $33 5."r.,f 4.13 Windows Pre-19,78 785 31 $5.,8,7 3 2914 19.9 1 9W 1.16 Water Heating Package All Vintages 01 16 $16�8 $28 6.08 4.03 LED Lamp vs. CFL E All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.99 $0.34 11.80 5.26 47 2 19-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 146 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Climate Zone 13:The envelope, and duct package is cost-effective for all single family and multifamily homes built before 2006. Cool roof upgrades are cost-effective for all single family a�nd multifamily homes built before 2006. Window replacements are cost-effective for single fami'ly and multifamily homes built before 1978. Note.- Grey rows indicate option is not cost effective. Table 41: CZ 13 - Single Fainfly Efficiency pgrade Coist-effecti"veness Results Electricity Gas Measure utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- 1-1 (kWh) (therms) Savings Cost Ratio Pre-1978 21PO47 98 $3.,472 $7910 4.39 4.34 Envelope & Duct Package 19178-191911 964 45 $3,212 $370 8.68 2.20 19,912-2005 877 39, $3.,212 $339 91.48 2.01 Pre-1978 940 37 $2,273 $338 6.72 2.83 R-38 Attic Insulation 19178-191911 451 18 $2,PO13 $162 12.A:Z r-0 1.53 r-rN 19,912-2005 463 17 $2,PO13 $168, 11.917 1._-)to Pre-1978 11072 50 $240 $418 0.57 33.16 Duct Sealing 1917 -19,911 480 17 $240 $181 1.33 14.29, 19,912-2005 403 16 $240 $156 1.54 12.32 Pre-1978 729, -15 $6�35 $186 3.41 5.45 CoolRoof 19178-191911 516 -11 $6�35 $138, 4.60 4.04 12-2005 441 -11 $6�35 $117 5.41 3.43 Windows Pre-1978 lIP604 41 $9,P810 $547 17.914 1.06 Water Heating Package All Vintages 01 19, $208 $34 6.09 3.30 LED amp vs. CFL =All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.99 $0.34 11.60 5.35 Table 42: CZ 13 - Multifainfly Efficiency U grade Coist-effecti"veneisis Results (Per Uni"t) Electricity Gas Measure Utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- 1-1 (kWh) (therms) Savings Cost Ratio [;A Pre-1978 805 36 $1,054 $2918 3...f--r 6.55 Envelope & Duct Package 19178-191911 407 16 $987 $144 6.85 3.37 19,912-2005 353 13 $987 126 7.85 2.914 Pre-1978 317 10 $594 $110 5.42 4.26 R-38 Attic Insulation 19,78-19,911 158 5 $526 $54 91.82 2.35 19,912-2005 141 5 $526 $49 10.77 2.14 Pre-1978 510 20 $120 185 0.65 35.73 Duct Sealing 19,78-19,911 254 6 $120 $85 1.42 16.22 19,912-2005 214 5 $120 $73 1.64 13.918 Pre-1978 283 -4 $184 $76 2.42 91.37 CoolRoof 19178-191911 220 -3 $184 $6,2 2.919 7.62 19,912-2005 183 -3 $184 $52 3.54 6.42 Windows Pre-1978 lIP127 30 $5.,8,73 $380 15.47 1.49 Water Heating Package All Vintages 01 16 $16�8 $27 6.1.3, 4.00 LED amp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.99 $0.34 11.60 S.35 48 0 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 147 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Climate Zone 14-SCE alGas:The envelope and duct package is cost-effective for all single family and multifamily homes bui'lt before 2006. Cool roof upgrades are cost-effective for all si'ngle family and multifamily homes built before 2006. Window replacements are cost-effective for multifamily homes built before 1978 but are not cost-effective for single family homes. Note.- Grey rows indicate option is not cost effective. Table 43: CZ 14 SCE/SoCalGas - SI"ngle Famifly Efficl"ency Upgrade Cost-effecti"veness Results Electricity Gas Measure Utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savings Cost Ratio Pre-1978 lIP832 121 $3.,472 $680 S.10 3.80 Envelope & Duct Package 19178-191911 844 SS $3,212 $316 10.18 1.910 19,912-200S 746 48 $311212 $28S 11.28 1.71 Pre-1978 816 43 $2 77R I .%., $276 8.22 2.3S R-38 Attic Insulation 19178-191911 388 21 $2,PO13 $134 1S.07 1.28, 19,912-200S 3914 20 $2,PO13 $140 14.36 1.34 Pre-1978 967 6�3 $240 $366 0.66 29,.S2 Duct Sealing 19,78-19,911 417 21 $240 $154 1.56 12.34 A 19,912-2005 333 19, $240 $130 1.814 10.44 Pre-1978 6�31 -19 $6�35 $147 4.32 4.23 0 CoolRoof 19178-191911 427 -14 $6�35 $108, 5.80 3.12 19,912-2005 359, -14 $6�35 $94 6.79 2.69 Windows Pre-1978 1.s527 36 $9.s810 $475 20.66 0.912 Water Heating Package All Vintages 01 19, $208 $26, 8.02 2.66 LED amp vs. CFL All Vintagesi: 1.2 0 $3.99 0.31 13.03 4.77 Table 44: CZ 14 SCE/SoCalGas - Multi"famifly Efficl"ency Upgrade Cost-effectil"veness Results (Per Unilot) Electricity Gas Measure Utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savings Cost Ratio Pre-1978 731 45 $1,054 $259 4.07 5.78 Envelope & Duct Package 19178-191911 364 19, $987 $125 7.910 2.916 19,912-2005 310 16 $987 $107 91.23 2.53 Pre-1978 273 12 $594 $91 6.52 3.59 R-38 Attic Insulation 1917 -19,911 134 6 $526 $44 11.914 1.915 19,912-2005 118 6 $526 $39 13.41 1.74 Pre-1978 467 25 $120 $162 0.7'4 31.67 Duct Sealing 19,78-19,911 227 7 $120 $73 1.64 14.14 19,912-2005 188 6 $120 $6�2 1.913 11.919, Pre-1978 250 -5 $184 $61 3.02 7.46 CoolRoof 19,78-19,911 188 -3 $184 $50 3.71 6.11 19,912-2005 152 -3 $184 $40 4.56 4.915 Windows Pre-1978 11P080 26 $!5.,8,73 $329 17.86 1.30 Water Heating Package All Vintages 01 16 $16�8 $22 7.76 3.35 LED Lamp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.99 $0.31 13.03 4.77 49 2 19-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 148 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Climate Zone 14-SDG&E:The envelope and duct package is cost-effective for all single family and multifamily homes built before 2006. Cool roof upgrades are cost-effective for all single family a�nd multifamily homes bui'lt before 2006. Window replacements are cost-effective for single fami'ly and multifamily homes built before 1978. Note.- Grey rows indicate option is not cost effective. Table 45: CZ 14 SDG&E - S,ilongle Famfly Efficl"ency Upgrade Coist-effectiloveneisis Results Electricity Gas Measure Utility Cost Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Savings Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Cost Ratio Envelope& Duct Pre-1978 lIP832 121 $3,472 $1,0918 3.16 6�.04 Package 19178-191911 844 55 $3,212 $523 6�.14 3.11 19,912-2005 746 48 $3,212 $46�O -6�.98 2.73 -)7 Q Pre-1978 816 43 $2 $452 5.03 3.79, R-38 Attic Insulation 19178-191911 388 21 $2,013 $223 9.04 2.11 19,912-2005 3914 20 $2,.013 $228 8.85 2.15 Pre-1978 967 63 $240 $593 01.�40 47.14 Duct Sealing 19,78-19,911 417 21 $240 $259, 01.�93 20.51 19,912-2005 333 19 $240 $213 1.12 16�.92 Pre-1978 6�31 -19 $635 $285 2.23 8.31 CoolRoof 19178-191911 427 -14, $635 $206 3.09, 6�.01 19,912-2005 359, -14 $635 $170 3.72 4.97 Windows Pre-1978 1.0527 36 $9,.810 $815 12.04 1.57 Water Heating Package All Vintages 0 19 $208 $30 6�.83 3.03 LED Lamp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.919, $0.50 7.98 7.78 Table 46: CZ 14 SDG&E - Multi"famfly Efficloency Upgrade Cost-effectioveness Results (Per Uni"t) Electricity Gas Measure Utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savi ngs Cost Ratio Envelope & Duct Pre-1978 731 45 $1,054 $4 3'1 2.45 91.49 Package 19178-191911 36�4 19, $987 $209 4.72 4.910 19,912-2005 310 16 $987 $174 5.66 4.09 Pre-1978 273 12 $594 $154 3.87 5.919 R-38 Attic Insulation 19,78-19,911 134 6 $526 $73 7.18 3.22 19,912-2005 118 6 $526 $6�3 8.36 2.77 Pre-1978 46�7 25 $120 $227- 22 0.44 52.62 Duct Sealing 19,78-19,911 227 7 $120 $125 0.96 23.918 19,912-2005 188 6 $120 $103 1.16 191.86 Pre-1978 250 -5 $184 $114 1.61 14.12 CoolRoof 19178-191911 188 -3 $184 $87 2.12 10.73 19,912-2005 152 -3 $184 $6�9 2.68 8.47 Windows Pre-1978 11080 26 $5;.,8,73 $570 10.30 2.24 A Water Heating Package All Vintages 01 16 $16�8 $26 6.5 , 3.85 L4R-La m p vs. C F L All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.99 $0.50- 7.918 7.78, so 0 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 149 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Climate Zone 15:The envelope, and duct package is cost-effective for all single family and multifamily homes built before 2006. Cool roof upgrades are cost-effective for all single family a�nd multifamily homes built before 2006. Window replacements are cost-effective for single fami'ly and multifamily homes built before 19,78. Note.- Grey rows indicate option is not cost effective. Table 47: CZ 15 - Single Fa fly Efficiency Upgrade Coist-effecti"veness Results Electricity Gas Measure Utility Cost Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Savings Payback Benefit-Cost (kWh) (therms) Ratio Envelope & Duct Pre-1978 41 141 23 $3,.472 $1,.116 3.11 6.04 Package 19178-191911 21041 8 $3,212 $559, 5.75 3.27 19,912-2005 lIP877 7 $3,.212 $526 6.10 3.08 Pre-1978 11483 12 $2,273 $386 5.89 3.20 R-38 Attic Insulation 19178-191911 740 5 $2,.013 $192 10.49, 1.79 19,912-2005 769, 5 $2,.013 $204 91.88 1.910 Pre-1978 2AQ,A I r-0--r 91 $240 $6�80 0-35 53.24 Duct Sealing 19,78-19,911 11 182 2 $240 $331 0.7'3 25.86 19,912-2005 11039 1 $240 $299, 0.80, 23.41 Pre-1978 1184 -5 $635 $296 2.15 8.72 A CoolRoof 19178-191911 854 -3 $635 $223 2.8 . 6.59 19,912-2005 751 -3 $635 $201 3.15 5.913 Windows Pre-1978 31P214 4 $9,.810 $840 11.68 1.61 Water Heating Package All Vintages 0 19 $208 $24 8.71 2.45 LED Lamp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.919, $0.30 13.26 4.68 Table 48: CZ 15 - Multifamio y Efficiency Upgrade Coist-effecti"veneisis Results Per Uni"t) Electricity Gas Utility cost Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Measure Cost Savings Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Cost Ratio Envelope & Duct Pre-1978 lIP663 7 $1.,054 $445 2.37 9.6�7 Package 19178-191911 863 2 $987 $227 4.3 55 5.26 19,912-2005 762 $987 $195 5.07 4.51 Pre-1978 574 3 $594 $156 3.82 6�.00 R-38 Attic Insulation 19,78-19,911 285 $526 $77 6.8 1 7 3.33 19,912-2005 254 $526 $6�4 8.20 2.79, Pre-1978 11128, 3 $120 $299, 0.40, 57.10 1 A Duct Sealing 19178-191911 565 0-34 $120 $148 0.81 28.15 19,912-2005 501 0.20, $120 $129, 0.93 24.54 Pre-1978 455 -1 $184 $113 1.63 14.00 CoolRoof 19178-191911 351 -0.49 $184 $88 2.09 10.92 19,912-2005 2916 .1), $184 -0.45 $72 2.54 9.00 Windows Pre-1978 21P237 4 $5.,8,73 $581 10.11 2.26 Water Heating Package All Vintages 01 16 $16�8 $19 8.911. 2.92 LED Lamp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.99 $0.30 13.26 4.6�8 51 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 150 of 152 Existing Building Efficiency Upgrade Cost-effectiveness Study Climate Zone 16:The envelope, and duct package is cost-effective for all single family and multifamily homes built before 2006. Cool roof upgrades are cost-effective for multifamily homes built before 20,016 but are not cost-effective for si'ngle family homes.Window replacements are cost-effective for multifamily homes built before 1978 but are not cost-effective for single family homes. Note.- Grey rows indicate option is not cost effective. Table 49�: CZ 16 - Single Famfly Efficiency pgrade Coist-effecti"veness Results Electricity Gas Measure Utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savings Cost Ratio Pre-1978 6�35 231 $3.,472 $620 S.60 3.52 JO.A-r, Envelope & Duct Package 19178-191911 286 119 $3,212 $307 rw 1.89 19,912-2005 240 107 $3.,212 $271 11.87 1.66 Pre-1978 407 76 $2,273 $269 8.43 2.31 R-38 Attic Insulation 1917 8,-1919,1 176 38 $2.,013 $126 15.917 1.22 19,912-2005 155 36 $2.,013 $117 17.44 1.14 Pre-1978 236 128 $240 $307 0.78 25.32 Duct Sealing 19,78-19,911 103 6�O $240 $141 1.70 11.65 19,912-2005 79 55 $240 $125 1.912 10.34 Pre-1978 232 $635 $21 29.70 0.51 CoolRoof 1978-1991 153 -23 $635 $11 56.27 0.24 2-2005 107 -22 $635 -$3 -2 13.691 -0.18 Windows Pre-1978 267 162 $9,810 $376 26.11 0.76 Water Heating Package All Vintages 01 19, $208 $33 6.37 3.15 LED amp vs. CFL All Vintages 1.2 0 $3.99 $0.31 12.914 4.80 Table 50: CZ 16 - Multifamfly Efficiency Upgrade Coist-effecti"veness Results (Per Uni"t) Electricity Gas Measure Utility Simple Lifecycle Measure Vintage Savings Savings Cost Cost Payback Benefit- (kWh) (therms) Savings J Cost Ratio Envelope & Duct Pre-19,78 243 88 $1,054 $236 4.48 5.36 Package 1978-1991 119, 45 $987 $104 91.45 2.53 1992-2005 918 38 $987 $84 11.80 2.03 Pre-19,78, 115 22 $594 $76 7.81 3.04 R-38 Attic Insulation 1978-1991 56 11 $526 $34 15.48 1.53 1992-2005 49 10 $526 $30 17-311 1.37 Pre-19,78, 131 54 $120 $138, 0.87 27.75 Duct Sealing 1978-1991 63 22 $120 $55 2.20 10.87 1992-2005 47 20 $120 $43 2.80 8.56 Pre-19,78 100 -9 $184 $16, 11._5 7. 1.83 CoolRoof 1978-1991 79 -6 $184 $15 11.88 1.83 1992-2005 60 -6 $184 $11 16.912 1.27 Windows Pre-19,78 173 113 $5.,8,73 $257 22.83 1.06 Water Heating Package All Vintages 01 16 $16�8 $28 6.01 4.08 LED amp vs. CFL [::A::11:Vintages 1.2 0 $3.99 $0.31 12.914 4.80 52 2019-12-19 2020-03-03 Agenda Packet, Page 151 of 152 Written Communicaflow Item # Name February 25, 2020 RE:Support for Chula Vista City Council Item#8: Existing Home Energy Sustainability Ordinance Mayor Salas and Councilmembers: On behalf of South Bay People Power, I am writing in favor of the Existing Home Energy Sustainability Ordinance.We see the importance of taking these steps to meet the Chula Vista 2017 Climate Action Plan and protect the livability of our border community. The Existing Home Energy Sustainability Ordinance supports implementation of the Chula Vista 2017 Climate Action Plan proposal to lower greenhouse gas emissions by increasing energy efficiency in existing homes that may not have kept pace with current energy efficiency measures in newer homes. The Existing Home Energy Sustainability Ordinance requires that homes built before 2006 are retrofitted,if needed,with energy upgrades when homeowners add on or remodel. Homeowners have choices in how to meet the standards of the Ordinance. The benefits of the upgrades required in the Existing Home Energy Sustainability Ordinance include: • The ordinance is expected to affect 3872 units and could reduce GHG emissions by approximately 3218 Metric Tons of carbon emissions in the first 10 years. • The Energy retrofits are estimate to save homeowners an average utility cost savings$170 per year in the next ten years.The average time to 'break even"with implementation costs is approximately 8.3 years.Overall savings for all affected could total$2.9 Million in the first 10 yea rs. • The upgrades improve air quality inside homes. Leaky homes and ducts allow outdoor pollutants in,especially dust, pollen.,and smoke. • The Ordinance allows custom upgrade choices,some exemptions,and safeguards.Solar is not discouraged. Permit process disruption and inordinate financial burden are avoided. The Existing Home Energy Sustainability Ordinance was recommended unanimously by Sustainability Commission on September 9,2019.On February 10,2020,the Board of Appeals and Advisors voted to recommend the Ordinance. South Bay People Power urges you to support this ordinance now.This is an important step in lowering greenhouse gas emissions in Chula Vista and making our homes more energy effective,with lower utility costs,and a healthier living environment through cleaner air. Sincerely, Margaret A. Baker., DrPH Convener,South Bay People Power 2020-03-03 Agenda Pack-%et Page 152 of 152