4 - Green Building Codes CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 21, 2008
AGENDA TITLE: Introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order
published by title only changes to Title 10, "Structures," B.R.C. 1981, for the following
proposed ordinances:
1. An Ordinance amending Section 10-7, "Energy Conservation and Insulation
Code" by Adding an Additional Energy Efficiency Requirement for Commercial
Buildings, and setting forth related details.
2. An Ordinance amending Chapter 10-7.5, Green Building and Green Points
Program," B.R.C. 1981 Adding Requirements Related to Energy Efficiency
Thresholds for Remodels and Additions, Demolition, Boilers, and Windows; and
setting forth related details.
3. An Ordinance amending Chapter lU-5, "Building Code," B.R.C. 1981, to Adopt
Minor Changes to the International Building Code Related to the Expiration of
Permits and setting forth related details, and
4. An Ordinance amending Chapter 10-b, "Electrical Code," B.R.C. 1981 Adopting
by Reference the 200b International Electrical Code with Local Amendments and
setting forth related details.
PRESENTEKS:
Jame S. Brautigam, City Manager
Paul Fetherston, Deputy City Manager
Stephanie Grainger, Deputy City Manager
Maureen Rait, Executive Director of Public Works
Neil Poutsen, Chief I3uiIding Official
Kirk Moors, Senior Plans I:?xaminer/Assistant Building Official
Jonathan Koehn, Environmental Affairs Manager
Elizabeth Vasatka, Envirorunental Coordinator
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A significant portion of development activity in Boulder involves residential remodels
and additions. As part of the 2007 Green Points adoption process, council requested that
staff evaluate an amendment to the Green Building regulations to respond to the concern
that some threshold of additions and remodels should be evaluated as new construction
AGENDA ITEM # C PAGE 1
for the purpose of applying energy efficiency requirements. In this evaluation, staff was
also directed to review the Boulder County threshold for new construction.
Council requested that the ordinance be scheduled for the Nov. 13, 2007 meeting as a
public hearing and first reading. Green F3uildifig and Green Paints (GBGP) Ordinance
#7570 (2007} was considered at the council first reading, but concerns about unintended
consequences, such as potentially encouraging the demolition of more existing buildings,
resulted in direction to staff to evaluate alternative approaches and return to council at a
Inter date. At the Jan. 25, 2008 City Council retreat, council members also identified
goals including enhancing the energy performance of new commercial construction in the
short term and developing a comprehensive commercial code by year end.
Since that time, staff has been analyzing and considering these requests and is now
proposing code amendments to increase energy efficiency in commercial construction
and residential remodels and additions including:
• Increasing conzrnercial energy efficiency requirements by 30 percent above the
2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and the American Society
of Heating, Refrigeration and Air -Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAF.) 90.1 2004
standard for new commercial building as well as for commercial additions and
remodels.
• Requiring energy modeling by desiglz for all new commercial buildings larger
than 20,000 square feet.
• Allowing for maximum design flexibility. Both prescriptive and total
performance based designs are allowed if they exceed the minimum 2006 IECC
design criteria by 30 percent.
• Providing tiered above-code energy efficiency requirements based on the size of
the building for residential remodels and additions ovez• 500 square feet.
Additional proposed code changes include:
o an ordinance amending the "Building Code" to adopt minor changes related to the
expiration of permits, and
o an ordinance to adopt the 2008 National Electric Code with minor local
arnendrnents.
It is recommended that the 2006 Izzternationai Building Code (IBC) and 2008 National
Electrc Code (NEC} updates go into effect on Jan. 5, 2009 and that the above-code
energy efficiency requirements based on the 2006 IECC go into effect March 2, 2009.
These implementation dates are reflected in the proposed ordinances.
The implementation date (March 2, 2009) for the residential and commercial energy
efficiency requirements is proposed in order to allow the development community
additional time to incorporate the changes into their business processes and to allow for
adequate staff training time to facilitate a successful and smooth transition. Planning
Board members expressed overall support for the initiatives, the equity inherent in the
proposed regulations and the timeline for implementation. The board noted that the
cumulative impact of various changes currently being considered (both code and
~cF~~nA iTL~t #~-~/C ~~~~cr, a
development-related fee changes) can be challenging to manage in the current economic
environment.
Key Issue Identification: Building codes should evolve to support and balance
community sustainability objectives, including energy efficiency, reduction of carbon
emissions, waste reduction and life-safety requirements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends introduction, first reading and consideration of a motion to order
published by title only proposed ordinances (Attachments A - D) uwolviug changes to
Title 10, "Structures," B.R.C. 1981. Ordinance 7570 (Attachment E) was considered at
fu•st reading on Nov. 13, 2047. However, no further action is recommended by staff for
its adoption as related code changes are now presented as Attachment B.
It is recommended that the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) and 2UU8 National
Electric Code (NEC) updates go into effect on Jan. 5, 2009 and that the above-code
energy efficiency requirements based on the 2006 IECC go into effect March 2, 2009.
These implementation dates are reflected in the proposed ordinances.
The implementation date (March 2, 2009) for the residential and commercial energy
efficiency requirements is proposed in order to allow the development community
additional time to incorporate the changes into their business processes and to allow for
adequate staff training time to facilitate a successful and smooth transition. The City of
Albuquerque, N.M. provided a 180-day implementation time period for its commercial
above-code changes in response to public feedback. In the meantime, staff will develop
and conduct ~rorkshops on the code changes for building professionals.
NIUTION:
Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action as follows:
.Motion to introduce and order published by title only ordinances involving changes to
Title 10, "Structures," B.R.C. 1981, as proposed.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT AND IMYAC'I'S:
• Economic: The adoption and consistent application of building codes and
standards that reflect public safety objectives supports all segments of the
community and a sustainable economy. It is anticipated that the proposed
changes will have an economic impact on residential and commercial builders by
increasing construction costs. Those costs are passed along to consumers. 'The
cost impact of the proposed amendments that affect residential remodels and
additions can vary greatly according to the many different types and eras of
construction represented in the city. The costs necessary to attain higher energy
efficiency in commercial construction can also vary according to the different
AGENDA ITEM y ~ PAGE 3
types and uses of buildings and the strategies and technologies employed to
achieve increased efficiencies. Both national and local research places the cost
premium for attaining the energy efficiencies at two to four percent, Investments
associated with new construction are more cost effective than retrofitting later.
Additionally, these measures will reduce ongoing maintenance and operational
costs for the Iife of the buildings which can greatly benefit building owners and
occupants.
• )f+lnvironmeutal: Industrial, commercial and residential buildings account for 76
percent of Boulder's greenhouse gas emissions. Increasing energy efficiency can
prove to be vne of the most effective regulatory measures tv address energy use.
The proposed changes to energy efficiency requirements will support the further
implementation of the city's enerlry efficiency goals through the CAP.
Additionally, these requirements will provide a foundation on which to develop
and implement future code revisions to further align the building codes with
sustainability goals.
• Social: Public safety elements of construction codes address the social impacts of
the Boulder community by supporting the management of potential impacts to life
and property. Additionally, energy efficiency improvements benefit the
coznznuuity by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 1lon~eowners and commercial
tenants benefit with lower, more predictable utility bills as energy prices continue
to increase in the future.
OTHER IMPACTS:
• Fiscal: No budgetary impacts are anticipated
• Staff' time: Implementation of the proposed code changes is included within the
staff work program.
BOARD & COMMISSION FEEDBACK:
Planning Board
Under the city of Boulder's Chatter, the :Planning Board recommends to the City Council
miiumum housing ordinances, building codes, and other measures necessary to pz•oznote
the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the city.
Planning Board considered this matter on Oct. 2 and asked staff many clarifying
questions. Planning Board members expressed overall support for the initiatives, and the
equity inherent in the proposed regulations. The board also expressed concern about the
cumulative impact of various changes currently being considered (both code and
development-related fee changes) that can be challenging to manage in the current
economic envirozunent.
With a vote of 6 to 0 (Holicky absent), Planning Board recoznznended that the City
Council adopt the proposed ordinances amending Title 10. However, hoard members
expressed concern that the 0.5 natural air change per hour air leakage requirement applied
tv residential remodel and addition projects maybe too restrictive considering the wide
AGENDA ITF,M # PAGE 4
variety of existing building conditions within the city, Staff revisited this issue with
energy rating consultants who acknowledged that the proposed requirement may not be
feasible for some turn-of=the-century construction they have tested. The consultants
recommended an adjustment to the requirement to provide O.S air changes per hour for
buildings that have an initial air exchange rate of one NACH or less. For homes that
exceed one NACH, the energy rating consultants reconunend requiring the air leakage to
be reduced by half. These standards are reflected in the proposed code language.
These Green Building codes proposals were also presented to the Environmental Affairs
Board (EAB) on Aug. 13, 2008 and the Landmarks Board on Oct. 1, 2008.
Environmental Advisory Board (EAB}
The EAB appreciated the approach of coordinating the CAP goals and building
regulations. An earlier version of the proposed amendments was based on the size of the
addition and the board expressed concern that the energy efficiency table should be based
on the total area of the structure or additional tiers for building size should be developed.
While the board considered it an improvemert to add above-code energy eft ciency
requirements for remodel and/or additions, the EAB recommended that thresholds for
additions be determined for when a project shvuld be regulated as new construction.
Board members had a range of perspectives as to whether the proposed program was too
restrictive or should go even further in requiring higher energy efficiency for remodel
and/or addition types of projects.
The EAB also discussed the importance of incorporating a feasibility threshold in the
future with requirements fbr existing buildings where energy efficiency improvements
would be initiated through a process other than a building permit, such as rental licensing
or point of'sale. The difficulty and possible legal ramifications of developing
requirements for existing buildings was also discussed.
Landmarks Board
The Landmarks Board supported the proposed requirements for residential remodels and
additions and indicated that the proposed code language strikes a balance between
greening the existing housing stock while reducing the risk of unintended consequences
and potential demolition. It was noted that the ordinance proposed in 2007 treated
remodels and additions the same as new construction while the current proposal allows
more flexibility and would appear to encourage the preservation and reuse of structures,
rather than removal. The board discussed issues regarding energy efficiency in existing
houses and specific measures (such as the type of insulation). It was noted that energy
tradeoffs may be needed to offset lower insulation levels.
Board members expressed concern that the residential energy ef~flciency requirements
may jeopardize existing buildings' integrity by possibly altering building materials and
the potential to lose historic resources not yet designated. Additionally, some board
members were concerned with one specif c Green Points option that sets prescriptive
AGT,NI)A ITEM # `31` PAC,F 5
window efficiency at a U-Value .34, stating the requirement prohibits the use of true
divided ]iglu types of window products from most manufacturers. The board discussed
that maintaining the window U-value of .34, suggested through public input, maintains
above-code energy efficiency for the prescriptive portion of the code. The ability to use
true divided light windows with higher IJ-values through ResCheck or HERS code
compliance methods was also discussed in support of maintaining the Green Points 0.34
U-value.
PUB>t.,IC FEEDBACK:
The proposal for adoption of the Commercial and Residential Green Building Codes and
the adoption of the 2UU8 National Electrical Code (NEC) was presented to the public for
feedback at two residential and two eoznmercial meetings. Additionally, a group
comprised of two large-scale residential remodeling contractors, an architect, a Home
Energy Rating System (HERS) rater, a Boulder County representative and city staff met
to formulate ideas related to the proposed residential remodels and additions green
building procedures.
The following public meetings were held to solicit public feedback:
Residential Green Building Code Changes, 2006 IBC administrative changes and
adoption of the 2008 NEC (Aug. 13 and 27, 2008)
Residential Green Building Code Changes, (Aug. 21, 2008)
Commercial Green Building Code Changes, 2006 IBC administrative changes and
adoption of the 2UU8 NEC (Aug. 20 and Sept. 3, 2008)
Several of the same issues discussed during the EAB meeting were also raised during the
public input meetings. In addition, several program issues were discussed including:
A concern that the program would be difficult to apply to remodel work that is not
affecting the exterior of the building such as a kitchen remodel.
2) The modeling application to large core acrd shell construction projects.
3) A suggestion was made to use cost-to-benefit analysis to determine the level of
above-code energy efficiency requirements.
4) The importance of air-sealing was emphasized.
Public input from the various meetings resulted in changes to proposed ordinance
language. Staff revised thresholds for HERS index scores to be more equitable in the
marketplace, while maintaining an aggressive approach to energy efficiency in the
existing housing stock. Options were provided to accommodate different types of
construction while honoring council's interest in addressing the size and energy
efficiency of large additions. Consistent reports of the HERS program being difficult and
costly to apply to multifamily and multi-use types of projects led to the development of a
Green Building and Green Points (GBGP) amendment that allows multifamily projects to
Ac:rtii~A rrk.Nt # racE ~
show energy code compliance through the energy code and use of the Department of
)energy (DOE) KesCheck and ComCheck energy code compliance programs.
Methodology similar to the LEED program was incorporated to answer the concern about
how to apply the above-code energy efficiency requirement to core and shell
construction.
City staff has also been participating in the Boulder County Consortium of Cities
Commercial Codes group. The process is moving forward in a parallel path with the city
of Boulder new commercial construction proposal. The Commercial Codes group has
identified energy efficiency as its primary focus while working to address other relevant
green building elements. The group has identified an energy efficiency increase of 34
percent for new construction using the baseline energy standard of ASHRAE 90.1-2004.
An update on the Boulder Cvunty BuildSmart Program is provided in the next section of
this memorandum.
SACKGRQUND:
Boulder periodically updates its construction codes. These types of projects are
undertaken in a coordinated and integrated manner in order to maintain a practical
balance between safety and costs, in order to protect life and property while advancing
green building objectives pertaining to sustainable development.
Building Regulations and Climate Action Plan Goals
The city has adopted the Kyotv Protocol goal to reduce carbon emissions seven percent
below 19901evels by 2012. It is staff s intent to open the discussion with City Counci] on
goals beyond 2012, which will assist staff in understanding what the next phase is in
relation to reducing energy use and carbon emissions. More aggressive greenhouse gas
goals are being developed by industry and stakeholder groups across the country
identifying the next step in creating a sustainable energy future. In order to align code
adoptions with CAP priorities, the proposed plan outlines a path to achieve eventual
carbon neutrality in buildings by 2030. Details of the plan are outlined in the July 24,
2008 Weekly lrrformatiori Packet item:
http://www.bouldercolorado.eov/files/Cit /o20Council/~VIPS/2008/07-24-
08/item 2d~df A summary of the plan highlighting potential changes to building
regulations (froth 2008 - 2030) is provided as Attachment F.
Council Feedback
At the Jan. 25, 2008 City Council retreat, council members identified goals including
enhancing the energy performance of new commercial construction in the short teen and
developing a comprehensive commercial code by year end.
On April 8, 2008, a City Council study session was held on the CAP. Strategies to
reduce greenhouse gas (G11G) emissions were discussed. Council generally supported the
development and implementation of a commercial green building program and
acknowledged the importance of implementing an above-code energy efficiency
requirement. Council acknowledged that any commercial code should consider ftrture
AGI~.~t~A I1'Ei1•I ~-~~1 PAC~I; 7
IF,CG updates and that work should be carefully coordinated with local developers,
building professionals and staff. Council urged caution and sensitivity in developing a
commercial Green building Code that might impact the business community or economic
vitality. Council expressed a desire to include requirements for energy efficiency for
residential remodels and additions in the Green Building Code. The summary of the
April 8, 2008 study session was accepted by the City Council on May 20, 2008.
Energy Code Adoption
The 2006 IECC became effective Jan. 2, 2008 for commercial projects constructed
within the city of Boulder. The 2006 IECC simplified the methods for designing projects
but did not substantively enhance the overall energy efficiency requirements for
commercial and industrial buildings from the previous code.
Green Building and Green Points Code Changes
Additional code changes were implemented Feb. 1, ?008 for residential construction
when the updated Green Building and Green Points (GBGP) program became effective.
Depending on the square footage of a residential structure, the percentage above the
currently adopted 2006 IECC varies from a minimum of 30 to a maximum of 75 percent.
While the GBGP is a residential program, the residential portions of mixed-use
developments have also been required to attain energy efficiency cvmplianee 30 percent
above the baseline 2006 IECC.
The Green Points component remains similar to the prior program requiring a specific
amount of points (determined by project type and size) that are obtained by choosing
green point options outlined in a menu of green practices, technologies and products in
the Green Points Guidelines booklet.
Since a si~zificant portion of development activity in Boulder involves residential
remodels and additions, as part of the 2007 Green Points adoption process, council
requested that staff evaluate an amendment to the Green Building Codes to respond to the
concern that some threshold of additions and remodels should be evaluated as new
construction for the purpose of applying energy efficiency requirements. In this
evaluation, staff was also directed to review the Boulder County threshold for new
construction.
Council requested that the ordinance be scheduled for the Nvv. 13, 2007 meeting as a
public hearing and frst reading. Green Building Green Points (GBGP), Ordinance #7570
(2007) was considered at the council first reading, but concerns about potential
unintended consequences, such as encouraging more existing building demolition,
resulted in direction to staff to evaluate alternative approaches and bring them back to
council at a later date. Ordinance: 7570 is included as Attachment E.
Boulder County BuildSmart Program
Boulder County developed the BuildSmart prolnam during 2007 and implemented it on
May 1, 2008. "['he BuildSmart prograni establishes three categories of additions and
remodels, which are minor, moderate and rnujor. Like the city's GBGP program,
AGENDA ITEM # ~ PAGF, 8
BuildSmart requires the use of the HERS index score to project and measure the energy
efficiency of new residential constnuction and moderate and major renovation. HIRS
index scores from zero to I00 are used for new construction built to be energy code
complaint. A score of 100 represents a house built to the IECC. A house scoring higher
than 100 does not meet IECC standards. A score below 100 indicates an above code
efficiency level. As an example, ENERGY STAR certified homes must achieve an 85-80
HERS score which indicates 15-20 percent more efficient than the IECC. The lower the
HERS score the closer the house is to being a net zero energy or carbon neutral building.
The BuildStnart minor category is described as an addition limited to 500 square feet.
The minor category does not require a I-IERS, but does require an energy audit. The
energy efficiency requirements are accord?ng to the baseline energy code requirements
referenced in chapter 11 of the International Residential Code (IRC).
The moderate category is described as an addition of greater than 500 square feet and is
limited to a total area of the existing stnucture plus the proposed addition of 3,000 square
feet. A HERS score of 85 is required to show energy efficiency compliance.
The major category is described as an additio»/remodel of greater than 500 square feet,
which results in a total area of the existing structure plus the proposed addition of 3,001
square feet or more. Depending on the total size of the building the HERS score required
varies from 40 to less than 10.
Since its implementation in May, experiences with the program have highlighted the need
for changes in order to clarify requirements. The program changes adopted by Boulder
County on Sept. 30, 2008 are summarised in Attachment H.
PROPOSED AMMEND~IEN'I'S AND ANALYSIS:
Commercial Energy Code Amendments
In response to council's direction to develop an above-code program for commercial
construction energy efficiency, staff has been researching the requirements of other cities
that are also actively developing sustainable building regulations such as Portland, Ore.;
Chicago, Ill.; San Francisco, Calif.; anal Albuquerque, N.M. Standards such as
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (1,EF.D), Green Globes, and the United
Kingdom's program BREEAM (an environmental assessment method) were also
considered in concert with the Boulder County Consortium of Cities' development of a
green building code, which is meant to facilitate the consistent adoption of green building
requirements for Boulder County jurisdictions.
Staff has developed the code language required to amend the 2006 IECC to meet a 30
percent commercial energy improvement (Attachment A}. If adopted, the commercial
components of the typical mixed-use development will attain a level of energy efficiency
compliance 30 percent above the IECC. Attaining this .level of efficiency will eliminate
the current discrepancy that exists between the energy efficiency required for commercial
and residential occupancies in mixed-use buildings. The 30 percent above-code energy
AGENDA ITEM tl`-~'`~ PAGE 9
efficiency requirement is also consistent with most of the above-code development to
date.
An important consideration for developing an above-code program is establishing a
consistent baseline reference. Most of the above-code energy efficiency standards that
have been developed reference the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1-2004. This is also the design standard
referenced by the 2006 IECC. When a percentage above code is referenced through the
rest of this document, the baseline considered is ASI-IIZAE 90.1-2004.
The research done by staff suggests that compliance with the commercia130 percent
above-code energy efficiency level can be attained through the criteria detailed in
Chapter 5 of the 20061ECC which includes:
1. ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1, Encrgy Standard for Buildin 7s~, Except for
Lo_w-fZise Residential Buildings.
2. United States Department of Energy, building energy requirements calculated
through the ComCheck computerized design program, most current version,
www.doe. gov.
3. Staff would also accept alternate design methods that could detai130 percent
better than code such as ASHRAE standard 189.1. and the ASHRAE
Advanced Energy Design Guides.
Staff also recommends that commercial buildings over 20,000 square feet be xequired to
provide energy modeling analysis verifying 3t) percent above-code compliance. F,nergy
modeling is also a feature of the above-code program developed by Albuquerque, N.M.
for buildings that are over 20,000 square feet.
For above-code energy efficiency compliance for core and shell types of development,
the proposed program allows the above-code energy efficiency requirement to be shared
between the core and shell and tenant finish portions of the project. For example, if a
new core and shell building was proposed, the core and shell portion of the structure
would he required to show energy efficiency improvement of 20 percent more than the
base energy code. 'I1ie tenant f Wish applicant would then be required to show
compliance with the remaining above-code energy efficiency requirement (10 percent).
Due to the various uses that must be accommodated within core and shell types of
projects, the proposed requirements will allow the applicant to propose alternate
percentages, which must be justified through written documentation.
The application of above-code energy efficiency requirements would also apply to
commercial additions and remodels. The affected portions of altered existing
construction must conform to the new requirements. However, unaltered portions of the
existing building or building systems are not required to meet new code requirements.
Staff s proposed above-code energy efficiency requirements are crafted to allow
maximum design flexibility. l~or the larger construction projects, greater than 20,000
AGENDA 1'1'H;M ~ PAGE 10
square feet, the modeling performance path allows for the widest range of design
parameters and is the methodology used to verify compliance for federal tax credits and
local utility incentive programs. The performance path of energy code compliance
involves computer aided analysis of all of the building features which affect energy
efficiency, including building orientation, day lighting and more sophisticated lighting
and mechanical control systems.
Projects less than 20,000 square feet can choose between performance or prescriptive
paths of energy code compliance. The prescriptive path is sometimes referred to as a
"cookbook" approach to code compliance since code compliance is attained by following
a list of building component requirements that are not unlike a recipe. For exaanple, the
ASHKAE "Advanced Energy Design Guide" provides a set of building component
requu•ements which can be followed to attain 30 percent energy efficiency improvements
for Boulder's climate zone. An effort was made to make the amendments require higher
energy efficiency without limiting the method for showing compliance.
Currently, there is a lot of development work being done for how to attain greater
efficiencies. As new programs become available, the code language allows for
consideration of these programs based on an analysis of meeting the performance criteria.
Currently the list of programs for showing energy code compliance include: ASI-IRAE
90.1, the final version of ASHRAE 189.1, ASHRAE Advanced Energy Design (tlu-ee
modules), or LEED certification.
While the proposed commercial energy efficiency requirements do not mandate LEED
certification like the recently adopted San rranciscv program, the energy efficiency
portion of the LEED certification can be used to provide energy compliance
documentation for the proposed city of Boulder commercial energy efficiency
requirements.
An alternate proposal was presented to the council from Iocal stakeholders that suggested
adopting ASHRAE 189, ] (206 pages long, including 20 pages of amendments) as part of
the city ofBoulder commercial Green Building Code. This standard has just come out of
a second public comment period and will not be ready for adoption until early 2009. Staff
will include the review of this document in the 20091ECC review and adoption process.
When this design standard is completed by ASHRAE, it could be used as an alternate
desigm acceptable tlu-ough the adoption of the 2006 IECC 30 percent above-code
program.
1 The cost of attainin 30 r n -
g pe ce t above code energy compliance is on the order of two to
four percent ($3 to $5/per square foot) for standard construction, according to Green
Building Costs and Financial t3enerts by Gregory I-I. Kats, which is similar to the costs
identified by local developers and designers. Kats' publication also notes that some cities
including Seattle, Wash. experienced a decrease in "green" construction costs overtime as
design-?ers and developers gained experience with the concepts and techniques required to
attain higher energy efficiency Levels.
AGENDA ITEM # PAGE ll
Another factor related to the cost of green building is the cost of building to higher
standards within the city as compared to development in neighboring communities.
Work by the Boulder County Green Building Consortium and the Front Range Green
Building group will eventually create more consistency in the Level of energy efficiency
attained for the region since both groups are considering the use of an energy standard
that features energy efficiency 30 percent above the current energy code.
IVlunicipalities across the country are implementing above-code programs to address
energy use, carbon emissions and sustainability goals. Advancing energy efficiency in the
conunercial sector is necessary for reaching the city's CAP goals. A 30 percent increase
in energy efficiency has established merit with industry groups, such as the American
Institute of Architects, ASHRAE, the Department of Energy and other building industry
stakeholders, and this efficiency level can be achieved with today's technologies and
products. The cost benefit of this regulatory approach is $5.80 ui energy savings per
square foot considered for a total 20-year benefit according to Kats' analysis.
Green Building and Green Points Program changes involving Residential Remodels
and Additions
In order to address council's request to develop thresholds and criteria for applying new
constriction requirements to large-scale additions and/or remodels without increasing
incentives for demolition of existing housing, several new features are proposed for
remodels and additions within the GBGP.
These features include tiered above-code energy efficiency requirements, air sealing
requirements, and criteria for determining when the scale of an addition warrants energy
efficiency compliance as new construction. (Attachment B)
Currently, remodels and additions over 500 square feet are required to receive an energy
audit, install efficient lighting into the existing structure and select Green Points options
to satisfy the point requirements determined by the type and size of the project. The
proposed amendments feature tiered above-code requirements based on the size of the
building.
Remodels and/or additions that result in a total conditioned space of 3;000 square feet or
less would require addition-only energy efficiency to be 15 percent more efficient than
code or to have a HERS of 100 or less for the entire structure.
Remodels and/or additions that result in a total conditioned area between 3,001 and 5,000
square feet would require addition-only energy efficiency to be 30 percent more efficient
than the 2006 IECC or to have a HEKS of 85 for the entire structure.
Remodels and/or additions that result in a total conditioned area of 5,001 square feet or
more require addition-only energy efficiency to be 50 percent better than the 2006 IECC
or to have a HERS of 70 for the entire structure.
AGENDA 1TE1~1 # ~I~ PAGF, 12
New Air Sealing Requirement
During the public input process, the importance of air-sealing existing construction was
emphasized by energy raters and building professionals. Adding air sealing is a low-cost
item that can. reduce energy loss. If an applicant proposes to show compliance through
the HERS process, air sealing is already addressed. However, if the applicant chooses to
show energy efficiency compliance for the addition only, the compliance method will
need to demonstrate that infiltration in the existing structure is reduced. Staff has
propvsed an amendment to the (mandatory requirement) energy audit section of the
Green Building and Green Points (GBUP) program that requires air sealing to be
perfornled and verified thrvugh a separate blower door test at the end of the project. As
noted earlier in this memorandum, as a result of feedback from Planning Board, staff
contacted local HERS raters for input on what would be an acceptable level of air leakage
for existing construction and reached a consensus of .S air changes per hour for buildings
that have an initial air exchange rate of one NACH or less. For homes that exceed one
NACH, the energy rating consultants recommend requiring the air Leakage to be reduced
by half. These standards are reflected in the proposed code language.
Criteria for When to Regulate Additions as New Construction
Another concern identified by council and at the public input meetings relates to
establishing criteria for when an addition is so large in relation to the existing stnlchire
that new construction requirements should be met for the project. This code requirement
references conditioned areas and spaces, which is defined in the building and energy
codes as spaces and areas that are heated and/or cooled. In order to provide the most
equity, different percentages of existing conditioned floor areas were developed for the
new construction square footage tiers already established in the GBGP program. For
projects that are 3,000 square feet or less, the addition category is limited to increases
equal to 100 percent of the existing conditioned area. A building permit applicant
proposing to construct an addition greater than 100 percent of the existing conditioned
area wvu]d he required to meet the stricter requirements for new construction. For
projects that are between 3,001 and S,UOU square feet, the addition category is limited to
SO percent of the existing conditioned area. Projects larger than 5,000 square feet have an
addition category lunit of 25 percent. Projects proposed that are greater than the addition
limit are allowed, but must meet the code requirements for new construction.
F,xemption from Energy Efficiency Requirements Added
Staff is proposing an exemption to the energy efficiency requirements for remodels in
situations where the building components that separate heated or conditioned space from
unconditicmed space are not affected. For example, if an applicant proposed to remodel
their kitchen without affecting the outside walls, eeiIing or windows, the work proposed
would not affect any energy efficiency related components of the structure and energy
eflciency requirements would not apply.
Additional Compliance Method Added for 1V~ultifanzily Projects
For the reasons discussed in the public feedback section of this memorandum, an
additional energy compliance method is propvsed for multifamily projects. Past
experience reviewing Department of Energy (DUF.,) program compliance forms indicate
AGENDA ITEM # ~ PAGF, 13
that the GBGP requirements are not easily met without complications. This resulted in
the development of a GBGP amendment that allows multifamily projects to show energy
code compliance through the DOE ResCheck and ComCheck energy code compliance
programs.
Other Revisions
The application of the GBUP point regulations during 2008 has hig}?lighted where minor
language changes are warranted for further clarification. Those minor revisions are
summarized below.
10-7.5-2 (a) (2)
Clarification language was added to section 10-7.5-2 (2) that explains that multiple
applications within a 12-month period are considered a single application in regard to
meeting both the Mandatory Green Building and Resource Conservation Green Points
requirements. This section is meant to prevent the avoidance ofprogra.m requirements by
making several "below threshold" applications within a short timeframe.
10-7.5-3 (h)
In response to public convnent received at the previous meeting, a direct vent boiler
section was added under the mandatory requirements. Direct vent appliances use two
plastic pipes. Similar to the direct vent furnace requirement, when a new boiler is
required in relation to an addition or remodel, the boiler must be replaced with a direct
vent model that has a minimum efficiency of 85 percent AFUE. The efficiency rating for
boilers is five percent lower than furnaces because of the limited availability of boilers at
greater than 90 percent efficiency. The new mandatory direct vent boiler requirement
matches the Energy Star boiler program, which means that the Energy Star boiler point
allowance under the Green Point section has been deleted (under 10-7.5-4) to eliminate
duplication of this requirement.
lU-7.5-4 (a)
Language was added to the schedule far Green Points to indicate that an applicant
proposing to increase the floor area of the existing building shall be required to earn the
amount of green paints required for the new construction of a new dwelling of the same
size of the existing dwelling.
10-7.5-4 (e) (2) (A)
The maximum window u-value allowed has been reduced from 0.35 to 0.34 in response
to public comments. A concern was raised because the Green Points window
requirements were not more restrictive than the base International Energy Conservation
Cade (IF,CC) baseline requirements. The value was adjusted to .34 on the basis that it is
more restrictive than the baseline I1CC requirement, but still allows for maximum
flexibility in regard to the types of wi~2daws that can be used within the program.
10-7.5-7 Definitions
A definition for demolition and demolish was added. The language is coordinated with
Land tJse definitions in order to make the requirements as consistent as possible between
the various city regulations.
AC;,ENDA ITF,M # PAGE l4
Environmentally Preferable Products Chart
The foundation aggregate line of the table was deleted since all concrete is made from
aggregate that is not hauled more than 500 miles. In order to maximize the effectiveness
of the program, Green Points are not awarded for standard construction practices.
Residential. Amendments Summary
"The proposal improves energy efficiency requirements for additions and remodels
without incorporating issues related to having a mandatory HERS requirement for
existing construction conditions and possibly increasing the incentive to demolish
existing houses. Whether the applicant chooses to go through the TIERS process or an
energy audit, information is provided for how to improve the performance of the existing
structure. By incorporating compliance paths featuring the DOE's ResCheck (residential
computerized design program) and TIERS, higher efficiency is attained and enough
flexibility is provided to make the requirements more easily applied to a wide range of
existing construction.
Maintaining the character of existing neighborhoods, conserving embodied energy and
attaining higher energy efficiency levels are often conflicting issues. 'T'he changes
proposed arc an attempt to strike an optimum compromise between them.
Cost information from two Boulder home examples involving additions has been
provided by Lightly Treading, a HERS rating and modeling company and Melton
Construction in order to quantify ecvnomie impacts. An analysis of costs for the two case
studies are provided in Attachment G. These houses had energy modeling and HERS
index scores. One .had actual retrofits completed while the other serves as a hypothetical
model to illustrate the impacts of energy efficiency improvements. The per square foot
costs of the energy efficiency improvements of just the structure without windows of the
demonstration house in Attachment is $3.57/Sla. The costs go up sharply from that
level as windows and mechanical equipment are added into the equation.
Additionally, data is included from the contest-winning Boulder "makeover" house
located at 1102 Portland Way, along with the contest runner-up at 2871 LaGrange Circle.
These homes are, respectively, examples of a turn of the century small brick home and a
typical framed house built in 1967. 'I91e range of investment needed to meet or exceed
current energy code requirements (HERS 100 or lower) is $50,000 to $100,000. The
addition of renewable energy systems is needed to achieve the lowest new home
construction requirement of a HERS 35 for houses larger than S,OOI sq. ft.
The reports are thorough and include upgrades of the mechanical systems, such as the
1102 Portland inclusion of a new boiler, tankless water heater, and air conditioning
system. As the costs of these reports are reviewed, it is important to consider all of the
upgrades included may not be necessary to attain the code compliance described by the
code amendments proposed at this time.
AGh:NDA ITEM ~j PAGE 15
International Building Code Administrative Changes
The administrative changes to the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) are related to
removing an amendment that repealed the requirement for construction progress
inspections at six-month intervals to avoid having the building permit lapse (Attachment
C). Enforcement issues experienced since the amendment went into place has led to this
change back to standard code language.
Another administrative 2006 IBC change relates to how t1~e time is measured far when a
building permit application expires. The current code amendment for permit application
expiration requires that the time be measured from when the application is received and
approved for review. This means that the time spent in city review counts against the
time Limit for keeping a permit application active. The proposed amendment does not
start measuring the time allowed for maintaining a permit's active status until the review
comment letter is generated.
National Electrical Code Adoption
The 2008 National Electrical Code (NEC) is also being proposed to the City Council for
adoption. The state adopted this newest version of the electrical code a couple of months
ago. Some of the more notable changes include:
1) A clarification that Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters (GFCI} are required for
commercial kitchen and outdoor locations (NEC art. 21 U.7).
2) A requirement for all residential circuits to be protected by Arc Fault Circuit
lnterruptcrs (AFCI). The previous electrical code only required this level of
protection for bedroom circuits (NEC 210.12).
3} Anew table has been developed for addressing the concerns of heat for
conductors that are routed over roofs (Iv'EC art. 310.15 (B) 2 and Table 310.15
(B} (2}.
4) Anew requirement for tamper-proof receptacles has been added for residential
occupancies (NEC 406.1 1).
In addition, amendments in the previously adopted NEC related to expanding the use of
NM cable (romex) into larger structures is not proposed to be carried over into the new
code adoption in order to meet minimum state of Colorado Electrical Board requirements
(Attachment D).
NEXT STEPS:
The City Council second reading is scheduled for Nov. 10, 2008. As noted, these
proposed code changes are planned for implementation during the first quarter of 2009.
In June 2009, staff will begin the adoption process for several model codes that will be
published by the International Code Council (ICC) and will also be reviewing the GBGP
program. An ICCiNational Association of Home Builders Green Building Code is under
development, scheduled to be published in 2009 and maybe an appropriate code to
consider as an alternative to the current GBGP regulations. Staff will also be reviewing
the commercial energy efficiency requirements as part of the 2009 code review process
acYr,Nnn zT>Jm rnc;t; t~
for new core and shell buildings, tenant finishes and additions. The codes slated for
possible adoption in 2009 are outlined in Attachment I+.
Approved By: y~
;lane S. Brautigam, '
City Manager
ATTACEIR'IENTS:
Attachment A. Ordinance amending Section 10-7, "Energy Conservation and
Insulation Code" by Adding an Additional Energy Efficiency Requirement for
Conunercial Buildings, and setting forth related details.
Attachment B. Ordinance amending Chapter 10-7.5, Green Building and Green
Points Program," B.R.C. 1981 Adding Requirements Rclatcd to Cnergy Eff cicncy
Thresholds for Remodels and Additions, Demolition, Boilers, and ~~Vindows; and
setting forth related details.
Attachment C. Ordinance amending Chapter 10-5, "Building Code," B.R.C. 1981, to
Adopt Minor Changes to the International Building Code Related to the Expiration of
Permits and setting forth related details, and
Attachment D. Ordinance amending Chapter 10-6, "Electrical Cade," B.R.C. 1981
Adopting by Reference the 2006 International Electrical Cade" with Local
.Amendments and setting forth related details.
Attachment E. Ordinance #7570 (2007)
Attachment F. 2008 - 2030 Proposed Green Building Code Adoption Schedule
Attachment G. Lightly '1'rcading Residential projected Energy Rating Report &
Arclutcctural Energy Corporation Co~nrnercial Energy Research
Attachment H. Boulder County, Sept. 2008 Summary of BuildSrnart Changes
AGF.IVDA 1Tl~,ib'I # PAGE 17
TH[S PAGE LEF'T' INTENTIONALLY BLANK
AC;T;NDA ITFiVI # \ I'AG:F, 18
Attachment A
ORDINANCE NO. _ _
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10-7, "ENERGY
CONSERVATION AND INSULATION CODE," B.R.C. 1981
BY ADDING AN ADDI"I'IONAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY
REQUIREMENT FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, AND
SETTING 1~ORTH RELATED DETAILS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section I. Section 1U-7-2, "Energy Conservation Code," B.R.C. 1981 is amended by the
addition of a new subsection IU-7-2(h} to read:
~~ction
SOl 1 is ren~led and reenacted to reed:
Section 501.1
7'}ic rccLrcments contained in this ch~~ter ~Yrc
~~3~licuhlc ~cl-ncw_c~mr~icrcial )ziiildngti_~ind
<idditio~t~tq or remodels cif co»>m.crcial buildin ~s. C~miner~i~il build?i~s ~hall_cx~cc41 the
~»cr ~,~cfiicicn~ re; tuircments ~f i\~l_I~ZAE/fESN~\ Standard 90.1 _!~):c~,~~ Stcr~t~la~_rl~ir
13trilrli~t~F,xc_crht a• I.o~_v_-Rise !l~_s•iclerr(icrl 13uiltli~r s hip al !cost ~0% or other a~I
i_cwcd
ee~uivalent design criteria.
501 1 1 Alternative approaches for compliance
"I'hc_fc~ll~«rin~methcxlstfcc2~ni~liai~ce may_Uc_used_in_nl~ce_~~I_tl~c~~hrs~<<c;Ji c(cticrhed in
section SO1.1 above:
1_:=(3uild.ii~s of?Q,OO~_Sduarc_l'cct car Icss »>~iy.hcdcs-i~»edti~ a pre~cr~~tiye st~tnda?_d as
4letailcdl-n_I~ll-C Chal?ILP l)1_lJll'Oll~~l_Uth_~ I11L7SU1'CS lhill_I'C\UIt In__il_~)lll~~lll~ lJlilt_I1 ~~l Ic~is~
30% mare ene~gyy e ficient than the 2006 IECC.
?F Commercial cc~r~ and_sl ell__buildi.i~~~ that have_70_herccnt c2i_Icss tinished_ilo~7rana ma~~
divide the 30 hcrccnl-~not•s~'tici~ncy_r_cyuircment_Uctwecn.thc cone titld_~hell_huilding
~l_cai~n_ and the tuturu_ intcric~r tc:n_~i~lt tiitish dcsi >?g_i. `I'fi~~ ~ncr~~.Y ~ffi~ie~icv sa~~in~s
K Iplbi''o-~rueud IU-? cur;rgy.:u:~scrv<,.iun cede- 1'r!)~.luc Agenda Item ><{y ha~C t ~
I~c~cci~ta~es assi~cl to eac ~_elcmcnt of'tlie~~~~lclii~liall be cietii~n~ile~l ~it_t:h~_tit~~c ~f tl~e
submittal of the buildin~_p~rmit for the core and shell_~eri~nt_
3. The construction documents for rem~deli~~ an existing commercial envelot~
mechanical, and 1it;htii~~stems shall demonstrate cc~nihlian~c_>vitlt this section in unc
of the followin ways described below. The constniction documents shall include
comnliance documentation that d~rrtonstrates that:
Aa _Thc altcrGd building area r ~yste:ms wil~nect the re~uircmcnts of section SUG, "Total
13uildi~ ~ f crt~~r,na~ic;c"200~I~C~C~ the resultiii ~ c~n~pli_ance pacl:a~e shows an
~Itcred_buildin -area ar ~stcii~ th~.1 i.~_30J~ercet~t_»>~re.ene;rby_efic:i_~ni. thstn the 20QG
B. 7'hc remodca area will meet an ap~wc 1 •et of ~eLcripti_~~c_rectuiremLnts tl)a~~e; at
least_3O t~crce~it more a 'tici_ent than the 2OU(~
lt~~C. An ahpli~ant ma use 1 e
X151-iRAf~ nclvancccl_
Enemy Des~n Guicle~~r suc11 pres4?._ipfiyc~ rcctuircme ~ s,-sj
auivalent method that is a oved bY_t~e cit mana~~r for
C.
1`_~c remodel at~ea mccts_ tha 20QG [ECC'
rcduircmen s~111C1 IS Jlll)1111~tcC1 1 I1h111_C11C1'~y
ef~cieitc:y_inip.lc;mci~tatic>i~_ ~lan_~rchar~;d b~~n li~cn~ed archite~t_~r_re ~isiered
I~r~t_cssi~i~al cp~inecr which ~lzr«~~hgw t.~is_l~rt~t~~sed w~t•k will contribute t ~tture
ener effici_c~~c}~ im)~rcrvcmenls to brii~~_the.
huildi,it~_~~..
3(~crcent ~th~v~t}~~ ?~.t OC
II:CC.
Section 2. '1"his ordinance shall be effective at 12:01 a.m. on March 2, 2009. It shall be
applied to building permit applications submitted after the effective date. Building permits
applied for before the effective date shall be considered under the program in effect at the time of
application.
K:`.ptbilu-:uncn~ ' energy conscrvat~on code- 17'i doe Agenda Item ~ Page
Section 3. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of
the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
Section 4. The council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only
and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public
inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST' READII~'G, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY this 2l st day of October 2008
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED BY TITLh ONLY this 12`h day of November 2008.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
K:lplbiln-amend 10-7 energy conservation code- 179.doc Agenda Item # ~ Page ~ I
Attachment B
ORDINANCC NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10-7.5, "GREEN
BUILDING AND GREEN POINTS PROGRAM;' B.R.C. 1981
ADDING REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO ENERGY
EFIµ'ICIENCY `['HRESIIOLDS FOR REMODELS AND
ADDITIONS, DEMOLITION, BOILERS AND WINDOWS;
AND SET"PING FORTH RELATED DETAILS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THF. CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section 1. Paragraph 10-7.5-2 (a)(2), B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
10-7.5-Z Scope and Administration.
(a) Scope. The provisions of this chapter apply to the following:
(I) New construction, remodels, or additions to a dwelling, including without
limitation single-unit dwellings, multi~ulit dwellings, and dwellings within mixed
use developments.
(2) Any two or more building permits for the same structure that are applied for in
any 12 month period shall be considered as one application for the purpose of
c-~c~~+l~t-itt~
gtee~~-}~i~-s-mcctin~tli_ r~~uircrnen4s c~f'S~ctic?ns_1()-7.5-3~
`~%~rut~121101'~1_Cl;.n_13~111d111;~Rc~uire;n~ents~u 10- S_-4t"Rc~~urcc C_onsei•~~aticm_-
Green Points;'B.R.C. 1981.
Section 2. Subsection l U-7.5-3, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
10-7.5-3 Mandatory Green Building Requirements.
(a) Energy Efficiency -New Dwcllin . units. An applicant far a building permit for each
new dwelling shall demonstrate that the building is more energy efficient than a building
that meets the minimum requirements of Chapter 10-7, "International Energy
Conservation and Insulation Code;' B.R.C. 1981. Table I lists the minimum energy
efficiency requirements.
K:1p16i~0-alr additions and rcinodcla 10 I4 2008-179 dnc Agenda Item # ~ Page ~ `
TABLE 1~ -Tiers for Energy Efficiency Thresholds
~ Type of Project ~ Square Footage ! Energy F,fficiency Thresholds Above Code
j New Construction ~ Up to 3,000 ~ 30 percent more energy efficient than 2006 IECC
3,001-5,000 SO percent more energy efficient than 2006 IECC '
5,001 and up + 75 percent more energy efficient than ?.U06 IECC
Multi-Unit Dwellings jApplies to all ~30 percent more energy efficient than 2006 IF,t;C* f
-~+1~~-~~i1~-1»~~i::-~~#re~+:red-E~c~e~la~~-~lsl~,~tittg-saai~4ir~-~r~tecet-~r-I~e~t~-:~weE#tjc~~-t~~-et~re
ce~a)phase-wtt#3 N}~s-pest-sex-
I(~= Tl~re~hc~lds ~o_~~h~li~~iti~n cif'New_Con~~ructiQn_~t~tnd~trds tc~ Entrc_I3uil41in~as.t_h~
Result ~f an Qdditic~)n. And addition
which exceeds th_e thresholds described below will
~luire thatt the conditioned space of• he cztire building h~l~rridc:d_lo meet new
~~truc 'on_sl~nciarcis for clie;t_t;y_efftcienc~_~Subscct~n 1.0-7,5-3 ~i , I3
_!Z_C= 19Y 1=
(L~_=i'hc_addition is 1_UU~crcent cc)r lc5s than_thc COltditioncd s~ce
~~.~th~xitin~
structure and will !rave a total conditioned ~tre~l 41Rcr thcslsi ii~t>n_t~>_thc dwclli.ng
unit that is un to 3.000 sa. ft in size.
The_uidition i~_ ~0_n~•ceill
~-.lcss than.thc cLSli i )ncd_~~cc o:f th~_cxstn~;
structure and will have <i total u~clitiQied area alicr the riddition to the dwelling
- - -
unit that_s~roni 3,OQ_I_ to..50Qo SU. ft in size.
(3) "bite a ldition is 25 nerecnt or Icss than the cc~ndilion~d space of the existing
struchire and will have a total conditioned area after_the addition_to tl~e dwelling
unt~hut is_~r 5001_sg. ft in size.
.~c~_ Lnerf;y_I~;J_iiciel~c;y~_~~dditio>is_alid_Reittr)d~l~,_ ~\tl_ appli_cal~t_f~ir t+ huilcl_int;-hc;rmil 1'c~r u
-
~crt?odel_~r an:l~ti_Q.n_tc~_~? dwellin~;,tfu~l cf~e~ ncrt_,~~c;ecd the ihreshc~ldti in_titih~ectictn _ h~
above shall demonstrate that it meets the_ encr~y efficiency requirements of this section.
/•1 b
i~ding_perltiit for_al~
ac~itic~n tt? or ri
rcm_adcl__a__f ai_~wcllii~r~tl_~i~ s1ial~incct~c~nc; ~~I'thc
followSn~ stanclards~
_ Requirement if uLgrading rite energy ei~I1Cl.Ct1C}! Of_lI1C C1111rC Stl'uCt_L_II'L. _I~hf:
)IIGiUtt !i]CIY CIi'mOllStl'ilt(; t{lill IitC Ciltll'C blllldllt~~ meets the FI IRS requirements
that are described in Table 1 B below: or
Itc~uir~me:nl I~r the ncw_atlditioi ~r the._tirea_of_th~_hause thlt_is s4ihject_lc~
remc)del. 1'he annlicant may_demonstrate that the a_d_diti_t~n or the arez of the
b ril il~g.tttl)'ccl to a re;D~cuiel tne~;ts_files r~ctuirctnet_t_cil_ll>_c.IEC('_ liar tlt~ t'c>ttcxlc;l.
K-~~plbil0-alt additions and remodels 10 14 ucls-~ ~4.co~: Agenda Item # PagC _
lea o~cidi_iis~t~ described in Tale 1.13. hel~w. Buildin[~ permits under this
rewire ent shall also meet_the followine:
C:omp1s;~e 1~wcr s~~tcst bcli~re at2Rli~t~ti fc»She [ildin~_2c~nit tg
ct~nri • e w i~is~-t1_t~
l~isiin~ia~ si_fr~shs~~.~irttiltr~tion rate
~f
n~, ing~
then Q.5 n~_ti~s>l_~.f
~~1l~S~UoL1]Q~~N~~~S,S2U132~.RGc ratin~)lf
(J.ILS
~nclard is c~GC_ccicd~h~Rtl~e ;tp~~licant shall meet the rep.~irc~.tent of
Mara _ahF~~_
f li) [n ~ vc, re ~ it an~i_seal the clwcllin~;~it, veri tiecl by•~~,
blower door test and prior to a certificate c~F~c•c~t~;a.~~~r con ction that
demonsU•atcs that;
for huilclin~tLat haci an air itifiltCtlLiS?tLC~~c of 1.0 Nn~I-l~lllcn~li~
builc~in~; sh~til iI_IVC a NACH 50 percent or less than the original
blower door test,
ii gall other buildins;~, t i ~ iildins~ has an air~nfi.~~ratian rate of not
grcatc;r than 0.5 ~IACI l com li_aI14c ratii?~•
~I3L ~~13-ER~rpy_Eff
cL__
ency Tltre:sl~olds for Remode~s_a~ Additions
'T'otal C~nditicmed Area HE13S_Ra~ Increase efficiency above th_c
1 EC_C
Up tc~ 3.000 100_ 1 percent
?001-5 OQ=9 5` 3Q~ercent
5001 and_>.~p 70 SQ~.e_rce»t
_ R~»odcls-Li_mt~itic~ns, n
i_ l~c~hat d~cs nol su ~stst~iti_Ftll i_e[ttc~y~
thc_i~t_~is~r
fir 's ~f the thermal c1Y_clc~pe_.,~thc_conditioned_spac~is_,nt?t_rectltir~d tom et hc~
encr~y cfficiencv requirements of
'T'able 1 B;
(ycl) ('c,m,~liance with F,nergy Ef'tic;iency
R~mcn~-~°~'~°,g. A mow-dwelling
thlt: is required 4~_mc;ct the Inc;r~ffic;icl~e~rec~uire_n~ents l~~r new ccrostructi_~n shall
denlc~nstrate that it meets such ~t_inciard hy:
~~llt~ll~reL~~~1~~1-ul_lsinh, the fi~~me Energy Rating ~y,tcm (IIF.RS). Tl~e I Il~;ltS
rating will be used for the verification of energy pcrturmancc of new construction.
A HERS rating shall be pert'onncd by a rater accredited by the Residential Energy
Services ~etw~~rk (RESNE'I~).;
h. ~:!~i ~ _fi ~~i.~.~u~m~ ,,iii ictn;x'.cl; I I i : ~ • ~Lc f~k~i;nll'cl ~tem _ page
(21~ _a~ur multi; dwelling_Lo'ects~~hrs~u~h a HERS rating S~ti~lil~_prot~col authprized
and
ar~provec!_
by
the city m~in~er; or
~~=_1_t~r_n~ulti-dwcllinl; _rc)'cc s _b =
d~mo~t~tratil~ that the energy cfliciencyh~is ben
1c;hi_eve~h!_usi_nt>the methodology in section 4U4,~imulated Performance
~J~~r~atve'ctr sec~isiiLS_OC ' o al I3uil.~~n~['erfonlilned'of the 2_ Q )fi fntentatic~nal
Ener~t~ Conservation Code.
(e~ Energy Audit. An applicant for a building permit for an addition to a dwelling or a
remodel of a dwelling shall be required to obtain an energy audit. The applicant shall
provide proof of the completion of the energy audit with a building permit application.
The energy audit of the house shall quantify the annual energy performance of the
building according to generally ac:eepted standards for energy audits approved by the city
manager. An energy audit or an optional HERS rating report will indicate how efficiently
the building is operating and where inefficiencies are occurring.
(c~~ Lighting Efficiency. Prior to final inspection for an addition to a dwelling or a remodel of
a dwelling the applicant shall install energy efficient lamps (light bulbs) with a luminous
efficacy of 40 lumens per watt or above in at least 50 percent of the existing home's light
fixtures.
(e~ Direct Vent Furnace. When the scope of the work of an addition to a dwelling or a
remodel of a dwelling requires replacement of a furnace, the furnace shall be replaced
with a direct vent unit that has a minimum 90 percent Al<UE.
Dil_cct_Vcl~t_Boil~r._ 4V_hcti_th~
~cc~p~ cif
the work Lf St.»_a~iditi2i~lo a_dwellin~r~r r~
rcmc~dol cr(_~~ dt4ellin~ rec wires renl,ccmcnt of a boiler, the b_oile_r_ahall bu rcpla~~d ~~~ith a
direet_yent uni t at has a minimum 85__pereent AFLiE.
(fi} Construction Waste Recycling. An applicant for a building perntii for a new dwelling or
an addition to a dwelling shall demonstrate that a minimum of 50 percent of construction
waste is recycled. Waste diversion calculations and tracking spreadsheet form must be
provided at project completion which shows that the minimum recycling requirements
have been met. No person shall fail to complete the diversion calculations and tracking
spreadsheet or recycle construction waste as required by this section.
Demolition Management. An applicant proposing to demolish the dwelling,. as that term
is defined in Secti~ri 1()-Z_5-7,"I)ef nilions;'B R_C,~__9g~
shall demonstrate through a deconstruction plan that at least 65 percent of material
by t~~eight from deconstruction of the existing structure, including concrete and asphalt,
will be diverted from the landfill. Verification of deconstruction plan compliance must be
provided prior to final inspection. No person shall fail to follow or otherwise implement
an approved deconstruction plan.
K:\plbi\0-alt additions and remodels 10 14 20(13-179.doc Agenda Item i~~ Page -
Section 3. Subsection 10-7.5-4(a), B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
lU-7.5-4 Resource Conservation -Green Points
(a) Schedule for Green Points. Kesidential building permit applicants are required to earn
green points according to the schedule in Table 2. An applicant prooosine to incr '
fhctr atya.gf~the c:xi_stn~huiJdin~-purs4t~t1~1 to sc~ic~i] 1(1-.7,~-3~(2)~_T1?re~}~.c?1_LSIi?t.
- ~ -
Al~lic~tic~n ot~l~ew (CO.I1St1'L~11QI~__Sti)11CI1I' S t Entire i3lai.lcli~g_a~he_Result of a~
I_~clditi~i_E3,R_ C~_ l_9$ I,_si•~all he rc~~lul[s~
ls_4arn_ t c mc_~_~1.11 _ ~ c ~n paints rcquirc~~d for
ll~~w cons r cti_~tn of•a view ciwclli~i =~~-('__t _c s~a~~si'~c_a_ft~l e exi: t' i = w~l_lin~ with
such addition.
TABLE 2-Green Points Rc~ urements
Project Descriptive Square Footage Green Point
Thresholds Requirementst z
New construction of single unit dwellings 1,501-3,000 20
3,001-5,000 40
5,001 and up 60
Additives to a dwellinb 500- 1,000 15
] ,001- 2,000 20
2,001-3,000 30
3,UU1 and up 45
Interior remodels of a dwelling 500-1,000 ] 0
1, U01-2,000 15
2,001-3,000 2U
3,001 and up 30
Multi-unit llwellurgs: tinal tenant finish 1,001-2,000 10
of a unit in a multiunit dwelling
2,001-3,000 20
3,001 and up 30
Section 4. Subsection 10-7.5-4(ej, B.R.C. 1981, is amended t~~ read:
~>ne green point is awarded for each HLiRS ruing score below the HERS index rating requirement.
' The green point values listed in Subsections 10-7.5-4(e) and (Q only apply to (hose projects that are not required to
have a HF;RS index rating.
' f•ach dwelling in a multi-unit dwelling shall be required t~~ meet the green point requirements separately.
'~,16i1,U-.ilt ad~ifti.~ns and remods~s : (I I ;:U(~I{ ~ i~~~i;nd~l ltem ['&!,C
10-7.5-4 Resource Conservation -Green Points
(e) Energy Efficiency.
(I) Insulation. Points will be awarded according to the following:
(A) Minimum R-19 cavity plus K-5 sheathing wall insulation: 2 points.
(B) Minimum R-49 ceiling: 2 points.
(C) Exterior minimum R-3 0 insulation installed for the full height of a basement
or foundation wall: 2 Points
(D) Insulated Pre-cast Concrete Foundation: 2 points
(E) Insulated Concrete Forms: 2 points
(2) Windows: Up to 10 points. New windows or replacement windows installed as
part of a remodel or an addition. Points will be awarded as follows:
{A) National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC): Up to 5 points. Rated
Window with Maximum CJ Value of'8~-50~ or lower:.5 point for each
window, up to 5 points.
(B) NFRC Rated Window with Maximum Solar Heat Cain Coefficient
(SHG(') of O.S5:.5 point for each window, up to 5 points. Exception:
South facing glass.
(3) Air Sealing of an Existing Building. Points will be awarded when a HERS rating
is applied to the existing structure preconstruction, then a post rating after
construction showing:
(A) Ten percent net increase in initial HERS rating*: 2 points
(B) No net increase in initial HERS rating*: 3 points
(C) Decrease in initial HERS rating*: 5 points
*Because of the variability of existing construction, projecting the final PIERS rating can
be difficult and plaruiing for contingencies if the planned HERS rating is not achieved
should be done.
(4) Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Systems. Points will be
awarded according to the following:
(A) HVAC Commissioning: 3 points. Testing for duct leakage, firing rate, and
refrigerant charge.
K:\plbit0-alt additions and remodels IQ 14 2t~8-179 dux: Agenda Item # ~3K Page
(B) Uround Source Heat Pump: Up to 10 points. Points will be awarded
according to the following:
(i) 30-39% calculations from cheating/cooling load bin analysis: 4 points
(ii) 40-49% calculations from cheating/cooling load bin analysis; 6 points
(iii) 50-59% calculations from a heatii~g/cooling load bin analysis: 8 points
(iv) 60-69% calculations from cheating/cooling load bin analysis: 10
points
(C} Direct Vent Combination Space/Water Heating System: 2 points
~ #-t:.~ ~S ~~1?~ $~i~~
--~nt~
(~D)7,oncd, Hydronic Radiant Heating: 2 points
(FE) Passive Cooling: 2-5 points (one point per item). Paints wiil be awarded
for passive cooling systems using any two or tnorc of the tecrnidues
described below:
(i) Exterior vertical shading devices for east and west facing glass.
(ii) Reflective films or glass on east and west facing windows.
(iii) Radiant, heat-reflective barriers installed in the attic space.
(iv) Landscaping that shades east and west-facing glaring during the
coaling season (June to September}.
(v) South window overhang sized to effectively shade the window during
the cooling season (June to September)
Whole House Fan: 2 points
Evaporative Cooling: 3 points
Section 5. Subsection 10-7.5-4(i), B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
10-7.5-4 Resource Conservation -Green Points
(i) Sustainable Products.
(1} FSC-Certified Tropical Woods or No Tropical Wood: i1p to 6 Points. Points will
be awarded as follows:
(A) 2 BF of FSC lumber per SQ/I~'I' of floor area (2 BF/SQ. FT.): 2 points
{Q) 3 BF of FSC lumber per SQ/FT of floor area (3 BF/SQ. FT.): 4 points
{C) 50% or more of dimensional lumber in total BF is FSC, excluding
engineered wood products: 6 points
Kapibi`O als addihnns and remodels 10 14 200&-179.doc Agenda Item i~3 Page
(2) Environmentally Preferred Materials: iJp to 10 Points. Points will be awarded
environmentally preferred materials as follows:
(A) Recycled content: 2 points
(B) Reclaimed: 2 points
(C) Bio-based: 2 points
(D) Agricultural residue: 2 points
(E) Low or no Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) emissions: 2 points
(3} Locally Sourced 1\laterials: Products that are environmentally preferable and/or
extracted, processed, and manufactured within 500 miles of the city are
considered local. A maximum of 1.5 points can be earned for any single
component listed in the Environmentally Preferable Products Chart regardless of
the amount by which a minimum performance threshold is exceeded. A`Yecyeled
content'produet must contain a minimum of 25%post-consumer recycled content
except as noted otherwise above. Post industrial (pre-consumer) recycled content
is counted at half the rate ofpost-consumer content. Points will be awarded as
shown on the Environmentally Preferable Products Chart below:
L:NVIRONMENTALLY PRF,FERABLE PRODUCTS CHART
Assembly Component Product Specification 'Types (see Note 1)
Specifications Emission Specifications Local
Exterior Framing FSC-certified X
Wall
Exterior Framing Finger- X
Wall jointed studs
(veztical use
only for
structural
components)
Exterior Siding or Recycled X
Wall masonry content or
FSC-certified
K:\plbi\0•altadditionsauJ remodels 10 142008-179.doc Agenda Item ~t~~~ Page
I
Floor Flooring Linoleum, Carpet & pad: comply with Carpet and X
cork, Rug Institute's Green Label Plus Program
bamboo,
FSC-certi fi cd
or reclaimed
wood, sealed
concrete,
recycled-
content
flooring, or
combination
in 45% of
home's floor
area.
Floor Flooring BONUS 1/2 BONUS 1/2 for NO carpet in home
for 90% of
home
Floor Framing FSC-certified X
Pe~ie~ ~?gg~egete ~4
Foundation Cement Fly ash or X
slag as
replacement
for, not
addition to,
cement
content (min.
30%)
Interior Framing FSC-certified X
Wal l
Interior Framing Finger- X
Wall Jointed,
(vertical use
only for
structural
components)
Interior Gypsum Recycled X
Walls board content
AND
ceilings
F. ~Jhi',i%-:~It,idiliciuns~uul rcrm~rlr.~ 1" Id ~ '~~~-17=?dao ngenda IteITI 1'agC
Interior Paint Comply with Green Seal Standard GS-
Walls l 1, Paints, First Edition, May 20, 1993
AND
millwork
Interior Wood VOC concentrations of 150 gpl or less
Walls finishes
AND
millwork
Landscape Decking or Recycled X
patio content or
material FSC-certified
Other Cabinets Recovered, Wood and/or agrifiber products with no X
recycled added urea-formaldehyde resins
content, or
I•'SC-certified
Other Counters Recycled Wood and/or agrifiber products with no
content added urea-formaldehyde resins
Other Doors (not Recycled Wood and/or agrifiber products with no X
incl. content or added urea-formaldehyde resins
garage) PSC-certified
Other Trim Recovered, Wood and/or agrifiber products with no
recycled added urea-formaldehyde resins
content, or
FSC-certified
Other Adhesives VOC concentrations of 70 gpl or less
and
sealants
Other Windows Recycled X
content or
FSC-certified
Roof Framing FSC-certif ed X
Roof Roofing Recycled X
content or
vegetated
(min. 200 sf)
Roof AND Insulation Recycled Comply with Slate of California, DHS, X
floor AND content (min `Practice for Testing of VOCs from
wall 20%) Building Materials using Small
Chambers'
K:\plbi\0-alt additions and remodels 10 ]d 20(18-17y doe Agenda Item # c~,~ Page
Roof, Sheathing Recycled X
floor, wall content or
(2 of 3) FSC-certified
Section G. Section 10-7.5-7, B.R.C. 1981, is amended by a new definition and changes to
other definitions, to read:
10-7.5-7 Definitions.
`Additiorl'An extension ar increase in floor area of a building or stricture of 500 sy. ft. or greater.
itiorl'or"dem~lisH'~near s__ n pct ~~rocess which rcmQvcs nc o~~~r4. cif, ltd
fQllowin~
'I'hc shaded area illustrates the i»axtm~un a_lnc~unt-that may_he re_mo_ve(j without c~~nstilutn~;
demolition.
(a) f?i tt~~erceni~r snore of the r~of•are~as measured in plan vice-y sc~ dia ~ran~)~
t.,
\ \ '
(_t_'-_) f~ifty~~crccn.~~r ?nc~re of thG~x~~i~r_walls of a hitild.ti.~a5_iiict;tiurc:ci
cc>»tic~~ousl arc~uns
'e~c`~uilc.,in~_cover~i;'as defined in this section sec dix~r~~m)~ or
-
. ,
A wall shall meet the following ~j~?imum standards to be considered a retained exterior
wail: - -
'i'lic:_«rall_.~hall_rct>>n siud5 pr other structural clements.~th~
e:rtcric~r wall linish~
and th_c fully lr~u»cd and sh~athedi~c~f rh~~~~c,t)tal Pcy~-~i~_e~f the. ~cros_iitin_g
building to which such wall is attached:
K:iplbiiU-alt adtiitions and -emcdcls 10 14 2003-179.doc Agenda Item ff v? ~ Page
_ ['h~ ~~~_rzll slz<rll nc>t be ccw~rcd_~ir <~lherwisc ccmccalcd_hy_,iw_~lll _tliat_is_pro~c~eed to
- -
b~pla~ed in front of the retained wall ane3
(~~_ac;ltp~r! y_flli4~e:t.iitted exterior wt9l_Is_Shall~i~co~inec~eci cont~~t~usi ~iilcl
without intcrrut~ton to every uther~art of the zc.tained exte~
is?r walls.
`Remodel'means an interior reconfiguration or upgrade of an existing structure of 500 sq.R. or
greater and the work required to complete the reconfiguration or upgrade requires a building
permit.
Section 7. This ordinance shall be effective at 12:01 a.m. on March 2, 2009. It shall be
applied to building permit applications submitted after the effective date. Building permits
applied for before the effective date shall be considered under the program in effect at the time of
application.
Section 8. "Phis ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of
the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
Section 9. 'I`he city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title
only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for
public inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, REAll ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED t3Y
T'IT'LE ONLY this 21st day of October 2008.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
K:1plbil0-alt additions and remodels [U 14 2Q(?8-179 doe Agenda Item # ~ ~ Page
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSEll, ADOP'I'1;U, ANU ORDERED
PUBI.ISI-iED BY TI'1'LC ONLY this 12`h day of November 2008.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
F;tpitY''(ia!t.rldt;ton,.arar~'m~,dcl;, 1fl l~1 '?;tt5.17'!,!u; /~~',Cn(1~ ItL`ITl i~ }'a~C
Attachment C
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10-i, "BUILDING
COllE," B.R.C 1981, 1`O ADOP"I' MINUR CI-IANGES '1'O "1'I11?
INTERNATIONAL 13iJILD1NG CODE RELATED TO TIIE
EXPIRA'I'lUN OF I'ERMI'I'S AND SETTING FURTH
RELATED DETAILS-
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CI`T'Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section 1. Section 10-5-1, "Legislative Intent," B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read:
10-5-1 Legislative Intent.
1'he purpose of this chapter is to protect the public health and safety by regulating the
installation, alteration, or repair of or addition to electrical conductors or equipment installed
within or on any structure in the city. The city council hereby adopts the 2005 edition of the
National Electrical Code with certain amendments and deletions thereto found to be in the best
interests of the residents of the city. ~uildin~s shall beheld to the standard of the code under
which it was issued.
Section 2. Anew subsection is, between subsections l 0-5-2 (1) and (m)Section 10-5-2(j),
B.R.C. 1981, amending Section 106.3.2, "Previous Approvals," to read:
This code shall not require changes in the construction documents, a>nstruction or designated
occupancy of a stn~cture for which a lawful permit has heretofore issued or otherwise lawfully
authorized, and ,and the constraints of which has been pursued in good faith within 180 days
after the effective date of this code and has not been abandoned. ~Q~crs~n shall_ fail. o_comply
~~~ith. ~?II of th~__cc>i~diti~~ns cif s~tc.h a buildins:hermitand the t~ra~•isions oC tltc huil~lii~ c:c~cle under
wh c,h such buildin _ rmi rias been issued.
Section 3. The; local amendment in Section 10-5-2(j) Section 105.3.2, "Time Limitation
of Application;" B.R.C. 1981 is repealed and reenacted with the language for said section of the
2006 International Building Code, to read:
X105.3.2 Tirne limitation of application.
S~1it~I-1~E~1~}l@EI-EE>-1~@F3~1-cT~h~~lt-HIE"(I-HHE'-1Tl+l1EI~EI-@f~lt~i:li}'fr-i}~@N~!T~,
,'~~T~I+E~
ifn~l~,~-t-l~e~~it-1~-4~e~~-i~i~ec~;-c~~~E-~t~tl-tie-iihjlCl^i+~f["
x~er~-s inns-o€-t~ emir--addi-ti~al-~+~i~k-~c~t-ex e,~~ eta--~nat3~-c-i~
e~sl-r.=);#ie-e~tet~ ~ i+}g-be€ere-tl-~e-~~pirati•era-flag-a3~c1-}~~st~i~~a-l~le
c=atrre-flee-3Hf~~Fr~tefl-fin ahhlie:atic~n li~?•_a ~crmit_fcir_any_ _ro >osed_work shall be de:em~d
K.`.plbi'~.o-amend 10-~ ibc amendments-I 79 doe Agenda Item # ~ ~ Page
t_~ hav_c; hecr~_>h,>i~dun~;d one hundred cight~ days_~rfler_lhc cl<it~ c>f Glin~nlc;ss tiuc;h
ahhl.ica~ icln has been lxn•sucd ilk ~o~ui. f~1JIh__ 11 I_t(.l'1.111I h~15 h(.Cn 1.SSL1C(I; c,~c,~nt_th.}t_ the
- - - _ _
huiltiin~; official_ is autholired_to grant one gr more extensions of time_for additional
_ -
~
rl
c iclds ii~t cxcccdilt~ninct d~? ~ti CitCh. •I•hC_CXi_L,T7.$I.Qn SI11II hC rC~C(IICSIC__d I11 .WI_Illll~(IIIC~
~ustifiahle cause demo trated,
Section 4. Section 10-5-2(k) Section 105.5, "Expiration," B.R.C. 191 is repealed and
reenacted with the language for said section in the 2006 International Building Code, to read;
(k) -Section 105.5 Expiration. ~-pri~vi~s~iens
..t,. ..~u~.
mil} let~l-a?~ l~r•~-~~~ar•:,
r~~e--per-m-i-ES-gr~r '
ene~i-~e~
~~s~~-el est~,a~tt•}esI}a~isaa-~- ~}I
v1K4h-tom r-te
it~c~-~t+l~+~i~c~}~tt~der}ter-~ti~t+r~-~{->~ii~Ec~-~kie-ale-i-r
°'~'°•~z13e-t-ire-tl~ie
new-at~pFi~ -eF e
p~-i ~ lexed-L~:;-+neet+n~+r+er}t-e~Ies-+t~~~r~-}aerita~l-i~+tf~
•lt~r~I-ele+~tent~s-ka :~~.-Bd~o-~~tel-}
pt4ateete n~e-~r e-atnetl~~
e-er~luteEl-al~lz~;~~n~}er-•tl~~~ier:+ • iew-f~~l~ll-l~-}~i.~l.-in-~tt#~
}.~~-~r.H.}~_~=~}~}, r ~.,.h,..I~~I„ j;v~?•y_Lcrmit issued sh~ll,,~cc~mc_inval.id w~lcss the ~;park
on the site autlx~ri~cd by such__hcl~nit is comrt~cnccd wit(~it?..I $0 da~~ller~_its_i~sutt.t~cc, car if
thc_~--vc~rk a tl»ri~~d o-n the sjtc 1:~~~ tiuclt~crn~it i,~_stitit~_c;ndcd c~r_ab~lndonc~l f~tr~h~is~d_yf I SO
~_lif er tl~e tinlc the work is_commenc~ci~'1'hc huilclin~~tici~?l_ is a~th~r•ixcd to rant in
~~~ri_ti»~,_~~ne ~r_more ex nsi_~~s of time Ior periods not mire thFm I la s each. The
cxlc?tSictr~_~hill be requested .in writin ~ iuul justi la cili~se_demo _~tra1e~Ever~~-n 't
iss~tcd.bv the bui_I_dir~off_i~ial tr_ndcr,thc provisi~n_~f this cydc shall_~cpir~ Uy limitatinit
~itui
hcco_
r~:_null_~snd void if'_the bui_1Jin~ur work autlutri~ed b ~ suclj_psr~lli~i~
fiat cc?m.t~leteci_and
~rp1irovc~l fir ac;csip~~: within tlu~~c yc~~rs,fcc~rn~lri: elate tlrc pcn~iit w~ti i~~ged. 1'hc permit
tee li>r_rcncwals m<r by
_s~it.~.~1__lzasecl
ua~
tbs_.ftt~?s?unt_c~f ~v~rk_.c~lnplet~d
~~nd_~p art ~v.~d
ur~~r_the~r~.vious permit.
K:\plbi\u-ameml 10-5 ibc amendments-179.duc Agenda Item # ~ ~`1 Page
Section 5. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of
the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
Section 6. The council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only
and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public
inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
'T'ITLE ONLY this 21st day of October 2008
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED
PUBL ISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 12th of November 2008.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
K:lplbilo-amend 10-5 ibc amendmen4s-179.doc Agenda Item # ~ ~ Page 3
~ _
- -
Attachment D
ORDNANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENll1NG CHAPTER 10-b,
"ELECTRICAL CODE," B.R.C. 1981 BY ADOPTING BY
REFERL'NCE THE 2008 EDI'T'ION OF 'T'HE NATIONAL
ELECTRIC CODE WITH MODIFICATIONS, AND SETTING
FORTH RELATED DETAILS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section 1. Section 10-b-2, "Adoption of the National Electrical Code with
Modifications," B.R.C.. 1981 is amended as follows:
a) The ~8-5-2008 edition of the National ElectYical Code of the National Fire Protection
Association is hereby adopted by reference as the City of Boulder Electrical Code or electrical
code and has the same force and effect as though fully set forth in this chapter, except as
specifically amended by the provisions of this chapter.
(I) The first sentence of section 334.10(2) is amended to read:
(2) Multifamily dwellings permitted to be of Types I-I; III, IV and V construction except
as prohibited in 334. l 2.
(m) The first sentence of section 334.10(3) is amended to read:
(3) Other structures permitted to be of Types~B;-1-14~;-fV~3 ~~-V~ III. IV, and V
constntction except as prohibited in__ 3.4.12_.
(p) Subsection S I8-4(B), concerning Non-rated Construction, is repealed and reenacted to read:
(~3-}-rNer~-~i}st-roc-~it~+~~ft-i~~N•i~1~eaElie~el-e~alar~, ~r-...,u ~ r- ~~lee~]-qtr
n~.al.~ ~rNTe-scN~i~+it-:>Et;+]-N>e-t>~t+]-te-kie--t+~~lec~-i-n
Iiu+4~li+}us-~ry~e~t=t-it3t~-Hl~#t++afl+rtg~:-caf-;ten-ritte~l-tees--t~-f-e~t~+st-ie?+-i+t-a, ;tT+
~i~arj---3?~}--E{~ . In_adc.li_tic~n t<f the,
~~iriit mc,thodti_c~i_•-I_~,~1 A ~_n~i~ii~et~ill_ic=sl~c;tithcd
' '
c~tk?I~t. i'yhc_~1C'_~ihl~~ cl~cU•ic~il_nctn~nct~~llic_tubii~~~tnd rigid nonitt~tall.ic; c:onduil shall
K:1pIbi1C- amerd l0•G-electrical code- 179.dx
Agenda Item ~ ~ Page
tic ~cl-mittc~l b_c i»stallcd in those f?uildin~~ c~r_Rc~rt~l~s thcrc~f that are
i~~~Iuii-cd~~
hc-c~t'tire-rated 4~nstruct~ti,hy_the applicable ?uildin~cUdc,
Section 2. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of
the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
Section 3. The council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only
and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public
inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY this 21st day of October 2008
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISIED BY TITLE ONLY this 12th day of November 2008.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
K:~plbi\0 amend 10-6-clectncal rude-179.doc Agenda Item # ~ Page 3 I _
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINA'`!CE AMENDING CIIAPTEK 10-6,
"ELECTRICAL CODE," B.R.C. 1981 BY ADOPTNG BY
REFERENCE THE 2008 EDITION OF THC NATIONAL
ELECTRIC CODE WITH MODIFICATIONS, AND SETTING
FORTH RELATED DETAILS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section 1. Section 10-6-2, "Adoption of the National Electrical Code with
Modifications," B.R.C. 1981 is amended as follows:
a) 'The ~-2008 edition of the Notional Electrical Code of the National Fire Protection
Association is hereby adopted by reference as the City of Boulder Electrical Code or electrical
code and has the same force and effect as though fully set forth in this chapter, except as
specifically amended by the provisions of this chapter.
(1) The first sentence of section 334.1 U(2) is amended to read:
(2) Multifamily dwellings permitted to be of tTypes ~I[1, IV and V construction except
as prohibited in 334.12.
(m) The first sentence of section 334.10(3) is amended to read:
(3) Other structures permitted to be of Types-I-IJ~~IR, "'B ~^a IIT. IV, and V
construction ~ _~xcept~? rohibited in 334.12.,
(p) Subsection 518-4(B), concerning Non-rated Construction, is repealed and reenacted to read:
(€~~'fin-r~rteEl-~~.€-~t+eti~--lei ~`T~.( ,
~t~l-lip-tt~t~~f~-fl in
k~c~i_ld~+~gs-c~ ' glf~-o#=-~~~E+~tcEi~ ~
sin-34-1-~-3-}: In_~?dcjlion O 111C ~VI1'lI~I11~th0(l5_c)I J I i;.~_~
~1~.r nc~nmctallic-sltcathct
~,ihl_y, 1•yL__~C ca~il~_elc~trical n(~nli)ctall_ic t__~hin~~aiicl_ri~id nc~nm~ial_lc c~nd.titaltall
K:\pIU(~O-amend 1~-b-ckctrral ~odr; 179.Joc
Agenda item ~-3 ~ Page ~U _
b~ pert ntitted_tc~ he inst~?llcd in thS~s~ huildin~s or ~~e~rcic>»s
~h~rcc~ft_~i~it [iYC il(1 rec uire i_ ~
he of tire_ratcd construction by the a~~~licablc ~ iildinF; cc~dc.
Section 2. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of
the residents of the cit}~, and covers matters of local concern.
Section 3. The eounci] deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only
and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public
inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRS"I' READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY this 21st day of October 2008
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
READ ON SF,COND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this 12`h day of November 2008.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
K:~pIbi10-suncnd IO-6-efectiicalcade-1)9.doc Agenda Item Page
Attachment E
Ordinance 7570 (Attachment E) was considered at first reading on
Nov. 13, 2007.
No further action is recommended by staff for its adoption.
Staff is instead recommending City Council consideration of
Attachment B.
AGEKtIA ITEM ~ PAGE
Attachment E
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10-7.5, "GREEN
BUILDING ANll GREEN POINTS PROGRAM," Q.R.C 1981,
ADOPTED PURSUANT TU ORDINANCE NO. 7565, ADDING
REQUIREMEN'T'S RELA"1'ED TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND
GREEN POIN'T'S PROVISIONS RF,LA'I'ED TO DEMOLITION,
ADDI`T'IONS, REMODELS, BOILERS AND WINDOWS, AND
SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY TIIE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section ] . Paragraph 10-7.5-2 (a)(2), B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
10-7.5-2 Scope and Administration
(a) Scope. The provisions of this chapter apply to the following:
(1) New construction, remodels, or additions to a dwelling, including without
limitation single-unit dwellings, multi-unit dwellings, and dwellings within mixed
use developments.
(2) Any two or more building permits for the same structure that are applied for in
any 12 month pei~od shall be considered as one application for the purpose of
c°I,.,~~°';.~.. ^..~o~rj~?i+tt~mc the rc;cLrcmcnts c~l'Sccticfi~s 10-7.>-3,
M~iitd~it01•Y Gi_ccn 13uildin~.Rc4~uii_cmcnts, aiid_
10-7 5-4 ` IZcsc~urcc
Conservation -Green ~?ii~s " H.C. 1981.
Section 2. Section ] U-7.5-3, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
10-7.5-3 Mandatory Greeia Building Requirements
(a) Enemy Efficiency, An applicant for athe following -building permit applications €e~
shat] demonstrate that the building is more energy efficient than a
building that meets the minimum requirements of Chapter 10-7, "International Energy
Conservation and Insulation Code," B.R.C. 1981.
~l Anew dwelling: or
(21--_f1n_~~ddiliS~n ear ~enic,~del_tc~
adwcllin~hilt pJ'O~)e)Ses to_In<'1'eaSC t11C fl<~or arcs ~~f
the existing bi~;]~.i~p.~hv more than l 00 nercent_
Table 1 lists the minimum energy efficiency requirements.
'TABLE I -Tiers for Energy Efficiency Thresholds
Type of Project Square Footage Energy Efficiency Thresholds Above Code
New Construction
K 1PLf?P.o grc~r point ,nncndn~e~t to ord na 7565 179 coo
Agenda Item Page _ _
Up to 3,000 30 percent more energy efficient than 2006 IECC
3,001-5,000 50 percent more energy efficient than 2006 IECC
5,001 and up 75 percent more energy efficient than 2006 II~CC
Multi-unit Dwellings Applies to all 30 percent more enerbry efficient than 2006
IECC*
* The city manager is authorized to develop a HERS rating sampling protocol for multi-
dwelling projects to ensure compliance with this sectivn.
(b) Enemy Efficiency -HERS Index Rating: Anew dwelling shall be evaluated using the
Home Energy Rating System (I-IERS). The 1-IERS rating will be used for the verification
of energy performance of new construction. A HERS rating shall be performed by a rater
accredited by the Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET).
(c) Energy Audit. An applicant for a building permit for an addition to a dwelling or a
remodel of a dwel]ing shall be required to obtain an energy audit, The applicant shall
provide proof of the completion of the energy audit with a building pernut application.
The energy audit oi'thc house shall quantify the annual energy performance of the
building according to generally accepted standards for energy audits approved by the city
manager. An energy audit or an optional I-IERS rating report will indicate how efficiently
the building is operating and where inefficiencies are occurring.
(d) L,i~hting_Efficien~ Prior to final inspection foi• an addition to a dwelling or a remodel
of a dwelling the applicant shall install energy efficient lamps (light bulbs) with a
luminous efficacy of 40 lumens per watt or above in at least 50 percent of the existing
home's light fixtures.
(e) Direct Vent 1~'urna~c., When the scope of the work of an addition to a dwelling or a
remodel of a dwelling requires replacement of a furnace, the furnace shall be replaced
with a direct vent unit that has a minimum 90 percent AFUE.
(f) nircct Vcnt~ile~~Wlten the se~pe cif the work of an addition to a dwellint; or a
r~m~del of a_d~ycllin~Tcquirc~rc1~laccment of_a b~ilcr, the k~c~i.Jerah.111_hc.re ~lac4dti_itt
direct vent unit that has a minimum 85 percent AFUF,_.
~ Construction Waste Rccvclin An applicant for a building permit for a new dwelling or
an addition to a dwelling shall demonstrate that a minimum oi' S0 percent of construction
Wa9tC: 1S recycIed. Waste diversion calculations and tracking spreadsheet form must be
provided at project completion which shows that the minimum recycling requirements
have been met. No person shall fail to complete the diversion calculations and tracking
spreadsheet or recycle construction waste as required by this section.
(g_h) Demolition Management. An applicant proposing to demolish the dwelling. as that term.
is dcfincd_in Sc~ti~~n 1Q-7_5-7~ "De(_r~j-tissls~~~,It~, 1941+~t~e-Nan-~l-p~c=eta-~#' -
exter~wat•Is shall demonstrate through a deconstruction plan that at least 65 percent of
material by weight from deeonstr-uction of the: existing structure, including concrete and
asphalt, will be diverted from the landfill. Verification of deconstnuction plan
compliance must be provided prior to final inspection. No person shall fail to follow or
otherwise implement an approved deconstruction plan
K:~PLr3(\:~-green point antcndmenl to oid no 7565 17J doe Agenda [tem # ~ ~ _ Page _ 1 ~
Section 3. Subsection 10-7,5-4(a), B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
10-7.5-4 Resource Conservation -Green Points
(a) Schedule for Green Points. Residential building permit applicants are required to earn
~n-een points according to the; schedule in Table 2. An. applicant proposing to_increase the
f1UOr area_pf the
~xistin ~
ls-
~uilc_ liil~by nu~re_than_ 100 percent shall he rcc~iiredtc~
earn the
amount et~rcc~~n
t~c~i,ntt i_cctu.ire 1 fol' the new col , ti'11~;1JS?(LS?t_~__I1C_W~WCIIItI~ ol_lh~_, S~U]1~C
size of the existing dwellin~_with such addition.
Tt1BLE, 2 -Green Points Regltixe_ment_s
Project Description Square Footage Green Point
Thresholds Requirements a
New construction of single unit dwellings 1,501-3,000 2U
3,001-5,000 40
5,001 and up bU
Additions to a dwelling 500- 1,000 IS
1,001- 2,000 20
2,001 - 3,000 30
3,001 and up 45
Interior remodels of a dwelling 500 - l,UU0 10
1,001 - 2,000 15
2,001 3,000 20
3,001 and up 30
Multi-unit DwellinKs: final tenant finish 1,001 2,000 10
of a unit in a multiunit dwelling
2,001 - 3,000 20
3,001 and up 30
'One gu•een point is awarded far each HERS rating score below the HERS index rating
requirement.
~ The green point values listed in Subsections 10-7.5-4(e) and (f) only apply to those projects that
are not required to have a HERS index rating.
3 1?ach dwelling; in a multi-unit dwelling shall be required to meet the green point requirements
separately.
(,J
KP.PLBI\o-green point amendment to ord no 7565.17y.duc Agenda Item # Page I~
Section 4. Subsection 10-7.5-4(e), B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
(e) Energy Efficiency.
(1) Insulation. Points will be awarded according to the following:
(A) Minimum R-19 cavity plus R-5 sheathing wall insulation: 2 points.
(B} Minimum R-49 ceiling: 2 points.
(C) Exterior minimum R-10 insulation installed for the full height of a
basement or foundation wall: 2 Points
(D) Insulated Pre-cast Concrete Foundation: 2 points
(F,) Insulated Concrete Forms: 2 points
(2) Windows: Up to IO points. New windows or replacement windows installed as
part of a remodel or an addition. Points will be awarded as follows:
(A) National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC): Up to 5 points, Rated
Window with Maximum U Value of 8:35-9.34.,or lower:.5 point for each
window, up to S points.
(13) NFRC Rated Window with Maximum Solar Heat Gain Coefficient
(SHGC) of O.SS: .S paint for each window, up to 5 points. Exception:
South facing glass.
(3) Air Sealing of an Existing Building. Points will be awarded when a HERS rating
is applied to the existing structure preconstruction, then a post rating after
construction showing:
(A) Ten percent net increase in initial I IERS rating*: 2 points
(B) No net increase in initial HERS rating*: 3 points
(C) Decrease in initial HERS rating*: S points
*13ecause of the variability of existing construction, projecting the final HERS
rating can be difficult and planning for contingencies if the planned HORS rating
is not achieved shuuld be done.
(4) I-Ieating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Systems. Points will be
awarded according to the Following:
(A) HVAC Commissioning: 3 points. Testing for duct leakage, firing rate, and
refrigerant charge.
(B) Ground Source Heat Purnp: Up to 10 points. Points will be awarded
according to the following:
(i) 30-39% calculations from a heating/ cooling load bin analysis:
4 points
(ii) 40-49% calculations from aheating/ cooling load bin analysis:
6 points
(iii) 50-59% calculations from a heating/ cooling load bin analysis:
8 points
K:1Pl t3~o-grcctt point arm:ndment to ord no 756,5.179.tioc Agenda Item # ~ Page t
(iv) 60-69% calculations from aheating/ cooling load bin analysis:
14 points
(C) Direct Vent Combination Space/Water Heating System: 2 points
+;E=}---Zoned, Ilydronic Radiant Heating: 2 points
(Iii Passive Cooling: 2-5 points (one point per item). Points will be awarded
for passive cooling systems using any two or more of the techniques
described below:
(i) Exterior vertical shading devices for east and west facing glass.
(ii) Reflective films or glass on east and west facing windows.
(iii) Radiant, heat-reflective barriers installed in the attic space.
(iv) Landscaping that shades east and west-facing glazing during tl~ie
cooling season {June to September).
(v) South window overhang sized to effectively shade the window
during the cooling season (June to September) from June to
September.
(6~ Whole House Fan: 2 points
Evaporative Cooling: 3 points
(5) Water Heater.
(A) Tank-less Water Heater: 2 points
(B) Point-of--Use Water Heater: 2 points
(6) Lighting, Appliances, and Electricity.
(A) ENERGY STAR Advanced Lighting Package (ALP): 5 Points. The ALP
shall meet the following minimum specifications.
High-Use Rooms Kitchcr., Dining Room, Living 50% of Total Number of Fixtures
Room, Family Room
Bathrooms}, Hall(s)/Stairway(s)
Medium/Low-Use Bedroom, Den, Office, Basement, 25% of T'ota] Number of Fixtures
Rooms Laundry Room, Garage, Closet(s)
and all other rooms
Outdoor Lighting Affixed to the
Outdoor stnicture or Free-Standing Pole(s) SU% of Total Number of Fixtures
Except for landscape and solar including all flood lighting
lighting
K:J'LBno-green point amenJment to ord no 7565.179.doc Agenda Item # ~ ~ Page I
(B) Efficient Light Controls: Up to 2 points. Efficient lighting controls include
occupancy sensors, dimming controls, and automatic daylight dimming
controls.
(i) 4 control devices: 1 point
(ii) 6 control devices: 2 points
(C) Energy-Efficient Appliances: Up to 6 Points. Points are awarded
according to the following:
(i) ENERGY STAR rated refrigerator: 2 points
(ii) ENERGY STAR rated clothes washer: 2 points
(iii) ENERGY STAR rated freezer: 1 point
(iv) ENERGY STAR rated dishwasher: 1 point
Section 5. Subsection 10-7.5-4(i), B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
(i) SL?stainablc Products.
(1) FSC-Certified Tropical Woods or No Tropical Wood: Up to G Points. Points will
be awarded as follows:
(A) 2 BF of FSC lumber per SQ/FT oC door area (2 BF/SQ. FT.): 2 points
(B) 3 RF of FSC lumber per SQ/FT of floor area {3 BF/SQ. FT.): 4 points
(C) SU% or more of dimensional lumber in tots] BF is FSC, excluding
engineered wood products: b points
(2) Environmentally Preferred Materials: Up to 10 Points. Points will be awarded
environmentally preferred materials as follows:
(A) Recycled content: 2 points
(B) Reclaimed: 2 points
(C) Eio-based: 2 points
(D) Agricultural residue: 2 points
(E) Low or no Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) emissions: 2 points
(3 ? Locally Sourced Materials: Products that are environmentally preferable and/or
extracted, processed, and manufactured within 500 miles of the city arc
considered local. A maximum of 1.5 points can he earned for any single
component listed in the Environmentally Preferable Products Chart regardless of
the amount by which a minimum performance threshold is exceeded. A "recycled
content" product must contain a minimum of 25%post-consumer recycled
content except as noted otherwise above. Post industrial (pre-consumer) recycled
content is counted at half the rate of post-consumer content. Points will be
awarded as shown un t:~c. E-:n~•ironmenta',ly Preferable Products Chart below:
i ~~i- n ~,~,i:n i~~;~rJai~ i ~ ~ I Agenda ltel]1 ~C ~ haLC -
ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE PRODUCTS CHART
Assembly Component Product Specification Types (see Note 1)
Specifications Emission Specifications Loca]
Exterior Framing FSC-certified X
Wall
Exterior Framing linger- X
Wall jointed studs
(vertical use
only for
structural
components)
Exterior Siding or Recycled X
Wall masonry content or
FSC-certified
Floor Flooring Linoleum, Carpet & pad: comply with Carpet and X
cork, Rug Institute's Green Label Plus
bamboo, Program
FSC-ccrti fled
or reclaimed
wood, sealed
concrete,
reeycled-
content
flooring, or
combination
in X35% of
home's floor
area.
Floor Flooring BONUS 1!2 BONUS 1/2 for NO carpet in home
for 9U% of
home
Floor Framing FSC-certified X
~&tiert Agg~eg~e ~
Foundation Cerncnt Fly ash or X
slag as
replacement
for, not
addition to,
cement
content (min.
K::PLE3flo-green point amenJment to orJ no 7565.1 "/9.doc Agenda Item # Page ~ _
3 U%)
Interior Framing FSC-certified X
Wall
Interior Framing Finger- X
Wall Jointed,
(vertical use
only for
structural
components)
Interior Gypsum Recycled X
Walls board content
AND
ceilings
Interior Paint Comply with Green Scal Standard GS-
Walls 1 I, Paints, First Edition, May 20, 1993
AND
mil ]work
Interior Wood VOC concentrations of 150 gp1 or less
Walls finishes
ANI~
millwork
Landscape Decking or Recycled X
patio content or
material FSC-certified
Other Cabinets Recovered, Wood and/or agrifiber products with no X
recycled added urea-formaldehyde resins
content, or
FSC-certified
Other Counters Recycled Wood and/or agrifiber products with no
content added urea-formaldehyde resins
Other Doors (not Recycled Wood and/or agritiber products with no X
incl. content or added urea-formaldehyde resins
garage) FSC-certified
Other Trim Recovered, Wood and/or agrifiber products with no
recycled added urea-formaldehyde resins
content, or
FSC-certified
Other Adhesives VOC concentrations of 70 gpl or less
and
sealants
~ h~~ ~ ~ i n~~lnr:n~ i~~.,n1 r ~ i ~ : A~;Cnda Item # Page ~ -
Other Windows Recycled X
content or
FSC-certified
Roof Framing FSC-certified X
Roof Roofing Recycled X
content or
vegetated
(min. 200 sf)
Roof AND Insulation Recycled Comply with State of California, DHS, X
floor AND content (min "Practice for Testing of VOCs from
wall 20%) 1uilding Materials using Small
Chambers"
Roof, Sheathing Recycled X
floor, wall content or
(2 of 3) I~SC-certified
Section 6. Section 10-7.5-7, B.R.C. 1981, is amended by a new definition and changes to
other definitions, to read:
"Addition" An extension or increase in floor area of a building or structure of 500 sg. ft. or
greater.
"Demaliti~n" or_`_`den?oli "means an act or process which removes one or more of the
- - - - -
t_~~Ilowin~ a'hr_shadcd ~u•ca
illu~tlates the ln~ximiiip
~t»uunt_tlt,~t m~iy. b~ rcmu~~ec! without
constituting demolition.
I E'l~ty' ?QI'~l?Ill Of Il)t)1"U 1~1C 1'(>i?i ~il~,f :I !::~:;!::111'~i~ iil n.liill Vl(:\V til;C (~li! ~r:111]
~
~
'.v '
t
C :
s:, ~
K:J'1.61\o-green point amcnJ~nenf to ord nn ~565.179.doc Agenda Item PagC
_E_i_Cty_R~rperlL~~r mo~csCllt~
~~cteL~rwalls of a i' i1]b.~?:~,_t~ca.;~iresi
c ~r i~tisly_~~r~L~
thc:_"~~~l~n~crat,c"~~. dcfinc_~i ~n this tic,ctio» .~sc~.s~i~~ ram ; or
A w~l.l_5}~I meet thc_£
lc~ low~ib; t~iltin7um stand~rsl.~Q~c~r~sidered a retained cxt_
er1~r
`!v~11
• -
(Al-[']i~!'_111..41a11 retain studs or 4t~t_s~s~~i~a1 elements, lh~ exterior wall finish
1~L_tl~efu1l.y_fr mcd an ~ic~~Ilic(i r•~o'~L~vc t_ha_t_~c~rtisn_~i_tl~c_rc~t~inlllL' -
bui~n~~
which such wall is alt~i •h
'The wall s1~11_ttaLl?c_s2~cetl_c~r ~thcr~_visc ~o_t c_ .~~i
b~~w~ll tl~~Ls nr~ )seS1~i
he_.placed in _front_s~f'thc~~et_ained wall; and
(C) art of the r' ai~C~terior walls steal l~i~;_ connected conti~~~usl ~ tLC1
JiS11QULinterrui~ti~n o every
c~thcr art_of file r~~~~_xtericir walls,
"Remodel" means an intcriar reconfiguration or upgrade of an existing structure of 500 sq.ft. or
greater and the work required to complete the reconfiguration or upgrade requires a building
permit.
Section 7. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of
the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
Section 8. The city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title
only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for
public. inspection and acquisition.
h'13'I,Af1o-hrccn point amrn~mcni to ord no 7565 I l~~.duc ~gCllda }tCn7 ~E }gage
W"PRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORD1~:RED Pt1BLISHED BY
T1TLE ONLY this 20th day of November, 2007.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
REAll ON SL;COND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORD[;RED
PUBLISI ILD BY Ti"I'LL' UNL1' this 4th day of December, 2UU7.
MayUI'
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
K:~Pt.k311n•6recn point ~tmcndntcnt tr~ nni nn 75th 17y duc A~Cllda Item ~ ('a~e _ _
ATTACHMENT F
Commeroial and Residentlai Green BuOding Code Adoption Schedule
July 24, 2008
•r, rr; ~r• r r ° r i i r i i i i
1, New IRC Rosltlontial - '
Buildings
(Duplex, Townhomc, SFR) HERS ratinglGreen Points Adopt 2009 IECC, maintain HERS rating 10% Improvement in energy 1U°/° Improvement In Adapt 2015 IECC Net
zero goal
effiraency energy elhCiency
-30-75% above IECC Replace the Green Building Green Points program i~dopl 2012 IECC Renewable energy
based an: requirements development
(eKective 2108) -2009 IECC (Solar, wind, geo-thermal)
- NAHDlICC Green Duitding Code
-RESNETIHERS
2, IRC Rasidontlal
RemodelslAdditions HERS ratinglGreen Points Second reading of ordinance #7570 Adopt 2009 IECC HERS rate total structure 10'/° Improvement in Adapt 2015 IECC Carbon
Neutral
(trigger threshold for applying new energy etfiCiency
20061ECC compliance construction standards to remodels and Envelope remediation per audit 10°k Improvement i~ energy Atlop( 2012 IECC Renewable energy
additions) OcUNov 08 efficiency requirements development
(eftecllue 2108) Replace tha Groan Building Green Points program (Solar, wind, geodhermaq
based on:
-2D09 IECC
- NAHBIICC Green Building Code
RESNETIHERS
3. Existing IRC Residential
Balldings
(Vddh no permit activity) Envelope remediation per audit 10°~ Improvement in Adopi 2015 IECC Carbon Neuhal
energy efficiency
-SFR-pointofsale Adopt20121ECC
-Rental license renewal
d. Naw IBC Commerclell
Restdontlal
2006 IECC 3D% better than 2006 IECC' Adopt 2009 IECC -maintain 30% above code 5ustainabllily Program 50% above code Adopt 2015 fECC Carbon Neutral
(Commercial} (Commercial)
(effective 1108) Modeling huildings over 20K square feet Review Boulder County commercial consartlum Adopt 2012 IECC Renewable energy
(Commeraal) proposal (or possible 2009 adoption, requirements development
OcUNov D8 Renewable components (Solar, wind, geo-thermal)
5ustalnable components
5. New IBC Commerctall
Resldontlai
RemotlelslAdditions 2006 IECC 30% better ihan 2006 IECC (Commercial) Adapt 2009 IECC -maintain 30% above code Sustainabdily Program Ci045 above code Adopt 2015
IECC Carbon Neutral
(Commercial)
(effective 1108) Oct/Nov 08 Review Boulder County Commercial Consortium Adopt 2012 IECC Ranewable energy
proposal for possible 20D9 adoption. requirements development
Energy Star ra0ng (Solar, wind, geo•ihermal)
Renewable components
Sustainable components
B, Exisling IBC Commorclall
Rosldanlial
(Willi no permit activity) Adopt 2009 International Property Maintenance Envelope remediaton per audit 30% above code Adopt 2015 IECC Carbon Neutral
Adopt ?009 International Existing Building Cotle •Poinl of sale Adop12012 IECC
•Rental license renewal
-Change of use
-Site Plan review
ac~~a rr~M ~ ~ ~ac~ 5~
ATTACHMENT G
October 13, 2008
Projected Energy Rating Report
Lightly TY6ading, ~nC, To: City of Boulder
Energy & Design From: Clayton Bartczak, Lightly Treading, Inc.
RE: 1102 Portland Place & 2871 LaGrange
4303 Brighton Blvd #3
Denver, CO 80216
303-733.3078 (phone)
303-295-2661 (fax)
This report by Lightly Treading deals with their findings on the additional energy modeling
completed for the two Energy Home Makeover Homes achieving Home Energy Rating System
(HERS) index scores. Section 1 identifies how two different houses could meet one of the
proposed energy efficiency requirement options (achieving a HERS 100, $5 or 70).
Section 2 explores modeling analysis of the same two houses for energy efficiency improvements
by doubling the existing square footage and achieving lower (more energy efficient) HERS scores.
Associated costs for the energy efficiency improvements were also calculated.
In Section 3, the analysis deals with the review of thirty existing homes and their calculated Natural
Air Changes per Hour (NACH), the year the house was built and average NACH far the number of
houses in that category.
Section 1:
Energy Nome Makeover Energy Modeling
The additional energy modeling for the two Energy Home Makeover Houses was completed for the
houses at 1102 Portland place and 2871 LaGrange Circle. The six scenarios we modeled include
one that allows each home to achieve a HERS Index scare of 100, a second that allows each
home to score an 85, and the third that allows each home to score a 70. We're confident this
information wil? be beneficial for the City of Boulder in creating and implementing policies that will
reduce residential energy consumption, save homeowners money on heating and cooling, and
decrease environmental impacts associated with home energy use.
As you may remember, after completing the energy rating for the home at 1102 Portland Place for
the Energy Home Makeover Contest, we found it to be the lowest scoring house we have ever
tested with a HERS index score of 383 (an index of 100 represents a typical new house, an 85 is
Energy Star house, and an index of 0 represents a net-zero energy house). It also had the highest
air leakage number we have ever seen with a score of 3.0 Natural Air Changes per Hour (NACH)
whereas a new home built tightly is usually about 0.40 NACH or below (the lower the number, the
tighter the house).
The second home we completed energy modeling on is located at 2871 LaGrange. While
definitely not an energy efficient home, it used nowhere near the energy as the home at 1102
Portland Place. This home scored a 191 on the HERS Index and had an air leakage number of
0.61 NACH.
Please see Tables 1 and 2 below for the different house specifications and energy efficiency
measures used to complete the computer models.
AG£f~d ITCiyI RAGE
Lightly Treading Energy & Design Consulting
Table 1: Building Specification Matrix far 1102 Portland Place
House Model Existin House To Meet 100 To Meet 85 To Meet 70
Orientation North «Same «Same «Same
R-20.6 (1.5" of
polyurethane foam
Crawlspace wall and R-11 fiberglass
insulation None batt) «Same «Same
R-20.6 (1.5" of
polyurethane foam R-28.6 (1.5" of
and R-11 fiberglass polyurethane
Rim/Band Joist batt) in crawlspace foam and R-18
insulation type 8~ R- & R~0 between 1y` fiberglass batt)
value None & 2"d floor «Same on ALL rims
R-13 (2x4 walls R-13 (2x4 walls
Wall type ~ with blown wish blown
insulation Uninsu?ated studs cellulose) cellulose) «Same
Window SHGC 0.65 0.37 «Same «Same
Window U-value N/A 0.35 «Same «Same
R-40 -blown R-40 -blown R-50 -blown
Attic Insulation R-9 rock wool cellulose cellulose cellulose
Water heater make/
model 2 Gas 58% Gas 50 allon 65% Tankless 0.82% «Same
Programmable
thermostat? No No Yes Yes
Furnace model ? Lennox «Same «Same
Furnacelboiler
AFUE 60% 90% unit 94% unit «Same
Coolerado (40
Cootin Na coolin 12 SEER AC 13 SEER AC SEER) unit
Duct Leakage to REM Rate Default
Outside (88 CFM) «Same «Same «Same
Air leakage
estimate 3 NACH 0.9 NACH 0.65 NACH 0.5 MACH
Mechanical
ventilation system
make/ model None None None None
Gas or electric
stove? Gas «Same «Same «Same
Gas or electric
clothes d er? Gas Electric Electric Gas
Solar PV (electric)
s stem None None None None
Solar Thermal
System None None None None
!lGFt I7i?PA ~ K .Pt~rE
Lightly Treading Energy & Design Consulting
Appliances
(including
refrigerator ~ Standard Standard Standard Energy Star
clothes washer) a oliances _ _anpliances a nliances Appliances
Llphtinp 30% CFLs 45% CFLs 60% CFLs 75% CFLs
HERS index 383 100 85 ~ 70
Table 2: Building Specification Matrix for 2871 LaGrange Circle
House Modef Existinp House To Meet 100 To Meet 85 To Meet 70
Orientation East «Same «Same «Same
Basement wall
insulation R-0 R-0 R-11draoed FG «Same
R-19 (over garage) &
Cantilever R-1' (master R-32 blown R-43 blown
Insulation bedroom carrtileverl cellulose cellulose «Same
Rim/Band Joist
insulation type & R-
value R-11 FG Batts «Same «Same «Same
Wall type &
insulation 2x4, R-11 G3 2x4. R-13 G1 «Same «Same
Window SHGC 0.66 0.49 0.37 «Same
Window U-value 0.65 0.58 0.35 «Same
R-38 blown R-40 blown
Attic Insulation R-19 cellulose cellulose R-50 _
Water heater make/
model 40 gallon 55% 40 allon 60% 40 gallon 60% On Demand 82%
Programmable
thermostat? No No Yes Yes
Furnace 1 BTU 80k «Same «Same «Sarrre
Furnace 1 AFUE 65% 86% 90% 94%
Furnace 2 BTU 40k NA NA NA
Furnace 2 AFUE _ 65%_ NA NA NA _ _
3 ton, 12 SEER 3 Ton, 12 SEER Coolerado (40
Conlin 3 ton, 8.5 SEER AC AC AC SEER
Duct Insulation {in
unconditioned
s ace R-0 «Same «Same «Same
Duct Leakage to
Outside 70 cfm «Same «Same «Same
Air leakage
estimate _ 0.61 _ 0.5 0.45 «Same
Mechanical
ventilations stem None None _ None None
Gas or electric
stove? Gas _ _ _ Electric «Same «Same
Gas or electric
clothes dryer? Electric «Same «Same «Same
Lightly Treading Energy & Design Consulting
Solar PV (electric)
s stem None None None None
Solar Thermal
S stem None None None None
Appliances
(refrigerator & Energy Star
clothes washer Standard Ap liances «Same «Same Appliances
Li htin All incandescent 10% CFL 15% CFLs 25% CFLs _
HERS Index 191 100 85 70
Energy Costs and Environmental Impacts
The following tables show the reduction in energy costs and C02 emissions associated with the
various upgrade models for each specific house.
Table 4: Energy Cost and C02 Emissions for 1102 Portland Place
Annual Energy Annual COZ
HERS Score Cost Emissions
383 $4,550 57,883 Ibs
100 $1.619 21,491 Ibs
85 $1,480 19,662 Ibs
70 $1,185 14,429 Ibs
Table 5: Energy Cost and C02 Emissions for 2871 LaGrange Circle
Annual Energy Annual C02
HERS Score Cost Emissions
191 $3,657 52,445 Ibs
100 $2,357 34,461 Ibs
85 $2.043 29,565 Ibs
70 $1,877 26,603 Ibs
As you can see from the various tables above, reducing the overall energy consumption of these
homes has a dramatic effect on both the annual energy cost to homeowners and the home's
environmental impact (in terms of carbon dioxide emissions anyway). For example, if the home at
1102 Portland Place were to achieve a score of 70 on the HERS Index, it would save the
homeowners $3,365 per year and reduce the home's annual COz emissions by 43,454 Ibs! That
is nearly a 20 metric ton reduction of carbon dioxide emissions form one home alone, amounting to
taking almost four cars off the road for an entire year!
Similarly, if the house at 2871 LaGrange were to achieve a score of 70 on the HERS Index, it
would save the homeowners $1,780 per year and reduce annual COz emissions by 25,842 Ibs
(equivalent to the annual C02 emissions of 2.2 cars).
Although each of the energy efficiency upgrades detailed in the tables above all have an impact on
the home's overall energy consumption, the biggest factors for reducing energy consumption in
these homes are high performance mechanical (heating and cooling) equipment and adequate
insulation in both walls and attics. Please keep in mind that we can provide details for the effect
each particular energy efficiency measure has on the performance of the whole home if you would
like.
~g
Projected Energy (HERS) Rating Report January 5, 2008
Lightly 1Yeading, Inc. To: City of Boulder
Energy & Design From: Clayton Bartczak and Paul Kriescher, Lightly Treading, Inc
RE: 1102 Portland Way, Boulder
4303 Brighton Blvd #3
Denver, CO 80216
303-733-3078 (phone)
303-295-2669 (fax)
Section 2:
After compiling a full energy rating on the home at 1102 Portland Way in Boulder, CO for the
Energy Home Makeover Contest (sponsored by the city of Boulder and Xcel Energy), we found it to
be the lowest (worst) scoring house we have ever tested with a HERS (Home Energy Rating
System) index score of 383 (an index of 100 represents a typical new house, an 85 is Energy Star
house, and an index of 0 represents a net-zero energy house). It also had the highest air leakage
number we have ever seen with a score of 3.0 Natural Air Changes per Hour (NACH) whereas a
new home built tightly is usually about 0.40 NACH or below (the lower the number, the tighter the
house).
It has been a pleasure to complete further projected energy ratings on this house using various
computer modeling scenarios, ali of which assume the house has twice the square footage of the
existing house. We assumed that we added 520 ft2 of basernent and then 520 ft' of first floor and
the same on the second floor. We are happy to report that making the improvements outlined
below would greatly increase the energy efficiency and thereby decrease the utility costs and
environmental impacts of this house and other similar houses built in the city of Boulder.
Please see below for the different house specifications used to complete the computer models as
well as our recommendations.
• Table 1 identifies building specifications for the existing structure, makeover upgrades, and
additional energy efficiency improvements and solar domestic hot water system upgrades
to reach lower HERS scores.
• Table 2 is the same models with incorporating a 2.9 kWh photovoltaic system.
• Table 3 Appliance Specifications
• Table 4 is the same building specifications as Table 1 but with associated costs to the
specific upgrades and the total costs of reaching the HERS rating with recommended
energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements.
Table 1: Building Specifications
Existing House
(after energy
makeover
House Model Existing House _ uparadesl__ Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
S uare Feet Total ft~ =1553 Total ft' =1553 Total ft~ =3113 Total ft2 = 3113 Total ft2 =3113
Orientation «Same Front=North «Same «Same «Same
AGEFir'3A ITCflA # v' t~AGE
Lightly Treading Energy & Design Consulting
Existing House
(after energy
makeover
House Model Existing House a nra~#ea1 Model 1 Model 2 Modet 3
20.6 (1.5" of
polyurethane
Crawl wall foam and R-11
insulation none frberglass Batt) «Same «Same «Same
R-10 on
Basement R-13 fiberglass R-13 on exterior exterior and R-
insulation on interior of of foundation 10 on interior
additions _ N/A N/A foundation walls walls side of walls
R-20.6 (1.5" of
polyurethane R-28.6 (1.5" of
foam and R-11 R-20.6 (1.5" of polyurethane
RimlBand none fiberglass batt) polyurethane foam and R-18
Joist in crawlspace ~ foam and R-11 fiberglass batt)
insulation type R-0 between 15` fiberglass batt) (addition and
8 R-value & 2"d floor (addition) existing home «Same
Existing = R-18
(2x4 walls with
blown cellulose
Existing = R-13 & R-5 on
Existing = R-13 (2x4 walls with interior-side of
(2x4 walls with blown cellulose) existing walls)
blown cellulose) & R-24.8 & R-35.8
& R-19.8 Addition= (2x6 Addition= (2x6
R-13 (2x4 walls Addition= (2x6 walls with walls filled with
Wall type & Uninsulated with blown walls with cellulose & R-5 polyurethane
insulation studs cellulose) cellulose sheathing) foam)
Window U-
value (all
except the
south wall of
the addition) 0.90 0.35 «Same «Same 0.29
Window SHGC
(all except the
south wall of
the addition) 0.65 .37 «Same «Same 0.27
Window U-
value (south-
side of N/A
addition) N/A 0.39 0.41 0.41
Window SHGC
(south-side of
addition N/A N/A 0.55 0.69 0.69
R-40 -blown R-50 --blown R-60 -blown
Attic Insulation R-9 rockwool cellulose «Same cellulose cellulose
Solar water Solar water Solar water
heating (2 panels heating (3 heating {8
Water heater Tankless -0.82 - 60 ft~ with 108 panels - 90 ft2 panels - 240 ft2
make/ model EF gallons of with 160 gallons with 500
~ ~i
r:utca~P. rr~~i~ ~ ~ r~. ~~!ac~
Lightly Treading Energy & Design Consulting
Existing House
(after energy
makeover
House Model Existln House u rades) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
(2}Gas 58% storage) of storaye} gallons of
storage)
Furnace model ? Lennox «Same «Same «Same
Solar water
heating (8
panels - 240 ft2
with 500
gallons of
6Q% storage) to
feed afan-coil
to pre-heat the
Furnace/boiler forced-air
AFUE 94% unit «Same «Same heating
Standard
No cooling Evaporative
cooling (15 Coolerado (40
Coolin - 10 SEER AC SEER) SEER) unit No cooling
Air leakage
estimate
NACH 3.0 0.4 0.3 0.25 0.15
UltimateAir
Mechanical Panasonic bath RecoupAerator
ventilation fans on timers to (HRV) that
system make/ none meet ASHRAE meets ASHRAE
model none 62.2 62.2 «Same
Mech. Vent.
rated flow NIA Meets ASHRAE Meets ASHRAE Meets
(CFM N/A 62.2 62.2 ASHRAE 62.2
83% sensible 83% sensible
HRV efficiency N/A NIA NIA efficiency efficiency
Gas or electric
stove? Gas Gas «Same «Same «Same
Gas or electric
clothes d er? Gas elect. Gas «Same «Same
Solar PV
(electric) None 2.9 KW (Sharp
sv_ stem _ _ _ None panel) ~330_ftZ__ None None_ _
Energy-Star
Appliances models
(including (Refrigerator =
refrigerator & 444 KWH &
clothes Standard Dishwasher =
washers Standard appliances 0.62 EF) «Same «Same
All CFLs (20 % All CFLs (20
30%CFL All pin-type & 80 % CFL & 80 %
Lighting_ incandescent _ _ CFL pin-typed «Same
~.i~el'~i3ti I E'L'M ~ ~ ~ _ pA~i~~ f
Lightly Treading Energy & Design Consulting
Existing House
(after energy
makeover
House Model Existin House a racles Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
HERS
Index 383 86 61 51 42
For each of the scenarios we modeled installing a 2.9 kWh solar photovoltaic system. The table below shows
how much better the HERS Index can be just from this improvement.
Table 2: Each of the above models with 2.9 kWh hotovoltalc s stem
Existing House (after
energy makeover
upgrades) Modell Modell Model3
HERS Index 60 49 38 25
Because of probable problems with trees and neighboring houses shading the solar PV panels, it is wise to
focus on how significant the energy efficiency improvements are from the improvements done for the Energy
Home Makeover Contest that don't include installing solar. Reducing the HERS index of this house from 383
to 86 (an Energy Star house has an index of 85) will be the largest improvement on a house we've ever
tested if the final testing matches the estimated performance levels. With the square footage of the house is
doubled by constructing an addition on the south side of the house and the above improvements of Model 3
are utilized, the house could potentially achieve a HERS index as low as 42.
Upgrades
We modeled homes with various upgrades, which are discussed below.
Furnace:
The 94% efficient furnace purchased through the Energy Home Makeover Contest is a very efficient choice.
This would be our recommendation for space heating even when using the solar hot water pane{s to
augment heating as in the above Model 2.
Insulation:
Drilling and dense-packing the walls with cellulose of the existing house are a significant improvement (R-0
to R-13) but if the addition is built at least with 2x6 walls that are filled with cellulose insulation, adding R-5
insulated sheathing or even going to filling the walls with blown polyurethane foam can greatly enhance the
performance of the house. If this is complimented with raising the attic insulation to at least R-40 or even as
high as R-60 the house can optimize its performance and be well defended against rising energy prices. For
the crawlspace walls, we recommend achieving an R-20.6 insulation value by using 1.5" of polyurethane
foam in addition to R-11 fiberglass Batts.
Air Leakage:
Air leakage is the wildcard in the computer model because it is difficult to predict accurately. Good air-
sealing efforts should be able to yield a NACH (Natural Air Changes per Hour) of 0.40. The model with the
most improvements (Model 3) achieves a very tight level of 0.15. This is normally a challenging level to
achieve, but if certain steps are taken, the likelihood of getting to this level increases. These include:
• Using polyurethane spray foam for at least askim-coat of insulation (1" to 2") in the walls and at
typically leaky rim and band joist areas. This will likely provide a very substantial air-sealing
beneft. Batt insulation can be used over the foam, or the foam can be sprayed to a full 3" to 4" (if
tlGf6~F3.4 l~r-~ __pac~ ~a
Lightly Treading Energy & Design Consulting
using the CLOSED CELL version of the foam). These spray foams are available in a soy-based
form as well as the traditional petroleum-based form.
• Seal alt bottom plates in the nevr addition to the sub floor with foam/caulk.
• Follow all air sealing strategies listed in the Energy Star Thermal Bypass Checklist -this includes
using IGAT-rated recessed lighting enclosures with airtight trim gaskets (or eliminating can lights
completely}, using sealed combustion fireplaces and boiler, and ensuring that bath fan dampers
operate properly after installation.
Mechanical Ventilation:
In order to get full credit for building units that are tighter than 0.35 NACH (Natural Air Changes per Hour),
the ASHRAE 62.2 ventilation standard must be met. The most energy-efficient way to meet this standard is
with the use of heat recovery ventilators (HRVs). The UltimateAir RecoupAerator is an excellent choice
because of its high level of efficiency.
1. Since the HER5 energy rating process penalizes for too much ventilation as well as too little, we
recommend having an HVAC contractor match the fan's output to the required flow per
ASHRAE 62.2.
2. Permanently label the mechanical ventilation. fan switch per ASHRAE 62.2. The label should say
something to the effect of, "Whole house mechanical ventilation: Leave switch on". The intent of
this requirement is that the label should last for the life of the house, in order to provide benefit
beyond the original owners.
The ventilation flow rate that is required to meet ASHRAE 62.2 for this house is 81CFM, 24 hours per day.
We can help you to calculate other flow ratelCFM combinations if you like.
Crawlspace:
We recommend using a 10 mil plastic vapor barrier over the dirt, sealed to the walls. Any organic materials
including wood should be removed from below the vapor barrier, to decrease available food sources far
mold. This upgrade is not listed in the table, and has no effect on the score, but could potentially improve
the health and safety of the occupants.
Appliances & Lighting:
Improving the efficiency of appliances improves the score by two points. We have included the following
detailed specs for appliances in the upgrade model:
Table 3: Appliance Specifications
Refrigerator Energy Star compliant, 444 kWh
Dish Washer Energy Star compliant, 0.62 EF (Energy Factor)
Clothes Dryer Gas
We modeled the house using either 80% compact fluorescent lighting and 20% pin-based fluorescent and
using 80% pin-based Fluorescent lighting and 20% CFLs. Either lighting option earns an additional score
improvement of 4 points, and would have an excellent return on Investment.
Solar:
We modeled a 2.9 KW photovoltaic system and found it earned 'the house an extra 26 points on the HERS
index it the first Upgrade scenario! We also modeled several sizes of solar hot water collectors. The score
improvements were impressive. The first solar hot water system (60 ftz of panels and 108 gallons of water
storage) earns the house an additional 7 points. The second system (90 ft' of panels and 160 gallons of
storage) also earns an additional 7 points. The third system which uses solar for domestic hot water and
space heating ;240 ftz of panels and 500 gallons of storage) earns the house an additional 26 points.
Energy Costs and Environmental Impacts:
apt f4z':r ;31<R'! . .~'',ar;~ rU~
Lightly Treading Energy & Design Consulting
The following tables show the reduction in energy costs and C02 emissions associated with the various
upgrade models ("After EHMO" refers to the house after the Energy Home Makeover improvements).
The Energy Makeover improvements result in an enormous reduction in the utility bills and environmental
impact of the house by cutting both by 250%! If the homeowner were to follow our recommendations in
Model 1 for the addition as well as the upgrades to the existing house, the house's utility bills and
environmental impact can still be cut by 186% even though the house's size has been more than doubled. If
all the improvements were done from Model 3 the house is reduced in it utility bills and environmental impact
so significantly that the foot-print of the house ends up being less than 1/3 of what it was originally; this
would be the same as r_educinq vehicle miles driven in a year by a typical car in Colorado by 53,162 miles
every year!
Annual C02 emissions Ibsl ear Annual Ener Costs
Alter After
Existin EHMO Reduction Existin EHMO Reduction
61,472 24,480 36,992 $ 3,289 $ 1,175 $ 2,114
Annual C02 emissions Annual Ener Costs
Existln Modell Reduction Existin Modell Reduction
61,472 28,426 33,046 $ 3,289 $ 1.336 S 1953
Annual C02 emissions Annual Ener Costs
Existing Modell Reduction Existin Modell Reduction
61.472 25,228 36.244 $ 3,289 S 1184 $ 2105
Annual C02 emissions Annual Ener Costs
Existing- Model3 Reduction Existin Model3 Reduction
61,472 18,942 42,530 $ 3,289 $ 880 $ 2.409
t~GeC38A i7Flb1 # \ __ptBG~
v~
i
Table 4: Building Specifications /Associated Costs for Energy Efficiency Lpgrades
To: City of Boulder
Consultants: Claytc?n Bartczak and Paul Kriescher, Lightly Treading, Inc
Ty Melton, Melton Construction
RE: 11.02 Portland Way, Boulder
Existing House
after Makeover
House Model Existin house U rades Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Notes
S uare Feet 1,553 1,53 3,113 3,1'3
Orientation Front-horth «Same «
Same «Same «Same
R-20.6 .5" of
polyurethane
foam and R-11
Crawl wall insulation none fitter lass battl <<Same «Same «Same
$1.279 $1,279 51,279 S1,279
R-1 L on
R-13 fiberglass R-13 on exterior exterior and R-10
on interior of of foundation on interior side of
Basement insulation addition N;A NIA cundaiion walls walls walls
$0 $tl $1,13$ $1,316
R-20.6 (1.5" of
polyurethane R-28.6 (1.5" of
fcarn and R-? 1 R-20.6 (1.5" cf pvlyurethane
fiberglass batt) in polyurethane foam and R-18
crawlspace & R-0 foam and R-11 fiberglass batt}
Rim/Band Joist insulation type between 1 s? & fiberglass batt) (add;tion and
& R-value none 2nd Tlo~r (aCdition! existing home} «Same
$398 $569 $591 $591
lam,
~ S~1CMOi0EAldata\Green Pointslcouncil 20082- Portland estimate ror city 9-10-08_final
Existing House
after Makeover
House Model Existin house U rades Model 1 Modet 2 Model 3 Notes
Existing = R-18
(2x4 walls wi?h
Existing = R-13 blown cellulose ~
Existing = R-13 (2x4 walls with R-5 on interior-
(2x4 walls with blown cellulose) side of existing
blown cellulose) & R-24.8 walls) & R-35.8
& R-19.8 Addition= (2x6 Addition= (2x6
R-13 (2x4 walls Addition= (2x6 walls with ~ walls filled with
lininsulated with blown walls with cellulose & R-5 polyurethane
Wall t pe 8~ insulation studs cellulose) cellulose sheathin) foam)
At existing house, cut holes in drywall
and blow in from house interior. Could
possibly be done from the exterior,
depending on the siding, at a lower
$3,490 $3,490 54.201 $6,346 price.
Window U-value (all except
the south wall of the addition) 0.9 0.35 «Same «Same 0.29
Includes demo of old windows &
disposal; new windows; drywall repair;
'Jinvl ma[ndalvs $24.105 $24,105 $24,105 $27,050 new ainted trim; paint touch up
Includes demo of old windows &
disposal; new windows; drywall repair;
tNood winnows $31,469 $31,469 $31,469 $35,886 now painted trim; paint touch up
Window SHGC (all except the
south wall of the addition 0.65 0.37 «Same «Same 0.27
Window U-value (south-side
of addition) N!A N%A 0.39 0.41 0.41
Includes demo of old windows 8~
_ disposal; new windows; drywall repair;
Vln i wlndo~xs $0 $12,975 $12,975 $12,975 new painted trim: paint touch up
Includes demo of old windows &
disposal; new windows; drywall repair;
Ydaod windows $0 $17,229 517.229 $17,229 new painted trim: paint touch up
S:\::VO1OEAldatalGreen Poinlsicounci, 2GU3?2- Portland estimate for city 9-1G-OS fral
Existing House
after Makeover
House Model Ezistin house U rades Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Notes
Window SHGC (south-side of
addition N/A N/A G.55 G.69 G.69
R-4U blown R-50 -blown R-6C -h!own
.Attic Insulation R-9 rockwool cellulose «jam~ cellulose cellulese
Add blown cellulose to existing
$9'10 $910 $1,047 $1.138 insulation
Solar water Solar water Solar avater
heatiny (2 panels heating (3 panels heatng (8 panels
- 60 h~ with 108 - 90 ft2 vrith 160 - 240 ft2 with 500
Tankless -0.82 gaI!ons of gallons of yallons of
Water Heater t pe (21Gas 58% EF stor3 e) stora a stora e)
For tankless heater, we assume no
0 S4,550 $9,226 $11,302 $15,600 up rade of as line is necessa
Furnace model ? Lennox «Same =<Sam~ «Sa-ne
Solar water
heating (8 panels
- 240 ftz with 500
gallons of
storage) to feed
a fan-coil to ore-
heat the fcrcec-
Furnace/boiler AFUE 60% G4`io unit «Same «Same air heat~r.7
Includes demo ~ removal of existing
furnace. Note that the price for the
system with heating coil tied into solar
hot water is a WAG; we haven't done
0% 55,850 55,850 $5,850 $5.850 this before.
Standard
Evaporative
cool ng (15 Ccolerado (40
Coolie - hone 10 SEER AC SEER) SEAR; unit No coolie
0 $4,329 $5,330 $8,190 $0 Includes electrical for new unit
Air leakage estimate
(NACH=Natural Air Changes
per hour 3.0 0 4 0.3 0.?.5 0.15
We assume it will be pretty difficult to
make such a leaky house really tight,
0 $3.028 $4.328 $5,628 $8,228 hire ener HERS rater ($500-5800
°.`:;`.4C~~;~EA1dat:{'~Gr~~: r r=c..~~s'coonci~ 2UCiB11- Cortland e~tma'r fir city 9-.0-UF; tin.al
Existing House
after Makeover
House Model Existin house U rades Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Notes
Panasonic bath UltimateAir
fans on timers to RecoupAerator
Mechanical ventilation system meet ASHRAE (HRV) that meets
make/model none none 62.L ASh;RAF_ 62.2 «Same
Meets ASHRAE (v1eets ASHRAE Meets ASHRAE
Mech. Vent. rated flow CFM) NA NA 62.2 62.2 62.2
Heat Recovery Ventilator 83% sensible 83% sensible
HRV) efficienc NA N!l NA efficiency efficiencv
Required for NACH below .35. Assumes
we use existing combustion air
~ 30 5910 54,680 54,680 pipeslducts for HRV
r3as or electric stove? Gas Gas «Same «Same «Same No neeti~ stcve
Gas or electric clothes d er? Gas Elec Gas «Same «
Sarne
If electric: new Kenmore
dryer+ele ctrica I+tax+instal I;
if gas: new Kenmore dryer+tax+install;
new gas line to dryer location (we're
really guessing at how fong a run this
5958 51.673 $1,673 31.673 will be)
2.9 Kati' (Sharp
Solar PV electric s stern Norre None panel! -330 ftz None None
This is before rebates, which have been
$0 530,065 50 50 as much as 62%.
~ J
C~~
S.iCP:IO\OEAldata'~.Green Points',cc.anci ?OC5'.2- Portland esi€mate fog cty ~-1G-O+j_tnal
Existing House
after Makeover
House Model Existin house U rades Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Notes
Energy-Star
models
(Refrigerator =
444 KWH &
Appliances (including Dishwasher =
refri erator & clothes washer Standard Standard 0.62 EF) «Same «Same
Standard = no new appliances; New
Kenmore fridge + tax + install (no ice
maker}; New Kenmore dishwasher + lax
50 52,043 $2,043 $2,043 + install
All CFLs (20% All CFLs (20%
pin-type & 80% CFL 8~ 80% pin-
± i htin 30% CFL All incandescent CFL) type) «Same
S3 x 50 + tax + install (Bulbs + tax T
S323 5323 $323 S323 install
WERS Index 383 86 61 51 42
Project Management, Project
Wra Up, Clean U $2,464 $2,464 $2,464 $2,464
Total Price, vin I windows 50 551,684 $105,541 $87,488 591,555 Clot includin solar rebates
Total Price, wood windows SO 559,047 $117,158 599,105 5104,645 Not includin solar rebates
m
.i~v
S:'~CM010EA1data`,Green Pointslcouncit 200812- Portland estimate For city 9-1C-08_final
Projected Energy (HERS) Rating Report February 19, 2008
Lightly Tr®ading, inc. To: City of Boulder
Energy 8~ Design From: Clayton Bartczak and Paul Kriescher, Lightly Treading, Inc
RE: 2871 LaGrange Circle, Boulder
4303 Brighton Blvd #3
Denver, CO 80216
303-733-3078 (phone)
303-295-2661 (fax)
After compiling a full energy rating on the home at 2871 LaGrange in Boulder, CO for research
purposes, we found it to have a HERS (Home Energy Rating System} index score of 189 (an index
of 100 represents a typical new house, an 85 is Energy Star house, and an index of 0 represents a
net-zero energy house). It also had an air leakage number of 0,61 Natural Air Changes per Hour
(MACH) whereas a new home built tightly is usually about 0.40 NACH or below (the lower the
number, the tighter the house).
It has been a pleasure to complete further projected energy ratings on this house using various
computer modeling scenarios, all of which assume the house has tv,+ice the square footage of the
existing house (4690 ftz). In order to build the computer models, we assumed that the addition
added 782 ft2 to the basement, 782 ft2 to the first floor, and 782 ft1 to the second floor. We are
happy to report that making the improvements outlined below would greatly increase the energy
efficiency and thereby decrease the utility costs and environmental impacts of this house and other
similar houses built in the city of Boulder.
Please see below for the different house specifications used to complete the computer models as
we(I as our recommendations.
• Table 1 identifies building specifications for the existing structure, makeover upgrades, and
additional energy efficiency improvements and solar domestic hot water system upgrades
to reach lower HERS scores.
• Table 2 is the same models with incorporating a 2.9 kWh photovoltaic system.
• Table 3 Appliance Specifications
• Table 4 is the same building specifications as Table 1 but with associated costs to the
specific upgrades and the total costs of reaching the HERS rating with recommended
energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements.
Table 1: Building Specifications
Existing
House after
House Existing Makeover
Model house Upgrades Mode13 Modei 4 Model 5 Mode16
Square
Feet 2345 2345 4690 4690 4690 4690
Orientation East East East East East East
Slab - - - - - - -
Insulation R-0 R-0 R-0 R-0 R-0 R-0
Basement
insulation R-0 R-11 R-11 R-11 R-11 R-11
~~~{~:q ITE~iVI ~~K
Lightly Treading Energy & Design Consulting page 2
Existing
House after
House Existing Makeover
Model house U rades Model 3 Model 4 Models Model 6
Rim/Band
Joist
insulation
type 8 R-
value FG R-11 FG R-11 FG R-11 FG R-11 FG R-11 FG R-11
Addition
Rim/band
Joist
insulation
type & R-
value NA NA FG R-19 FG R-19 FG R-19 FG R-19
Wall type & 2x4, R-13 2x4, R-13 2x4, R-13 2x4, R-13 2x4, R-13
insulation 2x4, R-11 G3 G1 G1 G1 G1 G1
Addition
Wall type & 2x6, CE R- 2x6, CE R- 2x6, CE R- 2x6, CE R-
insulation NA NA 19.8 G1 19.8 G1 19.8 G1 19.8 G1
Window U-
value (all
except the
south wall
of the
addition 0.65 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Window
SHGC (all
except the
south wall
of the
addition) 0.66 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22
Window U-
value (90 ft2
of windows
on south-
side of
addition? 0.65 0.2 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34
Window
SHGC (90
ft~ of
windows
on south-
side of
addition 0.66 0.22 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65
Attic
Insulation R-19 R-37 R-37 R-37 R-37 R-37
Addition
Attic
Insulation NA NA R-50 R-50 R-50 R-50
Lightly Treading Energy & Design Consulting page 3
Existing
House after
House Existing Makeover
Model house U rades Model3 Model4 Mode15 Model6
Solar water Solar water Solar water
heating (2 heating (3 heating (8
panels - 60 panels - 90 panels -240
ft2 with 108 ft2 +,vith 160 ft' with 500
Water gallons of gallons of gallons of
Heater t e 40 allon Gas OD StOra 8 storage story el Gas OD
Water
heater EF 0.55 0.82 NA NA NA 0.82
Furnace 1
BTU 80k 80k 80k 80k 80k 80k
94% (with
heating coil
tied into
Furnace 1 solar hot
AFUE 65% 94% 94% 94% water 94%
Furnace 2
BTU 40k NA NA NA NA NA
Furnace 2
AFUE 65% NA NA NA NA NA
ASHP tons NA 36k NA NA NA NA
ASHP
efficienc NA 9 HSPF NA NA NA NA
3 ton, 8.5 3 ton, 17
Cooling=_ _ SEER _ SEER Coolerado Coolerado Coolerado Coolerado
Duct
leakage TO 70 cfm 65 cfm 60 cfm 60 cfm 60 cfm 60 cfm
Air leakage
estimate
(NACHI 0.61 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2
Mechanical
ventilation
system _ NA NA HRV HRV HRV HRV
Mech. Vent.
rated flow
(CFMI NA NA 18 78 78 78
HRV
efficienc NA NA 83% 83% 83% _ 83%
Gas or
electric
stove? Elec Elec Gas Gas Gas Gas
Gas or
electric
clothes
dryer? Elec Elec Gas Gas Gas Gas
2.9 KW
Solar PV (Sharp
(electric) panel) -330
s stem NA NA NA NA NA ft2
Lightly Treading Energy & Design Consulting page 4
Existing
House after
House Existing Makeover
Model house U rides Model 3 Model A Models Model 6
Solar water Solar water Solar wafer
heating (2 heating (3 heating (8
panels - 60 panels -90 panels -240
ft2 with 108 ft2 with 160 ftz with 500
Solar Hot gallons of gallons of gallons of
Water NA NA stora a stora a stora a NA
Fridge
kWh! r 775 444 444 444 444 444
Dishwasher
EF 0.46 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62
all 20% pin, 20% pin, 20% pin, 20% pin, 20% pin,
_ Lightinc incandescent 75%cfl 75% cfl 75% cfl 75% cfl 75% cfl
HERS
Index 189 78 61 57 50 47
For each of tt~e scenarios vve modeled also installing a 2.9 kWh solar photovoltaic system (except
Model 6 which already includes the 2.9 kWh PV system). The table below shows how much better
the HERS Index can be just from this improvement.
Table 2: Each of the above models with 2.9 kWh photovoltaic system
Existing
Home after
Existing makeover
~ Home u rides Model 3 Model 4 Mode 5
HERS
Index 167 55 51 47 39
Because of possible problems with trees and neighboring houses shading the solar PV panels, it is
wise to focus on how significant the energy efficiency improvements are from the improvements
done for the Energy Home Makeover Contest that don't include installing solar. Reducing the
HERS index of this house from 189 to 78 (an Energy Star house has an index of 85) will be great
improvement on the house (assuming the final testing matches the estimated performance levels).
When the square footage of the house is doubled by constructing an addition on the west side of
the house and the above improvements of Model 5 are utilized, the house could potentially achieve
a HERS index as low as 50.
Upgrades
We modeled homes with various upgrades, which are discussed below.
Furnace:
The 94~% efficient furnace is a very efficient choice. This would be our recommendation for space
heating even when using the solar hot water panels to augment heating as in the above Model 3.
When replacing the 65% AFUE furnace with an 84% AFUE furnace, the home earns an extra 16
HERS index points and would result in approximately $363 in energy savings each year.
Lightly Treading Energy & Design Consulting page 5
Cooling:
We found that upgrading the cooling system from 3 ton, 8.5 SEER air conditioning unit to a very
efficient Coolerado evaporative cooler, the house would earn an additional 8 HERS index points
and could save up to $100 per year.
lnsutation:
Because the existing house already had insulation filling the wall cavities, we did not model
retrofitting those cavities with new insulation. In the subsequent models with double the square
footage, we assumed 2x6 studwalls with 5'/2 inches of cellulose insulation at R-19.8. 1f this is
complimented with raising the attic insulation to at least R-40 or even as high as R-50 the house
can optimize its performance and be well defended against rising energy prices. Improving the attic
insulation form R-19 to R-40 earns the home an additional 2 HERS index points and would save
approximately $44 per year on energy costs. We also recommend raising the rim joist insulation to
R-19 by using fiberglass batts.
Air Leakage:
Air leakage is the wildcard in the computer model because it is difficult to predict accurately. Good
air-sealing efforts should be able to yield a NACH {Natural Air Changes per Hour) of 0.40. The
model with the most improvements (Model 6) achieves a very tight level of 0.20. This is normally a
challenging level to achieve, but if certain steps are taken, the likelihood of getting to this level
increases. These include:
• Using polyurethane spray foam for at least a skim-coat of insulation (1" to 2") in the new
walls and at typically leaky rim and band joist areas. This will likely provide a very
substantial air-sealing benefit. Batt insulation can be used over the foam, or the foam can
be sprayed to a full 3" to 4" (if using the CLOSED CELL version of the foam). These
spray foams are available in a soy-based form as well as the traditional petroleum-based
form (due to the relatively high cost associated with filling 2x6 wall cavities with spray
foam in an entire house, we did not model this scenario).
• Seal all bottom plates in the new addition to the sub floor with foam/caulk.
• Follow all air sealing strategies listed in the Energy Star Thermal Bypass Checklist -this
includes using ICAT-rated recessed lighting enclosures with air-tight trim gaskets {or
eliminating can lights completely), using sealed combustion fireplaces and bailer, and
ensuring that bath fan dampers operate properly after installation.
Mechanical Ventilation:
In order to get full credit for building units that are tighter than 0.35 NACI-i (Natural Air Changes per
Hour), the ASHRAE 62.2 ventilation standard must be met. The most energy-efficient way to meet
this standard is with the use of heat recovery ventilators (HRVs). The UltimateAir RecoupAerator
is an excellent choice because of its high level of efficiency.
1. Since the HERS energy rating process penalizes for too much ventilation as well as too
little, we recommend having an HVAC contractor match the fan's output to the
required flow per ASHRAE 62.2.
2. Permanently label the mechanical ventilation fan switch per ASHRAE 62.2. The label
should say something to the effect of, "Whole house mechanical ventilation: Leave
switch on". The intent of this requirement is that the label should last for the life of the
house, in order to provide benefit beyond the original owners.
The ventilation flow rate that is required to meet ASHRAE 62.2 for this house is 78 CFM, 24 hours
per day. We can help you to calculate other flow rate/CFM combinations if you like.
- - - ;
Lightly Treading Energy & Design Consulting page 6
Appliances & Lighting:
Improving the efficiency of appliances improves the score by two points. We have included the
following detailed specs for appliances in the upgrade model:
Table 3: Appliance Specifications
Refrigerator Energy Star compliant, 444 kWh
Dish Washer Energy Star compliant, 0.62 EF (Energy Factor)
Clothes Dryer Gas
We modeled the house using 75% compact fluorescent lighting. This lighting option earns an
additional HERS index score improvement of 3 points, and would have an excellent return
on investment.
Solar:
We modeled a 2.9 KW photovoltaic system and found it earned the house an extra 23 points on
the HERS index for the existing home scenario (please see Table 2 above). We also modeled
several sizes of solar hot water collectors. The score improvements were more impressive as the
area of solar hot water collector increased. The first solar hot water system (60 ft2 of panels and
108 gallons of water storage) earns the house an additional 3 points. The second system (90 ftz of
panels and 160 gallons of storage) earns an additional 9 points. The third system which uses solar
for domestic hot water and space heating (240 ft2 of panels and 500 gallons of storage) earns the
house an additional 16 points.
'T'able 4: Building Specifications /Associated Costs for Energy Ef#iciency Upgrades
'T'o: City of Boulder
Consultants: Clayton Bartczak and Paul Kriescher, Lightly Treading, Inc
Ty iVIelton, Melton Construction
i2E: 2871 LaGrange Circle, Boulder
Existing House
after Makeover
House Model Existing house Upgrades Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Hotes
Square Feet 2345 2345 4690 4690 4690 4690
Orientation East East East East East East
Slab Insulation R-0 R-0 R-U R-0 R-0 R-0
Basement insulation R-U R-11 R-11 R-11 R-11 R-11
$915 $915 $915 $915 $915
RimtBand Joist
insulation type & R-
value FG R-" 1 FG R-11 FG R-11 FG R-11 FG R-1 i FG R-11
Addition RimiBand
Joist insulation type &
R-value NA NA FG R-19 FG R-19 FG R-19 FG R-19
'JVall type & insulation 2x4, R-11 G3 2x4, R-13 G1 2x4, R-13 G1 2x4, R-13 G1 2x4, R-13 G1 2x4, R-13 G",
Cut holes in drywall and
blow in from house interior.
Could possibly be done from
the exterior, depending on
$4,318 $4,318 $4,318 $4,318 $4,318 the siding, at a lower price.
S tCMOtOEA\datatGraen Peintslcourcil 2008\LaGrarge estimate for city 9-10-OS_firal
Existing House
after Makeover
House Model Existing house Upgrades Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Notes
Addition Wall type & 2x6, CE R-19.8 2x6, CE R-1~~.8 2x6, CE R-19.8 2x6, CE R-19.8
insulation NA NA G1 G 1 G 1 G 1
Difference between R-19
$0 $716 $716 $716 $716 Batts & blown cellulose
Window U-value (all
except the south wall
of the addition) U.65 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
includes demo of old
windows & disposal; vinyl
windows; drywall repair; new
$5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 $5,519 painted trim; paint touch up
Window SNGC (all
except the south wall
of the addition) 0.66 C.22 0.22 0.22 0 22 0 22
Window U-value (90 ftZ
of windows on south-
side of addition) 0.65 0.2 C.3~', 0.34 0.34 0.34
Includes demo of old
windows 8, disposal; new
. vinyl windows; drywall repair.
new painted trim; paint touch
$8,105 $8,105 $8.105 $8,105 $8,105 up
Window SNGC (90 ftt
of windows on south-
side of addition) 0.66 0.22 0.6ti 0.65 0.65 U.EiS
Attic Insulation R-'.9 R-37 R-37 R~ 37 R-37 R-37
Add R-37 blown cellulose to
$876 $876 $876 $876 $876 existing insulation
No price difference between
Addition Attic R-38 Batts & R-SO blown
Insulation NA NA R-5C R-50 R-50 R-50 cellulose.
S.`+.Ctv101CEA\data`~.G~eer ?o ~~is':council 2008\LaGrange estimate fcr city 9-;0-08_fir:al
Existing House
after Makeover
House Model Existing house Upgrades Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Notes
Solar water Solar water Solar water
heating (2 pareis heating (3 panels heating (8 panels
- 60 ft~ with 108 - 90 ft2 with 160 -240 ft2 with 500
gallons cf gallons cf gallons of
storage) storage) storage}
Water Heater type 40 gallon Gas tankless Gas OD
For tankless heater, we
assume no upgrade of gas
$4,550 $9,226 $11,302 $15,600 $4,550 line is necessary.
Water heater EF 0.55 0.82 NA NA NA 0.82
Furnace 1 BTU 80k 80~c 80k 80k 80k 80k
94% (wi;h
heating coil tiee
into solar ho;
Furnace 1 AFUE 65°i° 94°i~ 94°i° 94% wate~, 94°,0
Includes demo 8 removal of
existing furnace. Note that
the price for the system with
heating coil tied into solar
hot water is a WAG; we
$5,590 $5,590 $5,590 $5,590 $5,590 haven`t done this before.
Leave this furnace as-is, but
Furnace 2 BTU 40k NA NA NA NA NA not in use.
Furnace 2 AFUE 65% NA NA NA NA NA
ASHP (air source heat
pump) tons NA 36k NA NA NA NA
$8.190 $0 50 $0 $0 (ncludes electrical
ASHP efficiency NA 9 HS?F NA NA VA NA
Cooling - 3 ion. 8.5 SEER 3 tc;n, 17 SEER Coo!erac)o Coolerado Coolerado Ceoferado
Includes electrical for new
$8,190 $8,190 $8,190 $8.190 $8,190 unit
_ Duct leakage TO 70 c`m 65 ::fm 60 cfm 60 crm 60 cfm 60 cfm
Includes some drywall
$Zfi0 $1,300 $1,300 $1,300 $1,300 patchin & paint tOUCtt up
S:1CM010EA'tdata\Green Pointstcouncil 20G8'~.LaG~ange estimate for city 9-1Q 08_finat
Existing House
after Makeover
House Model Existing house Upgrades Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Notes
Air leakage estirnate
(NACH=Natural Air
Changes per hour) 0.61 O.~i 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2
hire energy HERS rater
$3,049 $4,308 $4,308 $4,308 $4,958 ($500-$800)
Mechanical ventilation
system NA NA HRV I'RV HRV HRV
Mech. Vent. rated flow
(CFMI tiA NA 78 78 78 /8
Heat Recovery
Ventilator (HRV)
efficiency NA NA 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Required for NACH below
.35. Assumes we use
existing combustion air
$0 $4,290 $4,290 $4,290 $4,290 pipeslducts
Gas or electric stove? Elea, Elec Gas Gas Gas Gas
New Kenmore range +
tax+install; run gas line to
range location (we're really
guessing at how long the
$0 $1,743 $1,743 $1.743 $1,743 new gas line will be).
Gas or electric clothes
dryer? Clec E ec Gas Gas Gas Gas
New Kenmore
dryer+tax+install; run gas
line to dryer location (we're
really guessing at how long
$0 $1,673 $'1,673 $1,673 $1,673 the new gas line will be).
S:~,:;6: O10EA1datalGreen Pointslcouncil 2008'~t_aGrnge estimate for city 9-10-08_`inai
Existing House
after Makeover
House Model Existing house Upgrades Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Notes
Solar PV (electric) 2.9 KW (Sharp
~systern NA NA NA NA NA panel; --330 ftz
This is before rebates, which
$0 $0 $0 $0 $30,065 have been as much as 62%.
Solar water So"ar water Solar water
heating (2 panels heating (3 panels heating (8 panels
- 60 ft2 with 108 -90 ft2 with 160 -240 ft2 with 500
gallons of gallons of gailons of
Solar Hot Water NA NA storage) storage) storage) NA
0 $ See water heater above $
Fridge kWhlyr 775 444 444 444 444 444
New Kenmore fridge + tax +
0 $1,364 $1,364 $1,364 $1,364 $1,364 install; no ice maker
Dishwasher EF 0.46 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62
New Kenmore dishwasher +
0 $679 $679 $679 $679 $679 tax + install
All CFLs (20 % All C. Ls (20 % All CFLs (20 % All CFLs (20 °~o All CFLS (2C %
pin-type & 80 pin-type & 80 °io pin-type & 80 % pin-type & 80 % pin-type & 80
Lighting all incandescent CFL) CAL) CFL) CFL) CFL)
$3 x 50 + tax + install (Bulbs
0 $323 $323 $323 $323 $323 + tax + install)
HERS Index 189 78 61 57 50 47
Project Management,
Project Wrap Up, Clean
UP $2,464 $2,464 $2,464 $2,464 $2,464
Total Price $54,391 $61,599 $63,675 $67,973 $87,638 Not including solar rebates
~'v
r.
g_\CMb10~A1catalGreen Pointslco:,ncil ?_0081LaG•ange estimate for city 9-10-08_final
Section 3:
Air Leakage Analysis
As you can see frorn Table 6 below, we have compiled the results of air leakage tests that were
conducted recently and have separated them into five categories based on the age of the home.
Please keep in mind that the homes we have complied data on were selected randomly simply by
choosing various homes of different ages. However, this should not be considered a true random
sample of homes tested in the past two years, but for our purposes it should serve us very well.
We can always conduct more sampling if you would like.
As might be expected, the average air leakage numbers did in fact correlate to the age of the
homes. You can see that the average Natural Air Changes per Hour (NACH) of the homes built
10-20 years ago is 0.33 NACH, the average for homes built 20-4C years ago is 0.42, the average
for homes bull'. 40-60 years ago is 0.51, the average for homes built 60-80 years ago is 0.67, and
the average for homes built 80-100 years ago is 1.25.
We also included our opinion on the feasibility of each home to meet 0.50 MACH if it were required
to do so. This rating was based on a scale from 1 to 5, in which a score of 1 represents a home
that either already was below 0.5 NACH or that could easily and inexpensively achieve this level.
On the other end of the spectrum, a score of 5 represented a home that would take considerable
effort and resources to achieve this level. We found many homes either already meta 0.50 NACH
level or were close enough that it would not be difficult. We did also find homes that would require
considerable effort and expense to achieve that level. We also know for a fact that the home at
1102 Portland Place started at a very leaky level of 3.0 NACH and was unable to achieve a score
below 0.9 NACH, even by spending considerable time, effort, and the best oval?able resources. As
a result, we would recommend that the City of Boulder consider creating policies that would require
either achieving 0.50 NACH or if the home's existing air leakage level is above 1.0 NACH, the
home should be required to reduce the air leakage level by one half. This way, the city would not
be enacting policies that would be extremely difficult if not impossible for some homeowners to
comply with.
Additionally, we found the average air leakage level for all the homes we complied was 0.80 NACH
and the Median was 0.60 NACH.
Please see tab.e 6 belo4v for more details on the homes we have recently tested.
Table 6: Average home air {eakage, age, and construction type
Feasible
to reach
Exterior Wall 0.50
Date Construction Mechanical Window NAC NACH?
# Address Tested A e ape S stem T e H 7-5
8101 E.
Dartmouth Ave. 10-
House # 20, 20 80%
1 Denver CO 80231 7!25/2008 rs 2x4 insulated Furnace DV 0.38 1
129 E. Woodland
Ct 10-
Highlands 20 80%
2 Ranch. CO 9/10/2008 vrs 2x4 insulated Furnace UV 0.33 1
17 Cherry Lane 10-
Gr. 20 2x4 Poorly
3 Cherr Hills CO 8/12/2008 rs insulated 80% Boiler DW LE 0.24 1
Lightly Treading Energy 8~ Design Consulting
4462 VV. 100th 10-
Ave. 20 2x4 & b2x6 (3) 80%
4 Westminster, CO 9/18r2008 vrs insulated Furnaces DW 0.4 1
(Average
10- NACH for
20 Age
rs 0.34 Grou
6296 Peakview 20-
Place Centennial, 40 80%
5 CO 80111 8/13/2008 vrs 2x4 insulated Furnace DV 0.49 1
3501 Parfet 20-
Wheatridge, CO 40 92%
6 80033 5/30/2008 vrs 2x6 insulated Furnace DW 0.44 1
6328 S. Madison
Ct. 20-
Littleton, CO 40 2x4 80&
7 80121 9/23/2008 rs uninsulated Furnace SM 0.78 3
20-
14130 Berry St. 40 2x4 Poorly 80%
8 Golden. CO 9/11/2008 rs insulated Furnace DV 0.29 1
12156 VV. Ohio
PI. 20-
Lakewood, CO 40 2x4 Poorly 80%
9 80228 7/28/2008 vrs insulated Furnace DM 0.26 1
20-
40
with
newe
1700 Redwood r
Ave, additi 2x6 Well 93%
10 Boulder CO 8/11/2008 on insulated Furnace DV LE 0.19 1
17.12'/ U'!. 32nd 20-
Ave Wheatridge 40 2x4 80%
11 CO 80033 4/30/2008 vrs uninsulated Furnace DV 0.39 1
11630 Penny Rd. 20-
Conifer, CO 40 Electric
12 80433 9/17/2008 rs 2x4 insulated Baseboard SW 0.57 2
7818 S. Forest
Street 20-
Littleton, CO 40 80%
13 80122 8/20/2008 rs 2x4 insulated Furnace DW 0.39 1
1621 5. Quebec 20-
Way 40 2x4 & 2x6 w/ 80%
14 Denrver, CC 9!25/?_008 rs insulation Furnace DV L~ 0.36 1
20- (Average
40 for Age
rs 0.42 Grou _
6421 E. Eastman
Ave. 40-
Denver, CO 60 60%
15 80222 3/3/2008 rs 2x4 insulated Furnace DM & DV 0.65 2
29452 Dorothy 40-
Rd. r=vergreen, 80 2x4 & 2x6 w/
16 CO 80439 1/25/2008 vrs insulation Boiler DW 0.33 1
621 Elm St. 40-
Windsor, CO 60 2x4 65%
17 80550 7/17/2008 vrs uninsulated Furnace SM 0.64 2
1215 Holly St. 40- Masonry 8U%
18 Denver, CO 8!1/2008 60 _ uninsulated Furnace DV 0.38 1
air=~•:]: v(<
Lightly Treading Energy & Design Consulting
80220 yrs
10490 W. 33rd PI. 40-
Wheat Ridge, CO 60 2x4 80% New TW
19 80033 8/26!2008 vrs uninsuiated Furnace & Old SM 0.56 1
2871 LaGrange 40- (2) 65%
20 Boulder. CO _ i 0/1 1/2006 50 2x4 insulated Furnaces SW 0.61 2
40- (Average
60 for Age
rs 0.53 Grou
?_280 Bluebell 60-
Bou;der, CC 80 Masonry
21 80302 6/312008 rs uninsuiated Boiler ? 0.52 1
some
832 S. Franklin 60- masonry &
Denver, CO 80 some
22 80209 6/1612008 rs insulated 2x4 Furnace/AC SW & OV 0.53 1
1419 Columbine
St. 60-
Denver, CO 80 Masonry
23 80220 _ 7!21/2008 _yrs uninsuiated 80% Boiler New DV 0.93 3
2390 Kearney 60-
Denver, CO 80 Masonry 65%
24 80220 7/2412008 rs uninsuiated Furnace DV & SVV 0.8 3
60-
1434 Clermont St. 80 Masonry 80%
25 Denver 80220 7/14/2008 vrs uninsuiated Furnace New DV 0.51 1
Masonry
uninsuiated &
2655 Irving St. 60- addition w/
Denver, CO 80 uninsuiated 80%
26 80211 9/15/2008 rs 2x4 Furnace SM 0.71
60- (Average
80 for Age
rs 0.67 Group)
some
80- masonry &
627 S. Corona St. 100 some 90%
27 Denver CO 80218 2/3/2008 rs insulated 2x4 Furnace DV 1.1 4
some
935 Fillmore 80- masonry &
Denver, CO 100 some
28 80206 4/8!2008 rs insulated 2x4 Boiler/AC DV 0.3 1
237 W. 1st Ave 80- Masonry &
Denver, CO 100 2x6 60% Gravity
29 80223 6/10/2008 vrs uninsuiated furnace SW 1.24 4
1102 Portland over
Place 100 2x4 60%
30 Boulder, CO 11/1/2007 rs uninsuiated Furnace SW__3 _ 5
80- (Average
100 for Age
vrs 1.41 Grou 1
ATTACHMENT H
Post Ollice Aox 471. Boulder. Colwadu 803fiG
Land Use Department
c n ~'•i'',(~ Courthouse Anrex
,'~~a~,'' 2045 13t" Street . 13°' 8~ Spruce Streets .Boulder, Colorado 80302. (303) 441-3930
e f'~ ~ http:!?v,,vdw bouldercounly org/lu?
Building Safety and Inspection Services Division (303) 441-3925
Summary of the significant changes to
BuildSmart Sept. 2008
Hearing Date Sept. 25, 2008
N1104.1.1 Applicability New exceptions including re-roofs, fences,
decks, certain plumbing and electrical work,
window replacements, certain kitchen remodels,
etc.
N1104.2 Definitions Revised the definitions for Conditioned floor
area, Deconstruction, Renovation/Remodel
N1104.3.1.1 Penalty Added penalty for demolition
N1104.3.1 Deconstruction Revised some of the language, added details
specific to verification.
N1104.3.2 Recycling Revised some of the language, added details
specific to verification.
N104.3.3 Energy Revised language, new exceptions, floor area
Conservation for additions and renovations becomes
cumulative, New Table 2, eliminate Tables
3 & 4, eliminate Moderate Additions
N1104.3.3.2.3 Minor Additions Changed floor area, mandate elements of the
& Renovations performance audit, requirement for testing
gravity vents.
N1104.3.3.2.4 Basement Added specific requirements for basement
Finishes finishes. Clarify HERS Rating requirements
for basement finishes.
N1104.3.3.2.5 Accessory Added specific provisions for accessory
Structures structures.
Cindp Domenico Ben Pearlman Will Tom'
County Comouss,onoi County Cmmnissiuucr County Commissioner
AGER?~A ITCRI Y V ^ MGE v
`
Table 1
New residences, re-constructed residences, re-located residences
Additions 100% of existing floor area or greater
Square Footage Required HERS Index for new
Thresholds residences, re-constructed
conditioned floor area residences, re-located residences
Up to 1000 3S
1001 - 3000- 60
3001 - 4000 40
4001 - 5000 25
5001 and Larger Less than 10
acEC~ iT~~?,~-~ racE
Table 2
HERS Rating Calculations for Major Additions and Renovations
Note The Boulder County Assessor's Records will bo used to establish the size orthe existing residence
Size of Existin S . Ft.
of 500 501 to 1001 1501 to 2001 to 2501 3001 3501 4001 to 4501 to
existing or less 1000 to 2000 2500 to to to 4500 5000*
added or 1500 3000 3500 4000
renovated
0-10% home Home Home Horne Home Hame Nome Horne Horne Home
Eneryy Energy Energy Energy Energy Energy Energy Energy Energy Energy
Audit Audit Audil Audit Audit Audit Audit Audit Audit Audit
11-20% Home Home Hurrie Home Home 80 80 80 80 $0
Energy Eneryy Energy Energy Energy
Audil Audit Audlt Audit Audit
21-30% home Home Home 80 75 ?5 75 75 75 75
Energy Energy Energy
Audit Audit Audit
31-40% Home Home 80 80 70 70 70 70 70 70
Energy Energy
Audit Audit
65
41-50% t-come i-tome 70 65 65 65 65 65 65
Energy Energy
Audil Audit
51-60% Horne g0*" 60 60 40** 40** 25** 25** 25 25
Energy
Audit
69 -70% Homn 8p** 60 60 40** 40** 25** <10** <10** <10**
Energy
Audit
71-80% home 80** 60 60 40** 25** <10** <10** <10** <10**
Energy
Audit
81-90% Home 80** 60 40** 40** 25*" <10** <10** <10** <10**
Energy
Audit
91-100% 60** 60 40** 25** <10** <10** <10** <10** <10**
1008 Table Table Table Table Table Table 1 able Table Table Table
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Larger
AGE~A i!TER1 ~ pqs;~
Size of Existin S . Ft.
of 5001 5501 6001 6501 7001 7501 8001 8501 9000 9501
existing to to to to to to to to to to
added or 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 10000
renovated
0-10% 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85
11-20% 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80
21-30% 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
31-40°l0 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 40
41-50% 65 65 65 65 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
51-60% 60 40 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
61-70% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
71_80% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
81-90% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
91-100% <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table
100& 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Larger
Nofes
HERS ratings for renovations and additions that are larger than fhose shown on
Table 2 will be determined by fhe Building Official in a manner consistent with Table 2.
Renovations or renovations combined with additions of existing strucfures that do not
increase the conditioned floor area may conform to the HERS ratings shown on Table 7.
ilGE4~d iT[r11 ~ PAGE,
N1104.3.3.2.6 Pools New section. Previous provisions revised.
Design criteria added.
N1104.3.3.2.7 Spas New section. Previous provisions revised.
Design criteria added.
N1104.3.3.2.8 Exterior energy Section revised. Design criteria added.
Uses
N1104.3.3.2.9 Indoor Air Revised. Added and revised the provisions for
Quality gravity-vent replacement water heaters, new
requirements to submit design calcs for equipment
and duct design.
N 114.3.4 Modifications Section has been re-located and re-numbered.
Table 1 Re-located
Table 2 Revised and re-located.
The changes to Table 2 require some explanation. Since implementation of the
program on May 1, 2008 staff has found that the existing triggers for specific
HERS ratings are more restrictive than intended. This is especially true when
looking at Tables 2 and 3, especially for larger residences with relatively small
additions. The intent is to allow small additions to existing residences without
requiring on-site renewable energy generation or upgrades that require deconstruction
within existing portions of the residence. The general criteria is;
Additions or renovations that create 1 % to 50 % of the existing residence in
conditioned floor area, that are less than 3,000 square feet, are required to achieve
a HERS rating in the range of 65 - 85 for the entire residence.
Additions or renovations of 3,000 square feet or greater in conditioned floor area
to any size of residence require the entire residence to meet the same HERS
ratings that would be required for a new residence.
Additions that create conditioned floor area that double or more than double the
size of the existing residence are required to meet the HERS rating from Table 1
for new residences.
Staff will continue to monitor the program and propose amendments as might be
necessary to endure the intended results.
acE~a~a iTr--~ ~~~ac~